21

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path

« on: April 29, 2022, 05:44:35 PM »

In 2019 170,000 people visited the Cook Islands which has a permanent population of just 17,000. It's already just a large air travel and hospitality and tourism industry. They clearly have infrastructure. 17,000 also doesn't include the people who travel seasonally or temporarily for work.

Resources come from other islands and international commercial development. They aren't alone. The concept of transportation and travel exists.

May as well claim that a small town in the middle of the US is so small and primitive that it couldnt possibly be a hub for vehicle fuel and overnight stays. 

I'll accept your number of 170,000 people visiting the Cook Islands in 2019.  In the same year Hawaii had a whopping 10 million visits, or nearly 59 times more than Cook Islands.  https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2021/07/31/hawaii-to-reduce-number-visitors-oahu-tourism-cap/5443732001/

These are visits, not stopovers. Therefore, airlines have a substantial interest in layovers there because there is already a large number of people going to and from there anyway. So for efficiency sake it will become a natural hub for many airline routes. Not so with Cook Islands.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: April 29, 2022, 05:05:58 PM »

@OP

There is a problem with the flat monopole map regarding the necessarily diverging lines of longitude the further south one travels from the equator.

In brief, if longitudes kept getting wider as they go further, then every one of the thousands of WW2 battles, flight missions, and dogfights reported by US, Japanese, British, and Australia airmen and sailors that took place south of the equator must have happened quite differently than all available evidence. The planes that flew to and from carriers (and air bases on islands south of the equator) relied on plotting charts with accurate scales for latitude and longitude, and these plotting charts (of which copies are still extant and can be reviewed) do NOT show diverging longitudes, but longitudes that comport with the generally accepted globe model. (Edit: to clarify: incorrect plotting charts would result in an astonishing and intractably overwhelmingly majority of planes flying south of the equator in WW2 to be lost at sea because they could not find their carrier or air base in the vast waters).

More in depth analysis in my original post on this topic here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.msg212915#msg212915


To all (especially the mods) - I apologize if this seems at first glance off topic, given that OP presented his model as one that can explain all the observations of physics. I argue that this is on topic because it is in reaction to the topic and summarizing sentence of the OP:
"I believe to have found a fully working flat earth model." I believe OP has not done so, because of my understanding of WW2 in the Pacific. Ergo, it's not a "fully working" one in my judgment.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does antarctica actually exists? (Move if needed, I don't know where to put it)

« on: April 29, 2022, 04:44:59 PM »

How do we know that antarctica exists?

Here are some of the ways "we" could know that Antarctica exists (I assume by "we" you mean human knowledge writ large).

1. Humans can travel close to or on to it and document their visit with writings, photos, and videos. Some human organizations do this regularly, usually for scientific, economic or leisure purposes. (Examples of photos from leisure trips here: https://expertvagabond.com/antarctica-pictures/ )

1a. Corollary: we can infer its existence from scientific writings by humans who went there not to document its existence, but other phenomena (e.g., life cycles of penguins; geology; marine life in the littoral zone, etc.). Stuff that is reported here, for example: https://www.scar.org/

2. Satellites can take images of it from orbit. (example: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/science/antarctica-map-rema.html )

3. Planes can fly over it and document it.  (Third picture in this article claims to be of Antarctica from a Qantas jet: https://www.traveller.com.au/why-dont-airlines-fly-commercial-routes-over-antarctica-plan-for-perthbuenos-aires-nonstop-h1dq5r )

4. We can unearth and unfreeze an alien intent on absorbing all life on earth and then destroy it in fire to keep the rest of the world safe. This was documented in 1981.   

24

Flat Earth Media / SpinLaunch - new way to launch satellites into orbit?

« on: April 18, 2022, 04:48:09 PM »

A quick search of "SpinLaunch" showed nothing in any of the forums, and thought this would be of interest to some as a private company - https://www.spinlaunch.com/ - has apparently created a new centrifugal launch platform to get satellites into orbit. It doesn't use rocket fuel. Instead it uses a gigantic spinning wheel to flip the payload at several times the speed of sound(!)

Here's a video purporting to show a test launch:

25

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: August 25, 2021, 10:04:18 PM »

Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year.  That's not what an "occupation" is.  It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.

An occupation that starts as unjust doesn’t become just when your puppet government gives their totally free and uninfluenced approval. Especially when the US is killing lots of civilians and pulling out lots of the countries natural resources.

Got it, so in other words, the war was unjust and the US and NATO should never have invaded?  Is that the argument?

Tracking the killing of civilians is really messy. A source would be nice. I know that the best final assessment of civilians killed by US forces in Iraq can be summed up as "Americans are literally taking casualties to prevent casualties on the part of Iraqi civilians."  At the height of the Iraqi insurgency (2006 through 2008) only about 1 out of every 100 civilian deaths involved US troops in any way. You read that right - 1%. An example year is 2006, when 16,791 civilians were killed by terrorists and insurgents, and only 225 by US troops for that whole year.

I have read a lot less about these numbers in Afghanistan, but given that it was a much more low intensity war overall, I would be surprised if the numbers were dramatically different.

And finally, given that the US has poured billions of USD into Afghanistan to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and other things - and has poured in FAR more money than any it could have gotten out by "pulling out natural resources" that's an odd statement.  I'm not going to defend any stealing the US may have done in Afghanistan, but the net is a flow of money and resources INTO, not out of, that country.  And this doesn't include the dramatic increase in civil rights - particularly women's rights - that were fostered under our "puppet" regime. 

Edit: One of the easiest criticisms that domestic (US) opponents of the ongoing war make is that it is so stunningly costly to keep it up (not just to pay for the military stuff, but all the so-called "nation building" stuff too). We've been pumping billions into Afghanistan via the USAID org and other means, and it's expensive. That's going to go away with the Taliban.   

Here's right from the horse's mouth all the pillaging the US government has done since 2002 in Afghanistan:
https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan

26

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Taliban Won

« on: August 25, 2021, 09:19:10 PM »

I'm not sure Trump would have stuck to the deal had he been re-elected. There was no reason for him to publicly announce the deal was void as far back as last Fall when he was a lame duck - and the unofficial back channels that were operating to discuss the real deal and situation were likely considering multiple possibilities, but all unknown because it would have been up to Biden, since he is president when the day actually comes to withdraw.

One thing I do believe, is that if Trump had been re-elected and the same events in Afghanistan that happened in the past two weeks happened just the same, Trump would have been excoriated in the media and public to a level not seen in his first four years.

Biden is being (rightly) criticized across the political spectrum right now, but it still hasn't risen to how much vilification Trump generally received for lesser errors. I guess that's neither here nor there. I mean, I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, nor in 2020.

But it's hard to think of a way this could have been handled even worse by Biden. Defenses of anything he's done regarding this debacle are going to sound really hollow to me. (As will attempts to shift focus on what Trump did or didn't do, or even "might" have done or not done - only Biden can "own" what actually transpired under his watch in a war. He's the commander in chief.).

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: August 25, 2021, 08:38:59 PM »

There's two aspects to this that should not be conflated but probably will be.

1.  A failure to get our people out of there.  Clearly Biden's fault.

2.  The country falling to the Taliban.  Really this has more to do with the past 3 presidents.

To the second point: it happened on Biden's watch. And that's as much thought as a lot of people will put into it. And really, in the final analysis the decision to move out was his. I can't imagine they didn't have intel suggesting how strong the Taliban was in the area. He could have stayed put, but he made a political calculation that I think was dead wrong and will cost him.

Fox News is eating this up and for once it's justifiable.

What exactly should have happened?  Under what circumstances could they end this unjust occupation and contain the Taliban.  The timeline to withdraw was rushed because the Taliban were becoming increasingly aggressive so the option to stay could quite easily have made the situation worse.

The Taliban were increasingly aggressive in the past few months because the US foolishly told them loud and clear we were leaving.  We could have done lots of things differently (and still pulled out), and one easy way to do so is to leave without telling the Taliban when the effective date was going to be...

Also, I think it's quite a misnomer to label it an "unjust occupation" given that the internationally accepted government (up until last week) hosted US and NATO forces, and wanted us to stay at least until November this year.  That's not what an "occupation" is.  It may have been an unjust occupation in 2001, but that's a far cry to 2021.

28

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Taliban Won

« on: August 25, 2021, 08:22:21 PM »

I'm an international security buff, so this may be a little wonky, but I'll try to keep it succinct:

"The Morning" newsletter from NYT today basically spent half of its words on the idea that there were "no real alternatives" to a highly chaotic withdrawal and evacuation. In a basic sense, that's true. The US (and Nato) lost the war, and this is what losing a war looks like - evacuation is challenging and messy, former (domestic) allies are identified and murdered by the new regime, etc.

On the other hand, there are a number of very simple things Biden could/should have done that would mitigate some of the disasters of the past two weeks.

#1 The most obvious would be to agree to delay until Winter, as the Afghani officials directly requested this past Spring. Combat operations (particularly major ones like the Taliban executed in the past 8 days to retake the country) are really hard to do in the Afghanistan Winter, so there is usually a sharp drop off of Taliban offensives each Winter. Waiting until November to evacuate would give the Afghani forces time to prepare defenses and give them a better chance of resisting a major Taliban offense in the Spring. Instead, Biden rejected this idea from the Afghani government (which was essentially installed by Biden's predecessors, note), with no serious explanation given as to why.

#2 Biden should also have ensured the operational plans for the withdrawal were far more secret, and less public. It was both a strategic and tactical blunder to announce specific dates (Trump was guilty of this too), and then this blunder is being further amplified by doubling down on not modifying it no matter what is happening. I believe this blunder stems from a belief that the Taliban will inevitably re-take Afghanistan. But it wasn't inevitable as recently as 1 year ago.

#3 And thirdly, and perhaps the most critical, it would have been ridiculously simple to send a very large contingent - say two whole divisions of the US army, and perhaps a few regiments (or even just two battalions) of US marines to the area to explicitly assist in the evacuation and withdrawal. If I'm correct that one reason we foolishly announced loud and clear how and when we're withdrawing is partially because Biden assumes the Taliban will rapidly take over (as they did), then it's even stupider that he didn't provide a large force to simply protect the evacuation and withdrawal itself.  Yes, if we did this the Taliban would believe we are launching new offensives and expanding the war, when we bring in more combat units. So? That would make them more cautious to try a rapid offensive to re-take Kabul under the circumstances. The Taliban has no illusions believing they can win any combined arms battle. They didn't even attack our forces en masse even once from 2014 to this year, when we had a paltry 14000 military personnel or so. There are other challenges created with this last idea, but suffice it to say, it would be eminently possible and allow us to evacuate and withdraw without the level of chaos we've seen.

It is framed in news, polls, and pretty much everywhere that this is "the long war" that we are still fighting after two decades. Sort of. One of the most common misunderstandings about the war at all is the role US and NATO forces play. Since 2014, when Enduring Freedom ended and Freedom's Sentinel took over, nearly all combat operations have been spearheaded by domestic Afghani forces. The US and NATO militaries have provided training, logistical support, air support (which is key), and some small scale anti-terrorism support (i.e., special forces type operations). For seven years the US and NATO militaries haven't really been conducting a war, per se. The Afghani domestic forces have. We've just been supporting them to ensure they persist.

I'm not saying we necessarily should have stayed eternally, but given US combat deaths dropped to double digits yearly in 2014, it's clear this "war" is the calmest and least deadly war the US has ever been involved in. (One way to measure that is the war has been going for about 239 months, and we've had 1833 combat deaths. That's an average of 7.6 per month. Even the first Gulf War would be reckoned at like 149 deaths per month (for a MUCH shorter war), and something like 40 per month on average for the Iraq War (2003-2011).  The only "wars" in which the US has had something like 7 deaths per month on average are not wars at all, but individual, isolated operations (the various imperial interventions our commanders in chief are so fond of (particularly ALL the presidents from Reagan through Obama)).

My point is that we could have drawn down very differently, over more time, done far more professionally and strategically. But we didn't.

What makes this more infuriating is that the primary role of a president, per the US constitution, is to deal with foreign policy (NOT domestic policy). Sadly, over the decades, the US presidency has grown like a cancer to be at least as much (if not more) about domestic politics than dealing with other nations. If Biden ran his presidency like he should, according to his enumerated powers, I think he would have handled it very differently. But his focus is on other matters that are really the province of Congress and the states. Alas.

Would Trump have done any of these things, or done them better? Perhaps not. He was not a brilliant president (though nor was he an abject failure - rather middle of the road in effectiveness, IMO, once you take away the heightened emotions surrounding everything to do with him). But I can see Trump listening to his military advisors more closely on something like this.

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: August 25, 2021, 07:21:19 PM »

This is worth a read:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-bizarre-refusal-to-apply-cost

His ultimate point can be succinctly stated:
Let's use our normal cost-benefit analysis that we (should) apply to virtually all public policy debates to the various debates regarding Covid (vaccines, lockdowns, etc.).     

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: May 20, 2021, 05:08:24 PM »

As a geopolitical and international security junky there's just too much to say about the Israel/Palestine situation and the conversation would be even more intractable than an FET vs RET one   

But I will chime in to say that the key problem facing the Gazans (and to an extent those in the West Bank as well, but more so in Gaza) is Hamas and Islamic Jihad. That is to say, Israel is not the source of the key problems facing Gaza and the average Gaza citizen. 15 years ago Hamas was elected in Gaza, and since then zero elections have been held, and Hamas has spent those 15 years making life worse and worse and worse for the average Gazan with intensely evil human rights violations against their own people.

Israel has had no ongoing military or administrative presence in Gaza for decades now, and yet the huge amount of money that has poured in to Gaza from private donors and other states (Iran, but also lots of Arab states) has not gone to making the lives of Palestinians better, because Hamas clearly doesn't care about their own people.

Of course, Hamas, being authoritarian thugs and an actual terrorist organization in control of a polity cannot be voted out with no elections (and if there were any, the idea that Gazans would have a fair election without Hamas personnel overseeing their non-secret ballot votes is laughable, meaning Hamas would retain power anyway).

In case my ultimate point isn't clear: the plight of Palestine and Palestinians right now in 2021 can only fairly be laid at the feet of Hamas, and not Israel.

31

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 19, 2021, 05:22:19 PM »

I'm not really sure what more there is to discuss on this. The PA Lawmakers were concerned about errors in government vote counting systems and in the later discussion with the election people they admitted to errors in government vote counting systems. The lawmakers probably didn't publicly bring that particular SURE discrepancy up again because the errors were already admitted to.

See these two quotes:

PA Lawmakers: Numbers Don't Add Up
Certification of Presidential Results Premature and in Error

Anderson added that often a voter will fill out a provisional ballot, but also mistakenly sign the poll book. So until the error is caught, there will be one less ballot than shown in the poll book totals.

He also said that, during the tedious two week process of manually scanning polls books and envelopes for SURE statistics, some ballots don’t scan, and a few manual errors are inadvertently made by overworked election workers.

Anderson assured Diamond that those errors will be caught and fixed in the SURE system in time for the next election.

Diamond ended by expressing his satisfaction. 'You’ve answered a lot of my questions, and I really do appreciate it.

It sure sounds like they mumbled some stuff about poll books and overworked election workers and basically finished with "you were right, there are errors, but we promise to do better next time" to me.

Let me try from a different angle, because we're clearly talking past each other.

Here's the order of events, and why it doesn't add up the way you are describing things:

1. On Dec. 28th, 2021 Rep. Ryan and Diamond released a statement (that you've posted several times) claiming that a discrepancy between SURE numbers and final county numbers implies voter fraud.

2. Immediately - on the same day - Dec. 28th, 2021 the Pennsylvania Department of State released a statement in response (which I excerpted many comments ago, and you never replied to after I kept bringing it up). This response said in relevant part, "To put it simply, this so-called analysis [of Rep. Ryan and Diamond] was based on incomplete data."

3. A little over a week later - on Jan. 7, 2021 - the Lebanon County Director of Elections and Voter Registration, Michael Anderson, spoken with Rep. Diamond via Zoom and explained why Rep. Diamond and Ryan are wrong.

4. Since that time - Jan. 7th - there has been silence from both Rep. Ryan and Diamond. If they were right all along, contrary to the PA Department of State's rebuttal and the Director of Elections and Voter Registration's explanation on Jan. 7th, why have they not responded to those rebuttals and pursued legal options in the courts? After all, if there really were voter fraud, and they weren't simply mistaken (as now appears to be the case), they should dutifully get to the "real" bottom of things, right? 

The fact that there has been no word on this topic from Rep. Ryan and Diamond since Jan. 7th strongly implies they have accepted they were mistaken in their initial analysis and statement, and are moving on with other things. 

All you have done is try to argue with the rebuttals to Ryan and Diamond, and to do so quite unsuccessfully.

Where's your evidence, Tom?   

32

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 19, 2021, 04:06:55 AM »

your sophistry is unpersuasive.

Do you have evidence that Rep. Ryan or Diamond contended with accurate and final SURE data? Or are you merely relying on their claims (making all your arguments, which have focused on the credibility of other sources, both ironic and specious).

Do you have any response from Rep. Ryan or Diamond to the official PA DoS statement made in response to their statement?

33

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 19, 2021, 03:39:31 AM »

Tom,

Again, you either didn't read the link or understand it.

The article clearly explains what SURE is and does, and explains that Rep. Ryan and Rep. Diamond, who wrote this document didn’t understand that SURE doesnt count votes, but is merely a database for past elections, and only needs to be updated before the next one.

They didnt know that.

You didnt know that.

I didnt know that until I read the PA DoS website and this article, but now I do. Maybe you should actually read them instead of hanging on to the initial info you had. There’s now more info which you are literally ignoring.

The quote you are talking about says that it contains the numbers of people who voted in the election:

"In a telephone interview with LebTown on Jan. 4, Anderson pointed out that SURE is not designed to determine election winners, and never has been. Instead, it is simply a database of registered voters, and a historical record of who has voted in past elections."

I'm not sure what you're talking about. It has the numbers of the people who voted in an election, not only the number of registered voters.

Are you arguing that they mistook 2016 voting data for 2020 data?

No, I’m not arguing that and not sure how you arrived at that idea.

Maybe just read the entire article more carefully?

More importantly, the PA DoS officially responded to the claim by Reps Diamond and Ryan.  They never responded to that, bc instead they met with Mr. Anderson who apparently resolved Rep. Diamond’s concerns...by explaining that SURE data has a different purpose entirely, is derived at a different time, and wouldnt show identical numbers anyway. Mystery solved...

If Rep. Ryan, who didnt attend the meeting with Mr. Anderson isnt satisfied by the official PA DoS statement, please show where he continues to make these claims....

EDIT:
Cuz it seems you’re fighting a battle that not even Rep. Ryan (and certainly not rep. Diamond) are still fighting.  Cuz, well, they were mistaken. (I do believe they were mistaken in good faith).

34

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 19, 2021, 03:27:46 AM »

Again, here’s all the info anyone’s provided in this thread on the topic. 

1. An image from a tweet by Rep. Ryan which shows a supposed discrepancy b/w county numbers and SURE numbers.
2. The official PA DoS website which shows the final county votes.
3. A statement from the PA DoS claiming that Rep. Ryan is wrong.


There has been No reply from Rep. Ryan to dispute the PA DoS statement.

You keep reposting the INITIAL statement that informed the tweet, but are not providing anything that responds to the official PA DoS response to that tweet...

35

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 19, 2021, 03:24:10 AM »

I don't believe that anyone claimed that the SURE system determines winners and losers. There is an anomaly there between two different reporting systems.

...except, that claiming the discrepancy is an anomaly is a category error. 

That's the substantive point of the entire article I linked.

You clearly didn't even read the article (or perhaps just didn't understand it).

You and the article are basically just claiming that there is a possible explanation. That's nice. But there are possible explanations for nearly anything you can imagine, so that doesn't mean much.

No, that’s not at all what the article or I am saying. 

Calling the discrepancy an anomaly is an example of a category error. There cannot be an anomaly between two things which are measuring different types of data - one is county votes, the other registrations of past elections. Not the same.

Still waiting for the rebuttal to the official PA DoS statement refuting the initial tweet....

Point it out for us. Where do you see a label with anything related to "registrations of past elections"

Tom,

Again, you either didn't read the link or understand it.

The article clearly explains what SURE is and does, and explains that Rep. Ryan and Rep. Diamond, who wrote this document didn’t understand that SURE doesnt count votes, but is merely a database for past elections, and only needs to be updated before the next one.

They didnt know that.

You didnt know that.

I didnt know that until I read the PA DoS website and this article, but now I do. Maybe you should actually read them instead of hanging on to the initial info you had. There’s now more info which you are literally ignoring.

36

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 19, 2021, 03:17:49 AM »

I don't believe that anyone claimed that the SURE system determines winners and losers. There is an anomaly there between two different reporting systems.

...except, that claiming the discrepancy is an anomaly is a category error. 

That's the substantive point of the entire article I linked.

You clearly didn't even read the article (or perhaps just didn't understand it).

You and the article are basically just claiming that there is a possible explanation. That's nice. But there are possible explanations for nearly anything you can imagine, so that doesn't mean much.

No, that’s not at all what the article or I am saying. 

Calling the discrepancy an anomaly is an example of a category error. There cannot be an anomaly between two things which are measuring different types of data - one is county votes, the other registrations of past elections. Not the same.

Still waiting for the rebuttal to the official PA DoS statement refuting the initial tweet....

37

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 19, 2021, 02:49:11 AM »

I don't believe that anyone claimed that the SURE system determines winners and losers. There is an anomaly there between two different reporting systems.

...except, that claiming the discrepancy is an anomaly is a category error. 

That's the substantive point of the entire article I linked.

You clearly didn't even read the article (or perhaps just didn't understand it). 

38

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: May 19, 2021, 02:27:19 AM »

Despite my pedantry in the "Trump" thread regarding voter fraud stuff, I really am not a fan of Biden in the least.

I disliked Trump, and I dislike Biden (for mostly different reasons, but some similar ones).

It's really lame, however, how fawningly gross the media is to him. Had the below interaction been uttered by Trump, it would have created a 48 hour period in which virtually every mainstream news outlet would vociferously condemn him:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1394734707645063171

Is it really that funny for Biden to pretend he'll run over a female reporter because she asks a question about a major geopolitical event in a historically important region of the world (to the US) ?

39

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 19, 2021, 02:03:07 AM »

Awesome.

I found this which I think should put the nail in the coffin about the PA discrepancy.  Unless it was written by a deep state operative 

Relevant quotes:
"Anderson pointed out that SURE is not designed to determine election winners, and never has been. Instead, it is simply a database of registered voters, and a historical record of who has voted in past elections. Two different processes, two different purposes. This, according to Anderson, is what Ryan and Diamond didn’t understand."

"Whether the SURE totals are right or wrong, they have no direct connection to exactly how many ballots have been cast in a given election, or whether those ballots have been counted accurately."

And perhaps most tellingly:
"At the end of the meeting, [Rep] Diamond, who attended via Zoom, expressed satisfaction with Anderson’s explanations."


Sounds like the dude whose tweet you posted is cool with the final numbers after all...

https://lebtown.com/2021/01/08/county-elections-chief-rebuts-alarming-discrepancy-alleged-by-reps-ryan-and-diamond-diamond-apparently-satisfied/

40

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 19, 2021, 01:51:07 AM »

Tom,

That's merely the statement that was replied to by the PA DoS.  It's not new information supplied to this conversation.

Let's try to get to some new information, perhaps, by looking at the relevant information we do have:

1. An image from a tweet by Rep. Ryan which shows a supposed discrepancy b/w county numbers and SURE numbers.
2. The official PA DoS website which shows the final county votes.
3. A statement from the PA DoS claiming that Rep. Ryan is wrong.
4. No reply from Rep. Ryan to dispute the PA DoS

At least not one that I could find.  Perhaps you can find something that shows Rep. Ryan was right all along, instead of just making up numbers, perhaps?

I can, however, an article claiming that Rep. Ryan refused to respond when contacted:
https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2021/01/01/gop-reps-say-analysis-shows-voting-discrepancies-but-report-quickly-challenged/?slreturn=20210418214824