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 ... 469  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 04:54:06 AM »
The article says that "Trump calls for termination of Constitution" because of fraud.

Honk replies and says that calling for termination of the Constitution is an "outrageous" thing to say.

Stack comes along and agrees that termination of the Constitution is the appropriate thing to do in the case of fraud and that it is not such an outrageous thing to say, but says there wasn't no fraud so it doesn't matter.

Two outspoken liberals on tfes.org were unable to maintain the same narrative. It looks like the narrative that termination of the Constitution is "outrageous" has failed.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 03:45:22 AM »
I did. But since there was no fraud, kinda a moot point.

Whether there was fraud is irrelevant to how the Constitution would handle fraud and whether it needs to be discarded in the case of fraud. If you are not going to participate in the discussion - in this case contributing to the conversation of how the Constitution handles fraud, then please refrain from posting.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 03:42:53 AM »
Trump is correct. The Constitution does not outline what happens if there is fraud. When Constitution talking about how the winner of the election is certified and put into power it is implying that the legitimately elected person is certified and put into power. Therefore in a cause of fraud large parts of the Constitution on how the President is given power, or how that President can be impeached, can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

What fraud?

Please refrain from low content posting. Read the link to find out what is being discussed.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 03:34:13 AM »
Trump is correct. The Constitution does not outline what happens if there is fraud. When the Constitution talking about how the winner of the election is certified and put into power it is implying that the legitimately elected person is certified and put into power. The process of impeaching the President, or the powers of the President has, implies that it is talking about a legitimately elected President. If it is an illegitimate President then nothing in the Constitution can protect him. Large parts of the Constitution can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

5
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Additions to the Library
« on: December 02, 2022, 04:47:40 PM »
We don't have this one in the Library:

Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed by William Carpenter (Aka. Common Sense)

https://archive.org/details/TheoreticalAstronomyExaminedAndExpos

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: November 29, 2022, 09:42:17 AM »
Seeing as this is exactly what they loudly and repeatedly claimed in the film, this is a pretty weak argument. They did not have complete vaccination statuses but claimed that they were seeing more clots and were having a harder time embalming bodies, since 2021.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: November 28, 2022, 10:13:38 AM »
I guess Stew Peters is going to make a bunch of money with his video advertisement for his "buy Gold" pamphlets disguised as an actual fact based "documentary". Just shows a sucker is born everyday - A modern day snake oil salesman he is.

Buy some gold from him and protect yourself from the NWO population control death panel cabal. Seems totally rational.

Seeing as almost every major media outlet has advertisements, this is a rather poor argument. It appears that you do not actually have a legitimate argument.

Now for the legit argument from McGill University:

The Anti-Vaccine Documentary Died Suddenly Wants You to Feel, Not Think

Members of the anti-vaccination movement and of its media arm excel at portraying themselves as “those who care.” The rest of us—scientists, doctors, politicians, journalists—are represented as either apathetic or simply evil. The latest “documentary” to emerge from this movement, Died Suddenly, is an exercise in reframing compassion. It also represents the apogee of conspiritualist ideas, where grand conspiracy theories surrounding vaccines are painted on a canvas so large, they involve a Biblical war between the forces of absolute good and those of pure evil.

Who are portrayed as ringing the alarm for Armageddon in Died Suddenly? Embalmers.


The documentary’s smoking gun is the alleged discovery of long, white, fibrous clots in the deceased bodies of people who, we are told, got vaccinated against COVID-19. Sometimes, their blood also looks dirty, like it contains coffee grounds. This claim seems to have originated from Richard Hirschman, an embalmer in Alabama, who spoke about it to The Epoch Times, a frequent vehicle for misinformation and grand conspiracy theories. Hirschman and a few other embalmers testify to their findings in Died Suddenly, with some being blurred out, their voices altered, like they are sharing secrets so damning they’re about to be shipped to their local witness protection program.

The problem is that embalmers and funeral directors are not medical professionals. Don’t take it from me, but from the National Funeral Directors Association in the United States, whose representative told me as much, and from Ben Schmidt, a funeral director and embalmer with a bachelor’s degree in natural science. Schmidt wrote a detailed explanation of what is happening here. Clots can easily form after death, as the liquid and solid parts of blood separate and as formaldehyde and calcium-containing water used in the embalming process catalyze clotting. Refrigeration can also be to blame, especially when a rapid influx of bodies due to COVID necessitates longer stays in the cooler as embalmers make their way through their backlog.


This debunk is rather poor, even for your usual material. It does not attempt to perform any investigation whatsoever into the claims of the embalmers that they are encountering more clots than usual. This review claims that embalmers are not legitimate professionals to cite because they are "not medical professionals" and then immediately contradicts itself by citing an embalmer as an authority on how clots form.

No attempt is made to study the original claims and determine if there are more than usual, or if embalmers are claiming more difficulty in embalming bodies as claimed in the film.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: November 26, 2022, 12:19:54 AM »
I guess Stew Peters is going to make a bunch of money with his video advertisement for his "buy Gold" pamphlets disguised as an actual fact based "documentary". Just shows a sucker is born everyday - A modern day snake oil salesman he is.

Buy some gold from him and protect yourself from the NWO population control death panel cabal. Seems totally rational.

Seeing as almost every major media outlet has advertisements, this is a rather poor argument. It appears that you do not actually have a legitimate argument.

Just today CNN popped up a full page advertisement over a news article, telling me that the deals are going to expire in 4 hours, so I better click on their link and use their referrals to start buying now.


9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: November 25, 2022, 09:36:22 PM »
I haven't seen this yet, but apparently it's pretty popular, despite being censored by Social Media.

National File: 5 Million Watch Stew Peters’ New ‘Died Suddenly’ Film in First 24 Hours, Smashing Left-Wing Censors

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 20, 2022, 07:14:51 PM »
Since you asked, however…because the gravitational force between two objects depends on the mass of both objects. If that seems implausible, it is no different to, for example, the force between two charged particles, where the mutual force depends on the charge of both particles.

Actually it's much different.

Particles charged with different amounts of force and charge will produce different levels of attraction.

Different masses of particles will also accelerate at different accelerations due to their inertial drag, for the same reason why it is harder to push a bowling ball across the floor than a marble. More mass means more inertial resistance.

Gravity behaves differently than this, however. All bodies fall together at the same rate in a laboratory vacuum chamber regardless of their mass. No difference has been detected. This even applies to individual atoms with different masses.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 20, 2022, 07:06:36 PM »
Since it appears that you have discovered Newton's laws, and know that different amount of mass will be moved differently in response to a force, more massive requiring more force, maybe you can explain for us how gravity knows to apply different amounts of force to a bowling ball and a feather to cause them to 'fall' together at the same rate in a vacuum chamber.
If you want to discuss gravity, then feel free to start a new thread.  This thread is about how rockets work in a vacuum.

If you want to appeal to Newton then you have to be willing to talk about places where Newton's laws don't work. How rockets work, and rocketry requirements, does have something to do with gravity. A lot to do with it, actually. Simply: Gravity in not coherent with the laws of Newton, yet you want to use Newton's inconsistent laws to prove something about the functionality of rockets and how they propel.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 20, 2022, 06:56:44 PM »
This opposite force created by accelerating matter is new to me...  I'll investigate and thank you for your time.

Tron, just examine this:



What's really interesting about it is that the sled on the left is propelled at half the speed at the the sled on the right. Reason being, the left sled is twice the mass as the right sled sled. Pretty cool how that works.

Additionally, it's a pretty clear example of Newton's 3rd. You have to ask yourself why do the sleds both propel and why do they propel opposite one another. It clearly demonstrates exactly what you mentioned: "opposite force created by accelerating matter".

Keep exploring. There's lots of cool stuff around rockets, physics, etc.

Since it appears that you have discovered Newton's laws, and know that different amount of mass will be moved differently in response to a force, more massive requiring more force, maybe you can explain for us how gravity knows to apply different amounts of force to a bowling ball and a feather to cause them to 'fall' together at the same rate in a vacuum chamber.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: November 19, 2022, 08:29:30 PM »
Quote from: AllArountTheWorld
So yeah, if things are NOT behind the horizon, but are so far away that they are just an indistinct dot then yes, optical zoom will "restore" them.
But as I have demonstrated with my experiment - which is basically the same as the one on your Wiki - that cannot explain the sinking ship effect.
That's where Rowbotham was wrong. Because even if the thin "hull" is at the top it still becomes impossible to see at a certain distance and can be "restored" with optical zoom. Nothing to do with sinking.

Rowbotham was not wrong. You were just lazy and didn't bother to read the book. He also studied the cases where the hull could not be restored with a telescope. He said that in the cases where the hull could not be restored it was clearly due to a special cause, due to inconsistency, inaccuracy, or weather correlation of such observations.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

Quote
Inconsistency

It has been found that the Sinking Ship effect is inconsistent. At times it occurs and at other times it does not occur.

In The Plane Truth: The History of the Flat Earth Movement by Robert Schadewald we find:

  “ Let Richard A. Proctor, science writer, astronomer, and good-humored arch-enemy of Parallax, describe another experiment:

' Mr. Rowbotham did a very bold thing … at Plymouth. He undertook to prove, by observations made with a telescope upon the Eddystone Lighthouse from the Hoe and from the beach, that the surface of the water is flat. From the beach, usually only the lantern can be seen. From the Hoe, the whole of the lighthouse is visible under favourable conditions. Duly on the morning appointed, Mr. Rowbotham appeared. From the Hoe a telescope was directed towards the lighthouse, which was well seen, the morning being calm and still and tolerably clear. On descending to the beach it was found that, instead of the whole lantern being visible as usual, only half could be seen—a circumstance doubtless due to the fact that the Air’s refractive power, which usually diminishes the dip due to the earth’s curvature by about one-sixth part, was less efficient that morning than usual. The effect of the peculiarity was manifestly unfavourable to Mr. Rowbotham’s theory. The curvature of the earth produced a greater difference than usual between the appearance of a distant object as seen from a certain low station (though still the difference fell short of that of which would be shown if there were no error). But Parallax claimed the peculiarity observable that morning as an argument in favour of his flat earth. It is manifest, he said, “that there is something wrong about the accepted theory; for it tells us that some much less of the lighthouse should be seen from the beach than from the Hoe, whereas still less was seen.” And many of the Plymouth folk went away from the Hoe that morning, and from the second lecture, in which Parallax triumphantly quoted the results of the observation, with the feeling which had been expressed seven years before in the Leicester Advertiser, that "some of the most important conclusions of modern astronomy had been seriously invalidated." [ref. 1.20] ' ”

From p.223 in Earth Not a Globe we read:

  “ It is well known that even on lakes of small dimensions and also on canals, when high winds prevail for some time in the same direction, the ordinary ripple is converted into comparatively large waves. On the "Bedford Canal," during the windy season, the water is raised into undulations so high, that through a powerful telescope at an elevation of 8 inches, a boat two or three miles away will be invisible; but at other times, through the same telescope the same kind of boat may be seen at a distance of six or eight miles.

During very fine weather when the water has been calm for some days and become as it were settled down, persons are often able to see with the naked eye from Dover the coast of France, and a steamer has been traced all the way across the channel. At other times when the winds are very high, and a heavy swell prevails, the coast is invisible, and the steamers cannot be traced the whole distance from the same altitude, even with a good telescope.

Instances could be greatly multiplied, but already more evidence has been given than the subject really requires, to prove that when a telescope does not restore the hull of a distant vessel it is owing to a purely special and local cause. ”

On p.217 we read additional accounts of inconsistency:

  “ In May, 1864, the author, with several gentlemen who had attended his lectures at Gosport, made a number of observations on the "Nab" light-ship, from the landing stairs of the Victoria Pier, at Portsmouth. From an elevation of thirty-two inches above the water, when it was very calm, the greater part of the hull of the light vessel was, through a good telescope, plainly visible. But on other occasions, when the water was much disturbed, no portion of the hull could be seen from the same elevation, and with the same or even a more powerful telescope. At other times, when the water was more or less calm, only a small portion of the hull, and sometimes the upper part of the bulwarks only, could be seen. These observations not only prove that the distance at which objects at sea can be seen by a powerful telescope depends greatly on the state of the water, but they furnish a strong argument against rotundity. The "Nab" light-ship is eight statute miles from the Victoria pier, and allowing thirty-two inches for the altitude of the observers, and ten feet for the height of the bulwarks above the water line, we find that even if the water were perfectly smooth and stationary, the top of the hull should at all times be fourteen feet below the horizon. Many observations similar to the above have been made on the north-west light-ship, in Liverpool Bay and on light-vessels in various parts of the sea round; Great Britain and Ireland.

It is a well known fact that the light of Eddystone lighthouse is often plainly visible from the beach in Plymouth Sound, and sometimes, when the sea is very calm, persons sitting in ordinary rowing boats can see the light distinctly from that part of the Sound which will allow the line of sight to pass between "Drake's Island" and the. western end of the Breakwater. The distance is fourteen statute miles. In the tables published by the Admiralty, and also by calculation according to the supposed rotundity of the earth, the light is stated to be visible thirteen nautical or over fifteen statute miles, yet often at the same distance, and in rough weather, not only is the light not visible but in the day time the top of the vane which surmounts the lantern, and which is nearly twenty feet higher than the centre of the reflectors or the focus of the light, is out of sight.

A remarkable instance of this is given in the Western Daily Mercury, of October 25th, 1864. After lectures by the author at the Plymouth Athenæum and the Devonport Mechanics' Institute, a committee was formed for the purpose of making experiments on this subject, and on the general question of the earth's form. A report and the names of the committee were published in the Journal above referred to; from which the following extract is made.

"OBSERVATION 6TH.--On the beach, at five feet from the water level, the Eddystone was entirely out of sight."
At any time when the sea is calm and the weather clear, the light of the Eddystone may be seen from an elevation of five feet above the water level; and according to the Admiralty directions, it "maybe seen thirteen nautical (or fifteen statute), miles," 1 or one mile further away than the position of the observers on the above-named occasion; yet, on that occasion, and at a distance of only fourteen statute miles, notwithstanding that it was a very fine autumn day, and a clear background existed, not only was the lantern, which is 80 feet high, not visible, but the top of the vane, which is 100 feet above the foundation, was, as stated in the report "entirely out of sight." There was, however, a considerable "swell" in the sea beyond the breakwater.

That vessels, lighthouses, light-ships, buoys, signals, and other known and fixed objects are sometimes more distinctly seen than at other times, and are often, from the same common elevation, entirely out of sight when the sea is rough, cannot be denied or doubted by any one of experience in nautical matters. ”

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: November 18, 2022, 12:15:55 AM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
But in any case, your "experiment" simply demonstrates the part I already wrote in bold above. The very thin hull in your picture will become hard to resolve at a certain distance. And yes, in that case optical magnification could "restore" it. But the reason it can be "restored" is that it isn't hidden in the first place. It isn't behind anything, it just becomes difficult to discern at a certain distance.

Which is exactly what Rowbotham is describing in Earth Not a Globe. When bodies are smaller than 1/60th of a degree they become lost to optical resolution, and are beyond perception. So, you were wrong. This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: November 16, 2022, 10:09:22 PM »
There are multiple phenomena that can cause a sinking ship effect - swells, refraction, etc - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

We were talking about the specific claim that the hull of a ship can be hidden with distance due to lack of optical resolution and then restored with optical zoom. There is a simple experiment that you can perform to demonstrate this:


16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: November 16, 2022, 09:50:15 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
1) Ships, buildings and other distant landmarks disappear behind the horizon and do so increasingly with distance. They cannot be "restored" with optical resolution as Rowbotham claimed - I mean, they can if they're this side of the horizon, but not once they're beyond it.

Instead of continuously repeating this misunderstanding of optics, there is an experiment you can perform to demonstrate the matter. We provide a home printout experiment for school children at the end of this link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Midterms 2022
« on: November 16, 2022, 01:55:52 PM »
You are going to sit here and tell me the widely-held conservative opinion going into the midterms was NOT that they were going to have a red wave, capturing large gains in both the House and the Senate? Bold strategy, Cotton. I mean, there's all the articles and interviews standing in opposition, but then if you wear sunglasses with just the right tint of rose...

I would suggest that you look closer at the analyses you are discussing. Every analysis has its strengths and weaknesses and it would be beneficial to know what you are discussing.

The basis of the analyses you are talking abut were valid, even if it did not come to fruition. The public polling was suggesting that the Democrats were favored by 1% in September and the Republicans were favored by 2% in October. From this there could be a "red wave", and the Fox News article I linked above discussed the possibility of such, but only because American elections are so generally close, nearly 50/50. It would have required each Repubcan in tight races to win by one or two percentage points.

A great many races are indeed nearly tied, and the predictions rely on slim percentages that are liable to go one way or the other. This is why the predictions may be valid according to recent data, but not reliable due to constant changing of variables.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-elections-tight-race-democrat-republican-partisanship/672022/




18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Midterms 2022
« on: November 16, 2022, 12:43:12 PM »
The neat thing is, if you go back and look at that page and just scroll up a little bit from where you seem to have gotten lost, there's a whole bunch more data. Take a peek. You might notice a thing that happens in midterms normally.

I did look at the page. What I described applies to the whole dataset as well. Any time the incumbent president got an October approval rating of 65 or above, the president's party gained seats during the midterms. This is an unbroken rule in that dataset.

Being as popular as Epstein Island purveyor Bill Clinton might be a tall order, certainly; but on the other hand we are talking about a man who in 2020 got over 80 million votes, the most votes in American history when adjusted for population, performing better than even Barack Obama's first campaign. Presumably this tall, cunning, Napoleon-like populist should be able to compete with the likes of Bill Clinton. If he cannot then that is solely the fault of the Democrats.

Quote from: Clyde Frog
"We'll probably get more than 52 seats" womp womp
"It's gonna be a red wave" womp womp
"It's not gonna be a red wave, it's gonna be a red tsunami!" womp womp

How'd the Arizona senate race go? What about Kari Lake's bid for governor? When is Don Bolduc getting sworn in? Dr. Oz? These folks were shoe-ins, after all, right?

womp womp

This was not the universal conservative sentiment.

Fox News indicated that polls were showing that the Democrats were leading by 1.3% in September and that Republicans were leading by 2.2% in October. This is not an overwhelming majority on either side. This also tracks with the last several major American elections where there were not large margins for either party.

Dr. Oz was highly criticized by the right as a RINO and a false conservative. There was not a universal declaration of support for him.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/30/dr-oz-won-trumps-endorsement-conservatives-are-still-suspicious-00029148



https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/dr-oz-senate-pennsylvania.html


19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Midterms 2022
« on: November 16, 2022, 12:07:35 AM »
We’re gonna get from the house 2 years of inconsequential hunter biden inquests and that’s about it.

This understanding of government is poor. The House does more than inquests. Bills must pass through both chambers. Republican control of the House means that Democrats can't pass any of their socialist or partisan legislation or spending bills. It operates on simple majority for most things, with exception of a few cases where 2/3 supermajority are required, for things such as overriding presidential veto or suspending rules of the House. See: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/98-778.pdf

Quote
In the senate we’ll get 2 years of fed judiciary confirmations. Looks like a dem win to me.

Mostly irrelevant since Republicans control the Supreme Court - the highest authority which has the final say and sets national precedent.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Midterms 2022
« on: November 15, 2022, 11:12:39 PM »
Have a glance at history for a moment. You aren't making the strong case that you seem to think you are. Remember, history is only an internet search away!

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/seats-congress-gainedlost-the-presidents-party-mid-term-elections

Yes, I posted that link on the last page. That page shows that number of seats an incumbent president's party wins during the midterms is directly related to the president's approval numbers. According to that page George W. Bush and Bill Clinton had terms where their approval numbers were at 65 or above, and so their parties gained seats during the midterms. During one of Bill Clinton's terms he dipped in approval to 48 near the midterms, and his party lost seats in that one. During one of George W. Bush's terms he had an approval of 37, and likewise lost seats. Obama had approval numbers in the 40's during both his terms for his midterms, so his party lost seats in each instance. There is a direct correlation to this relationship.

In this case, Joe Biden didn't have a high approval rating, and so the party lost seats. The reason they lost seats is directly related to the approval ratings. If the Democrats had done a better job they might have been able to win seats and keep the House. The blame is directly with the Democrats on this. Previous presidents have been able to gain seats for their party during the midterm, but required high approval ratings.

If any of the arguments here are "oh, I KNEW we didn't have good approval ratings and wouldn't do well, but..." then this is just conceding the loss, are admitting to being a loser, and are now trying to mitigate it. Democrats should have clearly done a better job and worked towards better approval ratings so that they could actually win seats. Starting the conversation with a contrived scenario where Democrats losing is the expected baseline is clearly just a coping method to justify the loss.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 469  Next >