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 ... 132
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky
« on: Today at 09:17:50 PM »
So how do FEers know the Earth is flat?  Is there some evidence that they are privy to which the rest of us are not?  I suppose you would say you 'know' the Earth is flat if you reject through denial all the evidence that shows it isn't flat.  What is the one piece of evidence you have and which has escaped me and the rest of the mainstream scientific community which shows beyond any reasonable doubt that this Earth we live on is flat and not a sphere. 

Where is there a photo for example that shows the flat Earth from space?   There are plenty of photos showing a globe from space but of course you will reject all those won't you because they don't show what you believe to be true.  So by default you will label all those as fake. East way out.

Quote
Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?

Absolutely not. Any more than you are not going to admit that the Earth is not flat.  You have your beliefs and I have mine.  So I guess we might as well end this stalemate and agree to differ.

I think the point is that you missed the point. A faint dot moving across the sky is not enough evidence for the existence of satellites. It's the pile on preponderance of evidence that matters. The point being, saying a faint dot is evidence, period, is not enough, especially considering your argument is that it is a satellite because it could be nothing else. Just like saying looking out at the flat sea is not enough evidence for a flat earth because ones argument is that nothing else could explain its appearance of flatness.

A lot more is required of both points of view. Does that make sense?

2
...taking statues of our heroes down.

Heroes? Seriously? You are most definitely a racist and a bigot.

Did you just commit a libel/slander or a RICO?

I think it would technically be libel if my published statement was untrue. Since it's not untrue, no crime has been committed nor animals harmed in the making of that sentence.

I'm pretty sure it's RICO now, though.

Damnit, you're right. I need to lawyer up.

3
...taking statues of our heroes down.

Heroes? Seriously? You are most definitely a racist and a bigot.

Did you just commit a libel/slander or a RICO?

I think it would technically be libel if my published statement was untrue. Since it's not untrue, no crime has been committed nor animals harmed in the making of that sentence.

4
...taking statues of our heroes down.

Heroes? Seriously? You are most definitely a racist and a bigot.

5
Trump is like an even worse version of 'Jim Jones'

Well that pretty much summed it up for me. Spot on. And there are millions of those kicking around this country more than willing to drink the Kool-Aid.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky
« on: Today at 02:53:15 AM »
Is that your way of admitting you are a denying machine?
My way of telling ouyr being a denying machine. Like everytime, you are missunderstanding a fact once again.
Photos are not the only evidence, and they are not only able to be obtained by the "bosses".
Boss want it, somebody like denspressure creates it, and you use it. System works this way. Without a boss nobody work.
Stop acting like there is no evidence for satellites just because you choose to ignore it.
Nope. There is no evidence because there is no evidence, not because I ignore it. I am open real evidences but you are providing zero.
You choosing to bury your head in the sand and ignore all the evidence doesn't magically mean there is none.
You are admitting your own behave. You are trying to convince me without any real evidence but believe your supposedly dreamings. Obvioulsy there is nothing can be defined as evidence in your talkings, but only lies exist.
So if you want to LIE and claim there are no satellites, the burden is on you to prove it.
Ahahah! How funny! So I claim God is exist, then burden of proof him not being exist is on you to prove it, right? How funny you are. Guess your software mechanics add you a property let you do joke.  ;D
Nope still just you.
Nope, both of you. You choosing to bury your head in the sand and ignore all the evidence doesn't make you not a liar. You are still a liar whether or not you deny it.
Again, there are no sides to liars.
But you have. How can you explain why do you have a side when you are an obvious liar?
People being against your side because you are wrong does not make them liars, no matter how much you want it to.
You are lying. Because I did not told "people against my side make them liar". But people lying make them liar. You are simly lying. It is clear that no matter how you will be a liar on the future too, because you are programmed so. You have programmed to create lies and accuse FE'rs being liar.

What about this on-rocket cam view footage is a lie to you?


7
Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky
« on: Today at 02:06:02 AM »
I think it's a shear matter of a single observation without supplemental evidence is simply insufficient.

An observation of a sea that appears flat is not sufficient to claim the earth is flat. Just as a pinpoint of light streaking across the sky is not sufficient to claim proof of satellites. But when you start stacking the evidence, 'proof', as it were, the notion becomes more and more substantiated.

When Jane was still kicking around this place we did a cool exercise around what would be all the alternatives, as in what would it take, to fake the ISS. How do you simulate the observable features, size, distance, speed, predicted location, etc.? Getting to and from, life within it, broadcasts and such. It was extremely difficult. But it did tease out, or actually crossed out, just how impossible, in the aggregate, it would be to fake it. To have alternative explanations became madness.

So I think that's the point. A satellite can't be a satellite just because I know it's a satellite. As in, "What else could it be?" one needs to exhaust the "What else could it be?" and show the myriad ways it can only be what it is.

8
I'm a character? Not really. I'm a real person with certain sets of beliefs and values. You don't have to agree with me but please don't try to discredit me or say that I'm fake. Now let me say this; I'm not against consumer or economic diversity. I have nothing against Chinese or Indian restaurants. As a matter of fact I'm a big fan of ethnic foods and not a big fan of traditional American food. I welcome goods and services from all countries for they enhance the consumer choices, what I'm against however is not learning English, disregarding our values and traditions and forcing foreign culture into American society. For many centuries European immigrants came to America and busted their asses to Americanize and assimulate.  They gave up their language and culture to become American. they wanted to start new life and become new citizens of a new country. Liberals however tell us that America has no culture, that this is a melting pot of many religions and cultures, they wanna make America to be seen as some sort of a international zoo. However this is not what America is.

Yes this land was taken from Native Americans and no one says its a good thing. American history is blood stained. But so as the history of just about every nation on earth. So to single out America as an acceptionally racist or bigoted nation is also incorrect.

No one is singling out America, just singling out you as acceptionally(sic) racist or bigoted.

9
You guys are typical liberals. You honestly don't believe that a non white person can also be a racist? This is a problem with your Democratic party, this is why no one votes for you. Your race card does not work anymore, get used to it please. I do not see Islamic countries embracing multiculturalism. Try going to Saudi Arabia and act how you want. See how quickly they will deal with you. Most far east countries are not allowing multiculturalism either. So why is it OK for non white countries to resist diversity, yet its not OK for America to resist it? Sounds really hypocritical don't it?

Because they're ruled by authoritarian dictators?
I mean, y'all bitch about how communism is evil but then complain that we should all be the same.  Have you forgotten that America was built on multiculturalism?


Incorrect. America was built on European immigration with Anglo Protestant values and Western European culture. Liberals love to twist history.

Wow, I've never seen someone more misinformed about the history of their own country. America was built and is still continually built on many factors/aspects. You seem to think the building stopped around 1910.
First off, America was initially built on the backs of slaves as well as manifest destiny in appropriating the lands west of the Louisiana purchase. Done so through by any means necessary to garner lands previously occupied by the indigenous people of North America. Trans-continentally driving spikes throughout the rail service of the deep west on the backs of Chinese laborers connecting sea to shining sea and setting the stage for the Industrial Revolution. Whilst at the same time pushing the Spaniard/Mexicali southward and annexing the West Texas/South Western territories. Enter the influx of Irish, Italian, Scandinavian, and Slavic people into the arms of Ellis Island before, during, and after the turn of the last century, all equally hated by the incumbent inhabitants of the nation state, as it were, at the time.
Fast forward a couple of decades the former hated euros assimilated, propagated, and accepted, we keep our eyes on staving off the influence of Central and Southern American people and at the same time building barriers against the Asian influx - Now settled on what you claim is the "Anglo Protestant values and Western European culture" which should somehow be de facto, ruling, and unassailable. 

In the mean time, women and black Americans were winning a hard fought battle for equality, finally able to vote, an "All men are created equal" construct that is barely just now coming true with great modifications still required even in 2020.

You have no clue about your nation's history, the trials and tribulations of those who fought, won and lost, in order for you to enjoy the freedoms you have. Your ignorance and confounding hubris is the most disgusting thing about my country. You should be ashamed.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support Joe Biden?
« on: August 12, 2020, 12:53:27 AM »
Is there a reason Trump calls him 'Sleepy Joe'? Does he nod off on the job or something? Or is just some colourful adjective Trump made up hoping people will believe it if it's said enough times?

Good question. I think it's supposed to be a reference to Joe's age/acumen/lack of spryness of mind, but don't know for sure. I think the Biden supporters take it more of his rope-a-dope strategy which seems to be, give trump enough rope and he'll hang himself. So far, working.

12
The Lounge / Re: RIP Mimi
« on: August 10, 2020, 07:29:09 PM »
Sorry for your loss. Sounds like it's exactly the celebration Mimi would have wanted. Having grown up in New England, Christmas in August does sound way more civilized.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Laussedat Moon observation
« on: August 10, 2020, 02:50:06 PM »
I thought since Laussedat is real maybie his observation and conclusion is too? I just asked

 
Quote
First off, you realize Verne's book is a novel, a work of fiction, right?

Yes.

Civil war is for example mentioned. It is real. I thought since novel contains real astronomet it maybie his observation is used to draw conclusion which is true

Look through the links I provided. It is not true.

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Laussedat Moon observation
« on: August 10, 2020, 11:36:31 AM »
Hello. So i was readibg "Form the Earth to the Moon" (1865) which i found. In chapter XVII "Meeting" aprox 5 pages in i found this.

Context, they are talking about exsistance of atmosphere on Moon. Book I am reading isn't on english, so it translation says:

Quote


One wery able French astronomer, mr. Laussedat, found out, when observing eclipse 18.7.1860, that ?"horns"? of sun were ensrcled and "cut"?. So, that event can happen only beacuse sunlight shattering in lunar atmosphere

Idk. I tried googling but it doesn give anything useful.

Idk. Laussedat is real, so it gives chance Verne is describing something real.

So, there is no atmosphere on Moon as Mod. Science claims. They say we landed and checked. So, maybie HC model is correct, but hyporhetical atmsphere proves Moon landings were faked?

Also, maybie in  "AFET" style model it is dense aether bubble? ???

First off, you realize Verne's book is a novel, a work of fiction, right?

Here is the direct English translation from Verne's 'From Earth to the Moon':

""Let us proceed," replied Ardan, with perfect coolness, "and come to one important fact. A skillful French astronomer, M. Laussedat, in watching the eclipse of July 18, 1860, probed that the horns of the lunar crescent were rounded and truncated. Now, this appearance could only have been produced by a deviation of the solar rays in traversing the atmosphere of the moon. There is no other possible explanation of the facts.""

From what I've been able to find out, what Laussedat observed and has been observed many times are what are called "Coronal Transients" or "Coronal Plumes". The long and short of it is that they are a feature of the suns corona and not related to the moon per se, as they have been observed during non-eclipses. So no, they have nothing to do with what Verne's protagonist in his novel claim.

Here's a long paper on the study of Coronal Plumes and Solar Wind:
Solar Coronal Plumes
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/lrsp-2015-7

As well, more specifics regarding the "horns" observation:

https://books.google.com/books?id=_L4MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=Laussedat+horns&source=bl&ots=nSojMCdCcM&sig=ACfU3U1nlE-ZddwMRZyJ2NrwzK3JOSRr_Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS_piIoZHrAhXRpZ4KHVejAGcQ6AEwEnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Laussedat%20horns&f=false

15
If I believed that I could jump off a building and fly away, maybe I'd be looney but the belief is still there. It is not 'false'. It's real enough in my mind. That belief is not 'false'.

Belief does not need to be demonstrably true. That's the point of it being a belief. Like a belief in God. It doesn't need to be true for you to believe it to be true. The belief itself is not false. It's personal.

I guess this concept is beyond some. The fact that I can believe things, imagine things, conjure things..... These are qualities that seperate mankind from lesser animals.

Some people got it. Some people don't. ::)

Acting on a false belief can be catastrophic; in that if you were to jump off a building thinking that you can fly, what would be the results death, or severe injury.

Indeed. But that would be my belief. No one can judge anothers belief as false. They aren't in their mind

See, but that’s why it’s one big perpetual unanswerable loop. Do I believe or know you can’t fly? Do I have to wait for you to jump off the building and plummet to the ground to then be able to say I know, not just believe, you can’t fly? Or can I say with an extremely high level of certainty before you step off the ledge that I know you can’t fly?

16
As you may imagine, there's are a lot of scholarly papers and articles written over the years regarding knowledge and belief and the distinction between the two. Poking around I found a pretty terse 1 minute read on the subject from a Prof of Philosophy at a Texas university. His definition of 'belief' I thought was especially interesting. Worth checking out.

http://www.scribespark.com/blog/belief-vs-knowledge.html

He starts out with the premise and goes on from there with just a few points and examples.

Belief vs Knowledge
What's the difference?

Knowledge: a reasonable claim to knowledge must be:

logical: limited to evidence–based reasoning that is both true and valid
falsifiable: a way exists to prove whether or not it’s correct
precise: not made of arbitrary parts

Belief: a belief need only be consistent with the psychological state of the claimant

17
Can't be.


http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Fakes/Fakes.htm

http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Kausch250-253.html

What sort of Soviet craft had orbited the earth then, if it was not a space ship with two cosmonauts on board? All stated contradictions and lies expose the secret of Leonov's 'space flight': What Soviet propaganda called 'Voskhod 2' was actually a tiny satellite that carried tape-recorded voices, heartbeats etc. and (faked) telemetric transmissions for a gigantic hoax!

'Four months of solid research interviewing experts in the fields of photo-optics, photo-chemistry and electro-optics, all of whom carefully studied the motion picture film and still photographs officially released by theSoviet Government ... (indicate them to be) double-printed .. The foreground (Leonov) was superimposed on the background (Earth below).The Russian film showed reflections from the glass plate under which a double plate is made ... Leonov was suspended from wire or cables ...In several episodes of the Russian film, light was reflected from a small portion of wire (or cable) attached to Leonov's space suit ...One camera angle was impossible of achievement. This showed Leonov crawling out of his hatch into space. It was a head on shot, so the camera would have had to have been located out in space beyond thespace ship.'

The Americans had to fake their missions as well since the SAME laws of physics were applied.

I don't see any evidence that the Leonov mission was a hoax. The second link you provided seems to think it was all just Russian propaganda but concludes with American Ed White's spacewalk as being real and the first one:

"All this would probably have been forgotten, had not Soviet propaganda on behalf of Party comrade Leonov brought him back to the memory of the world. Perhaps it was designed to bolster their great hoax after its near failure 10 years before. He was supposed to be not only a space veteran older than Stafford, but also "the first to walk in space" - an obnoxious insult aimed at the late Ed White, the really first free-floating spaceman. Alexei Leonov, the Soviet "cosmonaut hero," is truly a remarkable sample of Communist deceit."

The author refers to Ed White as the real first free-floating spaceman.

So this is in direct contradiction to your claim that if Leonov was fake, all space missions are fake. Even your author disagrees with you.

18
The Lounge / Re: I have very sad news. Rabinoz has passed away.
« on: August 07, 2020, 10:49:36 PM »
Wow. Both heartbreaking and heart warming. What a great smile to put with the man known to us only as rabinoz. He is missed, greatly. Thanks for sharing and take care.

19
Stash and jack, there aren't that many interpretations of the word, knowing. Jack, I like how you try to differentiate the meaning by being either a verb or adjective, and then dont provide the verb meaning.

I still think you're starting from the wrong place. And again, this has turned into a saga about word usage which seems unnecessary, but is also now important.

Forget the word (adj) "knowing". As you stated, it means: showing or suggesting that one has knowledge or awareness that is secret or known to only a few people. That word and definition has nothing to do with this. Secret? Known to only a few people? Irrelevant.

What you want is the verb, to know:

verb (used without object), knew, known, know·ing.

to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something.


Ditch your adjective 'knowing'.

Solarwind is chasing an easy answer. He just needs to decide for himself what the difference between knowing and believing is. (If there is a difference)

To say you know the earth is round because of NASA photos, geography, and the scientific explanation, simply means you accept those to be true.

Let's say I was religious or spiritual, and decided to conduct a few experiments with God. Let's say I decide to pray to be the owner of a specific object which may be very rare and my physical efforts to obtain said item are exhausted. I give a time limit to receive the item. I pray in a way I have already received the item at the time I have set. Let's say, the event unfolds exactly as I visualize, and I receive the item at my predetermined time.

Let's say I repeat the experiment a number of times, and am successful each time.

That's an experiment. For me, that might be enough proof God answered my prayer, and therefore God is real. You could say you know god is real, and it not be a fictitious statement at all.

But it's not objective proof. Its subjective proof. Also, an outsider could easily argue the results to be pure coincidences.

So, knowing is as subjective as believing.

All that said, I'm having a hard time rejecting your "knowing is as subjective as believing." And it's bugging me because I want to reject it but I can't. Maybe that's what JB was referring to when he was talking about if you look at 'knowing' from a purely philosophical perspective. But I'm fixing to find something that meets both philosophy and reality.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« on: August 07, 2020, 10:00:34 PM »
REVERSE ENGINEERING AT IT'S BEST !!!

Now, it's time to recall the following excerpt from Gerrard Hickson's book "Kings dethroned" :

MIT`S WACKY `NUT COLLECTION`: SCIENTIFIC IDEAS FROM THE FRINGE
By Richard Higgins, Boston Globe/chicagotribune.com

"Gerrard Hickson was nothing if not confident. His 1922 book, ''Kings Dethroned,'' promised to show that the history of astronomy was ''an amazing series of blunders founded on an error made in the 2d Century B.C.'' It debunked Copernicus, ridiculed Charles Darwin and showed Albert Einstein to be a fool.

The volume ''contains one of the most momentous messages ever condensed into 112 pages,'' according to a press release by Hicksonia Publishing Co., and was ''destined perhaps to stir worlds of thought as greatly as did'' the most revolutionary theories of science.

Instead, it ended up in what archivists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology affectionately call their ''nut collection'' - MIT`s Archive of Useless Research.
"
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-03-12-8903260258-story.html

Yet another dubious reference to add to your dubious claims.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« on: August 07, 2020, 04:02:25 PM »
1+1 does not always = 2.

yes it does as long as numbers go, and nothing more was asked. you do get the concept of numbers, don't you?

So we just assume everybody works in base 10 unless stated otherwise?

Irrelevant.

When everyone is talking back and forth in base 10 it would be irrelevant to bring up all of the things are not in base 10. You'd be here all day.

"Ok, what about oceans?
"We're not talking about oceans."

"Ok, what about black holes?"
"We're not talking about black holes"

And on and on and on.

Are you actually being serious?

The point is the answer to 1+1 is not always 2. 'always' clearly the qualifying word here

Sure, just seems ridiculously pedantic and unnecessary. Me thinks you're just bored, a slow news day, and you feel like stirring some pots. Stir away.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« on: August 07, 2020, 03:35:04 PM »
1+1 does not always = 2.

yes it does as long as numbers go, and nothing more was asked. you do get the concept of numbers, don't you?

So we just assume everybody works in base 10 unless stated otherwise?

Irrelevant.

When everyone is talking back and forth in base 10 it would be irrelevant to bring up all of the things are not in base 10. You'd be here all day.

"Ok, what about oceans?
"We're not talking about oceans."

"Ok, what about black holes?"
"We're not talking about black holes"

And on and on and on.

Are you actually being serious?

23
No, jack black. Those definitions are copy and paste from the dictionary.

No, jack black. That is not what I'm saying. Subjective is not the same as fictitious. Subjective is based on personal feelings, while fictitious is made up.

No, Hamzah.

Solar wind, I think you're done here.

tl;dr: I don't think there is really an answer to be found for Solar's question.

I might be getting hung up on usage here, but I think whatever version of the word 'know' that is in play to get at Solar's question is not the adj definition; The showing or suggesting that one has knowledge or awareness that is secret or known to only a few people. We're not talking about the wink and a nudge, the "knowing smile". I mean the secret, known to a few bit has no relevance.

I think what Solar is talking about is "to know". As in you 'know' something to be true based upon information gained through study, experimentation, observation, evidence, that kind of know. And I think that kind of know is a little tricky.

Because someone could say "I know God exists because of my study of religious texts and the observations and accounts captured therein." And I would say that's still just a subjective belief, you don't really know, because I don't find your evidence or observations rigorous enough to truly be considered evidence supporting a statement of "I know..."

It really comes down to veracity of the evidence and how it reaches or exceeds the bar passing up and through belief and into know.

Solar said something interesting, "If flat Earth theory was scientifically based then all evidence would be admissible." I think that strikes at the core of the issue. Or perhaps muddies it and adds yet another layer. Idk

In my example, I don't feel that scripture is evidence to know God exists. Whereas someone else does. I have ostensibly dismissed what someone feels is evidence to know.

In my world, all space exploration evidence is proof positive for me to know that the earth rotates and is round. Whereas FE completely dismisses all my evidence as inadmissible.  In their eyes, my globe earth is a belief just like in my eyes, someones existence of God is just a belief. The dividing line is what each accepts as the "know" type of evidence. And I'm not sure you can ever reach an agreement on that for a variety of subjects.

Going back to Solar's point maybe one way to tease it out at least for an FE v RE subject is what is the RE evidence that allows RE to know that is dismissed by FE and what is the FE evidence that allows FE to know that is dismissed by RE. As discussed, FE dismisses RE space exploration evidence. What FE evidence does RE dismiss that's as comparably massive as something like space exploration?

24
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Perseverence
« on: August 07, 2020, 07:26:27 AM »

It is quite easy to fake everything.

Ha!  That’s what the Fake Spacers always say.  Little or no thought ever seems to go into what it would actually take to fake it.

Quote
The rover works of course but only on Earth. 

Why only on earth?  The rover would have been designed, built and tested for the expected conditions on Mars.  If it couldn’t meet the requirement specs, the scientists and engineers working on the project would know.  Not sure what you think would make it only work on Earth, but whatever. 

This of course applies to every system and subsystem of any spacecraft/probe/lander/rover.  For every single part they’d either need to build it for real, or involve all the relevant people in faking something that still looks credible to everyone not in on it, whilst hiding the real results.  All those people are security risks who could deliberately or inadvertently blow the whole operation.  Easier and safer just to build something to spec.

Quote
Then it is loaded on a rocket that takes off and disappears in the sky.

Oh, the rocket just “disappears into the sky”, does it?  Great detective work there. 

However, building the rockets is much the same situation as with the craft.  Everyone working on the rockets knows exactly what they are and aren’t capable of.  If a rocket couldn’t deliver a specified payload to a specified trajectory everyone would know about it. 

What’s more, the weight, thrust, fuel, etc specs of the rockets are publicly released.  Orbits and trajectories can be calculated by anyone.  Have any Fake Spacers even bothered to check the calculations themselves?  Or is that too much like putting in some actual effort?

Also, spacecraft are tracked by radar and by their transmissions by  other spaces agencies and civilian stations, so that’s a whole load more people who need to be in on it.

Quote
Only a few people at NASA ground control knows that the rocket will never arrive anywhere.

Ridiculous.  As well as maintaining the conspiracy with international agencies, and the suppliers of the rockets and craft, now they need to fake everything internally well enough to fool their own staff of incredibly well qualified and highly skilled staff? 

Those few Illuminati (or whatever) higher ups must be real workhorses, to manage not just all the normal things for running the operation, but also faking everything to fool the majority of their own staff, as well as the rest of the world.  The people they’d have to fool are literally pouring over the data all day every day, and none of them ever spot anything suspicious?

Quote
So they report regular progress, etc.
The arrival Mars is 100% Hollywood studio work again with some NASA ground control staff playing their roles. Finally the rover is put on Mars (i.e. Earth) and NASA can show films about it. Etc, etc.

Sure, sure. 

So as well as faking the engineering effort (or making it for real), faking the telemetry, faking the instrument data, now you’d need to bring in whole teams of “Hollywood” crews, CGI artists, and whatnot for the images and videos to present to the public.  Again, every single one is a security risk. 

Why bother with all of that when it’s easier to at least try to do for real?  Its embarrassing when a mission fails (which they do), but nothing compared to being caught cheating. 

So what’s the sum total of evidence the Fake Spacers have uncovered for half a century of alleged deception (to the best of my knowledge):

A) Number of whistleblowers = 0
B) Number of leaked documents pointing to conspiracy = 0
C) Number of engineers/technicians/scientists working on the projects claiming something didn’t add up in the specs or data = 0
D) Number of technical issues uncovered that’s confirmed by anyone who actually knows what they are talking about = 0
E) Number of scientists who have studied the results or samples who doubt their authenticity = 0

And yet:

F) Number of photos you all think look a bit funny (yet are easily explained) = Lots
G) Amount of personal incredulity = Off the chart

Conclusion:  Fake Spacers have had decades to find some actual evidence and have absolutely nothing.

Quote
Same scenario as for the Apollo 11 trip 1969. What a waste of money.

You’re right about one thing.  It’s as implausible now as it was in 69.  More so in fact as they’d need to maintain the conspiracy started all those years ago.

Thanks for clarifying many things. I appreciate it very much.
So the US Perseverence rover + rocket has gone to Mars and will arrive there after a 200+ days orbit trajectory in space. Upon arrival Mars gravity attracts rover + rocket! They will drop down on Mars. But how?

I presume you have the same access to the internet that I do. Look it up. There are a million documents, images, videos that show exactly how.

On Earth US space crafts drop into oceans full of water and USN pick them up. But on Mars there are no oceans or US Navies so how to land? Drop straight on the ground?

Russia's Soyuz drops on the ground.

Is the rover designed for it? I know Mars gravity is weaker than Earth's but dropping something on Mars from space normally creates a crater = hole in the ground = nothing else.

I presume you have the same access to the internet that I do. Look it up. There are a million documents, images, videos that show exactly how.

Assuming the rover arrives safely without creating a crater, it will then drive around and look for life and check the weather and report back to base/Earth. And then? What to do with the data?
Do you know any PhD expert on Earth capable to make any sense of such data from Mars?

Are you just patently against exploration, science...progress of any kind? Just because you don't know how to analyze data means that no one else does? So if you don't understand something or don't know how to do something you're convinced that no one else on the planet possibly could? What's wrong with you?

25
If only there was some place on the interweb to find out more about Hiawa's BS . . .
The Moon? Planet Mars? An asteroid?

The empty space between your ears.
I would be more happy if you tried to win my €1M . See post #1.
Your family would be more happy if you stopped being a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
? My family is very happy with me. Do you have one? A family?

No family is happy about another family member being mentally detached and spreading wild conspiracy theories to the point of being considered a laughing stock by most of your former colleagues.
I doubt you have a family. But I have a good laugh at you that haven't won my Challenge.

What challenge? You mean your conspiracy theory that has been debunked 100's of thousands of times? If so, it's been won over and over again. You just are unwilling to pay out. So there is no challenge.
Please, read post #1 about the Challenges or visit my website. You sound like a loser. But what do you think of my 911 findings - that WTC/NY was destroyed by controlled demolitions?

There’s no information at your site except a bunch of conspiracy theories unsupported by evidence written by a bitter guy who claims to be a ‘safety at sea’ expert yet one of the vessels in his charge sank due to negligence. That’s all.

26
If only there was some place on the interweb to find out more about Hiawa's BS . . .
The Moon? Planet Mars? An asteroid?

The empty space between your ears.
I would be more happy if you tried to win my €1M . See post #1.
Your family would be more happy if you stopped being a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
? My family is very happy with me. Do you have one? A family?

No family is happy about another family member being mentally detached and spreading wild conspiracy theories to the point of being considered a laughing stock by most of your former colleagues.
I doubt you have a family. But I have a good laugh at you that haven't won my Challenge.

What challenge? You mean your conspiracy theory that has been debunked 100's of thousands of times? If so, it's been won over and over again. You just are unwilling to pay out. So there is no challenge.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« on: August 06, 2020, 08:33:43 PM »
When doing experiments like this that are on the edge, you also need to consider refraction.
Refraction will allow you to see further than the Earth alone would allow.
This is because the atmospehre has a density gradient that will cause light to bend downwards.
A common formula I have seen is to multiply the radius of Earth by 7/6.

But over water that can vary quite dramatically.

Interesting stuff. I guess if you could figure out how the density of air affects the speed of light, you could then figure out how much light bends due to refraction.

People have figured out refractive calculations. Geodesy/Surveying have been doing it for decades.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« on: August 06, 2020, 05:59:37 PM »
I came up with a formula that can be used to disprove (or prove, for that matter) the flat earth theory. If you know the height of some vertical object and the distance between you and that object, you can calculate the minimum altitude from which that object is visible. This works perfectly on an ocean because earth's gravity causes water to minimize its potential energy. The minimization of potential energy results in perfectly smoothly curved water (yes, water actually curves).

If you want an easy way to accomplish what you're after, check out Walter Bislin's Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator:

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator

It allows you to punch in all the parameters (including refraction) and do measurements/comparisons.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« on: August 06, 2020, 05:21:26 PM »
You can receive radio waves from many thousands of kilometres away on the planet. If the Earth were spherical, these waves would get lost to space. Clearly the Earth is flattish

Depends on the frequency of radio waves.

"Line of Sight (Space Wave)
With this method of travel, radio waves are sent as a simple beam of light from point A to point B. This method was commonly used in old-fashioned telephone networks that had to transmit calls over a long distance between two massive communication towers.

Ground Wave (Surface Wave)
You can also send radio waves along the curvature of the earth’s surface in the form of a ground wave. You’ll find AM radio waves traveling in this manner for short to medium distances, which is why you can still hear radio signals even when there isn’t a transmitter and receiver in your line of sight.

Ionosphere (Sky Wave)
Last, you can also send radio waves straight up into the sky, which ends up bouncing off of the earth’s ionosphere, which is an electrically charged part of the atmosphere. When you do this, the radio waves will hit the ionosphere, bounce back down to earth, and bounce back up again. This is the process of mirroring a wave, bouncing it back and forth to its final destination.
"
https://www.autodesk.com/products/eagle/blog/wireless-basics-radio-waves-work/


30
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: August 06, 2020, 12:29:27 PM »
No conspiracy theories. I just show that Nuclear Bombs don't exist.
Saying that nuclear bombs are fake propaganda and eye witnesses are paid actors is a conspiracy theory.
No, I just say nuclear bombs do not work. They were invented 1945.

Part of your "explanation" that they don't exist is that the fact they don't really exist is covered up by the many nations that claim to have them. As well as those many nations convincing the populace they do in fact exist. That whole part I just described is a 'conspiracy' to hide the fact that they don't exist from the world. The Conspiracy is part and parcel of your "explanation". Because you are claiming they don't exist you are also defacto claiming a conspiracy is afoot to hide the fact they don't exist. Hence, you are a conspiracy theorist. You need a conspiracy for you to be right. Do you not get that?

As an aside, your "explanation" still is just the culmination of some conversations you had with a couple of Japanese people and a girl you met in a bar. That's not much to go on to claim the atomic nations of the world are conspiring together to hide the fact that a-bombs don't exist. But that's what conspiracy theorists do, make unverifiable personal claims that have no real bearing or relevance on the wider array of facts available.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 132