The Conspiracy Theory

norvernrob

orraloon wrote:

^ You bit!

I give it a week tops before 'holiday time' is here again...

I know, I can't help it. You try and ignore the thread, then it pops up again with some utter tripe Manc posts and the temptation is too strong :oops: :oops:

pinno

Chris Bass wrote:

We have been here before haven't we! this springs to mind:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Sort of cyclical? How ironic.

andcp

I'm going to bite too...

Manc33 wrote:

So as I guessed, their answer is "refraction" (why did it take war and peace to say that?)

That's wrong, because light doesn't bend indefinitely, it bends for 12% of the distance.

12% of what distance?

pinno

Andcp wrote:

I'm going to bite too...

Manc33 wrote:

So as I guessed, their answer is "refraction" (why did it take war and peace to say that?)

That's wrong, because light doesn't bend indefinitely, it bends for 12% of the distance.

12% of what distance?

Don't go there Andcp, he'll muck up the whole website again.

andcp

pinarello001 wrote:

Don't go there Andcp, he'll muck up the whole website again.

Sorry, I can't help myself - I'm still trying to work out if he's serious or winding us up.

It is a wind up, surely?

veronese68

NorvernRob wrote:

I know, I can't help it. You try and ignore the thread, then it pops up again with some utter tripe Manc posts and the temptation is too strong :oops: :oops:

Must resist. I'm telling myself this as much as anyone else.

ben@31

Anyway back on topic...

Manc33

"10 Shocking Conspiracy Theories Which Were Actually True"

These ten are all true, but no others are?

Highly unlikely. :roll:

ballysmate

A month passes so quickly, doesn't it?

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

A month passes so quickly, doesn't it?

It feels like time stands still if I try reading this thread.

ai_1

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

A month passes so quickly, doesn't it?

It feels like time stands still if I try reading this thread.

Best not to.
The Manc33 contributions are worse than worthless. They contaminate the rest of the thread and will likely make it too frustrating to find the worthwhile material from others.

briantrumpet

Ai_1 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

A month passes so quickly, doesn't it?

It feels like time stands still if I try reading this thread.

Best not to.
The Manc33 contributions are worse than worthless. They contaminate the rest of the thread and will likely make it too frustrating to find the worthwhile material from others.

If I do read his contributions I do so only to try to work out if my theory that he is actually a physicist in real life, who knows exactly how to wind others up, is correct. If he isn't then he is quite bonkers. But I think the former is probably the case, and that everyone who wastes time trying to use logical arguments in the face of such epic fantasy are actually the ones who are bonkers.

orraloon

briantrumpet wrote:

If I do read his contributions I do so only to try to work out if my theory that he is actually a physicist in real life, who knows exactly how to wind others up, is correct. If he isn't then he is quite bonkers. But I think the former is probably the case, and that everyone who wastes time trying to use logical arguments in the face of such epic fantasy are actually the ones who are bonkers.

Back in the day when I could be bothered, I did spend an idle few minutes googling Manc33.

Alongside some rants about why card only petrol pumps would not accept cash, there was a posting that he was "in education". God help his students if that is the case.

ai_1

orraloon wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

If I do read his contributions I do so only to try to work out if my theory that he is actually a physicist in real life, who knows exactly how to wind others up, is correct. If he isn't then he is quite bonkers. But I think the former is probably the case, and that everyone who wastes time trying to use logical arguments in the face of such epic fantasy are actually the ones who are bonkers.

Back in the day when I could be bothered, I did spend an idle few minutes googling Manc33.

Alongside some rants about why card only petrol pumps would not accept cash, there was a posting that he was "in education". God help his students if that is the case.

He may be teaching creationism to 5 year olds....hope not.

briantrumpet

Ai_1 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

If I do read his contributions I do so only to try to work out if my theory that he is actually a physicist in real life, who knows exactly how to wind others up, is correct. If he isn't then he is quite bonkers. But I think the former is probably the case, and that everyone who wastes time trying to use logical arguments in the face of such epic fantasy are actually the ones who are bonkers.

Back in the day when I could be bothered, I did spend an idle few minutes googling Manc33.

Alongside some rants about why card only petrol pumps would not accept cash, there was a posting that he was "in education". God help his students if that is the case.

He may be teaching creationism to 5 year olds....hope not.

Or history. In Plymouth. When he's not posting on the Daily Mail website.

Manc33

I've covered the "he's in education" thing, I'm not.

I remember Chris Bass being alarmed about the prospect of some Steve Buscemi type mad professor teaching conspiracies to a class of students that couldn't care less.

I wouldn't last 5 minutes teaching kids the world is flat etc.

Go along with the program, don't ask questions, then you can be accommodated.

ai_1

Manc33 wrote:

I've covered the "he's in education" thing, I'm not.

I remember Chris Bass being alarmed about the prospect of some Steve Buscemi type mad professor teaching conspiracies to a class of students that couldn't care less.

I wouldn't last 5 minutes teaching kids the world is flat etc.

Go along with the program, don't ask questions, then you can be accommodated.

Manc,

You said you were going. You have not gone. Why?

Please make this the one question you actually answer in 54 pages of garbage.

ben@31

Conspiracy.... The UCI are a front for the lizard new world order and sabotaged Richie Portes Giro d'Italia chances. Contador is not human too, nobody can dance on the pedals while cycling up a mountain like that.

crispybug2

Just to quickly hark back to Manc's flat earth obsession (sorry, so sorry) but can't it quickly be disproved by the fact that a rainbow, if the earth WAS flat, would lay flat across the horizon rather than the arc shape it is which mimics the curvature of the earth........ Or is that too simplistic an answer?

ai_1

crispybug2 wrote:

Just to quickly hark back to Manc's flat earth obsession (sorry, so sorry) but can't it quickly be disproved by the fact that a rainbow, if the earth WAS flat, would lay flat across the horizon rather than the arc shape it is which mimics the curvature of the earth........ Or is that too simplistic an answer?

The shape of the planet is not responsible for the shape of a rainbow. Unless I'm missing something major.

Regardless, logic is immaterial in conversations with that guy. There are many, many, many rational rebuttals to all of his preposterous assertions. He's a believer (who thinks he's not). His beliefs have nothing to do with logic. He just wants to see himself as knowing more and seeing clearer than everyone else, and loves to think the rest of us are fools. It's a fantasy world and he'll construct other fantasies to prop it up as needed. Nothing we can do about that......or alternatively he's a troll whose motivation for wasting his and our time must surely be equally pathetic.

I personally see through all the deception and clutter to the truth of reality. I understand how things really work and I know virtually everything. I disagree with Manc; therefore he is wrong!

Ignore him and he'll go away.

bompington

I couldn't give (Er) a toss (thenes)

Kieran_Burns

Yes, but the post count did suddenly shoot up...

chris_bass

Ai_1 wrote:

crispybug2 wrote:

Just to quickly hark back to Manc's flat earth obsession (sorry, so sorry) but can't it quickly be disproved by the fact that a rainbow, if the earth WAS flat, would lay flat across the horizon rather than the arc shape it is which mimics the curvature of the earth........ Or is that too simplistic an answer?

The shape of the planet is not responsible for the shape of a rainbow. Unless I'm missing something major.

Regardless, logic is immaterial in conversations with that guy. There are many, many, many rational rebuttals to all of his preposterous assertions. He's a believer (who thinks he's not). His beliefs have nothing to do with logic. He just wants to see himself as knowing more and seeing clearer than everyone else, and loves to think the rest of us are fools. It's a fantasy world and he'll construct other fantasies to prop it up as needed. Nothing we can do about that......or alternatively he's a troll whose motivation for wasting his and our time must surely be equally pathetic.

I personally see through all the deception and clutter to the truth of reality. I understand how things really work and I know virtually everything. I disagree with Manc; therefore he is wrong!

Ignore him and he'll go away.

All very true, but the problem is he sees us the same way as we see him and is as frustrated we don't see things his way as we are that he doesn't see them our way. This is the reason why this thread will probably be never ending!

veronese68

Ai_1 wrote:

...or alternatively he's a troll whose motivation for wasting his and our time must surely be equally pathetic.
...
Ignore him and he'll go away.

I think this is the most likely scenario, mainly because I don't want to believe anyone can be that delusional.

Manc33

"There are many refutations" when no one can prove the Earth is a ball with one single fact?

Show me an example of curved water lol. You can't have curved water.

Show me an example of gravity at work, no one can, but we're supposed to just "believe" it exists?

People that believe Earth is flat are not instantly jumping on that as a belief like you're assuming. They are asking for some proof the Earth is a ball and never seeing it, which isn't quite the same thing.

You guys think composites, paintings and CGI images (that are also exactly circular) are "real images" of the Earth and they absolutely are not, but you're happy to accept them as such, this is where we are going wrong, I am sorry to say if those are your "standards" its no wonder we can just get told anything and accept it without really knowing.

Let me just ask why is it science anymore when a theory is called a fact? For example gravity, not proven, could just all be totally made up with all the maths added to it to suit. Evolution, no proof, Darwin himself said in his own book that proof will be needed to make the theory true and there isn't any proof, well then it has to remain a theory. At least the man himself Darwin actually had a brain and was scientific in his undertakings. There's no "real world proof" Earth is a ball, everyone just believes it because they never assumed it wouldn't be and we all get taught it from 4 years old onwards.

ai_1

Veronese68 wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

...or alternatively he's a troll whose motivation for wasting his and our time must surely be equally pathetic.
...
Ignore him and he'll go away.

I think this is the most likely scenario, mainly because I don't want to believe anyone can be that delusional.

I'd like to think that too but unfortunately there are people who are that delusional. The question is just whether he is one of them.

ai_1

Manc33 wrote:

"There are many refutations" when no one can prove the Earth is a ball with one single fact?

Show me an example of curved water lol. You can't have curved water.

Show me an example of gravity at work, no one can, but we're supposed to just "believe" it exists?

People that believe Earth is flat are not instantly jumping on that as a belief like you're assuming. They are asking for some proof the Earth is a ball and never seeing it, which isn't quite the same thing.

You guys think composites, paintings and CGI images (that are also exactly circular) are "real images" of the Earth and they absolutely are not, but you're happy to accept them as such, this is where we are going wrong, I am sorry to say if those are your "standards" its no wonder we can just get told anything and accept it without really knowing.

Manc,

You said you were going. You have not gone. Why?

Please make this the one question you actually answer in 54 pages of garbage.

capt_slog

Manc33 wrote:

"There are many refutations" when no one can prove the Earth is a ball with one single fact?

Show me an example of curved water lol. You can't have curved water.

Show me an example of gravity at work, no one can, but we're supposed to just "believe" it exists?

People that believe Earth is flat are not instantly jumping on that as a belief like you're assuming. They are asking for some proof the Earth is a ball and never seeing it, which isn't quite the same thing.

You guys think composites, paintings and CGI images (that are also exactly circular) are "real images" of the Earth and they absolutely are not, but you're happy to accept them as such, this is where we are going wrong, I am sorry to say if those are your "standards" its no wonder we can just get told anything and accept it without really knowing.

Pointless trying to show you I know. But this experiment showed the gravitational attraction between large objects which were side by side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

No "settling due to density" involved.

Manc33

"the gravitational constant does not appear explicitly in Cavendish's work"

"Michell died in 1793 without completing the work"

Why are you showing it me then?

Here we go again, you're accepting any answer you can find and if it sounds 1% right you'll go with it.

Why are you still here if this is all garbage?

Also why would I answer you asking me stupid stuff like "Why haven't you gone" when you quoted a question of mine and right underneath it, don't even answer it? You're not showing me an example of gravity at work, you're showing me a Wiki page packed with algebra, that's not a real world working demonstration or scale model.

"Show me an example of curved water lol. You can't have curved water."
"Show me an example of gravity at work, no one can, but we're supposed to just "believe" it exists?"

No answer.

No one ever answers except with stuff that isn't acceptable like the fake Earth images or the above Wiki where there was no proof. Wanting there to be proof doesn't cut it.

You guys will jump on any answer as being correct if it fits with what you already think.

Scientist: "I think this is the case, let's set out to prove it"

Which isn't scientific. All science starts with an observation, not a pre-conceived notion.

Our inability to simply rethink these ingrained beliefs is perhaps worse than the fact that people are lying about these things and stealing billions a year, pretending to be going into space, calling Earth a ball and so on.

capt_slog

Manc33 wrote:

"the gravitational constant does not appear explicitly in Cavendish's work"

"Michell died in 1793 without completing the work"

Why are you showing it me then?

Here we go again, you're accepting any answer you can find and if it sounds 1% right you'll go with it.
.

The constant does not appear, that being a number which he didn't determine and wasn't even understood. However, the effect is demonstrated quite clearly, and the experiment was repeated later.

The fact that "Michell died in 1793 without completing the work" is entirely irrelevant, as Cavendish did his work in 1797 :roll: .