The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: LeRabbit on June 26, 2006, 12:34:12 PM
-
I see everybody always talking about it, and I don't quite understand what it has to do with your FE. So, could somebody explain? ...just curious.
-
I see everybody always talking about it, and I don't quite understand what it has to do with your FE. So, could somebody explain? ...just curious.
i think FEers would say that anything that has anything to do with nasa is tainted as they are part of the conspiracy.
-
I was the one who brought up the movie Apollo 13. It was in response to a post that said the interviews from space could not be faked, due to the length. I pointed out that it was done in Apollo 13, with editing.
-
I was the one who brought up the movie Apollo 13. It was in response to a post that said the interviews from space could not be faked, due to the length. I pointed out that it was done in Apollo 13, with editing.
And I pointed out that the interviews AREN'T edited.
And someone else pointed out that no Zero G shot in Apollo 13 is longer than 30 secs because that's the maximum amount of time you can create Zero G in the "vomit comet."
You never gave an explanation for unedited live Zero G footage lasting several minutes.
-
I was the one who brought up the movie Apollo 13. It was in response to a post that said the interviews from space could not be faked, due to the length. I pointed out that it was done in Apollo 13, with editing.
And I pointed out that the interviews AREN'T edited.
And someone else pointed out that no Zero G shot in Apollo 13 is longer than 30 secs because that's the maximum amount of time you can create Zero G in the "vomit comet."
You never gave an explanation for unedited live Zero G footage lasting several minutes.
How do you know it is not edited? Things are edited seamlessly all the time in movies.
-
I was the one who brought up the movie Apollo 13. It was in response to a post that said the interviews from space could not be faked, due to the length. I pointed out that it was done in Apollo 13, with editing.
And I pointed out that the interviews AREN'T edited.
And someone else pointed out that no Zero G shot in Apollo 13 is longer than 30 secs because that's the maximum amount of time you can create Zero G in the "vomit comet."
You never gave an explanation for unedited live Zero G footage lasting several minutes.
How do you know it is not edited? Things are edited seamlessly all the time in movies.
It's true. When I saw Star Wars 3 I had no idea all those ships were fake! Anyway, it really wouldn't be that hard to edit that stuff together.
-
lerabbit, your sig is wrong. no one thinks that the earth is a sphere. it is either an obltae spheroid, a geoid or a disc.
-
How do you know it is not edited? Things are edited seamlessly all the time in movies.
A) The interviews are LIVE. I capitalized it since you apparently missed it the first time.
B) Do you even think about the replies you come up with? Okay, the camera is facing a scientist who is floating, and his hair is waving around and he's explaining the shuttle's mission, his monologue goes on for over a minute. Even IF this wasn't being done for live feed, the vomit comet would have to do three dips, and then the Super Techs would have to seamlessly edit each one together, making sure that the astronaut's movements, his speech, and his hair (not to mention the other dozen weightless things going on in this shot that I didn't mention) are all in perfect synch.
Now, take into account that the interview is LIVE, that's just plain impossible.
-
How do you know it is not edited? Things are edited seamlessly all the time in movies.
A) The interviews are LIVE. I capitalized it since you apparently missed it the first time.
B) Do you even think about the replies you come up with? Okay, the camera is facing a scientist who is floating, and his hair is waving around and he's explaining the shuttle's mission, his monologue goes on for over a minute. Even IF this wasn't being done for live feed, the vomit comet would have to do three dips, and then the Super Techs would have to seamlessly edit each one together, making sure that the astronaut's movements, his speech, and his hair (not to mention the other dozen weightless things going on in this shot that I didn't mention) are all in perfect synch.
Now, take into account that the interview is LIVE, that's just plain impossible.
How do you know it is live?
-
How do you know it is not edited? Things are edited seamlessly all the time in movies.
A) The interviews are LIVE. I capitalized it since you apparently missed it the first time.
B) Do you even think about the replies you come up with? Okay, the camera is facing a scientist who is floating, and his hair is waving around and he's explaining the shuttle's mission, his monologue goes on for over a minute. Even IF this wasn't being done for live feed, the vomit comet would have to do three dips, and then the Super Techs would have to seamlessly edit each one together, making sure that the astronaut's movements, his speech, and his hair (not to mention the other dozen weightless things going on in this shot that I didn't mention) are all in perfect synch.
Now, take into account that the interview is LIVE, that's just plain impossible.
Not impossible at all, just highly impractical. You must take into account that they could prepare footage beforehand. Agian, seemingly impossible, but it could be done. Then again it's not impossible for me to build a Gundam in my backyard either, it's just impractical, so maybe this is somewhat of a moot point.
-
Not impossible at all, just highly impractical. You must take into account that they could prepare footage beforehand. Agian, seemingly impossible, but it could be done. Then again it's not impossible for me to build a Gundam in my backyard either, it's just impractical, so maybe this is somewhat of a moot point.
Rest assured, if you even thought for a second that you could build a Gundam in your back yard, you would break out the tools and go at it.
-
Not impossible at all, just highly impractical. You must take into account that they could prepare footage beforehand. Agian, seemingly impossible, but it could be done. Then again it's not impossible for me to build a Gundam in my backyard either, it's just impractical, so maybe this is somewhat of a moot point.
Rest assured, if you even thought for a second that you could build a Gundam in your back yard, you would break out the tools and go at it.
I have a 1/100 Gundam model sitting on my desk if that counts :O
-
Not impossible at all, just highly impractical. You must take into account that they could prepare footage beforehand. Agian, seemingly impossible, but it could be done. Then again it's not impossible for me to build a Gundam in my backyard either, it's just impractical, so maybe this is somewhat of a moot point.
So you're saying that Larry King, Jay Leno, and every other person who has interviewed a NASA crew is in on the conspiracy?
And yes, faking that footage would be impossible. I'm guessing you've never actually watched a lot of Zero G footage, because it would take years and the best computer graphics teams in the world to do what you're suggesting. Which is impossible, since they don't have YEARS to do this.
-
Not impossible at all, just highly impractical. You must take into account that they could prepare footage beforehand. Agian, seemingly impossible, but it could be done. Then again it's not impossible for me to build a Gundam in my backyard either, it's just impractical, so maybe this is somewhat of a moot point.
So you're saying that Larry King, Jay Leno, and every other person who has interviewed a NASA crew is in on the conspiracy?
And yes, faking that footage would be impossible. I'm guessing you've never actually watched a lot of Zero G footage, because it would take years and the best computer graphics teams in the world to do what you're suggesting. Which is impossible, since they don't have YEARS to do this.
Do you know how big NASA's budget is?
-
Do you know how big NASA's budget is?
Do you have a point?
-
Do you know how big NASA's budget is?
Do you have a point?
I'm sure they have the money. If they wanted to they could do it. It all comes down to how paranoid you are. Will you believe something simply because it seems plausible?
-
Not impossible at all, just highly impractical. You must take into account that they could prepare footage beforehand. Agian, seemingly impossible, but it could be done. Then again it's not impossible for me to build a Gundam in my backyard either, it's just impractical, so maybe this is somewhat of a moot point.
So you're saying that Larry King, Jay Leno, and every other person who has interviewed a NASA crew is in on the conspiracy?
And yes, faking that footage would be impossible. I'm guessing you've never actually watched a lot of Zero G footage, because it would take years and the best computer graphics teams in the world to do what you're suggesting. Which is impossible, since they don't have YEARS to do this.
You seem to not be able to look at this with an open mind. It's not impossible, but so expensive, improbable, and impractical that a fabrication of this size would probably never see the light of day. It's possible that the government has planned all the major events that have taken place for the past 100 years, again hardly probable and goes agaisnt common sense, but not impossible.
Also, I'm not saying the footage is fake or that we've never been to space, just that it would be possible, just stupidly impractical and expensive to fake it.
Just like building a Gundam in my backyard, I could I guess, but how would I pay for college if I spent all my money (not that it would be enough) on developing an ultracompact fusion reactor to power a useless 50 foot tall robot?
-
It would simply be impossible to create a continuous video in weightlessness for more the 25-30 seconds without being able to go into orbit. You would have to shoot multiple shots, then edit them together. If this video has no evidence of editing(which is easy to tell to even eyes untrained in such things), then you must conclude that NASA actually went into orbit to create this film. Shattering the FE belief that there are no objects that orbit the earth.
-
But couldn't you take over the world with the Gundam? If you could, it would be far from useless.
-
Do you know how big NASA's budget is?
Do you have a point?
I'm sure they have the money. If they wanted to they could do it. It all comes down to how paranoid you are. Will you believe something simply because it seems plausible?
MONEY, cannot defeat gravity.
-
Do you know how big NASA's budget is?
Do you have a point?
I'm sure they have the money. If they wanted to they could do it. It all comes down to how paranoid you are. Will you believe something simply because it seems plausible?
MONEY, cannot defeat gravity.
Of course it can't. But money is usually what funds the organizations that would be able to use technology to either defeat gravity or provide the illusion that gravity has been defeated.
-
But couldn't you take over the world with the Gundam? If you could, it would be far from useless.
The Nazis had plans laid down for a tank that was roughly the size of an aircraft hanger called the MAUS. They decided not to build it as the reasoning was something that big and slow would be such a large target and would get blown up pretty quickly. In an age of tactical nuclear warheads, building something as big as a gundam would be stupid.
-
But couldn't you take over the world with the Gundam? If you could, it would be far from useless.
The Nazis had plans laid down for a tank that was roughly the size of an aircraft hanger called the MAUS. They decided not to build it as the reasoning was something that big and slow would be such a large target and would get blown up pretty quickly. In an age of tactical nuclear warheads, building something as big as a gundam would be stupid.
I really wasn't serious when I said that.
-
Do you know how big NASA's budget is?
Do you have a point?
I'm sure they have the money. If they wanted to they could do it. It all comes down to how paranoid you are. Will you believe something simply because it seems plausible?
MONEY, cannot defeat gravity.
Of course it can't. But money is usually what funds the organizations that would be able to use technology to either defeat gravity or provide the illusion that gravity has been defeated.
No i'm telling you. There is no such thing as an anti-gravity machine. There is no way, allowed by physics, to build one. If you understood what gravity is, you would understand that it would take the very unbending of spacetime to subvert it.
-
But couldn't you take over the world with the Gundam? If you could, it would be far from useless.
The Nazis had plans laid down for a tank that was roughly the size of an aircraft hanger called the MAUS. They decided not to build it as the reasoning was something that big and slow would be such a large target and would get blown up pretty quickly. In an age of tactical nuclear warheads, building something as big as a gundam would be stupid.
I really wasn't serious when I said that.
Well you seriously defended the notion that one could create an anti-gravity device. That's more asinine.
-
Do you know how big NASA's budget is?
Do you have a point?
I'm sure they have the money. If they wanted to they could do it. It all comes down to how paranoid you are. Will you believe something simply because it seems plausible?
MONEY, cannot defeat gravity.
Of course it can't. But money is usually what funds the organizations that would be able to use technology to either defeat gravity or provide the illusion that gravity has been defeated.
No i'm telling you. There is no such thing as an anti-gravity machine. There is no way, allowed by physics, to build one. If you understood what gravity is, you would understand that it would take the very unbending of spacetime to produce it.
I didn't say there was an anti-gravity machine.
-
I didn't say there was an anti-gravity machine.
I'm sure they have the money. If they wanted to they could do it. It all comes down to how paranoid you are. Will you believe something simply because it seems plausible?
Are you suggesting that nasa created some kind of anti-gravity machine to create videos of weightless astronauts to simulate space or not? It seems to me that you are. And that if one threw money at any problem or issue, one could solve it. Which is not the case in physics.
-
But couldn't you take over the world with the Gundam? If you could, it would be far from useless.
The Nazis had plans laid down for a tank that was roughly the size of an aircraft hanger called the MAUS. They decided not to build it as the reasoning was something that big and slow would be such a large target and would get blown up pretty quickly. In an age of tactical nuclear warheads, building something as big as a gundam would be stupid.
but a Gundam is a lot smaller than an aircraft hanger, and a lot fast than a tank, too.
(http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/2476/rx78gp02a3eu.jpg)
EDIT: picture
-
I didn't say there was an anti-gravity machine.
I'm sure they have the money. If they wanted to they could do it. It all comes down to how paranoid you are. Will you believe something simply because it seems plausible?
Are you suggesting that nasa created some kind of anti-gravity machine to create videos of weightless astronauts to simulate space or not? It seems to me that you are. And that if one threw money at any problem or issue, one could solve it. Which is not the case in physics.
Did I say that I thought they created an anti-grav machine?
-
But couldn't you take over the world with the Gundam? If you could, it would be far from useless.
The Nazis had plans laid down for a tank that was roughly the size of an aircraft hanger called the MAUS. They decided not to build it as the reasoning was something that big and slow would be such a large target and would get blown up pretty quickly. In an age of tactical nuclear warheads, building something as big as a gundam would be stupid.
but a Gundam is a lot smaller than an aircraft hanger, and a lot fast than a tank, too.
(http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/2476/rx78gp02a3eu.jpg)
EDIT: picture
Nuclear Missle > Gundam.
-
I didn't say there was an anti-gravity machine.
I'm sure they have the money. If they wanted to they could do it. It all comes down to how paranoid you are. Will you believe something simply because it seems plausible?
Are you suggesting that nasa created some kind of anti-gravity machine to create videos of weightless astronauts to simulate space or not? It seems to me that you are. And that if one threw money at any problem or issue, one could solve it. Which is not the case in physics.
Did I say that I thought they created an anti-grav machine?
You don't have to say anything inheirtenly sexually harrasing to be charged and found guilty of sexual harrasment, you only have to suggest it. And I think that is the case here. You are suggesting it.
-
First you have to find someone stupid enough to actually use the nuke.
EDIT: I guess we're going back to the serious part of the discussion. I also presented an alternative. That alternative was the illusion of the absence of gravity.
-
You don't just use nuclear arms to destroy one unit, that's just silly. That be like launching long range cruise missiles at jeeps and such.
Also the Gundam pictured, GP02A, can launch nuclear warheads from its cannon.
-
First you have to find someone stupid enough to actually use the nuke.
Tactical Nuclear Warheads aren't the big-booms you have seen in videos from test blasts. They create localized nuclear reactions that only take out smaller targets. They are precise enough to navigate through buildings and down hallways, even at high speeds.
-
First you have to find someone stupid enough to actually use the nuke.
Tactical Nuclear Warheads aren't the big-booms you have seen in videos from test blasts. They create localized nuclear reactions that only take out smaller targets. They are precise enough to navigate through buildings and down hallways, even at high speeds.
Just like Unreal Tournament right?!
-
You don't just use nuclear arms to destroy one unit, that's just silly. That be like launching long range cruise missiles at jeeps and such.
Also the Gundam pictured, GP02A, can launch nuclear warheads from its cannon.
Gundam was probably one of the crappiest animes I ever saw TBH. I never understood the allure.
-
First you have to find someone stupid enough to actually use the nuke.
Tactical Nuclear Warheads aren't the big-booms you have seen in videos from test blasts. They create localized nuclear reactions that only take out smaller targets. They are precise enough to navigate through buildings and down hallways, even at high speeds.
Just like Unreal Tournament right?!
You think unreal tournament invented the TV guided missle?
-
First you have to find someone stupid enough to actually use the nuke.
Tactical Nuclear Warheads aren't the big-booms you have seen in videos from test blasts. They create localized nuclear reactions that only take out smaller targets. They are precise enough to navigate through buildings and down hallways, even at high speeds.
The ramifications are more than just that. Politics and all sorts of things come into play just with the mention of nukes, even if it is just a little one.
-
You don't just use nuclear arms to destroy one unit, that's just silly. That be like launching long range cruise missiles at jeeps and such.
Also the Gundam pictured, GP02A, can launch nuclear warheads from its cannon.
Gundam was probably one of the crappiest animes I ever saw TBH.
Which one are you talking about? the original?
-
You think unreal tournament invented the TV guided missle?
no, but I do think you missed the joke :)
-
First you have to find someone stupid enough to actually use the nuke.
Tactical Nuclear Warheads aren't the big-booms you have seen in videos from test blasts. They create localized nuclear reactions that only take out smaller targets. They are precise enough to navigate through buildings and down hallways, even at high speeds.
The ramifications are more than just that. Politics and all sorts of things come into play just with the mention of nukes, even if it is just a little one.
Politics and people (ignorant ones albeit) understand nukes as the monsters of yesteryear, this is true.
-
You think unreal tournament invented the TV guided missle?
no, but I do think you missed the joke :)
I've played the game, i get it.
-
You think unreal tournament invented the TV guided missle?
no, but I do think you missed the joke :)
I've played the game, i get it.
Apparently you didn't since you actually thought he was serious.
-
You don't just use nuclear arms to destroy one unit, that's just silly. That be like launching long range cruise missiles at jeeps and such.
Also the Gundam pictured, GP02A, can launch nuclear warheads from its cannon.
Gundam was probably one of the crappiest animes I ever saw TBH. I never understood the allure.
Eh I guess not everyone likes to see things blow up. I didn't like some of them either, though. Gundam Wing was pretty stupid and so was G-gundam. I liked the ones where it was a bit more 'realistic' and they tried to explain the purpose of 50 foot robots with pseudo-science and such.
-
ok, first off, nukes are more of a status symbol than a weapon anymore, it's like the scene in the crappy action movie where the big standoff happens and the crazy guy shows up with the trigger to the warehouse of gunpowder below them in his hand, only in this metaphor when that guys makes his entrance everyone flocks to get their own trigger made, it's not about who can blow up who, it's more of an international game of chicken.
as far as apollo 13 and the space program in general, how do you explain the shuttle launches at cape canaveral? NASA spends millions if not billions to build these huge things and launch them up into the air all in the name if making the hoax look authentic????
what about the shuttle that blew up on re-entry and debris was found all over north america? or that you can see the shuttles re-entering the earth's atmosphere if you know what nights to go and look on and live in the american southwest or elsewhere on the shuttle's re-entry path
-
What about the shuttle? It goes up and it comes down.
-
ok, first off, nukes are more of a status symbol than a weapon anymore, it's like the scene in the crappy action movie where the big standoff happens and the crazy guy shows up with the trigger to the warehouse of gunpowder below them in his hand, only in this metaphor when that guys makes his entrance everyone flocks to get their own trigger made, it's not about who can blow up who, it's more of an international game of chicken.
as far as apollo 13 and the space program in general, how do you explain the shuttle launches at cape canaveral? NASA spends millions if not billions to build these huge things and launch them up into the air all in the name if making the hoax look authentic????
what about the shuttle that blew up on re-entry and debris was found all over north america? or that you can see the shuttles re-entering the earth's atmosphere if you know what nights to go and look on and live in the american southwest or elsewhere on the shuttle's re-entry path
The answer is easy, it's all a conspiracy, read the FAQ, all there answers are there. didn't you see them?
p.s. i didn't either.