Bet you can't do it!

Quote from: JackBlack on March 20, 2017, 03:55:16 AM

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 03:01:29 AM

So, which NASA shill is telling the truth, we can get through the VA-Belts, or we can't?

Or how about you focus on what people actually say?
The electronics today are quite different to the ones used to go to the moon.
The plan today is to be able to go straight through the centre rather than basically around them.

They aren't contradicting each other.

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 03:12:28 AM

The moon is beyond the Belts, man allegedly sent men to the moon, NASA now admits getting people and computers through the Belt is an unknown proposition. What is your conclusion about moon landings? Did they go, or did they not? If they had no problem then, why is it such a problem now?

No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown.
And going to the moon they didn't really go through the belt, they went around it.
There is a solid wall between me and the next room. I could try to go through it, or I could go around it and through the doorway.
Does me not being able to go through a solid wall mean I can't get to the next room? No.

"No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown."

Oh please, you are just playing stupid childish semantic games. What, those old retired engineers didn't pass on their secrets? What a load of hog-wash! They tell you right to your face, and you are too stupid to get it. That is your issue bucky, not mine!

I think you ran into too many solid walls as a child. You seem to be stuck emotionally, and mentally, somewhere in pre-school.

So they don't actually say they didn't go to the moon like you claimed.  Another admission that you lied.
They can and did get to the moon by going around the belt.  Going to mars requires a different trajectory.  Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 04:25:59 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 20, 2017, 03:55:16 AM

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 03:01:29 AM

So, which NASA shill is telling the truth, we can get through the VA-Belts, or we can't?

Or how about you focus on what people actually say?
The electronics today are quite different to the ones used to go to the moon.
The plan today is to be able to go straight through the centre rather than basically around them.

They aren't contradicting each other.

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 03:12:28 AM

The moon is beyond the Belts, man allegedly sent men to the moon, NASA now admits getting people and computers through the Belt is an unknown proposition. What is your conclusion about moon landings? Did they go, or did they not? If they had no problem then, why is it such a problem now?

No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown.
And going to the moon they didn't really go through the belt, they went around it.
There is a solid wall between me and the next room. I could try to go through it, or I could go around it and through the doorway.
Does me not being able to go through a solid wall mean I can't get to the next room? No.

"No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown."

Oh please, you are just playing stupid childish semantic games. What, those old retired engineers didn't pass on their secrets? What a load of hog-wash! They tell you right to your face, and you are too stupid to get it. That is your issue bucky, not mine!

I think you ran into too many solid walls as a child. You seem to be stuck emotionally, and mentally, somewhere in pre-school.

So they don't actually say they didn't go to the moon like you claimed.  Another admission that you lied.
They can and did get to the moon by going around the belt.  Going to mars requires a different trajectory.  Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?

Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?

to say it with your words:

Use your ability to read, penny head. they got not through it they got around it.

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 11:16:39 AM

Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?

to say it with your words:

Use your ability to read, penny head. they got not through it they got around it.

"Got around it", what a hoot. Why don't they just get around it again? Just one excuse after another excuse. Man, you are great at that, gotta give it to ya!

Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?

Here's some common sense for you: If NASA had said they didn't go to moon that would've made a massive news story.

You don't really think your lies through, do you?

Quote from: Canadabear on March 20, 2017, 11:23:10 AM

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 11:16:39 AM

Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?

to say it with your words:

Use your ability to read, penny head. they got not through it they got around it.

"Got around it", what a hoot. Why don't they just get around it again? Just one excuse after another excuse. Man, you are great at that, gotta give it to ya!

You have proved time and time again that you have no answers.

I asked you show just where these people actually said what was claimed.

Quote from: physical observer on March 19, 2017, 07:03:55 AM

NASA admits, man never went to moon:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts, Superformance72

Pease show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen Belts".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen belts".

Quote from: physical observer

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SHOCKING : NASA ADMITS THEY NEVER WENT TO THE MOON, ron johnson

Again, please show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, man never went to moon".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, man never went to moon".

Otherwise, give up you continual attempts at deception.

So Mr Physical Observer, put up or shut up!

And I will keep hounding you until answer the questions, because from what I have seen:

• NASA DOES NOT CLAIM THEY NEVER WENT TO THE MOON.
  They only say that they do not now have the capability of sending people beyond low earth orbit.
• And no NASA engineer claims they did not get past the Van Allen Belts.

If you honestly believe otherwise, show exactly where in these videos what your claim is actually said and the actual words used.

You like many other flat earthers seem to have great difficulty in comprehension.

"No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown."

Oh please, you are just playing stupid childish semantic games. What, those old retired engineers didn't pass on their secrets? What a load of hog-wash! They tell you right to your face, and you are too stupid to get it. That is your issue bucky, not mine!

No. I'm playing the "STOP IGNORING WHAT THEY ARE SAYING AND PRETENDING THEY ARE SAYING SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT" game.
Old computers are quite different to modern day ones.
The old ones didn't use sensitive solid state electronics which allows them to be much smaller and much more powerful.
The ECU of modern cars is a more powerful computer than those used on the Apollo missions.

You also seemed to ignore the other, far more important part, that they want to go straight through instead of around.

I think you ran into too many solid walls as a child. You seem to be stuck emotionally, and mentally, somewhere in pre-school.

Projecting again I see.
I'm not the one continually ignoring what other people are saying and pretending they are saying something completely different.
I'm not the one rejecting reality because it doesn't fit my delusional beliefs.

Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?

USE YOUR FUCKING EYES AND READ WHAT PEOPLE SAY!
They didn't go straight through them before. They effectively went around them. They are belts, not shells.

"Got around it", what a hoot. Why don't they just get around it again? Just one excuse after another excuse. Man, you are great at that, gotta give it to ya!

Again, use your eyes and read. That was already answered.
The trajectory to get to Mars is quite different to the trajectory to get to the moon.

Going around it for the moon represented no significant cost.
To do so for mars, they would need to enter an orbit to get them on that trajectory, and then use lots of energy getting themselves into a better orbit before heading off to Mars.

You are the one making up excuses, not us.
You are the one claiming that because Orion, which is a craft with delicate solid state electronics, may have issues going straight through the belt, that they couldn't have possibly gone to the moon.
When we point out why that is crap, you just come up with excuse after excuse.

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 11:16:39 AM

Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?

Here's some common sense for you: If NASA had said they didn't go to moon that would've made a massive news story.

You don't really think your lies through, do you?

Funny, I have never seen the interviews of the NASA guys on mainstream news. Besides, most of the stupid ignant people in this world care less about NASA, and are barely aware they even exist. Case in point:

I approached a toll plaza, two lanes, side by side, opened for cash customers. Eight people are in the right lane, left lane empty. I used the left lane, while I waited for my receipt, I brought the subject up with the toll collector. She claims she has counted 20 cars in one lane, while her lane is empty, or the other way around. I would say 85% of the people in this world are brain dead sheeples. They get up, eat, go to work, go home and eat, watch TV for 4 hours, then go to bed, only to repeat the boring cycle over and over again. And I doubt they would even make any connections between the VA-Belts and the alleged moon landings. They probably don't even know the moon landing hype existed back when I was 12.

But you know, I do believe they went to the moon, and didn't have to deal with the VA-Belts, because they did it in a movie set. I swear, the undocking of that Starship in one of those Star Trek movies, was so real, I was almost convinced it really happened. And the movie, Independence Day, when Randy Quaid flew that military jet into that mothership's arse, boy, I swear, that was so real! And Alien, man, when I left the theater, I thoroughly inspected my car before I got in!!!!!

...
But you know, I do believe they went to the moon, and didn't have to deal with the VA-Belts, because they did it in a movie set. I swear, the undocking of that Starship in one of those Star Trek movies, was so real, I was almost convinced it really happened. And the movie, Independence Day, when Randy Quaid flew that military jet into that mothership's arse, boy, I swear, that was so real! And Alien, man, when I left the theater, I thoroughly inspected my car before I got in!!!!!

ok with that you admit that you can not tell reality from movie.
how do you know that you are right that you believe what other Flat Earth Idea Believers tell you.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on March 20, 2017, 12:06:54 PM

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 11:16:39 AM

Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?

Here's some common sense for you: If NASA had said they didn't go to moon that would've made a massive news story.

You don't really think your lies through, do you?

Funny, I have never seen the interviews of the NASA guys on mainstream news. Besides, most of the stupid ignant people in this world care less about NASA, and are barely aware they even exist. Case in point:

I approached a toll plaza, two lanes, side by side, opened for cash customers. Eight people are in the right lane, left lane empty. I used the left lane, while I waited for my receipt, I brought the subject up with the toll collector. She claims she has counted 20 cars in one lane, while her lane is empty, or the other way around. I would say 85% of the people in this world are brain dead sheeples. They get up, eat, go to work, go home and eat, watch TV for 4 hours, then go to bed, only to repeat the boring cycle over and over again. And I doubt they would even make any connections between the VA-Belts and the alleged moon landings. They probably don't even know the moon landing hype existed back when I was 12.

But you know, I do believe they went to the moon, and didn't have to deal with the VA-Belts, because they did it in a movie set. I swear, the undocking of that Starship in one of those Star Trek movies, was so real, I was almost convinced it really happened. And the movie, Independence Day, when Randy Quaid flew that military jet into that mothership's arse, boy, I swear, that was so real! And Alien, man, when I left the theater, I thoroughly inspected my car before I got in!!!!!

Are you now suggesting that NASA said they didn't go to the moon and somehow the world's press ignored it?

You appear more stupid with every post you make. Quite an achievement.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on March 20, 2017, 12:06:54 PM

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 11:16:39 AM

Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?

Here's some common sense for you: If NASA had said they didn't go to moon that would've made a massive news story.

You don't really think your lies through, do you?

Besides, most of the stupid ignant people in this world care less about NASA, and are barely aware they even exist. Case in point:

Yes, we have lots of "stupid ignant people in this world", especially one with a screen name of physical observer.
Any idea who that could be.

You in your "stupid ignance" claim that "If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?"

Read learn and inwardly digest! On the Apollo missions, the trajectory to the moon left earth at an angle to the ecliptic and so bypassed the worst of the Van Allen belts.

Have you yet read and understood?
Apollo and the Van Allen Belts, an estimate of the radiation dose received, Robert A. Braeunig
CLAVIUS ENVIRONMENT, radiation and the Van Allen Belts
Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory, Robert A. Braeunig

If not, put a sock in it till you learn a bit about the subject.

I don't believe I have ever seen such a bigotted pig-headed ignoramus who refuses to learn anything about the topic he's trying to refute!

Of course, this same bigotted pig-headed ignoramus refuses to answer any questions about his own flat earth model
and how fails to explain so many simple observations on the real earth - I do so apologise if I missed one somewhere!

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 01:07:27 PM

Besides, most of the stupid ignant people in this world care less about NASA, and are barely aware they even exist. Case in point:

Yes, we have lots of "stupid ignant people in this world", especially one with a screen name of physical observer.

I don't believe I have ever seen such a bigotted pig-headed ignoramus who refuses to learn anything about the topic he's trying to refute!

Don't you mean bigotted pig-headed ignamus ?

Quote from: rabinoz on March 19, 2017, 02:53:08 PM

Quote from: physical observer on March 19, 2017, 07:03:55 AM

"we have no need to prove these photos real."

Of course you don't, because you know you can't, can you?

NASA admits, man never went to moon:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts, Superformance72

Pease show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen Belts".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen belts".

Quote from: physical observer

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SHOCKING : NASA ADMITS THEY NEVER WENT TO THE MOON, ron johnson

Again, please show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, man never went to moon".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, man never went to moon".

Otherwise, give up you continual attempts at deception.

If you really want to learn how the Apollo mission passed the Van Allen Belts, you could read these:
Apollo and the Van Allen Belts, an estimate of the radiation dose received, Robert A. Braeunig
CLAVIUS ENVIRONMENT, radiation and the van allen belts
Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory, Robert A. Braeunig

Of course, you don't want to learn or find the truth on these matters. All you want to do is ridicule and denigrate others far more worthy than yourself.

All to prop your mistaken idea that the earth is really a huge pepperoni pizza!
One big problem is that you don't even know the shape and location of the bits of pepperoni - the continents!

I do find it so hilarious that you flat earthers all cry it unison that "the earth is flat!", but that is all that they do in unison.
You can't agree on:

• A map that works. Wot map? I know of about four maps. Flat earthers can't even decide how to carve up their pathetic pepperoni pizza planet.
• A sun that works.  A piddling little sun levitating above a pizza is hardly an explanation for sunrises, sunsets, etc! 
• A moon that works.  A similar sized moon, with unknown illumination, playing tag with your tiny sun cannot explain phases and eclipses!
• An explanation for gravity! Some say it's gravitation, some say it's  denpressure , some say it's  aether  etc.

So run away and play in your sand-box and come back when you have a real flat earth model that works.

"Again, please show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, man never went to moon"."

It's called using logically reasoning, you should try to find what happen to your ability. Here goes-

The moon is beyond the Belts, man allegedly sent men to the moon, NASA now admits getting people and computers through the Belt is an unknown proposition. What is your conclusion about moon landings? Did they go, or did they not? If they had no problem then, why is it such a problem now?

If you had bothered to pay attention to previous posts you would have read that Apollo took an inclined path that went AROUND the majority of the belts through the thinner outer edges.  That path is not available for interplanetary trips hence the need to test the new craft to go through the center.  But that would require you to read.

Quote from: Badxtoss on March 20, 2017, 09:11:26 AM

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 04:25:59 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 20, 2017, 03:55:16 AM

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 03:01:29 AM

So, which NASA shill is telling the truth, we can get through the VA-Belts, or we can't?

Or how about you focus on what people actually say?
The electronics today are quite different to the ones used to go to the moon.
The plan today is to be able to go straight through the centre rather than basically around them.

They aren't contradicting each other.

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 03:12:28 AM

The moon is beyond the Belts, man allegedly sent men to the moon, NASA now admits getting people and computers through the Belt is an unknown proposition. What is your conclusion about moon landings? Did they go, or did they not? If they had no problem then, why is it such a problem now?

No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown.
And going to the moon they didn't really go through the belt, they went around it.
There is a solid wall between me and the next room. I could try to go through it, or I could go around it and through the doorway.
Does me not being able to go through a solid wall mean I can't get to the next room? No.

"No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown."

Oh please, you are just playing stupid childish semantic games. What, those old retired engineers didn't pass on their secrets? What a load of hog-wash! They tell you right to your face, and you are too stupid to get it. That is your issue bucky, not mine!

I think you ran into too many solid walls as a child. You seem to be stuck emotionally, and mentally, somewhere in pre-school.

So they don't actually say they didn't go to the moon like you claimed.  Another admission that you lied.
They can and did get to the moon by going around the belt.  Going to mars requires a different trajectory.  Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?

Middle school insults aside, this has been explained to you, more than once.  Why do you insist on continuing to lie about it.
http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts

"No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown."

Oh please, you are just playing stupid childish semantic games. What, those old retired engineers didn't pass on their secrets? What a load of hog-wash! They tell you right to your face, and you are too stupid to get it. That is your issue bucky, not mine!

I think you ran into too many solid walls as a child. You seem to be stuck emotionally, and mentally, somewhere in pre-school.

As a computer engineer, I feel I am pretty well qualified to answer this for you.  No it isn't that the technology of the 50s and 60s was better than today, but EM radiation interference in a vacuum tube is very much a different prospect as EM radiation interference in a silicon based transistor.  Transistors are much faster, mush smaller, and have a much smaller power drain.  This means we can do much more with them.  Relay style computing using vacuum tubes and electromechanical relays are bulkier, not only in thier size individually but in their limited capacity when compared to a integrated chip, that you would need much more of them to do the same operations.  Our technology is now based off these chips, for very good reason, yet they are nowhere near as hardy as those standard electromechanical relays and vacuum tubes.  Newer computers multiple transistors in such a small area on the chip means that any energy build up due to things like EM radiation can discharge across them much easier doing way more damage with way less energy. 
Add to this, there is a much better understanding of how that same radiation can affect the human body than they knew back then and there is vastly safety regulations we rightly impose on this type of mission today.  So yeah, it is harder to get new technology through than is was then.  We were very much more cavalier then.  It isn't that astronauts would die immediately if they passed through them, it is that there is an increased chance of health complications from it later down the road, not to mention the fact that we use more composite materials now to lighten the weight for liftoff, which doesn't block as much radiation as metal.  So the challenge is, without increasing weight, still getting the benefits of todays technology, while actually being safer, is it easier or harder?  It is harder. 

Quote from: physical observer on March 20, 2017, 03:12:28 AM

"No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown."

Oh please, you are just playing stupid childish semantic games. What, those old retired engineers didn't pass on their secrets? What a load of hog-wash! They tell you right to your face, and you are too stupid to get it. That is your issue bucky, not mine!

I think you ran into too many solid walls as a child. You seem to be stuck emotionally, and mentally, somewhere in pre-school.

As a computer engineer, I feel I am pretty well qualified to answer this for you.  No it isn't that the technology of the 50s and 60s was better than today, but EM radiation interference in a vacuum tube is very much a different prospect as EM radiation interference in a silicon based transistor.  Transistors are much faster, mush smaller, and have a much smaller power drain.  This means we can do much more with them.  Relay style computing using vacuum tubes and electromechanical relays are bulkier, not only in thier size individually but in their limited capacity when compared to a integrated chip, that you would need much more of them to do the same operations.  Our technology is now based off these chips, for very good reason, yet they are nowhere near as hardy as those standard electromechanical relays and vacuum tubes.  Newer computers multiple transistors in such a small area on the chip means that any energy build up due to things like EM radiation can discharge across them much easier doing way more damage with way less energy. 
Add to this, there is a much better understanding of how that same radiation can affect the human body than they knew back then and there is vastly safety regulations we rightly impose on this type of mission today.  So yeah, it is harder to get new technology through than is was then.  We were very much more cavalier then.  It isn't that astronauts would die immediately if they passed through them, it is that there is an increased chance of health complications from it later down the road, not to mention the fact that we use more composite materials now to lighten the weight for liftoff, which doesn't block as much radiation as metal.  So the challenge is, without increasing weight, still getting the benefits of todays technology, while actually being safer, is it easier or harder?  It is harder.

Just to further this point a bit more.

This is a picture of a modern CPU.

That tiny shiny crystal part is the silicon chip where all the transistors are. Typically they have over a billion transistors.
The transistors can be smaller than 20 nm.
The chips can have a total power usage of tens of watts.

This is a vacuum tube equivalent.

There is a scale for size reference. That is just a single transistor.
They can easily draw a few watts, even for low power ones.

So which do you think is better?

Quick reply to OP:

The fact you're posting this challenge suggests that you haven't grasped what people were saying was wrong with your other thread. The velocity of the objects and environment in those videos can only be judged relative to each other or the camera - a bit like a video closeup of a cup of water, which you would have no way of telling was on a plane at 35,000 feet, in a room at ground level, or in a spinning centrifuge experiencing 5G.

To ask anyone to prove a specific velocity from those videos would be to ask us to do what you're doing, which is to wrongly infer anything other than relative motion.