Wouldn't it be easier for NASA?

  • 8 Replies
  • 1534 Views
?

BanterMerchant

Wouldn't it be easier for NASA?
« on: October 02, 2009, 10:48:35 AM »
If instead of pretending the world was round and sending rockets into imaginary space and whatnot, Nasa just admitted the earth was flat and then pretended to explore over the ice wall and what was below the earth? Surely they could still milk plenty of money out of the government that way? Where's the benefit in pretending the Earth is round, it just seems to make their job more difficult?

?

Sean

  • Official Member
  • 10736
  • ...
Re: Wouldn't it be easier for NASA?
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2009, 12:47:45 PM »
No.
Quote from: sokarul
Better bring a better augment, something not so stupid.

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Wouldn't it be easier for NASA?
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2009, 02:38:49 PM »
Oh look, it's this question.

Two reasons they keep with the silly notion of a round earth.
1. Sustained spaceflight is impossible under FET.
2. The current theory of the time was RET, and a massive revelation like that could have far reaching implications about the worth of all scientists, if they can't get something like the shape of the earth right.

Re: Wouldn't it be easier for NASA?
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2009, 04:33:18 PM »
where do space shuttles go when they lift off?  do they land earlier than scheduled without anyone noticing?  or how long is sustained spaceflight?

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Wouldn't it be easier for NASA?
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2009, 04:37:20 PM »
where do space shuttles go when they lift off?  do they land earlier than scheduled without anyone noticing?  or how long is sustained spaceflight?
They probably go to the upper levels of the atmosphere, out of sight, then go to a remote island.

Sustained Spaceflight - Orbits and the like, no definitive time.

Re: Wouldn't it be easier for NASA?
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2009, 05:30:25 PM »
where do space shuttles go when they lift off?  do they land earlier than scheduled without anyone noticing?  or how long is sustained spaceflight?
They probably go to the upper levels of the atmosphere, out of sight, then go to a remote island.


So you are implying that there is some remote island in the middle of some ocean that contains an airstrip that can facilitate the landing of a space shuttle, and also the process of unloading it can be achieved.  After that, the shuttle would obviously have to return to base (such as Kennedy Space centre in Florida).  To facilitate that, the area would have to be even larger to promote another launch of the shuttle, and it may also have to be repaired due to some damage from flight and reentry.  There would also have to be a very large amount of staff on said island to have them and possibly their families live there.  Then finally, if somehow this amount of action is never noticed from any civilian or questioned, the shuttle would then take off again.  It would then arrive at a base (such as Kennedy Space Centre) seemingly just having arrived from space.

How can you explain the actual video of the shuttle re-entering our atmosphere (along with video taken from space) and the damage that appears after it breaks through the atmosphere and has to endure the mass amount of heat?  the whole idea that it can just simply land on a "remote island" is ridiculous, since it would have to be massive and be able to facilitate landing and takeoff of multiple shuttles (since there are more than one in space).   

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Wouldn't it be easier for NASA?
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2015, 07:50:23 AM »
where do space shuttles go when they lift off?  do they land earlier than scheduled without anyone noticing?  or how long is sustained spaceflight?
They probably go to the upper levels of the atmosphere, out of sight, then go to a remote island.


So you are implying that there is some remote island in the middle of some ocean that contains an airstrip that can facilitate the landing of a space shuttle, and also the process of unloading it can be achieved.  After that, the shuttle would obviously have to return to base (such as Kennedy Space centre in Florida).  To facilitate that, the area would have to be even larger to promote another launch of the shuttle, and it may also have to be repaired due to some damage from flight and reentry.  There would also have to be a very large amount of staff on said island to have them and possibly their families live there.  Then finally, if somehow this amount of action is never noticed from any civilian or questioned, the shuttle would then take off again.  It would then arrive at a base (such as Kennedy Space Centre) seemingly just having arrived from space.

How can you explain the actual video of the shuttle re-entering our atmosphere (along with video taken from space) and the damage that appears after it breaks through the atmosphere and has to endure the mass amount of heat?  the whole idea that it can just simply land on a "remote island" is ridiculous, since it would have to be massive and be able to facilitate landing and takeoff of multiple shuttles (since there are more than one in space).   

He's got you there.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

Re: Wouldn't it be easier for NASA?
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2015, 10:25:16 AM »
And what's the point

Why start this conspiracy in the first place? Who gains from this?

What are we the common people who believe it missing out on my life wouldn't change that much if the world were flat and planes continued to work and I could still navigate a boat from one place to another.?


There just seems to be no motive or financial gain for all the worlds' scientific community to deceive us.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Wouldn't it be easier for NASA?
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2015, 04:37:41 PM »
Please don't bump threads that are many years old and which the people whom you are quoting don't even frequent this site anymore.  If you have a question, just make a new thread about it and we will answer you.  Thanks.