21
Flat Earth Investigations / I am wondering why I do not see...
« on: April 01, 2024, 11:29:20 AM »The upcoming total eclipse occurring in my state next Monday in this chart posted by a RE-adherent?
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.
The upcoming total eclipse occurring in my state next Monday in this chart posted by a RE-adherent?
I see.
The calculations he offered WRT the "round" earth were from an on-line calculator. The page with the calculator describes how the calculations are done. The resulting prediction was correct.
The only issue with the math is how one chooses to label it. The math is the same.
The other calculations were done using one particular flat earth model and some simple grade 9 math. As he pointed out, there seems to be some issue with which flat earth model to choose and what the elevation of the sun is as flat earther's themselves cannot agree on those important aspects of their "theory".
However, you mention "physical aspects of the celestial sphere". Perhaps they would be a way to make a reliable prediction. So, which physical aspects are we talking about and what is the mathematical model for their use?
So much winning!The bond was reduced.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68600093
What revenue?It's almost like they went with an insane fine that they knew not even a billionaire could afford because it's a political hit job.You'd think someone worth....*searches*
https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/09/08/trump-overstated-net-worth-by-up-to-3point6-billion-per-year-ny-ag-alleges-in-new-filing.html?espv=1
$4.5 billion, per his claim, could cough up the money.
Practically no one has the cash on hand to pay 11% of their net worth to settle a civil suit. Further, it makes very little sense to get upset at someone for overstating their net worth, then fine them more money than you know they can afford (because you were upset at them for overstating their worth!).
It's an obvious attempt to make Trump look bad and it was a huge waste of time. The only thing this case has done to Trump's support is cement his narrative that the "deep state" is out to get him.
Wasn't the fine calculated based on the revenue lost to the bank?
No, he was talking about potential therapy for respiratory infections.Well, good to know he's really really bad at siting sources. And context since he was just talking about disinfecting rooms with light. But hey, good on you for proving a point.Source?https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/02/fact-check-covid-19-uv-light-treatment-research-underway-los-angeles/3053177001/
"On April 20, three days before Trump made his remarks, pharmaceutical company Aytu Bioscience announced that it had signed an exclusive license for worldwide rights to the Healight Platform Technology under research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles."
Not only was it staged, it was horrendously staged. Given the feeble first step of offering a quote regarding something that was actually legitimate.QuoteThe different answers based on the same words. But as Honk said, was likely staged or carefully picked.What hypocrisy?QuoteI suppose when anyone mentions Joe Biden has dementia, it is because the rackety old paedo has dementia.
So you admit that its not what's said but who says it. Love the honesty on your hypocracy.
There is nothing that old paedo fuck could ever say that would be remotely truthful or worthwhile.
Source?https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/02/fact-check-covid-19-uv-light-treatment-research-underway-los-angeles/3053177001/
What hypocrisy?QuoteI suppose when anyone mentions Joe Biden has dementia, it is because the rackety old paedo has dementia.
So you admit that its not what's said but who says it. Love the honesty on your hypocracy.
Again, you are calling into question whether these people should be allowed to vote, when you yourself, on these very boards, were making fun of Trump for making the truthful statement about UV therapeutic treatment, when he made it.If you are claiming the average joe on the street doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground, you got no argument from me.Well alrighty then. In that case I guess we're not too far apart on this one.
But it is troubling. These people can vote. And there they are doing a 180 degree turn on the spot depending on whether a certain event or comment they're presented with is said to have come from Biden (in which case it's "Boo! Hiss! Biden bad") or Trump (in which case it's "Well, he has a point. U-S-A! U-S-A!")
Again, you're getting bogged down in the detail of whether you can shine UV light in to someone and cure Covid. It doesn't matter. It was just one example in the video. There are others. The point is the people's opinions about what was said or done wasn't based on the merits of them but based entirely on who they were told had said or done those things. I'm not saying Trump has a monopoly on stupid voters by the way, but sheesh! No wonder we end up with such poor leaders.
Trump never said anything about drinking bleach. And you are supposedly making a critical post about the abilities of other people to cast a reasoned vote, based on their inability to correctly attribute quotes? Are you fucking serious?Just, please don't drink bleach to own the libs.Don't you tell me what to do
He really has to stop saying this shit. I know some people think that the press unfairly obsess over him, maybe with some justification, but holy shit he gives a lot of ammo.
If you are claiming the average joe on the street doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground, you got no argument from me. I see it exhibited in a multitude of posts from the re-adherents here everyday.The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.Are you currently in training for the "missing the point" event in the 2024 Paris Olympics?
Since UV light is a safe and effective treatment, as anyone can see, can we just dispose of your nonsense now?
If so then I think the US is a shoo-in for a gold medal.
The point is not whether what Trump said was stupid, or whether what Trump did was bad.
The point is that the same person when presented with a certain statement declared it the ramblings of a dementia patient when told it was Biden who said it. When the person pretended that "whoopsie-doodle, I got my notes mixed up" and told them it was actually Trump who said it then suddenly it was all "well, it would depend what that technology was..." and so on.
Do you see the problem?
What do you mean it was done after Trump said it?Sigh.The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.video snipped because Jimmy Kimmel is a goddamn moron
This is why democracy is a terrible idea.
Since UV light is a safe and effective treatment, as anyone can see, can we just dispose of your nonsense now?
https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Nice find.
I mean, it was done after Trump said it but thats not the point. If it was, why did they say Joe Biden had dimentia? Surely the answers should have been the same regardless of who said it, no?
Sigh.The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.video snipped because Jimmy Kimmel is a goddamn moron
This is why democracy is a terrible idea.
Adding "his party all saying," doesn't help your post.Despite his party all saying they would vote no to remove before seeing any evidence?You are correct, I am.It means there was not enough evidence to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection.
Well, thats a bad ruling. Means insurrection is ok so long as your party controls congress.
Joe better get impeached, then, so he can be immune to legal issues later.
It means the words incitement and insurrection don't mean what you think they mean.
Surely you're trolling.
You are correct, I am.It means there was not enough evidence to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection.
Well, thats a bad ruling. Means insurrection is ok so long as your party controls congress.
Joe better get impeached, then, so he can be immune to legal issues later.
Trump was acquitted in the 2nd Impeachment.Yeah, I did read it. It is up to Congress to determine that. And they already did in the 2nd Impeachment.The ruling from the Supreme effectively buries any talk of Trump participating in an insurrection. Which was just more bullshit spewed by the communists anyway.No it doesn't. Did you not read the ruling?
The ruling stated that states can't decide how to implement section 3 on their own. Only the federal government can. Nothing about if Trump is or isn't guilty.
Incorrect.
Congress does not determine guilt or innocence. Otherwise Bill Clinton did nothing wrong.