(New Book) Cancer Cured: Victory Over The War On Cancer

[burtlancast]

By the way, i've seen people mentioning Einstein in this thread; i explained here Albert was a clever fraud all his life, just like Pasteur , and stole all his discoveries from others, while being protected by the medias.


AULIS Online – Different Thinking

 

[lollipop]

By the way, i've seen people mentioning Einstein in this thread; i explained here Albert was a clever fraud all his life, just like Pasteur , and stole all his discoveries from others, while being protected by the medias.


AULIS Online – Different Thinking

I have heard this multiple times, but never followed up. You make it fairly easy to investigate further. Amazing what happens when we begin practicing "eyes open; no fear".

 

[Amazoniac]

This is one of the biggest flaws with human beings, talking about the source of a theory rather than the validity of the theory itself.

He makes a good point. Many people just accept "fashionable" theories.

Is this why you quote without including names? I don't regret choosing you as my main guru..

 

[Such_Saturation]

No.
talking about validity of theory >>>>>>>>> talking about source of theory

If Einstein made a theory about inbreeding. And he married his cousin. Can't really ignore the background of the author, can we?

 

[meatbag]

By the way, i've seen people mentioning Einstein in this thread; i explained here Albert was a clever fraud all his life, just like Pasteur , and stole all his discoveries from others, while being protected by the medias.


AULIS Online – Different Thinking

I haven't heard that, thanks I'll def have to check it out. I'm still learning about this stuff but I wonder why he accepted and promoted De Broglie's work instead of stealing it as his own then if what you say is true?

 

[Tenacity]

If Einstein made a theory about inbreeding. And he married his cousin. Can't really ignore the background of the author, can we?

That was Darwin. Although I suppose you're asking what if Einstein and Darwin had switched disciplines.

Ultimately the context of who's speaking is important for understanding how they arrived at their conclusions (thanks Peat!), but the truth value of what is said is wholly separate from that context. AretnaP makes a valuable point.

 

[haidut]

The author also fights the poisonous round Earth propaganda of NASA.

Yeah, but did I say anywhere that I agree with it?

 

[meatbag]

That was Darwin. Although I suppose you're asking what if Einstein and Darwin had switched disciplines.

Ultimately the context of who's speaking is important for understanding how they arrived at their conclusions (thanks Peat!), but the truth value of what is said is wholly separate from that context. AretnaP makes a valuable point.

Are you thinking of this discussion from "Generative Energy"? That's what i was thinking about too and I just found it;

"To read either poetry or "scientific" writing, it is useful to know what was going on in the writer's life. For example, if you know that Albert Einstein's family's business was ruined by the German electric-machine monopoly, his attitude toward the German-dominated physics establishment and its ideas will be seen in that context. The nature of communication and of meaning itself makes a certain consid-eration ("ad hominem") of the communicator's general attitudes necessary for a clear and full understanding. Einstein explicitly recognized this situation when he said that a person's life can't be separated from the person's hypothesis." ~ pg 42-43

 

[Tenacity]

Are you thinking of this discussion from Generative energy? That's what i was thinking about too and I just found it;

"To read either poetry or "scientific" writing, it is useful to know what was going on in the writer's life. For example, if you know that Albert Einstein's family's business was ruined by the German electric-machine monopoly, his attitude toward the German-dominated physics establishment and its ideas will be seen in that context. The nature of communication and of meaning itself makes a certain consid-eration ("ad hominem") of the communicator's general attitudes necessary for a clear and full understanding. Einstein explicitly recognized this situation when he said that a person's life can't be separated from the person's hypothesis." ~ pg 42-43

That's exactly it. Interestingly I've found little of Peat's own personal life online, excluding the debacle at Blake College.

 

[Such_Saturation]

That was Darwin. Although I suppose you're asking what if Einstein and Darwin had switched disciplines.

Ultimately the context of who's speaking is important for understanding how they arrived at their conclusions (thanks Peat!), but the truth value of what is said is wholly separate from that context. AretnaP makes a valuable point.

Hence my if

 

[burtlancast]

I wonder why he accepted and promoted De Broglie's work instead of stealing it as his own then if what you say is true?

I didn't know Einstein promototed De Broglie's work.
But i do know De Broglie was another plagiarist who stole his ideas about light from another french academician, René Jacquier.

So, it all makes sense, ha ha.

 

[Tenacity]

Hence my if

Yeah, originally thought you confused Einstein with Darwin and was using Darwin to make a point.

 

[EndAllDisease]

Wow hey guys!
I didn't realize there was so much activity on this thread. I appreciate all your replies and questions. I'll happily address for you the earth-shape issue right here and now.

It's very simple - my position is this:
I have never with my own eyes seen curvature on land and especially not on water, and until somebody can show me a real life practical example of still water with a convex shape on its surface then by default it's flat.

If we were on a ball, then there would be NO water that was completely flat. Meanwhile, the study of fluid dynamics as well as everyone's own experience tells us that when water comes to rest it's perfectly flat. Knowing that one single fact of reality, how could you be living on a ball?

The science of mind control is well understood by those who use it to control the masses. The upper class 'elite' are laughing at anyone who believes they're monkeys living on a spinning ball. If you were never told you're living on a ball, you would never believe it was so.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Here you go man. Technology offers us new avenues to perceive think and act.

 

[Travis]

David Icke, and to a lesser extent Alex Jones made a living out of decredibilizing people by association with ridiculous theories.
These people know what they're doing, and they're doing it for a reason.

Icke and Jones are the career discreditors. In certain instances, they find one-time agents like Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer (who is now a 9/11 Discreditor Emiritus.)

By the way, i've seen people mentioning Einstein in this thread; i explained here Albert was a clever fraud all his life, just like Pasteur , and stole all his discoveries from others, while being protected by the medias.

Yeah. Poincaré had actually mentioned relativity in his books years before 1905.

Einstein fanbois cannot argue this. They usually just parrot some pre-packaged idea like "Well Einstein's genius was that he brilliantly consolidated the Lorenz transformation and relativity in a way that could explain the Michealsen–Morley experiment", or simply, "He brought it all together."

Maybe so. There are worse papers published in journals than Einsein's. But strangely enough, his 1905 paper (On the Elektrodynamics of Moving Bodies), didn't have any references. This is very unusual. It should really have about 5 Lorenz references, two Michealsen–Morley references, 5 Poincaré references, and a few Max Planck references. Some people would call what he did plagiarism.

He got more underserved media attention than any other physicist at the time.

Nikola Tesla was gaining popularity as being the genius of his time. (Every generation needs someone to play this role for the public, from Richard Feynman to Carl Sagan.) Einstein was preferentially cheerleaded by certain elements of the media because he was (1) Jewish, (2) he wasn't Tesla, and (3) his ideas were esoteric enough to frustrate and confound even the most brilliant aspiring physicists. This gets rid of the pesky "ether" so we can forgot all about Tesla-style free energy.

The ruling class—besides actually pretending to be gods and lying about their war records*—like to pretend that certain things are too difficult for their critics to comprehend. Whenever someone questions the existence the the Apollo Landings, atomic bombs, or free energy, physicists (with the help of the media) can just vaguely mention something about Einstein and the entire room shuts-up. It's almost like they invoke the word "Einstein" and the equation "E=mc²" in a way that thought terminating clichés are used in the novel 1984 and Brave New World.


*This following passage actually appeared in a newspaper about Prescott Bush:

Gen. Pershing had sent for Captain Bush to guide them about one sector.... Suddenly Captain Bush noticed a shell coming directly for them. He shouted a warning, suddenly drew his bolo knife, stuck it up as he would a ball bat, and parried the blow, causing the shell to glance off to the right....

 

[Tenacity]

If we were on a ball, then there would be NO water that was completely flat. Meanwhile, the study of fluid dynamics as well as everyone's own experience tells us that when water comes to rest it's perfectly flat. Knowing that one single fact of reality, how could you be living on a ball?

You can have water at rest on a sphere thanks to one common phenomena: gravity. The reason you don't experience flat water on a sphere anywhere else is because the water on the sphere is being pulled to the centre of the Earth, not the sphere. But if the Earth is the sphere, and the water atop its surface is being pulled to the centre, then flat water can exist on a spherical Earth.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

@EndAllDisease, I fully support your position. I consider myself a Globe Questioner, not a Flat Earther. People like to say they know the truth, but they can't, because there is no one truth. There are only personal experiences that form individual truths. I have looked at the flat earth topic and feel there is way more proof that the Earth is flat. However, I don't know the shape of the Earth, and guess what?.............Neither Do You! So why debate it? It's a pointless argument that leads to pointless fighting. Everyone wants answers when they should be asking questions, and then asking more questions, and then asking more questions. But they don't. They come to some answer, and then stop. Then they accept a belief, strengthen their views with confirmation bias, attack others because of their cognitive dissonance, and then parrot government propaganda (that is backed by no real science). I accept we could be on a ball, but if you do some science of your own, you can see how a flat earth is at least possible. To shut your mind off to possibilities is the antithesis of science. It's actually Scientism, which is a dogmatic belief system. I don't want dogma, I want an experiment that is testable and falsifiable. So what is healthy? Respecting someone's position (whether you agree with it or not), listening to what someone is truly saying, questioning what someone is saying, and then having a back/forth open-minded discussion of the possibilities. I love how people say the government only lies about certain things, like Cancer, but not about other issues. A liar is always a liar, and should never be trusted. For all those that think Government Science can't be corrupted, Google, "less than 1% of scientific research follows the scientific method" and you will see that Science isn't even immune to corruption.

 

[EndAllDisease]

Here you go man. Technology offers us new avenues to perceive think and act.

Do you actually believe that the image on the bottom is real? Take a look at where the posts allegedly interact with the water.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

Do you actually believe that the image on the bottom is real? Take a look at where the posts allegedly interact with the water.

Mark,

You can't debate truth. That's why flat earth is a psyop. It was planned for divide and conquer. If anyone is convinced about any topic, you can't change their opinion because that's their experience. That's why debate on any topic is pointless. You can advance a point of view, but you can't convert people. Globetards and Flattards are mindless drones of the Matrix. Live in the extremes without an open mind. That's what feeds the Machine. Science is about facts the Globetards say. Facts, my ****. Theories you mean that confirm your bias. Flattards are equally dogmatic with their facts. Religious zealots beat you down with their dogma. But you know who is equally dogmatic? Those preaching Scientism. Spouting Big Bang evolutionary theories from douches like Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Copernicus, and Tyson. It's all a dog and pony show, smoke and mirrors. No one is right, no one is wrong. I detest religion, but I do feel intelligently designed. I feel spiritually connected to God. A singularity way beyond another douche like Kurzweil.

I'm searching endlessly for my truth with constant questions. I attack no one, I respect everyone. I wish people would learn to do the same.

 

[Elysium]

How about you include your flat earth theory essay as a free digital download with every purchase of your cancer book. It would almost be fair to do that.