1861

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are lines of latitude longer south of the equator than north?

« on: February 03, 2021, 02:17:42 PM »

These are good questions.  I attempted to reconcile these problems in the map below.  You'll notice that I shrunk all latitudes and longitudes below 30d north by 50% and increased latitude and longutudes by 150% above 60d north.  I also increased the distance between 60w to 30w and correspondingly150e to 120e.  This helps to modify and provide more accurate landmasses that we measure today,  identical in the most popular fly over areas.   Greenland, South America, Australia, and China are directly affected by this. 

I drew an exact map to size in another post called "new world map (south centered)".  This one is my best attempt at Photoshop on an android.

If your starting point is the 3D Globe Earth map and you are creating a 2D Flat Earth map, you will always face a loss of information. There is no way around it. You can do different projections to take different forms of the loss of information (distortion in distances, shapes, sizes etc) but there will always be a loss of information.

The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.

All maps are flat.

Period.

When you take something that is flat to begin with and try to make it into a sphere, that is where the idiocy begins.

1862

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: FE claim from Wisconsin pharmacist

« on: February 03, 2021, 01:01:07 PM »

The Wisconsin pharmacist who intentionally sabotaged hundreds of doses of the Moderna coronavirus vaccine because he thought COVID-19 was a hoax, also believes the earth is flat and the sky is actually a “shield put up by the Government to prevent individuals from seeing God.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/wisconsin-vaccine-saboteur-steven-brandenburg-is-a-flat-earther-fbi-document-reveals

Is this a real flat earth official idea, or is he just making stuff up?

Are you referring to the idea of the vaccine being sabotaged due to Covid-19 being a hoax?

Or are you referring to the idea of the sky being a shield?

If the Bible says God made the sky, and he says govt made it, is he a blasphemer, or just incorrect belief?

Aside from the fact (according to the Bible) things are not now as God created them, what is the issue?

Does FE endorse sabotaging the vaccine (which was given to people)?

I wouldn't endorse sabotage.

After reading the entire story, is he a good representative of FE thought and behavior? I think he is an archetype.

He could be representative of any school of thought, RE or FE.

1863

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.

« on: February 03, 2021, 12:47:40 PM »

Please do not even attempt to claim there is any lab on earth that is 8 miles long.

That is patently ridiculous.

I am not ignoring refraction. Refraction does make objects that are visible appear to shimmer.

It does not make invisible objects somehow visible.

Refraction is the bending of light when it passes between different media, caused by variations in the speed of light. The 'shimmer' you see is caused by variations in the atmospheric profile, causing different amounts of refraction to occur. You don't need an 8 mile lab to demonstrate how refraction can make things visible around corners, or in other situations when an observer wouldn't expect to have a straight line of sight - such as around the curved surface of the earth. It's no more impossible, or 'patently ridiculous', than a mirror, periscope or fibre optic cable at work - it's just another basic property of light passing through materials.   

Are you seriously, publicly challenging the basic physics of refraction?

I can see things around corners using a mirror, of course.

And I know the things can appear to shimmer due to refraction.

Where you are wrong is that things appearing to be visible due to refraction will not shimmer when viewed.

Those lights on the lake were not somehow reflected upward 29 feet and still maintain shimmer.

1864

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

« on: February 02, 2021, 07:56:48 PM »

This year the data were as normal as any other year if you ignore all the factors swirling around. What election data is 'normal'?

Right. My point is in any large data set you can find data which if you have an agenda you can call an anomaly.

So in 2016 Trump got a bigger electoral college majority than anyone in history who lost the popular vote. Every other winning President either won the popular vote or had a narrow electoral college win despite losing the popular vote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote

1888 was the only other time in history someone won a big majority in the electoral college without winning the popular vote.

So explain that. Trump can’t possibly have won in 2016. He lost the popular vote and yet won the election by a landslide. Never happened in history. In fact since 1888 there has only been one US election before Trump where the winner lost the popular vote and that was Bush vs Gore which was on a knife edge.

Ergo, there’s no way Trump could have won. Do you expect me to believe he could have got 306 electoral college votes without even winning the popular vote? It’s never happened...

This is a fallacy. Plenty of people did think that there was a lot of illegal voting in the 2016 election, and that Clinton was receiving illegal votes.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/ - Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016

But there is evidence to back Trump's claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.

"We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

Pointing at an anomaly in another election does nothing to support Joe Biden's anomalies, however, and just makes more assumptions.

You're still trying to justify the possibility of anomalies rather than simply showing strong correlation that Joe Biden was legitimately elected. Again, you have presented zero positive evidence, only excuses.

This year the data were as normal as any other year if you ignore all the factors swirling around. What election data is 'normal'?

2020 saw a record number of votes and mail-in voting during a global pandemic, and was perhaps the most nasty race I've seen? But the voting data itself isnt all that weird.

I'd claim that Trump's 2016 win created a stranger data set. Winning the EC while losing the popular vote is a bigger 'anomaly' than any of the frivolous arguments TB et al. have put forward here. And he did it while stealing huge swaths of typically Dem votes by convincing Cuban ex-pats that Hillary wanted to establish communism, aided by external actors.

The 2020 election was the furthest from normal we've ever seen.  But is the data that came out of it any more irregular than a typical year?

I asked for strong positive correlation showing that Joe Biden was legitimately elected, not more excuses that ridiculous anomalies are possible. That is a pretty weak line of reasoning.

And in order to point at anomalies in the 2016 election you would first need to prove that the election was untainted. You have not. Fallacy.

Everyone knows that shitbag HRC didn't win the popular vote.

That is another lie foisted upon the public by MSM.

They have ceased all pretense of sanity and sound analysis.

1865

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.

« on: February 02, 2021, 06:25:58 PM »

You claimed that lights 8 miles away are visible according to RET, which is false. And they were shimmering due to refraction.

Wobbly edges on visible things are certainly examples of shimmer due to refraction.

Lights that are 8 miles away on a frozen lake shimmer due to refraction only because they are visible on a flat earth.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not just talking about the objects themselves shimmering - everything shimmers. If you look out towards the horizon and you see things shimmering, such as straight edges being wobbly or things being misshapen etc, then you are highly likely to be seeing a lot of refraction going on, and you will get excellent visibility of objects beyond, and after far beyond, where you would expect to see them using simple curvature calculations. There's no mystery about that - you can prove it in a lab very easily.

If you agree that refraction happens, why don't you think it's possible for stuff to be visible beyond simple curvature range calculation expectations? Offering up videos, almost invariably shot in conditions that lend themselves to high levels of refraction (like frozen lakes), and then ignoring refraction in the calculations, and claiming the result proves the earth is flat, is just bizarre - it makes no sense at all.

Please do not even attempt to claim there is any lab on earth that is 8 miles long.

That is patently ridiculous.

I am not ignoring refraction. Refraction does make objects that are visible appear to shimmer.

It does not make invisible objects somehow visible.

1866

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.

« on: February 02, 2021, 04:50:51 PM »

Something that cannot be seen can somehow "shimmer."

That is a ridiculous proposition.

Where did I claim that invisible things were shimmering? Let the straw man out of the headlock you've got him in and engage with the actual debate, not the one you're comfortable with.

Shimmer is indicative of a large amount of refraction going on - wobbly edges to the sun and moon, for example, are telltale signs that a lot of refraction is happening.

You claimed that lights 8 miles away are visible according to RET, which is false. And they were shimmering due to refraction.

Wobbly edges on visible things are certainly examples of shimmer due to refraction.

Lights that are 8 miles away on a frozen lake shimmer due to refraction only because they are visible on a flat earth.

1867

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.

« on: February 02, 2021, 03:17:47 PM »

Shimmer does not translate to appearing/disappearing.

Shimmer is evidence of large amounts of refraction occurring - it is precisely what you would expect to see in situations where objects are visible well beyond where you would expect the visible horizon to be.

Something that cannot be seen can somehow "shimmer."

That is a ridiculous proposition.

1868

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

« on: February 02, 2021, 02:24:46 PM »

@action80

And those same distant points around an observer in 3 dimensions would form a sphere.  What's your point?

My point is the same distant points cannot form ellipses unless they are spiraling away from the observer toward the farthest observable point. Therefore, they would travel in a circular path overhead.

1869

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 29, 2021, 06:44:44 PM »

But why am I putting them in danger if they've had the vaccine?
Is it because it's not 100% effective or are you talking about people who can't have it?
I haven't seen the evidence about long term damage for people who are asymptomatic by the way - I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I've just not seen it. But I'd suggest that that can't be known by definition for a new virus because no-one has had it long term.

Well they could know if it was long-term by the type of damage, but I have only seen that asymptomatic patients show signs of cardiovascular damage, not that it is long-term.

For example: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200811/asymptomatic-covid-silent-but-maybe-not-harmless

"Maybe."

Seems like a very pertinent word, given the entirety of the article.

Maybe = not a 100% chance. Numerous professional athletes have struggled with lingering - non flu - symptoms of covid.

While the likelihood might be low, It doesnt matter how healthy you are, you still are at risk of lingering serious effects.

And we have been dealing with the issues of lingering side effects for all kinds of diseases in perpetuity.

This one for only a little over a year.

And it does matter how healthy you are.

According to the article.

1870

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 29, 2021, 06:20:27 PM »

But why am I putting them in danger if they've had the vaccine?
Is it because it's not 100% effective or are you talking about people who can't have it?
I haven't seen the evidence about long term damage for people who are asymptomatic by the way - I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I've just not seen it. But I'd suggest that that can't be known by definition for a new virus because no-one has had it long term.

Well they could know if it was long-term by the type of damage, but I have only seen that asymptomatic patients show signs of cardiovascular damage, not that it is long-term.

For example: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200811/asymptomatic-covid-silent-but-maybe-not-harmless

"Maybe."

Seems like a very pertinent word, given the entirety of the article.

1871

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 29, 2021, 06:05:35 PM »

I don't understand JSS's argument about it only being effective if more or less everyone has the vaccination. You seem to be arguing along the same lines.
I'm not young but I am under 50, in reasonably good health and I don't have any concerns about getting the 'Rona. I wouldn't go out of my way to and I have been following (pretty much) the government guidelines. But if I get it then I don't think I'll get that ill.

I think what you are missing is you can get COVID, show no symptoms, and spread it to everyone you are in contact with for weeks.  Grocery stores, buses, planes, restaurants, and family members you visit.

By not taking the vaccine you are now a potential spreader to people who very well might die from it, and every one who gets it can spread it to others.

You are also ignoring all the evidence showing that even people who show no symptoms are suffering heart and lung damage, and we as of yet have no idea how the long term effects will play out.  You may be in serious trouble in ten years, we just don't know yet.

So yes, you might not get that obviously ill... but you are putting others in danger.  This is why you should get it, not just for yourself, but to help others.

But according to you, if you get the vaccine, that is no guarantee of being immune and therefore not spreading it to others.

Therefore, other peoples' existence, by its very nature, poses a danger to you and others.

You are not making a very sound argument at all.

1872

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 29, 2021, 05:48:12 PM »

It’s more nuanced than your meme presentation of it.

Must be so nuanced you too are unable to elucidate further.

Looks like a case for the Dalai Lama.

1873

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 29, 2021, 04:47:30 PM »

JSS - You get the vaccine, you are not immune.

JSS - If you get the vaccine, you can still pass it on to others.

JSS - We need to mandate the vaccine.

JSS - If you do not get the vaccine, you have no business conducting any business at all. Stay away.

One wonders how this could possibly be considered a legitimate position.

1874

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

« on: January 28, 2021, 07:19:14 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!

Based on the fact they voted for the winning president every year since at least 2000.  I don't have access to data for years before that or I'd expand the list. It's the same criteria that Tom used.

Do you feel the same way about Tom's Bellweather 'evidence' as mine? Is his data just as bad? So 30 years of data is terrible but 40 years is totally legit?

Where do you see 40 years?

I see nearly 50 (and for a majority it seems to be over 100).

Cutting corners seems to be a favorite activity of yours.

1875

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

« on: January 28, 2021, 06:03:22 PM »

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

What a shitty rebuttal.  "C'mon man" doesn't refute anything.

Bellwether counties are a classic example of post-hoc reasoning and as pointed out earlier, have no more validity than Punxsutawney Phil.

Meanwhile Biden has done a few nice things since taking office.  Hopefully his call to get rid of oil subsidies is heeded.  I am also glad kids won't be taken from their parents anymore.

Yeah, I know you don't like the fact that bellweather counties and predictive analysis is exactly what insurance companies utilize to set rates and make money.

Makes your whole argument look lousy.

Government shouldn't subsidize anything, period.

How do you know kids are being taken from their parents?

Is Joe taking them?

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

He loves little kids rubbin' on his legs.

C'mon man!

1876

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!

1877

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.

1878

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.

1879

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.

1880

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.