The irony is that the article linked doesn't even dispute round earth, it's just calculations for a circumstance where round earth is not relevant, so inclusion of calculations OF round earth would be a retarded waste of time (damaged aircraft flight behavior, etc.).
Are we really so easy to manipulate that the MSM can tell the truth to get us to believe lies?
Be wary about how much you derive truth from the MSM, be it by believing their narrative blindly or by following it blindly.
I'll bite.
Source 1:
These are papers written under the premise of a flat earth; that does not mean that they are considering the earth flat, it just means that for the purpose of the work within the paper, they are. For applications where fine precision or low scale engineering is necessary, the inclusion of the more complex factors of a rotating round earth are not necessary, and make the problem more complex. What these papers appear to talk about are phenomenon that are small enough scale that they can be calculated with decent accuracy in a more controlled (flat and non moving earth) environment.
They most certainly leave out n-body calculations in these papers as well (the effects of other planets/moons on the aircraft/etc. in question), does that mean the moon doesn't exist or those effects don't exist? No! It just means that the effects are so marginally small in this application that they can be ignored.
Further articles described here include the effects of air resistance on unguided missiles at extreme altitude (NOT the effects of a round earth), programs to fine tune fly-by-wire adjustments in aircraft (again, earth's roundness is irrelevant), landing in changing wind conditions, and helicopter rotor characteristics.
All simulation relies on simplification. These papers are attempting to derive complex factors into a simplified set of equations and data that could, if need be, be injected into a more complicated system. This cannot be done without isolating those factors as much as possible; in other words, following one of the most fundamental principles of science [keep experiments, etc. to only one variable if you are seeking to determine value for that variable].
Let me ask you a question. If you wanted to figure out how your best friend would react to you buying a new truck of a certain kind, would you take into account what your mother would think in your best friend's reaction? (assuming they're not the same person). No, because the impact of what your mother thinks on what your best friend would think would be minimal. That's what is going on here, as well.
Source 2:
Context: If this video upload date is accurate to the interview date, Buzz Aldrin would have been 88 years old; you can see that age in how he responds pretty clearly; as with most senior folk, it has reduced the clarity of his speech to some degree. Anyway, here is my interpretation of what is being said here:
The girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?"
Aldrin: "hah! That's not an 8-year-old's question. That's my question [why haven't we gone back to the moon yet]. I wanna know. But I think I know. Because we didn't go there [in a long time]... and that's the way it happened... and if it didn't happen [us going back to the moon], it's nice to know why it didn't happen, so in the future, if we want to keep doing something [going to the moon], we need to know why... something stopped - in the past, we wanted to keep going."
Regardless of your interpretation, it's clear he is struggling to be clear in his response. But it seems pretty clear to me he is reiterating the same question she asked and explaining its importance, likely because he doesn't have an answer for himself. He is saying, "You're right, why didn't we go back to the moon? I think I know, but either way, it's a good question to ask, because, like it or not, we haven't gone back in a long time, and we should look at why if we want to go back again."
Keep in mind this is the same man that, within the past ten years, punched someone for saying he didn't go to the moon. (crappily edited video, but it's the only one I could quickly find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQKVdVqFZv0)
Is that the way that most DS actors respond when their lies are threatened? Not that I've ever seen, usually they either run, double down, both, or go to the media to slam the guy. They never have the balls to open one on one combat.
Source 3: He's exactly damn right, we didn't even have the tech to put ourselves in space without Russian help until very recently.
Why? 1.) All machines degrade over time. There was no way or reason to preserve a moon rocket all this time; anything from that time would have immensely degraded. 2.) The technology from that time was extremely dangerous and unreliable; there's absolutely no way the risk would be considered acceptable today, given the rate of failure and the level of risk involved for those early rockets. The computer in one is less powerful than the one in a tiny little phone, for God's sake. 3.) The moon landing rockets were also incredibly inefficient; they relied on complex and usually hand calculated math to almost blindly fire someone into the right orbital path to reach the moon. Because of the probability of failure, this meant huge margins were included, either out of error, redundancy, or lack of more efficient calculations (that may have been vastly more complex). 4.) It was really damn expensive, and going to the moon outside of beating the Soviets in what was effectively an engineering race had little to no real purpose, as it isn't exactly hospitable for human beings.
Do we still have the blueprints? Sure. Do we have production lines for the materials and components? No. Do we have any reason to utilize the old rocket versus developing a new one? Definitely not. Why not make a new one, then, you ask?
Funding. Private corporations are working on it, but they're more preoccupied with "cheap" ways of reaching orbit (reusable rockets), and rightfully so. To do anything meaningful on the moon would mean shit loads of stuff sent there, so shitloads of rockets. Without an easy way to orbit, that would be more expensive than anyone is willing to put money into.
There are other teams and plans working on the moon-specific tech, though. They're effectively starting from scratch, because technology available to us is so dramatically different that trying to develop a modern moon rocket from the old would be akin to developing the next generation of fighter jet off of da Vinci's flying machine.
I've watched and listened to hours and hours of flat earth bullshit. The whole time it's constantly partial truths (or flat out lies) that I am pulling out, and it's like pulling nails. Inaccuracy passed off as accuracy with a massive dose of spin/propaganda put on top: "this is the truth, here's how, but this is also the truth, we're not going to present it objectively".
I've argued this shit with people on here countless times. I can give people experiments and math that are as simple as grabbing a friend, taking a short bike ride away, and both of you measuring shadows at the same time. Then you do math and find the earth is round based on how the shadows are cast. If you're really willing to try it, you can ask me for the details, but as it stands I've put an exuberant amount of time into this post already and it will likely go mostly ignored.
I can give people real world applications of round-earth physics that they can relatively easily go verify, such as the calculations for long-range artillery (or naval) gunnery, or aircraft navigational patterns and systems, or large bridge design, or weather pattern analysis, or mapping methodology and projections.
Almost every time, without fail, flat earthers plug their ears and pretend it doesn't exist, returning to argue for it again and again with illogical arguments that are readily debunked as disingenuous and fallacious. Yet so many are willing to accuse us of being NPC's.
Has Trump said the earth is flat? Q specifically said the earth is not flat. Why the fuck bring this nonsense here, when it is so absurdly counter to all of the people and principles and even context or relevance of the movement?
Yeah, gonna need a source for this.
I get that MSM is likely lying about numbers, but compared to the institutions, what means exactly does he have to verify these numbers?
I just don't think that's possible, unless it's the "super secret real numbers" from inside the gov.
I think what sets acts of heroism apart is that, to outsiders, the hero appears to be foolish or "losing" or taking a hit. To the hero, however, they feel like they're winning, and that's how you know when it's "ordained" that you do it, basically.
Like take Mike Lindell. To us, he looks like he's risking absolutely everything; throwing away possible future gains and possibly getting nothing but punishment out of it. To him, though, it would seem he is feeling like he's "winning" for it. Why else would he have shown up on, say, Kimmel, for example, when everyone on both sides was saying he shouldn't?
A woman was just beheaded in a Minneapolis suburb on (I think) Wednesday. Someone caught a guy on camera at a busyish intersection pulling to the curb, opening the door, dropping her corpse out onto the sidewalk [head not attached], picking up the head, and walking with it for a bit before the video ends. She was apparently in some sort of an abusive relationship with him, which wound up in court and he was, I believe, found guilty. The judge, in his infinite "wisdom", released the guy on bail or whatever the hell it was (parole? IDK) and what do you know, he goes and kills her.
So-called "slippery slope" fallacy isn't that "any insinuation of a slippery slope or inevitable progression is fallacious". It's moreso multiple different fallacies that can occur when making a slippery slope argument, which, if done correctly, IS logically valid.
Here are some examples of fallacious "slippery slope" arguments, most obvious to least:
1.) "If we allow Bob to eat all of the peanut butter, we will no longer have peanut butter. If we no longer have peanut butter, we will go mad and kill each other."
This is fallacious because it is a non-sequitur; there is no explicit logic that connects mad murder sprees with loss of peanut butter, and there is no absolutism that that will be the outcome and not some alternative outcome.
2.) "If we run out of food in our home, we will surely perish."
This is also fallacious. The connective logic here is actually visible this time, though; it is true that most human beings will die of starvation if deprived of food for too long. What isn't true is that death is the absolute result of running out of food in our home; the alternative may be something like "we will visit the store as a result and buy more food".
Here is that last argument presented logically and soundly:
"If we run out of food in our home, we may perish."
It doesn't presume the outcome IS death, it just asserts that that is one possible outcome of that situation or event, which is correct. It's not likely you'd die of starvation if you have food, but it becomes more likely if you do not currently have food.
The argument made by this meme IS logically sound. It is not explicitly asserting that that IS the outcome or the only outcome, rather it's pointing to the fact that, by allowing the prior things, you are setting a precedent which would enable the final thing. You are enabling things closer and closer to that final one, which makes it more of a possibility, especially if not sufficiently resisted. It also harkens to the motives of actions; the idea being that, if people in power have motivations to impose the prior things, they (more) likely have motivations to impose the final.
Is all law just, realistic, and fact based?
Obviously not.
The developing baby is a separate organism with fully human DNA, not identical to the mother's. It's not a tumor that more or less matches DNA with it's host.
Just because the federal government doesn't recognize them as persons doesn't mean they aren't. If it were up to the federal government, then Africans wouldn't have actually been people until the civil war, which is obvious nonsense.
Each human being has equal fundamental rights; a woman's "right" to cease pregnancy does not outweigh the baby's right to life. The area gets greyer when you introduce the situation in which either the baby or the mother lives, but nothing like that can realistically be accurately predicted, therefore action taken on said information would be incredibly perilous, akin to killing someone else on a boat stranded out at sea to eat them because "they'll probably kill me if I don't get them first".
My right to not receive certain medical treatments cannot be outweighed by your "right" to force them upon me; I can't force you to not get the vaccine any more than you can force me to get it.
If you really wanted to ignore the facts and stats, you could ask "what gives you the right to put my life in danger by not receiving the vaccine? Is your right to life any greater than mine?". On it's surface, that's a valid question, but the answer lies in matters of proximity and the actual action in question itself.
My decision to not receive the vaccine may put you at an elevated risk by proxy, however I am not actively doing anything to you to endanger your life. In the other situation, however, you forcefully vaccinating me is an active action you would be taking on me that [may] endanger my life.
The difference is like this: If we're at a gun range, and I'm shooting at the target, there's a chance there will be some kind of freak accident and you are killed by it. That's indirect and by proxy. Compare that to you shooting at me explicitly; you may not hit me, but you are directly putting my life in danger.
Saw the vid, IDK if you did. Def don't think that it is a false flag/made up, looked very real and very grim, and was very believable.
That said, the additional information could be capitalizing on it - her first name was America for God's sake.
If the beheading is political at all (kinda doubt it, I think it was just an animal being an animal) it would be that she seems like she might have been conservative and the Judge possibly allowed the freak to walk free to spite her, but I really don't have enough details to call that.
Why might she have been based, you may ask? 1.) She worked at MyPillow 2.) Cuban immigrant/refugee, typically are based 3.) First name of America
These things build a bit, but to be fair it could be totally nothing.
IIRC it was the case where Trudeau wanted to bring them over but the Canadian military quietly said "fuck no" and that was that. There may have been a few instances, but I think most of it was talk more than action.
That said, not Canadian so I can't confirm first hand.
Dooming is expecting failure, often very intensively. "Nothing will ever work" sort of stuff.
This is just pragmatism; if information sources are proving inaccurate and have patterns to their inaccuracy, that's something to observe and note. People posting countdowns and talking big game but never putting up need to be more than just ignored, they need to be recognized as grifters and called out as such.
Agree 100%
That's why I've always been baffled by transgender promotion. Gender Dysphoria is a mental illness; something to be treated, not something to be promoted or frankly not something to be shamed.
Their behavior with regards to promoting it and taking action outside of that most certainly should be shamed, but that's their own doing, and not the illness itself which, again, needs treatment.
Fundamentally, though, the people that need the most shame are the ones that don't have the illness but are preying on those who do and impressionable children to convince them that having it is a good thing. That's downright evil.
You sound just like a leftist I saw once: "I don't care of Jesus Christ himself comes to earth and tells me to vote for Donald Trump, I won't"
C'mon. If literal Biblical Jesus is telling you to get the vaccine, you get it.
So far I haven't seen Him come down to earth and say that, though.
Hence the self-destructive loop when moral degradation begins; the people turn to that which will bring greater moral degradation until absolute tyranny. The tyranny typically finds a way to obliterate itself in time, but the damage is done; those who survive pick up the pieces and the cycles starts over again. The longer moral degradation can be avoided, and the more people directly fight the degradation instead of playing into the cycle, the longer a society/government/etc. will be sustained.
Mmm I've had people tell me before "you aren't really awakened then. You've got a long way to go" and it's like bitch please, just because I have to actually do stuff that involves the world being round fundamentally doesn't mean I'm not "awakened", lmao.