The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Levi Dettwyler on April 07, 2013, 08:22:15 PM
-
NASA wields a large amount of evidence that the earth is round. Therefore, in order for the flat earth model to work, NASA must be lying about what they've actually done. Not only NASA, but any moderately advanced space agency in the world.
Unfortunately, the list doesn't stop there so easily. People claim that GPS is possible without satellites. Well, then why does my GPS unit say that it uses satellites? This must mean that all of the GPS manufacturers are also lying.
What about other private companies? Well, there's SpaceX and Space Adventures. They also have to be lying, even though SpaceX is run by Elon Musk, the founder of other well-known companies like PayPal and Tesla (he doesn't run PayPal anymore though).
Makers of satellite phones also have to be lying.
Astrophysicists studying the cosmic microwave background also have to be lying, as a critical experiment measuring the CMB was conducted by sending a probe around antarctica (if you think antarctica is just a giant ice wall surrounding the earth) must also be lying, despite their results matching up with the results of other groups studying this. So they must all be lying too.
Richard Branson and the entirety of Virgin Galactic must also be lying.
Boeing, Lockheed Martin, OHB-System, Thales Alenia Space, JSC Information Satellite Systems, Astrium Satellites, and Loral Space & Communications, all companies that claim to manufacture satellites, must also be lying, yet somehow staying in business.
Please update the wiki (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Conspiracy) with these companies and industries, as the only reasonable explanation for the flat earth hypothesis is that they are all part of the global conspiracy.
We're getting closer to unmasking the true face of these faceless lying scum! All of them.
-
Organized religion is the real conspiracy.
-
1. Every space agency, most governments and national military forces; particularly those of the 60 or so countries that claim to have/have had their own satellite in space.
2. Every aerospace company.
3. Universities involved in aerospace projects.
4. Airlines and pilots.
5. The guy who sets-up your satellite dish.
6. Computer graphic artists involved in the creation of fake photos and videos.
7. People who claim to perform moonbounces/EME communication or other forms of lunar range-finding.
Surely more I haven't thought of now ???
-
Let's help the flat earth society out! Keep building the list for the wiki!
Edit: oh, don't forget about everyone in the military that helps to operate military satellites to gather intel and such.
-
why would any 'institutions' be 'in on it'?
the advantage of, and need for, the general perceptions of any person that denies belief in the orthodox earth model means that the deceived populace suppresses most dissent itself.
this means of the few individuals who are skeptical, or find themselves questioning the enforced spheroid earth theory to any degree, the majority of this already small number will not allow themselves to expand or share their notions.
as the various characters here demonstrate there is never a shortage of outraged orthodoxy loyalists, with of course their chosen passages of doctrine and dogma generated for just such purposes, to express their despair at the failure of absolutely everyone to believe the same thing.
the illusion of freedom of thought created by the provision of multiple predesignated approved 'camps' of thought, to choose from and subscribe to, is even absent in regard to this, earth model, subject.
the actual number of individuals who must be aware of a deception taking place at all is very low, in the hundreds at any given point in time.
of these the vast majority will be ignorant of the nature of the deception in which they participate.
the use of secrecy in the name of security, the innumerable levels and types of security clearances, compartmentalization and the need to know policies and procedures are designed to allow the very highest echelons of
global hierarchy to command and control vast numbers of people with the very smallest number required to be even partly aware of the overall goal or agenda their actions serve.
there are not tens, or hundreds, of thousands of 'in the know' people.
the closer to the hubs of the distributors of the propaganda the greater the control and need for zealous adherence to the fundamentalist version of events.
in the instance of the general spheroid earth enforcement agenda, obviously nasa and their handful of satellite (tee hee) agencies are key central figures.
the illusion of multiple sources is trimmed significantly when the number of 'research' and 'experimental' projects derive their entire input of data from nasa.
and even within nasa or jpl or esa, i would be surprised if less than 99% emphatically believe in the veracity and honesty of their employer and their endeavors.
and of the 1% who are aware of some manipulation most will believe they are doing the right thing, aiding their employer, and their country, by helping to smooth over some hitch that prevents the claimed events successful completion.
the asstronuts are obviously aware they are not going into space.
the disappointment must be immense, the hoops that must be jumped through, the lottery odds of being chosen for a 'space mission', months of training, then the bad news why the trip must be cancelled 'this time'.
but hey, maybe all that time need not be wasted.
would they, the eager asstronots, like to help keep the space program on track? now would be a bad time to admit we failed, the terrorists/communists/koreans/canadians/french will mock us and infer weakness and such.
and so the intrepid space men and women find themselves participating in the surreal spectacles that are produced, probably with the promises and threats deemed necessary still ringing in their ears as the details of the fix are explained.
justifiable, they think, 'this one time'.
and maybe the next time, if their employers and compatriots are still in need, and they will be.
the rest of the pantomime cast are true-believers, blissfully unaware, just regurgitating the piece-meal fed to them. earnest, tenacious as only the genuine advocate can be.
brings to mind most of the exasperated desperate confused orthodoxy promoters here, unable to grasp how anyone can fail to see; the numbers, the space pictures, the sun and moon, the spherical truth.
it is the practice of freedom of thought.
-
Nice bit of rhetoric, happily it is backed by exactly zero evidence.
Just how are those 99% that are not "in on it", that are not just sheep unquestioningly believing the evening news and then forgetting about it as they go about their days, they work inside the industry! Surely someone in this vast group of people has a little brains and the integrity to blow the lid off? And why would rival agencies in countries that don't have any reason to support each other's stories go along with it?
-
1. Richard Branson's SpaceShipOne/Two did not go into space or achieve earth orbit.
2. Lockheed Martin, Northroop Gruman, Boeing, etc. aren't entirely private companies. They are what are known as public-private companies called government contractors, controlled by the government at all levels. That's why they can work on government research bases, under guard of the military, and why their employees can hold secret clearances.
Although Lockheed Martin may make a profit from their government contracts, the government civil servants control what the contractors work on and how it is done. Most of the time these contractors operate as little more than temp agencies, who recruit people off of Monster to work on government bases, under the direction of government managers.
In fact, the practice of using these government contractors is so vast that the only people who actually work for the government are managers, military, and security. There is no such thing as a NASA engineer. The engineers who made Apollo were all contractors for public-private government contracting entities. The DOD, NOAA, DHS, DOE, and all other government departments operates the same way. All of the engineers are contractors.
Very few people who work for the government actually receive a paycheck from the government. It's done this way under a congressional mandate that government entities get the best price by occasionally putting the contract up for bid and letting contractors race profits to the bottom.
-
Can we at least start with adding SpaceX to the list?
-
Can we at least start with adding SpaceX to the list?
See #2 in my previous post.
-
Nice bit of rhetoric, happily it is backed by exactly zero evidence.
Just how are those 99% that are not "in on it", that are not just sheep unquestioningly believing the evening news and then forgetting about it as they go about their days, they work inside the industry! Surely someone in this vast group of people has a little brains and the integrity to blow the lid off? And why would rival agencies in countries that don't have any reason to support each other's stories go along with it?
there is evidence in your reply, showing you do not comprehend the scenario i described.
if you actually want to understand the idea read again, or just ponder what it is those 'not in on it' would be required to forget when they leave the office.
forget that they are unaware.
have you forgotten you are unaware?
-
I don't see how this should exclude it or others from being part of the conspiracy. They are intimately involved with the launch of their own spacecraft, and have even announced plans for a commercial-only launchpad.
-
Any company that organises inter continental travel. Iv Australia to South America
America Australia so on and so forth using ships and aircraft.
Any organisation that travels to and around Antarctica by land air or sea
-
Any company that organises inter continental travel. Iv Australia to South America
America Australia so on and so forth using ships and aircraft.
Any organisation that travels to and around Antarctica by land air or sea
could you give an example or two of the organisations that travel around Antarctica, as i recall looking for just such a thing without success.
thanks.
-
indeed i can. i takes a bit of digging but hear it is
in regards to circumnavigation
circumnavigation has be done on many occasions by sea.
antarctic cup
http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Gate-named-after-Jon-Sanders-in-Antarctica-Cup/38855 (http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Gate-named-after-Jon-Sanders-in-Antarctica-Cup/38855)
http://www.sail-world.com/australia/Fedor-Konyukhov-moving-north---Antarctica-Cup-Race/42633 (http://www.sail-world.com/australia/Fedor-Konyukhov-moving-north---Antarctica-Cup-Race/42633)
sea Shepard operate all over the antarctic coast
one example land crossings from one side to the other
Rune Gjeldnes
a Norwegian, successfully completed the longest trans-Antarctic crossing--2988 miles. On 3 November he was landed at the Russian Novolasarevskaja station on the coast of Queen Maud Land, and he set out on the sixth. He's crossing the continent via Troll and Pole, to Terra Nova Bay--descending the Priestley Glacier. He arrived at Pole early on 21 December and only rested one day before continuing on. He reached Terra Nova on 3 February after a struggle with crevasse fields--he is now the first person to cross both poles unsupported (he did an Arctic crossing in 2000).
http://www.extreme-planet.com/exp/seal/ (http://www.extreme-planet.com/exp/seal/)
a few organisations that operate and navigate in Antarctica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_stations_in_Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_stations_in_Antarctica)
private tour operators
http://www.adventure-network.com/experiences/south-pole-flights (http://www.adventure-network.com/experiences/south-pole-flights)
http://www.steppestravel.co.uk/destinations/antarctica/antarctic/holidaytypes/cruises+and+voyages/antarctic+semi+circumnavigation+cruise/ (http://www.steppestravel.co.uk/destinations/antarctica/antarctic/holidaytypes/cruises+and+voyages/antarctic+semi+circumnavigation+cruise/)
http://www.polarcruises.com/antarctica/ships?gclid=CLO7h8j5urYCFRHMtAod5D4A3g (http://www.polarcruises.com/antarctica/ships?gclid=CLO7h8j5urYCFRHMtAod5D4A3g)
all these people organisations and researchers can tell the difference between this
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6431/antarcticamap1.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/405/antarcticamap1.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
and this
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/flatearth.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/flatearth.jpg/)
-
How do we know they went the whole way around Antarctica?
They may have traveled the requisite distance along the coast and then turned Northwards towards safer waters, believing that they had just circled Antarctica. In the Antarctic Cup the racers can't even see the coastline, let alone verify that they went the entire distance around.
When life expectancy is a few minutes after going overboard, I somehow doubt these people are doing much verification at those latitudes.
-
How do we know they went the whole way around Antarctica?
They may have traveled the requisite distance along the coast and then turned Northwards towards safer waters, believing that they had just circled Antarctica. In the Antarctic Cup the racers can't even see the coastline, let alone verify that they went the entire distance around.
When life expectancy is a few minutes after going overboard, I somehow doubt these people are doing much verification at those latitudes.
And your evidence is?
-
Let's not derail the thread. This is about companies and organizations that should, theoretically, be involved in the Conspiracy.
Here's a list of companies involved in aerospace. Obviously, not a complete one.
- EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company), including Astrium Satellite and Arianespace, responsible for the Ariane space launchers. France, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom.
- Eurockot Launch Services, commercial space launch company. EADS and Russia.
- RSC Energia, responsible for the Russian element of the ISS, responsible for personnel transfer and resupply of the ISS. Russia.
- Thales Alenia Space, involved in satellite building and modules for the ISS. Italy, France.
- Finmeccanica, major European space contractor, owner with Thales of Telespazio. Italy.
- OHB-System, involved in satellite building and modules for the ISS; contractor for the Galileo (European GPS equivalent). Germany.
- Surrey Satellite Technology, satellite design and construction; contractor for the Galileo (European GPS equivalent). United Kingdom.
- Information Satellite Systems, primary developer of the GLONASS (Russian GPS equivalent). Russia.
- AMSAT, amateur radio satellite company and space education promoter. Japan, Germany, USA, Canada.
- BAE Systems, major European defense and aerospace contractor. United Kingdom.
- China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, primary contractor of the Chinese space program. China.
- Israel Aerospace Industries. Primary defense contractor for Israel. Satellites, launchers. Israel.
- Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries. Space launchers, solid rocket boosters. Japan.
- Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center. Responsible for design and production of space launchers for military and civilian purposes, including Proton and Angara rocketsRussia.
- Mistubishi Heavy Industries, primary space launch contractor for JAXA, involved in the ISS. Japan.
- NPO Lavochiking, design bureau for rocketry and spacecraft, including interplanetary probes. Russia.
- Turkish Aerospace Industries, satellite development and production. Turkey.
- TsSKB-Progress, developer and manufacturer of the Soyuz launcher family. Russia.
- PA Yuzhmash, space launchers and rocket engines. Ukraine.
- INVAP, satellite and space technologies contractor. Argentina.
- RUAG Space, satellite and launch vehicle subsystems. Switzerland.
- ISC Kosmotras, commercial space launches. Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan.
- Snecma, engine manufacturer for Ariane launchers. France.
- Sea Launch, commercial space launchces. Russia, USA, Ukraine, Norway.
- Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, space hardware design and manufacture. Norway.
- Korea Aerospace Industries, satellite design and manufacture. South Korea.
- Magellan Aerospace, contractor for satellite and rocket subsystems. Canada.
- MDA, major space contractor, including ISS components. Canada.
This is even before adding exclusively (or majority) American companies. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Orbital Sciences, Ball Aerospace, SpaceX, SpaceDev, Aerojet.
-
Red Bull Stratos?
-
So it looks like SpaceX is definitely one that should be part of the conspiracy, having claimed to have run several "resupply" "missions" up to the ISS. You can read their lies on their website: http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php (http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php)
-
So it looks like SpaceX is definitely one that should be part of the conspiracy, having claimed to have run several "resupply" "missions" up to the ISS. You can read their lies on their website: http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php (http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php)
Yeah. If the Conspiracy is real, SpaceX would have to be part of it.
-
How do we know they went the whole way around Antarctica?
They may have traveled the requisite distance along the coast and then turned Northwards towards safer waters, believing that they had just circled Antarctica. In the Antarctic Cup the racers can't even see the coastline, let alone verify that they went the entire distance around.
lol tom what a stupid comment to make.
with no scale to go of the FE map this is a estimate. they start and finish at the same point. so lets assume they leave Australia like Fedor Konyukhov did.
they travel the rout needed. CHECKING THEIR LOCATION THE WHOLE WAY then turn north to head back to Australia after completing the race of 16,356 nautical miles turning north and reaching Australia again. iv drawn on a map the problem with what you are comically trying to suggest tom.
(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/5531/racelg.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/51/racelg.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
he might struggle to get back to Australia by heading north after travailing 16,356 nautical miles on your map tom. don't you think?
note as FE have no scale on their map (lol) i have had to estimate the red line length on your map.
-
How do we know they went the whole way around Antarctica?
They may have traveled the requisite distance along the coast and then turned Northwards towards safer waters, believing that they had just circled Antarctica. In the Antarctic Cup the racers can't even see the coastline, let alone verify that they went the entire distance around.
lol tom what a stupid comment to make.
with no scale to go of the FE map this is a estimate. they start and finish at the same point. so lets assume they leave Australia like Fedor Konyukhov did.
they travel the rout needed. CHECKING THEIR LOCATION THE WHOLE WAY then turn north to head back to Australia after completing the race of 16,356 nautical miles turning north and reaching Australia again. iv drawn on a map the problem with what you are comically trying to suggest tom.
(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/5531/racelg.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/51/racelg.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
he might struggle to get back to Australia by heading north after travailing 16,356 nautical miles on your map tom. don't you think?
note as FE have no scale on their map (lol) i have had to estimate the red line length on your map.
Yes, that diagram depicts somewhat what I am suggesting. When the ships travel back northwards and check their longitude they find that they are still somewhat near Australia, and head back that way, claiming to all that they just "circumnavigated" the Antarctic coast.
-
to get back to Australia from that point they would need to travel another 16000 nautical miles north west. are you trying to say they don't notice having to travel back 16,ooo nautical miles in the wrong direction to get back north?
-
And don't forget the astronomers. They are millions, and live in every place on Earth except the poles. Almost every one is independent from NASA, and millions are not even members of a scientific society. They would have to be in on the Conspiracy because the alternative is that they all are ignorant fools.
-
There are plenty of threads here for discussing the problems with FE maps (specifically one where I demonstrate that any FE map must be wrong, which is in need of attention). Let's try not to stray too far off topic. ;) Remember, there's a conspiracy afoot that needs further unmasking.
Regarding the CMB investigation to Antarctica, that would have most definitely been using some form of GPS technology (GPS manufacturers are all liars too!), or at the very least a compass. Unless they were completely incompetent, they probably would have realised that they couldn't actually go all the way around Antarctica and end up back where they started. Therefore they are lying.
SpaceX is among the most obvious conspirators that you don't need a map to demonstrate, however. It's currently the elephant in the room, with many more waiting in line outside. NASA gave them a bunch of money for them to allegedly launch their own spacecraft from their own launchpad using their own mission control to diagnose and fix their own problems to eventually guide it into a dock with the fictional ISS. http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php (http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php)
Let's focus on unmasking SpaceX first, since they're essentially the most publicly known spacefaking organisations, apart from NASA. They've even announced plans for a commercial-only launchpad. A very clever move in my opinion, especially if they actually succeed in getting it up and running, since it makes the conspiracy almost impossible to believe, since anyone that wants a satellite launched would know immediately that their satellite is not actually in orbit. The perfect distraction.
If NASA is lying, then so is SpaceX.
Edit: shoot, we should get badges or something and form a conspiracy exposing squad. Based on the list we generated, it sounds like it should be a full-time job.
-
all gelogists especialy ones who specilise in seismic tomography
-
to get back to Australia from that point they would need to travel another 16000 nautical miles north west. are you trying to say they don't notice having to travel back 16,ooo nautical miles in the wrong direction to get back north?
I believe the race ends in the middle of the ocean. It is unclear whether the racers return to Australia or the northern countries from which they came to celebrate their journeys. If they traveled North to North America, for example, they would notice no distortion at all, since the FE map does not warp North-South distances. If they traveled East-West they yes, they would notice a significant delay.
But the delay would be justified in their heads to water currents, wind currents, or a whole fancy of other phenomena RE'ers naturally use in denial.
There are plenty of threads here for discussing the problems with FE maps (specifically one where I demonstrate that any FE map must be wrong, which is in need of attention). Let's try not to stray too far off topic. ;) Remember, there's a conspiracy afoot that needs further unmasking.
Regarding the CMB investigation to Antarctica, that would have most definitely been using some form of GPS technology (GPS manufacturers are all liars too!), or at the very least a compass. Unless they were completely incompetent, they probably would have realised that they couldn't actually go all the way around Antarctica and end up back where they started. Therefore they are lying.
SpaceX is among the most obvious conspirators that you don't need a map to demonstrate, however. It's currently the elephant in the room, with many more waiting in line outside. NASA gave them a bunch of money for them to allegedly launch their own spacecraft from their own launchpad using their own mission control to diagnose and fix their own problems to eventually guide it into a dock with the fictional ISS. http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php (http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php)
Let's focus on unmasking SpaceX first, since they're essentially the most publicly known spacefaking organisations, apart from NASA. They've even announced plans for a commercial-only launchpad. A very clever move in my opinion, especially if they actually succeed in getting it up and running, since it makes the conspiracy almost impossible to believe, since anyone that wants a satellite launched would know immediately that their satellite is not actually in orbit. The perfect distraction.
If NASA is lying, then so is SpaceX.
Edit: shoot, we should get badges or something and form a conspiracy exposing squad. Based on the list we generated, it sounds like it should be a full-time job.
As I implied on the previous page, government contractors are basically government agencies who operate for-profit. The government controls the management of the project at all levels. SpaceX operates in several government facilities, which should tell you something.
These contracting companies are started by the heads in the government themselves for reasons of liability, cost, and deniability. Do you think some entrepreneur invested billions of dollars in a rocket company in hopes of selling services to NASA? No way. That's a pretty big gamble that NASA would choose you over the Russians or some other Aerospace company, or decide keep their rocket program altogether.
What happened was that SpaceX was started with assistance of the government to transition NASA's rocket program into "private" hands. This decision was made as a direct response to the Columbia disaster. If the government seems to be outsourcing services to another entity they can point their fingers and say that the calamity was the fault of the contractor. The fact that the contractor is building on their facilities under their direct supervision is unmentioned and unimportant. The DOD uses such excuses all the time when people are killed in ammunition production facilities.
This is part of the reason why government contractors exist. Another reason is that it's much easier to fire workers who don't work for the government. If you're a government employee it's nearly impossible to fire you unless you've done something extreme. The federal government obligates agencies to find alternative positions for civil servants, even if they may be unqualified.
Finally, private companies are perceived to others as more efficient than slow government. The agencies occasionally puts the contract up for bid among other government contractors and tells Congress they are getting the best price and operating efficiently. If you're working on a government contract and another government contractor wins the contract, you don't get fired. You get hired on by the new contractor and keep your job duties and government office. Your check merely has another company name on it.
This has been going for so long now that Congress has a mandate that these government contractors must exist and that government agencies can only directly hire a few types of positions (ie. Management, Security, Military Pilots).
-
As I implied on the previous page, government contractors are basically government agencies who operate for-profit. The government controls the management of the project at all levels. SpaceX operates in several government facilities, which should tell you something.
These contracting companies are started by the heads in the government themselves for reasons of liability, cost, and deniability. Do you think some entrepreneur invested billions of dollars in a rocket company in hopes of selling services to NASA? No way. That's a pretty big gamble that NASA would choose you over the Russians or some other Aerospace company, or decide keep their rocket program altogether.
What happened was that SpaceX was started with assistance of the government to transition NASA's rocket program into "private" hands. This decision was made as a direct response to the Columbia disaster. If the government seems to be outsourcing services to another entity they can point their fingers and say that the calamity was the fault of the contractor. The fact that the contractor is building on their facilities under their direct supervision is unmentioned and unimportant. The DOD uses such excuses all the time when people are killed in ammunition production facilities.
This is is part of the reason why government contractors exist. Another reason is that it's much easier to fire workers who don't work for the government. If you're a government employee it's nearly impossible to fire you unless you've done something extreme. The federal government obligates agencies to find alternative positions for civil servants, and basically accept that they may be unqualified in other positions.
Finally, private companies are perceived to others as more efficient than slow government. The agencies occasionally puts the contract for bid among other government contractors and tells Congress they are getting the best price and operating efficiently. And, if you're on a government contract and another government contractor wins the contract, you don't get fired. You get hired on by the new contractor, keep your job duties and government office, and your check merely has another company name on it.
This has been going for so long now that Congress has a mandate that these government contractors must exist and that government agencies can only directly hire a few types of positions (ie. Management, Security, Military Pilots).
It sounds like you're agreeing with me. Like you said: "Do you think some entrepreneur invested billions of dollars in a rocket company in hopes of selling services to NASA? No way." This means Elon Musk and SpaceX are LYING, and thus, as you so eloquently put, part of the conspiracy. Look at this twitter message: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/307958110474104832
Elon Musk and SpaceX must be part of the conspiracy, according to the FE hypothesis. You seem to be agreeing with me. So when does this get put on the wiki?
-
It sounds like you're agreeing with me. Like you said: "Do you think some entrepreneur invested billions of dollars in a rocket company in hopes of selling services to NASA? No way." This means Elon Musk and SpaceX are LYING, and thus, as you so eloquently put, part of the conspiracy. Look at this twitter message: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/307958110474104832
Elon Musk and SpaceX must be part of the conspiracy, according to the FE hypothesis. You seem to be agreeing with me. So when does this get put on the wiki?
It's not so much that SpaceX, Lockheed, Grumman, etc. are part of the conspiracy, so much as they ARE the conspiracy. NASA literally would not exist without them. The only people who work for NASA are Managers, Security Personnel, and some Pilots. There is no such thing as a NASA Engineer. There is no such thing as a NASA Data Tech. There is no such thing as a NASA Flight Mechanic. All of that is done through government contractors, entities which the government agencies set up themselves for reasons of liability/bureaucracy.
The government partnered with Elon Musk to give SpaceX more credibility. Musk's SpaceX management team may play a part in negotiating contract rates and searching for people on monster to send to the government for interviews, but as far as actually managing space technology, that is the government's venue. SpaceX is just like any other government contractor. As an engineer you wake up, drive into the government research facility, and do what your government managers tell you to do, perhaps working on a single small component which is eventually passed off to another team. Every two weeks you get a check from "SpaceX". A few years ago that name on your check might have been "Lockheed Martin" or "Northrop Grumman Corporation".
-
It sounds like you're agreeing with me. Like you said: "Do you think some entrepreneur invested billions of dollars in a rocket company in hopes of selling services to NASA? No way." This means Elon Musk and SpaceX are LYING, and thus, as you so eloquently put, part of the conspiracy. Look at this twitter message: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/307958110474104832
Elon Musk and SpaceX must be part of the conspiracy, according to the FE hypothesis. You seem to be agreeing with me. So when does this get put on the wiki?
It's not so much that SpaceX, Lockheed, Grumman, etc. are part of the conspiracy, so much as they ARE the conspiracy. NASA literally would not exist without them. The only people who work for NASA are Managers, Security Personnel, and some Pilots. There is no such thing as a NASA Engineer. There is no such thing as a NASA Data Tech. There is no such thing as a NASA Flight Mechanic. All of that is done through government contractors, entities which the government agencies set up themselves for reasons of liability/bureaucracy.
The government partnered with Elon Musk to give SpaceX more credibility. Musk's SpaceX management team may play a part in negotiating contract rates and searching for people on monster to send to the government for interviews, but as far as actually managing space technology, that is the government's venue. SpaceX is just like any other government contractor. As an engineer you wake up, drive into the government research facility, and do what your government managers tell you to do, perhaps working on a single small component which is eventually passed off to another team. Every two weeks you get a check from "SpaceX". A few years ago that name on your check might have been "Lockheed Martin" or "Northrop Grumman Corporation".
You do realize most of SpaceX's engineers are in California? And work at the large SpaceX facility there?
-
It sounds like you're agreeing with me. Like you said: "Do you think some entrepreneur invested billions of dollars in a rocket company in hopes of selling services to NASA? No way." This means Elon Musk and SpaceX are LYING, and thus, as you so eloquently put, part of the conspiracy. Look at this twitter message: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/307958110474104832
Elon Musk and SpaceX must be part of the conspiracy, according to the FE hypothesis. You seem to be agreeing with me. So when does this get put on the wiki?
It's not so much that SpaceX, Lockheed, Grumman, etc. are part of the conspiracy, so much as they ARE the conspiracy. NASA literally would not exist without them. The only people who work for NASA are Managers, Security Personnel, and some Pilots. There is no such thing as a NASA Engineer. There is no such thing as a NASA Data Tech. There is no such thing as a NASA Flight Mechanic. All of that is done through government contractors, entities which the government agencies set up themselves for reasons of liability/bureaucracy.
The government partnered with Elon Musk to give SpaceX more credibility. Musk's SpaceX management team may play a part in negotiating contract rates and searching for people on monster to send to the government for interviews, but as far as actually managing space technology, that is the government's venue. SpaceX is just like any other government contractor. As an engineer you wake up, drive into the government research facility, and do what your government managers tell you to do, perhaps working on a single small component which is eventually passed off to another team. Every two weeks you get a check from "SpaceX". A few years ago that name on your check might have been "Lockheed Martin" or "Northrop Grumman Corporation".
You do realize most of SpaceX's engineers are in California? And work at the large SpaceX facility there?
The facility at 1 Rocket Rd, Hawthorne, CA is a former Boeing facility... which is... a government contractor. They were already working on rockets there, hence the name of the street. The contract to build government rockets changed from Boeing to SpaceX and they merely hung up a new sign.
-
It sounds like you're agreeing with me. Like you said: "Do you think some entrepreneur invested billions of dollars in a rocket company in hopes of selling services to NASA? No way." This means Elon Musk and SpaceX are LYING, and thus, as you so eloquently put, part of the conspiracy. Look at this twitter message: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/307958110474104832
Elon Musk and SpaceX must be part of the conspiracy, according to the FE hypothesis. You seem to be agreeing with me. So when does this get put on the wiki?
It's not so much that SpaceX, Lockheed, Grumman, etc. are part of the conspiracy, so much as they ARE the conspiracy. NASA literally would not exist without them. The only people who work for NASA are Managers, Security Personnel, and some Pilots. There is no such thing as a NASA Engineer. There is no such thing as a NASA Data Tech. There is no such thing as a NASA Flight Mechanic. All of that is done through government contractors, entities which the government agencies set up themselves for reasons of liability/bureaucracy.
The government partnered with Elon Musk to give SpaceX more credibility. Musk's SpaceX management team may play a part in negotiating contract rates and searching for people on monster to send to the government for interviews, but as far as actually managing space technology, that is the government's venue. SpaceX is just like any other government contractor. As an engineer you wake up, drive into the government research facility, and do what your government managers tell you to do, perhaps working on a single small component which is eventually passed off to another team. Every two weeks you get a check from "SpaceX". A few years ago that name on your check might have been "Lockheed Martin" or "Northrop Grumman Corporation".
You do realize most of SpaceX's engineers are in California? And work at the large SpaceX facility there?
The facility at 1 Rocket Rd, Hawthorne, CA is a former Boeing facility... which is... a government contractor. They were already working on rockets there, hence the name of the street. The contract to build the rockets changed from Boeing to SpaceX and they merely hung up a new sign on the building.
That Boeing facility was used to build 747 bodies. Hardly rocket science. Hardly the same engineers. And quite demonstrably real. Even to you.
I don't know, but I would imagine the road was renamed after SpaceX bought the facility.
-
That Boeing facility was used to build 747 bodies. Hardly rocket science. Hardly the same engineers. And quite demonstrably real. Even to you.
I don't know, but I would imagine the road was renamed after SpaceX bought the facility.
The facilities were used to build 747's a long time ago. When SpaceX took over Boeing was building rockets.
Here's a bio (http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Tim-Buzza/686443590) of someone who works at the SpaceX Hawthorn facility:
"Prior to joining SpaceX, Tim was the test project manager for Boeing's Delta IV first stage. His experience includes structural testing of the LH2 and LOX tanks, engine section, interstage and nosecone, as well as analysis and verification of the booster and stage separation systems."
Was he working on some other Boeing facility for rockets in Hawthorn, CA? No. He is working at 1 Rocket Rd, right where he always was.
-
Boeing makes the Delta IV in Alabama.
-
Boeing makes the Delta IV in Alabama.
But where did they design and test it?
-
I find this US-centric discussion rather amusing. All I hear is NASA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, SpaceX. We get it; US defense companies are big baddies in cahoots with the US governemt. I also understand that NASA plays a big role in the Conspiracy; hell, the wiki page on the motive of the Conspiracy (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Motive_of_the_Conspiracy) mentions no one but NASA.
However maybe it would be worth looking beyond the US from time to time. The US is not the only country that claims to have a presence in space.
Countries that have build rockets claimed to be capable of putting a payload into orbit, in order of achievement: Soviet Union, United States, France, Japan, China, United Kingdom, India, Israel, Russia and Ukraine (with capability inherited from the USSR), Iran, North Korea, South Korea.
Countries with satellites, in order of achievement: Soviet Union (Russia), United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, France, Australia, Germany, Japan, China, Netherlands, Spain, India, Indonesia, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Mexico, Sweden, Israel, Luxembourg, Argentina, Pakistan, South Korea, Portugal, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Malaysia, Norway, Philippines, Egypt, Chile, Singapore, Taiwan, Denmark, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Cyprus, Nigeria, Iran, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Mauritius, Vietnam, Venezuela, Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Belarus, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Azerbaijan, Austria.
Also, with the discussion seemingly revolving around Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, or SpaceX, there seems to indicate a lack of acknowledgement that there are dozens of companies (at least) with some involvement in space tech that are not American, including industry giants like EADS, BAE Systems, Finmeccanica, Mistubishi, Thales or Safran.
This Conspiracy is a fantastic piece of international cooperation.
P.S. What's also interesting is that the FES wiki page I linked above makes a big point of Lyndon Johnson's resolution to establish NASA in 1958, seemingly implying the Conspiracy began with NASA. However it was the Soviets that first claimed to put a satellite in space in 1957, when NASA didn't even exist yet.
Is it the Soviets that initiated the Conspiracy, then? Did the US merely go along with it?
-
I find this US-centric discussion rather amusing. All I hear is NASA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, SpaceX. We get it; US defense companies are big baddies in cahoots with the US governemt. I also understand that NASA plays a big role in the Conspiracy; hell, the wiki page on the motive of the Conspiracy (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Motive_of_the_Conspiracy) mentions no one but NASA.
That's because US defense companies are NASA. If NASA fired all of their contractors they would be firing something like 95% of their workforce. When we reference NASA we are referencing those US defense companies.
This Conspiracy is a fantastic piece of international cooperation.
Most of those countries put up satellites through US defense contractors. NASA entities have putting up satellites for foreign countries from day one. In reality the "satellite" is probably a high altitude dirigible known as a Stratellite.
Boeing, for example, claims to have giant sea platforms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch) from which it launches rockets conveniently out of sight of the world, taking orders from international clients to put up "Satellites".
P.S. What's also interesting is that the FES wiki page I linked above makes a big point of Lyndon Johnson's resolution to establish NASA in 1958, seemingly implying the Conspiracy began with NASA. However it was the Soviets that first claimed to put a satellite in space in 1957, when NASA didn't even exist yet.
Is it the Soviets that initiated the Conspiracy, then? Did the US merely go along with it?
They were likely separate conspiracies. The competition started in 1951 when the US NAVY unsuccessfully tried to reverse engineer one of Hitler's V2 rockets and send it into space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_in_spaceflight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_in_spaceflight)
As you can see the American rockets were mostly failures, while the Russian rockets were mostly successes. Over the span of 7 years of competition the Americans lagged behind in Russian claims. When Russia claimed to put up Sputnik into orbit late 1957, and thus able to reach America with its rockets, it was a breaking point where the US realized it needed to do something drastic, such as start a phony space program early the next year.
Don't you think it's convenient that the US launched a successful satellite in under 3 months after Russia's satellite, despite 6 years of failure?
-
All this and no evidence of the conspiracy. Just some photos of disputed veracity. Amazing.
-
All this and no evidence of the conspiracy. Just some photos of disputed veracity. Amazing.
So, the Russians launch Sputnik and the Americans then quickly organize a space program and launch a successful satellite in under 3 months (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_1), despite many years of failed effort. Doesn't sound too legitimate to me.
-
All this and no evidence of the conspiracy. Just some photos of disputed veracity. Amazing.
So, the Russians launch Sputnik and the Americans then quickly organize a space program and launch a successful satellite in under 3 months (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_1), despite many years of failed effort. Doesn't sound too legitimate to me.
I am not sure you are qualified to say that, unless you are a rocket scientist? Regardless, a suspicious (to you) timeline is NOT evidence.
-
I am not sure you are qualified to say that, unless you are a rocket scientist? Regardless, a suspicious (to you) timeline is NOT evidence.
Why isn't that evidence? If two country's militarily programs have been neck and neck an an attempt to invent time travel for the last 10 years, pouring billions of dollars into the venture and Country A suddenly claims to invent time travel, with Country B coming in less than 3 months later with claims that they also invented time travel, it sure looks suspicious to me.
-
I am not sure you are qualified to say that, unless you are a rocket scientist? Regardless, a suspicious (to you) timeline is NOT evidence.
Why isn't that evidence? If two countries are neck and neck an an attempt to invent time travel for 10 years, pouring billions of dollars into the venture and Country A claims to invent time travel, with Country B coming in to claim to invent time travel less than 3 months later, it sure looks suspicious to me.
Circumstantial evidence. FET social proof.
-
I am not sure you are qualified to say that, unless you are a rocket scientist? Regardless, a suspicious (to you) timeline is NOT evidence.
Why isn't that evidence? If two country's militarily programs are neck and neck an an attempt to invent time travel for 10 years, pouring billions of dollars into the venture and Country A claims to invent time travel, with Country B coming in with claims that they also invented time travel less than 3 months later, it sure looks suspicious to me.
All that that evidences is that one was faster than the other. There could be a lot of things that explain it. A conspiracy is one of the possibilities, but nothing about the circumstances favors a conspiracy over say, an American spy stealing the Soviet specs for the satellite.
-
That and the fact that anyone with eyes can actually see the ISS, and anyone with a simple telescope can see its shape and take pictures of it. There are entire fora dedicated to amateur astronomers photographing it. Here are some amateur photos, I have seen the ISS with my own eyes just like this:
http://weinterrupt.com/2009/03/the-international-space-station-as-seen-from-earth/ (http://weinterrupt.com/2009/03/the-international-space-station-as-seen-from-earth/)
When is this circus going to end? The only thing FET has going for it at this point is the disarray of this forum that causes these Groundhog day esque discussions.
-
I am not sure you are qualified to say that, unless you are a rocket scientist? Regardless, a suspicious (to you) timeline is NOT evidence.
Why isn't that evidence? If two country's militarily programs are neck and neck an an attempt to invent time travel for 10 years, pouring billions of dollars into the venture and Country A claims to invent time travel, with Country B coming in with claims that they also invented time travel less than 3 months later, it sure looks suspicious to me.
All that that evidences is that one was faster than the other. There could be a lot of things that explain it. A conspiracy is one of the possibilities, but nothing about the circumstances favors a conspiracy over say, an American spy stealing the Soviet specs for the satellite.
The Sputnick's rocket was the two stage R-7 Smyorka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_Semyorka) liquid rocket and the Explorer-1's rocket was the three stage Jupiter-C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter-C) solid rocket. These are two entirely different technologies. How would stolen Russian rocket specs allow Americans to build the Jupiter-C? ???
-
Once again, we concentrate on the US and we ignore the rest. Even if most of those countries put up satellites through US defense contractors... "most" is certainly not "all".
A (possibly incomplete) list of countries whose first satellites weren't launched on US rockets: Soviet Union (obviously), France, Japan, China, India, Bulgaria, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Israel, Luxembourg, Pakistan, South Korea, Portugal, Turkey, Ukraine, Malaysia, Philippines, Egypt, Chile, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mauritius, Vietnam, Switzerland, Hungary, Romania, North Korea, Azerbaijan, Austria. That's 32 countries, if I counted correctly; more, if the list is incomplete.
Perhaps I'll do some research, when I have the time, to compile a list of who launches what satellites these days (though it would probably be a futile exercise). In the mean time, here's a breakdown that I have on hand of launches, for the year 2006, by country:
Deep space launches: US - 2;
Geosynchronous satellite launches: France - 5, Zenit Sea Launch - 5 (owned at the time by companies from Russia, US, Ukraine and Norway), Russia 5 (1 failed), US - 3, China - 2, Japan - 1, India - 1 (failed).
Manned missions & ISS supply launches: Russia - 5, US - 3;
Military satellite launches: Russia - 7, US - 5, Japan - 1;
Low Earth Orbit, non-military satellite launches: Japan - 6, US - 5 (1 failure), Russia - 5, China - 4, Ukraine - 2 (1 failure).
Total launches by country:
Russia - 22
US - 18
Japan - 8
China - 6
France - 5
Sea Launch - 5 (using Ukrainian/Russian rockets)
Ukraine - 2
India - 1
(I hope I added them up correctly)
It seems that in the year 2006, beyond the expensive Space Shuttle launches and the two deep space probe launches, the US was actually less than dominant. Particularly in terms of lucrative launches of commercial geosynchronous and low Earth orbit satellites.
Also, the giant sea platforms that Boeing claims to have are only one in number - the Odyssey. More importantly, the Sea Launch company is currently owned by Russian company RSC Energia (actually 95% of it, to be precise). Boeing never had more than a 40% share. The launch vehicles have always been Zenit rockets, made by Yuzhnoye in Ukraine, with an upper stage built by Energia. Boeing only contributed the payload fairing. The ship used for sea launches, the Odyssey, is a converted drilling rig originally built in Japan. The facts regarding Sea Launch are less extraordinary than Tom Bishop let on.
-
OK, so we've been able to establish that when you say "NASA," you actually mean "every single company in the U.S. that has ever received a contract from NASA," rather than just the government agency, which is what most people think NASA is. This should probably be clarified on the wiki.
So… when SpaceX gets around to opening up its commercial-only launchpad, why would they have done this? Why get other private companies interested in space involved in your huge billion dollar conspiracy when you don't need to? Doesn't that seem a little risky?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#New_commercial-only_launch_site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#New_commercial-only_launch_site) (read the references if you don't like Wikipedia).
In addition, should we also include companies like Garmin, DeLorme, TomTom, etc. that manufacture and sell GPS units (claiming that they use satellites) as part of the conspiracy as well? It really seems like we should.
-
... and every person that gazes into the night sky and takes a photo of the ISS flying by are also immediately indoctrinated via x-ray, as I was just prior to claiming that I saw the ISS myself.
(http://www.digitalfox.com/digitalfox/johnf-ingkerry/foilhat_files/foil5.jpg)
That's not me by the way.
-
NASA spends as much as it takes in, making it a terrible "conspiracy"
Now organized religion...they take in 100x more than NASA and give out less.
-
The Sputnick's rocket was the two stage R-7 Smyorka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_Semyorka) liquid rocket and the Explorer-1's rocket was the three stage Jupiter-C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter-C) solid rocket. These are two entirely different technologies.
For crying out loud Tom, read your Th*rking sources before you comment on them. >o<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter-C#Description (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter-C#Description)
Each vehicle consisted of a modified Redstone ballistic missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-11_Redstone) with two solid-propellant upper stages. The tanks of the Redstone were lengthened by 8 ft (2.4 m) to provide additional propellant. The instrument compartment was also smaller and lighter than the Redstone's. The second and third stages were clustered in a "tub" atop the vehicle.
-
I am not sure you are qualified to say that, unless you are a rocket scientist? Regardless, a suspicious (to you) timeline is NOT evidence.
Why isn't that evidence? If two country's militarily programs are neck and neck an an attempt to invent time travel for 10 years, pouring billions of dollars into the venture and Country A claims to invent time travel, with Country B coming in with claims that they also invented time travel less than 3 months later, it sure looks suspicious to me.
All that that evidences is that one was faster than the other. There could be a lot of things that explain it. A conspiracy is one of the possibilities, but nothing about the circumstances favors a conspiracy over say, an American spy stealing the Soviet specs for the satellite.
The Sputnick's rocket was the two stage R-7 Smyorka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_Semyorka) liquid rocket and the Explorer-1's rocket was the three stage Jupiter-C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter-C) solid rocket. These are two entirely different technologies. How would stolen Russian rocket specs allow Americans to build the Jupiter-C? ???
Nice attempt at diverting from what my point was. How does a plane fly from Honolulu to Sydney in 10.5 hrs if it cannot travel at supersonic speeds Tom? Still waiting for that answer...
-
all gelogists especialy ones who specilise in seismic tomography
no, they work diligently and sincerely, on the 100% pasteurized data, courtesy of the funnel called usgs.
oh of course there is the very different, and im sure entirely independent, egs.
just like the esa, they get the reduced acronym and the stooge status, standing nervously watching their crazy partner spouting gibberish - and seemingly unable to stop.
after seeing the crowds duped for so long, and so easily, they eventually develop their own compulsion to ramble; and occasionally scream, cheer and jump around.
the full control of the source data was established before the rolling out of the current shakey (seismic) science bandwagon.
look back through, unless you recall from memory, the increase in media delivery of what would previously have been ignored geological events, and developments (usually of vague predictions) in associated fields.
while the most mainstream of media-informed population get the straight jab of mundane contrived fiction, those who think they feed for information in some mythical genre of the media that provides 'secret' or hidden' information, to those who seek truth, feel the right hook that is the haarp contrivance (among various other varieties of widely disseminated 'secrets');
watching the data provided by the same establishment that is suspected of numerous strategies to tectonic-ally molest the hapless wobbling spheroid earth, a truly hopeless endeavor.
with the inclusion of a newly discovered (made up) fault (that is coincidentally deep under the water so not required to actually be visible - unless the latest nasa technology could be used, a rv that can go deep enough, that can be fitted with a camera that has a resolution low enough, that is), and even a 9/11 tie-in via judy woods energy weapons, the disinfo combo scores a knockout.
with the immediate task of arguing about the real, true, honest to goodness meaning of the suddenly well promoted data stream, the need to decipher absorbs most to the extent that more profound dishonesty is obscured completely.
the uber user friendly "situation room" style websites, showing supposed 'live' updates of various categories of impending disaster, all sprang up around this time, all translating the same source data of course.
the two main themes of these doom-watch (one may even have been titled such) portals was geological and meteorological.
so the other shared data feed was from weather satellite info, as in space.
well, its a small world. allegedly.
not only are most people forced to fly through the vast void (or is that now dense dark matter soup?) of an expanding universe (expanding into?) while spinning furiously around and around, and so soon after the introduction of pronounced wobbling as well; these people, that are already coping with such hardship, must now include 'shaking around' among their many woes.
-
Sorry I'm not reading that. I know it's gonna be drivel.
-
I read it. You are right. Soemthing about boxing and a long diatribe about how information is funnelled. In the end, I think I can sum up his viewpoint this way, "Geologists are fed data by the conspiracy."
-
all gelogists especialy ones who specilise in seismic tomography
no...
So why dont they realize the earth is flat?
-
I read it. You are right. Soemthing about boxing and a long diatribe about how information is funnelled. In the end, I think I can sum up his viewpoint this way, "Geologists are fed data by the conspiracy."
Thanks for that. I was worried I might have to read through it. I'll be relying on your for the abridged drivel in future :)
-
So… when SpaceX gets around to opening up its commercial-only launchpad, why would they have done this? Why get other private companies interested in space involved in your huge billion dollar conspiracy when you don't need to? Doesn't that seem a little risky?
The Conspiracy already operates Satellites for commercial clients. However, the devices they deploy are not in orbit around the earth, but are kept aloft at the edge of space by what are known as Stratellites.
If SpaceX starts a commercial Satellite program, they will just use the same technology which has been in use for the last 40 years.
In addition, should we also include companies like Garmin, DeLorme, TomTom, etc. that manufacture and sell GPS units (claiming that they use satellites) as part of the conspiracy as well? It really seems like we should.
Why would they need to be in on it? They are receiving a publicly available, government funded, signal from the sky. The signal doesn't even need to be broadcasted through a Stratellite. It may very well be land based. The direct precursor to GPS was LORAN, which is a world-wide network of navigational towers (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56941.msg1427001.html#msg1427001). The latest version of LORAN, eLORAN, is interoperable with GPS. The technology for navigation towers already exists, and has existed for some time.
-
OK, so we've been able to establish that when you say "NASA," you actually mean "every single company in the U.S. that has ever received a contract from NASA," rather than just the government agency, which is what most people think NASA is. This should probably be clarified on the wiki.
I'm talking about the contractors who temp out employees to work on government bases as engineers. The ones who make up NASA's core operations, such as Northrop and North American Aviation. There are really only a few of those.
The external contractors who are contracted for operations outside of government facilities, such as Plantronics who designed a radio for NASA on their own facilities in Santa Cruz, CA., would not be in on it.
Contractors who build rockets are likely building real rockets, and do not need to be in on it.
Even the core operations contractors can be largely ignorant. During the Apollo Missions on the Lunar Lander project the Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have simply been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.
A trip to the junk yard, a stop at the stationary store, and a weekend of binge drinking, and we have a genuine bona fied Lunar Lander ready to take on the moon (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
-
... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...
-
... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...
They have a photo of it flying by.
-
Yup. Read 'em and weep.
-
I read it. You are right. Soemthing about boxing and a long diatribe about how information is funnelled. In the end, I think I can sum up his viewpoint this way, "Geologists are fed data by the conspiracy."
Thanks for that. I was worried I might have to read through it. I'll be relying on your for the abridged drivel in future :)
it is this cognitive lethargy and petulant refusal to address such that leaves you living in a world, whether spherical or otherwise, built from abridgments.
-
I read it. You are right. Soemthing about boxing and a long diatribe about how information is funnelled. In the end, I think I can sum up his viewpoint this way, "Geologists are fed data by the conspiracy."
Thanks for that. I was worried I might have to read through it. I'll be relying on your for the abridged drivel in future :)
it is this cognitive lethargy and petulant refusal to address such that leaves you living in a world, whether spherical or otherwise, built from abridgments.
Capitalize your sentences.
-
it is this cognitive lethargy and petulant refusal to address such that leaves you living in a world, whether spherical or otherwise, built from abridgments.
You're a massive tool.
-
I want to put it out there that the government has started the flat earth euthanization project. Just by informing you of this I have put my life in danger, they will come for me and then they will come for you flat earthers because you have discovered their cover up. It won't be long now before the government starts running this blog as part of that very same cover up, if they have not already done so. In fact most of you flat earthers on this site are probably government agents trying to hide the fact that the real flat earthers have already been disposed of. Most likely before 2001 when membership was reopened.
-OR-
You flat earthers are bat shit crazy and the government can't even balance a budget.
-
... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...
They have a photo of it flying by.
What?
So those that photograph the ISS from earth are actually taking a photo of a massive photo put in the sky by NASA?
What?
-
... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...
They have a photo of it flying by.
What?
So those that photograph the ISS from earth are actually taking a photo of a massive photo put in the sky by NASA?
What?
Not sure he meant that. I may be reading into it too much, but I took it to mean
Dearest Jason,
I have no answer so I'm bailing. Please find attached a meaningless but sarcastically nuianced reply instead.
Yours truly,
Tom
-
... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...
They have a photo of it flying by.
Somehow this is a defense for flat earthers?
-
... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...
They have a photo of it flying by.
Somehow this is a defense for flat earthers?
When have we claimed that it doesn't fly over people's heads?
-
... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...
They have a photo of it flying by.
Somehow this is a defense for flat earthers?
When have we claimed that it doesn't fly over people's heads?
So the ISS appears to orbit the Earth every 93 minutes, and you think this can be some kind of aircraft? Going over 17,000 miles an hour? I don't see any rocket or jet exhaust in these pictures, how is that possible when on your model it would have to be constantly thrusting? ???
-
So the ISS appears to orbit the Earth every 93 minutes, and you think this can be some kind of aircraft? Going over 17,000 miles an hour? I don't see any rocket or jet exhaust in these pictures, how is that possible when on your model it would have to be constantly thrusting? ???
It's likely a hydrogen-buoyant hard-shell dirigible at the edge of space where there is negligible wind resistance to slow it down. An engine, perhaps an ion drive (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html), can easily accelerate such a craft to to high velocities.
From the link on ion propulsion:
Early tests in 2004 demonstrated power levels of 40 kilowatts and exhaust velocities in excess of 90,000 meters per second (over 200,000 mph).
-
So why when we look at the iss through telescopes does it not look like a hard shell dirigable?
-
No I mean you can quite clearly see the iss through a telescope I have done it and millions of people have done it. It's not a blob of ligh its in the shape off the iss.
-
From the link on ion propulsion:
Early tests in 2004 demonstrated power levels of 40 kilowatts and exhaust velocities in excess of 90,000 meters per second (over 200,000 mph).
No.
From the same link:
Modern ion thrusters can deliver up to 0.5 Newtons (0.1 pounds) of thrust, which is equivalent to the force you would feel by holding nine U.S. quarters in your hand. To compensate for low thrust, the ion thruster must be operated for a long time for the spacecraft to reach its top speed.
Remember, the earth is flat, so that would mean it has to always be turning. It can't slow down fast enough. With an ion drive, once you're going, you aren't stopping or changing direction anytime soon.
It would work if the earth was round though. Too bad…
-
Wait wait wait wait... OK, so Elon Musk is in on it, and knows full well that it's actually the government managing their space operations, rather than SpaceX itself. But since this has been going on for so long, that means that NASA would have to have APPROACHED Elon Musk, the successful founder of PayPal, and asked him to join their conspiracy. Talk about incredible risks no sane person would take! You said it yourself Tom Bishop:
Do you think some entrepreneur invested billions of dollars in a rocket company in hopes of selling services to NASA? No way. That's a pretty big gamble that NASA would choose you over the Russians or some other Aerospace company, or decide keep their rocket program altogether.
So are we now expected to think that NASA would risk their entire multi-billion dollar enterprise in the hopes of getting one celebrity entrepreneur to be buddy-buddy with them? That sounds like an even bigger gamble. "No way."
-
So why when we look at the iss through telescopes does it not look like a hard shell dirigable?
How do you know what the ISS is filled with?
From the link on ion propulsion:
Early tests in 2004 demonstrated power levels of 40 kilowatts and exhaust velocities in excess of 90,000 meters per second (over 200,000 mph).
No.
From the same link:
Modern ion thrusters can deliver up to 0.5 Newtons (0.1 pounds) of thrust, which is equivalent to the force you would feel by holding nine U.S. quarters in your hand. To compensate for low thrust, the ion thruster must be operated for a long time for the spacecraft to reach its top speed.
Remember, the earth is flat, so that would mean it has to always be turning. It can't slow down fast enough. With an ion drive, once you're going, you aren't stopping or changing direction anytime soon.
It would work if the earth was round though. Too bad…
The center of gravity for the craft just needs to be slightly banked to the left or right so the craft travels Westwards according to its navigational instruments, and therefore in a big circle.
Jets don't have a problem with shifting their gravity to the left or right to bank into large circles.
Wait wait wait wait... OK, so Elon Musk is in on it, and knows full well that it's actually the government managing their space operations, rather than SpaceX itself. But since this has been going on for so long, that means that NASA would have to have APPROACHED Elon Musk, the successful founder of PayPal, and asked him to join their conspiracy. Talk about incredible risks no sane person would take! You said it yourself Tom Bishop:
Do you think some entrepreneur invested billions of dollars in a rocket company in hopes of selling services to NASA? No way. That's a pretty big gamble that NASA would choose you over the Russians or some other Aerospace company, or decide keep their rocket program altogether.
So are we now expected to think that NASA would risk their entire multi-billion dollar enterprise in the hopes of getting one celebrity entrepreneur to be buddy-buddy with them? That sounds like an even bigger gamble. "No way."
Musk doesn't need to be in on it. There is still some confusion about how contracting companies work. Government contractors have the same business model as private contractors. The contracting company finds you off of Monster/Career Builder/Dice and sends you to the client to interview. If the client likes you, the contractor hires you on under their own name, outsourcing your services. You go into work for the client while the contractor sits around profiting off of the difference between how much the client is paying them and how much they are paying you.
I can't believe no one on this forum has ever worked for a contractor before.
-
It's likely a hydrogen-buoyant hard-shell dirigible at the edge of space where there is negligible wind resistance to slow it down. An engine, perhaps an ion drive (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html), can easily accelerate such a craft to to high velocities.
And by easily you mean impossibly because if you had looked up ion drives for more than 20 seconds you'd have realised that.
I don't understand your angle Tom. Why do you believe NASA when they say the ISS is in the fringe of space in an area of minimal atmospheric resistance, but then claim that instead of it being full of working instrumentation and a crew, it's filled with hydrogen? Why would they do that?
You go on to make up something about ion drives, but what's wrong with plain old rocket boosters? Your dirigible ISS would have cost more than the real deal; and why wouldn't they fit it with instrumentation and do studies while they're up there?
-
And by easily you mean impossibly because if you had looked up ion drives for more than 20 seconds you'd have realised that.
I said perhaps ion drives. I suggested that ion drives would be beneficial because there would be no need to carry fuel. Electricity from the solar panels could directly be turned into propulsion. At the edge of space where there is nearly no atmosphere, the fact that ion drives have low thrust is immaterial. There is no thick atmosphere like at sea level and therefore nothing to slow the craft down.
I don't understand your angle Tom. Why do you believe NASA when they say the ISS is in the fringe of space in an area of minimal atmospheric resistance, but then claim that instead of it being full of working instrumentation and a crew, it's filled with hydrogen? Why would they do that?
Because if it was not filled with hydrogen, or another lighter-than-air gas, it would come crashing back to the earth's surface, as the earth's orbit does not exist. I suggested hydrogen because hydrogen is more buoyant than other lighter-than-air gasses.
-
I said perhaps ion drives. I suggested that ion drives would be beneficial because there would be no need to carry fuel. Electricity from the solar panels could directly be turned into propulsion. At the edge of space where there is nearly no atmosphere, the fact that ion drives have low thrust is immaterial. There is no thick atmosphere like at sea level and therefore nothing to slow the craft down.
First of all, ion drives do require fuel, and electricity is not directly turned into propulsion. I understand what you are saying but the reason I'm bringing this up because it is yet another demonstration that you don't really understand what it is that you are saying. At the edge of space, there is very little atmosphere, and that's exactly why the ISS is there. It doesn't use ion drives because they are not economically feasible, so they use rockets instead. The thrust exerted by ion drives is very small (0.1 Newtons for a NSTAR thruster), so much so that it could not operate in the region where the ISS actually is, let alone where you think it is (in a buoyant region of the atmosphere).
In order for a balloon to remain boyant, it has to have a density less than or equal to the surrounding atmosphere. Even if the entire ISS was made completely out of hydrogen, it would still have a density of 0.0899kg/m3, so it would have to be no higher than 55km in the atmosphere. Considering that its observable velocity is over 7.5km/s, you would expect a force per unit area in the order of
F = 0.5 * rho * C * V^2 = 0.5 * 0.09 * 0.5 * 7500^2 = 1.3 million Newtons/ square meter
(assuming spherical shape for simplicity - doesn't change much for other shapes)
That's over 100 tons of pressure per square meter. Do you know of any balloons that could withstand that? An ion drive produces about 0.1N of force (0.01kg on earth). So not only would this floating ISS need to consume millions of gigawatts of power to drive its ion engines, it would also need to be made of materials stronger than anything known to man, given that both the pressure and aerodynamic heating loads woulds be astronomical.
I know it might seem to you that I am being overly harsh or aggressive, but I am quite simply exasperated by your incoherent responses. You seem to deliberately produce false information, possibly because you simply do not take the time to learn about your own references before citing them, and then bog us down in explaining your own errors to you. I have read your literature, why can't you at least try to read ours, or at least your own for god's sake.
In addition to your factual errors, your reasoning is completely bogus. An example of this is your explanation for why the ISS is filled with hydrogen:
Because if it was not filled with hydrogen, or another lighter-than-air gas, it would come crashing back to the earth's surface, as the earth's orbit does not exist
That is at best a hypothesis for which you provided no evidence, and founded itself on further unevidenced hypotheses (or axioms as you have come to use them). It is neither scientific nor zetetic.
-
And before you try to tell me the ISS is not moving at those speeds, its location is tracked and monitored by thousands of amateur astronomers. In addition, those atmospheric values are based entirely on the density of hydrogen, and have nothing to do with my "assumptions" about how dense the atmosphere is at 55km (it's based on the US Standard Atmosphere tables, but is not relevant in this case).
-
The thrust exerted by ion drives is very small (0.1 Newtons for a NSTAR thruster), so much so that it could not operate in the region where the ISS actually is, let alone where you think it is (in a buoyant region of the atmosphere).
That's easy. Just leave the ion drive on for a long period of time. In a near-vacuum the craft will eventually reach tremendous speeds.
Considering that its observable velocity is over 7.5km/s, you would expect a force per unit area in the order of
F = 0.5 * rho * C * V^2 = 0.5 * 0.09 * 0.5 * 7500^2 = 1.3 million Newtons/ square meter
(assuming spherical shape for simplicity - doesn't change much for other shapes)
That's over 100 tons of pressure per square meter. Do you know of any balloons that could withstand that? An ion drive produces about 0.1N of force (0.01kg on earth). So not only would this floating ISS need to consume millions of gigawatts of power to drive its ion engines, it would also need to be made of materials stronger than anything known to man, given that both the pressure and aerodynamic heating loads woulds be astronomical.
What do you mean "aerodynamic heating loads"? The ISS isn't surrounded by an atmosphere. It's in a near-vacuum. It's not going to heat up like a meteor falling through the atmosphere.
Also, I didn't say it was a balloon. I said it was likely a hard shell dirigible.
Why does the ion thruster need gigawatts? You already accept that ion thrusters can accelerate space craft to tremendous speeds, despite being solar powered by a distant sun.
That is at best a hypothesis for which you provided no evidence, and founded itself on further unevidenced hypotheses (or axioms as you have come to use them). It is neither scientific nor zetetic.
A hypothesis was implied with the words "perhaps" and "likely". I suggest you pay closer attention.
-
And before you try to tell me the ISS is not moving at those speeds, its location is tracked and monitored by thousands of amateur astronomers.
Please tell me how to gauge a speed of a distant white dot by looking at it, not knowing its distance from you.
-
That's easy. Just leave the ion drive on for a long period of time. In a near-vacuum the craft will eventually reach tremendous speeds.
No, it won't, even in near-vaccuum. And it's only near-vacuum in "my model", in yours the force exerted on a balloon operating at the density required to maintain buoyancy would be required to resist a force of 1.3 million newtons, as calculated before.
What do you mean "aerodynamic heating loads"? The ISS isn't surrounded by an atmosphere. It's in a near-vacuum. It's not going to heat up like a meteor falling through the atmosphere.
Again, you're taking the real-life example and confusing it with your own. In your model, the ISS would not be able to exist at a density-evelations above 0.09kg/m3 as it is being held up by the buoyant force of the hydrogen (above which hydrogen would sink). Therefore, it would experience tremendous heating loads, probably in the order several megawatts per square meter, possibly higher.
Also, I didn't say it was a balloon. I said it was likely a hard shell dirigible.
Even if it was made of carbon composite, it would still vaporise instantly.
Why does the ion thruster need gigawatts? You already accept that ion thrusters can accelerate space craft to tremendous speeds, despite being solar powered by a distant sun.
Yes, but not in the atmosphere. The force produced by a normal ion thruster is in the order of 0.1mN, for which it requires about 2.5kW. In order to produce 1.3 million newtons and overcome the drag alone, it would require over 30 gigawatts for every square meter of surface area. That is an absurd number, it's more power than many countries require, and must be overcome for every square meter of surface area. Not to mention the ion drives themselves would likely run out of fuel at such a rate.
A hypothesis was implied with the words "perhaps" and "likely". I suggest you pay closer attention.
Your scenario is neither possible nor likely.
-
Please tell me how to gauge a speed of a distant white dot by looking at it, not knowing its distance from you.
You measure the time between controlled elevation angles relative to each observer and apply trigonometry. The distance itself can be derived by an analogous method by taking measurements at equal points in time. This method is commonly called triangulation, and on a 1D flight-path it can be done with 2 control points.
-
Musk doesn't need to be in on it. There is still some confusion about how contracting companies work. Government contractors have the same business model as private contractors. The contracting company finds you off of Monster/Career Builder/Dice and sends you to the client to interview. If the client likes you, the contractor hires you on under their own name, outsourcing your services. You go into work for the client while the contractor sits around profiting off of the difference between how much the client is paying them and how much they are paying you.
I can't believe no one on this forum has ever worked for a contractor before.
Yeah… that's not how SpaceX works. SpaceX does pretty much everything themselves. The build their own rockets, their own crafts, and fly their own missions. If they don't, then they're lying. The contract between them and NASA is for them to provide cargo ferrying services to NASA that NASA would normally have to do themselves with their own vehicles.
They're lying either way, regardless of if you believe they actually do most of the stuff themselves.
-
Please tell me how to gauge a speed of a distant white dot by looking at it, not knowing its distance from you.
You measure the time between controlled elevation angles relative to each observer and apply trigonometry. The distance itself can be derived by an analogous method by taking measurements at equal points in time. This method is commonly called triangulation, and on a 1D flight-path it can be done with 2 control points.
A simpler way to put this is that the ISS completes an orbit every 93 minutes, with a total distance of about 27,000 miles, for a speed of about 17,400 mph.
-
A simpler way to put this is that the ISS completes an orbit every 93 minutes, with a total distance of about 27,000 miles, for a speed of about 17,400 mph.
I was trying to be accommodating and provide a method that does not assume the ISS is actually in weak orbit, as Tom doesn't believe orbits exist.
-
No, it won't, even in near-vaccuum. And it's only near-vacuum in "my model", in yours the force exerted on a balloon operating at the density required to maintain buoyancy would be required to resist a force of 1.3 million newtons, as calculated before.
In a near vaccum at near space, what exactly is causing a resistance of 1.3 million newtons? Where do you account for the density of the atmosphere in your calculations? I'm afraid you're talking nonsense.
Yes, but not in the atmosphere. The force produced by a normal ion thruster is in the order of 0.1mN, for which it requires about 2.5kW. In order to produce 1.3 million newtons and overcome the drag alone, it would require over 30 gigawatts for every square meter of surface area. That is an absurd number, it's more power than many countries require, and must be overcome for every square meter of surface area. Not to mention the ion drives themselves would likely run out of fuel at such a rate.
Please provide calculations for the drag in a near space environment and the energy needed to overcome such drag.
-
In a near vaccum at near space, what exactly is causing a resistance of 1.3 million newtons? Where do you account for the density of the atmosphere in your calculations? I'm afraid you're talking nonsense.
Not only have I explicitly explained why bouyant forces could not maintain such an object above 55km altitude, I also explained precisely why 1.3 million newtons of force would be encountered and included the appropriate density in my calculations. Not only did you completely fail to read what I wrote, you have the nerve to tell me I am talking nonsense.
Please provide calculations for the drag in a near space environment and the energy needed to overcome such drag.
I will ignore for the sake of your question that I already exhaustively explained why your floating dirigible cannot function at higher altitudes, and I will assume that by "near space" you mean the rarefied regime of the atmosphere (which, incidentally, also means that nothing can float there). This is the region where the ISS operates.
The quick answer is that it's more complicated because the air flow is rarefied and must be modeled stochastically. The US standard atmosphere tables don't extend that high anyway (and if they did it would be meaningless). I would suspect that the ISS drag is in the order of 10s of newtons based on the frequency of their rocket boosts, but I don't know this for a fact. Getting a more accurate number would require either empirical relationships I don't have off hand or a full CFD calculation, which I am not willing to do.
At the very least do me the favour of reading what I have taken the time to write before responding.
-
Please tell me how to gauge a speed of a distant white dot by looking at it, not knowing its distance from you.
You measure the time between controlled elevation angles relative to each observer and apply trigonometry. The distance itself can be derived by an analogous method by taking measurements at equal points in time. This method is commonly called triangulation, and on a 1D flight-path it can be done with 2 control points.
Even if multiple simultaneous observations of the ISS were carried out to triangulate its altitude and speed, which they haven't, the observers would still need to assume a Round Earth or a Flat Earth for their triangulation calculations to determine its altitude, as on a RE the observers will be standing at different angles in relation to each other and on an FE the observers are standing on the same plane. The baselines for the trangles are different depending on the shape of the earth we assume.
It's part of the reason why the position of the sun can be calculated to both 93 million miles away or a few thousand miles away (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun) depending on the shape of the earth we calculate under.
-
Except the calculation to the distance of the sun on a FE varies significantly if you use angles other than 90 degrees or 45 degrees and can be disqualified on that simple easily verifiable basis.
-
Not only have I explicitly explained why bouyant forces could not maintain such an object above 55km altitude, I also explained precisely why 1.3 million newtons of force would be encountered and included the appropriate density in my calculations. Not only did you completely fail to read what I wrote, you have the nerve to tell me I am talking nonsense.
You said the 1.3 million newtons of force was a result of "aerodynamic heating loads". According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_heating) We read that aerodynamic heating is the "heating of a solid body produced by the passage of fluid (such as air) over a body such as a meteor, missile, or airplane."
Now, since the ISS is at near-space, unlike the meteors, missiles, or airplanes when those things heat up significantly, I'm afraid your assumptions that the ISS would encounter similar extreme aerodynamic heating is bunk. You need to account for the environment in which is operates.
I will ignore for the sake of your question that I already exhaustively explained why your floating dirigible cannot function at higher altitudes, and I will assume that by "near space" you mean the rarefied regime of the atmosphere (which, incidentally, also means that nothing can float there). This is the region where the ISS operates.
Hydrogen is lighter-than-air, meaning that it rises until it is above the atmosphere. If you seal off a fish tank and pour in hydrogen it will rise and accumulate at the top of the tank, displacing all air at the top. You seem to believe that high altitude balloons which reach the edge of space are still in significant atmosphere. They are not. The atmosphere they are in is incredibly thin, the hydrogen/helium having risen above the atmosphere, essentially no longer within it, any atmosphere present being sparse and dispersed.
-
Except the calculation to the distance of the sun on a FE varies significantly if you use angles other than 90 degrees or 45 degrees and can be disqualified on that simple easily verifiable basis.
Please elaborate. Who experienced this?
-
No one has ever built an airship capable of flight in a near space environment at hypersonic speeds. The only people (http://www.jpaerospace.com/atohandout.pdf) who think it's even possible propose a design that would be 6000 feet (!) in length. That's over a mile, about 1800m long. Why? "In order to utilize the few molecules of gas at extreme altitudes, this craft is big."
How big is the ISS? Hint: not 1800m long. Not even close. It's about 109m by 73m.
Now the project I linked to above is a bit crazy if you ask me; it has to be crazy for the concept of a near-space dirigible to even work in terms of the physics involved. And their idea hinges on the ability to reach orbital velocity. I guess they're not zany enough to consider the Earth is flat.
If the project does prove functional and they do send an airship to high orbit, I guess that would only make them become part of the Conspiracy. ;D
-
No one has ever built an airship capable of flight in a near space environment at hypersonic speeds. The only people (http://www.jpaerospace.com/atohandout.pdf) who think it's even possible propose a design that would be 6000 feet (!) in length. That's over a mile, about 1800m long. Why? "In order to utilize the few
molecules of gas at extreme altitudes, this craft is big."
How big is the ISS? Hint: not 1800m long. Not even close. It's about 109m by 73m.
Now the project I linked to above is a bit crazy if you ask me; it has to be crazy for the concept of a near-space dirigible to even work in terms of the physics involved. And their idea hinges on the ability to reach orbital velocity. I guess they're not zany enough to consider the Earth is flat.
It needs to be that huge because it's driven by huge propellers able to capture the imperceptible atmosphere there. I did not suggest propellers an an acceleration mechanism for the ISS.
I doubt propellers will be of much use in a near-space environment. They will likely have to fly at slightly lower altitudes to see any effect.
If the project does prove functional and they do send an airship to high orbit, I guess that would only make them become part of the Conspiracy. ;D
Airships cannot achieve orbit, despite what any riff-raff aerospace company claims.
-
Airships cannot be sent into orbit.
I didn't say that I think sending an airship into orbit is possible; I even said I think their project is a bit crazy. You either have reading comprehension problems, or you like responding to issues people haven't raised. Personally I seriously doubt airships can be sent to orbit, but not because I believe the Earth is flat ;D
No lighter than air aircraft has went higher than 53km, and that was merely a 40kg balloon. The record altitude for a dirigible is less than 12km. I doubt a dirigible could ever reach an altitude much higher than the current record for lighter than air aircraft. And like Jason_85 indicated, it would essentially have to be made only of hydrogen to do it.
However the people behind the project do certainly think that sending an airship to orbit is possible. So what I said is that if the project somehow works and they do send an airship to high orbit, it would mean they would become part of the Conspiracy. Nothing more, nothing less.
It needs to be that huge because it's driven by huge propellers. I did not suggest propellers an an acceleration mechanism.
Either you haven't even looked at the link I posted, or it's a further indication that you have poor reading comprehension skills. It only mentions propellers in the case of the first part of the project, which is supposed to be an atmospheric airship. The orbital airship that I was referring to, the one which is supposed to be 6000 feet long, is stated to have "electric propulsion"; the pdf document then goes on to mention a flight test for an ion engine intended for that same orbital airship.
-
Well good, that reinforces the idea that ion engines for high altitude dirigibles is possible.
-
Even if multiple simultaneous observations of the ISS were carried out to triangulate its altitude and speed, which they haven't, the observers would still need to assume a Round Earth or a Flat Earth for their triangulation calculations to determine its altitude, as on a RE the observers will be standing at different angles in relation to each other and on an FE the observers are standing on the same plane. The baselines for the trangles are different depending on the shape of the earth we assume.
It's part of the reason why the position of the sun can be calculated to both 93 million miles away or a few thousand miles away (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun) depending on the shape of the earth we calculate under.
This is incorrect. Viewers only need to be a few kilometres apart to measure differences in elevation of the ISS, so curvature of the earth would result in an error in distance of no more than a hundred metres or so.
You said the 1.3 million newtons of force was a result of "aerodynamic heating loads". According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_heating) We read that aerodynamic heating is the "heating of a solid body produced by the passage of fluid (such as air) over a body such as a meteor, missile, or airplane."
I said no such thing. Read it again.
Now, since the ISS is at near-space, unlike the meteors, missiles, or airplanes when those things heat up significantly, I'm afraid your assumptions that the ISS would encounter similar extreme aerodynamic heating is bunk. You need to account for the environment in which is operates.
Your inability to read my original post borders on the demented.
Hydrogen is lighter-than-air, meaning that it rises until it is above the atmosphere. If you seal off a fish tank and pour in hydrogen it will rise and accumulate at the top of the tank, displacing all air at the top. You seem to believe that high altitude balloons which reach the edge of space are still in significant atmosphere. They are not. The atmosphere they are in is incredibly thin, the hydrogen/helium having risen above the atmosphere, essentially no longer within it, any atmosphere present being sparse and dispersed.
Again, I've covered this in my post. The atmosphere is not a fish tank for many reasons, not the least of which that the density of the atmosphere changes. I've accounted for this. Read what I wrote.
I can see now how you've managed to remain a believer for this long; you're completely impervious.
-
Well good, that reinforces the idea that ion engines for high altitude dirigibles is possible.
lol
-
Well good, that reinforces the idea that ion engines for high altitude dirigibles is possible.
First you describe them as a "riff-raff aerospace company" and dismiss their claims; then you use them to "reinforce" your idea. So not only do you display appalling reading comprehension skills, you also have trouble maintaining a consistent stance. ::)
-
Let's keep going.
As we all know North Korea dislikes USA, and they recently launched a satellite, so, are they also part of the conspiracy and have a secret arrangement with USA to not destroy the conspiracy?
-
Let's keep going.
As we all know North Korea dislikes USA, and they recently launched a satellite, so, are they also part of the conspiracy and have a secret arrangement with USA to not destroy the conspiracy?
Here are some more facts (http://listverse.com/2010/05/30/top-10-crazy-facts-about-kim-jong-il/) from North Korea.
-
Let's keep going.
As we all know North Korea dislikes USA, and they recently launched a satellite, so, are they also part of the conspiracy and have a secret arrangement with USA to not destroy the conspiracy?
Here are some more facts (http://listverse.com/2010/05/30/top-10-crazy-facts-about-kim-jong-il/) from North Korea.
This proves what exactly?
-
Let's keep going.
As we all know North Korea dislikes USA, and they recently launched a satellite, so, are they also part of the conspiracy and have a secret arrangement with USA to not destroy the conspiracy?
Here are some more facts (http://listverse.com/2010/05/30/top-10-crazy-facts-about-kim-jong-il/) from North Korea.
This proves what exactly?
Maybe that proves how irrelevant an FEer can be :P
-
Let's keep going.
As we all know North Korea dislikes USA, and they recently launched a satellite, so, are they also part of the conspiracy and have a secret arrangement with USA to not destroy the conspiracy?
Here are some more facts (http://listverse.com/2010/05/30/top-10-crazy-facts-about-kim-jong-il/) from North Korea.
This proves what exactly?
Maybe that proves how irrelevant an FEer can be :P
Where do you think you are going to get with silly little digs?
You came to this site to do what? did you come here to tell the FE believers how silly they are or did you come to try and find out where you have been going wrong in what you have been taught?
Remember...you came here and appear to be putting up topics asking questions, so if it's irrelevant, what are you doing here?
Irrelevance is what this site is all about. go back 5 posts IMB is talking about NK Satellites and Bishop posts some fun facts site. Where is the relevance there?
-
Where do you think you are going to get with silly little digs?
You came to this site to do what? did you come here to tell the FE believers how silly they are or did you come to try and find out where you have been going wrong in what you have been taught?
Remember...you came here and appear to be putting up topics asking questions, so if it's irrelevant, what are you doing here?
I came here to see if you were just ironic hipsters trying to drive traffic with a gimmick like the Pastafarians in an attempt to spark creative thought (and drive traffic), or if you were a group of Bat-shit crazy believers who have no grasp of reality.
It's too bad you're not ironic hipsters....
-
Let's keep going.
As we all know North Korea dislikes USA, and they recently launched a satellite, so, are they also part of the conspiracy and have a secret arrangement with USA to not destroy the conspiracy?
Here are some more facts (http://listverse.com/2010/05/30/top-10-crazy-facts-about-kim-jong-il/) from North Korea.
This proves what exactly?
Maybe that proves how irrelevant an FEer can be :P
Where do you think you are going to get with silly little digs?
You came to this site to do what? did you come here to tell the FE believers how silly they are or did you come to try and find out where you have been going wrong in what you have been taught?
Remember...you came here and appear to be putting up topics asking questions, so if it's irrelevant, what are you doing here?
Irrelevance is what this site is all about. go back 5 posts IMB is talking about NK Satellites and Bishop posts some fun facts site. Where is the relevance there?
Are you deciding who can post what?
Tom Bishop posted about NK and if you look at the topic title, it might give you a clue are the relevance.
So by posting ANYTHING about NK is relevant?
-
Let's keep going.
As we all know North Korea dislikes USA, and they recently launched a satellite, so, are they also part of the conspiracy and have a secret arrangement with USA to not destroy the conspiracy?
Here are some more facts (http://listverse.com/2010/05/30/top-10-crazy-facts-about-kim-jong-il/) from North Korea.
This proves what exactly?
Maybe that proves how irrelevant an FEer can be :P
Where do you think you are going to get with silly little digs?
You came to this site to do what? did you come here to tell the FE believers how silly they are or did you come to try and find out where you have been going wrong in what you have been taught?
Remember...you came here and appear to be putting up topics asking questions, so if it's irrelevant, what are you doing here?
Irrelevance is what this site is all about. go back 5 posts IMB is talking about NK Satellites and Bishop posts some fun facts site. Where is the relevance there?
Are you deciding who can post what?
Tom Bishop posted about NK and if you look at the topic title, it might give you a clue are the relevance.
So by posting ANYTHING about NK is relevant?
It is when the topic is about organisations,lying.
riiiiight...lol. prime example of avoiding the question. So lets see...a country claims to put up a satellite and your angle is that is they made up some crap in the past then they didn't put up a satellite...got it thanks.
-
That's what you get for feeding on any propaganda.
According to this site the entire world and the entire internet is propaganda EXCEPT Flat Earth Society. Or just the stuff that doesn't jive with your "theories". ok this is getting nowhere
-
That's what you get for feeding on any propaganda.
According to this site the entire world and the entire internet is propaganda EXCEPT Flat Earth Society. Or just the stuff that doesn't jive with your "theories". ok this is getting nowhere
so it's pointless in picking out a whole unit as being this and that.
you didn't just write that, did you? as in all countries and organisations being in on the round earth conspiracy? this is rich.
-
I just trust more the people living in the real world whose daily jobs depend on the earth being round never finding anything wrong with it. rather than a bunch of people deciding from their chairs that the earth is flat.
-
I just trust more the people living in the real world whose daily jobs depend on the earth being round never finding anything wrong with it. rather than a bunch of people deciding from their chairs that the earth is flat.
Which peoples jobs "depend" on the earth being round?
For example jobs depending on maps or people working in any of the agencies you consider a hoax.
-
I just trust more the people living in the real world whose daily jobs depend on the earth being round never finding anything wrong with it. rather than a bunch of people deciding from their chairs that the earth is flat.
Which peoples jobs "depend" on the earth being round?
For example jobs depending on maps or people working in any of the agencies you consider a hoax.
Explain Berty?
Well... all of the maps and large distance calculations. therefore travel times calculations. are made assuming the earth is round. And all of the agencies you consider a hoax is because they depend on the earth being round.
-
Ok. you still dont get it. Believe it or not its not funny explaining things to you.
-
skeptic how does a airline plan flight paths if it does not know the earth is flat and instead thinks its round?
-
no because as has been shown on many occasions you need to go in different directions and distances on a flat earth map than a round earth one. their for a airline would need to use a flat earth map to navigate on a flat earth hence they would need to know the earth is flat. of course its not and they use real world maps.
-
And what about pilots and planes that don't use computers?
-
Such as planes and pilots that don't use computers. Ships and captains that do not use computers.
-
Such as planes and pilots that don't use computers. Ships and captains that do not use computers.
But they use a flat map right?
No they use a map and charts based on the earth bieng round.
-
yes i understand that but what im getting at is all pilots and navigators can navigate using charts and up until the wide spread use of computers traveled around the world using nothing but paper charts. charts that are based on the world being round.
-
yes i understand that but what im getting at is all pilots and navigators can navigate using charts and up until the wide spread use of computers traveled around the world using nothing but paper charts. charts that are based on the world being round.
I agree with you. But the point is that whether you use computers or paper charts, they are all based on round earth maps or the world being round .
agreed. ;D
over to you sceptic. im sure you will propose something ridiculousness.
-
Pythagoras I'm coming up on 11:07:00 UTC and I haven't seen any replies to your posting to Sceptimatic of 08:07:15 UTC and it's been 3 hours now . I'm still on hold waiting a reply from scepti . ???
Pythagoras I'm not asking you to concede :). Let's just let Sceptimatic have a bit more time.
Dont get your hopes too high about sceptis reply. he might just start asking pointless questions about charts and weather or not you are a pilot or a navigator. eventually derrailing the subject.
-
First of all, why you FEs ignored my last post about North Korea being part of the conspirancy with the USA and the rest of the world while publicly hating USA?
And if a ship navigates without computers, it must uses a map and the stars, where the visible stars can help you determine your position, since some stars are visible from some parts of the planet because the earth is round... And a map which surely uses some projection because you can't represent a 3D object surface on a 2D object without some sort of distortion... Also, how is that anybody has seen the edge of the earth? Weird, since we have planes, somebody could just easily grab a plane and try to find it, but nobody has, because magically they turn around when they are near to it.
-
I still don;t get how you think that all of the agencies depend on the earth being round. Which agencies?
Or do you mean, all agencies go about their business accepting that the world is round and just go about it in normal order because realistically they have no clue.
I actually made an entire thread about this, and you even replied to it, but never followed up.
Consider the following points:
1) All commercial (and otherwise) flight around the world is based on a round earth. Thus, the distances and angles between things that people use to navigate would match how you would measure them on a sphere. Otherwise, flights would end up in the wrong places pretty much all the time.
2) It is impossible to lay the surface of a sphere flat without moving things around and shrinking/expanding (distorting) things; in other words, changing those distances and directions. How do I know? Because I can draw a triangle with three 90º angles on a ball, but I can't on a flat piece of paper without severely distorting it. You can draw an infinite number of such "impossible" triangles on a sphere.
Therefore, since flights depend on the earth being round to successfully navigate and not end up off-course, the earth must mimic the shape of a sphere. It is impossible to mimic the shape of a sphere with a flat earth. Therefore, the earth is not flat, and all flat earth maps are wrong.
-
This is a long thread, so this might have been addressed before, but how many photoshoppers/graphic designers/movie producers must also be on the payroll? With the amount of images avaliable via google, and movies about astronaughts there must be hundreds of thousands of people working full time to photoshop evidence. There must be hundreds of green screen movie studios underground somewhere with actors working around the clock, and post production going on at the same time. The scope of all of this would dwarf hollywood, because the special effects would have to be believeable, not crappy Twilight-level special effects.
-
Drawing a triangle with 90 degree angles on a ball is not doing it on earth for starters and until one is done, it's pointless.
I see a few of you keep going on about navigating using a flat map that's derived from a globe map lol..what's all this about?
The only thing I use such a triangle to demonstrate is that the surface of a ball (not the earth; just a ball) cannot be made flat without distorting things. That's all. It doesn't matter if you can draw it on the earth or not. Read what I wrote very carefully. If we actually could draw it on earth, that would be fantastic, but still more or less irrelevant to what I'm talking about.
Assume the earth is flat. The point is that airlines aren't expecting this sort of distortion if the earth is flat but they are using a round earth to navigate. Thus, the path they expect to be straight is in reality curved (we use the triangles to prove this!), but they don't know that, so they don't bother flying in a curved path. Thus, they end up in the wrong place. Except they don't, because they're still in business. So either they know the earth is flat and just pretend it's round (they know they have to fly their route curved, or at a different angle; part of the conspiracy), or the earth is actually round. Take your pick.
Note: we're not talking about curved like a ball is curved. We're talking about curved like drawing a circle on a ball, as opposed to a straight line on a ball, like the equator.
-
Using the most common FE model map with the north pole at the center, the whole country of Australia is wildly distorted compared to a RE map. I would say that the entire population of Australia and anyone who has ever traveled there must be a part of the conspiracy.
-
Using the most common FE model map with the north pole at the center, the whole country of Australia is wildly distorted compared to a RE map. I would say that the entire population of Australia and anyone who has ever traveled there must be a part of the conspiracy.
It's true as an Australian currently living in Brisbane the first time i picked up a crayon i had to sign onto the government payroll stating that if i ever travelled North i had to do so at 40km below the speed limit and if i was travelling west i had to do 250km the whole way to make sure i arrived at the times i should have.
O wait that never happened. Also i can tell you that it takes roughly the same time to go from Melbourne to Weipa as it does to go from Melboure to Perth. Despite the fact that on a FE map Perth is twice as far away from Melbourne as Weipa.
-
Do you guys never get sick of this? I've been here for a few weeks and it already seems like groundhog day...
-
First of all, why you FEs ignored my last post about North Korea being part of the conspirancy with the USA and the rest of the world while publicly hating USA?
We didn't:
Here are some more facts (http://listverse.com/2010/05/30/top-10-crazy-facts-about-kim-jong-il/) from North Korea.
-
Those 'facts' are western propaganda. Not North Korean propaganda. Make him look crazy and then insist an expensive war must take place.
As for injecting his staff with painkillers, he probably feared assassination by lethal injection. Making them take a shot from the same bottle seems pretty sensible to me.
All of that is Western made up rubbish. Not North Korean.
-
Those 'facts' are western propaganda. Not North Korean propaganda. Make him look crazy and then insist an expensive war must take place.
As for injecting his staff with painkillers, he probably feared assassination by lethal injection. Making them take a shot from the same bottle seems pretty sensible to me.
All of that is Western made up rubbish. Not North Korean.
I assume that is your very own reasonable assumption and not something you can prove? I am not disagreeing with you, I just want to make sure.
-
Drawing a triangle with 90 degree angles on a ball is not doing it on earth for starters and until one is done, it's pointless.
I see a few of you keep going on about navigating using a flat map that's derived from a globe map lol..what's all this about?
thats just lack of education on your part. so what would happen on a round earth if someone needed a map? everyone would be carrying a globe around? lol. you just dont know enough math to know how to project coordinates. its like a university professor explaining high school math to a second grader.
-
Drawing a triangle with 90 degree angles on a ball is not doing it on earth for starters and until one is done, it's pointless.
I see a few of you keep going on about navigating using a flat map that's derived from a globe map lol..what's all this about?
thats just lack of education on your part. so what would happen on a round earth if someone needed a map? everyone would be carrying a globe around? lol. you just dont know enough math to know how to project coordinates. its like a university professor explaining high school math to a second grader.
You aren't teaching me anything.
Yeah I think most would have trouble with that task.
-
I do agree with him scepti, you're incredibly stubborn and possibly somewhat slow as well. Neither of those would matter if you weren't also very arrogant. It's a toxic combination, and I doubt you'll really learn anything in your life that, in hindsight, won't have been completely useless or even detrimental to your own growth as a person. I do not envy you.
-
Those 'facts' are western propaganda. Not North Korean propaganda. Make him look crazy and then insist an expensive war must take place.
As for injecting his staff with painkillers, he probably feared assassination by lethal injection. Making them take a shot from the same bottle seems pretty sensible to me.
All of that is Western made up rubbish. Not North Korean.
I assume that is your very own reasonable assumption and not something you can prove? I am not disagreeing with you, I just want to make sure.
Do you think North Korean people are as stupid as Reuters says they are? Do you think they believe Kim Jong-Il was able to play a round of golf in 38 shots? That the mountains cried when he died?
It is the American public that is stupid as they are the ones swallowing the stupid lies about how stupid North Koreans must be. And it will be those same stupid Americans that will end up paying for a never ending war in North Korea.
Some light reading for you.
https://iwpchi.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/us-nato-un-hands-off-north-korea-us-propaganda-barrage-continues-as-china-stabs-n-korea-in-back/
-
Thork-I understand that you may not know when I am being sincere, but I actually think it is reasonable to assume the Americans (or NATO or something) do engage in propaganda like you describe. As with most things, the truth is somewhere in between I imagine. I have a friend planning a trip to North Korea, so he will be able to tell me what the state propaganda is like. Will the Americans pay as dearly as the Koreans if war breaks out? No way. In the Vietnam War, 40,000 Americans died to approximately 1,000,000 Vietnamese. If China decides to cast out North Korea, it gets worse for them.
-
Thork-I understand that you may not know when I am being sincere, but I actually think it is reasonable to assume the Americans (or NATO or something) do engage in propaganda like you describe. As with most things, the truth is somewhere in between I imagine. I have a friend planning a trip to North Korea, so he will be able to tell me what the state propaganda is like. Will the Americans pay as dearly as the Koreans if war breaks out? No way. In the Vietnam War, 40,000 Americans died to approximately 1,000,000 Vietnamese. If China decides to cast out North Korea, it gets worse for them.
North Korea aren't the ones practising B52 strikes on American mainland targets. North Korea isn't the deranged warmonger in this situation. For deranged warmongers, you need to look a little closer to home. The US is the aggressor. Your press is lying to you.
-
I never said anyone is the aggressor. My media is Canadian, so North Korea is not quite the hot topic here.
-
North Korea aren't the ones practising B52 strikes on American mainland targets. North Korea isn't the deranged warmonger in this situation. For deranged warmongers, you need to look a little closer to home. The US is the aggressor. Your press is lying to you.
I think that's pretty much common knowledge isn't it? Or at least that North Korea is the less deranged warmonger. But yeah I'm not in the states so I dunno how the attitude is there..
-
I never said anyone is the aggressor. My media is Canadian, so North Korea is not quite the hot topic here.
A Canadian? Canadians should declare their interests and not hide amongst Americans on the internet! >:(
-
My interest is remaining hidden amongst Americans on the internet.
-
Canadians - They walk among us (http://#)
-
So.....I can't tell if you guys are serious or not
-
Do you guys never get sick of this? I've been here for a few weeks and it already seems like groundhog day...
Right...
-
For some reason we are conditioned to believe that most other countries are insignificant and below us in, intelligence.
It's not entirely our fault that we think this way, because we are conditioned this way. And people think they are not brainwashed.
That's a very astute observation scepti, and I agree.
-
Garmin, Magellan, etc. and every other GPS manufacturer.
UEC, Topfield, Humax, Pace, and any other set top decoder manufacturer,
as well as all manufacturers of LNBs, which must really just be digital compasses that only allow TV reception when pointed
the right direction in the sky.
-
Oh, airlines are definitely in on it. Flying people shorter distances than they think they are going and paying for is a real money spinner. Most air travel is in the Northern hemiplane and my goodness its lucrative.
If Thork is to be trusted, we get to add all significant commercial airlines to our list, as apparently they're in on it too.
-
Oh, airlines are definitely in on it. Flying people shorter distances than they think they are going and paying for is a real money spinner. Most air travel is in the Northern hemiplane and my goodness its lucrative.
If Thork is to be trusted, we get to add all significant commercial airlines to our list, as apparently they're in on it too.
In fact, we get to add all significant commercial airlines to the list of stupid religious nuts who fly people in new versions of the Concorde for the price of a regular commercial non-supersonic flight. only to make people believe the Earth is round.
-
I registered an account on this site just so I could respond to this thread. I believe in a RE and I think you should too.
Before I get into that though, I'd like to say that I've read every single post in this thread, and the flame war really needs to stop, especially from my fellow RE believers. If you want to even plant the tiniest seed of doubt in the mind of someone who believes something different from your belief, it has to be done with mutual respect otherwise the person will become defensive and angry. Come on folks, no need to disrespect one another. :-B
***
FE believers, I ask you to gaze upon this extraordinary video and to watch it in its entirety before you respond:
http://www.wimp.com/stunningearth/ (http://www.wimp.com/stunningearth/)
(The 2nd video I posted below might be better photographic evidence to plant a seed of doubt in a FEer, but this one is far more beautiful)
I have a lot of experience with Hollywood visual effects (hereafter referred to as VFX) and the newest, most powerful programs available to create such stunning imagery, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the above footage has only been color corrected and appropriately white balanced. There is far too much detail in the clouds and the shadows and the landscape for any government employee on any government salary to create from scratch. VFX artists don't get paid much in even the most successful movies and productions.
But I'm not here to debate the authenticity of this video!
Because even if you are right, and this is indeed a fake video, I sincerely and respectfully ask, which is a more humble worldview? That our world is but a microcosm, a tiny cog in a great galactic machine that is greater than ourselves and greater than what we could ever know,
or that we are the center of the universe, that the sun and all other stars and planets rotate around us, that we are so special that of all the celestial objects in the universe, it is us who are the stationary ones.
Which view is the most beautiful, and which view does society benefit from the most? Which view is the more arrogant one, or self-interested one?
***
Even if I go out on a (very large) limb and assume that the evidence presented in this thread by Tom and Sceptic (who you guys really shouldn't be picking on so much) for a Flat Earth and a corresponding massive international conspiracy is indeed solid evidence, you have to be willing to admit that the evidence to the contrary, a round Earth, is vastly overwhelming, and outnumbering your evience too.
I respect you FEers for sticking to such a belief despite the overwhelming evidence against you. Despite this respect, I cannot help myself but ask some questions related to this conspiracy and the FE theory in general, and I sincerely hope you do not take offense to my questions. These are not hypothetical; I admit ignorance in regards to this community.
- How many of you are scientists or engineers?
- Do you know how a cell phone works and how the proper functionality of a cell phone tower depends on the curvature of a round earth?
- Here is a video of a camera attached to a weather balloon floating high enough into the atmosphere to see the curvature of the Earth. Are these good people part of the conspiracy? http://www.wimp.com/weatherballoon/ (http://www.wimp.com/weatherballoon/) (NOTE: the camera lens is a fisheye lens, but do not take ye eyes off le video, at 4:30 it gets far up enough (90,000 ft) so that the curvature of the lens does not distort the curvature of the earth)
- Last Question: What exactly is a nebula, or a galaxy then if we are not part of one, and if we are, how come we haven't found any other flat planets? Why must you assume that our planet is different than all of the known universe, rather than assume that the curvature of the earth isn't immediately apparent to our weak human eyes?
I would appreciate a real response from an FEer. Again, I hope I haven't offended anyone, I have never met someone who believes in a flat earth. I might come up with more questions but I'm kind of getting sick of typing :P
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
lol ironically, my captcha is "queftion dAgences"
-
I like you :)
-
Why do they need to recreate high altitude scenes of the earth from scratch when they can just use a wide angle or fish-eye lens to turn a flat plane into a curved horizon?
-
Why do they need to recreate high altitude scenes of the earth from scratch when they can just use a wide angle or fish-eye lens to turn a flat plane into a curved horizon?
They don't use fish-eye lenses to create curvature effects. You already know this is the case Tom, you're just being facetious. Take this photo for instance:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/09/iss_sts119_big.jpeg (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/09/iss_sts119_big.jpeg)
The radius of curvature of the earth is significant, whereas the curvature of the ostensibly straight components of the ISS are not. This cannot be the result of fish-eye lenses because if it were the ISS would have to be curved deliberately to compensate for the optical curvature of the lens at that specific angle. If that were the case, we would only have ISS photos from a single angle, or there would have to be copies of the ISS for every photo taken.
I hope you can see that the only logical recourse for you at this point is to claim that these photos are modified. That's fine, but this fish-eye claim is illogical and I think you know it.
-
The radius of curvature of the earth is significant, whereas the curvature of the ostensibly straight components of the ISS are not.
Layering.
-
The radius of curvature of the earth is significant, whereas the curvature of the ostensibly straight components of the ISS are not.
Layering.
When you posted that I thought about chuckling for a second. Then I felt sad for you. Not to mock you but genuinely sad. You don't have to keep doing this Tom.
-
yes sceptic your usual rhetoric and opinion. we have heard it all before. yawn! get back to use when you have some evidence or actually made 1st hand observations.
-
yes sceptic your usual rhetoric and opinion. we have heard it all before. yawn! get back to use when you have some evidence or actually made 1st hand observations.
I don;t need to get back to you or your likes Thaggy. If I have something to say, I'll say it, whether you like it or not.
That's fine if you have something to say, but the problem is that you usually don't have anything to say and you say it anyway.
-
yes sceptic your usual rhetoric and opinion. we have heard it all before. yawn! get back to use when you have some evidence or actually made 1st hand observations.
I don;t need to get back to you or your likes Thaggy. If I have something to say, I'll say it, whether you like it or not.
That's fine if you have something to say, but the problem is that you usually don't have anything to say and you say it anyway.
Markjo, can you keep the personal attacks to a minimum and make some effort to stay on topic?
Thank you.
-
The radius of curvature of the earth is significant, whereas the curvature of the ostensibly straight components of the ISS are not.
Layering.
You could have just read the next paragraph in my post and then said, "I agree" instead of making it sound like you're providing a counter-argument, that way we could have left this on a nicer note, especially in light of that lovely post by MikeP.
-
Goodness, this post is naive. Millions of Russians believed that Communism was correct and that the West wanted to annihilate them. Millions of Americans believe that Israel should invade Palestine. There is no conspiracy, people have been brainwashed. I have flown all over the world and know that the results show that the earth is flat. Others would have flown around the world and continued with their delusion that the earth is globular. Big deal. When people appear to be in a conspiracy or evil, it is more likely that they are complacent and incompetent.
-
Goodness, this post is naive. Millions of Russians believed that Communism was correct and that the West wanted to annihilate them. Millions of Americans believe that Israel should invade Palestine. There is no conspiracy, people have been brainwashed. I have flown all over the world and know that the results show that the earth is flat. Others would have flown around the world and continued with their delusion that the earth is globular. Big deal. When people appear to be in a conspiracy or evil, it is more likely that they are complacent and incompetent.
I have flown all over the world and sailed it as well. It's a globe and you are lying to yourself.
-
Goodness, this post is naive. Millions of Russians believed that Communism was correct and that the West wanted to annihilate them. Millions of Americans believe that Israel should invade Palestine. There is no conspiracy, people have been brainwashed. I have flown all over the world and know that the results show that the earth is flat. Others would have flown around the world and continued with their delusion that the earth is globular. Big deal. When people appear to be in a conspiracy or evil, it is more likely that they are complacent and incompetent.
You really like your communism analogy. Too bad the information about the planet is not exclusively controlled by the government because then it would be an analogous situation.
-
That's actually a good point against FET.
During the cold war, URSS was launching stuff into space too (you know, race for the moon, ...).
The US beat them at going upper, so why the URSS did not discredited the US by saying that space travel is impossible because earth is flat ?
-
That's actually a good point against FET.
During the cold war, URSS was launching stuff into space too (you know, race for the moon, ...).
The US beat them at going upper, so why the URSS did not discredited the US by saying that space travel is impossible because earth is flat ?
Because they are in cahoots.
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghht.
There is no explanation for anything other than the one that supports a flat earth. Cause that's the only thing we know for sure.
-
I doubt if any of the conspirators know that the Earth is flat. The way it most likely went is that they tried to get into space, failed, and eventually decided to just pretend that they succeeded, and faked evidence that would be consistent with what they expected to see.
-
I doubt if any of the conspirators know that the Earth is flat. The way it most likely went is that they tried to get into space, failed, and eventually decided to just pretend that they succeeded, and faked evidence that would be consistent with what they expected to see.
No, don't say the way it most likely went is yada yada yada. You have no basis for making that. You have no reason to think we didn't go to space.
-
I doubt if any of the conspirators know that the Earth is flat. The way it most likely went is that they tried to get into space, failed, and eventually decided to just pretend that they succeeded, and faked evidence that would be consistent with what they expected to see.
No, don't say the way it most likely went is yada yada yada. You have no basis for making that. You have no reason to think we didn't go to space.
I absolutely do. The earth is flat, so if space agencies show us a round earth, they're lying about something.
-
I doubt if any of the conspirators know that the Earth is flat. The way it most likely went is that they tried to get into space, failed, and eventually decided to just pretend that they succeeded, and faked evidence that would be consistent with what they expected to see.
Nope. That doesn't sound any less silly when you say it than when Tom says it.
-
I doubt if any of the conspirators know that the Earth is flat. The way it most likely went is that they tried to get into space, failed, and eventually decided to just pretend that they succeeded, and faked evidence that would be consistent with what they expected to see.
Nope. That doesn't sound any less silly when you say it than when Tom says it.
Thank you for your invaluable contribution to the discussion.
-
I doubt if any of the conspirators know that the Earth is flat. The way it most likely went is that they tried to get into space, failed, and eventually decided to just pretend that they succeeded, and faked evidence that would be consistent with what they expected to see.
Nope. That doesn't sound any less silly when you say it than when Tom says it.
Thank you for your invaluable contribution to the discussion.
Well you can't just say something stupid and then not expect people to respond. It's not like you gave him much to go on... I think he did pretty well given the circumstances.
-
Of course I expected a reply, but posting "That's silly," is not helpful. If it's so silly, then point out what's wrong with it.
-
Of course I expected a reply, but posting "That's silly," is not helpful. If it's so silly, then point out what's wrong with it.
The notion that nations would spend countless amounts of time, effort and money trying to get into orbit and never figure out that it was the shape of the earth holding them back all along seems quite silly to me. It sounds silly when Tom suggests it and it sounds just as silly when you suggest it.
-
Goodness, this post is naive. Millions of Russians believed that Communism was correct and that the West wanted to annihilate them. Millions of Americans believe that Israel should invade Palestine. There is no conspiracy, people have been brainwashed. I have flown all over the world and know that the results show that the earth is flat. Others would have flown around the world and continued with their delusion that the earth is globular. Big deal. When people appear to be in a conspiracy or evil, it is more likely that they are complacent and incompetent.
I have flown all over the world and sailed it as well. It's a globe and you are lying to yourself.
You must provide a better argument. Attacking me does not prove that you are right. It proves that you have no valid argument.
-
Goodness, this post is naive. Millions of Russians believed that Communism was correct and that the West wanted to annihilate them. Millions of Americans believe that Israel should invade Palestine. There is no conspiracy, people have been brainwashed. I have flown all over the world and know that the results show that the earth is flat. Others would have flown around the world and continued with their delusion that the earth is globular. Big deal. When people appear to be in a conspiracy or evil, it is more likely that they are complacent and incompetent.
You really like your communism analogy. Too bad the information about the planet is not exclusively controlled by the government because then it would be an analogous situation.
Your post illustrates a problem that many of the globular set have. On the one hand, you claim to be scientific and evidence based. On the other hand, you make silly claims about knowing the mental state of someone you have never met. This undermines any credibility that people on this forum might have thought that you had. If you post anything in the future, from my point of view, you will need to provide references for primary sources, please.
-
That's actually a good point against FET.
During the cold war, URSS was launching stuff into space too (you know, race for the moon, ...).
The US beat them at going upper, so why the URSS did not discredited the US by saying that space travel is impossible because earth is flat ?
Even the globulars of this site know that the Russian people were globular before the USSR came into being. Convincing the people the true shape of the disc was going to be a hard sell. Much better and CHEAPER to go along with the charade. The charade suited BOTH the USSR and the US. This is such an obvious point, I feel embarrassed for you.
-
Back to the OP at hand
People who take pictures of the ISS with their telescopes and cameras.
Astronomers who perform the moon-bounce.
Astronomers who perform the moon-bounce with lasers using the reflectors put up there by the Apollo missions.
-
Back to the OP at hand
People who take pictures of the ISS with their telescopes and cameras.
Astronomers who perform the moon-bounce.
Astronomers who perform the moon-bounce with lasers using the reflectors put up there by the Apollo missions.
They are mistakenly interpreting a feature of FET as a feature of RET.
-
Back to the OP at hand
People who take pictures of the ISS with their telescopes and cameras.
Astronomers who perform the moon-bounce.
Astronomers who perform the moon-bounce with lasers using the reflectors put up there by the Apollo missions.
They are mistakenly interpreting a feature of FET as a feature of RET.
Who are doing what? Do you mean everyday blokes able to take photographs of the ISS through their telescopes are seeing something that's not the ISS but looks exactly like the ISS?
Or are you saying that astronomers found a tiny patch of moon that perfectly reflects their lasers back to them?