The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: El Cid on December 07, 2011, 03:30:23 PM

Title: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 07, 2011, 03:30:23 PM
Before you do anything, read the link below and learn exactly what CubeSat is, and why it contradicts FET.  It's easy to see, I think.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=citizen-satellites (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=citizen-satellites)
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: John Davis on December 07, 2011, 05:48:29 PM
I see no reason why it contradicts FET.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 07, 2011, 06:37:36 PM
I see no reason why it contradicts FET.

Ditto.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: jraffield1 on December 07, 2011, 07:02:52 PM
I thought orbit is impossible in FET.  ???
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: iwanttobelieve on December 07, 2011, 08:23:50 PM
the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 07, 2011, 09:02:05 PM
Great, some more junk we have to avoid having our satellites hitting. Just what I needed.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 07, 2011, 09:31:32 PM
the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

No, orbit is impossible in FET, because orbit depends on gravity, which cannot exist in FET because it would cause Earth to form itself into a sphere. The "orbit" of the sun and moon is an illusion caused by the way they move around above Flat Earth. They do this for unexplained reasons, which is fine because they are "mysteries".

A chunk of metal is not a "mystery".

Therefore, this chunk of metal disproves FET, unless it's a hoax. Now, why don't one of you flatters invest in one and then prove it's a hoax? Surely $100,000 is worth a step toward global enlightenment, yes?

edit: Excuse me, I suppose I mean planar enlightenment. Silly brainwashed me, didn't mean to let that slip out.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: LinearPlane on December 08, 2011, 08:26:38 AM
the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Incredibly HUGE fail.

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 08, 2011, 08:32:32 AM
the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Incredibly HUGE fail.

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.

False.  See the atom.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: The Knowledge on December 08, 2011, 08:54:19 AM
the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Incredibly HUGE fail.

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.

False.  See the atom.

Semantics.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: LinearPlane on December 08, 2011, 10:00:01 AM
the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Incredibly HUGE fail.

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.

False.  See the atom.

False. See the sentence above.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 08, 2011, 10:09:56 AM
Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: LinearPlane on December 08, 2011, 11:24:55 AM
Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.

Universal acceleration? LOL.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 08, 2011, 12:37:18 PM
Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.

Universal acceleration? LOL.

Universal acceleration is not a fundamental force and it is not even possible for such a force to exist. Acceleration is only possible to near speed of light velocities, once a physical object reaches this limit it will no longer accelerate but remain at a constant velocity. The object's mass will increase indefinitely, however. This is why FET is so silly. They can't even explain why we stick to the ground.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: jraffield1 on December 08, 2011, 01:07:49 PM
Strictly speaking the velocity would asymptotically the speed of light, once you get close enough you are, for all intents and purposes, moving at a constant velocity.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 01:15:26 PM
Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.

Universal acceleration? LOL.

Universal acceleration is not a fundamental force and it is not even possible for such a force to exist. Acceleration is only possible to near speed of light velocities, once a physical object reaches this limit it will no longer accelerate but remain at a constant velocity. The object's mass will increase indefinitely, however. This is why FET is so silly. They can't even explain why we stick to the ground.

Not true at all. You forget relativity.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 01:18:21 PM
Roundy the Truthinessist just successfully used a distraction technique, whether it was intentional or not.

Other types of orbit are irrelevant. We are talking about celestial orbit, not atomic orbit. Celestial orbit is impossible in FET. Satellites prove celestial orbit and thus disprove FET. The existence of hobbyist satellites disprove the claim that satellites are lies concocted by The Conspiracy. Thus CubeSat disproves FET.

You must address this problem instead of derailing the thread toward a discussion about atoms.

Unless you now claim that Earth is an atom.  ;D
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 01:22:42 PM
You forget relativity.

Um, no, YOU forget relativity. Or, to be precise, you willfully deny it. In order for indefinite, constant acceleration (UA) to be possible, the theory of relativity must be false. The theory of relativity is an evil Round Earth conspiracy. Don't you remember?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 08, 2011, 01:35:45 PM
Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.

Universal acceleration? LOL.

Universal acceleration is not a fundamental force and it is not even possible for such a force to exist. Acceleration is only possible to near speed of light velocities, once a physical object reaches this limit it will no longer accelerate but remain at a constant velocity. The object's mass will increase indefinitely, however. This is why FET is so silly. They can't even explain why we stick to the ground.

Not true at all. You forget relativity.

You obviously do not understand relativity. If relativity is true, universal acceleration is not. Pick one. If you don't understand why that is, try reading my post repeatedly until you do.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 02:33:59 PM
Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.

Universal acceleration? LOL.

Universal acceleration is not a fundamental force and it is not even possible for such a force to exist. Acceleration is only possible to near speed of light velocities, once a physical object reaches this limit it will no longer accelerate but remain at a constant velocity. The object's mass will increase indefinitely, however. This is why FET is so silly. They can't even explain why we stick to the ground.

Not true at all. You forget relativity.

You obviously do not understand relativity. If relativity is true, universal acceleration is not. Pick one. If you don't understand why that is, try reading my post repeatedly until you do.

By special relativity, one can accelerate forver at a constant rate and never reach 3.0X108 m/s (I can't be bothered to find out how much that is in words).
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 08, 2011, 04:00:38 PM
Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.


Universal acceleration? LOL.

Universal acceleration is not a fundamental force and it is not even possible for such a force to exist. Acceleration is only possible to near speed of light velocities, once a physical object reaches this limit it will no longer accelerate but remain at a constant velocity. The object's mass will increase indefinitely, however. This is why FET is so silly. They can't even explain why we stick to the ground.

Not true at all. You forget relativity.

You obviously do not understand relativity. If relativity is true, universal acceleration is not. Pick one. If you don't understand why that is, try reading my post repeatedly until you do.

By special relativity, one can accelerate forver at a constant rate and never reach 3.0X108 m/s (I can't be bothered to find out how much that is in words).

No, one cannot. Once an object approaches the speed of light all energy given to it increases its mass and increases its velocity at a severely reduced rate (The exact rate is not known, but it is a decimal point small enough to be considered null). Thus if UA did indeed exist, it would:

A: Have to be giving us an exponentially increasing amount of energy in order to get us anywhere near the speed of light.

B: Cause the earth to have been "stuck" just below the speed of light, accelerating us at a rate that would be considered null. Therefore our observable velocity would be constant and we would all float away.

C: Increase the earths mass proportional to the energy it gives us. UA would indeed make an infinite earth. An infinite earth with no life, since we would all be dead due to lack of gravity.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 04:46:04 PM
This thread is being derailed again. Let's go back to the issue at hand:

this chunk of metal disproves FET, unless it's a hoax. Now, why don't one of you flatters invest in one and then prove it's a hoax? Surely $100,000 is worth a step toward global enlightenment, yes?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 08, 2011, 04:48:59 PM
Hmm, my bad.

Let me give you the most likely FE responses:

"How are we supposed to afford that? you should buy it."

"It would be modified by the conspiracy to send incorrect geological information."

"Looks like it was made in a preschooler's art class!"

"Logical fallacy! LOGICAL FALLACY!"

I think that covers most of them.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 05:12:00 PM
Hmm, my bad.

Let me give you the most likely FE responses:

"How are we supposed to afford that? you should buy it."
Thork

"It would be modified by the conspiracy to send incorrect geological information."
James

"Looks like it was made in a preschooler's art class!"
Tom

"Logical fallacy! LOGICAL FALLACY!"
Me

I think that covers most of them.

Did I guess correctly? Also, those satellites are not for 'civilians', unless the average civilian is able to spend 100,000 dollars on toys. They're for scientists, and they're used to conduct low-gravity experiments. They're compatible with FET.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 05:25:30 PM
Also, those satellites are not for 'civilians', unless the average civilian is able to spend 100,000 dollars on toys. They're for scientists, and they're used to conduct low-gravity experiments. They're compatible with FET.

Wrong on all counts.

They are for civilians. Did you not notice the heading, "Citizen Satellites"? $10,000 is not a big deal for a hobbyist. Countless computer and audiovisual enthusiasts have spent that much and more on their toys.

Even if they were only "for scientists" (and again I emphasize they are not), surely you are not saying every scientist is part of the conspiracy.

And they're for space missions, not mere atmospheric. They go into orbit, which is a direct contradiction of FET. They are in no way compatible.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 05:27:20 PM
Also, those satellites are not for 'civilians', unless the average civilian is able to spend 100,000 dollars on toys. They're for scientists, and they're used to conduct low-gravity experiments. They're compatible with FET.

Wrong on all counts.

They are for civilians. Did you not notice the heading, "Citizen Satellites"? $10,000 is not a big deal for a hobbyist. Countless computer and audiovisual enthusiasts have spent that much and more on their toys.

Even if they were only "for scientists" (and again I emphasize they are not), surely you are not saying every scientist is part of the conspiracy.

And they're for space missions, not mere atmospheric. They go into orbit, which is a direct contradiction of FET. They are in no way compatible.

Not 10,000 dollars, 100,000 dollars
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 05:32:36 PM
Oh yes, well pardon me.

Again I ask, why doesn't the Flat Earth Society invest in one and demonstrate first-hand that satellites are frauds, and publically give credence to your claim that gravity doesn't exist and there is a conspiracy.

You are living in a world where everyone is brainwashed except for you. It's up to you to save the world. Are you seriously telling me that is not worth a $100,000 fundraiser?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 05:39:41 PM
Oh yes, well pardon me.

Again I ask, why doesn't the Flat Earth Society invest in one and demonstrate first-hand that satellites are frauds, and publically give credence to your claim that gravity doesn't exist and there is a conspiracy.

You are living in a world where everyone is brainwashed except for you. It's up to you to save the world. Are you seriously telling me that is not worth a $100,000 fundraiser?

Do  you have any suggestions as to how we could raise that money?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 05:54:43 PM
Why not start a thread to discuss that question with your fellow society members?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 05:59:31 PM
Why not start a thread to discuss that question with your fellow society members?

I will do just that in the secret forum. Good idea.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 08, 2011, 06:39:21 PM
the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Incredibly HUGE fail.

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.

False.  See the atom.

False. See the sentence above.

No, it's absolutely true.

Roundy the Truthinessist just successfully used a distraction technique, whether it was intentional or not.

Other types of orbit are irrelevant. We are talking about celestial orbit, not atomic orbit. Celestial orbit is impossible in FET. Satellites prove celestial orbit and thus disprove FET. The existence of hobbyist satellites disprove the claim that satellites are lies concocted by The Conspiracy. Thus CubeSat disproves FET.

You must address this problem instead of derailing the thread toward a discussion about atoms.

Unless you now claim that Earth is an atom.  ;D

No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 08, 2011, 08:59:36 PM
No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.
No.  Orbit can exist in other ways, true, but not over Earth.  These are atomic forces, and do not apply.  Hence, "unless you suggest the Earth is an atom."  By the way, atoms are spheres (or close, at least).

Your point simply makes no sense in the context.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 08, 2011, 09:09:27 PM
No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.
No.  Orbit can exist in other ways, true, but not over Earth.  These are atomic forces, and do not apply.  Hence, "unless you suggest the Earth is an atom."  By the way, atoms are spheres (or close, at least).

Your point simply makes no sense in the context.

Sure it does.  It shows that orbit can refer to a curved path not caused by gravity, the very antithesis of the point of the post quoted.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 08, 2011, 09:14:37 PM
No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.
No.  Orbit can exist in other ways, true, but not over Earth.  These are atomic forces, and do not apply.  Hence, "unless you suggest the Earth is an atom."  By the way, atoms are spheres (or close, at least).

Your point simply makes no sense in the context.

Sure it does.  It shows that orbit can refer to a curved path not caused by gravity, the very antithesis of the point of the post quoted.
Of course, but the point is, that doesn't explain the orbit of CubeSat.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 09:36:09 PM
No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.

Yes, congratulations, you successfully pointed out the semantic flaw in the statement "orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path." But by focusing on this error, you are distracting from the issue at hand, which is celestial orbit. The person who made the error was hardly using distraction because his narrow definition of "orbit" does fit the issue at hand.

I don't understand how you can't see this, unless you ARE in fact claiming that Earth works like an atom, in which case you're saying Earth orbit is possible, which would render all of FET's valiant attempts to craft alternate explanations for "fake" orbit pointless. And it puts you back at square one: You now have to concoct a whole new set of theories to deny all the science that says Earth is nothing like an atom, satellites are nothing like electrons, etcetera, AND you'd need to explain all over again how Earth can be flat in such a system, considering that the nucleus of any atom is also spherical!  Are you sure you want to do this?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 08, 2011, 09:42:22 PM
No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.

Yes, congratulations, you successfully pointed out the semantic flaw in the statement "orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path." But by focusing on this error, you are distracting from the issue at hand, which is celestial orbit. The person who made the error was hardly using distraction because his narrow definition of "orbit" does fit the issue at hand.

It was a semantic point to start with, and hence inherently worthless in debate.  That it was entirely wrong just makes it worse.

Quote
I don't understand how you can't see this, unless you ARE in fact claiming that Earth works like an atom, in which case you're saying Earth orbit is possible, which would render all of FET's valiant attempts to craft alternate explanations for "fake" orbit pointless. And it puts you back at square one: You now have to concoct a whole new set of theories to deny all the science that says Earth is nothing like an atom, satellites are nothing like electrons, etcetera, AND you'd need to explain all over again how Earth can be flat in such a system, considering that the nucleus of any atom is also spherical!  Are you sure you want to do this?

I am not saying the Earth behaves like an atom (in fact, we're not talking about the Earth at all here).  I am simply pointing out that as orbits don't have to be gravitational to still be orbits, the kind of orbit witnessed in Flat Earth Theory doesn't necessarily have to be gravitational in nature, either.  It was a silly argument, and if you feel my rebuttal was overly semantic, you can feel free to just disregard it from here on out and move on to what you deem to be the important things in this debate.

Sure it does.  It shows that orbit can refer to a curved path not caused by gravity, the very antithesis of the point of the post quoted.
Of course, but the point is, that doesn't explain the orbit of CubeSat.

Irrelevant.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 08, 2011, 09:57:56 PM
Of course, but the point is, that doesn't explain the orbit of CubeSat.

Irrelevant.
Oh, the irony.

Okay, so we've settled that you're completely right as always; so how does CubeSat orbit the Earth?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 10:04:53 PM
It was a semantic point to start with,

No it wasn't. "iwanttobelieve" claimed that "orbit" was possible in FET, and he was discussing celestial bodies. LinearPlane's point was that he was wrong because orbit requires gravity. Other types of "orbit" such as atomic were not mentioned because they were irrelevant to the discussion.


I am not saying the Earth behaves like an atom (in fact, we're not talking about the Earth at all here).  I am simply pointing out that as orbits don't have to be gravitational to still be orbits, the kind of orbit witnessed in Flat Earth Theory doesn't necessarily have to be gravitational in nature, either.

Yes, so what I said applies. If FET is willing to concede that true, spherical orbit is possible then why go through all the trouble of claiming satellites are frauds and the sun and moon don't orbit and all that nonsense?

We already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites: gravity. You in fact make yourself even less credible by saying that Earth neither has gravity nor behaves like an atom. You are instead claiming that orbit can operate on another, completely unknown method for which there is no observed precedent -- yet another dubious theory to add to your "universal acceleration" and "bendy light" and so forth. You'd be much better off either a) accepting gravity or b) just sticking with your original claim that celestial orbit is impossible.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 08, 2011, 10:15:37 PM
the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Incredibly HUGE fail.

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.
Original quote, let's not forget.

Let me jazz it up a bit:

the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Incredibly HUGE fail.

In physics, when discussing orbit around the Earth, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.
Remarkable how easy it was to fix that, wasn't it?  Certainly, I wouldn't have noticed this distinction unless I was looking for something ridiculous to argue about.


I will ask you once again:  How can CubeSat orbit the Earth?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 08, 2011, 10:22:30 PM
It was a semantic point to start with,

No it wasn't. "iwanttobelieve" claimed that "orbit" was possible in FET, and he was discussing celestial bodies. LinearPlane's point was that he was wrong because orbit requires gravity. Other types of "orbit" such as atomic were not mentioned because they were irrelevant to the discussion.

The point, again, is that orbit does not require gravity.  The claim was that orbit requires gravity.  It's narrow-minded to assume that this is the case, particularly when it can be so easily shown to not be the case.

Quote
I am not saying the Earth behaves like an atom (in fact, we're not talking about the Earth at all here).  I am simply pointing out that as orbits don't have to be gravitational to still be orbits, the kind of orbit witnessed in Flat Earth Theory doesn't necessarily have to be gravitational in nature, either.

Yes, so what I said applies. If FET is willing to concede that true, spherical orbit is possible then why go through all the trouble of claiming satellites are frauds and the sun and moon don't orbit and all that nonsense?

We already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites: gravity. You in fact make yourself even less credible by saying that Earth neither has gravity nor behaves like an atom. You are instead claiming that orbit can operate on another, completely unknown method for which there is no observed precedent -- yet another dubious theory to add to your "universal acceleration" and "bendy light" and so forth. You'd be much better off either a) accepting gravity or b) just sticking with your original claim that celestial orbit is impossible.

What observed precedent was there for the behavior of the atom before its properties were discovered less than two centuries ago?  All theories have to start somewhere.  This does nothing to weaken my point in the slightest.

Okay, so we've settled that you're completely right as always; so how does CubeSat orbit the Earth?

The prevailing theory seems to be aetheric eddification.

In physics, when discussing orbit around the Earth, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.

We are not discussing orbit around the Earth.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 08, 2011, 11:12:16 PM
We are not discussing orbit around the Earth.

Yes we are. I am discussing orbit around Earth; El Cid is discussing orbit around Earth. LinearPlane was discussing orbit around Earth when he posted this thread, iwanttobelieve was discussing orbit around Earth when he claimed it was possible in FET, and then LinearPlane was still discussing orbit around Earth when he replied to that.  The only person who is not discussing orbit around Earth is you. Hence, you are accused of distraction techniques and evasiveness.


What observed precedent was there for the behavior of the atom before its properties were discovered less than two centuries ago?  All theories have to start somewhere.  This does nothing to weaken my point in the slightest.

As I said: We already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites: gravity. Atoms, yes, had a totally new theory applied to them when they were discovered, and, that theory was backed by evidence. Earth, believe it or not, is not a new discovery. Gravity has been the accepted explanation for a long time, and now you are proposing that it is wrong and replacing it with something pulled from your imagination for which there is no evidence. You see the difference?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 09, 2011, 04:08:41 AM
We are not discussing orbit around the Earth.

Yes we are. I am discussing orbit around Earth; El Cid is discussing orbit around Earth. LinearPlane was discussing orbit around Earth when he posted this thread, iwanttobelieve was discussing orbit around Earth when he claimed it was possible in FET, and then LinearPlane was still discussing orbit around Earth when he replied to that.  The only person who is not discussing orbit around Earth is you. Hence, you are accused of distraction techniques and evasiveness.

You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.


Quote
What observed precedent was there for the behavior of the atom before its properties were discovered less than two centuries ago?  All theories have to start somewhere.  This does nothing to weaken my point in the slightest.

As I said: We already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites: gravity. Atoms, yes, had a totally new theory applied to them when they were discovered, and, that theory was backed by evidence. Earth, believe it or not, is not a new discovery. Gravity has been the accepted explanation for a long time, and now you are proposing that it is wrong and replacing it with something pulled from your imagination for which there is no evidence. You see the difference?

The fact that you already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites is irrelevant, since it obviously doesn't apply to a FE.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: LinearPlane on December 09, 2011, 07:05:36 AM
This thread has become a joke. I wish FET trollers would get a life and stop arguing for things they know aren't true and a cause they don't even believe in. Don't you have something better to do?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: The Knowledge on December 09, 2011, 01:05:29 PM
This thread has become a joke. I wish FET trollers would get a life and stop arguing for things they know aren't true and a cause they don't even believe in. Don't you have something better to do?

A summary of the entire forum there.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 09, 2011, 01:40:40 PM
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth. Conclusion: Either FET is wrong, or this thing is a fraud. If it's a fraud, you finally have an affordable means of proving so.


Quote
Quote
What observed precedent was there for the behavior of the atom before its properties were discovered less than two centuries ago?  All theories have to start somewhere.  This does nothing to weaken my point in the slightest.

As I said: We already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites: gravity. Atoms, yes, had a totally new theory applied to them when they were discovered, and, that theory was backed by evidence. Earth, believe it or not, is not a new discovery. Gravity has been the accepted explanation for a long time, and now you are proposing that it is wrong and replacing it with something pulled from your imagination for which there is no evidence. You see the difference?

The fact that you already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites is irrelevant, since it obviously doesn't apply to a FE.

You accept that gravity exists in other celestial bodies. If an orbit that exactly matches the behavior of gravitational orbit is witnessed around Earth, the logical conclusion is that Earth has gravity and is therefore a spherical celestial body like the others. You KNOW this is true, otherwise you wouldn't have spent so much effort claiming that Earth orbit is impossible. Now faced with the prospect of CubeSat, you're prepared to create a brand new, alternate "orbit" theory just so you can continue to deny the existence of gravity on Earth. It's pathetic.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 09, 2011, 02:45:35 PM
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: jraffield1 on December 09, 2011, 03:13:12 PM
Its actually kind of interesting. If there are object orbiting at different heights around a central axis running through the North pole, then the force responsible for the orbit cannot be gravity. Gravity is a spherically symmetric force, this new force however is only cylindrically symmetric and so cannot be gravity. Another interesting bit to think about is what is the source of this force. With gravity you have mass, with electric forces you have charge; when we observe the space above the North pole, we don't see anything. What could be causing this new cylindrically symmetric force?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 09, 2011, 03:23:24 PM
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 09, 2011, 03:24:50 PM
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?

In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting (see your fellow REer jraffield1's post for clarification).  Do you understand that?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 09, 2011, 03:27:15 PM
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?

In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting (see your fellow REer jraffield1's post for clarification).  Do you understand that?
So orbit IS possible.  It's just caused by magic, not gravity.  Why didn't you just say so?  Why has everyone always said that orbit is impossible?  Why didn't you, when you first saw the thread, said, "Orbit is possible, but it's caused by magic, not gravity."
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 09, 2011, 03:34:03 PM
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?

In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting (see your fellow REer jraffield1's post for clarification).  Do you understand that?
So orbit IS possible.  It's just caused by magic, not gravity.  Why didn't you just say so?  Why has everyone always said that orbit is impossible?  Why didn't you, when you first saw the thread, said, "Orbit is possible, but it's caused by magic, not gravity."

Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ, and the only mentions of it I see in this thread is by REers... who have been corrected about their error by FEers.  Have you considered visiting www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org)?  It may change your life.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 09, 2011, 04:15:57 PM
Yeah, orbit is possible. Earth round the Sun for instance.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 09, 2011, 04:49:34 PM
Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ, and the only mentions of it I see in this thread is by REers... who have been corrected about their error by FEers.  Have you considered visiting www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org)?  It may change your life.

How ironic that you accuse of us not reading when I already posted the response to this "orbit is possible in FET" bullshit on the first page of this thread:

the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

No, orbit is impossible in FET, because orbit depends on gravity, which cannot exist in FET because it would cause Earth to form itself into a sphere. The "orbit" of the sun and moon is an illusion caused by the way they move around above Flat Earth. They do this for unexplained reasons, which is fine because they are "mysteries".

A chunk of metal is not a "mystery".

Therefore, this chunk of metal disproves FET, unless it's a hoax.
Now, why don't one of you flatters invest in one and then prove it's a hoax? Surely $100,000 is worth a step toward global enlightenment, yes?

edit: Excuse me, I suppose I mean planar enlightenment. Silly brainwashed me, didn't mean to let that slip out.

See the bold part for the point you have still failed to address in favor of your semantic distraction techniques.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 09, 2011, 04:51:27 PM
In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting

In FE, satellites don't exist.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 09, 2011, 04:53:05 PM
Some say yes, some say no.

However there's nothing substantial to replace them (the whole pseudolites-stratellites didn't give any proof whatsoever).
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 09, 2011, 04:54:15 PM
Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ

From the FAQ:

Quote
satellites cannot orbit the Earth.
Quote
satellites do not exist.

Now please stop evading and explain CubeSat.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tausami on December 09, 2011, 07:01:02 PM
Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ

From the FAQ:

Quote
satellites cannot orbit the Earth.
Quote
satellites do not exist.

Now please stop evading and explain CubeSat.

Already done. Stop asking for more answers, you already have one.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 09, 2011, 07:57:11 PM
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?

In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting (see your fellow REer jraffield1's post for clarification).  Do you understand that?
So orbit IS possible.  It's just caused by magic, not gravity.  Why didn't you just say so?  Why has everyone always said that orbit is impossible?  Why didn't you, when you first saw the thread, said, "Orbit is possible, but it's caused by magic, not gravity."

Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ, and the only mentions of it I see in this thread is by REers... who have been corrected about their error by FEers.  Have you considered visiting www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org)?  It may change your life.
We are not discussing orbit around the Earth.

Yes we are. I am discussing orbit around Earth; El Cid is discussing orbit around Earth. LinearPlane was discussing orbit around Earth when he posted this thread, iwanttobelieve was discussing orbit around Earth when he claimed it was possible in FET, and then LinearPlane was still discussing orbit around Earth when he replied to that.  The only person who is not discussing orbit around Earth is you. Hence, you are accused of distraction techniques and evasiveness.

You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 09, 2011, 09:05:42 PM
Already done. Stop asking for more answers, you already have one.

The first third of this thread was wasted with irrelevant discussions about atoms and UA. Then, finally, you agreed to start a discussion in the "secret forum" about raising funds for CubeSat. I don't know if you were telling the truth, but if so, good job and I look forward to your results.

You seem to be of the opinion that it must be a hoax.  Roundy, though, has taken a different route: he refuses to give a direct answer, makes self-contradicting claims about whether Earth-orbiting satellites are possible in FET, and has wasted the latter two thirds of this thead evading the issue of CubeSat's implications.

So no, we haven't been given an answer.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 09, 2011, 09:20:25 PM
Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ, and the only mentions of it I see in this thread is by REers... who have been corrected about their error by FEers.  Have you considered visiting www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org)?  It may change your life.

How ironic that you accuse of us not reading when I already posted the response to this "orbit is possible in FET" bullshit on the first page of this thread:

the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

No, orbit is impossible in FET, because orbit depends on gravity...

Already successfully debunked, thanks for playing.

From the FAQ:

Quote
satellites cannot orbit the Earth.
Quote
satellites do not exist.

The FAQ is just a starting point, meant to acquaint you with the basics of the theory; as such, it can't present the full diversity of FE opinion.  A growing number of us have rejected the notion that spaceflight is impossible, and with it the notion that satellites cannot be in orbit.

Now, as has been stated, they don't orbit the Earth.  They are orbiting a point in the center of the universe.  But they are orbiting something.

You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?

In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting (see your fellow REer jraffield1's post for clarification).  Do you understand that?
So orbit IS possible.  It's just caused by magic, not gravity.  Why didn't you just say so?  Why has everyone always said that orbit is impossible?  Why didn't you, when you first saw the thread, said, "Orbit is possible, but it's caused by magic, not gravity."

Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ, and the only mentions of it I see in this thread is by REers... who have been corrected about their error by FEers.  Have you considered visiting www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org)?  It may change your life.
We are not discussing orbit around the Earth.

Yes we are. I am discussing orbit around Earth; El Cid is discussing orbit around Earth. LinearPlane was discussing orbit around Earth when he posted this thread, iwanttobelieve was discussing orbit around Earth when he claimed it was possible in FET, and then LinearPlane was still discussing orbit around Earth when he replied to that.  The only person who is not discussing orbit around Earth is you. Hence, you are accused of distraction techniques and evasiveness.

You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

I do hope I've made the distinction clear enough by now.  I don't know how many times I have to spell it out.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 09, 2011, 09:51:39 PM
No, orbit is impossible in FET, because orbit depends on gravity...

Already successfully debunked, thanks for playing.

Why must you be so lazy? Can you not read for longer than ten words without spouting a worthless knee-jerk "rebuttal"? Here is the rest of the quote, again:
Quote
The "orbit" of the sun and moon is an illusion caused by the way they move around above Flat Earth. They do this for unexplained reasons, which is fine because they are "mysteries".

A chunk of metal is not a "mystery".

Therefore, this chunk of metal disproves FET, unless it's a hoax
Your "debunking" was saying that some other, mysterious type of orbit does exist, therefore the existence of a working satellite does not pose a threat to FET.

But you're wrong because you can't play your "awe and mystery of the unknown" card when it comes to a manmade object that is built specifically on the assumption that gravitational orbit works, and that manmade object actually does work. You know full well this is a problem; that is why you have so far skirted the issue by claiming that satellites don't exist.

Furthermore, you won't be able to claim that space photos are fake if you can take your own now.

So, please explain CubeSat.


From the FAQ:

Quote
satellites cannot orbit the Earth.
Quote
satellites do not exist.

The FAQ is just a starting point, meant to acquaint you with the basics of the theory; as such, it can't present the full diversity of FE opinion.

Again, READ THE WHOLE POST. I am well aware of the cherry-picking relationship you have with your FAQ, but my post was directly in response to: "Who said orbit is impossible? It's certainly not in the FAQ". You said it wasn't in the FAQ. It was. The purpose of my post was to expose that falsehood. Nothing more.

Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 09, 2011, 09:53:51 PM
I'm confused, so FE'ers admit that satellites do exist? Is that what I'm seeing?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 10, 2011, 04:34:39 AM
Your "debunking" was saying that some other, mysterious type of orbit does exist, therefore the existence of a working satellite does not pose a threat to FET.

But you're wrong because you can't play your "awe and mystery of the unknown" card when it comes to a manmade object that is built specifically on the assumption that gravitational orbit works, and that manmade object actually does work. You know full well this is a problem; that is why you have so far skirted the issue by claiming that satellites don't exist.

It's certainly not the first time scientists have been accidentally right about something.  In fact aetheric eddification does seem to be tied into the gravity of the Earth somehow.  It's just not in the same way as RE scientists envision it, because they're viewing it from a RE perspective.

Quote
Furthermore, you won't be able to claim that space photos are fake if you can take your own now.

This is certainly true, and in fact one of the cornerstones of the current theory is that there is no Conspiracy, just misconceptions.  Please lurk moar.

Quote
So, please explain CubeSat.

Already done; read the thread again.


Quote
From the FAQ:

Quote
satellites cannot orbit the Earth.
Quote
satellites do not exist.

The FAQ is just a starting point, meant to acquaint you with the basics of the theory; as such, it can't present the full diversity of FE opinion.

Again, READ THE WHOLE POST. I am well aware of the cherry-picking relationship you have with your FAQ, but my post was directly in response to: "Who said orbit is impossible? It's certainly not in the FAQ". You said it wasn't in the FAQ. It was. The purpose of my post was to expose that falsehood. Nothing more.

One wonders if you are capable of comprehending even what you choose to post.  Neither of the quotes you provided from the FAQ states that orbit is impossible.  As you can see (one would certainly hope, anyway) my point stands firm.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 10, 2011, 04:35:24 AM
I'm confused, so FE'ers admit that satellites do exist? Is that what I'm seeing?

Hi, welcome to this thread.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 10, 2011, 04:40:42 AM
See the topic "Pseudolites" in "Flat Earth General".

You'll see that satellites are more or less accepted and pseudolites more or less rejected.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 10, 2011, 04:43:11 AM
See the topic "Pseudolites" in "Flat Earth General".

You'll see that satellites are more or less accepted and pseudolites more or less rejected.

Yes, that is indeed the current thinking among many FEers.  Do you have anything to add to the discussion?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 10, 2011, 04:44:19 AM
And you?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 04:47:55 AM
See the topic "Pseudolites" in "Flat Earth General".

You'll see that satellites are more or less accepted and pseudolites more or less rejected.

Yes, that is indeed the current thinking among many FEers.  Do you have anything to add to the discussion?
Well, thanks for clearing that up. I suspect that the FAQ needs an related update.

Now, can you point us to the FEers' explanation of how satellites, like the ISS, move across the FE? I seem to recall that FET needed magic pathways to keep the planets on course. Do satellites need magic pathways too?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 10, 2011, 04:49:10 AM
Satellites completely discredits FE.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 04:55:57 AM
Satellites completely discredits FE.
I would have to agree, unless there are those magical pathways... I suspect that FEers need a lot more duct tape to hold together their theory now. Once you admit that satellites are real and orbit the Earth, then you have to explain the physics of how they orbit over an FE. I wonder how long this patching will take. I wonder if it'll be like the decision that biomass causes the monthly phases of the Moon. Maybe though, we'll see evidence and logic this time. (How could a body without an atmosphere have biomass that covers it in 14 days, starting with nothing!?)

I also suspect that Tom Bishop will rant that Roundy is wrong, or at least those Roundy claims are "currently thinking" are wrong.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 10, 2011, 05:35:40 AM
And they'll have to explain all the nice images of the RE.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: PizzaPlanet on December 10, 2011, 05:36:55 AM
I suspect that the FAQ needs an related update.
Yes.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 10, 2011, 12:27:42 PM
Neither of the quotes you provided from the FAQ states that orbit is impossible.

Once again, you are pointlessly arguing semantics. You know perfectly well that both you and the person you were talking to were specifically discussing the orbit of satellites, and the FAQ clearly states that such orbit is not possible. It doesn't get any clearer than "satellites cannot orbit the Earth".


Quote
It's certainly not the first time scientists have been accidentally right about something.

Alright, let me get this straight: orbit above Earth that looks exactly like gravitational orbit does in fact occur, but it's a cosmic coincidence. Despite the fact that other bodies have gravity, the exact same behavior observed in Earth's skies is assumed to not be gravity, but something else for which you actually have no theory, and your only defense for this assumption is: "a theory has to start somewhere".

I don't think you understand how theories work. Given the facts, the most rational assumption is that Earth is a planet. You don't start with the assumption that Earth is for some reason a flat plane and then say that all the countless anomalies that are easily explained by the theory that Earth is a planet are all just mysteries that you have yet to solve.


Quote
Quote
Furthermore, you won't be able to claim that space photos are fake if you can take your own now.
This is certainly true, and in fact one of the cornerstones of the current theory is that there is no Conspiracy, just misconceptions.  Please lurk moar.

Oh really? That's the "current theory", is it? Then why is this thread from less than one month ago (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51768.0) full of Flatters trying to deny the veracity of such photography?

"It's clearly another poorly made video from the Conspiracy (NASA, KFC). They do this all the time." --Tausami

"We don't deny that the ISS exists. We question whether it is truly in orbit around the earth. It may very well be that the ISS is in the upper atmosphere, buoyant through helium or some other means, and NASA warped the video to make the earth seem more curvy." --Tom Bishop

Or how about your own posts less than a day ago in this thread (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52029.120)?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Conker on December 10, 2011, 12:52:31 PM
[FE´r] NASA launched it, so it´s part of the c0nZp1rAz1!!!11!1!1!one [/FE´r]
Anyway, I posted a long time ago about the same kind of satellites ( I even mentioned the CubeSat, I think)

Answer: Ignored/Conspiracy Thread Derailing
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2011, 01:04:29 PM
Just to clarify:

There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort.

There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA from the get-go: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was just a front.

See this quote from president Lyndon Johnson:


One month later, Lyndon Johnson and the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics drafted a resolution to change the name of the US Army's Ballistic Missile Arsenal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NASA's early rocket research was a complete failure, plagued by one disaster after another. At some point they decided to fake the space program outright.

The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because NASA thinks it's round. They're not running a real space program, so they wouldn't know what shape the earth truly takes. At the time of NASA's creation everyone had believed that the earth was round, so that's how they displayed it. Like everyone else, the people at NASA themselves were brainwashed with the fiction of a globe earth from the cradle, so there was no doubt in their mind as how to display it.

NASA takes high altitude imagery from the edge of the atmosphere and adds curvature to the scene make it seem like the craft is higher than it is.

Apollo was completely fabricated. A globe earth was used in scenes because that's what everyone expected to see.

NASA used a globe to represent the earth because that's what everyone of the 50's and 60's expected to see, and what they themselves would expect to see, growing up under the illusions of a Round Earth.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: jraffield1 on December 10, 2011, 01:12:59 PM
Just to clarify:

There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort.

There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA from the get-go: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space. "Exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was just a front.

See this quote from president Lyndon Johnson:

    "Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth's weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid. There is something more important than the ultimate weapon. And that's the ultimate position. The position of total control over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space." -President Lyndon Johnson, Statement on Status of Nation's Defense and Race for Space, January 7, 1958

One month later, LBJ and the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics drafted a resolution to change the name of the US Army's Ballistic Missile Arsenal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NASA's early rocket research was a complete failure, plagued by one disaster after another. At some point they decided to fake the space program outright.

The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because NASA thinks it's round. They're not running a real space program, so they wouldn't know what shape the earth truly takes. At the time of NASA's creation everyone had believed that the earth was round, so that's how they displayed it. Like everyone else, the people at NASA themselves were brainwashed with the fiction of a globe earth from the cradle, so there was no doubt in their mind as how to display it.

NASA takes high altitude imagery from the edge of space and adds curvature to the scene make it seem like the craft is higher than it is.

Apollo was completely fabricated. A globe earth was used in scenes because that's what everyone expected to see.

So if NASA knows that space travel is impossible and alone knows that we lack any real dominance in space, why did America get so worked up over China shooting down down one of its satellites if it knew it was a lie?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2011, 01:25:56 PM
So if NASA knows that space travel is impossible and alone knows that we lack any real dominance in space, why did America get so worked up over China shooting down down one of its satellites if it knew it was a lie?

Firstly, NASA may not know that space travel is impossible. They just know that it is extremely hard and beyond their abilities.

Secondly, American public got worked up over China's claims because they aren't in on it. Congress got worked up because they aren't in on it. NASA likely knows that China's space program is a hoax.

They aren't even doing it very well.

China's Space Walk Was FAKE


China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 2)


China even published dialogue between astronauts before the rocket had even left the ground (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,428262,00.html).
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: markjo on December 10, 2011, 01:58:44 PM
Firstly, NASA may not know that space travel is impossible. They just know that it is extremely hard and beyond their abilities.

What evidence do you have that space travel is beyond the ability of NASA?  Several FE'ers contend that space travel is possible, so why wouldn't NASA be able to figure out how to do it after more than 50 years?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 10, 2011, 02:00:08 PM
So if NASA knows that space travel is impossible and alone knows that we lack any real dominance in space, why did America get so worked up over China shooting down down one of its satellites if it knew it was a lie?

Firstly, NASA may not know that space travel is impossible. They just know that it is extremely hard and beyond their abilities.

Secondly, American public got worked up over China's claims because they aren't in on it. Congress got worked up because they aren't in on it. NASA likely knows that China's space program is a hoax.

They aren't even doing it very well.

China's Space Walk Was FAKE


China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_13631&src_vid=lBL98p0wZ7g&v=NVbBFwdmldA

China even published dialogue between astronauts before the rocket had even left the ground (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,428262,00.html).

China'a Space Program =/= NASA, I don't really much care if the chinese did a real or fake space walk. As long as they don't start to ignore the UN and weaponize space, everything is peachy.

As far as NASA goes, your motives for the conspiracy are not convincing and the whole thing taken into consideration is just plain silly. You already admitted hundreds of astronauts would have to be lying along with NASA executives somehow modifying thousands of control networks "just enough" to make them believable. Its just too far fetched for anyone to take it seriously. Your NASA conspiracy will soon go the way of "ice wall guards" and die a sad, lonely death.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2011, 02:26:00 PM
Firstly, NASA may not know that space travel is impossible. They just know that it is extremely hard and beyond their abilities.

What evidence do you have that space travel is beyond the ability of NASA?  Several FE'ers contend that space travel is possible, so why wouldn't NASA be able to figure out how to do it after more than 50 years?

If it was within their ability they wouldn't need to be faking their space program.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs
China'a Space Program =/= NASA, I don't really much care if the chinese did a real or fake space walk. As long as they don't start to ignore the UN and weaponize space, everything is peachy.

Funny how you RE'ers flip flop when shown evidence of China's space fakery. One moment China is running a real space program. The next moment it's "China isn't NASA" and "I don't care if the Chinese space program is real or not."

Quote from: Irushwithscvs
As far as NASA goes, your motives for the conspiracy are not convincing and the whole thing taken into consideration is just plain silly. You already admitted hundreds of astronauts would have to be lying along with NASA executives somehow modifying thousands of control networks "just enough" to make them believable. Its just too far fetched for anyone to take it seriously. Your NASA conspiracy will soon go the way of "ice wall guards" and die a sad, lonely death.

How can you make this argument when you just implicitly agreed that China involved hundreds of people in its hoax?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 10, 2011, 02:31:27 PM
Firstly, NASA may not know that space travel is impossible. They just know that it is extremely hard and beyond their abilities.

What evidence do you have that space travel is beyond the ability of NASA?  Several FE'ers contend that space travel is possible, so why wouldn't NASA be able to figure out how to do it after more than 50 years?

If it was within their ability they wouldn't be faking their space program.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs
China'a Space Program =/= NASA, I don't really much care if the chinese did a real or fake space walk. As long as they don't start to ignore the UN and weaponize space, everything is peachy.

Funny how you RE'ers flip flop when shown evidence of China's space fakery. One moment China is running a real space program. The next moment it's "China isn't NASA" and "I don't care if the Chinese space program is real or not."

Quote from: Irushwithscvs
As far as NASA goes, your motives for the conspiracy are not convincing and the whole thing taken into consideration is just plain silly. You already admitted hundreds of astronauts would have to be lying along with NASA executives somehow modifying thousands of control networks "just enough" to make them believable. Its just too far fetched for anyone to take it seriously. Your NASA conspiracy will soon go the way of "ice wall guards" and die a sad, lonely death.

How can you make this argument when you just implicitly agreed that China involved hundreds of people in its hoax?

Funny how this is the first time I've ever mentioned China at all yet I've somehow changed my opinion of them on this site. Also, I said I didn't care either way. I did not say whether I think it is real or fake. Why is it you only see what you want to see in a post? You don't even attempt to hide your bias.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 10, 2011, 02:32:57 PM
Quote
If it was within their ability they wouldn't be faking their space program.
Why are you assuming they are faking the space program?  They have working rockets?  Why would they not just launch them into the UA? 

Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2011, 02:41:29 PM
Funny how this is the first time I've ever mentioned China at all yet I've somehow changed my opinion of them on this site. Also, I said I didn't care either way. I did not say whether I think it is real or fake. Why is it you only see what you want to see in a post? You don't even attempt to hide your bias.

I said "you RE'ers," not you specifically. Whenever the Chinese Space agency is brought up one need only to post those links and suddenly the subject is diverted to "China isn't NASA" and "just because one space agency is a hoax doesn't mean that another one is," etc.

Statements like that entirely undermine the "hundreds of people couldn't be in on it" and "it's impossible!" arguments.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit
Why are you assuming they are faking the space program?  They have working rockets?  Why would they not just launch them into the UA?

- I have working model rockets in my garage which travel straight upwards until they fade out of sight. But just because I have working rockets doesn't make me a space power.

- The existence of Universal Accelerator is in contention and the types of bodies and properties it would affect is unknown. If it exists then it's obviously not accelerating everything upwards, otherwise we wouldn't be pinned to the earth's surface.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 02:45:41 PM
...
Whenever the Chinese Space agency is brought up one need only to post those links and suddenly the subject is diverted to "China isn't NASA" and "just because one space agency is a hoax doesn't mean that another one is," etc.
...
Nope. We know you're wrong and chose to ignore your fantasies. Please read, again: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/)
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2011, 02:49:13 PM
...
Whenever the Chinese Space agency is brought up one need only to post those links and suddenly the subject is diverted to "China isn't NASA" and "just because one space agency is a hoax doesn't mean that another one is," etc.
...
Nope. We know you're wrong and chose to ignore your fantasies. Please read, again: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/)

The author's main argument in that blog post is "Yeeeeeah." Not very compelling.

The Chinese Space Walk is clearly fake, and the scenes are clearly underwater. The fact that dialog between astronauts was published before the rocket even left the ground is just icing on the cake.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 10, 2011, 02:49:17 PM
Funny how this is the first time I've ever mentioned China at all yet I've somehow changed my opinion of them on this site. Also, I said I didn't care either way. I did not say whether I think it is real or fake. Why is it you only see what you want to see in a post? You don't even attempt to hide your bias.

I said "you RE'ers," not you specifically. Whenever the Chinese Space agency is brought up one need only to post those links and suddenly the subject is diverted to "China isn't NASA" and "just because one space agency is a hoax doesn't mean that another one is," etc.

Statements like that entirely undermine the "hundreds of people couldn't be in on it" and "it's impossible!" arguments.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit
Why are you assuming they are faking the space program?  They have working rockets?  Why would they not just launch them into the UA?

- I have working model rockets in my garage which travel straight upwards until they fade out of sight. But just because I have working rockets doesn't make me a space power.

- The existence of Universal Accelerator is in contention and the types of bodies and properties it would affect is unknown. If it exists then it's obviously not accelerating everything upwards, otherwise we wouldn't be pinned to the earth's surface.

I thought UA was like a wind and the earth was like a wall...  At least i have had FEers explain that to me.  I guess FE just has no uniform idea what is causing gravitation?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 02:54:17 PM
...
Whenever the Chinese Space agency is brought up one need only to post those links and suddenly the subject is diverted to "China isn't NASA" and "just because one space agency is a hoax doesn't mean that another one is," etc.
...
Nope. We know you're wrong and chose to ignore your fantasies. Please read, again: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/)

The author's main argument again't the video is "Yeeeeeah." Not very compelling.

The Chinese Space Walk is clearly fake, and the scenes are clearly underwater. The fact that dialog between astronauts was published before the rocket even left the ground is just icing on the cake.
That is not his main argument--and you know it. He explains and the comments from readers confirm this is not underwater. I challenge you to show that the "bubbles" accelerate. Of course, you'll just put on a tin foil changshans. He has a Ph. D. He's published this in a major science magazine. What do you have? An unidentified source? Do you have anyone with a relevant degree supporting your claim that it's clearly fake?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2011, 02:59:44 PM
That is not his main argument--and you know it. He explains and the comments from readers confirm this is not underwater. I challenge you to show that the "bubbles" accelerate. Of course, you'll just put on a tin foil changshans. He has a Ph. D. He's published this in a major science magazine. What do you have? An unidentified source? Do you have anyone with a relevant degree supporting your claim that it's clearly fake?

Yes, that is his main argument. He doesn't really go any further than "No." and "Yeeeeeah." It's not very becoming for a "doctor."

But PhD's are a dime a dozen anyway. Here's a PhD from NASA itself calling China's space walk a hoax:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 10, 2011, 03:01:50 PM
...
Whenever the Chinese Space agency is brought up one need only to post those links and suddenly the subject is diverted to "China isn't NASA" and "just because one space agency is a hoax doesn't mean that another one is," etc.
...
Nope. We know you're wrong and chose to ignore your fantasies. Please read, again: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/)

The author's main argument again't the video is "Yeeeeeah." Not very compelling.

The Chinese Space Walk is clearly fake, and the scenes are clearly underwater. The fact that dialog between astronauts was published before the rocket even left the ground is just icing on the cake.
That is not his main argument--and you know it. He explains and the comments from readers confirm this is not underwater. I challenge you to show that the "bubbles" accelerate. Of course, you'll just put on a tin foil changshans. He has a Ph. D. He's published this in a major science magazine. What do you have? An unidentified source? Do you have anyone with a relevant degree supporting your claim that it's clearly fake?

The degree of Tom Bishop.  It makes you an expert on everything, from physics to the lifestyles of those living on or near the equator. 

Tom those videos that you posted are highly contested.  Neither is proof of anything.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2011, 03:16:44 PM
Tom those videos that you posted are highly contested.  Neither is proof of anything.

China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_13631&src_vid=lBL98p0wZ7g&v=NVbBFwdmldA)

Did you watch the second video I posted? It's more detailed than the first and pretty compelling.

China released dialogue between the astronauts before the rocket even left the ground. This is absolute evidence that the mission was a carefully orchestrated fake.

The dialogue contained things like "The target is captured 12 seconds ahead of predicted time." Why would China have fake dialogue like that?

The evidence is overwhelming and compelling. Why whole thing stinks of a hoax. 
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: markjo on December 10, 2011, 03:29:54 PM
- I have working model rockets in my garage which travel straight upwards until they fade out of sight. But just because I have working rockets doesn't make me a space power.

Have you ever launched a "model rocket" the size of an airliner in front of thousands of witnesses and on live television?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 03:40:30 PM
That is not his main argument--and you know it. He explains and the comments from readers confirm this is not underwater. I challenge you to show that the "bubbles" accelerate. Of course, you'll just put on a tin foil changshans. He has a Ph. D. He's published this in a major science magazine. What do you have? An unidentified source? Do you have anyone with a relevant degree supporting your claim that it's clearly fake?

Yes, that is his main argument. He doesn't really go any further than "No." and "Yeeeeeah." It's not very becoming for a "doctor."

But PhD's are a dime a dozen anyway. Here's a PhD from NASA itself calling China's space walk a hoax:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html
You must must missed: "Watch as the taikonaut comes out of the hatch. Observe his movements. Imagine him in a bulky suit underwater, then watch as he waves to the camera. That’s clearly not underwater; his motions are too rapid to be impeded by water. The movement of the straps and other things hanging off the suit don’t look like they are underwater either; they look like they are in microgravity."

Please tell me who this Ph. D. from NASA you're referencing in Epoc Times is. I can't confirm his qualifications or employment at NASA. Did you do your homework? Be sure that you get the name order correct.

Also the Epoc Times serves a political agenda that just happened to align with your crazy conspiracy theory. Yellow journalism still exists!

Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2011, 03:42:18 PM
Quote from: ClockTower
I challenge you to show that the "bubbles" accelerate. Of course, you'll just put on a tin foil changshans.

It has been demonstrated that they are wave blower bubbles and not debris escaping from the hatch.

Check out the 3:00 minute mark on the second video (link with timestamp) (http://)

The bubble moves upwards and then downwards. If it was just debris escaping the hatch the debris would travel in one direction away from the craft, not change directions back towards the craft.

The bubble can also be seen expanding as it moves upwards.

But why would debris be escaping from the hatch 10 minutes after the hatch was opened anyway? The cabin gets depressurized almost immediately.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 10, 2011, 03:46:19 PM
Tom those videos that you posted are highly contested.  Neither is proof of anything.

China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_13631&src_vid=lBL98p0wZ7g&v=NVbBFwdmldA)

Did you watch the second video I posted? It's more detailed than the first and pretty compelling.

China released dialogue between the astronauts before the rocket even left the ground. This is absolute evidence that the mission was a carefully orchestrated fake.

The dialogue contained things like "The target is captured 12 seconds ahead of predicted time." Why would China have fake dialogue like that?

The evidence is overwhelming and compelling. Why whole thing stinks of a hoax.

I do not know why they faked a dialog, how could I?  But a faked dialog does not equate to a faked mission. 

Tom ill give it to you that this mission does indeed look faked to me, but i also have some concerns that;

1.) I have only watched two videos regarding the launch and both were trying to prove it was faked, this may skew my opinion a tad.  The whole point of these videos is to convince people of a hoax...

2.) I really do not a have a good grasp of orbit patterns/ sun positions, and to what degree these can be affected by elevation.

3.)  NASA, Japan, and many other space programs have called the launch a hige success.  If NASA did indeed wish to maintain global military supremacy i have reservations believing that they would not look for every opportunity to discredit the chinese.  It seems odd that with all of this "evidence" that they would refrain from calling the chinese out.  If the had the balls to fake a Lunar Landing, im pretty sure they have the balls to call the chinese liars.

4.)  Whenever i am shown videos of Astronauts underwater as evidence that space walks can be faked, i always see like tons upon tons of bubbles.  But in the videos that are "faked" there are many fewer, and are usually seen as only a few at a time, but quite often are seen alone.  So the space debris theory often has stronger appeal to me than bubbles.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 03:47:11 PM
Quote from: ClockTower
I challenge you to show that the "bubbles" accelerate. Of course, you'll just put on a tin foil changshans.

It has been demonstrated that they are wave blower bubbles and not debris escaping from the hatch.

Check out the 3:00 minute mark on the second video (link with timestamp) (http://)

The bubble moves upwards and then downwards. If it was just debris escaping the hatch the debris would travel in one direction away from the craft, not change directions back towards the craft.

Why would debris be escaping from the hatch 10 minutes after the hatch was opened anyway? The cabin gets depressurized almost immediately.
Tom, just so you know... Saying it is true doesn't make it true. Show us how you calculated the acceleration at the various marks. Tell us how you can demonstrate, as you claim has been done, that there are 'wave blowers'.

There are many reasons a piece of debris might appear to change directions. Did you consider any of them?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tausami on December 10, 2011, 03:51:02 PM
Tom those videos that you posted are highly contested.  Neither is proof of anything.

China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_13631&src_vid=lBL98p0wZ7g&v=NVbBFwdmldA)

Did you watch the second video I posted? It's more detailed than the first and pretty compelling.

China released dialogue between the astronauts before the rocket even left the ground. This is absolute evidence that the mission was a carefully orchestrated fake.

The dialogue contained things like "The target is captured 12 seconds ahead of predicted time." Why would China have fake dialogue like that?

The evidence is overwhelming and compelling. Why whole thing stinks of a hoax.

I do not know why they faked a dialog, how could I?  But a faked dialog does not equate to a faked mission. 

Tom ill give it to you that this mission does indeed look faked to me, but i also have some concerns that;

1.) I have only watched two videos regarding the launch and both were trying to prove it was faked, this may skew my opinion a tad.  The whole point of these videos is to convince people of a hoax...
What's you're point?

2.) I really do not a have a good grasp of orbit patterns/ sun positions, and to what degree these can be affected by elevation.
Alright

3.)  NASA, Japan, and many other space programs have called the launch a hige success.  If NASA did indeed wish to maintain global military supremacy i have reservations believing that they would not look for every opportunity to discredit the chinese.  It seems odd that with all of this "evidence" that they would refrain from calling the chinese out.  If the had the balls to fake a Lunar Landing, im pretty sure they have the balls to call the chinese liars.
They're all in it together.

4.)  Whenever i am shown videos of Astronauts underwater as evidence that space walks can be faked, i always see like tons upon tons of bubbles.  But in the videos that are "faked" there are many fewer, and are usually seen as only a few at a time, but quite often are seen alone.  So the space debris theory often has stronger appeal to me than bubbles.
Obviously they took steps to avoid it. They just weren't perfect.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 10, 2011, 03:51:26 PM
Quote
Please tell me who this Ph. D. from NASA you're referencing in Epoc Times is. I can't confirm his qualifications or employment at NASA. Did you do your homework? Be sure that you get the name order correct.

Good luck trying to get him to give you proof that someone worked at NASA, ive been trying to get proof of Joe Gavin's job at NASA during the Lunar Lander development.  Every link i have found puts him as vice president of Grumman Corp at the time, or as an executive for Grumman working on the project.  But Tom still claims that he was a NASA manager (not sure what that even means or how high up Manager is). 

And Tom if you found a source of Gavin's employment that contradicts my source please post it in the other thread, I really do not want to derail this one.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 10, 2011, 03:56:30 PM

Quote
What's you're point?

it has an agenda?

Quote
They're all in it together.

Not according to Tom...  NASA wants to further the world's perception that the US has space dominance, meaning if NASA saw these issues, they would call china out on them, not congratulate them on a job well done.

Quote
Obviously they took steps to avoid it. They just weren't perfect.
I have a hard time believing that.  I've seen some amazing things done with CGI and photo shop, it just seems like a bubble would be a non issue to remove...

Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tausami on December 10, 2011, 03:59:57 PM

Quote
What's you're point?

it has an agenda?

Quote
They're all in it together.

Not according to Tom...  NASA wants to further the world's perception that the US has space dominance, meaning if NASA saw these issues, they would call china out on them, not congratulate them on a job well done.

Quote
Obviously they took steps to avoid it. They just weren't perfect.
I have a hard time believing that.  I've seen some amazing things done with CGI and photo shop, it just seems like a bubble would be a non issue to remove...

1) Doesn't mean it's wrong.
2) I don't think Tom ever said that, and if he did he's wrong.
3) They clearly missed it.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 10, 2011, 04:09:30 PM


Quote
1) Doesn't mean it's wrong.
2) I don't think Tom ever said that, and if he did he's wrong.
3) They clearly missed it.

1.) true, but i am always weary of bias.
2.)
Quote
There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA from the get-go: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was just a front.
3.)I have a heard time believing that, since they have been accused of space travel fraud before.  Im pretty sure they would make sure to do a better job the second time.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2011, 04:10:28 PM
You must must missed: "Watch as the taikonaut comes out of the hatch. Observe his movements. Imagine him in a bulky suit underwater, then watch as he waves to the camera. That’s clearly not underwater; his motions are too rapid to be impeded by water. The movement of the straps and other things hanging off the suit don’t look like they are underwater either; they look like they are in microgravity."

The Bad Astronomy guy apparently didn't watch the second video (http://). There is evidence that the speed of the footage was changed to make it seem like the astronaut is moving through less resistance than he is. Watch through the whole video.

Quote
Please tell me who this Ph. D. from NASA you're referencing in Epoc Times is. I can't confirm his qualifications or employment at NASA. Did you do your homework? Be sure that you get the name order correct.

It says right there in the second paragraph of the Epoch Times article (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html):

"The Epoch Times contacted Chinese expert Dr. Qu Zheng, who worked at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, to scientifically analyze the video discrepancies of the spacewalk broadcast."

There is evidence here (http://) that Qu Zheng is really a JPL employee. Jarrah White contacts him for comment. His email address is zheng.qu@jpl.nasa.gov, which can be searched for on Google for additional reference of his existence.

Not according to Tom...  NASA wants to further the world's perception that the US has space dominance, meaning if NASA saw these issues, they would call china out on them, not congratulate them on a job well done.

Just a note: NASA did not congratulate China on a "job well done." Where did you get that from?

Clearly NASA wouldn't congratulate them on a job well done if they saw the poor production values of this space fraud. In the Epoch Times article (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html) a NASA scientist is flat out calling China's space walk a hoax. You can't just say things like that and possibly strain international relations without permission from higher up. So yeah, NASA did call them out on it, even if they did not release an official statement calling it a hoax.

Also, I never said that they were all in on it. Clearly NASA and China have some kind of grudge. China requested to help with and join the International Space Station project on three separate occasions and was refused.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 10, 2011, 04:31:17 PM
Quote
Just a note: NASA did not congratulate china on a "job well done." Where did you get that from?

Clearly NASA wouldn't congratulate them on a job well done if they saw the poor production values of this space fraud. In the Epoch times article a NASA scientist is flat out calling China's space walk a hoax.

the following is in reference to an earlier space flight, and not the one that we are discussing, so it carries less weight, but still shows NASA congratulating china and wishing them a safe future.  Also NASA wished for a successful mission for the space walk, but i could not find anything following the space walk, but then again i did not search for a long time.

Quote
The launch was met with praise from around the world. For example, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan called the launch "a great feat".[5] United States President George W. Bush congratulated Chinese President Hu and wished China continued success.[6] U.S. State Department spokesman said that the United States wished to "applaud China's success in becoming only the third country to launch people into space".[5] NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe called Shenzhou 5 an "important achievement in human exploration" and wished China "a continued safe human space flight program."[6]
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 10, 2011, 04:33:32 PM
I would be quite unable to lift Mount Everest.  If I tried, I would be filled with an overwhelming sense of impossibility.  There is something about trying to do something and failing.  So I try to convince myself I never really wanted to.  I don't try.  Not forever, of course.  The thought of never, ever being able to do it is horrifying...but maybe someday...just not today
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tausami on December 10, 2011, 04:40:49 PM
I would be quite unable to lift Mount Everest.  If I tried, I would be filled with an overwhelming sense of impossibility.  There is something about trying to do something and failing.  So I try to convince myself I never really wanted to.  I don't try.  Not forever, of course.  The thought of never, ever being able to do it is horrifying...but maybe someday...just not today

Umm... if you say so...
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2011, 04:57:44 PM
the following is in reference to an earlier space flight, and not the one that we are discussing, so it carries less weight, but still shows NASA congratulating china and wishing them a safe future.  Also NASA wished for a successful mission for the space walk, but i could not find anything following the space walk, but then again i did not search for a long time.

Quote
The launch was met with praise from around the world. For example, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan called the launch "a great feat".[5] United States President George W. Bush congratulated Chinese President Hu and wished China continued success.[6] U.S. State Department spokesman said that the United States wished to "applaud China's success in becoming only the third country to launch people into space".[5] NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe called Shenzhou 5 an "important achievement in human exploration" and wished China "a continued safe human space flight program."[6]

Shenzhou-5 wasn't as publicized as Shenzhou-7 and there wasn't a hoax outcry. With the fake astronaut dialogue, rumblings about a hoax of Shenzhou-7 were happening all over the internet before the rocket even took off. We were talking about it here on these forums before the space walk footage came in.

Xinhua, the official press agency of the government of the People's Republic of China, listed the countries who congratulated China on its Shenzhou-7. The US, UK, or Russia isn't included among them:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/28/content_10129558.htm

It's possible that the US congratulated China after that article was published, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 10, 2011, 05:27:05 PM
Just to clarify:

There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort.

There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA from the get-go: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was just a front.

Thanks but I already understand your beliefs about the motives and scope of the conspiracy. Your idea is that NASA employees themselves believe the world is round out of ignorance, because they have never actually seen Earth from space; their purpose in creating fake round Earth photographs and such is to convince people that they have been to space when they have not.

That's not a new theory, as far as I know; it's the one you've had all along. And it's still a conspiracy theory, just as it always has been. So please explain to me why Roundy claims that "the current theory is that there is no Conspiracy". What is your response to this? I think "the current theory" is a constantly fluctuating vagueness that happens to be the opposite of whatever it is that you FE'ers can't think of an answer to at the time.

This thread is not about the Chinese space program; it's about CubeSat, which still has not been reconciled with FET.  If you can make your own satellite and it takes pictures of itself revolving around a spherical Earth, what then?


Quote
- I have working model rockets in my garage which travel straight upwards until they fade out of sight. But just because I have working rockets doesn't make me a space power.

Well Tom, actually, there's this thing called CubeSat, you see...
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 10, 2011, 05:35:32 PM
So please explain to me why Roundy claims that "the current theory is that there is no Conspiracy". What is your response to this? I think "the current theory" is a constantly fluctuating vagueness that happens to be the opposite of whatever it is that you FE'ers can't think of an answer to at the time.

Please don't misunderstand me; I never meant to imply that the theory that there is no Conspiracy is the only one believed right now.  It's simply one that's gained a lot of momentum of late and one that many FEers have come to agree with.  Obviously there are still FEers (like Tom) who believe in the Conspiracy.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2011, 05:44:23 PM
Quote
Thanks but I already understand your beliefs about the motives and scope of the conspiracy. Your idea is that NASA employees themselves believe the world is round out of ignorance, because they have never actually seen Earth from space; their purpose in creating fake round Earth photographs and such is to convince people that they have been to space when they have not.

Correct, that is my belief.

Quote
That's not a new theory, as far as I know; it's the one you've had all along. And it's still a conspiracy theory, just as it always has been. So please explain to me why Roundy claims that "the current theory is that there is no Conspiracy".

I don't know what Roundy means by that.

Quote
This thread is not about the Chinese space program; it's about CubeSat, which still has not been reconciled with FET.  If you can make your own satellite and it takes pictures of itself revolving around a spherical Earth, what then?

You can make satellites, but you can't launch them. Only approved Government Contractors can launch stuff into orbit. Publicly available rocket technologies that can reach space are not available to the public as a matter of law.

The universities who work on CubeSat give the devices to NASA or the ESA contractors, along with a whole lot of money, to put it into orbit. Instead of putting the devices into orbit they launch it on a stratellite - a high altitude dirigible that can reach the edge of space.

The same process is used when countries or companies come to NASA wanting satellites.

Indeed, NASA has a balloon program (http://astrophysics.gsfc.nasa.gov/balloon/):

"Large unmanned helium balloons provide NASA with an inexpensive means to place payloads into a space environment."

"Many important scientific observations in fields such as hard x-ray/gamma- ray and infra-red astronomy, cosmic rays and atmospheric studies have been made from balloons."

Even telescopes can be hung from balloons. (http://blastexperiment.info/)
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 10, 2011, 05:57:21 PM
So please explain to me why Roundy claims that "the current theory is that there is no Conspiracy". What is your response to this? I think "the current theory" is a constantly fluctuating vagueness that happens to be the opposite of whatever it is that you FE'ers can't think of an answer to at the time.

Please don't misunderstand me; I never meant to imply that the theory that there is no Conspiracy is the only one believed right now.  It's simply one that's gained a lot of momentum of late and one that many FEers have come to agree with.  Obviously there are still FEers (like Tom) who believe in the Conspiracy.

But you yourself clearly aren't among those who no longer believe in the Conspiracy, as evidenced by the second thread I linked to. So why did you respond by telling me about this new theory, as opposed to actually answering the question according to your own belief? It's nothing but more evasiveness, as you have been doing throughout this whole thread, and as Tom has done by hijacking the thread with his arguments against the Chinese program.

I'm looking for an actual explanation -- not vague allusions to some "other" theory, nor the copout of "a theory has to start somewhere" -- of how a satellite (either NASA's, if it's not a conspiracy, or CubeSat's) orbits Earth and why its photography evidently displays a spherical object.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 10, 2011, 06:36:22 PM
First, thank you Tom for giving the first straight answer in 6 pages.


The universities who work on CubeSat give the devices to NASA or the ESA contractors, along with a whole lot of money, to put it into orbit. Instead of putting the devices into orbit they launch it on a stratellite - a high altitude dirigible.

Now come on Tom, you know that isn't true. It doesn't take much research time to determine that not all are put under the care of NASA or ESA. And they do go into orbit. These are your satellites that you built by yourself with no outside help, that return telemetry directly back to you, and that telemetry proves that they are in orbit.

Let's say for the sake of argument that they are all launched by the Conspiracy. What difference would it make? Even if you built the rockets yourself, you could still say it never went to space because you weren't in the rocket yourself. You see, either way, you're entirely dependent on the satellite itself to prove whether or not the launch was a success. If you have proof from your satellite that it is in fact in space, how it got there becomes a moot point.

The NEE-01 Pegasus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEE-01_Pegasus) will launch next year and have a live video feed from space. Is it a lie, Tom?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 10, 2011, 06:40:46 PM
Tom, have you explained yet how DirecTV launched their satellite fleet? Their launches were not sponsored/endorsed or even touched by NASA. They were done by a private company.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2011, 07:20:32 PM
Quote from: zarg
Now come on Tom, you know that isn't true. It doesn't take much research time to determine that not all are put under the care of NASA or ESA.

I didn't say they were. That's why I said "NASA or ESA contractors." Only certain government approved contractors can put things into orbit.

Quote from: zarg
And they do go into orbit. These are your satellites that you built by yourself with no outside help, that return telemetry directly back to you, and that telemetry proves that they are in orbit.

You need outside help to put it into orbit, the government doesn't allow the public to put payloads into space.

Quote from: zarg
Let's say for the sake of argument that they are all launched by the Conspiracy. What difference would it make? Even if you built the rockets yourself, you could still say it never went to space because you weren't in the rocket yourself. You see, either way, you're entirely dependent on the satellite itself to prove whether or not the launch was a success. If you have proof from your satellite that it is in fact in space, how it got there becomes a moot point.

You don't build the rockets yourself. The rockets technologies which can reach space or anything near it are very classified.

In order for these universities to get things into space they have hand over their cubesats to government contractors who are authorized to put things into space.

Quote from: zarg
The NEE-01 Pegasus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEE-01_Pegasus) will launch next year and have a live video feed from space. Is it a lie, Tom?

The Ecuadorian Space Agency may have built that little cubesat, but they aren't going to launch it. The Ecuadorian Space Agency doesn't have launch capability. Only a relatively small handful of countries claim to have the capability to launch things into space. Like the "Canadian Space Agency," Ecuador will use either a NASA or ESA partner to launch the device.

The video feed will look like this: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/

(Slight curvature at the edge of space occurs from the fact that the observer is looking down at a circle)

Quote from: Irushwithscvs
Tom, have you explained yet how DirecTV launched their satellite fleet? Their launches were not sponsored/endorsed or even touched by NASA. They were done by a private company.

Was that company a government contractor and one of NASA's biggest partners? Because I'm betting it was.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 10, 2011, 07:24:55 PM
So please explain to me why Roundy claims that "the current theory is that there is no Conspiracy". What is your response to this? I think "the current theory" is a constantly fluctuating vagueness that happens to be the opposite of whatever it is that you FE'ers can't think of an answer to at the time.

Please don't misunderstand me; I never meant to imply that the theory that there is no Conspiracy is the only one believed right now.  It's simply one that's gained a lot of momentum of late and one that many FEers have come to agree with.  Obviously there are still FEers (like Tom) who believe in the Conspiracy.

But you yourself clearly aren't among those who no longer believe in the Conspiracy, as evidenced by the second thread I linked to.

Second thread you linked to where?  ???

I should point out that I sometimes play the part of devil's advocate when it comes to Conspiracy topics, as I haven't completely ruled it out (some of the points, like Tom's about the shoddy appearance of the lunar lander, seem shockingly plausible).  But my general belief is that there's sufficient evidence that the Earth appears curved from high above it, and that there sure seem to actually be satellites whizzing high above us, so that the necessity of a Conspiracy is effectively nullified.

The opinion I espouse in this thread represents my sincere belief regarding FET and the Conspiracy.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 10, 2011, 07:30:04 PM
Second thread you linked to where?  ???

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52049.msg1277798#msg1277798 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52049.msg1277798#msg1277798)


Quote
I should point out that I sometimes play the part of devil's advocate when it comes to Conspiracy topics, as I haven't completely ruled it out (some of the points, like Tom's about the shoddy appearance of the lunar lander, seem shockingly plausible).  But my general belief is that there's sufficient evidence that the Earth appears curved from high above it, and that there sure seem to actually be satellites whizzing high above us, so that the necessity of a Conspiracy is effectively nullified.

Great, so you believe there's no conspiracy. That's settled, then. Now, answer:

Quote
I'm looking for an actual explanation -- not vague allusions to some "other" theory, nor the copout of "a theory has to start somewhere" -- of how a satellite (either NASA's, if it's not a conspiracy, or CubeSat's) orbits Earth and why its photography evidently displays a spherical object.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 10, 2011, 07:48:13 PM
Quote
Let's say for the sake of argument that they are all launched by the Conspiracy. What difference would it make? Even if you built the rockets yourself, you could still say it never went to space because you weren't in the rocket yourself. You see, either way, you're entirely dependent on the satellite itself to prove whether or not the launch was a success. If you have proof from your satellite that it is in fact in space, how it got there becomes a moot point.

You don't build the rockets yourself. The rockets technologies which can reach space or anything near it are very classified.

In order for these universities to get things into space they have hand over their cubesats to government contractors who are authorized to put things into space.

...Tom, please. Did you even read what you just replied to? The satellite is what proves whether or not it made it to space. All you've done here is repeat that they don't build their own rockets. That is irrelevant. The satellites send back proof that they are in space. And they built the satellites. The satellites are not fabrications from NASA. It's theirs. They built the satellite. It's their very own satellite. And it's telling them it's in space. Their satellite. In space. Get the picture? The travel accommodations are irrelevant. The fact remains, it's in space.


Quote
The video feed will look like this: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/

(Slight curvature at the edge of space occurs from the fact that the observer is looking down at a circle)

No it won't look like that, because that craft didn't break into orbit. It only went to the stratosphere and then came right back down. The CubeSat will be in orbit, and the video feed will show all 360 degrees of the sphere.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 10, 2011, 08:08:56 PM


Quote from: Irushwithscvs
Tom, have you explained yet how DirecTV launched their satellite fleet? Their launches were not sponsored/endorsed or even touched by NASA. They were done by a private company.

Was that company a government contractor and one of NASA's biggest partners? Because I'm betting it was.

You would lose that bet. The company is not partnered with NASA and is not a government contractor, nor is it government funded.

http://www.ilslaunch.com/
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 10, 2011, 09:08:08 PM
So please explain to me why Roundy claims that "the current theory is that there is no Conspiracy". What is your response to this? I think "the current theory" is a constantly fluctuating vagueness that happens to be the opposite of whatever it is that you FE'ers can't think of an answer to at the time.

Please don't misunderstand me; I never meant to imply that the theory that there is no Conspiracy is the only one believed right now.  It's simply one that's gained a lot of momentum of late and one that many FEers have come to agree with.  Obviously there are still FEers (like Tom) who believe in the Conspiracy.

But you yourself clearly aren't among those who no longer believe in the Conspiracy, as evidenced by the second thread I linked to.

Second thread you linked to where?  ???

I should point out that I sometimes play the part of devil's advocate when it comes to Conspiracy topics, as I haven't completely ruled it out (some of the points, like Tom's about the shoddy appearance of the lunar lander, seem shockingly plausible).  But my general belief is that there's sufficient evidence that the Earth appears curved from high above it, and that there sure seem to actually be satellites whizzing high above us, so that the necessity of a Conspiracy is effectively nullified.

The opinion I espouse in this thread represents my sincere belief regarding FET and the Conspiracy.
Satellites exist?  So this satellite picture of Antarctica is real?

(http://geology.com/world/satellite-image-of-antarctica.jpg)
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2011, 10:44:30 PM


Quote from: Irushwithscvs
Tom, have you explained yet how DirecTV launched their satellite fleet? Their launches were not sponsored/endorsed or even touched by NASA. They were done by a private company.

Was that company a government contractor and one of NASA's biggest partners? Because I'm betting it was.

You would lose that bet. The company is not partnered with NASA and is not a government contractor, nor is it government funded.

http://www.ilslaunch.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Launch_Services

"ILS was formed in 1995 as a private spaceflight partnership between Lockheed Martin (LM), Khrunichev and Energia."

It's a joint venture between three large government contractors, which makes ILS a... government contractor.

Indeed, Lockheed Martin is NASA's #1 contractor. I don't know why you think this company is unconnected to NASA.

Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: jraffield1 on December 10, 2011, 11:22:18 PM
My uncle owns a fishing company in the Gulf of Mexico, sometimes he sells fish products to stores such as walmart, occasionally an employee at NASA buys fish sticks from walmart and proceeds to eat them... Does that make my uncle part of the conspiracy?  ???

If so, that's pretty cool  8)
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Moon squirter on December 11, 2011, 12:37:50 AM


Quote from: Irushwithscvs
Tom, have you explained yet how DirecTV launched their satellite fleet? Their launches were not sponsored/endorsed or even touched by NASA. They were done by a private company.

Was that company a government contractor and one of NASA's biggest partners? Because I'm betting it was.

You would lose that bet. The company is not partnered with NASA and is not a government contractor, nor is it government funded.

http://www.ilslaunch.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Launch_Services

"ILS was formed in 1995 as a private spaceflight partnership between Lockheed Martin (LM), Khrunichev and Energia."

It's a joint venture between three large government contractors, which makes ILS a... government contractor.

Indeed, Lockheed Martin is NASA's #1 contractor. I don't know why you think this company is "unconnected to NASA."

Tom, please can you provide the following evidence:

1. That LM is a US government department and not an autonomous commercial entity that markets goods and services to other gov and non-gov entities.
2. That ILS is a US government project and is controlled by the US government.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 02:14:58 AM
The Bad Astronomy guy apparently didn't watch the second video. There is evidence that the speed of the footage was changed to make it seem like the astronaut is moving through less resistance than he is. Watch through the whole video.

It says right there in the second paragraph of the Epoch Times article (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html):

"The Epoch Times contacted Chinese expert Dr. Qu Zheng, who worked at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, to scientifically analyze the video discrepancies of the spacewalk broadcast."

There is evidence here (http://) that Qu Zheng is really a JPL employee. Jarrah White contacts him for comment. His email address is zheng.qu@jpl.nasa.gov, which can be searched for on Google for additional reference of his existence.
Oh, this will be fun...

Please present your evidence the Dr. Pliat did not review the second video.
Please explain why his analysis that the first video was not faked is not sufficient to discredit your position that the entire mission was faked.
Please explain why you find Epoc Times credible in spite of its political agenda.
Please explain why you think the JPL's Zheng Qu is Epoc Time's Qu Zheng. (I did warn you about this!) If Epoc Times can't even get their resource's name correct, why would you believe anything they have to say?

Thanks for the fun!
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Conker on December 11, 2011, 06:29:37 AM
Conspyrailing thread, get back and explain Amateur Satellites, Near-Space Amateur Programs, Amateur Rockets, etc.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 09:39:18 AM
Well, to be fair, the conspiracy babbling is at least somewhat relevant to the topic this time. Tom is saying that since the amateur satellites are launched by companies that also happen to have had NASA as a customer, that means NASA is faking the launch and the satellites never actually went to space. Even though the amateur satellite operators themselves can verify that they did go to space.

Tom is effectively expanding the Conspiracy to literally everyone who has ever been paid by NASA, thereby exponentially increasing the complexity and lowering the plausibility of it. Yet when defending the Conspiracy theory in other threads, he'll talk about how small he believes the Conspiracy to be to make it sound more plausible. He'll flip-flop the scope of the Conspiracy to be whatever it needs to be to fit his current argument.

There is a recent thread titled "Is my job fake" by someone who works directly in a government job, wherein Tom, along with every other FE'er, accepted that the poster himself (and by extension, everyone else with his job) was not a conspirator, but simply unaware of what is going on higher up. Yet here we have independent, non-government groups that are suddenly co-conspirators just because their services were bought by NASA.

Or is Tom saying that they, too, aren't aware of what they're doing? Even though they build their own rockets and have tested them independently, NASA's mere presence as a customer is somehow able to fool them into thinking they have built something that works but actually doesn't, that their entire product is a fraud even when sold to civilian customers and no one has realized it yet. Does everything NASA touches turn to stone? Please explain how this works, Tom.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 09:49:14 AM
in fact one of the cornerstones of the current theory is that there is no Conspiracy, just misconceptions.  Please lurk moar.
I don't know what Roundy means by that.


Let it be known, on this day, that the esteemed Dr. Bishop, groundbreaking scientist and modern champion of the Flat Earth movement, needs to lurk moar.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 09:49:59 AM
Tom, please can you provide the following evidence:

1. That LM is a US government department and not an autonomous commercial entity that markets goods and services to other gov and non-gov entities.
2. That ILS is a US government project and is controlled by the US government.

Lockheed Martin isn't a US government department, it is a public-private entity known as a Defense Contractor. It is not autonomous. Defense Contractors can't build government missiles in unsecured facilities, they can't hire people without security clearances, and they don't "sell" weapons or machines to the government, as it's never truly owned by them at any point.

Defense Contractors provide personnel to build weapons or machines in government research bases, under the government's terms and under government supervision. They are arms of the government who work on secret projects and who are beholden to government oversight.

Since Lockheed Martin is beholden to government oversight, and since it operates ILS, by extension ILS must be as well. According to its wiki the ILS is using classified rocket technologies (Atlas) to put payloads into space. Whether the ILS falls under government oversight is a big "duh."
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 09:55:58 AM
Tom, please can you provide the following evidence:

1. That LM is a US government department and not an autonomous commercial entity that markets goods and services to other gov and non-gov entities.
2. That ILS is a US government project and is controlled by the US government.

Lockheed Martin isn't a US government department, it is a public-private entity known as a Defense Contractor. It is not autonomous. Defense Contractors can't build government missiles in unsecured facilities, they can't hire people without security clearances, and they don't "sell" weapons or machines to the government, as it's never truly owned by them at any point.

Defense Contractors provide personnel to build weapons or machines in government research bases, under the government's terms and under government supervision. They are arms of the government who work on secret projects and who are beholden to government oversight.

Since Lockheed Martin is beholden to government oversight, by extension ILS must be as well. According to its wiki the ILS is using classified rocket technologies (Atlas Rocket) to put payloads into space. Whether the ILS falls under government oversight is a big "duh."
Uh... Nope.

LM's contracts, not its corporation, are beholding to those who award the contracts. You reason poorly that because some aspect of LM has oversight that all of LM must have oversight.

Now just who are these overseers who manage to fool these hard-working, honest employees and contractors at LM? Evidence, Tom, do you have any?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 10:13:46 AM
Defense Contractors provide personnel to build weapons or machines in government research bases, under the government's terms and under government supervision. They are arms of the government who work on secret projects and who are beholden to government oversight.

If I am in charge of a top secret facility, and I buy duct-tape to fix a pipe in said top secret facility, that duct-tape is used under top-secret terms and under top-secret supervision. That says nothing of the people who produced and sold the tape.

None of these customers are the government / NASA:

http://www.ilslaunch.com/mission-control/proton-launch-archives (http://www.ilslaunch.com/mission-control/proton-launch-archives)


Quote
According to its wiki the ILS is using classified rocket technologies (Atlas Rocket) to put payloads into space.

If it indeed is classified then yes it would naturally have government oversight but only when they work with Atlas. Their primary product is the Proton rocket (which is not a classified technology), not Atlas. Please explain the existence of the extensive list of Proton customers above.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 10:15:23 AM
Uh... Nope.

LM's contracts, not its corporation, are beholding to those who award the contracts. You reason poorly that because some aspect of LM has oversight that all of LM must have oversight.

Now just who are these overseers who manage to fool these hard-working, honest employees and contractors at LM? Evidence, Tom, do you have any?

So you think that the Lockheed Martin can handle classified technologies without government oversight?

Because anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that they can't.

Quote from: zarg
Or is Tom saying that they, too, aren't aware of what they're doing? Even though they build their own rockets and have tested them independently, NASA's mere presence as a customer is somehow able to fool them into thinking they have built something that works but actually doesn't, that their entire product is a fraud even when sold to civilian customers and no one has realized it yet. Does everything NASA touches turn to stone? Please explain how this works, Tom.

Well, Government Contractors can't build and test their own space rockets independently, I'm not sure where you got that from. All contract work is done on secured government research bases under instruction of government managers.

NASA's role isn't a "mere customer" to Lockheed Martin. It's the client Lockheed Martin is temping its employees out to. Lockheed Martin, like all government contractors, is a temp agency.

A Lockheed Martin headhunter finds your resume on Monster, calls you up, puts you through an interview and vetting process with a government manager, acquiring any secret clearances if necessary, and if they like you, you're hired and sent to work on a secured government base. Every two weeks the government pays Lockheed, Lockheed cuts out a slice of your check (often a big slice) for themselves, and sends the rest to you. That's how they work.

For the most part when working for a government contractor you're a government employee. Your direction and instructions comes from government managers. Lockheed Martin is the government's version of Manpower Staffing.

The government does it this way to reduce liability. If a government contractor comes to work drunk and  ends up hurting a bunch of people with the military weapons he's working on the government can just say "oh, that's a Northroop Grumman employee, sue them," despite that the contractor's only interaction with Northrop Grumman is a paycheck.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 10:16:51 AM
So you think that the Lockheed Martin can handle classified technologies without government oversight?

Quote
If it indeed is classified then yes it would naturally have government oversight but only when they work with Atlas. Their primary product is the Proton rocket (which is not a classified technology), not Atlas. Please explain the existence of the extensive list of Proton customers above.


All contract work is done on secured government research bases under instruction of government managers.

Correction: All government contract work.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 10:21:53 AM
So you think that the Lockheed Martin can handle classified technologies without government oversight?

Quote
If it indeed is classified then yes it would naturally have government oversight but only when they work with Atlas. Their primary product is the Proton rocket (which is not a classified technology), not Atlas. Please explain the existence of the extensive list of Proton customers above.


All contract work is done on secured government research bases under instruction of government managers.

Correction: All government contract work.

So you're saying that Proton isn't classified technology?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(rocket) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(rocket))

"Proton initially started life as a 'super ICBM.' It was designed to throw a 100-megaton (or larger) nuclear warhead over a distance of 13,000 km"

Hmm, sounds pretty classified to me.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 10:24:09 AM
So you're saying that Proton isn't classified technology?

Yes.


Quote
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(rocket)

"Proton initially started life as a 'super ICBM.' It was designed to throw a 100-megaton (or larger) nuclear warhead over a distance of 13,000 km"

Hmm, sounds pretty classified to me.

WTF? Do you know what classified means?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 11, 2011, 10:24:30 AM
Quote
It was hugely oversized for an ICBM, and was never deployed in such a capacity.

Maybe you should read the next sentence.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 10:26:32 AM
Quote
It was hugely oversized for an ICBM, and was never deployed in such a capacity.

Maybe you should read the next sentence.

Anything which claims to get into orbit is going to be classified. The US or Russian government isn't going to let other countries have access to ICBM-like technologies.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 10:27:46 AM
Quote
http://www.ilslaunch.com/mission-control/proton-launch-archives (http://www.ilslaunch.com/mission-control/proton-launch-archives)
Quote
Please explain the existence of the extensive list of Proton customers above.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 10:29:43 AM
Quote
It was hugely oversized for an ICBM, and was never deployed in such a capacity.

Maybe you should read the next sentence.

Anything which claims to get into orbit is going to be classified. The US or Russian government isn't going to let other countries have access to ICBM-like technologies.

What a masterpiece of circular reasoning. "It must be fake because it's classified. Not classifying it would expose its fakeness, so it must be classified. And therefore fake."
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 10:33:20 AM
Quote
It was hugely oversized for an ICBM, and was never deployed in such a capacity.

Maybe you should read the next sentence.

Anything which claims to get into orbit is going to be classified. The US or Russian government isn't going to let other countries have access to ICBM-like technologies.

What a masterpiece of circular reasoning. "It must be fake because it's classified. Not classifying it would expose its fakeness, so it must be classified. And therefore fake."
And it's also demonstratively false. At least six other countries already have ICBMs. Reference: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Eight_Nations_Now_Building_ICBM_Nuclear_Missiles_999.html (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Eight_Nations_Now_Building_ICBM_Nuclear_Missiles_999.html)
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 10:36:10 AM
Quote
http://www.ilslaunch.com/mission-control/proton-launch-archives (http://www.ilslaunch.com/mission-control/proton-launch-archives)
Quote
Please explain the existence of the extensive list of Proton customers above.

Deployed via stratellite, as we've discussed.

What a masterpiece of circular reasoning. "It must be fake because it's classified. Not classifying it would expose its fakeness, so it must be classified. And therefore fake."

It's not circular reasoning. Even if the rocket technology to reach orbit did exist, do you really think the US or Russian government is going to let that stuff be out in the open, publicly available to any foreign country or 3rd world dictator? Absolutely not.

And it's also demonstratively false. At least six other countries already have ICBMs. Reference: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Eight_Nations_Now_Building_ICBM_Nuclear_Missiles_999.html (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Eight_Nations_Now_Building_ICBM_Nuclear_Missiles_999.html)

Actually it just says "Eight Nations Now Building ICBM Nuclear Missiles." North Korea claims to be building ICBMs. Everyone doubts their claims.

North Korea claims to be able to hit any of the US mainland, while the US calls it a lie. We're assured by our government that North Korea is too inept to build a proper ICBM weapon.
 
There are 196 countries on earth. There are a lot of people to keep the technology from, hence why advanced rocket technology is classified and classified verily so.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: markjo on December 11, 2011, 10:47:40 AM
It's not circular reasoning. Even if the rocket technology to reach orbit did exist, do you really think the US or Russian government is going to let that stuff be out in the open, publicly available to any foreign country or 3rd world dictator? Absolutely not.

Tom, there is a significant difference between knowing how to build something and having the resources to build it.  The technology required to build ICBMs and nuclear warheads has been widely available for many years.  However, few have the resources to actually build ICBMs or nuclear warheads.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 10:54:06 AM
It's not circular reasoning. Even if the rocket technology to reach orbit did exist, do you really think the US or Russian government is going to let that stuff be out in the open, publicly available to any foreign country or 3rd world dictator? Absolutely not.

Tom, there is a significant difference between knowing how to build something and having the resources to build it.  The technology required to build ICBMs and nuclear warheads has been widely available for many years.  However, few have the resources to actually build ICBMs or nuclear warheads.

The knowledge necessary to build an ICBM is not publicly available. Only the very basic principles of how they work is available. The public only has access to model rockets and fireworks. You'll never find schematics for the Saturn V or the Atlas. You'll never find instructions for building an ICBM. You can't just go out and buy an Atlas rocket from Lockheed Martin.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: markjo on December 11, 2011, 11:16:59 AM
It's not circular reasoning. Even if the rocket technology to reach orbit did exist, do you really think the US or Russian government is going to let that stuff be out in the open, publicly available to any foreign country or 3rd world dictator? Absolutely not.

Tom, there is a significant difference between knowing how to build something and having the resources to build it.  The technology required to build ICBMs and nuclear warheads has been widely available for many years.  However, few have the resources to actually build ICBMs or nuclear warheads.

No, the knowledge necessary to build an ICBM is not publicly available. Only the very basic principles of how they work is available. The public only has access to model rockets and fireworks. You'll never find schematics for the Saturn V or the Atlas. You'll never find instructions for building an ICBM. You can't just go out and buy an Atlas rocket from Lockheed Martin.

How do you think that the people who design and build rockets for the government and its contractors learned how to design and build rockets?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 11:20:39 AM
How do you think that the people who design and build rockets for the government and its contractors learned how to design and build rockets?

Please review your history.

At the end of WWII the Allies stole their rocketry knowledge from Nazi Germany and kidnapped (coerced) Nazi scientists to build rockets for them. Recall that in NASA's early life a Nazi war criminal was the director of NASA.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: markjo on December 11, 2011, 11:25:20 AM
How do you think that the people who design and build rockets for the government and its contractors learned how to design and build rockets?

At the end of WWII the Allies stole their rocketry knowledge from Nazi Germany and kidnapped (coerced) Nazi scientists to build rockets for them. Please recall that in its early life a Nazi was the director of NASA.

What about all of the new rocket scientists since then?  Are you saying that colleges and universities do not train new batches of rocket scientists on a regular basis?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 11:38:54 AM
What about all of the new rocket scientists since then?  Are you saying that colleges and universities do not train new batches of rocket scientists on a regular basis?

Colleges and universities do train students in rocket science disciplines. Those students go on to work for government contractors building cruise missiles, air-to-air missiles, anti-air missiles, anti-ship missiles, anti-missile missiles, shoulder fired missiles, etc. There's a whole world of rockets and missiles out there.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 11, 2011, 12:04:22 PM
What about all of the new rocket scientists since then?  Are you saying that colleges and universities do not train new batches of rocket scientists on a regular basis?

Colleges and universities do train rocket scientists. Those scientists go on to work for government contractors building cruise missiles, air-to-air missiles, anti-air missiles, anti-ship missiles, anti-missile missiles, shoulder fired missiles, etc. There's a whole world of rockets and missiles out there.

None of them work on space launch vehicles though, those are all janitors hired by NASA to pretend to be aerospace engineers. Right?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 12:10:01 PM
None of them work on space launch vehicles though, those are all janitors hired by NASA to pretend to be aerospace engineers. Right?

There are aerospace engineers at NASA. NASA just isn't instructing them to build rockets that can go into space. NASA's rockets go up into the air until they disappear from sight, much like Hitler's V2 Vengeance Weapon, which they stole after WWII. Someone has to build those.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 11, 2011, 12:14:34 PM
None of them work on space launch vehicles though, those are all janitors hired by NASA to pretend to be aerospace engineers. Right?

There are aerospace engineers at NASA. NASA just isn't instructing them to build rockets that can go into space. NASA's rockets go up into the air until they disappear from sight, much like Hitler's V2 Vengeance Weapon, which they stole. Someone has to build those.

Are you really saying that all NASA launches were V2's?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 12:21:12 PM
Are you really saying that all NASA launches were V2's?

All of NASA's early rocket engines are based on the Nazi V2 design. They have since claimed to have made improvements which allow them to achieve orbit or reach escape velocity, but this is doubtful.

NASA was basing their entire space program off of Hitler's V2. The Saturn V's engine is directly based off of the V2 engine, for example. It is truly appalling how anyone can praise Apollo knowing that the Apollo project was based off of Nazi technologies, was directed by a Nazi war criminal, and was staffed by Nazi scientists.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 11, 2011, 12:35:31 PM
Are you really saying that all NASA launches were V2's?

All of NASA's early rocket engines are based on the Nazi V2 design. They have since claimed to have made improvements which allow them to achieve orbit or reach escape velocity, but this is false.

NASA was basing their space program off of Hitler's V2. The Saturn V's engine is directly based off of the V2 engine, for example. It is truly appalling how anyone can praise Apollo knowing that the Apollo project was based off of Nazi technologies, was directed by a Nazi war criminal and was staffed by Nazi scientists.

Do you have references for any of this?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 12:44:27 PM
Are you really saying that all NASA launches were V2's?

All of NASA's early rocket engines are based on the Nazi V2 design. They have since claimed to have made improvements which allow them to achieve orbit or reach escape velocity, but this is false.

NASA was basing their space program off of Hitler's V2. The Saturn V's engine is directly based off of the V2 engine, for example. It is truly appalling how anyone can praise Apollo knowing that the Apollo project was based off of Nazi technologies, was directed by a Nazi war criminal and was staffed by Nazi scientists.

Do you have references for any of this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748

Start at 23:35. It goes over a history of the Nazi's rocket program, the Nazi scientist's involvement with NASA, and how the Saturn V is based on the V2.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: markjo on December 11, 2011, 12:53:10 PM
Are you really saying that all NASA launches were V2's?

All of NASA's early rocket engines are based on the Nazi V2 design. They have since claimed to have made improvements which allow them to achieve orbit or reach escape velocity, but this is doubtful.

NASA was basing their space program off of Hitler's V2. The Saturn V's engine is directly based off of the V2 engine, for example. It is truly appalling how anyone can praise Apollo knowing that the Apollo project was based off of Nazi technologies, was directed by a Nazi war criminal and was staffed by Nazi scientists.

*sigh*  Which of the Saturn V's engines were based on the V2's LOX/ethanol-water engine?  Was it the LOX/kerosene fueled F-1 engine or the LOX/LH2 fueled J-2 engine?  Perhaps you're thinking about the Redstone rocket that was directly based off the V2 because none of the other manned space vehicles ever used LOX/ethanol-water based rocket engines.

BTW, von Braun freely admitted that he stole all of his secrets from Robert Goddard (the American inventor of the liquid rocket engine).

Also, what war crime(s) was von Braun ever convicted of?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 01:01:42 PM
Quote
*sigh*  Which of the Saturn V's engines were based on the V2's LOX/ethanol-water engine?  Was it the LOX/kerosene fueled F-1 engine or the LOX/LH2 fueled J-2 engine?  Perhaps you're thinking about the Redstone rocket that was directly based off the V2 because none of the other manned space vehicles ever used LOX/ethanol-water based rocket engines.

All of NASA's rockets are based off of the V2 to some extent. The V2 was the world's first ballistic rocket, and all later rockets were based off of it, even if the type of fuel was changed.

Quote
Also, what war crime(s) was von Braun ever convicted of?

His deal with the Americans was that he would escape prosecution in exchange for his cooperation, but his war crimes were numerous. He kept tens of thousands of slaves in squalid conditions to build Hitler's rockets. He is also responsible for an uncounted number of British deaths.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 01:03:56 PM
And it's also demonstratively false. At least six other countries already have ICBMs. Reference: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Eight_Nations_Now_Building_ICBM_Nuclear_Missiles_999.html (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Eight_Nations_Now_Building_ICBM_Nuclear_Missiles_999.html)

Actually it just says "Eight Nations Now Building ICBM Nuclear Missiles." Norkth Korea claims to be building ICBMs. Everyone doubts their claims.

North Korea claims to be able to hit any of the US mainland, while the US calls it a lie. We're assured by our government that North Korea is too inept to build a proper ICBM weapon.
 
There are 196 countries on earth. There are a lot of people to keep the technology from, hence why advanced rocket technology is classified and classified verily so.
So we're assured by our Government that you're correct about North Korea's ICBM capabilities. That's the same Government that assures you that the Apollo program landed men on the Moon, right? How do decide what to believe? Whim? Desire? Dice?

Remember your claim:
Quote
It was hugely oversized for an ICBM, and was never deployed in such a capacity.

Maybe you should read the next sentence.

Anything which claims to get into orbit is going to be classified. The US or Russian government isn't going to let other countries have access to ICBM-like technologies.
Then remember that the article says six other nations have ICBM technologies.

"According to a preliminary count, eight countries launched more than 26 ballistic missiles of 23 types in 24 different events,"

So you argue that one of the six is just a claim. So? I just need one (other than the US and Russia) to show you wrong, yet again.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 01:08:06 PM
Quote
Also, what war crime(s) was von Braun ever convicted of?

His deal with the Americans was that he would escape prosecution, but his war crimes were numerous. He kept tens of thousands of slaves, kept in squalid conditions, to build Hitler's rockets. He is also responsible for an uncounted number of British deaths.
So, by Robotham's criteria, Chapter 1, page 5. :
"In trials, for justice, society would not tolerate any other procedure. Assumption of guilt, and prohibition of all evidence to the contrary, is a practice not to be found among any of the civilised nations of the earth--scarcely indeed, among savages and barbarians; and yet assumption of premises, and selection of evidence to corroborate assumptions, is everywhere and upon all subjects the practice of theoretical philosophers!"

you're wrong again.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 11, 2011, 01:24:32 PM
All that video seemed to reference was both the Saturn V and V2s had multi-stage engines. Would you also agree since all computers have the same basic parts (CPU, RAM, HDD, MoBo) that they all have the same performance?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 01:26:26 PM
So we're assured by our Government that you're correct about North Korea's ICBM capabilities. That's the same Government that assures you that the Apollo program landed men on the Moon, right? How do decide what to believe? Whim? Desire? Dice?

What I stated was a matter of fact. The US government claims that North Korea can't hit the majority of the US, while North Korea claims that it can.  What you decide to believe is up to you.

Knowing that the earth is flat and earth orbit is not possible, I would be skeptical of North Korea's claims, myself.

Quote from: ClockTower
So you argue that one of the six is just a claim. So? I just need one (other than the US and Russia) to show you wrong, yet again.

A claim isn't evidence. Militaries have been making false claims since the dawn of time. Why would you trust a foreign military to truthfully disclose their capabilities? Do you think the US Military is truthful about the capabilities of its ships and planes? In a list of entities not to trust, military is at the top of the list!
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 01:35:47 PM
Quote
Also, what war crime(s) was von Braun ever convicted of?

His deal with the Americans was that he would escape prosecution, but his war crimes were numerous. He kept tens of thousands of slaves, kept in squalid conditions, to build Hitler's rockets. He is also responsible for an uncounted number of British deaths.
So, by Robotham's criteria, Chapter 1, page 5. :
"In trials, for justice, society would not tolerate any other procedure. Assumption of guilt, and prohibition of all evidence to the contrary, is a practice not to be found among any of the civilised nations of the earth--scarcely indeed, among savages and barbarians; and yet assumption of premises, and selection of evidence to corroborate assumptions, is everywhere and upon all subjects the practice of theoretical philosophers!"

you're wrong again.

In this case Wernher von Braun freely admitted that he was head of Hitler's rocket program. He didn't try to hide it.

That makes him directly responsible for countless British deaths.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs
All that video seemed to reference was both the Saturn V and V2s had multi-stage engines. Would you also agree since all computers have the same basic parts (CPU, RAM, HDD, MoBo) that they all have the same performance?

The V2 wasn't multi-stage.

Later on in the video after that scene it goes over how the Nazi's were captured and transported to the US for their knowledge on the V2. One of their first tasks was recreating the V2 from the ground up. There's even test-footage in that video of a V2 built on american soil launching into the sky. The US and NASA spent so much effort capturing Nazi scientists and recreating the V2 because that's what it based its rockets on.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 01:56:55 PM
So we're assured by our Government that you're correct about North Korea's ICBM capabilities. That's the same Government that assures you that the Apollo program landed men on the Moon, right? How do decide what to believe? Whim? Desire? Dice?

What I stated was a matter of fact. The US government claims that North Korea can't hit the majority of the US, while North Korea claims that it can.  What you decide to believe is up to you.

Knowing that the earth is flat and earth orbit is not possible, I would be skeptical of North Koreas claims, myself.

Quote from: ClockTower
So you argue that one of the six is just a claim. So? I just need one (other than the US and Russia) to show you wrong, yet again.

A claim isn't evidence. Militaries have been making false claims since the dawn of time. Why would you trust a foreign military to truthfully disclose their capabilities? Do you think the US Military is truthful about the capabilities of its ships and planes? In a list of entities not to trust, military is at the top of the list!
So it is whim. Thanks for that.

No, but launch records are evidence. Did you need help with Google to find them? In 1998, more than a decade ago, NK shot a ballistic missile over Japan. The point is that NK has the technology you claim that US and Russia prevents any other country from having. The documented successful ICBM tests by China and Inida are public record.

Yes, I think that the US Military is truthful about the capabilities of its ships and planes. Why do you ask?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 01:59:53 PM
...
In this case Wernher von Braun freely admitted that he was head of Hitler's rocket program. He didn't try to hide it.

That makes him directly responsible for countless British deaths.

Non sequitur. Being responsible for "countless British deaths" is not a war crime. I assume that MacArthur would be a war criminal by your inane logic too. George Washington too!
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 03:03:42 PM
Quote
http://www.ilslaunch.com/mission-control/proton-launch-archives (http://www.ilslaunch.com/mission-control/proton-launch-archives)
Quote
Please explain the existence of the extensive list of Proton customers above.

Deployed via stratellite, as we've discussed.

What the hell does "deployed via stratellite" mean? Your "stratellite" is not a deployment method at all, it's the cargo that gets deployed by a rocket. There are no "fake NASA stratellites" involved here because the cargo is a civilian satellite built by the customer -- the person/group who hired ILS.

Stop avoiding the question: How do you explain the post-launch, in-space telemetry that third party / amateur satellite builders and operators receive from their own satellites?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 03:10:50 PM
Wait a minute... am I reading this right? Is Tom actually claiming that only two countries in the world have access to ICBMs? Good God...
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 03:39:25 PM
No, but launch records are evidence. Did you need help with Google to find them? In 1998, more than a decade ago, NK shot a ballistic missile over Japan. The point is that NK has the technology you claim that US and Russia prevents any other country from having. The documented successful ICBM tests by China and Inida are public record.

NK to Japan is not an intercontinental distance. It's the same continent. NK isn't even that far from Japan. Look at a map.

...
In this case Wernher von Braun freely admitted that he was head of Hitler's rocket program. He didn't try to hide it.

That makes him directly responsible for countless British deaths.

Non sequitur. Being responsible for "countless British deaths" is not a war crime. I assume that MacArthur would be a war criminal by your inane logic too. George Washington too!

If they were killing civilians en masse they would be war criminals.

If they were using slave labor to build their weapons they would be war criminals.

The Nazis were doing both with the V2 program.

Quote from: zarg
What the hell does "deployed via stratellite" mean? Your "stratellite" is not a deployment method at all, it's the cargo that gets deployed by a rocket. There are no "fake NASA stratellites" involved here because the cargo is a civilian satellite built by the customer -- the person/group who hired ILS.

Stop avoiding the question: How do you explain the post-launch, in-space telemetry that third party / amateur satellite builders and operators receive from their own satellites?

Again, the customer's "satellites" are deployed on dirigibles, probably multiple devices per dirigible. The telemetry data the customer receives comes from the edge of space.

Quote from: zarg
Wait a minute... am I reading this right? Is Tom actually claiming that only two countries in the world have access to ICBMs? Good God...

Actually, I've been saying that no country in the world would have access to ICBM's. ICBM's don't exist. Achieving earth orbit is impossible.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 04:00:02 PM

NK to Japan is not an intercontinental distance. It's the same continent.

Wrong. The distance between continents is as small as zero. Take Asia and Europe, for example. Furthermore, just because a test didn't go between continents does not mean that the missile can't achieve ICBM distances. Oh, and the test went over Japan.

I'd ask you how far NK's missiles would have to cover to get to another continent, but I remember that you don't have an accurate map to estimate any such distances. How's the book coming, BTW? Will it have a decent FE map in it?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 04:03:15 PM

...
In this case Wernher von Braun freely admitted that he was head of Hitler's rocket program. He didn't try to hide it.

That makes him directly responsible for countless British deaths.

Non sequitur. Being responsible for "countless British deaths" is not a war crime. I assume that MacArthur would be a war criminal by your inane logic too. George Washington too!

They were if they were killing civilians en masse they would be war criminals.

If they were using slave labor to build their weapons they would be war criminals.

The Nazis were doing both with the V2 program.

1) Provide the definition of war criminal you're using. 2) Provide evidence that WvB did those things.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 04:22:22 PM
Quote from: Clock Tower
just because a test didn't go between continents does not mean that the missile can't achieve ICBM distances.

What?

North Korea kind of has to demonstrate that they could send a missile ICBM distances in order to have an ICBM.

I occasionally shoot off model rockets. I can't claim that "just because my rocket didn't go ICBM distances, it doesn't mean the rocket can't achieve ICBM distances." It has to be demonstrated before it can be called an ICBM.

Please post more rationally.

Quote from: Clock Tower
1) Provide the definition of war criminal you're using. 2) Provide evidence that WvB did those things.

1) Geneva Convention

2) See the video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748) I posted which goes over the Nazi atrocities with the V2 starting at 34:30.

Wernher von Braun was a despicable criminal who used jewish slave labor to build V-2 rockets. Braun was an SS officer for the Nazi regime who was a direct acquaintance of Hitler. During the war he supervised work on the V-2s, which were assembled in an abandoned gypsum mine by starving slave laborers from the nearby Dora concentration camp and then fired against civilians in London and Antwerp. Over thirty thousand prisoners were worked until they died—a fact he directly oversaw and kept silent about for as long as possible.

There are numerous references to his atrocities on Google. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=braun+%22slave+labor%22)

The man should have been tried as a war criminal not made the Director of NASA.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 04:35:51 PM
The telemetry data the customer receives comes from the edge of space.

No it doesn't. The telemetry shows that it is in orbit beyond Earth's atmosphere, not sitting atop an atmospheric "dirigible". Stop making shit up. There is no dirigible, there are no strings hanging it from the sky, no self-propulsion system... just orbit in space. All your ridiculous hypothesizing about what's "really happening" up there gets tossed out the window when we can actually see what our own satellite's sensors are picking up first-hand. Likewise your claims about it being above a flat disc are bunk when we can see the whole globe from every angle (speaking of which, I still don't see an explanation for that photo of Antarctica).
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 04:43:01 PM
No it doesn't. The telemetry shows that it is in orbit beyond Earth's atmosphere, not sitting atop an atmospheric "dirigible". Stop making shit up. There is no dirigible, there are no strings hanging it from the sky, no self-propulsion system... just orbit in space. All your ridiculous hypothesizing about what's "really happening" up there gets tossed out the window when we can actually see what our own satellite's sensors are picking up first-hand. Likewise your claims about it being above a flat disc are bunk when we can see the whole globe from every angle (speaking of which, I still don't see an explanation for that photo of Antarctica).

Who is this "we"? I'm not seeing the telemetry data. I'm sure if the customer complained the conspirators would have cited some technical babble about there still being traces of atmosphere at the altitude of the satellite.

At the edge of space it's kind of difficult to tell whether you are in space or not anyway. Without context one couldn't tell whether the image from this link (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/) was taken from space or not.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 05:00:44 PM
Who is this "we"? I'm not seeing the telemetry data.

Which is why I invite the FES to start their own CubeSat project, try it out, and publicly prove once and for all that there is a conspiracy. This is your chance to get your own hardware right up close and personal on one of those evil top secret FakeRockets, document the journey, bring back hard evidence of the Official Space-Fakery Dirigible... you could change the world. Don't you see the huge opportunity here??

Or, if all you're interested in is seeing the data, you could just buy one of these (http://www.funcubedongle.com/?page_id=2).


Quote
At the edge of space it's kind of difficult to tell whether you are in space or not anyway. Without context one couldn't tell whether the image from this link (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/) was taken from space or not.

You... DO understand that they have quite a bit more data to go on than just raw photography... right?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 05:26:36 PM
Quote from: Clock Tower
just because a test didn't go between continents does not mean that the missile can't achieve ICBM distances.

What?

North Korea kind of has to demonstrate that they could send a missile ICBM distances in order to have an ICBM.

I occasionally shoot off model rockets. I can't claim that "just because my rocket didn't go ICBM distances, it doesn't mean the rocket can't achieve ICBM distances." It has to be demonstrated before it can be called an ICBM.

Please post more rationally.

Nope.

Non Sequitur #1. I can have a water balloon. Just because you're not wet yet (well any more than usual), doesn't mean it's not a water balloon.

Attacking a Strawman #2. I did not say NK proved anything.

Do tell us how far a missile has to travel to be able to say it was an ICBM. Then tell us how far NK is from Japan. Please include the FE Map you used to determine that distance. Or if you like, we'll wait until you walk and swim from the launch site to the landing site and report the results back to us.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 05:46:22 PM
Quote from: Clock Tower
Nope.

Non Sequitur #1. I can have a water balloon. Just because you're not wet yet (well any more than usual), doesn't mean it's not a water balloon.

Is doesn't mean that it is a water balloon, either.

North Korea needs to prove that it has a water balloon before it can be said to have a water balloon.

Quote from: Clock Tower
Do tell us how far a missile has to travel to be able to say it was an ICBM. Then tell us how far NK is from Japan. Please include the FE Map you used to determine that distance. Or if you like, we'll wait until you walk and swim from the launch site to the landing site and report the results back to us.

North Korea is 1044 km from Japan (http://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from/North+Korea/to/Japan)

The range of an ICBM varies depending on who you ask (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/AliciaWhite.shtml), but it's generally agreed to be 5500 km+.

So did North Korea fire an intercontinental ballistic missile? No way. According to the London Range Association in the link above they fired a Medium Range missile.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: markjo on December 11, 2011, 05:57:38 PM
All of NASA's rockets are based off of the V2 to some extent. The V2 was the world's first ballistic rocket, and all later rockets were based off of it, even if the type of fuel was changed.

You're joking, right?  The V2 was a lot of things, but it wasn't the first ballistic rocket.  You would be better off saying that all later liquid fueled rockets were based off of Robert Goddard's first liquid fueled rocket.  Unguided (ballistic) rockets have been used since the Chinese invented gunpowder.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 06:00:07 PM
North Korea is 1044 km from Japan (http://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from/North+Korea/to/Japan)

Really? Really?  :o You used Google Maps' API to determine a distance! Google Maps is based on the assumption that the Earth is "round". I guess that you'll use RET without any thought. Does that mean you've decided that RET is useful to you?

Oh, and again, please remember that the missile went over from a site well within NK, so your estimate of the distance travelled is low. And just because this missile was medium-ranged does not mean they don't have ICBM technology.

Oh, and again, you still need to deal with China's and India's successful tests. Why don't we move along to China now? I only need one example to disprove your paranoid claim that the US and Russia will keep ICBM technology for other countries, right?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 06:09:33 PM
All of NASA's rockets are based off of the V2 to some extent. The V2 was the world's first ballistic rocket, and all later rockets were based off of it, even if the type of fuel was changed.

You're joking, right?  The V2 was a lot of things, but it wasn't the first ballistic rocket.  You would be better off saying that all later liquid fueled rockets were based off of Robert Goddard's first liquid fueled rocket.  Unguided (ballistic) rockets have been used since the Chinese invented gunpowder.

What's your definition of ballistic missiles? Early Chinese rockets are not "ballistic missiles." A ballistic missile  is defined as one which is sub-orbital.

According to whyfiles (http://whyfiles.org/155war_archeo/4.html) the V2 was the first ballistic missile.


According to the British Science Museum (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1191902/Science-Museum-asks-public-vote-best-invention-mark-centenary.html):


According to the Space Flight Museum (http://slispaceflightmuseum.org/blog/?p=356):

Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 06:18:20 PM
Really? Really?  :o You used Google Maps' API to determine a distance! Google Maps is based on the assumption that the Earth is "round". I guess that you'll use RET without any thought. Does that mean you've decided that RET is useful to you?

RET may be used because the Northern Hemisphere distances in RET and FET is similar.

Quote
Oh, and again, please remember that the missile went over from a site well within NK, so your estimate of the distance travelled is low. And just because this missile was medium-ranged does not mean they don't have ICBM technology.

If all North Korea can demonstrate is medium range missiles, it kind of does mean that all they can demonstrate having is medium range missiles.

Quote
Oh, and again, you still need to deal with China's and India's successful tests. Why don't we move along to China now? I only need one example to disprove your paranoid claim that the US and Russia will keep ICBM technology for other countries, right?

Assuming fancifully for a moment that ICBM's existed, why would the US share ICBM technology with China? It's classified so that countries like China can't get a hold of it.

That China claims to have ICBM's is a moot point and unverifiable. But the US certainly would not willingly share such technology with China.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 11, 2011, 06:25:38 PM
Really? Really?  :o You used Google Maps' API to determine a distance! Google Maps is based on the assumption that the Earth is "round". I guess that you'll use RET without any thought. Does that mean you've decided that RET is useful to you?

RET may be used because the Northern Hemisphere distances in RET and FET is are similar.

So how do you know that RET's Northern Hemisphere's distances are similar to those in FET? Do you have an accurate FE map? Does FET even have a Northern Hemisphere?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: markjo on December 11, 2011, 06:25:52 PM
What's your definition of ballistic missiles? Early chinese shoulder rockets can hardly be considered "ballistic missiles." The V2 was the first true ballistic missile and space weapon.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ballistic+missile
Quote
Definition of BALLISTIC MISSILE
: a missile guided in the ascent of a high-arch trajectory and freely falling in the descent

Sounds like they fit the definition to me.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 06:29:30 PM
What's your definition of ballistic missiles? Early chinese shoulder rockets can hardly be considered "ballistic missiles." The V2 was the first true ballistic missile and space weapon.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ballistic+missile
Quote
Definition of BALLISTIC MISSILE
: a missile guided in the ascent of a high-arch trajectory and freely falling in the descent

Sounds like they fit the definition to me.


From the wiki page for Ballistic Missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile) -


In that same wiki article a ballistic missile is defined as -


Clicking on the link for "sub-orbital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-orbital)" we get -


So yes, the V2 was the first Ballistic Missile.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: markjo on December 11, 2011, 06:39:04 PM
Even so, the German V2 is based on American rocket technology.  Technology that is available to the public.
http://store.fastcommerce.com/SystemeSolaire/liquid-fuel-rocket-engine-plans-manuals-ff80818118fcdec101191843b7813e3c-c.html
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 06:47:11 PM
My God, seriously? The FE'ers degenerated the discussion to a semantics argument again?

I just have two comments, before attempting to get back on topic again:

1. In defining "sub-orbital", Tom went with the definition of "sub-orbital space-flight", which makes about as much sense as defining "yellow" as "a yellow submarine".

2. A rope with a sling is a sub-orbital ballistic missile launcher. That is all.

Now, back on topic please. Please don't ignore my previous post, Tom.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 11, 2011, 06:55:49 PM
Sub-orbital is just a word.  Like most, if not all, words, it doesn't really mean anything.  It's just a string of vocal sounds or characters, based on the Germanic language of English, which evolved from Latin, invented by a tribe called the Latins.  The Romans agreed to adopt the language and have a royal marriage to avoid conflict, then the Romans conquered much of the world, and Latin's influence has not been forgotten.  All the Romance and Germanic languages have been based off of them, including English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, etc.

"Sub" is a prefix that used to be a preposition in Latin meaning "under."  It would have been used like "under the bridge" or something like that, and it became a prefix later.  "Orbit" comes from Middle French "Orbite," with the same meaning, which came from the Latin "orbita," which originally referred to the track of the wheel.  Then it was used to mean celestial orbit, when this started to become important in religion, as the mediaeval people believed that everything was in orbit of the Earth.

The point is, these are all just words.  They don't mean anything.  What matters is the nature of reality.  Words are a human convention.

Remember, my friends:  Triviality in all things.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 06:59:18 PM
Even so, the German V2 is based on American rocket technology.  Technology that is available to the public.
http://store.fastcommerce.com/SystemeSolaire/liquid-fuel-rocket-engine-plans-manuals-ff80818118fcdec101191843b7813e3c-c.html

Model rockets can't get into space. They're children's toys which can't do very much.

Were model rockets even around in the early 40's when Germany built the V2's?

According to the wiki page on Model Rockets, the first model rocket motor didn't appear until the mid to late 50's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rockets).


Quote from: zarg
1. In defining "sub-orbital", Tom went with the definition of "sub-orbital space-flight", which makes about as much sense as defining "yellow" as "a yellow submarine".

There is only one definition for sub-orbital on Wikipedia. The page for sub-orbital redirects you to "sub-orbital space flight"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-orbital

Quote from: zarg
2. A rope with a sling is a sub-orbital ballistic missile launcher. That is all.

Incorrect. No-one uses the term "sub-orbital" to describe a high trajectory launcher. There are only two definitions for sub-orbital on Google definitions and both of them agree with me (http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define+sub+orbital#hl=en&q=sub+orbital&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=p27lTtrjJ4HfiALX3emhBg&ved=0CB4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=9fd4d23f4504bf41&biw=771&bih=393).

Quote from: zarg
Now, back on topic please. Please don't ignore my previous post, Tom.

Your previous post asked us to build a satellite. We don't have those kind of resources. But if you would like to donate, you may paypal your money to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com

All donations appreciated!
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: markjo on December 11, 2011, 07:15:49 PM
Even so, the German V2 is based on American rocket technology.  Technology that is available to the public.
http://store.fastcommerce.com/SystemeSolaire/liquid-fuel-rocket-engine-plans-manuals-ff80818118fcdec101191843b7813e3c-c.html

Model rockets can't get into space or reach earth orbit. They're children's toys.

What makes you think that I'm talking about model rockets?
Quote from: http://www.nar.org/hpcert/NARhprintro.html
      Where Is The Line Between Model and High Power Rocketry?

                A rocket exceeds the definition of a model rocket under NFPA 1122 and becomes a High Power rocket under NFPA 1127 if it:

        * Uses a motor with more than 160 Newton-seconds of total impulse (an "H" motor or larger) or multiple motors that all together exceed 320 Newton-seconds
        * Uses a motor with more than 80 Newtons average thrust (see rocket motor coding);
        * Exceeds 125 grams of propellant
        * Uses a hybrid motor
        * Weighs more than 1,500 grams including motor(s); or
        * Includes any airframe parts of ductile metal.

The biggest difference between model rockets, high power rockets and ICBMs is scale.  The essential technology is all the same.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 07:30:29 PM
The biggest difference between model rockets, high power rockets and ICBMs is scale.  The essential technology is all the same.

The difference isn't just scale. You can't just scale up a model rocket and get one that can go into space.

The Nazi's invested a significant amount of money developing the V2 over a long period of time. It took millions of man-hours and the concentrated effort of a super-power to create the V2. With larger rockets there are weight issues, control issues, stability issues, etc. The US was unable to successfully launch large rockets and had to import Nazi scientists to build them for them. Rocket technology was so complicated that the US couldn't do it on their own. That's why a Nazi war criminal was the director of NASA and the organization was staffed by Nazi scientists.

The best and the brightest at the biggest of the 1940's US universities just couldn't hack it. When the US has to kidnap (coerce) Nazi scientists to build their rockets, you know it's a difficult technology.

It wasn't just the US who were unsuccessful with building sizable rockets, either. Russia was also unsuccessful with their early rocket attempts. They, too, had to kidnap Nazi scientists for their space program.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: markjo on December 11, 2011, 07:46:35 PM
Gee Tom, if I didn't know any better, I'd say that you were arguing that the German war criminals that the US kidnapped after WWII were able to actually build rockets that really could go into orbit and to the moon.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2011, 08:10:57 PM
Gee Tom, if I didn't know any better, I'd say that you were arguing that the German war criminals that the US kidnapped after WWII were able to actually build rockets that really could go into orbit and to the moon.

Fortunately you do know better, and know that isn't my argument.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 11, 2011, 09:16:10 PM
Gee Tom, if I didn't know any better, I'd say that you were arguing that the German war criminals that the US kidnapped after WWII were able to actually build rockets that really could go into orbit and to the moon.

Fortunately you do know better, and know that isn't my argument.
Ha, this is funny.  Plus, the U.S. has committed war crimes far worse than the Nazis.  Some of the rules are to never hurt citizens and soldiers indiscriminately, or citizens at all, never go to war unless all possibilities of negotiation are exhausted, and other things like that.  One needs only to look at the war in Iraq.  Plus, "war crime" is a silly word.  In war, all the rules are off.  It doesn't make any sense.


Plus, I find it funny that you know all these things about design and stuff.  You're very intelligent and have well-organized thoughts, and I'm surprised that you think Appollo was a hoax on the grounds that the lander looks funny.  You're brilliant, Tom, and if you didn't hold on to such a silly notion, then you would be highly esteemed by everyone, which I'm told is important to you people.  You probably are, somewhat, already, but people think you're crazy, I bet.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: zarg on December 11, 2011, 09:30:39 PM
Your previous post asked us to build a satellite. We don't have those kind of resources.

That's not all my post said.  You were unconvinced because you can't see the telemetry data yourself (what's your point anyway? All those customers can see it; are you denying that these people exist? Are they all lying?) so I responded that you should take the opportunity to start your own CubeSat project OR you could just get a receiver (http://www.funcubedongle.com/?page_id=2) to see the data yourself, which would cost you less than $200 USD. What's your excuse now?

You also haven't replied to this:
Quote
Quote
At the edge of space it's kind of difficult to tell whether you are in space or not anyway. Without context one couldn't tell whether the image from this link (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/) was taken from space or not.

You... DO understand that they have quite a bit more data to go on than just raw photography... right?

Or this:
Quote
I still don't see an explanation for that photo of Antarctica


But if you would like to donate, you may paypal your money to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com

All donations appreciated!

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if you could get donations (even from "non-believers") if we had some assurance that you were actually going to do this. Make it official, get some media attention ("Flat Earth Society Launching Satellite" is bound to turn some heads), sell t-shirts, whatever.

Like I said, this is an amazing opportunity for you to gather some hard evidence and make the world take notice. If you truly believe that, at the end of its rocket journey, the (so-called) space satellite sits in the atmosphere supported by a NASA dirigible, overlooking a non-rotating plane, you know that the proof will be right in front of you if you manage to get some working equipment of your own up there with the "accused" rocket itself -- the smoking gun.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 12, 2011, 12:53:44 AM
Quote
Plus, the U.S. has committed war crimes far worse than the Nazis.

Is that sarcasm?  The US has done some awful things, but worse than the Nazis?  That is a big accusation.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: PizzaPlanet on December 12, 2011, 02:25:43 AM
Is that sarcasm?  The US has done some awful things, but worse than the Nazis?  That is a big accusation.
Tell that to the people of Nagasaki.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: John Davis on December 12, 2011, 06:33:10 AM
Is that sarcasm?  The US has done some awful things, but worse than the Nazis?  That is a big accusation.
Tell that to the people of Nagasaki.
Or the Karankawa, for one.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: LinearPlane on December 12, 2011, 08:18:27 AM
Is that sarcasm?  The US has done some awful things, but worse than the Nazis?  That is a big accusation.
Tell that to the people of Nagasaki.

Tell that to the people of Pearl Harbor.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 12, 2011, 08:24:54 AM
Could we stop this meaningless (or too meaningfull) debate an get back to the topic?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 12, 2011, 01:55:46 PM
The topic was pretty brutally mutilated, with Roundy claiming satellites can exist in a FE and Tom talking about the conspiracy. In the end, the CubeSat will go the way of all NASA earth photos and remain at "fake" status.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 13, 2011, 12:58:41 PM
Is that sarcasm?  The US has done some awful things, but worse than the Nazis?  That is a big accusation.
Tell that to the people of Nagasaki.

I am a Russian history major.  I have taken a multitude of college level history classes, and i can assure you that the only argument that could be made regarding the US being equal to the the Nazis would be regarding Native Americans.  That being said, its a stretch of an argument to make.  Sure there were atrocities committed against the Native Americans, i am in no way attempting to downplay the impact of settlers in the "new world".  However, a majority of Natives fell to disease as opposed to death camps, or as a result of expansion of the previously mentioned settlers.  Some settlers did gain the mindset that all of the Natives needed to be killed (this is not uncommon in war, many natives gained this mindset) but it was never the official government policy.  For the most part the US did a horrible job of relocating these people to the worst lands in the US.  But it was never a government policy to set up death camps.

Then we must also take into account that much of this was not US policy but British policy, and it was from about 200-300 years ago.  We must accept those faults, but one must certainly also realize that the standard for which we judge these acts is a 200-300 year old standard.  Had the US or British committed these atrocities during the 20th century they would be judged accordingly. 

The US has done TONS of other horrible things, but no single act can equate to setting up death camps for the Jewish population strictly because Hitler needed a scapegoat for the failure of the German population.  When the US does something horrible its usually because it has something to gain, not because it wants to see something burn.

My final thought is that this is not the word of god.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, i just happen to know where the middle ground/majority view is among historians.  If your family was killed or you had a relative die of radiation in japan due to the use of nuclear bombs, you may have a much more extreme view of the US government.  If the majority of you people died on the trail of tears, you may feel that your people have suffered as much as the Jews in Europe did in the 1930s and 1940s.  And these people would have valid and completely reasonable opinions.  because for them it does not matter how or why such an atrocity could happen, but simply that it did happen, and that it is inexcusable. 

In the end though, these are not the majority view.  There are as many Japanese who feel that their leaders bringing of war to the US was the cause of their sorrow as there are who blame the US, and both have valid and respectable opinions.

So you may claim that the US has committed atrocities equal or worse than the Nazis, it is just that this is not the majority view, it is an extremest position.

Sorry for the boring essay guys, again, i'm a history major so its just in my nature to see a history related comment and go, "well how is he going to back that one up"?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: John Davis on December 15, 2011, 07:56:33 AM
Well, of course history is going to favour the victors.  We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Rushy on December 15, 2011, 09:48:29 AM
Well, of course history is going to favour the victors.  We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?

I don't see how its an atrocity to end a war before thousands of americans were killed attempting to invade the japanese mainland.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: Thork on December 15, 2011, 09:55:57 AM
So did the Guatemalans deserve syphilis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 15, 2011, 10:56:58 AM
Well, of course history is going to favour the victors.  We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?

I don't see how its an atrocity to end a war before thousands of americans were killed attempting to invade the japanese mainland.

There were other motivations besides that.  You have to consider that the goal of the bomb being dropped was to achieve an unconditional surrender.  The Japanese before the bomb strike were willing to surrender so long as they were able to keep their emperor.  After both bombs dropped this was still part of the treaty, so the bomb strikes actually achieved nothing but pain for the Japanese.  We ultimately accepted the surrender because we wanted to prevent Russia dividing japan like it had divided Germany.  So remember, the bomb successfully achieved none of its goals. 

That being said there was no way the US government could have known it would have been ineffective at obtaining an unconditional surrender.  There is also a huge debate regarding how many casualties would have been ensured during a mainland invasion.  Many figures have it much lower than the infamous million man mark in the Stimson report.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 15, 2011, 10:57:59 AM
So did the Guatemalans deserve syphilis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment

Did someone suggest that they deserved that?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 15, 2011, 11:08:20 AM
Well, of course history is going to favour the victors.  We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?

I am an american and i have been taught rigorously about the faults of my own government.  Regardless of who won WW2 its simply an extremest position to assert that any single act of prejudice or atrocity was equal to the holocaust.  This is not to say that an extremest position is wrong, its just not the majority view among historians from any country.  Unless you pick perhaps the Native Americans who really got a the shitty end of the stick. (again though this was not due to a hatred of the Natives so much as disease.  There were definitely attacks against the natives but there are also examples of friendships between settlers and Natives (many more attacks).  The goal of the settlers was to settle the lands, not exterminate an entire race of people.  Thats why the majority view is that the Holocaust is the single worse event in modern history.  An entity literally went around exterminating an entire race of people.  The Americans have done some horrific things, many in fact, and i certainly have been taught a majority of them that are available to the public as i have had an extremely liberal education, but to suggest that anything committed by the Americans as being equal to the holocaust is  stretch that usually can be justified by personal experience.

So can we stop with the one liner atrocity posts?  If you have an opinion contrary to the one above that is fine, more than fine, thats great and its what the US stands for.  But simply throwing out a single atrocity as if its worse than the Holocaust with no explanation as to why you feel that way is just pointless.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: ClockTower on December 15, 2011, 11:12:47 AM
The topic is CubeSat and the access it provides to space. Let's not respond to any more off-topic postings by Thork or JD.

I see that the Zetetic Method has failed the FEers. Rather than support their unimpeachable (under the Zetetic Method) conclusion that satellites can't orbit the Earth, they decided to allow 'magic' orbits now.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 15, 2011, 11:14:48 AM
So did the Guatemalans deserve syphilis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment
83 death vs millions?

Are you out of your mind?
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 18, 2011, 05:55:45 PM
Well, of course history is going to favour the victors.  We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?

I am an american and i have been taught rigorously about the faults of my own government.  Regardless of who won WW2 its simply an extremest position to assert that any single act of prejudice or atrocity was equal to the holocaust.  This is not to say that an extremest position is wrong, its just not the majority view among historians from any country.  Unless you pick perhaps the Native Americans who really got a the shitty end of the stick. (again though this was not due to a hatred of the Natives so much as disease.  There were definitely attacks against the natives but there are also examples of friendships between settlers and Natives (many more attacks).  The goal of the settlers was to settle the lands, not exterminate an entire race of people.  Thats why the majority view is that the Holocaust is the single worse event in modern history.  An entity literally went around exterminating an entire race of people.  The Americans have done some horrific things, many in fact, and i certainly have been taught a majority of them that are available to the public as i have had an extremely liberal education, but to suggest that anything committed by the Americans as being equal to the holocaust is  stretch that usually can be justified by personal experience.

So can we stop with the one liner atrocity posts?  If you have an opinion contrary to the one above that is fine, more than fine, thats great and its what the US stands for.  But simply throwing out a single atrocity as if its worse than the Holocaust with no explanation as to why you feel that way is just pointless.
This gets into moral philosophy.  You can't really measure and say, "The Nazis had ten thousand bad-units and the US only has 3.5 thousand."  How can you measure horror?  Does a number of deaths work?  Can you use a percentage of the total population?  Is that allowed?

Anyway, you have to remember:  Hitler thought he was doing a good thing.  No one ever thinks that they're the bad guys.  He thought Jews were evil, and he was purifying the world.  Likewise, we Americans think that we're the good guys.
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 19, 2011, 04:55:07 PM
Well, of course history is going to favour the victors.  We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?

I am an american and i have been taught rigorously about the faults of my own government.  Regardless of who won WW2 its simply an extremest position to assert that any single act of prejudice or atrocity was equal to the holocaust.  This is not to say that an extremest position is wrong, its just not the majority view among historians from any country.  Unless you pick perhaps the Native Americans who really got a the shitty end of the stick. (again though this was not due to a hatred of the Natives so much as disease.  There were definitely attacks against the natives but there are also examples of friendships between settlers and Natives (many more attacks).  The goal of the settlers was to settle the lands, not exterminate an entire race of people.  Thats why the majority view is that the Holocaust is the single worse event in modern history.  An entity literally went around exterminating an entire race of people.  The Americans have done some horrific things, many in fact, and i certainly have been taught a majority of them that are available to the public as i have had an extremely liberal education, but to suggest that anything committed by the Americans as being equal to the holocaust is  stretch that usually can be justified by personal experience.

So can we stop with the one liner atrocity posts?  If you have an opinion contrary to the one above that is fine, more than fine, thats great and its what the US stands for.  But simply throwing out a single atrocity as if its worse than the Holocaust with no explanation as to why you feel that way is just pointless.
This gets into moral philosophy.  You can't really measure and say, "The Nazis had ten thousand bad-units and the US only has 3.5 thousand."  How can you measure horror?  Does a number of deaths work?  Can you use a percentage of the total population?  Is that allowed?

Anyway, you have to remember:  Hitler thought he was doing a good thing.  No one ever thinks that they're the bad guys.  He thought Jews were evil, and he was purifying the world.  Likewise, we Americans think that we're the good guys.

Its a mojority position, not necessarily the correct position, I have stated that numerous times.  Yes it is dependent upon your morals.  However my original point still stands.  There is no single US atrocity that can rival the Holocaust in terms of what the majority believes.  Ive stated why this is the case.  The Nazis may have believed that killing all jews was the good thing to do, but that concept is not what we were judging.  Historical events are judged in a viariety of ways, but in my experince the normal procedure ivolves a few simple questions. 

1.)  Why was the act done.
2.)  What was the cost to benefit ratio.
3.)  What is the scale of the act

And there many more.  But you will find that in almost every way the question is asked, the Holocaust comes out on top.  Of course there are other questions like, "how many of my friends were killed" which can produce extremest views.

You can defend extremest viewpoints, and they can be every bit as true as the majority viewpoint, however it is still an extremest viewpoint, and with good reason.  For most people of the western world, the Holocaust was the single worst event in modern history.  Its sole goal was the extermination of an entire race.  That is how it is judged.  Millions of people were murdered simply due to their race and beliefs.  It was not so that Hitler could make Germany stronger, in fact it hurt Germany, it provided no benefit to anyone.  It was conducted on such a scale that it is a nightmare to even contemplate.  The united states has committed no acts that rival the scale and brutality of the holocaust. This is not to say that horrible crimes have not been committed, just not on the scale of the holocaust and usually for better reasons than the holocaust (if you believe that motive matters).
Title: Re: CubeSat
Post by: El Cid on December 20, 2011, 11:30:44 PM
Well, yes, obviously the Nazis did worse things than the US.  I didn't mean to say otherwise.  I was just typing it up quickly.  The thing is, though, none of these things have I ever experienced, or have affected me greatly.  I don't know what to think of much of this.  If I experienced those things, or even knew someone who experienced them, I would think of it differently, but I didn't, and I can't really comprehend them.  I just can't get worried about it all, and perhaps I shouldn't.  So, there you go.


Anyway!  About Cubesat, then...