don't understand the conspiracy logic

Tom has never stated anything like this. 

Not exactly, but the only reason he's using the analogy is to try and downplay the intelligence of ancient greeks. And I must say that is utterly stupid, since discovering that the earth is round when it appears flat is quite the testament to the math and science these people were capable of so long ago.

He's making a mockery of ancient greeks, just like I am making a mockery of him.

 

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 30, 2008, 02:39:46 PM

Tom has never stated anything like this. 

Not exactly, but the only reason he's using the analogy is to try and downplay the intelligence of ancient greeks. And I must say that is utterly stupid, since discovering that the earth is round when it appears flat is quite the testament to the math and science these people were capable of so long ago.

He's making a mockery of ancient greeks, just like I am making a mockery of him.

 

Well, fair enough I guess.  But it remains a fact that the ancient Greeks were not infallible, and were in fact very wrong about a variety of things, and I'm sure that's what Tom was trying to get across.

No they didn't such as Soviet union or China.

The Soviets were working with NASA from the start. They had a number of joint operations together.

And we already know that China is also faking their space program: http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html

And we already know that China is also faking their space program: http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html

Wow, another new conspiracy theory? Who would have guessed?

It is far more unlikely that a conspiracy theory wouldn't have popped up then then this happening, I am not surprised.

Here is a website that debunks some of the conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo you linked to:

http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1531

So you might want to rephrase what you said. You don't know that China is faking their space program, it just has to be that way in order for FE to continue....

Here is a website that debunks some of the conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo you linked to:

http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1531

I don't see where anything was debunked.

So you might want to rephrase what you said. You don't know that China is faking their space program, it just has to be that way in order for FE to continue....

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080925/ap_on_re_as/as_china_space_article_1

China also released "on accident" full story coverage of rocket launch before the rocket ever left the ground, including full dialogue between three astronauts.

That link you posted doesn't work, it just says page not found.

That link you posted doesn't work, it just says page not found.

It used to work. Hara Taiki originally posted it here. Yahoo must have decided to participate in a media blackout on the subject. Here's another one with the same article:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/25/asia/AS-China-Space-Article.php

i also think at least the chinese space walk is faked (after viewing some of the published videos)

but the chinese videos were compared to nasa footage to determine whether they were faked or not. it's interesting to see that fe'ers put the chinese fake forward to prove a conspiracy. that reasoning only works if you assume that the nasa footage is not faked cause otherwise there's no evidence for a fake by china.

just saying they can't because the earth is flat would be easier.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 30, 2008, 02:39:46 PM

Tom has never stated anything like this.  Really, are straw men the only thing you guys are capable of?

Yes he did. Holy freaking moses man, learn to read before you post. Tom dismissed Greeks discovery of a round earth because they (or maybe just Aristotle) also had some funny ideas about where flys came from. He's done this before.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25761.msg575683#msg575683

Read that. Understand it? Good. Now stand in a bucket of your own urine and think about what you've done.

And also show me proof that epilepsy is not a curse from the gods

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 30, 2008, 02:39:46 PM

Tom has never stated anything like this.  Really, are straw men the only thing you guys are capable of?

Yes he did. Holy freaking moses man, learn to read before you post. Tom dismissed Greeks discovery of a round earth because they (or maybe just Aristotle) also had some funny ideas about where flys came from. He's done this before.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25761.msg575683#msg575683

Read that. Understand it? Good. Now stand in a bucket of your own urine and think about what you've done.

I read the quote and I still fail to see where Tom said that since the ancient Greeks were wrong about flies generating spontaneously from rotting meat they were wrong about everything.  Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension a bit; that statement was absolutely a straw man. 

At least Roundy is honest enough to admit that Tom's statement is a straw man.

hahahaha

Pure gold goldstein, pure gold.

At least Roundy is honest enough to admit that Tom's statement is a straw man.

I was saying that avs's statement was a straw man, not Tom's.

ok to say we sink money into NASA to keep up this charade of having weapons in space is pretty weak.  we already have weapons that could destroy countries, and they come from airplanes, warships and bunkers.  so why continue to throw money away on NASA when they no longer need people to believe we have satellites with weapons on them that could destroy enemies.  so instead of sinking billions of dollars in the production of "cardboard boxes" why don't the politicians on capitol hill keep that money for themselves instead of giving it to the top dogs at NASA?  i guess politicians dont want that money...yea right.

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2008, 09:09:19 AM

At least Roundy is honest enough to admit that Tom's statement is a straw man.

I was saying that avs's statement was a straw man, not Tom's.

Then you didn't recognize Tom's straw man?    Tsk, tsk.  It's kind of funny how you can recognize RE straw men, but be oblivious to FE straw men.

ok to say we sink money into NASA to keep up this charade of having weapons in space is pretty weak.  we already have weapons that could destroy countries, and they come from airplanes, warships and bunkers.

All of that is traditional warfare. To destroy a country with traditional warfare costs uncountable lives and equipment. You know it and your enemy knows it. But when your country has ICBM's which can destroy any city on earth at the push of a button suddenly the cost of annihilating a country goes way down. You become invincible. No one would dare attack your cities. It's the ultimate military deterrent.

The entire purpose of NASA, whether legit or not, was to demonstrate to the world that America had ICBM technology. It worked. As an untouchable superpower America could get what it wanted and toss its power around for its own benefit. Over the last 50 years America's power and influence grew by leaps and bounds. It intimidated and bullied countries into signing policies and treaties which benefited American interest, and it was able to convince many foreign nations to throw away its gold and use the American dollar as their national reserve. Today developing countries are clambering over themselves to become American allies, submitting themselves to American will, doing whatever it takes to get into the inner circle.

Tom, you still don't get it.  ICBMs do not require the earth to be round.  If throwing a football works on a flat earth and firing an artillery shell works on a flat earth then launching an ICBM will work on a flat earth.  They all use the same basic concept of a ballistic trajectory.

Quote from: Bob28 on December 31, 2008, 02:24:23 PM

ok to say we sink money into NASA to keep up this charade of having weapons in space is pretty weak.  we already have weapons that could destroy countries, and they come from airplanes, warships and bunkers.

All of that is traditional warfare. To destroy a country with traditional warfare costs uncountable lives and equipment. You know it and your enemy knows it. But when your country has ICBM's which can destroy any city on earth at the push of a button suddenly the cost of annihilating a country goes way down. You become invincible. No one would dare attack your cities. It's the ultimate military deterrent.

The entire purpose of NASA, whether legit or not, was to demonstrate to the world that America had ICBM technology. It worked. As an untouchable superpower America could get what it wanted and toss its power around for its own benefit. Over the last 50 years America's power and influence grew by leaps and bounds. It intimidated and bullied countries into signing policies and treaties which benefited American interest, and it was able to convince many foreign nations to throw away its gold and use the American dollar as their national reserve. Today developing countries are clambering over themselves to become American allies, submitting themselves to American will, doing whatever it takes to get into the inner circle.

well for one if fear of ICBMs deters someone from attacking our cities then 9/11 blows that argument out of the water.  my point is we have weapons here on earth that would destroy a city, remember Hiroshima?  they are gonna fear that weapon whether its coming from a satellite or from a bomber.  so my question is why are the politicians, who are known to money hungry pigs, throwing away billions of dollars to the NASA top officials to keep up this charade?  they wouldn't, they would disband NASA in a heartbeat if it was really a coverup agency and it meant they could spend billions on something that would benefit them. 

Tom, you still don't get it.  ICBMs do not require the earth to be round.  If throwing a football works on a flat earth and firing an artillery shell works on a flat earth then launching an ICBM will work on a flat earth.  They all use the same basic concept of a ballistic trajectory.

Wrong. Long range ICBM's are a space weapon which require the earth's orbit to exist.

Oh Good God.

Do a Google search for ICBM + Orbit

The Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo missions were 98% identical to an ICBM. It's no secret that NASA was just a face for the military's ICBM research. That's the entire reason NASA was established.

Tom...you never answered my question, why would politicians who always want more money, be throwing away billions to NASA top officials to continue this coverup of weapons in space when everyone in the world knows we have those same weapons on the ground that can be fired from an airplane, warship or bunker?  people dont fear weapons because of where they are launched from, they fear the weapon.  so again i ask, why sink money into NASA to keep up this "lie" that we have weapons in space when everyone knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have those weapons on the ground?

Tom...you never answered my question, why would politicians who always want more money, be throwing away billions to NASA top officials to continue this coverup of weapons in space when everyone in the world knows we have those same weapons on the ground that can be fired from an airplane, warship or bunker?  people dont fear weapons because of where they are launched from, they fear the weapon.  so again i ask, why sink money into NASA to keep up this "lie" that we have weapons in space when everyone knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have those weapons on the ground?

Airplanes, warships, and bunkers can be defended against with traditional military. At present, space weapons cannot be defended against.   

What does that have to do with the earths orbit?

Everything.

Quote from: goldstein on January 01, 2009, 10:14:02 AM

What does that have to do with the earths orbit?

Everything.

An ICBM enters low earth orbit to reach its target which is very possible in the FE model so why would the U.S need to invent a "new" shape of the earth to make these things possible?

An ICBM enters low earth orbit to reach its target which is very possible in the FE model so why would the U.S need to invent a "new" shape of the earth to make these things possible?

No it's not. The FE doesn't have a "low earth orbit."

Nothing. The fact that the earth orbits the sun will have neglible effect on the path of an ICBM.

Come on Tom, think before posting.

"Low Earth Orbit," "High Earth Orbit," and "Earth Orbit" are all valid terms to describe the orbit of a body around the earth.

Quote from: Bob28 on January 01, 2009, 09:55:44 AM

Tom...you never answered my question, why would politicians who always want more money, be throwing away billions to NASA top officials to continue this coverup of weapons in space when everyone in the world knows we have those same weapons on the ground that can be fired from an airplane, warship or bunker?  people dont fear weapons because of where they are launched from, they fear the weapon.  so again i ask, why sink money into NASA to keep up this "lie" that we have weapons in space when everyone knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have those weapons on the ground?

Airplanes, warships, and bunkers can be defended against with traditional military. At present, space weapons cannot be defended against.   

youre wrong, they can defend against a rocket fired from space the exact same way they could shoot down an airplane or shoot down a rocket fired from a warship or bunker.  a surface to air missile doesn't care what it hits or where it originated from its going to blow it up.

youre wrong, they can defend against a rocket fired from space the exact same way they could shoot down an airplane or shoot down a rocket fired from a warship or bunker.  a surface to air missile doesn't care what it hits or where it originated from its going to blow it up.

ICBM's are moving several times faster than airplanes and surface rockets.

Quote

An ICBM enters low earth orbit to reach its target which is very possible in the FE model so why would the U.S need to invent a "new" shape of the earth to make these things possible?

No it's not. The FE doesn't have a "low earth orbit."

The altitude that we call low earth orbit on the RE is a very reachable altitude on the FE, and it goes that high because of the speed that the rocket reaches and it will generate less heat at the altitude because of less air resistance.

You said "earth's orbit". The orbit of a body around the earth has nothing to do with the orbit of the earth round the sun.

Grief Tom.

Again, "Low Earth Orbit," "High Earth Orbit," and "Earth Orbit" are all valid terms to describe the orbit of a body around the earth.

The altitude that we call low earth orbit on the RE is a very reachable altitude on the FE, and it goes that high because of the speed that the rocket reaches and it will generate less heat at the altitude because of less air resistance.

Achieving "low earth orbit" requires more than simply reaching a certain altitude. The earth needs to curve away downwards at a certain rate for orbit to be achieved.