141

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make an FE map with accurate distances

« on: April 28, 2021, 12:39:01 AM »

I find it impressive that RE distances are known through: astral navigation, time/speed/distance with a car, with a plane, with a boat, gps, geodetic survey, anyone think of some more ways? I have checked, they match perfectly. What my phone says, google maps, shooting the north star with an inclinometer, flawless match. Boats and planes seem to get where they want to go and have a pretty good idea of how long it will take.

Tom Bishop would probably never get on a boat, they have no idea where they are or where they are going, and he supports a bi-polar map, so no ice wall for Tom, he could sail off the edge.

Tom Bishop going on a car journey: his passenger says "when will we get there?" Tom says, "No one can ever know."

Really Tom, do you ever drive someplace and use google maps to plan the trip? Did it work? When you got there did your cell phone gps match? Did that match google maps? There is a geodesic marker somewhere near everyone, did that match? Inclinometer shooting north star match latitude per google and other sources?

Do you ever fly on a plane, if so do you get on thinking they have no idea how to navigate? Or do you trust that the conspiracy (pilot? nasa? avionics manufacturer? FAA?) will send you to your destination by secret clever gadgets fooling the operators yet successful arrival?

If only some FE could figure out the real distances, they would have something to say other than "RE not true", "no one knows", "unknown forces" and "conspiracy!". But I think we know why they can't.

142

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is the sun in daytime?

« on: February 27, 2021, 09:50:07 PM »

It is clear from all FE maps that the sun is not where it appears to be for most people. I gave an example. At every place on earth it appears to be on the surface at sundown and sunrise.

What I am asking for is how one figures out where the sun really is.

If they had a good answer, would they reply? Maybe not, but seems like they would.

I'm going with they wish to avoid the topic because there is no good answer because the earth is round.

143

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: February 27, 2021, 08:38:51 PM »

https://geodesy.noaa.gov/INFO/geodesy.shtml

The US geodetic survey is about determining position over distances large enough that the curve of the earth matters. There are markers all over the US. There is a database that locates them in 3d space.

If you need to know the precise position of points all over the country, you can use this data base. Or you could come to this web site and look at the maps in the FAQ. You could post questions on the forums about how to find distances between places without GPS or the USGS database (being the product of fools or liars, doncha' know, a few sociopathic liars fooling most of their stupid staff sheep, doncha' know).

Not clear whether FE believes gps and distances on google maps. The only thing I have ever found that all FEs believe is that the earth is not round.

Would love to see the meeting where someone says "We can't use the data from the govt agencies, because the earth is flat and it is all a giant hoax. I am researching FE. So far, no consensus on what the map is or distances, but we are watching Jeranism, DMarble, Globebusters, and many others. Please do not tell anyone outside this room because if the NASA thugs find out we are revealing the truth, they will threaten us and our families with whatever force necessary to shut us up."

144

Flat Earth Investigations / Where is the sun in daytime?

« on: February 27, 2021, 06:32:40 PM »

When it is noon in Greenwich UK, the sun appears directly overhead, a little to the south. At that same time in Kolkata India, the sun is setting and appears to be on the surface to the west. In Chicago USA, it is sunrise and the sun appears to be on the surface to the east.

Plot this out on the map in the FAQ, and from Kolkata, the sun appears to be on the surface in Africa. From Chicago, it appears to be on the surface of South America. From Greenwich, it appears to be high overhead.

How do we figure out where the sun is at noon in Greenwich?

145

Flat Earth Investigations / Where is the sun at night?

« on: February 26, 2021, 10:31:49 PM »

On a clear night, I can see stars over the entire sky. Where is the FE sun? Seems like it can't be anywhere in the sky if I can see stars over the entire dome. Yet in other places, the sky is light blue and the sun is clearly visible. Even if the light shines directionally downward as a beam and doesn't travel far enough that I can see it when it is night here, I can still see stars in every direction. Why does the sun not block the stars wherever it is up there? Why does the sunlight not get to the entire earth when the comparatively weak light of the stars gets to me from the most distant part of the dome?

I hope some FE will explain. Thank you in advance.

146

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: February 26, 2021, 07:24:53 PM »

Thank you Jack for the direct specific explanation. I do hope you read this and continue my exploration into making sense of this on FE.

Oxnard is at sea level and the boat is at sea level. Air should be equally dense. Why did the light ray not travel straight to me? Where did it go?

I would expect density bending to be a gradual proportionate process, but the top of the peak was undistorted with a sharp cutoff. How can that be?

147

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Idea for the flat earth cover-up

« on: February 25, 2021, 09:51:54 PM »

I would define a map as a scaled down representation of objects and their spatial relationships on some surface.

The spatial relationships (direction and distance) of cities, mountains, shoreline, etc can be scaled down and represented on a sphere without changing the direction and (scaled down) distance of these features on a sphere.

If you attempt to do this on a flat surface as in the FAQ maps, it is impossible to avoid distorting the distance and direction. On north polar projection such as the FAQ maps, the distortion will be that the southern hemisphere objects are too big, and northern hemisphere is too small. only at the equator will size be correct.

You can make a scaled down model of the earth that has everything in the proper direction and (scaled) distance on a sphere. You can't do that on a plane. The maps in the FAQ always have Australia wider than USA. I have many reasons to believe that USA is wider than Australia, and none to believe the opposite.

148

Flat Earth Theory / Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: February 25, 2021, 09:10:27 PM »

My roommate invited me to go scuba diving at Anacapa Island with him. He had a boat at Channel Islands, near Oxnard. Anacapa Island is about 20 miles offshore. As we motored out, the shoreline disappeared, but you could still see the hills behind Oxnard, which looked like they were sinking beneath the horizon, until just the peaks, then nothing. Looking forward, the top of the Anacapa first became visible, then lower and lower until we could see the shoreline. The reverse happened on the trip back, first seeing the tops of the hills inland behind Oxnard, then more and more became visible until we could see the shoreline. The air was crystal clear and the sea was calm.

I want to diagram what I saw from the side, where did the light rays travel?

Can anyone explain how and why the light rays work to make this happen on FE? I am trying to diagram how this would work at various distances on FE. How can I see things beyond Oxnard and not be able to see Oxnard? Why does it look like the peaks sink into the ocean? I can see the tops of the hills beyond Oxnard, but I can't see Oxnard. I can see miles across the water, so no wave or swell blocked my view.

     /\
   /   \
 /      \                                                                                           
/        Oxnard______________________________boat____________
                                                                                                                                                         
Please show how the light rays travel when I am about 5 miles from shore such that I can see the sea for miles and the tops of the hills behind appearing to be right on the surface, yet not see Oxnard.

149

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Idea for the flat earth cover-up

« on: February 25, 2021, 06:16:16 PM »

What I am saying, without the word map, so definition is irrelevant:

You can't draw a representation of physical locations on earth on a flat sheet of paper without distortion, where all distances are proportionate, all directions are the same, and the scale is constantr. The error is unnoticeable in a map of a city. minor in the map of a state, noticeable in a map of a country, and quite pronounced in a map of the entire earth. This is why google earth shows flat map when looking at a small area and as you zoom out it becomes a sphere. Flat maps are easier to use, and for small areas, the error is small and ignorable. For the entire earth, as the area expands, so does the error.

For the rest of this post, I will use the word "map" because writing "scaled down physical representation of features of the earth with accurate distance, direction, and constant scale" is too much to write to avoid the escape hatch of "what exactly is a map?"

This is why the FAQ maps all have Australia wider than USA. If you centered the map on the south pole, you get the opposite problem, Australia is much smaller than it should be and USA is too large:

https://emapsworld.com/world-south-pole-azimuthal-equidistant-projection-map.html

There is no flat map of the earth with constant scale that can accurately represent continents. Gauss's "Remarkable Theorem" mathematically proves that you can't transform a curved surface onto a flat one without distortion of distances, direction, and/or constant scale.

If you draw a map on a sphere, peel it off, and lay it out on a flat surface, it will stretch or tear, never can it have the same distance and direction. The earth is either flat or round, the map can't be right for both. All the FAQ maps have Australia too big. The size of Australia and USA are correctly proportional to their size as measured on a globe map.

Draw a picture on an orange and carefully peel it and then smash it flat. Your drawing will be either ripped apart or stretched, but your picture can't be flat, intact, and identical to what it was before peeling, no matter how careful you are.

If the earth was flat, it would be impossible to make a globe with accurate distance and direction and constant scale. Australia and USA are the size that gps, google, odometer, airline schedule, US Geodetic survey, etc say they are. No flat map has Australia and USA in correct size relationship.

Show me a flat map of the earth and I will show you a problem with accurate distance, direction, and constant scale. The map part of the FAQ should say "We have no flat map with accurate distance, direction, and constant scale."

150

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Idea for the flat earth cover-up

« on: February 24, 2021, 08:55:34 PM »

Maps of small areas have minor inaccuracies, close enough for practical use. Maps of the entire world that are flat exist in many forms, mercator projection, etc. None can be continuous with correct direction, distance, and constant scale. They are still useful for things that do not require precision.

What you can't do is make a map of the entire world with correct distance, direction, and constant scale. If you have one, please show us.

If the earth is flat, it should be a simple matter to take the distances, scale them, and draw the map on a flat sheet of paper. There are several attempts to do this in the FAQ. All of them show Australia as wider than US.

As for the cover up, interested to hear your idea, but it is not clear from the OP. Not clear what the connection is from animal icon to suppression of FE. You gave a reason as distrust of govt. That is not a reason to cover, that is a reason why people believe FE.

Suppose I am a govt official who knows the earth is flat. Why would I cover it up?

Why do governments cover up flat earth?

151

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Idea for the flat earth cover-up

« on: February 22, 2021, 08:04:07 PM »

I think you should publish your flat earth map, if the directions and distances are correct with constant scale. Many FE maps have been made, but all have problems with direction and distance. All the FAQ maps have Australia wider than USA and other problems.

I think you are on the right track in trying to finally produce a FE map with correct disance, direction, and constant scale.

If you use google maps/gps/whatever for the directions and distances, just draw the map. If the earth is flat, you should be able to scale the distances and easily make a FE map.

If you think google maps/gps/whatever is secretly controlled by a conspiracy and the info is not true, then I guess you will have to get a measuring tape and compass (?) and start personally getting the required data.

Or perhaps that is not practical for you, and you are permanently stuck without a map, knowing nothing about it except the earth is not round.

I hope you can make the FE map with correct distance, direction, and constant scale. Looking forward to you publishing it.

152

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: categories of truth

« on: February 22, 2021, 07:44:40 PM »

210 = picking nits. You understand that the behavior of water at different temperatures is agreed and observed to be true by people all over the world. Washington DC is the capital of US. The heart pumps blood to the lungs where it gets oxygen and then through the body to be turned to motion by chemical reactions in muscles. You can pick nits with any example I give, but it is still true that there is a network of knowledge that is shared through the entire world agreed and confirmed millions of times daily and consistent with itself. 

Things that are not in this category: astrology, religion, flat earth, Q, palmistry.

As to correct forum to post in, I posted here because I am not debating or investigating FE. I am observing that there are two ways of "knowing". Without going down the epistemology rabbit hole, I claim this categorization is pragmatically useful. I tend to accept and depend on universal common knowledge. Things "known" by only one subgroup, things that are not testable, measureable, and repeatable, are not reliable.

Because category 2 isn't testable, category 2 groups diverge. Category 1 converges. In the year 1000, there were many ideas about how the stars and planets were organized. In 2021, pretty much the exact same story from everyone, and further to my point, FE has many factions, and new ones appear. RE maps varied in 1600, they are all the same now. FE maps in FAQ?

When category 2 is confronted with invalidation, it ignores the possibility it is wrong and immediately seeks to explain. In Christianity, this is called apologetics. Bob Knodel in netflix doc when he sees 15 degrees on his ring laser gyroscope (and again after he put it in a faraday cage later), never consider that the simplest explanation is RE.

People do not make the distinction between category 1 and category 2, they want their category 2 belief to be considered the same as category 1. Category 2 can be whatever your group believes it is, there is no way to invalidate. FE may be harmless as professionals doing actual things are RE, but the habit of thinking faith is truth rather than imagination, hope, preference, made real by group agreement rather than universal testable consistent repeatable observations often leads to mistakes.

153

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: categories of truth

« on: February 15, 2021, 10:48:22 PM »

It is new and interesting apparently, as people give faith the same credibility of the word true as science. Saying "I know" or "It is true" about a religious fact is a different meaning than with a science (or just general observable knowledge). Using the word "true" for both religion and science gives religion the impression of testability and reliability and predictability, indeed knowability, that it should not be given. It is not testable or reliable.

What I meant to say in the original post is that there are two ways of deciding "truth", one is shareable and reliable and culture independent. Statistically, no religion has more than half the population of the world, so everyone has a priori odds of less than 50%. Aside from edge science (quantum, string, etc), stuff like F=MA, molecules, etc., the community is 100% agreed and all is tested daily, never fails. Water boils at 212 F at sea level. Things fall at 32 ft/sec/see.

i was not claiming the word truth, as I have learned in the FE world is that "truth" (epistemology) is endlessly arguable. What I am claiming is that we can categorize claims and describe the characteristics of those categories, hence category 1 and 2 rather than "true" and "false".

What I am saying is that FE and religion both rely on a subset of all people giving psychological validity to a set of beliefs not held by people not in that group and which conflicts with the general consensus. Neither FE nor religion produces reliable predictions and both require what is called "apologetics" in religion, explaining seeming logical contradictions to maintain faith.

Because they are not testable in a shareable way, both diverge, meaning new grioups and beliefs being formed. Science converges, starting from unknown to confused and controversial and ending at consensus. Consider astronomy or biology or chemistry.

My claim is that you can draw parallels with the FE community and thinking process to religious community and thinking process easily. Drawing parallels to science is, as you point out, not easy. My conclusion is that religion is more like FE than it is like science.


Math is starting with a set of assumptions and making a useful logical system.

Science is the process of looking at the world around us and trying to explain how it works as a logically consistent system.

FE is applying the faith process to astronomy.

Religion is applying the faith process to whatever/everything.

BTW, many are here because they think the Bible says the earth is flat. Literally FE = religion. Doesn't say much for the clarity of the writing or the reading comprehension of FE, or the scientific accuracy of the Bible,

All in all FE+Bible is right down the strike zone of faith based, and faith based has a lousy record of being right. Science is not perfect, but those eclipses happen just as predicted, and a huge number of other things.

PS I am grateful to science textbook authors for trying to be clear, accurate, and unambiguous. The writers of religious texts never seem to be able or willing to do that. Differences in interpretation cause religions to break apart. If I were God, it would be clear and unambiguous to everyone. Boring, yes, but I am too soft hearted to be a desert God.

154

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: categories of truth

« on: February 12, 2021, 09:44:15 PM »

Exactly. I called it category 1 and category 2 because I knew that FEs and religionists would object to having their faith put in a different category than truth. We need a different word for faith based conclusions vs science based conclusions. We use the word true for both, which puts each person's religion in the same category as F=MA. I tried to describe the difference without causing immediate rejection caused by defense of faith knowledge to make it so that "true" was the same for F=MA as a religious belief.

Hindus have gathered to worship Shiva and Vishnu for thousands of years, they have sacred texts, they have faith. They will tell you they get comfort, inspiration, and help in their daily lives. Their prayers are answered (when it fits in with their deities plans). Same story as Christians, but no way to know which is true, and they contradict each other.

Is their religion true? Is their some way to know? How would you answer that question with faith?  Seems to me the answer doesn't reflect what is true, it reflects what your parents told you when you were young. Statistically, most people will say the religion of their culture is true. What faith tells us in this case is where you were born.

When Galileo looked through his telescope and realized the sun was the center of the solar system, the church had a different faith. At that moment, faith = religion = FE. Category 2. The earth is round and orbits the sun. Category 1. Which is right?

155

Flat Earth Investigations / How to investigate locations of sun and southern cross?

« on: February 12, 2021, 08:29:23 PM »

Every day the sun can be seen on the horizon at sunrise and sunset. As I understand Zetetic, that means that the sun is on the surface of FE. If the sun never comes close to the earth, then clearly the sun is often nowhere hear where it appears to be. How can I figure out where the sun is and how the light bends? Preferably, both the amount and mechanism of the bend?

Then I looked at the FAQ maps and tried to figure out where the southern cross is. At midnight in early December in Capetown SA, it is just before dawn in Perth and just after sunset in Rio. All of them see the southern cross to their south, but that is 90 degrees out between each, all pointing directly away from the center of the map. Clearly the southern cross is not where it appears to be. Again, where is it really, and how does the light bend?

Please help me investigate where the sun and southern cross really are, how the light is bending and why.

Thanks in advance.

156

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: categories of truth

« on: February 09, 2021, 01:41:15 AM »

Sorry if I misattributed, I may have read another response re how easy it is to prove FE, and I acknowledge you did not even say FE.

Re my categories, in your first response you are right but I was not complete. A more complete definition:

#1 things known to people of different cultures through independent and repeatable verification, things which can be measured, testable.

#2 Things that are not measurable or repeatable or would not be true for most cultures.

Another way to say it is #1 - scientific method works, #2 scientific method either can't be applied of fails to prove.

Ask a Christian and a Hindu what temperature water boils at sea level. Then ask them if Jesus is the Risen Son of God.

That's what I meant originally. It is sometimes hard to make sure your words are not misconstrued without becoming wordy and obscure in the process.

Did God send hurricanes to Orlando Fl because Disney let gays in as famous preacher said and millions believe? No way to tell. Does water boil at 210 degrees? We can measure that and agree uncontroversially.

There are a billion people who think Shiva and Vishnu created the earth and have since at least the time of the Bible. A billion who believe in the Koran version. What relative truth values do I assign to these mutually exclusive possibilities? Perhaps majority vote, and so the Christuian church is true? Conflicting facts simultaneously true? Or the majority of people on earth holding completely imaginary and untrue belief?

If religion makes a claim that does not impact the physical world, we can't share any confirmation, just someone insisting they know something about God. If religion makes a claim that does impact the real world such that multiple independent people can verify repeatedly and shareably, then it isn't religion, it is science or history.

You can argue "what is truth" all day, no resolution. Better to discuss what can be in category 1 and 2, what that means. You obviously want to put religion in category 1 because you understand the implications of category 2.

Youe post:

When I say shareably, I mean you can't show others the vision of Jesus you had, I do not mean you are in the same room when you read a text.

"Religion has long been a place where a person's accepted conventional facts were first taught to them" - So what does the fact that for hundreds of years, millions of children have learned that Muhammed talked to ants mean? Did that happen?It is beyond the ability of a team of a Hindu, a Christan, a Buddhist, an atheist, and a zoroastrian to examine the evidence.

I am not talking about whether the people get information they believe is true. That they do. I am not even talking about what is true. I am talking about the difference between physics and religion. What it means to be "true" is different. I am pointing out that when you use the same word for true re F=MA and Jesus is Lord, you are talking about two very different ways of knowing with different charactreristics.

Would be interesting to see a religion with proof as convincing to all as physics and chemistry are (know anyone who think water is not H2O?). But then would it be religion?
 

157

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: categories of truth

« on: February 08, 2021, 08:01:23 PM »

Okay, new categories:

1. Same as before, accepted conventional facts.

2. Paradigm breaking new science. Higgs Bosun etc are not discovered by people outside the science community who rejected much of it (FE has to change multiple laws of physics and/or conventional facts like gravity or distance between places). They are scientists working at the edge of what is known and what is useful in daily life. They do not reject everything from gravity to astronomy as FE must.  This mostly involves things that are smaller than microscopic or larger than a planet, or moving near the speed of light. None of it changes the science of planets orbiting the sun, chemistry, gravity, etc. or the facts underlying our use of tech in daily life.

Paradigm breaking occurred frequently after the enlightenment, not so much now. This is natural, think about it.

The pioneers of flight studied the forces generated by airflow over a wing. Since then, quantum, string, higgs bosun, any paradigm breaking science you can name, but the equations of forces on a wing are still used and nothing new has changed them in any amount that matters.

3. Crackpot theories that are inconsistent with known facts, chemtrails, FE, microchips in vaccine, etc.

I never said there was no problem with my idea, I said it was a useful way to look at it. ALl complex systems have inconsistencies, Godel proved this in math and I think it is true in general.

I put religion squarely in category 2, if I forgot to mention it, group confirmation is part of #1, and religion can never be in category 1 because it is inherently private. Any publicly confirmable religious belief is not religion, it is category 1. Reporting something that violates the laws of physics is mental illness if done by an individual. When done by a group with dogma and ceremony, it is religion. It is not a coincidence that there are many FEs claiming the Bible says FE, and so the earth must be flat so the Bible won't be wrong.

FE started thousands of years ago, Rowbotham over a hundred years ago. Where is the FE map with constant scale, correct size, distance, and direction? Science took a long time to advance before printing press, phone, tv, internet. If the earth is flat, there should be huge errors all over the place, easy to point out.

What's the problem?

Possibility #1, global multi-generational conspiracy with secret devices in gps, airplanes, nasa ice wall patrol, lamp shade sun on a swing arm, unknown forces bending light, etc etc etc.

Possibility #2 The earth is round, ships and airplanes successfully navigate, eclipses predicted, tides explained, etc etc etc etc and no global multi-generational conspiracy to fool everyone.

If the earth is flat, with the tech available today, it should be easy to prove. Why doesn't everyone believe the earth is flat? I am perfectly willing to believe the earth is flat, I would emotionally prefer it. I have read hundreds of FE posts and watched many FE videos. RE has the stronger case.

Example: RE has enabled navigation for hundreds of years, every plane I have flown has arrived exactly where they intended. FE can't make a map. Every map in the FAQ shows Australia as considerably wider than USA. GPS, odometer/time/speed distance, airline schedules, google maps, US geodetic survey, etc etc etc show USA as wider than Australia. Measure on a globe, and everything matches up.

Per you, should be easy to explain, but you are stuck with "conspiracy" and "we haven't figured it out yet."

158

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What did they think would be the end of the story?

« on: February 08, 2021, 01:25:07 AM »

The issue of whether Trump can be impeached after leaving office is not clear in the Constitution. Not interested in that argument.

i (op) wanted to know what they expected to happen after they rushed the capitol. No one answered that. I am curious about two things:

First, what impact would their actions have? Would Nancy Pelosi start supporting Trump out of fear? Would they kill her and Trump replace her with a Trump supporter? Why would they not continue as before after the emergency, or the people appointed to replace them do the same as before? How does this work to affect the future actions of the legislature? Would the entire govt be pulled down and replaced by the guy with the horns? He (or one of his compatriots) said something like "Well, we're here, we should pass some laws or something." How was that ever going to work?

Second, did they think they could beat a cop to death and just go home and continue life as usual?

I suspect they didn't think it through, I am guessing they were operating on pure emotion with no thought to the practical side of things. Like a gorilla beating his chest, with little more plan or intention.

159

Philosophy, Religion & Society / categories of truth

« on: February 07, 2021, 07:49:19 PM »

Epistemology is a rabbit hole, but ... I think it is useful to observe there is a way to categorize what people regard as truth.

1. Things the vast majority accept as true, roughly speaking - F=MA, Putin rules Russia, water boils at 212 degrees fahrenheit at sea level, Lindbergh was first to fly the Atlantic, US Declaration of Independence in 1776, Trump was the 45th president, the earth is round (oblate spheroid). These things have many consistent connections to each other, are documented in multiple original sources, and are relied on in daily life. Physics, chemistry, biology, history. These are sometimes controversial in small part, but physicists agree on a huge amount of physics (tested by use in gadgets) even if they don't agree on string theory or quantum.

2.  Things that only a few have figured out the truth of and are contrary to the general beliefs held above. These include black helicopters, 5g mind control, microchips in vaccine, Q, reptile overlords, chemtrails, etc, and of course flat earth. All these require some combination of conspiracy, ignoring of some evidence, violations of the laws of physics, impossible technology, acceptance of inconsistency with known fact, and creation of whole new phenomena whose only proof of existence is that it is necessary to support a conclusion that has already been made.

Example: Bob Knodel and his ring laser gyroscope sees 15 degree/hr precession, concludes there must be an unknown force they can't identify or measure.

The conspiracy has to be global, multi-generational, immensely powerful, yet secret, meaning so small and inexpensive that it can be hidden. The details are never available, it is always vague.

Example: A tiny number of people at NASA convince the majority that the earth is round and make their space shots seem real. The question "Who at NASA and SpaceX knows the truth and who is a dumb sheep?" can never be answered, just a continuing insistence that NASA can and does control everything from "stick pushers" to the "ice wall patrol". Simultaneously huge, powerful, complete, and yet tiny and invisible.

I claim category 1 is science, and category 2 is faith. In science, you look at all the facts and conclude, even if you don't like the results. In faith, you decide what you want the results to be and change or disregard any conflicting observations. If you look into any faith based belief, it requires conspiracy and disregarding facts and logic.

You can use category 1 to do useful things, like navigation. Category 2 does not produce useful gadgets. There are many category 1 navigation devices (astral, inertial, gyrocompass, time/speed/distance, odometer, geodetic markers), no FE map, sextant, star chart, nothing.

Whatever woeds you want to put to it, however you want to argue, I think FE is category 2, and category 2 is an excellent bet to be bs.

I don't like it that the earth is round, I would prefer we could measure distances in a flat plane, the notion of the water being held in quite opposite directions on opposite sides of the earth is difficult to accept or feel comfortable with. But the earth is round.

160

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Typhoid Mary

« on: February 01, 2021, 07:09:07 PM »

Typhoid mary is propoganda.  Which is why we know about it at all (sensationalist media).

When things go wrong / people get sick, people expect a scapegoat.  Which the media/state delivers to the bloodthirsty monsters/mob, without any concern for justice whatsoever.  "Just kill the rosenburgs and get back to work", they say. Other times it's "the china flu", as blaming the cause of your ills on an existing "enemy" works particularly well.

Establishing causality is notoriously difficult.  Doing so in a medical context with a pathogen, or perhaps a carrier, is even more so.  No such causality was established with mary, she was simply the one who took the blame (repeatedly).

After reading your quote, I went back and read several independent accounts of Mary Mallon. They had no typhus, then they had it. People tracked it down and they identified Mallon as the common factor. They forced her to give samples and she tested positive. This all seems reasonable to me. Do you think Mallon is fictitious, falsely accused, or what? This is well documented by govt, medical people, newspapers, etc. Nothing about missing records, conflicting accounts, etc. The isolated her and the breakouts stopped.