Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rekt

Pages: < Back  1 ... 4 5 [6] 7  Next >
101
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing Conspiracies Put to Rest
« on: January 27, 2017, 05:46:32 PM »
Oh by golly. A wikipedia article. Case closed everyone, nothing to see here!

FYI: You would be able to see the obvious bias in the article if you weren't so obviously biased yourself
I don't get why you discount it due to being a Wikipedia article. It has cited sources, is well written, and inline citations, something that YOUR arguments lack. You also fail to acknowledge my own argument.

102
Flat Earth Community / Moon Landing Conspiracies Put to Rest
« on: January 27, 2017, 04:44:01 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
Read it. Cited sources, well written.
A common theory that I have heard is that the Lunar Lander is too flimsy. This is not the case. So for the forces it had to endure, it had to hold in 1 atmosphere of pressure difference. A commercial helium balloon has ~2 atmospheres of pressure inside of it, and when acted upon by the outside atmosphere, this means that it has ~1 atmosphere pressure difference. Also, the gravity on the moon is 1/8th of that on earth. So same pressure at 1/8th gravity.

103
Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.
« on: January 27, 2017, 04:36:48 PM »
The Russians determined back in 1959 that it was going to take four feet of solid lead to protect a person if they wanted to walk on the Moon's surface.

How did the Americans get over the radiation inside the Van Allen belt from space outside of earth's magnetic field? How did the US manage that with tin foil and little glass windows? What were their space suits made of? I have never had a proper answer to this.

Quote from: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/06/masonic-moon-landing-hoax.html
There is an area of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt 272 miles from Earth which the Russians could never pass. In fact in 1959 Bill Kaysing reported on a Russian study which discovered that the amount of radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in 4 feet of lead in order to avoid instant death. John Mauldin, a NASA physicist, said they would need at least two meters of thick shielding.
This was assuming that planes are all uniform. The Van Allen Belts are there, and they are deadly. However, by adjusting the inclination of the orbit of the transit to the moon, they were able to not hit the Van Allen Belts' most dangerous areas for any period of time. They did receive higher than normal doses of radiation, but those were well within tolerable limits, even under the annual max for nuclear power workers. There's a great article here, I would suggest reading the same article. Van Allen HIMSELF disputes that the astronauts would have survived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Environment

104
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:
« on: January 27, 2017, 04:22:42 PM »
What are the videos of people inside of it?

You saw Gravity, right? How about Apollo 13? If they can fake all of that, they sure as hell can fake the "inside" of the ISS, which usually involves a couple of people floating through and around aesthetically chaotic metal tubes.
But the thing is, those cuts are much shorter, in smaller areas, and with less quality/detail. What about it do you reject? If you believe in satellites, then what about a man? Why not a space station? Why not land on the moon? It all works on the same principles, just with heavier payloads and bigger rockets. Putting a man in space is nothing more than  having to lift the weight of him, the equipment required to keep him alive, and a way to get back down safely. And if you say you can't keep a man alive in space, think about deep-sea diving spheres and such. It works in much the same way, just holding the air in rather than water out. It's really nothing monumental to get a man into space, mathematically it's just a heavier payload, and scaled up all the way to the International Space Station, a lot of REALLY heavy payloads. If you say they couldn't get the ISS up there, it was shipped in small parts, all put into the exact same orbit, so that they would intersect, and then they were connected, basically.

105
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:
« on: January 27, 2017, 01:42:38 PM »
Why have you denied its existence? On what grounds?

I haven't denied the existence of the ISS. 

Did you read my last post? Please try again.
Well then why do you deny that it's habitable? What are the videos of people inside of it?

106
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:
« on: January 27, 2017, 02:31:30 AM »
But the ISS works on the EXACT SAME principle as Sputnik 1. It is in the SAME orbital area! Its orbit is very similar!

I haven't denied the existence of the ISS. I've denied the imagined existence of the ISS, that people live on it and that it is a space station.

It is merely a satellite.
Why have you denied its existence? On what grounds?

107
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:
« on: January 27, 2017, 02:13:22 AM »
Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't apply in this situation. As the Soviets "claimed" to go first, why didn't NASA dismantle their fake, and call out Sputnik 1?

Mutually assured destruction does apply in this case, even if you inverted the roles of the US and USSR in their situations.

As well, satellites are very real. A little beeping probe like Sputnik 1 most likely wasn't a fake. I take issue with other space endeavors like the ISS and the moon landings.
But the ISS works on the EXACT SAME principle as Sputnik 1. It is in the SAME orbital area! Its orbit is very similar!

108
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:
« on: January 26, 2017, 09:21:39 PM »
Why the USSR didn't expose all NASA missions being fake? That alone destroys most NASA conspiracies, and hasn't been answered. Someone who had a lot more time, manpower, resources, and brainpower than you and a HUGE motive to disprove NASA didn't. Is that just the global Zionist conspiracy or something?

If the USSR dismantled the authenticity or legitimacy of NASA and their work, then the USSR wouldn't be able to employ their own space programs and such. It was a self-protectionist move, probably based on an ideal of scientific achievement, militaristic dominance, and "globularist" power.

No, it has nothing to do with a planar Zionist conspiracy. The Jews have hardly anything to do with it and the conspiracy is likely smaller than you think.
Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't apply in this situation. As the Soviets "claimed" to go first, why didn't NASA dismantle their fake, and call out Sputnik 1?

109
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:
« on: January 26, 2017, 04:44:14 PM »
Again, can I get a serious answer to at least my first question? Why the USSR didn't expose all NASA missions being fake? That alone destroys most NASA conspiracies, and hasn't been answered. Someone who had a lot more time, manpower, resources, and brainpower than you and a HUGE motive to disprove NASA didn't. Is that just the global Zionist conspiracy or something?

110
Flat Earth Media / Re: NASA Assumptions
« on: January 26, 2017, 02:41:49 PM »
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890005752.pdf

The very first line of the summary (page 7 after the contents) sums up how NASA do their aircraft calcs. What an interesting set of assumptions to make.
It's for simplification of calculations. They could account, it's just not worth it.

111
Flat Earth Media / Re: Flat Continents
« on: January 26, 2017, 02:38:27 PM »
We started to Asia with these cities:

moscow sheremetyevo
beijing capital
new delhi indira gandhi
astana int
dubai international


But we see that Beijing is in incorrect place and distances are so wrong. See how the planes going a wrong route when coming from Beijing to Delhi. They do not extend the road map faulty. So we extract out the beijing  from the list. I'll find another city instead of Beijing.

See these 4 photos to understand what is going on. It is enough to fly directly China to India but plane unnecessarily traveling around a lot of country. Look to 4th picture first.









moscow sheremetyevo
new delhi indira gandhi
astana int
dubai international
Guangzhou Baiyun Int'l (instead of Beijing)

After that we see the globe map of the Asia completely wrong. The planned distances does not match with the flying distances. So we'll get "shortest" flying distances instead of "planning distances". Then we'll correct it by reducing 10 kms because of fixes statistic errors.

moscow sheremetyevo vs new delhi indira gandhi (planned 4367 kms)

4.440 km
4.540 km
4.513 km
4.598 km
4.509 km
4.497 km
4.551 km
4.484 km
4.744 km
4.567 km
4.480 km
4.451 km
4.614 km
4.616 km
4.519 km
4.517 km
4.510 km
4.503 km
4.700 km
4.658 km
4.595 km
4.586 km
4.503 km

minimum value is: 4.440 kms
statistic fix: -10kms

moscow sheremetyevo vs new delhi indira gandhi exact distance : 4.430 kms (by flying routes)
Those flight directions, such as avoiding certain countries, arise from politics and weather

112
Psh. Fine, I'll try.

Zetetic method:

Antibiotics -- several millennia before science.
What antibiotics? When?

113
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:
« on: January 25, 2017, 02:25:58 PM »
What about all the other missions of all the other space agencies of all the other nations of the world ?
Are they all fakes, too ?
Typical flat earthers. When they hit a question they can't answer, they abandon the thread.

114
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth is Round
« on: January 24, 2017, 02:15:15 PM »
Gravity intends to pull everything into a sphere like object

Scary! When?!!
Yeah! I'm watching out now!

115
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.

Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.

Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.
Don't feed them like this. Small-scale experiments such as a spinning wet tennis ball are what started all this flat earth shit

116
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round earth using flat earth material once again.
« on: January 24, 2017, 01:55:42 PM »
My common sense tell me, if something is obscured by the horizon it my well be because of refraction so what the cowards say:
if something can be seen in horizon it because of refraction, so they go the lab and prepare some miniature experiment to show that, but seemingly nothing will change their mind that both can be true.

2) my common sense tell me: if the horizon is a straight line it shows the earth cannot be round, because if you see a building 60 miles away you would expect to see a subtle curve make it to the building, NO NO you can't because we found some formula(the refraction type formula) to support our idea that the earth is small and insignificant so they may do whatever they want here and have no meaning to their actions.
Do you seriously think that we, some evolved monkeys on one of the trillions of planets out there, are significant? No, we are not. The purpose of life is to MAKE us significant.

117
Flat Earth Theory / Re: WTF???
« on: January 24, 2017, 01:52:11 PM »
Frankly I think that the ocean is a better example because it is mutually agreed that water tends to be level.
Now you are just making stuff up on the fly!  You guys need flow-charts or cookbooks or something. 

The only way "it is mutually agreed that water tends to be level" is if the earth is flat --- as can be seen with the eyes God gave us.   You liars can not have it both ways.  Get your stories straight.
"Eyes god gave us" I won't go into that, but what he means is that water levels in respect to gravity. In this situation, "Level" is reaching equidistant distances from the center of the earth, giving it a curve. This is one of the most common misconceptions that have allowed flat earth to spawn. "Level" does not equal actual horizontal perfection. Level is when all parts of an area or object are equidistant from the center of the earth, so "Level" based on earth-based observation is actually curved. NASA, for example, had to curve the edges of their Space Shuttle runway up to make it horizontally perfect, not "Level".

118
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?
« on: January 24, 2017, 01:48:32 PM »
Frankly I think that the ocean is a better example because it is mutually agreed that water tends to be level.

Where as the salt flats could in fact be a very large dome and would have to be surveyed and agreed upon.
Water levels in respect to gravity, even the smallest bodies of water have a small curve.

119
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:
« on: January 24, 2017, 01:46:02 PM »
If the earth isn't a planet, your explanation for how everything else is round but earth isn't, isn't that quite the human-centric point of view?
I have 5 pieces of furniture in my room. Four of them are chairs. Naturally, the fifth item couldn't possibly be a table! That would be so table-centric! Are you truly so arrogant as to claim that the fifth thing might be different from these four things!?

There are nine animals in this pet store. Eight of them are cats. How dare you suggest that the last animal, the one located in a bird cage, might be anything other than a cat?! How bird-centric of you!

The Earth is not other planets. Observing other planets can lead us to educated guesses about the Earth, but it constitutes no proof. Your logic relies on applying inductive reasoning in a completely inappropriate scenario.

How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?
What is the motive to cover up the flat earth?
How does even but by when though?
For your first two questions: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
For the last question: Sorry, I did not understand you.
Again, this is a bad explanation. It only says that NASA missions are fake, and does not explain how the USSR didn't discredit them. It again does not give a motive for non-nasa round earth ideas, as there is no actual reason to cover up flat earth. If your entire theory hinges on a conspiracy with no motive I refuse your theory.

120
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:
« on: January 24, 2017, 01:40:39 AM »
Yawn.

We have a plethora of resources ranging from wikis to online documentation to forum archives. Your questions are largely unoriginal and largely answered, so feel free to peek around and satisfy your curiosity.

Quote
How does even but by when though?
Yes.
Your wiki largely redirects to articles that I've already read. If you have all this info, then tell me it.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 4 5 [6] 7  Next >