Cape Kennedy

What do you say to the millions of people who have watched the launches from Cape Kennedy...the rockets that they saw, where did they go, if you can't have orbit with an FE and they didn't go to the moon, where did they go.  The Astronauts were gone for the duration of the mission, where did they go? If they could launch the rocket in the first place which they obviously could since there are at least a million eye-witnesses, why wouldn't they be able to land on the moon. Also the first launch was Cold War times, you think the Russians wouldn't have said something if the shuttle had remained in the atmosphere, just flying around, shit, do you know how much fuel it would have used...

So here's the choice, either there are a million Americans who lied about watching a launch, not to mention lied about people dieing in a launch(Challenger), or they really went to space.

Choose one. Can't have both.

How do you know the rockets went into orbit after being launched?

How do you know the rockets went into orbit after being launched?

"Uh, they just floated around up in the atmosphere, er, atmoflat until the published mission was over?"

Instead of asking an idiotic question to a plethora of intelligent questions filled with logic, go answer my questions that don't use even slightest amount of science or logic, just pure unbiased observation.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24470.msg532330#msg532330

Only one has tried as of yet, and all he could come up with was hokus-pokus Bendy Light BS.

As they say, "let's rock", I'm up for it.

How do you know the rockets went into orbit after being launched?

Nowhere else to go? Why, if you had the capability to launch a shuttle with all the equipment to land on the moon would you not land on the moon?

Did you see astronauts boarding the shuttle personally? NASA just self destructs the shuttle at a certain altitude and releases foggy chemicals to cover up the debris. Then NASA flys a fake shuttle in from a remote airbase. (US has 200 military bases for a reason)

So you have conceded the point that NASA can launch spacecraft, I would like to hear Mr. Bishop's opinion on this matter.  Seeing as he seems to have a problem with "sending 100 tonnes straight up at 7 miles a second".

NASA can launch rockets, not spacecraft. The rockets do not reach sustained spaceflight, or spaceflight for that matter as NASA has nothing to gain by doing so.

NASA can launch rockets, not spacecraft. The rockets do not reach sustained spaceflight, or spaceflight for that matter as NASA has nothing to gain by doing so.

Where do the astronauts go when they walk into the shuttle?

They don't board the shuttle. The shuttle is a dummy. The boarding is taped in NASA studios or the rockets have escape hatches somewhere. NASA might also kill the astronauts off. Remember Challenger and Columbia and the failed Apollo missions?

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 27, 2008, 06:44:00 PM

How do you know the rockets went into orbit after being launched?

"Uh, they just floated around up in the atmosphere, er, atmoflat until the published mission was over?"

Instead of asking an idiotic question to a plethora of intelligent questions filled with logic, go answer my questions that don't use even slightest amount of science or logic, just pure unbiased observation.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24470.msg532330#msg532330

Only one has tried as of yet, and all he could come up with was hokus-pokus Bendy Light BS.

As they say, "let's rock", I'm up for it.

So you have no answer, and resort to insulting my intelligence. Have you ever thought to question whether your beliefs are actually valid, or are you just arrogantly assuming that you know all the answers?

So you have no answer, and resort to insulting my intelligence. Have you ever thought to question whether your beliefs are actually valid, or are you just arrogantly assuming that you know all the answers?

I answered you.

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 27, 2008, 08:25:28 PM

So you have no answer, and resort to insulting my intelligence. Have you ever thought to question whether your beliefs are actually valid, or are you just arrogantly assuming that you know all the answers?

I answered you.

Why would they have nowhere else to go? You only know they go up, you can't know when or where they come back down. If it isn't possible to get to the moon, that would be a very good reason not to go.

Quote from: HIPPO on October 27, 2008, 08:30:37 PM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 27, 2008, 08:25:28 PM

So you have no answer, and resort to insulting my intelligence. Have you ever thought to question whether your beliefs are actually valid, or are you just arrogantly assuming that you know all the answers?

I answered you.

Why would they have nowhere else to go? You only know they go up, you can't know when or where they come back down. If it isn't possible to get to the moon, that would be a very good reason not to go.

So they launch, fly around a bit then land in some remote location? Then they re-stand the shuttle, fuel up with volatile fuel that they somehow transported to said remote location, re-launch in remote location where no one sees the multitude of smoke produced by the reaction, fly above the cloud cover again, and then land? Anyways, what you're proposing is that they can launch a shuttle (twice!), which Mr. Tom Bishop says is pure science fiction, but they cannot leave the "atmoflat" and get to the moon?  It's preposterous.

So they launch, fly around a bit then land in some remote location? Then they re-stand the shuttle, fuel up with volatile fuel that they somehow transported to said remote location, re-launch in remote location where no one sees the multitude of smoke produced by the reaction, fly above the cloud cover again, and then land? Anyways, what you're proposing is that they can launch a shuttle (twice!), which Mr. Tom Bishop says is pure science fiction, but they cannot leave the "atmoflat" and get to the moon?  It's preposterous.

It requires less fuel to launch twice than it does to accelerate away from the Earth long enough to reach the Moon.

Prove it?  Oh, no wait...

As soon as you're out of atmosphere your fuel consumption goes down to almost nothing, and you ever notice that they drop a huge part of the shuttle off after launch, you know what that carried? Fuel.  Because the initial take off takes almost more fuel than the rest of the trip combined.

So, um, don't make jackshit claims.

Do you have proof that there is actually fuel in the "tanks"?

Stay out of my thread troll.

Stay out of my thread troll.

Oh, this guys a piece of work, HIPPO. He tried to convince me, an Extra Class Amateur Radio operator, that he talks to Europe by using the Flat Earth route rather than the Great Circle route.

What a dweeb.

Quote from: PalomarJack on October 27, 2008, 07:07:37 PM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 27, 2008, 06:44:00 PM

How do you know the rockets went into orbit after being launched?

"Uh, they just floated around up in the atmosphere, er, atmoflat until the published mission was over?"

Instead of asking an idiotic question to a plethora of intelligent questions filled with logic, go answer my questions that don't use even slightest amount of science or logic, just pure unbiased observation.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24470.msg532330#msg532330

Only one has tried as of yet, and all he could come up with was hokus-pokus Bendy Light BS.

As they say, "let's rock", I'm up for it.

So you have no answer, and resort to insulting my intelligence. Have you ever thought to question whether your beliefs are actually valid, or are you just arrogantly assuming that you know all the answers?

It's not about beliefs, there Johnson. It's about observation. I see a curved horizon outside of my aircraft and you tell me it's not. If I don't aim my antenna using the Great Circle route, I don't talk to Europe. It's like this, don't piss in my Wheaties and tell me it's raining.

Who's insulting who's intelligence, here?

Prove it?  Oh, no wait...

As soon as you're out of atmosphere your fuel consumption goes down to almost nothing, and you ever notice that they drop a huge part of the shuttle off after launch, you know what that carried? Fuel.  Because the initial take off takes almost more fuel than the rest of the trip combined.

So, um, don't make jackshit claims.

Don't apply your RE propaganda to FET and then talk to me like I'm the idiot. You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.

Did you see astronauts boarding the shuttle personally? NASA just self destructs the shuttle at a certain altitude and releases foggy chemicals to cover up the debris. Then NASA flys a fake shuttle in from a remote airbase. (US has 200 military bases for a reason)

How much money do you think the US government has? Destroy a shuttle at every launch? Then, launch a new one from an "undisclosed" location to fake a landing? Millions of transmitting towers to fool SATV dish owners? Thousands of helicopters patrolling the ice wall? Even if they totally disbanded all the social programs which consume 70 to 80% of the budget, it wouldn't even come close to covering such a charade. And I haven't included the HUGE amount of money needed to bribe millions of people.

And it's all so the government can get more money?

Where do I go with this? There's no logic here, whatsoever.

Quote from: HIPPO on October 27, 2008, 09:45:04 PM

Prove it?  Oh, no wait...

As soon as you're out of atmosphere your fuel consumption goes down to almost nothing, and you ever notice that they drop a huge part of the shuttle off after launch, you know what that carried? Fuel.  Because the initial take off takes almost more fuel than the rest of the trip combined.

So, um, don't make jackshit claims.

Don't apply your RE propaganda to FET and then talk to me like I'm the idiot. You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.

You're begging the question, it's a logical fallacy.  You can't use parts of your theory to prove your theory, that's like saying "The bible is true because it says it is" Or a simpler version  "I am always right because I am always right".  You're wrong, your whole theory is based on circular logic.

You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.

Hey! We have a winner here! He finally gets it.

You're begging the question, it's a logical fallacy.  You can't use parts of your theory to prove your theory, that's like saying "The bible is true because it says it is" Or a simpler version  "I am always right because I am always right".  You're wrong, your whole theory is based on circular logic.

I'm sorry, was that supposed to be a coherent statement? I'm not trying to prove FET, I'm refuting your supposed proof of RET by telling you the FE version of events. I think you need to learn the difference between explaining how a theory works and trying to prove that it is correct.

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 27, 2008, 10:29:52 PM

You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.

Hey! We have a winner here! He finally gets it.

If you aren't going to debate properly, go away. I've been here for months now, I sure do "get" how FET works, probably a lot better than you do.

Quote from: PalomarJack on October 27, 2008, 10:37:33 PM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 27, 2008, 10:29:52 PM

You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.

Hey! We have a winner here! He finally gets it.

If you aren't going to debate properly, go away. I've been here for months now, I sure do "get" how FET works, probably a lot better than you do.

Now your only problem is, "To make it work". A spherical Earth already does and doesn't require a bunch of double-talk, hokus-pokus and conspiracies. It's elegant in it's simplicity.

And I could really give a rats ass how long you've been here, do you understand me?

Now, when are you going to hop on over to my thread and debate me?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24470.msg532330#msg532330

Did you already look and find my evidence irrefutable? Is it uncomfortable to know you're wrong? Too bad, I like making pretentious people uncomfortable, I thrive on it. I find it, dare I say, "stimulating".

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 27, 2008, 10:39:39 PM

Quote from: PalomarJack on October 27, 2008, 10:37:33 PM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 27, 2008, 10:29:52 PM

You can't orbit anything in FET, which means to stay in space you need constant propulsion to stop falling back to Earth.

Hey! We have a winner here! He finally gets it.

If you aren't going to debate properly, go away. I've been here for months now, I sure do "get" how FET works, probably a lot better than you do.

Now your only problem is, "To make it work". A spherical Earth already does and doesn't require a bunch double-talk, hokus-pokus and conspiracies. It's elegant in it's simplicity.

And I could really give a rats ass how long you've been here, do you understand me?

Now, when are you going to hop on over to my thread and debate me?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24470.msg532330#msg532330

Did you already look and find my evidence irrefutable? Is it uncomfortable to know you're wrong? Too bad, I like making pretentious people uncomfortable, I thrive on it. I find it, dare I say, "stimulating".

Stop being so condescending, and maybe I will refute your points. I don't like to debate with people who attack me without good reason, not that what you are doing could be described as "debate" in any case.

I don't like to debate with people who attack me without good reason, not that what you are doing could be described as "debate" in any case.

Oh, I didn't know. You're never condescending, are you? So, telling me that when I see an obviously curved horizon out of the window of my airplane that I don't, or, that I'm not using a Great Circle route to talk to another ham in Europe when I know for a fact I am is not condescending?

Just using those two points alone it escapes me how anybody could believe the earth is flat. It doesn't take rocket science to check them out. Just a set of seeing, open eyes.

You want debate? Then debate me on my thread, debate my observations, tell me how they're wrong. They don't require a trip to the moon, a PHD in Physics or taking somebodies word for it. They require, as I said a set of seeing, open eyes.

By the way, we do agree 100% concerning Barack Hussein Obama. At least that's something, isn't it?

By the way, we do agree 100% concerning Barack Hussein Obama. At least that's something, isn't it?

No we don't. My sig was sig'd for stupidity, not truth.

Quote from: PalomarJack on October 27, 2008, 11:29:18 PM

By the way, we do agree 100% concerning Barack Hussein Obama. At least that's something, isn't it?

No we don't. My sig was sig'd for stupidity, not truth.

That would explain some things, your whole charade here is for stupidity instead of truth, too, no doubt. So, it's like I thought, a big fat shit stirring mess to see if you can get people to bicker at each other. Quaint.

I guess the cat's out o' the bag, huh?

Hasta...