Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Anthem(0)

 Citizen
  • Content count

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

120 Excellent

About Anthem(0)

  • Rank
    Enthusiast
  1. Your ignorance of the existence of these stories should not be mistaken for an argument that the stories don't exist. And the larger point is they weren't AFRICAN, they were NATIVES to the Americas. They would be Aboriginal Americans not African Americans. The native americans were NOT a homogenous copper-toned, straight-haired people upon the arrival of the Europeans. I have heard of these stories since childhood, but my experience is. There is tons of archaeological evidence (if you put stock in fields in archaeology) supporting the existence of dark-skinned, curly-haired natives in the Americans. Early European settlers documented the existence of these people as well. There is art and stonework in spades throughout the Americas. There is the historically-documented Paper Genocide of the Natives where the native "indians" were legally categorized as black, white, or mulatto based on color. There is much scholarly work on the subject, the idea really isn't that radical. The evidence supporting the theory not only exists, it is voluminous. And it makes infinitely more sense that the natives were enslaved rather than 12 million blacks were boated across the ocean in atrocious conditions (how many Europeans "immigrants" boated in over the same period? THINK people!!). Yes I understand that this is the story we were ALL taught in school and as a result of this indoctrination that most people BELIEVE that blacks are in America solely because of the slave trade. But there are tons of reasons that the millions of African slaves being boated in is suspect at best. Logistically it's a nightmare to explain how such a thing could even be possible. The sheer numbers involved are absurd. But like I said, this idea does contradict a SACRED dogma of the establishment and the alt-right and therefore will be rejected by instinct. But it's not like people (in scholarly fields even) haven't been talking about this since forever. They have. It just never hit YOUR radar apparently. What should be asked is WHY this sort of info has be suppressed/erased?
  2. Of course, many of the so-called "African-Americans" are better described as Aboriginal Americans and were already here in America when European Christians colonized the land. Unless someone seriously wants to argue that 12 million Africans were brought over to be slaved just because they learned that "fact" in government-run public schools. The logistics of 12 million people being brought over in the described conditions of the boats at the alleged time in history is laughable and does not remotely hold up to scrutiny. The only defense of the belief is "I learned it in school." This is treading close to blasphemy to the establishment and alt-right mindsets. I've noticed people get sensitive when someone suggests that maybe just maybe blacks have been in america longer than the whites. The notion contradicts too many dearly-held beliefs and tends to rapid degenerate into an ugly discussion.
  3. I'm not the one providing the proof that water and land measure as flat. That's YOUR side that provides that proof. The official claim is that vast tracts of Kansas, Florida, all salt flats, the abyssal plains (the ocean floor), etc MEASURE as flat. If you disagree with your own priests' measurements then that's a crisis of faith on your end. But they have NEVER measured ANY part of earth as curved to ANY degree. And you will not provide a single example of a curve being MEASURED anywhere on earth. Nor will you provide a single shred of proof that the obviously-stationary ground we stand on is actually in motion. Not one bit of proof outside of the tenets of your belief system. As far as I'm concerned, it is a self-evident fact of reality that water levels and that the ground isn't pushing me along at supersonic mach-level speeds in an easterly direction. You are of course free to believe that unproven, demonstrably false assertion all you'd like. But miss me with this "proof falls apart" stuff. It's YOUR side's proof (via empirical measurement) that proves a flat earth. It's only the narrative that these proofs are illusory. Your unwillingness to disconnect empirical facts from the unproven narrative you are instructed to believe is something you gotta work out on your own. But all talk of PROOF is ROFL-worthy considering you have not one example of PROOF of either a curved surface of earth or an earth in motion.
  4. Rah, rah!! How dare flat earthers agree only on what can be repeatedly proven to be true in empirical reality using the scientific method (non-motion/non-curvature of surface of the ground we stand on). Something is seriously wrong with the notion of people not blindly accepting establishment belief systems which are admittedly full of conjecture and unproven/unprovable hypotheses which can not be demonstrated to be true in empirical reality. Tell us more about how wrong our scientifically-verifiable notions of a non-moving ground beneath our feet are because the empirical evidence contradicts with your belief system! Rah, rah!!
  5. ROFL @ you acting like you don't know what's happening here. I'm not arguing any points at all as there's no need to. YOU are simply expressing your BELIEF in the unproven claims of authority. If you are unable or unwilling to further explain your establishment-derived BELIEF as to what happened during the original formation of earth (this was YOUR CLAIM, remember?), then I honestly don't care. It's fairly clear what you're about here and I have no expectations other than you continuing to push the goalposts back further to avoid admitting the obvious truth that you're simply repeating the unproven theoretical conjectures of known liars. YOU started this talking about the inertial conditions of earth during its original formation as though you had some insider knowledge other than a pro-establishment belief system. Now, YOU are pushing the goalposts back even further, wanting to have a pointless argument about inertia IN GENERAL, as though you're gonna bring something to the table other than copy/paste from official sources. What point are you even trying to make?
  6. If the answer is so self-explanatory, I'm sure you can copy/paste the authoritarian hypothesized explanation. Explain away. I'm listening... Explain your observation and/or measurement of the original formation of the earth and in what way you believe inertia to be related to that observation/measurement. ...or push the goalposts back further.
  7. ROFL @ "inertia can not be observed, measured, or replicated." So tell me, did you observe or measure the purely conjectured magical inertia which inexplicably has not slowed the spinning atmosphere since the original formation of earth despite this atmosphere literally by definition being a friction-filled environment. Good luck replicating an uncontained spinning atmosphere being velcroed to a spinning object because of "inertia". Surely your priests are getting on with that experiment as we speak. Do you think you're dealing with people who don't know what inertia is or something? Do YOU know what inertia is? :lol What point are you even arguing now? You KNOW you can't provide any evidence for anything you're saying, so why are you saying it here in this thread now? Your position is clear: you BELIEVE the unproven claims of authority "because science." We all get that, and congratulations. Tell us more about your establishment-derived belief system. We're all rapt.
  8. ROFL @ these guys still, after all these years, trying to explain to us how their broken model is theorized to work as though we don't get it. I'm pretty sure we all know how the officially-sanctioned unproven dogmatic religious hypothesis is claimed (not shown) to work. Just like I'm pretty sure YOU know that you have NO evidence whatsoever that anything you just said is TRUE in reality. You can't even begin to logically defend talking about the conditions on earth when it was originally formed. Anything you have to say on the matter is pure speculation and belief. It's a Christian saying, "my book says Christ rose from the dead on the third day." That isn't proof of anything, it's a belief. It's fine to have beliefs, we all do. I don't begrudge a man his beliefs. But your claim that people who don't share your belief have some lack of understanding is ridiculous. We understand the official narrative just fine. And you are regurgitating the official narrative, nothing more, nothing less. Congratulations on being a faithful and true member of the herd. Your owners are proud, surely.
  9. need more of these type vids. On FLAT surfaces, the bottoms of building are necessarily obscured by optical effects in the mirroring zone at the horizon (who knows what happens on curved surfaces). These tests invalidate one of the main establishment talking points. And they're simple and anyone can do them. All you need is a FLAT surface, some props, and a camera.
  10. Laser light diffracts, particularly when running parallel above water. Well before 100 miles (probably well before 10 miles), the received light would be huge and too diffuse to see.
  11. there are no words... then he goes on to defend this statement for several posts like he actually meant it. I forgot the comedy of you characters. Good stuff.
  12. What in the hell did I just watch? Amazing footage if genuine.
  13. I remember a video claiming Obama called her "Michael" but I only remember hearing "My". I could be mis-remembering. Everything you're saying i entirely possible, there's just no evidence for it. And how could there be, short of some nude pics which can be easily faked these days. Ugly first ladies? Fair enough. But that doesn't mean they are men. Logically, their positions as first ladies means they are obviously from "elite" families or at least families with aspirations of joining the elite. And tons of the elite are hideous anyway. This could be due to the generations of inbreeding with the same few families in order to keep it "all in the family." Or the accumulated negative karma of generations is slowly turning them all into Emperor Palpatine. All I'm really saying is there are other plausible explanations as to why powerful women from elite "pureblood" families may be ugly and mannish. Them secretly being men in drag IS an option, but it's hardly the only viable one. I'm of the impression that these people don't "choose" their mates from a very ample pool of potentials.
  14. It's all good brother. I try to keep an open mind on everything and every since realizing I was deceived as to the nature of my own homeworld, almost nothing "they" do or say would shock me. I'm willing to hear out most any idea, no matter how absurd it sounds initially. Hmmm. I'm gonna be honest here brother, this is gonna be a tough sell. Full disclosure...I'm a black man. In my admittedly anecdotal experience with dating women (the vast majority of whom were also black), what I've realized is that white guys and black guys just have different beauty standards. I tend to the thoroughbred racehorse philosophy of Sir-Mix-a-Lot where the more backside, the better. More anecdotal experience: most black guys agree with me. To be fair, it never crossed by mind at the time, but this whole transvestigation thing of the last year or so has me reconsidering. Now I'm thinking "Damn, maybe all the white guys did think my beautiful, tall, strong women were really trannies." The thought would be more amusing if it didn't seem so likely to be true. This is all of course very unfortunate and seems to fall patently into the category of divide and conquer, using RACE again (same old tricks). The unfortunate part is that non-blacks seem completely comfortable believing that strong black women are actually men. It's to the point now that these beliefs are being repeated out loud and believed by otherwise discerning individuals...based on NOTHING more than "look at her shoulders, they're bigger than mine." I've dated women on college basketball teams. I've dated women who are 6 ft tall with broad shoulders and stronger arms than most guys...they were ALL women, and I can confirm this. Now granted, this is all anecdotal and says nothing of whether or not Michelle Obama is a woman or a man pretending to be. But imo, Michelle is an attractive, strong and fit woman who has an identical athletic body-type to more than one ex of mine. And those exes were FOR SURE women. An athletic body a man does not one make. This kind of thing can get uncomfortable when I really think about WHAT is being said and the stated reasons WHY. If any of history is to be believed (that's a big IF), then blacks in America were literally BRED for physical strength. This includes the women. So it should come as no surprise that a mere century after this multi-century breeding program there still exists female products of this program who possess strong physical builds. Now granted, I understand the scope of transvestigation is not limited to black females, but I personally NEVER heard of this until it became popular in alt-right circles to call the first actually-attractive first lady in a generation a man for no apparent reason other than she's fit and because Joan Rivers (who looks more like a tranny to me than Michelle does) said so. Subjectively, there are far more "manly and unattractive" first ladies to choose from in the more recent first ladies than Michelle. But it's much easier to get a bunch of alt-right white guys to call an athletic-built black woman a man than Reagan or Bush's mannish mates. And I fear these deep-seated prejudices are being exploited to the community. But that's pretty much par for the course anyway so I'm not surprised. There are plenty of people, mostly black, myself included, who absolutely find Serena to be sexy. And Sir-Mix-A-Lot would agree with me. Definitively. Have you SEEN that ass? *dabs brow* Thoroughbred RACEHORSE. You either get it or you don't. Different strokes for different folks, my brother. Skinny supermodels with 1:1 hip:ass ratios do nothing for me personally, but I understand they do for lots of guys. Serena is killing all of them. Don't front on my girl. This is why I was saying I need something better than "these women look like men." To some people, these women may look like men. To ME, these women looks like exes of mine; people who I KNOW beyond any shadow of a doubt ARE women. Obviously people are free to feel however they want, and beauty exists in the eye of the beholder not the beholden, but this brand of "people who look like [this] are trannies" talk can easily be mistaken as giving voices to the otherwise unspoken prejudices which exist hidden in one's own mind. As a person who has personally slept with many, many, MANY similarly athletic-built black women, it will never occur to me up front that an athletic black woman I see could be a man. It doesn't fit my experience. But to people who haven't slept with athletic black women, it may be a perfectly rational thought to think they could be a man. This doesn't mean I'm right and Michelle and Serena are women, but I personally have seen NOTHING which even remotely indicates otherwise, aside from the unfounded claims of the so-called alt-right in america...a group, if we're being honest, whose personages have a tendency to harbor a range of unacknowledged racial prejudices which they are often unaware of and will vehemently deny harboring (this an almost unavoidable outcome of the reality of the history of race relations and I accept this and am not going to argue about it). And it's gonna take a lot more than those anonymous voices to convince me that the entirety of my lifetime experiences (of which there were many, I must stress) were the fluke. A hell of a lot more than that. I realize this could potentially sound like, "I had a friend at the boston marathon therefore the bombing was real," and I hope it isn't coming off that way. I'm not trying to say my experience means they're women. I'm just pointing out the absolute fact that my experience says that there exist MANY athletic built women of all races, blacks in america especially (due to the recent breeding program). I'm sure there exists athletic built men posing as women as well, but there has so far been NO evidence of this presented in what I've seen of the Transvestigation into Michelle and Serena. The evidence is essentially the unfounded (often but not always prejudicial) stereotypes which exists solely in the minds of the believers. Stereotypes which likely do NOT fit with those people's real life experiences, where most of these athletic-built suspected-trannies walking the streets are perfectly innocent biological women. Only one way to find out for sure I suppose......yeah And to be clear, I'm not accusing you of anything personally here Roth. Just being thorough in my response to your words. This is all certainly possible. There's historical precedent dating back to antiquity supporting the notion. To be thorough though, Jessica Alba isn't Asian or Philippine as far as I know, and while I can't be sure what vertical man sides are, I would hazard a safe guess that one can easily find an abundance of women with vertical man sides as well. Once again, I'm not discounting the IDEA, but the evidence has gotta be better than what is being tossed around in these transvestigations. However, if Alba and Fox have both said they were transgenders even jokingly (especially jokingly) then that is interesting and it does lend credence to the possibility. I suspect flippant statements like that are often truth being presented in plain sight. But I dunno. It is interesting. I begin to disagree at the starting premise; in ALMOST any context, "She looks like a man" is just an overt declaration of different tastes. This specific context is worsened because the specific person who was used as the SPEARHEAD of this "investigation", Michelle Obama, is regarded as a highly attractive middle-aged woman to 99% of black men, and what I see are people being played off one another by appealing to deep-seated unconscious prejudices against ethnocentric beauty standards. I'm not sure if you realize this, but 99% of every black man you'll ever meet will agree that Michelle Obama is an attractive woman. Many would rate her higher than merely attractive. VERY, very few would agree with your sentiment that she is "obviously a man." Not in 8 years have I heard this from any peers of mine, and this is my element. Trust me on this. Perhaps it's is a cultural thing, but whatever it is, it's being used as a dividing wedge AGAINST the so-called alt-right and they seem to be entirely unaware of it. Maybe that's because the notion appeals to their deep-seated unconscious programming. Maybe there are more innocent reasons. Either way it doesn't bother me. We all are who we are and we all like what we like. But subjects like are easy targets for misinterpretation and unintended offense. This specific subject seems specifically designed for that purpose. But this could just be my perspective. Honestly Roth, I really do follow what you're saying. Dressing men up as women and parading them around as hot stuff DEFINITELY 100% fits the general pattern of the deception agenda from "them." No disagreements from me about this in theory. It's the in practice part that's missing. It's the evidence that's missing. But in theory, what you're saying does fit the program being run on us. I won't disregard t entirely, but your starting premise is FALSE in my book. Michelle Obama is NOT obviously a man. Not by a longshot. Every other first lady this generation looks more mannish than she does...though I suppose that idea supports this transgender theory quite well. Hmmmm.
  15. Those Anatoly Fomenko History:Fiction or Science books are DEEP. I've been poring over them the last few years, many incredible finds regarding the total fabrication of our his-story. Ironically, all his research began due to discrepancies in ancient recorded eclipses.