What you call “worldly travels,” I call work.
If you wish to have an actual conversation on this topic, first address my two points. Why should I continue if you don't?
Did I provide enough evidence to prove that planes can logistically fill up faster than you thought because of multiple tanks?
Did I provide enough evidence to prove that human skin can withstand a direct spray from a 2.5” fire hose?
I actually used to be a firefighter.
You seem to be confused about the psi in a 2.5” fire hose. The psi is only 250. It really is not all that damaging. The plane would be fine.
In the fire academy, a 2.5” hose slipped off the hydrant and sprayed me in the face… I did not lose my skin lol. It felt like a normal punch.
We do not need to rely on my anecdotal evidence, Youtube is full of examples of people getting sprayed with a 2.5” hose:
2.5” hose is used in crowd control (people get sprayed with it). There are several Jackass stunts where they get sprayed with a 2.5” hose.
So that is TWO things that are mathematically/ demonstrably incorrect about your “theory.”
-
Multiple tanks makes filling up faster. You incorrectly assumed there is only 1 fill port.
-
The psi in a 2.5” hose would NOT “destroy a plane.” You incorrectly assumed the psi is more damaging than it actually is.
Your theory has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Now it’s your turn. Please call me another name because you are not able to formulate a good counter argument.
Your source claimed it would be impossible to fill up the tanks as fast as they do. I demonstrated mathematically why that is incorrect. Multiple tanks explain the fill time “issue.”
I presented you with evidence that your source is wrong about the fill time conundrum. Instead of discussing, debating, or acknowledging my point, you just called me a name. Shame.
“Or in the case of building 7, what other building had huge chunks of burning debris from an even taller adjacent building crash into them?”
Are you serious? Have you ever heard about any war? Buildings get hit by bombs and explosives ALL THE TIME. We have a large pool of examples to choose from.
But honestly, that does not matter.
-the way in which building 1,2, and 7 collapsed is unique. That type of collapse never happened before 9/11, even after catastrophic fires, bombimgs, and earthquakes.
-Building 1, 2, and 7 are the first recorded examples of a building falling in such a manner, outside of controlled demolition.
-At the time and for years after, both sides (mainstream and counter) agreed that normal fires and damage could not result in that type of collapse. That is WHY jet fuel became such a hot topic. Jet fuel was the explanation as to why such a UNIQUE collapse happened.
-years later the source you provided gave the official explanation for building 7.
Unless you disagree with one of those specific points, we should just accept the fact that we came to different conclusions.
That is all fine and dandy, IF, you can not remember firsthand the history about how building 1 and 2 fell. This is very similar to the national debate on covid and the mRNA vaccines. The people have no memory, so they can change history at will, and most will gladly accept their new history.
Let me sum the history up for people with bad memories or that were too young:
-Several buildings have burned and collapsed throughout history.
-Several buildings were damaged and/or collapsed during 9/11.
-three fell in a very unique and curious manner that day, almost straight down into its footprint (however, all 3 slightly leaned).
-there are no other examples ever recorded or evidence of buildings falling that way before 9/11 (a couple of examples after). This is an ABSOLUTE statement, it would be VERY easy to prove me wrong, if I am).
-1000s of professionals and scientists came out claiming the manner in which building 1 and 2 fell was impossible. They claimed no amount of fire or damage could result in that kind of collapse. In fact, the buildings were designed NOT to do that.
-THIS ONE IS THE BIG ONE. THEN 1000s of other professionals and scientists AGREED with everything the first group was saying. But they had an ace up their sleeve, “it was the jet fuel.”
-after much debate, the official explanation was the jet fuel. The jet fuel, supposedly, burned so hot, the building’s floors imploded into itself, resulting in a free fall (or close to).
-the only problem, jet fuel was not in building 7. Additionally, everything Building 7 was censored on MSM. I can show you clips of interviews ending right as building 7 is mentioned.
-YEARS LATER, this half baked explanation to building 7 was concocted, ignoring all the jet fuel “science” that explained the free fall collapse.
So the highly unusual and unlikely event of a building free falling into their own footprint (not 100% free fall or 100% into the footprint, before you “correct” me) happened 3 times that day… with TWO completely different explanations.
If you still believe this obvious re-writing of history, I only have one more thing to say to you, “Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
The light is on the OTHER side of the centerline. This will result in even MORE of an angle.
“accurate to within 15 minutes or less.”
15 minutes on either side is a 30 minute range, like I said. You need to “adjust” for that seasonally. The sundial does not have to be physically moved, the time needs adjustment. Can’t believe I need to spell that out.
“guess 1 or 2 degrees”
We do not need to guess, 30 minutes on a sundial is 20 degrees. Get a protractor and sundial and measure yourself. It is very funny you guessed 1-2, way WAY off.
To sum up, your 45 degree estimate is way too big. And your estimate of 1-2 degrees is way too small.
In no way does analemma disprove my claim.
But you are right, sundials do not NEED to be adjusted seasonally… unless you want to accurately tell time with it seasonally. However they will remain accurate on a year to year basis without adjustment (like the ancient sundials you speak of).
“You can capture an annalema by taking a picture of the sun at one location, every 24 hours, for a whole year.”
If you do the same thing with the shadow of a post, or sundial, the same figure 8 shape will appear. The “fat” part of the figure 8 is not “minuscule” when it comes to telling time.
The noon shadow on a sundial varies and has a range of over 30 minutes throughout the year. Sundials are only accurate April 15, June 15, September 1 and December 24 (the exact middle of the analemma, and what most sundials are zeroed to).
You said sundials wont work on a globe because they would point in different directions seasonally. THEY DO, 100% fact.
Your meme also shows an exaggerated difference in “noon” shadows by not having the point centered on the globe. In the left picture, the point is set to the right of center. In the right picture, the point is set to the left of center. This will result in a more drastic angle. It is essentially comparing the 11 am-ish shadow to the 1 pm-ish shadow.
Here is a picture showing this:
https://gab.com/TheGreyGuy/posts/110703866648658230
I know how you people continuously move the goal post, so I am done. Have a good life.
Sun dials need to be adjusted throughout the year to account for axial tilt. If you do not, you will get inaccurate times (as seen in your meme). Get you own sun dial and you will see for yourself.
“Solar time and clock time line up at noon on April 15, June 15, September 1 and December 24, which is why those days are recommended for setting a sundial. If you want your sundial to be as accurate as possible, reset your dial on each of those dates.”
This is something you can test yourself with a post. Mark the shadow of the post at noon once a week for a year. You WILL see the same shadow patterns that your meme is showing, 100%.
Sun dials DO in fact “point In drastically different directions through the 4 seasons.”
Congratulations, this is probably the best argument AGAINST the flat earth model I ever saw. Why would sun dials “point In drastically different directions through the 4 seasons” on a flat earth?
Source
Picture this:
Scientists find the ancient skeletal remains of a new fox species that is almost identical to the modern day fox. Years later it is discovered that it has retractable claws like a cat, and somehow the first reconstruction missed it. After this, it becomes widely believed that this “foxcat” is a missing link between canines and cats.
Which comparison is more accurate and honest?: https://gab.com/TheGreyGuy/posts/110075076999518115
Hope you have a good weekend!
Almost all of my “questions” have been testable. Which one of my testable hypotheses do you disagree with?
My testable hypotheses #1. Lucy has more in common with the bonobo than it does with the chimpanzee. After testing, she does.
My testable hypotheses #2. Every bipedal trait that Lucy has, besides the fishy pelvis, the bonobo has. After testing, true.
My testable hypotheses #3. The history of Lucy’s pelvis is fishy. After testing, Yup.
My testable hypotheses #4. Lucy is consistently shown as an intermediate link between chimpanzees and humans as seen in this picture: https://gab.com/TheGreyGuy/posts/110074854558261993
My conclusion: It would be more accurate to compare Lucy to a bonobo than a chimpanzee.
My opinion: I believe the comparison of Lucy and the bonobo is avoided because she wouldn’t look different enough to convince the general public that she is a missing link. She is intentionally only compared to chimpanzees, because doing so makes her look like more of a “midground” between chimps and humans.
I feel like you think I am arguing something I am not. I am only saying it would be more appropriate to compare Lucy to a bonobo.
Do you think Lucy is closer to the bonobo or the chimpanzee?
If she is closer, why is she only compared to the chimpanzee?
You say “‘Questioning’ is not how science works” but in the very next sentence say science is “making testable ‘questions,’ called hypotheses.”
And the bonobo DOES walk upright. I never said he walks exclusively upright. They are also much better bipedal walkers than chimps and have several bipedal muscular and skeletal traits that normal chimps DO NOT have. It is disingenuous of you to compare the upright walking of bonobos to chimps.
Additionally, there is NO way to know if australopithecus afarensis walked upright exclusively.
“Yea, the reconstruction story is fishy, but that's just the pelvis, not the knees and the femur.”
BONOBOS have the SAME knees and femurs! The only tangible difference is the “fishy” pelvis.
“Do bonobos and Lucy have a common ancestor?”
It is likely that the bonobo is a direct descendant of australopithecus afarensis. I think that is far more likely, given their similarities, than saying humans descended from australopithecus afarensis.
Do you think it is misleading to compare Lucy to a chimpanzee instead of a bonobo?
Do you think a bonobo is much more similar to Lucy?
Questioning is how science works. To say I can’t question one evidence line of evolution without questioning all of evolution… sounds like a religion.
There is nothing to question about the knees and femur. The bonobo chimp has valgus knees and an identical femoral head and neck. And the bonobo ALSO walks upright.
Source for bonobo upright walk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJSYQ9l-Xdw Source for femur, Just some ronding from age and maybe some “distortion”: https://gab.com/TheGreyGuy/posts/110069194596937737
You agree with most, if not all my points. We just came up with a different conclusion. Which is fine!
1- Lucy was originally reconstructed to have a normal ape pelvic bone.
2- later it was re-reconstructed to look human.
3- the reconstruction story is “fishy.”
4- Lucy and the bonobo look almost identical, and any differences can be explained with “distortions” from fossilizing.
5- Despite the similarities, there are no studies comparing them (fishy), but tons comparing them to chimpanzees. I made this to highlight my point. https://gab.com/TheGreyGuy/posts/110069336445670561
I fully understand the argument as to why they re-reconstructed it. I just think it lacks credibility: During the fossilization process, the pelvic bone distorted. This distortion just happened to make it look like a normal chimp pelvic bone. It looked so much like a normal ape pelvic that the World renowned paleoanthropologist, Donald Johanson of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, reconstructed it wrong…
I think that is a bit fishy. Additionally, couldn’t “distortions” account for many more differences?
Besides the re-reconstructed pelvic bone, Lucy and the bonobo are almost identical. The bonobo’s knees (and several other skeletal features) are relevant, because it shows how similar the bonobo is to Lucy. The bonobo is WAY more similar to Lucy than the normal chimp.
Do you agree that it is disingenuous to compare Lucy to a normal chimp when the bonobo is so much more alike?
Try to find one article or study comparing Lucy to a bonobo. Keep in mind, there are hundreds of articles comparing Lucy to a normal chimp. And they all use how different the normal chimp is from Lucy as proof of Lucy being a missing link. Almost all these differences vanish when comparing Lucy to a bonobo.
Keep in mind, at no point did I say anything about evolution. Me questioning the legitimacy of Lucy is not me questioning evolution. I like to keep my arguments narrow.
It proves my claim that Lucy’s first reconstructed pelvis looked like a normal apes. It was later reconstructed to look human.
The skeleton was “distorted” to appear like a normal ape’s pelvis. What are the chances?
Can you agree that both those things together can lead someone to be skeptical?
It claims that Lucy has “valgus knees.” So do female bonobo chimps. I address that in my post, however I am rather vague. I didn't want to overcrowd the infographic.
Source for bonobo Valgus knees: https://gab.com/TheGreyGuy/posts/110068564155931883
Just wanted to add, I am liking the civil back and forth.
No problem at all.
“they threw a party at the camp site because they immediately knew what the skeleton represented” this is 100% false. My source below will prove that.
Paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History discovered and reconstructed Lucy with a normal ape pelvic. Later, Tim White RE-reconstructed it to resemble a human pelvis.
“Johanson recovered Lucy's left innominate bone and sacrum. Though the sacrum was remarkably well preserved, the innominate was distorted, leading to two different reconstructions. The first reconstruction had little iliac flare and virtually no anterior wrap, creating an ilium that greatly resembled that of an ape. However, this reconstruction proved to be faulty, as the superior pubic rami would not have been able to connect were the right ilium identical to the left. A later reconstruction by Tim White showed a broad iliac flare and a definite anterior wrap, indicating that Lucy had an unusually broad inner acetabular distance and unusually long superior pubic rami.”
Source: https://www.daily-sun.com/magazine/details/93914/LUCY:-3.2-MILLION-YEARS-OLD-HOMINID
The pelvic structure was RE-reconstructed.
Lucy was discovered and reconstructed by paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. "The first reconstruction had little iliac flare and virtually no anterior wrap, creating an ilium that greatly resembled that of an ape." A later reconstruction by Tim White reassembled the pieces to appear "similar to modern human females."
That alone should be a red flag on the legitimacy of Lucy’s pelvic structure. A world renowned paleoanthropologist, with nothing to prove, reconstructed it. And it looked exactly like an ape’s pelvis. Years later it was RE-reconstructed to resemble a human pelvis.
Additionally, Lucy is only ever compared to a common chimpanzee. The differences between Lucy and common chimps are used as proof to it being a missing link. However, its closest modern day equivalent is obviously the bonobo chimp. When Lucy is compared to a bonobo chimp, those differences completely vanish… beside the RE-reconstructed pelvic bone. Interesting enough, the original reconstruction was identical to a bonobo’s pelvic bone.
Bonobo chimps and australopithecus afarensis are almost identical. Comparing Lucy to anything other than a bonobo is disingenuous. They are the same size, live(d) in the same area, and both have identical bipedal features (besides the RE-reconstructed pelvic).
Source for bonobo chimps bipedal muscular/ skeletal characteristics: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2018.00053/full
They are from Australopithecus afarensis.
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/dik-1-1
Learn to reverse image search before getting mad!
As a general rule of thumb, any diet that will have you remove entire food groups is bad. The human body needs a variety of foods for health. Even sugar is essential. Natural sugar, like honey and fruit, is extremely beneficial. Do not remove food groups from your diet, remove FAKE “food” from your diet. What is fake food?
“Zero calories, sugar free, and low calorie” are all red flag terms for fake/ processed food. Real food has calories. When something is sweet, but has no sugar, it uses non-food chemicals that our bodies can’t process. When something is filling, but has low calories, it is processed shit. This processed, fake food is extremely unhealthy.
Many fad diets will have you remove carbs, meat, fat, or vegetables. These fad diets are so popular because many people see drastic and rapid improvement when first transitioning to them. This SHORT TERM improvement is typically caused by the unintentional removal of fake/ processed food. At first the vegan feels and looks great, give it time and they look like death. At first keto will make you feel better, give it time and it will make you feel like shit.
We are told by “health experts” that we should remove several food groups to have a healthy diet. Red meat, egg yolks, butter, salt, and fat are all demonized and are used as scapegoats for the degrading western life expectancy and health. Red meat, egg yolks, butter, salt, and fat are all extremely healthy, nutrient rich superfoods.
“The government has gone to great lengths to make wearing the mask look insane, but do not succumb to this social engineering. In the event of a real epidemic, it is advisable that both sick people and those who come in contact with them wear masks.”
This author is a mask pusher, with no understanding of medicine, statistics, or science.
The author claims that there is a 52 year cycle of natural disasters, and 2023 is the start of the next one. He then sources several pages of natural disasters that happened within a few years of one of these cycles. He uses this as evidence to back his claim. However, he fails to mention the 1000s of other natural disasters that did NOT fit into this 52 year cycle.
If 2023 is the start of a new cycle, then the following are also the starts of new cycles:
2023, 1971, 1919, 1867, 1815, 1763, 1711, 1659, 1607… 1087, 1035, 983… 619, 567, 515, 463, 411… 151, 99, 47
Here is a list of the 11 largest and most violent volcanic eruptions in history with known dates [1]:
Mount Vesuvius — Italy, 79 A.D. Huaynaputina — Peru, 1600 Laki — Iceland, 1783 Krakatoa — Sunda Strait, 1883 Santa Maria Volcano — Guatemala, 1902 Novarupta — Alaska, 1912 Mount Pinatubo — Philippines, 1991 -Ambrym Island — Republic of Vanuatu, 50 A.D. Mount Ilopango — El Salvador, 450 A.D. Baitoushan Volcano — China, 1000 A.D. -Mount Tambora — Indonesia, 1815
Only 2 of the 11 eruptions are within 5 years of one of these 52 year cycles. This author is a hack and peddling nonsense.
Reference
[1] https://thelistwire.usatoday.com/lists/12-of-the-most-powerful-volcanic-eruptions-in-history/
The video you sent, specifically says the southern stars will travel along a “great southern arc” allowing people from any part south of the Equator to see the same stars… as they move toward them, them move away from them.
But the Southern Celestial Pole (SCP), is unmoving. It is stationary. It is just as stationary as the North Celestial Pole (North Star).
Your videos and sources do not support your current statements. Nor do they explain how the SCP is stationary all night long, but can be viewed from anywhere south of the Equator.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
If me asking a follow up question is “foaming at the mouth,” then surely expecting me to explain all of NASA’s lies away is too.
We agree NASA lies as I establish from my 1st response. Nothing to debate there, but yet you keep bring it up... for some reason. Deflection, maybe.
I was responding to deferent people making similar points. The replies are going to similar. But every reply was respectful.
This is my opinion, but I think NASA lies because they know and are capable of so much less than they claim.
Can you tell me, how 2, and only 2, celestial poles, that are always consistently revolving around the same points regardless of viewing point on Earth fits into the flat Earth theory?
In the video you linked, at 2:45, he says the stars “sweep over a great southern arc,” and that is why people in the Southern Hemisphere can all see the same stars, but not at the same time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADNeFSuKnqM
If that was true, there should be lateral movement throughout the night when time-lapsing the southern celestial pole (SNP). It would have to slowly drift through the field of vision as it makes its way around its “great southern arc.” That movement would get picked up in time-lapse photography. So we should see movement in the time-lapses. But we don’t. All night long, the position of the Southern Celestial Pole is fixed.
The Southern Celestial Pole does not drift in any time-lapse. It is always stationary in the sky with all southern stars rotating around it. Just like the North Celestial Pole.
Further, if the SCP was the simple result of perspective, and not a tangible spot in space, then the center point of the spiral should vary (even if just slightly) as our perspective changes. But the center point is always the say, regardless of where it is viewed from, just like the North Pole (NCP).
I will answer those questions when you acknowledge my points. Can you not answer them?
Did I provide enough evidence to prove that planes can logistically fill up faster than you thought because of multiple tanks?
Did I provide enough evidence to prove that human skin can withstand a direct spray from a 2.5” fire hose?
I will explain the weight “issue” that you are perceiving, after you answer my questions.