NASA

  • 204 Replies
  • 28793 Views
Re: NASA
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2012, 08:56:00 AM »
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars

So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.

the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
Unless by 'orbit' you mean magically levitating and revolving about a point where nothing else lies, no, Earth orbit is not possible in FET.

Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.
Please do tell us how you determined that the Sun and the Moon float above a FE just fine. Unless you have some magic levitation involved, your outlandish claim is, as unusual, unsupported. Oh, and 'floating' is not 'orbiting'.

There would be a point where you could even out between CG and the Earth, essentially floating.

Pure, hard science, that's what I like.

Seriously, any equations?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: NASA
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2012, 08:57:15 AM »
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars

So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.

the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
Unless by 'orbit' you mean magically levitating and revolving about a point where nothing else lies, no, Earth orbit is not possible in FET.

Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.
Please do tell us how you determined that the Sun and the Moon float above a FE just fine. Unless you have some magic levitation involved, your outlandish claim is, as unusual, unsupported. Oh, and 'floating' is not 'orbiting'.

There would be a point where you could even out between CG and the Earth, essentially floating.

Pure, hard science, that's what I like.

Seriously, any equations?

9.81 - 9.81 = 0

Did you have a hard time figuring that one out?

Re: NASA
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2012, 08:59:18 AM »
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars

So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.

the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
Unless by 'orbit' you mean magically levitating and revolving about a point where nothing else lies, no, Earth orbit is not possible in FET.

Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.
Please do tell us how you determined that the Sun and the Moon float above a FE just fine. Unless you have some magic levitation involved, your outlandish claim is, as unusual, unsupported. Oh, and 'floating' is not 'orbiting'.

There would be a point where you could even out between CG and the Earth, essentially floating.

Pure, hard science, that's what I like.

Seriously, any equations?

9.81 - 9.81 = 0

Did you have a hard time figuring that one out?
Yes, that's very difficult for me since I don't see how you measured either number. Do tell us how you manage such feats.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: NASA
« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2012, 09:04:57 AM »
in thoery, the sun and moon orbit the earth because of theuneven mass of the earth causing a spiraling effect on the UA.  This same affect will cause anything launched into space, like satellites to do the same thing.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: NASA
« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2012, 09:12:26 AM »
Yes, that's very difficult for me since I don't see how you measured either number. Do tell us how you manage such feats.

Well, that is a shame. I assumed I was at least dealing with a person who had at least a slight grasp of the world around them. I'll be sure not to make that mistake again.

Re: NASA
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2012, 09:14:22 AM »
in thoery, the sun and moon orbit the earth because of theuneven mass of the earth causing a spiraling effect on the UA.  This same affect will cause anything launched into space, like satellites to do the same thing.
Please point me to a link that even suggests that the uneven mass of the Earth causes a spiraling effect on the UA and that this spiraling effect causes the Sun and the Moon to orbit the Earth. If you meant orbit a massless point above the Earth's NP, I'd still like that link. Otherwise it's just the usual special pleading.
Yes, that's very difficult for me since I don't see how you measured either number. Do tell us how you manage such feats.

Well, that is a shame. I assumed I was at least dealing with a person who had at least a slight grasp of the world around them. I'll be sure not to make that mistake again.
So you can't answer the challenge, as usual. Typical FE dodging.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: NASA
« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2012, 09:54:46 AM »
whats the ISS then, an elaborate hologram?
Cause I can see it with my cheap binoculars

So, India, China, Russia, France, England, Canada, Australia, ect are all lying about their spcae programs/satelitte launching.

the fact is, space travel and orbit is possible in disc earth and spherical earth thoeries...
Unless by 'orbit' you mean magically levitating and revolving about a point where nothing else lies, no, Earth orbit is not possible in FET.

Incorrect. The Sun and the Moon float above a flat earth just fine, there is no reason to assume the ISS can't, even though it is not aerodynamic nor does it have large engines.
Please do tell us how you determined that the Sun and the Moon float above a FE just fine. Unless you have some magic levitation involved, your outlandish claim is, as unusual, unsupported. Oh, and 'floating' is not 'orbiting'.

There would be a point where you could even out between CG and the Earth, essentially floating.

Pure, hard science, that's what I like.

Seriously, any equations?

9.81 - 9.81 = 0

Did you have a hard time figuring that one out?

Are you that dumb?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: NASA
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2012, 10:34:56 AM »
At minimum, there would have been ONE guy who'd tell about the conspiracy. I mean, one insider, not one of those guys who says "There's no Moon landing because a flag cannot float when there's no atmosphere".

Former NASA employee Thomas Baron testified before Congress that NASA was running a false space program. He was murdered exactly one week after his testimony.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Thomas_Baron_Silenced_for_Attempting_to_Expose_the_Truth
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 10:46:50 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: NASA
« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2012, 10:56:57 AM »
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: NASA
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2012, 11:13:13 AM »
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?

What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.

Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 11:27:13 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: NASA
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2012, 11:15:47 AM »
they have had, they do not now, with the massive layoffs...sounds like the "conspiracy" is done.

Re: NASA
« Reply #41 on: April 19, 2012, 11:46:55 AM »
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?

What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.

Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies.

Anyone care to comment on the extreme stupidity of this post?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: NASA
« Reply #42 on: April 19, 2012, 01:39:44 PM »
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?

What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.

Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies.

Anyone care to comment on the extreme stupidity of this post?
That post was not only stupid, but hypocritical. Tom Bishop again cherry picks one photo, examines it with his biased objective, ignores the preponderance of evidence supporting NASA's lunar program, and makes outlandish claims.  I would challenge him to prove his contention that he and a friend could over a weekend build the LM in the photograph. Of course, even if he claimed he did so, we'd have to be circumspect given his lie about seeing people with only binoculars across Monterey Bay.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11680
Re: NASA
« Reply #43 on: April 19, 2012, 01:47:16 PM »
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?

What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.

Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies.

Anyone care to comment on the extreme stupidity of this post?
That post was not only stupid, but hypocritical. Tom Bishop again cherry picks one photo, examines it with his biased objective, ignores the preponderance of evidence supporting NASA's lunar program, and makes outlandish claims.  I would challenge him to prove his contention that he and a friend could over a weekend build the LM in the photograph. Of course, even if he claimed he did so, we'd have to be circumspect given his lie about seeing people with only binoculars across Monterey Bay.
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: NASA
« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2012, 01:49:49 PM »
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?

What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.

Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies.

Anyone care to comment on the extreme stupidity of this post?
That post was not only stupid, but hypocritical. Tom Bishop again cherry picks one photo, examines it with his biased objective, ignores the preponderance of evidence supporting NASA's lunar program, and makes outlandish claims.  I would challenge him to prove his contention that he and a friend could over a weekend build the LM in the photograph. Of course, even if he claimed he did so, we'd have to be circumspect given his lie about seeing people with only binoculars across Monterey Bay.
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.
Tell me how you determined that the photo shows either paper or aluminum foil. Why would either be damning? You just making things up again, aren't you?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11680
Re: NASA
« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2012, 01:56:39 PM »
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?

What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.

Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies.

Anyone care to comment on the extreme stupidity of this post?
That post was not only stupid, but hypocritical. Tom Bishop again cherry picks one photo, examines it with his biased objective, ignores the preponderance of evidence supporting NASA's lunar program, and makes outlandish claims.  I would challenge him to prove his contention that he and a friend could over a weekend build the LM in the photograph. Of course, even if he claimed he did so, we'd have to be circumspect given his lie about seeing people with only binoculars across Monterey Bay.
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.
Tell me how you determined that the photo shows either paper or aluminum foil. Why would either be damning? You just making things up again, aren't you?
That thing is a 1960's fantasy machine, and a poor one at that.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: NASA
« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2012, 02:01:23 PM »
so only 1 guy that was "in on it" said something, in the tens of thousands of employees?

What makes you think that they have tens of thousands of employees? You forget that a fake space program does not conduct real science or engineering.

Look at the Lunar Lander, for example. If NASA is running a false space program they don't need thousands of people to engineer a space-worthy craft, or fund it with the $6 Billion they proposed to Congress. The Lunar Lander doesn't really need to go into space. Two people can throw together a prop lander over a weekend with junkyard parts and stationary supplies.

Anyone care to comment on the extreme stupidity of this post?
That post was not only stupid, but hypocritical. Tom Bishop again cherry picks one photo, examines it with his biased objective, ignores the preponderance of evidence supporting NASA's lunar program, and makes outlandish claims.  I would challenge him to prove his contention that he and a friend could over a weekend build the LM in the photograph. Of course, even if he claimed he did so, we'd have to be circumspect given his lie about seeing people with only binoculars across Monterey Bay.
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.
Tell me how you determined that the photo shows either paper or aluminum foil. Why would either be damning? You just making things up again, aren't you?
That thing is a 1960's fantasy machine, and a poor one at that.
So you got nothing but baseless hyperbole. Noted. I do wish FEers would get serious about their effort.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: NASA
« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2012, 02:50:41 PM »
At minimum, there would have been ONE guy who'd tell about the conspiracy. I mean, one insider, not one of those guys who says "There's no Moon landing because a flag cannot float when there's no atmosphere".

Former NASA employee Thomas Baron testified before Congress that NASA was running a false space program. He was murdered exactly one week after his testimony.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Thomas_Baron_Silenced_for_Attempting_to_Expose_the_Truth

Murdered?

Aren't you the one lying?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41643
Re: NASA
« Reply #48 on: April 19, 2012, 02:54:51 PM »
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.

What makes you think that the paper taped together and aluminum foil aren't appropriate materials for a lunar lander?
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: NASA
« Reply #49 on: April 19, 2012, 03:25:40 PM »
At minimum, there would have been ONE guy who'd tell about the conspiracy. I mean, one insider, not one of those guys who says "There's no Moon landing because a flag cannot float when there's no atmosphere".

Former NASA employee Thomas Baron testified before Congress that NASA was running a false space program. He was murdered exactly one week after his testimony.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Thomas_Baron_Silenced_for_Attempting_to_Expose_the_Truth

Murdered?

Aren't you the one lying?

Exactly one week after his congressional testimony and just days before he was set to publish his 500 page report exposing NASA, Thomas Baron was killed by a train. He was absolutely murdered.

That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.

What makes you think that the paper taped together and aluminum foil aren't appropriate materials for a lunar lander?

I'm tired of this willful ignorance and deliberate denial. The fact is that the Lunar Lander is a crudely built sham.

It's disgusting that after all these years, after all these expositions of NASA's fraudulence, you refuse to accept the obvious truth.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 03:29:10 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: NASA
« Reply #50 on: April 19, 2012, 03:28:43 PM »
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.

What makes you think that the paper taped together and aluminum foil aren't appropriate materials for a lunar lander?

I'm tired of this willful ignorance and deliberate denial. The fact is that the Lunar Lander is a crudely built sham.

It's disgusting that after all these years, after all these expositions of NASA's fraudulence, you refuse to accept the obvious truth.

Your truth will remain a speculation since you do not support it by anything else taht "it looks fake" or some other feeble argument.

Prove that its fake and then we might believe you.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11680
Re: NASA
« Reply #51 on: April 19, 2012, 03:35:14 PM »
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.

What makes you think that the paper taped together and aluminum foil aren't appropriate materials for a lunar lander?
Common sense.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: NASA
« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2012, 03:38:30 PM »
Your truth will remain a speculation since you do not support it by anything else taht "it looks fake" or some other feeble argument.

Prove that its fake and then we might believe you.

I already did show that it's fake. Or are you saying that aluminum foil, scotch tape, and cardboard are appropriate building materials for space ships?

What a deluded fantasy world you RE'ers live in.

Re: NASA
« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2012, 03:51:52 PM »
Your truth will remain a speculation since you do not support it by anything else taht "it looks fake" or some other feeble argument.

Prove that its fake and then we might believe you.

I already did show that it's fake. Or are you saying that aluminum foil, scotch tape, and cardboard are appropriate building materials for space ships?

What a deluded fantasy world you RE'ers live in.

As usual, Tom Bishop's material: no proof, no work, no sources, just allegations (and condescension. Coming from you, so funny).

Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true. Even if you repeat it.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41643
Re: NASA
« Reply #54 on: April 19, 2012, 04:05:04 PM »
That one picture is pretty damning, paper taped together and aluminum foil.

What makes you think that the paper taped together and aluminum foil aren't appropriate materials for a lunar lander?

I'm tired of this willful ignorance and deliberate denial.

So you don't have an answer.  Gotcha.

Quote
The fact is that the Lunar Lander is a crudely built sham.

If you don't know what a proper lunar lander should look like, then how can you criticize the design that Grumman came up with?

Quote
It's disgusting that after all these years, after all these expositions of NASA's fraudulence, you refuse to accept the obvious truth.

Saying that the LEM looks fake is a far cry from proving that it's a fake.
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.

Re: NASA
« Reply #55 on: April 19, 2012, 05:56:22 PM »
Conspiracy theories resist traditional canons of proof because they  reduce highly complex phenomena to simple causes. This is ordinarily a  characteristic much admired in scientific theories, where it is referred to  as “parsimony. ” Conspiracy theories—particularly the systemic theories  and the superconspiracy theories discussed above—are nothing if not  parsimonious, for they attribute all of the world's evil to the activities  of a single plot, or set of plots.  Precisely because the claims are so sweeping, however, they ultimately  defeat any attempt at testing. Conspiracists' reasoning runs in the following way. Because the conspiracy is so powerful, it controls virtually  all of the channels through which information is disseminated—universities, media, and so forth. Further, the conspiracy desires at all costs  to conceal its activities, so it will use its control over knowledge production and dissemination to mislead those who seek to expose it. Hence  information that appears to put a conspiracy theory in doubt must have  been planted by the conspirators themselves in order to mislead.  The result is a closed system of ideas about a plot that is believed not  only to be responsible for creating a wide range of evils but also to be  so clever at covering its tracks that it can manufacture the evidence ad-  duced by skeptics. In the end, the theory becomes nonfalsifiable, be-  cause every attempt at falsification is dismissed as a ruse. Therefore, there is no way to disprove this idea. However, because we can't test it, neither can it be tested.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 05:58:09 PM by Locke »
"Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true. "
Niels Bohr

Re: NASA
« Reply #56 on: April 20, 2012, 12:10:17 AM »
Conspiracy theories resist traditional canons of proof because they  reduce highly complex phenomena to simple causes. This is ordinarily a  characteristic much admired in scientific theories, where it is referred to  as “parsimony. ” Conspiracy theories—particularly the systemic theories  and the superconspiracy theories discussed above—are nothing if not  parsimonious, for they attribute all of the world's evil to the activities  of a single plot, or set of plots.  Precisely because the claims are so sweeping, however, they ultimately  defeat any attempt at testing. Conspiracists' reasoning runs in the following way. Because the conspiracy is so powerful, it controls virtually  all of the channels through which information is disseminated—universities, media, and so forth. Further, the conspiracy desires at all costs  to conceal its activities, so it will use its control over knowledge production and dissemination to mislead those who seek to expose it. Hence  information that appears to put a conspiracy theory in doubt must have  been planted by the conspirators themselves in order to mislead.  The result is a closed system of ideas about a plot that is believed not  only to be responsible for creating a wide range of evils but also to be  so clever at covering its tracks that it can manufacture the evidence ad-  duced by skeptics. In the end, the theory becomes nonfalsifiable, be-  cause every attempt at falsification is dismissed as a ruse. Therefore, there is no way to disprove this idea. However, because we can't test it, neither can it be tested.

I couldn't agree more.

What I find interesting is that the overwhelmning amount of data and proofs is so easily discarded by FE'ers (proving them to be quite lazy, by the way).
and where common sense come to the rescue (a conspiracy? involving so many people, for such a long time, for such amount of money!?), they seem to have long abandonned it.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: NASA
« Reply #57 on: April 20, 2012, 09:11:54 AM »
Quote from: Markjo
Saying that the LEM looks fake is a far cry from proving that it's a fake.

Markjo, I did not merely say that the lander was fake. I provided direct visual evidence that the Lunar Lander is built out of junkyard parts and stationary supplies.

Re: NASA
« Reply #58 on: April 20, 2012, 09:18:10 AM »
Quote from: Markjo
Saying that the LEM looks fake is a far cry from proving that it's a fake.

Markjo, I did not merely say that the lander was fake. I provided direct visual evidence that the Lunar Lander is built out of junkyard parts and stationary supplies.

No, you haven't.
You just posted a link and told us your truth, which is not the same thing.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41643
Re: NASA
« Reply #59 on: April 20, 2012, 09:26:54 AM »
Quote from: Markjo
Saying that the LEM looks fake is a far cry from proving that it's a fake.

Markjo, I did not merely say that the lander was fake. I provided direct visual evidence that the Lunar Lander is built out of junkyard parts and stationary supplies.

Have you physically examined a lunar lander?  There is one on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC.  Unless you physically examine a LEM, it's impossible to say for certain exactly what materials were used in its construction.  It's also very important to understand the environment that the lander was designed to operate within before you criticize the materials that were used in its construction.
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.