Sure there are a few morons who don't know any better and fell for it, but the vast majority of the posters want to destroy the achievements of the white man and make anyone associated with conspiracies look like a looney tune.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (45)
sorted by:
https://youtu.be/Q1m-nNAZqZw?list=PLimb_UpOKm97RBTHJ_ehaz2W-wNOnTkrl
Learning about 8 inches per mile squared of drop/curvature really fucked me up, how can I see things that I shouldn't be able to see on a curved surface, and no, refraction doesn't make up all the missing drop, or at least I haven't been convinced as such.
That being said, I don't know where I stand, I know NASA produces almost exclusively bullshit, photoshops, greenscreens etc - So I know that I can't trust them with much certainty. However, the 'flat earth' community, or any opinion that doesn't have to go through some kind of vetting/authoritative body is also hugely open to just being wrong or incorrect in any number of ways.
Flat Earth versus Heliocentric represents what to you? A suggested conflict of reason between want vs not want; believing vs not believing; good vs bad; truth vs false etc.
What if the parasitic few use suggestions to cause the conflict of reason (want vs not want) as to a) gain control over what both sides are reasoning over; b) to cause division (reason) by suggestion (-isms) and c) to keep both sides in ignorance of need.
Before one can use free will of choice to choose between suggested want vs not want; ones choice responses to balance under natural law aka need/want for form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
Now ask yourself...does one "need" the suggested shape of this world; or does one "want" it? Furthermore...KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists". What one perceives is inspiration from everything moving; while all the suggested information by others are shaped by their choices out of everything perceived.
Ask yourself again...does one need to believe vs not believe the suggested information from others or does one need to adapt to everything perceived?
In short...resist consenting to conflict (want vs not want), and instead respond to balance (need/want).
I already see everything through the dualistic mind set, so it's not so much that I need a reminder to get into a certain mindset of engaging with need and getting rid of want. It's all just an act, a play, so why not play a few little roles, have a dance here or there.
a) Suggested dualism is the issue; since DUAL, adjective [Latin , two.] - "expressing the number two"; which deceives you to ignore being ONE (form) within ALL (flow), and furthermore that ALL represents ONE in energy.
Two implies ONE using choice in response to ALL perceived to count other ONEs. Nature doesn't offer "two"; it offers every differentiated ONE within ALL.
The -ism of dualism implies your choice of wanting or not wanting the suggested dualism; which then puts you into the conflict of reason (want versus not want) with all the others who consented to the suggested -ism. It's called division (reason) by suggestion (-ism) and gives the few control over both sides of every conflict the ignorant many consent to engage in.
b) As form (life) within flow (inception towards death) it's flow that predefines the balance (momentum) for forms choice of response. The balance for choice represents need/want aka need to struggle for self sustenance as form within flow by choice based adaptation to balance...or the wanted temptation to ignore this for whatever other form is suggesting.
Forms position as choice within the balance (momentum) of flow is what represents the need for self sustenance; while being temporary form (growth) within ongoing flow (loss) makes flow also the constant temptation for form to ignore self sustenance. One cannot get rid of temptation; life needs to struggle to grow within the temptation of ongoing loss.
From the energy perspective...the velocity of flow causes the momentum; within which resisting form gains the temporary potential to grow or choose to ignore it; while being flushed away by the velocity from loss of potentiality.
a) act represents action; which implies EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power"; which is what causes internal balance of loss/growth aka flow/form; which is where each of us represents the re-action to aka the choice based response to balance aka the resonance to perceived sound.
b) the play acting you refer to represents the suggestions of others for which you ignore being the reaction to the acting energy.
c) the parasitic few can only play their roleplay identity games; because the many are ignoring what they represent...ONE within ALL and ALL being ONE in energy. They even suggest a sleight of hand for this to those with eyes to see..."ALL for ONE and ONE for ALL"
d) the few are playing the many; while suggesting them for example to be the players (gamers) of entertainment (enter tame mind) who are in control (holding the controller).
You kind of have to choose between one or the other when making a point, otherwise it's near impossible to converse with someone
They're getting good. You almost seem human. Planting seeds of doubt then saying "but I don't know."
Mate, if you think I'm a bot and not just a regular human being who isn't wholly convinced one way or the other, but that finds the dialog, topic and general conversation interesting, then maybe you've gone too far down the rabbit hole. Don't get me wrong, there are obviously a lot of bots on the internet, but your quippy dismissive 1 liners are far more bot-like than this response or my response above.
I'll level with you: after chasing my tail trying to have genuine engagement with flat earthers and flat earth fence sitters, I've learned the only way to deal is through ridicule.
Ridicule? That's pathetic. What is interesting to me is that this should not be a subject. If only there was one true picture above earth. Just one is all it would take, that wasn't NASA. You would think there would be one by now. I'm a fuckall, dont care either way, but it does seem that if you are round earther, you believe in NASA . That's why round earthers are the worst anal bastards I ever come across.
How do you rationalise the 8inches per mile squared drop-off due to curvature, and the subsequent many tests of people sighting objects that were present (buildings) or that they placed (light sources) or in some instances lasers, over distances that should presumably be curved, according to the globe model