ISS is not in space

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 24, 2013, 07:08:46 PM

Why would they conspire about the earth's shape in the first place? Is there a benefit to go with a spherical earth over a flat earth?

To reap the substantial profit to be had by maintaining said conspiracy.  I suggest you review the FAQ, Wiki, and do some searching.

What profits do they get from propagating a round earth? They could propagate the same things about space if they would stick to a flat earth. If you say they are so brilliant as you think they could lie about anything, but they would still not necessarily have to lie about the shape.

There is no point for you to continue defending the conspiracy about the earth's shape as there is clearly no reason to believe there is one. The only possible option for you, but you did not admit it as of yet, is that NASA is ignorant about the shape.

What profits do they get from propagating a round earth? They could propagate the same things about space if they would stick to a flat earth. If you say they are so brilliant as you think they could lie about anything, but they would still not necessarily have to lie about the shape.

The money that is budgeted to NASA.  Spend a portion on keeping up the show, keep the rest as profit.  It wouldn't work in the case of Flat Earth as space travel is not possible. This is all in the FAQ/Wiki.

There is no point for you to continue defending the conspiracy about the earth's shape as there is clearly no reason to believe there is one.

I am sorry you don't agree with the idea, but that doesn't change anything.

The only possible option for you, but you did not admit it as of yet, is that NASA is ignorant about the shape.

If the earth is flat, they must be either lying or ignorant.

Are you done yet?

The money that is budgeted to NASA.  Spend a portion on keeping up the show, keep the rest as profit. 

NASA is a government agency, not a for profit company.

It wouldn't work in the case of Flat Earth as space travel is not possible.

If the various celestial objects can travel in space, then why can't NASA figure out a way to travel in space?

The money that is budgeted to NASA.  Spend a portion on keeping up the show, keep the rest as profit.  It wouldn't work in the case of Flat Earth as space travel is not possible. This is all in the FAQ/Wiki.

They might as well lie only about the space program and come up with some answers to how space travel is possible on a flat earth. There is no need to spend more money on the show for a spherical earth if all they want to do is to keep money in their pockets.

There is no point for you to continue defending the conspiracy about the earth's shape as there is clearly no reason to believe there is one.

I am sorry you don't agree with the idea, but that doesn't change anything.

It is not a matter of opinion. I am talking about grounded reasons, not just one's believes.

Quote from: Junker on May 24, 2013, 06:42:10 PM

If the earth is flat, they must be either lying or ignorant.

Are you done yet?

No, because you still keep the option of a conspiracy open.

NASA is a government agency, not a for profit company.

Possibly.  I imagine the contractors they outsource to are for-profit though.

If the various celestial objects can travel in space, then why can't NASA figure out a way to travel in space?

The most logical answer is that they are spending less to fake it to keep profits up.  Actual attempts at exploration would likely be very expensive. 

The most logical answer is that they are spending less to fake it to keep profits up.  Actual attempts at exploration would likely be very expensive.

Hence they retired the space shuttle and the moon program. Their current annual budget is about 18 billion. Just one space shuttle launch costs 450 million dollars. That is almost half a billion. They would only be capable of launching 36 space shuttles every year and then forget about all other things they need to pay for.

To give a comparison the Russian Soyuz costs about 40 million dollar to launch.

I'd imagine that pumping out the amount of videos that come out of the ISS would be quite expensive.

I'd imagine that pumping out the amount of videos that come out of the ISS would be quite expensive.

Why is that?  They have already invested the capital for the tech, just have to pay labor.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 24, 2013, 07:46:48 PM

I'd imagine that pumping out the amount of videos that come out of the ISS would be quite expensive.

Why is that?  They have already invested the capital for the tech, just have to pay labor.

The man hours that would need to be put into each video would be astronomical, the fact that videos come out fairly regularly and in a short span of time would mean lots of OT hours, needing to pay out "keep quiet" money would be a large sum.  All in all, it would probably be less expensive for them to send people into space on the Russian capsule than it would be to completely fake the entire thing.

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 07:35:26 PM

If the various celestial objects can travel in space, then why can't NASA figure out a way to travel in space?

The most logical answer is that they are spending less to fake it to keep profits up.  Actual attempts at exploration would likely be very expensive.

Why is that the most logical answer?  How can you be sure that NASA didn't figure out space travel 50+ years ago like they say that they did, regardless of the shape of the earth?

Why is that the most logical answer?  How can you be sure that NASA didn't figure out space travel 50+ years ago like they say that they did, regardless of the shape of the earth?

Because space travel isn't possible.

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 07:55:21 PM

Why is that the most logical answer?  How can you be sure that NASA didn't figure out space travel 50+ years ago like they say that they did, regardless of the shape of the earth?

Because space travel isn't possible.

The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.

The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.

Supposed satellites and rocket launches are independent of other celestial bodies.  I don't see the conflict.

arnt they about the same size? what properties do 'planets and stars' have that rockets dont?

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 08:05:04 PM

The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.

Supposed satellites and rocket launches are independent of other celestial bodies.

Are you sure?  How do you know that they don't use the same basic principles to travel in space?  After all, airplanes are independent of birds, but they both fly using the same fundamental principles.

Quote from: Junker on May 24, 2013, 08:09:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 08:05:04 PM

The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.

Supposed satellites and rocket launches are independent of other celestial bodies.

Are you sure?  How do you know that they don't use the same basic principles to travel in space?  After all, airplanes are independent of birds, but they both fly using the same fundamental principles.

So, birds, planes, and rockets/satellites are all confined to earth.

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 08:31:53 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 24, 2013, 08:09:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 08:05:04 PM

The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.

Supposed satellites and rocket launches are independent of other celestial bodies.

Are you sure?  How do you know that they don't use the same basic principles to travel in space?  After all, airplanes are independent of birds, but they both fly using the same fundamental principles.

So, birds, planes, and rockets/satellites are all confined to earth.

If the celestial objects aren't confined to the earth, then why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space?

Quote from: Junker on May 24, 2013, 08:36:59 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 08:31:53 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 24, 2013, 08:09:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 08:05:04 PM

The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.

Supposed satellites and rocket launches are independent of other celestial bodies.

Are you sure?  How do you know that they don't use the same basic principles to travel in space?  After all, airplanes are independent of birds, but they both fly using the same fundamental principles.

So, birds, planes, and rockets/satellites are all confined to earth.

If the celestial objects aren't confined to the earth, then why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space?

Because they can't reach space.

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 08:42:20 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 24, 2013, 08:36:59 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 08:31:53 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 24, 2013, 08:09:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 08:05:04 PM

The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.

Supposed satellites and rocket launches are independent of other celestial bodies.

Are you sure?  How do you know that they don't use the same basic principles to travel in space?  After all, airplanes are independent of birds, but they both fly using the same fundamental principles.

So, birds, planes, and rockets/satellites are all confined to earth.

If the celestial objects aren't confined to the earth, then why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space?

Because they can't reach space.

Circular logic at its finest.

Here goes in a nutshell.

They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.

Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.

They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...

Quote from: John Michell on May 24, 2013, 05:38:44 PM

Do you really think the big, powerful government with billions if not trillions of dollars uses Photoshop?

Do you really think an organization like NASA is lying about something as simple as the shape's earth?

Yes.

Why? Well, let's see all the tax money they rake in. And whatever political reasons.

it can be said that celestial objects are also confined to earth. they are pushed with it with the UA. i see no reason as to why a flat earth believer would think the celestial objects are even outside the earths atmosphere.

Circular logic at its finest.

Here goes in a nutshell.

They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.

Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.

They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...

The premise of these forums is explained in the FAQ.  If you wish to present another view then the burden of proof is on you.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 24, 2013, 08:54:25 PM

Circular logic at its finest.

Here goes in a nutshell.

They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.

Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.

They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...

The premise of these forums is explained in the FAQ.  If you wish to present another view then the burden of proof is on you.

Why don't you start by refuting these 10?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TOP 10 REASONS Why We Know the Earth is Round

Quote from: Junker on May 24, 2013, 08:58:58 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 24, 2013, 08:54:25 PM

Circular logic at its finest.

Here goes in a nutshell.

They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.

Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.

They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...

The premise of these forums is explained in the FAQ.  If you wish to present another view then the burden of proof is on you.

Why don't you start by refuting these 10?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TOP 10 REASONS Why We Know the Earth is Round

This video has been discussed to death already.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 24, 2013, 09:02:16 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 24, 2013, 08:58:58 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 24, 2013, 08:54:25 PM

Circular logic at its finest.

Here goes in a nutshell.

They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.

Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.

They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...

The premise of these forums is explained in the FAQ.  If you wish to present another view then the burden of proof is on you.

Why don't you start by refuting these 10?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TOP 10 REASONS Why We Know the Earth is Round

This video has been discussed to death already.

Oh really? Give me a nutshell explanation then...oh wait, you can't and you can't provide the links to these discussions either, because there aren't any.

 

Oh really? Give me a nutshell explanation then...oh wait, you can't and you can't provide the links to these discussions either, because there aren't any.

That video gets moved to CN for good reason.  This is not going anywhere.  You refuse to do any research.  I can't help you if you don't want to help yourself.

Quote from: John Michell on May 24, 2013, 09:04:07 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 24, 2013, 09:02:16 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 24, 2013, 08:58:58 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 24, 2013, 08:54:25 PM

Circular logic at its finest.

Here goes in a nutshell.

They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.

Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.

They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...

The premise of these forums is explained in the FAQ.  If you wish to present another view then the burden of proof is on you.

Why don't you start by refuting these 10?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TOP 10 REASONS Why We Know the Earth is Round

This video has been discussed to death already.

Oh really? Give me a nutshell explanation then...oh wait, you can't and you can't provide the links to these discussions either, because there aren't any.

Like I said, this video doesn't mean anything. You think it disproves FE, but we are still FEers, so you can tell it means nothing to us.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 24, 2013, 09:07:07 PM

Oh really? Give me a nutshell explanation then...oh wait, you can't and you can't provide the links to these discussions either, because there aren't any.

That video gets moved to CN for good reason.  This is not going anywhere.  You refuse to do any research.  I can't help you if you don't want to help yourself.

I have done researh and experiments myself. What experiments did you do to proof the FET?

Quote from: John Michell on May 24, 2013, 09:04:07 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 24, 2013, 09:02:16 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 24, 2013, 08:58:58 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 24, 2013, 08:54:25 PM

Circular logic at its finest.

Here goes in a nutshell.

They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.

Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.

They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...

The premise of these forums is explained in the FAQ.  If you wish to present another view then the burden of proof is on you.

Why don't you start by refuting these 10?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TOP 10 REASONS Why We Know the Earth is Round

This video has been discussed to death already.

Oh really? Give me a nutshell explanation then...oh wait, you can't and you can't provide the links to these discussions either, because there aren't any.

This is why searching the forum is a good thing.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58309.0.html#.UaA60ZycZI0

That video gets moved to CN for good reason.  This is not going anywhere.  You refuse to do any research.  I can't help you if you don't want to help yourself.

I have done researh and experiments myself. What experiments did you do to proof the FET?
[/quote]

I looked outside?  What research and experiments have you done?  Also, if that is the case, why do you refuse to do any research on FET?  Did you burn up all your research ability on RET?