Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Stash

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 102
1

Need I say more?



Apollo 17 CSM & LM during lunar orbit revolution 11
16mm interpolated from 6 to 24fps with Hasselblad photos.



Test with incomplete TV footage, looking for more.

Plan to eventually add Hasselblad photos


WOW!!! That is amazing. The side by side interpolated 24fps versus the 6 is just insane.

2
If you have a submission to Heiwas challenge, then post it up. But of course, given the impossibility of getting a man to the moon and back again in the 1960s or even the 2010s as evidenced by the fact that no one has even bothered to pretend to get there, you cant do that.
If you bother to read the thread you might that has been done.
In any case, neither Heiwa, you nor anybody else has never proven that NASA's publicly available information is incorrect.

Topic is my Challenge - see post #1 - about correct info of human space travel. Have a try!

Actually, the topic is how someone won your challenge and you refused to pay them.

In the mean time, as has been pointed out many times, all the data needed to win the challenge is right in here:


https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm

Thanks. Use the info and win my Challenge! I must remind you all about the alleged winner of my Challenge (post #1) that he suggested I won (and paid) the Challenge to myself using a software for kids how to fly in space. That software was full of viruses which killed all space travellers. Ever heard of a virus killing us all?

I did use the info to win your challenge - It's all in that link. Let me know if there is anything missing. I'd be very surprised if there is, it's extremely comprehensive and detailed. Do you need my bank account information for wiring the funds?

3
If you have a submission to Heiwas challenge, then post it up. But of course, given the impossibility of getting a man to the moon and back again in the 1960s or even the 2010s as evidenced by the fact that no one has even bothered to pretend to get there, you cant do that.
If you bother to read the thread you might that has been done.
In any case, neither Heiwa, you nor anybody else has never proven that NASA's publicly available information is incorrect.

Topic is my Challenge - see post #1 - about correct info of human space travel. Have a try!

Actually, the topic is how someone won your challenge and you refused to pay them.

In the mean time, as has been pointed out many times, all the data needed to win the challenge is right in here:


https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm

4
QAnon think the Q drops from 2 years ago are coming true now.

https://twitter.com/TheCollectiveQ/status/1243992014296842240?s=20

Quote
Did you all hear it in POTUS' remarks at Norfolk,VA?

Quote:

"TWO BIG WORDS. READY RESERVES" - DJT

RR?

I liked this response to the tweet:

"I noticed @POTUS came out of WH with an umbrella. Didn’t seem to be raining, did seem to be chilly, but he wasn’t wearing his overcoat.

Umbrella?"

5
Wise was proven wrong by yesterdays deaths/day.
No. the number may increase and decrease daily. I was wrong about 750, I did not consider thay can manipulate the numbers, but I am still assertive about 1750.
Pathetic.
No. Reality. Lies will emerge soon or later. We'll see numbers today, tomorrow and next days. Then I want to talk you again.
You made a prediction.
You were wrong.
Face reality and admit your mistakes.
I give up. The graph is true. I have draw it considering earlier numbers. But it is still valid, an average upper limit.
So you have drawn it wrong? Then it is no longer valid.
Is your only point that there is an upper limit? If so that's absolutely obvious, for there to not be an upper limit there would need to be unlimited people in italy.
this is still an upper limit but I think an exceptional situation has occurred. it needs to stay on this line for a few days before we can understand this. I mean, if it continues with 950-1000-900, etc, then it means upper limit is not valid. But if it returns back to 700s again, it means we need to examine the number of dead manipulation in Italian healt ministery authorities. For now, no problem.
The most elaborate research & empidemiological model suggest that it will stay up and climb up even a bit higher.
But graph tells opposite. It has broken down, or the curve flattened.
No it hasn't.
Yes it has. It was 900 some yesterday and 800 some today. It can't go anywhere. There is no room but just more lies.
So already two times over your 'limit'? Yesterday it was 969 I think.
Also, the day in italy hasnt ended, it's like 4.5 more hours to go; thus it could still reach 900+
No, this is today's annoucement includes full of yesterday. Countries announce it a spesific time and once a day. It reduced. Graphic is not going upward. Face with reality. Are you a part of conspiracy?

Seems to be trending in the wrong direction, up:


https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

6
But what about the space craft control stick?
 
It was used once back in 1962 but looks worn.

And?

7
I know! Glenn fired his three retro-rockets over the Pacific so he almost flow back to Hawaii but it was to start the re-entry through the atmosphere (air braking + heat shield, LOL) and then he landed in the Atlantic in front of a USN war ship. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm since many years. But it was just a Hollywood show. Glenn was never in space.

I just read your 1.9 John Glenn re-entry!. Wow, what a hot mess. You provide zero evidence of anything. It's just you waxing about "flying backward". You sure put a lot of time and effort into writing a whole lotta nothing. Do you have any evidence rather than just whining about it?

8
I know plenty people say they have done space return trips but they cannot prove it. If you ask them for evidence, they have none.

What would the evidence you need from them be?

Fuel calculations!

You know that according https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population there are 7 700 millions of humans on Earth!

And only today according https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ 318 649 (i.e. only 0.3 million) are infected by a corona virus and 13 675 have died!

But 57 millions humans die every every here on Earth! https://ourworldindata.org/births-and-deaths and so far nobody has won my Challenge.

You've asked astronauts for fuel calculations?

Additionally, you've been given the fuel calculations dozens of times. Not just here, but elsewhere too. Wherein lies the problem?
Of course! The astronuts must of course know how much fuel they need for their trips starting with John Glenn. I describe him at my web site. He was never in space! He was lying all the time. Sad! Glenn then became a US senator. Imagine that! And he finally took a trip on the Shuttle to the Fake Space Station. ROTFL!

You asked John Glenn how much fuel he needed for his Mercury mission? What did he say?

You didn't answer my second question: You've been given the fuel calculations dozens of times. Not just here, but elsewhere too. Wherein lies the problem?

9
I know plenty people say they have done space return trips but they cannot prove it. If you ask them for evidence, they have none.

What would the evidence you need from them be?

Fuel calculations!

You know that according https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population there are 7 700 millions of humans on Earth!

And only today according https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ 318 649 (i.e. only 0.3 million) are infected by a corona virus and 13 675 have died!

But 57 millions humans die every every here on Earth! https://ourworldindata.org/births-and-deaths and so far nobody has won my Challenge.

You've asked astronauts for fuel calculations?

Additionally, you've been given the fuel calculations dozens of times. Not just here, but elsewhere too. Wherein lies the problem?

10
I know plenty people say they have done space return trips but they cannot prove it. If you ask them for evidence, they have none.

What would the evidence you need from them be?

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dem Watch 2020
« on: March 19, 2020, 11:29:28 AM »
Tulsi folds...


12
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar system is wrong.
« on: March 18, 2020, 04:54:56 PM »
The circumference of the Earth's orbit is probably 309052 km.

How did you arrive at that figure?

13
Did you know that the there are certain manufacturing processes (especially in pharmaceuticals and semiconductors) that work better in space than on earth?
http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0414/ijsrp-p2802.pdf
https://www.laserfocusworld.com/test-measurement/research/article/16556282/optical-fiber-manufacturing-gravityfree-optical-fiber-manufacturing-breaks-earthly-limitations
https://www.space.com/40552-space-based-manufacturing-just-getting-started.html

No. Topic is humans traveling in space. See post #1.

No, the topic is actually how someone won your humans traveling in space challenge and you reneged on it. I think you should see post #1.

14
You haven't proven stabilty of the n-body problems.
Tom, what makes you think that n-body systems are obligated to be stable forever?  It's well accepted that our solar system has not stable over the course of its history.

What are you talking about? They can't keep the three body problem together for the Sun-Earth-Moon system for a short amount of time, let alone long periods of time.

Oh goodness, the N-Body Problem red herring of your's over and over again. Listen, when FE can predict the path of an eclipse down to the meter level for any point on earth like RE can, you can jabber on about the N-Body problem. In the mean time it's neither here nor there.

Now, can the Moon Tilt Illusion only work on a flat earth?
I see on your Moon Tilt Illusion wiki page it states:
"EA predicts that between rising and midmoon the Moon's phase will be pointed significantly away from the Earth and Sun, angled upwards above it."

Though I can't find anywhere where EA 'predicts' anything. Where are these 'predictions' and how do they work?

15
It shows that you can position the camera under an object to get it to point upwards. All of these scenes are positioned BENEATH the ball on the string. Just look at them. Total fallacy and failure of demonstration that the object in the background is actually pointing at the Sun like the object in the foreground is.

Hence the illusion. We are 'beneath' the moon and sun as well. Again, why wouldn't the illusion happen on a flat earth? What does the shape of the earth have to do with the illusion?

Now your argument is "its an illusion."  Ludicrous. I would suggest finding a way to show that the illuminated portion of the Moon is pointing at the Sun without relying on fallacies.

You're not addressing the question, dodging it in fact. Are you suggesting that the only way what is called the Moon Tilt ILLUSION can happen is if the world is flat?

16
It shows that you can position the camera under an object to get it to point upwards. All of these scenes are positioned BENEATH the ball on the string. Just look at them. Total fallacy and failure of demonstration that the object in the background is actually pointing at the Sun like the object in the foreground is.

Hence the illusion. We are 'beneath' the moon and sun as well. Again, why wouldn't the illusion happen on a flat earth? What does the shape of the earth have to do with the illusion?

17
Tom, I have already provided a link to a very comprehensive and detailed document which fully explains how your Moon tilt illusion occurs. Is that not good enough for you?

The Myers paper is discussed in the TFES Moon Tilt Illusion Wiki article: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Predictive_Equation

You have not addressed this. You just linked to the paper which the Wiki article talks about, and pretend that it's an RE model.

Why couldn't you have a Moon Tilt Illusion on a flat earth? I think the illusion is the same with the same optical explanation regardless of the shape of the earth.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: What flat earth experiment?
« on: March 14, 2020, 06:11:53 PM »
It's all very complicated and convoluted. From what I've ascertained after reading through ENAG many times and other literature from the 'modern' flat earth movement in the 1800's and early 1900's, it's mostly, very, very scripturally based. Rowbotham in ENAG does a good job or sort of masking this until in Chapter XV where he ties all of his findings into full and utter support of scriptural passages and such.
Lady Blount and her crew who took over the mantle from Rowbotham don't even mask the scriptural notions, they came straight out to say, "The stated object of the new Universal Zetetic Society was “The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical scientific investigation.” Society Rule number 1 was: “The so-called ‘sciences,’ and especially Modern Astronomy, to be dealt with from practical data in connection with the Divine System of Cosmogony revealed by the Creator.”
https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Chapter_07.html

Fast forward to today there's a healthy mix of scriptural belief in FE and psuedoscientific belief. But it's hard to discern between the two a lot of the time.

I think you can credit Rowbotham for the modern FE movement, but unless one is scripturally bound, if I were FE, I would definitely distance myself from ENAG and most of what came after at the turn of the last century.


19
Flat Earth General / Re: What flat earth experiment?
« on: March 14, 2020, 09:05:30 AM »
Yes, his credentials are well known.

I can consider something to be peer reviewed if it was reviewed by the authors peers before publication and afterwards. The methodology of this review can consist of a great many methodological tools and practices such as collaboration, internal consistency, replication and so on.

I think you are upset because it was not reviewed by your, or rather your beliefs peers. This is a simple misunderstanding. Your peers are not ours.

Aside from that modern peer review is a joke.

Yes, his credentials, or lack thereof, are well known. As well as his nom de plume's. I had just never seen him referred to as Dr.Birley in the context of FET. As usually 'Rowbotham' was used.

And I am by no means upset. It's just that what you cited are Letters to the Editor, not what I would consider peer review. Those 'Letters' were chosen by the editor(s) of the ENAG Review to be published in the ENAG Review.  Basically they were in complete control of their own propaganda.

I'm sure there are many issues with modern peer review. ENAG Review avoided whatever these problems may be by not partaking in the peer review process altogether.

20
That's why there are no winners of my Challenge.
What is the point of your "challenge" if you never believe anything that anyone tells you?

Seriously, it seems that the only person associated with your "challenge" that hasn't leaned anything is you.

Why is that?
Well, I just organize my popular Challenge for fun. To keep twerps occupied. I learn a lot everyday to keep in shape. But basically I do sports and learn languages every day to keep my body and brain going to become 100+.
That's nice, but it seems that you haven't leaned a damned thing about manned space travel.  Maybe you should take your "challenges" more seriously before someone decides to sue you for fraud.
As a matter of fact I consider human space travel a fraud. Quite funny how NASA managed to fool the world since the 1960's with their Fake News. But they didn't fool me and they haven't won my Challenge.
I wonder why people get upset about it. That NASA fooled them? It was so easy! Just a Hollywood show + US media + plenty fools believing anything.
But now this thread has >600 000 visits so maybe there will be a change?

Yes, the thread has 600k visits and considering the thread is about how you lost the challenge and refused to pay up, that's 600k visitors who have seen you welsh on a bet. Well done.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can you RE'ers see this house.
« on: March 13, 2020, 08:33:11 PM »
That is some crazy distortion. Compare the close up:


22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: All About maps
« on: March 13, 2020, 06:26:54 PM »
"Simply a matter of measurement" is simply a matter of two thousands years of goal post moving.

"Oh north isn't north. You mean North. Its slightly off because, well it is tilted."

The goal post moving, or 'declination' as the rest of us refer to it, seems to have worked out exceedingly well for the past 2000+ years. And with pinpoint precision these days. What do you have that's more accurate in your world?

23
Flat Earth General / Re: THAT'S WHY THE GAS BALLOON GOES TO UPWARDS.
« on: March 13, 2020, 05:06:13 PM »
Gravity is the downward reaction force of an object. For this, the falling velocity of the object is the opposite of the rise velocity. Because the reaction is the opposite of the action.

Where does your "Earth goes upward" part come into play? I'm confused, does gravity exist?

24
Flat Earth General / Re: What flat earth experiment?
« on: March 13, 2020, 05:03:20 PM »
You can review our library to find literally thousands of experiments which show the earth is not a globe.

Found in one place only, nonreproduceable or substantiated by anyone or any other 3rd party.
Within our library are reproductions and scans of works that are available at your local library through interlibrary loan. Many of the works contained are peer reviewed journals, and all of them have been peer reviewed in some form.

Those results that meet the metle of peer review have been verified by both third parties and for reproducibility.

You can surely find more of our peer reviewed journals with minimal effort.
If you do have any "peer-reviewed journals" why are you so reluctant to reveal them.
I'm not. There have been plenty over the years. Like I said, visit your local library or our library.

The Earth Not a Globe Review comes to mind as an early example.

The Earth Not a Globe Review contains a "Correspondence" section in each issue. I wouldn't consider a 'Letter to the Editors' section such that this is as peer review. Maybe your definition of peer review is different than mine. Mine is more like an objective thorough evaluation of a published work that is separate and distinct. Not the sort of fan letters found within the the ENAG Review itself.

Is there anything else you would consider 'peer reviewed' under its more modern definition?

Edit: As an aside I found this interesting. In Issue No.3 (1893), Rowbotham is referred to as Dr. Birley)

"We cannot repeat the evidence here; but those who want it may find the evidence given in an excellent book by “ Parallax ” (Dr, Birley) which has never yet been answered."

I assume because at that time he was more famous as the extended life Elixir purveyor than Flat Earth lecturer?

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: All About maps
« on: March 13, 2020, 03:25:47 PM »
if you use chrome you can use google earth which proves the earth is round. you can even zoom in to see your own house!

We have proved its being not round by using google maps and a compass 1 dollar cost. You can search and find that issue.

Actually, you didn't. If you go back through the thread here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68217.0

You'll see that it comes down to you not believing in a magnetic north and a geographic north and subsequently discarding declination. You were even shown a map of Istanbul that calculated the 5 degrees of declination for you.

Google Earth and Google maps don't unto themselves prove anything about the shape of the earth. They do, however, use a spherical earth for their projections, calculations, distances, and presentation. And they seem to be extremely accurate.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: THAT'S WHY THE GAS BALLOON GOES TO UPWARDS.
« on: March 12, 2020, 08:01:11 PM »
Awesome! I like the complication, as it were. Air resistance should be the same, same size objects and both round so not a factor. But now we have height and seeming velocity increase...or not.

I'm gonna go with....

I want to see what Wise and the OP have to say. Lay it on us.
What matters is the ratio of downward force to the air resistance.
Let's see what the OP comes up with as that ratio.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this to me.........
« on: March 11, 2020, 04:45:59 PM »
Mr Totallackey has obviously got his mind made up about what he believes to be true and nothing will change that. That is fine since everyone is entitled to their opinion.
"Everyone is entitled to their opinion".
What makes totallackey a hypocritical, however, is his demand that we show a demonstration of something totally irrelevant to either the shape of the Earth or whether it rotates or not,
yet he refuses to show a similar demonstration of his Earth "model" so that we might evaluate it.
Alchemists huddling, wondering how they can deny what they see in front of their eyes everyday, ascribing something beyond 6 miles to fictional fantasy about a supposed curve.

Needing a model of flat when reality of flat is in front of them each and everyday.

"THE MATH IS RIGHT AND ADDS UP, AND YES, WE KNOW WHEN IT IS ENTERED TO RENDER AN OUTPUT, THE WHOLE THING BLOWS UP!", so...

it isn't necessary...

Toodle pip alchemists...

Listen, when, if, ever you actually have a point you can back up with evidence of any sort that would be a landmark moment. Because to date, you have never provided anything except for your personal brand of banal vitriol. Why is that?

What is the point you're trying to make? RE doesn't have a CGI model of the COSMOS and therefore all of its maths, science, explorations, calculations, etc, are bunk? Are you high? Can you not navigate your toaster oven because you don't have a CGI rendering as to how it fits into your city block? Give me a hit of whatever you're smoking, because it must me solid.

Figure out your own shit, your planar non-planet. How it works. Maybe throw in how a sunset works just for measure. In the mean time, we're tracking a gazillion things in space that could harm us while you're futzy around begging for math visualized that you will never understand.

'Toodle pip', I don't know what that means. It sounds a little gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. Just sayin'.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: THAT'S WHY THE GAS BALLOON GOES TO UPWARDS.
« on: March 11, 2020, 04:30:27 PM »
If you get the high as bottom of objects, then the center of weight of 1lb ball stays closer to the ground. In this point, air resistance affects should be calculated. We should calculate but I guess we can get small one hits first because of its center of weight is closer to the ground, hence it goes more than the bigger one. Ahaha. Not so easy, right?  ;D

Fair point, everything is always just a bit more complicated. How about this, a basket ball and a medicine ball. Both are the same size. The basketball weighs 1 lb and the medicine ball weighs 10 lbs.

Both dropped from the same height, we'll say 10', at the same time. Which one hit the ground first?
Near enough, but drop them from 1000', at the same time. Which one hit the ground first? Interesting . . . .  ?

Awesome! I like the complication, as it were. Air resistance should be the same, same size objects and both round so not a factor. But now we have height and seeming velocity increase...or not.

I'm gonna go with....

I want to see what Wise and the OP have to say. Lay it on us.

29
If anything goes wrong, you never reach your target. Look at all NASA info about it. Nothing! It was all automatic!
huh?   What was all automatic?
The trip to the Moon! The astronuts were just passengers/Hollywood actors. Great show.
Topic is my Challenge. The fuel! The toilet. Food and boz! Hollywood!

Actually the topic is how someone WON your challenge and you refused to pay up.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: THAT'S WHY THE GAS BALLOON GOES TO UPWARDS.
« on: March 11, 2020, 01:25:03 PM »
The downward reaction force of an object is its weight.
You have a 10 lb lead ball and a 1 lb lead ball. Both dropped at the same time from 10' high. Which one hits the ground first?
They cannot fall at the same time, this is precise information. :)
Which one hits the ground first?
Ahahaha. It changes which high you get as 10'. If you get the center of the objects, then it means 10lb lead ball closer to the ground. Hence, it hits first. Generally we get distance of objects with their center of weight, hence, most of the events, the bigger one hits first mostly.

If you get the high as bottom of objects, then the center of weight of 1lb ball stays closer to the ground. In this point, air resistance affects should be calculated. We should calculate but I guess we can get small one hits first because of its center of weight is closer to the ground, hence it goes more than the bigger one. Ahaha. Not so easy, right?  ;D

Fair point, everything is always just a bit more complicated. How about this, a basket ball and a medicine ball. Both are the same size. The basketball weighs 1 lb and the medicine ball weighs 10 lbs.

Both dropped from the same height, we'll say 10', at the same time. Which one hit the ground first?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 102