The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: HIPPO on October 27, 2008, 06:41:24 PM

Title: Cape Kennedy
Post by: HIPPO on October 27, 2008, 06:41:24 PM
What do you say to the millions of people who have watched the launches from Cape Kennedy...the rockets that they saw, where did they go, if you can't have orbit with an FE and they didn't go to the moon, where did they go.  The Astronauts were gone for the duration of the mission, where did they go? If they could launch the rocket in the first place which they obviously could since there are at least a million eye-witnesses, why wouldn't they be able to land on the moon. Also the first launch was Cold War times, you think the Russians wouldn't have said something if the shuttle had remained in the atmosphere, just flying around, shit, do you know how much fuel it would have used...

So here's the choice, either there are a million Americans who lied about watching a launch, not to mention lied about people dieing in a launch(Challenger), or they really went to space.

Choose one. Can't have both.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 27, 2008, 06:44:00 PM
How do you know the rockets went into orbit after being launched?
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: PalomarJack on October 27, 2008, 07:07:37 PM
How do you know the rockets went into orbit after being launched?

"Uh, they just floated around up in the atmosphere, er, atmoflat until the published mission was over?"

Instead of asking an idiotic question to a plethora of intelligent questions filled with logic, go answer my questions that don't use even slightest amount of science or logic, just pure unbiased observation.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24470.msg532330#msg532330

Only one has tried as of yet, and all he could come up with was hokus-pokus Bendy Light BS.

As they say, "let's rock", I'm up for it.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: HIPPO on October 27, 2008, 07:07:50 PM
How do you know the rockets went into orbit after being launched?

Nowhere else to go? Why, if you had the capability to launch a shuttle with all the equipment to land on the moon would you not land on the moon?

Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Johannes on October 27, 2008, 07:49:37 PM
Did you see astronauts boarding the shuttle personally? NASA just self destructs the shuttle at a certain altitude and releases foggy chemicals to cover up the debris. Then NASA flys a fake shuttle in from a remote airbase. (US has 200 military bases for a reason)
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: HIPPO on October 27, 2008, 08:02:23 PM
So you have conceded the point that NASA can launch spacecraft, I would like to hear Mr. Bishop's opinion on this matter.  Seeing as he seems to have a problem with "sending 100 tonnes straight up at 7 miles a second".
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Johannes on October 27, 2008, 08:04:06 PM
NASA can launch rockets, not spacecraft. The rockets do not reach sustained spaceflight, or spaceflight for that matter as NASA has nothing to gain by doing so.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: HIPPO on October 27, 2008, 08:07:07 PM
NASA can launch rockets, not spacecraft. The rockets do not reach sustained spaceflight, or spaceflight for that matter as NASA has nothing to gain by doing so.

Where do the astronauts go when they walk into the shuttle?
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Johannes on October 27, 2008, 08:10:21 PM
They don't board the shuttle. The shuttle is a dummy. The boarding is taped in NASA studios or the rockets have escape hatches somewhere. NASA might also kill the astronauts off. Remember Challenger and Columbia and the failed Apollo missions?
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 27, 2008, 08:25:28 PM
How do you know the rockets went into orbit after being launched?

"Uh, they just floated around up in the atmosphere, er, atmoflat until the published mission was over?"

Instead of asking an idiotic question to a plethora of intelligent questions filled with logic, go answer my questions that don't use even slightest amount of science or logic, just pure unbiased observation.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24470.msg532330#msg532330

Only one has tried as of yet, and all he could come up with was hokus-pokus Bendy Light BS.

As they say, "let's rock", I'm up for it.

So you have no answer, and resort to insulting my intelligence. Have you ever thought to question whether your beliefs are actually valid, or are you just arrogantly assuming that you know all the answers?
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: HIPPO on October 27, 2008, 08:30:37 PM
So you have no answer, and resort to insulting my intelligence. Have you ever thought to question whether your beliefs are actually valid, or are you just arrogantly assuming that you know all the answers?


I answered you.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 27, 2008, 08:33:25 PM
So you have no answer, and resort to insulting my intelligence. Have you ever thought to question whether your beliefs are actually valid, or are you just arrogantly assuming that you know all the answers?

I answered you.

Why would they have nowhere else to go? You only know they go up, you can't know when or where they come back down. If it isn't possible to get to the moon, that would be a very good reason not to go.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: HIPPO on October 27, 2008, 08:44:35 PM
So you have no answer, and resort to insulting my intelligence. Have you ever thought to question whether your beliefs are actually valid, or are you just arrogantly assuming that you know all the answers?

I answered you.

Why would they have nowhere else to go? You only know they go up, you can't know when or where they come back down. If it isn't possible to get to the moon, that would be a very good reason not to go.

So they launch, fly around a bit then land in some remote location? Then they re-stand the shuttle, fuel up with volatile fuel that they somehow transported to said remote location, re-launch in remote location where no one sees the multitude of smoke produced by the reaction, fly above the cloud cover again, and then land? Anyways, what you're proposing is that they can launch a shuttle (twice!), which Mr. Tom Bishop says is pure science fiction, but they cannot leave the "atmoflat" and get to the moon?  It's preposterous.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 27, 2008, 09:20:53 PM
So they launch, fly around a bit then land in some remote location? Then they re-stand the shuttle, fuel up with volatile fuel that they somehow transported to said remote location, re-launch in remote location where no one sees the multitude of smoke produced by the reaction, fly above the cloud cover again, and then land? Anyways, what you're proposing is that they can launch a shuttle (twice!), which Mr. Tom Bishop says is pure science fiction, but they cannot leave the "atmoflat" and get to the moon?  It's preposterous.

It requires less fuel to launch twice than it does to accelerate away from the Earth long enough to reach the Moon.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: HIPPO on October 27, 2008, 09:45:04 PM
Prove it?  Oh, no wait...

As soon as you're out of atmosphere your fuel consumption goes down to almost nothing, and you ever notice that they drop a huge part of the shuttle off after launch, you know what that carried? Fuel.  Because the initial take off takes almost more fuel than the rest of the trip combined.

So, um, don't make jackshit claims.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Johannes on October 27, 2008, 09:52:14 PM
Do you have proof that there is actually fuel in the "tanks"?
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: HIPPO on October 27, 2008, 09:54:18 PM
Stay out of my thread troll.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: PalomarJack on October 27, 2008, 10:03:50 PM
Stay out of my thread troll.

Oh, this guys a piece of work, HIPPO. He tried to convince me, an Extra Class Amateur Radio operator, that he talks to Europe by using the Flat Earth route rather than the Great Circle route.

What a dweeb.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: PalomarJack on October 27, 2008, 10:13:15 PM
How do you know the rockets went into orbit after being launched?

"Uh, they just floated around up in the atmosphere, er, atmoflat until the published mission was over?"

Instead of asking an idiotic question to a plethora of intelligent questions filled with logic, go answer my questions that don't use even slightest amount of science or logic, just pure unbiased observation.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24470.msg532330#msg532330

Only one has tried as of yet, and all he could come up with was hokus-pokus Bendy Light BS.

As they say, "let's rock", I'm up for it.

So you have no answer, and resort to insulting my intelligence. Have you ever thought to question whether your beliefs are actually valid, or are you just arrogantly assuming that you know all the answers?

It's not about beliefs, there Johnson. It's about observation. I see a curved horizon outside of my aircraft and you tell me it's not. If I don't aim my antenna using the Great Circle route, I don't talk to Europe. It's like this, don't piss in my Wheaties and tell me it's raining.

Who's insulting who's intelligence, here?
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 27, 2008, 10:29:52 PM
Prove it?  Oh, no wait...

As soon as you're out of atmosphere your fuel consumption goes down to almost nothing, and you ever notice that they drop a huge part of the shuttle off after launch, you know what that carried? Fuel.  Because the initial take off takes almost more fuel than the rest of the trip combined.

So, um, don't make jackshit claims.

Don't apply your RE propaganda to FET and then talk to me like I'm the idiot. You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: PalomarJack on October 27, 2008, 10:33:11 PM
Did you see astronauts boarding the shuttle personally? NASA just self destructs the shuttle at a certain altitude and releases foggy chemicals to cover up the debris. Then NASA flys a fake shuttle in from a remote airbase. (US has 200 military bases for a reason)

How much money do you think the US government has? Destroy a shuttle at every launch? Then, launch a new one from an "undisclosed" location to fake a landing? Millions of transmitting towers to fool SATV dish owners? Thousands of helicopters patrolling the ice wall? Even if they totally disbanded all the social programs which consume 70 to 80% of the budget, it wouldn't even come close to covering such a charade. And I haven't included the HUGE amount of money needed to bribe millions of people.

And it's all so the government can get more money?

Where do I go with this? There's no logic here, whatsoever.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: HIPPO on October 27, 2008, 10:37:00 PM
Prove it?  Oh, no wait...

As soon as you're out of atmosphere your fuel consumption goes down to almost nothing, and you ever notice that they drop a huge part of the shuttle off after launch, you know what that carried? Fuel.  Because the initial take off takes almost more fuel than the rest of the trip combined.

So, um, don't make jackshit claims.

Don't apply your RE propaganda to FET and then talk to me like I'm the idiot. You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.

You're begging the question, it's a logical fallacy.  You can't use parts of your theory to prove your theory, that's like saying "The bible is true because it says it is" Or a simpler version  "I am always right because I am always right".  You're wrong, your whole theory is based on circular logic.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: PalomarJack on October 27, 2008, 10:37:33 PM
You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.

Hey! We have a winner here! He finally gets it.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 27, 2008, 10:39:06 PM
You're begging the question, it's a logical fallacy.  You can't use parts of your theory to prove your theory, that's like saying "The bible is true because it says it is" Or a simpler version  "I am always right because I am always right".  You're wrong, your whole theory is based on circular logic.

I'm sorry, was that supposed to be a coherent statement? I'm not trying to prove FET, I'm refuting your supposed proof of RET by telling you the FE version of events. I think you need to learn the difference between explaining how a theory works and trying to prove that it is correct.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 27, 2008, 10:39:39 PM
You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.

Hey! We have a winner here! He finally gets it.

If you aren't going to debate properly, go away. I've been here for months now, I sure do "get" how FET works, probably a lot better than you do.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: PalomarJack on October 27, 2008, 10:56:15 PM
You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.

Hey! We have a winner here! He finally gets it.

If you aren't going to debate properly, go away. I've been here for months now, I sure do "get" how FET works, probably a lot better than you do.

Now your only problem is, "To make it work". A spherical Earth already does and doesn't require a bunch of double-talk, hokus-pokus and conspiracies. It's elegant in it's simplicity.

And I could really give a rats ass how long you've been here, do you understand me?

Now, when are you going to hop on over to my thread and debate me?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24470.msg532330#msg532330

Did you already look and find my evidence irrefutable? Is it uncomfortable to know you're wrong? Too bad, I like making pretentious people uncomfortable, I thrive on it. I find it, dare I say, "stimulating".
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 27, 2008, 10:57:39 PM
You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.

Hey! We have a winner here! He finally gets it.

If you aren't going to debate properly, go away. I've been here for months now, I sure do "get" how FET works, probably a lot better than you do.

Now your only problem is, "To make it work". A spherical Earth already does and doesn't require a bunch double-talk, hokus-pokus and conspiracies. It's elegant in it's simplicity.

And I could really give a rats ass how long you've been here, do you understand me?

Now, when are you going to hop on over to my thread and debate me?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24470.msg532330#msg532330

Did you already look and find my evidence irrefutable? Is it uncomfortable to know you're wrong? Too bad, I like making pretentious people uncomfortable, I thrive on it. I find it, dare I say, "stimulating".

Stop being so condescending, and maybe I will refute your points. I don't like to debate with people who attack me without good reason, not that what you are doing could be described as "debate" in any case.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: PalomarJack on October 27, 2008, 11:29:18 PM
I don't like to debate with people who attack me without good reason, not that what you are doing could be described as "debate" in any case.

Oh, I didn't know. You're never condescending, are you? So, telling me that when I see an obviously curved horizon out of the window of my airplane that I don't, or, that I'm not using a Great Circle route to talk to another ham in Europe when I know for a fact I am is not condescending?

Just using those two points alone it escapes me how anybody could believe the earth is flat. It doesn't take rocket science to check them out. Just a set of seeing, open eyes.

You want debate? Then debate me on my thread, debate my observations, tell me how they're wrong. They don't require a trip to the moon, a PHD in Physics or taking somebodies word for it. They require, as I said a set of seeing, open eyes.

By the way, we do agree 100% concerning Barack Hussein Obama. At least that's something, isn't it?
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 12:43:39 AM
By the way, we do agree 100% concerning Barack Hussein Obama. At least that's something, isn't it?

No we don't. My sig was sig'd for stupidity, not truth.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: PalomarJack on October 28, 2008, 05:02:39 AM
By the way, we do agree 100% concerning Barack Hussein Obama. At least that's something, isn't it?

No we don't. My sig was sig'd for stupidity, not truth.

That would explain some things, your whole charade here is for stupidity instead of truth, too, no doubt. So, it's like I thought, a big fat shit stirring mess to see if you can get people to bicker at each other. Quaint.

I guess the cat's out o' the bag, huh?

Hasta...
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: HIPPO on October 28, 2008, 09:32:35 AM
There's nothing about Flat Earth Theory which prevents space travel. Under FE, the moon and stars are satellites which orbit above the earth on a circular path. FE Theory explains why this is possible (cancelation of the DE by the DEF or some guff like that). There's nothing to prevent a man made object (satellite, shuttle etc) doing the same.

FAQ says: "orbit is impossible"
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 28, 2008, 10:25:07 AM
Quote
You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.

Hobbyists track satellites in their orbits around the world (or around the north pole, for FE terms).  If your statement is true, then how do these tiny satellites have the fuel to keep in orbit constantly for years on end?

See the topic I started below for a link to an article about this http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24474.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24474.0)

Quote
Stop being so condescending, and maybe I will refute your points. I don't like to debate with people who attack me without good reason, not that what you are doing could be described as "debate" in any case.

We agree here.  Insulting people is not a good way to be taken seriously.  However, post like the one shown below are also not a good way to be taken seriously and cause many people a lot of frustration.  To me this is an obvious troll post to send us RE'ers going back and forth to try to disprove a statement that the original poster just made up in the first place.

Did you see astronauts boarding the shuttle personally? NASA just self destructs the shuttle at a certain altitude and releases foggy chemicals to cover up the debris. Then NASA flys a fake shuttle in from a remote airbase. (US has 200 military bases for a reason)

You don't have any evidence of this, so we don't have to respond to it.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: NTheGreat on October 28, 2008, 10:53:51 AM
Considering that a shuttle is visible right up to (and possibly beyond) LEO, there's no doubt that it goes up and stays up there. You could probably send it down during the the middle of the day or night, but you'll have the get it back up at most about 40 minutes after you took it down lest various shuttle spotters notice it's missing. There may be various times when you'll have to keep it up anyway as it may be visible during the day or night.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 11:01:27 AM
Considering that a shuttle is visible right up to (and possibly beyond) LEO, there's no doubt that it goes up and stays up there. You could probably send it down during the the middle of the day or night, but you'll have the get it back up at most about 40 minutes after you took it down lest various shuttle spotters notice it's missing. There may be various times when you'll have to keep it up anyway as it may be visible during the day or night.

NASA projects holograms into the atmoplane. They don't need to be very high resolution; they just need to be sufficient to keep people from wondering where the shuttle went.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: NTheGreat on October 28, 2008, 11:10:48 AM
Quote
NASA projects holograms into the atmoplane. They don't need to be very high resolution; they just need to be sufficient to keep people from wondering where the shuttle went.

New one on me. Didn't realise there was anything up there to project onto.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: ZXDriver84 on October 28, 2008, 11:24:00 AM
Quote
NASA projects holograms into the atmoplane. They don't need to be very high resolution; they just need to be sufficient to keep people from wondering where the shuttle went.

New one on me. Didn't realise there was anything up there to project onto.
Maybe it's the AntiStatic bag? But more likely it works the same way the Bat Signal works. It just bounces back, reflecting off of the tiny particals of water in the air. Think about when you shine a spot light at a fog bank. You can see the light there, right? Same thing with the 'Shuttle' projection.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: zeroply on October 28, 2008, 11:31:53 AM
Prove it?  Oh, no wait...

As soon as you're out of atmosphere your fuel consumption goes down to almost nothing, and you ever notice that they drop a huge part of the shuttle off after launch, you know what that carried? Fuel.  Because the initial take off takes almost more fuel than the rest of the trip combined.

So, um, don't make jackshit claims.

Don't apply your RE propaganda to FET and then talk to me like I'm the idiot. You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.

They could just be orbiting L1, which could still exist under FET and be closer to the Earth than predicted under RET.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 28, 2008, 11:38:23 AM
NASA projects holograms into the atmoplane. They don't need to be very high resolution; they just need to be sufficient to keep people from wondering where the shuttle went.

You just made that up.  See my above post.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: MadDogX on October 28, 2008, 02:30:31 PM
Considering that a shuttle is visible right up to (and possibly beyond) LEO, there's no doubt that it goes up and stays up there. You could probably send it down during the the middle of the day or night, but you'll have the get it back up at most about 40 minutes after you took it down lest various shuttle spotters notice it's missing. There may be various times when you'll have to keep it up anyway as it may be visible during the day or night.

NASA projects holograms into the atmoplane. They don't need to be very high resolution; they just need to be sufficient to keep people from wondering where the shuttle went.

Wow, that ranks right up there with the mysterious but conveniently placed sky mirrors, gleefully helpful boat-pushing fish, oh and let's not forget the magical-omnidirectional-supersonic wind currents. FET is a fucking merry-go-round of lulz.

</sarcasm>

Seriously, if NASA is projecting holograms into the sky, they would need a huge worldwide network of "holographic projectors" to cover all visible satellites, shuttles, the ISS etc. simultaneously. Before you ask: no, I'm pretty sure there are no sky-hologram projectors in my neighborhood.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 28, 2008, 02:47:03 PM
Not to mention whenever a cloud passes overhead the hologram would be projected onto the cloud.  Like Batman's symbol.   ::)
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 03:38:58 PM
Seriously, if NASA is projecting holograms into the sky, they would need a huge worldwide network of "holographic projectors" to cover all visible satellites, shuttles, the ISS etc. simultaneously. Before you ask: no, I'm pretty sure there are no sky-hologram projectors in my neighborhood.

Have you confirmed this? That is to say, have you scouted every square metre of your neighbourhood and made sure that nothing is projecting a hologram into the sky?

Not to mention whenever a cloud passes overhead the hologram would be projected onto the cloud.  Like Batman's symbol.   ::)

They actively monitor the weather, and switch off or dim the holograms as clouds pass by.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 28, 2008, 03:46:24 PM
Have you confirmed this? That is to say, have you scouted every square metre of your neighbourhood and made sure that nothing is projecting a hologram into the sky?


Have you confirmed these projectors exist!?  Have you actually seen one!?
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: HIPPO on October 28, 2008, 03:46:32 PM
Seriously, if NASA is projecting holograms into the sky, they would need a huge worldwide network of "holographic projectors" to cover all visible satellites, shuttles, the ISS etc. simultaneously. Before you ask: no, I'm pretty sure there are no sky-hologram projectors in my neighborhood.

Have you confirmed this? That is to say, have you scouted every square metre of your neighbourhood and made sure that nothing is projecting a hologram into the sky?

Not to mention whenever a cloud passes overhead the hologram would be projected onto the cloud.  Like Batman's symbol.   ::)

They actively monitor the weather, and switch off or dim the holograms as clouds pass by.

You know making shit up as you go along is detrimental to your argument...Occam's Razor, the simplest reason is usually always right, but you have to run around and around and make up new laws of physics, conspiracies, technologies, and utter bullshit for your theory.  It's wrong.  Get yourself a paradigm shift.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 03:48:49 PM
Have you confirmed these projectors exist!?  Have you actually seen one!?

No.

It's wrong.

Prove it.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 28, 2008, 03:57:35 PM
No.

Thank you, then can we move on from this until such confirmation is obtained?
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 04:01:34 PM
No.

Thank you, then can we move on from this until such confirmation is obtained?

No.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: HIPPO on October 28, 2008, 04:13:20 PM
Proof that the Earth is round, I have been around the earth and you cannot prove I have not, therefore the earth is round.

Well, I guess you can shut down these forums now since that's settled.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 04:14:21 PM
Proof that the Earth is round, I have been around the earth and you cannot prove I have not, therefore the earth is round.

Well, I guess you can shut down these forums now since that's settled.

It is possible to circumnavigate a Flat Earth. See the Flat Earth map for details.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: PalomarJack on October 28, 2008, 04:22:49 PM
Considering that a shuttle is visible right up to (and possibly beyond) LEO, there's no doubt that it goes up and stays up there. You could probably send it down during the the middle of the day or night, but you'll have the get it back up at most about 40 minutes after you took it down lest various shuttle spotters notice it's missing. There may be various times when you'll have to keep it up anyway as it may be visible during the day or night.

NASA projects holograms into the atmoplane. They don't need to be very high resolution; they just need to be sufficient to keep people from wondering where the shuttle went.

And just what kind of laser power would be required to accomplish that? It comes back to money, now doesn't it? Do you even comprehend the amount of money and manpower to run three very high power tri-color holographic projection lasers per station in a world wide network? You people talk about how Round Earthers believe in science fiction. It seems to me you're using science fiction to patch your theories together. And how do you propose that the crews running the projectors would keep quiet? You're conspiracy is groing more bloated and topheavy by the hour.

And, when are you going to return to my thread to finish the debate? Did you give up or conclude, "I really showed him"? Because as far as I can see, I shot you down, thoroughly.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 04:32:37 PM
And just what kind of laser power would be required to accomplish that? It comes back to money, now doesn't it? Do you even comprehend the amount of money and manpower to run three very high power tri-color holographic projection lasers per station in a world wide network? You people talk about how Round Earthers believe in science fiction. It seems to me you're using science fiction to patch your theories together. And how do you propose that the crews running the projectors would keep quiet? You're conspiracy is groing more bloated and topheavy by the hour.

And, when are you going to return to my thread to finish the debate? Did you give up or conclude, "I really showed him"? Because as far as I can see, I shot you down, thoroughly.

We can't know exactly how they accomplish it. That's kind of the point of a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: PalomarJack on October 28, 2008, 04:43:25 PM
And just what kind of laser power would be required to accomplish that? It comes back to money, now doesn't it? Do you even comprehend the amount of money and manpower to run three very high power tri-color holographic projection lasers per station in a world wide network? You people talk about how Round Earthers believe in science fiction. It seems to me you're using science fiction to patch your theories together. And how do you propose that the crews running the projectors would keep quiet? You're conspiracy is groing more bloated and topheavy by the hour.

And, when are you going to return to my thread to finish the debate? Did you give up or conclude, "I really showed him"? Because as far as I can see, I shot you down, thoroughly.

We can't know exactly how they accomplish it. That's kind of the point of a conspiracy.

For crying out loud, I thought it was just a few "Illuminate" at the top. Now it's high power holographic projector crews all over the world. Keeping track of all these patches, tweaks and other BS can't be an easy way to avoid headaches.

It's looking more and more like this entire forum is only for the entertainment of a few to get others to bicker at each other. How's that for a conspiracy, Johnson.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Johannes on October 28, 2008, 05:01:15 PM
These projectors are only a theory. A much more plausible theory is that NASA launches the space shuttle from a remote airbase of aircraft carrier.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 05:01:17 PM
For crying out loud, I thought it was just a few "Illuminate" at the top. Now it's high power holographic projector crews all over the world. Keeping track of all these patches, tweaks and other BS can't be an easy way to avoid headaches.

Or a computer programmer who created an AI that could be installed onto various computers around the world to monitor the holographic projectors, and was subsequently executed to prevent him going public with the information. See: Alan Turing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing).

It's looking more and more like this entire forum is only for the entertainment of a few to get others to bicker at each other. How's that for a conspiracy, Johnson.

If that's the case, then you've certainly fallen for it, haven't you?
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: PalomarJack on October 28, 2008, 06:03:50 PM
For crying out loud, I thought it was just a few "Illuminate" at the top. Now it's high power holographic projector crews all over the world. Keeping track of all these patches, tweaks and other BS can't be an easy way to avoid headaches.

Or a computer programmer who created an AI that could be installed onto various computers around the world to monitor the holographic projectors, and was subsequently executed to prevent him going public with the information. See: Alan Turing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing).
Okay, but where are you going to hide hundreds of projector stations around the world? And what of the work crews that built them? Are they payed off, too. Forget it, I can shoot down every theory you can come up with faster than you can think of them.

It's looking more and more like this entire forum is only for the entertainment of a few to get others to bicker at each other. How's that for a conspiracy, Johnson.

If that's the case, then you've certainly fallen for it, haven't you?

Not really, dealing with many, not all, of the people like I've found on this is forum is very resourceful of me. I can do quick research, increase my literary skills and be entertained by either hard headed stupidity or people who think, but are wrong, that they're superior to others. Actually, I find it quite refreshing. Eventually, I will get board with it, kind of like a cat toying with a crippled mouse.

Have you found anything concerning the physics of... (LOL)... Bendy Light? Or maybe how a magnetic accelerator (rail gun) can cause a ship to only "appear" to go over the horizon, short of shooting at it with it and making it sink.

I eagerly await your reply here or on my thread. Your choice.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: NTheGreat on October 28, 2008, 06:05:17 PM
Quote
See: Alan Turing.

\(o_)/

But anyway, I'm going to look into this whole holoprojector thing. It sounds rather silly.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 06:14:34 PM
Okay, but where are you going to hide hundreds of projector stations around the world? And what of the work crews that built them? Are they payed off, too. Forget it, I can shoot down every theory you can come up with faster than you can think of them.

They have been setting up these stations since the 1940s. They had plenty of time to set them all up before satellites started becoming visible in the night sky, without requiring a great number of people to be involved.

Not really, dealing with many, not all, of the people like I've found on this is forum is very resourceful of me. I can do quick research, increase my literary skills and be entertained by either hard headed stupidity or people who think, but are wrong, that they're superior to others. Actually, I find it quite refreshing. Eventually, I will get board with it, kind of like a cat toying with a crippled mouse.

If you say so. Also, irony.

Have you found anything concerning the physics of... (LOL)... Bendy Light? Or maybe how a magnetic accelerator (rail gun) can cause a ship to only "appear" to go over the horizon, short of shooting at it with it and making it sink.

Did you search (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search) for Electromagnetic Accelerator, or just assume that you knew what I was talking about?

I eagerly await your reply here or on my thread. Your choice.

Thanks for letting me choose where to post on a forum that I moderate.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: MrKappa on October 28, 2008, 06:23:42 PM
What do you say to the millions of people who have watched the launches from Cape Kennedy...

How do you explain the millions of people who claim to see Jesus every now and then? Same thing really. Substitute faith for national pride and viola... people will see anything.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: PalomarJack on October 28, 2008, 07:00:04 PM
Okay, but where are you going to hide hundreds of projector stations around the world? And what of the work crews that built them? Are they payed off, too. Forget it, I can shoot down every theory you can come up with faster than you can think of them.

They have been setting up these stations since the 1940s. They had plenty of time to set them all up before satellites started becoming visible in the night sky, without requiring a great number of people to be involved.
So, where did they get:

Lasers in the 1940s
The computer power to run them to display holographic images

Buddy, you're out of your league.

Not really, dealing with many, not all, of the people like I've found on this is forum is very resourceful of me. I can do quick research, increase my literary skills and be entertained by either hard headed stupidity or people who think, but are wrong, that they're superior to others. Actually, I find it quite refreshing. Eventually, I will get board with it, kind of like a cat toying with a crippled mouse.

If you say so. Also, irony.
I obviously did, do you feel the need to tell me? And, what could be ironic about having a blast on your forum.

Have you found anything concerning the physics of... (LOL)... Bendy Light? Or maybe how a magnetic accelerator (rail gun) can cause a ship to only "appear" to go over the horizon, short of shooting at it with it and making it sink.

Did you search (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search) for Electromagnetic Accelerator, or just assume that you knew what I was talking about?
Oh, no, I only "assumed" to know what a magnetic accelerator is, was I right? Yes. Can it be used to make a ship only look like it's going over the horizon short of sinking it. No.

I gave proof of why a ship looks like it does going over a curved horizon, why won't you reciprocate? Are you in doubt too? Or, are you presumptuous to think that if I only look at the pseudoscience I'll be convinced and mend my ways?

Now, about that Bendy Light thing...

I eagerly await your reply here or on my thread. Your choice.

Thanks for letting me choose where to post on a forum that I moderate.
Oh, I would never think of it. But moving my thread around is kind of silly. Was that to show me "who's boss"?
In all actuality, if this forum simply evaporated (does flat earth theory support that?) tonight I would simply find another. Left wing conspiracy websites and forums are "a dime a dozen".
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 07:23:29 PM
So, where did they get:

Lasers in the 1940s
The computer power to run them to display holographic images

They didn't need to have the computer power necessary; once the installations were in place, it would be a much simpler task to add the computers later. Also, do you really believe that the government doesn't have access to technology far beyond what the general public does?

Oh, no, I only "assumed" to know what a magnetic accelerator is, was I right? Yes. Can it be used to make a ship only look like it's going over the horizon short of sinking it. No.

I gave proof of why a ship looks like it does going over a curved horizon, why won't you reciprocate? Are you in doubt too? Or, are you presumptuous to think that if I only look at the pseudoscience I'll be convinced and mend my ways?

Now, about that Bendy Light thing...

Search for "Electromagnetic Accelerator".

In all actuality, if this forum simply evaporated (does flat earth theory support that?) tonight I would simply find another. Left wing conspiracy websites and forums are "a dime a dozen".

Don't tell me, you're one of those right-wing nutjobs? No wonder you seem to think you're better than everybody else. Also, I moved your thread because it's more appropriate here. I've told you twice before, you aren't the first person to come in here making unsubstantiated claims and thinking they know better than everybody else on this forum. You were asking questions about FET, nothing more, and if you thought this thread was about to spark some kind of debate that hadn't been gone over hundreds of times already, you can take another guess.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: MrKappa on October 28, 2008, 07:24:46 PM
Quote
Left wing conspiracy websites and forums are "a dime a dozen".

You make it sound like ass kissing, conformist and back patting forums are better.

There is an equal amount of disinformation on a forum like this and a "professional" forum dealing with any other subject.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: PalomarJack on October 28, 2008, 08:01:33 PM
So, where did they get:

Lasers in the 1940s
The computer power to run them to display holographic images

They didn't need to have the computer power necessary; once the installations were in place, it would be a much simpler task to add the computers later. Also, do you really believe that the government doesn't have access to technology far beyond what the general public does?

Oh, no, I only "assumed" to know what a magnetic accelerator is, was I right? Yes. Can it be used to make a ship only look like it's going over the horizon short of sinking it. No.

I gave proof of why a ship looks like it does going over a curved horizon, why won't you reciprocate? Are you in doubt too? Or, are you presumptuous to think that if I only look at the pseudoscience I'll be convinced and mend my ways?

Now, about that Bendy Light thing...

Search for "Electromagnetic Accelerator".

In all actuality, if this forum simply evaporated (does flat earth theory support that?) tonight I would simply find another. Left wing conspiracy websites and forums are "a dime a dozen".

Don't tell me, you're one of those right-wing nutjobs? No wonder you seem to think you're better than everybody else. Also, I moved your thread because it's more appropriate here. I've told you twice before, you aren't the first person to come in here making unsubstantiated claims and thinking they know better than everybody else on this forum. You were asking questions about FET, nothing more, and if you thought this thread was about to spark some kind of debate that hadn't been gone over hundreds of times already, you can take another guess.

I'll make this short, for now. I have an Amateur Radio net to run.

If by right wing nutcase you mean somebody who doesn't want big government to confiscate my rights, liberty and ability to defend myself, guilty as charged.

Once again you exhibit a pretentious attitude. You tell me what I intended a thread to be. You moved a debate thread to the wrong forum because you knew it was lower traffic. Also because you obviously lost said debate. If you think I'm wrong, put it back and we'll continue. Or, leave it where it is, I could care less.

My claims are not unsubstantiated, they don't agree with your claims, that's all. They are also backed up by pure observation. Yours are backed up by hearsay, pseudoscience and conspiracy theory.

Sorry, but there it is, point blank.

Hasta...



Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: MadDogX on October 29, 2008, 12:49:57 AM
On the topic of the electromagnetic accelerator, it's all well and good as a possible explanation for bendy light... but that doesn't change the fact that bendy light itself is inconsistent with the very foundations of FET.

I'll try to put it as simply as possible:

- It is possible to observe the roundness of Earth. (sinking ship effect)
- FET explains observations of roundness with bendy light.
- Bendy light also nullifies observations of flatness.
- FET is based on the observation of a flat Earth.
- Therefore bendy light invalidates FET.

I believe we can consider FET to have been successfully disproved by its own advocates. Bravo!
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 01:01:32 AM
On the topic of the electromagnetic accelerator, it's all well and good as a possible explanation for bendy light... but that doesn't change the fact that bendy light itself is inconsistent with the very foundations of FET.

I'll try to put it as simply as possible:

- It is possible to observe the roundness of Earth. (sinking ship effect)
- FET explains observations of roundness with bendy light.
- Bendy light also nullifies observations of flatness.
- FET is based on the observation of a flat Earth.
- Therefore bendy light invalidates FET.

I believe we can consider FET to have been successfully disproved by its own advocates. Bravo!

No, bendy light is a derivative of the original FET. We do not yet know which is correct. I saw the need for a modification to FET, and came up with the bendy light hypothesis. It may be wrong, but you can't say that the scientists who came up with the idea of the luminiferous aether disproved the existence of light.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: MadDogX on October 29, 2008, 01:15:55 AM
On the topic of the electromagnetic accelerator, it's all well and good as a possible explanation for bendy light... but that doesn't change the fact that bendy light itself is inconsistent with the very foundations of FET.

I'll try to put it as simply as possible:

- It is possible to observe the roundness of Earth. (sinking ship effect)
- FET explains observations of roundness with bendy light.
- Bendy light also nullifies observations of flatness.
- FET is based on the observation of a flat Earth.
- Therefore bendy light invalidates FET.

I believe we can consider FET to have been successfully disproved by its own advocates. Bravo!

No, bendy light is a derivative of the original FET. We do not yet know which is correct. I saw the need for a modification to FET, and came up with the bendy light hypothesis. It may be wrong, but you can't say that the scientists who came up with the idea of the luminiferous aether disproved the existence of light.

So if bendy light is merely a derivative theory, what observational basis does that theory have? Obviously it can't be "the Earth looks flat", because bendy light negates that observation. It would appear that your new derivative theory is entirely beyond human experience. I guess the new basis for Bendy Light FET is "We'd like to believe that the Earth is flat."
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 01:17:07 AM
So if bendy light is merely a derivative theory, what observational basis does that theory have? Obviously it can't be "the Earth looks flat", because bendy light negates that observation. It would appear that your new derivative theory is entirely beyond human experience. I guess the new basis for Bendy Light FET is "We'd like to believe that the Earth is flat."

While we're dismissing theories that started out without any observational evidence, let's discount Special Relativity, shall we?
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: MadDogX on October 29, 2008, 01:22:02 AM
So if bendy light is merely a derivative theory, what observational basis does that theory have? Obviously it can't be "the Earth looks flat", because bendy light negates that observation. It would appear that your new derivative theory is entirely beyond human experience. I guess the new basis for Bendy Light FET is "We'd like to believe that the Earth is flat."

Before you continue to use my own logic to disprove FET, let's change the subject shall we?

Fixed that for you.

Sorry, but I don't give much of a shit about SR, GR or anything else at the moment. The topic at hand is FET, since we are in the FET forums after all. I've provided a logical argument as to why bendy light is incompatible with FET. You seem unable or unwilling to refute it.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 29, 2008, 08:05:14 AM
They didn't need to have the computer power necessary; once the installations were in place, it would be a much simpler task to add the computers later. Also, do you really believe that the government doesn't have access to technology far beyond what the general public does?

Sure they do, but the government doesn't design or manufacture any of these devices, contractors do.  Trust me they are not smart enough.  Development for a laser began at Bell Labs in 1957.  The first working Laser was demonstrated in 1960 at Hughes Research Laboratories.  They were not contracted to the government to invent the laser at the time.

As for more advanced technology, the government does have access to much more powerful lasers than the general public, but again, they do not make them, and the technology is the same as what we have.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: NTheGreat on October 29, 2008, 02:50:28 PM
Quote
While we're dismissing theories that started out without any observational evidence, let's discount Special Relativity, shall we?

When did we start dismissing hypothesis without any observational evidence? We dismiss the electromagnetic accelerator as observational evidence suggests it's incorrect under a FE model, and the planet being round is a simpler model in round earth theory.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: HIPPO on October 30, 2008, 09:13:57 PM
The thread worked well, you've admitted that shuttles launched and have had to invent yet more science and technologies to deal with this revelation, Occam's Razor folks, Occam's Razor.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: markjo on October 31, 2008, 05:18:41 AM
Quote
While we're dismissing theories that started out without any observational evidence, let's discount Special Relativity, shall we?

When did we start accepting hypothesis without any observational evidence? We dismiss the electromagnetic accelerator as observational evidence suggests it's incorrect under a FE model, and the planet being round is a simpler model in round earth theory.

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Cape Kennedy
Post by: Edtharan on November 06, 2008, 07:27:24 PM
Quote
Search for "Electromagnetic Accelerator".
I know what an Electromagnetic Accelerator is, I have built one, and it does not bend light.

In fact, most households have one (although they are getting rarer as the technology that uses them is getting replaced by LCDs), they are the principal behind Cathode Ray Tubes (known as CRTs, Computer Monitors and Televisions).

The CRT uses an "Electron Gun" (a source that emits electrons), and then uses electrical and magnetic forces to accelerate and steer the Electrons (this is the Electromagnetic Accelerator) towards one end of the Tube. In CRT displays, like TVs, the front of the Tube is coated with a material that glows when it has an excess electrons. Although most CRTs are grounded as insulated from the front of the screen, there is however an accumulation of electrons on the screen and this can be detected by the static electricity you can feel on the front of the screen of any CRT.

However, the Electromagnetic Accelerator that I built was a series of electromagnets used in sequence to accelerate a piece of metal (essentially a very simple and pathetically weak coil gun  ;D ) over a few centimetres (about 10 cm).

Quote
NASA projects holograms into the atmoplane. They don't need to be very high resolution; they just need to be sufficient to keep people from wondering where the shuttle went.
Actually, knowing about holograms would help you here. First of all, Holograms are projected by passing light through them. That is, you have to be able to see the film that the hologram is printed on to see the hologram. So for this to work, you would need the Hologram projectors in orbit.

Quote
They actively monitor the weather, and switch off or dim the holograms as clouds pass by.
But clouds can be local. So although a cloud is blocking my view of the "shuttle", my friend 10 or so kilometres away would not have their view blocked.

For this to work, there would need to be a projector every few kilometres coving the entire world.

Have you confirmed these projectors exist!?  Have you actually seen one!?

No.

It's wrong.

Prove it.
Actually we should have the same requirements of each. If we need to prove it, so do you or we have to dismiss this entire line of reasoning, from both sides, as pointless.

However, burden of proof is always upon the person making the original claim. As you made the original claim that these projectors exist, the burden of proof is upon you. This is well established debating practice, and not something I made up.

Quote
Or a computer programmer who created an AI that could be installed onto various computers around the world to monitor the holographic projectors, and was subsequently executed to prevent him going public with the information. See: Alan Turing.
As a computer programmer, and one interested in AI, the use of AI in this circumstance would be the wrong method. A computer AI could not repair damaged physical components without help from humans (it might be able to tell them what went wrong, but it could not fix it. Also, over time the image projector would degrade (if it is a hologram or other optically based system it would fade over time). Also, as new "spacecraft" are being developed, the images in the system would need to be updated to match the profiles of these new craft which could not be done without the input of humans.

So even in a best case scenario, this could not be completely driven by an AI.

The programmer would have had to establish a reputation for their work, and this would ahve given them some fame in the AI community (or why else would the governments chosen him/her to program the AI if they didn't know if the programmer could do it?). The death of such a person would not go unrecorded. Also, for a project that large, there would have to be a team of programmers which would number in the hundreds. These people would have had to base their work on others that came before them. So not only would the governments have to assassinate the actual programmers, but also the people they based their work on.

This would easily be several hundreds of people assassinated, if not thousands. This would also have to be done before any of them leaked this information, so would have to take place over a short period of time. This would not go unnoticed or unrecorded.