CubeSat

  • 203 Replies
  • 26740 Views
*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #60 on: December 09, 2011, 09:51:39 PM »
No, orbit is impossible in FET, because orbit depends on gravity...

Already successfully debunked, thanks for playing.

Why must you be so lazy? Can you not read for longer than ten words without spouting a worthless knee-jerk "rebuttal"? Here is the rest of the quote, again:
Quote
The "orbit" of the sun and moon is an illusion caused by the way they move around above Flat Earth. They do this for unexplained reasons, which is fine because they are "mysteries".

A chunk of metal is not a "mystery".

Therefore, this chunk of metal disproves FET, unless it's a hoax
Your "debunking" was saying that some other, mysterious type of orbit does exist, therefore the existence of a working satellite does not pose a threat to FET.

But you're wrong because you can't play your "awe and mystery of the unknown" card when it comes to a manmade object that is built specifically on the assumption that gravitational orbit works, and that manmade object actually does work. You know full well this is a problem; that is why you have so far skirted the issue by claiming that satellites don't exist.

Furthermore, you won't be able to claim that space photos are fake if you can take your own now.

So, please explain CubeSat.


From the FAQ:

Quote
satellites cannot orbit the Earth.
Quote
satellites do not exist.

The FAQ is just a starting point, meant to acquaint you with the basics of the theory; as such, it can't present the full diversity of FE opinion.

Again, READ THE WHOLE POST. I am well aware of the cherry-picking relationship you have with your FAQ, but my post was directly in response to: "Who said orbit is impossible? It's certainly not in the FAQ". You said it wasn't in the FAQ. It was. The purpose of my post was to expose that falsehood. Nothing more.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #61 on: December 09, 2011, 09:53:51 PM »
I'm confused, so FE'ers admit that satellites do exist? Is that what I'm seeing?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #62 on: December 10, 2011, 04:34:39 AM »
Your "debunking" was saying that some other, mysterious type of orbit does exist, therefore the existence of a working satellite does not pose a threat to FET.

But you're wrong because you can't play your "awe and mystery of the unknown" card when it comes to a manmade object that is built specifically on the assumption that gravitational orbit works, and that manmade object actually does work. You know full well this is a problem; that is why you have so far skirted the issue by claiming that satellites don't exist.

It's certainly not the first time scientists have been accidentally right about something.  In fact aetheric eddification does seem to be tied into the gravity of the Earth somehow.  It's just not in the same way as RE scientists envision it, because they're viewing it from a RE perspective.

Quote
Furthermore, you won't be able to claim that space photos are fake if you can take your own now.

This is certainly true, and in fact one of the cornerstones of the current theory is that there is no Conspiracy, just misconceptions.  Please lurk moar.

Quote
So, please explain CubeSat.

Already done; read the thread again.


Quote
From the FAQ:

Quote
satellites cannot orbit the Earth.
Quote
satellites do not exist.

The FAQ is just a starting point, meant to acquaint you with the basics of the theory; as such, it can't present the full diversity of FE opinion.

Again, READ THE WHOLE POST. I am well aware of the cherry-picking relationship you have with your FAQ, but my post was directly in response to: "Who said orbit is impossible? It's certainly not in the FAQ". You said it wasn't in the FAQ. It was. The purpose of my post was to expose that falsehood. Nothing more.

One wonders if you are capable of comprehending even what you choose to post.  Neither of the quotes you provided from the FAQ states that orbit is impossible.  As you can see (one would certainly hope, anyway) my point stands firm.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 04:45:33 AM by Roundy the Truthinessist »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #63 on: December 10, 2011, 04:35:24 AM »
I'm confused, so FE'ers admit that satellites do exist? Is that what I'm seeing?

Hi, welcome to this thread.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: CubeSat
« Reply #64 on: December 10, 2011, 04:40:42 AM »
See the topic "Pseudolites" in "Flat Earth General".

You'll see that satellites are more or less accepted and pseudolites more or less rejected.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #65 on: December 10, 2011, 04:43:11 AM »
See the topic "Pseudolites" in "Flat Earth General".

You'll see that satellites are more or less accepted and pseudolites more or less rejected.

Yes, that is indeed the current thinking among many FEers.  Do you have anything to add to the discussion?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: CubeSat
« Reply #66 on: December 10, 2011, 04:44:19 AM »
And you?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: CubeSat
« Reply #67 on: December 10, 2011, 04:47:55 AM »
See the topic "Pseudolites" in "Flat Earth General".

You'll see that satellites are more or less accepted and pseudolites more or less rejected.

Yes, that is indeed the current thinking among many FEers.  Do you have anything to add to the discussion?
Well, thanks for clearing that up. I suspect that the FAQ needs an related update.

Now, can you point us to the FEers' explanation of how satellites, like the ISS, move across the FE? I seem to recall that FET needed magic pathways to keep the planets on course. Do satellites need magic pathways too?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: CubeSat
« Reply #68 on: December 10, 2011, 04:49:10 AM »
Satellites completely discredits FE.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: CubeSat
« Reply #69 on: December 10, 2011, 04:55:57 AM »
Satellites completely discredits FE.
I would have to agree, unless there are those magical pathways... I suspect that FEers need a lot more duct tape to hold together their theory now. Once you admit that satellites are real and orbit the Earth, then you have to explain the physics of how they orbit over an FE. I wonder how long this patching will take. I wonder if it'll be like the decision that biomass causes the monthly phases of the Moon. Maybe though, we'll see evidence and logic this time. (How could a body without an atmosphere have biomass that covers it in 14 days, starting with nothing!?)

I also suspect that Tom Bishop will rant that Roundy is wrong, or at least those Roundy claims are "currently thinking" are wrong.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: CubeSat
« Reply #70 on: December 10, 2011, 05:35:40 AM »
And they'll have to explain all the nice images of the RE.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #71 on: December 10, 2011, 05:36:55 AM »
I suspect that the FAQ needs an related update.
Yes.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #72 on: December 10, 2011, 12:27:42 PM »
Neither of the quotes you provided from the FAQ states that orbit is impossible.

Once again, you are pointlessly arguing semantics. You know perfectly well that both you and the person you were talking to were specifically discussing the orbit of satellites, and the FAQ clearly states that such orbit is not possible. It doesn't get any clearer than "satellites cannot orbit the Earth".


Quote
It's certainly not the first time scientists have been accidentally right about something.

Alright, let me get this straight: orbit above Earth that looks exactly like gravitational orbit does in fact occur, but it's a cosmic coincidence. Despite the fact that other bodies have gravity, the exact same behavior observed in Earth's skies is assumed to not be gravity, but something else for which you actually have no theory, and your only defense for this assumption is: "a theory has to start somewhere".

I don't think you understand how theories work. Given the facts, the most rational assumption is that Earth is a planet. You don't start with the assumption that Earth is for some reason a flat plane and then say that all the countless anomalies that are easily explained by the theory that Earth is a planet are all just mysteries that you have yet to solve.


Quote
Quote
Furthermore, you won't be able to claim that space photos are fake if you can take your own now.
This is certainly true, and in fact one of the cornerstones of the current theory is that there is no Conspiracy, just misconceptions.  Please lurk moar.

Oh really? That's the "current theory", is it? Then why is this thread from less than one month ago full of Flatters trying to deny the veracity of such photography?

"It's clearly another poorly made video from the Conspiracy (NASA, KFC). They do this all the time." --Tausami

"We don't deny that the ISS exists. We question whether it is truly in orbit around the earth. It may very well be that the ISS is in the upper atmosphere, buoyant through helium or some other means, and NASA warped the video to make the earth seem more curvy." --Tom Bishop

Or how about your own posts less than a day ago in this thread?
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 12:48:57 PM by zarg »
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #73 on: December 10, 2011, 12:52:31 PM »
[FE´r] NASA launched it, so it´s part of the c0nZp1rAz1!!!11!1!1!one [/FE´r]
Anyway, I posted a long time ago about the same kind of satellites ( I even mentioned the CubeSat, I think)

Answer: Ignored/Conspiracy Thread Derailing
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #74 on: December 10, 2011, 01:04:29 PM »
Just to clarify:

There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort.

There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA from the get-go: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was just a front.

See this quote from president Lyndon Johnson:

    "Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth's weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid. There is something more important than the ultimate weapon. And that's the ultimate position. The position of total control over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space." -President Lyndon Johnson, Statement on Status of Nation's Defense and Race for Space, January 7, 1958

One month later, Lyndon Johnson and the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics drafted a resolution to change the name of the US Army's Ballistic Missile Arsenal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NASA's early rocket research was a complete failure, plagued by one disaster after another. At some point they decided to fake the space program outright.

The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because NASA thinks it's round. They're not running a real space program, so they wouldn't know what shape the earth truly takes. At the time of NASA's creation everyone had believed that the earth was round, so that's how they displayed it. Like everyone else, the people at NASA themselves were brainwashed with the fiction of a globe earth from the cradle, so there was no doubt in their mind as how to display it.

NASA takes high altitude imagery from the edge of the atmosphere and adds curvature to the scene make it seem like the craft is higher than it is.

Apollo was completely fabricated. A globe earth was used in scenes because that's what everyone expected to see.

NASA used a globe to represent the earth because that's what everyone of the 50's and 60's expected to see, and what they themselves would expect to see, growing up under the illusions of a Round Earth.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 01:40:00 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: CubeSat
« Reply #75 on: December 10, 2011, 01:12:59 PM »
Just to clarify:

There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort.

There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA from the get-go: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space. "Exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was just a front.

See this quote from president Lyndon Johnson:

    "Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth's weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid. There is something more important than the ultimate weapon. And that's the ultimate position. The position of total control over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space." -President Lyndon Johnson, Statement on Status of Nation's Defense and Race for Space, January 7, 1958

One month later, LBJ and the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics drafted a resolution to change the name of the US Army's Ballistic Missile Arsenal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NASA's early rocket research was a complete failure, plagued by one disaster after another. At some point they decided to fake the space program outright.

The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because NASA thinks it's round. They're not running a real space program, so they wouldn't know what shape the earth truly takes. At the time of NASA's creation everyone had believed that the earth was round, so that's how they displayed it. Like everyone else, the people at NASA themselves were brainwashed with the fiction of a globe earth from the cradle, so there was no doubt in their mind as how to display it.

NASA takes high altitude imagery from the edge of space and adds curvature to the scene make it seem like the craft is higher than it is.

Apollo was completely fabricated. A globe earth was used in scenes because that's what everyone expected to see.

So if NASA knows that space travel is impossible and alone knows that we lack any real dominance in space, why did America get so worked up over China shooting down down one of its satellites if it knew it was a lie?
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #76 on: December 10, 2011, 01:25:56 PM »
So if NASA knows that space travel is impossible and alone knows that we lack any real dominance in space, why did America get so worked up over China shooting down down one of its satellites if it knew it was a lie?

Firstly, NASA may not know that space travel is impossible. They just know that it is extremely hard and beyond their abilities.

Secondly, American public got worked up over China's claims because they aren't in on it. Congress got worked up because they aren't in on it. NASA likely knows that China's space program is a hoax.

They aren't even doing it very well.

China's Space Walk Was FAKE


China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 2)


China even published dialogue between astronauts before the rocket had even left the ground.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 01:55:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41780
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #77 on: December 10, 2011, 01:58:44 PM »
Firstly, NASA may not know that space travel is impossible. They just know that it is extremely hard and beyond their abilities.

What evidence do you have that space travel is beyond the ability of NASA?  Several FE'ers contend that space travel is possible, so why wouldn't NASA be able to figure out how to do it after more than 50 years?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #78 on: December 10, 2011, 02:00:08 PM »
So if NASA knows that space travel is impossible and alone knows that we lack any real dominance in space, why did America get so worked up over China shooting down down one of its satellites if it knew it was a lie?

Firstly, NASA may not know that space travel is impossible. They just know that it is extremely hard and beyond their abilities.

Secondly, American public got worked up over China's claims because they aren't in on it. Congress got worked up because they aren't in on it. NASA likely knows that China's space program is a hoax.

They aren't even doing it very well.

China's Space Walk Was FAKE


China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_13631&src_vid=lBL98p0wZ7g&v=NVbBFwdmldA

China even published dialogue between astronauts before the rocket had even left the ground.

China'a Space Program =/= NASA, I don't really much care if the chinese did a real or fake space walk. As long as they don't start to ignore the UN and weaponize space, everything is peachy.

As far as NASA goes, your motives for the conspiracy are not convincing and the whole thing taken into consideration is just plain silly. You already admitted hundreds of astronauts would have to be lying along with NASA executives somehow modifying thousands of control networks "just enough" to make them believable. Its just too far fetched for anyone to take it seriously. Your NASA conspiracy will soon go the way of "ice wall guards" and die a sad, lonely death.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #79 on: December 10, 2011, 02:26:00 PM »
Firstly, NASA may not know that space travel is impossible. They just know that it is extremely hard and beyond their abilities.

What evidence do you have that space travel is beyond the ability of NASA?  Several FE'ers contend that space travel is possible, so why wouldn't NASA be able to figure out how to do it after more than 50 years?

If it was within their ability they wouldn't need to be faking their space program.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs
China'a Space Program =/= NASA, I don't really much care if the chinese did a real or fake space walk. As long as they don't start to ignore the UN and weaponize space, everything is peachy.

Funny how you RE'ers flip flop when shown evidence of China's space fakery. One moment China is running a real space program. The next moment it's "China isn't NASA" and "I don't care if the Chinese space program is real or not."

Quote from: Irushwithscvs
As far as NASA goes, your motives for the conspiracy are not convincing and the whole thing taken into consideration is just plain silly. You already admitted hundreds of astronauts would have to be lying along with NASA executives somehow modifying thousands of control networks "just enough" to make them believable. Its just too far fetched for anyone to take it seriously. Your NASA conspiracy will soon go the way of "ice wall guards" and die a sad, lonely death.

How can you make this argument when you just implicitly agreed that China involved hundreds of people in its hoax?
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 02:30:22 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #80 on: December 10, 2011, 02:31:27 PM »
Firstly, NASA may not know that space travel is impossible. They just know that it is extremely hard and beyond their abilities.

What evidence do you have that space travel is beyond the ability of NASA?  Several FE'ers contend that space travel is possible, so why wouldn't NASA be able to figure out how to do it after more than 50 years?

If it was within their ability they wouldn't be faking their space program.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs
China'a Space Program =/= NASA, I don't really much care if the chinese did a real or fake space walk. As long as they don't start to ignore the UN and weaponize space, everything is peachy.

Funny how you RE'ers flip flop when shown evidence of China's space fakery. One moment China is running a real space program. The next moment it's "China isn't NASA" and "I don't care if the Chinese space program is real or not."

Quote from: Irushwithscvs
As far as NASA goes, your motives for the conspiracy are not convincing and the whole thing taken into consideration is just plain silly. You already admitted hundreds of astronauts would have to be lying along with NASA executives somehow modifying thousands of control networks "just enough" to make them believable. Its just too far fetched for anyone to take it seriously. Your NASA conspiracy will soon go the way of "ice wall guards" and die a sad, lonely death.

How can you make this argument when you just implicitly agreed that China involved hundreds of people in its hoax?

Funny how this is the first time I've ever mentioned China at all yet I've somehow changed my opinion of them on this site. Also, I said I didn't care either way. I did not say whether I think it is real or fake. Why is it you only see what you want to see in a post? You don't even attempt to hide your bias.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #81 on: December 10, 2011, 02:32:57 PM »
Quote
If it was within their ability they wouldn't be faking their space program.
Why are you assuming they are faking the space program?  They have working rockets?  Why would they not just launch them into the UA? 


*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #82 on: December 10, 2011, 02:41:29 PM »
Funny how this is the first time I've ever mentioned China at all yet I've somehow changed my opinion of them on this site. Also, I said I didn't care either way. I did not say whether I think it is real or fake. Why is it you only see what you want to see in a post? You don't even attempt to hide your bias.

I said "you RE'ers," not you specifically. Whenever the Chinese Space agency is brought up one need only to post those links and suddenly the subject is diverted to "China isn't NASA" and "just because one space agency is a hoax doesn't mean that another one is," etc.

Statements like that entirely undermine the "hundreds of people couldn't be in on it" and "it's impossible!" arguments.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit
Why are you assuming they are faking the space program?  They have working rockets?  Why would they not just launch them into the UA?

- I have working model rockets in my garage which travel straight upwards until they fade out of sight. But just because I have working rockets doesn't make me a space power.

- The existence of Universal Accelerator is in contention and the types of bodies and properties it would affect is unknown. If it exists then it's obviously not accelerating everything upwards, otherwise we wouldn't be pinned to the earth's surface.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 02:51:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: CubeSat
« Reply #83 on: December 10, 2011, 02:45:41 PM »
...
Whenever the Chinese Space agency is brought up one need only to post those links and suddenly the subject is diverted to "China isn't NASA" and "just because one space agency is a hoax doesn't mean that another one is," etc.
...
Nope. We know you're wrong and chose to ignore your fantasies. Please read, again: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #84 on: December 10, 2011, 02:49:13 PM »
...
Whenever the Chinese Space agency is brought up one need only to post those links and suddenly the subject is diverted to "China isn't NASA" and "just because one space agency is a hoax doesn't mean that another one is," etc.
...
Nope. We know you're wrong and chose to ignore your fantasies. Please read, again: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/

The author's main argument in that blog post is "Yeeeeeah." Not very compelling.

The Chinese Space Walk is clearly fake, and the scenes are clearly underwater. The fact that dialog between astronauts was published before the rocket even left the ground is just icing on the cake.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #85 on: December 10, 2011, 02:49:17 PM »
Funny how this is the first time I've ever mentioned China at all yet I've somehow changed my opinion of them on this site. Also, I said I didn't care either way. I did not say whether I think it is real or fake. Why is it you only see what you want to see in a post? You don't even attempt to hide your bias.

I said "you RE'ers," not you specifically. Whenever the Chinese Space agency is brought up one need only to post those links and suddenly the subject is diverted to "China isn't NASA" and "just because one space agency is a hoax doesn't mean that another one is," etc.

Statements like that entirely undermine the "hundreds of people couldn't be in on it" and "it's impossible!" arguments.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit
Why are you assuming they are faking the space program?  They have working rockets?  Why would they not just launch them into the UA?

- I have working model rockets in my garage which travel straight upwards until they fade out of sight. But just because I have working rockets doesn't make me a space power.

- The existence of Universal Accelerator is in contention and the types of bodies and properties it would affect is unknown. If it exists then it's obviously not accelerating everything upwards, otherwise we wouldn't be pinned to the earth's surface.

I thought UA was like a wind and the earth was like a wall...  At least i have had FEers explain that to me.  I guess FE just has no uniform idea what is causing gravitation?

Re: CubeSat
« Reply #86 on: December 10, 2011, 02:54:17 PM »
...
Whenever the Chinese Space agency is brought up one need only to post those links and suddenly the subject is diverted to "China isn't NASA" and "just because one space agency is a hoax doesn't mean that another one is," etc.
...
Nope. We know you're wrong and chose to ignore your fantasies. Please read, again: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/

The author's main argument again't the video is "Yeeeeeah." Not very compelling.

The Chinese Space Walk is clearly fake, and the scenes are clearly underwater. The fact that dialog between astronauts was published before the rocket even left the ground is just icing on the cake.
That is not his main argument--and you know it. He explains and the comments from readers confirm this is not underwater. I challenge you to show that the "bubbles" accelerate. Of course, you'll just put on a tin foil changshans. He has a Ph. D. He's published this in a major science magazine. What do you have? An unidentified source? Do you have anyone with a relevant degree supporting your claim that it's clearly fake?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #87 on: December 10, 2011, 02:59:44 PM »
That is not his main argument--and you know it. He explains and the comments from readers confirm this is not underwater. I challenge you to show that the "bubbles" accelerate. Of course, you'll just put on a tin foil changshans. He has a Ph. D. He's published this in a major science magazine. What do you have? An unidentified source? Do you have anyone with a relevant degree supporting your claim that it's clearly fake?

Yes, that is his main argument. He doesn't really go any further than "No." and "Yeeeeeah." It's not very becoming for a "doctor."

But PhD's are a dime a dozen anyway. Here's a PhD from NASA itself calling China's space walk a hoax:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 03:02:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #88 on: December 10, 2011, 03:01:50 PM »
...
Whenever the Chinese Space agency is brought up one need only to post those links and suddenly the subject is diverted to "China isn't NASA" and "just because one space agency is a hoax doesn't mean that another one is," etc.
...
Nope. We know you're wrong and chose to ignore your fantasies. Please read, again: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/

The author's main argument again't the video is "Yeeeeeah." Not very compelling.

The Chinese Space Walk is clearly fake, and the scenes are clearly underwater. The fact that dialog between astronauts was published before the rocket even left the ground is just icing on the cake.
That is not his main argument--and you know it. He explains and the comments from readers confirm this is not underwater. I challenge you to show that the "bubbles" accelerate. Of course, you'll just put on a tin foil changshans. He has a Ph. D. He's published this in a major science magazine. What do you have? An unidentified source? Do you have anyone with a relevant degree supporting your claim that it's clearly fake?

The degree of Tom Bishop.  It makes you an expert on everything, from physics to the lifestyles of those living on or near the equator. 

Tom those videos that you posted are highly contested.  Neither is proof of anything.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #89 on: December 10, 2011, 03:16:44 PM »
Tom those videos that you posted are highly contested.  Neither is proof of anything.

China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 2)

Did you watch the second video I posted? It's more detailed than the first and pretty compelling.

China released dialogue between the astronauts before the rocket even left the ground. This is absolute evidence that the mission was a carefully orchestrated fake.

The dialogue contained things like "The target is captured 12 seconds ahead of predicted time." Why would China have fake dialogue like that?

The evidence is overwhelming and compelling. Why whole thing stinks of a hoax.