Somethings that have been bothering me.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on December 14, 2011, 02:02:27 AM

Its an almost daily measurement made by scientists. Why do you see Nasa everywhere? Why are you so obsessed?

Google searches for venus radar only bring up links from NASA missions.

Nope!

Quote from: EmperorZhark on December 14, 2011, 02:02:27 AM

Its an almost daily measurement made by scientists. Why do you see Nasa everywhere? Why are you so obsessed?

Google searches for venus radar only bring up links from NASA missions.

Wrong, please try harder. It was done by the Jodrell Bank Observatory (Manchester Uni, UK), in 1961:

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~slowe/transit2004/science_dist_radar.html

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2011, 08:28:23 AM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on December 14, 2011, 02:02:27 AM

Its an almost daily measurement made by scientists. Why do you see Nasa everywhere? Why are you so obsessed?

Google searches for venus radar only bring up links from NASA missions.

Nope!

http://i.imgur.com/gykJm.jpg

Read the links rather than searching for "NASA" in the list of results. NASA or NASA facilities (ie. JPL's 26-meter Venus antenna at Goldstone) was involved in all of those items.

Wrong, please try harder. It was done by the Jodrell Bank Observatory (Manchester Uni, UK), in 1961:

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~slowe/transit2004/science_dist_radar.html

The bottom of that article credits NASA as being involved.

Quote from: Moon squirter

Wrong, please try harder. It was done by the Jodrell Bank Observatory (Manchester Uni, UK), in 1961:

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~slowe/transit2004/science_dist_radar.html

The bottom of that article credits NASA as being involved.

No it doesn't. Stop lying.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 14, 2011, 08:45:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2011, 08:28:23 AM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on December 14, 2011, 02:02:27 AM

Its an almost daily measurement made by scientists. Why do you see Nasa everywhere? Why are you so obsessed?

Google searches for venus radar only bring up links from NASA missions.

Nope!

http://i.imgur.com/gykJm.jpg

Read the links rather than searching for "NASA" in the list of results. NASA was involved in all of those items.

I did. Show me when NASA was involved with the Soviet exploration of Venus in the link I highlighted: http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_RadarMapping.htm

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2011, 09:00:25 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter

Wrong, please try harder. It was done by the Jodrell Bank Observatory (Manchester Uni, UK), in 1961:

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~slowe/transit2004/science_dist_radar.html

The bottom of that article credits NASA as being involved.

No it doesn't. Stop lying.

Actually, it does. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is a NASA facility.

I did. Show me when NASA was involved with the Soviet exploration of Venus in the link I highlighted: http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_RadarMapping.htm

JPL scientists are referenced numerous times in that article. The Goldstone antenna is a NASA antenna:

"JPL's 26-meter Venus antenna at Goldstone was built in 1960"

Europe and Soviet facilities are claimed to have been involved. But we know their space agencies are closely tied to NASA.

i do not understand, the FAQ states only the top people at NASA are involved in this alledged conspiracy.Why do you call out NASA as a whole as fake?
It would be like calling America evil just for what are leaders are doing?

This is nothing short of hate and should not be accpeted in such a fine society.

Quote from: Moon squirter on December 14, 2011, 09:06:20 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2011, 09:00:25 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter

Wrong, please try harder. It was done by the Jodrell Bank Observatory (Manchester Uni, UK), in 1961:

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~slowe/transit2004/science_dist_radar.html

The bottom of that article credits NASA as being involved.

No it doesn't. Stop lying.

Actually, it does. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is a NASA facility.

No it doesn't credit NASA as being involved (or JPL).  It's just a link at the bottom of the article.

No it doesn't credit NASA as being involved (or JPL).  It's just a link at the bottom of the article.

A link because they are being credited as a participant in the content above it.

The article is rather general and doesn't really spell out which scientists were working on what. But since JPL is credited at the bottom of the article, we know that NASA was involved.

Hence, this article can be tossed like the rest.

Quote from: Moon squirter on December 14, 2011, 09:18:23 AM

No it doesn't credit NASA as being involved (or JPL).  It's just a link at the bottom of the article.

A link because they are being credited as a participant in the content above it.

The article is rather general and doesn't really spell out which scientists were working on what. But since JPL is credited at the bottom of the article, we know that NASA was involved.

Ergo, this article can be tossed like the rest.

FAIL (and you know it).

JPL scientists are referenced numerous times in that article. The Goldstone antenna is a NASA antenna:

"JPL's 26-meter Venus antenna at Goldstone was built in 1960"

Europe and Soviet facilities are claimed to have been involved. But we know their space agencies are closely tied to NASA.

Again, how does that show NASA was involved as you claimed?  The authors are simply contrasting over efforts but never say that Goldstone was used in the Soviet efforts.

Do tell us know we know that the Soviet space program was closely tied to NASA at the time of this research?

FAIL (and you know it).

If someone writes a general article about space radars and space radar observations, and then links to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's homepage at the bottom, obviously the author is implying that JPL was involved in the content and is being credited in the article.

Why not reference and link to other laboratories? It's clearly because JPL, specifically, was involved.

Quote from: Moon squirter on December 14, 2011, 09:29:03 AM

FAIL (and you know it).

If someone writes a general article about space radars and space radar observations, and then links to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's homepage at the bottom, obviously the author is implying that JPL was involved in the content and is being credited in the article.

Why not reference and link to other laboratories? It's clearly because JPL, specifically, was involved.

No the author is not.  Involved in what, exactly?   The article says that:

"At Jodrell Bank the whole sequence [transmitting then receiving] was then repeated over and over again for 5 minute periods. After averaging the results from a number of 5 minute periods the returned echo could be seen and hence the distance calculated. "

Sounds like our chaps at Jodrell Bank didn't need or get any help from JPL.

Quote from: Moon squirter on December 14, 2011, 09:29:03 AM

FAIL (and you know it).

If someone writes a general article about space radars and space radar observations, and then links to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's homepage at the bottom, obviously the author is implying that JPL was involved in the content and is being credited in the article.

Why not reference and link to other laboratories? It's clearly because JPL, specifically, was involved.

Help me understand your logic here...

If Banks gives JPL credit regarding their effort, and since you distrust NASA and its JPL, then you dismiss all of Banks's work, right?

If Samuel Rowbotham gives credit to Newton regarding the ULoG, and since you distrust Newton, then you dismiss all of the work of Rowbotham, right?

Does it matter whether you agree with someone's result before you consider their work?

the faqqers whole thoery crumbles without its NASA conspiracy.
Come on, Tom you are not a faqqer. Please end this whole hatred for NASA and embrace
John Davis's theories. His do not include hate or conspiracies.

No the author is not.  Involved in what, exactly?   The article says that:

"At Jodrell Bank the whole sequence [transmitting then receiving] was then repeated over and over again for 5 minute periods. After averaging the results from a number of 5 minute periods the returned echo could be seen and hence the distance calculated. "

Sounds like our chaps at Jodrell Bank didn't need or get any help from JPL.

If JPL wasn't involved in any part of the article, why would JPL be referenced at the bottom?

Help me understand your logic here...

If Banks gives JPL credit regarding their effort, and since you distrust NASA and its JPL, then you dismiss all of Banks's work, right?

If Samuel Rowbotham gives credit to Newton regarding the ULoG, and since you distrust Newton, then you dismiss all of the work of Rowbotham, right?

Does it matter whether you agree with someone's result before you consider their work?

If Samuel Birley Rowbotham listed Newton as a credit at the bottom of an article then it would imply that Newton's work or Newton himeself was a participant of that article.

Who writes articles and lists unrelated credits at the bottom?

Quote from: ClockTower

Help me understand your logic here...

If Banks gives JPL credit regarding their effort, and since you distrust NASA and its JPL, then you dismiss all of Banks's work, right?

If Samuel Rowbotham gives credit to Newton regarding the ULoG, and since you distrust Newton, then you dismiss all of the work of Rowbotham, right?

Does it matter whether you agree with someone's result before you consider their work?

If Samuel Birley Rowbotham listed Newton as a credit at the bottom of an article then it would imply that Newton's work or Newton himeself was a participant of that article.

Who writes articles and lists unrelated credits at the bottom?

Okay, thanks for that concession. Much appreciated. So we now agree that an credited organization's work, not the organization itself, need be a participant. And, of course, the article might credit the other organization's work only because it disagrees with it.

So now, why to you have trouble with the RADAR measurement of the distance to Venus? The Soviets even sent spacecraft to Venus during the Cold War.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2011, 12:18:51 PM

Quote from: ClockTower

Help me understand your logic here...

If Banks gives JPL credit regarding their effort, and since you distrust NASA and its JPL, then you dismiss all of Banks's work, right?

If Samuel Rowbotham gives credit to Newton regarding the ULoG, and since you distrust Newton, then you dismiss all of the work of Rowbotham, right?

Does it matter whether you agree with someone's result before you consider their work?

If Samuel Birley Rowbotham listed Newton as a credit at the bottom of an article then it would imply that Newton's work or Newton himeself was a participant of that article.

Who writes articles and lists unrelated credits at the bottom?

Okay, thanks for that concession. Much appreciated. So we now agree that an credited organization's work, not the organization itself, need be a participant. And, of course, the article might credit the other organization's work only because it disagrees with it.

So now, why to you have trouble with the RADAR measurement of the distance to Venus? The Soviets even sent spacecraft to Venus during the Cold War.

The trouble with the Radar measurements to Venus is that space agencies were involved.

You might as well be talking about Apollo.

The trouble with the Radar measurements to Venus is that space agencies were involved.

Who, other than space agencies, should make RADAR measurements to Venus? 

iwanttobelieve - Tom is a troll, thats why he denies or dodges everything against what hes says and baits people into posting what he can easily use bullshit tactics to argue.

But he is quite easy to beat, as trolls go, and soon stops posting when you do.

I'm curious as to how Tom explains the rotation of stars round the south celestial pole AND the north one at the same time? Especially with them only being 3000/4000 (delete as applicable) miles away...

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2011, 01:44:48 PM

The trouble with the Radar measurements to Venus is that space agencies were involved.

Who, other than space agencies, should make RADAR measurements to Venus? 

Perhaps terrestrial radar measurements are within the responsibility of space agencies.

But since they are involved, it kind of defeats the purpose to use Venus radar measurements as proof of RET or the honesty of space agencies, doesn't it?

I'm curious as to how Tom explains the rotation of stars round the south celestial pole AND the north one at the same time? Especially with them only being 3000/4000 (delete as applicable) miles away...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558

Quote from: markjo on December 14, 2011, 01:53:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2011, 01:44:48 PM

The trouble with the Radar measurements to Venus is that space agencies were involved.

Who, other than space agencies, should make RADAR measurements to Venus? 

Perhaps terrestrial radar measurements are within the responsibility of space agencies.

But since they are involved, it kind of defeats the purpose to use Venus radar measurements as proof of RET or the honesty of space agencies, doesn't it?

Quote

I'm curious as to how Tom explains the rotation of stars round the south celestial pole AND the north one at the same time? Especially with them only being 3000/4000 (delete as applicable) miles away...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1216934#msg1216934

How does a Zetetic support two wildly different model, especially in the same thread? Did you forget the your method results in a single conclusion that can never be wrong or updated?

Quote

I'm curious as to how Tom explains the rotation of stars round the south celestial pole AND the north one at the same time? Especially with them only being 3000/4000 (delete as applicable) miles away...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.msg1216934#msg1216934

Why do you link to an "explanation" (namely, your infamous claim that people on the equator are all primitive cultures that conveniently aren't capable of corroborating your theory one way or the other) which was immediately destroyed in the very next post, after which you became silent on the subject again?

And we are still waiting for you to explain how every visible star fits above Earth at the same height. Please post your answer in the "Every star in the universe..." thread in the debate forum.

How does a Zetetic support two wildly different model, especially in the same thread? Did you forget the your method results in a single conclusion that can never be wrong or updated?

Fortunately I didn't make a conclusion in that thread, let alone claim it unimpeachable, did I?

Why do you link to an "explanation" (namely, your infamous claim that people on the equator are all primitive cultures that conveniently aren't capable of corroborating your theory one way or the other) which was immediately destroyed in the very next post, after which you became silent on the subject again?

People on the equator simply aren't interested in whether on the day of equinox the sun rises slightly to the left and sets slightly to the right.

You RE'ers keep bringing up things like "oh some one would have noticed," when the subject matter is rather obscure. Not many people study the path or position of the sun, let alone on specific days of the year in specific locations. The topic is day, time, and location specific. Using the "someone would have noticed" excuse is absurd.

Even if someone somewhere did see an astronomical discrepancy, "refraction," is quickly used as an expiation to fit bad observations into a Round Earth model. You guys even have the sun and moon being moved from below the horizon into the sky on some occasions (selenehelion).

And we are still waiting for you to explain how every visible star fits above Earth at the same height. Please post your answer in the "Every star in the universe..." thread in the debate forum.

Obviously the stars aren't the size they are in RET. Nor have 300 sextillion stars actually been observed.

I didn't reply in that thread because I felt there was nothing worth replying to.

Perhaps terrestrial radar measurements are within the responsibility of space agencies.

But since they are involved, it kind of defeats the purpose to use Venus radar measurements as proof of RET or the honesty of space agencies, doesn't it?

When you have a pathological distrust of space agencies, there really isn't much of anything that they could do to assure you of their honesty, is there?

Quote from: ClockTower on December 14, 2011, 03:58:37 PM

How does a Zetetic support two wildly different model, especially in the same thread? Did you forget the your method results in a single conclusion that can never be wrong or updated?

Fortunately I didn't make a conclusion in that thread, let alone claim it unimpeachable, did I?

Quote from: zarg

Why do you link to an "explanation" (namely, your infamous claim that people on the equator are all primitive cultures that conveniently aren't capable of corroborating your theory one way or the other) which was immediately destroyed in the very next post, after which you became silent on the subject again?

People on the equator simply aren't interested in whether on the day of equinox the sun rises slightly to the left and sets slightly to the right.

You RE'ers keep bringing up things like "oh some one would have noticed," when the subject matter is rather obscure. Not many people study the path or position of the sun, let alone on specific days of the year in specific locations. The topic is day, time, and location specific. Using the "someone would have noticed" excuse is absurd.

Even if someone somewhere did see an astronomical discrepancy, "refraction," is quickly used as an expiation to fit bad observations into a Round Earth model. You guys even have the sun and moon being moved from below the horizon to the sky on some occasions (selenehelion).

Actually, if a star or planet were not where it was supposed to be, amateur astronomers would say something. Again, Nasa can't change the locations of the stars and planets or stop people from observing them. Everytime I've checked the location of a planet or moon or sun, its in the right place.

In fact, make yourself a sundial. Sundials work only on an RE. Of course you wouldn't believe me if I said I ever saw a sundial and checked it against my watch. But it is very easy to do, and they are accurate.

As for the selenehelion, guess what? Refraction. You've seen light bend when it hits water. Well, light bends when it hits the atmosphere, more noticeably at low angles with the horizon.

When you have a pathological distrust of space agencies, there really isn't much of anything that they could do to assure you of their honesty, is there?

It's not pathological. There is clear and distinct evidence that space agencies are faking things. See the Conspiracy page in the Wiki when it comes back up.

The Chinese Space Agency is so obviously fraudulent that most people here don't even try defending it when accosted with the accusations and evidence.

Actually, if a star or planet were not where it was supposed to be, amateur astronomers would say something. Again, Nasa can't change the locations of the stars and planets or stop people from observing them. Everytime I've checked the location of a planet or moon or sun, its in the right place.

Amateur astronomers do say things.

Consider the selenehelion, the daytime lunar eclipse, for instance. A daytime lunar eclipse should be impossible in the Round Earth model, yet the excuse is "refraction did it." As if refraction can move the sun and moon from below the horizon and into the sky!

Consider the observations across the bedford level and other observations which demonstrate that the earth is flat. Re'ers again say "refraction did it."

But for refraction to explain the Bedford Level, objects would have to be suspended at a perfect distance in the air in relation to the distance from the observer, or else the object would appear too high or too low - either hovering above the earth or obscured by it. In order for the earth to appear flat when really a globe, the refraction effect needs to cause the objects need to be suspended 16 feet above the earth at 5 miles, 66 feet above the earth at 10 miles, and 266 feet above the earth at 20 miles.

In other words the refraction effect needs to adjust itself with regards to the distance the observer is looking across, otherwise the earth would not appear flat. Ridiculous.

If ever pressed for why a star or celestial body isn't where it should be, RE'ers can always just fall back on mumblings about refraction.

Over The Horizon Radar should also be impossible in a Round Earth model, yet the excuse is that radiowaves are bouncing off the atmosphere without significant scatter -- as if we're expected to believe that radar waves can bounce off of the atmosphere, hit a body, and bounce off the atmosphere again to return to their destination.

RE'ers are clearly making elaborate explanations for what we can explain plain and simply: That the rays took a direct path to their destination.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 14, 2011, 03:58:37 PM

How does a Zetetic support two wildly different model, especially in the same thread? Did you forget the your method results in a single conclusion that can never be wrong or updated?

Fortunately I didn't make a conclusion in that thread, let alone claim it unimpeachable, did I? ...

1) False. Here's one conclusion

...
There is still an Ice Wall in this model, but is it not Antarctica. Beyond the rays of the sun the waters surrounding the earth will naturally freeze.

2) Irrelevant.

You've already present your "U. N. Logo" map as a Zetetic and unimpeachable conclusion. If you present any other map that conflicts with that conclusion, then you're being academically dishonest. If you don't believe in the "bi-polar" map, then you can't honestly argue that it solves anything.