Strongest piece of evidence for a NASA hoax?

Quote from: markjo on July 19, 2012, 08:55:13 AM

NASA is a customer of SpaceX, therefore SpaceX is guilty by association.

...
the nazi's used IBM computers to track how many jews they killed. is IBM guilty by association?

Do you guys know the difference between being a customer of - and actively funding a company through grants? It's just another money laundering scheme and attempt to publicly reinforce the plausibility of sustained space flight.

I buy all sorts of products without giving them 390 million dollars in grants.

the nazi's used IBM computers to track how many jews they killed. is IBM guilty by association?

If IBM met with the Nazis to design a computer exactly as they wanted it, to track the detainment and murder of Jews, then yes, they are guilty of participating in the detainment and mass murder of the Jews.

Quote from: markjo on July 19, 2012, 08:55:13 AM

Quote from: squevil on July 19, 2012, 08:14:44 AM

Quote from: FlatOrange on July 19, 2012, 01:22:27 AM

Oops my bad. "Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group — the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups.[16]"

Seeing as how it is in conjunction with NASA I won't argue it is third party. Well I'll look for something better!

google spaceX

NASA is a customer of SpaceX, therefore SpaceX is guilty by association.

i know you are just jumping onto the bandwagon but your statement is wrong. tom has awaited an independent space company and here it is. forget virgins attempts here is an independent company making results right now.

the nazi's used IBM computers to track how many jews they killed. is IBM guilty by association?

Designing a product for someone is different than buying a product and using it for your own needs.  Plus The US government has an interesting way of dealing with Nazis.  If you are valuable, then come right in, otherwise, we are going to burn you.  Take Werner Von Braun.  Member of the Nazi Party.  Awesome Rocket designer.  We let him come right in.  HE BUILT ROCKETS FOR THE NAZIS AND WE LET HIM COME RIGHT IN AND BUILD OUR ROCKETS.  This is a great example of how the Future NASA was built on corruption.

NASA = NAZI

Quote from: markjo on July 19, 2012, 08:55:13 AM

Quote from: squevil on July 19, 2012, 08:14:44 AM

Quote from: FlatOrange on July 19, 2012, 01:22:27 AM

Oops my bad. "Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group — the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups.[16]"

Seeing as how it is in conjunction with NASA I won't argue it is third party. Well I'll look for something better!

google spaceX

NASA is a customer of SpaceX, therefore SpaceX is guilty by association.

i know you are just jumping onto the bandwagon but your statement is wrong. tom has awaited an independent space company and here it is. forget virgins attempts here is an independent company making results right now.

the nazi's used IBM computers to track how many jews they killed. is IBM guilty by association?

Yes. They sold computers to nazis. Just like VW is guilty by association to the nazis.

Quote from: squevil on July 20, 2012, 05:57:29 AM

the nazi's used IBM computers to track how many jews they killed. is IBM guilty by association?

If IBM met with the Nazis to design a computer exactly as they wanted it, to track the detainment and murder of Jews, then yes, they are guilty of participating in the detainment and mass murder of the Jews.

Tom, the holocaust is a hoax.

http://sixmillionmyth.blogspot.com.es/p/six-million-myth.html

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 20, 2012, 09:37:55 AM

Quote from: squevil on July 20, 2012, 05:57:29 AM

the nazi's used IBM computers to track how many jews they killed. is IBM guilty by association?

If IBM met with the Nazis to design a computer exactly as they wanted it, to track the detainment and murder of Jews, then yes, they are guilty of participating in the detainment and mass murder of the Jews.

Tom, the holocaust is a hoax.

http://sixmillionmyth.blogspot.com.es/p/six-million-myth.html

That's not funny.

Quote from: drevko on July 20, 2012, 02:02:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 20, 2012, 09:37:55 AM

Quote from: squevil on July 20, 2012, 05:57:29 AM

the nazi's used IBM computers to track how many jews they killed. is IBM guilty by association?

If IBM met with the Nazis to design a computer exactly as they wanted it, to track the detainment and murder of Jews, then yes, they are guilty of participating in the detainment and mass murder of the Jews.

Tom, the holocaust is a hoax.

http://sixmillionmyth.blogspot.com.es/p/six-million-myth.html

That's not funny.

Nor is it relevant.

forget my analogy. at the end of the day spacex is building its own gear and sending rockets themselves. this is not what nasa do and because they do not do this for various reasons helps tom form the backbone of the great nasa conspiracy.

spacex have been able to achieve what nasa can not. no wonder they would want a part of the action. they give money to spacex as an investment.

at the end of the day though nasa is the customer and spacex is a private company. you guys said for a long time that you would be willing to accept evidence from a non government agency and like markjo rightly predicted; you will all deny it.

@ markjo, i knew what you meant.

Personally I think if we sent any of them to space (which I'm all for) they would deny it. Even so though, I want to send Tom bishop to space.

Personally I think if we sent any of them to space (which I'm all for) they would deny it. Even so though, I want to send Tom bishop to space.

They would simply say they saw the solar circle. You'd need to get them onto the moon.

They would simply say they saw the solar circle. You'd need to get them onto the moon.

Out of curiosity, what do you think 'they' would attribute the lack of 'gravity' (or alternative thereof) as they 'orbited' (or equivalent thereof) the Earth? We might be able to save a trip of 240,000 / 3000 miles here, obviously assuming that a lack of gravity (or alternative thereof) is observed.

Pilgrim.

Simply that the earth wasn't pushing up on them. (edit: which is true. UA works as a theory because the earth is pushing up on us just as we are pusibg down on it. The only dofference is that we're drawn to the earth)  If they were on the mOon they'd still say it was a disc 32 miles across. If you drove them around the moon they'd say you went in a circle.

(edited in that paranthesy part)

But surely as the solar system (and indeed the entire universe according to some Flat Earth Theory proponents) and everything in it is accelerating upwards, then the effects of 'gravity' would still be felt whether you were on the Earth or in a space faring vessel 250 miles above the surface of it.

While I appreciate your answer, FlatOrange, I would rather a proponent of the Flat Earth Theory respond to my query as it is at risk of getting lost in another fairly pointless back-and-forth like many of my other queries.

All the best,

Pilgrim.

No problem. But your question did say "what do you think 'they'..." 

No problem. But your question did say "what do you think 'they'..." 

To clarify. 'They' are defined as the 'they' in Lorddave's post, which I quoted and also attributed to through the use of apostrophes. As he suggested 'they' would say they were looking at a solar circle, and therefore 'they' are likely Flat Earth proponents, which looking at your recent threads and posts, you are not. Furthermore I directed the question at Lorddave, again through the use of quotation.

Again, thank you for your contribution.

Pilgrim.

if you were stood on the side of the moon (or the moons face) you would fall off

Simply that the earth wasn't pushing up on them. (edit: which is true. UA works as a theory because the earth is pushing up on us just as we are pusibg down on it. The only dofference is that we're drawn to the earth)  If they were on the mOon they'd still say it was a disc 32 miles across. If you drove them around the moon they'd say you went in a circle.

(edited in that paranthesy part)

Exactly.

Once you're not being pushed up by the UA (you have gravity in a plane) then you're weightless.  When you need to do is get them to go onto the moon then step outside without a space suit.  They could then examine the lunar surface to ensure it is not a stage.

Ah, many thanks, Lorddave. That clarifies the extent to which acceleration results in a gravity-like force when not on the surface of  Earth.

Ah, many thanks, Lorddave. That clarifies the extent to which acceleration results in a gravity-like force when not on the surface of  Earth.

Actually I think I'm not entirely accurate. A plane shouldn't feel the effects of the UA but rather be generating it based in the lift they receive and the Earth pushing towards them at an equal rate.

In essence: the Earth is pushing the atmosphere up, which helps keep the plane accelerating upwards.

Thanks for the further information, although I'm still a little confused, likely due to my inability to grasp the model, as opposed to your explanation. What is it that keeps the sun and moon (and other celestial bodies) at a constant distance of 3000(ish) miles from the surface? As far as I understood it, this was due to everything in our solar system accelerating upwards at a constant rate, so while everything is accelerating, there is no perceived movement as to the observer it appears we are stationary.

Just to clarify your point regarding feeling 'gravity' in a plane due to the atmosphere being accelerated. Does acceleration exist in the 'space' between the Earth and the moon? I ask this, as I would imagine it impossible to ever breach the atmosphere of Earth, as no longer under the effects of UA accelerating the atmosphere (and thus your craft), the Earth would 'catch up' to whatever spacecraft you were in, unless of course you could independently accelerate faster than UA.

I do hope I have been clear with my query.

Pilgrim.

Thanks for the further information, although I'm still a little confused, likely due to my inability to grasp the model, as opposed to your explanation. What is it that keeps the sun and moon (and other celestial bodies) at a constant distance of 3000(ish) miles from the surface? As far as I understood it, this was due to everything in our solar system accelerating upwards at a constant rate, so while everything is accelerating, there is no perceived movement as to the observer it appears we are stationary.

Just to clarify your point regarding feeling 'gravity' in a plane due to the atmosphere being accelerated. Does acceleration exist in the 'space' between the Earth and the moon? I ask this, as I would imagine it impossible to ever breach the atmosphere of Earth, as no longer under the effects of UA accelerating the atmosphere (and thus your craft), the Earth would 'catch up' to whatever spacecraft you were in, unless of course you could independently accelerate faster than UA.

I do hope I have been clear with my query.

Pilgrim.

FET is one of the most convoluted, contradictory, and incomplete theories in existence. It's entire basis is to start with "The Earth Is Flat" and figure out how to make that work. Half of the models contradict the other half and they can't even get any sort of accurate map or star chart.

So take what I said with a pound of salt because even I don't understand FET very well.

Noted, Lorddave and thank you. I am not looking for definitive answers, so no salt needed. The Flat Earth society, to me, does not represent a community simply trying to prove a flat earth, but rather as an environment for thinking freely, radically and in some cases, hypothetically. While I have no doubt some here do actually believe the Earth is flat, I am sure this place is many things to many others.

My reasoning for being here is simply to find out interesting hypotheses as to how some explain a Flat Earth model (whether they believe it or not.) Some here are determined to disprove FET, but that is futile, because FET isn't constrained to the shape of the Earth - it is a state of mind, a radical and alternative way of thinking about bigger things than day to day. Why shouldn't the Earth be flat, simply because you have been taught otherwise? What a thrilling and interesting proposition for discussion!

I'm sure some of course are here simply for the enjoyment of debate, regardless of the stance they take or whether they even believe in the position they are arguing. Some just simply like to lock horns with those more passionate about disproving the FET, taking some sort of pleasure in the annoyance of others. (I believe these users are labelled 'trolls.')

This thread is of particular interest to me, as instead of presenting evidence, it merely asks what degree of evidence would be required to change the belief of one who believes the Earth is flat.

Thanks again, Lorddave for this discourse. I do enjoy these interesting discussions.

Pilgrim.

pilgrim gets it 

pilgrim gets it 

Indeed. He is a very wise noob. So wise in fact that he should be promoted to regular immediately.