Not once. Please read what I post more carefully. I have not deliberately made such a statement, nor would I. If I ever did, it would not be reflective of how I really feel, and it was only rhetorical. You must have confused me for someone else, or thought that when I was encouraging someone who thought that, I was somehow endorsing their entire world view.nonhocapito wrote:What you do is saying "because NASA lies, then the Earth cannot be round or be spinning", rushing to prove it with some hours of "research".
Hopefully you can accept my position easier knowing this about me.
As for telling you my friends' names, I just have to flat-out refuse. Sorry. I think you understand. They don't post here. I simply show them the forum and point out the topics discussed and summarize how they can research the topics for themselves. Of course I regret that few make the time and have the interest enough, that I have, to join or contribute. You don't have to believe me that this is the case. You only need to know that the point of my telling you this is that in my personal experiences, you are wrong that this discussion scares away good folks. I have only ever felt encouraged by talking about various theories, and testing them against different people's naturally logical intuitions. I have discovered many brilliant ways of thinking outside the mainstream this way, and I suggest you open yourself up to the same. It's not always "mainstream garbage" vs. "iconoclasts" only. Though I understand that when you encounter enough hipster "iconoclasts" you get as tired of them as you do of the mainstream. That's understandable. It's just not a realistic picture of the holistic discussion.
I also agree with Simon that to say we will find an expert in science that boggles our minds and challenges us in a way we cannot understand is unlikely. If they can understand it, it has been explained to them through the patient building up various thoughts and ideas. If they have any of those worth thinking about longer than their single lifetime, they will be able to explain them to others.
If they can't explain what they think, so that you or I or anyone understands it, don't you think the onus is on them to improve their communications? We challenge ourselves on this forum, in this very manner, all the time. We are all trying to figure out how being honest and reasonable and patient can be combined with other skills to lead others to the fountains of critical thinking skills we have discovered. For example, I am very thankful with your patience and skills in setting up our PHP forum. When you were absent and I had to learn more about it, I became more skilled in PHP. This isn't to say I am as much an expert as you (and from what I understand all three of us are far below the true experts) but this just goes to show that patience and time and ability are all that are required.
So, despite what you say, my mathematical and geometric statements still stand. They have not been explained away, they cannot be explained away without introducing new concepts, and there is no brain genius yet that has done so, even though there have been attempts that are primarily faith based.
"Well, your calculations are wrong because I know they must be," is not a very scientific response, yet that is all I have gotten so far.
The horizon rises to eye level and appears to remain as flat as it is on ground level. This is an undisputed fact.
The light of the Sun cannot be observed to move in a straight line toward the Moon. This indicates the active and twisting nature of light. This is an undisputed fact. Refraction is not an explanation, nor has any true geometry been presented here to combat this simple observation anyone can make when the Sun and Moon are in the sky together.
There is no centripetal effect on objects consistent with the spinning of the Earth assumed based on observations of the light of stars, the Sun, Moon and 'planets'. There are a number of ways this fact can be presented to twist it or bend it toward one theory or argument or another. I choose to take my own "default" view (as biased as it may seem to others of a different world view) that we are simply observing something we don't understand because empirically, not one person has ever touched or felt the sky or gotten close to leaving the planet. Excuse me for remaining grounded while I am.
I am sorry if these points upset you, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. Because when the scientists you keep mentioning that we need get involved and make studies, you have to start to pick which scientists you agree with. They do not all agree. On the contrary, there are few who do, and when they do you end up with hoaxes like Global Warming, 9/11, etc. etc. So please don't tell me what we need are agreeing scientists.
Some will tell you that objects can be observed beyond the horizon, and not due to refraction. Some will say gravity is a pushing down force rather than pulling away. All of these things help to break up the mainstream illusion that "consensus science" is anything but what they say it is.
This is to distinguish distinctly between what you already have tried to distinguish, nonhocapito:
1. Observations the average person may make easily
2. Observations the average person would have to put a lot of time and effort into observing
The difference between these is crucial, and part of the multiple PsyOps out to confuse us.
You don't have to believe me or my motivations, but I assert and attest that they are true to the best of my knowledge. Not that that may mean anything to you.
Moving on, I patiently await Simon's Tycho Brahe honor piece, because my intuition tells me Simon is onto something very worthwhile for everyone to look at.