the space shuttle "conspiracy"

ok, since anyone can go to Cape Canaveral and watch, there's no doubt that the shuttle actually takes off and goes somewhere. so let's examine what the news said last week:

RE belief: the shuttle flew into space, met the space station, repaired the solar panels, then came down and landed, just as NASA says.

FE belief: the shuttle did NOT really go into space, it landed on earth, SOMEHOW* without anyone on the ground noticing, NASA SOMEHOW* faked all the pictures from the space station, especially the ones with earth in the background, then the shuttle SOMEHOW* got back into the air without anyone on the ground noticing, then made it's public landing.

*: if you asked any FEer to define these "somehows" they would say something like: "we have no explanation, we may never have an explanation, BUT it must work that way just because WE say it does, reguardless of proof or fact or logic or..." etc.

frankly, the shuttle would have to be able to everything the ship in "Star Trek 4" does in order to avoid being spotted by people on the ground!

still no comments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Space_shuttle_goose_bay.jpg

I've seen three shuttle launches.  Sadly, none did anything to prove the shape of the earth.

still no comments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Space_shuttle_goose_bay.jpg

So that's how they get it back into the air...

ok, since anyone can go to Cape Canaveral and watch, there's no doubt that the shuttle actually takes off and goes somewhere. so let's examine what the news said last week:

RE belief: the shuttle flew into space, met the space station, repaired the solar panels, then came down and landed, just as NASA says.

FE belief: the shuttle did NOT really go into space, it landed on earth, SOMEHOW* without anyone on the ground noticing, NASA SOMEHOW* faked all the pictures from the space station, especially the ones with earth in the background, then the shuttle SOMEHOW* got back into the air without anyone on the ground noticing, then made it's public landing.

*: if you asked any FEer to define these "somehows" they would say something like: "we have no explanation, we may never have an explanation, BUT it must work that way just because WE say it does, reguardless of proof or fact or logic or..." etc.

frankly, the shuttle would have to be able to everything the ship in "Star Trek 4" does in order to avoid being spotted by people on the ground!

What are you talking about? NASA did went to space. This thread is useless.

ok, since anyone can go to Cape Canaveral and watch, there's no doubt that the shuttle actually takes off and goes somewhere. so let's examine what the news said last week:

RE belief: the shuttle flew into space, met the space station, repaired the solar panels, then came down and landed, just as NASA says.

FE belief: the shuttle did NOT really go into space, it landed on earth, SOMEHOW* without anyone on the ground noticing, NASA SOMEHOW* faked all the pictures from the space station, especially the ones with earth in the background, then the shuttle SOMEHOW* got back into the air without anyone on the ground noticing, then made it's public landing.

*: if you asked any FEer to define these "somehows" they would say something like: "we have no explanation, we may never have an explanation, BUT it must work that way just because WE say it does, reguardless of proof or fact or logic or..." etc.

frankly, the shuttle would have to be able to everything the ship in "Star Trek 4" does in order to avoid being spotted by people on the ground!

LOL, you do realise that removing your *SOMEHOW* comments and replacing them in certain places in the RE explanation reverses the argument completely.

LOL, you do realise that removing your *SOMEHOW* comments and replacing them in certain places in the RE explanation reverses the argument completely.

Not to put too fine a point on it... but what the heck does that have to do with it - for either argument?

(Seriously... if I completely alter anyone's argument by exchanging any statements, or inserting / deleting information into it... then the argument becomes moot and nothing more than finger pointing. ??)

I've seen three shuttle launches.  Sadly, none did anything to prove the shape of the earth.

He's merely saying that NASA is in fact real, and there are people on this earth who can fly out into space and take pictures of what our planet looks like.   Whether you believe they're fake or not is entirely your decision.

Who said NASA was not real?

Who said anything about the shape of the earth?

frankly, the shuttle would have to be able to everything the ship in "Star Trek 4" does in order to avoid being spotted by people on the ground!

Hehe, I love The Voyage Home!

    Pavel Chekov: Hello, we are looking for the naval base in Alameda. It's where they keep the nuclear wessels.
    [Uhura and Chekov look at each another]
    Pavel Chekov: Nu-clee-ar wessels.

I've seen three shuttle launches.  Sadly, none did anything to prove the shape of the earth.

Quote from: eric bloedow on November 09, 2007, 06:22:31 PM

still no comments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Space_shuttle_goose_bay.jpg

So that's how they get it back into the air...

This is a typical FE response, instead of actually providing an answer to the question they come back with an answer to something else. He wasn't talking about the shape of the Earth, simply would like to know if there is no spaceflight possible and NASA fakes everything what the hell happens to the shuttle after it takes off. Simple question. Of course there is no FE answer to this, we all know where it goes, an orbit around Earth.

yes, all FErs think ALL space travel is a hoax, and ALL photos from NASA are fakes. i was trying to show how silly this belief is.

I believe NASA is telling the truth.

but it's purely a faith thing in that case. You can't prove it to be true, yet you believe it is.

Who said anything about the shape of the earth?

LOL...clearly no one.

*: if you asked any FEer to define these "somehows" they would say something like: "we have no explanation, we may never have an explanation, BUT it must work that way just because WE say it does, reguardless of proof or fact or logic or..." etc.

frankly, the shuttle would have to be able to everything the ship in "Star Trek 4" does in order to avoid being spotted by people on the ground!

Straw man. They would say nothing of the sort, except that it's unknown. It must work that way (since you want to use that word), if the Earth is indeed flat. If it is flat, the space shuttle launches upwards, and eventually lands somewhere devoid of human observation. I'm not sure at what altitude the shuttle would be inperceptible to the human eye, but there are plenty of places in the world that can be utilized.

Now as for watching the launch with a telescope, that would bring in a variety of other variables and consequences, but none are outside the realm of possibility.

and FErs believe all space travel to be false, yet have NO explanations for how it COULD be falsified.

and it IS possible for someone on a fast airplane to keep the shuttle in sight all the way into orbit. in fact NASA is REQUIRED to do so! but of course, FErs INSIST that all of NASA is in on their theoretical "conspiriacy" which they also have no proof of.

one FEer said it flies "in a random direction to avoid the cameras". WRONG. it always flies DUE EAST, OVER THE OCEAN!
so if it did circle back, ANYONE on the ENTIRE east coast could see it, use a camera to take a picture, and post it on the internet for EVERYONE TO SEE!

the FACT that this has never happened certainly makes their "conspiracy theory" sound silly. unless, of course, the conspiracy controlled the entire internet...including this website?!

Eric Bloedow,

Does your cap lock, like a gearshift lever, have an automatic transmission? I'm curious.

the FACT that this has never happened certainly makes their "conspiracy theory" sound silly. unless, of course, the conspiracy controlled the entire internet...including this website?!

 

He's on to us!  ABORT!  ABORT!

RE belief: the shuttle flew into space, met the space station, repaired the solar panels, then came down and landed, just as NASA says.

Okay, basically your telling me that the shuttle SOMEHOW* flew into space, met the space station that magically floats in the air, then SOMEHOW* repaired these supposed solar panels, then SOMEHOW* came down through the atmosphere without burning, and SOMEHOW* landed safely from that height, as NASA claims.

*: Somehows are things which don't really make sense in reality because I don't understand them fully.


~D-Draw

Quote from: eric bloedow on November 09, 2007, 01:11:07 PM

RE belief: the shuttle flew into space, met the space station, repaired the solar panels, then came down and landed, just as NASA says.

Okay, basically your telling me that the shuttle SOMEHOW* flew into space, met the space station that magically floats in the air, then SOMEHOW* repaired these supposed solar panels, then SOMEHOW* came down through the atmosphere without burning, and SOMEHOW* landed safely from that height, as NASA claims.

*: Somehows are things which don't really make sense in reality because I don't understand them fully.


~D-Draw

Well, think about a large missile right? They can travel long distances, much farther than either theories edge of the atmosphere. Many of them work by actually traveling at a high arc already.

So... just think of the space shuttle as having two gigantic missile engines on it (minus the warheads on the end ) that it detaches from once it gets to a certain altitude.

As far as the space station magically hanging in the air. I won't argue that point because I have seen it argued here many times before and I realize I won't change your mind about that because orbit requires a round earth model with rotation to work.

That aside, the space shuttle is like any other man-made or natural artifact coming through the atmosphere. Part of it DOES burn up. That's why they are so cautious about the tiles because they are there for re-entry into our atmosphere. When everything gets super hot, the layers of tiles take the brunt of the heat and in case of a harsh re-entry can even break away under extremes and the next layer starts getting hot until they finally slow down enough to cease "friction-burn" (insert preferable phrasing there).

Then, since the shuttle is still intact and has plenty of time to cool off in our regular atmosphere as it descends, it's just a matter of a good pilot and the aircraft landing where they should.


Really, other than the conflicting earth theories - The flight, exit, re-entry, and landing is not all that outlandish if you think about it. We've attained the composites and technology at this point in the game to push said object plenty high enough, and resist temperatures plenty high enough. That's about it I think.

My 2 cents is all.

C-me!
John

Spare me. I understand it perfectly fine.


On a completely unrelated note, look up satire.


~D-Draw

Satire: See my previous post.

Sorry, but hey... fair is fair. I know ur smarter'n 'dat.

lol

Consider this possibility.

The shuttle actually never (or just barely) reaches outer space before plummeting back down hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away from the launch site, somewhere over the ocean.  It's not seen because it's in some area that is deep in the middle of nothing, and the conspiracy jams any imaging that might be gotten of the area at the time of the drop, probably replacing the images received with nondescript images of the empty ocean.

That's just a hypothetical, of course, but the point is that I'm sure the conspiracy has this covered.  Otherwise the truth would have been let out, right?  As you can see, though, it wouldn't necessarily be that difficult.

Consider this possibility.

The shuttle actually never (or just barely) reaches outer space before plummeting back down hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away from the launch site, somewhere over the ocean.  It's not seen because it's in some area that is deep in the middle of nothing, and the conspiracy jams any imaging that might be gotten of the area at the time of the drop, probably replacing the images received with nondescript images of the empty ocean.

That's just a hypothetical, of course, but the point is that I'm sure the conspiracy has this covered.  Otherwise the truth would have been let out, right?  As you can see, though, it wouldn't necessarily be that difficult.

Ok, I will grant you that - but there are lots of people (including myself) who are amateur astronomers - or heck, just people that happen to have nice telescopes that really do watch the launches ... (I wish I could get the chance to see one in person!)
So my only problem with that theory is that it would be awfully hard to pull the wool over the several hundred (being generously low here) people's eyes that literally "watched" that happen.

If telescopes and other viewing methods weren't readily available to the average consumer I would say that theory would be a solid conspiracy since the naked eye really can't tell where the shuttle is after a certain point. And of course - I am sure there are other things that I'm not thinking of that could explain away the direct observation of others as well, I'm just not thinking of them right now... someone will most likely be able to point that out to me though!

Take care,
John

Is it really possible to continuously watch something moving that fast with a telescope, though?  I've read that satellites are hard to catch because of their size and speed relative to the viewing area.  Surely the same would apply to a space shuttle rocketing into space?

Well that is a very good point, however the difference here is that the shuttle is on a set tangent that is readily observable while it exits our atmosphere. What I mean by that is once they have reached the edge of the atmosphere... or thereabouts, I can't say the exact altitude, I'd have to look it up, they begin to plane out to start into an orbital plane or tangent. At that point (depending on what your vantage point is) The shuttle would be going in one constant direction either to or from you and would be relatively easy to track.

Once it is in orbit though, it would be just like any other satellite - once you lost sight of it, the next time it 'came around' so to speak - it would be difficult to keep in a standard telescope as it is traveling at orbital velocity. Even the Moon will move quite rapidly across some telescopes. All depends on the power of the telescope, and whether or not it's manual.

Kind of like being on the 2nd turn of a race track... it's easy enough to watch the cars take off and get up to speed... make it around the first corner... then *zip zip zip zip!!!* they're going by so fast it's much harder to track them until they get some distance again. Same thing with watching something overhead... the more directly overhead it is, the faster it seems to be going and harder to track. As it gains some distance from you it seems to slow down and is easier to track until it disappears.

That's just the way I break it down in my mind anyway.

Take care,
John

On a personal note, as far as the shuttle is concerned: I am a HAM radio operator and have been since the 80's. I was fortunate enough to make contact with the shuttle once and have a QSL card from them! It was on 2m FM Voice transmission and it was pretty darn cool when I got that card in the mail some weeks later!

So there is another conundrum as far as NASA's involvement in the conspiracy... somehow they have to cover the (correction:) earth and have radio operators in timed sequence on every flight. It has been a tradition for HAM radio operators to talk with the shuttle crew on various frequencies as they fly over. One of the main ones is 2m FM Voice, they also have someone doing code (Morse code / CQ) and some form of voice transmissions on the lower frequencies as well. Not sure if it's 10 or 15 meters.

So, there's 3 simultaneous frequencies to cover, 24 hours a day, in sequence, around whatever set path works according to the flat earth model that several people around the world during every shuttle mission end up with QSL cards, having talked with someone that sounds just like the astronauts on board the shuttle.

I got mine from Owen Garriott, W5LFL - space shuttle Columbia (SK) in Dec, 1983.

The shuttle, the ISS and many other orbiting satellites can be seen with the naked eye if the circumstances allow(clear sky, early morning hours before the sun is up etc) These objects can also be easily seen with even a cheap telescope if one knows which way to point it. Obviously every single telescope you can buy in a hobby shop is "somehow" tricked out by NASA before they sell them to the public.

Doesn't seem too far-fetched to me to make a rocket ship... I mean, you can build a model rocket for $10 that goes up 1500 feet, and if you strap a few more engines on and make it a classy job you can easily get it up 10,000, sometimes 15,000 feet. With NASA's budget, you could easily go to the moon and such.

Further: The Moon-Landing-Fake people (who don't say that space travel isn't real) have some good points to make about the actual pictures and all. From what I've seen, no one has made any points about the photos from space to doubt their sincerity, just said that they COULD be fake. It'd make your argument stronger if you could point to things in the picture and say "Here. That proves its fake".

Further than that: Space race. the USSR and US were mortal enemies during the cold war, and competed through the space race. As the US/USSR periodically lagged behind the other, wouldn't it be beneficial to expose the conspiracy, prove the other a fake, and drop their morale? I think it would have slipped out.

[The shuttle, the ISS and many other orbiting satellites can be seen with the naked eye if the circumstances allow(clear sky, early morning hours before the sun is up etc) These objects can also be easily seen with even a cheap telescope if one knows which way to point it. ]

Agreed, however I think the question also implied the wish to be able to identify the object itself to confirm the object in question. If that was the case - you would need a good quality telescope or "gazing binoculars" (those things are getting NICE these days.) For instance, it's one thing to look up at the night sky and see a particular shiny dot moving across the sky and say "hey look! it's the ISS!" - but unless the person you're sharing the moment with knows and believes the same information you have regarding where and when the ISS should be appearing, and it correlates with this shiny dot, then what does that prove if you can't at least make out a general shape?

I'm making a mountain out of a mole-hill obviously, but I think that was my original point of intent.

Take 'er easy!
John

So does the Flat Earth Society believe that no space shuttles have never been in orbit around the earth?

Traditional orbit is not possible.