"Questioning many things" should not mean smashing them with with a blunt instrument, from declaring the Earth flat, gravity a lie ("made up by Newton"), space a hoax, and that the Beatles never once wrote a song, practically in the same sentence.
Where is the love? Where is the respect? Where is the curiosity?
This viewpoint is cynical, blunt nihilism, and I don't hear many questions in the mix. I did recently hear a snarky, sophomoric conversation between an MD and an ND (two doctors) declaring that all cosmology is false and presenting the "stationery plane" "alt cosmology" that in itself accounts for nothing.
That is not questioning anything. It is a make-believe, sensationalistic attempt to grab the attention of disoriented, or fearful, or ignorant people тАФ all of them in pain.
In fact Tom Cowan (who admits the existence of the Northern Hemisphere, to his credit) said to me personally something close to the statement that all science is false.
Andy Kaufman has an interesting position on science, seemingly having read every study ever written, but declaring that the entire "ball" model of the Earth is wrong, without being able to point to one problem with the "ball" model related to navigation, timekeeping, commerce or communication. He too boards an airplane, knowing it's guided by geosynchronous satellites, which will deliver his body safely across oceans and continents, to the end of the runway and to the gate тАФ in the correct time zone, no less.
Someone can declare that there is "no science" behind tick bites being poisonous, but this is not the direct experience of many people who say they got sick after a break in the terrain of their bodies from an exotic species inserting its fangs into their flesh and sucking out their blood. And it certainly does not address the suffering that many people experience regardless of whether a tick bite or fly bite caused their illness or not.
For a healer, the question is how to alleviate pain, which may include understanding something of its causes тАФ not declaring all of them false, by fiat.
To say that something is false because there is "no science" behind it (meaning the studies are invalid, or do not add up to a particular claim) it is to assert that science is the final arbiter of something or everything -- that it its position, not that of the philosopher, artist or healer.
This worldview is really not a worldview but a personal statement. It demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the appropriate use and purpose of science, which is (when properly applied) is a method of logic and testing that can be used to establish certain facts from a certain angle тАФ or to develop methods of synthesis or production.
Facts are not the truth, no matter how many of them one claims to have, or can prove. Scientific studies are not the truth, no matter how impeccably done. And when they are wrong, that is not direct evidence of the truth, it's merely another fact, or another inference, waiting to be proven or disproved.
The most galling part of all of these discussions is the lack of a self-reflexive position; the absence of the admitted potential to be wrong; the absence of some humility in the quest for knowledge and understanding; and the void of any ideas about the role that consciousness plays, or the nature of consciousness itself.
To approach the unknown calls for gentleness and a recognition of the fragility of life; and respect for the mysteries of existence.
Nothing that really matters can be proven or disproved.
Meaning, truth and ethics have never been the role of science, of industry or of technology. To declare those things dead is to state the obvious without making any room for what is far less apparent, and which takes a lifetime of learning and growth to discover -- if one is that fortunate.
Again, I don't even know what you're talking about b/c I've not heard no-virus people insisting that "everything is a lie", as you claimed last night. One conversation between 2 people doesn't equate to no-virus people generally saying that "everything" is a lie.
Tom saying "something close to the statement that all science is false" is not the same as saying "everything is a lie". He consistently questions and points out flaws in basic concepts that we're all been taught are facts. I can't begin to keep up with his curiosity. And he doesn't seem to do it out of malice, just a noticing of certain facts. I think he is motivated by love, like other no-virus people. (He's also referred to "the virus" at times, without really meaning it.)
Getting on a plane and arriving at your destination at the predicted time is not proof of satellites or a ball model.
You seem to be putting words in my mouth, unfairly. I didn't make a personal declaration about ticks never bothering anyone, or about anything else by fiat. I reported the fact that CDC has no science. If that's not of interest to you, oh well. Anecdotal evidence isn't science, and I've not denied anyone's anecdotal experience or suffering.
I'm not coldhearted or uncaring about people's suffering, and have worked as a "healer" in the past, using a method that helps regardless of the cause of one's suffering. And right now I'm gathering and sharing facts about health/science institutions.
I'm not getting tangled up in your philosophical complaints, that once again seem to boil down to: "I do everything correctly and appropriately, and you do everything wrong."
re:"Andy Kaufman has an interesting position on science, seemingly having read every study ever written, but declaring that the entire "ball" model of the Earth is wrong, without being able to point to one problem with the "ball" model related to navigation, timekeeping, commerce or communication."
My thought: True! The amazing thing about the flat vs globe debate is that there are actual, real, believable arguments and counter arguments. However, the tests of the globe model do fail. Those failures get explained away, or are rarely embraced and carried forward, because the ball model can work for navigation, etc. Its not that the ball model has or needs a problem, It just may not be true. I can refer to available books and living authors if you like.
<< However, the tests of the globe model do fail. >>
I would like to see specifically what you're talking about; you seem to be repeating rumors. The "tests of the globe model" are its daily use in navigation, communication, travel, commerce and trade. The time zones all work; the airplanes land at the end of the runway.
Those making this assertion do not USE the globe for anything. It's just a topic of debate or banter. If one uses the planet for specific technical purposes, you see that everything adds up just fine and I can predict what time the Sun will appear on the horizon any morning, anywhere.
The "test" of a model is its ability to make predictions.
Also, are we to believe that civilians who circumnavigate are also part of the psyop?
Last, the "flat" model does not account for anything. For example, using the flat model, describe: equinox; night and day; an eclipse; Mars retrograde. In precise terms, accounting for to-the-degree predictions, timing and measurement -- and not using absurd terms like "eclipse object."
These are all technical questions, and I want technical answers.
I won't have them. But I might be able to liaise. Also, you might be right. The exercise would be just that - an exercise. Probably best to tackle one issue at a time. Firstly, do we have any accounts of polar circumnavigation?
If we do, then we can look at the excuses of the flatters. If we don't, then we can look at the excuses of the globe trotters. All of this after my morning espresso of course, (late).
there are a lot of reasons to not fly over Antarctica. Its a very different place than the Arctic region, covered by different international agreements. That said, I do not know that it's actually not done, though if it is not, that is not evidence of its nonexistence.
Agreed. Therein lies the futility of the exercise. Apparently there are 2 models for the shape of the earth. If there are others, no one talks about them. For me, it is huge astounding that both work! By "work", I guess I mean that flaws are excused away. I mean, how is it that something as complicated as navigation could be explained by both models?
First, I don't know your name. Please, introduce yourself.
The "model" has a use; and that use is the tracking of the seasons reliably; the ability to navigate reliably; the ability to keep time, including managing time zones; and the ability to communicate.
Tell me, without looking it up, do you know what sidereal time is?
Because you seem to be arguing that "the world is flat" or that the "sphere earth" is incorrect, I would assume you're familiar with all the types of measurements used to reliably track its movement. You would know, because you are attempting to refute something that works, for all practical purposes -- at the same time you're saying that the model fails.
Maybe you don't understand what a model is. Think of a model bridge, used to test a design. You can test the model, with weights and other stresses. If the model works, it's likely to work in physical reality when built full-scale.
The orbiting earth model works for every actual purpose we give it, and it "fails" in bogus experiments with "zoom lenses" (meaning telephoto). There's a lot of good photo gear out there, and a lot of talented photographers. I have yet to see an image of a ship hundreds of miles off of the coast, taken from sea level.
All "flat earthers" so far, when asked, do not provide evidence of a problem with timekeeping or navigation. If the model fails, I should not be able to tell you that the Sun will rise in Manila at 5:43 am at 80┬░ East, and it does.
My position is that the model fails because it is wrong. That position, is my personal belief based on the reading that I have done. As I mentioned, I am amazed that the globe model, IF wrong, holds up so well. To be clear, I am not pretending to be knowledgeable on the subject. You would be surprised how few people ask me my opinion on the shape of the earth. I leave the details to those more read on the subject. They do exist. I have tried to introduce them to you.
The subject must be in the air, wanting to be discussed. Dubay is well schooled on the subject, and the author of at least one book. He just this hour has released a new video:
I was looking for something else, but this just found me. I had seen it before, and posted it some months back. I will put it up on the new DARK BEAVER. What I don't like about it is the production value. It's too high end. Who produced this and why? Anyway, it's related to our discussion, and you might enjoy it:
Tempting. Firstly, I don't have an intellectual or other horse in the race. And like that unhealthy one third of the population that really do destroy the world..., I don't care! So on that basis, I can share what I have been exposed to in the way of ideas. I guess I should ask if we are just talking shape, or that it is a spinning shape. The first failure of the spinning shape is that we don't feel it spinning. So..., and this is actually to the point..., if we don't need to have a spinning shape to explain of physical experience, then why do we need a spin? Oh, right..., because it's not only spinning, but actually hurtling through space. How are we doing so far?
Maybe you can't feel it, but I can. Maybe because we are part of the spin, and have been since conception, it's just the way things are, something that is so ubiquitous that it's not discernible. There are many things you cannot detect with your senses -- trace chemicals, ultraviolet light, the kinds of sounds that bats can hear, and the things that dogs can smell but we cannot. Humans have limited senses and apparently, extremely limited intuition.
'A wide miss, so far, not even in the ballpark. Spinning and motion through space can only be perceived in relationship to frames of reference. On the New York subway, or any similar system, if you are on a train moving 40 mph, next to another train moving at the same speed, your sensation would be of no motion (if you ignore any of the tunnel features) If your train slows down to 35, you'd actually think you're moving backwards. the pull your body feels is entirely a matter of .... GRAVITY.
Quite so. The point is..., we didn't feel spin and then create a hypothesis. We just came up with the idea of spin, and then used it to explain phenomena outside of our realm of experience.
There are women who cannot feel that they are pregnant, and then have a baby. Many people cannot feel when they are thirsty, and then dehydrate. Many cannot feel when they are angry or sad. Subjective "feeling" is not a measure of objective existence.
If you see something moving, then either it's because it's moving, or you are moving, or both. The periodical nature by which celestial bodies appear in the sky would seem to suggest some sort of circular motion, barring them doing all the moving, and you being on a flat plane. And that one is easily disproved.
Yes. You, and I, and the believers all know that. It's just that "easily disproved" part that gets tricky when one actually considers, and looks into, current argument/counter arguments. We can SAY anything. We can say it is easily disproved.
We can come back to spin. So the question becomes..., Why do we need a globe model? The first failure of the globe model, ignoring spin, is it doesn't look round. Ok..., but what about those island guys observing the tops of ships disappear over the horizon? How are we doing?
We can explore this. I am a bit overwhelmed here at the moment. But it is out there if you look into it. Check out the videos and published works of
Eric Dubay. Why are all the smart kids called Eric? I could link you later when I free up, but check it out. Surprisingly convincing arguments. Line of sight vs curvature is just one of many failed tests. I was surprised! As I mentioned earlier, this isn't really my thing, to say the least. I don't need another reason for the neighbours to wonder.
Grab this book. Buy it used. Go to the library. It won't be there, but sometimes the clerks are good looking. At the very least, the book will be hogwash not on the internet.
I like all of that more than my first read through. Great writing! The whole program is pretty stellar. Damn stellar. Forgive if I should think you already have seen this. Its Dr. Tom Cowan breaking down a different presenter, and actually challenging viewers to identify HOW they think. Its tricky stuff. see: https://www.bitchute.com/video/GLUmaWPVqUH2/
It was noisy in the bar, ( I don't drink anymore). She was from Ireland. I couldn't quite make out what she was saying. I told her, "I have no idea what you are saying, but I love the way you are saying it!" Is that really true about the Beatles?
They played in clubs for years before ever getting a record contract. Why the eff would any producer not have them play on their own albums, doing tunes they'd been practicing for a long time? If they couldn't play, why did they keep getting invited back to the very competitive clubs in Liverpool as well as the rest of the UK and in Germany? Anyone who says that crap about the Beatles has never picked up an instrument.
Maybe listen to Mike Williams? He has a timeline that he has created from years of research. He can answer your questions. He is a dedicated musician and was a diehard Beatle fan.
"The Beatles themselves said they didn't write on the road. " BULLSHIT. So many of their tunes were written on the road, including PS I Love You. In 1962l Things We Said Today.........
" The early music they were playing were cover songs, not originals" They started writing tunes in the 1950s. If they weren't playing, who was playing in the clubs? Why did the audiences and club manages love them? I've heard club recording, your can hear the Mersey Beat taking shape. Rose in just three years? Three years of solid playing, day after day?
In one documentary, the Beatles are in their suite at the Waldorf Astoria (that's New York City) in 1964 or 1965, and John has a Honer Melodica (a kind of small, air-blown keyboard about 12-inches long), and he is working out the introductory chords to Strawberry Fields Forever. He is clearly on the road, and he is clearly working on a song тАФ that we all know. Their known material was very different at the time, and this offers (me anyway) insight into how long it can take to develop a song -- it comes out worlds away in 1967.
In another example of writing on the road, much of the White Album was written when they were in India.
I don't think it's true. But people are talking shit about everything these days. This particular shit talk is that "The Beatles" were in total a psychological operation used for social manipulation. Another cohort is certain that McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by Billy Shears, a look-alike contest winner. While we're at it, I wrote all of Radiohead's songs.
Makes sense, on a pancake-flat world. Too bad that so many observations disprove that world model. The observations must all be wrong, all these millennia. Oh what a pity, as Au Revoir Simone would say.
Kaufman sounds like a nutcase, judging by what you've written here about him. I'm surprised you stayed up very late, so many nights, talking with him. What else, besides whether the earth is flat or not, did you and he talk about? Was he more enlightened about any other topic than about flat earth cosmogony?
Regardless of the shape of the planet, hanging out with Andy was one of the highlights of the trip for me. I don't need to "agree" with someone to have fun with them. He was like getting to know a long-lost brother.
There are both yes-virus and no-virus people who are questioning many things now.
I've never heard Tom, Andy, the Baileys or numerous other no-virus people say that everything is a lie. I'm not saying it... not sure who is.
"Questioning many things" should not mean smashing them with with a blunt instrument, from declaring the Earth flat, gravity a lie ("made up by Newton"), space a hoax, and that the Beatles never once wrote a song, practically in the same sentence.
Where is the love? Where is the respect? Where is the curiosity?
This viewpoint is cynical, blunt nihilism, and I don't hear many questions in the mix. I did recently hear a snarky, sophomoric conversation between an MD and an ND (two doctors) declaring that all cosmology is false and presenting the "stationery plane" "alt cosmology" that in itself accounts for nothing.
That is not questioning anything. It is a make-believe, sensationalistic attempt to grab the attention of disoriented, or fearful, or ignorant people тАФ all of them in pain.
In fact Tom Cowan (who admits the existence of the Northern Hemisphere, to his credit) said to me personally something close to the statement that all science is false.
Andy Kaufman has an interesting position on science, seemingly having read every study ever written, but declaring that the entire "ball" model of the Earth is wrong, without being able to point to one problem with the "ball" model related to navigation, timekeeping, commerce or communication. He too boards an airplane, knowing it's guided by geosynchronous satellites, which will deliver his body safely across oceans and continents, to the end of the runway and to the gate тАФ in the correct time zone, no less.
Someone can declare that there is "no science" behind tick bites being poisonous, but this is not the direct experience of many people who say they got sick after a break in the terrain of their bodies from an exotic species inserting its fangs into their flesh and sucking out their blood. And it certainly does not address the suffering that many people experience regardless of whether a tick bite or fly bite caused their illness or not.
For a healer, the question is how to alleviate pain, which may include understanding something of its causes тАФ not declaring all of them false, by fiat.
To say that something is false because there is "no science" behind it (meaning the studies are invalid, or do not add up to a particular claim) it is to assert that science is the final arbiter of something or everything -- that it its position, not that of the philosopher, artist or healer.
This worldview is really not a worldview but a personal statement. It demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the appropriate use and purpose of science, which is (when properly applied) is a method of logic and testing that can be used to establish certain facts from a certain angle тАФ or to develop methods of synthesis or production.
Facts are not the truth, no matter how many of them one claims to have, or can prove. Scientific studies are not the truth, no matter how impeccably done. And when they are wrong, that is not direct evidence of the truth, it's merely another fact, or another inference, waiting to be proven or disproved.
The most galling part of all of these discussions is the lack of a self-reflexive position; the absence of the admitted potential to be wrong; the absence of some humility in the quest for knowledge and understanding; and the void of any ideas about the role that consciousness plays, or the nature of consciousness itself.
To approach the unknown calls for gentleness and a recognition of the fragility of life; and respect for the mysteries of existence.
Nothing that really matters can be proven or disproved.
Meaning, truth and ethics have never been the role of science, of industry or of technology. To declare those things dead is to state the obvious without making any room for what is far less apparent, and which takes a lifetime of learning and growth to discover -- if one is that fortunate.
Again, I don't even know what you're talking about b/c I've not heard no-virus people insisting that "everything is a lie", as you claimed last night. One conversation between 2 people doesn't equate to no-virus people generally saying that "everything" is a lie.
Tom saying "something close to the statement that all science is false" is not the same as saying "everything is a lie". He consistently questions and points out flaws in basic concepts that we're all been taught are facts. I can't begin to keep up with his curiosity. And he doesn't seem to do it out of malice, just a noticing of certain facts. I think he is motivated by love, like other no-virus people. (He's also referred to "the virus" at times, without really meaning it.)
Getting on a plane and arriving at your destination at the predicted time is not proof of satellites or a ball model.
You seem to be putting words in my mouth, unfairly. I didn't make a personal declaration about ticks never bothering anyone, or about anything else by fiat. I reported the fact that CDC has no science. If that's not of interest to you, oh well. Anecdotal evidence isn't science, and I've not denied anyone's anecdotal experience or suffering.
I'm not coldhearted or uncaring about people's suffering, and have worked as a "healer" in the past, using a method that helps regardless of the cause of one's suffering. And right now I'm gathering and sharing facts about health/science institutions.
I'm not getting tangled up in your philosophical complaints, that once again seem to boil down to: "I do everything correctly and appropriately, and you do everything wrong."
Well said!
re:"Andy Kaufman has an interesting position on science, seemingly having read every study ever written, but declaring that the entire "ball" model of the Earth is wrong, without being able to point to one problem with the "ball" model related to navigation, timekeeping, commerce or communication."
My thought: True! The amazing thing about the flat vs globe debate is that there are actual, real, believable arguments and counter arguments. However, the tests of the globe model do fail. Those failures get explained away, or are rarely embraced and carried forward, because the ball model can work for navigation, etc. Its not that the ball model has or needs a problem, It just may not be true. I can refer to available books and living authors if you like.
<< However, the tests of the globe model do fail. >>
I would like to see specifically what you're talking about; you seem to be repeating rumors. The "tests of the globe model" are its daily use in navigation, communication, travel, commerce and trade. The time zones all work; the airplanes land at the end of the runway.
Those making this assertion do not USE the globe for anything. It's just a topic of debate or banter. If one uses the planet for specific technical purposes, you see that everything adds up just fine and I can predict what time the Sun will appear on the horizon any morning, anywhere.
The "test" of a model is its ability to make predictions.
Also, are we to believe that civilians who circumnavigate are also part of the psyop?
Last, the "flat" model does not account for anything. For example, using the flat model, describe: equinox; night and day; an eclipse; Mars retrograde. In precise terms, accounting for to-the-degree predictions, timing and measurement -- and not using absurd terms like "eclipse object."
These are all technical questions, and I want technical answers.
I won't have them. But I might be able to liaise. Also, you might be right. The exercise would be just that - an exercise. Probably best to tackle one issue at a time. Firstly, do we have any accounts of polar circumnavigation?
If we do, then we can look at the excuses of the flatters. If we don't, then we can look at the excuses of the globe trotters. All of this after my morning espresso of course, (late).
there are a lot of reasons to not fly over Antarctica. Its a very different place than the Arctic region, covered by different international agreements. That said, I do not know that it's actually not done, though if it is not, that is not evidence of its nonexistence.
Agreed. Therein lies the futility of the exercise. Apparently there are 2 models for the shape of the earth. If there are others, no one talks about them. For me, it is huge astounding that both work! By "work", I guess I mean that flaws are excused away. I mean, how is it that something as complicated as navigation could be explained by both models?
First, I don't know your name. Please, introduce yourself.
The "model" has a use; and that use is the tracking of the seasons reliably; the ability to navigate reliably; the ability to keep time, including managing time zones; and the ability to communicate.
Tell me, without looking it up, do you know what sidereal time is?
no. Which proves what?
Because you seem to be arguing that "the world is flat" or that the "sphere earth" is incorrect, I would assume you're familiar with all the types of measurements used to reliably track its movement. You would know, because you are attempting to refute something that works, for all practical purposes -- at the same time you're saying that the model fails.
Maybe you don't understand what a model is. Think of a model bridge, used to test a design. You can test the model, with weights and other stresses. If the model works, it's likely to work in physical reality when built full-scale.
The orbiting earth model works for every actual purpose we give it, and it "fails" in bogus experiments with "zoom lenses" (meaning telephoto). There's a lot of good photo gear out there, and a lot of talented photographers. I have yet to see an image of a ship hundreds of miles off of the coast, taken from sea level.
All "flat earthers" so far, when asked, do not provide evidence of a problem with timekeeping or navigation. If the model fails, I should not be able to tell you that the Sun will rise in Manila at 5:43 am at 80┬░ East, and it does.
My position is that the model fails because it is wrong. That position, is my personal belief based on the reading that I have done. As I mentioned, I am amazed that the globe model, IF wrong, holds up so well. To be clear, I am not pretending to be knowledgeable on the subject. You would be surprised how few people ask me my opinion on the shape of the earth. I leave the details to those more read on the subject. They do exist. I have tried to introduce them to you.
https://models.com/models
If you are serious, I will attempt to broker a discussion. Actually, why would I? Dan Chapman
I didn't mean to steal bandwidth.
I know this invites a "gotchya" challenge. But we can see where this goes.
The subject must be in the air, wanting to be discussed. Dubay is well schooled on the subject, and the author of at least one book. He just this hour has released a new video:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mgH9ZcRbaFdq/
I can't post pix here, so I just created a page for us:
https://conceptualvoice.substack.com/p/shapes
I was looking for something else, but this just found me. I had seen it before, and posted it some months back. I will put it up on the new DARK BEAVER. What I don't like about it is the production value. It's too high end. Who produced this and why? Anyway, it's related to our discussion, and you might enjoy it:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/labdmLbBbmQs/
Name one failure of the globe model!
Tempting. Firstly, I don't have an intellectual or other horse in the race. And like that unhealthy one third of the population that really do destroy the world..., I don't care! So on that basis, I can share what I have been exposed to in the way of ideas. I guess I should ask if we are just talking shape, or that it is a spinning shape. The first failure of the spinning shape is that we don't feel it spinning. So..., and this is actually to the point..., if we don't need to have a spinning shape to explain of physical experience, then why do we need a spin? Oh, right..., because it's not only spinning, but actually hurtling through space. How are we doing so far?
Maybe you can't feel it, but I can. Maybe because we are part of the spin, and have been since conception, it's just the way things are, something that is so ubiquitous that it's not discernible. There are many things you cannot detect with your senses -- trace chemicals, ultraviolet light, the kinds of sounds that bats can hear, and the things that dogs can smell but we cannot. Humans have limited senses and apparently, extremely limited intuition.
"Maybe you can't feel it, but I can."
I might like that more than I should.
'A wide miss, so far, not even in the ballpark. Spinning and motion through space can only be perceived in relationship to frames of reference. On the New York subway, or any similar system, if you are on a train moving 40 mph, next to another train moving at the same speed, your sensation would be of no motion (if you ignore any of the tunnel features) If your train slows down to 35, you'd actually think you're moving backwards. the pull your body feels is entirely a matter of .... GRAVITY.
Quite so. The point is..., we didn't feel spin and then create a hypothesis. We just came up with the idea of spin, and then used it to explain phenomena outside of our realm of experience.
There are women who cannot feel that they are pregnant, and then have a baby. Many people cannot feel when they are thirsty, and then dehydrate. Many cannot feel when they are angry or sad. Subjective "feeling" is not a measure of objective existence.
If you see something moving, then either it's because it's moving, or you are moving, or both. The periodical nature by which celestial bodies appear in the sky would seem to suggest some sort of circular motion, barring them doing all the moving, and you being on a flat plane. And that one is easily disproved.
Yes. You, and I, and the believers all know that. It's just that "easily disproved" part that gets tricky when one actually considers, and looks into, current argument/counter arguments. We can SAY anything. We can say it is easily disproved.
Your turn. Disprove it.
I am ignoring the reference to gravity.
We can come back to spin. So the question becomes..., Why do we need a globe model? The first failure of the globe model, ignoring spin, is it doesn't look round. Ok..., but what about those island guys observing the tops of ships disappear over the horizon? How are we doing?
SPOILER: With modern zoom cameras, the tops re-appear.
For how long? Forever? Can you still see the tops when the ships are 200 miles off shore?
We can explore this. I am a bit overwhelmed here at the moment. But it is out there if you look into it. Check out the videos and published works of
Eric Dubay. Why are all the smart kids called Eric? I could link you later when I free up, but check it out. Surprisingly convincing arguments. Line of sight vs curvature is just one of many failed tests. I was surprised! As I mentioned earlier, this isn't really my thing, to say the least. I don't need another reason for the neighbours to wonder.
Not even in the same state, let alone the ballpark. Not remotely a "failed test," just more Internet hogwash passing as "information."
Grab this book. Buy it used. Go to the library. It won't be there, but sometimes the clerks are good looking. At the very least, the book will be hogwash not on the internet.
see:
https://www.amazon.com/Flat-Earth-FAQ-Eric-Dubay/dp/1365221768/ref=sr_1_1?crid=WNAQU5JMSI32&keywords=eric+dubay&qid=1693087503&sprefix=eric+dubay%2Caps%2C148&sr=8-1
I like all of that more than my first read through. Great writing! The whole program is pretty stellar. Damn stellar. Forgive if I should think you already have seen this. Its Dr. Tom Cowan breaking down a different presenter, and actually challenging viewers to identify HOW they think. Its tricky stuff. see: https://www.bitchute.com/video/GLUmaWPVqUH2/
It was noisy in the bar, ( I don't drink anymore). She was from Ireland. I couldn't quite make out what she was saying. I told her, "I have no idea what you are saying, but I love the way you are saying it!" Is that really true about the Beatles?
They played in clubs for years before ever getting a record contract. Why the eff would any producer not have them play on their own albums, doing tunes they'd been practicing for a long time? If they couldn't play, why did they keep getting invited back to the very competitive clubs in Liverpool as well as the rest of the UK and in Germany? Anyone who says that crap about the Beatles has never picked up an instrument.
Maybe listen to Mike Williams? He has a timeline that he has created from years of research. He can answer your questions. He is a dedicated musician and was a diehard Beatle fan.
If you can't answer these questions after listening to Mike, than the answers are too convoluted to make sense. Sorry, not buying that trash.
"The Beatles themselves said they didn't write on the road. " BULLSHIT. So many of their tunes were written on the road, including PS I Love You. In 1962l Things We Said Today.........
" The early music they were playing were cover songs, not originals" They started writing tunes in the 1950s. If they weren't playing, who was playing in the clubs? Why did the audiences and club manages love them? I've heard club recording, your can hear the Mersey Beat taking shape. Rose in just three years? Three years of solid playing, day after day?
Quite obvious that you don't play music.
Well, there is write, and there is write.
In one documentary, the Beatles are in their suite at the Waldorf Astoria (that's New York City) in 1964 or 1965, and John has a Honer Melodica (a kind of small, air-blown keyboard about 12-inches long), and he is working out the introductory chords to Strawberry Fields Forever. He is clearly on the road, and he is clearly working on a song тАФ that we all know. Their known material was very different at the time, and this offers (me anyway) insight into how long it can take to develop a song -- it comes out worlds away in 1967.
In another example of writing on the road, much of the White Album was written when they were in India.
Love Me Do written in 1958.
PS I Love You written in Hamburg in 1962
From Me To You, on a bus from York to Shrewsbury. Feb '63
She Loves You, hotel in Newcastle, 6/26/63,
All My Loving, written on a bus on tour,.
I could go on.
https://youtu.be/0FnVOTmKoqU
Interesting statement.."strictly speaking a little bit impossible"
Sage of Quay on You Tube
I just listened to the White Album through, many songs playing twice. I know what they are saying, and I love how they are saying it.
I don't think it's true. But people are talking shit about everything these days. This particular shit talk is that "The Beatles" were in total a psychological operation used for social manipulation. Another cohort is certain that McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by Billy Shears, a look-alike contest winner. While we're at it, I wrote all of Radiohead's songs.
I went to the copywrite office with David Martin and saw your name on the Radiohead paperwork files. Yeah it's true...
"Hello Billy" clip https://youtu.be/bO1Q8qkVf6c
I heard that MD/ND conversation, it was very disturbing, very loose with the truth (e.g. airline planes don't fly polar routes, only straight lines)
a total insult.
they want satellite photos of UPSIDE DOWN PEOPLE IN AUSTRALIA!
fuck me
Why would they be upside down? LOL!
I'll draw you a diagram...Kaufman as well says that up is in just one direction.
I guess he is still looking for which way that is.
Makes sense, on a pancake-flat world. Too bad that so many observations disprove that world model. The observations must all be wrong, all these millennia. Oh what a pity, as Au Revoir Simone would say.
Kaufman sounds like a nutcase, judging by what you've written here about him. I'm surprised you stayed up very late, so many nights, talking with him. What else, besides whether the earth is flat or not, did you and he talk about? Was he more enlightened about any other topic than about flat earth cosmogony?
Regardless of the shape of the planet, hanging out with Andy was one of the highlights of the trip for me. I don't need to "agree" with someone to have fun with them. He was like getting to know a long-lost brother.