Trump/GOP bullshit

[Softball Bat]

Ask Jay.
He claims we see the back end of the poles curving downward -- thus PROVING curvature.

Well look at the video I posted.
The front is CLEARLY curving upward, then.
lol

This is a photo from Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana. It is from 1969. No photo shop or digital effects. Just a print.



What do you see pops?

They aren't just visually vanishing, they are curving downward, proving curvature.

He failed and should just come in and admit it.

[Softball Bat]

You answered correctly.

The water is not curving upward toward the horizon in my video.
It only looks that way -- due to the placement of the camera.

Likewise, the water is not curving downward in Jay's dumb "proof" pic.

And click: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3_umFG ... pp=desktop

The poles are not curving up or down here.

It's a simple case of a vanishing point.


Jay posted a dumb pic as PROOF of earth curvature and it simply isn't.

If this equates to me "needing help," I'm not going to waste any time figuring out how you became so confused.

[atmdad]

Yo Poptart,

Since you have boots in country, when is S. Korea going to wake up from the Lunar New Year/Olympics hangover? They need to get back to work.

[Softball Bat]

It's kind of normal here.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Pops, where on this round ol' planet Earth did I say the "water is curving downward." I said the towers "appear" to be curving into the horizon. It's the same effect as ships moving out to sea away from the eye. When they reach the horizon, they "appear" to "sink" into the line of sight.

What part of this is confusing you?

[Goober McTuber]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Washington (CNN) — Democrats claimed a landslide victory in a special election for a Kentucky House district that voted heavily for Donald Trump in 2016.

Linda Belcher, a Democrat, won the special election for Kentucky's House District 49 on Tuesday with 3,386 votes. Rebecca Johnson, a Republican, received 1,561 votes, according to official results from Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes.

Johnson is the widow of Republican state Rep. Dan Johnson, who narrowly defeated Belcher, then an incumbent, in 2016 and committed suicide late last year. The lawmaker had been accused of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in 2013 in a report by the Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting. He committed suicide a day after he denied the allegations.

Trump won the district with 72% of the vote in 2016. Belcher's win is the 37th Republican-held state legislative seat that Democrats have picked off since Trump took office.

Belcher will serve out the rest of Johnson's term, which ends in December.

According to the Courier-Journal in Louisville, Johnson's campaign manager claimed their election loss was a result of voter fraud. In a statement, Johnson said she had heard about people being turned away from the polls, adding that "it's like we are in a third world country."

Kentucky's Board of Elections will certify the results of the special election on February 27.

[Derron]

Sheesh, I go away for one lousy week and you all turn my wonderful thread into a huge hair-pulling contest. Fuck all y'all. I come back and start posting copious and boring amounts of worthless cut and paste shit. I would tell you how I banged the wife on our anniversary trip but it did not happen so nothing to tell.

FTFY.

[Goober McTuber]

Just trying to annoy the right wingnuts.

[Softball Bat]

Pops, where on this round ol' planet Earth did I say the "water is curving downward." I said the towers "appear" to be curving into the horizon. It's the same effect as ships moving out to sea away from the eye. When they reach the horizon, they "appear" to "sink" into the line of sight.

What part of this is confusing you?

What do you see pops?

They aren't just visually vanishing, they are curving downward, proving curvature.

My goodness.

You are a complete mess in this thread, Jay.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Did that say anything about water pops? No, it did not. I was referring to the towers. Which are curving down, unlike the video.

Can you even read? Apparently not.

The only mess here is the one in Sale's soiled diaper and your soft brain.

[Softball Bat]

They (towers) aren't just visually vanishing, they are curving downward, proving curvature.

Did that say anything about water pops? No, it did not. I was referring to the towers. Which are curving down.

The towers are curving downward (proving curvature), but the water is not?

lol





Eject, Jay.

[Jay in Phoenix]

The towers are curving downward (proving curvature), but the water is not?

lol

No.

The picture clearly shows the towers appearing to curve. The water on the horizon, appears as a straight line. To see anything differently, you have to ascend into space to truly see curvature. This has been repeated ad nauseam. You, like Sale, are too hung up on the minutiae of the photo. Concentrate on the planet and gravity. There is no point addressing the shape, as you say you don't know what it is, but oddly, you DO know it isn't a globe. Okay. You insist we don't go into space and there are no satellites. You're freaking nuts, but okay again.

So instead, I'll ask you a question I have before, one you continue to duck. Doing so again will prove you can't address this honestly.

How is it, that you receive signals on your smart phone and wireless internet?

Clock is ticking pops.

[Softball Bat]

The picture clearly shows the towers appearing to curve.

Appearing.
Right.

And you admit the water is not curving.


You came in and said the pic is PROOF of curvature.

It isn't.


I'm not interested in talking about satellites, Jay.

I asked for someone to post proof of earth curvature.

Satellites will not prove your globe.


Your globe is a dumb fantasy.

[Left Seater]

It's a simple case of a vanishing point.

This is another falsehood on your part. The lower of the power line towers disappearing isn't due to a vanishing point. At a vanishing point all of the tower would disappear, not just the lower parts of the towers.

[Softball Bat]

Wrong.



Educate yourself.

It'll take 3 minutes and 11 seconds.









The bottom of the umbrella disappears first.

[Derron]

How is it, that you receive signals on your smart phone and wireless internet?

Clock is ticking pops.

Maybe he can explain if the earth is truly flat why do we need so damn many cell towers ?

[Softball Bat]

x 467...

I don't declare that the earth is any given shape.

[Softball Bat]

The most logical thing to look at is the curvature.

The globe curvature is not there.

That being so, the globe is not true.


The globe lovers insist that people believe SO many illogical things.
It truly is staggering.

Once you step away from your assumptions and then begin to look at the topic with an open mind, it's pretty easy to see how ludicrous the heliocentric model is.


That does not mean that the earth is necessarily flat.
That is my assumption.

There are many reasons why I assume that.

[Moving Sale]

Pops, where on this round ol' planet Earth did I say the "water is curving downward." I said the towers "appear" to be curving into the horizon. It's the same effect as ships moving out to sea away from the eye. When they reach the horizon, they "appear" to "sink" into the line of sight.

What part of this is confusing you?

STFU you stupid lying fuck. Produce the pic with a 1969 stamp or admit you lied.
You fucking POS.

[Left Seater]

Wrong.



Educate yourself.

It'll take 3 minutes and 11 seconds.



The bottom of the umbrella disappears first.

Holly crap you really suck at this. Nowhere in that video is vanishing point or discussed or presented.

Further there is a clear obstacle (a board) in front of the “eye”. This is the reason the lower part of the umbrella stand is the last to appear. The guy tries to claim that the board is like a wave on a body of water. Uh no.

Further, your “educational” video supports the globe earth model. Across a large body of water the lower part of the high line towers (umbrella) would be obscured by the water (board).

Thanks for posting this video. By all means please post more of these that prove a globe earth.

Vanishing point, explains the lower part of something disappearing. And sorry yes, we are laffing at you.

[Jay in Phoenix]

STFU you stupid lying fuck. Produce the pic with a 1969 stamp or admit you lied.
You fucking POS.

Oh hell no, not at this point. It's too much fun making you dance on strings, little puppet.

Answer my questions, then maybe, just maybe I'll show you how Google can be your friend.

Otherwise, piss off.

[Moving Sale]

I'M the one that decided to call you out for being a liar. I'm not on anyone's strings you lying fuck.
1969 indeed.

[Jay in Phoenix]

You really are clueless.

Those strings just keep getting tighter and shorter.

1969 indeed. Look at the picture. Look at the video.

See the difference. See the truth.

Pull your head out of poptart's ass. It's blinding you.

[Moving Sale]

What picture? The one you lied about?

[Softball Bat]

This is another falsehood on your part. The lower of the power line towers disappearing isn't due to a vanishing point. At a vanishing point all of the tower would disappear, not just the lower parts of the towers.

Holly crap you really suck at this. Nowhere in that video is vanishing point or discussed or presented.

Of course it is, silly.




On your globe, when the sun sets, why does it vanish?

It goes under the earth's curvature, right?

That point is called the horizon, right?

If you are 6 ft tall, that point is 3 miles in the distance, right?

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial


Nod your head three times.







There ya go.

It's what is in the video.

Don't be a dummy.

Further there is a clear obstacle (a board) in front of the “eye”. This is the reason the lower part of the umbrella stand is the last to appear.

LOL


pssst...

The "obstacle" when you view a sunset is the ground.

Go up in a tower and the sun sets a few minutes later, right?

Yes, because the obstacle has been removed.

Nod your head, Einstein.

[Softball Bat]

t is obviously SOME sort of fucking shape. Since you seem to be an expert on this matter, why not tell us what it is?

How can I know?


The curvature for the globe is not present.

THAT I know.

[Softball Bat]

Jay is crapping the bed... completely.

Wow.

[Softball Bat]

People measure from the ground, 'spray.
It has been posted over and over again.

The earth curves (we are told), and so distant objects must sink below the horizon by a certain amount based on how far away they are.

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial


But what we see is that the objects DO NOT sink under the horizon at a rate which is consistent with the globe model.

Globe = not true.



I have asked for the globe zealots to show me the curvature.

They have not.

[Softball Bat]

If the earth is a globe of the dimensions we are told, I don't think you could see much curvature at all from 35,000 ft.

So no, I have not been high enough to see it.

The windows on an airliner are curved, anyway, so there is distortion.


Both Jay and Lefty claim to have seen the curvature from the air.
lol

But of course they have not posted any such picture.

[Left Seater]

The windows on an airliner are curved, anyway, so there is distortion.


Both Jay and Lefty claim to have seen the curvature from the air.
lol

But of course they have not posted any such picture.

1). I don’t take photos at work as it is against our company regulations.

B) Posting photos is a waste of time with you. You claim everything to be fake which is laffable itself.

@) That video is not your friend. But keep on selling it like it is. Showed it around th ready from today and got a bunch of laffs.

[Softball Bat]

You are viewing two objects, one 10 ft tall and the other 3 ft tall.

You watch the objets as you move, move, move away from the objects... to the vanishing point.

Do they vanish at the same time?

Take your time.


rotf...


Come correct.
Or continue to show abject stupidity.

[Softball Bat]

The vanishing point is located... where?







Wow!
It's at the horizon?

Who knew?

At a vanishing point all of the tower would disappear, not just the lower parts of the towers.

See the above drawing.

Something near the ground has vanished, yes?

What about a 500 ft tower?

Vanished?
lol



Light bulb coming on? :idea:

Video still looking stoopid to you?

[Left Seater]

You are viewing two objects, one 10 ft tall and the other 3 ft tall.

You watch the objets as you move, move, move away from the objects... to the vanishing point.

Do they vanish at the same time?

Take your time.


rotf...


Come correct.
Or continue to show abject stupidity.

I am pretty convinced that you are just trolling and as such you got me. Hook, line and sinker. On the slight chance you aren’t trolling:

Think about what you are saying. Your point is the three foot object disappears before the 50 foot object. I would agree. But ask yourself why can I still see the upper 47 feet of the 50 foot object if there isn’t curvature? In your flat earth if I can see any part of the building I should be able to see all of it.

[Softball Bat]

I am pretty convinced that you are just trolling

Why in the world would you think I am trolling?
lol

You just got your ASS KICKED!

Unreal.

Think about what you are saying. Your point is the three foot object disappears before the 50 foot object. I would agree.

Very true.



Yet previously, you said exactly the opposite...

At a vanishing point all of the tower would disappear, not just the lower parts of the towers.

And because you made this asinine statement previously, I posted the video which EXPLAINED why you were wrong.

And you mocked it.

But now you've come correct.

That is progress.

But ask yourself why can I still see the upper 47 feet of the 50 foot object if there isn’t curvature?

I have asked myself this question.
The answer is very simple.

The video explained this, as well.

In the video, is earth curvature cutting off the bottom of the umbrella?


Nope.

He is simply low to the ground and the bottom of the object he is viewing is therefore cut off.

When he gets to a higher elevation, he can see all of the umbrella.

It is a matter of perspective.

It is that simple.

[Left Seater]

But ask yourself why can I still see the upper 47 feet of the 50 foot object if there isn’t curvature?

I have asked myself this question.
The answer is very simple.

The video explained this, as well.

In the video, is earth curvature cutting off the bottom of the umbrella?

Nope.

He is simply low to the ground and the bottom of the object he is viewing is therefore cut off.

When he gets to a higher elevation, he can see all of the umbrella.

It is a matter of perspective.

It is that simple.

You so want to believe something that you refuse to open your eyes or your mind. In the video the guy puts an artificial obstruction between the eye and the object. This doesn’t show vanishing point. All it shows is you will accept anything to attempt to explain your conspiracy theory.

You are trying to claim that objects have unlimited vanishing points. You want an infinite number of vanishing points on a tower based on distance from the object. That isn’t how it works. Unreal. Laffable.

Go back and read what you just wrote again.

I have asked myself this question.
The answer is very simple.

The video explained this, as well.

In the video, is earth curvature cutting off the bottom of the umbrella?

Nope. The board the guy artificially placed in front of the camera is why we can’t see all or some of the umbrella.

He is simply low to the ground and the bottom of the object he is viewing is therefore cut off.

It is cut off by the board he placed in front of the camera!

If perspective actually explained this he wouldn’t need the board. But he does need the board to make it dissappear. Ask yourself why? The ask your self why we don’t see a shot of the umbrella without the board in place?

When he gets to a higher elevation, he can see all of the umbrella.

This is because he gets above the artificial obstruction he placed in the way of the umbrella.

So ask yourself this question. Where is the artificial board in the photo of the power line towers?

[Goober McTuber]

Washington (CNN) — Former Donald Trump campaign official Rick Gates will plead guilty to two criminal charges in special counsel Robert Mueller's wide-ranging investigation of Russian meddling into the 2016 presidential campaign and related activities.

His arraignment is scheduled for 2 p.m. Friday.

Gates is now the third Trump associate known to be working with Mueller's investigation, and his plea deal will put the spotlight on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Prosecutors are trying to pressure Manafort to speak with prosecutors about what he knows, particularly about the campaign.

Gates was Manafort's right-hand man for a decade, was privy to most, if not all, of Manafort's activities during the campaign and stayed in the Trump orbit after Manafort's exit. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to all charges against him.

The charges Gates is expected to plead to are conspiracy to commit to defraud the United States and making false statements.

Thursday, prosecutors described a "scheme" in which the two longtime business partners allegedly laundered $30 million, failed to pay taxes for almost 10 years and used real estate they owned to fraudulently secure more than $20 million in loans.

Gates said that despite his "initial desire to vigorously defend myself," he has had a "change of heart" in order to protect his family, according to a letter sent to his family and friends, obtained by CNN from a Gates friend.

"The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much," Gates wrote. "I will better serve my family moving forward by exiting this process."

He wrote that it was "difficult decision" to make, but that ensuring his family's "well-being is first and foremost."

"The consequence is the public humiliation, which at this moment seems like a small price to pay for what our children would have to endure otherwise," he said.

Last Friday, the special counsel produced grand jury indictments for 13 Russian nationals, accusing them of operating a misinformation campaign to hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential effort.

Gates has been in negotiations with Mueller's office for more than a month, and that Gates had spoken to prosecutors about his case since his indictment, CNN previously reported.

Defense lawyer Tom Green, who's handled the plea negotiation for Gates, told the court he'd represent Gates officially Thursday night, a strong indication that Gates was on the precipice of a plea deal with prosecutors. Gates' trial lawyers have now left the case.

Even as of yesterday, Gates' friends had tried to convince him not to plead guilty and sought for him a lawyer who would discount his cost, but Gates changed his mind.

Gates rejected several offers of a deal from the special counsel in recent days. Although at times this week a deal appeared to be off, talks were still continuing throughout Thursday until the deal was done, according to sources familiar with the matter.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Jay is crapping the bed... completely.

Wow.

You and Sale have had your asses handed to you up and down this thread.

Your denial is off the charts and your refusal to view evidence (and no, I'm not talking about that damn picture) when presented is fundamentally stupid. When asked to view alternate videos, or any other science or math that isn't convenient to you, you simply ignore it. You refuse to answer direct questions. You pretend like you haven't been asked or shown alternatives.

You and the dwarf are cowards.

Now seriously, drop this crap and return Goober's thread before you get banned again for sheer stupidity.

[Moving Sale]

You lied about the picture you presented and you have the audacity to say *I* had my ass handed to me?
:grin:

[Jay in Phoenix]

Yes exactly. Now, do you have any other redundantly stupid questions?

[Dinsdale]

vanishing points.

This one's been killing me. I'd love to hear the science behind this "vanishing point" phenomenon.

Things suddenly disappear (apparently at varying rates) based on distance?

That's news to anyone who has ever looked through a telescope.