How do I even send a message in here

oh

It deleted my first message

And I don't know why

But this is some heavy stuff

So..

Definitely go to the police about this

From what I've seen, and I may be misinterpreting snippets, the threatened and the threatener know each other

irl

It is if you're an actor

If you wanna get real technical, everybody's an actor. If I remember correctly, it was the Japanese who said you have three faces. The one you show to the outside world. The one you show to your close friends and family. and the one only you know about. Everybody tries to put their best foot forward, but it's an act.

Oh

That

My guy

***What evidence do you have of that***

Just because they exist doesn't mean they're everywhere

That doesn't mean they're out to get you

Many nations have places all over the world

Doesn't mean they're in disguise everywhere

Just means they got lodges

If having lodges is a crime, sheeeeeeeeeet, I'm goin to jai;!

Honestly this whole server has 'History channel at midnight' energy

False-If someone was hitting you you would be more apt to defend yourself

I've been in my fair share of fights

Duck off out of this server but replace D with F

Me, who joined for intellectual debate, and you, who came here to act mentally disabled

F

Here's how I know it's not

Star constellations vary throughout the night/year

They wouldn't do that on a flat earth.

Stars, which are lightyears away, do not move perceptibly

It's us moving

Look, you can tell easily on your own. With a telescope. Or schedule a visit at a high powered telescope

It's not hard

I didn't say they don't move

I said the distance makes it imperceptible to the human eye

Hence, they do not move perceptibly

Everything is in constant motion. Has been since the conception of the universe

Because it's observable and mathematically verifiable

Here's an excerpt that gets the point I'm trying to make across much more effectively

There was no straightforward demonstration of Earth's motion until 1725 when James Bradley discovered stellar aberration. This is (apparent) yearly change in positions of all stars in the sky due to Earth's own motion. Aberration arises due to adding up of the speed of light coming from the star and Earth's own speed. This is a very complex phenomenon and its description requires some math.
Another, much simpler, consequence of Earth's motion is stellar parallax. If Earth changes its position relative to the stars, then the stars should appear to change position in the course of the year.
A common experiment illustrating parallax is just looking at a close object (a finger, a pencil etc) with one eye at the time. When you switch from one to the other eye, the object will appear to move against the background. Closer the object is to your eyes, more pronounced the effect is.
Parallax should not be confused with aberration: parallax arises from the change of Earth's position and depends on the distance to the star, while aberration is caused by Earth's great speed and does not depend on how far the star is.
Parallax of a star was first measured by Bessel in 1838. It was not measured before because this change of star's apparent position is very small (the stars are very far from us). This was a very important discovery because Aristotle himself mentioned the lack of observable stellar parallax as the proof that the Earth is not moving (he didn't have a telescope and didn't know that the stars are so distant).

A third discovery demonstrating Earth's motion was that of Doppler effect. The wavelength of the light that we receive from objects moving relative to us becomes a little shorter (i.e. bluer) when we approach the source and becomes longer (i.e. redder) when we move away from the source. When Earth moves toward a star, the star will appear slightly bluer (only high-tech instruments can measure this) while it will appear redder when Earth is on the other side of the orbit and moves in the opposite direction. This effect demonstrates that Earth has a velocity relative to the stars, similar to aberration.

The parallax isn't something you can take an image of

Here's a graph that shows what the parallax would have to look like in order to be properly imaged.

It has to be taken from an outside perspective or measured and graphed seperately

I'll put it in a very simple way

Do you have a picture of your brain?

If not, then your brain must not exist

See the pitfall in them logic?

This is about showing the fallacy in the logic of "If you don't have images, it isn't real"

I-

Are you honestly this annoying or are you just looking for attention?

So did I, then you did a turnaround and changed it up so fast I got whiplash

Keep it on the subject. Don't ask arbitrary questions where a definite answer has been found or it has found to be a complete matter of opinion

Honestly, you have proven that you are incapable of holding a debate, and that when you are losing, you will employ underhanded tactics in order to avert said defeat.

I don't believe a debate is in order because you refuse to do so

My guy

My uncle was *there* when 9/11 happened.

He watched as the planes hit the towers

Don't try to tell me that was faked. I have witnesses in the family.

I'm trying to go into psychology and I can tell you that based on the research I've done and the classes I've taken,
A. Not everybody in the government is a sociopath. That's how you choose to perceive them because you disagree with their policies and need something to justify your otherwise unreasonable dislike of them
B. Not all sociopaths are evil, as hero said

That said, I have no education beyond hs, so take what I say with a grain of salt

This isn't mass media

This is my uncle

A simple oil worker

Who was there

My guy.

You cannot tell me what my uncle did and did not see. Only he can verify that.

My guy. He saw planes. Then he saw explosions. Then he didn't see planes anymore. *Any rational person can make a very simple deduction*

I know I was slightly oversimplifying it, but I expect you to be able to make the logical leap

I get the feeling this is satire, but this is exactly what conspiracy theorists who dismiss proof as fabrication sounds like

It's a very complex idea I have on it

That's why I chose both

It's not actually complex, just not a very widespread idea

There wasn't an option for it, so I compensated by choosing both

You can't use that to bash my credibility without knowing the context bub

Yeah, but my opinion extends further than that

My personal opinion is of pro life, but I know that not everybody agrees with that, so I think being truly pro choice is a good compromise. Most people speak of abortion when saying pro choice, but that isn't pro-choice. That's just pro abortion.

Pro-choice means educating on all options. Abstinence, Birth control, Abortion, Adoption, and one other which I can't remember off the top of my head

That said, I also think that once the baby is able to feel pain, which, according to my research, is approx 20 weeks, you should not be able to get an abortion

You weren't there. Frankly, I don't believe you have any credence to speak on the situation considering how all of your information comes from sources that have no firsthand witnesses.

Anybody who was there to see it would debunk you in an instant

You stick to that religiously, but it's a strawman. Nobody saw the planes *hit the tower* because the explosion and debris engulfed them the moment they impacted. But they saw planes en route.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673970

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/6/1134.abstract?sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token