North - South

[aljhoa]

s motikom na suncu

Haven't you ever asked yourself: How in the world we got to this point of moral desintegration: SODOMA-FORBIDDEN RUSSIAN DOCUMENTARY

Why this documentary is forbidden? Do we still live in a free world?

What do you dick-head think?

1.5G "Fidel's" Flat Earth



Al

[cikljamas]

Kneel down before this you stupid ignorant:

Rivers of Croatian blood have flowed and soaked sacred Croatian soil while Croatia had defended Christian Europe from numerous Islamic attacks through centuries!



Alamo is ridiculous in comparison with this:



Kneel down and shut up because you don't know who you are talking to!

[Ernst]

Kneel down before this you stupid ignorant:

it is spelled:
Kneel down before this stupid ignorance

Kneel down and shut up because you don't know who you are talking to!

Now we know; you are the protector of the True Christian Faith. You're not Father cikljamas, you are Saint cikljamas. Or perhaps even Arch-angel cikljamas?
Was it your blood that flowed, was it YOU who protected ME?
You are even worse than I imagined. You must be the one person in all human history with a negative IQ. If you were to join a group of amoebae, their combined intelligence would drop.
You have successfully drained Saros of his intellect, so much is clear from your quote.
Now rejoice! you bleeding moron.

Haven't you ever asked yourself: How in the world we got to this point of moral desintegration: SODOMA-FORBIDDEN RUSSIAN DOCUMENTARY

The answer is no, I have never asked myself that question because as long as there are dangerous fools around such as yourself, incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions, incapable of distinguishing facts from fiction, incapable of understanding who you are, people who need a nation/king/religion as an excuse to kill, in fact incapable of any positive contribution to society, it is bloody obvious, isn't it?
How can anyone in the right mind (or in any mind at all) compare the rape and abuse of children with two consenting adults having sex?
This video should be banned all over the world.
We are living in a free world? What does that mean?
Are we free to rape our neighbours children?
Are we free to kill homosexuals, because they don't do what is in our Book?
Are we free to set up people against each other?
Are we free to call ourselves superior because of what happened to our ancestors?
Are we free to kill if some crowned imbecile says so?
Are we free to kill if some black robed wig wearing dinkle-wink (I should use that word more often) decides so?
Are we free to torture in another country if our laws forbid it?
Are we free to "bring democracy" to whoever we please even if we do not live in a democracy ourselves?

Talking about repenting and kneeling down all the time, cikl? I think you are the one who is most due to do all that. Probably for the rest of your life.

Ernst.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Haven't you ever asked yourself: How in the world we got to this point of moral desintegration: [URL="http://www.youtube.com[/IMG]

Creationism is the disintegration son.



Pssssst, you spelled disintegration wrong, son.

[cikljamas]

This video should be banned all over the world.

Now explain why this video should be banned all over the world if you can!
I just hope that your explanation won't be something like this: Because i am gay and i don't like if someone shows negative sides of it, or if someone questions any aspect of that way of life!

We are living in a free world? What does that mean?

Freedom of speech for the beginning! Did you notice behaviour of that scared taxi driver who refused to say anything on that subject, although it is obvious what he thinks about that, but he is afraid to speak up. Why? Try to explain this! While i was watching that video i had a feeling that this video has been shot in North Korea... So, USA became just another example of famous North Korean democracy ...only someone else is Kim Jong Un, slightly different dressed than him...I see you completely lost your sanity since you ask me "What does that mean?" You should very well know what does that mean!

Are we free to rape our neighbours children?

Study "Kinsey" pedophile case (Judith Reisman investigated it), and you will see that it already became common practice in your neighbourhood...

Are we free to kill homosexuals, because they don't do what is in our Book?

Who is talking about killings? I am christian, you forgot that? My ancestors fought against numerous horrific (we were always vastly outnumbered) islamic attacks for centuries, so that you can now live in a free world and speak english and not turkish instead! You should kneel before this! Not just that you can speak english as a consequence of Croatian sacrifice, you can even be gay now, you should kneel before this too...

Are we free to set up people against each other?

You (USA) almost exclusively do it all the time since the end of WWII, and even before that, since the beginning of 20th century!!!

Are we free to call ourselves superior because of what happened to our ancestors?

You should ask that question someone in Tel Aviv, or Washington!

Are we free to kill if some crowned imbecile says so?

You do it all the time!!!

Are we free to torture in another country if our laws forbid it?

No, you are not, but feel free to continue with that practice, since you do it all the time anyway!!!

Are we free to "bring democracy" to whoever we please even if we do not live in a democracy ourselves?

No, you are not, but feel free to continue with that practice, since you do it all the time anyway!!!

And don't forget to answer to this:

Why this video should be banned all over the world??? WHY? BE PRECISE!!!

Killing innocent unborn children had been maximally liberalized in USA - VERY FIRST DAY OF OBAMA'S FIRST MANDATE, THAT WAS SO IMPORTANT THAT OBAMA DID THIS VERY FIRST DAY OF HIS MANDATE!!! Check it if you don't believe me!

So, Killing innocent unborn children is utterly allowed but this documentary should be banned all over the world?

It is consistent way of reasoning, i must admit!!!

Antemurale Christianitatis : Antemurale Christianitatis - YouTube
Croatian Pride : Croatian pride - YouTube

[aljhoa]

Why this video should be banned all over the world??? WHY? BE PRECISE!!!

"Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption... No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education."

"There are many reasons why it is forbidden in Islam. Homosexuality is dangerous for the health of the individuals and for the society. It is a main cause of one of the most harmful and fatal diseases. It is disgraceful for both men and women. It degrades a person. Islam teaches that men should be men and women should be women. Homosexuality deprives a man of his manhood and a woman of her womanhood. It is the most un-natural way of life. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of family life."

Antemurale Christianitatis : Antemurale Christianitatis - YouTube

Battle of Vienna, 12 Sep1683 - King of Poland, Jan III Sobieski.AGAINST ISLAM - YouTube
All Wars Are Banker Wars wmv Output 1 - YouTube

Croatian Pride : Croatian pride - YouTube

Pope John Paul II New World Order Speech at Gandhis Memorial : NWO - YouTube
Pope John Paul II and the New World Order- Infowars - YouTube

Al

[cikljamas]

Al, you have to convert to islam, that is obviously only remedy for you, now cut the crap please, this is not thread about islam, you remember?

Back on track:

Heliocentricity is not a logically plausible (let alone irrefutable) theory that is based on scientific data but is actually, purely based on a series of assumptions that were built-up over the last 200 years. For example many (but not all) of the assertions regarding astronomical distances between celestial bodies are based on the necessary assumption that the earth must be revolving around the sun.

But at the same time, these assumed distances have another function whereby they are deployed as some sort of supportive argument for the "trueness" of the heliocentric hypothesis. For example we are told that sun is too big to revolve around the earth, despite the fact that the sun's size was determined in the first place by assuming how big it must have to be in order to allow a heliocentric premise! Go figure. Other needed assumptions include:

■ the bendover earth (alleged 'tilt' of the earth's axis - a desperately needed heliocentric variable that has no basis in the physical world where the sun simply spirals from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn annually. Both of these tropic latitude lines are not tilted - they are at a 0° angle (= parallel) to the equator. The word "tropic" itself comes from the Greek term tropos, meaning turn, referring to the fact that the sun "turns back" at these lines that aren't tilted in any way,

■ the earth supposedly jittering around the sun at various speed levels (it orbits at a faster speed at one time, and then it goes relatively slower at another - then back faster again) but somehow, all this alleged speed-change remains unnoticeable),

■ the moon also being dragged along exactly at those same speed levels (100% complete synchronization with the wobbly earth despite being hundreds of thousands of miles away from it(!) Now how about that?,

■ even atmospheric gas (the air) being attached to the earth's surface (again completely synchronized but somehow (simultaneously) free-flowing enough to blow in every direction). These are just samples of the never shown, never detected, never scientifically observed absurdities that are required to save the appearances of the heliocentric model.

Unproven Heliocentric Assumptions
When Heliocentrists failed to disprove the geocentric nature that we live in, they resorted to inventing assumptions, many of which are so absurd that the inventors themselves admit that they are unfalsifiable (by implication unscientific) thought-experiments. Some of these assumptions include:

- the alleged tilt of the earth's axis,

- the so called Copernican principle,

- positive stellar parallax,

- uniformitiy of the speed of light,

- lengh contraction

- time dilation

- denial of inertia (only accepting an imaginary and isolated "chosen" inertial frame of reference)

- the earth supposedly moving at a various speeds (in order to account for the observed eclipses)

These and many other assumptions are presented as evidence to each other. In other words one assumption is used in order to prove another assumption. In fact these assumptions are so fundamentally dependent on each other that one becomes meaningless without the other, which shows that heliocentrists don't refrain from applying deceit (circular reasoning in this case) in order to make their assertions believable.

[aljhoa]

Al, you have to convert to islam, that is obviously only remedy for you, now cut the crap please, this is not thread about islam, you remember?

правда глаза колет

Back on track:

Life in the Valley of Death - nytimes




Al

[Ernst]

Thanks Al, you have brought us to the heart of the matter.
For a long time I thought this was just some teenager struggling with growing up, but that did not completely fit the image that we see here.
What is it that we see?
We see someone fanatically defending an historical lost cause. This fanatic obsession is obviously rooted in a religious notion. Now why would anyone put so much effort in an already lost religious cause. It can only be that this person feels the need to do something that would "please his God", most likely because of some earlier missteps.
What else so we see? A strong notion that "if THEY do something, then WE can do the same"...
What else? A complete disability to distinguish between a group and an individual. Even to the point that future individuals are held responsible for acts that their ancestors did in a long lost past.
What else? A strong hatred towards Islam.
We know where this person is living and we have a rough idea what happened there.
So how does this add up?

Ernst.

[cikljamas]

You are snake, haven't i already told you that? Hahahaha... what a complete idiot you are...I don't hate anyone...and as for islam...Al is one who always draws parallels with islam, Al is one who see islam (as a paradigm of evil) everywhere around him, Al is one who made me nervous with his persistent dissemination of islamic paranoia in this thread where this "pro et contra islam" subject doesn't belong whatsoever...I began to think if Al could maybe have drawn wrong conclusion (because i took palestinian side by defending basic human rights of palestinian people) about my true religious orientation. That is why i tried to explain to him that i am not just a christian, i am descendant of honorable Coatian nation which through centuries just defended their right to live in peace on their own...and defending themself they defended whole Europe also from numerous horrific islamic attacks...During last war for independence Serbs had slaughtered 10 000 muslims in Srebrenica (worst mass murder case after WWII), and Croatian army was one who saved Bihać region from much worse Serbian genocide over muslims (which Srbs planed to commit again) in that (Bihać) enclave in Bosnia. During whole war for Croatian independence although heavily bleeding Croatia have taken care for about 1 000 000 muslim refugees (who escaped from Serb's genocidal army), so much about Croatian nobleness, pride and honor!

We don't hate anyone, we don't hate even our enemies, we just fight for our freedom, and that is why God bless us. Snake, do you know which country first recognized USA after american war for freedom? Dubrovnik republic! Shame on you, snake, you are really not worthy of any of my words, you are simply nobody and nothing!

Nobody and Nothing, see this story about brave croatian-american soldier who deliberately sacrificed his own life in order to save many (few hundred) american soldiers that were captured in the inside of a sinking battleship "Utah" during Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBQUinRjOOg#t=2m5s

Now, back on track:

Heliocentrists have been known to point to certain geophysical and astronomical features as arguments which they claim supports their sun-centered view. For example they claim that the Cape Canaveral area in Florida is chosen as a site for NASA's rocket launch center because it is one of the more southern points on the U.S. mainland and therefore closest to the equator. The same argument comes up regarding the reason why Europe's rocket launch center is located in French Guyana (in South America). There is supposed to be an advantage to being close to the equator when the goal is to get a vehicle into orbit: the "rotating" earth supposedly creates a centrifugal force that supposedly "lifts" the missiles. Well, the truth is that there is no real advantage: China's Jiuquan space center is found all the way up in the far north of the country (Inner Mongolia province). Why did the Chinese choose this site, when they have vast territory much further south which is closer to the equator? In fact, portions of southern China are closer to the equator than to the northern cosmodrome, from where they toss their taikonauts into orbit. The Russians are also reported to be developing a new space launch facility, which will be located much north of the current Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. This all means that a rocket launched tangentially from the Earth's equator doesn't really provide a more advantageous escape-velocity!

Getting closer to the supposed existence of an "equatorial centrifugal force" on the surface of the "rotating" earth (and other bogus heliocentric claims) is like getting closer and closer to an apparent pool of water in the desert: it dissolves and disappears right before your eyes in a spectacular fashion! Another bogus argument that some solar system advocates bring up from time to time is inertia and momentum. What is it that the moving-earth theorists believe is the substance (or the vector field) that supposedly exerts a huge gravitational force on air molecules which prevents the atmosphere around the earth from trailing behind the allegedly speeding earth (as is the case for comets)? Their answer?: Nothing. Instead, heliocentrists usually propose a fraudulent analogy of how the earth's motion is comparable with some person walking inside a moving train. They claim that since the walker inside the train feels more or less the same as he or she feels when walking on the ground that somehow is supposed to reassure us that the earth could also be moving without we feeling it.

The problem with this analogy is of course the fact that once the person inside the train opens a window and faces the elements, he or she will feel it soon enough what the real speed is that the train is traveling at! Therefore the only correct analogy for someone walking on the ground of earth is someone walking in an open train or better yet - on the roof of a moving train. What will happens then?

The person will instantly encounter a force that is proportional and in opposite direction to the moving train. But why? Isn't the atmosphere around the person supposed to be following the train around (just as we're told that the atmosphere is alleged to be so doing: piggybacking the faster-than-bullet going earth)? The heliocentrists seem to have suspended the laws of physics (aerodynamics) in the case of a moving earth!

But somehow, this law is still supposed to apply in all other cases of moving bodies in the universe? That's the position that “mainstream” wage-slave scientists have ended up adopting in order to hide the fact that there is a force that is there causing an air drag or friction that wasn't there before the train arrived. The friction with the earth's surface wasn't there because, unlike the train, the earth didn't move!

[Ernst]

Exactly. You prove it again and again and again.
All these "now kneel down and repent" messages are really messages to yourself, aren't they?
Whatever it is that you are here for, being an utter homophobic assh0le (and then express myself very gently) and proud of it, is not going to help you in any way.
You better start listening to yourself.

Good luck, you have a long and hard road ahead of you.

Ernst.
(btw, not a snake but a dragon )

[cikljamas]

Back on track:

It is very obvious, that if the Earth were experiencing a daily rotation; the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity (not the thermal), variable pressure (not the static), and variable density (not the normal). The science of aerodynamic is clear in this issue; an air flow (dynamic) should be generated from the region of M = 1.33 to the region of M = 0; from the region of high density (at the equator) to the region of low density (at the poles). Such air flow and such air pressure regimes do not exist. The localities of these regimes would terminate the life of all species on Earth. The fact that, the static sea level pressure is equal to one atmosphere (= 1013.25 mbar (millibar) = 0.101325 x 106 Pascal) at standard conditions concludes the absence of rotating Earth. You can confirm this fact by applying the Pitot static-tube along the Earth’s latitudes. In a non windy day, the Pitot static-tube must indicate a total pressure of 1.0 atm which is equal to the static pressure; otherwise, it must be calibrated. This verifies that the speed of the air flow has no other component than the thermal static speed. If you hold the Pitot static tube so that the portion-B faces the air flow and the portion-A faces the air loft; the tube will read 1.0 atm in a standard day, in all directions. It is true and fact. Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html

Now you should consider these assertions as a proven facts:

1. There is no Earth's revolution around anything!
2. There is no Earth's rotation on it's axis!
3. There is no axial tilt of the Earth!
4. Whole universe is centred to the Earth! (Celestial equator is aligned with the Earth's equator)
5. There is no gravitation as such. Newton invented it with one and only purpose (to prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun)


Now, we should consider the shape of the Earth:

What is gravity, what is the mechanics behind it? Nobody knows, and nobody will ever find out, because there is no such thing as gravity. See this: What Causes Gravity

Let say that the best description of the "gravity" has been found in these words:

Take the Earth, for instance. Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether to keep all of its elementary particles spinning. We are just in the way of this influx. This view explains what gravity is, and also explains Tesla’s seemingly odd statement that the sun is absorbing more energy than it is radiating. The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense. The sun requires a gargantuan amount of etheric energy to keep its integrity.

Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light, a new paradigm is born. The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time. This influx is what gravity is. As ether is absorbed two things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin, and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy, is transformed into electromagnetic energy. That is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism. Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/253761-post225.html


If there is no gravitation as such, there must be something else that keeps us from floating off into space. What is that? Let's call it pressure instead of "Ether influx"...

Now, if the Earth were a globe, there should be two different pressures in action on the same spot (on the surface of the Earth), 1: one which would keep us from floatting off into space (this kind of pressure shouldn't be too strong, otherwise we would be squashed instantly), and 2: one which would keep oceans from being spilled out into space (this kind of pressure should be much, much, much stronger, otherwise oceans would be spilled out into space)!

Now, someone should be able to explain parallel existence of these two completely different pressures on the same spot (on the surface of the round Earth)!


The latitude that corresponds to the Mach number M =1 is 45 degree north and south. The third principal region is designated for the subsonic and incompressible flow, M = 0.3. Consider the mean temperature of the air to be 10 degree C (= 283 degree K). (The mean temperature drops from the equatorial value as you move toward north and south poles.) In this case, the speed of sound is equal to 336 m/s, since V = 0.3 a, hence the spinning speed is equal to 100.8 m/s (363 km/hr). The latitude that corresponds to the Mach number M = 0.3 is 77 degree north and south.

Now, try to figure out "the mystery" of a blue region on the next picture:

[cikljamas]

Tides

It IS commonly taught that the tides are caused by lunar attraction. Sir Robert Ball tells us that :

"The moon attracts the solid body of the earth with greater intensity than it attracts the water at the other side which lies more distant from it. The earth is thus drawn away from the water, which accordingly exhibits a high tide as well on the side of the earth away from the moon as on that toward the moon. The low tides occupy the intermediate positions."

No one who has the use of all his faculties and who dares to use them, need be told that this flimsy apology for what the learned cannot account for, contradicts itself. How could this attraction take place without disintegrating the globe? Besides, as the law of gravitation is said to operate according to the amount of matter of which each body consists, the statements of astronomers that the moon is 2,160 miles in diameter and the earth 8,000 miles in diameter flatly contradict their own other statements about the moon causing tides. How can the smaller body attract the larger We are informed in "Sun, Moon, and Stars," pages 160 to 163, that :

"The earth, it is true, attracts the moon. So also the moon attracts the earth ; THOUGH THE FAR GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EARTH MAKES HER ATTRACTION TO BE FAR GREATER."

How anyone can accept the current theory in face of the above is somewhat puzzling. Sir R. Ball says the moon attracts the solid body of the earth ; but the work from which I have just quoted states that :

"Her attraction (the moon's) draws up the yielding waters of the ocean in a vast wave."

Both these assertions cannot be true. Which is ? I say neither. And the astronomers' own theory of attraction also answers "neither," when it is taken into consideration that the moon cannot attract the earth, being a much smaller body. But if the moon lifted up the waters, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low, instead of high tide, caused. Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence. But the tides are not uniform. At Port Natal the rise and fall is about six feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides.

How then are tides caused? The learned being as far from the truth in this as in every matter which we have brought to the test of the hard logic of facts, what is the
truth of the matter ?

The Leicester Daily Post, of 25th August, 1892, says :

" M. Bouquet de la Grye, an eminent hydrographical Engineer, has after long yearsof study calculated the atmospheric expansions and depressions which coincide with spring and neap tides. There have been cases in which air was moved in waves of 133 yards high, and in places where the barometrical pressure was seven-tentns ot an inch, ot six and a half miles. Near the upper surface of the earth's atmosphere condensations and dilations of this magnitude are trequent. The human nervous system may be said to register these air waves. We are only aware that they do so by the discomfort which we feel. The earth also registers them and to its very centre. The incandescent and fluid matter under the earth's crust acts in concert with the air and sea at the full of the moon. In 1889 a German Scientist, Dr. Rebeur Pachwitz, thought he noticed at Wilhelmshaven and Potsdam earth oscillations corresponding with the course of the moon. He wrote to the observatory at Tenerife asking for observations to be ma.de there in December, 1890 and April, 1891, which would be propitious times for them. From these observations and others simultanously made in the sandy plains round Berlin, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE Earth RISES AND FALLS LIKE THE OCEAN OR THE ATMOSPHERE. The movements, common to them all, may be likened to the chest in breathing. — Paris Correspondent Weekly Dispatch."

This is the answer to the question. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides ; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep, shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused ; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.

The "Yellow Frigate," by Jas. Grant, page 189, states :

"St. Mungo's Tide. This double flow is somewhat remarkable, for when the tide appears full it suddenly falls fifteen inches, and then returns with greater force, until it attains a much higher mark."

The following is from " Omoo, a Narrative of Adventures in the South Seas," by H. Melville :

"The Newtonian theory of the Tides does not hold good at Tahiti, where, throughout the year, the waters uniformly commence ebbing at noon and midnight, and flow about sunset and daybreak. Hence the term "Toorerar-Po" is used alike to express high-water and midnight."

The question may now be asked, what has the moon to do with the tides? The moon is the TIMEKEEPER for the tides, nothing more. The "phase" of the moon tells what kind of a tide may be expected, but she does not and cannot "attract" either the solid body of the earth or the waters. What Zetetics have stated for many years past, is now seen to be true, but "science" is slow to take advantage of the fact.

[Beamgate]

This help or hinder?

Toy Robot in Space! - HD balloon flight to 95,000ft - YouTube
and
HELLO KITTY IN SPACE - YouTube

All this from our future flat-earthers !

And the ultimate deception?
Planet Earth seen from space (Full HD 1080p) ORIGINAL - YouTube

[cikljamas]

Eye level horizon - at the Edge of Space: 1st HD Camera At The Edge Of Space - YouTube



FLAT EARTH/TERRA PLANA PROJECT: Flat Earth/Terra Plana - YouTube

NASA says"Earth curves approximately 6 feet in 9 miles"? WTF!!!: NASA says"Earth curves approximately 6 feet in 9 miles"? WTF!!! - YouTube

Why a ships Hull disappears before the mast:



The Horizon doesn't curve, Ships Zoom, Flat Earth : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFhhCYYkILw

Proof the Earth is Flat, NASA lies! Part 3 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvQowaN6UHQ

Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Zoom Test : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxspo3LNlA