The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Gordonrox24 on February 08, 2011, 01:20:09 PM
-
I have a simple question that leads elsewhere.
Has NASA every been to space?
-
No.
You were right. That was simple.
-
Going into space is not incompatible with FET.
-
if nasa wasnt fobbed off as a conspiracy then the FES wouldbe better off imo. its questionable if we did land on the moon at all, but objects could be thrown into space even with the FET models. PERHAPS nasa cover up that the earth is flat but i dont see why they would lie about all space exploration. if not i would believe the russians would of done it by now even if it was just for a very short ammount of time. at 3000 miles the moon is quite close i would be implied to believe they have had a look at it close up
-
No.
-
Well Gordon, there's your answer. Where was this leading, exactly?
-
I have a simple question that leads elsewhere.
Has NASA every been to space?
Of course they have. How do you explain ISS sightings, the thousands of pictures or Earths/space taken by NASA, and frequently observed shuttle launches?
-
I have a simple question that leads elsewhere.
Has NASA every been to space?
Of course they have. How do you explain ISS sightings, the thousands of pictures or Earths/space taken by NASA, and frequently observed shuttle launches?
We don't deny that the ISS is observed flying across the sky, whatever it is.
Any picture showing the earth as a globe is a fake.
The shuttle launches are real, but the shuttle missions are fake.
-
No.
-
Probably.
:-X
-
the ISS and other satellites fly due to photoelectric suspension, similar to the effect that suspends the sun and the moon. It is fueled by regular shuttle deliveries of Sun shrimp.
-
the ISS and other satellites fly due to photoelectric suspension, similar to the effect that suspends the sun and the moon. It is fueled by regular shuttle deliveries of Sun shrimp.
Justify this statement.
-
the ISS and other satellites fly due to photoelectric suspension, similar to the effect that suspends the sun and the moon. It is fueled by regular shuttle deliveries of Sun shrimp.
Justify this statement.
I see evidence of this when I look at the ISS. If the earth is flat, how else could it be?
-
No.
No.
-
Ok. So, the rich can now purchase flights into space. I would really hope some day a FE'r can afford to head up there for themselves. Just to put an end to it. Somebody should really talk to NASA about that. Would solve all the issues.
Historical question. Russia and the USA have been at odds for a long time. During the race into space, they were definitely not friendly. Especially under communism the USSR was not fond of following rules. How did the conspiracy survive during this time? Would the USSR, once into space, not spread the word that the world is indeed flat, in another attempt to mess with the system the so despised?
-
The conspiracy can easily survive same way the UFO's conspiracy survives. Both Russian and American governments refuse to disclose the truth about UFO's, they refuse to disclose many things and yes two governments are actually working together to hide the truth. It is called the New World Order.
This whole Russia vs USA feud is staged anyways. In reality the world is run by global elites who manipulate nations and play chess game with politics, don't be so naive folks.
-
the ISS and other satellites fly due to photoelectric suspension, similar to the effect that suspends the sun and the moon. It is fueled by regular shuttle deliveries of Sun shrimp.
Justify this statement.
Justify the statements in the FAQ.
-
Bill Clinton couldn't even keep his sex life a secret. There is no way he could keep this a secret as well. I'm sorry guys, but every claim you make is backed up by the conspiracy you can't prove exists...
-
Bill Clinton couldn't even keep his sex life a secret. There is no way he could keep this a secret as well. I'm sorry guys, but every claim you make is backed up by the conspiracy you can't prove exists...
There's a whole host of evidence which shows NASA's fakery. No one is saying that they're pulling off a perfect scam. They make all sorts of mistakes.
# NASA sends Neil and Buzz around to give foreign heads of states questionable moon rocks
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-science/
# Thomas Baron Silenced for Attempting to Expose the Truth
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Thomas+Baron+Silenced+for+Attempting+to+Expose+the+Truth
# A Close Look at the Lunar Lander
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=A+Close+Look+at+the+Lunar+Lander
# The Apollo Sun is a Stage Light
http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/d5784ce2-2348-40a0-8f9b-0ddf37763b6e
# Dr. David Groves Photography Analysis
-
# NASA sends Neil and Buzz around to give foreign heads of states questionable moon rocks
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-science/
You've already been called out on this lie. Your deliberate dishonesty in the upper forums is despicable.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45854.msg1137813#msg1137813
-
# NASA sends Neil and Buzz around to give foreign heads of states questionable moon rocks
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-science/
You've already been called out on this lie. Your deliberate dishonesty in the upper forums is despicable.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45854.msg1137813#msg1137813
It's not a lie. The moon rock they gave to the prime minister was fake. See the MSNBC article.
-
# NASA sends Neil and Buzz around to give foreign heads of states questionable moon rocks
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-science/
You've already been called out on this lie. Your deliberate dishonesty in the upper forums is despicable.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45854.msg1137813#msg1137813
It's not a lie. The moon rock they gave to the prime minister was fake. See the MSNBC article.
See the linked thread. It is a lie to say that "NASA sends Neil and Buzz around to give foreign heads of states questionable moon rocks." You know it is a lie and hope that no one will read the actual article. Again, your deliberate dishonesty gives FE a bad name.
-
Tom, I read all of those links, and they are all flawed in some way shape or form. The only one that even remotely stirred my interest was your video of the "fake sun". Can you take a photo of the sun and do the same test and see what results you get? I would be interested in the results.
-
All of Tom's allegations of NASA's 'fakery' have been debunked elsewhere.
-
# NASA sends Neil and Buzz around to give foreign heads of states questionable moon rocks
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-science/
You've already been called out on this lie. Your deliberate dishonesty in the upper forums is despicable.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45854.msg1137813#msg1137813
It's not a lie. The moon rock they gave to the prime minister was fake. See the MSNBC article.
See the linked thread. It is a lie to say that "NASA sends Neil and Buzz around to give foreign heads of states questionable moon rocks." You know it is a lie and hope that no one will read the actual article. Again, your deliberate dishonesty gives FE a bad name.
Who gives a crap if it was NASA who gave it to the US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister? Neil and Buzz were the ones who collected it from the moon (allegedly) and gave it to NASA, therefore it was a gift from all of them.
The point is that they gave a fake moon rock to the Prime Minister.
-
All of Tom's allegations of NASA's 'fakery' have been debunked elsewhere.
Someone debunked that the moon rock was fake?
-
Who gives a crap if it was NASA who gave it to the US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister? Neil and Buzz were the ones who collected it from the moon (allegedly) and gave it to NASA, therefore it was a gift from all of them.
The point is that they gave a fake moon rock to the Prime Minister.
Where is your evidence that NASA (or any one else involved) claimed that the rock presented came from the moon?
-
Who gives a crap if it was NASA who gave it to the US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister? Neil and Buzz were the ones who collected it from the moon (allegedly) and gave it to NASA, therefore it was a gift from all of them.
The point is that they gave a fake moon rock to the Prime Minister.
Where is your evidence that NASA (or any one else involved) claimed that the rock presented came from the moon?
RTFA:
"The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said."
-
Who gives a crap if it was NASA who gave it to the US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister? Neil and Buzz were the ones who collected it from the moon (allegedly) and gave it to NASA, therefore it was a gift from all of them.
The point is that they gave a fake moon rock to the Prime Minister.
Where is your evidence that NASA (or any one else involved) claimed that the rock presented came from the moon?
RTFA:
"The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said."
I did RTFA, did you?
The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said.
She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.
-
Like I said,
All of Tom's allegations of NASA's 'fakery' have been debunked elsewhere.
-
# NASA sends Neil and Buzz around to give foreign heads of states questionable moon rocks
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-science/
You've already been called out on this lie. Your deliberate dishonesty in the upper forums is despicable.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45854.msg1137813#msg1137813
It's not a lie. The moon rock they gave to the prime minister was fake. See the MSNBC article.
See the linked thread. It is a lie to say that "NASA sends Neil and Buzz around to give foreign heads of states questionable moon rocks." You know it is a lie and hope that no one will read the actual article. Again, your deliberate dishonesty gives FE a bad name.
Who gives a crap if it was NASA who gave it to the US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister? Neil and Buzz were the ones who collected it from the moon (allegedly) and gave it to NASA, therefore it was a gift from all of them.
The point is that they gave a fake moon rock to the Prime Minister.
i gave fake moon rock to my girlfriend so that proves we didnt go to moon?
-
the fake moon rock may of actually been the presidents mistake. all of the links can actually be explained rationally
-
Tom, I read all of those links, and they are all flawed in some way shape or form. The only one that even remotely stirred my interest was your video of the "fake sun". Can you take a photo of the sun and do the same test and see what results you get? I would be interested in the results.
See Mythbusters. I give them credit way over anything that has been done here.
Also
# Thomas Baron Silenced for Attempting to Expose the Truth
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Thomas+Baron+Silenced+for+Attempting+to+Expose+the+Truth
Was also shot down in this forum.
Berny
Conspiracy Theories are for wimps
-
Tom, I read all of those links, and they are all flawed in some way shape or form. The only one that even remotely stirred my interest was your video of the "fake sun". Can you take a photo of the sun and do the same test and see what results you get? I would be interested in the results.
See Mythbusters. I give them credit way over anything that has been done here.
Also
# Thomas Baron Silenced for Attempting to Expose the Truth
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Thomas+Baron+Silenced+for+Attempting+to+Expose+the+Truth
Was also shot down in this forum.
Berny
Conspiracy Theories are for wimps
Hey Berny,
The conspiracy has you right where they want you.. That is thinking there is nothing wrong.
You might want to research conspiracies, past mythbusters.
Thinking everything is ok is for wimps.IMHO
-
I did RTFA, did you?
The museum had vetted the moon rock with a phone call to NASA, Van Gelder said.
She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.
The article also says that the Ex-US Ambassador William Middendorf went on camera and said where he had gotten it from.
See the bolded part below:
The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.
Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department
-
I have a simple question that leads elsewhere.
Has NASA every been to space?
since this is only a simple yes, no question., I'm going to say... YES
click on this. It's a little more complicated.
Thank You Dear Friends
http://www.magneticenergy.org.uk/Ship_files/Ship.htm
-
It's not just NASA who have managed to get into space.
There are other organisations as well.
-
Last time I checked, the US State Department was not located on the moon.
-
The article also says that the Ex-US Ambassador William Middendorf went on camera and said where he had gotten it from.
See the bolded part below:
The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.
Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department
He got it from the State Department, not NASA. Thanks.
So how do you make the leap from, "he got it from the U.S. State Department" to ""NASA sends Neil and Buzz around to give foreign heads of states questionable moon rocks."
-
The article also says that the Ex-US Ambassador William Middendorf went on camera and said where he had gotten it from.
See the bolded part below:
The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.
Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department
NASA is not a part of the U.S. State Department.
-
Let's not make this more complicated than it really is. The U.S. government gave away fake moon rocks. NASA is the only U.S. agency that goes to the"moon". Therefore NASA gave away fake moon rocks.
-
Let's not make this more complicated than it really is. The U.S. government gave away fake moon rocks. NASA is the only U.S. agency that goes to the"moon". Therefore NASA gave away fake moon rocks.
Except for the part where they didn't.
-
Let's not make this more complicated than it really is. The U.S. government gave away fake moon rocks. NASA is the only U.S. agency that goes to the"moon". Therefore NASA gave away fake moon rocks.
Except it was never firmly established that the rock in question was ever presented as a moon rock.
-
Let's not make this more complicated than it really is. The U.S. government gave away fake moon rocks. NASA is the only U.S. agency that goes to the"moon". Therefore NASA gave away fake moon rocks.
Except it was never firmly established that the rock in question was ever presented as a moon rock.
Right ,I got you. The ambassador, astronauts or whoever, went there to present regular rocks they found in their backyard. Yeah that makes alot of sense.
-
Let's not make this more complicated than it really is. The U.S. government gave away fake moon rocks. NASA is the only U.S. agency that goes to the"moon". Therefore NASA gave away fake moon rocks.
Except it was never firmly established that the rock in question was ever presented as a moon rock.
Right ,I got you. The ambassador, astronauts or whoever, went there to present regular rocks they found in their backyard. Yeah that makes alot of sense.
The rock in question was presented about 3 months after the Apollo 11 mission. It's very unlikely that NASA would have given away any moon rock samples so soon after they were collected.
-
They could be meteorites?
Why does it matter anyway? Has it been proven the rocks are not from the moon or something?
-
Right ,I got you. The ambassador, astronauts or whoever, went there to present regular rocks they found in their backyard. Yeah that makes alot of sense.
The rock in question was presented about 3 months after the Apollo 11 mission. It's very unlikely that NASA would have given away any moon rock samples so soon after they were collected.
That would be true if NASA had really collected rocks from the moon and had considered them valuable. However, as they did not go to the moon, they would not consider moon rocks valuable.
Except it was never firmly established that the rock in question was ever presented as a moon rock.
Image from the article:
(http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg)
Like hoppy said above, it doesn't make any sense that they would present a rock they found in their back yard or on the side of the road to the Prime Minister to commemorate the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts. The rock was clearly presented as a rock from the moon.
-
They could be meteorites?
How many meteorites are made out of petrified wood?
Sounds like you need to RTFA (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-science/).
-
I don't see anything about the origin of the rock on there.
-
I don't see anything about the origin of the rock on there.
Like hoppy said above, it doesn't make any sense that they would present a rock they found in their back yard or on the side of the road to the Prime Minister to commemorate the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts. The rock was clearly presented as a rock from the moon.
-
It also doesn't make sense that they used a lump of wood instead of a lump of rock from the earth.
It's a lot more convincing.
-
How do we know that was the original 'thing' that went with that note?
It could have been anything.
-
I don't see anything about the origin of the rock on there.
Like hoppy said above, it doesn't make any sense that they would present a rock they found in their back yard or on the side of the road to the Prime Minister to commemorate the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts. The rock was clearly presented as a rock from the moon.
Unless you can provide documentation as to the actual origin of the rock in question, all anyone can do is speculate and speculation is not for proper Zetetics.
-
How do we know that was the original 'thing' that went with that note?
It could have been anything.
Maybe the former Prime Minister (he was not the Prime Minister at the time of the gift) who showed a great deal of curiosity in the rock replaced it so he could keep it himself and be interred with it. Thats almost 20 years of it being out of contact with anybody except the owner.
Berny
Thinks Conspiracy Theories are for wimps - part II
-
It also doesn't make sense that they used a lump of wood instead of a lump of rock from the earth.
It's a lot more convincing.
Yes, it would be more convincing.
They probably figured that since they were claiming that moon rocks were identical in composition to earth rocks that any old rock on the side of the road would do. They forgot that not everything that looks and feels as hard as a rock is a rock. Petrified wood may feel as hard as a a rock, but it is not a rock. Shame on NASA for being so careless with their hoaxery.
Unless you can provide documentation as to the actual origin of the rock in question, all anyone can do is speculate and speculation is not for proper Zetetics.
The man who gave it to the Prime Minister, Ex-US Ambassador William Middendorf, is still alive. He didn't mention that "oh, it's not a moon rock" to Dutch Broadcaster NOS News when questioned on it. If he had it would have been put into the article.
It was clearly presented as a moon rock. All of these constant RE excuses are really quite unbecoming. One excuse after the next to deflect admission of NASA's scam.
-
Petrified wood may feel as hard as a a rock, but it is not a rock. Shame on NASA for being so careless with their hoaxery.
Actually Tom, petrified wood is rock. That's what petrified means.
Petrified wood (from the Greek root petro meaning "rock" or "stone"; literally "wood turned into stone") is the name given to a special type of fossilized remains of terrestrial vegetation. It is the result of a tree having turned completely into stone by the process of permineralization.
Unless you can provide documentation as to the actual origin of the rock in question, all anyone can do is speculate and speculation is not for proper Zetetics.
The man who gave it to the Prime Minister, Ex-US Ambassador William Middendorf, is still alive. He didn't mention that "oh, it's not a moon rock" to Dutch Broadcaster NOS News when questioned on it. If he had it would have been put into the article.
Did Mr. Middendorf confirm that it was indeed a moon rock that he presented? Did he even confirm that the rock in question is the one that he presented? Again Tom, it's not Zetetic to make assumptions.
-
Petrified wood may feel as hard as a a rock, but it is not a rock. Shame on NASA for being so careless with their hoaxery.
Actually Tom, petrified wood is rock. That's what petrified means.
Petrified wood (from the Greek root petro meaning "rock" or "stone"; literally "wood turned into stone") is the name given to a special type of fossilized remains of terrestrial vegetation. It is the result of a tree having turned completely into stone by the process of permineralization.
It's not the sort of rock which people think of when they hear the term "rock".
Nothing like that would be on the moon's surface.
Did Mr. Middendorf confirm that it was indeed a moon rock that he presented? Did he even confirm that the rock in question is the one that he presented? Again Tom, it's not Zetetic to make assumptions.
In the article it says that Dutch Broadcaster NOS News questioned Middendorf on the subject.
If Middendorf had mentioned "oh, but it wasn't from the moon" it would have been newsworthy.
Stop making frivolous excuses in an attempt to salvage NASA's credibility. Worthless and frivolous excuses are extremely unbecoming.
-
The Telegraph has another picture of this "Moon Rock".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01471/rock_1471511c.jpg)
In the Telegraph article Middendorf very clearly implies that the rock was presented as a rock from the moon:
J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, made the presentation to Mr Drees and the rock was then donated to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988.
"I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that," Mr Middendorf said.
In this Providence Journal article Middendorf has another quote for us:
http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/08/moon-rock-equal.html
The former ambassador said the rock must have come either from the State Department or directly from the astronauts. "If it came from the astronauts I would have thought it would be perfectly OK," he added.
As we can see, Ex-Ambassador Middendorf was under the impression that the little red rock given to Prime Minister Drees was a rock from the moon.
How he could so blindly trust the word of some astronauts, how naive!
-
Tom, are you 100% sure that the rock in question the same rock that was presented to Mr. Drees in 1968? Is there any chance that Mr. Drees (or someone else) may have switched the original rock with a piece of petrified wood? Is it really inconceivable that such a rare and priceless artifact could have been stolen and replaced with a similar looking rock?
-
So all you have is speculation, I see.
-
Tom, are you 100% sure that the rock in question the same rock that was presented to Mr. Drees in 1968? Is there any chance that Mr. Drees (or someone else) may have switched the original rock with a piece of petrified wood? Is it really inconceivable that such a rare and priceless artifact could have been stolen and replaced with a similar looking rock?
So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?
It sure takes a vivid imagination to be an RE'er. All of these inside-jobs, optical illusions, and whimsical scenarios to think up. As an RE'er one must make up a constant stream of fanciful excuses for the host of evidence against NASA's missions and the earth's globularity.
Even when NASA is caught airbrushing the photos of the lunar surface (http://) (1 and a half minutes in) RE'ers will mumble to themselves that the flagrant fakery was done just to make the photo look prettier, despite the fact that it's supposed to be an honest and accurate record of man's trip to the moon and the particular airbrushing done does nothing to enhance the quality of the photo.
-
Tom, are you 100% sure that the rock in question the same rock that was presented to Mr. Drees in 1968? Is there any chance that Mr. Drees (or someone else) may have switched the original rock with a piece of petrified wood? Is it really inconceivable that such a rare and priceless artifact could have been stolen and replaced with a similar looking rock?
So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?
It certainly takes a vivid imagination to be an RE'er. All of these inside-jobs, optical illusions, and whimsical scenarios to think up. As an RE'er one must make up a constant stream fanciful excuses for the host of evidence against NASA's missions and the earth's non-globularity.
Even when NASA is caught airbrushing the photos of the lunar surface (http://) (2 minutes in) RE'ers will mumble to themselves that the flagrant fakery was done just to make the photo look prettier, despite the fact that it's supposed to be a record of man's trip to the moon and the particular airbrushing done does nothing to enhance the quality of the photo.
give it a rest you are being very rude
-
So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?
Are you suggesting that there is such a thing as an honest politician?
-
Tom, are you 100% sure that the rock in question the same rock that was presented to Mr. Drees in 1968? Is there any chance that Mr. Drees (or someone else) may have switched the original rock with a piece of petrified wood? Is it really inconceivable that such a rare and priceless artifact could have been stolen and replaced with a similar looking rock?
So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?
It sure takes a vivid imagination to be an RE'er. All of these inside-jobs, optical illusions, and whimsical scenarios to think up. As an RE'er one must make up a constant stream of fanciful excuses for the host of evidence against NASA's missions and the earth's globularity.
Even when NASA is caught airbrushing the photos of the lunar surface (http://) (2 minutes in) RE'ers will mumble to themselves that the flagrant fakery was done just to make the photo look prettier, despite the fact that it's supposed to be an honest and accurate record of man's trip to the moon and the particular airbrushing done does nothing to enhance the quality of the photo.
i thought it got established that you cant really use another person's word as evidence
it must take a vivid imagination to be a FEer. all these od theories, disagreements, and complexity one must think up. as an FEer one must make a constant stream of conspiracy theories, excuses, and far fetched speculation, along with purposeful misinterpretations to fight against evidence for nasa's missions, earth's globularity, and gravity.
even when nasa shows us images of a round earth, let us track the ISS, show use shuttle launches, give samples of space debris for research, plan and make missions to investigate other planets, and when others show pictures that show a objects below a horizon line, a curved horizon, gravitometers, and observations that show the earth is round from the sun's rays, FE'ers mumble to themselves "i didnt see it, so it cannot be used as evidence" or "its a comspiracy" or that they shall reject information that goes against them, but HO! this fits with us, lets use this!, despite the fact that many other honest men and women tell us that nasa has been there, done that, and that the earth is round, and that space travel exists, and that satelites work in our daily lives that show the earth is round
*note, this is not directed to every FE'er, just the one that has posted the 3rd post above me
-
Tom, are you 100% sure that the rock in question the same rock that was presented to Mr. Drees in 1968? Is there any chance that Mr. Drees (or someone else) may have switched the original rock with a piece of petrified wood? Is it really inconceivable that such a rare and priceless artifact could have been stolen and replaced with a similar looking rock?
So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?
It sure takes a vivid imagination to be an RE'er. All of these inside-jobs, optical illusions, and whimsical scenarios to think up. As an RE'er one must make up a constant stream of fanciful excuses for the host of evidence against NASA's missions and the earth's globularity.
Even when NASA is caught airbrushing the photos of the lunar surface (http://) (2 minutes in) RE'ers will mumble to themselves that the flagrant fakery was done just to make the photo look prettier, despite the fact that it's supposed to be an honest and accurate record of man's trip to the moon and the particular airbrushing done does nothing to enhance the quality of the photo.
This is BS. Most of your posts are high in quality, but this is just lies. Nothing needs to be imagined. RE is entirely self consistent and consistent with observations. What inside jobs are you talking about? And there's a difference between fake and altered. The magazine publishers obviously made the picture longer to fit the page
-
So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?
That's no more implausible than saying NASA and the scientific community are in on a conspiracy.
Tom you don't seem to be looking at the facts for what they are, but for what you want them to be.
It does not say they were moon rocks, it could have been a symbolic representation of a moon rock, since a moon rock would cost millions of dollars to get. It's a waste to science if they gave them away.
It also doesn't show that the item presented to the prime minister was a moon rock. All you have is a separate note that isn't even mounted on anything. If the gift was that important they would have mounted it and said what it was.
This story has so many holes it's like a fart in a colander.
-
So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?
That's no more implausible than saying NASA and the scientific community are in on a conspiracy.
Tom you don't seem to be looking at the facts for what they are, but for what you want them to be.
It does not say they were moon rocks, it could have been a symbolic representation of a moon rock, since a moon rock would cost millions of dollars to get. It's a waste to science if they gave them away.
It also doesn't show that the item presented to the prime minister was a moon rock. All you have is a separate note that isn't even mounted on anything. If the gift was that important they would have mounted it and said what it was.
This story has so many holes it's like a fart in a colander.
I think also that Tom seems to be confusing could happen with did happen
-
So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?
It also doesn't show that the item presented to the prime minister was a moon rock. All you have is a separate note that isn't even mounted on anything. If the gift was that important they would have mounted it and said what it was.
This story has so many holes it's like a fart in a colander.
He was not the prime minister at the time of the gift.
Berny
Lets check all the facts
-
So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?
It also doesn't show that the item presented to the prime minister was a moon rock. All you have is a separate note that isn't even mounted on anything. If the gift was that important they would have mounted it and said what it was.
This story has so many holes it's like a fart in a colander.
He was not the prime minister at the time of the gift.
Berny
Lets check all the facts
Where did I say he was the prime minister at the time?
-
I think that Berny may have been pointing that out to Tom.
-
This is BS. Most of your posts are high in quality, but this is just lies. Nothing needs to be imagined. RE is entirely self consistent and consistent with observations. What inside jobs are you talking about? And there's a difference between fake and altered. The magazine publishers obviously made the picture longer to fit the page
Here's a link to the scene in question at the 1 minute 30 second mark:
The people who airbrushed that part into the picture didn't make it "longer to fit the page". The picture doesn't fit or fill the page with that little part they added in. You're talking nonsense.
The pictures from the moon are clearly being manipulated.
So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?
That's no more implausible than saying NASA and the scientific community are in on a conspiracy.
Tom you don't seem to be looking at the facts for what they are, but for what you want them to be.
It does not say they were moon rocks, it could have been a symbolic representation of a moon rock, since a moon rock would cost millions of dollars to get. It's a waste to science if they gave them away.
On the previous page of this thread I've already established that William Maddendorf, the then-US Ambassador who gave the moon rock to former Prime Minister Drees, is quoted as being under the impression that the rock was from the surface of the moon.
It also doesn't show that the item presented to the prime minister was a moon rock. All you have is a separate note that isn't even mounted on anything. If the gift was that important they would have mounted it and said what it was.
Again, William Middendorf, the US Ambassador who gave the rock to Prime Minister Drees, is still alive and went on record saying that he trusted that the rock from the astronauts was genuine. He was under the impression that the rock he was giving to the Drees was a rock from the moon.
This story has so many holes it's like a fart in a colander.
No. You just need to read the damn thread.
-
This is BS. Most of your posts are high in quality, but this is just lies. Nothing needs to be imagined. RE is entirely self consistent and consistent with observations. What inside jobs are you talking about? And there's a difference between fake and altered. The magazine publishers obviously made the picture longer to fit the page
Here's a link to the scene in question at the 1 minute 30 second mark:
The people who airbrushed that part into the picture didn't make it "longer to fit the page". The picture doesn't fit or fill the page with that little part they added in. You're talking nonsense.
The pictures from the moon are clearly being manipulated.
So Prime Minister Drees stole his own moon rock?
That's no more implausible than saying NASA and the scientific community are in on a conspiracy.
Tom you don't seem to be looking at the facts for what they are, but for what you want them to be.
It does not say they were moon rocks, it could have been a symbolic representation of a moon rock, since a moon rock would cost millions of dollars to get. It's a waste to science if they gave them away.
On the last page of this thread I've already established that William Maddendorf, the then-US Ambassador who gave the moon rock to former Prime Minister Drees, is quoted as being under the impression that the rock was from the surface of the moon.
It also doesn't show that the item presented to the prime minister was a moon rock. All you have is a separate note that isn't even mounted on anything. If the gift was that important they would have mounted it and said what it was.
Again, William Middendorf, the US Ambassador who gave the rock to Prime Minister Drees, is still alive and went on record saying that he trusted that the rock from the astronauts was genuine. He was under the impression that the rock he was giving to the Drees was a rock from the moon.
This story has so many holes it's like a fart in a colander.
No. You just need to read the damn thread.
I've looked at what you've put and what others have put and the facts are obvious.
Yes it adds to the point that NASA maybe lying about something, but the basis for that fact has very weak foundations. The reason for that have already been given in this thread, but for some weird reason you don't want to acknowledge them, because you want the facts to appear how you want them to be and not for what they are.
-
Tom,
I hope people will look at the link above, maybe the truth will start to shine in. There is alot of evidence that NASA faked some of their photographs and evidence. If you really did something why do you need to lie and create evidence.
It is a high hurdle to clear, realizing that NASA may have lied, and has never sent a man to the moon. About 1 year ago I had no idea that NASA could or would lie. Brainwashing the masses seems to work pretty well for the elite,however, the truth shall set you free.
-
This is BS. Most of your posts are high in quality, but this is just lies. Nothing needs to be imagined. RE is entirely self consistent and consistent with observations. What inside jobs are you talking about? And there's a difference between fake and altered. The magazine publishers obviously made the picture longer to fit the page
Here's a link to the scene in question at the 1 minute 30 second mark:
The people who airbrushed that part into the picture didn't make it "longer to fit the page". The picture doesn't fit or fill the page with that little part they added in. You're talking nonsense.
Yes it does. It makes the picture appear longer. Magazines do stuff like this all the time. That's what you do if you want to manipulate a real photograph. Now if the landing was faked, they could just go back to their miniature studio, and snap another photo. Or go back to photo shop and add some more stuff. All this does is prove that the photo was manipulated, not that the original was a fake, or that all NASA photo's are faked
-
This is BS. Most of your posts are high in quality, but this is just lies. Nothing needs to be imagined. RE is entirely self consistent and consistent with observations. What inside jobs are you talking about? And there's a difference between fake and altered. The magazine publishers obviously made the picture longer to fit the page
Here's a link to the scene in question at the 1 minute 30 second mark:
The people who airbrushed that part into the picture didn't make it "longer to fit the page". The picture doesn't fit or fill the page with that little part they added in. You're talking nonsense.
Yes it does. It makes the picture appear longer. Magazines do stuff like this all the time. That's what you do if you want to manipulate a real photograph. Now if the landing was faked, they could just go back to their miniature studio, and snap another photo. Or go back to photo shop and add some more stuff. All this does is prove that the photo was manipulated, not that the original was a fake, or that all NASA photo's are faked
TVOR what you may not realize, this one small piece of a whole lot of evidence of moon landing fakery.
-
Yes it does. It makes the picture appear longer. Magazines do stuff like this all the time. That's what you do if you want to manipulate a real photograph. Now if the landing was faked, they could just go back to their miniature studio, and snap another photo. Or go back to photo shop and add some more stuff. All this does is prove that the photo was manipulated, not that the original was a fake, or that all NASA photo's are faked
First of all it's from a book, not a magazine. Secondly, they don't "do it all the time".
Highlighted parts from the video: http://i52.tinypic.com/2vccg11.jpg
The RE excuse is that the publisher did it to "fill up empty space" or something like that. That doesn't fill up empty space. There's still a whole lot of empty space. Why would a publisher tamper with a NASA photograph like that? It makes no sense.
RE'er excuses are a dime a dozen. And bad ones at that.
-
dude that last post is BS.
"its a book not a magazine" lol. im pretty sure it wouldnt matter, thay are still printed on paper.
but like your link said why would NASA give out a moon rock after only having it for 2 months?
maybe the conspiracy is that NASA cameras broke and thay had to fake the images!
TB you should stand down or you will have a rep like new earth before long
-
dude that last post is BS.
"its a book not a magazine" lol. im pretty sure it wouldnt matter, thay are still printed on paper.
but like your link said why would NASA give out a moon rock after only having it for 2 months?
NASA would only be hesitant about giving it away if it they had really gone to the moon and the rocks were valuable.
However, as it's not from the moon it's not valuable. Hence why NASA would have no qualms about giving such things away.
-
dude that last post is BS.
"its a book not a magazine" lol. im pretty sure it wouldnt matter, thay are still printed on paper.
but like your link said why would NASA give out a moon rock after only having it for 2 months?
NASA would only be hesitant about giving it away if it they had really gone to the moon and the rocks were valuable.
However, as it's not from the moon it's not valuable. Hence why NASA would have no qualms about giving such things away.
So... it's not a moon rock because it's not a moon rock?
-
dude that last post is BS.
"its a book not a magazine" lol. im pretty sure it wouldnt matter, thay are still printed on paper.
but like your link said why would NASA give out a moon rock after only having it for 2 months?
NASA would only be hesitant about giving it away if it they had really gone to the moon and the rocks were valuable.
However, as it's not from the moon it's not valuable. Hence why NASA would have no qualms about giving such things away.
considering the ammount of effort they go to keep the conspiracy alive wouldnt you think they would of thought about it? i think there has been a misunderstanding at some point because:
a: they wouldnt give it away so soon
b: they guy they gave it to may of made some mistake
c: when does the media get anything right!?
also why petrified wood anyway? wouldnt this be the most obvious thing to analise to see what it was? surely if they was going to give any fake rocks they would be grey and look like a stereotypical moon rock
-
If I iwas giving someone a fake moon rock, I'd make it a meteorite.
-
exactly, could actually pull that off i imagine. wonder what the FES think about meteors anyway? better go lurking...
-
And I would blast it with radiation to mess up any tests the future could run on it. The explanation for the blasting could be solar flares, and if they were found out, they could say they did it to kill any organisms that might have been living on it and the people who made the previous explanation simply did not know this.
-
see if us simpletons can easily come up with a solution then why cant some of the best scientists in the world?
-
see if us simpletons can easily come up with a solution then why cant some of the best scientists in the world?
And I spent about thirty seconds thinking about it.
-
considering the ammount of effort they go to keep the conspiracy alive wouldnt you think they would of thought about it? i think there has been a misunderstanding at some point because:
a: they wouldnt give it away so soon
You're assuming that they went to the moon and that the moon rocks are valuable.
b: they guy they gave it to may of made some mistake
A mistake like stealing his own moon rock?
c: when does the media get anything right!?
The media didn't give the Prime Minister a fake moon rock. NASA did.
also why petrified wood anyway? wouldnt this be the most obvious thing to analise to see what it was? surely if they was going to give any fake rocks they would be grey and look like a stereotypical moon rock?
No one is saying that NASA is hiring the brightest people here. Petrified wood is easily mistaken as an earth rock. It looks interesting, which is why they gave it to the Prime Minister.
NASA was claiming that moon rocks were identical in composition to earth rocks, so they likely figured that any old rock on the side of the road would do.
-
And you continue to refuse to back up your allegation that the rock was presented as originating on the moon with facts.
-
And you continue to refuse to back up your allegation that the rock was presented as originating on the moon with facts.
Please read the thread. The Ex-US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister said he was under the impression that it was from the moon.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45822.msg1145206#msg1145206
-
And you continue to refuse to back up your allegation that the rock was presented as originating on the moon with facts.
Please read the thread. The Ex-US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister said he was under the impression that it was from the moon.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45822.msg1145206#msg1145206
Those quotes don't say anything about the moon.
-
And you continue to refuse to back up your allegation that the rock was presented as originating on the moon with facts.
Please read the thread. The Ex-US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister said he was under the impression that it was from the moon.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45822.msg1145206#msg1145206
Those quotes don't say anything about the moon.
His quote "If it came from the astronauts I would have thought it would be perfectly OK" implies that he believed it to be from the moon.
His quote "I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that" implies that he believed it to be the real deal.
-
And you continue to refuse to back up your allegation that the rock was presented as originating on the moon with facts.
Please read the thread. The Ex-US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister said he was under the impression that it was from the moon.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45822.msg1145206#msg1145206
Those quotes don't say anything about the moon.
His quote "If it came from the astronauts I would have thought it would be perfectly OK" implies that he believed it to be from the moon.
His quote "I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that" implies that he believed it to be the real deal.
One thing you really need to learn is that you saying something does not make that thing true.
-
One thing you really need to learn is that you saying something does not make that thing true.
I didn't say it. The Ex-US Ambassador who handed over the rock said it.
-
considering the ammount of effort they go to keep the conspiracy alive wouldnt you think they would of thought about it? i think there has been a misunderstanding at some point because:
a: they wouldnt give it away so soon
You're assuming that they went to the moon and that the moon rocks are valuable.
b: they guy they gave it to may of made some mistake
A mistake like stealing his own moon rock?
c: when does the media get anything right!?
The media didn't give the Prime Minister a fake moon rock. NASA did.
also why petrified wood anyway? wouldnt this be the most obvious thing to analise to see what it was? surely if they was going to give any fake rocks they would be grey and look like a stereotypical moon rock?
No one is saying that NASA is hiring the brightest people here. Petrified wood is easily mistaken as an earth rock. It looks interesting, which is why they gave it to the Prime Minister.
NASA was claiming that moon rocks were identical in composition to earth rocks, so they likely figured that any old rock on the side of the road would do.
FAIL
-
One thing you really need to learn is that you saying something does not make that thing true.
I didn't say it. The Ex-US Ambassador who handed over the rock said it.
You said that the rock was presented as a moon rock, the Ambassador did not.
-
And you continue to refuse to back up your allegation that the rock was presented as originating on the moon with facts.
Please read the thread. The Ex-US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister said he was under the impression that it was from the moon.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45822.msg1145206#msg1145206
Those quotes don't say anything about the moon.
His quote "If it came from the astronauts I would have thought it would be perfectly OK" implies that he believed it to be from the moon.
His quote "I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that" implies that he believed it to be the real deal.
implied doesnt mean they told him it was from the moon, implied does not mean he didnt actually know that was a regular rock
i can say, he is stuck in bed due to health problems. you can imply he is sick, but, he could have muscle dystrophy, he could be dead (a change in health) or he could be having health problems, such as being uable to support his own weight
-
Yes it does. It makes the picture appear longer. Magazines do stuff like this all the time. That's what you do if you want to manipulate a real photograph. Now if the landing was faked, they could just go back to their miniature studio, and snap another photo. Or go back to photo shop and add some more stuff. All this does is prove that the photo was manipulated, not that the original was a fake, or that all NASA photo's are faked
First of all it's from a book, not a magazine. Secondly, they don't "do it all the time".
Highlighted parts from the video: http://i52.tinypic.com/2vccg11.jpg
The RE excuse is that the publisher did it to "fill up empty space" or something like that. That doesn't fill up empty space. There's still a whole lot of empty space. Why would a publisher tamper with a NASA photograph like that? It makes no sense.
RE'er excuses are a dime a dozen. And bad ones at that.
airbrushing is normally used for retouching of photos
and if you take one person's account higher than all the other people, that is bad practice, especially for zeteticism.
if so, all the REers just say OH! LOOK Berny went to antarctica! there was no ice wall!
-
dude that last post is BS.
"its a book not a magazine" lol. im pretty sure it wouldnt matter, thay are still printed on paper.
but like your link said why would NASA give out a moon rock after only having it for 2 months?
NASA would only be hesitant about giving it away if it they had really gone to the moon and the rocks were valuable.
However, as it's not from the moon it's not valuable. Hence why NASA would have no qualms about giving such things away.
sorry for triple post
you can give something valuble for something more valuable in return. depends what you weigh them as
nasa could have given out rocks so the research of moon rocks can be sped up, and can be used by all nations in case they wished to plan their own moon mission
it can help them build alliances
it is for the greater good
nasa wants to share for other reasons
-
Any picture showing the earth as a globe is a fake.
The shuttle launches are real, but the shuttle missions are fake.
You don't take one moment to explain WHY they're fake. I fail to comprehend why they would be fake. I can sit down with my telescope and see other planets, even the sun, all of which are roundly shaped. Explain.
-
Any picture showing the earth as a globe is a fake.
The shuttle launches are real, but the shuttle missions are fake.
You don't take one moment to explain WHY they're fake. I fail to comprehend why they would be fake. I can sit down with my telescope and see other planets, even the sun, all of which are roundly shaped. Explain.
You can also watch the video of the shuttle mission, as they enter space and then complete the mission. Not fakable.
-
Any picture showing the earth as a globe is a fake.
The shuttle launches are real, but the shuttle missions are fake.
You don't take one moment to explain WHY they're fake. I fail to comprehend why they would be fake. I can sit down with my telescope and see other planets, even the sun, all of which are roundly shaped. Explain.
You can also watch the video of the shuttle mission, as they enter space and then complete the mission. Not fakable.
You can also watch the video of Gandalf defending middle Earth and battling evil monsters. Not "fakable".
-
Any picture showing the earth as a globe is a fake.
The shuttle launches are real, but the shuttle missions are fake.
You don't take one moment to explain WHY they're fake. I fail to comprehend why they would be fake. I can sit down with my telescope and see other planets, even the sun, all of which are roundly shaped. Explain.
You can also watch the video of the shuttle mission, as they enter space and then complete the mission. Not fakable.
You can also watch the video of Gandalf defending middle Earth and battling evil monsters. Not "fakable".
You need to stop using logical fallacies.
-
And you continue to refuse to back up your allegation that the rock was presented as originating on the moon with facts.
Please read the thread. The Ex-US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister said he was under the impression that it was from the moon.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45822.msg1145206#msg1145206
Those quotes don't say anything about the moon.
His quote "If it came from the astronauts I would have thought it would be perfectly OK" implies that he believed it to be from the moon.
His quote "I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that" implies that he believed it to be the real deal.
implied doesnt mean they told him it was from the moon, implied does not mean he didnt actually know that was a regular rock
i can say, he is stuck in bed due to health problems. you can imply he is sick, but, he could have muscle dystrophy, he could be dead (a change in health) or he could be having health problems, such as being uable to support his own weight
The ambassador's quotes I provided very clearly tell us that he believed the rock to be from the moon: "If it came from the astronauts I would have thought it would be perfectly OK."
I don't recall NASA sending any astronauts to Mars or anywhere else to collect rock samples. The rock was given as part of the astronaut's welcome home tour after Apollo 11. It was obviously given as a moon rock.
-
Tom, stop making assumptions. If your arguments were math: they'd look something like this:
Transitive property:
A=B, therefore A=C
Reflexive property:
A=B
Symmetric property:
If A=B, then B=conspiracy.
-
The math you learned is most likely incorrect.
For example, there are many examples in nature where 1 + 1 = 1
-
The math you learned is most likely incorrect.
For example, there are many examples in nature where 1 + 1 = 1
Not from a scientific perspective. If you're thinking about the raindrop thing, it ends up with twice the mass, so technically 1+1=2.
-
And you continue to refuse to back up your allegation that the rock was presented as originating on the moon with facts.
Please read the thread. The Ex-US Ambassador who gave it to the Prime Minister said he was under the impression that it was from the moon.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45822.msg1145206#msg1145206
Those quotes don't say anything about the moon.
His quote "If it came from the astronauts I would have thought it would be perfectly OK" implies that he believed it to be from the moon.
His quote "I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that" implies that he believed it to be the real deal.
implied doesnt mean they told him it was from the moon, implied does not mean he didnt actually know that was a regular rock
i can say, he is stuck in bed due to health problems. you can imply he is sick, but, he could have muscle dystrophy, he could be dead (a change in health) or he could be having health problems, such as being uable to support his own weight
The ambassador's quotes I provided very clearly tell us that he believed the rock to be from the moon: "If it came from the astronauts I would have thought it would be perfectly OK."
I don't recall NASA sending any astronauts to Mars or anywhere else to collect rock samples. The rock was given as part of the astronaut's welcome home tour after Apollo 11. It was obviously given as a moon rock.
You're still making quite a leap there. Are you saying it is impossible for an (in your case theoretical) astronaut to give someone a gift that did not come from the moon?
-
The math you learned is most likely incorrect.
For example, there are many examples in nature where 1 + 1 = 1
Not from a scientific perspective. If you're thinking about the raindrop thing, it ends up with twice the mass, so technically 1+1=2.
So you deny that 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop?
-
The math you learned is most likely incorrect.
For example, there are many examples in nature where 1 + 1 = 1
Not from a scientific perspective. If you're thinking about the raindrop thing, it ends up with twice the mass, so technically 1+1=2.
So you deny that 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop?
Remind me again, what does the raindrop thing have to do with supporting any aspect of FET?
-
The math you learned is most likely incorrect.
For example, there are many examples in nature where 1 + 1 = 1
Not from a scientific perspective. If you're thinking about the raindrop thing, it ends up with twice the mass, so technically 1+1=2.
So you deny that 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop?
Is it the same raindrop though?
Berny
Thinks EG, Clocktower's overpowering Alt should release Clocktower from his prison.
-
The math you learned is most likely incorrect.
For example, there are many examples in nature where 1 + 1 = 1
Not from a scientific perspective. If you're thinking about the raindrop thing, it ends up with twice the mass, so technically 1+1=2.
So you deny that 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop?
yes we do deny it, becuase technically, inside that 1 last raindrops, it is 2 raindrop's worth of information, so technically, i could say your end resualt is worth two raindrops
-
I had kind of hoped markjo would be the one to start taking care of this shit when he started doing this.
-
The math you learned is most likely incorrect.
For example, there are many examples in nature where 1 + 1 = 1
Not from a scientific perspective. If you're thinking about the raindrop thing, it ends up with twice the mass, so technically 1+1=2.
So you deny that 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop?
yes we do deny it, becuase technically, inside that 1 last raindrops, it is 2 raindrop's worth of information, so technically, i could say your end resualt is worth two raindrops
Let's not stray too far off topic. This raindrop discussion is best left for another forum.
-
Let me tell you what happened in my country with the moon rocks.
As a political game, the Government of the USA gave our then President a moon rock covered in acrylic, which the President decided to use as a personal souvenir. When the opposing party saw this opportunity they made a big scandal out of the President having taken the rock, and it ended in some shelf in some governmental institution, having served no purpose at all. In fact, there is no way we can find out whether that rock really came from the moon, or to research anything at all from it. It is most probably contaminated anyhow.
This political gamesmanship is a way the government of the USA has tried to earn something from the useless rocks, nothing more. Nobody can really know if the rocks are real, so the story of somebody finding out that they are fake seems quite a bit suspicious. Did he receive it covered in acrylic? Did he remove the acrylic protection and contaminate the rock to find out if it was a fake? Did he crack the rock to see the uncontaminated interior?
My guess is that the recipient of the rock decided to make some publicity for himself, not caring whether the rock was good or fake. If he really had a legitimate scientific interest he would have gone to NASA and presented a project proposal. They are the ones who have the scientifically useful rocks from the moon.
-
By applying the idea that you should not base an observation on a preconceived idea.
Could the moon be made from wood?
-
so how does NASA being fake = Flat earth? Also, is only our planet "flat"? because I see other planets in the telescope and they seem pretty round to me, same with the moon... Not to mention gravity wouldn't work the way it does if the earth was flat, in fact I'm pretty sure gravity itself wouldn't allow a flat/disc earth. NASA has been to space, also there's NOTHING about them not going in space in the "controversy" section of NASA's wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA#Controversy , only that they are testing radiation on monkeys for deep space travel, but I guess you know why they're really doing that too.
-
so how does NASA being fake = Flat earth? Also, is only our planet "flat"? because I see other planets in the telescope and they seem pretty round to me, same with the moon... Not to mention gravity wouldn't work the way it does if the earth was flat, in fact I'm pretty sure gravity itself wouldn't allow a flat/disc earth. NASA has been to space, also there's NOTHING about them not going in space in the "controversy" section of NASA's wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA#Controversy , only that they are testing radiation on monkeys for deep space travel, but I guess you know why they're really doing that too.
may i?... yes i can...
please read the FAQ! the FES has some 'answers' to your questions there dude
-
what if the petrified wood had some meaning?
iron oxides mixed with maganese oxides or carbon are what makes petrified wood black and red (thats what it looks like to me, please dont ridicule me about this)
maybe they represent that the moon is like the earth in composition, except for no organic material
maybe they represent the materials used by nasa to make the lunar lander?
maybe they represent the blood of mankind? (iron oxide)
idk, it is not stated what it meant, and if it came from the moon