1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse of Aug 12, 2026

« on: Today at 06:57:48 PM »

That last image appears to prove that the shadow travels Northwards.

I don't see any directionality in that image at all, why are you so sure it's not going south?

The shadow is approaching the North Pole and passing nearly through the North Pole, so it is defacto moving Northward in its establishment. If you want to say that it is moving Southward once it passes the North Pole, that is correct, but not really relevant to the discussion since Southward movement also doesn't work.

You aren't reading your chart correctly Tom, it's travelling South across Greenland, then East.

Jesus, check the timings for direction of travel; North Pole 17.00 UTC, South of Iceland 18.00 UTC, etc.  The Event begins in Northern Russia and ends in the Mediterranean.

(edit; clarifying the zone of North to South travel)

By calling out the locations and times it looks like you debonked your own self. When the event starts in Northern Russia it will be moving in a Northward direction.

Whether the shadow is moving from North to South or from South to North on areas of the map, it doesn't work either way. I don't see what point you are trying to make. Instead adopting the debate tactic of posting irrelevancies you should be working on a genuine explanation for this under the Round Earth Theory.

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse of Aug 12, 2026

« on: January 18, 2025, 11:41:55 PM »

That last image appears to prove that the shadow travels Northwards.

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Solar Eclipse of Aug 12, 2026

« on: January 18, 2025, 02:49:55 AM »

As we've discussed over the last 15+ years, the eclipse predictions are based on patterns rather than an actual geometric model. The denialists are defeated on that point every time it is discussed. Since the predictions are not based on a geometric RE model it creates doubt in the mind, and further evidence that the eclipse predictions do not follow that model fosters cynicism.

Take a look at the Solar Eclipse of Aug 12, 2026, which will pass over our favorite future US protectorate:

https://twitter.com/NationalEclipse/status/1878982718438207924

Notice anything odd? During the eclipse the shadow of the Moon will be moving vertically in a North-South direction. This is quite odd, considering that the Moon is said to travel around the Earth in a East-West direction (or West-East, if you want to argue about rotating earth semantics).

The best excuse you can expect for this typically amounts to "you haven't considered that the Earth is tilted", without expanding further. But any possibility of a coherent explanation can be easily dismissed, since in the Round Earth Theory the Moon is traveling in the same plane of the Sun, and only misaligned by 5 degrees. They are essentially on the same plane. The tilted Earth effect must also occur with the Sun. Reviewing the path that the Sun makes over the Earth, it is difficult to see how the Moon's shadow can move in this direction.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 17, 2025, 08:03:41 PM »

Apparently Trump is so powerful that the country's problems are taking care of themselves.

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1880304709506158638?s=46&t=eC-6bvibHP_gKJ9ZlbrhfA

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: January 14, 2025, 01:56:25 AM »

This is what happens when you vote for an old conman with dementia to give the final word on important decisions like disaster relief to people who lost everything.

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1878972428682142140

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 10, 2025, 03:54:27 AM »

The Greenland PM recently announced that Greenland wishes to go independent. Now yesterday Greenland issued a press release on Trump's recent comments stating that they are struggling for independence and would be happy to work with the Trump and his administration.

It's not looking good for the narrative that Greenland wants nothing to do with Trump. The likelihood is high that if Greenland goes independent that they will voluntarily become a US protectorate.

Cabinet Press Release on Recent Comments by President-elect Donald Trump

Greenland's independence
Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders – and the development and future of Greenland will only be determined by the Greenlanders. The struggle for independence is the responsibility of the Greenlanders. We must decide and shape our own future. We know our rights as independent people.

International cooperation
States and countries are welcome to express interest in further cooperation with Greenland. We are open to closer and more ambitious cooperation with our neighboring countries in the pursuit of Greenland's independence. Greenland looks forward to discussions with the United States on economic cooperation, in the field of mining in Greenland, and on other opportunities related to the development of the country's important mineral resources and sectors.

The Trump administration
will work with Greenland today, today and in the future as one of the United States' closest partners. Greenland has had a defense cooperation with the United States for more than 80 years, and the cooperation has benefited both countries and their borders. The Cabinet is looking forward to building relations with President-elect Donald Trump and his administration. 

Political developments in the field of fisheries in the Arctic
Greenland is aware of the change in the political position in the field of fisheries in the Arctic. We understand and accept that Greenland is a decisive and important country in the US security interests. This is the reason why the Americans have an important military base in northern Greenland. Greenland looks forward to cooperating with the US government and NATO allies to ensure security and stability in the Arctic.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 10, 2025, 03:44:55 AM »

That's not my argument, and there's no need to try and convince me or anyone else that Raskin wanted to disqualify Trump, because of course he did. When I said "someone like Trump," I meant "someone who has done what Trump has done," because of course they wouldn't be writing a bill that mentioned Trump by name and was all about him specifically. I wasn't saying that this was all a coincidence. My actual argument is that Raskin was not talking about doing what Trump tried to do - stage a coup to stop the rightful winner of the election from taking power. He was talking about using the legal process, in accordance with the Constitution, to disqualify Trump from being eligible to run for president, which no less a body than the Supreme Court said Congress had the constitutional right to do. Regardless of whether or not you feel that doing such a thing is fair or ought to be allowed, the fact is that it is objectively not the same thing as staging a coup with brute force and overturning the results of an election that has already happened.

You were responding to this:

Actually Congressional Democrat representatives were threatening not to certify Trump's victory

I was responding to this:

So... Was it here or the other forum someone said the election wouldn't be certified?

Because it is was.
And without a problem. Or a riot.  Or anyone dying.

You admit that Democrats in Congress were, in fact, threatening or attempting to stop the certification of Trump's victory. So there is nothing further to discuss on this matter.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 08, 2025, 11:41:18 AM »

That's been blatantly taken out of context. Raskin was talking about the possibility of passing legislation at the federal level that would prohibit someone like Trump from being on the ballot, which is no more than what the Supreme Court themselves said was the appropriate course of action. That last point deserves emphasis - the SC did not rule in Trump v. Anderson that Trump had a guaranteed right to run for president and nobody was allowed to stop him. They ruled that only Congress had the power to determine eligibility for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the states. In any case, Raskin certainly wasn't saying that they were going to refuse to certify Trump's victory.

Yeah, no. The argument you are presenting of "no no no, he is just working against someone who is theoretically just like Trump" is a very poor argument. Rep Jamie Raskin went on a media tour telling everyone that Trump should be disqualified.

MSNBC - Rep. Raskin: To know the law is to understand Trump is disqualified from office

Yahoo News - Jamie Raskin on how the 14th Amendment applies to insurrectionists seeking office

Brian Tyler Cohen - Jamie Raskin on constitutionality of Trump disqualification

Forbes - 'The Supreme Court Punted': Jamie Raskin Reacts To Supreme Court Ruling In Favor Of Trump

Here is a quote from the last one:

Transcript @0:34
in any event the Supreme punted and said
it's up to Congress to act and so um I
am working with a number of my
colleagues including uh Debbie W and
Schultz and Eric Swell to revive
legislation that we had to set a process
by which we could determine that someone
uh who committed Insurrection is
disqualified by section the 14th
Amendment

So this guy clearly thinks that Trump should be disqualified, and suggests that he was actively working against Trump becoming president.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 08, 2025, 12:15:58 AM »

Actually Congressional Democrat representatives were threatening not to certify Trump's victory

https://twitter.com/IanJaeger29/status/1854178329110118757

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 06, 2025, 04:06:57 PM »

I'm not surprised.
He Tom, do you think we should just let Russia absorb any country that speaks Russian?  Maybe the entire former USSR?  Why not, right?

If they are living in poverty, yes they should be absorbed. As a bigger and wealthier country with a shared culture, Russia has more of a responsibility to them than other countries. Charitable handouts from other countries for development only goes so far. The area needs to be paying Russian taxes to get Russian benefits and continuous development effort, which is what the US expects as well from its territories.

Russia is obviously in a better sociocultural and geographic position to support Ukraine than the US is and, for example, could bring in Russian schools and Russian stores far easier than the US could bring in US schools and US stores.

Guess there'd be little problem having the USA absorbed into Mexico then, since "many of them already speak Spanish".  Or more logically, England.

Correct, but it would make more sense for the USA to absorb Mexico since many people in Mexico live in poverty and the US is the bigger and wealthier country.

Many Americans already speak Spanish due to the cultural intermix, as you pointed out, and many Mexicans speak English. If the US absorbed Mexico and enforced tougher policing it would become the new Hawaii and create an economic boom as wealthy and middle class Americans migrated to sunnier climates and beach towns. It would also be easier to build infrastructure and facilitate movement to Mexico than to Hawaii, which has always been the problem.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 05, 2025, 10:57:51 PM »

At this point peace simply means saving them from Joe Biden and the western warmongers. They were never going to win that war.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 05, 2025, 10:29:23 PM »

I just hear more whining. If Trump is getting the support from Zelensky on this, it will be Trump who ultimately gets the credit for peace in Ukraine. People are not going to go to your internet posts and read them and agree with you that the president of Ukraine was forced into it or doesn't know how peace was made. Zelensky will tell them that Trump brokered the peace between Ukraine and Russia. It will be Donald Trump, and not Joe Biden or any other western politician, who gets credit when peace is made.

But the question is... what is the peace?  If the peace is unconditional surrender of Ukraine, would you consider that to be good? 

Also, didn't Trump say he could end the war in a day?

There is no Ukraine anymore. Ukraine can't exist on its own at this point. It is a walking corpse that is being continuously reanimated by the west and fought with mercenaries. It is better off just being absorbed by Russia in total submission.

Here is a report from March 16, 2022:

"Every day of delayed peace will accelerate a freefall into poverty for Ukraine, warns UNDP - Early data estimates suggest that 90% of the Ukrainian population could be facing poverty and extreme economic vulnerability should the war deepen, setting the country – and the region – back decades and leaving deep social and economic scars for generations to come."

It is now 2025 and Ukraine is a dead pig. I don't want to rebuild that country and spend my tax dollars on them, but Russia wants to do it for some reason. Many of the people there already speak Russian, so it wouldn't be much of a culture shock.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 05, 2025, 10:06:45 PM »

Oh, I have no doubt that it will be Trump who gets the "credit" for handing over to Putin however much of Ukraine he wants.

Correct. And when Zelensky puts his stamp of approval on the agreement it will be very difficult for anyone to argue that Trump forced Ukraine into doing something that they didn't want to do.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 05, 2025, 09:40:32 PM »

I just hear more whining. If Trump is getting the support from Zelensky on this, it will be Trump who ultimately gets the credit for peace in Ukraine. People are not going to go to your internet posts and read them and agree with you that the president of Ukraine was forced into it or doesn't know how peace was made. Zelensky will tell them that Trump brokered the peace between Ukraine and Russia. It will be Donald Trump, and not Joe Biden or any other western politician, who gets credit when peace is made.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 05, 2025, 08:49:16 PM »

2025 is shaping up to be win after win for Donald Trump. Zelensky is now praising Trump on his efforts for peace.

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1875998322412199989

This is a contrast to the Joe Biden administration and their sycophants, who have only escalated the situation.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/biden-escalation-ukraine-betrayal/

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 04, 2025, 04:27:38 PM »

I just see additional trouble in reading comprehension here. Markjo and AATW both claimed that I misread the article and thought the article was saying that the Greenland PM wants to join the US. This is incorrect, I never thought that about the article. I did not misread anything. However, I believe it is obvious that the Greenland PM wants to join with the US in some manner, which is the biggest western power with interests in the area. This is far more likely than Greenland wanting to become a defenseless island nation in the presence of Russia who are competing for the Arctic resources.

The fact that you guys are focused on me rather than commenting on the event itself is fairly indicative of being in a losing position. It is clear that Trump is starting to win in his geopolitical aims even without being President. In fact, Mexico is also bending the knee.

https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1875327488253215201

This is also being reported by AP News:

"MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico opened the possibility Friday of receiving non-Mexican migrants deported by the United States after initially saying they would push President-elect Donald Trump to return other nationalities directly to their countries of origin."

Mexico previously refused to accept deported immigrants:

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 04, 2025, 01:20:22 PM »

Considering that you are assuming that I think it says something other than what I stated it said, the reading comprehension problem is squarely on your end.

Greenland's Prime Minister does not comment on Trump's coincidentally recent proposal and gives no indication on whether he wants to accept it. These statements go against the narrative that Greenland will be staying with Denmark. If they do leave, and if you think that a country of 55,000 people want to make it on their own as an independent power, you are foolish.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 04, 2025, 12:38:47 AM »

Greenland's Prime Minister is on board with escaping from the Danish empire - https://www.yahoo.com/news/greenland-leader-wants-independence-denmark-183435953.html

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 02, 2025, 08:45:03 PM »

No, more like the parts people are saying is 'Deep State' is just normal backroom politics that changes with the times.  This stuff has always been there, ita just been amplified to mythical levels by the internet.

Politics are not supposed to be conducted in the "back room" where no one can see. It's wrong even if it has been occurring since the dawn of democracy.

Over the years the US Government has admitted to injecting people with diseases and studying them without telling them about it, giving a free pass to Nazi war criminals and making them American citizens, and engaging in the purposeful genocide of Native Americans. Shame on you for trying to convince us that the government doing things in secret is normal and okay.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 28, 2024, 09:21:23 PM »

The Government of Canada confirms that the Canadian Forces (CF) are beholden to the Crown:

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/military-law/crown-prerogative/the-specific-case-of-the-crown-prerogative-power-to-deploy-the-cf-on-military-operations-of-canada.html

As will be discussed, a decision to deploy the CF internationally is an exercise of the federal Crown prerogative. No statute acts to limit the executive's authority in this area. While decisions to deploy the CF are, in theory, subject to the review of the courts, the courts have held that they are decisions made on matters of high policy. This means that the courts have declined to second-guess Crown prerogative decisions under applications for judicial review. Further, no Charter claims flowing from CF deployments have been successful to date.

...

As a preliminary matter, the Crown prerogative at issue in the case of an executive decision to deploy the CF outside of Canada in support of a military operation is a prerogative exercised by the federal, as opposed to a provincial, executive:

"The Queen is expressly declared to be Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of and in Canada (Constitution [Constitution Act, 1867] s.15.). Since exclusive legislative authority in relation to militia, military and naval service and defence is conferred on the Parliament of Canada, (s.91(7)) the applicable prerogative powers appear to be exercisable by the Crown in right of Canada.¹³¹"

...

There is a wealth of case law establishing that the power to deploy the CF on military operations outside of Canada is within the contents of the Crown prerogative. From the House of Lords decision in Chandler v. D.P.P:¹³²

"It is in my opinion clear that the disposition and armament of the armed forces are, and for centuries have been, within the exclusive discretion of the Crown (…)¹³³"

In addition, the academics have consistently reinforced this common law position. From Lordon:

"The Crown has certain prerogative powers or duties to act in defence of the realm, including the power to station and control the armed forces.¹³⁴"

Also: How exactly would trump even BUY canada?  And what benefits would they have going from a self governing country to ... a state, under America, with shitty healthcare, lax environmental laws, and incredibly poor labor protections?

Healthcare is controlled by the States themselves in America. There isn't a healthcare package that Canada would have to apply. They can continue taxing people for their "free" healthcare if they want. In the US the States are basically countries who just agree to the few amendments and agreement in the Constitution such as common trade and common military. Anything not in the Constitution is left to the States. Some States are better than others in areas such as education, but that is their prerogative.

Likewise, labor protection and extra environmental laws are all the State's responsibility to regulate. The lax federal laws you are complaining about is actually the freedom for the States to govern themselves. Much of that isn't in the Constitution at all.

The Constitution is very brief in its provisions. Many of the conflicts in US Government federal policy, in fact, are about the Liberals' creative interpretation of terms like "right to privacy" in the brevity of the Constitution to allow the mass killing of human fetuses and implementation of widespread right to abortion nationally. In recent years a saner Supreme Court has struck this down, and is presently doing so for similar insanities.