How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?

  • 76 Replies
  • 12662 Views
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #30 on: August 21, 2012, 08:30:29 AM »
Thanks for posting this Tom. Maybe someone will watch it and see the space programs lies for what they are.

Or they'll watch it and realize the Truth, which is that if you spend enough time poring endlessly over anything you'll probably find small details that look weird.  So either everything ever is a hoax, or we should be expecting a bit more out of silly videos like this before believing such things.
Or you can overlook all the small details that prove the hoax. And keep on believing the lies.
Or you can overlook all the small details that prove its true. And if there's something you don't undertand, don't assume it's a hoax.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2012, 09:10:09 AM »
So far FEers aren't even attempting to explain how Yuri Gagarin orbited earth.

They just say it is a hoax, as they always do with everything they can't understand.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41648
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2012, 09:13:46 AM »
So, you have no idea of what aether is.  Good to know.

Do you have a specific problem with my description?

Yes.  You calling it a "description" for starters.  Perhaps you should start with the traditional definition of aether and go from there.  But also remember that aether goes back to the ancient Greeks and we all know how reliable they were.
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.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2012, 10:06:37 AM »
The Apollo astronauts were even saying that they couldn't see stars from the moon.

Do you have a source for this?  I've heard that they're no brighter than on earth (i.e. difficult to see if there's any light pollution) but not that they were absent.

Arguing if astronauts could see stars from the moon is like arguing if Cinderella's step sisters enjoyed horse ridding. Both are debating minor points within works of fiction and ultimately a huge waste of time.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #34 on: August 21, 2012, 10:17:28 AM »
This can't be a serious thread. I mean... really? Of course Yuri Gagarin orbited the earth. Of course he could see stars, especially on the nighttime side of the planet, where the sunlight wasn't obscuring his view. Of course the bad quality cameras of the 1960s and 70s couldn't pick up the tiny dots that we view stars as from the surface of the moon. It's hard to see them even in a modern day cameraphone, which is much better quality than what was used on the moon. I can hardly get a good picture of the moon on my iphone, which takes photos in 1080p resolution.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #35 on: August 21, 2012, 12:25:11 PM »
So, you have no idea of what aether is.  Good to know.

Do you have a specific problem with my description?

Yes.  You calling it a "description" for starters.  Perhaps you should start with the traditional definition of aether and go from there.  But also remember that aether goes back to the ancient Greeks and we all know how reliable they were.

Seems like you should have read the description for yourself.

Quote
analogous to the air breathed by mortals

The point of contention between my description and the actual description of aether is non-existent. You're trying to be condescending and failing at it yet again. You're getting too old for this, Markjo, you're not even good at it anymore.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41648
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #36 on: August 21, 2012, 01:00:11 PM »
Seems like you should have read the description for yourself.

Quote
The word αἰθήρ (aithēr) in Homeric Greek means "pure, fresh air" or "clear sky", imagined in Greek mythology to be the pure essence where the gods lived and which they breathed, analogous to the air breathed by mortals (also personified as a deity, Aether, the son of Erebus and Nyx)

The point of contention between my description and the actual description of aether is non-existent.

Say again?
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: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #37 on: August 21, 2012, 01:03:42 PM »
So, you have no idea of what aether is.  Good to know.

Do you have a specific problem with my description?

Yes.  You calling it a "description" for starters.  Perhaps you should start with the traditional definition of aether and go from there.  But also remember that aether goes back to the ancient Greeks and we all know how reliable they were.

Seems like you should have read the description for yourself.

Quote
analogous to the air breathed by mortals

The point of contention between my description and the actual description of aether is non-existent. You're trying to be condescending and failing at it yet again. You're getting too old for this, Markjo, you're not even good at it anymore.

Your replies just don't make any sense.  They're typical FE comments.

RE'er: If the world is flat, why does the sun disappear over the horizon?
FE'er: Well, stupid, if you would have read the FAQ or thumbed through the pages and pages of 4-year-old forum posts, you would know about the magical wolf gods that control the Aether in the graviton spectaculation.  That merges with the universal accelerator to launch space shrimp at your mom.
RE'er: Do you have any proof of any of this?
FE'er: Well, all you have to do is look at the sky!  Is it blue???  Oh, I guess to a round earther, the sky looks green because y'all are stupid faces!
RE'er: This doesn't make any sense.
FE'er: It isn't my problem that you're too much of a stupid-face to know what we're talking about, stupid stupid!  Why are you so stupid, you doo doo head??? 
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #38 on: August 21, 2012, 01:08:44 PM »
Alright, so the Soviet Union is "in on it" too.

Obvious trolls are obvious.

Why do you troll your own site though? Isn't that borderline pathetic?

It's so stupid!  These people...  What do you think the odds are that the Soviet Union and the United States... during the cold war... agreed on being a part of a conspiracy to keep people believing the earth is round when it's actually flat?  How in the bloody freak does that make ANY sense on ANY planet in ANY dimension?  lol
...does anyone find it funny that the Flat Earth model is actually round?

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2012, 01:12:06 PM »
Alright, so the Soviet Union is "in on it" too.

Obvious trolls are obvious.

Why do you troll your own site though? Isn't that borderline pathetic?

It's so stupid!  These people...  What do you think the odds are that the Soviet Union and the United States... during the cold war... agreed on being a part of a conspiracy to keep people believing the earth is round when it's actually flat?  How in the bloody freak does that make ANY sense on ANY planet in ANY dimension?  lol

There's a saying "if you can think it, it probably exists in some universe."
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #40 on: August 21, 2012, 05:02:06 PM »
Or you can overlook all the small details that prove the hoax. And keep on believing the lies.

Except that they don't prove a hoax.  If you have the right paranoid mindset, anything can seem sinister.

#noexternalembed" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">What is Gangstalking?

Are you convinced by the narrator in this video, hoppy?

Everyone else watch that video, too, it's fascinating stuff.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 05:03:56 PM by Cat Earth Theory »
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #41 on: August 22, 2012, 06:11:21 AM »
Or you can overlook all the small details that prove the hoax. And keep on believing the lies.

Except that they don't prove a hoax.  If you have the right paranoid mindset, anything can seem sinister.

#noexternalembed" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">What is Gangstalking?

Are you convinced by the narrator in this video, hoppy?

Everyone else watch that video, too, it's fascinating stuff.

That is a load of horseshit. It's like this person thinks that EVERYONE that goes by her is waaatchiiiing. They're all somehow involved with that guy on the bike. Apparently he's signaling them all. Come on, really? They think it's weird because she's sitting in her fucking car recording everything on a video camera.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2012, 06:15:19 AM »
Paranoid schizophrenia does odd things to the way people see the world, yes.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2012, 06:45:06 AM »
It's so stupid!  These people...  What do you think the odds are that the Soviet Union and the United States... during the cold war... agreed on being a part of a conspiracy to keep people believing the earth is round when it's actually flat?  How in the bloody freak does that make ANY sense on ANY planet in ANY dimension?  lol

That's not the motive of the Conspiracy.

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

Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2012, 07:49:40 AM »
It's so stupid!  These people...  What do you think the odds are that the Soviet Union and the United States... during the cold war... agreed on being a part of a conspiracy to keep people believing the earth is round when it's actually flat?  How in the bloody freak does that make ANY sense on ANY planet in ANY dimension?  lol

That's not the motive of the Conspiracy.

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

If indeed such conspiracy existed.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2012, 08:12:01 AM »
It's so stupid!  These people...  What do you think the odds are that the Soviet Union and the United States... during the cold war... agreed on being a part of a conspiracy to keep people believing the earth is round when it's actually flat?  How in the bloody freak does that make ANY sense on ANY planet in ANY dimension?  lol

That's not the motive of the Conspiracy.

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

The US absolutely does not require ICBMs to project military power.  Also, it's been half a century since NASA was founded and there still are no space weapons.  Those 'motives' are nonsense.

And, NASA absolutely does not have a 'near flawless' track record.  I don't even get how being successful at something is evidence of forgery.

Oh, and you still have yet to explain why you won't accept the abundance of observations of NASA missions from independent sources that you definitely said you would accept if shown.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #46 on: August 22, 2012, 08:27:12 AM »
I bet people thought Christopher Columbus's journey to America was a fake as well. We see how that turned out.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #47 on: August 22, 2012, 08:36:59 AM »
I bet people thought Christopher Columbus's journey to America was a fake as well. We see how that turned out.

Thousands of natives were murdered or enslaved by Columbus. A very poor example.

Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #48 on: August 22, 2012, 09:48:29 AM »
there is no "conspiracy"
NASA as with otehr space agencies are plain just getting it wrong.
Easy to do if you were taught from birth the earth was a sphere.
Soon with Zetetics in space...the truth will be known

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #49 on: August 22, 2012, 10:06:12 AM »
there is no "conspiracy"
NASA as with otehr space agencies are plain just getting it wrong.
Easy to do if you were taught from birth the earth was a sphere.
Soon with Zetetics in space...the truth will be known

I'm pretty sure I've seen this exact post from you before, and never once have you been able to explain how they get a little thing like the shape of the earth wrong yet still manage to get into space, and even go into orbit, despite all their calculations necessarily being wrong.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #50 on: August 22, 2012, 10:09:47 AM »
I bet people thought Christopher Columbus's journey to America was a fake as well. We see how that turned out.

Thousands of natives were murdered or enslaved by Columbus. A very poor example.

How is it a poor example. He left, went somewhere that people couldn't see, came back with samples.

NASA left (well, three of them did), went somewhere, and also came back with some samples.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #51 on: August 22, 2012, 10:38:01 AM »
The US absolutely does not require ICBMs to project military power.  Also, it's been half a century since NASA was founded and there still are no space weapons.  Those 'motives' are nonsense.

ICBMs are space weapons.

Quote
And, NASA absolutely does not have a 'near flawless' track record.  I don't even get how being successful at something is evidence of forgery.

NASA has only had two public spectacles of failure in the last 45 years. The things like the Hubble Telescope needing a new expensive lens were done behind closed doors and have no public validation.

Quote
Oh, and you still have yet to explain why you won't accept the abundance of observations of NASA missions from independent sources that you definitely said you would accept if shown.

You posted the story of how Larry Baysinger received the Apollo 11 broadcast with an antenna in his garden pointed at the moon as proof. You argued that these were the real broadcasts from the moon and that he was not capturing a radio station rebroadcasting the live signals on earth since Baysinger could only hear the astronauts speak and could not hear Capcom/Huston's side of their transmissions to the moon.

However, from this article on the alleged Baysinger capture we read the following:

    "No one checked the tape recorder and sure enough, the recorder ran out of tape. A new reel was installed and 35 minutes of the astronauts conversation was recorded including the entire text of President Nixon's message of congratulations."

So I would like you to explain to us, if he was capturing the broadcasts directly from the Lunar Lander on the moon, how he intercepted President Nixon's communication.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 12:39:25 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #52 on: August 22, 2012, 11:21:03 AM »
The US absolutely does not require ICBMs to project military power.  Also, it's been half a century since NASA was founded and there still are no space weapons.  Those 'motives' are nonsense.

ICBMs are space weapons.

Your definition of a space weapon is quite skewed. ICBMs at most make a sub-orbital trajectory flight. Space Weapons are weapons that are based out in space, I.E. orbit the earth. Such as high powered lasers, kinetic bombardment systems, or missile platforms (like a satellite actually launching the missile). Either way, gary was not saying that they are, or are not space weapons. He said that "The US absolutely does not require ICBMs to project military power." That means that we can just send over troops, we don't need "big bomb" to make our presence known in the world.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #53 on: August 22, 2012, 11:29:47 AM »
It's so stupid!  These people...  What do you think the odds are that the Soviet Union and the United States... during the cold war... agreed on being a part of a conspiracy to keep people believing the earth is round when it's actually flat?  How in the bloody freak does that make ANY sense on ANY planet in ANY dimension?  lol

That's not the motive of the Conspiracy.

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

Tom, this is an awesome quote:
The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because NASA thinks it's round. They are not running a real space program, so they wouldn't know what shape the earth truly takes.
You state that one of the few people actually sending high altitude craft up haven't even noticed what shape the earth is, even with all their technology and science and imaging etc? Yet a Victorian snake oil salesman did suss it?
You truly are mind-bottling.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #54 on: August 22, 2012, 11:50:48 AM »
It's so stupid!  These people...  What do you think the odds are that the Soviet Union and the United States... during the cold war... agreed on being a part of a conspiracy to keep people believing the earth is round when it's actually flat?  How in the bloody freak does that make ANY sense on ANY planet in ANY dimension?  lol

That's not the motive of the Conspiracy.

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

Tom, this is an awesome quote:
The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because NASA thinks it's round. They are not running a real space program, so they wouldn't know what shape the earth truly takes.
You state that one of the few people actually sending high altitude craft up haven't even noticed what shape the earth is, even with all their technology and science and imaging etc? Yet a Victorian snake oil salesman did suss it?
You truly are mind-bottling.

Mind-bottling. That was me. I should trademark that.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #55 on: August 22, 2012, 12:46:38 PM »
Your definition of a space weapon is quite skewed. ICBMs at most make a sub-orbital trajectory flight. Space Weapons are weapons that are based out in space, I.E. orbit the earth. Such as high powered lasers, kinetic bombardment systems, or missile platforms (like a satellite actually launching the missile). Either way, gary was not saying that they are, or are not space weapons. He said that "The US absolutely does not require ICBMs to project military power." That means that we can just send over troops, we don't need "big bomb" to make our presence known in the world.

Gary said that since NASA was started there have been no space weapons. But ICBMs are space weapons, as they go in space.

There are no space based weapons. They were banned by UN treaty after NASA was founded.

It's so stupid!  These people...  What do you think the odds are that the Soviet Union and the United States... during the cold war... agreed on being a part of a conspiracy to keep people believing the earth is round when it's actually flat?  How in the bloody freak does that make ANY sense on ANY planet in ANY dimension?  lol

That's not the motive of the Conspiracy.

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

Tom, this is an awesome quote:
The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because NASA thinks it's round. They are not running a real space program, so they wouldn't know what shape the earth truly takes.
You state that one of the few people actually sending high altitude craft up haven't even noticed what shape the earth is, even with all their technology and science and imaging etc? Yet a Victorian snake oil salesman did suss it?
You truly are mind-bottling.

If you go really high up to the edge of the atmosphere you can see some slight curvature, and maybe assume that the earth is a globe. But this slight curvature is actually the result of looking down at a circle of light, as a circle is curved in two directions.

NASA likes to take high altitude photos from the edge of space and warp the image to add in more curvature to make the craft look higher than it is.

Indeed, NASA does a bad job of this as well. A globe earth should portray the curvature as an arc of a circle no matter which angle you look at it from. However, many scenes do not show an arc of a circle. Check out this bad curvature warping job from the ISS footage:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">ISS Pass Over the USA - North View

Certainly not an arc of a circle.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 12:57:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #56 on: August 22, 2012, 12:55:15 PM »
Your definition of a space weapon is quite skewed. ICBMs at most make a sub-orbital trajectory flight. Space Weapons are weapons that are based out in space, I.E. orbit the earth. Such as high powered lasers, kinetic bombardment systems, or missile platforms (like a satellite actually launching the missile). Either way, gary was not saying that they are, or are not space weapons. He said that "The US absolutely does not require ICBMs to project military power." That means that we can just send over troops, we don't need "big bomb" to make our presence known in the world.

Gary said that since NASA was started there have been no space weapons. ICBMs are space weapons, however, as they go in space.

There are no space based weapons as they are banned by UN treaty.

Like I said, your definition of a space weapon is skewed. I've never, ever, ever heard an ICBM defined as a "space weapon." The words "space weapon," imply that it is a weapon used in or launched from space. ICBM stands for Inter Continental Ballistic Missile. Nothing in that name implies anything about space, and in fact, going through space is not required for the use of the weapon. It would make sense if they went through space to reach a very distant target, however, I'd like to see a source that says that they do, and I'd also like to see a source that defines them as a "space weapon."

It's so stupid!  These people...  What do you think the odds are that the Soviet Union and the United States... during the cold war... agreed on being a part of a conspiracy to keep people believing the earth is round when it's actually flat?  How in the bloody freak does that make ANY sense on ANY planet in ANY dimension?  lol

That's not the motive of the Conspiracy.

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

Tom, this is an awesome quote:
The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because NASA thinks it's round. They are not running a real space program, so they wouldn't know what shape the earth truly takes.
You state that one of the few people actually sending high altitude craft up haven't even noticed what shape the earth is, even with all their technology and science and imaging etc? Yet a Victorian snake oil salesman did suss it?
You truly are mind-bottling.

If you go really high up to the edge of the atmosphere you can see some slight curvature, and maybe assume that the earth is a globe. But this slight curvature is the result of looking down at a circle.

NASA likes to take high altitude photos from the edge of space and warp the image to add in more curvature to make the craft look higher than it is.

Source for this? I've never heard of anyone intentionally distorting the image so that the curvature is more extreme and it looks like it was taken from a higher altitude.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #57 on: August 22, 2012, 01:14:46 PM »
Quote
Like I said, your definition of a space weapon is skewed. I've never, ever, ever heard an ICBM defined as a "space weapon."

Sounds like you don't know much about that the government is claiming about space technologies then. Space.com has an article "Top 10 Space Weapons" and has ICBM's listed as #4.

Quote
Source for this? I've never heard of anyone intentionally distorting the image so that the curvature is more extreme and it looks like it was taken from a higher altitude.

See the video I added to my post above while you were posting. The curvature is clearly being manipulated. The earth is not an arc of a circle and the surface of the earth seems to warp into that odd curve as it passes by the screen.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 01:20:48 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #58 on: August 22, 2012, 01:29:48 PM »
Quote
Like I said, your definition of a space weapon is skewed. I've never, ever, ever heard an ICBM defined as a "space weapon."

Sounds like you don't know much about that the government is claiming about space technologies then. Space.com has an article "Top 10 Space Weapons" and has ICBM's listed as #4.

A quote from the website you linked me too "Deploying nuclear bombs in outer space seems like a natural goal of the military. Indeed, in the 1950's the US Air Force planned to detonate a nuclear bomb on the moon. This effort, dubbed Project A 119, included a young Carl Sagan on its team. At the time, an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) carrying a nuclear warhead possessed the capability to reach the moon. Fortunately, the man in the moon was spared." - This says that they were planned to be USED IN SPACE. Their conventional use (if you can call ICBMs conventional) is not as a space weapon. Just because it can, does not mean it is. That's not what they were designed for.


Quote
Source for this? I've never heard of anyone intentionally distorting the image so that the curvature is more extreme and it looks like it was taken from a higher altitude.

See the video I added to my post above while you were posting. The curvature is clearly being manipulated. The earth is not an arc of a circle and the surface of the earth seems to warp into that odd curve as it passes by the screen.

That's called a wide angle lens, Tom. You can get these from online photography websites and some stores. They take images and video at a wide angle with a fish-eye lens and are known to distort images. This is not intentional distortion, this is cause by NASA trying to take a prettier picture.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #59 on: August 22, 2012, 01:41:38 PM »
the video I added to my post above while you were posting. The curvature is clearly being manipulated. The earth is not an arc of a circle and the surface of the earth seems to warp into that odd curve as it passes by the screen.

Seems fine to me, Tom.  BTW The distortion is an artifact, not a manipulation.

Anyhow can you prove it's not an arc of a circle?  So far have you have failed to do this.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 01:43:19 PM by Moon squirter »
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.