The quote you found is from The Zohar, not the Talmud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar
The Zohar was first publicized by Moses de León (c. 1240 – 1305 CE), who claimed it was a Tannaitic work recording the teachings of Simeon ben Yochai[b] (c. 100 CE). This claim is universally rejected by modern scholars, most of whom believe de León, also an infamous forger of Geonic material, wrote the book himself between 1280 and 1286.
One interesting book about this is "Gagarin: A Cosmic Lie" ("Gagarin - kozmikus hazugsig," Budapest, 1990) by the Hungarian journalist Istvin Nemere. Not one word about the contradictions surrounding Gagarin's "journey into space" have been published in Sweden, where the Soviet Union is still regarded with a great deal of respect. Such a revelation would be far too embarrassing.
Until 1961, the United States had managed to send up 42 satellites, the Soviet Union only 12. The United States also informed the world that Alan Shepard would make a space journey in the spacecraft Freedom 7 on 5 May, 1961.
The Soviet Union was forced to do something to save face. For this reason a Soviet cosmonaut, Vladimir Ilyushin, was sent up into space on 7 April, 1961. The Americans intercepted several radio communications between him and the space centre in the Soviet Union. Ilyushin's landing failed and he was seriously injured. He could not be shown to the public. It was claimed that he had been injured in a car accident. He was sent to China to receive better medical treatment.
The Russian TV documentary "Cosmonaut Cover-Up" (2001) also claims that on 7 April, 1961, Vladimir Ilyushin left for space, got into trouble during the first orbit, and crash-landed in China during the third orbit. Ilyushin was badly injured. He was returned to the Soviet Union a year later. Ilyushin was killed in an engineered car accident in 1961.
The Soviet Union did not have a spare capsule at that time and in Moscow it was decided to orchestrate a huge bluff, a cosmic lie. Radio Moscow claimed that a Soviet cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, had been sent up into space on the morning of 12 April, 1961 with the space-rocket Mostok. According to the official announcement, he had already landed and was in fine health. The whole world believed this except for the Western intelligence services. They had not managed to register any radio communication between Gagarin and the space centre.
This hoax was sloppily orchestrated. Polish newspapers announced already on the morning of 12 April that a Soviet cosmonaut had been in space. Newspapers in other countries did not report Gagarin's flight until 13 April.
In a book written for the West, Soviet propagandists claimed that simple peasants recognized Yuri Gagarin soon after he landed in a field and enthusiastically shouted: "Gagarin, Gagarin!" But nothing about his "space journey" had been reported at that time, no pictures of him had been published and his name had not been mentioned. The message from radio and TV was sent out 35 minutes after the alleged journey. Were the peasants psychic?
The newspaper Sovetskaya Rossiya claimed that Gagarin was wearing a blue flightsuit when he landed. In his memoirs, Gagarin himself claimed he was dressed in an orange flightsuit. At his press conference, Gagarin read from notes when he "related" his journey.
During the press conference, he made several crucial mistakes. Gagarin stated that weightlessness was no problem. Everything seemed just normal. We now know that this is not the case. The cosmonaut German Titov, for example, had difficulties with his balance and had heart problems. American astronauts experienced similar symptoms. Gagarin then made his most serious mistake, despite the fact that he was constantly assisted by experts, who often spoke about discoveries in space. He said: "Then I saw South America".
This is impossible. At that time it was night in South America, which meant that it could not be seen at all. According to the official reports, Gagarin began his "space journey" at 9:07 Moscow time. He was supposed to have flown over South America at 9:22 Moscow time. In Chile, the time would have been 2:22, in Brazil 3:22. He could never have reached South America in 15 minutes. For other cosmonauts it took 45 minutes.
Foreign journalists wondered: "When will the photographs that Gagarin took in space be published?" Gagarin was silent, thought for a moment and answered: "I didn't have a camera with me!" Even unmanned Soviet space probes had photographic equipment on board. It would have been an important propaganda triumph to publish Gagarin's pictures from space. The Soviet Union would never have missed an opportunity like that.
Shepard's pictures were cabled out immediately. Parts of his flight were also shown on TV. At the press conference, it was never explained whether Gagarin landed in his capsule or was ejected. If he had used the catapult seat, he would have become several centimetres shorter. This could easily have been ascertained. All pilots who have catapulted have become somewhat shorter as a result of spinal deformation.
When Gagarin wanted to travel in space for real in 1968, he was disposed of, according to Istvin Nemere. His plane exploded on 27 March the same year. The official report concerning this event contained many contradictions. The report was classified during the communist period. It claimed that there was not much left of Gagarin's body after the crash. In that case, how did his flightsuit come to land in the top of a tree?
There are far too many questions surrounding Gagarin's spaceflight in April 1961. A British team of researchers who questions the propaganda surrounding manned journeys to the moon also confirms this information. When will the truth be admitted officially?
On 12 April 2001, the Russian senior engineer Mikhail Rudenko, at the Experimental Design Office 456, in Khimki in the Moscow region, admitted in Pravda that three cosmonauts had died in space before Gagarin was sent up, namely Alexei Ledovskikh (1957), Serenti Zhaborin (February 1958), and Andrei Mitkov (flight attempt January 1959).
The Russian journalist and cosmonaut candidate (June 1965) Yaroslav Golovanov (1932-2003) wrote in his book "Cosmonaut One" that on 10 November 1960, another cosmonaut, Byelokonyev, also died on board a space-ship in orbit. Several sources reveal that 7-11 cosmonauts have died in orbit before Gagarin. The CIA knew about the Gagarin bluff but said nothing. Instead they have come up with more and more ridiculous lies themselves. (Juri Lina, Architects of Deception. The Concealed History of Freemasonry. Referent Publishing Stockholm, 2004. p. 26-29).
Vaccination analogy.
Of course.
They weren't theorizing, they seemed to firmly believe it. Indeed the flat idea seems to be held by most of the talmud rabbis. It's the more fanciful stuff, the demons and pillars and changing in movement of sun according to sin, that seems to be in doubt by the later ones.
The Talmud has a strong influence on people even today, as does Kaballah, despite being archaic and failings in logic, reason and decency etc. Even in complex ways that are not immediately obvious. For example, Louis Pasteur may not have "discovered" his "principals of vaccination" had he, though not a Jew, not been introduced to the Talmud; wherein the rabbis recommend, to prevent onset of illness if a person is bitten by a rabid dog, to kill the dog and cut it open and cut off the tip of it's liver and feed it to that person. This set him off on the idea that injecting a person with a small amount of what he believed would make them sick, would make them immune to that particular sickness. Follow the science!
People can get very attached to the ideas of those old rabbis, or mystic ideas of Kaballah. Are you aware of the red string bracelet worn by students of Kaballah? You might be surprised at some of the people who have been photographed wearing one. If the parties attached to these ideas are people in positions of power, the ideas can filter down into society, naturally or by force, to such a degree that even reason can't seem to shift them.
https://academic.oup.com/book/1751/chapter-abstract/141387578?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
This couldn't have any bearing on the persistence of FE... could it?
EDIT you can read the chapter in question at google books:
https://books.google.com/books?id=YQ1J-W6kuSkC&pg=PA27&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4
What a filthy mind you have.
where are the allusions to pedophilia?
Oh so it's only when you get banned that's it's a problem. Gotcha.
You'll clear the riffraff out? I thought you were opposed to censorship and banning and such deplorable behavior?
Well he was banned for over a year, almost 2 I believe. I just find it irksome when someone who doesn't contribute any submissions feels fine commenting in mockery of relevant submissions.
Oh look at that, you've never made one fucking post here.
Another big interesting spike in interest around 1963/1964 - right around the time the CIA were pushing the use of the "conspiracy theorist" label to the media for use on those questioning the Kennedy assassination official narrative.
From an article in the comments of that tweet: the ambassadors were pulled from Istanbul neighborhoods due to alleged terrorist threats or intelligence warnings of same. Istanbul is in the north west of the country, about as far away from the south eastern border with Syria, where the earth quake struck, as you can get (and still be in Turkey)
https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2023/dunya/konsolosluklar-neden-gecici-sureyle-kapatiliyor-7577842/
Though who knows how accurate the alleged artificially generated earthquakes may be, I guess.
Speculation and relatively small dataset obviously, but interesting nonetheless. Hockey Sticks in data like this are very rarely "organic" - red flags for honest statisticians.
This is a new short video by Dean Irebodd / Denierbud, his first in years. Previously he has made some long, highly detailed documentaries on the holocaust. They are some of the best on the topic from the revisionist perspective, and they can be seen at this page (search for "Dean Irebodd"):
https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?st=40&sort=tia&main_page=2#entries
I believe "Dean" is a tongue-in-cheek pseudonym (dean ire = denier) and that the way he speaks, saying everything with exaggerated contempt, is an intentional affectation to disguise his normal sounding voice, so that people would not recognize him by sound in everyday life and persecute him for making these documentaries.
That's not skepticism, it's willful ignorance.
I was never taught the horizon is a single location. If someone taught you that they didn't understand it. It is a word that denotes an optical observation of where the farthest land you can see "ends" (on the vertical axis) and atmosphere/sky begins. Not an illusion. It changes as you move towards or away from it. You can't go to the horizon, because by definition it is the furthest point of land away from you that you can see. You can go to something you see on the horizon, but when you get there it's no longer on the horizon.
Also the stuff about it being a molecular boundary line in my last comment is perfectly true despite your nonsense.
I'm not trying to understand your perspective. I don't care about it. it's circuitous meaningless waffle.
This footage existed first with the plane in it. This fake has been doing the rounds on 4chan for years, and there are a couple of other similar fakes too. One clip shows a white missile like object hitting the pentagon - the footage came from elsewhere and had a "missile" inserted later. I don't know why anyone would make these fakes if not to mislead.
How is a measurement tool used if not by looking at it? They are made to be read by the human eye. They don't work by themselves, they were not created by magic or AI, or maybe you think they are?
The horizon is a word that denotes where the the land meets the sky from our perspective, by sight. It is a natural boundary between 2 distinct media that can be seen with the eye. Sometimes it's hazy to see but we understand it to be there all the same. Think of it as similar to the separation between land and water you see in nature - the shore line, but also what you can't see: river, lake and sea beds are where the water stops and land begins. Or even with liquid in a container, the meniscus. Molecular boundaries.
The illusory part that is probably confusing you (unless your just being willfully ignorant) is that these boundaries are not a consistent shape, they move and change, with the horizon since the surface is irregular and can change over time, and the sky or atmosphere (or water, liquids in general) is malleable and transparent, for example. Water and gas and earth are different forms of matter, different molecule structures, though there are mixes like water vapor. They have different properties and behaviors. We give names to the "lines" where they meet in nature that we see most regularly: the horizon, the shoreline, the coastline etc. That is what these words, like horizon, denote: not an illusion. It's not a mystery or a lie. You've simply misunderstood what it means.
If your next reply requires more explanations of fairly basic, observable facts like this you're not getting it unless you start paying me for my time.
to be perfectly honest, there is the possibility it is somewhat bigger than what consensus says. However, MUCH bigger? I don't think there is a great argument for such hyperbole.
The only thing I'm doing that is silly is engaging with your replies.
A blind person's ability to measure is greatly inhibited by their lack of lack of vision. The physical distances and shapes of things that they can accurately measure are very few and require direct physical contact, and/or memory from when they had vision, and /or information and tools given to them or created by people who have functioning vision. Arguing to the contrary is merely being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, nothing more.
By the "logic" of your "main point", everything seen by the human eye is an endless optical illusion, including how the horizon appears flat from lower down. I'm not interested in delving into holographic universe or where ever this is going. Your stance against the obvious curve of the horizon in these videos is profoundly flawed and not based on logic or reason.
If you were looking at a disk and could see the curved edge, than you should be able to see the entire known landmasses, and the ice wall, and the further continents unknown to us beyond the ice wall, before you see the curved edge of the disc.
Measurement cannot exist without looking. Looking is the essence of measurement. Obtaining a view with more information (ie. going higher to see more) is going to improve your over all measurement determinations, not subtract from them. Used in combination with "ground knowledge" it is only going to improve accuracy.
I don't think a mod could do right by you on this forum.
yawn