Nutty but interesting

I wanted to write this one off but she made some sense at 1:33:00. If nothing else,  this latest surge in audio has brought out some different characters.

Be the 1st to vote.

15 thoughts on “Nutty but interesting”

  1. Ha hey ha yayseyo. She has a funny schizo approach and untrusty davej caught “her” in an act. I only laughed because I first saw her earlier today and she ended up here. Small flatworld

  2. “Nutty but interesting”.

    Sounds like the direction this blog of yours is going, Ab.

    Here’s hoping this is not your intention – but just an unfortunate, temporary slip of your intelligent and well-meaning mind.

    1. The direction is where my interests go. I endure many cringe worthy characters and topics in my pursuits , including the jews-did-it rabbit hole cluesforum.info appears to be falling into. Heck, I even had a pleasant face to face conversation with a real live person who is a Mason! He loved the chat about gematria and the possibility that the earth wasn’t an oblate spheroid.

      1. Ab,

        Your interests that lie within the flat earth videos are accompanied by a lot of baggage, lot’s and lot’s of baggage. By baggage I mean many many falsehoods and false facts and false innuendos about science and whatnots that you may or may not be aware of. At count I find an average of falseness at about 60/70% of all content.

        A reader of this website may be unable to tell where your interests lie within the video, and which points you consider plausible and which points you consider not plausible. It’s very confusing.

        1. @ Khammad

          What do you want? Do you want to believe us , the “ball earth model” sceptics, starting to believe in your “greater” ball earth model?

  3. Gentle Reader,

    If you mean “lots and lots” of baggage, I agree, however the ball Earth people/NASA have had a huge headstart and even they can’t keep their stories straight.

    Until we have the time and tools (can we get our money back from NASA to finance this endeavor?) to fully investigate this is not decided. At least in my book. The more you push, the more people seem to be heading opposite from whete you want. Or is it?

    Ab, I appreciate your curiosity and am glad that you provide such a forum. Thank you.

    1. I can’t control my interests. If the wave of research is moving towards the ball earth debate, and the people are interesting, then that’s where I’ll go. Am I being misled? Are they ALL conintelpro? I don’t think so, just like I doubt most 9/11 researchers are paid agents to mislead. No one forces people here to come for the ride, in fact, most are lurkers just peaking into my very passive research. There are millions of other websites people can and do go to – they’re all one click away.

  4. “Proofs please.” – Curious

    “Will some FE proponent please answer this question of mine? It’s been up for two months now – and I have yet to see one single response to it:

    cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2396321#p2396321

    Specifically, the question is: can the FE crowd please explain how USHUAIA (Argentina) can still see the Sun at 10pm on December 24 – while ALERT (Canada) gets ZERO sunlight on December 24 ?”

    The above scenario shows that if we were to have a flat earth, then the sun would have to be lighting two places at the same time with darkness in between them: Argentina and Canada.

    The above is SOLID proof that a flat earth just can’t exist. Game over. Check mate.

    1. Quite so, Kham, the Flat Earth has been debunked beyond a reasonable doubt. And not just once, but repeatedly. Such disproof divides Flat Earth sales agents into two groups (in the main – there are exceptions of course).

      The first group consists of manufactured celebrity gurus and their inexplicably dedicated media helpers. These pretend to be seekers of truth yet dishonestly dispense with, or deftly tap dance around, the laundry list of slam-dunk debunks of their Flat Earth flapdoodle. Such specimens know better and are simply lying to their audience, so we might call them the Liars.

      The second, more numerous group couldn’t care less about Flat Earth sales figures. Nor are they especially interested in science generally, and it shows. For them, Flat Earth propaganda is a workaday assignment, like selling shoes, which they somehow got hooked into. This group could be called the Hires.

      This breakdown of the Flat Earth campaign into a few, usually trained, Liars and many rank-and-file Hires has long been the organization of social change campaigns. Another current example of this type is the Occupy Movement, which resembles Flat Earth on certain points.

    2. @Khammad

      This is absolute ridiculous. You are the one who came up with the idea that we are living on a much GREATER ball model. You’re idea not mine. I asked you for proofs for that one. Now you come up with this. Is this your proof of a much GREATER ball model. This is sheer nonsense.

      1. Curious,

        My speculations into a much larger earth than is currently thought is just that, speculation. The reasoning behind that speculation had to do with ships not disappearing over the horizon fast enough. I need more data before I can decide if that speculation has any merit.

        Interesting, Curious, how you totally ignored Simon’s question:

        “Specifically, the question is: can the FE crowd please explain how USHUAIA (Argentina) can still see the Sun at 10pm on December 24 – while ALERT (Canada) gets ZERO sunlight on December 24 ?”

        1. @Khammad

          “Specifically, the question is: can the FE crowd please explain how USHUAIA (Argentina) can still see the Sun at 10pm on December 24 – while ALERT (Canada) gets ZERO sunlight on December 24 ?”

          This is a very good and a valid question. There are more explanations possible. But and here is the but: it does not proof specificially a ball earth model, but it is a possibility that we are dealing with a ball earth model and that Khammad is a hughe difference.

          Let me clear up some things. The flat-earthers showed me/us there are some hughe flaws in the ball earth model as presented by Cambridge/Nasa. There is no denying about it. This whole thing presented by them,: speed of the earth, distance of the stars. moving of the space etc. This I do reject completely. This will not say that I am open to other interpretations. But not the official “story-line” . So Khammad no official gravity force who keeps the water glued to a “what”

          Give you to think about something.
          As a former sailor we made several voyages from Europe to the South ( Brasil, Argentina). The traveltime within the same circumstances, between Rio de Janeiro and Anvers was not that great. If one is dealing with a “ball model” the difference in time travel should be much greater, when one travels from Rio to Anvers or from Anvers to Rio. This for the simple fact that a ship has to plow its way up from Rio de Janeiro to Anvers as from Anvers to Rio which is downwards. This must be the same effect as walking or running up a hill or going downwards. Is this a wrong take? If yes. tell me

Leave a Reply