THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: THE VACCINATION DECEIT

Unread post by fbenario »

sharpstuff wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:01 pm (any injection of foreign material to the body is an assault upon Nature, whatever that is)
This is ridiculous. Ever hear of blood transfusions? They save lives every day, and your blood is certainly foreign to my body when it is transfused.

And please stop writing in such a circular, meandering, discursive style. Is that your purposeful defense against writing simply and clearly, because you don't want anyone to understand your point?

The emperor has no clothes, and much of your writing lacks a point.
pov603
Member
Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: THE VACCINATION DECEIT

Unread post by pov603 »

Aren’t you jumping to conclusions fbenario?
Could it be sharpstuff was alluding to the synthetic nature of “foreign material” in (say) vaccines rather than blood (matched by type) which is a “natural material”?
sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE VACCINATION DECEIT

Unread post by sharpstuff »

fbenario wrote:
Quote:

fbenario » Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:50 pm

sharpstuff wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:01 pm
(any injection of foreign material to the body is an assault upon Nature, whatever that is)

This is ridiculous. Ever hear of blood transfusions? They save lives every day, and your blood is certainly foreign to my body when it is transfused.
Answer: I was not referring to blood-transfusions because they were proven with real-life victims until a suitable method was found that found it possible to perform such an action.
Quote:

And please stop writing in such a circular, meandering, discursive style. Is that your purposeful defense against writing simply and clearly, because you don't want anyone to understand your point?
Answer: My writing style, most like others, is dependent upon their learning and ability to communicate. ‘No size fits all’, as they say. I am not sure my writings are circular, without an explanation as to how. ‘Meandering’ is not in my remit. All things are connected in some way and cannot be disconnected. I have never claimed to be some sort of ‘guru’, merely some-one who finds things (in simple) to be a part of discovery.
Quote:

The emperor has no clothes, and much of your writing lacks a point.
Answer: The point, as you put it, is to explore. As for ‘Discursive’: (digressing from subject to subject) all subjects (or points of discussion) are related in some way as they are all part of the ‘deceits’ perpetrated upon us by others about which we have no personal knowledge.
Quote:

pov603 wrote:

pov603 » Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:41 am
Aren’t you jumping to conclusions fbenario?

Could it be sharpstuff was alluding to the synthetic nature of “foreign material” in (say) vaccines rather than blood (matched by type) which is a “natural material”?
Answer: Yes, Pov 603. Transfusions are shown to have worked in real. Vaccinations have never proven to be ‘real’ because the original premise is patently false and because they have never been ratified and the obvious results in injuries following such procedures have been well documented if you do not follow the standard narratives. I say, prove me wrong! The so-called eradication of certain ‘diseases’, in my view (and those of others) is because people have come to the realisation that ‘Nature’ holds sway and has always done so.

Finally

Wordsmith or not, I am passionate about that which I write and I never ‘write-off-the-cuff’.

This forum, I believe, was designed for discussion, not the abilities of the writers/posters to denigrate the members for their writing abilities. Genuine questions regarding posts should be addressed.

Be well,
Sharpstuff

******************************************
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: THE VACCINATION DECEIT

Unread post by fbenario »

pov603 wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:41 amCould it be sharpstuff was alluding to the synthetic nature of “foreign material” in (say) vaccines rather than blood (matched by type) which is a “natural material”?
Why would he need to allude to anything? Why not write simply and clearly, so that every reader understands what he is getting at?

He said, "ANY injection", which is ridiculous. Blood transfusions save lives every day.

Why do you attempt to give his words legitimate meaning, by concluding that "oh, he must have meant vaccines, not blood", instead of calling them out as purposely unclear and meandering? He then gets defensive, but instead of communicating exactly why I'm off-base, continues to use circular reasoning and sentence structure. The fact you and I are wasting each other's time with this disagreement shows how poorly he communicates his thoughts.

We haven't taken care of this forum for over a decade for it to come to this.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE VACCINATION DECEIT

Unread post by simonshack »

fbenario wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:53 pm We haven't taken care of this forum for over a decade for it to come to this.
Sorry, dear Fbenario - but I must comment on your above (rather harsh and uncalled-for) sentence, while hoping that this little skirmish between you and Sharpstuff won't escalate.

We all have our own, peculiar writing styles and each one of us, of course, may occasionally incur in hyperbolic, equivocal or less-than-crystal-clear language and dialectic in order to get across our points. As I see it, Sharpstuff's earnest contributions over the years to this forum - for all of their somewhat challenging nature - have all been enrichening. Besides, the sheer volume of his contributions is of some orders of magnitude larger than your own, isn't it?

Peace out.
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: THE VACCINATION DECEIT

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

simonshack wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 12:40 pm
fbenario wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:53 pm We haven't taken care of this forum for over a decade for it to come to this.
Sorry, dear Fbenario - but I must comment on your above (rather harsh and uncalled-for) sentence, while hoping that this little skirmish between you and Sharpstuff won't escalate.

We all have our own, peculiar writing styles and each one of us, of course, may occasionally incur in hyperbolic, equivocal or less-than-crystal-clear language and dialectic in order to get across our points. As I see it, Sharpstuff's earnest contributions over the years to this forum - for all of their somewhat challenging nature - have all been enrichening. Besides, the sheer volume of his contributions is of some orders of magnitude larger than your own, isn't it?

Peace out.

[Bold inserted by SCS.]
Fbenario,

I agree with Simon in full—but, would like to take a moment and expound a bit further. The writings of Sharpstuff are as thought-provoking as they are informative. I am honored that such an extensive body of work has been published on this forum—it speaks for itself, and needs no defense from me.

Regardless, the main thing you need to understand is that the Admins/Mods pay attention to the forum, and we certainly know how to address a problem when it arises. There wasn’t a problem on this thread until you tried to play Moderator—it’s as simple as that.

Please don’t do it again.

Sincerely,

[Admin Notice (SCS): I moved this to the DR. Hopefully this is the end of the matter.]
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Mansur »

"Naturally, the inspiration and driving force behind the work was not academic, otherwise the book would never have materialized."
That is exactly what it is about. The passage I quoted refers to the most ambiguous "source of inspiration" possible. And if we don't focus primarily on this "inspiring source, or sources," we are going to keep our chat with it for ever…
"without any spiritual or religious interpolation"
It is absolutely impossible to say something about human origin "without any spiritual or religious interpolation" (lurking at the background), isn’t it? (And that’s the scandal all around science.)

-------

(In passing, I think Darwinism is now utterly dead, capable only of automatic reflex-activity of a dead body, - so there is a lot of danger in arguing with it, - and that it is not academic preaching that should be “exposed" and refuted, not a Dawkins, but rather such very intelligent guys like let’s say Berlinsky. This latter, moreover, is really of a very sympathetic and engaging type of speaker…

Roughly speaking: evolutionism serves as strawman for "creationists," and vice versa. And both parties are materialist to their core. Neither of them has anything to say that were of any interest – except the perpetual battle cries.

In the good old days, evolutionists quarreled over which part of the original theory could be saved somehow. By the time it‘s turned out - because it has turned out! and today’s professionals are mere epigones only - that nothing tenable was there in it at all, the brains of the general public were already completely washed by propaganda tenets. Here we go.

As I see the business, "creationism" was a logical step as it were to keep the everlasting battle noisy enough.)

-------
Flabbergasted wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:20 pm
Mansur wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:54 pmIs Mr. Cremo really a neglected person and the case he represents is really a neglected case, even at the university level? Let’s not forget it’s a bestseller that runs out of millions of copies.
I am not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?
I just simply suppose, based on or rather confirmed by the information that the book is running out by millions, that pretty much all the student of paleoanthropology, maybe not only those poisoned already by "esoterism" of some kind, would hear of it, and if he is young enough the chance seems considerable to fall for it as well. And I think "Human Devolution," to which "Forbidden Archeology" seems to be only a preamble, is poisonous as hell.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1243
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

Mansur wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:18 amAs I see the business...
I appreciate your feedback, but I don´t know what to do with it. Every time I think I am following your reasoning, you lose me.

If you want to pursue these topics further, perhaps the chatbox would be a more appropriate thread.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by Mansur »

Flabbergasted wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 2:52 am Every time I think I am following your reasoning, you lose me.
And would that be my fault? Seems to be a strange reasoning.

Anyway. This is your forum, your thread; you asked me and I answered and that's it.

[Admin Note (SCS): I’ve found these recent posts by Mansur (originally made on the Remote Antiquity thread) to be anything but clear. They have been moved to the DR accordingly.]
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: NASA'S F.E. DBA STRATEGY

Unread post by Mansur »

The very first thing to say about ‘flat earth’ is that 1) as a ‘thought’ it is nonsense, - 2) it is a 100% propaganda, as the title of ‘thread’ states; and these two are essentially one and the same. It’s more than useless to argue with propaganda or with people who function as mere mouthpieces for propaganda items (and these two are just the same again - the debate being entirely in the media and nowhere else). If there are innocent victims of this propaganda, doubtful, but maybe possible, I think it is better to leave them alone. Anybody not being a ‘hopeless case’ will certainly recover within days in ‘isolation.’ This isolation, however, should be left to his own discretion. There is no other way.

Now, on ‘social channels,’ ‘flat earth’ always appears as if to be in the ‘fiercest controversy’. But he must be a very naive man who does not see through it very soon that they are fighting with artificially pre-worked arguments on both sides.

In this country (Hungary), a few years ago, the Academy of Sciences launched allegedly a tender to work out a method for ‘proving the sphericity of the Earth, ’i.e., to refute “flat earth”’. The frontmen here (those five or six or so existing in this area/language) reacted to the news and propagated it as ‘finally making a breakthrough’. And they were right indeed about that, since where the Academy of Sciences deals with ‘nonsenses’ on the merits before the public, the ‘breakthrough’ is truly complete. In the meantime, articles on previous, historical ideas of how to make the shape of the Earth evident started to appear on the Academy’s official websites.

Now, I do not think it was these things that made the ancient Greeks great, quite the contrary; - in any case, the essential difference is that today it is not a question of explanation or proof but of a refutation and a debate, preferably an interminable (since it is meaningless) debate. (‘At the times of the old Greeks, the “flat earth” theory was already an exploded theory’ runs the academic argument.)

And if one takes on the opponent’s fighting style and means (such as ‘photographic evidence or proof’), one is actually joining them - in what is really relevant. (The whole thing is kind of a call, ‘Hey, buddy, do you have a nice photo device? Come on, use it wisely, and get reassurance that even Greek philosophers couldn’t be sure about!’)

As for Simon’s post : it doesn’t seem very likely that the problems of atmospheric refraction and that of optics will ever cease to be a problem. And they weren't even addressed. The following two quotes seem to say no more than ‘if the weather is nice’:
…should be EMPIRICALLY OBSERVABLE (that is, only under optical conditions that allow them to be observed).
Most of the time, the distant horizon will be a hazy and indistinct line - due to various unfavorable atmospheric conditions.

‘Photographability’ and what a living person really sees, so to speak, with his own eyes, that is, what a visual experience he has, are two completely different things. Every artist who is ‘old-fashioned’ enough - i.e. not being a child of modernity, people by the way being men of experience or observation par excellence, - is horrified by photography.

The curvature of the Earth for the experience / perception, I think, is about the same as what the ‘fourth dimension’ is for the imagination.
_____________________

Maybe, not sure, the people of ‘geo-metry’ (now called geography, or geodesy) could say something about the business - but I doubt anyone of them has ever dealt with it or will ever deal with it. And this ‘indifference’ on their part I think is completely legitimate.
_______________________

One of the ‘flat earth’ arguments says that no matter how high a man climbs or ascends by any means, the horizon will always remain at eye level. The horizon cannot be looked downwards. Under no circumstances. Well, few lives in the Himalayas or the Andes, so the passenger plane seemed to remain the only thing that this - possible - curiosity can be checked out by a casual enquirer. Since it was unlikely that I would take a plane in the near future, so a few years ago I asked someone to check out, if he was traveling during the day: whether the horizon seen through one of the windows, his observing eye, and the horizon seen through a window on the other side of the plane fall in a straight line. Unfortunately, the answer was that due to the small windows (and its low position) and the conditions there in general (passengers, compliance with general etiquette) this could not be clearly established there.

On the website of ‘Wild-heretic’, a frontman of ‘hollow earth’ (another ‘alternative’ ‘theory’), I read an old report on a hot air balloon trip, from the ’30s, if memory serves: he writes, it was all as if he and his balloon were floating in a huge cauldron…
__________________
__________________

An interesting detail may be that at the very first appearance of the ‘flat earth’ who represented ‘modern, enlightened progress’, i.e. science, was none other than the young Wallace, long before he went in for evolutionism, maybe even for biology (philosophy of nature) at all.
patrix
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: NASA'S F.E. DBA STRATEGY

Unread post by patrix »

I hesitate to ask this since talk about this silly FE is precisely what I think is best to be avoided although I very much appreciate Simons articles on the subject. But I would like to see a reference to the claim that Wallace was a Flat Earther in his young years?

Flat Earth was undoubtedly started in the 19th century and my guess is that it was a propaganda move to distract from the obvious problems with heliocentrism. The deceivers greatest trick is to have two lies fighting for attention thus hiding the truth. This is an article I found about Wallace and Flat Earth and unsurprisingly it ends with a reference to fake pictures of Earth. That they are fake has of course nothing to do with the shape of Earth but because it is not possible to send anything into orbit around our spherical Earth. But I fail to find any source suggesting Wallace ever doubted reason in the manner that Earth could be anything but a sphere.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ro ... -earthers/

Edit, another good article
https://flatearth.ws/bedford-level
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: NASA'S F.E. DBA STRATEGY

Unread post by Mansur »

patrix wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:05 pm I hesitate to ask this since talk about this silly FE is precisely what I think is best to be avoided...
CF is a site dedicated to exposing propaganda (mass) deceptions, and FE is one of them and not the smallest, am I mistaken?
patrix wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:05 pm Flat Earth was undoubtedly started in the 19th century and my guess is that it was a propaganda move to distract from the obvious problems with heliocentrism
That is beyond me how you got this guess. The debate had absolutely no element of astronomy. (But of course it was propaganda from day one.)

Similarly, it is incomprehensible how you managed to read into my words that Wallace was a believer in the 'flat earth'. (Have you read the rest of the post?)

It seems by the way Wallace has been involved in quite a few dubious businesses of the period.
patrix wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:05 pm The deceivers greatest trick is to have two lies fighting for attention thus hiding the truth.
I agree, but that is why it is not so easy to see what one is and what the other is.
patrix
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: NASA'S F.E. DBA STRATEGY

Unread post by patrix »

Since no source was provided for the claim

"An interesting detail may be that at the very first appearance of the ‘flat earth’ who represented ‘modern, enlightened progress’, i.e. science, was none other than the young Wallace, long before he went in for evolutionism, maybe even for biology (philosophy of nature) at all."

I strongly suggest the portion after Simon's demonstration that curvature can be confirmed on photographs, is derailed.
Peter
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: NASA'S F.E. DBA STRATEGY

Unread post by Peter »

antipodean wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:05 pm
Peter » November 12th, 2019, 8:59 pm wrote:This is a lot of weirdness and I wonder if anybody can explain.

The cheapest flights from Auckland/Sydney to Johannesburg go through UAE. They shouldn't even be economically viable at all as they go many thousands of miles off route. Same with Sao Paolo to Joberg. There is a direct flight Sao Paolo - Joberg but I couldn't book it, kept getting bounced off. The routes detoured thousands of miles via UAE I could book (and then immediately cancel as I was just experimenting). Planes seem to be avoiding the southern oceans https://www.flightradar24.com/51,-2/2

Also why the secrecy about Antarctica? Planes can't fly over it, and you can't go there unless with the approved agency, ludicrously expensive, and you only go to the coastal areas.

None of this makes sense. Except on the plane earth model with north pole center.
It's all about economies of scale.
Auckland/ Sydney to UAE, Singapore etc. are more frequent routes than direct to Joburg and vice versa. There are some direct flights, but probably cost more.
https://www.trippy.com/fly/Johannesburg-to-Sydney.

There use to be sight seeing flights to Antarctica from Auckland.
.http://www.erebus.co.nz/background/thestory.aspx
You're right. My flirting with earth-may-not-be-spherical ended.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Sending TYCHOS to Astronomy Institutions

Unread post by Mansur »

Peaker wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:34 pm And it's good to raise the burning of Bruno here as it points out just how significant the operation of our Solar System is to everyday life here on Planet Earth. They don't burn you for just passing the time of day.

The Microscopic and the Macroscopic are the domains that rule our world, it seems.
These viewpoints were created just at that time and just for that purpose; i.e. the microscopic and macroscopic worlds (the worlds 'behind the lenses ', the 'invisible world ') were not ‘created by God’ but by scientific folks from that time on. A world independent of humans, the ‘objective world’ so-called. A world independent from humans, the 'objective world ' so-called. Incidentally, if memory serves, the causes and nature of Bruno's excommunication, trial and stake were entirely theological-dogmatic or doctrinal and not due to his 'astronomical views'. The lesson to be learnt from his case is rather that although he knew very well what was in store for him, and although he might have done it more than once, he didn't recant - as Galileo did a few years later. The Galilei circus, and especially its later interpretations, is which is characteristic to our modern world and what prevails nowadays. No one will go into the fire for his scientific views – not even in the figurative sense. The love of science is at best a love ‘to the first blood’, but ... is it not ridiculous to speak of blood at all when it comes to science and scientists?

Previously people were talking about microcosm and macrocosm and the analogy between them… The new ‘paradigm shift’ is, to use this fashionable term, today is rather a unifying process – in the holy name of digitalisation. So it seems.
Post Reply