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 ... 492  Next >
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Wiki Spam
« on: May 22, 2024, 11:38:50 PM »
Can we look at enabling the Wiki again for edits. I would suggest upgrading the software to the latest version and leaving it as a default theme and handing it over to Pete to fix the theme whenever he gets the time. No special coordination of work or time will be necessary.

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment
« on: May 21, 2024, 05:07:00 AM »
It would be nice if more experiments were performed on Antarcica. However, some here will recall the last trip to Antarctica experiment turned out to be a scam perpetuated by the RE'ers organizing it. People paid a lot of money to go and the organization just disappeared with the money.

See this video: CANCELED! Polar Explorer Event Fraud!

In this case for "The Final Experiment" they say that they welcome guests and if you want to go then to contact them to find out how much it will be. There are some rumors that they want $30K or something of that nature.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?
« on: May 14, 2024, 10:42:20 AM »
The quote from Maggie teneva (who she?) is simply a throwaway line at the end of an article about entertaining your kids on longhaul.

Are you claiming that she is joking? She is clearly not, even if the article is about childcare on an airplane. It is not a satire article. She is known as a travel writer. -- "Travel writer Maggie Teneva posits these and other benefits derived from exploring the world outside our own cocoons"

The "stopping for fuel" link doesn't go anywhere.

Did you try googling the text?

I got results for the page and was able to put it into web archive to see the content:

The Continental Airlines example is undated, has no reference, and (if true) sounds like poor planning by  the airline in not using aircraft with apprpriate capacity/range.

Well yes, that's what the article says. The planes were traveling a distance within the distance of the Boeing 757's 4100 miles range. The planes were within their range, but still ran out of fuel. This proves that the flights as they are claimed to exist are dependent on a balance of physical phenomena.

Here is a related graphic:

ETOPS is not a restriction; it is a relaxation of previously existing routes that require aircraft to route within 1-hour flying time of a suitable diversion airfield.  In the case of the Airbus A350, this can now be extended to 5hrs 30min at single engine cruise speed (frightening but true), meaning that only Antarctica is off limits (unless, of course, one of the ice-runways is the destination). 

The USAF, being outwith ICAO regulations, is not limited by ETOPS.  The United States maintains "landing strips on certain uninhabited islands in remote locations" for military operational, security and diplomatic purposes. 

Aircraft often divert from route for reasons of security, medical or technical emergency, but beyond the apocryphal stements you have made, I challenge you to identify a single recent occurance made purely for a splash and dash.  Any commercial aircraft diverting from its planned route purely for a fuel stop would find its captain and dispatcher having a series of one-way conversations with management. 

Planes also make ETOPS stops when they run out of fuel due to winds. According to the above graphic, there were 14 Continental trans-Atlantic non-stops stopping for fuel between Jan 1 to Jan 8, 2012. They took off and thought they had enough fuel according to weather radar, but were mistaken on how the wind conditions would change.

And yes, jetstreams are a perpetual phenomenon, but no they are not alway at the extreme stengthsyou suggest, and almost without excdeption are a west-to-east direction.  Apart from local eddies there is absolutely no, general, assistance, anywhere on Earth, to westbound travel. 

Incorrect. Maps of the Trade-winds show that winds can travel in both Easterly and Westerly directions in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres:

Your statement "Flights are canceled all the time, especially long haul flights" is simply untrue.  For example, I've just looked at data on FR24 for LATAM's Santiago-Melbourne service LA804/805; run with a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.  The service operates 3 times a week in each direction and between 15 Feb and today, 12 weeks, 36 planned return trips; one cancellation.

This is covered on the page


Airliners call a cancelled flight "rescheduled":

  “ How often are flights cancelled/diverted?

Not often. Flights are more often rescheduled than cancelled or diverted. In the event that a flight is cancelled whether under the airline's control or caused by a severe weather or air traffic disruptions, many airlines will rebook your flight or cancel your remaining flight(s). ”


Oh Great: United Airlines Redefines “Cancelled” - Suggests that cancelled flights are alternatively called "removed" to improve cancellation stats.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?
« on: May 13, 2024, 02:58:06 AM »
You're talking about the jetstreams as being a constant phenomenon.

Correct. The jetstreams are present year-round.

"The jet stream is a year-round feature of our atmosphere, but the double jet stream phenomenon is more common in winter."

"In the UK, we feel the influence of the polar jet stream (which is also sometimes called the ‘mid-latitude’ or the ‘eddy-driven’ jet stream), which forms due to the difference in the temperatures between the pole and equator. On its northern side lies colder air, and on its southern side warmer air – so its position is important for what type of weather we experience in the UK. It waxes and wanes with the seasons, being strongest in winter, but is a year-round phenomenon."

"The northern hemisphere polar jet flows over the middle to northern latitudes of North America, Europe, and Asia and their intervening oceans, while the southern hemisphere polar jet mostly circles Antarctica, both all year round."

They aren't, they are variable, in location, direction and velocity.  Like I said, its just a wind.  If its above 60 kts, as you say, they term it a jetstream, but its still just a wind. 

And you are absolutely correct that favourable jetstreams (like other winds) are exploited for the purpose of speed and economy, but if the jetstream is absent, or unfavourable, the flights still occur.

They don't. Flights are canceled all the time, especially long haul flights. See this quote by travel writer Maggie Teneva:

“Long-haul flights are often associated with long layovers and delays or cancellations.”

If there are unexpected changes to the jet stream or winds mid-flight, a non-stop flight might even stop for fuel:

“ Dozens of Continental Airlines flights to the East Coast from Europe have been forced to make unexpected stops in Canada and elsewhere to take on fuel after running into unusually strong headwinds over the Atlantic Ocean.

The stops, which have caused delays and inconvenience for thousands of passengers in recent weeks, are partly the result of a decision by United Continental Holdings Inc., the world's largest airline, to use smaller jets on a growing number of long, trans-Atlantic routes. ”

Per ETOPS, plane flight routes are required to be in vicinity of airports or landing strips for unexpected stops like that. Even long haul flights over oceans need the capability to make detour routes to islands with landing strips in case something like the above happens. The US Military is even known to maintain landing strips on certain uninhabited islands in remote locations for ETOPS purposes.

Just look at the post-Covid-resurrected Qantas/LAN services between Chile and Australasia; they take place on schedule every time, eastbound and westbound.  They can't be that anomalous can they? 

Now try Googling Air France flight AF174 on 8 May.  (Or here's a link);

Airbus A350 F-HUVC departed Paris CDG as AF174 for Mexico City but developed a problem over Newfoundland and returned to CDG.  Flight tracking data shows that the return leg was performed almost completely along the same route and at a similar altitude as the outbound leg.  Pretty dumb with a 300mph wind wasn't it, or maybe the airline actually knew the windspeed?

The Jet Stream can change in nature within hours. This is why those non-stop flights stopped for fuel in the previous quote I gave. Those planes didn't take off knowing that the winds would be unfavorable. Planes have a network which tracks the Jet Stream to follow the best path in real time. If that was the path it took, then it is simply because the flight logistics people determined that it was the best path at that specific time.

"Jet streams may start, stop, split into two or more parts, combine into one stream, or flow in various directions including opposite to the direction of the remainder of the jet."

In this case, the jet stream probably just moved out of the way and the plane had enough fuel in its wings to take a long trip back, or there was a favorable path at a lower altitude.

Most typically, the planes take different routes on the return trip:

Why are westbound transatlantic routes located hundreds of km away from eastbound routes?

Looking at flights between NY and London (click to see route):

BA 185 (EGLL - KEWR)
United 941 (EGLL - KEWR)
United 16 (KEWR - EGLL)

The FlightAware anticipated routes are quite similar in both directions, but the actual routes for past flights are really remote from each other:

The two westbound routes are either 800 km north or 1,000 km south of the eastbound route (the dotted line shows the shortest path).

Why are the two westbound routes different and so remote from each other? Why this difference of about 1,800 km?

Why BA 185 route seems to be composed of two arcs?

Did the pilots changed their mind in flight because of the jet streams? Is it related to ETOPS constraints, or alternate airport at Santa Maria? or something else?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?
« on: May 12, 2024, 07:48:49 PM »
A jetstream is just a wind, and I accounted for it in my calculation.  A look at any jetstream map will show that they are predominently westerly in the southern hemisphere, which corresponds with my previous statement and, if it is assisting the eastbound flight will it not be hindering the westbound which is occuring simultaneously and at similar latitudes? 

We've also done Jeran's thing before.  Simultaneous to the "supersonic" speeds is a series of altitude changes which an F-16 would struggle with.  Its just a batch of missing data on aircraft position; when it recovers the position data it integrates the delta-position over time to determine speed.

The speeds you provided for the Southern Hemisphere flights were too low. You stated "40 kts acting as a headwind hampering LAN801 and assisting LAN804". Jet streams are far faster, and we know that long haul flights take advantage of the Jet Stream.

"To be considered a Jet Stream, the accepted minimum speed limit is 60 knots. The speed of the Jet Stream is typically 100 kts (nautical miles per hour) but can reach 200 kts over North America and Europe in the winter. Speeds of 300 kts are not unheard of, particularly over south-east Asia."

Commercial flights would fly at the the plane's cruising speed + the Jet Stream speed. See this article from a Northern Hemisphere event over the Atlantic Ocean:

'In February 2019, a Virgin Atlantic plane flew at 801mph from Los Angeles to London, reaching its top speed over Pennsylvania thanks to a 200mph jet stream – although it slowed down to a mere 710mph once it hit the ocean. The aircraft – a Boeing 787 Dreamliner – usually has a cruising speed of around 560mph. Virgin founder Richard Branson described it as flying “faster than any other commercial non-supersonic plane in history.”'

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?
« on: May 12, 2024, 04:07:57 PM »
Rowbotham's original society solved the sinking ship.
Did it, though? He spends some time in ENaG claiming that things like ladies dresses disappear bottom first on a flat path, which they don't. And then he claims that ships which have gone over the horizon can be "restored", which they can't.

All of this is true of this effect though, and you have even admitted that the effect exists before in past conversations. See this past admission from 2022 from you:

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.

The experiment we discussed in that thread is still available for you to perform here:

Lady Blount's society collected the professional surveyor and railway proofs.
Did they? Well where are those then? I looked her up and found something about some photo they took. It's here:,_Lady_Blount#/media/File:Blount-photo-bedford-level.jpg
What the hell is that supposed to be?!

The railroad references are here:

Yes, Lady Bount also verified Rowbotham's water convexity experiments with the then-new technology of long distance photography.

The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic faith hired a photographer, Mr Clifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should be more than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."
—The Zetetic Website

Near the surface of the water, for at least the span of six miles, the light created a path which contradicted Round Earth Theory.

EA and UA are admittedly pretty good explanations for certain observations BUT they are just that.

A hypothesis typically does not have supporting evidence. However, the pages show that there is supporting evidence for celestial-scale, and possibly celestial-specific, bending of light.

This is an issue with your way of enquiring. You form a theory which explains observation rather than forming a hypothesis and then making observations which test that hypothesis - which then becomes a theory as observations build confidence. I know this is deliberate, and working the other way around could lead to the same conclusions. The issue though is when observations are presented which show your theory to be wrong you just claim they're wrong/flawed/fake. That's not a way to make progress.

Incorrect. There are observations to test the EA hypothesis of large celestial-scale bending.

If you ask me what is happening on earth thousands of miles away, there will be less research there. The total world model is a topic for the next generation of FE to figure out.
Is it, though? There are flat earthers all around the...disc, right? And we have instant communications now.
There are surely ways you can do large scale experiments reasonably cheaply. I'm sure you could club together and get a ticket for a Santiago to Sydney plane ticket, a FE person on that flight could gather a load of data which would help you advance things.

People sitting in a plane have a difficult time telling how much the winds and the jet stream are adding to the journey. Planes have a hard time determining their true speeds because they are propelling themselves in pockets of fluids which itself is traveling through larger scales of fluids. Wind-intake odometers for planes are notoriously inaccurate. Comparing yourself to Lat/Lon coordinates would also change your speed depending if you are assuming an RE or and FE which has different spacing between the coordinate points. There needs to be an independent method of speed determination.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Covid-19 vaccine two shots
« on: May 12, 2024, 03:32:59 AM »
Did anyone here even get fries for subjecting themselves to drug testing?

Here are solar eclipses from 2010 to 2060 eclipses on a Round Earth:

Here is the Oppolzer map which shows eclipses from 2008 to 2030

There seem to be slight differences, in that the 2024 shadow is not passing over the US State of Maine, but off shore to it. However, the 2017 path over America and 2027 eclipse path over North Africa seems to match.

As a general matter it is apparent that the shadow path shapes on the Round Earth Model turn into arcs on a Northern Azimuthal map. This is a surprising coincidence.

I believe that if the shadow path were charted accurately on a North Azimuthal projection it would take the shape of an arc, like the eclipse paths in Theodor von Oppolzer's North Azimuthal shadow path projections of the Solar Eclipse.

Above from A Text-Book of Astronomy by George C. Comstock (p.113)

Fig. 36.—Central eclipses for the first two decades of the twentieth century. Oppolzer.

Future eclipses.—An eclipse map of a different kind is shown in Fig. 36, which represents the shadow paths of [pg. 114] all the central eclipses of the sun, visible during the period 1900-1918 A. D., in those parts of the earth north of the south temperate zone. Each continuous black line shows the path of the shadow in a total eclipse, from its beginning, at sunrise, at the western end of the line to its end, sunset, at the eastern end, the little circle near the middle of the line showing the place at which the eclipse was total at noon. The broken lines represent similar data for the annular eclipses. This map is one of a series prepared by the Austrian astronomer, Oppolzer, showing the path of every such eclipse from the year 1200 B. C. [pg. 115] to 2160 A. D., a period of more than three thousand years.

On a Flat Earth it is easy to see how a shadow arc could manifest upon a Flat Earth, with the Moon arcing below the altitude of the sun in three dimensions. Some additional clarification can be attained if the scheme of Electromagnetic Acceleration is considered, where it is apparent that small movements of the Moon below the Sun, or of the Sun above the Moon, can magnify to larger effect.

I can see how the above could be possible in the Flat Earth model to create arcs in all of those areas. However, what is still curious to me is how this works in the Round Earth Model. In the Round Earth model how could the shadow path could arc Northwards like in the April 8th eclipse or in some of the Oppolzer eclipses in the above image if both the apparent Sun and Moon are traveling Westwards over the Earth's surface?

While the Moon's orbit in Round Earth Theory is not aligned with the plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun, the misalignment is only at a 5 degree angle according to the official theory, and it is still curious how the shadow path can make such sharp Northward directions manifested upon the Earth.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?
« on: May 02, 2024, 11:24:14 AM »
"... faster winds in the south ....".  Ah yes, we've been here before. 

There was a link there:

I am asking you guys to address the topics in the link, rather than just read and ignore it and pretend that nothing was posted.

Amongst others at the moment, (now, 0912UTC on 2 May 2024) LAN-Chile has 2 Boeing 787 Dreamliners airborne over the South Pacific. 

Reg CC-BGG is operating as LAN801 from Santiago to Auckland, a route planned as about 5300NM.  The aircraft is just under halfway and estimates completing the journey with a flight time of 12 hours, giving an average ground speed of 440 kts

Its sister ship, CC-BGH is operating as LAN804 from Melbourne to Santiago, a route planned as about 6200NM.  The aircraft is about halfway and estimates completing the journey with a flight time also of 12 hours, giving an average ground speed of 520 kts

Taking the average of the westbound and eastbound flights, 480 kts, would suggest an westerly wind component of 40 kts acting as a headwind hampering LAN801 and assisting LAN804.  Wikipedia lists the cruising speed of a Dreamliner as 488 to 516 kts. 

As the captains of both aircraft would not have departed unless they were sure of the distance and fuel needed, I would suggest that calculating the distance from South America to Australasia has been calculated in considerably less than "20 to 30 years", and that the windspeeds are well understood. 

Those numbers are around the plane's cruise speed. But the plane should not be traveling at a speed around its cruising speed, since we know that on long haul flights planes across the oceans planes use jet streams to reach their location. It would be traveling the plane's cruising speed + jet stream.

Jetstreams even enable supersonic flight for commercial aircraft.

On the flight trackers there have been some interesting anomalies. Jeran shows at the 1h32m mark of the following video about the flight between Auckland and Santiago that True Airspeed can be seen to far exceed ground speed. Over the course of the flight the True Airspeed is either "N/A" or shows quite fast speeds.

Screen shot:

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?
« on: May 02, 2024, 03:22:31 AM »
Rowbotham's original society solved the sinking ship. Lady Blount's society collected the professional surveyor and railway proofs. This specific society's contribution to Flat Earth has been the celestial model and the gravitational model. Progress was made on these subjects because they are things we can see and test. And with that, we have basically been done here with our current constraints. If you ask me what is happening on earth thousands of miles away, there will be less research there. The total world model is a topic for the next generation of FE to figure out.

At the current trajectory I estimate that it will take twenty or thirty more years for the wider Flat Earth community to actually figure out and perform and repeat the necessary tests that check all the boxes.

At the moment among the Monopole supporters there seems to be some division on whether there are faster winds in the south or whether the planes are actually following the straight line Flat Earth Azimuthal path to their destination, as evidenced by emergency landings.

Someday they might figure it out, but it's not going to be anytime soon.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 20, 2024, 01:59:31 PM »
Do they want to train and equip the prison guards to provide secret service level security? That is the only way your argument makes sense that they are genuine in this.

The answer is no. They do not want guarantee Trump the same level of security.

Why should they?
If someone ends up in prison then they lose certain rights. Which is something I imagine you generally support. Unless it affects your cult leader.

It’s all moot anyway. There’s no way Trump will end up in prison

This is incorrect in regards to political power. Someone who is in prison can be elected President. They don't lose that right to be elected, or their powers.

Major presidential candidates have been given Secret Service protection to safeguard elections, and as a matter of law:

Who Receives Protection?

The Secret Service does not determine who qualifies for protection, nor is the Secret Service empowered to independently initiate candidate protection.

Under 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7), "[m]ajor Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates," as identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, are eligible for Secret Service protection.

Title 18 U.S.C.' 3056(a)(7) authorizes the U.S. Secret Service to provide protection for major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates:

- Protection is authorized by the DHS Secretary after consultation with the Congressional Advisory Committee;

- The Congressional Advisory Committee includes: Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and one additional member selected by the others;

- Protection under these guidelines should only be granted within one year prior to the general election. Protection more than one year prior to the general election should only be granted in extraordinary, case by case circumstances in consultation with the committee, based on threat assessment and other factors.

The laws above say that major presidential candidates should be receiving Secret Service protection.

Makes sense.  Would you want Joe Biden to have SS protection in Jail?  How would that even work?

Political assassinations have more effect than the benefit of a single party. No, I wouldn't want Joe Biden in his role of US President to be in a jail without Secret Service protection.

Friend of yours, Tom?

Looks like a disgruntled Bernie Bro.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 20, 2024, 03:14:34 AM »
Do they want to train and equip the prison guards to provide secret service level security? That is the only way your argument makes sense that they are genuine in this.

The answer is no. They do not want guarantee Trump the same level of security.

You can read their fact sheet on the bill here:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 20, 2024, 02:21:14 AM »
Apparently the Congressional Left has gone from opposing gay marriage and upholding and respecting religious tenets to trying to get their opponent murdered.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 18, 2024, 03:26:34 PM »
So what you're saying is that if Democrats were Republicans, Republicans would vote for them.

Correct. See what Obama did in regards to his opposition of gay marriage up until 2012. In years prior to 2012 he took the position that he opposed gay marriage. In 2012 he supported it.

It was revealed that he didn't personally oppose gay marriage in his first 2008 presidential campaign and the years leading up to 2012. He opposed gay marriage as part of his political platform prior to 2012 because that is what the people wanted. Some people say that he lied for political points, but a more charitable interpretation is that Obama wanted to be president for everyone and had an obligation to that position.

Obama himself says that he always personally supported gay marriage before 2012 and had opposed as part of his political platform because he was taking "a whole bunch of religious sensitivities" into account.

Obama framed his erstwhile position as a good-faith effort to marry his commitment to gay equality with a respect for religiously-based opposition to same-sex nuptials.

"I always felt that same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the same rights, legally, as anybody else, and so it was frustrating to me not to, I think, be able to square that with what were a whole bunch of religious sensitivities out there," he said.

"So my thinking at the time was that civil unions — which I always supported — was a sufficient way of squaring the circle. That, OK, we won’t call it 'marriage,' we’ll call it 'civil unions,' same-sex couples will have the same rights as anybody else, but the word 'marriage' with its religious connotations historically would be preserved for marriages between men and women," Obama continued

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 18, 2024, 11:22:58 AM »
If Democrats were more conservative and traditionalist like they were at some points in history, they would probably see voting Democrat as a viable option.

Joe Biden in his early political days existed at a time when liberals were extremely pro-police, anti-illegal immigration, and claimed to promote religous morality. They were also anti-gay marriage and you can find plenty of old videos of Democrats speaking against gay marriage.

To get republicans to vote democrat all they have to do is do what they have done for decades; warp their political positions to what is necessary.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 18, 2024, 10:47:43 AM »
Correct. Republicans see traditionalism and conservatism as a moral and fiscal vote. This is why Democrats have failed in defaming Trump.

It is not enough to defame him. You have provided something better.

In previous eras Democrats would have taken the tactic to move many of their positions back towards the center, or even to the right, and include their own specific pet liberal topics which have mass voter appeal. This is why it is said that Democrats were more conservative at various points in time. They sought to match the success of their opponents with some added liberalism, largely focusing on the strength and appeal of their positions.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 17, 2024, 10:53:43 PM »
I don't think this tactic of defaming Trump is working out for you guys.

Voters shock CNN when they reveal who they're voting for after saying Trump is unfit for office: 'But I'm voting for him'

APRIL 17, 2024

Democrats love to harp on Donald Trump's moral fitness, arguing his criminal proceedings and moral character render him unfit for the presidency.

CNN correspondent Gary Tuchman recently spoke with voters in Roberts County, Texas, where he discovered that voters agree with that argument. But at the end of the day, those same voters admitted they will still support Trump over President Joe Biden on Election Day.

Voter Kay Swart described Trump's moral character as "terrible," something that "can't get much lower than it is."

"He continues to make crazy comments about being a dictator first day and repercussions against people who he feels have wronged him," Swart continued.

But, to Tuchman's surprise, neither Trump's moral character nor the possibility that he will be criminally convicted will deter Swart or her husband, Ron, from voting for Trump.

"I don't think he's fit, but I'm voting for him," Kay Swart said.

Ron, moreover, agreed that Trump "most definitely" possess poor ethics and morals. But in his view, anything is better than Biden.

"I feel like as wrong as it's going to be to have [Trump] for president, he's still going to be a lot better president for the United States than what we're going with Joe Biden and the Democrats," Ron Swart said. "I really feel like that we are not going be able to survive another four years of the Democrats in charge."

It does not matter that the model is made out of glass or if it is made out of mathematical equations for how the light behaves. It's a model - a representation of a scheme. If it were a mathematical equation, would you be asking where the equations are in the universe? That would obviously be very silly to do that. Hence, it does not matter if it is made of glass or not.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 492  Next >