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.


Topics - brathearon

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth General / The "conspiracy proof"
« on: April 14, 2010, 12:29:23 PM »
so, going through http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Conspiracy you would probably be convinced that there is a conspiracy right? /facepalm

http://blip.tv/file/3246084

so, lets take a look at that moonball that was "used for fake landings".  Notice the end videos of the real flight (or so they say it is). Notice the "string" that is somehow holding the object off its center of mass, or that other "strings" appear in the footage that seem to be there for no reason.  Notice the track that they claimed nasa used would not work to have that camera footage, the moonball is simply not large enough.

http://blip.tv/file/3246099

to someone who believes the conspiracy exists,  you could say that they did this.  however, to everyone else, you would say that the two surfaces have dont have many things in common.  One could make the argument that some earth surfaces look like moon surfaces, but that's nothing new.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0#

this one is a little long and i havent gotten through all of it yet.

first thing though, a shuttle that can get as high as you can see at the speed seen, should be able to protect you from the radiation in the belts.  Also, since the radiation in the belts is mostly directional, the bottom of the shuttle should easily take care of that.  Same thing goes for the photography.  The photography can be protected by leaving it within the camera untill reaching earth.  Nobody in the missions took the photos out of the camera and look at it through the sun (that is direct radiation exposure as the other experimenter did in the video)

Also, When they attempt to say that the moon's surface is not reflective enough to light things, they show photos of rocks that are obviously uphill.  Then they show nasa's photos that were taken from concave surfaces, or downhill.  The moon's surface is simply not that uniform.

Ill get through the rest of the "proof" and post again later.  I've seen some of the mars ones and laughed to =)

2
Suggestions & Concerns / profile should show FE or RE
« on: April 06, 2010, 11:20:55 AM »
profiles should have an FE or RE option. 

Also, an option to hide this.

3
The Lounge / is your avatar your real picture?
« on: February 23, 2010, 09:08:40 AM »
there are a large number of people who use human pictures as their avatar.  How many of them are their real faces i wonder? 

Of course, finding out will depend on the number of people willing to admit it   :)

4
Flat Earth Debate / Dispelling some myths about NASA
« on: May 17, 2009, 02:50:00 PM »
After reading as much as i could, i thought i'd like to clarify some things that seem to be distorted about NASA.

First off, before i get brutally flamed, i dont need to say that much about the conspiracy, or even about it's existance.


So, most people believe that NASA gets most (if not all) of its money because of their "awsome space program".  Thats true, but the way its used distorts the facts.  It would be the equivalent of saying Colombus only needed to go to India to say he went there and nothing more.  The money that NASA gets are more for the benefits of going into space, not necessarily going into space itself. (ill talk about it more a little later)

Another thing i am seeing a lot of is that NASA benefits more from saying earth is round rather than flat.  Well, that doesnt cover the whole story either.  After all, nasa could claim the earth was actually flat in the model, and say they went to the moon, launched sattlelites, w/e.  If anything we would get more recognition from saying that it was round, and dispelling a popular theory.  Not to mention, lying about the earth's shape like that would only give them the looming threat of being exposed. 

NASA's money sources dont really care THAT much about space.  They really only care about the benefits of it.  Staying ahead of storms, 0 gravity research (those protein crystals grow SO much better in space!), GPS, etc.  People tried on earth themselves, and deemed it impossible or impractical to get these benefits on earth, so if they can do that without going into space, then they got what they were paid to do anyway.  In all honesty, if they were able get all of that research/data/materials, without going into space, i must say, i am MORE impressed.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / why an ice "wall"
« on: May 16, 2009, 12:24:38 PM »
hi, im new here, and i just wanted to know, why is it that the FE theory advances a "wall"?

Why isnt it just assumed that beyond this wall is more... ice?  And if this is the case, coudlnt there be more regions of this vast disk where there is liveable conditions?  The FE theory seems to say (correct me if im wrong) that the sun keeps us from freezing (just like the RE theory).

so, if the sun isnt at the ice wall as much, or beyond it, why isnt it assumed.

Pages: [1]