I see no holes in the theory just theory.

You like to say its part of the conspiracy and throw your general excuses of sustain space flight is impossible. But where are the shuttles and rockets we launch going? Also why is it that i can point a telescope in the direction the space station is reported to be in and actually see it?

As for the tides...

If the tides are from the slight wobble of the earth then why do they correspond with the position of the moon? Since the moon and the sun are the same size and distance from the earth why doesn't the sun have this same effect on the tides?

I have to admit this is an interesting theory. And like most conspiracy theories you have developed it in such a way that any way of disproving or proving it is impossible based on the fundamental beliefs of the theory. If nothing else it makes for a fun item to argue about.

first of all welcome to the forum, i am rather new myself.

(But where are the shuttles and rockets we launch going?)

They're not. well i have no proof i highly suspect the whole rocket myth is a trick to take our money.

(Also why is it that i can point a telescope in the direction the space station is reported to be in and actually see it?)

You have actually without a doubt seen a space station through a telescope?

(If the tides are from the slight wobble of the earth then why do they correspond with the position of the moon?)

Source please.

(I have to admit this is an interesting theory.)

Undoubtedly true to.

(And like most conspiracy theories you have developed it in such a way that any way of disproving or proving it is impossible based on the fundamental beliefs of the theory.)

it cannot be dis-proven because it is true. no other reason period.

(If nothing else it makes for a fun item to argue about.)

Then argue away, i welcome it, im sure you will learn a great deal well you're here.

Well don't take my word for it on the space station. Check it out for yourself. I assume you have a nice telescope. Seams to be a much needed tool in helping to research and confirm your theories here. NASA use to have a tracker representing where the station was in its orbit around RE.
http://science.nasa.gov/temp/StationLoc.html

For whatever reason they are no longer supporting it but other organizations are.
http://heavens-above.com/

So next time the station is reported to be close to your location point your telescope to it and have a look for yourself.

As for rocket launches we have all seen them on TV and a great number of people have seen them in real life. A great number of people like to watch the shuttle rise up into the sky till it can't be seen anymore. So they have to be going somewhere.

As for tides.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/moontides/

Nobody can prove that the Earth is flat, because it's false. Nobody can prove that the Earth is round, because it's false. However, I can prove that I am right, because it's true.

Nobody can prove that the Earth is flat, because it's false. Nobody can prove that the Earth is round, because it's false. However, I can prove that I am right, because it's true.

...

"NASA" the main source of the RE conspiracy.

they are a large organization perfectly capable and willing to fake anything.

also seeing they have billions (a great deal funded through fake "space launches") i would highly suspect they bribed and/or threatened the viewers.

and as for TV that can be explained by CGI or any other technology means they possess

 but as for your other claim, i apologize but that is a long read and i am tired. I will answer it tomorrow.

also seeing they have billions (a great deal funded through fake "space launches") i would highly suspect they bribed and/or threatened the viewers.

Don't suspect, prove. Source please.

"NASA" the main source of the RE conspiracy.

they are a large organization perfectly capable and willing to fake anything.

Capable: possibly.

Willing: unverifiable, unless you can gain inside information.

ever wonder why we are given little bits of info and can never reach the actual idea to get beyond theory status?

people by nature love puzzles and mystery,  so if you wanted to say , fix the worlds social and economic  mysteries and were fed nothing but theory where would you wind up in your efforts if thats not what the people above you wanted?

T&R the earth is round enough for me, not perfectly round but then that s what makes it so interesting

question
how do you keep man from succeeding in his natural problem solving capacity?
answer
Feed him info that leads to nothing but more theory .

When hes inundated enough with theory , the absolute truth will be seen also as theory. Hence no man can do anything that those in control do not want him to do.

Don't suspect, prove. Source please.

Sigh. How can there be any proof when NASA would simply have anyone presenting the evidence killed?

NASA is already on shaky ground with the fake shuttle launches.

besides proof is not required when all logic points towards the fact that NASA is an organization built on pure LIES.

spiking the punch, give the truth with a side dish of lunacy and the truth will die a lonely death. anything can be fed to the masses , add some outrageousness and the majority will turn a deaf ear.

the trick is to find out the implanted  error and consistently remove it to paint a lucid and truthful picture.

Lets consider an exsperament for proof of FE or RE. This example may even give you something to refine how FE works.

Lets take a perfect day with absolutly no wind. Now we point a gun straight up relative to the earth and fire a round into the air. With absolutly no wind the bulet on a FE would travel strait up till it ran out of volosity and then the FE would catch up with it causing the bulet to land within a close proximity to the gun. On a RE that built would land several houndred yards to the west of the gun due to the RE rotation.

Now lets assume you cuduct this exsperament under as close to calm conditions as possible. On a FE even with a 5 MPH wind the bulet could be found fairly close to the gun and not due west. But what if you find that it reacts as you would expect from a RE. If that happened you would need to refine yout theory to prevent that from disproving FE.

So i prapose you revise the FE theory. It doesn't make sence that the son and moon are able to circle above the FE yet we are unable to get our own craft to do the same. Now if you where to claim that FE in fact rotates while the son and moon also rotate due to there slight gravitational atraction to the FE. This makes your fact of space travel being imposible more probable. Other wise how are the son, moon, stars and FE traveling up yet we are not able to get objects to do the same and maintain there position over the earth.

The thing i can't get past is how statalite TV works. If there are no satalites in space then why is a dish needed to point into the sky to receive teh TV signal? If that dish isn't pointed in the right dirrection then no signal is received. The further south you live the further you have to point the dish up in order to receive the signal. So if there are no satalites up there then where is the signal coming from?

Ahem.... "exsperament"? "several houndred"? "prapose"?

I generally agree with the points you are making, but please please please use a spelling checker. I hate to play the spelling nazi, but it's hard to concentrate on what you're trying to say when I'm constantly cringing over words like "statalite".

As i stated in another thread:

earthquakes gradually overtime cause very minor fluctuations (although still significant) in the earths acceleration of (1g, 9.8m/s^2). with a significant amount of water being favored to one side of the world the result would be the earth tilting even greater.

basically as the earth tilts the bullet will land at a further distance than from where the shot originated.

The thing i can't get past is how statalite TV works. If there are no satalites in space then why is a dish needed to point into the sky to receive teh TV signal? If that dish isn't pointed in the right dirrection then no signal is received. The further south you live the further you have to point the dish up in order to receive the signal. So if there are no satalites up there then where is the signal coming from?

The dish is not needed. its just another way for the greedy organizations like NASA to make money. for the rest read the FAQ its all in their.

Quote

The thing i can't get past is how statalite TV works. If there are no satalites in space then why is a dish needed to point into the sky to receive teh TV signal? If that dish isn't pointed in the right dirrection then no signal is received. The further south you live the further you have to point the dish up in order to receive the signal. So if there are no satalites up there then where is the signal coming from?

The dish is not needed. its just another way for the greedy organizations like NASA to make money. for the rest read the FAQ its all in their.

Interesting theory. But how do you explain the fact that pointing the dish at different coordinates in the sky also allows you to recieve different signals, while pointing the dish at nothing in particular gives you only static?

To set up 2 or 3 alts and then have them argue with themselves is quite an accomplishment... I reckon it's narc.

To set up 2 or 3 alts and then have them argue with themselves is quite an accomplishment... I reckon it's narc.

Just go along with it. I find it mildly entertaining.

Quote from: REmyth on September 16, 2008, 03:49:58 AM

Quote

The thing i can't get past is how statalite TV works. If there are no satalites in space then why is a dish needed to point into the sky to receive teh TV signal? If that dish isn't pointed in the right dirrection then no signal is received. The further south you live the further you have to point the dish up in order to receive the signal. So if there are no satalites up there then where is the signal coming from?

The dish is not needed. its just another way for the greedy organizations like NASA to make money. for the rest read the FAQ its all in their.

Interesting theory. But how do you explain the fact that pointing the dish at different coordinates in the sky also allows you to recieve different signals, while pointing the dish at nothing in particular gives you only static?

Inbuilt systems maybe? rigged to give certain results. I don't really know everything but thats what would make sense.

To set up 2 or 3 alts and then have them argue with themselves is quite an accomplishment... I reckon it's narc.

I don't understand, alts? narc?

Quote from: MadDogX on September 16, 2008, 03:52:45 AM

Quote from: REmyth on September 16, 2008, 03:49:58 AM

Quote

The thing i can't get past is how statalite TV works. If there are no satalites in space then why is a dish needed to point into the sky to receive teh TV signal? If that dish isn't pointed in the right dirrection then no signal is received. The further south you live the further you have to point the dish up in order to receive the signal. So if there are no satalites up there then where is the signal coming from?

The dish is not needed. its just another way for the greedy organizations like NASA to make money. for the rest read the FAQ its all in their.

Interesting theory. But how do you explain the fact that pointing the dish at different coordinates in the sky also allows you to recieve different signals, while pointing the dish at nothing in particular gives you only static?

Inbuilt systems maybe? rigged to give certain results. I don't really know everything but thats what would make sense.

No it wouldn't really. Considering that I can watch TV using only a sat dish, a reciever and my TV, and you claim that the sat dish is not needed, that would mean the reciever itself must somehow not only pick up the signals from somewhere else, but it must also know exactly what the sat dish is doing. Just because the reciever "thinks" the dish is pointing at certain coordinates, doesn't mean that it's actually the case. Not to forget that external factors can obstruct the signal - factors which are generally unknown to the reciever.

Also, new satellites are (allegedly) launched every now and then, so the reciever would need updates on their positions - otherwise they wouldn't be "usable". All in all, your theory does not make sense.

Well here is an amusing theory for you. Has anyone here heard of this one.

https://www.msu.edu/user/dynicrai/physics/dark.htm

I find it mildly entertaining. The only probelm with it is exsplaining how florecent bulbs and LEDs are able to suck up the amount of dark they can and stay cooler then conventinal bulbs. Also how is it an LED has the life and capacity to hold so much dark.

Now if the dark sucker theory is true wouldn't that that effect the way we perceive the FE's sun? Speaking of which... It seams to me that the FE sun would have to project a long rectangular beam of light. Otherwise a round beam of light would cast too much light, rather suck too much light , from the areas around it thus interfering with the way time zones work.

Sorry about the spelling. I'm at work right now and i'm blocked from installing iespell and hate having to copy and paste into MS word for a spell check. If i was at home Firefox would have me covered.

I'm gunna have to give this one to you mad dog, well played, but like i said, i wasn't too sure about this one.

Also, new satellites are (allegedly) launched every now and then

This is a myth. refer to the FAQ.

The FAQ is a myth.

I'm gunna have to give this one to you mad dog, well played, but like i said, i wasn't too sure about this one.

Quote

Also, new satellites are (allegedly) launched every now and then

This is a myth. refer to the FAQ.

Note the word "allegedly" in my sentence. An allegation is defined as a claim that is not necessarily proven - which is perfectly fitting in this context. Your claim that launches are a myth is lacking credibility though. The fact that launches take place is undeniable. Whether or not the launch vehicles actually contain a satellite and whether or not these satellites are capable of remaining in orbit remains to be discussed. For the sake of this discussion, I would say it hasn't been proven either way.

The FAQ is a myth.

No, the basis of the FAQ consists theories of some of the most intelligent people in history.

Its near flawless.

The fact that launches take place is undeniable.

sorry sir you are mistaken. they are fake. never happened.

Quote

The fact that launches take place is undeniable.

sorry sir you are mistaken. they are fake. never happened.

I've watched one. People see them all the time.

How do you intend to prove that NASA can fool people into seeing something that isn't there?

CGI and other related technology would explain the TV portion. Bribes and threats would explain eye witness.

OH and some people are full of shit and would it up.

CGI and other related technology would explain the TV portion. Bribes and threats would explain eye witness.

OH and some people are full of shit and would make it up.

Fixed that for you.

So I'm either in on the conspiracy, or have been bribed or threatened, or I'm full of shit.... some nice options there.

Quote from: Matrix on September 16, 2008, 03:52:55 AM

To set up 2 or 3 alts and then have them argue with themselves is quite an accomplishment... I reckon it's narc.

I don't understand, alts? narc?

LOL... say no more