Space Travel

so here is a simple question, if I go to the mcdonald observatory in west texas, and look at the face of the moon, why can I see the remnants of "space" craft?

It's physically impossible for sustained space travel. If you're going to claim otherwise, I'd think the burden of proof is on you.

No it isn't. There are vast quantities of hard evidence that space travel is possible. When I say space travel is possible, I base my statement on that evidence. When you say it's not possible, it's up to you to prove that the existing evidence is not valid. Otherwise you're doing nothing more than bleating feeble phrases.

since its only 3000miles away I should be able to see the footprints right?

You cannot see space craft or footprints. What they claim is that they can bounce laser light off reflectors on the moon. We've already discussed the observatory's financial ties to the bogeyman.

No it isn't. There are vast quantities of hard evidence that space travel is possible. When I say space travel is possible, I base my statement on that evidence. When you say it's not possible, it's up to you to prove that the existing evidence is not valid. Otherwise you're doing nothing more than bleating feeble phrases.

I already said space travel was possible.

Quote from: MadDogX on June 27, 2008, 08:26:19 AM

No it isn't. There are vast quantities of hard evidence that space travel is possible. When I say space travel is possible, I base my statement on that evidence. When you say it's not possible, it's up to you to prove that the existing evidence is not valid. Otherwise you're doing nothing more than bleating feeble phrases.

I already said space travel was possible.

Semantics. What I mean is, there is an abundant amount of evidence proving that sustained space travel and even manned and unmanned flights to other celestial bodies in the solar system have taken place. If you claim that this is not the case, it's up to you to prove that all the evidence has been faked. Good luck with that.

I proved means, motive and opportunity. Sustained space flight violates physics. Good luck with that.

I proved means, motive and opportunity. Sustained space flight violates physics. Good luck with that.

Then you have still proved nothing, other than the fact that your attempts discussion are nothing but polemic. Not to mention that most of your argumentation and logic is based on fallacies.

I guess I should have read this forum more thouroughly before I registered to begin discussing. Judging by the arguments made by FE'ers, the flat Earth theory seems to be absolutely baseless - possibly even a weak attempt at baiting others into heated discussions. I see no more reason to participate here.

It's physically impossible for sustained space travel. If you're going to claim otherwise, I'd think the burden of proof is on you.

I proved means, motive and opportunity. Sustained space flight violates physics. Good luck with that.

Unsubstantiated claims requiring proof highlighted in red.

since its only 3000miles away I should be able to see the footprints right?

This post is a joke, right? If it were 3000 miles away, the Flat Earthers would be right and there would be no footprints. If there are footprints on it, the Round Earthers would be right and it would be a lot further away, so you wouldn't be able to see them.

I guess I should have read this forum more thouroughly before I registered to begin discussing. Judging by the arguments made by FE'ers, the flat Earth theory seems to be absolutely baseless - possibly even a weak attempt at baiting others into heated discussions. I see no more reason to participate here.

I'm certainly not advocating this behavior, nor implying that its actually happening, but if it were, it would seem that the "baiting" of others into "heated discussions" is far from weak given the frequency and vociferousness of the REers' personal attacks and descents into meaningless hyperbole when trying to make a point.  It's too bad you're leaving though, every time you post, I get a craving for a nice, frosty tallboy.  Malt liquor is a man's drink!

Quote from: Ski on June 27, 2008, 08:23:24 AM

It's physically impossible for sustained space travel. If you're going to claim otherwise, I'd think the burden of proof is on you.

Quote from: Ski on June 27, 2008, 08:33:44 AM

I proved means, motive and opportunity. Sustained space flight violates physics. Good luck with that.

Unsubstantiated claims requiring proof highlighted in red.

I'd love to see the physics enabling sustained space flight above the flat earth.

Quote from: deepdriller on June 27, 2008, 08:27:16 AM

since its only 3000miles away I should be able to see the footprints right?

This post is a joke, right? If it were 3000 miles away, the Flat Earthers would be right and there would be no footprints. If there are footprints on it, the Round Earthers would be right and it would be a lot further away, so you wouldn't be able to see them.

What my point was you can see the landing sites of the lunar expidetions with a telescope, I have done some reading and it is impossible to see the lunar lander or the footprints on the moon, but you can look at the topography, and compare it to that of the lunar expidetions and verify that there has indeed been space travel, and men on the moon. 

On another thought, what about satellite images for the weather services?  There has to be satellites for us to get those images of the weather systems moving around the GLOBE, right, or do we just have the tin foil hat army in their black helicopters travel to the moon since its only 3000miles away and take those pictures and then edit out the ice wall at the edges and stretch the picture into a roundish shape.  I guess thats a logical explanation.

On another thought, what about satellite images for the weather services?  There has to be satellites for us to get those images of the weather systems moving around the GLOBE, right, or do we just have the tin foil hat army in their black helicopters travel to the moon since its only 3000miles away and take those pictures and then edit out the ice wall at the edges and stretch the picture into a roundish shape.  I guess thats a logical explanation.

Not at all, it doesn't need to be anything so insidious as black helicopters.  Besides, with gas prices these days, I would imagine that black helicopters would be terribly inefficient.  Most weather tracking is done with a large network of terrestrial doppler radar sites.  In fact, in the midwestern US, access to one or more dedicated doppler radar sites is what local news channels use as the big selling point for their broadcast.  Apparently in tornado country, weather is serious business.

A small problem with the lack of  FE space travel is that it would cost a lot of money for NASA to keep faking it. Where people see NASA (or one of the other many agencies) launching a satellite, the group launching it is in reality not only paying for the materials and construction of the rocket, but also some kind of rapid recovery system to move the payload out of the way of the planet so it doesn't fall back to Earth, and an elaborate fleet of stratellites that will need plenty of maintenance and possibly fuel. Probes and observation satellites require mountains of fake images, possibly made to order in a matter of hours along with some kind of stratellite if the device is visible to average people (for example the HST). Each shuttle launch costs NASA twice the price, as the shuttle has to land somewhere and take off again for the return trip, if sustained space flight is impossible. And if it's carrying a satellite, then they'll have to put up a stratellite to represent it as well.

I really doubt the conspiracy is going to be making any money at all, you know.

Quote from: ghazwozza on June 27, 2008, 08:46:49 AM

Quote from: Ski on June 27, 2008, 08:23:24 AM

It's physically impossible for sustained space travel. If you're going to claim otherwise, I'd think the burden of proof is on you.

Quote from: Ski on June 27, 2008, 08:33:44 AM

I proved means, motive and opportunity. Sustained space flight violates physics. Good luck with that.

Unsubstantiated claims requiring proof highlighted in red.

I'd love to see the physics enabling sustained space flight above the flat earth.

Unsubstantiated assumptions highlighted in green.

Is this anything like the assumption that space flight is possible because there is a round earth?

Not at all, it doesn't need to be anything so insidious as black helicopters.  Besides, with gas prices these days, I would imagine that black helicopters would be terribly inefficient.

Helicopters tend to be quite inefficient in a vacuum anyway.

Is this anything like the assumption that space flight is possible because there is a round earth?

No, it's more like the assumption that space travel is possible becuase we have thousands of hours of footage from multiple sources, millions of photographs, independantly analysed moon rocks, mirrors on the moon, sightings of spacecraft from the ground, GPS, satellite phones, satellite telescopes, visible launchings and landings, satellite tracking websites etc. etc. etc.

In fact, I wouldn't so much call it an "assumption" as a "fact".

Right. Well, you certainly have a lot of assumptions based on that post there.

Right. Well, you certainly have a lot of assumptions based on that post there.

come on people, space flight will never be possible, this entire conversation is useless

FE hasn't yet created any better theories other than conspiracy and "suspicion", so until they do you're not going to get anything else out of them until they make up something that ties it together. But this will never happen so just accept it

Right. Well, you certainly have a lot of assumptions based on that post there.

Such as? The assumption that it's not all one huge enormous conspiracy that nobody among the world's thousands of brightest minds has ever spotted and that all the world's space agencies are working together to decieve their respective governments and intelligence agencies?

I'd say I'm justified in making that assumption, at least until proven otherwise.

Quote from: uglykidjoe on June 27, 2008, 08:05:55 AM

Is it really that hard to prove?

Yes, if refuse to believe that it ever happened.

Fixed that for you.

Quote from: Robosteve on June 27, 2008, 08:08:38 AM

Quote from: uglykidjoe on June 27, 2008, 08:05:55 AM

Is it really that hard to prove?

Yes, if refuse to believe that it ever happened.

Fixed that for you.

How sweet.