Question about touristic space flights

  • 53 Replies
  • 10848 Views
Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #30 on: December 26, 2011, 09:16:22 AM »
"If you take any number of poor people, and offer them a temporary bribe of 1 million dollars, offering them a chance to ride some imaginary ship, and then pretend to pay for that imaginary trip with the same money you gave them yourself, would they say no?
For I doubt such."

--> Okay, but what about a FE Believer in this plane ? With material to prove the fakes windows ?

"make sure it doesn't let any FET believers like us, into their little schemes, I doubt any of us could ever use those "programs" to prove FET."

--> You doubt, but you don't know. Why don't try to make a space travel in plane, or why not try to travel to Russia on Alaska with a boat ? If FE Society woud do that, you'll have a lot of chance to prove your theory.

"Except you can't open said window, for you would see the circuits and wires feeding little electric lights into the screen you just broke through."

--> buy a ticket in few years, come with a electromagnet (and/or other materials) and a camcorder.

"Ouch !! Better take care of that bleeding hand. Otherwise the cyanide left on that screen you just broke, will kill you in ... Oh never mind. It already killed you."

--> Buy a ticket and come with gloves.
 

Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #31 on: December 26, 2011, 10:35:04 AM »
Hi all,

I am French and my English is not fluent, so sorry for my grammatical errors.  :-\

For several years, the companies plan to offer space flights for everyone (well, all who have enough money). For example, Virgin Galactict.

One day, the flights will take place. In 5 years, 10 years, 20 years ... ? Whatever.

That day, if the earth is really flat, everyone will have the proof. If the earth is spherical, you will have proof that your theory was wrong.

If a conspiracy runs the world, how space travel for tourists might be possible one day?

Thank you for your answers, and good day.

Alexis

Dear French.

If you take any number of poor people, and offer them a temporary bribe of 1 million dollars, offering them a chance to ride some imaginary ship, and then pretend to pay for that imaginary trip with the same money you gave them yourself, would they say no?

For I doubt such.

Take any poor person. Give them enough illusion that they are "rich", or just give them enough money to pay back to you pretending like they bought themselves a space trip.

However say, all the FET believers here, were ever given such money, we would surely use it to prove FET. Thus the careful selection of desperate enough poor people, to be given just enough money to pretend they're "rich enough to rise", will fervantly make sure it doesn't let any FET believers like us, into their little schemes, I doubt any of us could ever use those "programs" to prove FET.

No actual rich people ride those. Just poor people they chose, give them a lot of money enough to be acceptable for it in the public's eyes, and if they ever accept FET, or promote it, they will immediately lose all that money. Which will be taken away from them by the same pigs who try to deny the FET, with carefully planned hoaxes.

There is no such thing as "space". Got that? Good.

There is no such thing as "space travel". For all you know there's a virtual screen outside the windows, showing you a pre recording of artistic baloonery, which was made with the highest visual faking skills.

Anyone can fake anything, and play them on a screen, getting you to think you "saw Bigfoot outside your window". Except you can't open said window, for you would see the circuits and wires feeding little electric lights into the screen you just broke through.

|Ouch !! Better take care of that bleeding hand. Otherwise the cyanide left on that screen you just broke, will kill you in ... Oh never mind. It already killed you.

See? It's all rigged. You can't "break through" the illusion they made, without touching the poison they left in case you break it. Your blood is already dead now.

Write that on your Epitaph, and smoke it. Except you wont, cause you died of spontaneous Conspiracy Death.

If you're really worried about people being bribed like this, then why don't flat earth hypothesists chip in and get one of you guys (your leader?) a ticket? You have 333 registered members and a ticket costs $200,000. That's $600.61 per person, a small price to pay for undeniable proof.

I you still think replacing the windows for monitors would be a good illusion, then you have not only failed to read the thread, but you have failed to think about it for 3 seconds before posting. I'm not really surprised, this whole flat earth hypothesis requires a lot of just sitting back and turning off your brain.

Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #32 on: December 28, 2011, 03:11:19 AM »
So ? What do you thinck about "Nasa_Lies" message ? Good idea, isn't it ?

P.S. : "Nasa_Lies", why this pseudo ? I'm not sure you are a believer...

Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #33 on: December 28, 2011, 06:28:40 AM »
As a matter of fact, I think this is such a good idea that I am going to volunteer to be the FET representative to "fly" in Spaceship Two. I have already donated $600.61 to myself, I will be accepting donations from TFES members immediately.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #34 on: December 28, 2011, 09:07:03 AM »
Don't want to consider the implications of a monitermonitor that responds to each individual's viewing perspective? I'm not surprised. So much for your hypothesis =)
Oh, I'm happy to consider the implications of your fairy tale once you show how such a device is possible. Now can you stand behind your ridiculous claim and provide any possibilities?

Thanks for that. -_-

Anyway, you don't even need a piece of paper to distinguish the difference between a monitor and a window. There are a couple of ways that you could do it.

First, you can look at the screen from different places and different distances. This would do basically the same thing as the paper with the hole, assuming the window is a reasonable size. However, this could be accounted for if the monitors could all sense exactly where you are looking at all times.

Unfortunately, even if the monitor is able to sense where your head is at all times, the effort is all in vain if you have a second observer. The screen cannot possibly show the perspectives of two observers at a time.

Actually there is a way that they could do that. There is a way to play multiplayer on a video game on one screen without using a splitscreen if you take the lenses from two pairs of 3D glasses and switch them so that each pair has its common lens. This way, the monitor projects the image in such a way that a separate image is viewed from both observers. This limits the number of viewers to 2 per monitor.

So it is technically possible to have a monitor that adjusts depending on how you view it that works when viewed by two people. Here are the requirements:
-Passengers constantly have to wear their glasses/motion sensors (if they take them off at any time the illusion is ruined)
-Only two passengers can view a screen at a time
-You may not view any other passenger's screen, otherwise the illusion is ruined

So what we have here is basically a room that two people can go in to be fooled by the monitors. That's not so hard, just have the structure of the spacecraft be a dark hallway, and each pair of passengers gets their own luxury compartment. Lets see if this is the design of the Virgin Galactic Spaceship Two, which is the vehicle that will be bringing passengers to space:

Interior:


Exterior:


Hmm, that's funny, it looks like they have multiple windows that can be viewed by anybody on board at any time. Looks like Flat Earth Hypothesis is bullshit.


So what you're saying is that they'd have to wear space suits outfitted with infitec 3D technology at all times. That doesn't sound particularly difficult. That in addition to a holographic display could potentially allow six people to look at the same screen and see different things. Guess how many people fit in SpaceShipTwo?

Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #35 on: December 28, 2011, 09:19:09 AM »

So what you're saying is that they'd have to wear space suits outfitted with infitec 3D technology at all times. That doesn't sound particularly difficult. That in addition to a holographic display could potentially allow six people to look at the same screen and see different things. Guess how many people fit in SpaceShipTwo?

You're right actually. Weightlessness would be easy to simulate if they actually did fly up and did a vomit comet type trajectory.

Another possibility is that the windows actually are real, but the plane is placed in a room with projected images on the walls, kind of like a planetarium. That way everyone's perspective can be fooled no matter how many people are on board.

Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #36 on: December 28, 2011, 09:27:17 AM »
So what you're saying is that they'd have to wear space suits outfitted with infitec 3D technology at all times. That doesn't sound particularly difficult. That in addition to a holographic display could potentially allow six people to look at the same screen and see different things. Guess how many people fit in SpaceShipTwo?
So how do you have this holographic display work with even with one person holding a mirror at arm's length? Oh, and you've made a special pleading fallacy again, especially with the "That doesn't sound particularly difficult".

Quote from: http://www.ultimatefreedomquest.com/logical-fallacy-special-pleading/
...
it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results.
...
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #37 on: December 28, 2011, 09:33:49 AM »
So what you're saying is that they'd have to wear space suits outfitted with infitec 3D technology at all times. That doesn't sound particularly difficult. That in addition to a holographic display could potentially allow six people to look at the same screen and see different things. Guess how many people fit in SpaceShipTwo?
So how do you have this holographic display work with even with one person holding a mirror at arm's length? Oh, and you've made a special pleading fallacy again, especially with the "That doesn't sound particularly difficult".

Quote from: http://www.ultimatefreedomquest.com/logical-fallacy-special-pleading/
...
it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results.
...

We're sitting around arguing about the Conspiracy and trying to figure out how it operates. That isn't special pleading, it's trying to figure out what would work.

Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #38 on: December 28, 2011, 09:39:00 AM »
So what you're saying is that they'd have to wear space suits outfitted with infitec 3D technology at all times. That doesn't sound particularly difficult. That in addition to a holographic display could potentially allow six people to look at the same screen and see different things. Guess how many people fit in SpaceShipTwo?
So how do you have this holographic display work with even with one person holding a mirror at arm's length? Oh, and you've made a special pleading fallacy again, especially with the "That doesn't sound particularly difficult".

Quote from: http://www.ultimatefreedomquest.com/logical-fallacy-special-pleading/
...
it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results.
...

We're sitting around arguing about the Conspiracy and trying to figure out how it operates. That isn't special pleading, it's trying to figure out what would work.
Really? So you want to ignore the definition so that you can argue about how something operates. I see well then go ahead and argue among yourselves. We'll wait and then tell you again that's special pleading fallacy.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #39 on: December 28, 2011, 09:46:28 AM »
So what you're saying is that they'd have to wear space suits outfitted with infitec 3D technology at all times. That doesn't sound particularly difficult. That in addition to a holographic display could potentially allow six people to look at the same screen and see different things. Guess how many people fit in SpaceShipTwo?
So how do you have this holographic display work with even with one person holding a mirror at arm's length? Oh, and you've made a special pleading fallacy again, especially with the "That doesn't sound particularly difficult".

Quote from: http://www.ultimatefreedomquest.com/logical-fallacy-special-pleading/
...
it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results.
...

We're sitting around arguing about the Conspiracy and trying to figure out how it operates. That isn't special pleading, it's trying to figure out what would work.
Really? So you want to ignore the definition so that you can argue about how something operates. I see well then go ahead and argue among yourselves. We'll wait and then tell you again that's special pleading fallacy.

The difference is that we're not trying to make them appear valid. We're just trying to see if we can figure out what they do. We already determined that it's part of the conspiracy, we just want to know how they do it.

Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #40 on: December 28, 2011, 09:52:45 AM »
The difference is that we're not trying to make them appear valid. We're just trying to see if we can figure out what they do. We already determined that it's part of the conspiracy, we just want to know how they do it.
Intent is not part of the definition, and, therefore, your point is irrelevant. Oh, and the "We already determined" fits perfectly with the definition of a special pleading fallacy.

Oh, and would you mind being clear that you, as FEers, are now having an internal discussion? I find that it's inappropriate to hijack this thread for your own musings, but I do understand that the administration's rules on FEB make your efforts difficult otherwise.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #41 on: December 28, 2011, 09:57:09 AM »
The difference is that we're not trying to make them appear valid. We're just trying to see if we can figure out what they do. We already determined that it's part of the conspiracy, we just want to know how they do it.
Intent is not part of the definition, and, therefore, your point is irrelevant. Oh, and the "We already determined" fits perfectly with the definition of a special pleading fallacy.

Oh, and would you mind being clear that you, as FEers, are now having an internal discussion? I find that it's inappropriate to hijack this thread for your own musings, but I do understand that the administration's rules on FEB make your efforts difficult otherwise.

I'm personally having an internal discussion. You people are made privy to it because it's easier to create a working theory when someone else is desperately trying to prove you wrong. It's in this thread because my internal monologue also serves to answer questions asked by RE'ers. Now stop trying to invalidate me with fallacies that don't fit contextually and invalidate me with logic.

Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #42 on: December 28, 2011, 10:01:59 AM »
The difference is that we're not trying to make them appear valid. We're just trying to see if we can figure out what they do. We already determined that it's part of the conspiracy, we just want to know how they do it.
Intent is not part of the definition, and, therefore, your point is irrelevant. Oh, and the "We already determined" fits perfectly with the definition of a special pleading fallacy.

Oh, and would you mind being clear that you, as FEers, are now having an internal discussion? I find that it's inappropriate to hijack this thread for your own musings, but I do understand that the administration's rules on FEB make your efforts difficult otherwise.
I'm personally having an internal discussion. You people are made privy to it because it's easier to create a working theory when someone else is desperately trying to prove you wrong. It's in this thread because my internal monologue also serves to answer questions asked by RE'ers. Now stop trying to invalidate me with fallacies that don't fit contextually and invalidate me with logic.
What you're doing is the very definition of the special pleading fallacy. Now if you were gathering data to support your theory, that'd be different. Oh and this is not the correct forum for the conspiracy topic. You should be having this personal internal discussion in FEG.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #43 on: December 28, 2011, 10:09:42 AM »
The difference is that we're not trying to make them appear valid. We're just trying to see if we can figure out what they do. We already determined that it's part of the conspiracy, we just want to know how they do it.
Intent is not part of the definition, and, therefore, your point is irrelevant. Oh, and the "We already determined" fits perfectly with the definition of a special pleading fallacy.

Oh, and would you mind being clear that you, as FEers, are now having an internal discussion? I find that it's inappropriate to hijack this thread for your own musings, but I do understand that the administration's rules on FEB make your efforts difficult otherwise.
I'm personally having an internal discussion. You people are made privy to it because it's easier to create a working theory when someone else is desperately trying to prove you wrong. It's in this thread because my internal monologue also serves to answer questions asked by RE'ers. Now stop trying to invalidate me with fallacies that don't fit contextually and invalidate me with logic.
What you're doing is the very definition of the special pleading fallacy. Now if you were gathering data to support your theory, that'd be different. Oh and this is not the correct forum for the conspiracy topic. You should be having this personal internal discussion in FEG.
Clocksy, all I'm doing by posting in this thread is proving that it's possible. Burt Rutan is a genius; he probably has something greatly superior than my idea, but the fact remains that my idea proves that it is possible.

Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #44 on: December 28, 2011, 10:12:25 AM »
... all I'm doing by posting in this thread is proving that it's possible. Burt Rutan is a genius; he probably has something greatly superior than my idea, but the fact remains that my idea proves that it is possible.
So having an idea proves something for you. That's quite a fantasy you have there.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #45 on: December 28, 2011, 10:16:23 AM »
... all I'm doing by posting in this thread is proving that it's possible. Burt Rutan is a genius; he probably has something greatly superior than my idea, but the fact remains that my idea proves that it is possible.
So having an idea proves something for you. That's quite a fantasy you have there.

Actually yes, the fact that it is possible does make it possible.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17934
Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #46 on: December 28, 2011, 11:50:36 AM »
Space Ship One and Space Ship Two do not actually achieve earth orbit. They go to the edge of the atmosphere and come back down again.

The horizon they see is slightly curved because at the edge of the atmosphere the observer is looking down at a circle.

The same explanation for curvature is used for those high altitude balloons which amateurs put up. At great altitudes the observer is looking down at a circle.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 03:14:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #47 on: December 28, 2011, 02:44:34 PM »
Space Ship OneSpaceShipOne and Space Ship ToSpaceShipTwo do not actually achieve earth orbit. They go to the edge of the atmosphere and come back down again.

The horizon they see is slightly curved because at the edge of the atmosphere the observer is looking down at a circle.

The same explanation for curvature is used for those high altitude balloons which amateurs put up. At great altitudes the observer is looking down at a circle.
So why does this circle just happen to be at the distance that RET predicts? Also are you incorrectly arguing that Sun illuminates in FET a circular area throughout the year? You might need some special pleading here, Tom.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17934
Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #48 on: December 28, 2011, 03:15:35 PM »
Space Ship OneSpaceShipOne and Space Ship ToSpaceShipTwo do not actually achieve earth orbit. They go to the edge of the atmosphere and come back down again.

The horizon they see is slightly curved because at the edge of the atmosphere the observer is looking down at a circle.

The same explanation for curvature is used for those high altitude balloons which amateurs put up. At great altitudes the observer is looking down at a circle.
So why does this circle just happen to be at the distance that RET predicts? Also are you incorrectly arguing that Sun illuminates in FET a circular area throughout the year? You might need some special pleading here, Tom.

Who showed that it shows what RET predicts?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 03:24:06 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #49 on: December 28, 2011, 03:27:25 PM »
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17934
Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #50 on: December 28, 2011, 03:28:28 PM »
Who showed that it shows what RET predicts?
Let's see about we start with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon which cites: http://www.opticsinfobase.org/viewmedia.cfm?uri=josa-28-9-327&seq=0 from 1938.

I don't see any analysis of the SpaceShipOne/Two photos in those links.

Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #51 on: December 28, 2011, 03:40:09 PM »
Who showed that it shows what RET predicts?
Let's see about we start with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon which cites: http://www.opticsinfobase.org/viewmedia.cfm?uri=josa-28-9-327&seq=0 from 1938.

I don't see any analysis of the SpaceShipOne/Two photos in those links.
Tom, you know that answer, for shame. You're just spamming a good thread.

Let me spoon feed you here:

Deductive Reasoning, reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning is simple to apply here.
  • All men are mortal
  • Socrates is a man
  • Therefore, Socrates is mortal
Now let's apply this technique, which you know how to use, to this situation.
  • According to the references, all observers at significant height will see a curved horizon in all directions.
  • SpaceShipTwo will carry observers to a significant height.
  • Therefore, an observer at a significant height in SS2 will see a curved horizon.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #52 on: December 29, 2011, 02:10:24 PM »
As a matter of fact, I think this is such a good idea that I am going to volunteer to be the FET representative to "fly" in Spaceship Two. I have already donated $600.61 to myself, I will be accepting donations from TFES members immediately.

You don't qualify as a FET representative.

You have failed to prove you possess intelligence.

I don't believe you have donated 600 to yourself. What if you don't have it? And in the end, you'll be 600 short and thus utterly impotent to finish the travel yourself?

Hmm, I have to say, next to all the idiots who spread their lips around the RET Fallacy, you have to be the dumbest of them all. Are you blond by any chance?
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

?

areyouguysserious

  • 323
  • The Earth Is Flat - True Story
Re: Question about touristic space flights
« Reply #53 on: February 01, 2012, 02:00:15 PM »
Hi all,

I am French and my English is not fluent, so sorry for my grammatical errors.  :-\

For several years, the companies plan to offer space flights for everyone (well, all who have enough money). For example, Virgin Galactict.

One day, the flights will take place. In 5 years, 10 years, 20 years ... ? Whatever.

That day, if the earth is really flat, everyone will have the proof. If the earth is spherical, you will have proof that your theory was wrong.

If a conspiracy runs the world, how space travel for tourists might be possible one day?

Thank you for your answers, and good day.

Alexis

Dear French.

If you take any number of poor people, and offer them a temporary bribe of 1 million dollars, offering them a chance to ride some imaginary ship, and then pretend to pay for that imaginary trip with the same money you gave them yourself, would they say no?

For I doubt such.

Take any poor person. Give them enough illusion that they are "rich", or just give them enough money to pay back to you pretending like they bought themselves a space trip.

However say, all the FET believers here, were ever given such money, we would surely use it to prove FET. Thus the careful selection of desperate enough poor people, to be given just enough money to pretend they're "rich enough to rise", will fervantly make sure it doesn't let any FET believers like us, into their little schemes, I doubt any of us could ever use those "programs" to prove FET.

No actual rich people ride those. Just poor people they chose, give them a lot of money enough to be acceptable for it in the public's eyes, and if they ever accept FET, or promote it, they will immediately lose all that money. Which will be taken away from them by the same pigs who try to deny the FET, with carefully planned hoaxes.

There is no such thing as "space". Got that? Good.

There is no such thing as "space travel". For all you know there's a virtual screen outside the windows, showing you a pre recording of artistic baloonery, which was made with the highest visual faking skills.

Anyone can fake anything, and play them on a screen, getting you to think you "saw Bigfoot outside your window". Except you can't open said window, for you would see the circuits and wires feeding little electric lights into the screen you just broke through.

|Ouch !! Better take care of that bleeding hand. Otherwise the cyanide left on that screen you just broke, will kill you in ... Oh never mind. It already killed you.

See? It's all rigged. You can't "break through" the illusion they made, without touching the poison they left in case you break it. Your blood is already dead now.

Write that on your Epitaph, and smoke it. Except you wont, cause you died of spontaneous Conspiracy Death.

You, silverdane, have got to be about the stupidest person I have ever seen on these forums, and that is saying quite a bit.

Quote
If this is the best you could come up with to counter my argument then that is pretty sad. Testing the window? Are you going to bring a large electromagnet and see if the windows change colors? I wouldn't suggest that, all of the guards would kill you and every guest on board.

Are you retarded? You really think they are just going to go around killing people who get close to uncovering their monitor ideas?? You and every other guest on board are now dead. bam. How did this happen? How will they explain to the public and authorities? Are they going to crash the ship to explain it all away? Seems counterproductive to an organization that is making up all these lies to make money.


All you ahve to do is bring a magnet on board. It will effectively ruin their lie. And no one will "kill" you for doing it.
You have the right to believe in whatever you want. I also have the right to believe that you're a (Bleep)ing idiot!