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.
Satellites are not necessary to track hurricanes.
Then what IS used to find the intensity and position of a hurricane at all times?
Well, they're not exactly difficult to find. Colossal storms which rip up houses and send debris flying usually get noticed by a few people.
Its very easy to make stuff up if there is no evidence (burned up over sudan)
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.
QuoteAssumption of fact without evidence.
Thomas Baron was killed when his car was hit by a train. Murder by train rare. Further evidence of murder required.
According to the police report it was a suicide. Baron and his wife and daughter decided to commit group suicide together by parking their family car on some train tracks and waiting for a train to come by.
Are you telling me that's exactly how it happened right after Baron made his testimony against Apollo?
More likely that Baron decided to commit suicide and take his family with him. It's not unheard of, you know (murder suicide anyone?).
Besides Tom, can you honestly say that you know what was going on in Baron's mind as he was sitting on the train tracks, or can you only speculate?
Ok, let me state again that I don't think it's an impossibility for this to happen (conspiracy for S&G's), but that it is highly improbable and should be discounted. Now before you say, "AHA! I have you now!" let me also state that the increase of improbability should be a factor in ruling out something for a possibility. If we don't draw the line somewhere with the absurd/improbable we will forever be going in circles.
Now, let's see if we can use this line of reasoning and come up with some better, more likely reasons for a conspiracy.
AHA! I have you now!
You keep on forgetting the context that I'm discussing this in: I only see the value in this conversation if we can demonstrate that it is impossible for the conspiracy to have any motivation (and thereby rule out the conspiracy hypothesis an explanation for various phenomena).
I proposed "for shits and giggles" for the exact same reason that you think we should move on: it's absurd/improbable. So rather than just repeating something that we both agree with and saying we should rule it out how in favour of more likely motivations how about focussing on what I'm saying. Since you already agree that "for shits and giggles" is possible you'll have to show me that there is value in discussing more likely motivations.
And I'm glad we've come to the same reasoning on this, in a roundabout way.
I think it would be pretty impossible to keep a conspiracy going for shits and giggles. Someone down the line would get bored or not really understand the joke and let wind of it out. And as far as Tom saying it's for money, there would be someone who would think it's not honest and blow the whistle on a scam like that.
Right, you've stated your belief that it would be impossible and your reasons for that belief but you still haven't demonstrated that it actually is impossible. There would be a chance of whistleblowers with any motivation and while I whole heartedly agree that the chance of whistleblowers if the motivation was "for shits and giggles" would be virtually 1 can you actually demonstrate that it would be 1? Even after this you would still need to demonstrate that the chance of a whistleblower successfuly getting the word out and being lisitened to (and not just by the other people in the nut house) would also be 1.
I didn't say totally impossible, just nigh impossible. Nothing is truly impossible, just the odds of it happening are astronomical. Hell, even the odds of Tom actually having emotions one day can't be ruled out
But with this train of logic you can disprove anything, so it's not impossible for the earth to be round then either, or anything else you want to spout off.
I think plenty of things are impossible but groups of people deceiving people for shits and giggles is not one of them. Absurd yes, impossible no. People can be motivated by a warped sense of humour and can try and pull the wool over other people's eyes and groups of people can do the same. This is what makes it a possibility as a motivation for the conspiracy, not some philosophical mumbo jumbo that "anything is possible".
Did you disagree with my analyses of where the value of this conversation lies?
I think it would be pretty impossible to keep a conspiracy going for shits and giggles. Someone down the line would get bored or not really understand the joke and let wind of it out. And as far as Tom saying it's for money, there would be someone who would think it's not honest and blow the whistle on a scam like that.
Right, you've stated your belief that it would be impossible and your reasons for that belief but you still haven't demonstrated that it actually is impossible. There would be a chance of whistleblowers with any motivation and while I whole heartedly agree that the chance of whistleblowers if the motivation was "for shits and giggles" would be virtually 1 can you actually demonstrate that it would be 1? Even after this you would still need to demonstrate that the chance of a whistleblower successfuly getting the word out and being lisitened to (and not just by the other people in the nut house) would also be 1.
I didn't say totally impossible, just nigh impossible. Nothing is truly impossible, just the odds of it happening are astronomical. Hell, even the odds of Tom actually having emotions one day can't be ruled out
But with this train of logic you can disprove anything, so it's not impossible for the earth to be round then either, or anything else you want to spout off.
It's irrelevant how ridiculous and absurd the motivation "for shits and giggles" is, the only value there is in discussing the motivation is in demonstrating the impossibility of any motivation to flat earth proponents. If you cannot even do this with the most ridiculous and absurd of motivations how can you do it with something that is more reasonable?
Your light bending model requires gravitation effect on light to change drastically from what we have observed.
Extreme light bending around stellar bodies is observed. Just look at how sharply the photons of a background star warps then the sun passes in front of it. And the sun is only 32 miles in diameter.Quote"According to Einstein's General Relativity Theory, light will be affected in the same way matter is affected by gravity. This is because under this theory, we should think of gravity not in terms of vector like forces, but as a consequence of the "shape" of the universe."
Gravitation via the bending of space-time has not been proven. Einstein never proved that the fabric of space-time exists. There's also a competing theory of Gravity in Quantum Mechanics where Gravity exists through a sub-atomic particle called the Graviton.
The program can take into account the motion of the rig and still falsify the position of the satellite. Like it does when it is originally looking for the satellites. Say if it was turned off or something.
Ahh, so we are back to the conspiracy. Add Garmin, Trimble and other GPS manufactures to the conspiracy list, in addition to the maintenance personnel for this worldwide network of antennas.
No I don't think so. The programers have data form NASA or the Air Force (which actually tracks the sats) which tells them where the sats are supposed to be. He progams that into the computer program while unbeknowst to the programer or user receiving a signal from another source all together.
I'm just curious, what causes LORAN's range to be limited?
The amount of actual towers, in a previous post of mine I linked the LORAN range map.
Yes, but why does any tower have a limited range?
I'm just curious, what causes LORAN's range to be limited?
What is that? Miles? Degrees off the horizon? 100s of thousands of feet? 100s of kilometers?
Degrees.
So I cant bounce a signal off the atmoplane and send it back to you making it look like a degree off the horizon?
or
The supposed "degrees" off the horizon could just be built into the program because that is where the sat is "supposed" to be. While actually still receiving a a signal from a land based tower.
Either one of those scenarios is plausible.
What type of land based tower could be utilized WORLD WIDE? Even LORAN, which Tom loves to bring up, isn't capable of world wide tracking.
Who said it was ONE tower?
What is that? Miles? Degrees off the horizon? 100s of thousands of feet? 100s of kilometers?
Degrees.
So I cant bounce a signal off the atmoplane and send it back to you making it look like a degree off the horizon?
or
The supposed "degrees" off the horizon could just be built into the program because that is where the sat is "supposed" to be. While actually still receiving a a signal from a land based tower.
Either one of those scenarios is plausible.
GPS on the other hand, depending on the monitoring correction used, and has an accuracy from 10-30cm.
I've heard that different GPS systems can have discrepancies of up to 95m, I know I tried using a satnav once and it tried to tell me I was in the middle of a shopping centre - I didn't bother after that.
The transmitter does not need to be in orbit or in space to triangulate a position. Look up the LORAN system, for example.
Nun: You don't believe in God because of Alice in Wonderland?
Loki: No, "Through the Looking Glass". That poem, "The Walrus and the Carpenter" that's an indictment of organized religion. The walrus, with his girth and his good nature, he obviously represents either Buddha, or... or with his tusk, the Hindu elephant god, Lord Ganesha. That takes care of your Eastern religions. Now the carpenter, which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ, who was raised a carpenter's son, he represents the Western religions. Now in the poem, what do they do... what do they do? They... They dupe all these oysters into following them and then proceed to shuck and devour the helpless creatures en masse. I don't know what that says to you, but to me it says that following these faiths based on mythological figures ensure the destruction of one's inner-being. Organized religion destroys who we are by inhibiting our actions... by inhibiting our decisions, out of... out of fear of some... some intangible parent figure who... who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says... and says, "Do it - Do it and I'll fuckin' spank you. "
Nun: The way you put it. I never thought of it like that before. What have I been doing with my life?
Loki: Yeah I know. Listen my advice to you, take this money you've been collecting for your parish, go get yourself a nice dress. Fix yourself up. Find some man, find some woman, that you can connect with even for a moment. Cause thats what life is sister, a series of moments. Go find yours.
I just wanted to point out that in the "Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium" post in the forums, there are some big holes in the way NASA and other space organizations could have covered this up. The post argues that the "top 3, at most, need to know [in NASA]". Well, I think you can agree, in the late 1960's and 1970's, lots of people were working for NASA. My grandfather was friends with some. What did these people do every day if they weren't covering up the moon landing? If the government just told them to pretend to work on something, don't you think they'd be extremely suspicious? They would have to know, and if they knew, the chance of someone being outraged and exposing the truth, screwing the consequences, would be a lot higher. I read the reasons that people would have to keep the "secret" (those reasons in themselves flawed, a few firebrands could easily break loose), what's stopping someone from revealing the moon landing was fake on their deathbed? What's stopping several people from doing this? Please answer without flaming and without adolescent obscenities, and give something in-depth.
And gravityslave, is that a thingy from Spore?
Gravityslave, I just noticed your avatar, and... I love you. :')
why there is no book?
I guess I'm an atheist as I don't believe in any god. Yet I do believe in the supernatural. I think there is an afterlife, but it's what we believe will happen while alive. For instance, if a christian who believes they've adhered to the bible and god's will, they will go to "heaven", or basically their consciousness will create a version of heaven for them to exist in. An atheist who believes we are worm food will cease to exist only so much that they shut down all external and internal stimuli and basically rot for eternity.Waht about those that have no clear belief on the afterlife?
I think there is an afterlife, but it's what we believe will happen while alive.I think this is the worldview I hate the most. It is completely illogical by any stretch of thought and has nothing at all behind it other then wishful thinking. Why would believe in an infinite amount of possible afterlives with unlimited possible experiences that you have never observed if you will not believe in one supernatural unobserved entity?
Sorry about that then. See what's happened? We've managed to sidetrack the thread with this. By the time any flat-Earthers get to this thread, it will be beyond recognition.
I propose that we delete our last few posts (my last 2 are already gone). Let's keep the thread on topic. tl;dr doesn't help, and neither does my response.
Besides, you've only got 39 posts. Would I be expected to find many of them? ;-)
I had found some previous posts on something like the topic, GravitySlave. But in the posts I found, the question hadn't appeared with a proposed method like this, and the responses were lame. But that doesn't change the fact that you haven't done it, and have no answer. Besides, about half of the length would be unnecessary if you guys weren't going to come back with such pathetic counters. Only half of the post is my proposal and subsequent taunting of you.
Answer the original post. Don't let a little fact like, YOU CAN'T, stop you from trying.
(Silly me for not considering, "Didn't read it" as one of the more likely objections. That's a tactic also used by the creationists to avoid science papers)
Anybody smarter than GravitySlave want to give it a go?
tl;dr
I often wonder about these responses. This is a forum on the internet. Words are typically used in places like this. If you come here you should expect to have to read.
Can you read a book? The post was shorter than a book, it was shorter than a newspaper, hell, it was shorter than a comic book.
Do you have a 10 second concentration span?
I don't have to explain it, there have been a few posts about this here. Use the search function...it does work.