07 Mar 17
Originally posted by sonhouseThere's soft and then there's stubborn.
That's how you end up being a flatasser.
Stubborn refuses to consider facts which call into question ideas and concepts toward which one may be soft.
By way of example, consider your stubbornness with respect to irrefutable facts.
1. You couldn't provide an answer for how a prop (Super Bowl football) made its way to the ISS, so we had to set the issue aside.
2. You couldn't provide an answer for how distant objects which mathematically should fall beyond a person's range of vision remain visible, so we had to set the issue aside.
3. You couldn't provide an answer for why every single image ever released by NASA has been altered and/or manipulated, so we had to set the issue aside.
Any one of these issues throws a serious wrench in the official story.
All three together destroy that story.
My head may be soft in considering the merits of these three issues, but I definitely am open to a plausible explanation to them.
You, in contrast, are completely opposed to addressing even one of them, let alone all of them.
Instead, you will--- and I can nearly guarantee this part--- reply with some other wholly-unrelated ancillary issue, one which cannot be easily verified but instead relies on theoretical understanding, completely ignoring these issues, whilst applying a liberal amount of insults in the process of dodging and distracting.
Between you and me, which of us do you think a reasonable person would conclude is stubborn?
07 Mar 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI know which one of us bases our results on real science not spudoscience you use. You have to DISS science for your results to be valid. You also consider yourself to be as smart as all the civilization changers like Newton, Einstein and the like. That is total arrogance.
There's soft and then there's stubborn.
Stubborn refuses to consider facts which call into question ideas and concepts toward which one may be soft.
By way of example, consider your stubbornness with respect to irrefutable facts.
1. You couldn't provide an answer for how a prop (Super Bowl football) made its way to the ISS, so we had to set the issue ...[text shortened]...
Between you and me, which of us do you think a reasonable person would conclude is stubborn?
I don't claim any such thing, but I have studied science all my life as opposed to you who just want to dis any science that shows flatassers wrong. Funny thing is, it is very easy.
You for instance don't see the connection between your flat planet riding the equator and the REAL world, a globe riding on that equator where on your equator you HAVE to keep turning left or right however slightly, to make it around your equator whereas in the real world, you don't have to turn left or right, just fly straight as an arrow and never turn the slightest amount, always flying in a perfectly straight line and you find yourself in exactly the same place you left if you can fly 25,000 odd miles to do it. You cannot EVER do that without turning on your flatass planet. That alone would convince a rational person of the error of the flatass world but then again, you are anything BUT rational. You think NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, the French space agency, the Italians, they ALL lie, everyone but you.
That is called paranoia. Nothing less.
You will never take the trouble to actually do a circumnavigation of Antarctica which should, to a reasonable person, dissuade one of the flatass theory. So you chose to NEVER put yourself in the position of having to admit you are 100% TOTALLY wrong,
You have to diss the FACT, jack, that there have been at least 4 circumnavigations of Antarctica already and another one set to go in a couple months, civilians this time, no NASA, no government whatsoever, but hey, you will find a way to dis them too.
That again, is paranoia, nothing less. So you point out BS crap about footballs on ISS and such, apparently thinkiing somehow in your paranoid fantasy world that the world is flat. Good luck with your paranoia.
07 Mar 17
Originally posted by sonhouse[as predicted... ]
I know which one of us bases our results on real science not spudoscience you use. You have to DISS science for your results to be valid. You also consider yourself to be as smart as all the civilization changers like Newton, Einstein and the like. That is total arrogance.
I don't claim any such thing, but I have studied science all my life as opposed to y ...[text shortened]... ing somehow in your paranoid fantasy world that the world is flat. Good luck with your paranoia.
So.
I can put you down as...
"stubborn," right?
07 Mar 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, I just live in the REAL world not some flatasser fantasy. You cannot find the answers in science so you just diss all of them. EXACTLY like RJ Hinds disses any science that in any way can disprove the 6000 year old Earth. You should compare notes, you might even come up with something new. I notice you cannot answer the trip around the equator where on the REAL world you don't turn left or right EVER to just follow the equator. You cannot answer that except more Nya Nya, I can't hear you so you figure if you just ignore it it might go away.
[as predicted... ]
So.
I can put you down as...
"stubborn," right?
07 Mar 17
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy would I answer a question which has already asked and answered?
No, I just live in the REAL world not some flatasser fantasy. You cannot find the answers in science so you just diss all of them. EXACTLY like RJ Hinds disses any science that in any way can disprove the 6000 year old Earth. You should compare notes, you might even come up with something new. I notice you cannot answer the trip around the equator where on ...[text shortened]... that except more Nya Nya, I can't hear you so you figure if you just ignore it it might go away.
Why would I answer any of your objections when you've refused to address my initial two--- now three--- claims?