41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: July 19, 2022, 03:34:24 AM »

I'm not entirely sure it's real or unaltered, but like I said there's a few videos of this event across the world which look the same...  It's also an event which public officials verified would happen.   TFES has always had an open mind to new ideas.

1) The Moon landing was also an event that public officials from NASA verified would happen. So, do you believe the Moon landing could have therefore happened and not have been a hoax?

2) If "TFES has always had an open mind to new ideas", would TFES be open to the possibility that space travel exists and is not a conspiracy?

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: July 19, 2022, 12:54:52 AM »

I'm talking about the video J-Man posted

Quick question. TFES Wiki states that "the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered".

Given the above YouTube photo/video attached by J-Man, why would you lend such to being credible? It could be fake, right?

43

Flat Earth Community / Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton

« on: July 19, 2022, 12:36:13 AM »

.. and the media is complicit.

The media are certainly not complicit with the government.  The media has only one goal, the sell their 'content'.  They don't need to be complicit with anyone, except their chosen audience, to do that.  They report what they believe their audience wants to hear.  Caveat Emptor has its truest meaning in consuming media.

So the media was correct regarding WMD and correct regarding the timing of WTC 7 and correct on the existence of Santa Claus.

Thanks for letting us know!

In your earlier comment, I agree with you that the government lies and that the media also lies (although I would disagree with "ALL the time").

Specific to the Mercury and Apollo space programs, what are several examples of lies that NASA told that support your belief that space travel is a conspiracy and what research have you done to conclude your findings?   

Also, as part of the X-planes (Experimental) testing program in the 1950's and 1960's, there was the X-15 hypersonic aircraft sponsored and used by NASA that exceeded 4,000 miles per hour and set various speed and altitude records. Since you believe that governments / government agencies lie all the time, do you believe that the X-15 never existed and/or that such speeds and altitude records weren't actually achieved? 

44

Flat Earth Community / Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton

« on: July 16, 2022, 01:35:20 AM »

4) If "we" don't know how much of it is a lie, how are you certain or confident that any of it is a lie? Might you be mistaken?

   

While acknowledging the chance for always being mistaken, I am fairly certain and confident the government lies all the time and the media is complicit.

Regarding the Apollo program, what are some examples of specific lies from NASA (along with your research or your evidence that proves these as lies) that make you confident that the Earth is flat and that there is a space travel conspiracy?

45

Flat Earth Community / Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton

« on: July 14, 2022, 05:47:28 PM »

1) Apollo 8 experienced a Program 01 fault during it's actual flight to and around the Moon. So, certain NASA operatives would have secretely created / faked the fault along with a faked flight with faked weightlessness video to make it look like something was actually happening? And Margaret and rest of MIT source code team would have been mistaken into thinking it was an actual flight to the Moon?

The error doesn't need to be entirely fake. She said that she was programming simulation software and this is where she saw the error. If they were using the simulation software in the full dress rehearsal that they were passing off as a real mission, they could have gotten the error.

2) Apollo 11 experienced a Program 1202 fault as the lunar module was decending to the surface of the Moon. So, Buzz and Neil, along with specific NASA operatives, faked the fault code? And, Margaret and her MIT source code team were mistaken into thinking it was all real?

Again, no. She had suggested that the errors could occur in her simulation software. If they were using that software in the rehearsal they were passing off as real then they could have gotten the error.

3) If you believe NASA can't be trusted and lie, and you don't trust photos or videos from NASA, why include a quoted statement from Flight Director Gene Kranz from NASA? Why would you trust what someone from NASA said?

We don't know how much of it is a lie, correct. But the statements regarding heavy use of simulation software would help reduce and compartmentalize how many people would need to be "in on it" and explains why the errors were seen on a false mission.

Thanks for your above reply's.

1) Do you believe that the MIT coders were part of the "compartmentalized" group that knew it was part of an SCC (Source Coding Conspiracy) to support the overall space travel conspiracy? Or, do you believe they were outside of the "compartmentalized" group of people that really know what was going on?

2) Which functional teams or branches of teams at NASA do you believe are aware of the space travel conspiracy and therefore "in on it"? Does it include Flight Director's (e.g. such as Gene Kranz and his team)?

3) Whom at NASA do you believe creates and plans out the fake space travel agenda's and then rolls it out to the masses and the media so that they can report it as new news? Do you believe NASA has a dedicated team of Marketing folks that are "compartmentalized" from the rest of NASA and "in on it" and whose job it is to create a steady stream of fake space travel agenda's and then work with the people at NASA that think it's all real to manage the development tasks to perpetuate the fakery? There would need to be some type of dedicated group of people that regularly and secretively meet and plan out the next fake space travel agenda to be rolled out to the masses in a carefully coordinated fashion.

4) If "we" don't know how much of it is a lie, how are you certain or confident that any of it is a lie? Might you be mistaken?

     

46

Flat Earth Community / Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton

« on: July 14, 2022, 10:59:23 AM »

I don't see why she couldn't have been writing software for something. She clearly said at about 2:06 that she was writing Moon landing simulation software for the control panels and dashboards seen and was concerned about what might happen if her buggy software was put in a real space craft and taken to the Moon.

NASA clearly spent a lot of money and focus on simulation software, to the point that Mission Control couldn't separate the training from the real mission. In the book Failure Is Not an Option, Apollo Flight Director Gene Kranz made the following statements:

  “ In the late 1960's our simulation technology had progressed to the point where it became virtually impossible to separate the training from actual missions. The simulations became full dress rehearsals for the missions down to the smallest detail. The simulation tested out the crew's and controller's responses to normal and emergency conditions. It checked out the exact flight plan, mission rules, and procedures that the crew and controllers would use for a later flight. ”

  “ The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real mission. ”

It seems that not even the people pushing buttons and reading diagnostics at the mission control center had to be 'in on it'.

1) Apollo 8 experienced a Program 01 fault during it's actual flight to and around the Moon. So, certain NASA operatives would have secretely created / faked the fault along with a faked flight with faked weightlessness video to make it look like something was actually happening? And Margaret and rest of MIT source code team would have been mistaken into thinking it was an actual flight to the Moon?

2) Apollo 11 experienced a Program 1202 fault as the lunar module was decending to the surface of the Moon. So, Buzz and Neil, along with specific NASA operatives, faked the fault code? And, Margaret and her MIT source code team were mistaken into thinking it was all real?

3) If you believe NASA can't be trusted and lie, and you don't trust photos or videos from NASA, why include a quoted statement from Flight Director Gene Kranz from NASA? Why would you trust what someone from NASA said?

47

Flat Earth Community / Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton

« on: July 13, 2022, 10:49:24 PM »

Margaret Hamilton is known as one of the pioneering software programmers that supported the Apollo program to the Moon.

There is an iconic picture of Margaret standing next to 5 feet of stacked programming code binders. (see attached TODAY interview).

For TFES space travel conspiracy believers, do you believe that Margaret:

- was IN on the hoax and was writing bogus software that really did nothing? And, so in the interview, she is lying?
- was IN on the hoax and was writing software that took Lunar Module and Lunar Lander on a trajectory but not to the Moon (e.g. secretly ditching in the Ocean)? And, so in the interview she is lying?
- was NOT IN on the hoax and thought she was writing software programming to get Apollo to the Moon but is mistaken?

There are various aspects to the space travel conspiracy that I am curious to understand how space travel conspiracy believers believe they were pulled off.

48

Flat Earth Community / Re: What makes the shape of the Earth obvious?

« on: May 07, 2022, 11:34:58 PM »

Hello Everyone!

I first heard about Flat Earth when Vice News went to the conference in 2017. Even though I am still a Round Earther, after reading news articles and exploring TFES forum and wiki, I began to wonder what made the shape of the Earth obvious. I am not sure why people, including myself, think (thought?) it was obvious that the Earth was round.

This year I decided to write a paper for class about this. I wanted to hear from the Flat Earth community. Since you made the jump from Round to Flat Earth, I would love to hear your perspective about what makes the shape of the Earth seem obvious to Round Earther types, and if that feeling of obviousness carries over to Round Earth. I'd also love to hear about how you felt or thought about this.

Thank you all for your thoughts!

Hi FLboy,

I am a Round Earth believer and would highlight a few of my own observations as "feelings of obviousness" for a Globe Earth.

1) The first being what I observed on a regular basis when I lived right off of Lake Michigan. Cargo ships leaving port in a northern direction disappearing over the horizon bottom first and eventually out of sight. Also, cargo ships in the far off distance appearing top first before being able to see the hull of the ship. Additionally, on very clear days and nights, being able to only see the tops of at least two of Chicago's tallest skyscrapers from about 50 miles away (The Sears/Willis Tower and The Hancock Building)

2) Not being able to see stars in the sky (like the North Star) from Pretoria, South Africa, yet being able to see the North Star from the mid-west of North America. A rationale explanation being by an obstruction in the sightline from Pretoria due to Earth's curvature.

         

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 04, 2022, 10:05:59 PM »

Tom, I think you need to do a lot more research into the Soviet space programme in the 50s, 60s and 70s before declaring there was 'no comptetion'. Lots of evidence out there, including books written by those involved.

Of course the USSR did not say there was.

In other news, the German Democratic Republic wasn't actually a democracy.

Shocking.

The evidence of what they were doing in "secret" and what they were focused on and prioritized on in "secret" is based on speculation though, based on decades-later archival digging and seeing that academics were putting some amount of research into lander and rocket designs.

During the Space Race they were clearly working on lots of different space projects.



It is clearly a matter of national coping to claim that it had to be a man on the moon to win the Space Race, much like the previous analogy given of after losing a foot race deciding that the REAL race is the race to your car in the stadium parking lot.

Tom,

It still doesn't make sense that the Soviet Union skipped faking #8 accomplishment above but then proceeded with faking accomplishments #9,10, and 11 if they had already thought that they had won the space race.

- Based on your reasoning that the Soviet's had no more to prove, why did the Soviet's invest so heavily in the Buran Space Shuttle program if the USA's Space Shuttle program came before and launched in 1980. The Buran was ultimately ditched after just 1 unmanned flight after it's first launch 8 years later (1988) and ultimately when a hanger collapsed on the Buran Shuttle I think in 1993. Why would they invest in faking a Shuttle Program that the USA already had 8 years prior? 

- Earlier in this thread, you stated something to the effect that the Soviet Union did not want to endanger lives which is part of the reason why they did not move forwards with trying to be the first manned lunar landing. This is not true, the Soviet's did indeed endanger lives; 6 Cosmonauts are know to have been killed, at least one of them could be classified as manslaughter.

- Later in the thread you reasoned that it wasn't called the 'First Man on the Moon' race; the Soviet's already thought they won the space race and therefore didn't need to perform to USA's own definition of a space race. But, at the same time, it also wasn't called:
    'put an animal in space' race
    'put a woman in space' race
    'do a spacewalk in space' race
    'land a spacecraft on the Moon' race

- Lastly, if space travel is a conspiracy (as you believe) and all of the Soviet's firsts of space accomplishments were faked (as you would also believe), why didn't the USA fake being first before many of the Soviet's firsts were faked?
    first to 'put an animal in space'
    first to 'put a woman in space'
    first to 'do a spacewalk in space'
    first to 'land a spacecraft on the Moon'

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 04, 2022, 01:25:50 AM »

Tom - in the above list of the Soviet Union's fakery of "firsts", why would the Soviet Union skip faking #8 above which is a manned landing on the Moon?

Probably because they had already won the space race by that point. Again, it was called the space race and not the 'put a man on the moon' race.

Someone has to approve the plan and give the go-ahead for exorbitant release of public monies, real or fake. The gravy train has to wind down at some point.

Likewise, it was called the space race and not:
- 'put an animal in space' race
- 'put a woman in space' race
- 'do a spacewalk in space' race
- 'land a spacecraft on the Moon' race

So, why did the Soviet Union simply not include faking the 'put a man on the Moon' as part of their list of accomplishments?

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 04, 2022, 01:01:49 AM »

Tom, I think you need to do a lot more research into the Soviet space programme in the 50s, 60s and 70s before declaring there was 'no comptetion'. Lots of evidence out there, including books written by those involved.

Of course the USSR did not say there was.

In other news, the German Democratic Republic wasn't actually a democracy.

Shocking.

The evidence of what they were doing in "secret" and what they were focused on and prioritized on in "secret" is based on speculation though, based on decades-later archival digging and seeing that academics were putting some amount of research into lander and rocket designs.

During the Space Race they were clearly working on lots of different space projects.



It is clearly a matter of national coping to claim that it had to be a man on the moon to win the Space Race, much like the previous analogy given of after losing a foot race deciding that the REAL race is the race to your car in the stadium parking lot.

Tom - in the above list of the Soviet Union's fakery of "firsts", why would the Soviet Union skip faking #8 above which is a manned landing on the Moon?

What's more newsworthy at that time than your own citizens landing on the Moon, walking around on the Moon owning it, and then returning safely to Earth showing technological capability. Why skip a beat not faking this. It doesn't make sense.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 02, 2022, 02:17:03 PM »

See my comment above:

Even if fake, you still need to get the public and people out of the loop on board and convince people of the plan to get funding.

The US Congress approved the risky scheme because they were desperate.

Russia was not desperate, and did not publicaly announce that this was their goal. Clearly a difference there.

The Soviets could have created a fake funding scheme..... to fund a fake manned mission to the Moon.

Russia wouldn't need to be desperate anyways.... because its all fake.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 02, 2022, 02:09:16 PM »

There is nothing to skip. Read above. They publicly said they were not in a race to send men to the Moon and that their lunar program was robotic; which was cheaper, more flexible, and without risk to human life.

Apollo is prided on being "risky" and "hazardous"... which is really nothing to be proud of. The US Congress funded such a risky scheme out of desperation. The Russians were not desperate, and was not keen on funding wild hazardous manned missions to the moon.

But, faking a Moon landing in a studio wouldn't actually require any wild hazardous manned mission to the Moon....because it could just be faked.... in a studio.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 02, 2022, 01:45:16 PM »

If all of the Soviet's firsts were faked, and they endangered lives to carry out their faked missions, why would they have skipped a beat and declined faking a manned Moon landing?

- fake the first man in space. Check
- fake the first satellite launched and in orbit. Check
- fake the first probe to orbit the Moon. Check
- fake the first probe to land on the Moon. Check
- fake the first manned Moon landing. Ah, we'll just skip this one.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 02, 2022, 07:02:40 AM »

Even if you are faking your achievements, it still takes effort to fake. Someone cheating in a foot race with steroids wouldn't necessarily entertain someone deciding that the race was to his car in the stadium parking lot.

Again, it was called the space race and not the "first man to the Moon" race. Putting a man on the Moon was just something that the US did to feel better about losing the space race and wasn't really the original goal.

If you are having a competition with someone you need to stick to the original goals, not make them up as you go along. It was called the space race, clearly. The goal was to get into space. The race to space was to express military dominance in terms of orbital and ICBM weapon capability. It was to show the world that you have the capability of creating orbital weapons. A manned lunar mission has little to do with that. It was tacked on because the US didn't want to appear to be a complete loser.

But, there was indeed a race to the Moon, with the ultimate goal of being the first to land on the Moon in a manned spacecraft.

Note the various Luna, Ranger, and Surveyor missions as progress steps to trying to get to that ultimate goal.

Why would the Soviet Union go so far as to fake the various Luna missions to the Moon but not go one step further in faking the ultimate cherry on top landing in a manned spacecraft.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 02, 2022, 06:14:29 AM »

Yeah, it was called the space race, not the 'send a man to plant a flag on moon' race. It was a race to space. The goal posts shifted to planting a flag on the moon with a man after the US lost the space race. Russia clearly and obviously won it with what it was claiming, and was under no obligation to win further arbitrary goal post shifting.

If you lose a foot race and then decide that the race is actually to your car in the parking lot, that just makes you a big loser.

But, if all of these races were faked anyways, why not fake the one with the biggest cherry on top.... which is having your country's citizens be the first to step foot on a foreign satellite, the Moon?

Set a fake budget, set up some fake missions, and fake the first Moon landing by your country in your own studio.

I mean, what's better than the first person in space but the first person to set foot on Earth's Moon. If space travel is a conspiracy and fake anyways, why not fake being the first country to set foot on the Moon.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 02, 2022, 02:13:46 AM »

The Soviets did claim that they were the first to put a flag on the moon.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/russian-flag-on-moon-first/



https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviet-probe-reaches-the-moon

"In September 1959, the Soviets upped the ante considerably with the announcement that a rocket carrying the flag of the Soviet Union had crashed onto the moon’s surface. In Washington, a muted congratulation was sent to the Soviet scientists who managed the feat. At the same time, however, the United States warned the Soviet Union that sending the Russian flag to the moon gave the Soviets no territorial rights over the celestial body."

If Russia went so far as fake a rocket carrying the flag being shot to the Moon, why not follow-up on that achievement with a fake Moon landing with the USSR being the first to have their people walk on the Moon before the USA faked their Moon landing?

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 02, 2022, 01:53:41 AM »

But, going to space is a conspiracy / faked in a studio as space travel conspiracy theorists would contend. It wouldn't need to cost billions.

The Russian government and populous thinks it does though. Pretty fishy if the RSA claimed to do it without getting the money appropriated, or if they did it after the Soviet government denied their funding request for it.

Landing on the Moon and planting a flag on said Moon would indeed tend to rank at the top, in terms of space achievements.

Whose to say Russia couldn't fake appropriations if able to fake space travel.
 

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 02, 2022, 01:28:44 AM »

There were multiple government organizations involved. Money has to be appropriated. Neither NASA or the Soviet Space Agency had authority to appropriate money to itself.

NASA to US Congress: Russia is beating us!! Please give us billions of $$ for Apollo manned lunar landing.

US Congress: OMG OKAY

Soviet Space Agency to Soviet Russia: NASA is sending men to the Moon, please give us billions of ₽₽ for a Soviet lunar landing to beat them at that too!

Soviet Russia: That would unnecessarily endanger human lives. We already beat then at the most important space achievements. We won.

But, going to space is a conspiracy / faked in a studio as space travel conspiracy theorists would contend. It wouldn't need to cost billions.

As mentioned, Russia unnecessarily endangered human lives with their space missions.... the story of Vladimir Komarov being one of the most unfortunate examples. There were about 5 additional Russian cosmonaut fatalities.

Landing on the Moon and planting a flag on said Moon would indeed tend to rank at the top, in terms of space achievements.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 02, 2022, 01:13:51 AM »

The US Moon Landing is only the biggest win because you were conditioned to see it that way in the western school system. Russia had claimed many firsts:

- First intercontinental ballistic missile and orbital launch vehicle
- First satellite
- First person in space
- First robotic space rover on the Moon
- First probes sent to Venus and Mars

Considering these firsts, suggesting that Russia should have focused on being the first to send people to the Moon to claim that just seems arbitrary. Apollo was highly criticized because there was nothing a person could do on the Moon that a robot couldn't do, and that NASA was unnecessarily endangering the lives of people for national prestige.

From The Atlantic: "Over the years, I’ve spoken with many people who think deeply about space travel, and when I ask some of them about the whys, they admit, a little sheepishly, that there might be no compelling reason to send people into space—robots, yes, but people, maybe not. They seem hesitant to even say it aloud, as if to do so were blasphemous."

There wasn't actually a scientific reason to send people to the Moon. Why should Russia give importance to something the US arbitrarily decided to do?

If Russia's "firsts" were faked (as a space travel conspiracy believer would believe) seems like they were on a roll and would have also faked a Moon landing in their own studio. Landing on another space body for the first time in human existence seems like an opportunity Russia wouldn't have put on the low end of their priorities.

Russia were also risking human lives / endangering lives at the cost of space travel. In 1967 Russia commenced with a high risk space mission that ultimately killed Cosmonaut, Vladimir Komarov. Read the Wikipedia for this one, very grotesque.