[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
Gorgo I feel like you are not at all interested in the shadow 9/11 commission referenced in an email to Ghislaine Maxwell in which she was invited to join said commission. Am I wrong? Tell me you have some interest in the fact that the daughter of someone who stole nuclear secrets from the U.S., who was later convicted of child sex trafficking, was invited to be on a shadow 9/1
Oh look, Shady's back.
Deuces, I don't know how much you've been following of this thread while you've been on vacation, but we've got a dude here who literally thinks the Earth is flat and I'd still say the jury is out on which of you two is the bigger moron.
I actually provided quite a bit of evidence in SMP, which he apparently knows about.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
If you mean evidence of you being a stubborn idiot, yes, I have seen that. I haven't seen evidence of anything else from you anywhere. What you seem to call "evidence" is thoroughly debunked dumb twattery that is either a straight up lie or so misleadingly phrased that it might as well be.
Gorgo I feel like you are not at all interested in the shadow 9/11 commission referenced in an email to Ghislaine Maxwell in which she was invited to join said commission. Am I wrong? Tell me you have some interest in the fact that the daughter of someone who stole nuclear secrets from the U.S., who was later convicted of child sex trafficking, was invited to be on a shadow 9/1
ofc they have ignored the Epstein emails and their implications
Why is the df that ignored my thousand requests for evidence of his claims talking to me exactly?
Deuces, you are on my ignore list. I only see you because multiple other people quoted you and I inadvertently saw my name. I'm not reading that nor responding to it.
I will never talk to you again until you produce evidence of your claims or admit you have none. You lost your opportunity to do that after you ignored my 10,000th request for evidence.
Run along, idiot.
Lmao, so now pictures of a round Earth and astronaut's testimonies are inadmissible because they're all from NASA, do I have this right? Would it shock you that other countries have space agencies and astronauts too? Do they count as different researchers you complete clown?
Learn about reproducibility. Then we'll talk.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So, Billy, now that I've disabused you of the notion that there are only a handful of non-composite pictures of a round earth, and shown you where you can find thousands of them updated daily, you must now be ready to accept that the Earth is round, because you're such a rational and scientifically minded guy, right? Because if not, that would make you a stubborn moron, and you
Assuming the pictures are verifiably true then we have an irreconcilable contradiction. A 6 km radius ball is incompatible with horizon measurements (fully reproducible).
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Assuming the pictures are verifiably true then we have an irreconcilable contradiction. A 6 km radius ball is incompatible with horizon measurements (fully reproducible).
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I assume you have no reason to doubt the veracity of these pictures, so let's assume they are verifiably true.
Yes, the contradiction is your understanding of how horizon measurements work. Based on other stuff you've said here, that certainly appears to be the case*. So, as a scientist, what do you think is more likely - that you have misunderstood something, or that everyone else has?
*You've asserted without proof that you can see an object of height x above the ground at a distance of y but a). not provided any explanation or evidence of how you know this to be the case, b). not accounted for confounding variables such as atmospheric refraction and c). incorrectly assumed that atmospheric refraction always reflects the image (it does not).
If I didn't know better, Billy, I'd say you were desperately trying to find very tenuous reasons to discard very strong evidence that you're wrong about the Earth not being round. But being a member of the scientific community, you wouldn't exhibit such intellectual dishonesty, would you now? Surely you'll assess all the evidence on its merits rather than saying something so transparently intellectually dishonest as "this isn't reproducible so I refuse to look at it".
I assume you have no reason to doubt the veracity of these pictures, so let's assume they are verifiably true.Yes, the contradiction is your understanding of how horizon measurements work. Based on other stuff you've said here, that certainly appears to be the case*. So, as a scientist, what do you think is more likely - that you have misunderstood something, or that everyone e
Only reproducible evidence is submissible. Majority views are irrelevant in science.
Earth curve is approximated by a horizon dip of 8 inches per mile squared.
Atmospheric refraction accounts for an additional 1/7 of visibility. It also causes mirages.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
If I didn't know better, Billy, I'd say you were desperately trying to find very tenuous reasons to discard very strong evidence that you're wrong about the Earth not being round. But being a member of the scientific community, you wouldn't exhibit such intellectual dishonesty, would you now? Surely you'll assess all the evidence on its merits rather than saying something so tr
That is how reproducibility works unfortunately.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Only reproducible evidence is submissible. Majority views are irrelevant in science.
Earth curve is approximated by a horizon dip of 8 inches per mile squared.
Atmospheric refraction accounts for an additional 1/7 of visibility. It also causes mirages.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So far you've just stated some facts (which are not particularly accurate, but we can get to that later if need be). You have not established any contradictions. What can you see that you're not supposed to see if the Earth were curved, and how do you know this to be the case? Specific calculations please.
That is how reproducibility works unfortunately.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Multiple agencies from multiple countries as well as private companies all sending astronauts up into space and all confirming each other's findings is pretty much the definition of reproducibility you clown. Stop being such a dishonest little ****.
LOL not the 8 inches per mile^2 canard.
Earth is roughly a parabola now!
First I've heard it. What is this horseshit? I thought he was just making **** up. Did the flat Earthers send someone out on a 6 mile long straight canal to test this?
ETA: Didn't even notice the mile squared lol. He did say per mile before so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he misspoke.
I guess we just have an irreconcilable difference between known authentic pictures of a round Earth, and Brofessor Billy's back of the napkin horizon measurement calculations, which are unquestionably infallible. I don't see any way of resolving these differences, so I guess the shape of the Earth will forever remain shrouded in mystery.
First I've heard it. What is this horseshit? I thought he was just making **** up. Did the flat Earthers send someone out on a 6 mile long straight canal to test this?
ETA: Didn't even notice the mile squared lol. He did say per mile before so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he misspoke.
It's a common flat earth trope. Real math is too hard for them so they have to use this simplification which isn't really even that close. Weird that I can't find where to plugin observer height into that formula, though. I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.
It's a common flat earth trope. Real math is too hard for them so they have to use this simplification which isn't really even that close. Weird that I can't find where to plugin observer height into that formula, though. I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.
I mean, even assuming that those back of the napkin numbers are somewhere near accurate, his understanding of this is clearly lacking since he gave a constant to control for atmospheric refraction and that can't be possible, since it has to be highly dependent on atmospheric conditions. Looks like our resident experiment expert is not too hot on the control variable side of things, unfortunately.
First I've heard it. What is this horseshit? I thought he was just making **** up. Did the flat Earthers send someone out on a 6 mile long straight canal to test this?
ETA: Didn't even notice the mile squared lol. He did say per mile before so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he misspoke.
I do not misspeak. I said 8 inches per mile squared.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
It's a common flat earth trope. Real math is too hard for them so they have to use this simplification which isn't really even that close. Weird that I can't find where to plugin observer height into that formula, though. I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.
"Real math [sic]" is a contradiction in terms. Please see earlier discussion re geometric forms.
Why would you need observer height to estimate earth curve? You would not. What you are confusing is the prediction for where the horizon ought to be, which depends on observer height.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I do not misspeak. I said 8 inches per mile squared.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I can understand what "dip = drop per unit distance" means. I don't understand what "dip = drop per unit area" means. But before we get to that, why don't you answer how you know what you can see at what distance, as I assume either you or someone else conducted an experiment with the independent variables being observer height, target height and distance to target and various control variables such as atmopspheric refraction, which I'd also like to hear about. After all, the only way we can know anything for sure is through such reproducible experiments, right, Billy? Because a member of the scientific community like you wouldn't simply be throwing out kindergarten level tropes and hoping nobody digs any deeper, would you, Billy?
Also, don't forget to tell us more about how observations made from space are not reproducible, using your definition of that word.
I do not misspeak. I said 8 inches per mile squared.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You do realize that's a parabola, right? A parabola is not even remotely close to an approximation of a sphere. You are hilariously out of your league.
Why would you use that instead of the correct formula unless you are just unable to use the correct formula? Do you even know the correct formula?
