ISS is not in space

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

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?

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.

Why not?  What principle in FET precludes rockets from reaching space?

Why not?  What principle in FET precludes rockets from reaching space?

They can't escape the UA.  Or, if sandokhan is right, the pressure from aether.

This is why searching the forum is a good thing.

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

Wow, finally a more sensible person. I have seen it before, but let me show you that you made no point at all.

According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.

The big question. WHY? Why would you think the earth is different. What are the grounded reasons?
I see no answer to that.

This is the first of a trend in this video, in which Henry (the host of MinutePhysics, for those not subscribed) assumes that the Flat Earth is exactly the same as the Round Earth in every way except for shape. The sun works in a manner similar to a spotlight in Flat Earth Theory, which is why time zones exist. When the Sun isn't pointing overhead, it's nighttime.

This issue has been raised a hundred times already. If the sun were a sunlight it would look like the following video.  On a flat earth the south will always be dark at some point. This totally contradicts real world observations where (depending on the seasons) parts of the earth is continiously lit up 24/7.
Flat disc

Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.

No explanation as what this effect is, the Aetheric winds or anything. On the other hand there is a perfect explanation of the Coriolis effect which match our observations #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">coriolis effect (2-11)

4. Triangles

This is little more than conjecture. It is literally impossible to perform this experiment on the scale required.

If it works on a smaller scale, there is no reason to believe it wouldn't work on a larger scale.

Henry is assuming again. The Sun's apparent movement is caused by the Sun actually moving. As for Eratosthenes's famous experiment to measure the diameter of the Earth, that assumes a Round Earth. If we assume a Flat Earth , the same experiment gives us the distance to the Sun.

Henry is not assuming anything, but is using grounded reasons to proof his right. On the other hand...the highlighted part says it all.."If we assume a flat earth..."

"If we assume pink flying hippos....."

6. Stars Change

Another assumption. This time, he's assuming that FE geography is just a Mercator map. It's not. The Earth is a disk centered around the North Pole, which would provide the same effect.

  On a disc I have the same night sky as someone standing somewhere else. Here is a simple diagram to show you just that. Person A sees the same thing as Person B.

Again, the Earth isn't in the shape of a Mercator map. That would be silly. Magellan and many others simply made a circle around the disk of the Earth.

Only thing I can say is true. If you make a 360 degree on a disc you can end up at the same spot you started.

This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.

Do buildings qualify as small objects? Not true, since we can see the top. The base is not smaller than the top, in the contrary. The base is often wider

Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same.

No explanation as to why the moon is sometimes in front and sometimes behind the sun.

Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth: a circle with little to no apparent curvature. Add in camera distortion, and that's our explanation for low Earth photos. As for photos like the famous Blue Marble, that the space agencies of the World are involved in a conspiracy is depressingly obvious if you look at the evidence.

In another thread I asked for evidence supporting this claim and all I get is that it is mere speculation and Junker replied like --> There is a conspiracy, because they maintain a conspiracy.
But let's not wander to far off now...there are lots of amateurs who have sent up weather balloons with cameras. Amateurs...

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 09:32:03 PM

Why not?  What principle in FET precludes rockets from reaching space?

They can't escape the UA.  Or, if sandokhan is right, the pressure from aether.

Then what keeps the celestial objects in space if the UA (or aether pressure) can't be escaped?

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 24, 2013, 09:16:25 PM

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

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?

Is that all you did? I have seen the ISS with a telescope. I have also seen it often with the naked eye as a light passing by.
I have been to the beach and I could not see England, while in a plane I could.

I have been near the equator and the stars and moon look different then at home.

I have been in different time zones. I have spoken to people in different time zones.

I have been on a boat and saw land dissapear behind the horizon as we ventured further out on sea.

These are the things I can think of now which testify for a round earth.

As far as the FET, I have my own experiencing contradicting the earth is flat + ample issues with the FET I have raised which go unexplained and even contradict itself. For example at spotlight or an oribitng suns means either the earth is completely dark at one moment or one part always gets dark at some point at the day. This contradicts real life observations.

Then what keeps the celestial objects in space if the UA (or aether pressure) can't be escaped?

Either celestial gears, or they are possibly not affected by the UA.

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 09:52:52 PM

Then what keeps the celestial objects in space if the UA (or aether pressure) can't be escaped?

Either celestial gears, or they are possibly not affected by the UA.

If they are not affected by the UA, then what keeps them from falling as the earth accelerates upwards?

Quote from: Junker on May 24, 2013, 10:04:59 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 09:52:52 PM

Then what keeps the celestial objects in space if the UA (or aether pressure) can't be escaped?

Either celestial gears, or they are possibly not affected by the UA.

If they are not affected by the UA, then what keeps them from falling as the earth accelerates upwards?

Why worry about such small details... They will figure it out soon! (-ish)

Quote from: markjo on May 25, 2013, 07:51:37 AM

Quote from: Junker on May 24, 2013, 10:04:59 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2013, 09:52:52 PM

Then what keeps the celestial objects in space if the UA (or aether pressure) can't be escaped?

Either celestial gears, or they are possibly not affected by the UA.

If they are not affected by the UA, then what keeps them from falling as the earth accelerates upwards?

Why worry about such small details... They will figure it out soon! (-ish)

Oh, I'm not worried at all.  I'm just wondering how dedicated Junker is.

Junker just ignore the Ball-Brigade, they have a little too much "space" in their heads

Junker just ignore the Ball-Brigade, they have a little too much "space" in their heads

Markjo brought up a valid question, if the UA is accelerating the Earth and it may not effect the celestial bodies, then why haven't we collided?

Nice link. Literally every picture taken in 'space' looks completely artificial, I have yet to see a pic that can't be made by an amateur in photoshop.

The only crazy ones are the ones who have looked at all the pictures, and still believe they are real.

I disagree. I'm a "regular" citizen, though with an advanced degree--not in math or physics, though--and have no reason to disbelieve the space program or ISS. I've looked at the naysayers' diatribes and am not convinced. It makes perfect sense that there is a space program and a space station orbiting a round earth that rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun that is 93 million miles away. This is basic science by now and anyone who doubts that must be REAL bored. I don't want to say crazy because I was just basically called crazy and if I shoot back, we basically cancel each other out. I'm just saying that mainstream astronomy isn't evil. Please, people.

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.

I hate to jump in at random, but to say that space travel isn't possible in this day and age astounds me. It IS possible and has been going on for over 50 years!

 If you sat back and looked at the wider picture, you will see that no man made craft has ever been into space.
High altitude, yes. What they tell us is space...no.

You don't move on from windows 95 all the way through to windows 7 to windows 30, then decide to revert back to using windows 95 again as an operating system, except for novelty value.

Well that's what they done with Apollo to shuttle and back to the old style rocket again with a re-entry capsule.
What utter, utter bollocks.

That is not the right comparison Sceptimatic. The space shuttle had a whole different purpose. It was used a freighter to carry large payloads into space. For other missions, for example to Mars or just to carry people up into space, it is actually a very clumsy spacescraft. The concept of a re-usable spacecraft is nice and would save costs, but sending such a large spacecraft up costs actually more than if they use an one-time usable rocket.

Also they are not going to go back to the technology used at that time, only the concept of an one time usable rocket. To give you some other examples. Your car is not much different from the first Model T Ford. Your car has, just like the Model T, 4 wheels, a steering wheel and an engine. The concept of your car did not change, but the technology did.

Boeing still uses the same design for their Boeing 737, which has been around since 1967. Only the technologies have changed. If you have a look at the fuselage, it is derived from the Boeing 707, which is already around since 1958.

A rocket with a re-entry capsule is not outdated. The soviets still use it to send persons up in space. It is in fact the cheapest way to send people up. The new NASA rockets wouldn't be like the Apollo capsules at all, only the concept of a re-entry capsule will. If you want to compare computers with the spacecrafts NASA had used Windows 1 (whatever), then switched to Macintosh because it operated better for the purposes they wanted to use it for. Now they switch back to Windows, but with all the new technologies that will be in fact Windows 30.

If you sat back and looked at the wider picture, you will see that no man made craft has ever been into space.
High altitude, yes. What they tell us is space...no.

OK, if it'll make life easier for us, then I'm willing to say that the ISS is about 230 miles high but not quite in space because there is still the tiniest traces of atmosphere left. 

You don't move on from windows 95 all the way through to windows 7 to windows 30, then decide to revert back to using windows 95 again as an operating system, except for novelty value.

Well that's what they done with Apollo to shuttle and back to the old style rocket again with a re-entry capsule.
What utter, utter bollocks.

Funny that you should mention operating systems.  If windows 30 is too expensive, too difficult and requires too many resources to use effectively, then maybe going back to windows 95 to get the job done quicker, cheaper and easier makes sense.  After all, there are still a lot of businesses that refuse to give up on Windows XP because it's a lot cheaper, easier, more reliable and needs a lot fewer resources than Windows 8.   Sometimes you it is, indeed, better to go back to the basics.

If that shuttle had never been operating for 30 years I would have no problem accepting your answer about going back to basics.
The truth is, you don't invent something like a shuttle with re-usable parts, including the actual payload carrier in the shuttle itself, then ditch it due to costs do you, as all you're losing is the large rusty foam coloured tank, whilst the rest just needs tweaking and cleaning up, allegedly.

Put yourself in an astronauts position.

That is the problem... it is not the astronaut's call.

Put yourself in the CEO position. The governments wants to reduce your annual budget. You have an oversized vehicle with great payload, but the payload capacity is not being used. It costs $500 million to get it ready for launch every time. Everytime you can send up 7 astronauts in all the comfort they could wish for.

Or you could use a disposable rocket which costs $40 million to launch and can carry 3 astronauts. The astronauts may not have the same comfort as on board the Space Shuttle, but it is not the astronaut who is paying for it, so you have the call.

Will you continue to spend $500 million to send 7 people up, or would you spend $150 million and send 9 people up? What shall it be mr CEO?

A tenner in modelling supplies.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 27, 2013, 10:22:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2013, 08:52:35 AM

If that shuttle had never been operating for 30 years I would have no problem accepting your answer about going back to basics.
The truth is, you don't invent something like a shuttle with re-usable parts, including the actual payload carrier in the shuttle itself, then ditch it due to costs do you, as all you're losing is the large rusty foam coloured tank, whilst the rest just needs tweaking and cleaning up, allegedly.

Put yourself in an astronauts position.

That is the problem... it is not the astronaut's call.

Put yourself in the CEO position. The governments wants to reduce your annual budget. You have an oversized vehicle with great payload, but the payload capacity is not being used. It costs $500 million to get it ready for launch every time. Everytime you can send up 7 astronauts in all the comfort they could wish for.

Or you could use a disposable rocket which costs $40 million to launch and can carry 3 astronauts. The astronauts may not have the same comfort as on board the Space Shuttle, but it is not the astronaut who is paying for it, so you have the call.

Will you continue to spend $500 million to send 7 people up, or would you spend $150 million and send 9 people up? What shall it be mr CEO?

40 million to launch and how much to build?

It does not say. It says it is the estimated launch price http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/soyuz_specs.shtml.
I guess that would include the construction price as well, since it is only used once.

If you want to know how much it costs to build one space shuttle... 1.7 billion dollar (NASA website).

To those of you saying NASA is supposedly winning money by keeping most of the budget while using a fraction to do perfect CGI videos...

A top-grossing Hollywood movie with decent CGI (which you can still tell is CGI) costs about $200 million for a one and a half hour movie, on average.

NASA's yearly budget currently is about 18 billion dollars. This means they would have exact money for 135 hours of Hollywood quality CGI footage. Since they're supposedly using much higher tech CGI, this number would be less.

Now compare that to the actual hours of footage NASA produces a year. In reality, their yearly budget wouldn't account for a few percents of that footage! I suppose the rest of the cost is payed by some lizard people? How is this conspiracy theory still considered plausible?

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 27, 2013, 11:19:13 AM

To those of you saying NASA is supposedly winning money by keeping most of the budget while using a fraction to do perfect CGI videos...

A top-grossing Hollywood movie with decent CGI (which you can still tell is CGI) costs about $200 million for a one and a half hour movie, on average.

NASA's yearly budget currently is about 18 billion dollars. This means they would have exact money for 135 hours of Hollywood quality CGI footage. Since they're supposedly using much higher tech CGI, this number would be less.

Now compare that to the actual hours of footage NASA produces a year. In reality, their yearly budget wouldn't account for a few percents of that footage! I suppose the rest of the cost is payed by some lizard people? How is this conspiracy theory still considered plausible?

Go and factor in the wages of the film stars in those movies, as well as the other props, extras and what not, then re-evaluate the cost.

And NASA in this conspiracy doesn't have countless actors, employees, CGI artists, payment to all those who know to keep their mouth shut, and also countless Hollywood-quality props?

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 27, 2013, 11:31:39 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2013, 11:27:46 AM

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 27, 2013, 11:19:13 AM

To those of you saying NASA is supposedly winning money by keeping most of the budget while using a fraction to do perfect CGI videos...

A top-grossing Hollywood movie with decent CGI (which you can still tell is CGI) costs about $200 million for a one and a half hour movie, on average.

NASA's yearly budget currently is about 18 billion dollars. This means they would have exact money for 135 hours of Hollywood quality CGI footage. Since they're supposedly using much higher tech CGI, this number would be less.

Now compare that to the actual hours of footage NASA produces a year. In reality, their yearly budget wouldn't account for a few percents of that footage! I suppose the rest of the cost is payed by some lizard people? How is this conspiracy theory still considered plausible?

Go and factor in the wages of the film stars in those movies, as well as the other props, extras and what not, then re-evaluate the cost.

And NASA in this conspiracy doesn't have countless actors, employees, CGI artists, payment to all those who know to keep their mouth shut, and also countless Hollywood-quality props?

The beauty about N.A.S.A props is, they can make sequel after sequel for as long as they want to, just with different F list actors and the odd prop thrown in every now and again.
Once the initial cost of the first film is made, it's a walk in the park.

And why would these actors be okay with lame salaries when they can basically fuck over NASA's conspiracy at any time... I think they'd demand at least as much as movie stars.

Also, there's a reason why, even during a single movie, multiple props are used for the same purpose (object in movie), it's because props aren't that reusable, they can get damaged.

Perks of being famous for something they know themselves is fake? That's a bad reason.

I'm sorry but I don't see why they would be okay with such low salaries for such a high-risk job. I mean, many times they have live performances, in which a single mistake on their part could cost NASA the whole conspiracy.

How much would you accept as payment to be a fake astronaut? Would 100000 a year really do it? And what cut in merchandise? The few hundred dollars NASA makes with gift shops?

Perks of being famous for something they know themselves is fake? That's a bad reason.

I'm sorry but I don't see why they would be okay with such low salaries for such a high-risk job. I mean, many times they have live performances, in which a single mistake on their part could cost NASA the whole conspiracy.

How much would you accept as payment to be a fake astronaut? Would 100000 a year really do it? And what cut in merchandise? The few hundred dollars NASA makes with gift shops?

The "astronauts" know that accidents and disaster can happen at anytime.

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 27, 2013, 12:00:02 PM

Perks of being famous for something they know themselves is fake? That's a bad reason.

I'm sorry but I don't see why they would be okay with such low salaries for such a high-risk job. I mean, many times they have live performances, in which a single mistake on their part could cost NASA the whole conspiracy.

How much would you accept as payment to be a fake astronaut? Would 100000 a year really do it? And what cut in merchandise? The few hundred dollars NASA makes with gift shops?

Politicians act every day, what's the difference here?
There's a reason why only a few so called astronauts are picked to fill us full of crap whilst the rest are simply in the background as paid extras.

No amount of money could make me bullshit the public like this. The problem is, there are many that would.
You can get most people to do anything for varying prices, it just depends how down on their luck they are  .
A failed musician would no doubt disown his own family if the chance of fame came along again. It depends on the scruples of any individual and also many other factors, as in, how many are duped into doing something, only to find it's all a lie and now have little choice to follow it through or be ridiculed or worse.

If you think this stuff can't happen then fair enough...I don't share it.

It's not that it's impossible that people can be bought off, but that it's highly unlikely that you could get hundreds or thousands of people over the course of decades to all play along perfectly, and never blow the whistle.

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 27, 2013, 12:00:02 PM

Perks of being famous for something they know themselves is fake? That's a bad reason.

I'm sorry but I don't see why they would be okay with such low salaries for such a high-risk job. I mean, many times they have live performances, in which a single mistake on their part could cost NASA the whole conspiracy.

How much would you accept as payment to be a fake astronaut? Would 100000 a year really do it? And what cut in merchandise? The few hundred dollars NASA makes with gift shops?

The "astronauts" know that accidents and disaster can happen at anytime.

Even if you say people are threatened to keep silent if money is not enough, why would so many people get involved with that? And that would make it even more likely that they'd defect or tell all, especially toward the end of their lives. You'd think Neil (R.I.P.) or Buzz would have no problem squealing in their sunset years.

And if these people were such moral degenerates as to lie for money, why wouldn't they just sell their big tell-all story for even more money? Again, makes no sense.

No. I want to know how much to build the rockets that send up the cramped astroliars to the massive 3 football pitch sized supposed space station.
There looks a hell of a lot more to building those rockets than a gliding shuttle, so any idea of the cost of build?

They are called cosmonauts or astronauts. As said. $40 million dollar for a Soyuz.The Soyuz has a very low cost and is very reliable. From all spacecraft the Soyuz (its design) was used over 1700 times. More than any other spacecraft.

The rockets are relatively easy build. They are build near the launch pad. Shot up into space and they make another one. With the space shuttle it is much more clumsy. First they need to work on three different things. The Space Shuttle, the external tank and the two boosters. The boosters are reusable, but they will need to be refit and filled with fuel.
The space shuttle is launched, the boosters drop in the ocean and needed to be collected. The external tank burns up in the atmosphere and the space shuttle goes on to its mission. The Soyuz re-enters and they go collect the cosmonauts/astronauts and scrap the capsule. They can aim for the big plains of Kazachstan. Nothing to be worried about. The capsule will land itself, no need to be accurate. There are radio transmitters to locate its location and it is just a very simple and easy concept.

The space shuttle needs a lot of accuracy. Once it starts to re-enter the atmosphere there is no turning back. The weather at the landing site has to be perfect and if not the space shuttle would have to land at a different airfield somewhere else in the USA. This is all being looked upon before reentry, but takes lots more effort. Then when the shuttle comes in for a landing, everything has to go perfect. Pilots need excessive training in order to land the space shuttle. No need for that with the Soyuz.
If the space shuttle lands at a different airfield it will need to be flown on the back of a modified 747 to Cape Canaveral to be re-used again. It all takes much more planning and effort to get the space shuttle safely back to earth then it takes with the Soyuz.

Again, if you were a CEO, which of the two would you choose?

This is why searching the forum is a good thing.

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

It certainly does help to do a thorough search: "Top 10 Reasons We Know The Earth is Round" Debunked?

Even if you say people are threatened to keep silent if money is not enough, why would so many people get involved with that?

Tens of thousands of people don't seem to have a problem getting secret clearances and keeping government secrets under the threat of their life and liberty if they commit treason. People with secret and top secret clearances for the Department of Defense aren't exactly being showered with lavish riches to keep their silence. Being paid a bit above average and living under constant threat is enough.

Tens of thousands of people don't seem to have a problem getting secret clearances and keeping government secrets under the threat of their life and liberty if they commit treason. People with secret and top secret clearances for the Department of Defense aren't exactly being showered with lavish riches to keep their silence. Being paid a bit above average and living under constant threat is enough.

Tom, a few things about government people keeping secrets.  First of all, those people need to go through extensive background checks before being granted clearance.  Secondly, once they do get the clearance, those secrets are still on a need to know basis.  Thirdly, there is no extra pay (at least none that I know of) associated with high level clearance.  Fourthly, the fact that there are leaks and double agents proves that the treat of treason isn't always an effective deterrent.

Tom, a few things about government people keeping secrets.  First of all, those people need to go through extensive background checks before being granted clearance.  Secondly, once they do get the clearance, those secrets are still on a need to know basis.  Thirdly, there is no extra pay (at least none that I know of) associated with high level clearance.  Fourthly, the fact that there are leaks and double agents proves that the treat of treason isn't always an effective deterrent.

If someone leaks nuclear secrets onto an internet website, those secrets aren't going to stay leaked on the internet for very long. The government will deal with such things instantly, sending out however many warrants it takes. Secrets may be transmitted from one party to another, but something like that will never be leaked to the public at large.