Tap News

Can we have alternative theory or is the science settled?


Before the usual suspects attack this post can we just draw some clarity prior?

They tell you “The Science” is settled in regards to the climate hoax. The tap has many readers from many different jurisdictions, we don’t all believe in settled “TM Science” I can assure you,

Sure men can have babies also and woman can have a penis?!! 2 plus 2 acually is five according to our false dialectic.

Wakey, wakey adult children. They’ve lied to you about everything.


16 Responses to “Can we have alternative theory or is the science settled?”

  1. newensign says:

    The trouble is Watcher, is as the vid. says people won’t look at simple proofs, all you need is a powerful telescope and one can see a ship 60 miles away. There were many books showing the globe theory was wrong were available in the 1800 and early 1900’s was wrong – one such can be seen here: https://newensign.com/sdm_downloads/zetetic-astronomy/

    • Steve Kettle says:

      At 60 miles away if my maths are correct there should be 800yds or nearly half a mile of curvature… not many ships are that tall.
      A very good book you reference NE although l did find Eric Dubay’s 200 proofs very easy to read and full of facts hard to dismiss. As you say people’s brains just seem to shut down when they look at this subject because all the “scence”says…..

      • newensign says:

        Yes I agree Steve. With the telescope test, there are not many days this can be done as its not often one gets a calm sea or without high waves or fog banks! The Suez Canal is hard to explain with no locks and the sea being at the same level both ends! I agree videos are better at explaining the facts, but a book is useful for one does not have to pause the video to look at data sheets. diagrams etc., Rather than flat, I would say its more like a basin surrounded with 200ft ice cliffs of Antarctica leading to a vast plain. Probably no one can explain the true nature of the world; the spinning globe theory is flawed. But I certainly wouldn’t fall out with anyone who thinks differently!

        • Steve Kettle says:

          I look forward to the day we can get a real answer, if only someone would go to Antartica and circumnavigate it…. sorry we’re not allowed are we?? Rules is rules eh? Can’t have everybody disturbing the penguins.
          On a serious note, l’d love to know if there’s more land out there as Admiral Bird said there was.

  2. Tapestry says:

    The con of the flat earth is mathematical. The flatters underestimate the curvature by a tiny sliver which is hard to spot unless you know how to draw a circle and a few straight lines, from the centre of a circle to the circumference. The vertical dimension is the amount of fall from top to centre. Any horizontal line to the edge gives you the approximate sideways movement required to achieve that amount of drop. If you divide the drop by the lateral distance, that’s the rate of fall per miles travelled. To get more accuracy draw more triangles and measure more distances. You soon can make a good estimate of the curvature of a circle, and find the ratio given by flatters is impossible. Gravity is another con. If matter attracted matter, the universe would be impossible, and planets would collide. Planets hold themselves apart through some force – gravity if it exists must be a force of repulsion. There seems to be an electro-magnetic state of equilibrium between planets so that forces of attraction/repulsion are neutralised. This is also how rocks can be made weightless by reversing their polarity (all are magnetic) until the magnetic attraction/repulsion is neutralised. This is how ships are made to not attract magnetic mines (de-Gaussing). Reverse polarity using electrical current until they are magnetically neutralised. Of course there is no electricity in the universe. We’ve been told all is based on gravity …..

    • Steve Kettle says:

      So what is the formulae for curvature on a ball 8,000 mls in dia Tap? I’ve never known anyone else dispute the formulae quoted of 8″ per mile squared, enlighten me….

      • Tapestry says:

        I think I posted on this a few years back so try search. I’ll try to do the work, Steve – but I’m far away in Asia and travelling with kids! It’s better do the estimates yourelf and get a feel for the topic that way from memory. Never trust a formula given to you by someone else!

        • Steve Kettle says:

          Enjoy the trip Tap, you’re missing all the good weather here though….. not.

          • Tapestry says:

            I’ve got five minutes! Sorry about the weather. Here not much better. If you draw the radius from centre of a circle to the top, and then draw lines intermittently at 90 degrees to that line going right, you will see that the top one of those lines needs a lot more distance travelled per drop in height than the bottom one. To work out the actual distance a circle travels to achieve a drop of the height of its radius, take the formula P=pie and multiple by D which is 2r -where r is radius. Assume r is 1 then D is 2. PieD is about 6.25 Divide that by 4 to get one quarter of the circle’s circumference which is the travel (along the earth’s surface as it were) required to drop the length of r. In the example of r=1,that is 1.56 approx. That would mean the distance to travel to drop 1 mile in height relative to the top of the circle is 1.56 miles along the surface (circumference)… about 1.5 times the drop. Earth would be about r = 4000 miles with D 8000 miles and C (circumference) 24,000 miles very roughly. You need to travel 6000 miles along the circumference in a straight line to drop 4000 miles. Is that the figure you wanr Steve?

      • Steve Kettle says:

        And please provide an explanation why our atmosphere isn’t sucked off into the vast vacuum of “space”? We both know gravity is BS otherwise the moon and earth would collide instead of dancing around each other.

        • Tapestry says:

          I’m not able to get stuck in right now Steve, but in a word plasma. If you hunt around on http://www.thunderbolts.info and watch a couple of videos or read Walter Thornhill who died very recently, you get a completely different view of what holds the universe together. Their title The Electric Universe gives you the gist. As regards curvature you only need a tiny error to get the whole thing way wrong.

  3. newensign says:

    One has to remember that “flat Earth” has been around far longer than the globe, which came into being when the Eastern potentates started to gain control in Europe in the 15-1600’s represented by the Venetian bankers who even had spies in the court of Henry VIII. They were changing history and culture back then. The Globe theory was probably to make our ancestors look ignorant. There is a good video by Alan Wilson revisionist historian who shows that all our historical before William the Conqueror is virtually non-existent -jts nearly all made up.

  4. Tapestry says:

    Currently I cannot post. Gonzalo forecasts his own demise if sentenced to 5 to 8 years in a labour camp. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW274f8s-ws