Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - stack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 73  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 12:55:36 AM »
But hes found a way to get away with avoiding admitting he lost. NYT reporting that was a major sticking point, and aides said that it wasnt until learning he could allow the transition process to begin without making an official concession letter/speech that he permitted things.

Hopefully that doesnt amount to much, but it definitely leaves an ominous air to things, if his very loyal base decides to stay mad that Biden is taking over "without Trump ever admitting defeat"

My guess is that he will never concede. He doesn't have to. It doesn't matter one way or the other. His base will love it and the rest of the world, literally, will just scratch their heads and think it was to be expected. And by not doing so he gets out of what I'm sure is the most detestable thing he could ever imagine; handing over the keys to the WH at the inauguration. He can skip that whole affair. Maybe squeeze in a self-pardon between a couple of rounds of golf instead. And yes, his very loyal base will stay mad that Biden is taking over "without Trump ever admitting defeat". For sure.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 24, 2020, 06:24:05 PM »
@stack

Quote
I suppose there are many things that "we can never replicate or validate." Does that make everything we cannot replicate and validate invalid?

Not by itself, no.  However the default position is best one of skepticism.  Until something is adequately proven (for, to, and by yourself), you should continue to remember that it is speculation at best.

Virtually all of the things in the "journal of irreproducible results" are fiction.  If it can't be demonstrated (and/or replicated), it is most likely fiction.

Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. But not everything is so black & white as you would have it. There are many things that I can't prove for, to and by myself. For instance I can't perform, demonstrate, reproduce or even view in person a heart transplant operation, but I've read about them, seen videos about them, heard physicians talk about them and I'm sure they exist. I suppose I could enroll and train to become a heart transplant surgeon and experience it first hand. Seemingly as well I could train to be an astronaut and perhaps ride a rocket into space and experience that firsthand too. There's a lot of gray area in our world, not everything is binary.

Quote
I know of the case about a "moon rock" given to an ambassador (I think Denmark) that turned out to be petrified wood, or something like that

That (or something very much like it) did happen, yes. If you want to believe in sci-fi fantasy, it is easy enough to ignore all of reality to do so. Ignoring a few "outliers" like this hardly proves a challenge to the devout.

I'm not sure what this particular outlier proves. That moon rocks don't exist? Or someone just decided to give a mock moon rock as a gift? So it's not a matter of ignoring an "outlier" it's just that the motive for the incident is unknown. It could be as grand as continuing to conceal the conceit of the "conspiracy" or something completely innocuous, if not disingenuous, as gifting someone a fake Rolex and saying it's real.

Quote
And I get there is certainly not an easy way to validate the provenance, but I wouldn't say we don't have "evidence" for said provenance

There is no way to validate it short of returning to the moon, repeatedly and independently.

There is no evidence of "space" writ large except for what we see on tv, and a few terrestrially composed "rocks" at least some of which are petrified wood.

As for moon rocks, Apollo brought back a bunch as well as the soviets with their unmanned probes. And some have been found here in Antarctica and I was just reading about a recent one found in the Sahara. To some, that would be considered repeatedly and independently verified. But obviously to those less inclined, it wouldn't. Pick your poison.

Quote
It's just that some believe that evidence is part of the conspiracy. Which is, of course, debatable unto itself.

Some people choose to trust the untrustworthy government against all reason, history, and common sense.  It is those gullible and deluded people that choose to believe what is shown on the tv is reality.  We have a lot of evidence of the fraud/hoax, and certainly the petrified wood is a small part of that, but the real trouble is that people believe ("know" without validation/verification).  They believe instead of know.

Again, with the all-or-nothing bit. Sure, some people choose to trust government unconditionally. Few and far between. And some with absolutely zero trust. However, there's a massive spectrum in between whether to trust all or trust nothing. To covid vax or to not covid vax is probably a good example. We're probably looking down the barrel of a governments distributed vaccine in the future. The level of willingness to partake will span that entire trust spectrum, no doubt, as folks make up their minds.

Quote
And I have yet to come across anything that stands out as something that can't be explained.

And you are most unlikely to.  Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? There is a lot of confusion out there on what it is, so even if you do - your definition/understanding may not be correct... Cognitive dissonance essentially assures that you will always find the "proper explanation" even when one doesn't exist.  It's easy to "debunk" and not in any way objective analysis or competent/objective investigation.

For one, you can spare the pedantry. Everyone here is familiar with the phrase and it's meaning. And obviously it's a two way street. A little further down you go headlong into finding what you think are "proper explanations" according to your world view that perhaps don't exist. As well as debunking in a similar manner. But I'll get into that in a second.

An aside, it would be super helpful if you actually used the quote function here like 95% of folks do. It's super helpful when you pluck out one sentence from someone's paragraph from a week ago, address it and the responder, me for example, can then just click on the quote link and zip right back to the full context of what was written. Instead I had to go hunting for it. In this case I was referring specifically to the many hoax compilation videos, and more specifically, the astronaut in a spacesuit test that went awry. Necessary context.

Quote
If you have a juicy, favorite compilation, incident, whathaveyou, pass it along. I always like reviewing those.

Ugh, I feel the opposite way.  The most quintessential demonstration of the hoax is the rat on mars, which you should check out if you have not seen.  You are required to interpret the picture as "pareidolia", but objectively evaluated - it is in no way a rock.

I am not required to interpret it as pareidolia. Where do you get that notion? And what makes your "objective evaluation" greater than mine? You've said over and over again that a lot of the evidence for space and space flight, manned or unmanned is not "repeatedly and independently verified". To use the rat on mars as an example, what's your repeated and independent verification that it is a rat? Perhaps you're required to believe it is a rat because your cognitive dissonance only allows for that explanation because you believe that it's impossible for a photograph on the surface of Mars to exist. Perhaps someone with your perspective automatically assumes the image is a fakery of some sort because it comes from NASA, part of the untrustworthy MIC, before you even see the rat and begin to apply your objective evaluation to it. That doesn't seem objective to me.

Quote
What government agency hasn't?

Exactly! The MIC is not your friend, and lies routinely.  They are not to be trusted.

Again, see the spectrum.

Quote
I know of no natural law that states "space" does not and cannot exist. What natural law are you referring to?

The law is ancient. It is often phrased "nequaquam vacuum" and roughly translates to "nature abhors a vacuum".

I believe the phrase you are looking for is not "nequaquam vacuum", but "Horror vacui". Which is "attributed to Aristotle, who articulated a belief, later criticized by the atomism of Epicurus and Lucretius, that nature contains no vacuums because the denser surrounding material continuum would immediately fill the rarity of an incipient void." And it is not a law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)

Many natural laws are violated by the fantasy/mythology of the "infinite sky vacuum of outer space" above our heads.  Chief among them, are the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the natural behavior of gas (gas law).

What specifically about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the natural behavior of gas (gas law) makes space a fantasy/mythology. You can't just start throwing around laws and saying, "See? Can't happen. Laws."

Quote
The water wringing is just as likely, if not more so, actual water wringing and not CGI.

I might agree with you, if the footage didn't look so fake and nothing remotely like it has ever been done in decades of the vomit comet...

What's your objective criteria for how fake or not it looks?

Quote
Just because something could be convincingly replicated in a computer generated manner doesn't mean it was.

True, and vice versa!

The preponderance of evidence is that it's not CGI. If you can point to specifically what are the "tells" that's it's CGI, then maybe there's a conversation there.

Quote
There's no evidence that it wasn't a guy wringing water in a zero G environment inside the ISS.

Except that water wrung in "zero g" doesn't look like that (see vomit comet) and whatever we see as the iss in the sky is much too large (visible with the naked eye), most likely not inhabited/inhabitable, and certainly not weightless.

What should it look like? How is it different than other examples you have seen? How is the ISS too large? By what specific measurements lead you to that conclusion? Specificity is helpful here. Not just saying you think so. Your certainty isn't based upon anything other than your opinion. Which is fine, but unremarkable.

Quote
As for sklylab, there are many clips that exceed the durational limitations of the Vomit Comet type simulations

Not to my knowledge.  In any case, quality splicing is feasible - especially retroactively and some weightlessness is not faked using the vomit comet.  The "amazing"/hollywood-esque footage of free floating arial somersaults and the like are all short and most likely vomit comet.

Perhaps not to your knowledge.

Vomit Comet: Training Flights for Astronauts | Space
"Complete weightlessness lasts approximately 25 seconds. Passengers who experience a simulation of Martian gravity — about a third of Earth's gravity — last about 30 seconds, while those simulating lunar gravity — about a sixth of Earth's gravity — last about 40 seconds."
https://www.space.com/37942-vomit-comet.html

Quote
Evidence of such is crucial, none to be found here.

Except of course for all the evidence, which is essentially solely the footage itself (and analysis thereof) - the only "evidence" of space writ large.

There's evidence of space writ large that's even non-MIC based. The GoFast amateur rocket team set the record in 2004 at an altitude of 72 miles. It made it to "space" as we know it.

Quote
I don't really get this.

That's because you need the "evidence" and without it you have to recognize/accept that the assumption the earth is spherical is still unvalidated today - as it always was.

Quote
So for FET to remain viable it must discount all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., as fakery and that would require a conspiracy.

Not really.  The shape of the world has nothing to do with a conspiracy or lack thereof.

Quote
I'm not saying the entirety of FET, but I have yet to come across any NASA-believing FET proponents. So it does seem that FET is heavily reliant upon the conspiracy.

They certainly exist.  However, when you begin to objectively evaluate the "space program"/"space age"/"cold war" you find profound hoax and fraud - it is only the earnest, objective, and critical evaluation that is lacking in most "common" people.  The conspiracy of nasa, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the shape of the world - nor determining it with certainty.

The abject (and foolish/gullible/credulous) appeal to authority required to consider the nasa footage evidence of anything is profound and unacceptable to any earnest researcher.  This is a discussion about science, and nasa footage isn't science.  Science must also be repeatable, which is another reason nothing is scientific about "space".

From a semantics perspective, yes, the conspiracy has nothing to do with what the actual shape of the world is. What the conspiracy does have to with is the concealing of what the true shape of the world may be. There's a definite distinction there. The non-conspiracy perspective depicts the shape of the earth as a Globe. Period. In order to dismiss all of the non-conspiracy perspective evidence and dismiss the globe depiction, there must be a conspiracy. Enter FET and the necessity for FET to dismiss space/space endeavors because they all depict the incorrect shape of the earth. In order to dismiss all of that, a conspiracy is required. Simple as that. You literally can't have FET without the conspiracy in the modern age. At least I've never come across a singe FET proponent that does not believe in the conspiracy.

Quote
This is incorrect, they did test spacesuits with humans in a vacuum and in one instance almost killed a guy:

Interesting! Perhaps that's why they stopped!  If this were in any way real, there would be several manned tests in as powerful a vacuum as we could muster before field use.  We don't do that, and never have.

First you thought they never started testing. Now you're saying they stopped testing. Both are wrong. They never stopped. They still do manned space suit vacuum testing today. Here's an article on it you may find interesting.

Orion Spacesuits Put to a Vacuum Test at NASA
"The participants are inside the NASA Johnson Space Center's 11-foot thermal vacuum chamber, which is commonly used for spacesuit testing. According to NASA, the chamber can include components such as a treadmill or systems for "crew weight relief" to simulate the microgravity astronauts encounter in space."
https://www.space.com/37518-orion-spacesuits-vacuum-test-nasa-photos.html

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 24, 2020, 05:09:16 AM »
Gore also got transition resources while legal proceedings were underway.

You are incorrect.

Sorry, Trump fans: Al Gore was never considered president-elect
"The media never made a similar assertion about Gore in 2000, because he was never determined to have clearly won enough votes in enough states to win the presidency. The media never called Gore “president-elect” at all. And, in fact, the Washington Times never carried that front page, as it was quickly pointed out to Murtaugh. (He subsequently deleted his tweet.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/13/sorry-trump-fans-al-gore-was-never-considered-president-elect/

And the GSA never “ascertained” Gore or Bush as the President Elect until after the SCOTUS ruling regarding the Florida count and after Gore's concession:

"The incoming Bush administration was not provided transition funds until Dec. 14, 2000, the day after former Vice President Al Gore conceded"
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-administration-denies-biden-access-to-transition-funds-echoing-2000-bush-gore-standoff-11604950154

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 23, 2020, 09:40:54 PM »
I smell a lie
Probably COVID19, mate, loss of smell and taste are common symptoms.

I spent a good portion of my life as a devout altar boy. Sure, things changed since then, and my vestments wouldn't fit anymore, but I could totally own you at Jesus trivia. inb4 "haha were you raped by a priest". Dude, keep my sex life out of this, geez

Are you saying you don't know any bible quotes off the top of your head? How is this possible?
Well, sure, I could pick something obvious; but: imagine the same interview, except Trump says "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!!1!" He wouldn't be taken seriously anyway, and the narrative would still be that he obviously doesn't know the Bible, that's why he went with such a common verse.

It was a shit question, and copping out entirely might have actually been the best answer.

Overall, in the pantheon of Trump's lies, it probably doesn't mean much. But he did say back 2016 "The Hill reports that, on Tuesday, while criticizing the Iran Nuclear Deal, Trump said that Secretary of State John Kerry must not have read The Art of the Deal, adding that Kerry "Probably didn't read the Bible, either."

"Nobody reads the Bible more than me," Trump stated.
[/b]

If true that no one does, one would suppose he might be able to pull a John 3:16 out of his ass when asked or something like that. All in all, not shocking that it's just yet another one of the 20,000 or so documented lies in the past four years.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 23, 2020, 02:53:34 AM »
In outer space, we're talking about a vacuum that has only a few protons per meter cube. In my opinion any vessel, even a thick steel tank would violently explode if exposed to such a vacuum.

Why do you think it would explode? I mean what has specifically led you to that conclusion? You're talking about a pressure differential. We have all kinds of things to handle from the extreme to mundane differentials - from a sub that can go down almost 11,000m into the Mariana Trench at 1,086 bars to the pressure cooker on my counter top at 1.8 bars to good old Earth at 1 bar. Space is at almost 0 bars. Why does space seem to be such an explosive environment?


I even think you would have an unusual chemical reaction as the protons strip the materials apart to create more stable states.

What has led you to this understanding? Why would there be an "unusual chemical reaction"?

Not to mention the effect such a vacuum would have on the temperature of objects that lie within it.

They maintain temperature control through insulation and essentially HVAC systems. What disastrous effect are you envisioning?


These declared vacuums go way beyond anything we can comprehend on earth. Just saying (as NASA do) that "there is a low pressure differential therefore x and y works in the vaccum of space" is bizarre, but is clearly sufficient for the masses to accept.

It's not like they don't test this stuff. Interesting article here:

Orion Spacesuits Put to a Vacuum Test at NASA
https://www.space.com/37518-orion-spacesuits-vacuum-test-nasa-photos.html

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 23, 2020, 01:46:20 AM »
Quote
Sydney Powell fired!

Nope. I would suggest not posting links to liberal news stories and speculation and anonymous sources from "campaign officials".

Sidney Powell was never working for Trump. She's not a lawyer on the record. The press release just clarified this separation to resolve conflict of interest claims.

Sidney Powell's partner:



Attorney Lin Wood, another Trump-affiliated attorney in a position like Powell:



General Floyd:



What conflict of interest? Why would they have to make this distinction? Must of been something serious because they had to have known the statement would look like a "distancing".

And does it mean that any lawyer can get up on the Podium with Rudy, claim to be affiliated and talk about the charges they will bring on Trumps behalf? What does "affiliated" mean in this context?

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 23, 2020, 01:23:48 AM »
Lol no. Multiple suits have been dismissed with prejudice or withdrawn by the plaintiffs. Those aren’t coming back in a higher court.

Dismissed with prejudice is a good thing for Trump. The recent PA case was "dismissed with prejudice". That means it can be appealed to a higher court.

https://www.gilmanbedigian.com/can-a-case-be-re-opened-in-maryland

"A case dismissed with prejudice is considered a final judgment and can be appealed to a higher court."

You can appeal the dismissal if the dismissal was involuntary.

Quote
If it was dismissed without prejudice then it couldn't be appealed and Trump would have to amend it in the current court, costing time.

This is incorrect. In this case, there is really nothing to appeal.  You are free to refile the suit.

Quote
Trump's campaign says that they intend to do so on that PA case, and thank Obama's state judge for giving them what they needed.

I literally don't care what Giuliani says in a press conference.  He has demonstrated a willingness to massively misrepresent his claims to the press.

Quote
Nope. A complaint can be sealed. Many complaints are sealed for various reasons. Doxxing and harassment of witnesses for example.

https://casetext.com/case/under-seal-v-under-seal-11

Quote
[A] sealed complaint leaves the public unaware that a claim has been leveled and that state power has been invoked—and public resources spent—in an effort to resolve the dispute. These considerations indicate that public access to the complaint and other pleadings has a "significant positive role," in the functioning of the judicial process.

Bit of a hail mary there, Bom.  But hey, its all you have.

Quote
There is also such a thing as pre-complaint discovery as well.

https://casetext.com/regulation/pennsylvania-code-rules-and-regulations/title-231-rules-of-civil-procedure/part-i-general/chapter-4000-depositions-and-discovery/rule-40038-pre-complaint-discovery

Quote
231 Pa. Code § 4003.8

Current through Register Vol. 50, No. 45, November 7, 2020

Rule 4003.8 - Pre-Complaint Discovery

(a) A plaintiff may obtain pre-complaint discovery where the information sought is material and necessary to the filing of the complaint and the discovery will not cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to any person or party.

(b) Upon a motion for protective order or other objection to a plaintiff's pre-complaint discovery, the court may require the plaintiff to state with particularity how the discovery will materially advance the preparation of the complaint. In deciding the motion or other objection, the court shall weigh the importance of the discovery request against the burdens imposed on any person or party from whom the discovery is sought.
Riiiight.

Anyone want to hazzard a guess why the Trump legal team wants to distance themselves from Syndey Powell at this time?

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1330638034619035655?s=20

On November 14th Trump said she was part of the team.

Ahhh, crap, Jenna and Rudy just totally took the wind out of my entertainment sails with that announcement. More of the same:

(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's election campaign on Sunday distanced itself from Sidney Powell, a lawyer who claimed at a news conference last week that electronic voting systems had switched millions of ballots to President-elect Joe Biden.

"Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own," Trump campaign lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis said in a statement. "She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team."

Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark.

More dirt from WaPO:

"Two advisers to Trump, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, said that the president disliked the coverage Powell was receiving from Fox News host Tucker Carlson and others and that several allies had reached out to say she had gone too far. The advisers also said she fought with Giuliani and others in recent days.

“She was too crazy even for the president,” a campaign official said."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/22/giuliani-releases-statement-distancing-trump-campaign-lawyer-sidney-powell/

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 22, 2020, 09:53:58 PM »
I can't wait for the show to begin. Here's what we have to look forward to from NewsMax:

Among the most explosive claims alluded to by Powell were:

- Joe Biden votes being "weighted" at 1.25 times and President Donald Trump votes being parsed at 3/4.
- Algorithms that gave Democrats 35,000 extra votes.
- Modifications made to voting machines after statutory cutoff dates for changes.
- Past election victories, including Hillary Clinton's primary victory over Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., being forced decided by Dominion Voting Systems.
- Alleged pay-for-play kick backs to public officials, potentially even Georgia GOP Gov. Kemp for a late grant to use Dominion Voting Systems.

I mean Sydney is on FIRE!
"Georgia is probably going to be the first state I'm gonna blow up," Powell said rhetorically with her pending lawsuits alleging massive voter fraud.

She is going to blow some shit up. An entire State no less. I bet you she is going to blow up like the Falconer and the Survivor Contestant did with their terabytes of treasonous Obama administration evidence.   

Who needs Netflix to entertain us during covid lockdowns when we have all of this?


9
Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« on: November 22, 2020, 09:24:35 PM »
In each of your images you put forward for RE it is unknown what the observer height is. So this evidence which supposedly matches a globe earth is invalid.

I happen to not agree. There's no calculation presented as to how much should be hidden or not for just that reason - The observer height is unknown. Just a visual representation of some hidden amount and it's unclear on a flat earth why anything should be hidden at all.

In the wiki regarding "Sinking Ship" effect it states one of the reasons for the phenomenon may be:

"Refraction
At other times the sinking ship cannot be reversed with optical magnification. In these cases the cause of the sinking effect is seen to be related to the common inferior mirage which regularly occurs for long periods of time over the surface of water. Over a period of time this sinking effect will disappear, revealing distant bodies."

But you say here that RE uses refraction which nullifies the claim:

They have to bring in other effects like refraction to account for the difference, which nullifies the original claim that Sinking = RE.

So is refraction a cause for why the bottoms of distant objects are obscured? I've always been a little confused as to what actually causes the "hidden" area to exist on a flat earth. And if refraction is solely a flat earth phenomenon.

10
Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« on: November 22, 2020, 08:27:02 PM »
However, when zoomed in, unlike the Bishop experiment, one would not be able to "Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible."
Perhaps I misread your tone, but you seem to be claiming that this helps your case, almost with a little bit of snark? Surely it's obvious that an experiment performed over a much larger distance will yield vastly different results?

Nonetheless, by your own account, this is a fantastic example of being able to see much farther than RET should allow, with (seemingly) just over 50m of the tower having disappeared when the expected number for RET would have been more in the ballpark of 150.

Equally, if not not more so, a fantastic example of why on a flat earth nothing should be hidden. Much like in all of these other ones:



And here:


11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 22, 2020, 08:16:47 PM »
Where's the whole Sydney Powell "Dominion/Smartmatic Venzualen Socialist 6 Million Fraudulent Switched Votes" thing right now?

12
Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« on: November 22, 2020, 04:26:56 PM »
Here's a non-zoomed in shot taken from the shoreline at Niagara-on-the-Lake looking across to the Toronto skyline way, way off in the distance, about 30 miles away. So what's this about only being able to see a few miles?


An impressive approximation of the Bishop Experiment. Thanks for sharing!

Your welcome!

However, when zoomed in, unlike the Bishop experiment, one would not be able to "Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible."

All of those children, sun bathers, joggers, and dogs would be drowned according to the zoomed in image from the same view of Toronto from Niagra-on-the-Lake:

13
Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« on: November 22, 2020, 02:33:13 AM »
If you were standing on the beach watching boats disappearing over the horizon they're really not that far away at all. That's all I'm saying.

Fair enough.
However there are a couple of problems with that guy's video. For one in both examples his eyeline is subterranean. He is literally below the surface of the table in the first and deep in the grass in the second. So that's weirdly inaccurate and not depicting reality. For two, sometimes atmospheric lensing/refraction is severe, sometimes moderate, and sometimes non-existent. Yet we see the hull disappearing first effect consistently across the spectrum of those environments.

14
Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« on: November 22, 2020, 12:11:52 AM »
Standing by the water's edge in front of the ocean not from a height looking down is what I should have said.

The shot is pretty close to the waters edge. Maybe 10' higher than standing right where the water laps at your feet. So still 10' feet or so doesn't jive with a 3 mile limitation when you can see 30. The difference in height doesn't warrant that sort of spread.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: My Philosophy on beer...
« on: November 22, 2020, 12:08:04 AM »
After much contemplation and a beer I decided you are correct, philosophically speaking. My favorite IPA is Lagunitas.

Yes, definitely in the excellent category. I have the benefit of being slightly local to the original Lagunitas Brewery and have been to the taproom a few times over the years. It's even better live and in person so to speak, fresh out of the vats.

16
Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« on: November 21, 2020, 10:32:13 PM »
...only a few miles out to sea which is more or less the furthest our eyes can see looking across a large body of water.

Here's a non-zoomed in shot taken from the shoreline at Niagara-on-the-Lake looking across to the Toronto skyline way, way off in the distance, about 30 miles away. So what's this about only being able to see a few miles?




17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 21, 2020, 09:54:42 PM »
It's true. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx
.

No one said the allotments, as it were, are not true. The question still remains, are you're rooting for conservative judges to vote in a partisan manner as opposed to ruling upon fact? Is that why you are so seemingly 'happy' about the assignments? You kind of seem like a democracy buzzkill. Pretty much exemplifying everything that is wrong right now. Good on you.

You are suggesting that the conservative justices don't rule on fact. You are incorrect.

Then why did you gleefully post the fact that your conservative justices are assigned to the swing states with "bye bye biden"?

Because they rule on fact.

I'm hoping they do rule on fact. But that doesn't answer the question. What do you think the significance is for the justice-to-state assignment? Why did you explicitly point that out?

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 21, 2020, 09:17:27 PM »
It's true. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx
.

No one said the allotments, as it were, are not true. The question still remains, are you're rooting for conservative judges to vote in a partisan manner as opposed to ruling upon fact? Is that why you are so seemingly 'happy' about the assignments? You kind of seem like a democracy buzzkill. Pretty much exemplifying everything that is wrong right now. Good on you.

You are suggesting that the conservative justices don't rule on fact. You are incorrect.

Then why did you gleefully post the fact that your conservative justices are assigned to the swing states with "bye bye biden"?

bye bye biden



19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 21, 2020, 06:15:05 AM »
It's true. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx
.

No one said the allotments, as it were, are not true. The question still remains, are you're rooting for conservative judges to vote in a partisan manner as opposed to ruling upon fact? Is that why you are so seemingly 'happy' about the assignments? You kind of seem like a democracy buzzkill. Pretty much exemplifying everything that is wrong right now. Good on you.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 21, 2020, 06:08:16 AM »

A quick little demo. Air has nothing to do with it. Based upon experimentation. Skip to :35.

Air has everything to do with it. If he used a lighter beach ball of higher surface area, he would be pushed back further.

How do you figure that? Have you invalidated Newton's Third?

The medicine ball in the experiment is about the size of a basketball. Would you expect that the individual would be pushed backward to the same extent with two equally sized surface area objects, one with the mass of a basketball and one with the mass of a medicine ball? Do you really think the air resistance between the two same area objects but with different masses would render the equal results?

I suggest you try it at home. You might find something interesting.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 73  Next >