1781

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: September 28, 2020, 07:10:41 AM »

Would you mind copy-pasting the article? Paywalls can suck it.

Here’s the BBC article about it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54319948

I look forward to Tom’s inevitable defence

I like the fact that Trump’s defence is basically “nuh uh”. And says that we’ll see when he releases the tax returns. Are those the same one you’ve been saying you’ll release for the last 4 years, Donald? And yes, you can release them while under audit...

1782

Flat Earth Media / Re: How High Do You Have To Be To See The Curvature?

« on: September 27, 2020, 09:44:12 PM »

Here the word “beyond” clearly means “further away than”.

This is not.

Well, it is. It's the way I'm using the word.

If you choose to misrepresent the guy's argument, his argument sure is going to souind silly; but do you think you'll have much luck convincing him of your views if you open your argument with such an obvious strawman?

I'm not deliberately misrepresenting his argument, I'm starting to think I don't understand it.
I've had a go at showing what I'm trying to say but I am pretty awful at drawing diagrams.



So you have a tall building on the right and two viewing points on the left. In the RE model the horizon is simply the edge of the earth. It's nothing to do with how far you can see although if the horizon is far enough away then that may become a factor and the horizon would not be a sharp line as it usually is at low altitudes.

So if you're at the viewing position on the right at a certain viewer height then the red line is drawn so it touches the earth - that's the horizon. Everything below that line beyond the horizon is occluded by the earth, hence the bottom of the building not being visible. Everything above that line is visible because you have clear line of sight to it.

If you're further away the the left viewing position and the same viewer height then the horizon will be the same distance from you - blue line - but because you're further away, and thus further round the globe, you can see less of the distant building.

The Turning Torso video demonstrates all this quite nicely. Obviously this is all massively out of scale, in real life you're only talking about 1 or 2 degrees in most cases round the earth so the leaning away of the building would not be noticeable.

If you're at the left viewing position but at a higher viewer height - green line - then the horizon is further away and you can see more of the building.

If the horizon was simply the "edge of nothing but our vision", then why would you see any of the building which is further away than the horizon? And this is where I fear I've not understood his argument. Maybe you or he could draw something to demonstrate.

1783

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why? To What End???

« on: September 27, 2020, 09:30:50 PM »

If big bang is big smoke...then evolutionary theory(1850s? Charles Darwin aka darwinism,) also falls flat. 

Does it? How so?
And we had photos and video from space long before the moon landings.
You still haven’t indicated any underlying motive? Who is hiding this from us and why?

Please provide said evidence. You have the burden of proof my good fellow....

So, prove me wrong...present your case....

OK. You said that "If big bang is big smoke...then evolutionary theory also falls flat.
Please explain what the connection between those two things is.

I don't need to provide evidence of photos from space pre-Apollo. You can Google that yourself. You can call the photos and videos fake of course, but pre Apollo were the Gemini and Mercury programmes, you can find plenty of photos from them.

Research for yourself before making false statements  on matters in which you are misinformed.

What false statements have I made? And the topic of this thread is about the motive for FE being repressed. You have still provided none.

1784

Flat Earth Media / Re: How High Do You Have To Be To See The Curvature?

« on: September 27, 2020, 04:21:17 PM »

Many photographers have done just that - any time they sell a print of those city skyline pictures from across lakes on certain days. Making money off pictures of things beyond the horizon.

In order to be "beyond" the horizon, they'd have to be on the same plane (or sphere) as the horizon. What you're talking about it objects which are above the horizon.

Come on, dude.
You are playing silly semantic games here.
The original claim was that the horizon is the “edge of nothing but our vision”.
The implication is that we see a horizon because we can’t see any further.
If that were so then we wouldn’t be able to see anything beyond the horizon line. Here the word “beyond” clearly means “further away than”. I’m sure you understand that so why are you trying to wilfully misunderstand it to derail the discussion?

1785

Flat Earth Media / Re: How High Do You Have To Be To See The Curvature?

« on: September 27, 2020, 07:44:04 AM »

There is no curvature of the horizon at any attainable height.  This has been confirmed to the nth degree

So are all the high altitude photos showing curvature fake or distorted?

The horizon is an optical illusion, the "edge" of nothing but our vision

If that is true why can we see things beyond the horizon but not all of them? Why do things sink below the horizon as they get further away. If it’s the limit of our vision shouldn’t they just vanish?
And why does horizon distance increase with height? Why does the limit of our vision increase when you ascend?
These things make sense in the context of a globe, what is your explanation?

1786

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why? To What End???

« on: September 26, 2020, 09:08:06 AM »

If big bang is big smoke...then evolutionary theory(1850s? Charles Darwin aka darwinism,) also falls flat. 

Does it? How so?
And we had photos and video from space long before the moon landings.
You still haven’t indicated any underlying motive? Who is hiding this from us and why?

1787

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lake Minnewanka

« on: September 22, 2020, 08:43:16 PM »

So we have lake known for swells, at a time when the waters are a bit choppy (windy). And the camera is 10 cm from the water. 

If you watch the video you'll note that over the course of the time he was there the water was very calm at certain times, it varied over time. He got pretty consistent results and JSS has shown stills which show a clear progressive hiding of the boat and other features on the distant shore as the camera was lowered.

Your claim is that there were no waves or swells over 20 inches over a distance of over 20 miles across a bay open to the Pacific Ocean. You are also claiming there were sun bathers on a chilly day of course...
I note that you continue to ignore my requests for you to show the documentation you made of your test so we can make some comparisons.

1788

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lake Minnewanka

« on: September 22, 2020, 05:26:40 PM »

So in the Bishop experiment you say that

With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore near Lovers Point 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse

So there were no waves over 20 inches over a span of 23 miles of a bay open to the Pacific Ocean?

Can you post some of your documentation from that experiment so we can compare with this experiment?

1789

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lake Minnewanka

« on: September 22, 2020, 04:19:29 PM »

When he did the first trip to the lake to make observations he took still photos from higher up and lower down.
In the companion documentary he relates how he went back with the equipment to get a smooth shot going up and down so people didn’t accuse him of cheating.
Even if you think that at the lowest the camera gets waves are a factor, there’s a smooth shot up and down which shows more of the distant shore smoothly as the camera rises. He does this repeatedly and at times the water is very calm and gets the same results.

Maybe if you could publish some of your documentation of the Bishop experiment we could compare?

1790

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lake Minnewanka

« on: September 22, 2020, 03:41:20 PM »

This video is a ridiculous gull. He puts the camera down to 10 centimeters above the water level. Waves and swells exist, and they don't need to be as large as whatever they are blocking in the background to block those objects, just as one can hold out a dime to obscure an elephant.

And yet...

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore near Lovers Point 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

You could see all those sun-bathers sun bathing on a chilly day...

1791

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lake Minnewanka

« on: September 22, 2020, 01:26:24 PM »

I'm going to guess he included all the footage because it's so gorgeous. Plus, more evidence is always good. This is a great video, extremely well done and such amazing scenery.

I think he did it to pre-empt criticism that he'd cherry picked footage.
The documentary he did "in search of a flat earth" is pretty good. Well, it starts well but then gets into QAnon territory which I found less interesting.
Quite impressed at how thorough he is though. And in that documentary he talks about 2 trips to the lake in different conditions.

1792

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lake Minnewanka

« on: September 22, 2020, 12:07:19 PM »

Ah yes. People sun bathing on a chilly day. I'd never noticed that before! Interesting.

1793

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lake Minnewanka

« on: September 22, 2020, 11:04:44 AM »

Right. Except in the Bishop experiment it says:

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore near Lovers Point 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment

In the companion documentary he does talk more about how he did the experiment a couple of times in different conditions.

1794

Flat Earth Theory / Lake Minnewanka

« on: September 19, 2020, 06:53:54 PM »

I hope this is the right place for this.
Thought this was a good video.
Well, the first few minutes are good where he explains the set up. The rest is literally just him moving the camera up and down at the edge of a lake. I can’t believe how much footage he’s included. But anyway...



He did the “math” beforehand and the results look to match what you’d expect on a globe.

Any thoughts?

1795

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: #justiceforRonJ

« on: September 18, 2020, 10:05:01 PM »

We've had an entire thread harassing Tom, which specifically featured RonJ as one of the most prolific contributors.

Right, hang on. You’re talking about the thread about things Tom doesn’t understand, right?
So I had a look through it just now and RonJ was indeed posting in it plenty in its first couple of pages. After that, not so much.
His last post in the thread that I could see (unless he has an alt?) was on page 10, his post was in May 2019. Tom’s post about how we were all being meanies wasn’t till May 2020. Not long after that, and after a few more posts, none by RonJ, the thread got locked.

So using that thread as part of a basis for banning RonJ is pretty spurious.

If you feel there’s been a more recent pattern of behaviour from him then you may be on to something but Tom’s complaint about the thread came a year after RonJ’s last post in the thread (again, unless he was posting with a different account), so you can’t sensibly claim Tom’s complaint about how horrid we all were included RonJ.

So yeah, RonJ broke Rule 1 which doesn’t apply in AR, so a ban was unwarranted.

All that said, I do buy the argument that he’d probably have got banned for something else soon anyway so is he really worth defending. But we are getting a bit “Minority Report” if we are going to ban someone for something they’re probably going to do.

1796

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: September 16, 2020, 08:06:03 AM »

Trump continuing to say any old random shit that pops into his head, even if it contradicts previous random shit that popped into his head

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54172311

1797

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Please don't hit the dome. Astra

« on: September 16, 2020, 07:47:09 AM »

Pure hockey puck, the sooner you reach thinner air, the faster one can go on less fuel. Plenty of time to tip sideways but we must do the big fake out and get out of vision for the kerplunk in da ocean.  Good try !!!

Can you show us some video or witness testimony of a space shuttle going "kerplunk in da ocean"? Where did the shuttles go for the days when they were "in space"?
Surely there's be some witness or whistle blower who saw them?

Your video above - the first 2 are really hard to make out. The 3rd one was a despinner, there's even a caption in the video that says that. So where did it hit the dome? Any why would hitting a dome cause it to stop spinning rather than blow up? Really confused about what you think happened in that one. I didn't watch further yet.

1798

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Please don't hit the dome. Astra

« on: September 14, 2020, 05:16:06 PM »

So...you think that hit the dome?
And it just bounced off and then only exploded when it hit the ground?
Is that what you are going with?

1799

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: September 10, 2020, 09:29:07 PM »

I went into a Walmart many years ago whilst on holiday because I wanted to see what real Americans looked like. You wouldn't believe how big they are in real life.  😱

Have you been to Florida?
Holy shit there are some fat people there.

1800

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: September 10, 2020, 09:27:54 PM »

It is well acknowledged that the people who die from this are sick and old.

Well, amazingly you're actually right about something.
Let us mark the day when Tom Bishop is finally right about something.

So yeah, this thing kills old and/or sick people. But it's killed a LOT of them. A lot more than in a usual flu season

Flu season in the US, which runs from October through May, claims tens of thousands of lives every year

.

https://www.health.com/condition/cold-flu-sinus/how-many-people-die-of-the-flu-every-year

The US are close to 200,000 deaths from Covid, despite the unprecedented lockdown.
And even if we agree that the exact numbers are hard to determine and that number may have been inflated, there have been a lot of excess deaths this year. Something is killing a lot of people this year. If it's not Covid then what?