1341

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

« on: January 28, 2021, 05:26:23 PM »

Nope. I can point to the fact that Trump won Bellwethers in 2016. Can you show ANY historical statistical significance in Biden's favor?

I can point to the fact that Hillary won 73 Bellwethers in 2016.

Please do.

I already did, these counties voted for the Presidential winner since 2000, but strangely in 2016 they were ALL wrong.  How could this be... clearly Trump cheated.

VA-Radford ,CA-San Bernardino ,WA-Clark ,VA-Staunton ,CA-Riverside ,NJ-Somerset ,GA-Newton
,WA-Island ,NC-Wake ,NC-Wilson ,TX-Bexar ,AK-District 38 ,SC-Charleston ,AL-Jefferson
,GA-Sumter ,OH-Hamilton ,CA-San Luis Obispo ,IL-DeKalb ,IL-Will ,GA-Rockdale ,VA-Manassas
Park ,MS-Pike ,NY-Dutchess ,CA-San Joaquin ,VA-Hopewell ,VA-Loudoun ,KY-Fayette ,AK-District
39 ,GA-Baldwin ,CO-Alamosa ,IL-Lake ,ID-Latah ,IL-DuPage ,NC-Forsyth ,MN-Washington
,TX-Dallas ,LA-East Baton Rouge ,WA-Skagit ,CA-Fresno ,FL-Hillsborough ,CA-Merced ,MS-Copiah
,TX-Kleberg ,TX-Val Verde ,CO-Ouray ,OR-Clackamas ,VA-Manassas ,NC-Pitt ,TX-Harris
,NC-Buncombe ,MS-Oktibbeha ,CO-Jefferson ,PA-Centre ,CO-Arapahoe ,IL-Winnebago ,IL-Kane
,CO-Larimer ,PA-Monroe ,NV-Washoe ,MN-Dakota ,MS-Yazoo ,NM-Los Alamos ,VA-Henrico
,CA-Stanislaus ,NM-Sandoval ,CA-San Diego ,PA-Dauphin ,CA-Ventura ,GA-Douglas ,MN-Olmsted
,VA-Winchester ,VA-Prince William ,VA-Harrisonburg

Posting a list of counties and stating they are bellweather counties based on what? Elections since 2000? C'mon man!

1342

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

« on: January 28, 2021, 02:19:16 PM »

Nope. I can point to the fact that Trump won Bellwethers in 2016. Can you show ANY historical statistical significance in Biden's favor?

I can point to the fact that Hillary won 73 Bellwethers in 2016.

Please do.

1343

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

« on: January 25, 2021, 04:31:30 PM »

The set of all distant points from the x-axis in 3 dimensional space can be likened to the set of all distant points from the x-axis in 2 dimensional space. If rotated about the x-axis it forms a tube.

1344

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Southern Cross

« on: January 22, 2021, 04:22:27 PM »

Your point is entirely valid though, and there are several threads running elsewhere to this effect. I showed on one of the recent ones that its actually possible for Sigma Octantis to be visible after dark in Africa, South America and Australia at the same time, albeit for a very brief window. I'm still awaiting a reply from Tom on that.

This is patently false for so many reasons, the primary reason being Sigma Octantis being barely visible at all period. Stop peddling nonsense.

1345

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Take J-Man to the mat if you dare

« on: January 22, 2021, 04:17:59 PM »

33. But I’m a moron.

Well, that and the Bible is fiction just like UA, EA and the rest of flat earth theory.

The Bible is not fiction.

1346

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Take J-Man to the mat if you dare

« on: January 22, 2021, 04:17:17 PM »

37/40

1347

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

« on: January 22, 2021, 04:09:10 PM »

Definitely agree with Pete, but theres really nothing he could have said that would please everyone. Classic catch 23 situation.

Talk tough and you're shitting on 70M american Patriots who feel they got robbed.
Be nice and you're legitimizing the violence and conspiracy
He talked unity then pointed blame right back at the the people who loved Donny and still think he got cheated
Called the protesters nazi white supremacists... and while there were shitloads of those....the other component of just 'typical' trumpers get incensed when they are lumped in under those words, even if they willfully joined a mob with people wearing KKK hoods and skinheads carrying nazi flags.

He did about as well as he could, while still butchering enough lines for the old man Biden trope to live on, but this is gonna be a long hard road for ol Joe.

Big brother Joe bring the homeland to it's full potential glory, comrade!

Define "shitloads."

1348

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.

« on: January 21, 2021, 01:09:56 PM »

Thanks for the videos, Iceman.

I must admit to being somewhat perplexed by the enormous effort that clearly goes into the making of these videos, and the contrasting complete absence of any kind of rigour in the designs of the experiments or analysis of the outputs. Filming an object at long range, plugging the heights and range into a calculator and concluding that the earth must be flat is completely ignoring refraction, which is often, as it is in the videos you've posted, very apparent in the footage shot. It's not clear what the creators are suggesting - are they saying that such refraction effects are impossible? In which case we need to go to basic lab experiments showing that it very much is. Or are they saying it could happen, but are challenging the amount of refraction that might be possible? In which case, why? What is the basis for this challenge? If there was genuine curiosity as to what is going on, why not repeat the experiments at different times of the day and different times of year - why not try to get results at a time of known low refraction?

If you wanted to set up a demonstration of extreme atmospheric refraction, making possible the viewing of objects far beyond the expected visible horizon, then you would do it at night over a cold or frozen lake. The more extreme the temperature gradient, the better. 

If you, on the one hand, are going to claim that distortion in the air between the camera and the flashing lights allow the lights to be seen, then you cannot, at the same time claim that distortion in the air would not cause stars to disappear or appear.

I can claim it, and I do - the two things are not mutually exclusive. The area of maximum refraction occurs across the lowest layers of the atmosphere, along the earth's surface - that's why the sun and moon lose their apparent circular shape and often become wobbly as they set, and why the shimmer appears in those videos Iceman posted. But, as I said earlier, away from the horizon, refraction effects are minimal, which is how marine navigators can safely navigate using star shots to plot their lat and long.

To pick just one of many FET problems from my previous post(s), consider just the two pole stars, Polaris and Sigma Octantis. Their behaviour simply doesn't match what you would expect if the earth was flat. Their elevation or altitude angle almost perfectly matches the observer's latitude in their respective hemispheres. If you were to attempt to calculate their apparent range based on this fact and a flat earth, you would get completely different results depending on what latitudes your two observation angles were taken from. This cannot be correct, and there is no possible distortion effect that could correct this error for every observed angle to give the same result for all latitude combinations, whilst preserving the constant angular separation between the pole stars and their neighbours. Try it - it doesn't work.

Furthermore, FET issues deepen when you consider that two observers in, for example, South Africa and Australia can observe Sigma Octantis at the same time - there is a small overlap, depending on the time of year, in the hours of darkness for the respective continents. And those two observers will see Sigma Octantis on the same heading - due South, which on the monopole FE map has them standing with their backs to the North pole, which means they facing in different directions, at roughly right angles, and yet are observing the same celestial object at the same time. There is no credible explanation for this, and no feasible distortion mechanism that can explain it within FET. This debate is ongoing on another thread in the FE theory forum, and we are awaiting a reply from Tom on it. I'll be interested to see what he says, as I will be in your thoughts on this as well.

Shimmer does not translate to appearing/disappearing. Regardless, you are claiming refraction and other forms of distortion is what contributes to the ability of these lights at ground level to be seen, when they clearly should not be seen according to numbers provided by RET.

Seems you are arguing against your own statements.

1349

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.

« on: January 20, 2021, 04:52:23 PM »

Observer height and object height were at frozen lake level, if I remember correctly.

Ok, but I'm afraid we're going to need an awful lot more precision (like, what exactly does 'lake level' mean?), and evidence, if we're going to have a meaningful discussion or analysis - I guess you'd better dig out the video.

In the meantime, I'd be grateful if you could address the broader point that I'm repeating, which is that there is no FET distortion mechanism capable of retaining the constant angular separation between the stars as they move around the sky, rotating around the two fixed pole stars (whose elevation is equal to observer latitude), whilst simultaneously explaining the disappearance of stars below the horizon, the invisibility of the pole stars in the opposite hemispheres, or the consistent due south heading of the southern pole star regardless of longitude.

Lake level is lake level. You have flashing lights placed on the surface of a frozen lake. The camera taking pictures of them is at the same height.

If you, on the one hand, are going to claim that distortion in the air between the camera and the flashing lights allow the lights to be seen, then you cannot, at the same time claim that distortion in the air would not cause stars to disappear or appear.

An object in the sky can disappear from your sight because it gets too far away to be seen.

1350

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.

« on: January 20, 2021, 12:06:11 PM »

Typical atmospheric refraction is at a maximum at the horizon, and is usually of the order of around half a degree. It is sometimes higher than this, depending on the weather conditions, but even at its highest it is still measured in low single-digit degrees, and it tails off very quickly and becomes more predictable as you get away from the horizon

If you want to maximise the refractive effect, a clear calm night and a cold surface will do it.

If you can, please go ahead and explain how a half-degree of refraction will provide the necessary conditions for flashing lights to be viewed from miles away across a frozen lake.

There isn't enough information in your comment to do that - you'd need accurate observer heights, and accurate target heights. If you can provide those, then we can work it out.

Again, the far more important point in the context of this thread:

there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.

Observer height and object height were at frozen lake level, if I remember correctly.

1351

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 20, 2021, 12:04:39 PM »

As it happens, each office up for vote in the election on a Dominion machine can be manipulated, leaving the entirety of the rest of the ballot unaffected.

Now you just need to show how the voter rolls and paper ballots were also defrauded.

Why would the voter rolls and paper ballots need to be defrauded when a vote can be altered after it is cast?

1352

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 19, 2021, 07:50:08 PM »

Why were only the presidential votes questioned when all the votes cast for the house and senate on the same ballots appear to be accurate? It's the same questions over and over again that keep going unanswered

It's interesting that lackey replied to your post but still didn't answer these questions.
They never do, because there is no answer.

When the ballot can be manipulated for one office on the ballot, then why manipulate all the votes?

You have missed the point.
The Presidential election and the Senate one were on the same ballot papers.
Why would those Dastardly Dems "steal" the Presidential election and then completely hobble themselves by failing to steal the Senate one where they lost seats. It completely restricts what they're able to do. Why not steal both?
As it happens Trump is such a whining child that he put enough Republicans off voting in Georgia (why would you bother voting in an election if you believe it to be rigged?) that they lost the run offs.

As it happens, each office up for vote in the election on a Dominion machine can be manipulated, leaving the entirety of the rest of the ballot unaffected.

When you have known swamp creatures running for office, you don't mess with those votes.

I realize this is all quite hard for you to understand, given your lack of clarity of US elections and politics.

Frankly, the effort you put forth to further the "approved," narrative is quite laughable and quite telling.

1353

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: January 19, 2021, 07:24:49 PM »

Something to think about.
1. Trump was not running for just another 4 year election in 2016 - Trump was approached by the military to run and his entire win has been and still is a military operation.
2. Trump’s first 4 years was to drain the lower swamp first. The swamp was/is deep and incorporated every industry in the world, banking, movie, pharmaceutical, food, you name it they controlled it; much has been handled.
3. Barack Obama before leaving office signed an executive order to pardon anyone prior of any crimes in the government. This is WHY no one was held accountable when the Trump took office.
4. These swamp rats could not be tried for those crimes (ie: Hillary email scandal, Clinton Foundation, FISA spying on the Trump campaign etc) ~ only crimes AFTER Obama left office could tried – therefore, new crimes had to be snared.
5. The military needed to catch them in the act committing crimes with proof.
6. President Trump said in his speech January 7th, 2021: there will be “a smooth, orderly transition of power.”
7. This in no way means that President Trump is transitioning power from his first term to Joe Biden! Did you hear him say Joe Biden?
8. We are transitioning from the defunct USA Corp to the Republic (not Biden). President Trump will not technically get a “second term” and as he tweeted, “won’t be at the Inauguration Day in January” ~ this means there won’t be an Inauguration Day. This was the last recorded term of a President who served in the “American Corporation”.
9. President Trump dismantled the Banking Act of 1781 from England. The United States is going back to being a Republic and Donald J Trump will be the first President of the new republic with the Constitution fully intact.
10. The start date for the new Republic is March 4, 2021 ~ this was the original start date of the new President (until it was changed under FDR in 1933).
11. At the end of President Trump’s speech he said: “Our incredible journey is only just beginning.” Boom
11. No matter what it looks like, it’s all optics; Military operations have thought of everything.
12. Trump won an overwhelming victory and will be the President ~ of the New Republic.
13. The swamp rats needed to commit their crime during the last 4 years; and they have now been snared.
14. Certifying a knowingly fraudulent election as Pence and Congress just did is treason.
15. Now President Trump is still the President of the United States until January 20, 2021. He has the power to invoke the insurrection act. The Insurrection Act deals with treason at a military level.
16. Why did the president not involve the Insurrection Act before? Because it involves the military and people would have accused him of being a dictator. He has given everybody ample opportunity to come clean with the fraudulent election: the Supreme Court, the DOJ, the courts, congress, and the vice president. They all picked their lane for the most part and chose to certify a (knowingly) fraudulent election.
17. Many Trump supporters have been pressured and threatened by the deep state, they always have. People appearing to go against Trump have either been threatened or they are part of the deep state. People have picked their lanes.
18. Do not underestimate the President and this military operation. Trump often appears weak before he wins (read The Art of the Deal). Twitter and Facebook now banning (censoring) the President ~ this gives the President the opportunity to use the Emergency Broadcast System (set up in 2018) in order to contact all Americans for what they will need to hear regarding the next steps.
19. Trump has said over and over: “we have it all (the evidence).” He has also said: “we will never surrender.” And, he said: “the best is yet to come!”
20. Do not watch or trust the MSM; they are deep state. Do not give up. Keep the faith.

Who are you and what have you done with Pete?

I too would be terrified to go to DC, knowing the odds of getting arrested for treason are higher than getting inaugurated.

1354

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 19, 2021, 07:22:18 PM »

Why were only the presidential votes questioned when all the votes cast for the house and senate on the same ballots appear to be accurate? It's the same questions over and over again that keep going unanswered

It's interesting that lackey replied to your post but still didn't answer these questions.
They never do, because there is no answer.

When the ballot can be manipulated for one office on the ballot, then why manipulate all the votes?

1355

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 19, 2021, 07:04:45 PM »

...which is the case in most elections - because people are dicks. Is there evidence of widespread (and one-sided) voter fraud that impacted the outcome of the election?

Nice try. The evidence doesn't need to be widespread. It was targeted.

Were the dominion machines in Republican-won states different? They just weren't targeted? Why were only the presidential votes questioned when all the votes cast for the house and senate on the same ballots appear to be accurate? It's the same questions over and over again that keep going unanswered, and the right just keeps pointing to an anthill and calling it a mountain of evidence...

See, you get it after all.

There has been more than enough evidence presented and dismissed for various reasons, with none of it coming out in the light of day.

The trails have been established.

1356

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.

« on: January 19, 2021, 06:03:26 PM »

However, to state the amount of water and other particulates is somehow not capable of distorting the light and appearance of the stars above our heads "very much," is just plain silly.

Typical atmospheric refraction is at a maximum at the horizon, and is usually of the order of around half a degree. It is sometimes higher than this, depending on the weather conditions, but even at its highest it is still measured in low single-digit degrees, and it tails off very quickly and becomes more predictable as you get away from the horizon, which is why celestial navigators try to avoid taking star shots close to the horizon (https://www.siranah.de/manuals/Table_Refraction.pdf). I'd say that my 'not by very much' is fair in that context, and I'd also point to the far more important second part of that sentence where I said that

far more importantly, there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.

If you can, please go ahead and explain how a half-degree of refraction will provide the necessary conditions for flashing lights to be viewed from miles away across a frozen lake.

I am making an attempt to find the video right now, but there was a video made sometime back where a series of flashing lights were placed on a frozen lake and the furthest one (some eight miles away) was quite visible on camera.

I believe a half degree of refraction to be insufficient to explain this.

1357

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 19, 2021, 05:57:03 PM »

So you agree he's looking at the evidence? Cool.
Also...logged in with the wrong account, Tom?

It's not Tom, it's probably TotalLackey who couldn't stay awa after rage-quitting.  Anyway, affidavits is the word the judge uses.  It's plural.  Not a single point of evidence, but multiple, so whoever Action 80 is, they are making an incorrect and irrelevant point.

Multiple affidavits relative to a single point in the case.

Jesus, this isn't hard to understand.

Tom is correct in this case. This particular evidence due to the nature in which it was gathered.

Multiple instances of proven election fraud has been presented.

1358

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 19, 2021, 01:22:19 PM »

Why do you think that you know better than Senator Paul on the lawsuits?

Because I have seen a video of a judge talking about what a load of rubbish the evidence he's being presented with is.
So claims that judges haven't looked at the evidence are false. This not a matter of opinion, it's on video.
I have shown you the video.
If you continue to look at 4 fingers and see 5 then I don't know how to help you.

Are you claiming that you are a better political and legal expert than he is?

He isn't a legal expert. Nor am I. But I've seen the video, so have you.
You don't have to be an expert to understand the judge is talking about the poor quality of the evidence being presented.
So he's wrong or lying. Again, not my opinion.

Do you ever stop to consider that these people may be lying to you?
It's weird that you dismiss some sources because you regard them as "leftist propaganda", but are happy to link to right wing propaganda sources and declare them the Gospel truth.

The video you posted has already been pointed out to be of a judge addressing just one point of evidence he found deficient.

Ignoring the rest is simply following your behavior, so in that aspect, you and the judge are highly similar.

1359

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.

« on: January 14, 2021, 04:29:52 PM »

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.[8] Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.

A cup with 0.4% water in it is not “full” of water.

I apologize for using the word, "full." You are correct it is not full.

I think you're all being somewhat sidetracked by whether or not the atmosphere is capable of distorting light. As it happens, yes it is, but not by very much and, far more importantly, there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain the constant angular separation of the stars as they move around the sky or, amongst many other things, the fact that the pole stars appear at the same altitude angle as the latitude of the observer whilst remaining on the same apparent heading regardless of observer longitude.

However, to state the amount of water and other particulates is somehow not capable of distorting the light and appearance of the stars above our heads "very much," is just plain silly.

1360

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.

« on: January 11, 2021, 02:22:22 PM »

It just so happens the air above our heads is full of water and sand.

No. The air above us is full of nitrogen atoms. It has trace amounts of dust and water.  The air around us, in the lower atmolayer has more dust and water vapor, but when it is “full” of those (storms), we can’t see through it.

I have no clue where you get your information, but the air above our heads is full of sand and water.

"At any one instant, the Earth’s atmosphere contains 37.5 million-billion gallons of water vapor – enough to cover the entire surface of the planet with 1 inch of rain if condensed. This amount is recycled, through evaporation powered by the Sun, 40 times each year in what is known as the hydrologic cycle." - https://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/2018/02/05/water-in-atmosphere/

Clouds carry particulates (typically sand) around which moisture gathers.

"The size of a sandstorm depends on the strength of the wind. The storm can be up to 100 kilometers wide and several kilometers high. In rare cases, they are as big as the sandstorm we had last week. Sometimes they can be so big and thick that you don’t see the sun for days." -
https://www.wadirumnomads.com/7-questions-about-sandstorms-answered/