Page 3 of 3

Battered Earth

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:43 pm
by Djchrismac
daniel wrote:
Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:11 am
Kano wrote:
Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:45 am
Do you think the biblical flood was actually caused by a fissure from the "waters below?"
From what the mythology describes, my guess would be that ENLIL had a comet dragged into deteriorating orbit around Earth, and the water and ice it is composed of caused the environmental mist to condense into large amounts of water (rained for 40 days).
This is exactly what Comyns Beaumont shows in great detail in the Mysterious Comet and you can look at many other comet fly-bys and near misses, also meteor strikes, and see related extreme weather events preceeding, during or after they pass or strike the planet.

What's also interesting is the many references to a comet and its tail being a dragon, changing shape and flying across the sky. Even more fascinating are the ancient stone slabs found in Scotland that (along with a few other similar ones) such as the Golspie Stone and Elgin Stone that Beaumont theorises in The Riddle of Prehistoric Britain shows the twin comet that caused the destruction of Atlantis and the deluge.

He also mentions spirals being symbolic of comets and this ties in nicely with the many cup and ring marked rocks found mainly in Scotland, such as the incredible Achnabreck Cup and Ring carvings, Cairnbaan at Kilmartin Glen

Image ... -rock-art/

The more I think about it, the more I reckon that a lot of these cup and ring marked rocks are telling a story or showing maps of the sky with comets, meteors and other happenings during the great bombardment. Having already visited some of these and planning to visit many more during walks i'll be sure to observe them a lot closer and take many photos to study later to see if this theory holds up.

Related to this, i'm also reading the Sacred theory of the Earth by Thomas Burnet in 1681, it could well be a combination of hollow earth water and comet tail water vapour that created the deluge:
Burnet's best known work is his Telluris Theoria Sacra, or Sacred Theory of the Earth. The first part was published in 1681 in Latin, and in 1684 in English translation; the second part appeared in 1689 (1690 in English). It was a speculative cosmogony, in which Burnet suggested a hollow earth with most of the water inside until Noah's Flood, at which time mountains and oceans appeared. He calculated the amount of water on Earth's surface, stating there was not enough to account for the Flood. Burnet was to some extent influenced by Descartes who had written on the creation of the earth in Principia philosophiae (1644), and was criticised on those grounds by Roger North.[6] The heterodox views of Isaac La Peyrère included the idea that the Flood was not universal; Burnet's theory was at least in part intended to answer him on that point.[7]
Burnet was a very intelligent and logical man and i've been surprised at a lot of his excellent conclusions and theories so far. You can read a copy from the link below, on an Orange Lodge website... make of that what you will! ;) ... 47-pgs.pdf

You've got to love some of the epic titles for old books like this:

Containing an Account
Original of the Earth
Which it hath already undergone
Till the CONSUMMATION of all Things
by Thomas Burnet

Another old book i'm currently enjoying from 1928 is the Book of Earths by Edna Kenton:
This is a compendium of theories of the shape of the Earth, along with a great deal of 'Earth Mystery' lore. Richly illustrated, the Book of Earths includes many unusual theories, including Columbus' idea that the Earth is literally pear-shaped, modern theories that the Earth was originally tetrahedral, and so on. Kenton also covers many traditional theories including the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians, Hindu and Buddhist cosmology, and those of the Peruvians, Aztecs and Mongols. She also discusses modern alternative theories such as that of Reed and Koresh. Strangely enough, she misses or ignores the modern flat earth theory of Rowbotham. This is the only apparent omission in this definitive study.
It's quite funny to see that the flat earth theory was left out of this book, maybe Edna felt it wasn't worth exploring because it not only was the exact opposite of almost every other ancient theory or view of the Earth but it was also surrounded by dubious characters, such as Samuel Rowbotham and John Hampden, who enjoyed noising up the scientific community of the day. Also around the time of publication Edna's book the flat earth theory was in decline, possibly due to the flat earthers running away from lectures and talks when challenged and shown clear evidence of a round globe such as the classic sailing masts disappearing over the horizon:

Finally, linking together the flat earth and Comyns Beaumont is the excellent Ged, who enjoys fighting back against the flat earthers on his youtube channel and more recently discovered Beaumont's work and has been speaking highly of it while enjoying other research topics and showing up other propoganda efforts in a typically Scottish fashion, enjoy!

Re: Flat Earth theory

Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:34 pm
by daniel
A flat Earth debunker came up on my YouTube recommendations, and I just had to watch... I tell you, these flat Earthers boggle my mind at times, as there seems to be no common sense (the sense you develop about things from working and being in Nature) involved in their arguments. So... curiosity got the better of me and I watched a bunch of them, to see if there was a pattern. Here's what I found about flat Earther logic:
  • No common sense.
  • No sense of scale.
  • No sense of perspective.
  • The inability to think and visualize in three dimensions.
The latter is of concern to me, particularly since RS2 research has basically made all constructs 3D... and how can you teach 3D perspective to a Flatlander? (If you don't know, read Flatland, by Edwin Abbott Abbott.)

Most of the logic they use, like the flat Earth, is based on planar geometry--like what you get when dealing with computer graphics, television and film screens. Unless you have special hardware, all these situations render 3D objects into a 2D plane, which your mind then has to reassemble into a 3D scene, based on "common sense" factors like how big a tree, a house, people, animals or other common objects are. Once your mind has that data, it can make an educated guess as to how deep in the screen the recognized objects are, and based on rates of motion, how far associated objects must also be.

The non-3D concept is further amplified by the fact that science thinks and teaches with graphs--2D charts with 1D lines. And we are stuck with that until holographic displays become more common. (I believe Miles Mathis wrote a paper years ago on this--how scientists think in 2D instead of 3D, and hence come to a lot of bad conclusions--like measuring a shadow to determine the structure of the 3D object casting it).

Recent flat Earth videos seem to concentrate on buoyancy and density, trying to debunk gravity as a myth (as I'm fond of saying, "there is no gravity... the Earth sucks!" which, curiously enough, is the way gravity actually works in the Reciprocal System--a 3D, inward scalar motion, basically "sucking" stuff around it). They like to show how things of lighter density float up on higher density objects, like bubbles in water moving to the surface. They conclude that there is no gravity, it's all buoyancy. YET... if there were no gravity, those bubbles would NOT FLOAT UPWARDS!! They would be distributed across a spherical pattern, floating outward in all directions, much like an explosion (but really slow by comparison). The reason there is a direction to buoyancy is because of gravity!

One of the debunkers had a good photo... they were trying to use the "water finds its level" argument (if you pour water in a hose and lift the ends, the water in the hose will be at the same level, regardless of how far apart the ends are). They were saying the oceans must therefore be flat, because that is how water finds its level. Then this guy (SciManDan on "Flat Earth Fridays" on YouTube) pulls up a photo of a water ball from the space station--that water formed a sphere--not a flat plane!

Anyway, I could go on and on about the errors in logic, but the point I am trying to make is the change to consciousness and perception. I recall Gopi mentioning once that the old artists, circa 15th century, lacked concepts such as "vanishing point perspective," so their paintings look strange to us now, because they were 2D planes, not a 3D perspective. Curiously enough, the Flat Earth was also popular up to the 15th century. It is as though our technology has moved the way some people think back in time, to that period where the whole concept of 3D perspective was not known or understood. We'd advanced to 500 years ago! Way to go, humanity!!

Re: Flat Earth theory

Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:22 pm
by Ilkka
daniel wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:34 pm
The non-3D concept is further amplified by the fact that science thinks and teaches with graphs--2D charts with 1D lines. And we are stuck with that until holographic displays become more common. (I believe Miles Mathis wrote a paper years ago on this--how scientists think in 2D instead of 3D, and hence come to a lot of bad conclusions--like measuring a shadow to determine the structure of the 3D object casting it).
I've always thought of/imagined the written words or drawings on a paper as 3D images, since your pencil gives off material onto the paper itself. Ink would be a bit different since it gets partially absorbed into paper but still relatively same thing.

Might be technology's fault in the sense that we indeed have 2D screen from where to have our information, at least partially its fault. Which of course would be corrected possibly with VR goggles or eventually 3D holograms when they become more better.

I heard that these certain young Muslims (here in Finland at least) are being taught that the Earth is flat by their Imams. That is not good just because of the very reason you stated above.