Jump to content
Advertise With Us! Or Sign Up To Remove Ads!

roamer

 Citizen
  • Content count

    1,846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

858 Excellent

3 Followers

About roamer

  • Rank
    Eternal Poster

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    9/11
    Alien Abduction
    Breaking News
    Crop Circles
    Earth Changes
    Environment
    False Flag Operations
    Human Rights
    International Affairs
    Mars
    Natural Medicine
    New World Order
    Politics
    Religion
    Secret Societies
    Space Science
    Spirituality
    UFOs
    Weather Control

Recent Profile Visitors

1,810 profile views
  1. I guess you are talking about Ken Shoulders' research: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue61/chargeclusters.html See also: HIGH-DENSITY CHARGE CLUSTERS AND ENERGY CONVERSION RESULTS Ken SHOULDERS -- Electrum Validum Archive
  2. FYI: Saad Hariri holds Lebanese, Saudi and French citizenship. Latest news: http://theduran.com/confirmed-former-lebanese-pm-saad-hariri-now-paris/
  3. Not sure how to reply...new here...

    Found it: reddit users view it as fake also: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/7c34i5/breaking_british_intelligence_reportedly_just/
  4. Another Lebanon war -- the writing is on the wall: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/11/israel-leadership-talks-up-another-war-with-hezbollah-lebanon
  5. Taking a look at the interview from a different viewpoint: body language
  6. Capricorn 1: The Impossible FE model

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
  7. They are referring to a 200 milliliters glass (7 oz) of water x 4. From the video at 1:04:
  8. But NASA and physics are not the same -- despite all claims to the contrary from the Flat Earth camp. If the footing of the moon landings is fake, then this doesn't disprove the so-called "heliocentric" model.
  9. Shep, it seems to me that you are applying a double standard here. There are many posts of Flat Earthers claiming that Flat Earth is "the truth" or an "undeniable fact" -- but I've never seen your objection against that way of talking.
  10. Ancient Technology

    That's a long video, therefore I will post some highlights below. It took me a while to find out who the speaker is -- his name is Brien Foerster and he is the author of several books. a few highlights (there is much more): 5:59 ... this stone -- for example -- over the space of at least one foot if not longer the surface does not deviate more than 2 ten-thousandths of an inch [0.005 mm] out of perfect flatness and you can't do that with primitive technology but the archaeologists insist that it was done using those tools. 10:35 ... this is a drill hole in a stone; it's about this long but both ends of the stone are broken so we have no idea how far that hole went and if you look at the scarring marks horizontally going this way you can see an ... engineer's have backed this up, modern engineers -- that it must have been some kind of boring tool that was a very high vibration. It wasn't a drill that moved like this it was a very high vibrational cutter the teeth would have had to have been something like diamonds in order to cut through because this is harder than granite. 30:30 the quarry which we've been to is across the valley and up the side of a mountain; so somehow minimum of 60 ton blocks were moved down the mountain, across the valley, across the river, and then up on top here and they fit still with amazing precision. 33:36 stone cut from bedrock 43:17 ... it's the precision of the stonework is profound ... again ... you take a metal ruler and you place it on a lot of the surfaces; there is no movement and you can't see light if you take a flashlight you can't see light in between so a lot of these surfaces are within 2 ten-thousandths of an inch of being as flat as a glass table if not better. 46:24 so somebody at sometimes seem to have been there with a tool at least of cobalt steel, tungsten carbide or diamond being able to bore into this stone -- which again is about 7 out of 10 of the hardest stones on earth. 65:15 [about the Cheops Pyramid] ... now the precision of this passageway -- the descending passage -- they know by laser it's more than 300 feet long and it deviates from laser perfection by 1/8 of an inch. The Egyptians did not have the capability of doing that work no matter what the Pharaoh may have wanted but when you bring an engineer such as Christopher Dunn to look at this he believes -- and this relates to some of the other subjects that we're discussing in terms of lost technology or free energy -- Christopher Dunn believes that the Giza pyramids were power plants. 79:45 ... the diameter of the saw that would have cut through this basalt would have been at least six meters to eight meters in diameter and the cutting pattern which means that every rotation of the saw makes a groove or it makes an impression in the stone as it's moving the speed at which this saw moved by some experts is twice the speed of what a 21st century saw can do and these we find as well we find these scattered all over the place. 80:35 ... there are lots of them but it takes an eye to see them ... this gives you a sense of the size of them and again the feed rate which is the rate at which the cutter is going through the stone -- in this case rose granite -- is approximately at least twice the speed of what a modern diamond cutting drill can do ... and unfortunately you can't see this too well but this this will show you the impression I have lots of photos on my website etc but you see the pattern of the cut as it goes it's approximately every two to three millimeters is one rotation of this cutting tool. 82:01 ... these are boxes made of gray granite and rose granite the boxes themselves weigh 70 tons and the lids weigh 10 to 15 tons these are located there 28 of them I believe they're in a tunnel underneath the desert no one knows how they got the boxes in to begin with how they moved them from the quarry 500 miles away but also the lid for some reason was cut out of the same block of stone they fit together because they were once one piece and again Christopher Dunn has taken his his instruments and measured the surfaces outside and inside and they are within to ten thousandths of an inch in precision of a flatness.
  11. Capricorn 1: The Impossible FE model

    It wasn't a personal attack, because I gave a detailed explanation how he misrepresents physics. You don't know whether I'm unable to debate mainstream theory or not. Now you are attacking me personally.
  12. Capricorn 1: The Impossible FE model

    You can repeat your claim about "all mainstream views" as often as you want -- that doesn't make it true. According to the author, mainstream science is based on circular reasoning and scientists haven't noticed it yet -- or scientists are aware of circular reasoning but they don't care about it. In any case, the author seems to assume that he is much brighter than the majority of scientists. The author -- Dr Karl Kruszelnicki -- claims that it is a circular argument. But this fact demonstrates only his own shallow understanding of physics: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/pendulum/pendulum.htm The first sentence is already inaccurate -- the clause "... because of its inertia." is nonsense, and this wording shows that the author doesn't understand the basics. Here is a quote which is in agreement with mainstream physics -- as you can see there is no clause " ... because of ...": http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l1a.cfm#first The next sentence is also nonsense: "And inertia is the tendency of a body to keep on doing whatever it's doing." The accurate definition of inertia is a bit different, although the difference is quite subtle: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Inertia-and-Mass "But why does it keep on doing what it's doing? Because of its inertia." More nonsense ... not "because of its inertia." Some questions can't be answered because the question itself makes no sense. You can always ask "why?" or "what's the cause?" and even if there is an answer, you can again ask "why?" -- going on into eternity. Children like to play these games. In short, the author's uses a definition of inertia which is wrong, and his wrong definition leads to circular reasoning. In other words, the author has created a straw man.
  13. Capricorn 1: The Impossible FE model

    That statement about the alignment with the stars and not the local sun is somewhat misleading. The alignment with the stars represents an inertial frame of reference -- on the other hand you can't use the sun as a reference point due to the relative motion of the earth relative to the sun. That's all. I didn't attack the man -- I simply wrote that you can't cherry-pick one author and claim that this author represents mainstream science. The reference I posted above makes it obvious that other scientists strongly disagree with his viewpoint -- and in this way I attacked his statement and not the man itself.
×