WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

[The Fish 9007]

4 minutes ago, wolfy said:

I'm saying I won't accept any attempted debunking by people who profess to know the truth without actually knowing the truth.

 

So, regardless of whichever person sits you down and takes you, step by step, through your theory, explaining it's flaws and providing evidence that the scientific status quo is reliable... regardless of which poor schmuck actually does this, you won't accept it because you don't believe they know the "truth"?

 

Wolfy man, can't you see how circular your logic is?

[wolfy 12]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

 

So, regardless of whichever person sits you down and takes you, step by step, through your theory, explaining it's flaws and providing evidence that the scientific status quo is reliable... regardless of which poor schmuck actually does this, you won't accept it because you don't believe they know the "truth"?

 

Wolfy man, can't you see how circular your logic is?

Like I said to you earlier. I will accept proof of anything that goes against my thoughts, from anyone that actually has the proof.

If you want to take me through this proof and debunk anything I'm saying, or even just convincing me that you actually know what you are actually presenting, as a truth, then you will destroy my thoughts and make me evaluate future thoughts, or other thoughts.

 

Can you do this or not?

[The Fish 9007]

1 minute ago, wolfy said:

Like I said to you earlier. I will accept proof of anything that goes against my thoughts, from anyone that actually has the proof.

If you want to take me through this proof and debunk anything I'm saying, or even just convincing me that you actually know what you are actually presenting, as a truth, then you will destroy my thoughts and make me evaluate future thoughts, or other thoughts.

 

Can you do this or not?

 

You shoulder the burden of proof. Far greater minds than I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that gravity exists, that the moon exists, that the Sun exists, that the stars exist that satellites exist, and so on.

 

I know the ISS exists because I've seen it with my own eyes. 

 

You don't "know" anything that your theories propose exist. Not one thing, yet you put it forward as an alternative to scientific status quo, even going so far as to mock the conventional wisdom. You then ask people to prove you wrong. For goodness sake, you asked people to prove satellites existed without using empirical or anecdotal evidence.

[adios 717]

45 minutes ago, Alex said:

Has to be a parody account like. I'm looking at you, Adios.

[Renton 17821]

Except you literally don't accept any evidence as proof do you?

 

Photographs and videos are all parts of an elaborate conspiracy. Even mathematical proofs are bull shit to you because you don't understand them.

 

Probably the most photographed and filmed event in history, the destruction o the WTC, simply didn't happen in your opinion. Nobody died, it was all a hoax. It's impossible to argue against this level of stupid. 

[The Fish 9007]

3 minutes ago, Renton said:

Except you literally don't accept any evidence as proof do you?

 

Photographs and videos are all parts of an elaborate conspiracy. Even mathematical proofs are bull shit to you because you don't understand them.

 

Probably the most photographed and filmed event in history, the destruction o the WTC, simply didn't happen in your opinion. Nobody died, it was all a hoax. It's impossible to argue against this level of stupid. 

Oh aye, I forgot he believes there are people paid to pretend to be grieving victims. Abhorrent bh.

[wolfy 12]

5 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

You shoulder the burden of proof. Far greater minds than I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that gravity exists, that the moon exists, that the Sun exists, that the stars exist that satellites exist, and so on.

 

I know the ISS exists because I've seen it with my own eyes. 

 

You don't "know" anything that your theories propose exist. Not one thing, yet you put it forward as an alternative to scientific status quo, even going so far as to mock the conventional wisdom. You then ask people to prove you wrong. For goodness sake, you asked people to prove satellites existed without using empirical or anecdotal evidence.

And so far, nobody has proved anything.

 

[Renton 17821]

3 minutes ago, adios said:

I think it's up to you to prove you're not Wolfy "adios". Over to you. 

[The Fish 9007]

1 minute ago, wolfy said:

And so far, nobody has proved anything.

 

You dismissing proof isn't the same as proof not existing.

 

You. Shoulder. The. Burden. Of. Proof.

 

[wolfy 12]

4 minutes ago, Renton said:

Quote

Except you literally don't accept any evidence as proof do you?

Yes, if the evidence actually does prove a truth, otherwise it's circumstantial.

4 minutes ago, Renton said:

Quote

Photographs and videos are all parts of an elaborate conspiracy. Even mathematical proofs are bull shit to you because you don't understand them.

Photographs and videos can and do get faked in all kinds of ways. You know this, so how can I accept any of it?

4 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

 

[Alex 30446]

What a loon

[adios 717]

6 minutes ago, Renton said:

I think it's up to you to prove you're not Wolfy "adios". Over to you. 

Like I'd ever be up that early

 

 

[Ayatollah Hermione 12767]

My uncle went to New York before and after 9/11 and those towers were there the first time and definitely weren't there the second time. Though, my uncle and the other 200 people on his flight may have been pulled to one side and keep it on the hush hush, who knows?

[Monkeys Fist 38799]

Wolfy, when do you think that the cover-up began regarding the lack of the Earth's globular dimensions? 

 

Hmm? 

[wolfy 12]

13 minutes ago, The Fish said:

You dismissing proof isn't the same as proof not existing.

 

You. Shoulder. The. Burden. Of. Proof.

 

It's entirely up to each individual what they take from anything I say.

Nobody has to take anything of my theory as a truth or even a small percentage of it if they feel it's not worth thinking about.

 

I think questioning a ball spinning in space with oceans and what not just adhered to it, requires deep questioning, not to mention all the rest of it.

the problem is, it goes against the grain and people in the main do not like to go against the grain for very obvious reasons.

 

The truth is that most people don't give a  toss about gravity and a ball Earth or whatever...well, not enough to actually argue/debate it in an y meaningful fashion.

It's much easier to just go about life without giving much thought to all this stuff, for most. I tend to agree but I have a sceptical mind, so I tend to question a lot of the stuff.

 

If something doesn't sit right, it's worth questioning. If evidence is weak but still there, then keeping a hunch isn't a bad thing until more evidence comes to the fore.

 

 

 

 

[wolfy 12]

Just now, Monkeys Fist said:

Wolfy, when do you think that the cover-up began regarding the lack of the Earth's globular dimensions? 

 

Hmm? 

I haven't got a clue to that answer.

 

[adios 717]

Wolfy,

 

• Coriolis effect?  
• Observable curvature of the Earth? 
• Observable [whatever 8" per mile squared is called]?
• Flight times?

Edited May 16, 2017 by adios

[The Fish 9007]

5 minutes ago, wolfy said:

It's entirely up to each individual what they take from anything I say.

Nobody has to take anything of my theory as a truth or even a small percentage of it if they feel it's not worth thinking about.

 

I think questioning a ball spinning in space with oceans and what not just adhered to it, requires deep questioning, not to mention all the rest of it.

the problem is, it goes against the grain and people in the main do not like to go against the grain for very obvious reasons.

 

The truth is that most people don't give a  toss about gravity and a ball Earth or whatever...well, not enough to actually argue/debate it in an y meaningful fashion.

It's much easier to just go about life without giving much thought to all this stuff, for most. I tend to agree but I have a sceptical mind, so I tend to question a lot of the stuff.

 

If something doesn't sit right, it's worth questioning. If evidence is weak but still there, then keeping a hunch isn't a bad thing until more evidence comes to the fore.

 

 

 

 

Cool cool cool, but you shoulder the burden of proof.

[adios 717]

26 minutes ago, Ayatollah Hermione said:

My uncle went to New York before and after 9/11 and those towers were there the first time and definitely weren't there the second time. Though, my uncle and the other 200 people on his flight may have been pulled to one side and keep it on the hush hush, who knows?

 

Now that you mention it, the gf was on one of the first flights out of NY after it happened.

 

Going to have to dump the dirty conspiracist now.

[Monkeys Fist 38799]

4 minutes ago, wolfy said:

I haven't got a clue to that answer.

 

There's a shock.

 

Have a think, comb through the "evidence", then we'll have a chat. 

[wolfy 12]

8 minutes ago, adios said:

Wolfy,

 

• Coriolis effect?  .................doesn't exist in reality IMO.
• Observable curvature of the Earth? .....there isn't any observable curvature of Earth, except where wide angled lenses/fish eye lenses are used.
• Observable [whatever 8" per mile squared is called]?....If this was true then you certainly wouldn't see building from distances due to that, and yet they can, which gets put down to mirages and all other stuff.
• Flight times?.... The flight times are interesting. Even more so from the supposed southern hemisphere as we are told, it is. There appears to be massive discrepancies with flights and times from the supposed southern hemisphere. How correct it all is as a proof from me, I can't rightly say. It's down to each person to check it out for themselves if interested.
•  

 

[wolfy 12]

14 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Cool cool cool, but you shoulder the burden of proof.

Take what I say with a pinch of salt if you're dead against any of it.

I have no issues with you accepting absolutely anything and everything told to you by official sources and I also have no issues with what you think of my theories/thoughts or whatever. 

You're entitled to think what you want to. I'm in no position to dictate what people do or don't do. All I say is, if you're interested in any of this stuff, then question some of it and see where it takes you, regardless of what I say.

 

[wolfy 12]

17 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

There's a shock.

 

Have a think, comb through the "evidence", then we'll have a chat. 

Nope, I still don't have a clue.

Do you know?

[Alex 30446]

1 minute ago, wolfy said:

Take what I say with a pinch of salt if you're dead against any of it.

 

 

[adios 717]

2 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Coriolis effect?  .................doesn't exist in reality IMO.

So all snipers are in on the conspiracy?

 

2 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Observable curvature of the Earth? .....there isn't any observable curvature of Earth, except where wide angled lenses/fish eye lenses are used.

Ever been on a plane?  Every looked out the window?

 

3 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Observable [whatever 8" per mile squared is called]?....If this was true then you certainly wouldn't see building from distances due to that, and yet they can, which gets put down to mirages and all other stuff.

 

Let me help you out here a little; buildings are usually taller than ground level.

 

4 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Flight times?.... The flight times are interesting. Even more so from the supposed southern hemisphere as we are told, it is. There appears to be massive discrepancies with flights and times from the supposed southern hemisphere. How correct it all is as a proof from me, I can't rightly say. It's down to each person to check it out for themselves if interested.

 

Show me.