2101

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: February 17, 2021, 04:48:21 AM »

2102

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 12, 2021, 09:49:54 PM »

For anyone confused about the difference between cameras and lenses and telescopes here is some quick information about equipment I own.

It appears that you are the one who is confused between a telescope and a camera. From your previous quotes you were arguing about the view through telescopes on EQ mounts and are now abandoning that argument and insist that the EQ mount discussion is not about telescopes anymore, and that you only mean the view through a camera only.

it's possible for the media to have been edited it's invalid.

And that's it, right there, in a nutshell, isn't it? Despite thousands of people the whole world over participating in this hobby, despite an overwhelming preponderance of high quality evidence, it might be faked. Kind of true, really - it could be. Everything can be faked. That stunning video that JSS posted (thanks JSS - never seen that before. Amazing) Every video, every instruction manual, every website. Every design for a telescope mount, every patent, every moon landing video, every how-to-adjust-the-drift-nut-on-your-directional-gyro, it all could be faked. My plea - and this is directed at other people reading this, because you're either being deliberately disingenuous  or are truly beyond hope - is to ask yourself, which is more likely? The mass fakery, or the scientific consensus?

Previously in this thread multiple images were rejected because it was possible that they were modified. Now you want to bring in a piece of media and insist that it is not modified, when it is possible that it was modified by the authors to get an ideal result for their purposes. This is hypocrisy, regardless of the validity of the media. If it is possible that it was modified then it must be discarded by those same standards.

2103

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 12, 2021, 02:30:30 AM »

Change the topic to what? Everyone is talking about telescopes, cameras, lenses, EQ mounts, tripods, stars, tracking, etc. All the stuff used to do astrophotography. How do you do your astrophotography? With a disposable camera from Wallgreens?

The discussion was clearly tracking with telescopes. I can see with your reply that you choose to be disingenuous to this and see no further point in discussion.

The topic was actually

You were talking about telescope tracking in those quotes about the EQ mount and have failed to maintain your position.

Here is another showing that the entire sky of stars is static, done by recording 24 hours and rotating the video to show how the stars are fixed.  If the stars are going in ovals then how come they are not moving in relation to others?  This video and all the others completely invalidates all your claims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYcKaBzr87g

Incorrect. The stars are drifting in the video there. They don't stay in the same spot on the screen. It's also easily edited/rescaled to get the ideal result like the previous images. It doesn't matter that it's a video. By your previous standards, if it's possible for the media to have been edited then it's invalid.

it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time.

Tom, there are many How-To guides on YouTube for doing this, using a device such as a Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer Motorized Mount. It is the basis of astrophotography, a hobby that many non-scientists enjoy.

This is a great video of a guy doing this in his backyard, with top tier hardware. He is keeping Mars in frame, without trailing, for hours at a time. At 7:26 in this video, you can see a tracked preview image of Mars without any trailing, and his final photo is not smeared like a time lapse.

Go to 2:24: "The guide telescope on top is..." and "I have a small asi 120mm mini guide camera in there..."

There is a guiding device on the telescope that optically tracks the celestial bodies to move the telescope in tandem:

2104

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 12, 2021, 02:09:04 AM »

You have no authoritative evidence for this claim that it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time. Every time you are asked for appropriate sources you continue to merely insist that you "know" that it's right. Please refrain from spreading claims without supporting evidence from appropriate sources, kindly.

Here's a neat Dusk-to-Dawn (At least 8 hours) time-lapse keeping stars in frame without trails. That would constitaute "hours at a time", right? What's all this business that you can only track stars for minutes?

https://i.imgur.com/3G2RC7S.gif

Nope. JSS has been repeatedly arguing about keeping stars in telescopes:

You are clearly able to use Google, so I'm confused how you are unable to look up the ability of equatorial mount telescopes to track stars.

But if you would like me to do it for you I ask again, and please answer this time, what do you mean by proving they can track for a 'long' time?  And why do you need to track them all night?  An hour is plenty of time to get a good star trail picture.

You seem to be suggesting that if a telescope can 'only' track for 10 hours and not 10 hours and 1 second, then it can't track the stars at all?

You keep asking me to prove telescopes can track stars, but continue to refuse to narrow down your request so I can do so.

1. How many hours do you need for proof?

2. What amount of magnification?

My scope can certainly track stars all night long if I have a wide angle lens.  Less if I start to zoom in.

Now suddenly his argument isn't about telescopes anymore because he realized that he was incorrect.

After arguing about telescopes at length on this matter he concedes and admits that he is wrong and wants to avoid use of a telescope altogether.

What in the world are you going on about? You're saying you can't track stars for more than a few minutes, yet you've been told and shown that you can track stars for hours. Do you get that yet?

What's this about "he...wants to avoid use of a telescope altogether."? Where is that coming from? Aren't we talking about telescopes with EQ mounts, tripods, stars, tracking, etc.? I have no idea what you're even saying anymore, you're so all over the place.

Follow the thread please. The argument was about tracking in telescopes:

You are confused that some users get better tracking with a telescope mount DESIGNED FOR BETTER TRACKING rather than a telescope designed to be cheap? Why is this a point of confusion for you?  If you want long term tracking, buy a mount designed for that.

Now you want to go down the rabbit hole of proving to you that telescopes can track stars for a 'long' duration.  Fine, but please specify what 'long' is so I don't waste my time, thanks.

The topic was tracking in telescopes. Now you guys want to change this topic because you understand that you are wrong.

2105

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 12, 2021, 01:59:19 AM »

You have no authoritative evidence for this claim that it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time. Every time you are asked for appropriate sources you continue to merely insist that you "know" that it's right. Please refrain from spreading claims without supporting evidence from appropriate sources, kindly.

Here's a neat Dusk-to-Dawn (At least 8 hours) time-lapse keeping stars in frame without trails. That would constitute "hours at a time", right? What's all this business that you can only track stars for minutes?

https://i.imgur.com/3G2RC7S.gif

Nope. JSS has been repeatedly arguing about keeping stars in telescopes:

You are clearly able to use Google, so I'm confused how you are unable to look up the ability of equatorial mount telescopes to track stars.

But if you would like me to do it for you I ask again, and please answer this time, what do you mean by proving they can track for a 'long' time?  And why do you need to track them all night?  An hour is plenty of time to get a good star trail picture.

You seem to be suggesting that if a telescope can 'only' track for 10 hours and not 10 hours and 1 second, then it can't track the stars at all?

You keep asking me to prove telescopes can track stars, but continue to refuse to narrow down your request so I can do so.

1. How many hours do you need for proof?

2. What amount of magnification?

Now his argument isn't about telescopes anymore because he realized that he was incorrect.

After arguing about telescopes at length on this matter he concedes and admits that he is wrong and wants to avoid use of a telescope altogether.

2106

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 12, 2021, 01:15:18 AM »

Previously you told us that we could just buy one of these telescopes and that it will keep the star "perfectly aligned." Now you're changing your tune and saying that we need to get rid of the telescope use and only use a camera mounted on an EQ mount.

I have been thinking about how to prove stars move in perfect circles, no matter where you are on the planet and I think I have a simple, direct method to do so.

The Equatorial Telescope Mount



This is a very simple device, it's just shaft with a motor that turns the telescope in a circle, making one rotation every 24 hours.

When you point the axis of this motor at the north or south pole star, you can then mount your telescope to it, aim your telescope at a star and that star will remain perfectly centered in your viewfinder as the telescope is now rotating with the stars.

The key here is this mount simply rotates your telescope in a circle. That is all it does. It is physically a single axis, it's incapable of moving in anything BUT a circle. It literally can not turn in ovals or parabolas or any other shape, it is a single rotating axis. And it will keep any star you look at perfectly aligned.

This could not be possible if the stars did not also move in perfect circles.

There are hundreds of sites explaining how EQ mounts work and how to set them up if anyone wants to look them up. The EQ mount has been made and sold to millions of people around the world, it's widely used and so simple there can be little confusion on how it operates, and if it did not work as advertised, this would be well known by now.

You apparently do not know how it operates, because we can't just buy a telescope and expect the stars in view to stay perfectly aligned with a EQ mount for very long.

Now you are conceding to this and ranting about how we need to use an EQ mount and a camera, backtracking away from the telescopes that you told us about.

2107

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 12, 2021, 12:54:26 AM »

You have no authoritative evidence for this claim that it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time. Every time you are asked for appropriate sources you continue to merely insist that you "know" that it's right. Please refrain from spreading claims without supporting evidence from appropriate sources, kindly.

2108

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 12, 2021, 12:32:25 AM »

You still think that people saying you can only have a shutter time of 5 minutes means the star drifts out of frame that fast, this is completely wrong and in total ignorance of the basics of astrophotography. In 5 minutes it will drift a tiny amount, enough to move a few pixels on the camera sensor and cause the star to blur.

Nope.

The author in the link we are discussing shows that the star drifts out of shot within a short amount of time.

http://www.pk3.org/Astro/index.htm?astrophoto_mount_errors.htm

"Capture Selected Frames capture mode was selected with period 1 second (exact period was 1.11s)."



Meanwhile you continue to provide zero evidence or reference that it is possible to keep it lined up for hours, and merely repeat this statement without qualification, in contradiction to multiple references which suggest that it only stays in frame for a short amount of time.

2109

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 11, 2021, 08:03:14 PM »

I note you're completely ignoring my post above where I showed a projected 10-hour tracking error of just over 1 degree for a decent EQ mount.

This isn't sufficient evidence. If you set up EQ mount and set up and align the various components which attach to the telescope and mount, a captured star in view will drift out of frame, either quickly or more slowly, but drift out of frame none-the-less, and in minutes. Assuming that the person recorded his best time for his website and you have then extrapolated that sample time out to 10 hours, it still doesn't show that the telescope's view was traveling in a perfect circle with the EQ mount. The alignment of the components on the device or alignment with the pole could still be off, and the trial could only be matching the particular elliptical or oblong shape of the star's path to get the "best" case for the sample. So really, this approach means nothing on its own to show the shape of the star paths, and mainly verifies that the EQ mount cannot track the stars for very long in contradiction to the previous statements here.

2110

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: February 10, 2021, 10:03:11 PM »

The simple fact is Trump failed to prove fraud in court, either by losing cases or by not bringing them in the first place.  Doesn't matter which, the end result is the same.

Actually, it does matter. You guys have been continuously citing these cases as proof that there was no voter fraud. The cases were not about voter fraud, so your evidence is really nothing at all.

The cases weren't brought because they are technically complex and might take years to litigate, and due to the time sensitive nature it is easy to see why lawyers would want to focus on things like whether a rule change was legal. Such a tactic would have nothing to do with the veracity of voter fraud.

2111

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: February 10, 2021, 09:34:56 PM »

Wrong. Some cases were about Fraud. Specifically Fraud and Vote Dilution, according to the ABA (I'd say the ABA is more authoritative than some rando on the web such as yourself...):

Did you even bother reading what you posted? Only four cases suggest that they are about fraud that occurred there, out of over 80 election lawsuits, and none of those were filed by Trump in your list, only random people.

Ward v. Jackson, No. CV2020-015285 (Maricopa Cty. Sup. Ct.)
The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that there were issues with verifying voters’ signatures on mail-in ballots, illegal votes, and that the ballot-tabulation machines had duplicated some votes in favor of Biden.

About fraud.

Constantino v. City of Detroit, Nos. 20-014780-AW (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct.), 355443 (Mich. Ct. App.)
Individual voters and poll challengers sued the City of Detroit, the Detroit Election Commission, and other state elections officials, alleging voter fraud throughout Wayne County as a result of violations of Michigan law.

About fraud.

Stoddard v. City Election Commission of Detroit, No. 20-014604-CZ (3rd Judicial Cir. Ct. Mich.)
The plaintiffs claimed that an injunction was necessary because party inspectors were not present at each table inside the absentee vote counting board location.

"injunction was necessary because party inspectors were not present at each table" - Not about fraud that occured.

Law v. Whitmer, No. 20 OC 00163 1B (Carson City Dist. Ct.)
The Republican contestants alleged various election administration irregularities and voter fraud, from problems with the provisional ballot-casting process to mismatched signatures being accepted by the ballot machines.

About fraud.

Kraus v. Cegavske, No. 82018 (Nev. S. Ct.)
The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the Registrar of Voters for Clark County to prevent the registrar from using artificial intelligence to authenticate ballots, which the plaintiffs claimed deprived them of the right to observe the ballot-counting process.

"plaintiffs claimed deprived them of the right to observe the ballot-counting process" - Not about fraud that occured.

Election Integrity Project of Nevada v. Nevada, Nos. A-20-820510-C (Clark Cty. Dist. Ct.), 81847 (Nev. S. Ct.)
The plaintiffs asked the Clark County District Court to enjoin the Secretary from certifying Nevada’s election results due to alleged widespread voter fraud enabled by purported unconstitutionally enacted mail-in ballot legislation.

About fraud.

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, No. 20-3371 (U.S. 3d Cir. App.)
Specifically, plaintiffs took issue with the state’s mail-in ballot procedures, and claimed that the regulations for observing and monitoring the counting of ballots in Pennsylvania had been invalidly enacted, presenting opportunities for widespread voter fraud, and thus denied voters due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"presenting opportunities for widespread voter fraud" - Not about fraud, only a possible mechanism which could lead to fraud.

In re Hotze, No. 20-0671 (Tex. S. Ct.)
The plaintiffs alleged that these practices violated the Texas Constitution and the Texas Election Code, would lead to voter fraud, and that the governor’s order suspending parts of the Election Code was constitutionally invalid because it violated the separation of powers.

"would lead to voter fraud" - Not about fraud that occurred.

Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2:20-cv-01785 (E.D. Wis.)
Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the state elections officials had violated his rights under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution by issuing guidance on state election law during the coronavirus pandemic that illegally deviated from state statutes.

"guidance on state election law during the coronavirus pandemic that illegally deviated from state statutes" - Not about fraud

2112

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 10, 2021, 08:41:53 PM »

I would suggest that if the stars are visibly shifting through the video, that is actually "something to really indicate" he didn't use the full star-tracking capabilities.  Otherwise there would be no shifting at all.

No, a delay or misfunction could be appropriated to many causes. This suggestion is bunk. If the device can optically track the stars, then we have to assume that it's optically tracking the stars.

Tom, you have provided no compelling evidence that these mounts do not work exactly as advertised.

They are not advertised to track the stars for a long period of time. The EQ mount I posted advertised "up to 5 minutes".

Why are you continuing to argue that the stars don't go in circles when your Wiki, which you wrote, says they do?

Actually, it doesn't talk about that subject and makes no statements on the POV of the observer.

Your continued inability to address other issues like the angular size and magnitude of stars being constant despite them being in your model at significantly different distances throughout the night sky is telling.

It's pretty telling that you are unaware that the size of the stars are illusions in RE, and do not follow the angular size with distance rule of perspective - https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

2113

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: February 09, 2021, 09:42:23 PM »

How many times does someone have to be wrong

Good question. You guys were wrong here. You have been citing the 60 cases as proof of no voter fraud a million times here. So now you admit that you don't know what you are talking about and mindlessly repeat things you hear. The cases were not about fraud.

2114

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: February 09, 2021, 07:22:03 PM »

I said certified result, not originally reported result. You would do well to respond to what I say, especially considering how brief my response was.

If you are acknowledging that the certified number is different than the number produced by the machines, how is it evidence that the machines are legitimate?

2115

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: February 09, 2021, 07:15:57 PM »

Incorrect. The recount that occurred in Antrim didn't show no discrepancies from the original voting machine reported results on election day. It showed major discrepancies. The county originally declared from the voting machines that Biden won in Antrim county on election night, but that was later revised to declare that Trump won, and a recount showed the original election claim, which came from the voting machines on election night, to be false.

Recount Confirms Trump Won Michigan County That Reported Biden Win on Election Night

https://m.theepochtimes.com/recount-confirms-trump-won-michigan-county-that-reported-biden-win-on-election-night_3624020.html

"A hand recount on Wednesday confirmed that a Michigan county falsely reported on election night a win for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The recount in Antrim County found 9,759 votes for President Donald Trump, versus 5,959 for Biden.

On Nov. 3, county officials said Biden received over 3,000 more votes than Trump. Two days later, they said Trump won by about 2,500 votes. A third change took place on Nov. 21, with Trump being certified the winner by nearly 4,000 votes.

Officials blamed the skewed results on human error.

Antrim County uses Dominion Voting Systems machines and software."


Another source which reported that there were significant discrepancies from the original reported Antrim county election night results:

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-gary-peters-michigan-elections-dc3e16d42a27286fabc5b3e92386d7af

"BELLAIRE, Mich. (AP) — President Donald Trump didn’t win Michigan, but he can put a small county in the victory column after an unusual second look at the results.

Trump defeated Joe Biden in Antrim County, getting 56% of the vote, according to revised totals posted Thursday. Republican John James was the favorite in the Senate race.

“It certainly makes a lot more sense with people who are familiar with Antrim County,” said Jeremy Scott, deputy county administrator.

Questions were raised after the county first reported a local landslide for Biden, a Democrat, in an area that usually votes Republican. Officials acknowledged the results seemed “skewed” and promised a second look. More than 16,000 votes were cast."

2116

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: February 09, 2021, 06:59:11 PM »

So lets get this straight, you are not talking about fraud anymore after months of talking about fraud

Nope. I was talking about the particular cases that are being referenced, that Trump brought after the election. You are just mistaken that the focus was on fraud in those cases.

There is plenty of evidence for fraud.

Any pending ones going to change it? No.

The case from the court ordered Antrim County machine forensic audit that found evidence that the machines were built for fraud is still in motion and a trial date is set. Further investigation just needs to verify that forensic audit on other machines and you are up the creek. This could easily blow up.

The court ordered and vetted the antrim machine audit, the only machine audit to occur, and found damning results.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20423772/antrim-county-forensics-report.pdf

"We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, we conclude that The Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County should not have been certified."

The audit also found that the logs were missing:

"Likewise, all server security logs prior to 11:03 pm on November 4, 2020 are
missing. This means that all security logs for the day after the election, on
election day, and prior to election day are gone. Security logs are very important
to an audit trail, forensics, and for detecting advanced persistent threats and
outside attacks, especially on systems with outdated system files. These logs
would contain domain controls, authentication failures, error codes, times users
logged on and off, network connections to file servers between file accesses,
internet connections, times, and data transfers. Other server logs before
November 4, 2020 are present; therefore, there is no reasonable explanation for
the security logs to be missing."

The auditors also said that there was evidence showing that the counts were flipped -
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/redacted-information-in-dominion-audit-report-shows-races-were-flipped-analyst_3625228.html

2117

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: February 09, 2021, 06:34:37 PM »

I actually have a source for the analysis of these cases. You have not provided an analysis source at all, and just have just keep bringing up the "60 cases" and saying that trump's voter fraud cases were dismissed and say that it's evidence that no fraud has occurred.

Engineers > Internet Rando

2118

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: February 09, 2021, 06:15:29 PM »

The cases weren't about "trivial matters." Among the few things you got right in that is that these aren't fraud cases. Few of them are. Therefore the constant claims that "Trump lost 60 cases" as the proof against voter fraud is bunk and tells us nothing about the veracity of fraud which has occurred. They weren't about fraud. Fraud tends to be much more complex, and can take years to properly litigate.

You are the one claiming there is massive fraud, and that Trump is somehow winning... but your own sources show that these cases don't have anything to do with fraud.

I said nothing about voter fraud when I posted the article. I said that Trump has won many cases which were adjucated. You are insisting that it needs to be about voter fraud, when cases about bad election mechanics and issues surrounding rule changes and technicalities regarding dates are also of consequence to a free and fair election.

You are assuming that Trump was trying to win by voluminous fraud cases, which stands apart from whether fraud has actually occurred. The advice was to focus on the improper conduction of the election, which can be litigated in a shorter amount of time. The cases were not focused on voter fraud for valid reasons, so the assertions that the cases are evidence against voter fraud are inept and debunked.

2119

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: February 09, 2021, 05:25:35 PM »

The cases weren't about "trivial matters." Among the few things you got right in that is that these aren't fraud cases. Few of them are. Therefore the constant claims that "Trump lost 60 cases" as the proof against voter fraud is bunk and tells us nothing about the veracity of fraud which has occurred. They weren't about fraud. Fraud tends to be much more complex, and can take years to properly litigate.

The fact that some cases were started before the election is also irrelevant considering that Dems were attempting to fiddle with the mechanics of the election and change voting laws.

All in all, Trump won many of the cases which were adjucated. You wanted to look at all of the cases, so here they are. The bulk majority aren't about fraud, and your insistence that they need to be about fraud makes you guys look foolish in light of your previous claims on the subject and useage of the cases in response to allegations of fraud.

2120

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: February 09, 2021, 03:14:22 PM »

Wrong. The cases are ongoing, with many of the adjucated cases favoring Trump.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/trump-is-winning-election-lawsuits-in-case-you-havent-heard