True, flat-earthers can say that NASA did it with CGI but since NASA does things like live streams and live interviews, there's really no way to edit footage that quickly with such great quality that would convince anyone of it is true.
There is no way to tell when the live stream was recorded.
I believe the 1965 footage was recorded in 1965.True, flat-earthers can say that NASA did it with CGI but since NASA does things like live streams and live interviews, there's really no way to edit footage that quickly with such great quality that would convince anyone of it is true.
There is no way to tell when the live stream was recorded.
Flat-earthers often say that NASA fakes being in space by just recording underwater or in a zero-gravity plane.Maybe that's because "astronauts while in space" wear "space suits" so their hair would never contact space or water.
Besides the obvious, there are two things completely wrong with that statement.
1. If they were filmed underwater, the astronauts would look wet or have water on them, yet they don't. For example, with female astronauts when they are moving through space, their hair never appears to be wet or damp. There are also never any air bubbles coming off of the astronauts while in space.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ehuwo8si50662l/Thomas%20Pesquet%20EVA%20training%20in%20Neutral%20Buoyancy%20Tank.jpg?dl=1) Thomas Pesquet EVA training in Neutral Buoyancy Tank. | (https://img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA2My84NjAvb3JpZ2luYWwvcGVzcXVldC1zcGFjZXdhbGsuanBn) Thomas Pesquet in spacewalk from the ISS. |
2. If they we filmed in a zero-gravity plane, there would be constant cuts in NASA footage and astronauts would have to make constant adjustments. Zero-gravity planes only give about 30 seconds of reduced gravity or weightlessness yet NASA has live streams and interviews that go on for hours with astronauts who are experiencing zero-gravity and have no problems while doing so.That would be hard to fake.
Where is this evidence of NASA "faking" being in space?
But in the ISS the ‘Bob the builder’ scenes guaranty some good tv, more so because the general people know that they can die while tightening ‘stuff’ with their spaycy screwdrivers.You're right! It does make for good tv. It's amazing to be able to watch humans suspended in space 400 km above the globe tightening stuff. It's incredible!
It's amazing to be able to watch humans suspended in space 400 km above the globe tightening stuff. It's incredible!
WOW, that's awesome! I've only seen it on television.I know! It is awesome.
Always tightening some ‘bolt and nut’ during undertakings that last for hours.The Apollo moon missions used objects constructed on Earth and then in service in space for a short period of time.
During the Apollo moon missions with ultra thin and shaky constructions, nothing broke down not even during impact of the landing.
Maybe that's because "astronauts while in space" wear "space suits" so their hair would never contact space or water.
But there is an easy way to tell if the astronaut in in a neutral buoyancy tank or in space, see:Notice the difference in the relative sizes of Thomas Pesquet's head in the two photos.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ehuwo8si50662l/Thomas%20Pesquet%20EVA%20training%20in%20Neutral%20Buoyancy%20Tank.jpg?dl=1)
Thomas Pesquet EVA training in Neutral Buoyancy Tank.
(https://img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA2My84NjAvb3JpZ2luYWwvcGVzcXVldC1zcGFjZXdhbGsuanBn)
Thomas Pesquet in spacewalk from the ISS.
The water on the outside and air on the inside of his helmet makes a concave lens.Quote from: ThatsInteresting2. If they we filmed in a zero-gravity plane, there would be constant cuts in NASA footage and astronauts would have to make constant adjustments. Zero-gravity planes only give about 30 seconds of reduced gravity or weightlessness yet NASA has live streams and interviews that go on for hours with astronauts who are experiencing zero-gravity and have no problems while doing so.That would be hard to fake.
I know that flat-earthers might believe that NASA films their footage underwater with their space suits.Yes, they have claimed that. It's just that I thought your "wet hair" reasoning would have soon have been dismissed.
What I meant was that if flat-earthers were to deny that fact that it would be impossible to film in a zero-gravity plane and instead say that they filmed in underwater; that wouldn't be possible because you'd be able to tell that they were wet.
I know that flat-earthers might believe that NASA films their footage underwater with their space suits.One big issue is what people think "wet" things look like.
What I meant was that if flat-earthers were to deny that fact that it would be impossible to film in a zero-gravity plane and instead say that they filmed in underwater; that wouldn't be possible because you'd be able to tell that they were wet.
This is spoken like a truly brainwashed shill, pitiful.But in the ISS the ‘Bob the builder’ scenes guaranty some good tv, more so because the general people know that they can die while tightening ‘stuff’ with their spaycy screwdrivers.You're right! It does make for good tv. It's amazing to be able to watch humans suspended in space 400 km above the globe tightening stuff. It's incredible!
This is spoken like a truly brainwashed shill, pitiful.But in the ISS the ‘Bob the builder’ scenes guaranty some good tv, more so because the general people know that they can die while tightening ‘stuff’ with their spaycy screwdrivers.You're right! It does make for good tv. It's amazing to be able to watch humans suspended in space 400 km above the globe tightening stuff. It's incredible!
This is spoken like a truly brainwashed shill, pitiful.But in the ISS the ‘Bob the builder’ scenes guaranty some good tv, more so because the general people know that they can die while tightening ‘stuff’ with their spaycy screwdrivers.You're right! It does make for good tv. It's amazing to be able to watch humans suspended in space 400 km above the globe tightening stuff. It's incredible!
You keep shilling for the Bible and I’ll keep shilling for science.
Now, back to reality:
1) To Jack’s point, there’s no visible breathing apparatus, so no, they are not under water.
2) The vomit comet parabolic flights can’t sustain weightlessness for longer than 45 seconds max. Many, many videos of humans floating in the ISS last for 10’s of minutes if not longer. So, no, it’s not the vom-com.
3) CGI. Not currently advanced enough to be as convincing as many of the videos from the ISS. And if you know anything about CGI, due to render times, we currently don’t have the technology to simulate weightlessness live for such extended durations shown in ISS footage. So no, it’s not CGI.
Here’s where someone would say, “Well maybe NASA has some secret CGI technology.” I would say, “Maybe NASA has not so secret technology that can put humans in space and have been doing so for 50+ years."
Now, back to reality:Ahhh you sound like SG Collins commenting on Apollo and how the technologies to fake such an event were not available in 1969..... and he could have known as the expert he presented himself on youtube.
3) CGI. Not currently advanced enough to be as convincing as many of the videos from the ISS. And if you know anything about CGI, due to render times, we currently don’t have the technology to simulate weightlessness live for such extended durations shown in ISS footage. So no, it’s not CGI.
Here’s where someone would say, “Well maybe NASA has some secret CGI technology.” I would say, “Maybe NASA has not so secret technology that can put humans in space and have been doing so for 50+ years."
Now, back to reality:Ahhh you sound like SG Collins commenting on Apollo and how the technologies to fake such an event were not available in 1969..... and he could have known as the expert he presented himself on youtube.
3) CGI. Not currently advanced enough to be as convincing as many of the videos from the ISS. And if you know anything about CGI, due to render times, we currently don’t have the technology to simulate weightlessness live for such extended durations shown in ISS footage. So no, it’s not CGI.
Here’s where someone would say, “Well maybe NASA has some secret CGI technology.” I would say, “Maybe NASA has not so secret technology that can put humans in space and have been doing so for 50+ years."
It turned out he was an insignificant ‘light guy’ in the film industry who knew as much or as little about the technologies available to NASA in 1969 as average Joe.
But all the mainstream news sites were publishing mister ‘Apollo expert’s ‘ view ;D ;D ;D
I think it was the artistic hat that SG Collins put on that did the trick......
Many video’s out there show that in the ISS most ‘tricks’ are indeed fakery based on film layers and augmented reality.
These have been presented many times, so do your own research.
Likewise with a top illusionist, his tricks seem like magic or demon possessed because people have no clue what just happened right in front of their noses.
Do you really think the cannot fake some images from ‘weighless motion and tricks ‘ ?
Do you really think the cannot fake some images from ‘weighless motion and tricks ‘ ?
Many video’s out there show that in the ISS most ‘tricks’ are indeed fakery based on film layers and augmented reality.No. Many denier's claims have got manipulated footage which they manipulate themselves, with this mysteriously absent in the originals.
Do you really think the cannot fake some images from ‘weighless motion and tricks ‘ ?The insane part is claiming that they have this massively advanced technology which lets them fake these things perfectly, yet don't have the much simpler technology to go to space.
Agreed. I find watching space walks to be long and tedious. They move so slowly that it seems to take forever to get anything done.This is spoken like a truly brainwashed shill, pitiful.But in the ISS the ‘Bob the builder’ scenes guaranty some good tv, more so because the general people know that they can die while tightening ‘stuff’ with their spaycy screwdrivers.You're right! It does make for good tv. It's amazing to be able to watch humans suspended in space 400 km above the globe tightening stuff. It's incredible!
Firstly, if you claim they never wear a harnass to do their backflips you're beyond denial and i see no reason to discuss this specific element any further with you.....Many video’s out there show that in the ISS most ‘tricks’ are indeed fakery based on film layers and augmented reality.No. Many denier's claims have got manipulated footage which they manipulate themselves, with this mysteriously absent in the originals.Do you really think the cannot fake some images from ‘weighless motion and tricks ‘ ?The insane part is claiming that they have this massively advanced technology which lets them fake these things perfectly, yet don't have the much simpler technology to go to space.
It is claiming NASA is super advanced, but horribly primitive at the same time.
It makes no sense.
Firstly, if you claim they never wear a harnass to do their backflips you're beyond denial and i see no reason to discuss this specific element any further with you.....Many video’s out there show that in the ISS most ‘tricks’ are indeed fakery based on film layers and augmented reality.No. Many denier's claims have got manipulated footage which they manipulate themselves, with this mysteriously absent in the originals.Do you really think the cannot fake some images from ‘weighless motion and tricks ‘ ?The insane part is claiming that they have this massively advanced technology which lets them fake these things perfectly, yet don't have the much simpler technology to go to space.
It is claiming NASA is super advanced, but horribly primitive at the same time.
It makes no sense.
Secondly....
The 'much simpler technology to go to space' ?
Why are there still no civilians in space ?
You know civilians loaded with money and willing to pay since 1990 when the first promisses were made !!!
The money is there, the willingness, but appearently the technology to go to space is exclusively used to bring certain freemasons aka astronauts into space....
Even my fellow countryman and former astronaut André Kuipers is acquainted with freemasonry..... all of them are.
Yeah it is fairly easy to go to space ;D ;D ;D
If you are dead and burried the world is still waiting for some real civilians to check out certain things in space......
Continue to follow the carrot.... which the donkey will never reach....
Deep down you know this to be true !
Space 1999, Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica, Blake's seven etc.....
Nothing happened and will happen...... we are rightfully stucked to earth by our creator for good reason !
No, you claimed that "It turned out he was an insignificant ‘light guy’ in the film industry who knew as much or as little about the technologies available to NASA in 1969 as average Joe." That is a totally different matter.Now, back to reality:Ahhh you sound like SG Collins commenting on Apollo and how the technologies to fake such an event were not available in 1969..... and he could have known as the expert he presented himself on youtube.
3) CGI. Not currently advanced enough to be as convincing as many of the videos from the ISS. And if you know anything about CGI, due to render times, we currently don’t have the technology to simulate weightlessness live for such extended durations shown in ISS footage. So no, it’s not CGI.
Here’s where someone would say, “Well maybe NASA has some secret CGI technology.” I would say, “Maybe NASA has not so secret technology that can put humans in space and have been doing so for 50+ years."
It turned out he was an insignificant ‘light guy’ in the film industry who knew as much or as little about the technologies available to NASA in 1969 as average Joe.
Uh oh! Jarrah's mad at SG Collins! « on: March 28, 2013, 03:03:57 PM » (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=407.msg13993#msg13993)Thanks for bringing that up, much appreciated.
Remember SG Collins, the guy who did the YouTube video claiming it was impossible to fake the moon landings with 1960's technology? Well he has an interesting and thoughtful reply to Jarrah, who attacked him in a recent video, and discusses, amongst other things, the hammer drop, thoughts on slow motion playback and the general lunar hoax movement.And just because it's great, here's SG Collins original:
(At 9:50 he references "Live TV from the Moon")
Firstly, if you claim they never wear a harnass to do their backflips you're beyond denial and i see no reason to discuss this specific element any further with you.....So I either blindly accept your claims, or you just dismiss me?
The 'much simpler technology to go to space' ?Yes.
Why are there still no civilians in space ?Define civilian?
the technology to go to space is exclusively used to bring certain freemasons aka astronauts into space....Anyone who goes to space is an astronaut, with the exceptions of the Russians that want to call themselves cosmonauts.
Deep down you know this to be true !Deep down I know you to be spouting pure garbage, just trolling.
we are rightfully stucked to earth by our creator for good reason !Because this creator is an evil prick that doesn't want people going to space?
So I either blindly accept your claims, or you just dismiss me?Hahaha and listen to your explanations about compression anomalies that occur and other moronic excuses ?
How about you provide evidence?
Define civilian?One without any form of lasting pre indoctrination from space agencies.
Deep down I know you to be spouting pure garbage, just trolling.It's the total opposite,..... two totalitarian regimes known for crimes against humanity on a huge scale started a 'space race' claiming all sorts of outlandish claims as they took it to another level of deception.
You have no justification for any of your claims.
Because this creator is an evil prick that doesn't want people going to space?This creator wants us to clean up our extremely dirty room first before we want to play outside......
There is no reason to think there is any magic creator.
How about you try rational thought rather than religious nonsense?
I tried to convince some members why an inter active performance between the ISS guitar hero Chris Hadfield, band earth + choir was a pre recorded event instead of a live event as the tv host and members over here initially claimed.....
It's part of the job i do, so mostly hear immidiatly what live music is and pre recorded stuff and the behaviour of sound in general.
I gave up eventually because one cannot fight such forms of ignorance..... sadly.
Explain how this could be faked...
Hahaha and listen to your explanations about compression anomalies that occur and other moronic excuses ?You mean refute your claims which you clearly know are pure bullshit?
It tried to convince some members why an inter active performance between the ISS guitar hero Chris Hadfield, band earth + choir was a pre recorded event instead of a live eventWhich you were unable to show was meant to be live, and people explained how it could be done assuming the parties had competent timing.
It's part of the job i doSo you are paid to shill for FE and other delusional nonsense?
but the floodgates of proof to the contrary are wide openYet you seem to be unable to present any. So it sure seems like there are no floodwaters behind these floodgates.
One without any form of lasting pre indoctrination from space agencies.i.e. no one who has been to space or claims it is possible to do so?
numerologySo more delusional BS?
It was supposedly all true and by the end of the century 'we' would could go to the moon on vacation ourselvesAnd that is the part where people (not just government) get completely wrong. The massively oversell, putting completely unrealistic timetables on things and promissing based upon hope of what might happen.
you and i can never really varify any claim they made or make about outerspace.Except by using GPS, or any other satellite based navigation system, which relies upon satellites to function, or using a sat-phone or getting satellite TV or internet, or just collecting the raw telemetry from the satellites.
This creator wants us to clean up our extremely dirty room first before we want to play outside......Then maybe they should stop being such an imaginary prick and stop trashing it.
This creator wants us to clean up our extremely dirty room first before we want to play outside......
Sonday school is part of a religious indoctrination program of the past just like ‘pseudo science’ is in modern times.This creator wants us to clean up our extremely dirty room first before we want to play outside......
Oh yeah, I totally remember that from Sunday school, it’s from "Baggins 3:18":
Ye who hath dwelt within the mire of which you hath wrought
shall never vertically depart your filthy environ until it is of cleanliness and virtue
It tried to convince some members why an inter active performance between the ISS guitar hero Chris Hadfield, band earth + choir was a pre recorded event instead of a live event as the tv host and members over here initially claimed.....Please show any evidence that NASA claimed anything about "official" that performance.
It's part of the job i do, so mostly hear immidiatly what live music is and pre recorded stuff and the behaviour of sound in general.
I gave up eventually because one cannot fight such forms of ignorance..... sadly.
You can always know ‘what time it is’ when Rabinoz inserts ‘Mr Know it all dutchy’....It tried to convince some members why an inter active performance between the ISS guitar hero Chris Hadfield, band earth + choir was a pre recorded event instead of a live event as the tv host and members over here initially claimed.....Please show any evidence that NASA claimed anything about "official" that performance.
It's part of the job i do, so mostly hear immidiatly what live music is and pre recorded stuff and the behaviour of sound in general.
I gave up eventually because one cannot fight such forms of ignorance..... sadly.
Even if you did prove it a fake, you've proven nothing against your nemesis NASA!
But there never was a need for it to be pre-recorded.
It could (and probably was) transmitted from the ISS with an adjustable delay to maintain continuity from Chris Hadfield's end. Then the rest accompanied that on the ground.
But, Mr Know-it-all-dutchy, can't admit such a possibility as it would destroy his fantasy flat world with no "outer-space".
Like those astronauts daring to read the bible while lying about going around the moon.
And yes i found God in the process !
Well done, I wasn't aware he was among the missing.More problematic is when something is missing you look in the wrong direction for answers.
Now, back to business. We've given you data, media, explanations, whathaveyou. And in return we've gotten bits and pieces of misspelled ramblings about enslaved little children indoctrinated into time bound narratives in order to be ruled over by their future selves or whatever you just wrote about.You have given me nothing at all just some indoctrinated info that i can look up within 15 minutes myself when using something called 'Google'.
How about responding to some of the actual points we wasted our time on producing?
More problematic is when something is missing you look in the wrong direction for answers.
You have given me nothing at all just some indoctrinated info that i can look up within 15 minutes myself when using something called 'Google'.
I do not ask for you to engage with me, but if you do..... i do things my way and that includes ramblings against those who own your reality on many levels.
I have presented many proof against the moonlandings for instance, but as you may guess it never satisfies those attached to nostalgia of the past.
I did however got something out of it, that if humans not successfully went back before 2069 the initial claims could indeed be sort of false.
It's almost 50 years for crying out loud...... what proof do you need when comparing all the broken promisses about future moon basis and space explorations in the seventies to the endavours we still face today ?
Clear proof that they were talking out of their ass back then, not knowing all the hazards that are truly out there....... as they slowly but steadily seem to realise....
'But uhhhh they have destroyed all technologies and have forgotten sone serious space related stuff needed to go out there...and it's painfull to built it back and reload how things worked in 1969'
;D ;D ;D
You can always know ‘what time it is’ when Rabinoz inserts ‘Mr Know it all dutchy’....That is impossible. No matter how well anybody explains anything to you, you always know better and never take any notice.
I must have made quite an impression on you........ but that is not needed we can simply discuss things among equals.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .And that is the problem with your kind. All you do is post stuff from your own imagination with no factual support.
You have given me nothing at all just some indoctrinated info that i can look up within 15 minutes myself when using something called 'Google'.
That is the problem with your kind...... the only thing you really gave some thought is.......ermmm uhhhh how to copy paste the ideas of others.
I do not ask for you to engage with me, but if you do..... i do things my way and that includes ramblings against those who own your reality on many levels.No you have presented no proof against the moonlandings. All you ever post is guesswork based on hearsay and imagined defects, plus a good deal of ridicule.
I have presented many proof against the moonlandings for instance, but as you may guess it never satisfies those attached to nostalgia of the past.
I did however got something out of it, that if humans not successfully went back before 2069 the initial claims could indeed be sort of false.You go on and on about "going back" and NASA would love to have gone back but the enormous cost the first missions were justified as part of the "Cold War" - after Russia had beaten the US at almost "mile-stones" up to that point.
It's almost 50 years for crying out loud...... what proof do you need when comparing all the broken promisses about future moon basis and space explorations in the seventies to the endavours we still face today ?What "broken promises about future moon bases and space explorations in the seventies"?
Clear proof that they were talking out of their ass back then, not knowing all the hazards that are truly out there....... as they slowly but steadily seem to realise....No, dutchy, that's you talking . . . . In the sixties NASA may not have as much as now, but they knew of of solar flares and of the the Van Allen belts from James Van Allen himself!
'But uhhhh they have destroyed all technologies and have forgotten sone serious space related stuff needed to go out there...and it's painfull to built it back and reload how things worked in 1969'No, they did not "destroy all technologies and have forgotten sone serious space related stuff needed to go out there".
You have given me nothing at all just some indoctrinated info that i can look up within 15 minutes myself when using something called 'Google'.
That is the problem with your kind...... the only thing you really gave some thought is.......ermmm uhhhh how to copy paste the ideas of others.
I do not ask for you to engage with me, but if you do..... i do things my way and that includes ramblings against those who own your reality on many levels.
I have presented many proof against the moonlandings for instance, but as you may guess it never satisfies those attached to nostalgia of the past.
I did however got something out of it, that if humans not successfully went back before 2069 the initial claims could indeed be sort of false.
It's almost 50 years for crying out loud...... what proof do you need when comparing all the broken promisses about future moon basis and space explorations in the seventies to the endavours we still face today ?
Clear proof that they were talking out of their ass back then, not knowing all the hazards that are truly out there....... as they slowly but steadily seem to realise....
'But uhhhh they have destroyed all technologies and have forgotten sone serious space related stuff needed to go out there...and it's painfull to built it back and reload how things worked in 1969'
;D ;D ;D
No matter how well Rabinoz & co copy paste from the www does NOT equall 'no matter how well anybody explains anything to you '.You can always know ‘what time it is’ when Rabinoz inserts ‘Mr Know it all dutchy’....That is impossible. No matter how well anybody explains anything to you, you always know better and never take any notice.
I must have made quite an impression on you........ but that is not needed we can simply discuss things among equals.
When I take the time to examine your claims carefully you just ignore what I post.
I'll explain some more...
When a car can drive it is proof of the underlying science.....and this simple rule of thumb is what i will hardly ever argue.....
Only when certain claims are not varifiable now or in the future some claims need a closer look.
Earth's spin, the moonlandings, the big bang , macro evolution etc. have so much philosophical elements instead of real evidence that we must clearly distinct between the two.
Your conversational abilities are not so brilliant though....., doesn't make you bad or something.. ::)
I'll explain some more...
When a car can drive it is proof of the underlying science.....and this simple rule of thumb is what i will hardly ever argue.....
Only when certain claims are not varifiable now or in the future some claims need a closer look.
Earth's spin, the moonlandings, the big bang , macro evolution etc. have so much philosophical elements instead of real evidence that we must clearly distinct between the two.
Brilliant. An argument I see all the time from climate change deniers. Science is only real when it gives you stuff you can use.
Your conversational abilities are not so brilliant though....., doesn't make you bad or something.. ::)
I'll explain some more...
When a car can drive it is proof of the underlying science.....and this simple rule of thumb is what i will hardly ever argue.....
Only when certain claims are not varifiable now or in the future some claims need a closer look.
Earth's spin, the moonlandings, the big bang , macro evolution etc. have so much philosophical elements instead of real evidence that we must clearly distinct between the two.
Brilliant. An argument I see all the time from climate change deniers. Science is only real when it gives you stuff you can use.
Humanity is polluting / destroying earth in record braking speed the last half a century...
Anyone who claims that somehow earth doesn't react because of our influence is defying all odds and reason.
But the things i mentioned are entirely different compared to climate change..
..
It seems you are only aware of one fictional conspiracy type .... the flatearther who voted for Trump , because Obama the Islamic pawn totally let America down and those pesky climate and gun preachers only want to prevent you going on a trip with your oil consuming car and rifle outside to shoot some deer while enjoying the clearly flat scenery.
;D ;D ;D
Want to rephrase in order to have a conversation ?
Can someone provide evidence that "NASA is working around the clock with the shredder..."Don Pettit said it..... he said 'but we destroyed that technology (to go to the moon) and it's a painfull process to built it back
Or is this another baseless dutchwadism?
Don Pettit said it..... he said 'but we destroyed that technology (to go to the moon) and it's a painfull process to built it back
It was Don's explanation why we couldn't go back to the moon in modern times.
It was on camera and Don Pettit, nor any of his relatives claimed something was cgi or fake.
Don Pettit said it..... he said 'but we destroyed that technology (to go to the moon) and it's a painfull process to built it back
It was Don's explanation why we couldn't go back to the moon in modern times.
Did he say this to you personally?
Or are you relying on Google?
It was on camera and Don Pettit, nor any of his relatives claimed something was cgi or fake.
Don Pettit said it..... he said 'but we destroyed that technology (to go to the moon) and it's a painfull process to built it back
It was Don's explanation why we couldn't go back to the moon in modern times.
Did he say this to you personally?
Or are you relying on Google?
But i agree, with the latest virtual modelling techniques, augmented reality and advance voice formant shaping technigues .... they can manipulate any footage to say whatever they want.
It is possible to let Trump praise CNN and asks the American people to solely watch CNN for trustworthy news items...... without anyone noticing the manipulation.
Call my attempts a sort of wake-up call, because you and i are totally uncabable to discern reality from fiction in any possible way in the near future !
But yeah.......fakery is upon us, fakery 2.0 which makes the Apollo and 9/11 dual realities (real elements in the mix to mask the deceit underneath) look like child’s play by comparison.
Haha. You know what I mean.How could i miss it..... ::)
This would be an utterly obscure statement if flat earthers and moon landing conspiracy theorists on the internet hadn’t jumped on it.A clickbait attempt ? ;D
It’s highly unlikely you would have stumbled on it if you weren’t following the things that support your world view.Darn,...... now you know my little secret about the YouTube highpriests who’s knowledge is beyond this realm..... they are different and not infected by science, proof, reason and numbers ..... i am their humble mouthpiece ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
You try to belittle people for posting stuff that can be found on the internet, but you do the same. Only from more rubbish sources, which you don’t cite. It’s just a way of dismissing arguments.Examples ?
But there is no vehicle, suit, battery, test facility, original tapes left that universities can examine and test.
I’m from the Netherlands and the best prime minister post WW2 called Willem Drees received petrified wood as a gift instead of moonrock.But there is no vehicle, suit, battery, test facility, original tapes left that universities can examine and test.
Two words: moon rocks
Now go use the google.
Is this forum not a bit over your head ?
This is total outlandish garbage made up because anything else does not fit your "worldview".Haha. You know what I mean.Darn,...... now you know my little secret about the YouTube highpriests who’s knowledge is beyond this realm..... they are different and not infected by science, proof, reason and numbers ..... i am their humble mouthpiece ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It’s highly unlikely you would have stumbled on it if you weren’t following the things that support your world view.
Believing the moonlanding is basically the same....
A wicked regime who gave Nazi’s a new identity and lied about the total amount of war criminals who were let of the hook....
Started the most childish and damaging pissing contest with Russia ever seen in the history of mankind.
Partly based on SF nonsence from the pedophile Arthur C. Clarke and the connection with Disney.
Werner von Braun who willingly worked for Hitler, killing the laziest factory worker of the week during his management and bombed the hell out of London town for no reason at all......he was the mastermind behind the rocket technology.....
If someone ever was open to blackmail Werner was.......
The odds that any outlandish space claim they made was genuine is almost zero considering all of the above.There is nothing outlandish about any space claim and it is only a few like you and other flat-earthers that deny all space missions.
Granted there is a slim possibility that they indeed did succeed despite a sea of lies, destruction, propaganda and more.
But there is no vehicle, suit, battery, test facility, original tapes left that universities can examine and test.That is a totally untrue but obviously most things used on the moon were left there or in space.
Test-Driving the Lunar RoverBut, I doubt that the 60 year year old barrery would be much use.
Before it went to the moon, this spacecraft on wheels had to be put through its paces on Earth.NASA finished shaking, freezing, frying, and dropping the test rover in 1972, and three years later transferred it to the National Air and Space Museum.
(https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/8OZ9xnwD8HM1hocNh85B-UpRLBk=/fit-in/1072x0/https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/c3/98/c3982c3e-169f-4a72-822b-70f6371b281d/16e_jj2017_lrjbrb2f01006_mh_live-wr2.jpg)
Working on the Qualification Test Unit at Boeing, above. The large, footed, white tank is the thermal vacuum chamber.
(Courtesy of Pogue Special Collections and Archives Library, Murray State University Libraries, Murray, KY)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The rovers that revolutionized lunar exploration on the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions had to be left behind at the Hadley-Apennine, Descartes Highlands, and Taurus-Littrow landing sites, respectively.
It’s a much shorter and easier trip to see their identical understudy, the LRV Qualification Test Unit, in the Museum’s exhibit, “Apollo to the Moon.”
Read more at https://www.airspacemag.com/space/the-spacecraft-on-wheels-180963200/#cDb2QtBIXqZPo7VC.99
Read more at Test-Driving the Lunar Rover (https://www.airspacemag.com/space/the-spacecraft-on-wheels-180963200/#cDb2QtBIXqZPo7VC.99)
Put a person in a 1969 moonsuit in a near vacuum chamber and see what happens after 2 hours..... the least attractive test, but everyone knows from their ‘gut feeling’ ( hated over here) that this will be deadly for the volunteer.What on earth do you mean? Current EVA suits are based on similar design and are tested in vacuum chambers and used in space!
ODCan't people realise that "100000000000000 times more of a vacuum (less pressure) than anything that has been created in any vacuum chamber on Earth" is just closer to zero pressure?
When we look at NASA's figures of pressure in outer space it is assumed that it is 100000000000000 times more of a vacuum (less pressure) than anything that has been created in any vacuum chamber on Earth. This means that the greatest vacuum created in a vacuum chamber is no where near that of what, supposedly, exists in outer space. If anything enters the vacuum of outer space it would disintegrate immediately into almost nothingness, molecular bonding forces would not be sufficient to maintain structure under such circumstance.
Quote from: Shakespeare There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, |
I’m from the Netherlands and the best prime minister post WW2 called Willem Drees received petrified wood as a gift instead of moonrock.No, he didn't!
Sonday school is part of a religious indoctrination program of the past just like ‘pseudo science’ is in modern times.Yes, also known as religion.
Those who want to enslave little children in order to have lasting rulership over future adults
Like those astronauts daring to read the bible while lying about going around the moon.And more baseless claims from you?
i let go the sunday school indoctrinationExcept you clearly haven't as you still foolishly believe in a creator.
and the pseudo science/globe/evolution/cosmic indoctrination.......and started all over again.You mean and you rejected all scientific progress, going back before the dark age and starting with the same religious nonsense?
And yes i found God in the process !
More problematic is when something is missing you look in the wrong direction for answers.Yes, such as when looking to religious nonsense rather than science/reality. i.e. what you did.
You have given me nothing at all just some indoctrinated info that i can look up within 15 minutesYou mean reality, not indoctrinated info.
I have presented many proof against the moonlandings for instanceI am yet to see you provide a single piece of evidence against them.
I did however got something out of it, that if humans not successfully went back before 2069 the initial claims could indeed be sort of false.You are yet to provide any reason for why we should go back.
what proof do you need when comparing all the broken promisses about future moonHow about actual evidence against them going, rather than simply over promising?
Clear proof that they were talking out of their ass back thenOnly about the future, not what they were actually doing.
'But uhhhh they have destroyed all technologies and have forgotten sone serious space related stuff needed to go out thereNo. They have significantly advanced the technology with comes with other limitations.
When a car can drive it is proof of the underlying scienceAnd notice, "A" car. Not when everyone can have a car.
Earth's spin, the moonlandings, the big bang , macro evolution etc. have so much philosophical elements instead of real evidence that we must clearly distinct between the two.You mean they have plenty of real, solid evidence, such that no sane person would doubt them.
If you claim the coriolis effect is real science , my reply was/is that there are lots of extreem large indoors facilities that can check if it is the truth or an oldwives tale that a long distance shooter must take the coriolis effect into account.Notice how you aren't actually providing evidence against it, nor are you countering any of the already existing evidence for it?
a better and accurate data mapping of the effect is not needed,..... unless one wants to proof Einstein's cosmic ripple's..... then we can measure the size of 1000the of a proton's diameter.Because it is something new.
Why?
I have presented so much what could and should have been testedNo you haven't.
i see no reason to give all blueprints and data free for everyone to research.Then file a FOI request and see what you get, or see what information you can already find.
That is the 'scientific method',... not your quasi scientific nonsense derived from some online source that has some NASA logo on it .No. Rejecting something because you don't have all the data you want or because people didn't perform tests you want is not the scientific method.
The NASA 'shredder' destroys blueprints, data that enables you to built something back without a painfull process !!Nope. Even with the blueprints it would still be a painful process to get it all back as it uses a bunch of technology which has been completely superseded.
And 'destroyed' means a disfunctional assembly line .....You mean an assembly which doesn't exist any more, using parts which don't exist anymore except as components in museums (or stuck on the moon), run by people who have likely retired.
And 'painfull process' means 'takes some time'No, take a considerable amount of time, effort and resources.
The odds that any outlandish space claim they made was genuine is almost zero considering all of the above.Yes, when you ignore all the actual evidence and instead paint in in a paranoid spotlight.
I’m from the Netherlands and the best prime minister post WW2 called Willem Drees received petrified wood as a gift instead of moonrock.Where this was in no way presented as a moon rock, being completely inconsistent with the samples actually given out. It was significantly larger than any of the other samples and presented in a completely different manner.
QuoteODCan't people realise that "100000000000000 times more of a vacuum (less pressure) than anything that has been created in any vacuum chamber on Earth" is just closer to zero pressure?
When we look at NASA's figures of pressure in outer space it is assumed that it is 100000000000000 times more of a vacuum (less pressure) than anything that has been created in any vacuum chamber on Earth. This means that the greatest vacuum created in a vacuum chamber is no where near that of what, supposedly, exists in outer space. If anything enters the vacuum of outer space it would disintegrate immediately into almost nothingness, molecular bonding forces would not be sufficient to maintain structure under such circumstance.
Yes, also known as religion.What happened to you , did some priest caressed your private parts when you were a kid ?
But you seem fine with that with your preaching of a creator.
The best you have to question their credibility is them reading a book full of garbage.
Except you clearly haven't as you still foolishly believe in a creator.
Meanwhile I discarded it and accepted reality.
You mean and you rejected all scientific progress, going back before the dark age and starting with the same religious nonsense?
Yes, such as when looking to religious nonsense rather than science/reality. i.e. what you did.Not quite Jacky,......i tried to wrap my head around modern cosmology and the M- theory specifically.
Reality isn't indoctrinated info.Even our observations influences 'reality' the moment we observe...... call your observation a mild form of indoctrination.
You are yet to provide any reason for why we should go back.Simply because we CAN (so they claim)
It is an extremely expensive process to send people to the moon.
There is no justification to go.
There isn't even the justification of making an achievement because it has already been done.
As such, your argument amounts to nothing
An infinite number of universes
The “rock solid evidence” is that at its peak about 400 000 people were working on the Apollo program.Trying to design functional 'moon' equipment ?
What do you think they were all doing?
See ? I knew it !!!An infinite number of universes
In the infinite multiverse, there’s a universe where NASA did actually NOT go to the moon
The “rock solid evidence” is that at its peak about 400 000 people were working on the Apollo program.Trying to design functional 'moon' equipment ?
What do you think they were all doing?
But as you may have quessed...., only few 'new' what functional meant in relation to the final product on the moon in action...... 99% was assembling, designing bits and bytes from a much, much bigger jigsaw that showed 'moon mission accomplished' the moment the thousends of pieces would be fit togerher in all respective stages.
But that however was total science fiction for the 400.000 working bees (minus a couple of hundred in the know...) only staring at one piece of the total puzzle during the entire Apollo epos.
Does that adequately answer your question ?
But in that universe, their Dutchy argues that they DID go to the moon.See ? I knew it !!!An infinite number of universes
In the infinite multiverse, there’s a universe where NASA did actually NOT go to the moon
I allready dislike this dutchy with a vegeance >:(..... this universe is the only true cosmic highway all others are mere side roads.But in that universe, their Dutchy argues that they DID go to the moon.See ? I knew it !!!An infinite number of universesC
In the infinite multiverse, there’s a universe where NASA did actually NOT go to the moon
That’s exactly what anti-Dutchy would say about his universe.I allready dislike this dutchy with a vegeance >:(..... this universe is the only true cosmic highway all others are mere side roads.But in that universe, their Dutchy argues that they DID go to the moon.See ? I knew it !!!An infinite number of universesC
In the infinite multiverse, there’s a universe where NASA did actually NOT go to the moon
Grrrrr ....i would like to start an interdimensional spacerace...... look who is first to discover the other person's universe.That’s exactly what anti-Dutchy would say about his universe.I allready dislike this dutchy with a vegeance >:(..... this universe is the only true cosmic highway all others are mere side roads.But in that universe, their Dutchy argues that they DID go to the moon.See ? I knew it !!!An infinite number of universesC
In the infinite multiverse, there’s a universe where NASA did actually NOT go to the moon
i understand you like most of us were a victim of religion one way or the otherAnd you clearly still are, unlike me who has discarded religion and moved to rational thought to find out the truth.
The opposite of a creation with a specific goal in mind with specific chosen laws underneath all there is.And that is why you don't like it?
call your observation a mild form of indoctrination.Good job showing you don't care about reality or truth, dismissing observations as indoctrination.
Simply because we CAN (so they claim)NASA could also get a load of rocket fuel and blow every facility they have. Should they? NO!
Mass consumerism is the sole foundation for this characterisation.Then you clearly don't understand.
Russia, China, India etc. have every reason to go to the moon to show the world America is not the only nation capable of thatGoing to the moon is no longer a significant achievement.
America has every reason to go back to use the moon as a stepping stone to other cosmic journeys.In just what way do you imagine the moon to be a stepping stone?
The money would be raised within '24 hours' by rich oligarchs, Chinese businessmen and Arabian oil billioners if they could safely go to the moon.The Arabians would be hesitant of trying to one up Mo and what impact that would have on their lives back home.
That would be some status among their criminal friends...... wouldn't it ?
Again i give you accurate proofNo, you bitch and moan that they don't do what you want.
it will take me pages to defy all your absolute nonsical argumentsYou mean it will take you pages to try and BS your way out of my sound arguments.
Rock solid evidence is that no one can go to the moon in 2018That doesn't show that we couldn't have gone to the moon in the past or the future.
and even if the whole world prioritizes intergallactic travel, we would not be able to go to the moon for a very, very long timeBecause they would be prioritising intergalactic travel which would make the moon irrelevant.
This is not only proof that we cannot go to the moon nowNo. That is all it is proof of. It is proof that we can't go right now.
You're such a good patriot JackNope. I'm not even American.
Mere short sighted fantasies......Well at least you are finally admitting your problem.
Grrrrr ....i would like to start an interdimensional spacerace...... look who is first to discover the other person's universe.That's hardly fair.
I choose to go to the boundaries of our universe not because they are easily found, but because they are hard to find and even harder to cross ; that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our esoteric energies and surpressed Tesla technologies.Why don't you try to reach the boundaries of Tesla's Universe? Tesla was no small Universe flat earther!
Tesla was right.What I can't work out is why Tesla seems to be held up as a hero by so many flat earthers. He certainly did not believe the earth to be flat or stationary! See this address by him:
HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1915-02-07.htm)
also at — How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinies — ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake"), New York American, February 7, 1915 (https://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art10.html) in which he states:Quote from: Nicola TeslaI have also read, though I cannot verify it right now, that one reason Tesla disliked Einstein so much is that he believed that Einstein destroyed "Newton's gravitation".NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount
Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.
The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the above address.
From what I can gather, Tesla did not deny Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, just differed with Einstein's "curved spacetime" explanation of it.
Sure, Nicola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.
Ermmm i was joking around ..... nothing serious.I choose to go to the boundaries of our universe not because they are easily found, but because they are hard to find and even harder to cross ; that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our esoteric energies and surpressed Tesla technologies.Why don't you try to reach the boundaries of Tesla's Universe? Tesla was no small Universe flat earther!
I cannot understand how you can think that you are so much smarter than Martin Luther, John Calvin and Nikola Tesla when it comes to the shape of the earth. They all knew it to be a Globe.Tesla was right.What I can't work out is why Tesla seems to be held up as a hero by so many flat earthers. He certainly did not believe the earth to be flat or stationary! See this address by him:
HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1915-02-07.htm)
also at — How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinies — ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake"), New York American, February 7, 1915 (https://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art10.html) in which he states:Quote from: Nicola TeslaI have also read, though I cannot verify it right now, that one reason Tesla disliked Einstein so much is that he believed that Einstein destroyed "Newton's gravitation".NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount
Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.
The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the above address.
From what I can gather, Tesla did not deny Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, just differed with Einstein's "curved spacetime" explanation of it.
Sure, Nicola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.
I shouldn’t mention Calvin as much as you do as an authority on ‘globe earth’.Really, and why not?
18 Death is the punishment for witchcraft.Now, I do not believe that applies in the New Testament era but it was the teaching of "The Church" up to that time.
20 Death is the punishment for offering sacrifices to any god except me.
Because i personally don’t trust one single thing that man had to say or proclaim, observing the fruits of his works.So, I would still claim that John Cavin's writings do accurately reflect the belief in the shape of the earth at that time.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/i9l04e9828ets3r/Sea-Earth%20Globe%20The%20Zetetes%20Fig%2025_zpskcdgepnm.png?dl=1) Zetetes bi-polar continental layout. | Later modernised to: (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Bi-polar%20map%20-%201272_zpsfub8glzp.png) Flat Earth "Bipolar" Map |
Note that Rowbotham's ridiculous map has no South Pole - preposterous!
The South Pole was still undiscovered in the mid 1800's.I would more say it was discovered in the early 1800s, around 1820, with more extensive exploration later on in mid 1800s.
But the existence of Antarctica as an island continent was known so that excuse for Rowbotham's appalling ignorance simply will not wash.QuoteNote that Rowbotham's ridiculous map has no South Pole - preposterous!
The South Pole was still undiscovered in the mid 1800's.
The first explorer to circumnavigate Antarctica was James Cook, who made three voyages from 1772 to 1775. He crossed the Antarctic Circle four times, making his first official crossing in January, 1773.So Captain Cook certainly knew that the circumference of the Antarctic Circle was not the almost 110,000 km (almost 68,000 miles) that the Antarctic Circle would be on Rowbotham's ridiculous map!
The South Pole was still undiscovered in the mid 1800's.I would more say it was discovered in the early 1800s, around 1820, with more extensive exploration later on in mid 1800s.
Meanwhile, Row Boat was only born in 1816.
And his first pile of nonsense was published after Antarctica was discovered.
So that is hardly an excuse.
Another massive problem is Australia and NZ which look nothing at all like they do on that map and are in the wrong location.
So Captain Cook certainly knew that the circumference of the Antarctic Circle was not the almost 110,000 km (almost 68,000 miles) that the Antarctic Circle would be on Rowbotham's ridiculous map!
Who is pretending that it is?
Discovery of Antarctica is not the same as discovery of the South Pole.
Nobody is suggesting the accuracy of "a car's odometer".So Captain Cook certainly knew that the circumference of the Antarctic Circle was not the almost 110,000 km (almost 68,000 miles) that the Antarctic Circle would be on Rowbotham's ridiculous map!
Those types of voyages lasted for years at a time. Not exactly a car's odometer. That fact was often used in the Flat Earth discussions around Rowbotham's time.
The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.
How do you think that Captain Cook measured distance? He used the stars and the Round Earth concept of latitude lines being evenly spaces to gauge position and the distance between points. Lat/Lon is a spherical coordinate system.Which "The Flat Earth Society"? Please show some credible of this "official switching over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole".
Captain Cook didn't run a little water wheel across the sea. In fact, since ships and airplanes are typically operating in fluids that are in motion within other fluids, such devices have proven to be rather useless for navigation. Airspeed instruments on a plane, for example, are only used to let the pilot know how much wind is passing over the wing at any given time for banking maneuvers and such. The existence of odometers for ships and planes is a false notion. Navigation is achieved through other external means.
Captain Cook could easily have assumed that he is traveling against the flow of the sea to explain his slow journey, as he is entirely dependent on the stars.
Then again, all of this is moot. The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.
Discovery of Antarctica is not the same as discovery of the South Pole.Well if you wanted to go that way, people already knew that existed long before the 1800s, so I really don't see what point you are trying to make.
Those types of voyages lasted for years at a time. Not exactly a car's odometer. That fact was often used in the Flat Earth discussions around Rowbotham's time.And weren't a simple case of just circling once.
The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South PoleThere are numerous FE societies/groups, with none being more official than the other.
The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.i.e. people ignoring reality and instead clinging to outdated nonsense, i.e. FE.
The fact that the round earth has a south pole was known for a very long time before the mid 1800s.QuoteNote that Rowbotham's ridiculous map has no South Pole - preposterous!
The South Pole was still undiscovered in the mid 1800's.
The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.
This kind of implies that the South Pole wasn't known to be there and that Amundsen and later Scott just happened upon it. What amazing luck!
Which "The Flat Earth Society"? Please show some credible of this "official switching over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole".
And look a the Home Page header of The Flat Earth Society at TFES.org:
This site and the numerous posters of videos on YouTube seem to be hardly aware of it.
And there are many many times more flat earthers making flat earth videos than on both Flat Earth Society sites combined.
The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.
This kind of implies that the South Pole wasn't known to be there and that Amundsen and later Scott just happened upon it. What amazing luck!
It was theorized to exist.
Considering that I was the one who wrote most of the Wikis for those websites, based on the model we came up with 11 years ago, I can say that it was all purely based on Earth Not a Globe, and that we did did not consider any other works.
It was theorized to exist.No, it was known.
After Rowbotham's death the Zetetic Society was passed to the leadership of Lady Blount, who ran a monthly scientific journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review, later renamed Earth. The journal published continuing studies of the earth, discusses how the 32 mile figure for the sun's diameter was determined, and chronicles the switching over to a two-pole model of the earth around the time of the discovery of the South Pole.So not "The FE society"
he simplified it down to one pole due to lack of evidence.If he wanted to simply due to lack of evidence, how about simplifying it down to nothing as there is no evidence of a FE existing at all?
They did not make and research their own original Flat Earth model.Of course.
The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.
This kind of implies that the South Pole wasn't known to be there and that Amundsen and later Scott just happened upon it. What amazing luck!
It was theorized to exist.
Indeed, and the explorers validated the theory. What was the basis for that theory, do you suppose?
Considering that I was the one who wrote most of the Wikis for those websites, based on the model we came up with 11 years ago, I can say that it was all purely based on Earth Not a Globe, and that we did did not consider any other works.
At the time you did this, did you not think the existence of the South Pole problematical?
That seems totally at odds with your claim in the following post:QuoteWhich "The Flat Earth Society"? Please show some credible of this "official switching over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole".
After Rowbotham's death the Zetetic Society was passed to the leadership of Lady Blount, who ran a monthly scientific journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review, later renamed Earth. The journal published continuing studies of the earth, discusses how the 32 mile figure for the sun's diameter was determined, and chronicles the switching over to a two-pole model of the earth around the time of the discovery of the South Pole.
Lady Blount also discusses the two pole model in the book Zetetic Astronomy (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Zetetic%20Astronomy%20(Lady%20Blount%20and%20Albert%20Smith).pdf). Like the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions, which was published in the same era, Lady Blount and Albert Smith discuss newfound evidence for the South Pole, and updates the Flat Earth model with the Bi-Polar Model.
Then again, all of this is moot. The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back. The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.There you clearly stated "The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's".
that the earth was a flat disk centred on the North Pole with the zetetic notion of the South Pole being an impenetrable wall of ice, that marked the edge of the pit that is the earth in the endless flat plane forming the universe. The sun cast a narrow beam like a flashlight moving over a table as it traced flat circles that varied over the 365-day cycles. The sun was 32 miles (51 km) in diameter 3,000 miles (4,800 km) above the earth and the moon also 32 miles in diameter but only 2,550 miles (4,100 km) above the earth.In other words, more or less the current Ice-Wall flat earth.
This is just as well, since the original Flat Earth model before Rowbotham had three poles, as discussed in the early 1800's Flat Earth book, The Anti-Newtonian. This is the model Rowbotham based the Earth Not a Globe concept on, except that he simplified it down to one pole due to lack of evidence.Look, if the "Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's" why on earth didn't you uses this "official model"?QuoteAnd look at the Home Page header of The Flat Earth Society at TFES.org:Considering that I was the one who wrote most of the Wikis for those websites, based on the model we came up with 11 years ago, I can say that it was all purely based on Earth Not a Globe, and that we did not consider any other works. This is because we didn't even know about them. The other works did not become available online until later.
Yes, the took the Ice-Wall model from your society and that is my whole point! . Whatever you claim the Ice-Wall model seems to be the accepted flat-earth.QuoteThis site and the numerous posters of videos on YouTube seem to be hardly aware of it.
And there are many many times more flat earthers making flat earth videos than on both Flat Earth Society sites combined.
Those youtubers took their model from us. They did not make and research their own original Flat Earth model.
The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.
This kind of implies that the South Pole wasn't known to be there and that Amundsen and later Scott just happened upon it. What amazing luck!
It was theorized to exist.
Indeed, and the explorers validated the theory. What was the basis for that theory, do you suppose?
Its based on the theory of magnets. Magnets have two poles. The Earth has two poles. If the Earth is Flat, it has two poles. Makes sense to me.
Thats total rubbish. A magnet can have a south pole in the centre and a north pole distributed around the outside, roughly like a speaker magnet:Indeed, and the explorers validated the theory. What was the basis for that theory, do you suppose?
Its based on the theory of magnets. Magnets have two poles. The Earth has two poles. If the Earth is Flat, it has two poles. Makes sense to me.
| (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Behaim_Globus.jpg/390px-Behaim_Globus.jpg) The "Erdapfel" of Martin Behaim is the oldest surviving terrestrial globe. The Americas are not yet included. 1491-1493. Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg. |
Its based on the theory of magnets. Magnets have two poles. The Earth has two poles. If the Earth is Flat, it has two poles. Makes sense to me.No. It had nothing at all to do with magnets.
Samuel Shenton founded the Flat Earth Society in 1956, after renaming it from the Universal Zetetic Society so the reigns sort of passed to a society called "The Flat Earth Society".
But Shenton's model of the flat earth was:Quotethat the earth was a flat disk centred on the North Pole with the zetetic notion of the South Pole being an impenetrable wall of ice, that marked the edge of the pit that is the earth in the endless flat plane forming the universe.
In other words, more or less the current Ice-Wall flat earth.
And Samuel Shenton developed his Ice-Wall model long after the South Pole had been visited many time and Antarctica quite well explored.
So I fail to see how you can claim that "The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's".
The answer is simply that the Bi-polar model was not Samuel Shenton's model and never has been the official model of "The Flat Earth Society".
Now you may wonder why I labour this so much!
The point is that neither Samuel Rowbotham nor Samuel Shenton had any right to construct a cosmology and a layout for the earth when they were provably so ignorant of geography and the most elementary astronomy!
Are you honestly claiming that Amundsen set forth on his adventure based on the 'theory of magnets'? Why, then, would he expend so much effort getting to the geographic south pole rather than the magnetic one? It doesn't make sense. Citation requested.
Its based on the theory of magnets. Magnets have two poles. The Earth has two poles. If the Earth is Flat, it has two poles. Makes sense to me.No. It had nothing at all to do with magnets.
It was to do with the fact that Earth was a rotating roughly spherical object.
The men you discussed were not trying to filocate a south magnetic pole
The pole these men set out to go to (again, they weren't trying to confirm its existence, they already knew it existed, they just wanted to go there) was the pole associated with rotation, where the stars would appear to remain at the same height and circle around you. It had nothing at all to do with magnets.
But Amundsen and Scott KNEW that there was a South Pole because they and most people before them knew that the earth was a Globe!
If they didn't believe that the earth was a Globe why were terrestrial Globes being made before 1500 AD?
His society was called the "International Flat Earth Research Society,"And the one you discussed was called "the Zetetic Society".
The Zetetic Society and the Universal Zetetic Society were real scientific organizations with a budget and who conducted real scientific researchNo they weren't.
There were several people who had their own Flat Earth and Zetetic Society relaunch attempts, not just Shenton.And that is kind of the point. There is no official adoption of a model. There are a bunch of people with contradictory models, all of which fail to match reality.
I said nothing about AmundsenNo, instead you just tried deflecting an objection about the south pole being missing from the FE map, and pretend it was the magnetic pole people were focusing on.
Quote from: Copper KnickersAre you honestly claiming that Amundsen set forth on his adventure based on the 'theory of magnets'? Why, then, would he expend so much effort getting to the geographic south pole rather than the magnetic one? It doesn't make sense. Citation requested.
Where did I say anything about Amundsen? The South Geographic Pole was discovered at around the same time as the South Magnetic Pole. Both were theorized to exist. One involved magnets and the other involved the position of the sun. Learn history.
This kind of implies that the South Pole wasn't known to be there and that Amundsen and later Scott just happened upon it. What amazing luck!
It was theorized to exist.
From your own society and links contained therein!Samuel Shenton founded the Flat Earth Society in 1956, after renaming it from the Universal Zetetic Society so the reigns sort of passed to a society called "The Flat Earth Society".
Who passed what reigns? His society was called the "International Flat Earth Research Society," and our models bear no resemblance to his model that has a literal seven heavens and angles who create the winds.
Samuel Shenton
Samuel Shenton, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Geographic Society, founded the Flat Earth Society (https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Society) in 1956, after renaming it from the Universal Zetetic Society (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Zetetic_Society). He led the Flat Earth Society from its founding in 1956 until his death in 1971, at which time leadership passed to Charles K. Johnson. Shenton collected material, gave lectures and generated publicity for the Society so that by his death in 1971 the Society had over 100 members.
Universal Zetetic SocietyJust how many Flat Earth Societys are there?
The Universal Zetetic Society (UZS) was the precursor to the Flat Earth Society. It was founded shortly after the death of Samuel Rowbotham (aka Parallax) by Rowbotham's adherents. The UZS was active well into the early part of the 20th century, publishing many issues of a magazine titled The Earth Not a Globe Review. In 1971, the UZS was renamed The Flat Earth Society when Samuel Shenton became its leader.
Flat Earth Society
In New York and England, Samuel Rowbotham created the Zetetic Society. Following his death, Lady Elizabeth Blount founded the Universal Zetetic Society. These societies were based on interpretations of the Bedford Level Experiment. These societies placed more emphasis on Biblical arguments for flat earth theory than the modern FES, but also provided scientific arguments as well.
In 1956 Samuel Shenton founded the International Flat Earth Society. The FES gained publicity in 1964 following the beginning of manned spaceflight and articles about Shenton in The New York Times.
Samuel Shenton died in 1971, and Charles K. Johnson created the International Flat Earth Society of America after inheriting part of Shenton's library and was able to raise membership to 3,000 people. Johnson dispersed newsletters, flyers, and other media to the public upon request.
However by 1980 the FES fell to 200 members. A house fire and the death of Johnson's wife further afflicted the FES in America. Johnson died on March 19, 2001, and the society no longer took in new members.
It has been revived in 2004 as an online community and the society was officially restarted in October 2009.
Your Flat Earth Society seems to. See the quotes above, "In 1956 Samuel Shenton founded the International Flat Earth Society. The FES gained publicity in 1964 following the beginning of manned spaceflight and articles about Shenton in The New York Times.QuoteBut Shenton's model of the flat earth was:Quotethat the earth was a flat disk centred on the North Pole with the zetetic notion of the South Pole being an impenetrable wall of ice, that marked the edge of the pit that is the earth in the endless flat plane forming the universe.
That's Rowbotham's basic model.QuoteIn other words, more or less the current Ice-Wall flat earth.
And Samuel Shenton developed his Ice-Wall model long after the South Pole had been visited many time and Antarctica quite well explored.
So I fail to see how you can claim that "The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's".
No one thinks Shenton and Johnson's versions were real successors to the Zetetic Society and the Universal Zetetic Society. The Zetetic Society and the Universal Zetetic Society were real scientific organizations with a budget and who conducted real scientific research, while Shenton and Johnson revived only the basic concepts of the past and were running one-man-shows.
YOU ask "Who is Samuel Shenton"! Read your own Wiki! Samuel Shenton (https://wiki.tfes.org/Samuel_Shenton) and "your Wiki" links to,QuoteThe answer is simply that the Bi-polar model was not Samuel Shenton's model and never has been the official model of "The Flat Earth Society".
Who is Samuel Shenton and what has he contributed to the Flat Earth model? Last I checked we didn't have a literal seven heavens or angles creating the winds in our model. There were several people who had their own Flat Earth and Zetetic Society relaunch attempts, not just Shenton.
Samuel Shenton
Shenton soon constructed a cosmology, based partly on his interpretation of Genesis, that the earth was a flat disk centred on the North Pole with the zetetic notion of the South Pole being an impenetrable wall of ice, that marked the edge of the pit that is the earth in the endless flat plane forming the universe. The sun cast a narrow beam like a flashlight moving over a table as it traced flat circles that varied over the 365-day cycles. The sun was 32 miles (51 km) in diameter 3,000 miles (4,800 km) above the earth and the moon also 32 miles in diameter but only 2,550 miles (4,100 km) above the earth.
In 1956 he founded the Flat Earth Society as a direct descendant of the Universal Zetetic Society but with a less religious emphasis, found a president in William Mills, a relative of one of Lady Blount's followers and held its inaugural meeting in November at Mills' home in London, with Shenton as secretary. One of the attendees, attending out of curiosity, was the Sky at Night astronomer Patrick Moore who recounted his experience in his book Can you speak Venusian?. Shenton claimed that George Bernard Shaw attended one meeting, declaring the presentation was "very persuasive". Despite his contrary ideas, Shenton was elected a fellow of both the Royal Astronomical and Royal Geographical Societies.
As linked from your Wiki in: The Flat Earth, Samuel Shenton (https://wiki.tfes.org/Samuel_Shenton)
I note that by stooping to ad hominen you realise that you haven't a leg to stand on.QuoteNow you may wonder why I labour this so much!
The point is that neither Samuel Rowbotham nor Samuel Shenton had any right to construct a cosmology and a layout for the earth when they were provably so ignorant of geography and the most elementary astronomy!
You don't know the first thing about what astronomy even is, or how things are predicted. I see you as the ignorant one.
My claim that, both Samuel Rowbotham and Samuel Shenton "were provably so ignorant of geography and the most elementary astronomy" is clearly quite correct as otherwise they would never have constructed a cosmology and a layout for the earth that was wrong.
Those articles are just scrapes from Wikipedia, rabinoz. Where does it say that Samuel Shenton discovered that the earth reflected the monopole modelNo where, and if it did, it would be lying, just like if it said anyone discovered that Earth reflected a flat model.
Shenton was merely trying to spread the word that the earth is flat, which is nice of himNot really.
the idea that the work of the Universal Zetetic Society was invalidated is not justified in the least.You are missing the point.
What have you proven wrong about it?He has shown that there was no official rejection of the monopolar model by the FES, and that the modern versions of the FES sure seem to portray themselves as accepting the monopole model.
Those articles are just scrapes from Wikipedia, rabinoz.They are NOT just scraps from Wikipedia, Tom Bishop! They are all from your own society and links contained therein!
Samuel Shenton
Samuel Shenton, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Geographic Society, founded the Flat Earth Society (https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Society) in 1956, after renaming it from the Universal Zetetic Society (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Zetetic_Society). He led the Flat Earth Society from its founding in 1956 until his death in 1971, at which time leadership passed to Charles K. Johnson. Shenton collected material, gave lectures and generated publicity for the Society so that by his death in 1971 the Society had over 100 members.
External linksSource: The Flat Earth Society, Universal Zetetic Society (https://wiki.tfes.org/Samuel_Shenton)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Shenton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Shenton)
Universal Zetetic SocietyJust how many Flat Earth Societies are there?
The Universal Zetetic Society (UZS) was the precursor to the Flat Earth Society. It was founded shortly after the death of Samuel Rowbotham (aka Parallax) by Rowbotham's adherents. The UZS was active well into the early part of the 20th century, publishing many issues of a magazine titled The Earth Not a Globe Review. In 1971, the UZS was renamed The Flat Earth Society when Samuel Shenton became its leader.
Source: The Flat Earth Society, Samuel Shenton (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Zetetic_Society)
Flat Earth SocietyNow this all started with your statement:
In New York and England, Samuel Rowbotham created the Zetetic Society. Following his death, Lady Elizabeth Blount founded the Universal Zetetic Society. These societies were based on interpretations of the Bedford Level Experiment. These societies placed more emphasis on Biblical arguments for flat earth theory than the modern FES, but also provided scientific arguments as well.
In 1956 Samuel Shenton founded the International Flat Earth Society. The FES gained publicity in 1964 following the beginning of manned spaceflight and articles about Shenton in The New York Times.
Samuel Shenton died in 1971, and Charles K. Johnson created the International Flat Earth Society of America after inheriting part of Shenton's library and was able to raise membership to 3,000 people. Johnson dispersed newsletters, flyers, and other media to the public upon request.
However by 1980 the FES fell to 200 members. A house fire and the death of Johnson's wife further afflicted the FES in America. Johnson died on March 19, 2001, and the society no longer took in new members.
It has been revived in 2004 as an online community and the society was officially restarted in October 2009.
Source: The Flat Earth Society, Flat Earth Society (https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Society)
Then again, all of this is moot. The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.i asked you to justify that claim and you have not yet done so.
From that article you posted (which was scraped from Wikipedia) it says that Samuel Shenton "found a president in William Mills, a relative of one of Lady Blount's followers and held its inaugural meeting in November at Mills' home in London, with Shenton as secretary."Please get the message! None of those are MY ARTICLES! They are articles either from YOUR society or from the link therein and hence tacitly approved by YOUR SOCIETY!
The connection to the old society was by finding a relative of one of Lady Blount's followers.OK
So this new Shenton model therefore invalidates everything Lady Blount did, reverses all research, all based on Samuel Shenton finding a relative of one of Lady Blount's followers, who gave the thumbs up to do that?That's not my problem, but read:
LifeSamuel Shenton apparently got his original idea from Rowbotham and not from Lady Blount.
Samuel Shenton was a signwriter, who lived with his wife Lillian in a ginger-brick terrace in suburban Dover. He was son of an army sergeant major, born in Great Yarmouth, and by the 1920s claimed to have invented an airship that would rise into the atmosphere and remain stationary until the earth spun westwards at 1,000 km/h (620 mph) to the desired destination at the same latitude. Shenton could not understand why someone had not previously thought of this idea until he discovered, in the reading room of the British Library at Bloomsbury that Archbishop Stevens, a friend of Lady Blount, the founder of the Universal Zetetic Society, had suggested an aircraft design similar to his own. When he discovered Parallax's Zetetic Astronomy he was an instant convert. "What the authorities were concealing, Shenton decided, was the 'fact' that the earth was flat".
He discovered this theory in Elementary school, and had a reputation in his community as being an elementary school drop out.
Shenton soon constructed a cosmology, based partly on his interpretation of Genesis, that the earth was a flat disk centred on the North Pole with the zetetic notion of the South Pole being an impenetrable wall of ice, that marked the edge of the pit that is the earth in the endless flat plane forming the universe. The sun cast a narrow beam like a flashlight moving over a table as it traced flat circles that varied over the 365-day cycles. The sun was 32 miles (51 km) in diameter 3,000 miles (4,800 km) above the earth and the moon also 32 miles in diameter but only 2,550 miles (4,100 km) above the earth.
No. That's stupid. It was not a continuation of the same society at all.Maybe it's stupid but read (again):
Flat Earth SocietyThat clearly says "It has been revived in 2004 as an online community and the society was officially restarted in October 2009."
In New York and England, Samuel Rowbotham created the Zetetic Society. Following his death, Lady Elizabeth Blount founded the Universal Zetetic Society. These societies were based on interpretations of the Bedford Level Experiment. These societies placed more emphasis on Biblical arguments for flat earth theory than the modern FES, but also provided scientific arguments as well.
In 1956 Samuel Shenton founded the International Flat Earth Society. The FES gained publicity in 1964 following the beginning of manned spaceflight and articles about Shenton in The New York Times.
Samuel Shenton died in 1971, and Charles K. Johnson created the International Flat Earth Society of America after inheriting part of Shenton's library and was able to raise membership to 3,000 people. Johnson dispersed newsletters, flyers, and other media to the public upon request.
However, by 1980 the FES fell to 200 members. A house fire and the death of Johnson's wife further afflicted the FES in America. Johnson died on March 19, 2001, and the society no longer took in new members.
It has been revived in 2004 as an online community and the society was officially restarted in October 2009.
Source: The Flat Earth Society, Flat Earth Society (https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Society)
All started with your statement:But if you want a debate on that Bi-polar model, bring it on! In numerous ways, it is far more wrong than the provenly incorrect Ice-Wall model.Then again, all of this is moot. The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.I asked you to justify that claim and you have not yet done so.Now, you should be far more knowledgeable than I on this matter, so please just give a link justifying your claim.
- There was no "Flat Earth Society" in the early 1900s to "officially switched over to a Bi-polar model".
- I can find no evidence that "The Flat Earth Society" at either TFES.org or TheFlatEarthSociety.org have any one "official model" that includes an "official continental layout".
I would love to have one "official flat earth model" with one "official continental layout" but there seem to be almost as many models and maps as flat-earthers.
On TFES.org alone there are seven, though only three distinct, Monopole Models and two Bi-polar Models. Nine of these are described as official.
Why won't you answer the original simple question?
So this new Shenton model therefore invalidates everything Lady Blount did, reverses all researchIt's funny how you keep bringing up research, when actual research done indicates Earth is round.