T1B

LS wrote:I can’t wait to hear your takes on these other points. Fingers crossed we hear something on these soon.

Softball Bat wrote:We've talked about it.

Pilots are some of the last people who will speak straight about this issue.
Never in a forum like this.

That paycheck, pension, etc., is pretty important to them.


Btw, about greed...

Softball Bat wrote:Pilots are some of the last people who will speak straight about this issue. Never in a forum like this.

LS wrote:So that is a huge conspiracy you just claimed. First off you are saying all pilots are in on this vast conspiracy.

LS wrote:Second you call my morals and values into question with that claim. Pretty sad position you are painting yourself into.

LS wrote:Yeah let’s talk about greed. Not a single pilot who has been retired by the age 65 rule has come forward to write a book or go on the lecture circuit to share the truth? The money would be unreal. No deathbed confessions?

BSmack wrote:

Softball Bat wrote:Pilots are some of the last people who will speak straight about this issue. Never in a forum like this.

Then riddle me this. I will be flying out of JFK this June on a trip to Iceland. If the world was flat the most sensible route would be to fly directly over the island of Newfoundland. But every flight chart that I see says that I'll be flying over Northern Quebec instead and maybe a little bit into Labrador. So I guess when I go on this trip if I see the island of Newfoundland below me at 35000 feet, then holy shit the world is flat!

Softball Bat wrote:You seem to be cut from the same cloth as Dinsdale.

Make your point.


I am interested in the truth.

It’s a major recurring theme of the Trump administration: The president threatens to betray a conservative principle, and Republicans in Congress try to talk him out of it.

When Trump has veered left on immigration and told either Democratic leaders or bipartisan groups of lawmakers that he’d back a simple deal to give the so-called Dreamers a path to citizenship, conservatives on Capitol Hill—along with hardliners like Stephen Miller in the White House—have persuaded him to back off and insist on a tougher stance instead.

After the president flirted last week with strict gun-control policies, National Rifle Association lobbyists swooped in to set him straight, and GOP leaders backed them up by putting off quick votes on tighter gun restrictions.

But top Republicans may have met their match when it comes to trade—an issue that has animated Trump’s politics for three decades. Last week, he declared that he would unilaterally impose steep tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum as soon as his administration could get him the papers to sign. The hastily arranged announcement horrified the veteran free-traders who lead the GOP in Congress: not only House Speaker Paul Ryan, but also the chairmen of the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over trade, Kevin Brady of
Texas and Orrin Hatch of Utah, respectively. Trump has rebuffed the efforts by Republican lawmakers and some of his own advisers to slow his drive for tariffs, and GOP leaders appear to lack either the will or the votes in Congress to block him legislatively.

The Republican leaders fear a trade war that would dampen the economic benefits of their tax cuts, which the GOP is depending on to stave off heavy losses in November’s midterm congressional elections. Republicans were clearly hoping the White House would roll back Trump’s announcement over the weekend, either by putting off the tariffs or by making clear that key U.S. trading partners would be exempted. But the president gave no ground, defending his decision in a series of tweets and even welcoming a trade war as “easy to win.” He insisted that the tariffs would go away only if Canada and Mexico agreed to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. With Trump digging in, Ryan and his lieutenants tried a more confrontational approach.

“We are extremely worried about the consequences of a trade war and are urging the White House to not advance with this plan,” AshLee Strong, the speaker’s spokeswoman, said in a statement. “The new tax-reform law has boosted the economy and we certainly don’t want to jeopardize those gains.” Strong sent reporters an article blaming a dip in the stock market—whose previous gains Trump championed—on investor jitters over the president’s directive. Brady spent the weekend in Mexico and on television urging the president to narrow the tariffs, and on Monday, his office said he was gathering Republican signatures for a letter of concern to the president.

Trump still didn’t flinch. “No, we are not backing down,” he told reporters who asked about Ryan’s criticism in the Oval Office on Monday.

Congress could stop Trump from imposing the tariffs tomorrow if it wanted to. The Constitution gives the legislative branch explicit authority “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” And just last month, on a 400 to 2 vote, the House passed legislation that extends for three years a program that reduces various tariffs for businesses.

But over the last 50 years, Congress has delegated the bulk of its trade power to the president, and there isn’t much expectation that it’ll wrest it back anytime soon. “To claw those powers back would in effect take veto-proof majorities coming out of the House and Senate, and I just don’t see that as remotely likely in the current circumstances,” said Edward Alden, a senior fellow specializing in trade at the Council on Foreign Relations. “So I think the president does hold all the cards here.” Trump is imposing the tariffs under a provision of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 that allows the president to do so for reasons of national security. That rationale has rarely been used, trade experts said, and it could lead other countries to cite their own national security to restrict imports of U.S.-made products.

A Republican congressional aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive policy topic, said GOP leaders “won’t rule out potential action down the line.” But the vagueness of that threat itself underscores the reluctance of Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—who has said nothing publicly on tariffs—to take Trump on so directly. To have any chance at success, they’d have to muster an overwhelming majority of Republicans, because Democrats remain deeply divided on trade. Even then they might fall short. When former President Barack Obama sought authority to negotiate trade agreements that would not be subject to amendment by Congress, all but 28 Democrats voted no. The trade deal he ultimately struck, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, never even received a vote.

Both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have stayed uncharacteristically quiet on Trump’s tariff move—a decision that allows Republicans to fight it out amongst themselves but also reflects the lack of consensus among Democrats. The man who challenged Pelosi for her party-leadership post in 2016, Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, issued a statement supporting Trump’s decision, although he pushed for exemptions for key allies.

Trump has long argued that the United States has been on the losing end of its trade deals, allowing competitors like China and Japan too easy access to its markets. His decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum, however, seems equally about fortifying what he sees as his white working-class base in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Yet Republicans worry that the move is woefully shortsighted and that the limited boost to domestic steel and aluminum producers will be wiped out by losses suffered by industries that rely on those materials—especially automakers and the aerospace industry, and even big-box stores that use steel and aluminum for shelving.

The other big fear is the impact from retaliation if U.S. trading partners slap their own tariffs on American exports in response to Trump’s unilateral actions. “Our trading partners are not political novices,” said Matt McAlvanah, a former trade official in the Obama administration who now consults on the issue for the Monument Policy Group, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm. “They are going to target products, and have already indicated they will target products, that are politically important not just to Trump’s base, but to the base of Republican leadership.” A top European Union official has already warned of tariffs on bourbon—a speciality of McConnell’s Kentucky—and Harley Davidson motorcycles, whose manufacturer is based in Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin.

Foreign countries could also try to split Trump’s base down the middle by targeting agricultural exports, pitting the biggest industries in the Midwest against each other. “Republicans are going to be squeezed from all sides on this,” McAlvanah predicted.

On that point, the Democratic analyst will get no pushback from conservatives, who have sounded the same warnings in recent days. “For every steelworker job that might be saved because of a tariff, our country will lose even more American jobs in auto plants, construction, and so many other industries,” David McIntosh, the president of the conservative advocacy group Club for Growth, said in a statement. “Tariffs will also harm the pro-growth effects of the tax cuts, stall the economy, incite a trade war, and help hand the election to the Democrats.”

Trump insisted Monday that a trade war isn’t likely—that he can slap tariffs on steel and aluminum without risk of a tit-for-tat retaliation that Republicans have long predicted. But if he’s wrong, he’ll have to wage battles on two fronts—against the trading partners he’s angered, and against his stalwart allies in Congress who fear the fallout from a fight they’ve begged him to avoid.

Left Seater wrote:

The West Austrialian wrote:A world-first air route is planned to link South America and Asia, with Perth the critical hub linking the two big travel markets.
The fastest route is via the South Pole but a stop in Perth would be needed for fuel, creating exciting stopover tourism potential.
Argentine airline Norwegian Air Argentina has applied and been given approval for the Buenos Aires to Perth route, and is applying for rights to Singapore, while Airbus and Boeing have done studies on how the route would be accomplished.
China Southern, Singapore Airlines, and Qantas also have rights to fly the route.
Last week in Perth, the Argentine Chamber of Commerce’s Australia executive director, Diego Berazategui, presented the initiative to key WA industry representatives and Argentina’s ambassador to Australia, Hugo Gobbi.
“The study shows that a trans-polar flight between Buenos Aires and Perth would take less than 15 hours and would position Perth as a great midpoint destination for international travellers between Asia and Latin America,” Mr Berazategui said.
“One of the points highlighted in the discussion was that Perth would significantly benefit by attracting ‘in-transit’ passengers — a new wave of visitors from both Asia and Latin America.
“This could have a major impact on the number of people visiting Perth and should be considered an important part of the WA Asian Engagement Strategy.”
Mr Gobbi said that the route “would be a real game changer for both Argentina and Australia”.

This route would cross over Antarctica on a daily basis. Some times it might cross directly over the pole. Of course it won't do that every time as it will want to take a route that has the most favorable winds.

Here is the shortest distance between the two cities:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PER-EZE

Somehow Softball Bat will claim that this is also just a scam. That just because the plane crosses the Antarctic continent, it doesn't prove the ice wall/damn isn't there. Can't wait to hear his explanation of this flight. Oh wait, that's right, he refuses to discuss or much less even acknowledge that Southern Hemisphere flights exist.


As for the Norwegian flight I will make you a deal. If that flight is approved, I will purchase a ticket for you and a guest on that flight round trip from Singapore to EZE. You will be responsible for getting yourself to Singapore and home. You will also be responsible for any hotels, meals, baggage fees, etc. However, you have to document the trip and post photos of the route and lack of an ice wall/damn.

Deal?

88 wrote:Can you see around an object, or is there a true "line of sight"?

Buttsy wrote:I never mentioned a flight pattern going directly over the South Pole, did I? Instead, I just kept posting the Australia to South America flights and why they all swooped to the South.

Would you rather we shift our thoughts to the Northern Hemisphere and why all those flights swoop to the North instead?

Left Seater wrote:If this flight is approved my offer still stands.

Softball Bat wrote: The flights are a dead end.

A flight going N-S over the S. Pole (and crossing Antarctica) would be very significant.

Anything other than that proves nothing.


Swooping here or there...

Again, I produce no map or model and claim it to the the earth, so you are not disproving "my earth" by showing a flight path.

All you are doing is saying, "These flights are consistent with the globe."

And I say, "So what? A doberman's 4 legs are consistent with a horse."

LS wrote:Flights are only a dead end when someone wants to dismiss a globe model without thinking. You keep saying you don’t know the shape but are positive it isn’t a globe. This is nothing but a cop out. If you truely are wanting to learn the shape of the earth you would study flights and flight paths and use that to produce a model. But you don’t want to learn the true shape IMO.

Further a flight crossing Antarctica that didn’t pass directly over the pole but came within a few few hundred miles would also be quite telling. In fact any crossing of Antarctica in the same direction within a few degrees of the pole would prove there was no ice wall.

LS wrote:Finally, I agree that flights alone don’t prove the globe. But when taken with sunsets, time zones, shadows, eclipses, seasons and on and on it is damning for you.

LS wrote:At some future point I will address your take that we pilots are too stupid to know that we are flying across a flat earth.

88 wrote:Don't be afraid to answer questions. Remember, you've been laughing at everyone else and claim to have all the answers.

Softball Bat wrote:Now, I could easily turn your argument back against you by pointing out that it is ridiculous to imagine that trillions of tons of water are bending around the outside of a globe as it spins and streaks through space.

What a fairy tale that is.

88 wrote:You don’t answer questions that have enough complexity to allow for wiggles. So, I’m going to walk you down an unassailable path, simple question by simple question, and then bludgeon your idiocy with your own answers to the simple questions. It will be fun for me and perhaps enlightening for you. But if you don’t want to respond to simple questions to avoid the oncoming curb stomping, we will just have to stop here. If you are searching for truth, what do you have to lose? You’ve already surrendered your reputation.

Papa Willie wrote:A simple disregard for basic economics of the "flat earth" theory buries it upon arrival.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:On top of that, the one question (among others) he fails to answer, is why? Why would so many governments, all AROUND the Earth, at trillions upon trillions of dollars, so many organizations, both public and private sector, go to all the trouble of lying about a globe? What purpose does this serve?

The simple answer is, he can't answer. He is just tilting at his crazy conspiracy windmills, as are the rest of his misguided breed. None of them can address this basic topic.

Buttsy wrote:It would have cost hundreds of trillions of dollars to do it your way.

Jay wrote:On top of that, the one question (among others) he fails to answer, is why? Why would so many governments, all AROUND the Earth, at trillions upon trillions of dollars, so many organizations, both public and private sector, go to all the trouble of lying about a globe? What purpose does this serve?

The simple answer is, he can't answer. He is just tilting at his crazy conspiracy windmills, as are the rest of his misguided breed. None of them can address this basic topic.

Felix wrote:first and foremost, you'd have to know that in such a conspiracy, there would be millions of people involved, not thousands, millions......

second, what would be the purpose of people telling us the earth is something that it's not?

poptart wrote:Millions of people??

LOL

Felix, everyone knows the earth is a globe, right?
EVERYONE learns this fact in 1st grade.

So with this understanding, everyone goes about their duties and their lives.
Those who are unwittingly facilitating the deception within their "little" department.

The upper uppers know the real deal.


Why the deception?

Extreme cliff notes version: Byrd found the edge in the mid 50's. Or at least found that there IS an edge. At that point, the powers had a decision to make. Tell everyone -- or -- don't tell everyone. By that time in human history, science had been entrenched, glorified and was advancing above religion and religious belief. People had already been convinced that the earth is a globe, and on and on... To overturn that and tell everyone all of a sudden that the earth is actually flat and enclosed would have been a MASSIVE and overwhelming kick in the 'nads to the establishment. The implications would have been overwhelming and religious belief would have once again gained a SOLID foothold on human thought. So the choice to not reveal is was an easy one.

jmo

88 wrote:

Softball Bat wrote:I don't understand your question.

You do. You are just afraid.

Q: Can you see around a solid, non-light-penetrating object (e.g., a rock, tree, mountain, you, me, etc.), or is there a true "line of sight"? In other words, if there is something in your "line of sight", can you see around it (i.e., behind it)?

A: [likely]I don't understand your question.[/likely]

Moving Sale wrote:

Jay in Phoenix wrote:On top of that, the one question (among others) he fails to answer, is why? Why would so many governments, all AROUND the Earth, at trillions upon trillions of dollars, so many organizations, both public and private sector, go to all the trouble of lying about a globe? What purpose does this serve?

The simple answer is, he can't answer. He is just tilting at his crazy conspiracy windmills, as are the rest of his misguided breed. None of them can address this basic topic.

I think the answer is so people believe science and not religion. At least that is what I am told.

Buttsy wrote:Add 2,000 years up collectively. Really concentrate on what would be spent over the last 100 years in keeping up such a silly facade. As in your failure to recognize just what the aviation industry would have to spend over that time period, you've got to understand that it would almost affect EVERYTHING else to a degree.

poptart wrote:Did it occur to you that they fly the on the path that they do because they think they are flying on a globe? I mean, everyone knows we are on a globe, right?

LS wrote:your moon theory

Jay wrote:the reason it appears larger is the elliptical orbit of the moon brings it closer to Earth, as has been previously stated.

Jay wrote:Every single religious figure I've ever spoken with has embraced the Earth as a globe and it is not by any means any other shape.

88 wrote:

Softball Bat wrote:I think I have more hair -- and a mouth, but yes, that's about it.

I'm not a very good artist. So, would you agree that if your viewing position relative to your computer screen was lower than in the first image, the area visible to you would change such as indicated in the image below?

Rooster wrote: