And how they have certain areas that can only observe a solar eclipse for example... If something in space truly does pass in front of the Sun and completely blocks it than HALF the Earth atleast should.be in TOTAL darkness according to the round earth model... Yet that's never happened..
I can't believe no one has ever thought of this... Makes sense though.. The level of deceit and tricks they are using is on an unprecedented level.
This thread asks a SIMPLE QUESTION....Where all the pictures FROM SPACE of these so called eclipses?
Do they happen in a way perhaps that the New World Order doesn't want to reveal? Or they completely faked?
The fact that after 50 years of alleged space travel we don't have ONE picture... lol enough said
Funny how dumb these shills think people areNot really, but you are certifiably insane
This is a photo of a eclipse from space:To be fair I find this image dubious. Any info about it?
(http://www.tickld.com/cdn_image_content/11637.jpg)
That black spot on the Earth is the area in the shadow of the Moon.
Why and how would the government stage eclipses? Why not just make up a reason why they don't happen? How can the government move the Moon? Why is it that solar eclipses have happened even at the beginning of human civilization?
This is a photo of a eclipse from space:To be fair I find this image dubious. Any info about it?
(http://www.tickld.com/cdn_image_content/11637.jpg)
That black spot on the Earth is the area in the shadow of the Moon.
Why and how would the government stage eclipses? Why not just make up a reason why they don't happen? How can the government move the Moon? Why is it that solar eclipses have happened even at the beginning of human civilization?
Do you know what an eclipse is?
The moon gets between the Earth and the Sun. how exactly are you meant to take a picture of that while not on earth?
Well tats a nice mocked up photo . So we have clouds in space now? What a cock head photo ::)
Do you know what an eclipse is?
The moon gets between the Earth and the Sun. how exactly are you meant to take a picture of that while not on earth?
That shouldn't be to difficult in the round-earth model.
After 60 +years of alleged space flights humanity doesn't have even one live video or pic of these so called celestial eventsYour mouth obviously matches the size of the state you live in LOL.
That image was an Admitted hoax by Nasa...
Question is why did whoever put it out felt the need to invent fake eclipse pics from space
if there really are space based satellites and space station and shuttle and Russian docking capsules.. The fact that the round Earthers on here are admitting themselves that this pic is FAKE shows you how afraid the Satan system is and WEAK.. After 60 +years of alleged space flights humanity doesn't have even one live video or pic of these so called celestial events
Oh but they did get a fake shot of Earth on their way to the Moon... Lol ya right
Clearly a fake cgi generated image...That is overplayed over the same CGI graphics Nasa uses of the sun over and over.
When I state an authentic video.. I mean the kind we see when honest folk send helium balloons with an HD camera that shows us the whole 360 degrees view of the surroundings...Again bring up the point of why on this fake spacewalks do we not see a full 360 view
Any one with basic common sense can tell these pictures or video are not real.
Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s.... Don't put out fake recently generated animated graphics...
This is a photo of a eclipse from space:To be fair I find this image dubious. Any info about it?
(http://www.tickld.com/cdn_image_content/11637.jpg)
That black spot on the Earth is the area in the shadow of the Moon.
Why and how would the government stage eclipses? Why not just make up a reason why they don't happen? How can the government move the Moon? Why is it that solar eclipses have happened even at the beginning of human civilization?
From what I've seen, the image is artwork: but the valid point is that it should be well within NASA's ability to fake a photo, if it was in any way necessary.
Which is most definitely isn't. You have to wonder what he thinks 'moon between the Earth and Sun' means.
After 60 +years of alleged space flights humanity doesn't have even one live video or pic of these so called celestial eventsYour mouth obviously matches the size of the state you live in LOL.(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/eclipse-from-space_2-620x620.jpg)
NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory captured this image of the moon crossing
in front of its view of the sun on Jan 30, 2014, at 9:00 AM. EST.[Image source and caption: NASA/SDO]
—You obviously have no understanding of what an eclipse actually is. How embarrassing!
This is a photo of a eclipse from space:To be fair I find this image dubious. Any info about it?
(http://www.tickld.com/cdn_image_content/11637.jpg)
That black spot on the Earth is the area in the shadow of the Moon.
Why and how would the government stage eclipses? Why not just make up a reason why they don't happen? How can the government move the Moon? Why is it that solar eclipses have happened even at the beginning of human civilization?
From what I've seen, the image is artwork: but the valid point is that it should be well within NASA's ability to fake a photo, if it was in any way necessary.
Which is most definitely isn't. You have to wonder what he thinks 'moon between the Earth and Sun' means.
My bad, I looked into it and that was actually artwork. Here is a real image of the shadow cast by a solar eclipse:
(http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1101/eclipse99_mir_big.jpg?=1)
Here are some pictures of eclipses taken by sun observation space probes:
(http://abcnews.go.com/images/Technology/ht_solar_eclipse_jp_120222_wblog.jpg)
(http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/Solar-Eclipse-Seen-from-Orbit-2.jpg)
And finally, here are 3 photos of solar eclipses on Mars taken by the Curiosity rover of Phobos eclipsing the Sun:
(http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/msl/20130828/pia17356-640.jpg)
What satellite took that fake shadow pic?A fake shadow pic? No satellite. It's fake, remember? Duh!
And MOST IMPORTANTLY why isn't the actual moon and sun being photographed?Do you know much about photography? Given the question, it doesn't seem so.
What's thatFor one thing, it's pretty cool! If you pay attention you might see that half of the Earth isn't seeing that total solar eclipse, which is only inside the dark smudge covering only a small portion of the sunny side of the Earth.fakeshadow going to do for us?
Nada..
Do you know what an eclipse is?
The moon gets between the Earth and the Sun. how exactly are you meant to take a picture of that while not on earth?
That shouldn't be to difficult in the round-earth model.
If you go vertically upwards, it'll look basically the same. At any other direction, it'd be impossible. Put three things in a straight line. Move one, you stop having an eclipse.
But we are agreed that being between the moon and the earth in the round-earth model during an eclipse would allow one to theoretically take a picture of the eclipse?
You do know that you can't just send a balloon into space, right?
When I state an authentic video.. I mean the kind we see when honest folk send helium balloons with an HD camera that shows us the whole 360 degrees view of the surroundings...
When I state an authentic video.. I mean the kind we see when honest folk send helium balloons with an HD camera that shows us the whole 360 degrees view of the surroundings...Like this?
But we are agreed that being between the moon and the earth in the round-earth model during an eclipse would allow one to theoretically take a picture of the eclipse?
Sure, been done (http://www.space.com/15797-solar-eclipse-satellite-pictures.html).
Do you know what an eclipse is?
The moon gets between the Earth and the Sun. how exactly are you meant to take a picture of that while not on earth?
But we are agreed that being between the moon and the earth in the round-earth model during an eclipse would allow one to theoretically take a picture of the eclipse?
Sure, been done (http://www.space.com/15797-solar-eclipse-satellite-pictures.html).
So you're conceeding this point that you made?Do you know what an eclipse is?
The moon gets between the Earth and the Sun. how exactly are you meant to take a picture of that while not on earth?
Did you know what an eclipse was?
Bro.. Do you not have any capabilities to discern real images or videos from fake ones? What satellite took that fake shadow pic? And MOST IMPORTANTLY why isn't the actual moon and sun being photographed? What's that fake shadow going to do for us? Nada..
This video clearly shows the Earth being flat all over the horizon.... Second.. It shows the Sun casting a spotlight on the ground right below and Earth is still VISIBLE BEHIND the Sun. Now how the hell is that possible for the Sun to be OVER Earth? BustedWhen I state an authentic video.. I mean the kind we see when honest folk send helium balloons with an HD camera that shows us the whole 360 degrees view of the surroundings...Like this?
Elipser 1 - zbor stratosferic în timpul eclipsei (http://#ws)
Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?
Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?
This video clearly shows the Earth being flat all over the horizon.... Second.. It shows the Sun casting a spotlight on the ground right below and Earth is still VISIBLE BEHIND the Sun. Now how the hell is that possible for the Sun to be OVER Earth? BustedWhen I state an authentic video.. I mean the kind we see when honest folk send helium balloons with an HD camera that shows us the whole 360 degrees view of the surroundings...Like this?
Elipser 1 - zbor stratosferic în timpul eclipsei (http://#ws)
This video clearly shows the Earth being flat all over the horizon.... Second.. It shows the Sun casting a spotlight on the ground right below and Earth is still VISIBLE BEHIND the Sun. Now how the hell is that possible for the Sun to be OVER Earth? BustedWhen I state an authentic video.. I mean the kind we see when honest folk send helium balloons with an HD camera that shows us the whole 360 degrees view of the surroundings...Like this?
Elipser 1 - zbor stratosferic în timpul eclipsei (http://#ws)
Guess what. On 20th of March, this year, there will be a partial eclipse in Poland, I will then show you and you'll say am I CGI-master or normal man, still higher in the hierarchy than a farmer from Texas.
This video clearly shows the Earth being flat all over the horizon.... Second.. It shows the Sun casting a spotlight on the ground right below and Earth is still VISIBLE BEHIND the Sun. Now how the hell is that possible for the Sun to be OVER Earth? BustedWhen I state an authentic video.. I mean the kind we see when honest folk send helium balloons with an HD camera that shows us the whole 360 degrees view of the surroundings...Like this?
Elipser 1 - zbor stratosferic în timpul eclipsei (http://#ws)
Guess what. On 20th of March, this year, there will be a partial eclipse in Poland, I will then show you and you'll say am I CGI-master or normal man, still higher in the hierarchy than a farmer from Texas.
In Poland? I am also in Poland. Is everyone here in Poland, wtf?By the way, solar eclipse proves absolutely nothing. I mean, it doesn't prove the Earth is round at all. It just proves the sun can be eclipsed:)
This video clearly shows the Earth being flat all over the horizon.... Second.. It shows the Sun casting a spotlight on the ground right below and Earth is still VISIBLE BEHIND the Sun. Now how the hell is that possible for the Sun to be OVER Earth? BustedWhen I state an authentic video.. I mean the kind we see when honest folk send helium balloons with an HD camera that shows us the whole 360 degrees view of the surroundings...Like this?
Elipser 1 - zbor stratosferic în timpul eclipsei (http://#ws)
Guess what. On 20th of March, this year, there will be a partial eclipse in Poland, I will then show you and you'll say am I CGI-master or normal man, still higher in the hierarchy than a farmer from Texas.
In Poland? I am also in Poland. Is everyone here in Poland, wtf?By the way, solar eclipse proves absolutely nothing. I mean, it doesn't prove the Earth is round at all. It just proves the sun can be eclipsed:)
But this topic is going about sun eclipses, so we talk about sun eclipses, because this farmer, that lives in a place with a history of tens of eclipses doesn't accept that sun eclipses do exist!
PS: A mówisz po polsku? :)
This video clearly shows the Earth being flat all over the horizon.... Second.. It shows the Sun casting a spotlight on the ground right below and Earth is still VISIBLE BEHIND the Sun. Now how the hell is that possible for the Sun to be OVER Earth? BustedWhen I state an authentic video.. I mean the kind we see when honest folk send helium balloons with an HD camera that shows us the whole 360 degrees view of the surroundings...Like this?
Elipser 1 - zbor stratosferic în timpul eclipsei (http://#ws)
Guess what. On 20th of March, this year, there will be a partial eclipse in Poland, I will then show you and you'll say am I CGI-master or normal man, still higher in the hierarchy than a farmer from Texas.
In Poland? I am also in Poland. Is everyone here in Poland, wtf?By the way, solar eclipse proves absolutely nothing. I mean, it doesn't prove the Earth is round at all. It just proves the sun can be eclipsed:)
But this topic is going about sun eclipses, so we talk about sun eclipses, because this farmer, that lives in a place with a history of tens of eclipses doesn't accept that sun eclipses do exist!
PS: A mówisz po polsku? :)
Tak, mowię po polsku ale nie o to chodzi :) I am not sure why he doesn't accept that eclipses exist. He probably means that eclipses are not caused by the Moon blocking the Sun but there is a different mechanism behind them. Of course eclipses occur regularly and supposedly the reason for them is quite clear, but who knows .
This video clearly shows the Earth being flat all over the horizon.... Second.. It shows the Sun casting a spotlight on the ground right below and Earth is still VISIBLE BEHIND the Sun. Now how the hell is that possible for the Sun to be OVER Earth? BustedWhen I state an authentic video.. I mean the kind we see when honest folk send helium balloons with an HD camera that shows us the whole 360 degrees view of the surroundings...Like this?
Elipser 1 - zbor stratosferic în timpul eclipsei (http://#ws)
Guess what. On 20th of March, this year, there will be a partial eclipse in Poland, I will then show you and you'll say am I CGI-master or normal man, still higher in the hierarchy than a farmer from Texas.
In Poland? I am also in Poland. Is everyone here in Poland, wtf?By the way, solar eclipse proves absolutely nothing. I mean, it doesn't prove the Earth is round at all. It just proves the sun can be eclipsed:)
But this topic is going about sun eclipses, so we talk about sun eclipses, because this farmer, that lives in a place with a history of tens of eclipses doesn't accept that sun eclipses do exist!
PS: A mówisz po polsku? :)
Tak, mowię po polsku ale nie o to chodzi :) I am not sure why he doesn't accept that eclipses exist. He probably means that eclipses are not caused by the Moon blocking the Sun but there is a different mechanism behind them. Of course eclipses occur regularly and supposedly the reason for them is quite clear, but who knows .
He's just a regular Texas farmer, logic from him isn't needed.
PS: Aah, so you're not Polish?
This video clearly shows the Earth being flat all over the horizon.... Second.. It shows the Sun casting a spotlight on the ground right below and Earth is still VISIBLE BEHIND the Sun. Now how the hell is that possible for the Sun to be OVER Earth? BustedWhen I state an authentic video.. I mean the kind we see when honest folk send helium balloons with an HD camera that shows us the whole 360 degrees view of the surroundings...Like this?
Elipser 1 - zbor stratosferic în timpul eclipsei (http://#ws)
Guess what. On 20th of March, this year, there will be a partial eclipse in Poland, I will then show you and you'll say am I CGI-master or normal man, still higher in the hierarchy than a farmer from Texas.
In Poland? I am also in Poland. Is everyone here in Poland, wtf?By the way, solar eclipse proves absolutely nothing. I mean, it doesn't prove the Earth is round at all. It just proves the sun can be eclipsed:)
But this topic is going about sun eclipses, so we talk about sun eclipses, because this farmer, that lives in a place with a history of tens of eclipses doesn't accept that sun eclipses do exist!
PS: A mówisz po polsku? :)
Tak, mowię po polsku ale nie o to chodzi :) I am not sure why he doesn't accept that eclipses exist. He probably means that eclipses are not caused by the Moon blocking the Sun but there is a different mechanism behind them. Of course eclipses occur regularly and supposedly the reason for them is quite clear, but who knows .
He's just a regular Texas farmer, logic from him isn't needed.
PS: Aah, so you're not Polish?
No, I am not Polish, but I live here. Anyway, I don't see why you attack the guy so much. He has a valid point. If space travel was real there would be more videos and images from space.
Seriously? There are not enough pics and videos from space? There are more than one person can look at in a lifetime. And no, I did not count.This video clearly shows the Earth being flat all over the horizon.... Second.. It shows the Sun casting a spotlight on the ground right below and Earth is still VISIBLE BEHIND the Sun. Now how the hell is that possible for the Sun to be OVER Earth? BustedWhen I state an authentic video.. I mean the kind we see when honest folk send helium balloons with an HD camera that shows us the whole 360 degrees view of the surroundings...Like this?
Elipser 1 - zbor stratosferic în timpul eclipsei (http://#ws)
Guess what. On 20th of March, this year, there will be a partial eclipse in Poland, I will then show you and you'll say am I CGI-master or normal man, still higher in the hierarchy than a farmer from Texas.
In Poland? I am also in Poland. Is everyone here in Poland, wtf?By the way, solar eclipse proves absolutely nothing. I mean, it doesn't prove the Earth is round at all. It just proves the sun can be eclipsed:)
But this topic is going about sun eclipses, so we talk about sun eclipses, because this farmer, that lives in a place with a history of tens of eclipses doesn't accept that sun eclipses do exist!
PS: A mówisz po polsku? :)
Tak, mowię po polsku ale nie o to chodzi :) I am not sure why he doesn't accept that eclipses exist. He probably means that eclipses are not caused by the Moon blocking the Sun but there is a different mechanism behind them. Of course eclipses occur regularly and supposedly the reason for them is quite clear, but who knows .
He's just a regular Texas farmer, logic from him isn't needed.
PS: Aah, so you're not Polish?
No, I am not Polish, but I live here. Anyway, I don't see why you attack the guy so much. He has a valid point. If space travel was real there would be more videos and images from space.
ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?
I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?
This video clearly shows the Earth being flat all over the horizon.... Second.. It shows the Sun casting a spotlight on the ground right below and Earth is still VISIBLE BEHIND the Sun. Now how the hell is that possible for the Sun to be OVER Earth? BustedWhen I state an authentic video.. I mean the kind we see when honest folk send helium balloons with an HD camera that shows us the whole 360 degrees view of the surroundings...Like this?
Elipser 1 - zbor stratosferic în timpul eclipsei (http://#ws)
Guess what. On 20th of March, this year, there will be a partial eclipse in Poland, I will then show you and you'll say am I CGI-master or normal man, still higher in the hierarchy than a farmer from Texas.
In Poland? I am also in Poland. Is everyone here in Poland, wtf?By the way, solar eclipse proves absolutely nothing. I mean, it doesn't prove the Earth is round at all. It just proves the sun can be eclipsed:)
But this topic is going about sun eclipses, so we talk about sun eclipses, because this farmer, that lives in a place with a history of tens of eclipses doesn't accept that sun eclipses do exist!
PS: A mówisz po polsku? :)
Tak, mowię po polsku ale nie o to chodzi :) I am not sure why he doesn't accept that eclipses exist. He probably means that eclipses are not caused by the Moon blocking the Sun but there is a different mechanism behind them. Of course eclipses occur regularly and supposedly the reason for them is quite clear, but who knows .
He's just a regular Texas farmer, logic from him isn't needed.
PS: Aah, so you're not Polish?
No, I am not Polish, but I live here. Anyway, I don't see why you attack the guy so much. He has a valid point. If space travel was real there would be more videos and images from space.
ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?
I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?
Lol.. SAROS. I'm glad that you see my simple point while some don't: if we truly have 1,100 active satellites and space shuttles and different space stations from Mir to ISS... Than why hasn't an eclipse been filmed from inside one of these spacecraft with the crew in them? lol simpleHahaha, your thinking is awesome.
As far as my background... Honestly it shouldn't affect how others view my argument... But fact is I live in Houston Texas where NASA is based. I also had a neighbor just two doors down who was allegedly an astronaut and spent 9 months on the ISS...
Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?
I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?
There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish. We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?
Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?
I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?
There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish. We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?
As for the rest of your response - that was exactly my point. You either assume that you're not being constantly lied to by evil conspirators and thus there is a manned space station orbiting earth, or you assume that there indeed is an evil conspiracy that lies to you about everything and that iss is actually a supersonic blimp or whatever fet is currently proposing. An epistemic dilemma.
Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?
I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?
There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish. We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?
As for the rest of your response - that was exactly my point. You either assume that you're not being constantly lied to by evil conspirators and thus there is a manned space station orbiting earth, or you assume that there indeed is an evil conspiracy that lies to you about everything and that iss is actually a supersonic blimp or whatever fet is currently proposing. An epistemic dilemma.
I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?
As far as my background... Honestly it shouldn't affect how others view my argument... But fact is I live in Houston Texas where NASA is based. I also had a neighbor just two doors down who was allegedly an astronaut and spent 9 months on the ISS... He and his wife were complete jerks.. Any little thing such as my Sports cars being supposedly loud or me having a house party.. Or my cats.. They always seemed in a pissy bad mood.. This so called astronaut would walk his dog right in front of my house.. 2880 Carrera ct league city tx 77573... That was my address.. I was renting the house and was only 23 at that time living in a $450,000 house...driving several nice cars including a $100,000 Dodge Viper... I'm not showing off at all I'm not like that...my point is that someone Who supposedly was one of the FEW men in history to go into space and LIVE there...well he didn't act humbled or content about his good fortune.. They were always mad about the smallest things... And it was obvious they were jealous of someone so young being so successful while he had to work all his life... To be in the house and life he had.... It showed clearly and just made me think how unthankful they were for having had a family member who goes to space... He lived in the house two houses to the right if your looking at the door to my old house....
as far as me being a farmer lol that's far from the truth... Houston is the 4th largest city in the US.. And so I'm a big city boy...
Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?
I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?
There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish. We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?
As for the rest of your response - that was exactly my point. You either assume that you're not being constantly lied to by evil conspirators and thus there is a manned space station orbiting earth, or you assume that there indeed is an evil conspiracy that lies to you about everything and that iss is actually a supersonic blimp or whatever fet is currently proposing. An epistemic dilemma.
I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?
How do you know the ISS is evil?
Man, we could land on Moon in 1969, so orbiting the Earth for months isn't a problem too.
As far as my background... Honestly it shouldn't affect how others view my argument... But fact is I live in Houston Texas where NASA is based. I also had a neighbor just two doors down who was allegedly an astronaut and spent 9 months on the ISS... He and his wife were complete jerks.. Any little thing such as my Sports cars being supposedly loud or me having a house party.. Or my cats.. They always seemed in a pissy bad mood.. This so called astronaut would walk his dog right in front of my house.. 2880 Carrera ct league city tx 77573... That was my address.. I was renting the house and was only 23 at that time living in a $450,000 house...driving several nice cars including a $100,000 Dodge Viper... I'm not showing off at all I'm not like that...my point is that someone Who supposedly was one of the FEW men in history to go into space and LIVE there...well he didn't act humbled or content about his good fortune.. They were always mad about the smallest things... And it was obvious they were jealous of someone so young being so successful while he had to work all his life... To be in the house and life he had.... It showed clearly and just made me think how unthankful they were for having had a family member who goes to space... He lived in the house two houses to the right if your looking at the door to my old house....
as far as me being a farmer lol that's far from the truth... Houston is the 4th largest city in the US.. And so I'm a big city boy...
LOL... so little John Hayseed now attempts to prove he's not an inveterate liar by posting a plethora of obvious lies?
Yeah... that's sure gonna work out well.
;D ;D ;D
I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?
No, I do not know anyone employed by nasa. Except my self of course, being a shill on these forums. Closest thing to that is a relative of mine who works for an institute that has designed and manufactured instruments for robotic spacecrafts, some of them nasa spacecrafts. But that is irrelevant.Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?
I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?
There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish. We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?
As for the rest of your response - that was exactly my point. You either assume that you're not being constantly lied to by evil conspirators and thus there is a manned space station orbiting earth, or you assume that there indeed is an evil conspiracy that lies to you about everything and that iss is actually a supersonic blimp or whatever fet is currently proposing. An epistemic dilemma.
I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?
No, I do not know anyone employed by nasa. Except my self of course, being a shill on these forums. Closest thing to that is a relative of mine who works for an institute that has designed and manufactured instruments for robotic spacecrafts, some of them nasa spacecrafts. But that is irrelevant.Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?
I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?
There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish. We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?
As for the rest of your response - that was exactly my point. You either assume that you're not being constantly lied to by evil conspirators and thus there is a manned space station orbiting earth, or you assume that there indeed is an evil conspiracy that lies to you about everything and that iss is actually a supersonic blimp or whatever fet is currently proposing. An epistemic dilemma.
I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?
You make 'just faking it' seem very easy and simple, but there's more to it than just saying 'we did it' and making a few pr videos, the various fet theories thrown around here demand virtually all of modern science to be 'fake' - assumptions required by fet are not fewer. These 'alternative theories' largely coming from people who are amazingly oblivious to even simple things that we can observe directly (celestial mechanics just for an example), I'm going to go with the actual scientists instead of people who think that air does not exist, or that our Sun is a reflection of a volcano at the Earth's north pole, gravity is not real, or, that the Earth is flat - even if I can not personally disprove those claims, or prove that there are people aboard the iss or that mass attracts mass. Anyway I'm sure this discussion has been had countless times here already.
Viewing it as an epistemic problem, there's no way for us to prove these things, so it comes down to what beliefs we can justify as knowledge.
So we agree that we can not prove either way, not in practice at least. Then it comes down to what beliefs we choose to justify as knowledge. To you it is the argument of incredulity presented above, to me it is a similar argument against a global conspiracy.No, I do not know anyone employed by nasa. Except my self of course, being a shill on these forums. Closest thing to that is a relative of mine who works for an institute that has designed and manufactured instruments for robotic spacecrafts, some of them nasa spacecrafts. But that is irrelevant.Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?
I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?
There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish. We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?
As for the rest of your response - that was exactly my point. You either assume that you're not being constantly lied to by evil conspirators and thus there is a manned space station orbiting earth, or you assume that there indeed is an evil conspiracy that lies to you about everything and that iss is actually a supersonic blimp or whatever fet is currently proposing. An epistemic dilemma.
I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?
You make 'just faking it' seem very easy and simple, but there's more to it than just saying 'we did it' and making a few pr videos, the various fet theories thrown around here demand virtually all of modern science to be 'fake' - assumptions required by fet are not fewer. These 'alternative theories' largely coming from people who are amazingly oblivious to even simple things that we can observe directly (celestial mechanics just for an example), I'm going to go with the actual scientists instead of people who think that air does not exist, or that our Sun is a reflection of a volcano at the Earth's north pole, gravity is not real, or, that the Earth is flat - even if I can not personally disprove those claims, or prove that there are people aboard the iss or that mass attracts mass. Anyway I'm sure this discussion has been had countless times here already.
Viewing it as an epistemic problem, there's no way for us to prove these things, so it comes down to what beliefs we can justify as knowledge.
None of the space stuff counts as knowledge as it is literally a joke. Knowledge is a good thing when it has some application in real life. Space travel doesn't. There is just a small group of clowns who are paid to act like they are in space, but it is just a show. Space travel is a great science fiction idea, but doesn't constitute a fact for all practical purposes for pretty much everyone. I would change my mind only if I have a chance to experience anything close to being in space. There is no point being naive and trusting someone for something like that. The alternative theories are equally unreliable, so I am actually surprised why anyone would seriously claim they are right about stuff we cannot possibly verify ourselves. The honest thing to do would be to simply admit it is our imagination speaking or that we just trust the authorities, and not that we have some access to secret knowledge or whatnot.
So we agree that we can not prove either way, not in practice at least. Then it comes down to what beliefs we choose to justify as knowledge. To you it is the argument of incredulity presented above, to me it is a similar argument against a global conspiracy.No, I do not know anyone employed by nasa. Except my self of course, being a shill on these forums. Closest thing to that is a relative of mine who works for an institute that has designed and manufactured instruments for robotic spacecrafts, some of them nasa spacecrafts. But that is irrelevant.Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?
I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?
There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish. We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?
As for the rest of your response - that was exactly my point. You either assume that you're not being constantly lied to by evil conspirators and thus there is a manned space station orbiting earth, or you assume that there indeed is an evil conspiracy that lies to you about everything and that iss is actually a supersonic blimp or whatever fet is currently proposing. An epistemic dilemma.
I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?
You make 'just faking it' seem very easy and simple, but there's more to it than just saying 'we did it' and making a few pr videos, the various fet theories thrown around here demand virtually all of modern science to be 'fake' - assumptions required by fet are not fewer. These 'alternative theories' largely coming from people who are amazingly oblivious to even simple things that we can observe directly (celestial mechanics just for an example), I'm going to go with the actual scientists instead of people who think that air does not exist, or that our Sun is a reflection of a volcano at the Earth's north pole, gravity is not real, or, that the Earth is flat - even if I can not personally disprove those claims, or prove that there are people aboard the iss or that mass attracts mass. Anyway I'm sure this discussion has been had countless times here already.
Viewing it as an epistemic problem, there's no way for us to prove these things, so it comes down to what beliefs we can justify as knowledge.
None of the space stuff counts as knowledge as it is literally a joke. Knowledge is a good thing when it has some application in real life. Space travel doesn't. There is just a small group of clowns who are paid to act like they are in space, but it is just a show. Space travel is a great science fiction idea, but doesn't constitute a fact for all practical purposes for pretty much everyone. I would change my mind only if I have a chance to experience anything close to being in space. There is no point being naive and trusting someone for something like that. The alternative theories are equally unreliable, so I am actually surprised why anyone would seriously claim they are right about stuff we cannot possibly verify ourselves. The honest thing to do would be to simply admit it is our imagination speaking or that we just trust the authorities, and not that we have some access to secret knowledge or whatnot.
While it is not possible (at this time, for you and me) to prove or disprove space flight, we can gather evidence and use that to refine what we justify as knowledge. Since ISS was mentioned I'll use it as an example - space geeks around the world use reported ISS trajectory to aim their lenses, and they do find the reported position is correct. With triangulation we can then see that reported altitude and velocity are also correct, ruling out aircraft or such. From there it is not a long leap of faith for me to assume the ISS is an orbiting spacecraft - the alternative, a balloon travelling 10kp/s or a hologram or something else with all the lies and fake videos and paid actors and hobby astronomers lying etc seems to me to be the less believable possibility and I can not justify it as knowledge.
In my view fe belief is a conspiracy theory in the most negative sense of the term. Unless it's just a big trolling effort. Evidence I've seen presented for fe tends to float on assumptions based on previous assumptions and all of it demand a nefarious conspiracy to exist; same could be said of re in this context but fet definitely does not get away with fewer assumptions than ret.
Common sense dictates that when someone states something.. you look at THEIR TRACK RECORD. Is this an honest person? Has he EVER lied before?
What do other people say about him?
Is he known as a truthful person in the community?
Has he ever hurt his fellow man?
Has he ever stolen money?
These kinds of questions are needed to be asked for ANYONE .. whether an individual or an organization of people such as NASA and the US Government and the Banks etc etc...
If we are to believe that NASA and the USA are telling the truth about the Earth being round.. well what is their credibility as in regards to the their conduct in the past?
The truth is.. the US and NASA which is part of the government... has killied MILLIONS... has LIED.. by launching false wars.. releasing fake images from alleged satellites of Weapons of mass destruction
The US has produced chemical weapons and give them to Iraq in the 80's...
The US and the Jewish Zionist Bankers have invented interest which has ENSLAVED BILLIONS of people today. Interest is clearly forbidden in the Bible and Quran yet they pay no attention to that.
What does this whole banking system and international order show you? That these people could care less of their brothers and sisters. They are out to kill, maim, profit off of others.
How do they do that? Well through LYING and DECEIVING.
The same people who lied about Iraq... who demolished the twin towers and blamed innocent Muslims .. in the process killed hundreds of Americans...
Well how can I trust people with such a track record? Its fair to say that I have EVERY RIGHT TO QUESTION anything that comes out of their mouth.
Well how can I trust people with such a track record? Its fair to say that I have EVERY RIGHT TO QUESTION anything that comes out of their mouth.
Except we knew the earth was round before the USA was even a country....
The truth is... the US and NASA which is part of the government...
Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.
Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.
If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip of determine where to take your next step?
Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.
If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?
How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?
Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.
If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?
How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?
Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?
It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
Interest is clearly forbidden in the Bible and Quran
It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
This is top drawer absurdity. The shear amount of information that comes from the sky makes it nigh on impossible that its some sort of projection. Astronomers study electromagnetic radiation coming from the sky across the spectrum; from radio waves through visible light to x rays. It would require a universe to create the amount of information that comes from the sky. Who could be providing this projection, how are they doing it and what for? The evidence for the moon being a solid object is massive. We have never been to mars and we know that's a solid object. If there's one thing all you conspiracy theorists have in common it's a profound ignorance of science.
It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
This is top drawer absurdity. The shear amount of information that comes from the sky makes it nigh on impossible that its some sort of projection. Astronomers study electromagnetic radiation coming from the sky across the spectrum; from radio waves through visible light to x rays. It would require a universe to create the amount of information that comes from the sky. Who could be providing this projection, how are they doing it and what for? The evidence for the moon being a solid object is massive. We have never been to mars and we know that's a solid object. If there's one thing all you conspiracy theorists have in common it's a profound ignorance of science.
And you have a profound amount of arrogance! I repeat, you can't be sure of anything you see in the skies. It can be a projection. If you believe otherwise you're just fooling yourself and being absolutely naive. Of course, you didn't explain how you can confirm that the stars are real, but it is scientific I bet.
It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
This is top drawer absurdity. The shear amount of information that comes from the sky makes it nigh on impossible that its some sort of projection. Astronomers study electromagnetic radiation coming from the sky across the spectrum; from radio waves through visible light to x rays. It would require a universe to create the amount of information that comes from the sky. Who could be providing this projection, how are they doing it and what for? The evidence for the moon being a solid object is massive. We have never been to mars and we know that's a solid object. If there's one thing all you conspiracy theorists have in common it's a profound ignorance of science.
And you have a profound amount of arrogance! I repeat, you can't be sure of anything you see in the skies. It can be a projection. If you believe otherwise you're just fooling yourself and being absolutely naive. Of course, you didn't explain how you can confirm that the stars are real, but it is scientific I bet.
A projection from where and onto what?
It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
This is top drawer absurdity. The shear amount of information that comes from the sky makes it nigh on impossible that its some sort of projection. Astronomers study electromagnetic radiation coming from the sky across the spectrum; from radio waves through visible light to x rays. It would require a universe to create the amount of information that comes from the sky. Who could be providing this projection, how are they doing it and what for? The evidence for the moon being a solid object is massive. We have never been to mars and we know that's a solid object. If there's one thing all you conspiracy theorists have in common it's a profound ignorance of science.
And you have a profound amount of arrogance! I repeat, you can't be sure of anything you see in the skies. It can be a projection. If you believe otherwise you're just fooling yourself and being absolutely naive. Of course, you didn't explain how you can confirm that the stars are real, but it is scientific I bet.
It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
This is top drawer absurdity. The shear amount of information that comes from the sky makes it nigh on impossible that its some sort of projection. Astronomers study electromagnetic radiation coming from the sky across the spectrum; from radio waves through visible light to x rays. It would require a universe to create the amount of information that comes from the sky. Who could be providing this projection, how are they doing it and what for? The evidence for the moon being a solid object is massive. We have never been to mars and we know that's a solid object. If there's one thing all you conspiracy theorists have in common it's a profound ignorance of science.
And you have a profound amount of arrogance! I repeat, you can't be sure of anything you see in the skies. It can be a projection. If you believe otherwise you're just fooling yourself and being absolutely naive. Of course, you didn't explain how you can confirm that the stars are real, but it is scientific I bet.
It is evidently not a projection given the varying amount of time that radar bounces take depending on the object (moon, venus, etc..). Also, there is the little detail that we have been to space. Sorry to rain on your parade.
You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light.
When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted.
You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference.
In fact, even the Moon might be a projection.
A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
Likewise, it is equally naive to assume that "it's all lies" just because when we can't prove that's the case. Of course people are capable of lying, in case of some governments and such it appears obvious that at least much is denied or left untold, even lied about. From this it does not however follow that everything must be lies, and let's not forget that astronomy as a field of science is not in hands of any government or organization.So we agree that we can not prove either way, not in practice at least. Then it comes down to what beliefs we choose to justify as knowledge. To you it is the argument of incredulity presented above, to me it is a similar argument against a global conspiracy.No, I do not know anyone employed by nasa. Except my self of course, being a shill on these forums. Closest thing to that is a relative of mine who works for an institute that has designed and manufactured instruments for robotic spacecrafts, some of them nasa spacecrafts. But that is irrelevant.Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive. It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing. Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.
You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?
I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?
There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish. We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?
As for the rest of your response - that was exactly my point. You either assume that you're not being constantly lied to by evil conspirators and thus there is a manned space station orbiting earth, or you assume that there indeed is an evil conspiracy that lies to you about everything and that iss is actually a supersonic blimp or whatever fet is currently proposing. An epistemic dilemma.
I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?
You make 'just faking it' seem very easy and simple, but there's more to it than just saying 'we did it' and making a few pr videos, the various fet theories thrown around here demand virtually all of modern science to be 'fake' - assumptions required by fet are not fewer. These 'alternative theories' largely coming from people who are amazingly oblivious to even simple things that we can observe directly (celestial mechanics just for an example), I'm going to go with the actual scientists instead of people who think that air does not exist, or that our Sun is a reflection of a volcano at the Earth's north pole, gravity is not real, or, that the Earth is flat - even if I can not personally disprove those claims, or prove that there are people aboard the iss or that mass attracts mass. Anyway I'm sure this discussion has been had countless times here already.
Viewing it as an epistemic problem, there's no way for us to prove these things, so it comes down to what beliefs we can justify as knowledge.
None of the space stuff counts as knowledge as it is literally a joke. Knowledge is a good thing when it has some application in real life. Space travel doesn't. There is just a small group of clowns who are paid to act like they are in space, but it is just a show. Space travel is a great science fiction idea, but doesn't constitute a fact for all practical purposes for pretty much everyone. I would change my mind only if I have a chance to experience anything close to being in space. There is no point being naive and trusting someone for something like that. The alternative theories are equally unreliable, so I am actually surprised why anyone would seriously claim they are right about stuff we cannot possibly verify ourselves. The honest thing to do would be to simply admit it is our imagination speaking or that we just trust the authorities, and not that we have some access to secret knowledge or whatnot.
While it is not possible (at this time, for you and me) to prove or disprove space flight, we can gather evidence and use that to refine what we justify as knowledge. Since ISS was mentioned I'll use it as an example - space geeks around the world use reported ISS trajectory to aim their lenses, and they do find the reported position is correct. With triangulation we can then see that reported altitude and velocity are also correct, ruling out aircraft or such. From there it is not a long leap of faith for me to assume the ISS is an orbiting spacecraft - the alternative, a balloon travelling 10kp/s or a hologram or something else with all the lies and fake videos and paid actors and hobby astronomers lying etc seems to me to be the less believable possibility and I can not justify it as knowledge.
In my view fe belief is a conspiracy theory in the most negative sense of the term. Unless it's just a big trolling effort. Evidence I've seen presented for fe tends to float on assumptions based on previous assumptions and all of it demand a nefarious conspiracy to exist; same could be said of re in this context but fet definitely does not get away with fewer assumptions than ret.
Yes, it is based on a conspiracy. Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that. On the other hand, it is naive to believe that there is no conspiracy and people don't lie. You cannot prove anything, but you should know at least that people commonly lie. That should be enough to get suspicious. Assuming it is all true is very irrational. Do you think the most powerful people simply tell the truth to the masses? Why would they do that?
And you know that how? Radar bouncing off Venus? I thought you were a rational person.
He thinks we are going to turn away from Venus before we receive the return bounce.
It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
This is top drawer absurdity. The shear amount of information that comes from the sky makes it nigh on impossible that its some sort of projection. Astronomers study electromagnetic radiation coming from the sky across the spectrum; from radio waves through visible light to x rays. It would require a universe to create the amount of information that comes from the sky. Who could be providing this projection, how are they doing it and what for? The evidence for the moon being a solid object is massive. We have never been to mars and we know that's a solid object. If there's one thing all you conspiracy theorists have in common it's a profound ignorance of science.
And you have a profound amount of arrogance! I repeat, you can't be sure of anything you see in the skies. It can be a projection. If you believe otherwise you're just fooling yourself and being absolutely naive. Of course, you didn't explain how you can confirm that the stars are real, but it is scientific I bet.
Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.
If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?
How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?
Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?
You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light. Your analogy with the road is totally inappropriate. When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted. That it is a solid sphere somewhere far away from the Earth. Well, you cannot verify this claim just by looking through your telescope. You don't know what you see in space is. You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference. It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space is not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.
If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?
How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?
Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?
You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light. Your analogy with the road is totally inappropriate. When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted. That it is a solid sphere somewhere far away from the Earth. Well, you cannot verify this claim just by looking through your telescope. You don't know what you see in space is. You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference. It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space is not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
Are you suggesting that you cannot tell about stuff ahead of you on the sidewalk without feeling it? That's the analogy, and it is exactly what you seem to be claiming. If you saw a sandbag or an alligator in front of you, your interpretation, based on your understanding of what sandbags and alligators look like (even if you never touched one in person) would be "that's a sandbag" or "that's an alligator" (or reasonable facsimile thereof, like a crocodile, which is similar in general appearance), and not, say, a bowling ball or cat, without having to trip over it, wouldn't it?
We know what a sphere (solid or otherwise, e.g., gas) looks like under differing lighting geometries, and how recognizable features would change if it's rotating wrt our point of view, and shadows change as its angle of illumination changes; guess what? That's exactly how the planets and our Moon behave. Conclusion: they're rotating spheres. Add to this we've visited the Moon (whether you choose to believe this or not doesn't matter) and sent unmanned emissaries there and to other planets and some of their moons, and in all cases found that they're very much as expected; rocky and spherical when expected, and very non-spherical in the case of small bodies like comets and martian moons. We can see them at a distance and accurately conclude their shape and, in general, composition, verified by visitation. The Moon is rocky (we have rock samples), Mars is rocky from measurements taken at the surface, consistent with photographs of features taken from Martian orbit similar to rocky terrains on earth, etc for other planets and some of the major-planet satellites.
If you want to propose an alternative explanation like "it's a projection", even if you can't explain "on what", "by what", and "from where" you still have to explain how a projection (any projection) could behave in the ways we observe them in our telescopes from earth. Go ahead. If it's a projection, explain how Jupiter can be rising when seen from one location, crossing the meridian at another, and setting from yet another, while presenting the same features to all three, without changing apparent size, all at the same time? Meanwhile, the Moon has slightly different parts visible, and changes apparent size slightly in the same situation (as you'd expect from a somewhat-distant sphere from slightly (compared to the distance) different viewpoints). "They could be projections" without any explanation of how these observations would possibly match simple observations isn't an explanation at all; it's arm-waving.
We're waiting.
Then get off the Debate forum and hide in FE Believers.Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.
If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?
How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?
Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?
You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light. Your analogy with the road is totally inappropriate. When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted. That it is a solid sphere somewhere far away from the Earth. Well, you cannot verify this claim just by looking through your telescope. You don't know what you see in space is. You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference. It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space is not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
Are you suggesting that you cannot tell about stuff ahead of you on the sidewalk without feeling it? That's the analogy, and it is exactly what you seem to be claiming. If you saw a sandbag or an alligator in front of you, your interpretation, based on your understanding of what sandbags and alligators look like (even if you never touched one in person) would be "that's a sandbag" or "that's an alligator" (or reasonable facsimile thereof, like a crocodile, which is similar in general appearance), and not, say, a bowling ball or cat, without having to trip over it, wouldn't it?
We know what a sphere (solid or otherwise, e.g., gas) looks like under differing lighting geometries, and how recognizable features would change if it's rotating wrt our point of view, and shadows change as its angle of illumination changes; guess what? That's exactly how the planets and our Moon behave. Conclusion: they're rotating spheres. Add to this we've visited the Moon (whether you choose to believe this or not doesn't matter) and sent unmanned emissaries there and to other planets and some of their moons, and in all cases found that they're very much as expected; rocky and spherical when expected, and very non-spherical in the case of small bodies like comets and martian moons. We can see them at a distance and accurately conclude their shape and, in general, composition, verified by visitation. The Moon is rocky (we have rock samples), Mars is rocky from measurements taken at the surface, consistent with photographs of features taken from Martian orbit similar to rocky terrains on earth, etc for other planets and some of the major-planet satellites.
If you want to propose an alternative explanation like "it's a projection", even if you can't explain "on what", "by what", and "from where" you still have to explain how a projection (any projection) could behave in the ways we observe them in our telescopes from earth. Go ahead. If it's a projection, explain how Jupiter can be rising when seen from one location, crossing the meridian at another, and setting from yet another, while presenting the same features to all three, without changing apparent size, all at the same time? Meanwhile, the Moon has slightly different parts visible, and changes apparent size slightly in the same situation (as you'd expect from a somewhat-distant sphere from slightly (compared to the distance) different viewpoints). "They could be projections" without any explanation of how these observations would possibly match simple observations isn't an explanation at all; it's arm-waving.
We're waiting.
I am not here to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. It is your choice.
NO TIME DILATION AT ALL!!!
Of course we have been on Mars, this is the proof :
(http://i.imgur.com/2MmMpPi.jpg)
Of course we have landed on the Moon, this is the proof :
(http://i.imgur.com/UrkLkmK.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DofXr24F2Qk/TlxAIVDiZgI/AAAAAAAAEzM/vl75CRlGvw8/s1600/a17besttracklessrover.jpg)
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9ib972HglXI/UQZaZaszWlI/AAAAAAAAA0E/fkGU2IIc6JU/s1600/1.gif)
(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-8_eb9_USTDU/UQx5y2vqHGI/AAAAAAAAA2A/sYewgE0U8hw/s1600/y.gif)
(http://i.imgflip.com/iocf.gif)(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-9m26uFbJp5E/UQyzD-n2KyI/AAAAAAAAA2U/bhA1Pnq8OuI/s1600/pack.gif)
2,5 seconds enough to inform astronaut on the "Moon" piece of his valuable backpack's content just dropped off...NO TIME DILATION AT ALL!!!
No evidence or convincing argument? Gotcha. Good suggestion! FE Believers is the place you oughtta be. I visited there once... pretty boring naval gazing and no challenges allowed, it was supposition unconstrained by observation. Perfect! Enjoy!Then get off the Debate forum and hide in FE Believers.Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.
If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?
How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?
Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?
You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light. Your analogy with the road is totally inappropriate. When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted. That it is a solid sphere somewhere far away from the Earth. Well, you cannot verify this claim just by looking through your telescope. You don't know what you see in space is. You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference. It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space is not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
Are you suggesting that you cannot tell about stuff ahead of you on the sidewalk without feeling it? That's the analogy, and it is exactly what you seem to be claiming. If you saw a sandbag or an alligator in front of you, your interpretation, based on your understanding of what sandbags and alligators look like (even if you never touched one in person) would be "that's a sandbag" or "that's an alligator" (or reasonable facsimile thereof, like a crocodile, which is similar in general appearance), and not, say, a bowling ball or cat, without having to trip over it, wouldn't it?
We know what a sphere (solid or otherwise, e.g., gas) looks like under differing lighting geometries, and how recognizable features would change if it's rotating wrt our point of view, and shadows change as its angle of illumination changes; guess what? That's exactly how the planets and our Moon behave. Conclusion: they're rotating spheres. Add to this we've visited the Moon (whether you choose to believe this or not doesn't matter) and sent unmanned emissaries there and to other planets and some of their moons, and in all cases found that they're very much as expected; rocky and spherical when expected, and very non-spherical in the case of small bodies like comets and martian moons. We can see them at a distance and accurately conclude their shape and, in general, composition, verified by visitation. The Moon is rocky (we have rock samples), Mars is rocky from measurements taken at the surface, consistent with photographs of features taken from Martian orbit similar to rocky terrains on earth, etc for other planets and some of the major-planet satellites.
If you want to propose an alternative explanation like "it's a projection", even if you can't explain "on what", "by what", and "from where" you still have to explain how a projection (any projection) could behave in the ways we observe them in our telescopes from earth. Go ahead. If it's a projection, explain how Jupiter can be rising when seen from one location, crossing the meridian at another, and setting from yet another, while presenting the same features to all three, without changing apparent size, all at the same time? Meanwhile, the Moon has slightly different parts visible, and changes apparent size slightly in the same situation (as you'd expect from a somewhat-distant sphere from slightly (compared to the distance) different viewpoints). "They could be projections" without any explanation of how these observations would possibly match simple observations isn't an explanation at all; it's arm-waving.
We're waiting.
I am not here to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. It is your choice.
Abandon the lie : (http://)
Or all the moving around they did making that repair to the fender kicked around the regolith and obscured the tracks.(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DofXr24F2Qk/TlxAIVDiZgI/AAAAAAAAEzM/vl75CRlGvw8/s1600/a17besttracklessrover.jpg)It's a light weight rover in 1/6 gravity, that wouldn't be hard to lift.
No evidence or convincing argument? Gotcha. Good suggestion! FE Believers is the place you oughtta be. I visited there once... pretty boring naval gazing and no challenges allowed, it was supposition unconstrained by observation. Perfect! Enjoy!Then get off the Debate forum and hide in FE Believers.Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.
If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?
How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?
Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?
You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light. Your analogy with the road is totally inappropriate. When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted. That it is a solid sphere somewhere far away from the Earth. Well, you cannot verify this claim just by looking through your telescope. You don't know what you see in space is. You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference. It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space is not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
Are you suggesting that you cannot tell about stuff ahead of you on the sidewalk without feeling it? That's the analogy, and it is exactly what you seem to be claiming. If you saw a sandbag or an alligator in front of you, your interpretation, based on your understanding of what sandbags and alligators look like (even if you never touched one in person) would be "that's a sandbag" or "that's an alligator" (or reasonable facsimile thereof, like a crocodile, which is similar in general appearance), and not, say, a bowling ball or cat, without having to trip over it, wouldn't it?
We know what a sphere (solid or otherwise, e.g., gas) looks like under differing lighting geometries, and how recognizable features would change if it's rotating wrt our point of view, and shadows change as its angle of illumination changes; guess what? That's exactly how the planets and our Moon behave. Conclusion: they're rotating spheres. Add to this we've visited the Moon (whether you choose to believe this or not doesn't matter) and sent unmanned emissaries there and to other planets and some of their moons, and in all cases found that they're very much as expected; rocky and spherical when expected, and very non-spherical in the case of small bodies like comets and martian moons. We can see them at a distance and accurately conclude their shape and, in general, composition, verified by visitation. The Moon is rocky (we have rock samples), Mars is rocky from measurements taken at the surface, consistent with photographs of features taken from Martian orbit similar to rocky terrains on earth, etc for other planets and some of the major-planet satellites.
If you want to propose an alternative explanation like "it's a projection", even if you can't explain "on what", "by what", and "from where" you still have to explain how a projection (any projection) could behave in the ways we observe them in our telescopes from earth. Go ahead. If it's a projection, explain how Jupiter can be rising when seen from one location, crossing the meridian at another, and setting from yet another, while presenting the same features to all three, without changing apparent size, all at the same time? Meanwhile, the Moon has slightly different parts visible, and changes apparent size slightly in the same situation (as you'd expect from a somewhat-distant sphere from slightly (compared to the distance) different viewpoints). "They could be projections" without any explanation of how these observations would possibly match simple observations isn't an explanation at all; it's arm-waving.
We're waiting.
I am not here to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. It is your choice.
I am not sure how I can debate with someone who constantly fails to recognize he doesn't have any proof he is right but his own faith. Just because the other side doesn't have concrete evidence that you recognize doesn't mean you do. The truth is you guys are not debating with me. You're believers in round Earth. Believers can't possibly debate as they are biased. You would always think you're right regardless of what I say.
Believers can't possibly debate as they are biased.
You could start by describing a plausible scenario where what we see as planets but are actually "projections" could possibly work. I don't see how it could possibly work, but it's your idea, so please have a go at it.No evidence or convincing argument? Gotcha. Good suggestion! FE Believers is the place you oughtta be. I visited there once... pretty boring naval gazing and no challenges allowed, it was supposition unconstrained by observation. Perfect! Enjoy!Then get off the Debate forum and hide in FE Believers.Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.
If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?
How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?
Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?
You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light. Your analogy with the road is totally inappropriate. When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted. That it is a solid sphere somewhere far away from the Earth. Well, you cannot verify this claim just by looking through your telescope. You don't know what you see in space is. You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference. It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space is not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?
Are you suggesting that you cannot tell about stuff ahead of you on the sidewalk without feeling it? That's the analogy, and it is exactly what you seem to be claiming. If you saw a sandbag or an alligator in front of you, your interpretation, based on your understanding of what sandbags and alligators look like (even if you never touched one in person) would be "that's a sandbag" or "that's an alligator" (or reasonable facsimile thereof, like a crocodile, which is similar in general appearance), and not, say, a bowling ball or cat, without having to trip over it, wouldn't it?
We know what a sphere (solid or otherwise, e.g., gas) looks like under differing lighting geometries, and how recognizable features would change if it's rotating wrt our point of view, and shadows change as its angle of illumination changes; guess what? That's exactly how the planets and our Moon behave. Conclusion: they're rotating spheres. Add to this we've visited the Moon (whether you choose to believe this or not doesn't matter) and sent unmanned emissaries there and to other planets and some of their moons, and in all cases found that they're very much as expected; rocky and spherical when expected, and very non-spherical in the case of small bodies like comets and martian moons. We can see them at a distance and accurately conclude their shape and, in general, composition, verified by visitation. The Moon is rocky (we have rock samples), Mars is rocky from measurements taken at the surface, consistent with photographs of features taken from Martian orbit similar to rocky terrains on earth, etc for other planets and some of the major-planet satellites.
If you want to propose an alternative explanation like "it's a projection", even if you can't explain "on what", "by what", and "from where" you still have to explain how a projection (any projection) could behave in the ways we observe them in our telescopes from earth. Go ahead. If it's a projection, explain how Jupiter can be rising when seen from one location, crossing the meridian at another, and setting from yet another, while presenting the same features to all three, without changing apparent size, all at the same time? Meanwhile, the Moon has slightly different parts visible, and changes apparent size slightly in the same situation (as you'd expect from a somewhat-distant sphere from slightly (compared to the distance) different viewpoints). "They could be projections" without any explanation of how these observations would possibly match simple observations isn't an explanation at all; it's arm-waving.
We're waiting.
I am not here to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. It is your choice.
I am not sure how I can debate with someone who constantly fails to recognize he doesn't have any proof he is right but his own faith. Just because the other side doesn't have concrete evidence that you recognize doesn't mean you do. The truth is you guys are not debating with me. You're believers in round Earth. Believers can't possibly debate as they are biased. You would always think you're right regardless of what I say.
I have just posed this question to Rory Cooper : Rory, have you ever tried to make a video about alleged ONE MONTHLY ROTATION of the Moon??? So, according to them, rotational speed of the Moon is a constant, Moon's orbit is very eccentric, and we still can't see other side of the Moon....One has to be more retarded than the most retarded man in the world so to believe such a crap of a theory!!!How eccentric is very eccentric? Numbers, please, not arm waving, and the source for the numbers[nb]This information is easily available, but your own observations, with details of how the experiment was conducted, along with the results, are fine, too.[/nb]. If you don't know, then how can you claim it's eccentric? How much does its angular velocity change over the period of one orbit? Again, be specific.
The rotational speed of the Moon is constant for practical purposes; its orbital speed is not (but by how much, Mr. "very eccentric"?) The result is the well-known libration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration).
I have just posed this question to Rory Cooper : Rory, have you ever tried to make a video about alleged ONE MONTHLY ROTATION of the Moon??? So, according to them, rotational speed of the Moon is a constant, Moon's orbit is very eccentric, and we still can't see other side of the Moon....One has to be more retarded than the most retarded man in the world so to believe such a crap of a theory!!!How eccentric is very eccentric? Numbers, please, not arm waving, and the source for the numbers[nb]This information is easily available, but your own observations, with details of how the experiment was conducted, along with the results, are fine, too.[/nb]. If you don't know, then how can you claim it's eccentric? How much does its angular velocity change over the period of one orbit? Again, be specific.
The rotational speed of the Moon is constant for practical purposes; its orbital speed is not (but by how much, Mr. "very eccentric"?) The result is the well-known libration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration).
The Moon's orbit around the Earth is elliptical, with a substantial eccentricity (as major Solar System bodies go) of 5.49%. In addition, the tidal effect of the Sun's gravitational field increases the eccentricity when the orbit's major axis is aligned with the Sun-Earth vector or, in other words, the Moon is full or new.
The combined effects of orbital eccentricity and the Sun's tides result in a substantial difference in the apparent size and brightness of the Moon at perigee and apogee. Extreme values for perigee and apogee distance occur when perigee or apogee passage occurs close to new or full Moon, and long-term extremes are in the months near to Earth's perihelion passage (closest approach to the Sun, when the Sun's tidal effects are strongest) in the first few days of January.
So, why do we NEVER see the Darkside of the Moon if it rotates on ax like Nasa says?
Of course we have been on Mars, this is the proof :
(http://i.imgur.com/2MmMpPi.jpg)
Of course we have landed on the Moon, this is the proof :
(http://i.imgur.com/UrkLkmK.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DofXr24F2Qk/TlxAIVDiZgI/AAAAAAAAEzM/vl75CRlGvw8/s1600/a17besttracklessrover.jpg)
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9ib972HglXI/UQZaZaszWlI/AAAAAAAAA0E/fkGU2IIc6JU/s1600/1.gif)
(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-8_eb9_USTDU/UQx5y2vqHGI/AAAAAAAAA2A/sYewgE0U8hw/s1600/y.gif)
(http://i.imgflip.com/iocf.gif)(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-9m26uFbJp5E/UQyzD-n2KyI/AAAAAAAAA2U/bhA1Pnq8OuI/s1600/pack.gif)
2,5 seconds enough to inform astronaut on the "Moon" piece of his valuable backpack's content just dropped off and for astronaut's reaction...NO TIME DILATION AT ALL!!!
That eccentricity of 0.0549 may seem large compared with major SS bodies, but it's minuscule compared with things with truly eccentric orbits like comets, whose orbits have eccentricities on the order of, and sometimes exceeding, 1. It's really quite small; if you drew an ellipse with that eccentricity so its minor axis was 1000 pixels, its major axis would be between 1001 and 1002 pixels. You wouldn't be able to distinguish the difference by just looking, and hard pressed to notice even if you drew a comparison circle. The foci of this ellipse would each be about 55 pixels from the center along the major axis. Again, you'd have to draw a circle centered on one focus or the other to even notice. "Substantial" is a vague term, but this clearly wouldn't qualify.I have just posed this question to Rory Cooper : Rory, have you ever tried to make a video about alleged ONE MONTHLY ROTATION of the Moon??? So, according to them, rotational speed of the Moon is a constant, Moon's orbit is very eccentric, and we still can't see other side of the Moon....One has to be more retarded than the most retarded man in the world so to believe such a crap of a theory!!!How eccentric is very eccentric? Numbers, please, not arm waving, and the source for the numbers[nb]This information is easily available, but your own observations, with details of how the experiment was conducted, along with the results, are fine, too.[/nb]. If you don't know, then how can you claim it's eccentric? How much does its angular velocity change over the period of one orbit? Again, be specific.
The rotational speed of the Moon is constant for practical purposes; its orbital speed is not (but by how much, Mr. "very eccentric"?) The result is the well-known libration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration).
The Moon's orbit around the Earth is elliptical, with a substantial eccentricity (as major Solar System bodies go) of 5.49%. In addition, the tidal effect of the Sun's gravitational field increases the eccentricity when the orbit's major axis is aligned with the Sun-Earth vector or, in other words, the Moon is full or new.
The combined effects of orbital eccentricity and the Sun's tides result in a substantial difference[nb]About 10%. Almost no one notices unless there's an annular (instead of total) eclipse or told about the Super Moon!!! Even then, the reaction to looking at the Super Moon!!! is usually "huh? I thought it was supposed to look bigger."[/nb]We can't see the "dark side" because it's dark. Duh! Of course, when the Moon is nearly new, there is enough illumination by the Earth to see the "dark side" some, but I don't think this is what you really meant, thus the corrections above. I suspect you mean the far side. Do try to use the correct terminology, especially after it's already been pointed out to you. It makes communication easier.
in the apparent size and brightness of the Moon at perigee and apogee. Extreme values for perigee and apogee distance occur when perigee or apogee passage occurs close to new or full Moon, and long-term extremes are in the months near to Earth's perihelion passage (closest approach to the Sun, when the Sun's tidal effects are strongest) in the first few days of January.
So, why do we NEVER see theDarksidefar side of the Moon if it rotates on ax like Nasa says?
<more inane long-debunked nonsense>
The reason NASA and the Satan controlled world order...
England had a 2 hour super eclipse allegedly... Now how the heck can the moon take two hours to cross the Sun?Maybe earths rotation is slowing, if this is the case we should begin preparations for evacuation. Where's Gunnar?
The reason Nasa and the Satan controlled world order doesn't issue a picture from high altitude is because it would show things they don't want us to know...Including the clear fact the Earth is flat but also that the sun and moon orbit earth.
today England had a 2 hour super eclipse allegedly... Now how the heck can the moon take two hours to cross the Sun?
And also how do shills explain the fact that people have actually witnessed eclipses WHILE the MOON was on the other side and visible during the day...
So Many apparent lies and distortions with all of this...disgusting really
The reason Nasa and the Satan controlled world order doesn't issue a picture from high altitude is because it would show things they don't want us to know...Including the clear fact the Earth is flat but also that the sun and moon orbit earth.
today England had a 2 hour super eclipse allegedly... Now how the heck can the moon take two hours to cross the Sun?
And also how do shills explain the fact that people have actually witnessed eclipses WHILE the MOON was on the other side and visible during the day...
So Many apparent lies and distortions with all of this...disgusting really
Firstly the eclipse isnt until Friday 20th.
Secondly, the moon takes approximately 27 days to orbit 360 degrees around the earth. The suns angular diameter as viewed from earth is half a degree. A little bit of basic maths now:
360 degrees / 27 days = 13.3 degrees per day or 0.55 degrees per hour.
0.5 degree (sun) / 0.55 degrees per hour gives approx one hour.
Therefore it takes one hour for the moon to cover the sun entirely and then another hour for it to uncover the sun. This equals two hours.
Seems legit.
The reason Nasa and the Satan controlled world order doesn't issue a picture from high altitude is because it would show things they don't want us to know...Including the clear fact the Earth is flat but also that the sun and moon orbit earth.
today England had a 2 hour super eclipse allegedly... Now how the heck can the moon take two hours to cross the Sun?
And also how do shills explain the fact that people have actually witnessed eclipses WHILE the MOON was on the other side and visible during the day...
So Many apparent lies and distortions with all of this...disgusting really
Firstly the eclipse isnt until Friday 20th.
Secondly, the moon takes approximately 27 days to orbit 360 degrees around the earth. The suns angular diameter as viewed from earth is half a degree. A little bit of basic maths now:
360 degrees / 27 days = 13.3 degrees per day or 0.55 degrees per hour.
0.5 degree (sun) / 0.55 degrees per hour gives approx one hour.
Therefore it takes one hour for the moon to cover the sun entirely and then another hour for it to uncover the sun. This equals two hours.
Seems legit.
Actually, the Moon doesn't always travel at the same speed from our perspective. There are days when it moves much faster and days when it is slower somehow. At least that is the impression I get when observing it through a telescope. On some days I would need to adjust the telescope every few seconds, and on others you can watch it for 20 minutes and it doesn't seem to move.
Firstly,Your idea of significantly eccentric is different than mine and anyone who looks at an ellipse with those dimensions. Regardless, why is this difficult for you to believe? Do you think it's not possible, or simply unlikely?
http://i.imgur.com/Bs2DmsN.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Bs2DmsN.jpg)
It rotates on it's axis ONES in the SAME time it takes to orbit us once despite it's (Moon's) significantly eccentric orbit! Tell this fairy tale to someone else!!!
"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating.The change from the untenable fixed-earth geocentric model to heliocentric model required different motions of the celestial bodies. Not only did the heliocentric model explain observations better, it was vastly simpler. Some people didn't like it. Tough!
Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall
What is interesting here to notice is that heliocentrists had been used the same paradigm/mechanics (perfectly synchronized rotation of the Moon) even before they decided that the Moon circles around the Earth once per month instead of once per day!!!
They just DRAMATICALLY changed the alleged speed of rotation and orbital speed of the Moon as well as alleged distances between celestial "bodies"!!!
Within first (old) hypothesis the Moon revolves around the Earth daily with the speed of 17,280 km/hour, so it takes 24 hours for Moon to cross 414 720 km. It is obviously much less than 2 386 400 km which is allegedly lenght of the Moon's orbit within today's (new) HC hypothesis.
So, 414 720 / 2 / 3,14 = 60 988 = distance between the Earth and the Moon (old hypothesis)Publisher: Dumfries : Printed and engraved for the author, James Gillespie, 1890. (http://www.worldcat.org/title/triumph-of-philosophy-or-the-true-system-of-the-universe-being-an-earnest-endeavour-to-correct-several-fallacies-of-the-accepted-theory-of-astronomy/oclc/67088958) Sounds like what we now call a vanity publication. "Subjects Astronomy -- Religious aspects." Yet another 19th-Century crank.
Mr. Gillespie talks from the OLD (Moon theory - MUCH SMALLER ALLEGED DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND MOON) STANDPOINT:
Then Mr. J. Gillespie, in his " Triumph of Philosophy,*' page 89, comes to the rescue and says
Can you make sense what is being said here. Please explain what you think he's trying to say. Inhabited? Seriously?
" As to the planets being inhabited, if we take refraction into account, we shall find that there is not such a thing as atmosphere near them ; for instance, in an eclipse of the moon, especially at her apogee, the earth is brought to a mere point by refraction, caused by the air of the earth, and were the moon a little further away from this point, would be brought to nothingness ; that is although the earth were exactly in a straight line between the sun and moon, the earth would not even show a spot on the moon's disc. Now by this same rule, if either Mercury or Venus had any atmosphere, they could never be seen crossing the sun's disc. I think this is satisfactory proof that THEY HAVE NO ATMOSPHERE, and cannot therefore be inhabited.''
“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard BrauerNope... the Moon's orbit fits right in with the rest of the heliocentric model. Its orbit about earth is the same direction as virtually all the bodies in the solar system (all of the major ones and almost all - by a vast majority - of the rest), and the same direction as the Earth's rotation. Mr. Bauer's insistence that the diurnal ("once daily") motion of the heavenly bodies not being due to the simple rotation of the Earth, and stamping his foot and insisting the Copernican model won't work, is simply more balderdash of the type cikljamas usually cites.
<repeated already-debunked (several times) stuff> http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/58895023636888751082.jpg (http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/58895023636888751082.jpg)This illustration is incorrect. The Moon's path around the Sun is actually concave toward the Sun everywhere; it doesn't have the loop-the-loops "shewn" here.
(http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/86923764958291777071.jpg)
The second illustration, if you ignore the bizarre "whooshes" instead of a closed orbit, stretch the dots (and wavy line) so that 12 of them take up a bit less than a full orbit, and pick one position for the Sun - 'C' looks OK for the purpose of the illustration - is somewhat closer than the one above it. It's still grossly exaggerated in the sinuosity of the path of the moon though. As already mentioned, since the radius of the Moon's orbit about the Earth is only about 1/400 of the radius of the Earth's orbit about the Sun, the path the Moon traces around the Sun is always concave toward the Sun, with a very slight sinuosity. This may seem strange, but it's true!
(http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/49021941612880661507.jpg)
(http://www.igreklik.com/slike/images/09327310722225621955.jpg)
Secondly, how about the "EOT" problem regarding the Moon?What problem? There isn't one. You're just confused again.
The speed of the Moon = 0,0041 degrees per secondIt's not. The Moon moves more slowly across the sky than the Sun does, and the Sun moves across the sky more slowly than the stars. The Moon transits a meridian approximately 50 minutes later each day, so its average transit-transit time is about 24h50m. Recall that the Sun takes exactly 24h on average, and the stars 23h56m. Which is slowest? This is exactly as cikljamas expects, but, for some reason, doesn't realize actually happens; maybe if he spent more time looking at real data instead of tracking down ludicrous ideas posited by charlatans he wouldn't make mistakes like this. We can hope - probably in vain. It certainly would save all of us time.
The speed of the Sun = 0,00000039 degrees per second
Now, if the Moon is traveling in the same direction in which the Earth rotates, how come that the apparent speed of the Moon is so much greater than the speed of the Sun instead of being the opposite?
Thirdly, during a central eclipse, the Moon's umbra (or antumbra, in the case of an annular eclipse) moves rapidly from west to east across the Earth. The Earth is also rotating from west to east, at about 28 km/min at the Equator, but as the Moon is moving in the same direction as the Earth's spin at about 61 km/min, the umbra almost always appears to move in a roughly west-east direction across a map of the Earth at the speed of the Moon's orbital velocity minus the Earth's rotational velocity.If your numbers are right, then, since the shadow is moving across the surface mostly eastward at 2810 km/h (using Oslo's latitude), it travels about 130 km in 2m 47s; this means the diameter of the umbra is about 130 km at maximum eclipse. The circumstances (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEplot/SEplot2001/SE2015Mar20T.GIF) of maximum eclipse give a path width of 463 km with a Sun Altitude of 18.5°, pretty low in the sky, meaning the shadow is stretched out in the N-S direction and we need to multiply the width by sine(Sun Alt) to get a rough approximation of the diameter (this isn't exact, but is reasonably close). This gives 146 km - definitely in the ballpark. Is there supposed to be a problem here?
--3660 km/h (alleged speed of the Moon) - 1660 (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at the Equator) = 2000 km/h (the speed of umbra/antumbra)
--3660 km/h - 850 km/h (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at Oslo) = 2810 km/h
--3660 km/h - 0 km/h (alleged rotational speed of the Earth at the North Pole) = 3660 km/h
Is this in accordance with reality???
20 March 2015 — Total Solar Eclipse
It's a Total Solar Eclipse in Svalbard (Norway) and the Faroe Islands, and a Partial Solar Eclipse in Europe, northern and eastern Asia and northern and western Africa The eclipse starts at 7:41am UTC. The maximum point (totality) begins at 09:45am UTC and will last for 2 minutes and 47 seconds.
21 August 2017 — Total Solar Eclipsehttp://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/SEdisk/2001-2100/SE2017Aug21T.gif (http://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/SEdisk/2001-2100/SE2017Aug21T.gif)
The total solar eclipse will be visible from most locations in the United States and Canada.
This eclipse will be the first total solar eclipse visible from contiguous United States since 1979. The total phase of the eclipse will be visible from locations spanning from the East Coast to the West Coast of the United States. The last time this happened was during the June 8, 1918 total solar eclipse.
Parts of Western Europe and northern and western South America will experience a partial solar eclipse.
The eclipse will begin at 03:47 p.m. (15:47) UTC. The maximum point of the eclipse will take place near Hopkinsville, Kentucky at 06:22 p.m. (18:22) UTC. Totality will last for 2 mins 40 secs.
These Blood Red Moons.. as I was saying.. how do they even turn red? This is such a sick joke.
The Moon does not change color .. Red is the color of satan.. of blood.. of evil.. God's creations are beautiful and perfect..
So no the Moon doesn't turn Red every few centuries.. that is plain non sense and more paganism.
About this supposed eclipse that happened in Britain.. how can it just be mostly visible over there? If the Moon really does come in between the Sun and Earth on a round earth fake model .. than half the Earth visible towards the Sun should be COMPLETELY DARK.. yet that never happens with any of these eclipses.
England is the head of the Royal Pagan bloodlines.. they aren't from Jesus or anyone holy as they proclaim.
They have such rituals as eclipses and worshipping of the sun. Sunday of course comes from that ..
Also so called 'Prince' William was born on a solar eclipse and many pagans celebrated that the King they had been waiting for was born.
Perhaps the AntiChrist? who knows... but the fact is they faked this eclipse to give importance to him that somehow the cosmos were giving a sign..
The fact is the Sun and Moon.. created by Allah the one God .. do not bow to any human or get eclipsed or blocked.
And than those Red Blood Moons... they released these fancy charts going back centuries of when the so called last Tetrad of Blood Moons had happened .. and just magically it seems to coincide with important Jewish historical events... this is all designed to make the Jews feel Special and to be able to make them believe their 'Messiah' is here.. who actually will be the Anti Christ.. opposed to Jesus Christ.. who was just a messenger .. that he will make clear to the Christians when he comes back.. Since the time of Adam.. God was always one.. as is stated in Islam..that is what Prophet Adam pbuh preached... Enoch... Noah.. Abraham.. Joseph.. Solomon.. Moses.. Jesus and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.. Never were any of them revealed a message by God stating he had a family or a Son or Mary the Mother..
For anyone with even the slightest rational thinking still in their souls.. its plain to see that the Roman Pagans that ruled over Palestine during Jesus's time.. introduced this pagan doctrine called Trinity... Jesus was a human. .it is way below God himself to turn himself into a human when that is HIS CREATION.. he is far and above and holy.. to suggest God defecated.. or used the restroom. or needed to feel human suffering? He is the one who created humans himself.. he knows how we work better than even we could ever..
So all this paganism has infected all of society.. including these staged eclipses..
The fact that these so called eclipses occur in just random spots instead of half the Earth being dark.. and the fact that you NEVER see any celestial body in front of the Sun approaching it.. we only see it when it actually starts being on top of the sun.. goes to show the complete charade..
Allah makes clear in the Quran.. that the Sun and Moon CANNOT catchup or night and day cannot outstrip each other...
The reason this alleged fake so called rare eclipse was staged in Britain is that this year William turns 33... and as everyone knows thats a very important Satanic Illuminati number.. Some have even suggested that he might proclaim to be the Messiah of the Jews.. and the savior of the world (ya right).. so to set all this up.. and make the Jewish rabbis and their flock believe this... these events have to be staged.. From the eclipse on his birth.. to now in his 33 years of age.. all of this has PAGAN ritual written all over this.
About this supposed eclipse that happened in Britain.. how can it just be mostly visible over there? If the Moon really does come in between the Sun and Earth on a round earth fake model .. than half the Earth visible towards the Sun should be COMPLETELY DARK.. yet that never happens with any of these eclipses.
England is the head of the Royal Pagan bloodlines.. they aren't from Jesus or anyone holy as they proclaim.
They have such rituals as eclipses and worshipping of the sun. Sunday of course comes from that ..
Also so called 'Prince' William was born on a solar eclipse and many pagans celebrated that the King they had been waiting for was born.
Perhaps the AntiChrist? who knows... but the fact is they faked this eclipse to give importance to him that somehow the cosmos were giving a sign..
The fact is the Sun and Moon.. created by Allah the one God .. do not bow to any human or get eclipsed or blocked.
And than those Red Blood Moons... they released these fancy charts going back centuries of when the so called last Tetrad of Blood Moons had happened .. and just magically it seems to coincide with important Jewish historical events... this is all designed to make the Jews feel Special and to be able to make them believe their 'Messiah' is here.. who actually will be the Anti Christ.. opposed to Jesus Christ.. who was just a messenger .. that he will make clear to the Christians when he comes back.. Since the time of Adam.. God was always one.. as is stated in Islam..that is what Prophet Adam pbuh preached... Enoch... Noah.. Abraham.. Joseph.. Solomon.. Moses.. Jesus and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.. Never were any of them revealed a message by God stating he had a family or a Son or Mary the Mother..
For anyone with even the slightest rational thinking still in their souls.. its plain to see that the Roman Pagans that ruled over Palestine during Jesus's time.. introduced this pagan doctrine called Trinity... Jesus was a human. .it is way below God himself to turn himself into a human when that is HIS CREATION.. he is far and above and holy.. to suggest God defecated.. or used the restroom. or needed to feel human suffering? He is the one who created humans himself.. he knows how we work better than even we could ever..
So all this paganism has infected all of society.. including these staged eclipses..
The fact that these so called eclipses occur in just random spots instead of half the Earth being dark.. and the fact that you NEVER see any celestial body in front of the Sun approaching it.. we only see it when it actually starts being on top of the sun.. goes to show the complete charade..
Allah makes clear in the Quran.. that the Sun and Moon CANNOT catchup or night and day cannot outstrip each other...
The reason this alleged fake so called rare eclipse was staged in Britain is that this year William turns 33... and as everyone knows thats a very important Satanic Illuminati number.. Some have even suggested that he might proclaim to be the Messiah of the Jews.. and the savior of the world (ya right).. so to set all this up.. and make the Jewish rabbis and their flock believe this... these events have to be staged.. From the eclipse on his birth.. to now in his 33 years of age.. all of this has PAGAN ritual written all over this.
Man, you're special (not a compliment)! Living in Texas among the most radical christians and still believe in Allah...
About this supposed eclipse that happened in Britain.. how can it just be mostly visible over there? If the Moon really does come in between the Sun and Earth on a round earth fake model .. than half the Earth visible towards the Sun should be COMPLETELY DARK.. yet that never happens with any of these eclipses.
England is the head of the Royal Pagan bloodlines.. they aren't from Jesus or anyone holy as they proclaim.
They have such rituals as eclipses and worshipping of the sun. Sunday of course comes from that ..
Also so called 'Prince' William was born on a solar eclipse and many pagans celebrated that the King they had been waiting for was born.
Perhaps the AntiChrist? who knows... but the fact is they faked this eclipse to give importance to him that somehow the cosmos were giving a sign..
The fact is the Sun and Moon.. created by Allah the one God .. do not bow to any human or get eclipsed or blocked.
And than those Red Blood Moons... they released these fancy charts going back centuries of when the so called last Tetrad of Blood Moons had happened .. and just magically it seems to coincide with important Jewish historical events... this is all designed to make the Jews feel Special and to be able to make them believe their 'Messiah' is here.. who actually will be the Anti Christ.. opposed to Jesus Christ.. who was just a messenger .. that he will make clear to the Christians when he comes back.. Since the time of Adam.. God was always one.. as is stated in Islam..that is what Prophet Adam pbuh preached... Enoch... Noah.. Abraham.. Joseph.. Solomon.. Moses.. Jesus and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.. Never were any of them revealed a message by God stating he had a family or a Son or Mary the Mother..
For anyone with even the slightest rational thinking still in their souls.. its plain to see that the Roman Pagans that ruled over Palestine during Jesus's time.. introduced this pagan doctrine called Trinity... Jesus was a human. .it is way below God himself to turn himself into a human when that is HIS CREATION.. he is far and above and holy.. to suggest God defecated.. or used the restroom. or needed to feel human suffering? He is the one who created humans himself.. he knows how we work better than even we could ever..
So all this paganism has infected all of society.. including these staged eclipses..
The fact that these so called eclipses occur in just random spots instead of half the Earth being dark.. and the fact that you NEVER see any celestial body in front of the Sun approaching it.. we only see it when it actually starts being on top of the sun.. goes to show the complete charade..
Allah makes clear in the Quran.. that the Sun and Moon CANNOT catchup or night and day cannot outstrip each other...
The reason this alleged fake so called rare eclipse was staged in Britain is that this year William turns 33... and as everyone knows thats a very important Satanic Illuminati number.. Some have even suggested that he might proclaim to be the Messiah of the Jews.. and the savior of the world (ya right).. so to set all this up.. and make the Jewish rabbis and their flock believe this... these events have to be staged.. From the eclipse on his birth.. to now in his 33 years of age.. all of this has PAGAN ritual written all over this.
Man, you're special (not a compliment)! Living in Texas among the most radical christians and still believe in Allah...
Never said I was Christian.. and there are Christians who believe in just One God without any thing attached to him.
Regardless, I don't see where you live has anything to do with regarding Flat Earth beliefs
https://www.google.com/#q=eclipses+fake&start=10 (https://www.google.com/#q=eclipses+fake&start=10)Millions, eh? How many people do you think are going to google "eclipses fake"? =D
I'm glad to report that my thread is showing on page number 2 of Google Searches when you type : eclipses fake
So that thousands if not millions can get another side of the story they will never hear on mainstream media or in school.
https://www.google.com/#q=eclipses+fake&start=10 (https://www.google.com/#q=eclipses+fake&start=10)Millions, eh? How many people do you think are going to google "eclipses fake"? =D
I'm glad to report that my thread is showing on page number 2 of Google Searches when you type : eclipses fake
So that thousands if not millions can get another side of the story they will never hear on mainstream media or in school.
https://www.google.com/#q=eclipses+fake&start=10 (https://www.google.com/#q=eclipses+fake&start=10)Millions, eh? How many people do you think are going to google "eclipses fake"? =D
I'm glad to report that my thread is showing on page number 2 of Google Searches when you type : eclipses fake
So that thousands if not millions can get another side of the story they will never hear on mainstream media or in school.
Only he.
I wonder if that fraction of population is fewer or greater, than the fraction of google searches that get clicked to show the second pagehttps://www.google.com/#q=eclipses+fake&start=10 (https://www.google.com/#q=eclipses+fake&start=10)Millions, eh? How many people do you think are going to google "eclipses fake"? =D
I'm glad to report that my thread is showing on page number 2 of Google Searches when you type : eclipses fake
So that thousands if not millions can get another side of the story they will never hear on mainstream media or in school.
Only he.
There are very few people stupid enough to think that eclipses are fake...
I'm glad to report that my thread is showing on page number 2 of Google Searches when you type : eclipses fake
Well once you realize humans were created special and for a reason.. you can focus on what matters most.. belief in one god
and not just some random NASA or Hollywood pagan culture. that will lead us to nowhere but hell itself.
Millions, eh? How many people do you think are going to google "eclipses fake"? =D
Oh please don't think that he represents my neighbors in Texas.I don't believe he is even from Texas. He's probably a left-wing atheist from California or somewhere, pretending to be some right-wing religious nut, trolling everyone.
Of course we have landed on the Moon, this is the proof :Have you ever noticed that you never see any dust clouds in any of the moon pictures? You can see astronauts and the rover kick up plenty of dust, but none of it ever stays suspended in the "air" for any length of time. Why is that?
(http://i.imgur.com/UrkLkmK.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DofXr24F2Qk/TlxAIVDiZgI/AAAAAAAAEzM/vl75CRlGvw8/s1600/a17besttracklessrover.jpg)
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9ib972HglXI/UQZaZaszWlI/AAAAAAAAA0E/fkGU2IIc6JU/s1600/1.gif)
(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-8_eb9_USTDU/UQx5y2vqHGI/AAAAAAAAA2A/sYewgE0U8hw/s1600/y.gif)
(http://i.imgflip.com/iocf.gif)(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-9m26uFbJp5E/UQyzD-n2KyI/AAAAAAAAA2U/bhA1Pnq8OuI/s1600/pack.gif)
2,5 seconds enough to inform astronaut on the "Moon" piece of his valuable backpack's content just dropped off and for astronaut's reaction...NO TIME DILATION AT ALL!!!
Moon Mission Hidden Photos Exposed 2012: (http://)Of course we have landed on the Moon, this is the proof :Have you ever noticed that you never see any dust clouds in any of the moon pictures? You can see astronauts and the rover kick up plenty of dust, but none of it ever stays suspended in the "air" for any length of time. Why is that?
(http://i.imgur.com/UrkLkmK.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DofXr24F2Qk/TlxAIVDiZgI/AAAAAAAAEzM/vl75CRlGvw8/s1600/a17besttracklessrover.jpg)
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9ib972HglXI/UQZaZaszWlI/AAAAAAAAA0E/fkGU2IIc6JU/s1600/1.gif)
(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-8_eb9_USTDU/UQx5y2vqHGI/AAAAAAAAA2A/sYewgE0U8hw/s1600/y.gif)
(http://i.imgflip.com/iocf.gif)(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-9m26uFbJp5E/UQyzD-n2KyI/AAAAAAAAA2U/bhA1Pnq8OuI/s1600/pack.gif)
2,5 seconds enough to inform astronaut on the "Moon" piece of his valuable backpack's content just dropped off and for astronaut's reaction...NO TIME DILATION AT ALL!!!
Take all the Apollo related stuff to this forum (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/).Excellent suggestion! It's getting a little tiresome that the Apollo truthers are still posting their nonsensical claims and silly photos and videos to these forums.
Again not a single picture from space for the so called 'eclipse' that occurred in Britain.. truly laughable..
Glad people from around the world have this site now
Again not a single picture from space for the so called 'eclipse' that occurred in Britain.. truly laughable..
Glad people from around the world have this site now
NASA recently released a photo of the recent eclipse seen from the International Space Station:
(http://mobile.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/16871495985_d981767840_o.jpg)
I thought I might as well post it here because it relates to the original topic.
Do you really people on this board are dumb enough to actually believe obvious fake looking still pictures from NASA... Sad to such obvious fakery... No videos... No evidence of the space station...Never can be photographed from Earth..
Do you really people on this board are dumb enough to actually believe obvious fake looking still pictures from NASA... Sad to such obvious fakery... No videos... No evidence of the space station...Never can be photographed from Earth.. The space launches all curve instead of going straight up.. LOl such an obvious scam.. Sorry but we don't accept lies here
.. The space launches all curve instead of going straight up.. LOlI have noticed this. Why don't they go straight up?
It would just fall back down if it went straight up. Orbiting requires lateral velocity... The space launches all curve instead of going straight up.. LOlI have noticed this. Why don't they go straight up?
.. The space launches all curve instead of going straight up.. LOlI have noticed this. Why don't they go straight up?
Do you really people on this board are dumb enough to actually believe obvious fake looking still pictures from NASA... Sad to such obvious fakery... No videos... No evidence of the space station...Never can be photographed from Earth.. The space launches all curve instead of going straight up.. LOl such an obvious scam.. Sorry but we don't accept lies here
.. The space launches all curve instead of going straight up.. LOlI have noticed this. Why don't they go straight up?
So rockets cannot go straight up or they will fall back down?It would just fall back down if it went straight up. Orbiting requires lateral velocity... The space launches all curve instead of going straight up.. LOlI have noticed this. Why don't they go straight up?
So rockets cannot go straight up or they will fall back down?
Then sending a rocket to the moon means pointing it in the opposite direction so it will curve around to hit the moon. Okay, got it.
Correct, unless the craft exceeds escape velocity. Either way, lateral velocity is required to achieve a useful orbit.So rockets cannot go straight up or they will fall back down?It would just fall back down if it went straight up. Orbiting requires lateral velocity... The space launches all curve instead of going straight up.. LOlI have noticed this. Why don't they go straight up?
Then sending a rocket to the moon means pointing it in the opposite direction so it will curve around to hit the moon. Okay, got it.No you didn't.
Pioneer, voyager..
(and about that rocket just going straight up, it still cant get you into an orbit, only out of earth's sphere of influence. And by the way, I dont think we have any rockets that have enough fuel to do something like that.)
I threw a ball straight up and it came back down and hit me on the head.
Yes. If you don't believe me, throw a ball up in the air and see what it does.
Good! Next you can try throwing it up even harder; does it behave the same? What if you threw it up *really* fast, so it went say 100km up, would it behave any different?I threw a ball straight up and it came back down and hit me on the head.
Yes. If you don't believe me, throw a ball up in the air and see what it does.
Is there anything in particular I should have noticed?
How does throwing a ball have anything to do with a rocket going into space?Good! Next you can try throwing it up even harder; does it behave the same? What if you threw it up *really* fast, so it went say 100km up, would it behave any different?I threw a ball straight up and it came back down and hit me on the head.
Yes. If you don't believe me, throw a ball up in the air and see what it does.
Is there anything in particular I should have noticed?
Once the above is established, we can move on to throwing the ball horizontally.
Principle applies, whether you throw a ball or fire a rocket and throwing a ball gives us an analogy that anyone can try effortlessly at no cost. Did you figure out the above scenarios?How does throwing a ball have anything to do with a rocket going into space?Good! Next you can try throwing it up even harder; does it behave the same? What if you threw it up *really* fast, so it went say 100km up, would it behave any different?I threw a ball straight up and it came back down and hit me on the head.
Yes. If you don't believe me, throw a ball up in the air and see what it does.
Is there anything in particular I should have noticed?
Once the above is established, we can move on to throwing the ball horizontally.
Ball earth analogy maybe, in real life a ball is different than a rocket.Principle applies, whether you throw a ball or fire a rocket and throwing a ball gives us an analogy that anyone can try effortlessly at no cost. Did you figure out the above scenarios?How does throwing a ball have anything to do with a rocket going into space?Good! Next you can try throwing it up even harder; does it behave the same? What if you threw it up *really* fast, so it went say 100km up, would it behave any different?I threw a ball straight up and it came back down and hit me on the head.
Yes. If you don't believe me, throw a ball up in the air and see what it does.
Is there anything in particular I should have noticed?
Once the above is established, we can move on to throwing the ball horizontally.
Fine, keep thinking that rockets should go straight up. It's wrong, but suit your self, you don't want to learn then there's nothing anyone can do about your ignorance. FE ftw, yay.They go straight up, get to a point where they cannot go any higher, curve and come back down.
In what "my video" a space rocket goes straight up and etc? Lie moar.Fine, keep thinking that rockets should go straight up. It's wrong, but suit your self, you don't want to learn then there's nothing anyone can do about your ignorance. FE ftw, yay.They go straight up, get to a point where they cannot go any higher, curve and come back down.
You can see this in your videos.
You guys make up funny stories for what is actually going on.
That's about it.
Fine, keep thinking that rockets should go straight up. It's wrong, but suit your self, you don't want to learn then there's nothing anyone can do about your ignorance. FE ftw, yay.They go straight up, get to a point where they cannot go any higher, curve and come back down.
You can see this in your videos.
You guys make up funny stories for what is actually going on.
That's about it.
Oh you caught me lying, how about ball earth videos then.In what "my video" a space rocket goes straight up and etc? Lie moar.Fine, keep thinking that rockets should go straight up. It's wrong, but suit your self, you don't want to learn then there's nothing anyone can do about your ignorance. FE ftw, yay.They go straight up, get to a point where they cannot go any higher, curve and come back down.
You can see this in your videos.
You guys make up funny stories for what is actually going on.
That's about it.
If you go high enough and fast enough you should never fall over any horizon. You should go up until you disappear from sight.Fine, keep thinking that rockets should go straight up. It's wrong, but suit your self, you don't want to learn then there's nothing anyone can do about your ignorance. FE ftw, yay.They go straight up, get to a point where they cannot go any higher, curve and come back down.
You can see this in your videos.
You guys make up funny stories for what is actually going on.
That's about it.
The point is, if you go high enough, and travel fast enough, you still curve back down to earth but you constantly fall over the horizon, so you never reach reach the ground. That's called "orbit".
If you go high enough and fast enough you should never fall over any horizon. You should go up until you disappear from sight.Fine, keep thinking that rockets should go straight up. It's wrong, but suit your self, you don't want to learn then there's nothing anyone can do about your ignorance. FE ftw, yay.They go straight up, get to a point where they cannot go any higher, curve and come back down.
You can see this in your videos.
You guys make up funny stories for what is actually going on.
That's about it.
The point is, if you go high enough, and travel fast enough, you still curve back down to earth but you constantly fall over the horizon, so you never reach reach the ground. That's called "orbit".
Pioneer, voyager..
(and about that rocket just going straight up, it still cant get you into an orbit, only out of earth's sphere of influence. And by the way, I dont think we have any rockets that have enough fuel to do something like that.)
Pioneer, voyager..
(and about that rocket just going straight up, it still cant get you into an orbit, only out of earth's sphere of influence. And by the way, I dont think we have any rockets that have enough fuel to do something like that.)
Well, I meant manned spacecraft. And pioneer and voyager still got into orbit around earth before they shot out into space, didn't they?
If you go high enough and fast enough you should never fall over any horizon. You should go up until you disappear from sight.
So if the rocket goes straight up wouldn't your gravity get weaker as it ascends. Making it easier the higher it gets. Or does gravity get stronger the higher you go?If you go high enough and fast enough you should never fall over any horizon. You should go up until you disappear from sight.
But the Earth is round and gravity effects rockets, so orbiting space ships disappear below the horizon. I recommend you do some research on the Newton's cannon thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball).
Well from what I understand, you would have to go high enough to leave the planet's sphere of influence, which is very inneficient.So if the rocket goes straight up wouldn't your gravity get weaker as it ascends. Making it easier the higher it gets. Or does gravity get stronger the higher you go?If you go high enough and fast enough you should never fall over any horizon. You should go up until you disappear from sight.
But the Earth is round and gravity effects rockets, so orbiting space ships disappear below the horizon. I recommend you do some research on the Newton's cannon thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball).
Flying horizontally would mean fighting gravity much longer, thus using way more fuel.
I could not really grasp what you are saying here.Well from what I understand, you would have to go high enough to leave the planet's sphere of influence, which is very inneficient.So if the rocket goes straight up wouldn't your gravity get weaker as it ascends. Making it easier the higher it gets. Or does gravity get stronger the higher you go?If you go high enough and fast enough you should never fall over any horizon. You should go up until you disappear from sight.
But the Earth is round and gravity effects rockets, so orbiting space ships disappear below the horizon. I recommend you do some research on the Newton's cannon thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball).
Flying horizontally would mean fighting gravity much longer, thus using way more fuel.
Gravity would be affecting the vertical velocity of the spacecraft more than the horizontal velocity, it would restrict vertical flight speed more than horizontal flight speed. Similar reason to why planes cant fly straight up but they can fly horizontally (I know there is lift involved with planes, but you get the idea). And rockets must make this "pitchover" maneuver so early because that is when there speed is low, so there wont be much aerodynamic stress on it.
This is a simple reason as to why the pitchover is more efficient than going straight up (And also the fastest way to orbit).
The plane thing was just an analagy. And rockets are powerful enough to just go straight up, but that would waste a lot of fuel. Gravity limits the vertical speed much more, because the rocket is going completely against it. If we turn the rocket, however, there is still enough thrust to counteract gravity while at the same time you can build up speed in the horizontal. It is the fastest and most efficient way to orbit.I could not really grasp what you are saying here.Well from what I understand, you would have to go high enough to leave the planet's sphere of influence, which is very inneficient.So if the rocket goes straight up wouldn't your gravity get weaker as it ascends. Making it easier the higher it gets. Or does gravity get stronger the higher you go?If you go high enough and fast enough you should never fall over any horizon. You should go up until you disappear from sight.
But the Earth is round and gravity effects rockets, so orbiting space ships disappear below the horizon. I recommend you do some research on the Newton's cannon thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball).
Flying horizontally would mean fighting gravity much longer, thus using way more fuel.
Gravity would be affecting the vertical velocity of the spacecraft more than the horizontal velocity, it would restrict vertical flight speed more than horizontal flight speed. Similar reason to why planes cant fly straight up but they can fly horizontally (I know there is lift involved with planes, but you get the idea). And rockets must make this "pitchover" maneuver so early because that is when there speed is low, so there wont be much aerodynamic stress on it.
This is a simple reason as to why the pitchover is more efficient than going straight up (And also the fastest way to orbit).
Why is it a plane can fly thousands of kilometres low to the ground closer to your magnetic core, thus stronger gravity.
And a rocket is so piss weak it can not even go straight up. You would think every meter it goes up gravity would get weaker.
You guys are making out gravity gets stronger the higher you go.
How many miles up does a rocket have to be to escape gravity?
How many miles up does a rocket have to be to escape gravity?it's not so much a matter of 'how high' but 'how fast'; look up escape velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity#List_of_escape_velocities). In a nutshell it's a point at which the sum of an object's speed and the gravitational 'pull' working on it equals zero; exceed that velocity, and the object will escape the gravity well it's in.
Building on my other thread... but this really goes to the core of my belief that all these eclipses are STAGED events..
With allegedly 1100 ACTIVE satellites... and so many space telescopes.. and the Space Station and Shuttles etc etc.. why hasn't ANYONE EVER
take a live video and pictures of an occurring solar and lunar eclipse???
Its because you have been duped and lied to.
If you look in GOOGLE Images.. NOT ONE image from the 1930s, 40, 50, showing an eclipse.. even into 60's i barely saw anything.
It was in the 70's during the height of the NASA fake moon landings that this kicked in because it was obvious the Earth was FLAT.
And what a great way to prove Flat Earth wrong by saying that the Earth comes in between the Sun and Moon.
Also since all the spacewalks are fake and stages from the Space Station another thing you will realize is they NEVER pan the camera away from the ball round looking Earth.
You would think at such an altitude if they really are 400 miles above Earth or whatever.. They would let us see the Sun.. the Moon... Space... yet it has to be MANAGED and CONTROLLED.
This is the part added from the other thread:
HOLY QURAN sura 36, verse 40:
"The sun must not catch up the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."
I just realized how we have been lied to.
If you lookup on Google pictures of lunar or solar eclipses from any decade before...1940 1950 or 1960 you Never see any pictures or video...are you kidding me?
And the way these so called eclipses occur: it's as if they are SLIPPING a piece of something or projection on to the moon or sun for these eclipses.
For example during a so called solar eclipse (meaning during the day)... If something truly was about to pass in FRONT of the Sun... WE WOULD SEE IT Coming... Yet we only see alleged 'moon' ONLY when it starts flying right in front of the Sun..what they are doing is creating an ILLUSION somehow where they use projectors... It's as if something from Earth or the atmosphere is used to fly over and block the sun and moon.
The first pictures available for these fake eclipses start popping up in 1970.. Right after the fake Moon landings.. Since there is a Ice Firmament 100 miles above or so
..that cannot be crossed as stated in the Quran and Bible.
since I know and many know the Earth is flat and the Sun and Moon each have their own orbit and neither can catch up on one and other since one is for day and one for night..paraphrasing the Quran... And also in the Bible it mentions clearly that the Sun and Moon have orbits not Earth.
These eclipses work great with the Satanic Pagan Nasa new age model by basically trying to give God the middle finger... And to make fun of his great signs and creation.
In the Bible and Quran it mentions how the Sun and Moon are SIGNS from God...so why would God 'block' his OWN signs... Unless this is a VERY recent phoenomena..
All these silly colored eclipses like the blood Moons with the red coloring.. How silly...these Satan worshippers at Nasa and all over the world now.. At the UN just look at the flag for the UN it's FLAT... They all have been playing a big game with us... To basically drive us to hell with Satan.. And disconnect us from Allah/God... They will do anything.. Nothing is out of the question... Are indoctrination since we were born goes very DEEP and thus EVERYTHING we were taught MUST be questioned.
One of the biggest arguments these New World Order zombies state is that a lunar eclipse isn't possible in a Flat Earth Model... Well the Earth is fixed... And those two.. The sun and moon have Orbits... They had to invent these eclipses as another way of denying the flatness of Earth.
Water never curves on the horizon... Weather balloons sent up 50 miles even show a FLAT horizon...what your gut always told you since you were a kid has been right..Round Earther Satanists state that the Earth rotates at about 1,000mph on its axis... Or 16 miles a minute or about .27 miles a second.. So let's say someone jumped off a tree and it took 5 seconds to fall down to the ground... According to the round earth Satan model the person should be About 1.5 miles away!??
Yet they are not. ThThey always end up right where they started.
If a pickup truck is moving and you jump off of it you will fall... Also if a truck is going East and the Earth allegedly rotates East on its axis... Than when you jump up from a flat bed truck you should be ahead of the truck in the round earth model yet more than likely you will just end up falling off the truck.
sura 21, verse 33:
"(God is) the One Who created the night,and day, the sun and the moon. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."
These Blood Red Moons.. as I was saying.. how do they even turn red? This is such a sick joke.
The Moon does not change color .. Red is the color of satan.. of blood.. of evil.. God's creations are beautiful and perfect..
So no the Moon doesn't turn Red every few centuries.. that is plain non sense and more paganism.
Here is how it works:
(http://www.windows2universe.org/moon/images/orange_lunar_eclipse_sm.jpg)
It's red for the same reason that sunsets are red and the sky is blue.
These Blood Red Moons.. as I was saying.. how do they even turn red? This is such a sick joke.
The Moon does not change color .. Red is the color of satan.. of blood.. of evil.. God's creations are beautiful and perfect..
So no the Moon doesn't turn Red every few centuries.. that is plain non sense and more paganism.
Here is how it works:
(http://www.windows2universe.org/moon/images/orange_lunar_eclipse_sm.jpg)
It's red for the same reason that sunsets are red and the sky is blue.
God, where'd you find this? This was exactly what I needed in Jrowe's lunar eclipse thread.