Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There was no timeline mentioned in my explanation

no, but you list events as "cause and effect" that are in the wrong order
one cannot be the effect of another cause if that "effect" was the one happening first

Poseidon isn't the god of the sea but of the earth,

Poseidon is the God of Sea/Ocean, Gaia is the God of Earth and if you already base are explanation on something that is off, the rest does not work out either, specially in addition if your "cause and effect" are in the wrong order

 kodos wrote:

There was no timeline mentioned in my explanation

no, but you list events as "cause and effect" that are in the wrong order
one cannot be the effect of another cause if that "effect" was the one happening first

Poseidon isn't the god of the sea but of the earth,

Poseidon is the God of Sea/Ocean, Gaia is the God of Earth and if you already base are explanation on something that is off, the rest does not work out either, specially in addition if your "cause and effect" are in the wrong order

Syncretism my friend.

All those pantheons are strongly interconnected.
Poseidon is -associated- with the (deified and mythologised nep tunis/cousin tunis) "god" Neptune, but is -not- the god of sea or oceans unless as I described concerned with the "abyss".
His very name means lord of the earth, go figure.

See this?

This is a digital image of the models I’ve built so far from the Leviathan boxed set. Taken to post on my Instagram and FB the other day.

Being a digital image? It is, in a sense…..Cee. Gee. Eeeeeeeye. Because digital images are digital recreations based on input and programming and that. It does not, in itself, mean the photo is in anyway faked, or of a non-existent subject.

An image being digital, whether with a simple camera phone, in my case my iPad, or being a composite comprised of sensors and other high tech gubbins reading and data does not make it fake.

Eric “liar liar pants on fire” Dubay and literally ever other flerfer however must push such a narrative so they don’t have to go to too much bother to keep up their lies. Because? You Gotta Lie To Flerf.

 Overread wrote:
That's a lot of words that don't actually offer any reasoning for why you believe the Earth is Flat, round, oblong nor indeed any shape. Other than you believe that a group of people believe in the Borg/Matrix and are engineering humanity toward that goal because reasons.

Ever heard of the Huluppu tree?, Yggdrasil?(means; terrible horse), the leafless branchless tree?, The magnetic mount?, The Meru?, because that is the very start of this situation, and also why the symbol for the Sun is the oldest map of the planar earth, like the discs of the ancient Norse cosmogony..

Circle with a dot in the middle, the dot is the north (magnetic mount) and the circle is the south.

As for someone stating something about jewry, this subject is a LOT more ancient than the conception of jewry to begin with so no..
but there are elements that have carried over in judaism, sure.. just as much as there are loads of elements from there carried over into Islam and Christianity, Bhuddism and Hinduism.. it is only relevant -generally- because all religions are so called babylonian-speech-confusion in the sense that it is encryption (mythologization) of alchemical reality.

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

 Overread wrote:
That's a lot of words that don't actually offer any reasoning for why you believe the Earth is Flat, round, oblong nor indeed any shape. Other than you believe that a group of people believe in the Borg/Matrix and are engineering humanity toward that goal because reasons.

Ever heard of the Huluppu tree?

Of course, it's where they get Huluppu-ridol from, you should try some

That post on the previous page is fascinating. Reads like an alternate reality fanfic.

 kodos wrote:

There was no timeline mentioned in my explanation

no, but you list events as "cause and effect" that are in the wrong order
one cannot be the effect of another cause if that "effect" was the one happening first

Poseidon isn't the god of the sea but of the earth,

Poseidon is the God of Sea/Ocean, Gaia is the God of Earth and if you already base are explanation on something that is off, the rest does not work out either, specially in addition if your "cause and effect" are in the wrong order

Poseidon's origins are cthonic IIRC, I think early mythology places him as a husband of early Persephone (around the time of the Minoans and Mycenaeans). At this time, Persephone appears to be firmly cthonic too. Hades cropped up later to take the Cthonic elements and Poseidon morphed into a sea god as he is commonly known today. I am fairly confident Neptune is later than Poseidon as a see god though, and is simply the Roman pilfering of the Greek god.

We see this with a number of gods- Hermes and Pan look to have split from an older, more scary Pan that combined the attributes of both later gods.

 Haighus wrote:
That post on the previous page is fascinating. Reads like an alternate reality fanfic.

 kodos wrote:

There was no timeline mentioned in my explanation

no, but you list events as "cause and effect" that are in the wrong order
one cannot be the effect of another cause if that "effect" was the one happening first

Poseidon isn't the god of the sea but of the earth,

Poseidon is the God of Sea/Ocean, Gaia is the God of Earth and if you already base are explanation on something that is off, the rest does not work out either, specially in addition if your "cause and effect" are in the wrong order

Poseidon's origins are cthonic IIRC, I think early mythology places him as a husband of early Persephone (around the time of the Minoans and Mycenaeans). At this time, Persephone appears to be firmly cthonic too. Hades cropped up later to take the Cthonic elements and Poseidon morphed into a sea god as he is commonly known today. I am fairly confident Neptune is later than Poseidon as a see god though, and is simply the Roman pilfering of the Greek god.

We see this with a number of gods- Hermes and Pan look to have split from an older, more scary Pan that combined the attributes of both later gods.

You are somewhat correct, but it is not that he "became a sea god" but that he became associated with the Aegean Neptune as I stated.
Neptune is not later than Poseidon at all, his origins again as I stated are a carry-over of Danu/Isis which is the Gaelic mother goddess (also to a degree the Anatolian Matar, therefor) having a gender swap as was fairly common. For instance.. the Asiatic Sungod is a woman (Amaterasu).

You may also wish to better understand what an ad hominem attack is.

If someone’s entire argument is a falsehood, made up of outright lies, careful quote mining and actively misrepresenting science? Calling them a liar is an accurate statement.

It would only be an ad hominem if the accusation of lying wasn’t related to that argument. For instance. Neil deGrasse Tyson, for all we know, has most likely lied about something in his past. Most likely as a kid to get out of trouble. To bring up said hypothetical lie when he’s explaining gravity as a counterpoint? That would be an ad hominem. Attacking the person, not the argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, here’s Professor Dave.




Succinct. Accurate. Indisputable.

Mate. I’ve seen it before. And every bit of drivel in that video has been debunked.

Because….the Earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting our sun,

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Mate. I’ve seen it before. And every bit of drivel in that video has been debunked.

Because….the Earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting our sun,

I have never seen anything of it being debunked and believe me I've looked hard, I couldn't do any different because my syncretic line of work depends on genuity, studying such matters validity is higher on my compass than outreach.

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Mate. I’ve seen it before. And every bit of drivel in that video has been debunked.

Because….the Earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting our sun,

I have never seen anything of it being debunked and believe me I've looked hard, I couldn't do any different because my syncretic line of work depends on genuity, studying such matters validity is higher on my compass than outreach.

Try reading any physics textbook, it'll debunk your gak real fast.

Are those videos available on a site that isn't infested by and actively cultivates neo-Nazis?

I am not clear how linking to that interacts with Dakka's family-friendly focus. The content is only tangentially related to the thread topic at best, so maybe don't link that site to here.

 Haighus wrote:
Are those videos available on a site that isn't infested by and actively cultivates neo-Nazis?

I am not clear how linking to that interacts with Dakka's family-friendly focus. The content is only tangentially related to the thread topic at best, so maybe don't link that site to here.

Then you cannot link to youtube, twitter, facebook or any other site either considering there's people posting crazy stuff literally everywhere.
The posts of random people in comments have nothing to do with the videos anyway. And no its not tangentially related considering there can not be anything coming from space if space is itself nonsensical (which it is in more ways than one)

So "are we alone" can definately best be answerred with "in what?" as, again' extra-terrestrial means extra-land(er).

(I also have to add that guilt by association is moot, just don't read those comments or ignore them.. and if you ask me.. the site is more extremist judeo-christian than "neonazi", whatever that still means anyway at this point.. atleast be glad that there is a site that hosts other views than the mainstream, that's how I approach these subjects.. and if I really would strongly feel something is outrageous I just downvote it there)

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

That is a good point, which goes both ways.

Let's have a little test then. Explain Newton's three laws of motion in your own words, using language that is suitable for a 13 year old.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

That is a good point, which goes both ways.

Let's have a little test then. Explain Newton's three laws of motion in your own words, using language that is suitable for a 13 year old.

Equal and unequal mass, but that is better explained through density, which itself trumps the theory of gravity.

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

That is a good point, which goes both ways.

Let's have a little test then. Explain Newton's three laws of motion in your own words, using language that is suitable for a 13 year old.

Equal and unequal mass, but that is better explained through density, which itself trumps the theory of gravity.

How does your 'density' non-explanation work in a vacuum? You know, the place where there is no medium for buoyancy etc. to have an effect in, where you can demonstrate gravity?

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

That is a good point, which goes both ways.

Let's have a little test then. Explain Newton's three laws of motion in your own words, using language that is suitable for a 13 year old.

Equal and unequal mass, but that is better explained through density, which itself trumps the theory of gravity.

Completely wrong. You literally explained nothing. Your answer betrays that you don't even know what Newton's laws of motion are and that they are independent of his law of gravity.

The first law is that objects at rest remain at rest, and objects in motion remain in that motion, unless an external force is applied to them. If you place a ball on a level table, it will stay where you put it until something acts upon it to make it move.

The second law is that the acceleration of an object, how it's velocity changes, is directly proportional to the force applied to it. If you lightly push a ball on a table, it will have a lower acceleration than if you push it hard.

The third law is that for each force that is exerted on an object, that object will exert a force equal in strength, but acting in the opposite direction, on the thing applying that force. If you push against a wall, the wall is pushing back against your hand with an equal strength. Go stand on an ice rink opposite someone and push that person. You will also go away from your starting position because the force exerted on you by the person you pushed is greater than the force of friction between your feet and the ice when you are standing still.

So, you don't even know Newton's three laws, which can all be empirically proven in your own everyday life in experiments you can perform yourself, but you think you have enough knowledge to debunk what was built off them? You don't even understand the most basic of fundamentals.

All of science says X. Established and verifiable flight paths say X. We’ve known X to be true for centuries now.

One conman on the internet says Y.

Who to believe. Who. To. Believe.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
All of science says X. Established and verifiable flight paths say X. We’ve known X to be true for centuries now.

One conman on the internet says Y.

Who to believe. Who. To. Believe.

You can take all these 'wrong' science things and accurately plot a course from A to B. Or load the correct amount of fuel into a plane to actually arrive there. There's experiments literal schoolchildren can perform adequately (with some help) to shoot rockets into the upper atmosphere, or send cameras up there that can actually see earth's curvature. Teams of university students can even send sattelites to space (if they're lucky, and win several rounds of competition). But no, some self-taught dude from the internet and his rogue dictionary will surely unravel that world- and history-spanning conspiracy of totally-not-the-Jeeeeews!-honest that all of humanity has just been too damn blind to see, with some notable *cough*Hitler*cough* exceptions...

Regular viewers will notice he’s not addressed any counter evidence. Such as a digital photo not meaning the subject is automatically faked.

That something could or can be faked, does not mean it was faked. Otherwise, the principle of currency notes and coinage (both of which can be faked) would collapse.

Instead we get standard flerf-flop diffraction and Gish Gallop.

We’re told to read the Antarctic Treaty. I….I have. It doesn’t say what Flerf says it does. So we’re told “not that treaty, another unnamed treaty. You wouldn’t know her. She goes to another school. In Canada. In a parallel dimension”

Rather than explain anything, we’re told “Erf Flat” and “watch stupid video of stupid statements by a total ignoramous”

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Regular viewers will notice he’s not addressed any counter evidence. Such as a digital photo not meaning the subject is automatically faked.

That something could or [/i] can be faked, does not mean it was faked. Otherwise, the principle of currency notes and coinage (both of which can be faked) would collapse.

Instead we get standard flerf-flop diffraction and Gish Gallop.

We’re told to read the Antarctic Treaty. I….I have. It doesn’t say what Flerf says it does. So we’re told “not that treaty, another unnamed treaty. You wouldn’t know her. She goes to another school. In Canada. In a parallel dimension”

Rather than explain anything, we’re told “Erf Flat” and “watch stupid video of stupid statements by a total ignoramous”

Two things:

First: Any image, literally every single one, that you can view on the Internet has at some point been converted into a digital file (if it is not one to begin with), so absolutely nothing you could see online will ever meet these arbitrary (and dumb) standards of 'not being digital' - if you press on hard enough, the conspiracy will be god-of-the-gaps-ed into it somewhere, i.e. evil chips all computers worldwide must have that suppress the truth once you upload a file or something equally outré.

Second: That Antarctica nonsense is abundant in about half a dozen conspiracy theories. 'Admiral Byrd' is also the dude that supposedly lost a lot of planes to attacks from nazi ufos operating from either the undiscovered super-Nazi-colony in Antarctica (the relatively sane variant) or to attacks from nazi ufos coming from the hollow earth, wherein the Super-Nazis and their extraterrestial allies reside (the even less sane variant). In fact, Admiral Byrd was a polar explorer that was tasked with surveying the Arctic (not the Antarctic) due to fears that nuclear-armed Soviet long-range bombers could use it as a surprise attack route (because the world is round, and that is in fact possible) and lost planes and other material due to harsh conditions and extreme weather, the exploration of which was part of his mission to assess the practicality of such a move, and the possibilities to countering it.

Depending on your particular brand of cookery, Arctica/Antarctica (who cares really, one's got Space-Aryans and the other polar bears) is either the entry point to Alien Hitler's hollow earth Kingdom or the mysterious ice wall around the Flat Earth - now you would say that it might be difficult to hold that both of these are true at the same time, or accept 'evidence' provided for one of these as 'evidence' for the other, but that's where a big helping of mental illness comes in real handy...

If you're so far gone to actually adhere to these ideas (instead of only touting them online to get a rise out of people) you have absolutely no problem with believing all of it, and more, at the same time, because with enough tortured thinking you can construct links between everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW not using 'mental illness' as a putdown or an ad hominem, but once that stuff reaches the point where it prevents you from accurately perceiving reality and gets intrusive/restrictive in your day-to-day activity that's an actual mental condition that negatively impacts your quality of life and general wellbeing.

Can you just imagine the manpower, logistics and costs involved in patrolling the coast of Antarctica, and shooting on sight anyone who came near?

And then the idea that you have that many soldiers that near a secret.... and that secret has been kept?

It's more likely that extraterrestrials have been given that continent and are enforcing their territorial claims.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Can you just imagine the manpower, logistics and costs involved in patrolling the coast of Antarctica, and shooting on sight anyone who came near?

And then the idea that you have that many soldiers that near a secret.... and that secret has been kept?

It's more likely that extraterrestrials have been given that continent and are enforcing their territorial claims.

Especially when the border of Antartica needs to be enormous in this hypothesis, because it is the circumference of the Earth. Actual Antartica is going to be much smaller than ice-wall Antartica.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Can you just imagine the manpower, logistics and costs involved in patrolling the coast of Antarctica, and shooting on sight anyone who came near?

And then the idea that you have that many soldiers that near a secret.... and that secret has been kept?

It's more likely that extraterrestrials have been given that continent and are enforcing their territorial claims.

Indeed - can we see evidence of these shootings and confrontations?

I'd appreciate evidence of the military deployments and the logistical chain to supply them (food, fuel, ammunition, vehicles, maintenance) even, injuries (eg frostbite) obtained through the course of said garrissoning etc.

No evidence. Cover-ups.

You don’t need to fly in an (evil) airplane to see the world is round. On a boat on the ocean, you can see the horizon. You can see islands rise into view as you approach them. That wouldn’t happen on a flat earth.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

That is a good point, which goes both ways.

Let's have a little test then. Explain Newton's three laws of motion in your own words, using language that is suitable for a 13 year old.

Equal and unequal mass, but that is better explained through density, which itself trumps the theory of gravity.

How does your 'density' non-explanation work in a vacuum? You know, the place where there is no medium for buoyancy etc. to have an effect in, where you can demonstrate gravity?

How does propulsion work in a vacuum?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You don’t need to fly in an (evil) airplane to see the world is round. On a boat on the ocean, you can see the horizon. You can see islands rise into view as you approach them. That wouldn’t happen on a flat earth.

That's literally perspective, do lightpoles beside the road go down a curve?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
All of science says X. Established and verifiable flight paths say X. We’ve known X to be true for centuries now.

One conman on the internet says Y.

Who to believe. Who. To. Believe.

How about believing the science over who says it, and use your senses while doing it rather than "trusting experts wether or no known - because we did so for a long time".

This has derailed far enough into the land of bizarre and weird. Also, for future reference do not link to pro Neo-Nazi/Alt Right/Hate endorsing sites here or your account will be instantly, permanently suspended.