Rampage explains how outer space is a hoax

[Joe_Armstrong]

I think space is real, the moon is full of buildings and aliens
And we never got past the van Allen radioation belt

 

[BearGrounds]

i agree with that completely man. its just terrible. check out the article posted earlier supposedly debunking meldrum. its a total hit piece complete with slander and lies and omissions and misrepresentations all so they can call him a pseudoscientist....

but dont you think the fringe, ct, paranormal, ufo etc crowd does the same thing in a different way? i feel like they make massive and wild assumptions and call things fact that are not proven and also that are sometimes dead wrong. i think its just as irresponsible and damaging to do that. a fringe type can justifiably say "i have looked into this and am convinced of it" but they often say "this is already proven for anyone who has looked into it" and that goes way too far and becomes the same kind of lie. MANY authors and speakers from that side lie all the time too so its a total shitshow.

i was raised in the new age movement and the disillusionment was profound when i realized that many false points of history, theology, science etc were presented to me as facts dishonestly when they aren't usually even full fledged theories or even hypothesis... and it is often intentional!! professional liars!!

neither crowd is very interesting to me at this point and those ive found the most resonance with are people with a deep spiritual and intuitive life who are also rigorous thinkers.

100% it works both ways, but the "science" people will never admit to it. They've spent too much time labeling the other side stupid (and by virtue of that, themselves smart), and blindly going along with all of the stigmitization and ridicule, to be able to turn back now.

What's funny is that it really doesn't take much effort to figure out that the creature is real, but they just won't do it. They've been successfully led off the trail. It's always the easiest to do that with a skeptic, because all you have to do is deny them proof, and they can go no further.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You guys just keep saying this, and it's objectively incorrect.

Why do you self proclaimed smart science people keep doing that, other than denial and dogma? It's a complete and utter lie.

I'll rephrase. There isn't enough evidence of Bigfoot to make it likely it exists.

 

[Natural Order]

im going to share an experience i had that eventually got me interested in bigfoot as a phenomenon. it is NOT proof even to me as i did not see the thing but i had a pretty crazy encounter two times at the exact same location around midnight deep in the forest at a lake i used to hike to with freinds. i like to night hike. again not proof but its what got me interested once i learned how similar what happened to me was with the bigfoot phenomenon.

first time we were sitting by the lake (really just a small pond). we had good visibility due to moonlight which is obviously when you go night hiking so you can see. we were just enjoying the quiet evening when suddenly a large boulder was thrown from the tree line into the water on the other side of the pond. it freaked us out!! the boulder was VERY loud with lots of bass and the tree line is too far away for a human to have thrown that thing.

i yelled out that i had a gun (i did not) and we left. no big deal and i did not really think about it after that.

second one was about a month later. i was up there with three young men from my poor neighborhood who i mentored. we were sitting at the lakeside and same damn thing happened. this time i was quite a bit more freaked out. you cant camp up there and there is no way to it except to hike a couple miles to get there at midnight? and to have the SAME thing happen? it was weird...

so we got really quiet and it happened again.... these boulders had to be bigger than a basketball... i yelled out that i had a gun again (i did not again) and we left. but this time there was crashing in the trees as we left and breaking of branches and i do not mean branches i could break. these were freaking LOUD man. and whatever this was it trailed us out for a long while and the breaking got closer and closer. one kid was shaking to badly that he could hardly walk. we were terrified. i had terrible thoughts running through my head about getting some kids killed in the woods.

i had the three boys in front of me as the sound was behind us and to the left in the trees. it got closer and closer and i stooped down and picked up a rock to hit with and this is the scaredest ive ever been in my entire life.... i really thought i was going to have to fight whatever this way. it was terrible. i let out the most intense and loudest scream/battle cry i could, several of them... and then it just stopped happening and we finished our hike in peace.

a few years later i got a brand new thing called the internet and ended up on a bigfoot sight (probably bfro) and started reading accounts of what people experience and everything that happened is textbook bigfoot stuff. the place where we were was even recorded on the site as a place where bigfoot has been sighted.

i just never could get over that happening twice in a row roughly a month apart at midnight in a place accessible only by hiking with large boulders thrown way to far for a human and being trailed out like that with the violent breaking of branches.

@BearGrounds

You've seen all kinds of shit and experienced all kinds of phenomena...we trust you bro.

Member that time you saw the light enter the room and cure cancer instantly? I'm still patiently waiting for any article or medical publication that ever references this event in passing.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

I'll rephrase. There isn't enough evidence of Bigfoot to make it likely it exists

That's getting a lot closer to a statement I would not argue against.

But I'm curious how you came to that conclusion in light of Jeff meldrum's evidence in the area of his expertise?

How do you account for his data?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

You've seen all kinds of shit and experienced all kinds of phenomena...we trust you bro.

Member that time you saw the light enter the room and cure cancer instantly? I'm still patiently waiting for any article or medical publication that ever references this event in passing.

Different people have different experiences. My life has been one of the meeting quite extraordinary people. The most profound thing that has ever happened to me is realizing that there is a god and that miracles really do happen. They are rare and they cannot be controlled at will as far as I know, but they do occur. I don't think that is even a radical statement frankly...

But I don't think I've ever asked you to believe that.

I think all of this phenomenon comes from the same dimension anyway and so it's really just that some people are more sensitive to that dimension than others.

That sensitivity comes with strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't make anyone special but does give them insight into some things science has not yet been able to demonstrate due to the crudeness of its methods at present.

It's not even that big of deal. And I would guess about 50% of people are somewhat sensitive to subtle realities.

Some probability theorists however, think that the plethora of evidence for God, the massive amount of data of people who have experiences with God across all cultures throughout all of time as far as we know, is absolutely more likely to be explained by something rather than nothing.

Personally, there is no one account that I hang my hat on for anything, but when I see thousands and thousands and thousands of accounts across cultures, the only thing that makes logical and reasoned sense to me is there's something really there.

 

[OneOfOne]

Different people have different experiences. My life has been one of the meeting quite extraordinary people. The most profound thing that has ever happened to me is realizing that there is a god and that miracles really do happen. They are rare and they cannot be controlled at will as far as I know, but they do occur. I don't think that is even a radical statement frankly...

But I don't think I've ever asked you to believe that.

I think all of this phenomenon comes from the same dimension anyway and so it's really just that some people are more sensitive to that dimension than others.

That sensitivity comes with strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't make anyone special but does give them insight into some things science has not yet been able to demonstrate due to the crudeness of its methods at present.

It's not even that big of deal. And I would guess about 50% of people are somewhat sensitive to subtle realities.

Some probability theorists however, think that the plethora of evidence for God, the massive amount of data of people who have experiences with God across all cultures throughout all of time as far as we know, is absolutely more likely to be explained by something rather than nothing.

Personally, there is no one account that I hang my hat on for anything, but when I see thousands and thousands and thousands of accounts across cultures, the only thing that makes logical and reasoned sense to me is there's something really there.

If you believe miracles happen and God exists then why are you so quick to dismiss supernatural, metaphysical, or "non-scientifically" supported claims and events as metaphors, allegory, and of a different genre as you put it?

 

[sickc0d3r]

Then how do you explain the appearance of the Moon in the photographs I posted earlier ITT? During a lunar eclipse, where does the Sun go?
Edit:
Here's a timelapse sequence.

Full disclosure, I didn't take these particular photos but the ones I have posted ITT look just like several of them and I have more. You can see for yourself.

Nice photos. The funniest part is going to be when the explanation for this from a flat Earther's perspective actually requires the moon to be spherical.

 

[Andy Capp]

Different people have different experiences. My life has been one of the meeting quite extraordinary people. The most profound thing that has ever happened to me is realizing that there is a god and that miracles really do happen. They are rare and they cannot be controlled at will as far as I know, but they do occur. I don't think that is even a radical statement frankly...

But I don't think I've ever asked you to believe that.

I think all of this phenomenon comes from the same dimension anyway and so it's really just that some people are more sensitive to that dimension than others.

That sensitivity comes with strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't make anyone special but does give them insight into some things science has not yet been able to demonstrate due to the crudeness of its methods at present.

It's not even that big of deal. And I would guess about 50% of people are somewhat sensitive to subtle realities.

Some probability theorists however, think that the plethora of evidence for God, the massive amount of data of people who have experiences with God across all cultures throughout all of time as far as we know, is absolutely more likely to be explained by something rather than nothing.

Personally, there is no one account that I hang my hat on for anything, but when I see thousands and thousands and thousands of accounts across cultures, the only thing that makes logical and reasoned sense to me is there's something really there.

Cherche la femme.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

If you believe miracles happen and God exists then why are you so quick to dismiss supernatural, metaphysical, or "non-scientifically" supported claims and events as metaphors, allegory, and of a different genre as you put it?

Because there is written commentary on the scriptures going all the way back to the early disciples implying exactly that. And because we know the semitic peoples were not concerned with always getting the events correct historically. They were more concerned with telling the people what events meant and they used symbolism and symbolic imagery and numerology to do so.

God is real and miracles are absolutely real but that doesn't mean what I said just now isn't true.


So we know for sure that the semitic peoples turned stories into symbolisms all the time and we know that the audience expected that and never had to be told that it was being done because it was the common way of describing things at the time.

And we also know God is real and that miracles are real.

The truth is the further back you go in scripture the more likely a story is to be embellished in that way. The more recently something was written, the less likely it was to be embellished in that way and we don't exactly always know for sure which is which.

It is thought that the gospel accounts with Jesus are mostly historical, but we also know that the gospel of John takes liberties with that to make theological points. We know that because he places certain events in different orders than the other gospels in a way that is quite poetic and beautiful. But we also think that the events he places in a different order happened.

Some people don't like to have any uncertainty and so they either choose to believe none of it really happened or all of it happened exactly as it was spoken. But both of those are probably emotional reactions to intellectual uncertainty.

 

[Andy Capp]

Nice photos. The funniest part is going to be when the explanation for this from a flat Earther's perspective actually requires the moon to be spherical.

Still waiting.

 

[Fedora Millionankles]

I think space is real, the moon is full of buildings and aliens
And we never got past the van Allen radioation belt

Explain why you believe we haven’t gone past the Van Allen Radiation belts.

 

[Fedora Millionankles]

Because there is written commentary on the scriptures going all the way back to the early disciples implying exactly that. And because we know the semitic peoples were not concerned with always getting the events correct historically. They were more concerned with telling the people what events meant and they used symbolism and symbolic imagery and numerology to do so.

God is real and miracles are absolutely real but that doesn't mean what I said just now isn't true.


So we know for sure that the semitic peoples turned stories into symbolisms all the time and we know that the audience expected that and never had to be told that it was being done because it was the common way of describing things at the time.

And we also know God is real and that miracles are real.

The truth is the further back you go in scripture the more likely a story is to be embellished in that way. The more recently something was written, the less likely it was to be embellished in that way and we don't exactly always know for sure which is which.

It is thought that the gospel accounts with Jesus are mostly historical, but we also know that the gospel of John takes liberties with that to make theological points. We know that because he places certain events in different orders than the other gospels in a way that is quite poetic and beautiful. But we also think that the events he places in a different order happened.

Some people don't like to have any uncertainty and so they either choose to believe none of it really happened or all of it happened exactly as it was spoken. But both of those are probably emotional reactions to intellectual uncertainty.

Who wrote the Gospels and why are they in Greek and not Aramaic or Hebrew?

 

[HereticBD]

I think space is real

Source?

 

[Fedora Millionankles]

The book and the God you believe in, as well your own senses and experience, say otherwise

Nowhere does the Bible say the earth is Flat and I’ve personally measured the curve as well as rotation.
Our senses are not precision measuring devices and even Flerfs that have attempted to measure the earths movement with a Ring Laser Gyroscope have detected a 15° per hour drift.
Your limited experiences do not make up the whole of reality.

 

[Fedora Millionankles]

Further to this, counting from top left to bottom right 1-14 above, compare with these ones I took,
See #8,

#11,

#14, or close to,

Note the difference in the angle of incidence of the Sun's light compared with the reference images above because I'm further north here. That should help to establish that I took them.

Great pics and checkmate.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Who wrote the Gospels and why are they in Greek and not Aramaic or Hebrew?

If you want to reach a large audience, you write them in Greek since almost everybody spoke Greek....

Here is a short excerpt on the authors.

The evidence suggests Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels.

Ultimately, the important thing is not who wrote the Gospels but whether they are reliable and we know that are by comparing the many copies handed down to us. The more copies there are, the more it is possible to vet their reliability.

The Gospels are not anonymous in that the authors were not unknown to the original audience. Luke writes to his patron Theophilus (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1), and Theophilus knew who Luke was. John expressly identifies its author as the beloved disciple (John 21:20– 24), whose name was known to the intended audience. Similarly, the authors of Matthew and Mark were known to their original audiences.

The names attached to the Gospels also were not of second-century origin. They were in use in the first century. Had the Gospels circulated without names for an extended period, they would have come to be called different things, the same way that there are multiple titles for many ancient works. However, they didn’t. In ancient documents they are always referred to as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

When the Gospels were read in church, the congregation needed to be told what was being read, and there needed to be a way to distinguish them from each other, since so much of their content was similar, with each telling the story of Jesus. The churches chose to refer to them by their authors. This need to distinguish them existed as soon as there was more than one Gospel, and so the names were used im- mediately, not at a later date. This is a strong indication that the names are accurate (see also Day

 

[Andy Capp]

Great pics and checkmate.

Seems I summoned crickets. Maybe I should charge admission.

 

[Fedora Millionankles]

There's a dumb liberal

There’s a scientifically illiterate asswipe.

 

[Fedora Millionankles]

If you want to reach a large audience, you write them in Greek since almost everybody spoke Greek....

Here is a short excerpt on the authors.

The evidence suggests Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels.

Ultimately, the important thing is not who wrote the Gospels but whether they are reliable and we know that are by comparing the many copies handed down to us. The more copies there are, the more it is possible to vet their reliability.

The Gospels are not anonymous in that the authors were not unknown to the original audience. Luke writes to his patron Theophilus (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1), and Theophilus knew who Luke was. John expressly identifies its author as the beloved disciple (John 21:20– 24), whose name was known to the intended audience. Similarly, the authors of Matthew and Mark were known to their original audiences.

The names attached to the Gospels also were not of second-century origin. They were in use in the first century. Had the Gospels circulated without names for an extended period, they would have come to be called different things, the same way that there are multiple titles for many ancient works. However, they didn’t. In ancient documents they are always referred to as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

When the Gospels were read in church, the congregation needed to be told what was being read, and there needed to be a way to distinguish them from each other, since so much of their content was similar, with each telling the story of Jesus. The churches chose to refer to them by their authors. This need to distinguish them existed as soon as there was more than one Gospel, and so the names were used im- mediately, not at a later date. This is a strong indication that the names are accurate (see also Day

Most, if not all, unbiased scholars know beyond all reasonable doubt that the original apostles did not write the Gospels. Not a single author ever met Jesus and likely never met anyone who met Jesus.
Non of the original apostles would have had the literary ability to write Greek.