21

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

« on: August 07, 2021, 11:14:09 AM »

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.

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.

22

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

« on: August 06, 2021, 06:54:13 PM »

Quote: Thirdly, you say, "The radiation in the belts is so intense it can't even be measured by geiger counters..." Well it was, NASA's Explorer I had a Geiger counter at Van Allen's request and it recorded something they didn't expect, a lot of radiation we didn't know was there. In other words, it was measured, that's how they knew it was there. You're statement is completely illogical.

I meant it was so intense it overloaded the geiger counters. So much that it couldn't be measured.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a FE, why does the night sky appear different depending on your position?

« on: August 06, 2021, 06:22:51 PM »

If you were standing on a grain of sand flying through space I reckon your view is going to change dramatically from one moment to the next.

Why do you reckon that? When you're driving through the great Plains, do farms or mountains off in the distance change dramatically from one moment to the next? When you're on a cruise, do islands pop up and disappear from one moment to the next? When you're on a plane, travelling at 500 mph, does the ground beneath you hurtle past so fast you cant focus on it?

I reckon they would if the road was a spiral.

24

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

« on: August 06, 2021, 06:00:14 PM »

When I say it wasn't mentioned, I meant in later interviews and also during that conference. This is strange seeing as it is what is preventing space flight today. The radiation in the belts is so intense it can't even be measured by geiger counters but we're supposed to believe that the metal of the command module was sufficiently thick enough to shield the astronauts inside - I'm sorry but it's patently ridiculous. You would need 10 inches of steel to protect yourself from that amount of radiation and the walls of the command module were only an inch thick in places. And they were in the belts for long enough to get wet, that is for sure.

Just joshing. The information regarding the geiger measuring of radiation in the belts is recorded knowledge which I can fish out for you if you need it. The amount of steel you'd need to shield you from excessive amounts of radiation such as in a nuclear incident is to be found in the 'NATO Handbook On The Medical Aspects Of NBC Defensive Operations'. The thickness of the command module steel is also documented but I'm hoping you're not going to want me to go looking for it for you.

Where are you getting this knowledge you have of the existence of the VAB, its intensity, 10 inches of steel shielding is required, etc?

I'm just making it up as I go along.

Good to know.

25

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

« on: August 06, 2021, 04:56:55 PM »

When I say it wasn't mentioned, I meant in later interviews and also during that conference. This is strange seeing as it is what is preventing space flight today. The radiation in the belts is so intense it can't even be measured by geiger counters but we're supposed to believe that the metal of the command module was sufficiently thick enough to shield the astronauts inside - I'm sorry but it's patently ridiculous. You would need 10 inches of steel to protect yourself from that amount of radiation and the walls of the command module were only an inch thick in places. And they were in the belts for long enough to get wet, that is for sure.

Where are you getting this knowledge you have of the existence of the VAB, its intensity, 10 inches of steel shielding is required, etc?

I'm just making it up as I go along.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a FE, why does the night sky appear different depending on your position?

« on: August 06, 2021, 04:53:03 PM »

I want to know why it doesn't look completely different every night if we're spinning around through space like they say we are. All that supposed movement still the position of the stars remains pretty much the same each night. Something about that seems off if you ask me.

Don't know about you, but the most recognisable constellation in my sky, at least over winter, is Orion. It doesn't stay still in my sky, in general terms I clearly see it at first to my South East, and it doesn't take long for it to have moved to South West and beyond over the course of a night.

Certainly doesn't stay still. Neither does the Moon, which shows the same sort of behaviour, crossing my sky exactly as would be expected with us rotating around, bringing it into view and taking it out of view, appearing in broadly the same spot once every 24 hours. The spot varies long-term, according to the seasons. 

The stars don't look COMPLETELY different because, in the big scheme of things, we're hardly moving at all. We spin around once every 24 hours or so, cycle around the Sun once every 365 days, but in galactic terms, we're a drop in the ocean. A grain of sand on a big beach.

I've heard this size explanation before but it still sounds odd. If you were standing on a grain of sand flying through space I reckon your view is going to change dramatically from one moment to the next.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a FE, why does the night sky appear different depending on your position?

« on: August 06, 2021, 12:29:12 PM »

I want to know why it doesn't look completely different every night if we're spinning around through space like they say we are. All that supposed movement still the position of the stars remains pretty much the same each night. Something about that seems off if you ask me.

Don't know about you, but the most recognisable constellation in my sky, at least over winter, is Orion. It doesn't stay still in my sky, in general terms I clearly see it at first to my South East, and it doesn't take long for it to have moved to South West and beyond over the course of a night.

Certainly doesn't stay still. Neither does the Moon, which shows the same sort of behaviour, crossing my sky exactly as would be expected with us rotating around, bringing it into view and taking it out of view, appearing in broadly the same spot once every 24 hours. The spot varies long-term, according to the seasons. 

The stars don't look COMPLETELY different because, in the big scheme of things, we're hardly moving at all. We spin around once every 24 hours or so, cycle around the Sun once every 365 days, but in galactic terms, we're a drop in the ocean. A grain of sand on a big beach.

But Orion is still there isn't it? Just strikes me as odd that we're supposedly going in circles around the sun which in turn is spinning around the galaxy which also is likely doing something similar and all the time our night sky never seems to change that much.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a FE, why does the night sky appear different depending on your position?

« on: August 05, 2021, 05:06:21 PM »

I want to know why it doesn't look completely different every night if we're spinning around through space like they say we are. All that supposed movement still the position of the stars remains pretty much the same each night. Something about that seems off if you ask me.

29

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

« on: August 05, 2021, 04:56:32 PM »

When I say it wasn't mentioned, I meant in later interviews and also during that conference. This is strange seeing as it is what is preventing space flight today. The radiation in the belts is so intense it can't even be measured by geiger counters but we're supposed to believe that the metal of the command module was sufficiently thick enough to shield the astronauts inside - I'm sorry but it's patently ridiculous. You would need 10 inches of steel to protect yourself from that amount of radiation and the walls of the command module were only an inch thick in places. And they were in the belts for long enough to get wet, that is for sure.

30

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

« on: August 05, 2021, 04:05:20 PM »

Orion can't get into space because of the belts yes or no? But in '69 it wasn't a problem...hmmm. So, the belts are more dangerous today than 50 years ago, has the radiation become more intense or something? It just seems odd that it was seen as such an insignificant issue 50 years ago that no one even mentioned it.

31

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: How are we notified of replies to comments?

« on: August 05, 2021, 12:46:12 PM »

Thanks. I've been looking for something like that but I couldn't find it on my account settings. It's probably there but my head is so fried with all the radiation I couldn't see it.

32

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

« on: August 04, 2021, 08:10:55 PM »

So, my question was, do any of you flat earthers want to go into space and see the earth for yourself?

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 I'm beginning to believe that the earth isn't what they've led us to believe and could well be flat. The stuff we're supposed to believe is rather nonsensical when you get down to it.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a FE, why does the night sky appear different depending on your position?

« on: August 04, 2021, 07:56:06 PM »

The following comment I found online a while back might be helpful to you in explaining the stars question:

'2 people are standing on the opposite walls of a room, one wall is north, the other is south, and the moon is a picture on the ceiling. The top of the picture will be top for the one observer and the bottom of the picture will be top for the other observer...'

34

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: How are we notified of replies to comments?

« on: August 04, 2021, 07:49:03 PM »

I'm fairly sure we aren't notified at all.

35

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The ISS - Who Should I believe?

« on: August 04, 2021, 07:35:28 PM »

Thanks for the insight, Pete
I came here hoping to engage in a conversation with some flat earthers, but that seems much harder than I thought it would.

But I will persevere

Cheers
Peter

Where the ISS is concerned, yes there might be something up there flying around that we can see but are there astronauts in it, that's the question and the evidence from NASA to support the idea is so full of obvious chicanery it's hard to take their claim seriously.

36

Suggestions & Concerns / How are we notified of replies to comments?

« on: July 15, 2021, 12:29:57 PM »

Is it by email?

37

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

« on: July 14, 2021, 05:55:30 AM »

Why would liking to speak to the press be one of the skills needed to become an astronaut?

They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming.

Well, no "they" didn't. And if they had then what's your hot take, that he worked with people who can't act for some reason?

Cypher9's post reminds me of a meme I saw recently which was along the lines of:

Spends 3 years getting a degree.
Spends another 2 years researching to get a Ph. D.
Goes to work doing research.
Runs some experiments and trials.
Writes scientific paper.
Gets paper published.
Has paper peer reviewed.

Bloke on the internet: "Bullshit!"

Which is pretty much what Cypher9 has done. 3 dudes who literally work in VFX look at the footage and explain how that would have been impossible to fake using 1960's technology, Cypher9 doesn't bother to refute any of what they say, he just offers an argument from incredulity. Convincing.

There's plenty of 3rd party evidence for the moon landings. The Australians were relaying signals for NASA, Jodrell Bank in the UK was monitoring the mission - and a rival one from the USSR which was unmanned but attempting a soft landing before Apollo 11 to steal their thunder. I believe it's the Chinese who not too long ago released photos from one of their craft in orbit around the moon which is high enough resolution to see the landing sites. Then there's the laser reflectors which are still used.

And the entire counter argument from people who think it was all a hoax is "nah".

They didn't mention the VABs even once during the conference when the belts are the No.1 NASA given reason why we can't get into deep space today. Why? One of the astronauts Alan Bean, didn't even know where the belts were when asked. To my mind, it's irrational to just ignore these gaping holes in the story and says more about a person's desperation to believe the moon landings actually happened than anything else. Allaroundtheworld should examine his beliefs and stop ignoring uncomfortable truths.

38

Technology & Information / Re: China Space Station

« on: July 13, 2021, 06:36:50 AM »

If I was on a space station I'd show live views of the cosmos through the windows constantly if only to wind up the naysayers; we just get to see grinning clowns brushing their teeth and somersaulting as if that should be enough to keep us happy.

39

Technology & Information / Re: China Space Station

« on: July 13, 2021, 06:22:22 AM »

Which board should it be on do you think and why didn't you suggest one?

40

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !

« on: July 13, 2021, 06:19:16 AM »

As we witnessed the dome appears at 73 miles

Why do you keep posting that video and saying it's a rocket "hitting the dome"?
It's a despinning device. You can see that the rocket stops spinning, it doesn't stop or smash into pieces as it would it if was hitting something solid at that speed.

The dome may not be solid (not that I necessarily believe in a dome).