2561

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: China's 9.5 ton space station, Tiangong-1, will come falling from space.

« on: March 09, 2018, 09:02:35 AM »

"Presented with the uncontrolled re-entry of Tiangong-1, 13 space agencies are using the event to test new tracking models and equipment, including radar, lasers and optical telescopes. Over the coming days and weeks, the agencies will pool their data in a bid to sharpen their predictions of where and when the object will fall."

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/09/tiangong-1-scientists-unsure-where-chinese-space-station-will-crash-to-earth

So ...13 different space agencies, using a variety of tracking methods, are tracking an orbital craft, to see where it will finally break up.

According to FE contributors here, does this qualify as "empirical evidence"?

2562

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: March 08, 2018, 02:32:02 PM »

Please lets be clear what one is really seeing ! One of the 1,800 so called weather balloons released every single day, day in and day out. They appear as a blip on the tele's or radar.

Let's be clear what we're seeing in the planewave video -

The telescope, which you can see moving as it tracks the satellite.
A star-field map, showing where the telescope is pointing.
The output from the telescope, showing the satellite centralised in frame, with star-fields moving rapidly in the background, an optical effect due to the rapid movement of satellite and telescope.
Lastly, a data window showing attributes for satellite and telescope.

planewavemedia are not tracking them with radar, they're tracking them with a telescope. How do they know where to point the telescope? The satellites have predictable trajectories. Balloons don't behave like that. Balloons go where the weather takes them.

planewavemedia can tell us which satellite they are looking at, who launched it, etc.

If you're so sure they are weather balloons, could you enlighten us as to which one(s) planewavemedia have been tracking, and who you think launched those particular balloons?

2563

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: China's 9.5 ton space station, Tiangong-1, will come falling from space.

« on: March 08, 2018, 11:07:18 AM »

It's just another testament to the fact that sustained spaceflight is a myth.

Based on the length of time it has been in orbit, what would you say constitutes a sustained flight, then?

2564

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof the moon landings happened.

« on: March 07, 2018, 03:46:05 PM »

You do not dispose of the amount of information claimed to have been lost relating to the most important mission in the history of mankind.

Yes, there's plenty of information resulting from the missions, but no tooling or production lines to repeat the exercise. Which is where Orion comes in

There is no temperature around the camera. All that can happen is that the camera heats up when directly exposed to Sunlight. The astronauts moved around on the surface. Sometimes the camera was in Sun, sometimes not. When it is, it heats up, when it is not, it cools.  The suits were not made out of paper

That is right.

When they heat up, it heats up. There is no "slowly warming..." in place here or in question.

The surface of the Moon heats up at around 2 or 3 degrees per hour. Why would a camera heat up any quicker?

Can't you see the contradiction in what you claim here? First you want the engine to be powerful enough to make a crater, but in the same sentence you want it weak enough that it leaves the regolith on the landing legs or footpads. You cannot have it both ways. The two results are mutually exclusive.

No, they are not.

There would have been a crater from the exhaust and it would been ejected straight up with no influence from wind or other weather phenomena. Once the legs got low enough to the ground, then the landing pads would have held any dust inside due to their shape.

Why would the regolith be driven "straight up"? Surely that would carry it into the exhaust or the base of the craft? How would that happen? Why would regolith being driven at hundreds or thousands of MPH fall into the pads? It would go straight past them

This is the best response you can come up with when it comes to the question as to why the astronauts would make note of the Van Allen Belts?

So you can't say if they would have seen or felt the VABs from within the craft, then?

2565

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof the moon landings happened.

« on: March 07, 2018, 03:22:37 PM »

In regards to the technology to go to the moon, "we lost it".

Yup. Every piece of the Apollo craft that was launched from Earth was disposable, apart from the Command Module. It got destroyed in the process of carrying out the missions. The last Apollo mission was in 1972, and some hardware in the pipeline was used to launch Skylab. After that the production lines were shut down, and the subcontractors moved on to other projects. What would you expect to have been kept since the early 1970s?

Crosshairs missing or in front of lunar photos

Emulsion bleed


temperatures to destroy a camera or a paper space suit

There is no temperature around the camera. All that can happen is that the camera heats up when directly exposed to Sunlight. The astronauts moved around on the surface. Sometimes the camera was in Sun, sometimes not. When it is, it heats up, when it is not, it cools.  The suits were not made out of paper


no crater on landing, no dust on lander legs

Can't you see the contradiction in what you claim here? First you want the engine to be powerful enough to make a crater, but in the same sentence you want it weak enough that it leaves the regolith on the landing legs or footpads. You cannot have it both ways. The two results are mutually exclusive.

cellphones the size of an ammo box tech

Apollo didn't use 'cellphones'. they used a point-to-point radio link

I don't remember going thru the Van Belt, it was a studio lot no less.

Why would the astronauts note it in particular? What effect do you think should have been seen or felt by them?

2566

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof the moon landings happened.

« on: March 07, 2018, 12:52:06 PM »

i.e., ignore your eyes when things went poof on the takeoff of the LM from the surface though..

....and all that went 'poof' was rocket exhaust and debris from the TOP of the descent stage. Everything went straight outward from there, and the only thing left to observe the result was the video camera on the lunar rover. So even IF anything landed in the footpads, we would have nothing left there to see it. All photos of the footpads were taken during EVAs

2567

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: March 07, 2018, 11:41:01 AM »

For over 300 years California was depicted in maps as an island off of the coast of the United States.

Yes, for precisely the reason stated in the article you linked to. It had not been explored and mapped.

2568

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof the moon landings happened.

« on: March 07, 2018, 09:57:22 AM »

With regards to the Telegraph story in that video;

Here's what the presentation rocks looked like - mounted on wood frames, with explanatory plaques, with a small grain set in perspex or similar;








Here's what was claimed to be the 'fake' in a matching press article;



at

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209445/Fake-dutch-moon-rock-causes-embarrassment-museum.html


Please note;

There's nothing on the card to link it to the rock it is pictured with.
There's nothing on the card to say that any of the astronauts actually presented anyone with anything, merely that the presentation was to commemorate the astronauts' visit to Holland
There's nothing on the card which suggests a lunar sample was actually presented with the card.
etc

Conclusion; sloppy filing by the Dutch.

2569

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is Earth not round?

« on: March 06, 2018, 02:11:00 PM »

See this thread. The claim was that the phases of the moon don't add up.

Which was rebutted by more than one contributor, at which point the one who made the claim said no more.

2570

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hey Flat Earthers, Just wondering...

« on: March 05, 2018, 12:45:58 PM »

I do, however, question the view that following standard navigational equipment around the Ice Wall is in any way conclusive.

What probable cause is there for it to be inconclusive?

You're referring to "standard" navigation equipment. Are you aware of any other "non-standard" kind? If so, what is it?

2571

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: March 05, 2018, 10:53:23 AM »

This video proves satellites exist, heck, why the hell are you even pointing a satellite dish towards the sky if they didn't exist?

This video essentially is a home-built version of what planewavemedia do commercially

2572

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 04, 2018, 04:43:47 PM »

Should I have accepted the testimony of priests as proof of miracles?

If the priests had recorded data from their miracles, and if others got the same data by different methods for the same miracle, then maybe you should have....

2573

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 04, 2018, 03:34:21 PM »

Just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't make it untrue.

Firm evidence contradictory to the conspiracy theory does, though.

For example;
1 Humankind has sent hundreds of unmanned craft around the world in orbit, around the Moon, and to the various planets of our solar system. Some of these craft have returned imagery which shows the globe from different angles and distances.

2 Humankind has sent hundreds of individuals, in manned craft, around the world, in orbit, and a lucky 21 of them have either walked on the Moon or gone around it. Again, these have brought back imagery, and photography, which shows the Earth as a globe from different aspects and distances.

If you don't accept the words and experiences of these few hundred, then what would it take? Another hundred repeating the exercise? A thousand? Ten thousand?

Seriously, there must come a point when X number of people say the world is round, that you accept it. What is your figure for X?

2574

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight path

« on: March 04, 2018, 11:07:05 AM »

Can some answer what the flight path from Washington DC, U.S.A to Tokyo would be on the flat earth map, thanks

Is there a flight number for a service that connects these cities?

If so, the flight can be monitored with a number of online trackers.

2575

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellite dishes and stuff

« on: March 04, 2018, 10:19:50 AM »

There's a company out there called Plane Wave Media. They specialise in tracking software/hardware for telescopes. They've developed this to the extent that they can pick a satellite, even an orbital one, and the telescope will home in on, and track, that satellite across the sky

Look at their recent 'tracking' videos on YouTube, and you can see the whole process in four windows;

The output from the telescope, with centralised satellite, and starfields whizzing by in the background
The view of the telescope itself as it moves
A star field showing where the telescope is pointing
A data window, showing attributes of the satellite being tracked

Here's just one

2576

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 04, 2018, 10:05:41 AM »

You have provided no observations or reports of that scenario. Until then it is a mere thought experiment no better than mine.

Why didn't you say that in the first place?

I, for one, could make no connection between the two until now, and genuinely thought yours so unrelated to theirs that there was no connection between them. I genuinely thought you were throwing a random argument into the thread.

You have to tell everyone reading this what's going on in your head, not have them guess at it...

So ... all RE has to do is find a few sets of two observers at antipodal points and have them film or video sunrise and sunset with  some verifiable proof of time and date in frame?  Shouldn't be difficult. What will happen then? Will you assert that the T&D could have been falsified, or will you accept that the observers are simply showing you what's happening in front of them?

As for your thought experiment, I invite you to make preparations for, or commence when ready.

2577

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 04, 2018, 12:45:07 AM »

Until you are willing to explain the results of my thought experiment, I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

Yet, barely two posts earlier - "Your "thought experiment" has been answered to multiple times."

I concur. More than one person has addressed your thought experiment. Have you read what they (and I) wrote?

2578

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 03, 2018, 07:07:17 PM »

If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.

Was this 'thought experiment' intended as a disproof of the OP?

2579

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 03, 2018, 10:28:54 AM »

If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.

Tom, is this what you're describing as your "thought experiment"?

2580

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 02, 2018, 10:28:29 PM »

(Responding to  "Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further.  Even if you DID reach the other side ...)

No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.

You're the one who introduced the case scenario. I point out that you wouldn't fall out of the other side (due to gravity), but you ask me to explain falling out of the other side. Why?