Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 101  Next >
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Southern midnight sun
« on: Today at 08:55:36 AM »
The Flat Earth Theory was revised after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's to include the South Pole. Check out the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monsterous Hypothetical Motions available online in our Library.

Where is the south pole located on a flat earth map?

I mentioned a source in my post.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Southern midnight sun
« on: May 22, 2017, 01:29:12 AM »
The Flat Earth Theory was revised after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's to include the South Pole. Check out the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monsterous Hypothetical Motions available online in our Library.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 20, 2017, 01:03:45 AM »
i agree with virtually every word of this national review article: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446339/donald-trump-russia-2016-election-controversy-explained

Quote
We don’t know the most important facts of the case, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything important. It’s important and troubling to know that members of the intelligence community are seemingly leaking with impunity to damage Trump. It’s important and troubling to know that Trump has lost key aides because of their Russia ties, and that Trump and his team continue struggling to tell the truth about their Russian contacts. And it’s important and troubling to know that huge swaths of the American political establishment are being exposed as purely partisan.

The FBI is continuing its investigation, and so are the House and Senate intelligence committees (though Nunes’s House committee is in a state of chaos). Every major media publication is feverishly chasing the various threads of the story. It’s entirely possible that we’re not at the beginning of the end of this scandal, but rather at the end of the beginning. It’s also entirely possible that the end, when it comes, will leave political casualties on all sides, from bureaucrats who may face prosecution for unlawful leaks to public figures who may face ruin for unlawful or inappropriate foreign contacts.

One thing is clear: The Russian government has run one of the most cost-effective and disruptive espionage operations in history. Through a few simple hacks of the DNC, some basic online trolling, and garden-variety propaganda spread by modern means, the Kremlin has turned a superpower’s politics upside down. Its chief geopolitical rival is divided, with leaders obviously more furious at each other than at the foreign power who created the crisis. Russia may well face a day of reckoning for its attack on our democracy, but for now it has won, and the magnitude of its victory increases with each petty and partisan turn in Washington’s most consequential drama.

Gary, it does not matter whether it was Russia who hacked Hillary's campaign manager's email or if it was a 400 pound hacker in his mother's basement. Putting the blame on a third party who "interfered with the elections" is denialism. The blame for this lost election must be put on Hillary Clinton for being involved in so much corruption and criminality.

Putting the blame on the person who accessed the emails is like putting blame on Snowden for exposing the crimes of the NSA. It really does not matter if Snowden did it on his own, or if Snowden was directed to do it by another party. The crimes of the NSA must be answered for.

Whoever provided the leaks to the public on the illegal NSA surveillance programs should be commended, even if it was Russia who exposed them. If it was Russia who exposed the crimes of the NSA to the American Public, then that makes Russia a friend to the American Public. Russia would be on the side of The American People for exposing the crimes by the US Government.

Don't you get it? If Russia provided greater transparency to the election by exposing the numerous crimes of Hillary Clinton, then that makes Russia our friend. Russia's actions should be CELEBRATED, as they are a whistleblower against a corrupt and criminal politician who has no business leading our country.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2017, 06:46:21 PM »
Influenced how? If you mean that their media and leaders openly endorsed him and spread some dubious rumours worldwide to boost his popularity - sorry, that's hardly controversial. They can voice their views much like anyone else. The alternative would be censorship of the media, which would be a bigger issue.

Which is what I said, everyone can see that Russia influenced the election to some degree.  No conspiracy there.

What has also been reported is that the Trump campaign had 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians, which is a no no.  Perhaps they were innocuous, perhaps not, but it is something that should be put to rest one way or the other.

There is no Michale Flynn "collusion" with the Russian government -- all he is accused of is receiving payment for a speech/interview he once gave to Russia Today in 2015.

Incorrect, this is not why he was dismissed as National Security Advisor.   

Quote
The accusations against Trump are completely fabricated. There is no evidence or merit whatsoever.

The Trump campaign also had 18 undisclosed communications with Russia, which after the actions of Michael Flynn just further muddies the waters.

18 communications with who? Russian media outlets who want to interview Donald Trump? From an ambassador who wants to meet Donald Trump? From any of the perfectly LEGITIMATE reasons there are to answer a call from a Russian phone number?

The people who saw those "18 communications" which include electronic messages even admit the legitimacy of such:

    "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far..."

Per the actions of Michael Flynn -- you mean this Q&A session he participated in with Russia Today to talk about the Middle East Crisis? They paid him $30,000 to cover his time and travel and you think this made a United States General into an untrustable Russian spy?

There is nothing here. Nothing. It is absolutely a witch hunt.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2017, 06:12:25 PM »
Whoever interfered with the election, by exposing the underhanded dealings and criminal actions of Hillary Clinton, did the country a service. They interfered with the election by giving us greater transparency. The Dems are whining and calling foul instead of accepting that Hillary Clinton was incredibly corrupt.

There is no Michale Flynn "collusion" with the Russian government -- all he is accused of is receiving payment for a speech/interview he once gave to Russia Today in 2015. Here is the interview he received $30,000 for. He is a very famous and respectable United States Lieutenant General and former Director of Defense Intelligence answering questions about the Middle East Crisis; someone who many news organizations around the world would love to interview. How does this interview make him a Russian spy or cast any doubt on his allegiance to the United States at all?

The accusations against Trump are completely fabricated. There is no evidence or merit whatsoever.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2017, 05:30:26 PM »
Sorry, Tom, I feel no more compelled to respond to you than I do to TTIOH, or Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity if they were wont to post here. It's a wasted effort.

Just answer. What did General Flynn do that was so terrible? He gave an interview/speech to Russia Today once in 2015 (when he was working for Obama, BY THE WAY) and was paid for his time. What is wrong with that? Bad on him for not properly disclosing that in a security form, but what is the big deal here?

The entire Russian interference in the election thing is a complete diversion to hide the shady and criminal actions of Hillary Clinton. Someone hacked her campaign manager's email and leaked it to Wikileaks. It was shown that Hillary Clinton and her foundation was incredibly corrupt. Instead of answering for their misdeeds they blamed it on the Russians for "interfering with the election," when even if true, the only thing they did was give the American public greater transparency than they otherwise would not have had.

And yet, Trump has not brought charges against her.
Explain that one.

It is not a coincidence that now that former FBI director James Comey is out of the picture all of this stuff about Hillary murdering Seth Rich is starting to pop up.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2017, 05:14:01 PM »
I honestly don't believe Trump knows anything or is a secret spy.
The reason being is, he's too volatile and doesn't know how to be discrete.  He is, however, an easily manipulated pawn.

If anything, Russia has several advisors in his pocket feeding him info and ideas such as "The media is corrupt and evil" and "Everyone is wrong but you..."

I don't think there's much of a doubt that people close to Trump were working with the Russians. I maintain that his actions during the campaign and since he's taken presidency suggest guilt but with such a wild card it's hard to say if that's actual guilt or the bumbling reactions of a feeble insane old man to an increasingly frustrating situation. That is precisely why an independent investigation was so important and I do have faith that this one will be fair.

Who was working with the Russians on Trump's team? What General Michael Flynn was accused of, receiving money from "Russia" for a 2015 speech, was something that was done years before he joined Trump's White House team. He told trump when he joined that he was currently under investigation for that when he joined.

The charges against him are pretty ridiculous. He once gave a speech for the news organization Russia Today in 2015 and was paid money for his time. He wasn't even paid by the Russian Government. He didn't disclose this payment from that news organization in a security form, which may be considered a security violation and is certainly deserving of some small level of discipline. But being branded by the media as a "Russian Spy" is simply several magnitudes over the line.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2017, 04:43:45 PM »
The entire Russian interference in the election thing is a complete diversion to hide the shady and criminal actions of Hillary Clinton. Someone hacked her campaign manager's email and leaked it to Wikileaks. It was shown that Hillary Clinton and her foundation was incredibly corrupt. Instead of answering for their misdeeds they blamed it on the Russians for "interfering with the election," when even if true, the only thing they did was give the American public greater transparency than they otherwise would not have had.

9
inorder to "find the pattern" one must first find the "object" and track its path ....

The Lunar Eclipse is a phenomenon which comes in patterns. By studying historical tables of past eclipses it is possible to predict when the next one will occur. This is how Aristotle and the other ancients were able to predict the Lunar Eclipse thousands of years into the future. It is a method of prediction independent of any particular world model or eclipse mechanism.

10
For the first question about eclipses, the eclipses are predicted by finding the patterns where they occur in the sky and predicting when the next pattern will occur. This is how it has been calculated for millennia. In fact, if we go to NASA's Lunar Eclipse Website -> Resources ->  Eclipses and the Soros we will find that NASA is using a method created by the Ancient Babylonians, a society of people who believed that the earth was flat. NASA is using a method created by Flat Earthers. This is the only method NASA describes for finding the eclipse on that website.

11
I am willing to do a forum interview. Post your questions for me here and I will reply.

12
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

Yes, I tend to find it easier to accept an explanation that does not violate any known physical laws and is consistent with all other observations relevant to the explanation than it is to accept an explanation that depends on a completely new and unproven physical property of the atmosphere that has never been observed independent of the context in which it is being claimed.

For example, I downloaded the picture from the Wiki that supposedly is evidence for this effect, and yet when I zoom the picture to 400% of original size, I can easily determine that the distant streetlights appear to be about half of the size in the photo as the closer streetlights. That is what perspective does (make distant objects appear smaller) and it is doing it to the globes of light formed by each streetlight in that picture, which is also attached to this post. So the evidence offered for this magnification effect is in actual fact evidence that perspective works the same for a source of bright light as it does for everything else. There is no magnification effect.

As the wiki describes, the lights in the distance are not consistently shrinking. They should be little points, but they are not. At a certain distance they appear to stop shrinking altogether.

The lights very close to the camera are bigger, certainly, but that could be because the bulb size is bigger than the projection upon the atmosphere. This is described in the Wiki.

13
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: May 13, 2017, 05:03:12 AM »
When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle.
Citation needed.

You will have to take my word for it.

Nope, that's never been good enough for you, it's not good enough for me.  And why should it be?  You're just some random stranger on the internet, what good is your word?

If you don't want to take my word for it, you are free to search through the last 10 years of messages between this site and the other site until you find the posts you are looking for.

14
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: May 13, 2017, 05:02:04 AM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.

That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: Inconsistencies in FE theory
« on: May 13, 2017, 04:54:49 AM »
We measure the effects of gravity all the time.  We have even generated instruments to do it.  We have also generated predictive formulas based on what we know about gravity that give measurable results.

Which instrument shows that space-time is bending or that gravity is caused by graviton messenger particles?

16
Flat Earth General / Re: Expedition
« on: May 06, 2017, 05:11:18 PM »
It might be pointed out that Antarctica shows up as  the so-called "the rim continent" on the crcular so-called "flat earth map" as a result of the distortion that the map is in actuality The Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection....of the Globe. Which seems to be the best that flat earth has come up with so far.
The Bipolar Projection presents even more problems.

The maps are for illustrative purposes only to stimulate discussion. The continents may take a number of configurations and we are underfunded to explore the matter further. You keep posting here expecting us to take up lots of our time to talk to you and offer nothing in return. What gives?

17
Flat Earth General / Re: Expedition
« on: May 06, 2017, 04:58:10 PM »
Does it look like I am replying to the yacht race?

My mistake, as most of the post you replied to was about the race. But similar rough calculations apply to the scientific expedition. To travel even 50,000 miles in three months would mean traveling at an average of 23 mph 24 hours a day for 90 days. That is an incredibly fast pace and would still require huge amounts of fuel for a ship that large.

In fact, the ship they used has a top speed of 18 mph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Tryoshnikov , so it could only have covered about 39,000 miles if it was underway at top speed for 90 days continuously. The specs for the ship say it can only cover 17,000 miles before refueling, so even that would have been impossible as they would have had to make at least two stops to refuel. Their planned itinerary shows a distance covered of roughly 14,000 miles: https://documents.epfl.ch/groups/e/ep/epflmedia/www/20161220_ACEexpedition/Travel%20plan%20ACE.pdf

If you look at their itinerary, it is clear that they spent a lot of time in port and also onshore doing their scientific experiments. These videos show how they spent much of the time at anchor or traveling at slower speeds doing their research:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87TvkL0meGU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUHk-jAe2Gw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt_Euo08O9I

Of the Monopole proponents a theory is becoming increasingly popular that South America, Africa, and Australia are actually closer together than depicted in the common Monopole maps and the Pacific Ocean is larger.

Under such a map it is certainly possible to travel from Africa -> Australia -> Antarctica -> South America -> Africa without having to go around the entire Antarctic rim. The directions of travel would not reflect the map on their site, but if you are just trying to set sail with your instruments to a destination from the middle of nowhere it is easy to not pay too much attention to directions.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Expedition
« on: May 05, 2017, 08:24:07 PM »
You seem to live in a world filled with unreliable sources. But if they are actually reporting their route and the distance traveled which is quite easy to do in this day and age of gps, then the distance they traveled would make the ice ring impossible, and also would prove that the continent is smaller than the average diameter of the route they traveled. So actually viewing the coastline they circled would not be necessary to set an upper limit on how big Antarctica could be. Also, any ocean race like this has checkpoints along the route that every yacht must pass in the correct sequence in order to prevent the kind of shortcuts and cheating you suggest might have occurred.

As for a more reputable source, there is the one that involved teams of scientists from all over the world, also with several stops and ports along the way that they visited in sequence, including stops on the actual continent: http://spi-ace-expedition.ch/

It appears that it took 3 months for those people to make that journey. How do we know that they didn't go around the Antarctic Rim?

The winner made it in 74 days. The greatest distance covered in any 24 hour period was 537 nautical miles which was a new record for this race. The winner averaged more like 330 nautical miles per day ( 13.75 knots) over the entire race. And all of this includes the travel time and distance from France to the latitudes at which they circumnavigated and back up to France.

So sure if they cheated and turned on their motors (which they did not have as that would slow down a competitive ocean racing yacht) then maybe they could have traveled more like the 70-75,000 nautical miles down to and around the ice rim on the unipolar map in 74 days. However, the yachts in this race could not ever make a pit stop as that was against the rules, so there is no way they could have carried enough fuel to make it that far. A large motor boat could easily burn 2 gallons or more of fuel for every nautical mile at the necessary speeds to cover that much distance....so say a minimum of 150,000 gallons of fuel weighing 900,000 pounds (the yachts in this race weighed more like a total of 15-20,000 pounds). Yeah, that would not really work. These yachts relied on the wind and there is no way they could average such high speeds 24 hours a day for 3 months. Their top speed is around 30-35 knots, so even with extreme wind conditions 24 hours a day for months on end, they still could not cover the distance.

Either the entire race and all of the participants in the eight races that have been run are all part of this big, dumb and pointless conspiracy to fool us all into thinking the world is round, or else they simply sailed around Antarctica. Here is the winner's yacht under sail:



These yachts are amazing feats of engineering and are going so fast already that it is pretty much torture to ride one for weeks on end:
http://www.yachtingworld.com/extraordinary-boats/close-look-hugo-boss-alex-thomsons-vendee-globe-2016-92713

Does it look like I am replying to the yacht race?

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Expedition
« on: May 05, 2017, 05:24:31 PM »
You seem to live in a world filled with unreliable sources. But if they are actually reporting their route and the distance traveled which is quite easy to do in this day and age of gps, then the distance they traveled would make the ice ring impossible, and also would prove that the continent is smaller than the average diameter of the route they traveled. So actually viewing the coastline they circled would not be necessary to set an upper limit on how big Antarctica could be. Also, any ocean race like this has checkpoints along the route that every yacht must pass in the correct sequence in order to prevent the kind of shortcuts and cheating you suggest might have occurred.

As for a more reputable source, there is the one that involved teams of scientists from all over the world, also with several stops and ports along the way that they visited in sequence, including stops on the actual continent: http://spi-ace-expedition.ch/

It appears that it took 3 months for those people to make that journey. How do we know that they didn't go around the Antarctic Rim?

20
The hull of the smaller boat seems to be obscured behind some water too. Look how close the waves get to the deck line:



It's not really that much more depth needed before the desk is submerged and little house structure is sticking out of the water like with the big boat. The big boat doesn't have a bow almost as tall as the bridge, but it it did that would be sticking out of the water as well.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 101  Next >