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.
Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought under FET, the Sun and Moon were just flying up at the same speed of the Earth.
But they didn't at the start.Why is NASA in charge? Why not the USSR's program?
If you look at multinational projects such as the ISS, you will notice that NASA generally takes the lead role. Also, NASA tends to have a higher public profile than the Russian space agency.
What about Russia's agencies?The evidence is that the earth is flat, so there must be a conspiracy!
Yeah, but they only mention the NASA, always the NASA and exclusively the NASA!
That's because just about every other space agency cooperates or works with NASA, therefore they are all grouped together under the NASA umbrella. It seems that as far as Tom is concerned, "NASA" is essentially synonymous with "any or all space agencies".
how is this low content, the whole faqqer thoery revolves around conspicary and the myth that space travel is not possible, if this video is true 1/2 of that thoery is debunked.It is probably low-content because you say that in just about every post you make.
the faqqers would have more to gain by taking this video down then thier mythical conspiracy.
hopefully with Willmore back, we can start having thoeries without conpiracies.
Is it normal on these forums that a thread goes absolutely off-topic in the first page, and no one even is trying to answer the questions asked?Aye. Most every thread does that.
M'kay, first off. Where do you base that? What makes you think that I am "letting a bit of sarcasm pierce (my) ego and puncture (my) pride."? I mean, really now. Besides that, what does it have to do with the context of things? What does stating that add to the conversation?The earth is flat because it's in the bible.How many times must I say it before you lot get it through your thick skulls?
The earth is round because it's not.
The evidence and logic is indisputabe.
The Bible is open to interpretation.
You realize that what one verse might say to you will mean something completely different, right?
I mean, really.
I keep saying this. You all seem to fail to understand it.
The Bible is subject to opinion. One might see something, another something else.
Whoa! Take it easy Graff. Your letting a bit of sarcasm pierce your ego and puncture your pride.
When you know that everything is subject to opinion and intrpretation, as you so self rightously proclaim, you denigrate the very opinions that support your point.
It was 9:21 am when you wrote that. Try decaf.
I have to agree with Clocktower. Looks curved to me.It looks flat.It looks like it might also be ever so slightly curved.
I have no idea how he does that. He has a good point.It is the definition of complete to realize that "Being is not."
Heidegger would disagree. Nevertheless, the cryptic words of Parmenides are always worth a look, and always worth another look, and so on.
I consider it the highest honor to be in disagreement with Heidegger an unapologetic nazi.
If all it takes to receive "highest honor" is to not be an unapologetic nazi, you might have low standards.
OrbisNonSufficit, you make my point exactly
The earth is flat because it's in the bible.How many times must I say it before you lot get it through your thick skulls?
The earth is round because it's not.
The evidence and logic is indisputabe.
I'm not "grasping at straws", just trying to improve the tone of debate. Just because someone hasn't provided you with a link, does not mean you have no other option but to call them a liar.He refuses to provide it.
And you think there was no improvement or correction based on this event?What I mean is: The Challenger disaster was in 1986. Now, the Columbia was more recent, yes. But then accidents do happen, and it was in 2003. A good eight years before the shuttle was retired.
The space shuttle was retired March 9, 2011.
Quite the number of years it was still used, yes?
Between 2003 and 2011 there was one mission. There were no missions between 2005 and 2011. So no.
It has nothing to do with the comment's existence. It's to do with your clearly absurd use of the word "only".I'm not sure what you mean.
Show me proof that the comment he claims exist exists.Point is: He can't provide it for me.
As such I can only assume it doesn't exist.
This is the obvious falsehood I was talking about earlier.
What I mean is: The Challenger disaster was in 1986. Now, the Columbia was more recent, yes. But then accidents do happen, and it was in 2003. A good eight years before the shuttle was retired.Now when is the last time something like that has happened?
Uh, you mean since they "retired" it?
Well, what would you have me do?Would you like to supply it for me, then?
Because I would rather not spend more time hunting it.
I did look through three pages worth of comments. I could find nothing at all like he claims.
Why can't he quote it? Why can't I find it?
Whether or not you can be bothered to look for something has no bearing on whether or not Tom is a liar, or the range of options available to you.
Now when is the last time something like that has happened?But everyone is a crazy conspiracy theorist... otherwise, criminals would get away with everything.You ever heard of the phrase: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
So you don't think missiles can be sold at a marked up price? I'm still waiting for you to give me the price list of "ingredients" Oh yeah you said you don't know.We can't prove to you it doesn't cost billions, you can't prove to us that it doesn't.
You also must account for the factory cost.
You not only have to pay for the rocket, but the tools to build it.
And workers, and designers, scientists, ect.
Oh, and if we assume they are using old pre-existing designs, they'd have to pay for those too.
And facilities. And the launch pad. And the control. And base security.
The price isn't limited to the rocket alone.
You ever heard of the phrase: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?Another Anti-NASA post
Its sad when people resort to attacking NASA then to go out there and create your own research to prove a disc earth.
This does nothing but make people think we are all crazy conspiracy theorists.
please move this thread to Angry Ranting.
But everyone is a crazy conspiracy theorist... otherwise, criminals would get away with everything.
Looks to me like the angle is what is making it appear tighter.How can you tell? Can't see it good enough due to the angle. Looks the same to me.QuoteI know it was addressed in the second post. If you step in dirt, turn you shoe, and then lift it, the pattern will match the sole. If you step in dirt, lift your heel first, begin turning as if stepping away, and continue lifting your foot, or lifting it some other uneven way while turning, it will deform the tread pattern.
In the first image look at the spacing between the ribs of the sneaker print and the ribs of the boot print. The ribs of the sneaker print are spaced closer together. What you described would not cause the ribs to be closer together.
In the previous thread Around and About threw paint over it to illustrate the ridges:
www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=47561.msg1175876#msg1175876
How can you tell? Can't see it good enough due to the angle. Looks the same to me.QuoteI know it was addressed in the second post. If you step in dirt, turn you shoe, and then lift it, the pattern will match the sole. If you step in dirt, lift your heel first, begin turning as if stepping away, and continue lifting your foot, or lifting it some other uneven way while turning, it will deform the tread pattern.
In the first image look at the spacing between the ribs of the sneaker print and the ribs of the boot print. The ribs of the sneaker print are spaced closer together. What you described would not cause the ribs to be closer together.
I don't know if the N. Korea's failures justify FET, however I believe nothing costs billions of dollars to make. Orbis can you please provide an entire list of expanses that goes into building a rocket and quote the production price? Don't just say it costs a billion just because media is saying it. You can sell something for a billion that does not mean it costs that much to make it. An average price for Gucci shoes is 500 dollars. Do you know how much it costs to make them? No more then 20 dollars.
Haha someone is not an economics major.
No I cannot give you an entire list of expenses going to to building an intercontinental ballistic missile, especially when i have no idea what was in the nose cone. Designer shoes are not a great comparison to ICBMs, although i never thought i would actually have to tell someone that.
In addition, i was not really referring to a single missile, and if i did i misspoke. They are usually built in numbers, as a sort of program. The point is that they are hugely expensive, and extremely complicated objects that are prone to failure when they are not sufficiently funded or engineered. Take for example the N1 rocket, the soviets could never match the engine capabilities of the Saturn 5, they simply did not have the tech or the know how, and so they tried to generate the power with 30 smaller rockets, and it failed multiple times.
And you are correct, i usually don't trust the media very much, but unfortunately that's really all we have as Americans. Surprisingly the North Koreans really dont tell us much about their inner workings. But I am starting to think we might have a man on the inside, Mr Tom.
In terms of how i know that rocket programs cost tons of cash, well just look at who is able to participate in large numbers. The European Union, the Russians, and the Americans are the biggest players, and even the Americans are reducing their space program because of how hugely expensive it can be. If it were cheap they would be launching many more, not just one every once in a while.
If you negate the development costs (by using a pre-designed and tested system) then it becomes alot cheaper to send something in space.
North Korea where probably (can't be sure) using rocket designs used by other countries which would have reduce the cost of the program significantly.
Very good, but please remember that this is your opinion.Honestly, I can't help but find your argument ridiculous.
If RET takes faith; so does FET.
Do you agree?
Yes I agree. The reason I started this post is just to have some food for thought. Perhaps I didn't name this thread correctly. The most appropriate title should have been " The Possibility of Infinite Earth According to Genesis" I mean I do realize that the word "Evidence" is not really the right word here.
In any case My view of infinite earth have always been about the future earth that God will create. The new earth or earth 2 will be an infinite slab and outer space will be no more. it will be paradise with incredible infinite atmosphere and new universal sun or light that will illuminate the earth perfectly. Our current continents will be reproduced in that new reality however since this will be a non spherical world, the shape of continents and landmasses will be slightly or may be significantly different. But since it will be an infinite plain there will be trillions of continents and oceans, amazing place indeed. But this is just my personal vision, I don't have any nerdy evidence for it. This is just something I channeled from reading the book of Revelation.
It really is noteworthy how often REers will just invent justifications for believing their theories. It goes to show how strong the indoctrination really is.Oh, the irony...
It wasn't trolling, as neither party's intention was such.SCVs, read my post a couple of times. Alternatively, and as is more likely the case (although I include the other so not to offend), please stop trolling. It's getting painful to watch.
Your post is quite simply incorrect, which is why is wasn't acknowledged by anyone. I'm provoking real thought from Graff, and ClockTower, being my usual rival, does his routine of bending a post until it looks like something he can argue with.
I was a bit off about where the conversation was at (being too lazy to do more than skim) but the post answers everything you've said. And no, you aren't. You two are trying to back each other into a pseudo-logical corner while ClockTower eats glue on the sidelines (no offense to CT). There's a difference.
I would say that such would need be represented by a third group.Zero what, indeed.Zero must represent something. So, what would it represent? You can't simply omit it because you don't know. Think Graff, think.Zero would represent lack thereof.
If you have two positive comments, and zero negative, you have two comments.
What do you want zero to represent?
It represents zero.
Zero what?
If you have zero comments, that means you have no comments.
Zero represents lack thereof.
Now we have a conundrum. What would a comment that is neither positive nor negative be represented by?
SCVs, read my post a couple of times. Alternatively, and as is more likely the case (although I include the other so not to offend), please stop trolling. It's getting painful to watch.But I'm having fun...
Zero what, indeed.Zero must represent something. So, what would it represent? You can't simply omit it because you don't know. Think Graff, think.Zero would represent lack thereof.
If you have two positive comments, and zero negative, you have two comments.
What do you want zero to represent?
It represents zero.
Zero what?
