Acidents in space.

id like to begin this thread by thanking the brave men and women who have lost their lives for the betterment of mankind, and add that the idea of a flat earth conspiracy is an insult to the sacrifice they mad for ALL of us.

any way. simple question. why have their been accidents in which people have died in space exploration? how does this help a NASA conspiracy?

il start of by focusing on one.

Space Shuttle Columbia disaster

 As everyone knows this occurred on February 1, 2003. 7 brave men and women died as the shuttle broke up on re entry of the atmosphere. now on other threads i have heard arguments saying the space shuttle is a fake, just a mock up. made of wood and cannot possibly glide because of its aerodynamics. but at the point the shuttle broke up it was travailing at mach 19 at 209,000 feet how can those speeds or altitudes have been obtained by a object that size by any other means than re entry of the atmosphere from space?

we know it must have been going at huge speeds by pictures like the two below.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

this image is an actual photo taken of the shuttle burning up. proving the shuttle was travaling at the huge speeds requierd to turn it into the flaming mess you can see in  the photo.


http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/6/sts107columbiadebris.gif/

the second photo shows the debris field over a huge part of Texas. an area the size could only have been coverd by a brake up at extremely high altitude and speed to spread parts over the area required.

picture three shows Columbia debris (in red, orange, and yellow) detected by National Weather Service radar over Texas and Louisiana.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/84/250pxcolumbiadebrisdete.jpg/


local people where said to have been collecting debris themselves and trying to sell it on ebay. none of the pieces they found was balsa wood or foam, materials i have heard people say that the fake shuttle must be made of.

this is just a quick post that i hope to continue into more depth. any thoughts or additions?

I'm not really sure I want to debate this. Arguing over why people died seems a bit tasteless. In general we are likely to reply by answering that whistleblowers need to be dealt with, but I don't want to examine individual examples as you have pin-pointed as its not very nice for the bereaved etc.

I agree but this site is calling these people liars. And by extension tarnishing the very thing that they gave their lives for.

Prop failure.

I agree but this site is calling these people liars. And by extension tarnishing the very thing that they gave their lives for.

I find it unsavoury that you would want to pick apart the circumstances of someone's death - someone whose loved ones are still around to read whatever is written. I don't want to play. I'm out.

Okey so we have established that FET supported can call these heroes liars potentially infornt of their loved ones and families but won't discuss how everything they say to call them liars and part of the conspiracy is infact false and their very deaths prove that fact. Shame on you all and god speed to the brave men and women who make the ultimate sacrifice to better mankind, including the small minded ones who treat them like this.

You should be ashamed for bringing this up as a debate point. Apparently you have no respect for anyone.

What Rushy said.

You are looking to pick apart INDIVIDUAL cases of how people died.

No more so than any discovery or bbc program or any major news channle have done and broadcast to billions of problem. The only difference is that you call them liars and disrespect their memory. And as you will see in an upcoming post this isn't just with manned space flight. Also countless unmanned probes and satellites have all been lost and could have easily been coverd up if itwas all a hoax.

Seams to me that you can't explain why so you are hiding behind a sentiment that you disrespect and have no right showing by calling these people liars and their deaths in vain.

We are blaming NASA. A faceless entity run by corrupt officials. We are not blaming dead servicemen. It seems we have more respect for them than you do.

This is an outrageous thread! I know that the beauty of FES is that you can post almost anything, but I find this disgusting and getting very close (or maybe even over) the edge of what should be tolerated 

any way. simple question. why have their been accidents in which people have died in space exploration? how does this help a NASA conspiracy?

Why are there ever accidents?   You seem to be assuming that it's our position that these accidents were really murder.  It's not.  There's no reason why these accidents couldn't be just that, accidents.

If the space shuttle is just a prop, no one died, thankfully.

It is wrong to stifle debate on any subject that has a good bearing on finding us closer to the truth.
Suggesting that this is a debate that is not worth having suggests to the cynic that perhaps you are trying to avoid it.

We are all adults and should be able to have an adult conversation on a very sad matter.
There are some very good points that could come out of this debate and if we are all mature, we should be able to do it dispassionately and with the rigour that befits those who lost their lives. These debates must happen, that is how mankind progresses.

It is wrong to stifle debate on any subject that has a good bearing on finding us closer to the truth.
Suggesting that this is a debate that is not worth having suggests to the cynic that perhaps you are trying to avoid it.

We are all adults and should be able to have an adult conversation on a very sad matter.
There are some very good points that could come out of this debate and if we are all mature, we should be able to do it dispassionately and with the rigour that befits those who lost their lives. These debates must happen, that is how mankind progresses.

Why is this sad? According to the Conspiracy Theorists here, a prop exploded at a high altitude.
Only Zetetics and Spherical Earth thoerists would believe this was a tragedy.

people dying is a tragedy, irrespective of cause.
That this is a tragedy and a difficult subject is not being debated by anyone. However the rather over the top posts previous saying that discussing this is going too far is ridiculous. How do you possibly come to terms with a subject without discussing it in detail and trying to learn everything you can from it?
To deliberately create taboos is frankly ridiculous and as curious and aware humans, we are better than that. If you are not emotionally strong enough to discuss death, really, you need to have a think if discussing the very nature of existence as this forum purports to do is really for you.

There are no good points here and you're a fool to think there are. We don't debate the deaths of astronauts in attack of NASA any more than someone would debate the death of veterans in attack of war. No one debates that the Vietnam or Iraq-Afghanistan wars were bad because the soldiers died for the wrong reasons. It is bad taste and ultimately an attempt to circumvent your opponent using emotion.

It is growing apparent that RE'ers aren't just missing a scientific mind, they're missing a human one, too. It is amazing that one can be so desparate as to attempt such a pathetic debate.

Tom stated that the shuttle was a prop, which would not contain any astronauts.
So if he were to be believed, no one died.

Rushy,
That is singularly incorrect.
It is a human mind that can put their own selfish desire for emotional outburst to one side so they can look dispassionately at a subject and try and learn from it.
If you simply accept the first instinct of your emotion, then you will never learn, grow or move on from your first instinct. That is a symptom of people who think that because what they see in front of them is flat, everything must also be flat.
They are unable to look outside their own perspective and see that things might be more complex than that which they can see.

This thread was not discussing the astronauts themselves, simply asking the question that if it was all a conspiracy, how did it get to the point where people died? The causes of their death singularly suggest that there is something of truth in the idea of space travel. To be travelling that fast requires you to be doing things that cannot be achieved whilst in the earth's atmosphere.

Again, this smacks of Flat Earth supporters finding something they cannot answer with a decent level of certainty so finding another reason to dismiss it. In this instance it's a rather unfortunate and disrespectful method.
This debate forum would stand up to much more scrutiny from outsiders if such "tabloid" dismissive tactics were not employed so often by the factions within.
Reading your post Rushy put me in mind of reading tabloid newspapers such as the "Sun" or the now defunct "News of the World" who often used narrow minded emotion to sway readers who were not really wanting to consider both sides in a debate and believe what the most hysterical voice tells them to.

Rushy,
That is singularly incorrect.
It is a human mind that can put their own selfish desire for emotional outburst to one side so they can look dispassionately at a subject and try and learn from it.
If you simply accept the first instinct of your emotion, then you will never learn, grow or move on from your first instinct. That is a symptom of people who think that because what they see in front of them is flat, everything must also be flat.
They are unable to look outside their own perspective and see that things might be more complex than that which they can see.

This thread was not discussing the astronauts themselves, simply asking the question that if it was all a conspiracy, how did it get to the point where people died? The causes of their death singularly suggest that there is something of truth in the idea of space travel. To be travelling that fast requires you to be doing things that cannot be achieved whilst in the earth's atmosphere.

Again, this smacks of Flat Earth supporters finding something they cannot answer with a decent level of certainty so finding another reason to dismiss it. In this instance it's a rather unfortunate and disrespectful method.
This debate forum would stand up to much more scrutiny from outsiders if such "tabloid" dismissive tactics were not employed so often by the factions within.
Reading your post Rushy put me in mind of reading tabloid newspapers such as the "Sun" or the now defunct "News of the World" who often used narrow minded emotion to sway readers who were not really wanting to consider both sides in a debate and believe what the most hysterical voice tells them to.

Accidents are accidents. People die. These people died faking space travel. Is that what you wanted to hear? It is the only thing you're going to get out of this debate. The OP made this thread knowing that it would garner this reaction, just so he could pretend we didn't want to answer it.

The rest of your rant was irrelevant and quite frankly a disgrace. I will no longer be replying to you, because something like you is not worth my time.

Again, this smacks of Flat Earth supporters finding something they cannot answer with a decent level of certainty so finding another reason to dismiss it.

I don't care what it smacks of to you, you insensitive little brat. We are not interested in fulfilling your wish of discussing dead people. Go somewhere else if that is what makes you happy.

Thank you guys.
You have proven me correct.

The last time this debate was had, I was accused by Round Earthers who had sorely lost the debate that I had been insensitive and disrespectful. This time out of respect I refuse to join the debate and now we are apparently shirking the questions.

Round Earthers come here to 'win'. And they don't care who they hurt. Its not a game we like to play. This is a proud society and we will not drag it down to your level. I hope your next thread will be more in the vein of looking for the truth and basing it on science, not trying to back flat earthers into a corner where they need to individually accuse the dead of things.

How about a slightly less morbid version of this question?  If sustained space flight is impossible, then why do insurance companies write policies for satellite launches?  If the earth were flat, then it seems that every single satellite launch would end in failure and the insurance companies would go broke pretty quickly.

I hope your next thread will be more in the vein of looking for the truth and basing it on science, not trying to back flat earthers into a corner where they need to individually accuse the dead of things.

The thing is Thork - by clearly stating in many threads that space travel is a massive hoax & conspiracy to defraud the public out of billions of tax dollars, you have indirectly accused all the astronauts of being complicit in the conspiracy. 

This includes the 14 shuttle astronauts who died in the Columbia & Challenger disasters, the 3 Salyut Cosmonauts who died in the Soyuz 11 decompression in 1971, the 3 Apollo astronauts who died in an oxygen fire in 1967, the Soyuz cosmonaut who's parachute failed on re-entry and the half a dozen other astronauts & cosmonauts who have died in training.

How about a slightly less morbid version of this question?  If sustained space flight is impossible, then why do insurance companies write policies for satellite launches?  If the earth were flat, then it seems that every single satellite launch would end in failure and the insurance companies would go broke pretty quickly.

Because they are told just like everyone else that the mission was a success.  They don't have to pay up unless the mission was disclosed as a failure, which it is not disclosed as.

Shame on the OP for making light of the dead astronauts who were mercilessly detained and executed after the prop failure occurred.

Shame on the OP for making light of the dead astronauts who were detained and executed after the prop failure occurred.

Is that a direct accusation that can be backed up with evidence, or just wild, conspiracy related speculation ?

since were already discussing the deaths maybe we should discuss why NASA would put people in a fake rocket

There are a couple things that I would like to say.

First of all, the argument "discussing events that lead to people die is distasteful" is absolutely not true. What about the trials? Or the daily news with countless accidents, murders, catastrophes? You're saying that those shouldn't be reported? Some people are known to talk about the crucification of Jesus, right? The poor man died. And his dad is still around...how distasteful!


All right. Let's pretend, that for whatever reason you (as in everyone, who is a firm believer of the flat earth theory...or if you are trolls, consider this to be a mental challenge) just completely ignore the previous paragraph, and you still don't see the fallacy here. Let me then ask this question. What if those astronauts miraculously survived the catastrophe? And the answer "Well, they still died, so we can't pretend it didn't happen" is not accepted, you've already revealed that you have a wild imagination, you can clearly imagine different scenarios that might have happened. So what if the astronauts survived? What would you say then?

I am almost certain that this was mentioned before at least a hundred times, but if not, here is an interesting wikipedia article you might want to read. No, it wasn't written by the Freemasons/Illuminati/Nasa/Magneto, just in case you're wondering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor