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 - GoldCashew

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >
1
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.

         

2
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'


3
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?

4
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.

5
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.

6
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.

7
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.

8
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.

9
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.

10
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?


11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: May 02, 2022, 01:53:41 AM »
Quote
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.
 

12
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.


13
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.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Moon landing hoax question
« on: May 02, 2022, 12:38:25 AM »
For Moon landing hoax believers, why wouldn't Russia have faked a landing on the Moon before the USA did?

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground
« on: April 23, 2022, 01:34:03 AM »
Regardless of the shape of the earth, at ground level to chase the sun one full revolution you’d have to be traveling at approximately 1000 MPH for 24 hours. Doable for let’s say some hi-tech blimp I suppose. But now you have to do the same thing in just an hour and a half. On land, to make one full revolution in 90 minutes, you’d have to be going something like 16x faster, or around 16,000 MPH. Rise in altitude, farther to travel, more speed required. Let me know if my math is wrong.

Well, I am still researching this so I didn't want to prematurely mention it, but I suspect that there are multiple dirigibles. As they move around some can "go dark" and not be visible. The "space station" is not always visible. Even round-earthers agree that you can't see it in day time. Plus there is no need to fly the dirigibles on cloudy nights. So with only a few windows of opportunity (night time, clear skies, outside of a high-light metropolitan area) mixed with having the right equipment to even see the dirigible there are only a handful of people at any given time who can confirm its existence. This severely limits the times and places where the dirigible needs to appear and with multiple dirigibles the illusion can be easily achieved.

On top of all that, if anyone here were to get the proper equipment, go out into a desolate field on a clear night and look for the "space station" and fail to find it? You would 100% chalk it up to user error. Tell me you wouldn't.


With respect to your theory of multiple ISS dirigibles and your research that you are currently doing to look into this further, was curious to know of the specific research you are doing.

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground
« on: April 22, 2022, 10:02:52 PM »
With Scott Ferguson's observation, specialized software wasn't used to "see" the ISS. It was used to predict the position of the ISS.
Prove it.


Why are you asking me to prove it if I sent you that specific proof a couple of days ago?

17
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground
« on: April 22, 2022, 08:52:47 PM »
I can use specialised software to see much more than a magical space station. Be bold, name what you'd like to see. Specialised software will sort it out.


With Scott Ferguson's observation, specialized software wasn't used to "see" the ISS. It was used to predict the position of the ISS.

His observation and images of the ISS were taken using an eight-inch telescope and a video camera. There isn't anything of a magical space station (as you put it) or being bold and naming what you'd like to see.   

The magical part I think we are trying to figure out and question is Pongo's theory that the ISS is a dirigible attached with tether(s).

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground
« on: April 21, 2022, 05:17:09 AM »
Other considerations and critical thought questions to Pongo's above ISS dirigible attached to a tether theory would be (but not be limited to):

- are there NOTAM's (Notice to Airmen) issued to pilots around the world to keep clear of the tether(s) or when said tether(s) are in the general airspace that would be traveling thousands of miles per hour?
- are pilots in on the ISS tether conspiracy or are all flights secretly coordinated by the Elite's so that flights miss the tether(s)? If yes, are Elite's also trained in the field of air traffic control?
- are there any pictures of the ISS tether(s) that exist?
- are the tether(s) constructed of some sort of stealth material so that when they are travelling in the atmosphere, they are hidden from pilots as well as the billions of people on the ground?
- is there any evidence that such tether technology was tested before being used to secure the ISS dirigible?
- did the Elite(s) and only specific NASA employees make secret trips to the North Pole to test the technology or was the testing done elsewhere to simulate a North Pole like climate?
- what do you think the tether(s) are made of?
- when the thousands of mile long tether(s) are moving in the atmosphere at thousands of miles per hour, are there any design considerations that the developers would have had to consider with respect to the tether(s) making any unforeseen noise, howling, or whistling?
- how thick are the tether(s) and what would the specific properties of the tether(s) need to be to hold the ISS, to move at over 17,000 miles per hour, and withstand the rigors of environment for the many years the ISS has been in service?
- how did the ISS dirigible reach the atmosphere when it was originally launched to then be able to move at over 17,000 miles per hour with tether(s) attached? How and where was it launched and what propelled it to the velocity at over 17,000 miles per hour?       

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground
« on: April 21, 2022, 01:16:21 AM »
There’s a small problem with the contention that the space station is anchored to the North Pole under the flat earth theory.  That’s the fallacy of the earth’s upward acceleration to ‘simulate’ gravity.  In order for the space station to maintain a tension on a rope attached to the North Pole there would have to be a rocket engine on the space station to also maintain an upwards acceleration.  I’ve never seen any evidence of a rocket exhaust in any of the pictures.  Clearly there’s humans aboard the space station because I’ve personally heard them on the HAM radio frequencies.

By this logic birthday balloons would not stay afloat. The dirigible-station sails the upper bounds of the atmoplain like a ship anchored in a bay.


The difference being that in the ISS dirigible theory, the dirigible is traveling at over 17,000 miles per hour, is tied to tether(s) that would have to withstand 17,000 mph movement in upper atmosphere and the forces of the dirigible pulling in it, is being moved and steared by a force that would need to be defined, is attached to tethers that would have to be thousands and thousands of miles in length, and that would somehow need a plan for servicing said tether(s) if said tether(s) were to break or become damaged. Additionally, what would be the method of servicing such tethers without the billions of people on the ground knowing. Lastly, how would employees at NASA be mistaken that the ISS is orbiting the Earth vs. the ISS as a dirigible attached to tether(s)? They would be monitoring the ISS and not realize it's actually a dirigible with tether(s) attached?

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground
« on: April 20, 2022, 08:25:34 PM »
It may or may not surprise you to learn that many globe-earthers only come here to show flat-earthers how extremely tenuous their grasp of their own theories are despite how dogmatically they cling to them.
Coming from someone whose grasp of FE is non-existent and whose grasp of RE is somewhere between "poor" and "mediocre", that would be surprising. Nah, who am I kidding? You're exactly the type Pongo was talking about, and you just couldn't stop yourself from proving him right.

All that for a quick "UHHHH I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I???" quip.

I agree. But if you take a quick look at the wiki, it's steeped in discrediting theories not favorable to flat earth, obviously with some exceptions. Discredit NASA, discredit modern astronomy, discredit modern physics, etc. In other words, it cuts both ways regardless of FE or GE.
The Wiki addresses the most common arguments RE'ers come to us crying about. The only thing that "cuts both ways" here is your inability to ever be content. You pompously demand that we discredit your dogma, and then you complain that we humour you.


There are many FE concepts that you are absolutely correct; that RE'ers like myself don't grasp.

Pongo's suggestion of the ISS as a dirigible attached by a tether(s) to the North Pole is one example and it was fair for me to raise some initial feasibility questions.

This FE theory along with other concepts such as how the FE simplified animation model shows the Sun's spotlight projection as distorted on a flat earth model are FE theory items I don't have a grasp on but am trying to understand how they work.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >