1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 21, 2023, 08:11:15 PM »

Suggested changes to 'Horizon is always at eye level' in the Wiki

It looks like it was originally here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

If you go to that redirect and read the content it says that the horizon is not always at eye level. So why are you claiming that the wiki says that the horizon is always at eye level or that it is the official stance?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 19, 2023, 02:48:21 AM »

It's simply a weak argument. The photographer is clearly faking earth curvature in some of his works, and the image in which the curvature is clearly manipulated the photographer calls an "Air to Air Photograph" without disclaimer that the shape of the horizon in the scene was not as we would see it.

The two photos are also advertised exactly the same way without distinction.

https://www.chaucercollectables.co.uk/ishop/images/1099/p8.pdf



Both are called "photographic prints", both are called "photos" and both are by the same photographer. Elsewhere the photographer also calls them both "photographs".

Yet you somehow know what is real earth curvature and what is fake earth curvature. Your source on this is your own self and your personal opinion, which is a poor method of inquiry and creates a poor argument.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 11:27:56 PM »

Oh, and look at the bottom of that ebay page listing at the Business Seller Information. It's Adrian Meredith himself calling it an "Air to Air Photograph":

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/313236786053?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050

Business seller information

Adrian Meredith Photography
Adrian Meredith
16 Golf Close
Woking
Surrey
GU22 8PE
United Kingdom

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 11:08:39 PM »

Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?

That image looks like some sort of promotional composite. Which has nothing to do with the validity of his many other photos. And the photo in question is extremely well documented as to how it was captured. Same for one of his other famous pics, the one of the 4 Concordes flying in formation. Here's just one of many accounts:

So you admit that pictures labeled as Adrian Meredith Photography is not actually pure "Photography" and concordephotos.com picture are not actually "Photos" and that an artistic license is applied to the images.

Considering that you are only showing us one image from someone who manipulates his photos it is hardly compelling evidence that your one image is not also manipulated.

Here is the description of the item you claim to be the fake/manipulated Adrian Meredith Photography image, sold by what appears to be concordephotos.com's official ebay account named concordephotos:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/313236786053?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050

Sold by concordephotos, Surrey, United Kingdom

Concorde Flyiing Over The Curvature Of The Earth At 60,000 Feet Signed 16X12

This Air to Air Photograph 1998, of Concorde G-BOAF is flying at 60,000
feet, you can clearly see the curvature of the Earth, you are now in the
stratosphere, flying on the edge of space, and burning 5 gallons of fuel per
mile, Photo size 16x12 inches

Photograph Signed by Chief Concorde Captain Mike Bannister,  Photograph
signed by Adrian Meredith.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 10:37:55 PM »

Here is another signed Adrian Meredith Concord photo from concordephotos.com. I bet you think the earth curvature is real in this one too. Who knew that the Concorde could achieve satellite altitudes?



Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake/manipulated but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 10:19:11 PM »

Even that signed photo was cropped. Compare the sky and clouds to the left of the plane cockpit area of the signed photo to the first picture you posted.

Signed photo:



From the first picture you posted:



There is clearly more area to the left of the cockpit first picture you posted than the area to the left of the cockpit in the signed photo.

This is evidence that the signed photo is also cropped.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 08:11:44 PM »

The picture stack showed us is also cropped. There are other versions of the photo wish show more area of clouds beneath the plane.

Here was stack's photo:

This version from this site has more area of clouds beneath the plane:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-the-only-picture-of-concorde-flying-at-supersonic-speed/



While this verion from aviationgeekclub.com itself also appears to be cropped, it shows that stack did not actually show us the full picture.

If the plane is centered in the photo then lens barrel distortion or a fish-eye effect could cause the the plane to be straight while the horizon is curved.

Fisheye distortion  grid:



The Concord photo is from 1985 and could have been cropped by a number of sources along the way to us in 2023, including by the original author or the original publishing company. Therefore this is a very poor piece of evidence.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 06:13:30 PM »

If there were really that much curvature at 70,000 feet it would be possible to post multiple pictures of it with consistent curvature, not just one.

This view from a U2 at 70,000 feet shows different shapes of the horizon at different times in the video:

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: March 09, 2023, 06:30:53 PM »

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 22, 2023, 07:50:23 PM »

Apparently, your sense of what is radical ideology and unjustifiable is different than some other folks. It seems that Fred Rogers was one of those 'other folks'.

So in other words someone else might have a good argument for the censorship of father, mother, men, women, but you don't. Right. 

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 22, 2023, 05:56:45 PM »

Dahl's nastiness is baked right into his books

Please explain what is nasty about the words mother, father, man, woman.

the best solution is probably just to include a preface in each book that warns parents about the language

Considering that you guys can't express what is wrong about these words, it is clearly the censorship which is at fault.

The words father, mother, man, woman are not nasty words. Someone is pushing their anti-gender ideology here.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 22, 2023, 03:00:49 PM »

I am still waiting for an explanation for why the words mother and father should be censored.

I suspect you'd have to ask the Roald Dahl Story Company (RDSC). And they would determine whether you're deserving of an answer or not.

None of those people are in this thread. You are the one coming up with justifications for this censorship here. Usually if you are defending something it's good to have some sort of coherent defense. Admitting that there is no good reason for censoring common words, but people sometimes censor profanity, is a rediculous argument.

We should see a good argument for why mother and father should be censored on the level of profanity. You have yet to produce it, or even attempt to argue that point. Your argument is that censorship of profanity sometimes happens, yet have neglected to show why mother and father should be censored like profane words.

In truth, these are unjustifiable edits which support a radical ideology which wants to erase gender in society. References to 'men' and 'women' were also censored. There is no defense for this other than a few people are confused about their gender so everyone else should be too.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 22, 2023, 05:09:11 AM »

I am still waiting for an explanation for why the words mother and father should be censored.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 21, 2023, 07:59:15 PM »

The arguments in this thread are essentially "so what" and "people do things", a ridiculous form of argument which does not directly argue in favor of these changes.

Why must children be influenced and experimented on, exactly, to deny gender?

BBC.com - The parents raising their children without gender

These parents are experimenting on their children, and the article admits that the impact is unknown.

"Unknown impacts

Since gender-neutral parenting remains a relatively recent and limited phenomenon, researchers don't yet know much about its long-term impact, including how it is affecting both children and wider society."

So mother, father, and gender differences should be erased from society and literature because some LGBT feel that it should be.

Are mothers and fathers bad for society?

Is there a compelling argument here, or is the situation simply that a few people don't like the concept of genders so all of society must change to suit their ideology?

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 21, 2023, 10:19:16 AM »

I kinda think this sort of thing happens all the time in media. Movies have words bleeped out or overdubbed, deleted scenes, alternate endings. Music too. Whether the original writer, director, songwriter or whatever, approved or not.

Censoring common words like mother and father is not something that "happens all the time" in media. You are equating mother and father to profanity. Since when was there a widespread concern that those words should be censored?

There is no widespread social debate on whether gendered words like mother and father should exist in literature. This is a radical LGBT ideology that only few hold. It is entirely unjustifiable, and you are having to make ridiculous comparisons to the censorship of profanity to defend the indefensible.

In short, I agree, changes to the original text should not have happened. But so be it. I guess authors should put in their wills or whatever that the future copyright owners of their works are not allowed to alter anything. Perhaps a lessen to be learned.

"But so be it." "A lesson to be learned?" Yeah, this is clearly mostly the author's fault and not the fault of the radicalists trying to make changes to children's literature to suit the ideology they are trying to push onto children. 

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 21, 2023, 05:34:36 AM »

Wokeness definitely goes too far. However, this is not the first time the books have been revised. This all started back in the early seventies. For example, Dahl himself changed the origin of oompa-loopas as originally published back in the early 70's from African pygmies Wonka "smuggled in crates" back to his factory to small white people who happily joined him. Revisions have been ongoing ever since.

How exactly is an author censoring himself comparable to someone else decades later removing references to "fat" and "ugly" and "mother" and "father" in literature? Revisions to Willy Wonka have not "been going on ever since", making corrections to the original work. It's not a living document.

If Dahl wanted to sanitize his own work, fine. But correcting the works of another author to promote your ideology is over the line.

https://nypost.com/2023/02/20/what-are-the-words-removed-from-roald-dahls-books/

“Fat,” “ugly,” “crazy” and even “female” — these are some of the words that have been controversially scrubbed from Roald Dahl’s famed children’s books by so-called sensitivity experts.

The move to remove or alter references to gender, race and physical appearance in newer editions of the beloved books quickly sparked outrage, with many accusing the publisher, Puffin Books, of censorship.

...

Mothers and fathers

Where possible, gender neutral terms are also now being used throughout Dahl’s books.

For example, “mothers and fathers” has become just “parents” in newer versions of “Matilda” and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.”

Also, the Cloud Men characters in “James and the Giant Peach” are now Cloud People.

In “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” references to male and females have been scrubbed. The descriptions of “tiny men” and “a hundred women” now just say “people” instead.

Absurd. This is just another bullet point in a long line of liberal governments and organizations trying to redefine concepts and language for the benefit of the LGBT.

Feb 2019 - The Sun - French schools ban words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ and replace them with ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ to stop discrimination of same-sex couples

Jan 2021 - Western Journal - Pelosi, House Dems Move To Ban 'Father, Mother, Son, Daughter' and Other 'Gendered' Words

Aug 5, 2021 - American Medical Association Recommends Removing Sex From Birth Certificates

Feb 14, 2023 - Telegraph - Use 'egg-producing' not 'female', say scientists in call to phase out binary language - Experts say other terms that could be problematic include man, woman, mother and father as well as 'survival of the fittest'

Can you actually support the removal of gendered words like mother and father from society, or were you just pretending that there is a legitimate controversy here?

Will you actually attempt an argument in favor of removing mother and father in all society and literature? I doubt it.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: February 15, 2023, 06:37:13 PM »

18

Technology & Information / Re: Cybertruck

« on: February 10, 2023, 07:41:08 PM »

The look of this truck is a smart marketing decision. If it looked like any other truck few people would even care.

They couldn't do this with their car lines because those are more personal and the consumer wants it to look like a version of a normal car on the road. In the case of trucks, those are more utilitarian, rugged, and meant for doing a job. There is more leeway with how a truck should look.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly

« on: February 07, 2023, 06:36:25 AM »

Wow, you posted an anonymous author as your source. Do you have any integrity at all? You just got done attacking people on their credibility, and now immediately and ridiculously use an anonymous author as your source. I at least posted someone who is known to have actual credentials.

The Epoch Times explains that he's an expert in analytics and modeling, and in risk management in the context of health systems and health policies in the article and is a professor at MIT. We don't know if the author of your Reuters article graduated high school.

From your Reuters anonymous author:

"VERDICT

Misleading. A study noting an increase in ambulance calls for cardiovascular problems during January to May 2021 does not provide proof that this was caused by the COVID-19 vaccine rollout."

Well, no, it doesn't provide proof, it is one of the pieces of evidence that it is related to the vaccine.

The counter-argument here is essentially "it could have been a coincidence!!", which is poor. If you accept that the data is legitimate you have lost and must make special pleading arguments speculating on coincidences. That isn't the only thing he discussed either.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly

« on: February 07, 2023, 02:15:51 AM »

You certainly should perform opposition research before you blindly inject yourself with an experimental vaccine because the government is telling you to, arm-in-arm with big pharma.

Most people have a 99.98% survival rate from Covid, or something along those lines. Not sure why you would risk your health with an experiment on your genetics.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/mit-expert-calls-for-immediate-stop-of-mrna-covid-jab-evidence-shows-unprecedented-level-of-harm_5020151.html?utm_source=share-btn-copylink