Home > Resources, Diet, Testimonials, Logs > Ray Peat Resources & Quotes > Book Recommendations > (New Book) Cancer Cured: Victory Over The War On Cancer

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

  1. After 3 long years of researching, writing, designing, proofreading, formatting and publishing, the book I have been working on is finally complete.

    The book is co-dedicated to my mother who died of cancer when I was 12 years old and also to the life's work of Dr. Raymond Peat. Both Ray and Haidut are mentioned in the acknowledgements section for their generosity and guidance during the writing process.

    Backed by over 2300 scientific and clinical studies, Cancer Cured takes you on an in-depth scientific investigation of orthodox cancer treatments and the cancer establishment. Next, a theory of carcinogenesis is presented and explorations into three alternative cancer medicines are conducted to put the theory to the test. The final chapter seeks to do the impossible and unravel the mysteries of a disease which continues to perplex even the greatest scientific minds of today.

    E-book (.pdf) format:
    Cancer Cured: Victory Over the War on Cancer

    Paperback/Kindle formats:
    Cancer Cured: Victory Over The War On Cancer: Mark Sloan: 9780994741806: Amazon.com: Books

    Here's the introduction chapter for a preview:
    IT’S BEEN NEARLY 50 years since the War on Cancer was declared, and yet more people are diagnosed with cancer and dying from the disease than ever before.(1)

    I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that after spending $500 billion dollars on cancer research since 1970,(2) the cancer establishment has come up with literally nothing useful for preventing or curing the disease. If it’s true, then they are incompetent and their astonishing lack of advancement is undoubtedly the most spectacular failure in human history. But if cures or effective treatments have been systematically suppressed from the public, then their actions are criminal in nature and blood from over 530 million people(3) could be on their hands. Whatever the case may be, I intend to make it clear.

    Up until this point on humankind’s pursuit to end cancer, our primary mistake has been entrusting the same people who profit from treating cancer to provide us with a cure. I haven’t spoken to anyone who didn’t understand this concept - there is no money in a cure. Why would an industry that generates over $125 billion dollars a year(4) put itself out of business? It wouldn’t.

    So who then do we look to for answers?

    In 1947, the young American physicist Ernest Sternglass wrote a letter to Albert Einstein telling him about the work he had been doing to reduce radiation doses during X-ray fluoroscopy. To his surprise, Einstein showed great interest in his work and invited the 23-year-old to meet with him at Princeton University, where they talked for 5 hours. “And that had an enormous effect on my life. Because among other things, he encouraged me to pursue my theory and I finally got it all published,” recalls Sternglass.(5)

    At the end of their conversation, Einstein issued a very important warning: “Don’t go back into academia,” he said. “They will kill every bit of originality out of you. In order to become a full professor, you have to get approved on every level and you cannot question the existing ideas too much or else you won’t get promoted… have a shoemaker’s job for the rest of your life, so that you can do something useful for humanity.”

    My purpose in writing this book is to explore the possibility that, hidden among the vast amounts of information drifting aimlessly through cyberspace, a cure for cancer has already been found. And while a doctor might fear losing his medical license or job for completing such work, a layperson with no medical background like myself can fearlessly make a controversial conclusion when the evidence warrants one. This pure and unobstructed curiosity combined with discipline and an intention to simplify complex information will render a final product on the cutting edge of science that can be understood by those who need it.

    For The Time is at Hand

    The American Cancer Society estimates that almost half of everybody alive today will develop cancer at some point in their lives,(6) and the World Health Organization predicts a 50% rise in cancer diagnosis’ by the year 2020.(7)

    Unless we figure out what is fuelling this explosion of cancer rates and alter our course, a time will soon come when nobody escapes the ravages of this disease. The future of human civilization is at stake and only one thing is certain - if the answers are out there, they will be found.

    The official book website:
  2. Congratulations! I love seeing people working on things like this. I'm sure your mother would be proud.
  3. :darts: :clapping: :bravo
  4. Awesome and a big thank you! Courageous move on your part! Hopefully, this book hits more shelves than the poisonous propaganda of ACS.
  5. Thank you so much for doing this! I am sure your Mother would be very proud! Maybe we can all help out by reading it and then writing a review on Amazon. I just downloaded it on kindle.
  6. Bought! Thank you for your hard work! I will encourage other fellow cancer researchers to buy.
  7. You used the big C word, brave! Congrats on the completion of your book! As someone smart once said to me, "everyone has a book inside them, you just have to decide whether you are someone who gets it out or not."
  8. Congratulations! Will be THE book I recommend to all my friends with cancer. Beautiful dedication to your Mom.
  9. anything about caffeine or coffee in this book?
  10. Hats off, man. Though careful about tying it too much to Peat, will make it that much easier for mainstream to dimiss. They will look him up, see sugar, and the show's over right there and then.
  11. A published author - congratulations
    A book about science - Big congratulations
    A book about cancer - :nailedit
    That's a huge achievement - may you be very successful.
  12. I would try push your book on Amazon more. You'll earn less money compared to your website but books that rise high in the Amazon charts get a lot of exposure.
  13. I just bought it. Thanks.
  14. Hopefully you mentioned autophagy from medically supervised water-only fasting.

  15. Bought paperback on Amazon.
    I agree Amazon exposure is key.

    Will buy kindle version for my tablet.

    Amazing you were able to complete such an ambitious project.
  16. You promote Daniel Vitalis colostrum powder on your site. I think that's a bit snake-oily.

    "The calcium, vitamin D and vitamin A will greatly improve your immunity, the colostrum wouldn't be necessary."-RP
  17. I was thinking the same thing the other day.

    What an independent researcher lacks in authority, he makes-up for with unbiased perception. Everyone at the cancer research centers know that a cheap cure would put everyone out of a job, at least subconsciously. They just tinker around and pretend that cancer is "just so darn complicated" and a cure "remains elusive."

    Bastards they are.

    The class of compounds used by Koch and Szent-Gyögyi are more effective than anything patented and sold to the American public.

    In vivo assessment of toxicity and pharmacokinetics of methylglyoxal Augmentation of the curative effect of methylglyoxal on cancer-bearing mice by ascorbic acid and creatine


    A related compound, 3-bromopyruvate, also has stunning cure rates.

    Advanced cancers: eradication in all cases using 3-bromopyruvate therapy to deplete ATP

    All tumors were reversed in rats with 3-bromopyruvate.

    Albert Szent-Györgi put out a very interesting explanation as to what cancer is in a few articles:

    The living state and cancer

    And he has written a few books on the subject as well.
  18. I'll add this. This is the best one:

    Bioelectronics and Cancer
    Albert Szent-Györgyi
    Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass.
    Received 18 June 1973
  19. Thanks guys I really appreciate all your support.
    It's been a long road. I feel like I've been beat up and now that the book is published am stumbling back up onto my feet lol.
    I'm not sure if it feels this way during the writing process of all books, but trying to make enough money to survive in this world while thinking entirely outside the box to write this book truly felt like war. I'm glad that war is over, all that's left is to get the book into enough hands and we will see great changes.

    That's one subject that I didn't cover. I plan to do a super-thorough review on caffeine at some point.

    I hear you! I've tackled sugar in this book in my own unique way and I think it'll effectively open up a lot of eyes.

    I think a true understanding of what cancer cells are and what's happening inside the body of a person with cancer will make people re-assess the concept that treatments should be focused on killing cancer cells.
  20. Do you still support the Flat Earth theory as you proposed in this thread you made; The Earth is Flat; Intellectuals Weep

    Did you apply the same critical thinking to this book that you used to determine the validity of the flat earth theory?
  21. Didn't know it was the same person.
  22. You do that. Be sure to mention the book is a from a guy who perpetuates the flat earth conspiracy.
  23. Don't forget NASA !
  24. Agreed. That particular theory is concerning.
  25. What do you mean by that?
  26. 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.

    Albert Einstein married his cousin! His first one at that! I guess all of his contributions to science are invalid. Only a stupid person married their first cousin.
  27. Anybody have a review to impart yet?
  28. What if relativity were about genetics? Wouldn't you have a bit of a problem with it then?
  29. No.
    talking about validity of theory >>>>>>>>> talking about source of theory
  30. You have it backwards. The source is being questioned because the theory has already been invalidated.
  31. He makes a good point. Many people just accept "fashionable" theories.

    I think we all here know that not all mainstream textbook theories are true. Accepting only "popular truths" only will leave one with quite a bit of erroneous information, such as: "saturated fat causes heart disease", "serotonin is the 'happy' neurotransmitter", and "Muslims did 9/11"*.

    *But opinion polls show that the media and schools have only been able to convince about 80% of the world's population of this particular lie.
  32. We also have to consider that it's not only on the subject of the shape of the earth that we can disagree on. If we focus on what we don't agree on and make it the basis for each and every person's credibility, then we would really be lost. I didn't know that the author is a flatearther, but I don't really care as much. Neither about his religion and different other persusaions. He writes about cancer and its cure. I'll lend my ear. He may speak to a lot already of what I've learned in this forum, but making the effort to distill it to put it together in a book sure helps me. As well as those who know someone with cancer who could benefit from this book. Thank you Mark!
  33. That's why you have to look at the evidence for yourself. Just because an alternative is presented doesn't mean you should accept it. You know what flatearth is about and why it posted on this forum.

    Saying the earth is flat is equivalent to Ray Peat saying 2+2=5 or that humans are amphipians. It's a joke and it was posted here to make the forum and the people on it look like a joke.

    I understand what your saying but the nature of the earth and the cause and treatment of cancer both fall under the realm of science and require a basic understanding of math, physics and reasoning. Marriages like that were not so uncommon in the context of Einstein's life. I pointed out OP's post about flatearth because that theory tries to undermine the legitimacy of alternative scientific proposals discussed on this forum such as the AIH, koch's work, etc.
  34. Whether it was meant as a joke and to make the forum look bad is beside the point. That people here do question establishment propaganda is a good quality of this forum, and sometimes you may have people thinking out loud something that we may already consider off the table for discussion. But if this forum challenges us in this way, then it is doing a good job of it.

    If Mark distills well and adds to the thoughts shared by Ray Peat and the forum, and is able to present it such that someone interested doesn't have to wade through all the disconnected pieces of this forum and that of Ray Peat's books, interviews, and articles, it would certainly make it easier for a person suffering cancer to consider a treatment for cancer along the ideas in this forum. Many people in cancer mode are being bombarded from friends and doctors and the internet and Mercola and Axe and whatnot, they get confused and end up just trotting off to the chemo doctor. If the book helps take this element away from a cancer victim, it would be a great benefit. Saying the author is a flatearther doesn't help. Saying Kyrie Irving is a terrible basketball player because he is a flatearther also makes no sense.
  35. But it literally IS propaganda. That's why I asked the OP to address why he's promoting a theory made to stupify, divide, and confuse in one post

    You're right, the Kyrie Irving argument wouldn't make sense because none of the skills involved in being a good basketball player are involved in determining the nature of the Earth. Do you see the difference? I wouldn't expect a cashier to be a good astronaut, but I would expect a chef to be able to fry an egg. If a chef said, with all seriousness, the best way to fry an egg was to throw it in the ocean, claimed that everyone who fried eggs in a pan was a mind controlled dummy, and then wrote book about cooking omelets wouldn't you be worried?

    And I totally agree with your comment about information, that's why its so important to make sure people aren't spamming the forum with literal BS
  36. 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.

    OP's flat earth theory's right there with Fomenko's communist-backed new earth chronology.
    Obviously a scam and an attention diverger.
  37. Couldn't agree more and that's why I asked OP to address the issue.
  38. The author also fights the poisonous round Earth propaganda of NASA.
  39. .
  40. 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
  41. 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".
  42. Is this why you quote without including names? I don't regret choosing you as my main guru..
  43. If Einstein made a theory about inbreeding. And he married his cousin. Can't really ignore the background of the author, can we?
  44. 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?
  45. 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.
  46. Yeah, but did I say anywhere that I agree with it?
  47. 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
  48. That's exactly it. Interestingly I've found little of Peat's own personal life online, excluding the debacle at Blake College.
  49. Hence my if
  50. 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.
  51. Yeah, originally thought you confused Einstein with Darwin and was using Darwin to make a point. :oops
  52. 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.
  53. Here you go man. Technology offers us new avenues to perceive think and act.

  54. 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.)

    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:
  55. 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.
  56. @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.
  57. Do you actually believe that the image on the bottom is real? Take a look at where the posts allegedly interact with the water.
  58. 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 ass. 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.
  59. 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.
  60. That would certainly put some context. That context would be fungible, however.

  61. Some questions, I wonder if there are answers?????

    If a bushel of bananas contains 8 bananas. You remove a banana from the bushel and eat it. How many bananas are left on the bushel?

    Take a football and throw it with all your might towards the horizon. Does the football;
    1) Continue onward for eternity
    2)Eventually drop straight down after a certain amount of time
    3)Slowly drop lower after reaching it's highest position as it continues forward until it contacts the ground after which it rolls on the ground and comes to a stop

    These are questions you can easily test for yourself and arrive at a conclusion, and then retest a million times.
    We're all on this forum because we recognize there are problems with the culture and the science. But to then say that no justifications or answers can be reached is nonsense. Cutting down an apple tree just because there are a few rotten apples is also nonsense. We're on here because we wanna reach solutions to solve our problems, treating cancer, correcting cellular models, doing these things isn't destroying science, its setting it straight. If finding solutions to problems bothers you, then why not just sit on the ground don't move, and see what happens. Also how much of this forum have you read? One of the people that posts the most on here (and theyre very good posts) has provided some interesting evidence that there is no big bang- Black holes do not exist, so there was no Big Bang either
    Give that article from Ray Peat I linked earlier a read, here it is again; How do you know? Students, patients, and discovery
    Lets address this from the top, no math no photos. Please go to a body large body of water where there is a cliff or building right next to the water (roughly 5 times your height should be sufficient) . Draw a large circle on the base and a large triangle on the top ((big enough so you can see both from the water )). Swim away from the cliff or building until it cannot be seen with the naked eye or is very far away. Use binoculars to look at the cliff or building. Do you see the circle at the base? What about the triangle at the top? This is most effective with swimming because you are close to the surface of the water, canoe/kayak would be fine. You can also stand on the shore and watch a ship disappear over the horizon with binoculars (which I did as a kid)
    Why can you see farther the higher you go?
    Take a stick, poke it into the ground so it stands straight up. Measure the height of the stick and the shadow it casts. Immediately drive 1 mile in any direction. Again place the stick in the ground and so it is the same height and measure the shadow it casts. Why are they different?
  62. @burtlancast Wow hadn't heard that before, interesting stuff. Weird that he doesn't even appear in the english wikipedia, actually i can hardly find anything in english about him.
  63. You can see the base of the Chicago skyline from the other shore of Lake Michigan with a P900. You can bring any "disappeared" ship back into view with that same camera.

    Yes, there are answers, but answers through personal experience, not through an authority telling me something is so. That's science. Science means I observe things, I experiment, and I reach a conclusion. However, you could come behind me and reach a different conclusion. Whose answer is to be accepted? Guess it depends on whether it matches with your sense of reason or common sense. But whether I think the earth may be flat, or whether you think the opposite doesn't matter. We are observing things differently and that's ok. I respect your opinion. The issue is whether you respect mine. If you don't, then you're a close minded drone who lives in a world of cognitive dissonance, divide and conquer, and confirmation bias. You don't have to agree with someone's opinion. But the human thing to do is respect their life experience even if it's less than yours. I learn from everyone no matter their race, their status, or if they're in prison.
  64. No you cannot, I urge anyone to try the experiments Ive proposed. Not the skyline, the building. What camera? I said binoculars, like you said a personal experience :) I don't care about respect(Although I do care about good and evil), I care about what is true, that's the difference.
    Also can you please respect me and answer those two questions I asked, it would be very respectful! :)
  65. Do you know why you can see Chicago from St. Joseph, Michigan, but not the City of Milwaukee from Norton Shores, Michigan? (Hint: It's got something to do with curvature.)
    No you cannot. You can only see the tips of the four tallest buildings (Willis, Hancock, Trump, and Aon.)*

    *The fifth tallest, 311 South Wacker Drive, is just barely visible.
  66. Nice photo :)
  67. Already on 4 pages. Has anyone started reading the book yet? Any impressions so far?
  68. Well considering the price tag upload_2017-7-31_22-20-26.png
    And that info is available on the forum and Peat's site (both for free) ............................ The reviews look positive though.
  69. The fact that things disappear is a matter if perspective. Your eyes can see a certain distance, binoculars further, and a high zoom camera even further. YouTube P900 Chicago or Toronto skylines. You can see the base of the buildings from 60-80 miles away. There is a guy that can see the base of mt diablo in California from Sacramento, 100 mi away. Explain that
  70. Like I said, the higher you go the farther you see :) try my experiments out :)

    Post the videos though if you can.
  71. Let me state. Both sides have excellent points. I can't explain a lunar eclipse. I'm not an expert with an answer to every question. I have tons of questions. I see both sides as valid. That's because my mind is open. That's why I don't debate flat Earth. But to say people aren't conducting legitimate flat Earth experiments is ridiculous. My problem is with people shutting down the debate, throwing out ad hominems, and not showing respect. I could debate you for hours for what purpose? To change your mind? I can't because I can't debate your truth because that's your experience. Your truth cant be falsified.
  72. :ss
  73. Meatbag, I'm not saying you're wrong man. You probably are right. But you don't know for a fact that I'm wrong either.
  74. Man you are intensely disrespectful. Wow dude, you need to check your level of humanity. I'm not biting. Have a good night.
  75. I do. I've actually been high enough in a plane to see the curvature on a high altitude flight. I'm not making fun of you I just know what that theory is about and its against so much of what I believe in and I want people to know that we can find and learn the truth and make things better.
  76. lol dude I'm not making fun of you!!!! we all get things wrong ive done it a billion times!!!! look at what you said that I quoted thooooo

    "the truth cannot be falsified" yeah man!!!!!
  77. The book is phenomenal. I have read the whole thing. I'm on Amazon KindleUnlimited program and it was "free" to read, and I think it's outstanding. The best such book out there. Way better than Thomas Seyfried's for instance. Just outstanding. Couldn't be more pleased.
  78. I'm happy to hear that :) I read the preview on amazon and it seemed good and the writer seemed very sincere (dat price tho -_-), like OP really wanted to get to the truth of the matter and help people. But again I just have an issue with promoting a book to help people and also promoting a disinfo campaign
  79. Yeah, me too.

    Hopefully we can get him to admit that the flat-Earth meme is, in fact, a high-quality disinformation campaign.
  80. Does the water beading on the windscreen of a car or glass shower panels count as water convex?

    What about when filling a glass of water to the very top without spilling over and watching the water convex?
  81. Some of us could do a free trial of Kindle Unlimited for 30 days, if only to read the Kindle book version of it. I may do just that.

    I'd like to see how the ideas are distilled and presented. The way that same facts and ideas are interpreted as well as presented would differ from one author to another. Wouldn't we be interested also how his flat earth worldview would impact the soundness of his interpretation and presentation. Wouldn't we also want to know whether the amount paid for the book is worth it? Even if the information is free in this forum, would the book offer some value in terms of organization and unity of thought, such that a reader could find it easier to put his disease in better context more efficiently? Or would this book leave the reader more confused, in the same manner that many "balanced" articles, common in mainstream media, try to establish a middle ground of nothingness?
  82. Yeah, I suppose all we can do it post the best experiments for people to try, like Ray says (he quotes Blake)"the true method of knowledge is experience". People have problems with photos, I can;t really blame 'em for that since they're easy enough to fake (that one you posted is really good tho)
  83. Consider scaling, with chalk you could go outside and draw large enough circle where any small enough section of the circle appears flat and could actually be measured as such. If you like I will go outside tomorrow and make this circle and post a video of me showing this with a flat ruler. As you increase distance from the surface the curvature becomes clear.

    That said, if the earth is flat, then why is the surface of the fluid flat? The study of fluid dynamics would actually indicate that if the Earth were a flatness in space the fluid would not have a pressure to adhere it to the surface.
  84. What, the distortion? The simulation above it clearly proves a computer can make it look sharper than reality, so why would they bother?
  85. Yeah man totally! Hopefully I in no way gave the impression that I think the book sucks, like I said I read the preview and I totally sympathize with the author's experience and that he wants to give people information to help use to help themselves, right on! But again I can't support it and I have to speak up when he is also promoting disinfo meant to stupify lay people and to make scientist proposing alternatives look like charlatans to other scientists and educated people.
  86. real question is, why is the top of the towers getting lower farther away :smug
  87. Einstein was a dishonest crook, just like Pasteur. No more no less.
    His nobel prize was awarded for the photo electric effect, not the relativity theory, because it was perfectly known he had stolen it from others.

    His actual job was to review other's people work; a simple monkey job.
    His published mathematical derivation of the mass-energy relation was shown in 1952 by Ives (one of the inventors of the television set) to be incorrect; his mistaken calculations stumbling on the correct formula, serendipitously.

    In his 2004 book, a french polytechnician, Jules Leveugle, made a rock-solid, detailed description of his plagiarism by getting to the original papers of the trio Einstein, Poincaré and Lorentz.
  88. good to hear
  89. Very good to hear that. I can't wait to read it. Hey, is there no discount for Kindle over paperback?
  90. @Meatbag, I never said "THE truth cannot be falsified."; you twisted my words; I said "YOUR truth cannot be falsified". Your truth is your experience, and your experience cannot be falsified.

    As for the plane, fish eye windows kind of distort things a bit. You haven't been as high up as some of these 125,000 foot weather balloons that are being launched. They don't send fish eye GoPro lenses up there. They show no curve. Again, both sides have valid arguments.
  91. I have an expression: IDK...ANDY. I don't know and neither do you. That sums up this stupid flat earth debate. Each side has valid points that neither side wants to admit. So it gets distilled down to a bunch of douchy pointless fighting. The science crowd loves to feel no connection to the universe. That we are this speck in nothingness. Yet their religion is just as fanatic as the bible thumpers. Yoda stated it eloquently, "Unlearn everything you know."
  92. I'm sorry you feel like I twisted your words, but I did actually quote you in the reply, I was just pointing out that I felt you were on the right track. If my truth was that you said that why do you feel the need to set the record straight?

    No, because nothing looked curved at ground level through the window so not sure how that suddenly happened as my view of earth increased with the greater height..... But please post the gopro no curve pics, I can easily falsify them.

    I'm sorry if you feel like standing up for what you believe in is douchy, but the truth is very important so that people don't get taken advantage of. Why else did OP write the book? Hypothetically if you had children in school and the teacher was teaching them that there are 50 cents in dollar, that circles are squares with four edges, that thunder is caused by a giant puppy dog running on the clouds would you appreciate the teacher's truth? The teacher 'unlearning' your children?

    If you read around nothing I've posted promotes feeling nothingness or not feeling connected, in fact it appears we are literally physically connected(When People Engage In A Conversation Their Brains Synchronize). But if you want to create associations like that its pretty evident to everyone reading what your doing. If you want to get your spirituality from George Lucas' puppets your free to do so, but I'll just say that it may not be the best idea. If you think de-educating society is beautiful, spiritual, and awesome I'm not sure why your interested in a book with so many scientific references?
  93. Kindle unlimited is $10 a month and you can always quit
  94. Because science is one person's interpretation. You can collect all the science you want and shove it into a book and call it truth. But it's not. It's still just a book filled with individual experiments that aren't my reality. I have to test someone's ideas out on myself and come to my own conclusions. For example, I'm reading an excellent book by an excellent researcher, Dr John Ivy called "Nutrient Timing." He spouts all his science and truth, and says athletes are running on this old carburetor system. The book was written in 2004. Yet Dr Ivy leaves out a huge part of the nutrient timing equation: the difference between insulin-mediated Glut 4 transport and muscle contraction-mediated Glut 4 transport. How could he have possibly have left this out? MC-mediated Glut4 transport has been researched since 1985 (or earlier). However, if I read that book, and didn't know any better, I would just accept his book filled with "scientific references."

    As for spirituality, I don't get my influence from puppets. I started a website at unlearntruth.com because I want people to change the way they have conversations and interact with people, including divisive topics like Flat Earth or Cancer or any taboo subject. I feel the Flat Earth psyop was pushed out there to distract people and divide them. Nothing more.
  95. that's why I gave simple experiments for people to try. It is a terrible idea to unlearn the truth or try to encourage people to do so. We ask questions to learn the truth, not to unlearn it.
  96. No you ask questions to discover your own truth. Your truth can never be mine. People need to unlearn that there is some big truth. There isn't. There are only personal journeys by individuals. Do you think the purpose of science is to put forward one big truth? Man, that is how sheep follow movements and leaders with unquestioning allegiance to someone else's Truth. The enemy of experience is authority. An authority pushes you to shut up, stop questioning, and give allegiance to someone else's experience. I want people to think for themselves and stop following some arbitrary Truth.
  97. @Meatbag, I've been going back on your posts and you have been stating the word "believe"; not "know" but "believe". Belief is in religion. Knowledge is your experience that forms your Truth. You need to get your wording straight, because you sound like a Scientific Bible thumper.
  98. No, We inhabit and share the same reality as distinct individuals capable of interacting with this shared environment and with each other. The truth is not arbitrary, it cannot be falsified. If some one makes a claim it can be evaluated, that is the point of science. I've never proposed that anyone not ask questions, but a good question leads to an answer. And these answers can be shared, evaluated, and be used to help others.
  99. Please post exactly what I said.