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 - sceptimatic

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Flat Earth General / Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: June 17, 2021, 05:07:45 AM »
Apparently there were no airlocks in the supposed LM's on the moon.
I am told they didn't need them.

I looked at these questions and answers.

Take the following question from Gianni Berati in Italy, who writes: "I have read that [Apollo 11 astronauts] Armstrong and Aldrin, after their extravehicular activities on the moon, had to throw off everything superfluous onto the lunar surface, even the lunar suits, in order to get the lunar module (LM) lighter. Is that true? How could they do that without a depressurized LM cabin?"

Answer: Berati is correct—the LM cabin did not have a safe area where unclad astronauts could seek refuge from the vacuum when they opened the hatch. Before going outside, they had to first put on spacesuits, then depressurize the entire landing craft. After a moonwalk they reversed the process, only taking off their suits when the LM pressure had been brought back up to normal.

The next generation of moon lander will rectify this, adding an airlock as a "mud room" where astronauts can enter and exit while others lounge unprotected inside the craft.

So how did the Apollo astronauts manage to throw their spacesuits overboard?

For an answer, the good folks at NASA's history office directed me to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, which explains in detail the unceremonious discarding of equipment onto the lunar surface. It turns out Berati is only partly right. The lunar explorers did not ditch the suits themselves, but rather the 84-pound Portable Life Support Systems (PLSS). The PLSS units, worn like backpacks, supplied enough air for four hours on the surface.

Armstrong, standing inside the LM in his space suit, opened two valves to bring the cabin pressure down to zero, then opened the hatch to the outside. The astronauts took the boxy PLSS packages, which they'd detached from their suits, and pitched them out the door with gloved hands (later lunar explorers found it more effective to use their feet).

This is the beauty of a story. You can make anything up to play make believe and this stuff is no exception, in my honest opinion.

The Lounge / Been away a while....sooooo...
« on: May 17, 2020, 05:47:14 AM »
What's been going on and whose names have changed from the one's I remember?
Have any people moved over to the flat/alternate side to the global model or vice versa?

Suggestions & Concerns / Give me the tools to do the job.
« on: February 01, 2019, 03:34:27 AM »
Give me permissions to aid in ridding the forum of bots and I can help the moderators with their workload.
I see no moderators on the forum and it can't be nice for them to come on and see a mass of bot related posts strewn all over.

I'm willing to help out on this. I do not require anything special and I do not even need a moderator name beside my name. I'm happy to just help with the bots, nothing more.

If this is any help to the mods then I'm willing.
If not then no problem.

Suggestions & Concerns / Has Papa Legba been banned again?
« on: February 24, 2018, 04:50:58 AM »
If so, how long for and for what?

Suggestions & Concerns / Movement of flat Earth Q&A section.
« on: June 28, 2017, 08:00:54 AM »
Just a suggestion, but it sits in between flat Earth general and flat Earth debate. It's a magnet for posters using it for debate or basically in general and not for what it's set out for.
I've even fell into it at times, without realising I'm posting in it, at first.

I was just wondering if it might be better dropping it to the bottom of the flat Earth discussion board so it's a bit more clearer and not easily dropped into in the belief that it's general or debate.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Who's life is the most fulfilling.
« on: March 23, 2017, 08:55:37 AM »
Which people live the better lives in terms of everything in their lives being what they require to fulfill it?

I can't decide what's what so I would like the input from all of you to suggest which person's life on this Earth you would take in a heart beat in terms of getting fulfillment, as in, you personally can become just like whatever person you believe gets every fulfillment or as close to it.

Basically living a life in the physical sense, without using an after-life as a reason for living your physical life of fulfillment.

Let's see if we can gain some interesting insight without the usual arguments in the nasty sense.

Does a so called space rocket accelerate from lift off into the sky or does it keep a constant speed?

If it accelerates then what makes it accelerate into the sky?
Let's use the so called space shuttle as an example.

I have a few queries that's all.
Only genuine people would be preferred to answer me but I'm not in charge of the dipsticks that will surely come into the topic.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / ......delete this topic
« on: March 04, 2017, 02:18:55 AM »

Flat Earth General / Beyond the imaginary curve.
« on: February 24, 2017, 11:44:18 AM »
Has anyone seen this lad's videos?
He goes out chatting with the public and also sitting in his shed chatting to people on his blog.
For anyone interested in the brass tacks of the Earth, I recommend you watch his videos.
For those who can't understand the Scottish accent, then take the time to listen carefully to what he's saying in these videos.

He's straight to the point and doesn't suffer fools.
He's as basic as they come in terms of getting down to the nitty gritty or the crux of the matter.
Basically he knows we don't live on a spinning globe. His proofs are very clear and simple to understand for those that have the ability to think.

Now here's the key.
Anyone who knows the Earth is not a globe or anyone who's seriously questioning it, take some time out to listen to a down to Earth person and his friends.

Del is his name and he's basically of the mind that the Earth is in all intents and purposes, flat, at least as far as water's concerned, which any rational person should not even need to argue against.

He doesn't postulate any particular shape of Earth. He's not trying to push a certain shape. He just knows that he's not on a globe and leaves it wide open as to what it could be.
As he says...none of us knows what Earth is in reality and he's right. We don't.

We can all play guessing games as to what we potentially think it might be but the chances are we will never actually know for certain.

I like the lad. I like the down to Earth logic of him. I also like his feisty manner at times because it shows a passion.

All you people who want another outlook on this stuff, have a look at these videos and tell me what you think.
Anyway, just type into youtube what's in the topic title and watch when you have time.

To the staunch globalists. I'm well aware of what you people think. I'm basically just looking into what alternate thinkers think of his videos, so I'd appreciate it if you don't come in an try the ridicule bullshit as per normal.

Flat Earth General / I was told about meteor impacts on Earth.
« on: January 12, 2017, 08:30:08 AM »
I can't seem to find any meteor impacts from so called space on Earth. Does anyone have any craters to show me.
I have my reasons which I will state once some good people show me what they believe are meteor craters.

I'd post some myself but seeing as I don't believe in meteors from space, I need to know what the craters are that these so called space meteors produce.

Thanks in advance.

Suggestions & Concerns / I'm getting fed up now, can we do something?
« on: December 08, 2016, 03:22:25 AM »
I believe there's too many people using too many alternate names to play games on here. It's getting rather silly.
Oh and no I cannot directly prove it because I am simply a poster with no ability to check.
However, admin and global moderators can check and they will ultimately know who's playing what and how many  names one person is playing - or potentially playing.

Now I understand if admin or mods come out and say they don't have the time or they have better things to do than search out for alts, so I am asking to be given access to weed out the people doing this. I don't want any banning powers or anything else. I do not even want to moderate forums in terms of moving posts, etc or warning people.
All I want to do is to have access to the relevant security that global mods have so I can put up the offenders names for all to see.

Am I going to get this opportunity to do this?

I've never seen this moderator for ages and suddenly it appears to have a go at my thoughts. Can anyone explain this to me, because it appears this person is on to get rid of me.

Flat Earth General / Forces of nature, Brian Cox - pt2.
« on: July 12, 2016, 05:33:53 AM »
Did anyone watch this programme?
Brian Cox went up in a jet for the purpose of seeing the sun set twice but also to see the sunset rise again.

How did he achieve this?
Apparently the jet chased the rotation of the Earth to match it's supposed 650mph rotation, perfectly from Cox's supposed position on the supposed globe. This match apparently made the sun still, neither rising nor setting, because of the jets match to the rotation of the Earth.

The jet then went faster and actually overtook the supposed rotation of the Earth which supposedly made the sun rise again, etc.

Ok here's the deal.
Can any rational person. Preferably a free thinker or at least a honest poster, see anything wrong with what Brian Cox just did.

In his (and his handlers?) haste to prove a globe to us all, he actually disproved it...but how?

I'll leave that with you all to ponder for a while and I get back to you.

Just a quick word for all those intent on coming into this topic to go into ridicule mode and global backslapping mode, don't waste your time. By all means try and figure out the mess up but save your silliness for someone who actually cares.
I only care about those that can actually think for themselves and at least logically see what the issue is, when you bear in mind what we've had to swallow all these years.

For those who haven't watched it. Here you go.

Skip to 4:40 and watch till around 11:30 That's what's pertinent here.

Suggestions & Concerns / I do not trust ANYONE on this forum.
« on: June 28, 2016, 03:41:31 AM »
There's that much game playing going on with all kinds of names cropping up  and many of the names mimicking the regular names, it just sets off my alarm bells.

I honestly cannot trust anyone and it's starting to piss me off to be honest.
This isn't about paranoia, it's about observation.

The admin know that I use only one name on here. Most probably the global moderators will also know.
The thing is - and I'm honestly serious about this. I am losing all my trust in all of the forum officials, because I'm seeing far too much stuff that stinks of multi's on a massive scale.

Now if I'm told that I'm paranoid and this isn't the case, then allow me the moderator status to allow me to verify who's playing the games.
If this is granted then it would give me the opportunity to see who's playing all the games. If not, then I'll take that as this entire forum is not what I thought it was.

It's pretty simple. I just want the mod powers to verify who's playing who for 2 weeks and then take it off me. I won't use those powers to dictate to anyone in the forums or use it against them. I just want to know what the hell is going on, because this is getting mentally out of hand.

Would I be able to get an answer on this, either directly on this topic or in pm?

These two Scottish lads put it to you in basic form. The globe is a load of nonsense and it takes only one simple bit of logic to understand this.
Like they say in the video; it's not about knowing what Earth is, whether it's a certain shape, without concrete proof, It's about knowing what it "isn't" with concrete proof - and basic  proof at that.
Put simply; water cannot stay on a globe and will always find it's level.

All you people who want the basic of logic and a easily explained down to Earth (pardon the pun) view of simplicity - then view all of the videos these two lads put out.
I understand their accent easily but some people might not. Most people will get the gist of it all and of course, there will be plenty that will refuse to.
I'm not interested in those that refuse to. Just the people that want to understand that reality and truth can be found by going straight into basics.

Anyway, watch the videos and tell me what you think. Personally, I think these two lads are top notch and to the point, with no airs and graces.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Take a look at Tim Peake supposedly training in space on his treadmill. Remember that he is in zero/micro gravity as we are told.
All you people that can think rationally, just picture how he can achieve a realistic run if he was in zero/micro gravity.
Apparently he has to be strapped down from the waist to keep his feet on the treadmill in order to run as if he was doing a real marathon.

Here's the video of him doing just that.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">! No longer available

As you can see in the video, there are "chains" holding him down.
Can anyone see the problem here?

Chains are about as useful as a chocolate fire guard.
 I'll explain.
When you run, your body is pushed to the floor. Many people say it's gravity and I say atmospheric pressure - but regardless of that, your body is still adhered to the ground on Earth.
In order to run, you have to overcome gravity atmospheric pressure which means you have to use your muscles to push your legs up as your body leans forward, in order to run. This is when your body is displacing the atmosphere and compressing it, which naturally reacts against your legs and body, forcing you down.
Those who believe in gravity will have a different take but regardless, it means the body is still under pressure.

Ok, so back to the supposed space station and Tim Peake on his tread mill.
In order for him to actually look like he's running a marathon he would not only have to train "constantly" under a pressure or a supposed gravity but he would need to do that treadmill by being held down by elastic straps, or bungee type cord - or whatever flexi straps are available.
He would have to have them set up to start with, with his knees slightly bent into a running position before he even starts to run on that tread mill.
This is the only way his muscles would work as if he was running on a road.
To do it with chains on in a straight stance, as you can see, means he would be running on fresh air or an extreme minor touch of the tread mill belt - meaning, it's absolutely pointless - and also, to add a bit extra, he would also lose his grip on that floor with every push of his foot, which would simply put him in a spin if he wasn't holding hand supports - which he isn't.

Flat Earth General / Free thinkers on satellites.
« on: January 10, 2016, 11:59:47 AM »
I came across this video and I've laughed my arse right off watching it. It's about the early attempts at solving the telephone and TV worldly problem.
I urge any free thinker to watch this all the way through. It's hilarious and also quite revealing for those who are struggling to believe we haven't had the ability to send signals around the worlds circle.

This is the best laugh I've had watching a video like this. It's literally informed hilarity.

Tell me what you think of it, all you logical thinkers.
I already know the frenzy crew will find it not the least bit informative nor funny. Surprise surprise.  ;D

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">! No longer available

Flat Earth General / I require some input.
« on: January 01, 2016, 04:12:01 PM »
I require some input from GENUINE people who were of an age to remember when the shuttles first came onto the scene.
You see, I remember it all and at that time I fully believed all this space stuff; the whole shebang. I really did. I even thought that there was only every one supposed moon landing and blah blah blah.

Anyway that's not what I need help with.
I'll explain: When i was just a naive accepting human of media bullshit and space shuttle amazement, I remembered asking why the large tank was rusty.
I didn't have access to internet but I do distinctly remember all those years ago that the reason why the tank was rusty was because it didn't require painting as it wasn't re-usable.
I can remember it as clear as day about the explanation given by some expert on it all those years ago and there was no mention at all of it being covered in any foam.

Why in the hell would anyone cover a tank like that in foam that was rust coloured? why not just white like it was when it was first shown to us as PAINTED white but left off when they said it takes so much paint in weight to cover it and they didn't need to paint it anyway because the tank wasn't re-usable, so a rusting tank was left rusting.

Naturally it's all changed and changed probably not too soon after when they must have realised that they were supposedly filling it with HYDROGEN liquid fuel which would boil off and blow the thing to pieces, so the rust coloured foam was born.

Now I know I'm not making this up. I know what I saw and the explanations given. I didn't give any of it any more thought than to say "ahh that makes sense if they're not going to re-use it."

To any GENUINE people looking in or posting on here, can you verify if I'm telling it like I saw it if you can remember similar.

Here's what I don't want, so pay attention.
I don't need any person who isn't old enough to remember this. I do not need people to come in and recite updated books and such, because I'm well aware that they will not exist now. It's all reliant on those of an age that physically remember from memory of this whole charade from the off.

I'd rather this topic slide down the forum with no replies of people cannot remember or are not old enough, rather than some people just jump in and start screaming that it wasn't a rusty tank or that I'm making it all up.

Ok, I'll leave it at that and hope people can recall what I'm talking about.

Suggestions & Concerns / Papa Legba: has he been banned again?
« on: December 28, 2015, 06:14:05 AM »
As the title suggests and if so, what for?
Also if he has been banned, how long is the ban for?

It would be  good of we can get some clarity on bans and stuff, plus the reasons for it.
One of the few people who goes prolific in questioning at length all the bullshit we are fed and yet he continually seems to get banned.

Yeah I'm sure he's getting on the globalites nerves and maybe some others. I imagine that people are complaining about him  in the masses when they take him on and can't beat him down. It's then left to the mods/admin to mop up the so called nuisance so the globalites can go about their business of ridicule in peace.

Any chance on actually getting an answer?

Flat Earth General / Suez canal disproving a globe.
« on: December 16, 2015, 03:50:47 PM »
I thought this deserved it's own thread to see what answers can be made by the globalists.

The below post was made by poster,WithinRuins. It seems that the globalists skipped it for some strange reason. I wonder why?

HI, bit new here and still trying to get my head around all the facts. I don’t like just theory and strive to understand, but looking to be convinced, which means I got lots of questions…If the earth was a globe/ball with the dimensions they suggest how the hell did they build the Suez Canal?? It’s 102 miles long, joins the red sea to the med, a man made cut of 26ft depth and has NO LOCKS (means it's FLAT!). This should have 1.2Miles of curvature allowance but it’s completely flat on the earths surface for 102 miles?? How?? If it was flat/horizontal for 102 miles the center of this should be in 1.2 mile deep gully cut through the ball, how does this work on a ball?? Anyone explain??  (Mods, if this in the wrong place please move, not got around all the threads yet)

Flat Earth General / Rockets do not have combustion chambers.
« on: October 29, 2015, 05:16:46 AM »
As the title says: rockets do not have combustion chambers. It's a lie. Those liquid fueled rockets that we are constantly shown have no need for a combustion chamber or an engine for that matter.

The combustion is merely a mix of fuel and propellant that is ignited once exposed to atmosphere.
A solid fuel rocket, such as a firework, works slightly different, as in, it burns it's fuel from within its tube that expands against the atmosphere as the atmosphere squeezes back.

The only real difference between the two, is in how the fuel is mixed.

It's all there around you if you choose to look - in everyday uses of appliances that use combustion for all purposes, yet do not use a combustion chamber  because there's no need for one for expelled gases/

The combustion chamber is huge. It's called the atmosphere.

Flat Earth General / Everest.
« on: August 18, 2015, 04:01:56 AM »
I mentioned a while back about so called mountaineers conquering Everest and remarked about the severe cold and lack of oxygen, etc. I found it far fetched.
I never questioned it before with any real thought. I just accepted that people conquered Everest and that Sir Edmund Hillary and his Sherpa guide ( Tenzing Norgay).

From Wiki:
The Hunt expedition totalled over 400 people, including 362 porters, twenty Sherpa guides and 10,000 lbs of baggage,[11] and like many such expeditions, was a team effort.

I remember thinking about the height and the fact that many of those on this quest, including the teams assigned to supposedly ensure it was successful; I had to think about the actual amount of oxygen carried by the team at certain stops, never mind those that ascended much higher and those that actually (supposedly) reached the summit.

From wiki:
The expedition set up base camp in March 1953. Working slowly it set up its penultimate camp at the South Col at 25,900 feet (7,890 m). On 26 May, Bourdillon and Evans attempted the climb, but turned back when Evans' oxygen system failed. The pair had reached the South Summit, coming within 300 vertical feet (91 m) of the summit.[12] Hunt then directed Tenzing and Hillary to go for the summit.

Then we go back as far as 1924.

Climbing Everest with supplemental oxygen has become standard for 97.1% of all climbers starting with Mallory and Irvine in 1924. As with all mountaineering technologies, oxygen systems have seen many changes but in 2013, there was perhaps a game changer that enabled several teams to enjoy record summit success.

Providing supplemental oxygen at 8000 meters in high winds and extreme temperatures is not simple. Valves freeze, masks deform in the wind, ice forms in tubes and many more problems prevent the delivery of the right amount of oxygen at the right time. Too much and there is waste of a precious gas, too little and a climber might die.

The original oxygen systems designed for climbing began with a device created by George Finch in 1922. Finch and his teammate Geoffrey Bruce reached an altitude on Everest of 27,250 ft (8175 m) setting a record using their open circuit system that weighed 33 pounds (15kg).

Another little write up.

The use of supplemental oxygen on Mt. Everest is now commonplace. From 1990 to 2006, more than 95% of those summiting the mountain did so using supplemental oxygen at some point during their ascent. The open circuit systems currently in use can be traced back to the device first used by George Finch on Mt. Everest in 1922. Wearing equipment weighing 33 lb (15 kg), Finch and his colleague Geoffrey Bruce set a world altitude record by reaching a height of 27,250 ft (8175 m). However, it would be with a lighter system weighing just 22 lb (10 kg) that Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay made the first ascent of the mountain in 1953. In the years since then considerable improvements in weight, comfort, and efficiency have been made; however, the original "open" principles first used by Finch almost a century ago still remain steadfastly in place.

Now reading all of that, it appears that everything is in order, right?

Anyway back to Hillary and Tenzing.

Snow and wind held the pair up at the South Col for two days. They set out on 28 May with a support trio of Ang Nyima, Alfred Gregory and George Lowe. The two pitched a tent at 27,900 feet (8,500 m) on 28 May while their support group returned down the mountain. On the following morning Hillary discovered that his boots had frozen solid outside the tent. He spent two hours warming them before he and Tenzing attempted the final ascent wearing 30-pound (14 kg) packs.[13] The crux of the last part of the ascent was the 40-foot (12 m) rock face later named the "Hillary Step". Hillary saw a means to wedge his way up a crack in the face between the rock wall and the ice, and Tenzing followed.[14] From there the following effort was relatively simple. They reached Everest's 29,028 ft (8,848 m) summit, the highest point on Earth, at 11:30 a.m.[15] As Hillary put it, "A few more whacks of the ice axe in the firm snow, and we stood on top."[16]

I've just highlighted a few points just to keep in your mind as pointers.

It's about reading and believing a story among many things, isn't it. Anyway let's move on.

They spent only about fifteen minutes at the summit. Hillary took the famous photo of Tenzing posing with his ice-axe, but since Tenzing had never used a camera, Hillary's ascent went unrecorded.

I find this bit rather silly, but let's crack on.


However, according to Tenzing's autobiography Man of Everest,[4] when Tenzing offered to take Hillary's photograph Hillary declined – "I motioned to Hillary that I would now take his picture. But for some reason he shook his head; he did not want it"

You see how this all starts to get sillier as it goes.
I'm well aware that people can argue as to why this and that could have happened but let's get a bit real here.
You see, Hillary and whoever, are not going to realistically climb Everest and refuse to have it recorded, otherwise, what's the point.

Additional photos were taken looking down the mountain in order to re-assure that they had made it to the top and that the ascent was not faked.

Yeah make sure people don't  think you faked it.  :P

The two had to take care on the descent after discovering that drifting snow had covered their tracks, complicating the task of retracing their steps. The first person they met was Lowe, who had climbed up to meet them with hot soup.

A bit like your mam coming out the back door as you kick your feet on top of the shed roof. "Here you are boys, some hot soup."  ;D

All that is just a bit of insight reading, like I did. It did get me thinking though.

I mean, Everest is 29,000 feet above sea level, we are told.
We know that at certain heights the lack of oxygen becomes a problem.

Apparently there is pills that aid climbers who climb from 9,000 to 20,000 feet.
From an article:

When climbers and trekkers travel to high altitudes, between 9,000 and 20,000 feet, any extended stay leaves them at risk of developing acute mountain sickness, or AMS. At these heights in the mountains there is less than half the amount of oxygen in the air as there is at sea level, which can lead to AMS symptoms of headaches, nausea, dizziness and fatigue. If you travel upward from sea level slowly enough, gaining only a few thousand feet every day, you can avoid AMS by giving your body the chance to adjust.

So a few thousand feet a day can allow your body to adjust. Seems a hell of a lot of days to climb and descend a mountain doesn't it?

Anyway here's what wiki says about high altitude.

The effects of high altitude on humans are considerable. The percentage saturation of hemoglobin with oxygen determines the content of oxygen in our blood. After the human body reaches around 2,100 m (7,000 feet) above sea level, the saturation of oxyhemoglobin begins to plummet.[1] However, the human body has both short-term and long-term adaptations to altitude that allow it to partially compensate for the lack of oxygen. Athletes use these adaptations to help their performance. There is a limit to the level of adaptation; mountaineers refer to the altitudes above 8,000 metres (26,000 ft) as the "death zone", where no human body can acclimatize.

The death zone. Hmmmm, interesting.

In the early days there wasn't anything like the gear that mountaineers use today but the realistic situation is still the same. We simply cannot survive at Everest type altitude without the proper protection.
Hillary and co would not have had this at all. Why?

Look at what they would be carrying without aid?
As well as the heavy clothing and boots as well as food and climbing equipment, including tent, etc, which would weigh 30lb or more on their backs and not forgetting they are ASCENDING whilst wearing this amount, at severe dangerous heights.

Try climbing the stairs with 30 plus lbs on your back, as well as wearing 10lbs worth of clothing. That's  just an ascent of about 10 feet.

Ok, so now we get to the main thing for Hillary and co.
We need to add to this, the amount of oxygen needed to finalise that Everest ascent. Where do they carry this and what stops it from freezing over anyway?

Forget the freezing over if you want. It seems trivial when you consider carrying the amount they would need and the actual weight of it.
Try working out how long you would get out of an oxygen tank and what Now consider what they were using in 1950's.

Hillary mentioning thawing his boots out that were frozen stiff that he left outside of his tent. Who in their right mind would do such a thing.  ;D
Anyway that's just trivialities.

It appears that some of Tenzing's family are actors and what not. Maybe it's nothing important. It just makes me wonder about names being put to stuff like this. You know, just like James Cameron manages to reach the mariana's trench.

It makes me wonder just how far these stories go and are the stories a work of fiction that is sold as fact that appears to put ordinary men and women on pedestals to push agenda's as well as being lauded as something which they clearly are not, in certain cases.

I don't have any proof that these things didn't happen, just as I don't have any proof of many thing's we are told. I leave it up to people to decide to delve into it and add to whether it's feasible that we are being played for fool's or whether there is really nothing to see here, move along.

29,000 feet above sea level.
Imagine the oxygen needed to carry for a 10,000 feet ascent and then a descent. It's not really like it can be passed up by anyone, like your Father scaling the mountain at high speed to shout, " oi, you forgot your extra tanks of oxy."  ;D

I just wonder when I see things like this video.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">! No longer available

20,000 feet and they're masked up fully. Imagine 29,000 feet without the aid of a balloon to carry your oxygen and also having to spend days and days breathing that oxygen weight, as well as enduring the severe cold.

Anyone is naturally entitled to post their thoughts but let me just say this.
Anyone who believes it's all above board and there's nothing worth looking into, then that's fine, I have no issue with that, except that I'm questioning it and I'm looking for people who can add to the questioning, mainly.

I have no issue with anyone saying " yeah but" or whatever, as this is the nature of the beast, just don't come in all arrogant and pretend you're an expert and you've climbed this and that, because I'll simply bypass it.

Suggestions & Concerns / A couple of concerns and a suggestion.
« on: August 13, 2015, 07:56:48 AM »
1. Why in the hell is this forum left to run as slow as a tortoise for the last few weeks without anyone bothering to address it?

2. Why are names of members at the bottom not deleted and banned. The one's that have not made any post's?

Those are my concerns..
Now my suggestion.
I suggest that if people cannot be bothered to deal with the spambots and clogged up member area, then I suggest giving me the powers to do just that, at the very least.
I am offering my services to simply deal with the bots and stuff, without affecting people who genuinely post here.
Now can someone at least address me on all of this because to be honest, it's bastard irritating that no one appears to be giving a flying feck.

Flat Earth General / Pluto, I'll call it now.
« on: July 14, 2015, 01:06:16 AM »
This probe effigy is supposed to be flying by pluto. It was declassified as a planet before. What's the betting that they re-classify it as a planet again?

This is the utter utter bullshit we have to keep on swallowing. You see, apparently it was just an irregular rock and small. It was all supposedly mapped out and sorted for us all to be told with confidence that it's not a planet as it's too small to be one.

Now that this pretend probe sizes it up, it's going to be shown to us as a planet once again, because this space shit is getting boring for most people, except the tefal heads, who don't count in the grand scheme of things as far as the wider bullshit goes.
It's the wider public that need to be amazed and baffled, because this stuff paves the way for more tax dollars to be released for more probes and crap to actually land on these fictional planets.

This way we get little movies of all planets with probes and rovers on them, including little fictional pluto that's soon to become grown up pluto that will take it's place, once again, back into the planet family.


Come on people, what's the betting?

My guess is within the next week or two we will hear all the bullshit about it being a re-classified planet.
What's your guess, people?

Suggestions & Concerns / Moderator application.
« on: July 04, 2015, 04:05:25 AM »
I'm putting myself forward to be a moderator. I feel that this place needs a little bit of help, especially with trolls and people setting up their arrogant lip. This is what I promise to do.

1. I will rid the place of trolls that are clearly here for the purpose of disruption of debate.
2. I will deal with globalists who try to argue with free thinkers by using intimidation techniques in all forms, by dealing with them in various ways, whether it's a ban (unlikely) or wiping out their post (very likely).
Wiping out posts designed to intimidate free thinkers who want to find out the truth will completely piss off the global Earth idiots who attempt to do it.

I will be as biased as I can possibly be in dealing with globalists and I will allow flat earth theorists and free thinkers as much space as possible to get their points across against these globalists intent on trying to ridicule.

I will deal with those who set out to post in Q&A to debate, swiftly, making them too scared to dare to enter into it.
I will patrol this place like an utter lunatic and grabbing all the global Earth indoctrinates with no intention of changing - giving them a little slap, then telling them how crap their post is before deleting it and making them attempt to re-post, which will then be deleted again.

Any person who appears to want to find out about flat Earth or alternatives, will be absolutely fine to do just that.
Any globalist who simply wants to debate to and fro without resorting to gang mentality and attempted ridicule, will also be fine.

All I need is the ability to ban, delete posts and move posts. I'd especially like to have access to IP addresses so I can sift through the lists from time to time to weed out the multi's and trolls.

Basically just give me everything I need to be able to mod this place properly with a little bias thrown in against people I believe are not here for genuine reasons of finding the truth or at least only here to do fly by's in mass trolling and spamming.

Anyone who thinks I would be good for this role or not, state your case for or against.

For the admin. I'm offering my services and my time. Obviously it's up to you but this place needs patrolling and I'm just the person to do it and giving the other mods a rest.

My cards are on the table.

Flat Earth General / Plimsole line on ships.
« on: June 18, 2015, 11:53:59 AM »
Proves that the Earth is not a globe.
On long ships, you can see the plimsole line and it's level on calm water. No curve in the water which would be apparent on long liners and oil tankers.

The Lounge / New forum soon.
« on: May 10, 2015, 04:57:11 AM »
I'm going to set up a new forum in the next few weeks.

Flat Earth General / Common sense versus lies.
« on: February 21, 2015, 12:39:35 PM »
Take a look at this picture. This is the supposed cupola in space. As anyone with a brain can clearly see, this cupola is showing a FULL Earth against the blackness of space, as we are told to accept.
The huge problem with this is, they trip over themselves, because they tell us that the space station is around 250 miles in space and yet at that height, if you were to compare the Earth to a beach ball, the cupola looking down at the Earth would be about half an inch from the surface if you were to place an object near a beach ball, meaning you are only going to see some of the central surface of that beach ball the same as you would, Earth.

Anyone with half a brain can see that the camera is set back, which is why we can see all of the inside of the windows of the cupola, which means that their argument of a wide angle lens is pathetic for an explanation as to why the Earth, so called ball can be seen in its entirety.
There is no way out of this except to lie their way out of it, somehow.

This doesn't prove any shape of Earth but what it does prove is that the picture is a complete lie.

Take a look for yourselves all of you that possess common sense.

Now for the next bit of common sense from people who possess it.

Take a look at this video. I will run your through it, just so you can see how the laws of their physics seem to change as needed.

Let's start with the trivialities.
How many times do we get told about extra weight being a massive factor on rocket launches to space?...every pound of weight is a lot of extra fuel at high cost.
These bozo's are not bothered about that. They take up a set of barbels. Why?
It's supposed to be zero gravity or micro gravity as we are all told - yet here they are, not only carrying that extra weight on a rocket to this skylab but also having absolutely no use for it, except to show us gullible Earthling's that a barbel weighs nothing in their skylab.
Can you picture the scene before lift off?

Astronaut: ermmm boss, how can we show the public that weight is meaningless up there.
Boss: well just take an old circus type barbel up here to show how easy it is to lift up.
Go to 1:25 in the video to see the amazing feat. ;D

At 1:50 you can see a nice piggy back with 3 of the circus astronauts. No problem here. Everything looks ok to the average person looking at it.

At 2:04...what the hell is this? can this bozo do press up's with no hands?
I mean, it was fine when he had his fingers in the grating at first when he done his press up's, yet now he does not have that leverage and yet look at him moving up and down doing press up's. Your common sense should tell you that this is impossible, unless some magical force is pulling him up and then letting him drop.

Can you remember the laws we are told to adhere to?
An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by another force.
So what force is acting on him to push him up, then stop him from carrying on up, to make him drop back down..bearing in mind he is in so called zero gravity?
Silly isn't it?

But it gets even better.

At 5:45 you see two bozo's doing a synchronised drill. Now remember that this is in so called zero gravity, meaning they are floating.
They use no leverage to twist their bodies but  they can turn in sync. That in itself is pathetic but what's more pathetic is the laws of motion we've had to adhere to.

An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by another force. What's stopping those men from turning once in motion?...answer: NOTHING but yet it appears that by putting their arms down their sides, it somehow stops them dead.
In fact they do this 4 times in all.

Now do I really need to appeal to people's common sense here or can you use it without my help?
Naturally the switched on people on this forum will immediately see what I'm saying.

What's the betting that the usual suspects chime right in to call me an idiot and tell me I just don't understand science.  ;D

Take a good look for yourselves. There's more I could pick out but this is plenty for anyone to see what a huge crock of crap this is.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Flat Earth General / Southern (so called) hemisphere.
« on: February 17, 2015, 04:40:03 AM »
I suppose the question we should all ask ourselves is: if the Earth is a globe and it supposedly spins as we are told it does around a sun, then why in the hell would the southern hemisphere be so sparse of land mass?

Why only Australia and New zealand, plus a small part of south America and Africa be on that part?

It might be more wiser looking into why they were put there on that part of the supposed globe, by those who question the globe.

I mean, seriously. Does it make any sense to have the northern hemisphere so congested compared to the southern?
Is it possible that the globe map is not only false but also, is it possible that the globe map is really back to front and the so called north pole is really the so called south pole and the so called south pole is really the so called north pole.

What does this mean?

Well. Is it possible that the reason why the global southern hemisphere is so sparse is because the energy we receive (the suns light/heat) is actually eminating from there n a flat Earth.
So they've used a globe to more or less sway us from understanding it.

By making the globe not only a globe but also arse first, it sort of makes a kind of desolate southern hemisphere a sort of no go area, except to what we deem as down under in terms of Australi and New zealand, which, given their climates, could be the opposite of where they are.

I mentioned this a while ago but I'll recap it.

Picture your globe and picture a globe model on your desk as having a stretched covering over it. Sort of like it's sitting inside a snug fitting balloon.
Now you copy all of the land masses onto that balloon.

You then have to open up that balloon but instead of opening it from the south pole end, you open it from the north pole end, so when you lay it on a table, you see that Australia and New zealand are situated nerer the centre of a flat map and Russia, etc are situated around the outer edge.

I once drew a map like this but the tracing paper used was difficult to draw on and things got missed out.
I intend to do another and set it out better and more clearer.

Arew there any people on here that fancy having a go at this as well. You may be a way better artists than I am, as I'm not exactly too clever at it.  ;D

I'm going to give it another go but this time I'm going to use a rubber see through covering or something like that so I can see what I'm tracing and so it doesn't make it as difficult as the first time around.

Flat Earth General / Observational skills.
« on: February 12, 2015, 10:58:57 AM »
Below are pictures of people. There are 16 in all. Can you pick out the matches of each two of the same person.
It's trickier than you think and is an observational test. There is a purpose to this which I will talk about after a few people have had a go at it.

So for instance, if you think A is he same person as O, then either type out the matches or if you want to mess about piecing the photos together as a pair to match, you can do that.

Ok here's your pictures.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4