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 - Tumeni

Pages: < Back  1 ... 113 114 [115] 116  Next >
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Government Cooperation?
« on: February 20, 2018, 09:14:58 AM »
Go to the 4:30 sec mark and watch the Chinese spaceship footage.

The side view is clearly an animation, but the rest looks OK.

What a joke compared to NASA movies. Yet the USA backed the Chinese and said they did go to the moon.
Just look at the air bubbles coming from the underwater filming scene.
What a joke.
The Tesla car has air bubbles as well but nothing like that low budget Chinese film.

"What a joke" hardly qualifies as quantitative analysis. Can you prove that any of the 'air bubbles' are actually air?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Ocean Circumnavigation
« on: February 20, 2018, 09:10:12 AM »
The inner circle Arctic is mush smaller then the outer circle Antarctic.

Could you specify what these are, please?

Why do around the world yacht races circle Antarctica and not the Arctic?

Because there's no viable route around the Arctic due to the land masses of Europe, Scandinavia, Russia, Canada, etc. There's clear seas in the Antarctic. Less land.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Two curious questions for a Flat Earther
« on: February 19, 2018, 11:18:59 PM »
if you look at the image you will see little similarity. I personally believe they are just doing this to keep it a secret.

Yes, the images were taken with different cameras, at different times, from different distances. They look different. Big whoop.

Who are "they" and what do you think the "secret" is?

You'll be unsurprised to learn I've done a thread on TV transmissions before. It ran for 30 odd pages. I did one on GPS before ... in fact I did many. I know your objections, I know the sources I'll have to dig up again ... and I don't want to. I joined this thread because it was about the end of TFES due to space tourism. You no longer want to talk about that and I have lost interest.

I'm just following on from what you said at #13 and #23. i.e.  space is fake, and SpaceX payloads get to their destinations using balloons... so I think you led the thread here.

After 3 pages, I'm done giving you links. How about you do a little research on your own?

... but you're not linking to anything which supports your case. You say all sat transmitters in the UK point North, and back this with a single microwave link, which may even be a receiver, not a transmitter, and provide NO indication of its orientation or location .....

To others, all you're doing is indulging in idle speculation.

Those aren't dish transmitters for your 'satellite' dish.

Those are actual TV transmitters in the UK. I didn't say they were broadcasting satellite TV. You're the one claiming that all satellite TV transmitters point North, I'm showing you what TV transmitters look like, without any compass orientation. 

Can you provide a specific verifiable instance of a TV transmitter in the UK with a Northerly orientation? 


Angle of elevation is above the centre line of the dish.

Please show examples of these TV transmitters which "face North".....

Here's the Kirk O'Shotts transmitter in Central Scotland - which is the North face of it? Nearest the camera? Left? Right?

Here's the Crystal Palace transmitter. Which is North?

So says the indoctrinated.

I've been receiving TV in the UK for many years. I know where the TV transmitters are. I know where my local cell masts are. I can look them all up from online sources to confirm what they are.

I've moved between locations, and had to retune analogue and digital terrestrial TVs because of those changes, but whenever it came to installing a satellite system - it always points to that same spot in the sky. 20-odd degrees elevation, and South. Never toward a transmitter or a mast.

Please, please, tell me the source of my 'indoctrination' ....

The design of GPS is based partly on ....

So some of it, by implication, is NOT based upon that which you quoted?

Many things are just ground based.

By implication, then, others (the 'not many') are not .....

Yes, I KNOW we (for instance) in the UK received terrestrial TV from ground-based transmitters for many years. This led to the construction of many transmitters, because a single ground-based transmitter cannot cover the whole UK. The evidence that many transmitters are in use comes from travelling around the country and seeing TV aerials pointing in different directions, such that they are beamed on their nearest transmitter.

Satellite TV covers the whole of the country from one transmitter, above the equator, as evidenced by millions of satellite dishes, all pointing the same way - even those on the South Coast, which point out to sea.

television is usually provided by TV masts

Usually. But not always.

Get people watching the rocket, meanwhile add the payload to a balloon and launch elsewhere from the public's gaze.

Can you provide any meaningful proof that any SpaceX payload has been launched in this manner?

Further to my earlier post, SpaceX has around 14 launches scheduled for later this year, including two more Falcon Heavy launches.

The payloads include;

a Bangabandhu 1 communications satellite for the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission,
a Crew Dragon spacecraft on an uncrewed test flight to the International Space Station,
the U.S. Air Force’s first third-generation navigation satellite for the Global Positioning System,
10 satellites for the Iridium next mobile communications fleet,
the SES 12 communications satellite for SES of Luxembourg,
the 17th Dragon spacecraft mission on its 15th operational cargo delivery flight to the International Space Station,
the 18th Dragon spacecraft mission on its 16th operational cargo delivery flight to the International Space Station,
the Arabsat 6A communications satellite for Arabsat of Saudi Arabia, and
the U.S. Air Force’s Space Test Program-2 mission with a cluster of military and scientific research satellites.

That, to me, is quite some assembly of fakery, even IF    - IF -   you could realistically allege that all of these organisations are "in on the hoax" .....

No one said the launch was fake. Just the bit about being in space. Sure, you can get a rocket really high, but once the words 'orbit' or 'escape velocity' are used, we're into the realms of fantasy.

Yet SpaceX has, prior to the Falcon Heavy, launched a number of satellites for the likes of Orbcomm, Iridium, SES, and a selection of others.

It has a queue of others waiting for the same services.

What do you think these other companies are doing, given that some of them existed long before SpaceX did, and at least one has had satellites launched by other operators? You don't really think they're all "in on the hoax too", do you?

Flat Earth Community / Re: New to the flat earth??? Please explain....
« on: February 18, 2018, 10:37:58 AM »
I see many FE-ers either telling others to "Do their own research", or that they have "done their research", but I can never coax any detail from them on what they've done.

Are you prepared to tell us what your research entailed?  What you did, when you did it, what the results of any experimentation were, where the results are/were documented ...?

I asked for a free body diagram of the ISS.

All of you expurtts here should surely be able to come up with that.

Pony up the free body diagram!

I'm no expert, but I'll have a go, if you're looking for diagrams from all-comers.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Two curious questions for a Flat Earther
« on: February 16, 2018, 04:39:16 PM »

True. The naked eye witnesses a rocket hurtling into an arc and disappearing in the distance before it reaches the peak of its arc and arguably enters into a higher altitude or continues to complete its trajectory and smash into the ocean.

All you're seeing is the reverse of what I see every day when aircraft approach my local airport. They appear, low in my field of view, then climb my field of view to go over my house. But they're descending. I can track their height with flight trackers, compare them to arrivals at the airport, and I've flown the route myself. All you're seeing in the rockets is the reverse of this.

You aren't actually there. WHat you are seeing is footage made by man with software and technology that could be as seemingly real as the keyboard in front of you. You cannot prove anything else beyond the simplicity of that unless you are physically there.

All I've seen of Hong Kong or Tokyo is film or photographs. Does that bring the photographers or film makers into disrepute? If not, why should NASA or others be automatically held so?

People who betray die, and have.

Mostly from old age, rather than any suspicious circumstance

There is a lot of so-called evidence to these launches and the results, yet there is equally the same if not more evidence against what is presented to us once an object goes beyond our range of vision.

Which is what, exactly? What evidence can you present regarding a non-visible object?

NASA (Never A Straight Answer) would not be a reliable witness under the court of law, yes?

Why not?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The International Space Station
« on: February 16, 2018, 04:02:05 PM »
Piccard knew what he was looking through.

He did not make just one flight. His craft was not leaking all the freaking time.

How many flights did he make?

He might have KNOWN what he was looking through, but does that make his observation any more reliable, given the size of the portholes, and his defective vision?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The International Space Station
« on: February 16, 2018, 02:28:35 PM »
Picard may well have claimed to have seen a Flat Earth, but

He was looking through vintage spectacles
He was peering through thick porthole glass of small diameter, even smaller than today's aircraft windows and

Someone has suggested his craft was leaking, so he have been suffering oxygen deprivation and mild hallucination

So, how reliable?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airplane Trajectory
« on: February 16, 2018, 02:20:38 PM »
Japan is 138 East, LA is 118 W.

The number of degrees to travel, if you go West over the Indian Ocean from Japan, and don't stop until LA, is the sum of these figures - 138+118 = 256 degrees.

Since there are 360 degrees around the Earth, if you go East from Japan, it's (360-256 =) 104 degrees that way.  Less than half the distance if you go over the Pacific.

Some account should be taken of latitude as well, but that's good enough for an approximation

Pages: < Back  1 ... 113 114 [115] 116  Next >