1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 17, 2017, 02:53:10 AM »

Trump seems to have made a serious tactical error in firing Comey, especially the way he did it.  Comey's the guy with the dirt on everyone.  And I get the impression that he's planted a dead man's switch with all of these stories on Trump. 

This has probably been the most disturbing week since he's taken office.  I'm worried about the long term consequences if congress does nothing...

Chaffetz (of all people) to the rescue! He just requested all memos/notes/summaries/recordings relating to communications between Comey and Trump to determine if there was an attempt to influence/impede the investigation. The deadline is May 24, and he publicly stated he is willing to subpoena it. At least they are actually doing something, finally.

Also, Lindsey Graham reportedly invited Comey to publicly testify before the senate. Should be interesting.

I'd like to make an opinion if the leaks were that bad or just being played up by the media. There isn't enough information available for me to know what's going on.

At this point, most of the details in the original WaPo report have been confirmed by Trump or McMaster. The exception being the severity/danger of the leaked material. At this point it is a he-said-she-said between the various news outlets and McMaster on whether the information given was inappropriate or dangerous.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 17, 2017, 12:05:26 AM »

I'm blown away with the accelerating pace of scandalous news surrounding the current administration.

The last week has been really bad for my productivity.

(Edit: Hello tfes! It seems the other site forgot to pay the light bill again.)

3

Flat Earth Media / [comment] Re: Round Earth Information Repository

« on: May 16, 2017, 11:52:21 PM »

Someone asked me repost a discussion about flight times I had with Tom Bishop on here, but it is simpler to just link to the other post. The discussion starts at the bottom of page one of this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5888.0

I added a link to this thread in the "Informative Forum Threads" section. Thanks for the contribution!

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: March 23, 2017, 06:42:35 PM »

No, that isn't the whole peninsula, there are several places pointing towards santa cruz.

That is Lovers Point, which you specifically referred to by name as the location of your experiment.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: March 23, 2017, 05:58:55 PM »

I already said that I performed the experiment a number of times on that peninsula, in different areas, 10 years ago. I don't know beach names.

Finally.

1. "I performed the experiment a number of times on that peninsula, in different areas." -- Tom Bishop
2. There is only one beach in that area that has line of sight to the Santa Cruz beach that you claimed to be able to see.

Therefore, you had to have been looking at the wrong beach in at least some of those experiments, indicating that you were unable to correctly identify the beach you claimed to be looking at. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the experiment was performed correctly.

Your honor, I rest my case.


Panorama of relevant beach.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: March 23, 2017, 05:40:05 PM »

I already said that I performed the experiment a number of times on that peninsula. I don't know beach names.

You don't need to know the name. Is this the beach? (Yes or no)

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: March 23, 2017, 05:30:47 PM »

Obviously the article isn't going anywhere.  It's a cherished and revered cornerstone of FE experimentation.  You can nitpick about the details as far as your imagination allows but isn't the more sensible and less stressful route to just admit defeat?

It's just basic fact checking. I would assume that an honest truth seeker such as Tom would welcome critique and fact checking. Why is he avoiding giving a straightforward answer to this question?

Tom:
Which beach were you on when you "lay[ed] down on the stomach at the edge of the shore... 20 inches above sea level" which allowed you to "see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 23 miles away"? Is this the beach? (Yes or no)

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 23, 2017, 05:08:37 PM »

"There is more than circumstantial evidence now [of collusion with the Russians]" -- Rep Adam Schiff D-CA, member of the House Intelligence Committee

Not giving MSNBC a view, can you describe the evidence?

Details weren't revealed, presumably because it is classified. He is part of the House Intelligence Committee, so he has access to classified info regarding the investigation. Monday Sunday, Schiff stated "there is circumstantial evidence of collusion. There is direct evidence of deception." Yesterday, he revealed that the evidence of collusion was now "more than circumstantial."

[speaking about evidence of Trump/Russia collusion]
Interviewer: "You admit that all you have right now is a circumstantial case?"
Schiff: "Actually, no Chuck, I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now so..."
Interviewer: "So you have seen direct evidence of collusion?"
Schiff: "I don't want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial, and is very much worthy of investigation, so that is what we ought to do..."

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 23, 2017, 04:01:14 PM »

"There is more than circumstantial evidence now [of collusion with the Russians]" -- Rep Adam Schiff D-CA, member of the House Intelligence Committee

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 22, 2017, 08:50:30 PM »

I feel like you guys must constantly be really bored to continue engaging TTIOH as much as you are.

Don't know about everyone else but I'm just too stupid to stop.

Would you guys rather be engaged or are you trying to setup one of those, what's it called again, safe spaces?

What's the definition of a safe space? A place that doesn't allow opposing view points?

vi. This is a forum for supporters of Trump ONLY

-- /r/The_Donald, Rules

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 18, 2017, 02:17:10 AM »

https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/842827246410907652

I'll reset the sign.   

It has been [ 0 ] days since our last international embarrassment.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Faith healing fails often... parents undeturred

« on: March 17, 2017, 03:18:52 AM »

It's spelled "undeterred".

It's actually spelled "under turd", because they have their heads stuck up their own butts.

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: How orbits work.

« on: March 17, 2017, 03:14:37 AM »

The great thing about science is that alternative theories are always welcome.

FE?

Some theories are valued for their rigor and explanatory power, others for their comedic value.

It's not opinion, it's an ancedotal description of a fact. And dark matter is a concept for how this galaxy spin discrepancy works

Holy word salad, Batman!

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: How orbits work.

« on: March 16, 2017, 06:50:03 PM »

Do you really consider your anecdotal, unqualified opinions information?

Is the irony uncomfortable at all, or does it just whoosh right over your head?

A point on a spinning disk does not have an apogee, as it is a fixed distance from the center at all times, hence a "uniform apogee". My point is that the galaxies spin as if they were solid disks, not massive stars orbiting around each other.

Do any of the astrophysicists here have an answer for this that doesn't contradict their beliefs?

Ignoring Tom's perplexing use of the word "apogee", he is sort of correct. Galaxies do not spin as a solid disk, but their outer portion does spin faster than what we predict based on mass estimates. The most widely accepted explanation is dark matter. It is far from proven though.

If you have a better explanation, I would love to hear it. The great thing about science is that alternative theories are always welcome. May the best theory win.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 16, 2017, 06:11:42 PM »

Yeah, it's "There is no evidence that Trump's campaign has gotten help from Russia and every agency in the government is lying."

Why are US intelligence agencies more trustworthy than the Russian government?

Motivation.  I can't imagine he US intelligence agencies have a desire to lie about Russia for the sole purpose of getting rid of Trump before he even became president.

It doesn't matter what you can imagine. The truth is the intelligence agencies job description is pretty much deception and control of information. They have a long history of very illegal, well documented deeds, including but not limited to assassination of foreign leaders, torture and human rights abuses, working to overthrow sovereign governments, even influencing the elections of friendly nations like france, infiltrating and attempting to destroy any and all counter-culture movements. And this is just what we know. They aren't elected, have no oversight or accountability, and have lied to us almost as a rule in the past. But now we should trust them because I'm scared of Twump.

Once again, your interpretation of reality is wholly irrelevant and hardly reliable when it comes to topics like these. Just because you want to will CIA into being the good guy, doesn't make it happen.

Why are you so determined to not trust anyone except Trump? Being skeptical is great, but why does Trump get a pass? Why do you think he is trustworthy when no one else is?

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: Experiment Earth Flat or Globe

« on: March 16, 2017, 08:42:12 AM »

Conservation of momentum

bahasa Indonesia: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inersia

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 15, 2017, 10:02:00 PM »

What exactly is my narrative again?

Is it as far fetched as a Kremlin plot to take over US politics?

New rule: flat earthers aren't allowed to call anything "far fetched". The reflexive facepalms are liable to give someone a concussion.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 15, 2017, 06:45:26 PM »

MSNBC tripped over themselves hyping this up the way it did when it revealed nothing. A 1040 with no schedules from over a decade ago? You shitting me?

Such a tease

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ships, Their Movements on the Horizon, and Navigation by Star Constellations

« on: March 11, 2017, 01:16:56 AM »

I have derived them from scratch myself on this very forum.

Please show me your peer reviewed paper and accompanying experimentation proving the validity of your "from scratch" equation.

It's simple highschool level math. No one is going to peer review it. Since when do you require peer reviewed sources anyway? If you actually want to see it, I'll search for it. If you are just being intentionally obtuse, I won't bother.

As far as special relativity proving gravity, you are just citing an even more obscure, harder to prove theory to try to prove the other unproven theory. Good job lol.

I did not even mention special relativity. Again, you have no earthly idea what you are talking about. You claim flatearthers require a higher burden of proof. Perhaps you should at the very least require a vague knowledge of the topic you are talking about before drawing sweeping conclusions about the validity of all scientific knowledge of said topic.

We don't know what the core of the Earth is, or why it should attract objects to it.

I think you are confusing "we" with "I". Go do some research for yourself. Here is a fun worksheet to direct your research:

1. What do scientists *think* the center of the earth is made out of?
2. Why do they think this?
3. How certain of this conclusion are they?
4. Do you agree with their conclusion, and their certainty? If not, why? What did they do wrong in their calculations/experiment that led them to the wrong conclusions? (Be specific)

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 10, 2017, 11:49:52 PM »

The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased.

...says the person who sources their information from /r/The_Donald without double checking its veracity. lol.

I couldn't find a comprehensive list like that anywhere else.

Probably because the list was mostly false and/or misleading, as others have painstakingly pointed out.

I do know that The_Donald is a community made up entirely of Trump supporters, unfortunately, it is only one compared to hundreds dedicated to "bringing Trump down" lol

Does that make them more trustworthy?

No, but the disparity is indicative and a reflection of the broader agenda aka better brainwashing of the left.

I have this theory that banjos are sentient and planning to take over the world. Not many people agree with me, but that just proves that the banjo opposition is better at brainwashing!!!

*facepalm*

The [/r/The_Donald] community is actually surprisingly tolerant and grounded...

*double facepalm*

You can look at the instances of violence that have plagued the protests lately to see who has the advantage when it comes to being more hateful and bigoted.

Neither side likes the anarchists.

My question to you is this: Why do you think liberally biased media has any inclination to show Trump in a positive light?

Why do you think conservatively biased Trump has any inclination to show the liberally biased media in a positive light?