1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing

« on: August 09, 2021, 10:10:58 PM »

I don't trust anything they say. Whatever it is they've said, I don't trust it. I think they lie about everything in order to keep us paying them billions of dollars. They're a demonic bunch of grifters if you ask me.

This is just same old, same old unsubstantiated mud-slinging. "FE Nouveaux" as Pete called it.

NASA is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Is it just the "space" part you disbelieve, or do you reckon they're pulling the wool over your eyes in aeronautics too?

I have no problem with the 'space' part.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?

« on: August 09, 2021, 10:08:05 PM »

NASA's pictures are clearly paintings as they depict things which are impossible. Sorry.

Just NASA's?

What about Roscosmos, ESA, JAXA, and all the others?

SpaceX, Astra .... even Red Bull.

No, not just NASA. There's a lot of creeps out there grifting their asses off.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?

« on: August 09, 2021, 09:37:37 PM »

See, this is always the problem with RE zealots - they are oh-so-keen to disprove their own imagination of what FET is, in the absence of actually understanding what they're so confidently opposing.

Rebuttal;

In this very thread, we have the FE-er who repeats the tired old line of NASA pictures being "paintings". Straight out of the Eric Dubay/Beyond the Imaginary Curve/Flatzoid FE (FE Nouveaux?) script of stock YouTuber responses.

NASA guy says that some of their work is composites, with a full images assembled from component photographs, and this is somehow conflated to all NASA images being "paintings". There's some over-active imagining here, too....

Pictures aren't proof as they can be manipulated. You can believe they are but you're really just kidding yourself. NASA's pictures are clearly paintings as they depict things which are impossible. Sorry.

4

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing

« on: August 09, 2021, 09:28:18 PM »

Again, why do you even believe in the VAB's regardless of whether a geiger counter strapped to a rocket 900 miles above the earth showed the measurements of radiation suddenly drop off, according to you know who, NASA?

It's a valid question. Why do I believe Dr. Van Allen and what he says? In his writings, he seems legit but on thinking about it how can anyone know the world is surrounded by rings of radiation? I was very impressed by this video from 1959 which explains the problems to spaceflight because of the belts and explains how Van Allen discovered them.

Refresher: As well, as AATW pointed out, what's with even bringing up the VAB's when it's creepy NASA that supposedly discovered them, with a rocket no less, 900 miles above Earth?

It was Dr. Van Allen who discovered them not NASA.

It says right in the transcript of the video:

"03:09
the chance came in 1958 when explorer 1
03:12
went into orbit
03:13
and it carried cosmic ray detectors and
03:15
a transmitter designed by dr van allen's
03:17
group"

What is Explorer 1?

Isn't NASA not at all to be trusted in your eyes?

I trust them when they say they can't get into space because of the radiation.

Why would you trust NASA with only that information? That seems very odd and, well, exceedingly hypocritical.

exceedingly hypocritical

That's very hurtful and a stain on my good character.

I don't trust anything they say. Whatever it is they've said, I don't trust it. I think they lie about everything in order to keep us paying them billions of dollars. They're a demonic bunch of grifters if you ask me.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?

« on: August 09, 2021, 09:02:40 PM »

I dont want to feed into the Cypher9 trollfest, but since it came up...

I, for one, would like to see the FE evidence that the Ice Wall exists, complete with the names and dates of who made the observations, which flights/voyages they were part of, what studies they were in the region to undertake, etc.

When was someone turned around at the ice wall, prevented by authorities from travelling further south?

The wiki cites famed explorer James Ross, who didnt venture inland, but then ignores subsequent trip logs from those who did. Why shouldnt we believe that recent trips to the south pole are really happening?

The wiki provides a video showing the ice wall, but the original footage was collected as part of a research expedition travelling in between research stations on the continent. What flight was it? Who was part of that expedition? Where else did they travel? What studies were they conducting?

The wiki states that only 5% of the coastline is rocky, the rest is ice, citing Drewry, 1983. This was a compilation of available data on Antarctica at the time. The wiki doesnt seem to dive into the fact that the Drewry 1983 numbers on shoreline composition rely heavily on airborne geophysical data (I.e. how do they know whether the shore is an ice shelf or an 'ice wall'? Ice-penetrating radar data). If these airborne geophysics are trusted for ice wall composition figures, what makes the rest of the hundreds of thousands of line-kilometers of data collected across the continent?

And if a compilation from 1983 is to be trusted, why arent the newer compilations, like BEDMAP, trustworthy?

Stack just posted a picture of it.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?

« on: August 09, 2021, 09:00:13 PM »

Google's full of pictures of the ice wall, watchatalkinabout?

Yes, according to FE, apparently impenetrable. And we possess no such tech to get us above and over anything greater than 50 feet tall.



Here's McMurdo Station from Observation Hill...



Located right about here...



Here's a faked satellite image of McMurdo...



If you would like to work there, here's a good place to start your job search...

https://www.usap.gov/jobsandopportunities/?m=1

Yes, according to FE

What does that even mean? Is there some sort of FE bureau out there that decides what is and what isn't FE do you think?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?

« on: August 09, 2021, 08:55:19 PM »

Google's full of pictures of the ice wall, watchatalkinabout?

It's also full of pictures showing a globe, taken from various sources.

They're paintings. The ones of the wall are photos.

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing

« on: August 09, 2021, 01:38:48 PM »

He didn't send his own rockets up.

How do you think the equipment got into the belts, other than by sending rockets into them?

He was working with a university I thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_3

I believe he sent up balloon rockets called 'rockoons'. I'm not sure what the point your making is, what does it matter if NASA was involved or not? NASA appears to have taken no notice of his findings.

9

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing

« on: August 09, 2021, 01:13:21 PM »

He didn't send his own rockets up.

How do you think the equipment got into the belts, other than by sending rockets into them?

He was working with a university I thought.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?

« on: August 09, 2021, 01:00:06 PM »

Google's full of pictures of the ice wall, watchatalkinabout?

11

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing

« on: August 09, 2021, 12:58:50 PM »

OK, you accept that NASA sent up the Explorer rockets with Van Allen's equipment in the first place, but disbelieve them when they state what was actually measured during the Apollo missions.

No, I don't believe I do. I thought Dr. Van Allen was working independently.

12

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing

« on: August 09, 2021, 12:08:30 PM »

What was the "amount of radiation"

We're talking nuclear explosion levels of radiation, the sort of amount you'd need 10 inches of steel to protect you according to NATO's Handbook On The Medical Aspects Of NBC Defensive Operations.

No, we are not talking about nuclear explosion levels of radiation...

SP-368 Biomedical Results of Apollo
CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION
by J. Vernon Bailey
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

"Results and Discussion
 
Average radiation doses were computed for each mission (table 2). Individual readings varied approximately 20 percent from the average because of differences in the shielding effectiveness of various parts of the Apollo spacecraft as well as differences in duties, movements, and locations of crewmen. Doses to blood-forming organs were approximately 40 percent lower than the values measured at the body surface. In comparison with the doses actually received, the maximum operational dose (MOD) limit for each of the Apollo missions was set at 400 rads (X-ray equivalent) to skin and 50 rads to the blood-forming organs.

Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem*** set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use [112] radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. Thus, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected."
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

Everything you want to know about how to safely transverse the belts: https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/

Excerpt:
"Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts."

We're talking the sort of radiation that at the very least would have you spewing all over the controls in the CM. Certainly enough that would fry you very quickly.

'Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight' James Van Allen

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?

« on: August 07, 2021, 09:01:12 PM »

Of course you don't believe it, you're in too deep. The matrix has too much of a hold on you mate 

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?

« on: August 07, 2021, 08:04:47 PM »

I'd like to know what shape the earth is so yes, I'd like to go into space. I don't know what the shape of the earth is for sure but as we can't rely on NASA to tell us the truth after all the lies they've already told us ....

Why does the buck stop at NASA's door?

The first determinations of a circumference of the Earth, from the work of both Norwood and the French Geodesic Mission, were made in the 1600s and 1700s. Within reasonable bounds of error for the time, their results agreed, and further work since then has simply refined the figure.

NASA came along 400 years or so later. What's it to do with them?

To answer your question, I think it's because they are the most influential force out there today promoting the globe idea.

15

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing

« on: August 07, 2021, 06:38:48 PM »

What was the "amount of radiation"

Enough to stop a geiger counter from working. [see vid above]

Why was the CM shielding insufficient?

An inch or so of steel wouldn't be enough which is all it had according to NASA.

 https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM06_Command_Module_Overview_pp39-52.pdf

We're talking nuclear explosion levels of radiation, the sort of amount you'd need 10 inches of steel to protect you according to NATO's Handbook On The Medical Aspects Of NBC Defensive Operations.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/fm8-9/1toc.htm

No one would enter such a dangerous area unless they were sure they'd be shielded sufficiently. The likes of Armstrong would have known about the belts and the danger they posed. They wouldn't have gone unless they knew for certain the shielding was going to be sufficient. These guys had families, there was no reason for them to go off on a suicide mission.

16

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing

« on: August 07, 2021, 05:58:18 PM »

Orion is a spaceship designed to carry astronauts but as yet is unable to because of the dangerous radiation in the belts that we're told may affect the electronics on board. These are the facts.

They aren’t facts. There haven’t been any Orion missions yet so we don’t know how effective the radiation shielding will be. What the guy is saying is that they need to test it with unmanned missions before they do manned missions. As I’ve said, this is fairly common practice. And electronics are very different how to they were in the Apollo area.

For some strange reason though, it wasn't a problem 50 years ago when the astronauts had hardly any shielding and still felt no ill effects from that radiation.

Except none of that is true. It was a problem which was considered. There was shielding to mitigate it. They were monitoring the radiation dose the astronauts received and while the dosages were not enough to do immediate noticeable damage, there is evidence that it had a long term effect. I have provided a link to an article about that. And one factor here is that they are a lot more risk adverse now. In the space race there was huge political pressure to get the job done. That isn’t the case now. You are not comparing like for like.

What we do know though is the command module shielding was nowhere near sufficient enough to protect the astronauts from the amount of radiation in the belts so all your shill-spiel about monitoring radiation doses and the astronauts not being in the belts for very long etc. is palpable poop that although likely makes you chuckle while typing it isn't fooling anyone. Least of all me. You and I know very well, no one's been to the moon. The only question is when will you come clean about it?

17

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing

« on: August 07, 2021, 03:09:30 PM »

'...we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space'

Yes. They need to test the shielding and measure the radiation levels with unmanned missions before they send any people, which is exactly what they did with previous programmes.

Orion is a spaceship designed to carry astronauts but as yet is unable to because of the dangerous radiation in the belts that we're told may affect the electronics on board. These are the facts. For some strange reason though, it wasn't a problem 50 years ago when the astronauts had hardly any shielding and still felt no ill effects from that radiation. Why don't they just employ whatever it was they employed back then when apparently just about every trip went without a hitch?

18

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing

« on: August 07, 2021, 02:41:28 PM »

NASA engineer admits they can’t get past the Van Allen Belts

In that video he is literally talking about an unmanned mission which goes through them.
He notes that the radiation could affect the electronics but they have shielding and monitors which will check the levels of radiation. And as I’ve noted, if you watch some of the Apollo 11 footage you can hear them talking about the radiation levels the astronauts were exposed to.

'...we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space'

19

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing

« on: August 07, 2021, 01:32:36 PM »

They said Orion couldn't get through the belts. Didn't they?

Don't think so.

You can show us a verbatim quote, can't you?

NASA engineer admits they can’t get past the Van Allen Belts



(3:00 mins in)

'...we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space'


Let me know if they've been solved, this video is quite old now.

20

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing

« on: August 07, 2021, 12:56:50 PM »

How did he send instruments up to measure them, if not on NASA rocketry?

It explains in the video

... but you're misquoting them. They did not say this.

They said Orion couldn't get through the belts. Didn't they?