-
We've received the following question via Facebook. I (and presumably the author of the question) would be interested to see what our individual members have to say.
Of all the space missions, be it Man on the Moon or simply spacecrafts like Curiosity, Voyage, Rosetta or others, which do you consider to be legitimate?
-
None of them.
-
None are legitimate.
-
I would say that everything after Sputnik was faked. Everything prior to that, on America's side, was real. Not sure about in Russia.
-
What about the sub-orbital Mercury missions? Those could have been real, couldn't they?
-
Short tour 'space' travel is possible (ballistic missiles, high altitude aircraft) but sustained space travel or missions is impossible. No man has stuck himself to the Moon and no machine has touched Mars.
-
What about the sub-orbital Mercury missions? Those could have been real, couldn't they?
It's possible, but I doubt it. I expect that after Sputnik was 'launched' America decided to fake their progress in order to avoid appearing to fall behind. They might have made that decision later, but I suspect there was already knowledge that they couldn't escape the atmosphere for reasons they didn't understand.
-
What about the sub-orbital Mercury missions? Those could have been real, couldn't they?
It's possible, but I doubt it. I expect that after Sputnik was 'launched' America decided to fake their progress in order to avoid appearing to fall behind.
Ummm... When Sputnik launched, America was behind and pretty much stayed behind until sometime around Apollo 8.
-
What about the sub-orbital Mercury missions? Those could have been real, couldn't they?
It's possible, but I doubt it. I expect that after Sputnik was 'launched' America decided to fake their progress in order to avoid appearing to fall behind.
Ummm... When Sputnik launched, America was behind and pretty much stayed behind until sometime around Apollo 8.
Well they could hardly have pretended to launch their own satellite the next day. Everyone would know it was a hoax. For the sake of believability they allowed themselves to be behind for a few years.
-
What about the sub-orbital Mercury missions? Those could have been real, couldn't they?
It's possible, but I doubt it. I expect that after Sputnik was 'launched' America decided to fake their progress in order to avoid appearing to fall behind.
Ummm... When Sputnik launched, America was behind and pretty much stayed behind until sometime around Apollo 8.
Well they could hardly have pretended to launch their own satellite the next day. Everyone would know it was a hoax. For the sake of believability they allowed themselves to be behind for a few years.
11 years is a pretty long time to pretend to be behind, don't you think?
-
What about the sub-orbital Mercury missions? Those could have been real, couldn't they?
It's possible, but I doubt it. I expect that after Sputnik was 'launched' America decided to fake their progress in order to avoid appearing to fall behind.
Ummm... When Sputnik launched, America was behind and pretty much stayed behind until sometime around Apollo 8.
Well they could hardly have pretended to launch their own satellite the next day. Everyone would know it was a hoax. For the sake of believability they allowed themselves to be behind for a few years.
11 years is a pretty long time to pretend to be behind, don't you think?
Not really. Seems like a perfectly reasonable amount of time to pretend to be preparing for a moon landing. It's not the kind of thing that takes 5 years.
-
What about the sub-orbital Mercury missions? Those could have been real, couldn't they?
It's possible, but I doubt it. I expect that after Sputnik was 'launched' America decided to fake their progress in order to avoid appearing to fall behind.
Ummm... When Sputnik launched, America was behind and pretty much stayed behind until sometime around Apollo 8.
Well they could hardly have pretended to launch their own satellite the next day. Everyone would know it was a hoax. For the sake of believability they allowed themselves to be behind for a few years.
11 years is a pretty long time to pretend to be behind, don't you think?
Not really. Seems like a perfectly reasonable amount of time to pretend to be preparing for a moon landing. It's not the kind of thing that takes 5 years.
Actually, it took a little under 7 years from Kennedy's speech until Apollo 11 (allegedly) landed on the moon. Regardless, NASA was behind Russia in many of the intermediate steps (first man in space, first space walk, first man made object to reach the moon, etc.) during that prep time.
-
In america, I understand two sets of programs:
1) the less publicized X plane program which was modified into the space shuttle during the Nixon years
and
3) the more publicized Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Skylab programs which involved an increasing amount of fakery
I think all of the american and Soviet space programs involved some degree of fakery and were both centrally coordinated. Some involved more fakery than others. I suspect that NASA had a large degree of involvement in Soviet space propaganda. A false and inflated myth of Soviet military and scientific supremacy was promoted unanimously by both Khruhschevites and american anti-communists.
-
All of them. I'm curious if anyone has solid evidence to the contrary...
-
How are space flights faked? Where do the astronauts go that are on board?
-
My answer is for Flat earthers only. I don't care what round earthers will tell.
The firmament should be between 20-40 km above the sea, there are entrances into the next flat plane and we can enter into the next plane, this is possible even now, but the deceivers don't want us to know we can achieve that much and that the earth is flat and the are endless other flat planes stacked on this and below this flat plane.
-
My answer is for Flat earthers only. I don't care what round earthers will tell.
The firmament should be between 20-40 km above the sea, there are entrances into the next flat plane and we can enter into the next plane, this is possible even now, but the deceivers don't want us to know we can achieve that much and that the earth is flat and the are endless other flat planes stacked on this and below this flat plane.
and as well we can find the entrance to go down to the flat plane beneath us.
-
All of them, the highs and lows, surprises and failures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMdhQsHbWTs
All fascinating, the understanding of our system and it's beauty, one of grandest things our miserable species has managed.
But then NASA does have my kids.
-
Is it not funny that the flat earth theory jumps a whopping 600% in people searching it. As that happens all of sudden a deep space climate observatory takes a pic of the earth from the other side of the moon with some fancy camera HUMM
-
Is it not funny that the flat earth theory jumps a whopping 600% in people searching it. As that happens all of sudden a deep space climate observatory takes a pic of the earth from the other side of the moon with some fancy camera HUMM
Don't flatter yourselves, the FES is not on NASA'a radar (or anybody else's for that matter). I never even heard of it until very recently. When I did I wondered whether it wasn't just a joke, maybe run by astronomy geeks that wanted to see amateurs try to defend a round earth not understanding how to do so. Only after spending some time here reading have I become convinced that some people here actually believe this stuff. It isn't easy to think in terms of spherical coordinate systems and relative rotations. The physics isn't common knowledge and most haven't taken physics for scientists and engineers at a college or university.
An awareness of your existence has probably grown recently due to the fact that religious young earth creationists are often compared to flat earthers by those arguing on the side of science.
-
Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?
none of them!
its lies, ALL lies! >:(
(as you'd expect from a media/government/academia totally controlled by jews and their crypto-jew fellow travellers...the Freemasons)
☞ actually....its doubtful that any-thing can exceed 60mls/100klmtrs altitude because of the 2000ºC+ thermo-sphere ☜
-
Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?
none of them!
its lies, ALL lies! >:(
(as you'd expect from a media/government/academia totally controlled by jews and their crypto-jew fellow travellers...the Freemasons)
☞ actually....its doubtful that any-thing can exceed 60mls/100klmtrs altitude because of the 2000ºC+ thermo-sphere ☜
Where do you get that number from? 2000ºC?
I am not sure what you mean with this thermo-sphere reference, could you please elaborate?
Also if all the space missions are fake how do you explain that you can see the ISS with an amateur telescope?
-
Incorrrect, NASA employs shills that frequently spew garbage on this site.
-
Where do you get that number from? 2000ºC?
I am not sure what you mean with this thermo-sphere reference, could you please elaborate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere ;
Also if all the space missions are fake how do you explain that you can see the ISS with an amateur telescope?
how do you know its occupied?
how do you know its actual altitude?
-
Don't flatter yourselves, the FES is not on NASA'a radar (or anybody else's for that matter).
I have been personally approached by both NASA and the Library of Congress regarding this site.
I never even heard of it until very recently.
And what you have or haven't heard about is what determines objective popularity or significance of things. Got it. I'm going to go on a limb and assume you don't know much about Islam, so I guess it's unpopular now. Perhaps you should stop flattering yourself.
-
I just no I have never been to the ant arctic I have never been in space. If someone puts forth a solid argument on what is suppose to be the norm It is freakin COOL to this HILLBILLY
-
Where do you get that number from? 2000ºC?
I am not sure what you mean with this thermo-sphere reference, could you please elaborate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere ;
Also if all the space missions are fake how do you explain that you can see the ISS with an amateur telescope?
how do you know its occupied?
how do you know its actual altitude?
You left out this part:
"The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
-
first off: they've never been that high up any-way(s);
second off: my understanding of it is that the temperature is consistent and homogenous;
even if it was only furnace-like in small patches...that would still prevent any man-made object (let alone any man) from passing through that region;
is there an actual "vacuum" up there and, even if there was, would it make the slightest difference AFA ameliorating the v high temps go......?
i doubt it
oh....i also omitted.....rockets or missiles or any such vehicle using chemical propulsion don't work in "vacuums" any-way(s)....so.....its all, pretty much, academic.....
-
I have been personally approached by both NASA and the Library of Congress regarding this site.
So where's the link to your story?
From an educational or a psychological standpoint I suppose someone might take an interest. A few are curious. What are the overwhelming numbers of round earthers on this site? Divide that by 7 billion and work out the percentage.
And what you have or haven't heard about is what determines objective popularity or significance of things. Got it.
Now that the young earth creationism debate is mostly past there will likely be a lot of awareness of the existence of flat earthers. But if you like I could do a survey in my spare time. Head out onto the street in Seattle and see what percentage know of your existence and how and when they became aware of it.
With regard to Islam I know enough to know that it's bunk.
http://islamqa.info/en/14085
-
first off: they've never been that high up any-way(s);
So you suppose you are revealing an inconsistency in a "hoax."
second off: my understanding of it is that the temperature is consistent and homogenous;
It is.
even if it was only furnace-like in small patches
It isn't, unless individual particles are to be considered small patches.
You are confusing temperature with thermal conductance. Metal and water feel colder than air at the same temperature because the heat transfer is greater. In rarified air even though the collisions that occur are energetic they are few and far between so there is little heat transfer.
You get hit by cosmic rays here on the surface of earth that are even more energetic. Why do you not burn up from those?
oh....i also omitted.....rockets or missiles or any such vehicle using chemical propulsion don't work in "vacuums" any-way(s)....so.....its all, pretty much, academic.....
Conservation of momentum works in a vacuum.
Here's a pretty good explanation I found from the Physics Forums:
Here is a simple thought experiment that will make it intuitive..... Imagine a very un-streamlined rocket out in space. With no atmosphere there it need not be streamlined, does it? So in your mind make it a perfectly sealed and rigid cube one foot by one foot by one foot. (I use English units because i'm both old and in USA, use metric if you like and make it a 1 meter cube for same logic will apply). Now internally pressurize your rocket to 1 PSI. What are forces on each of the six sides? Clearly 144 pounds pushing outward on each side. Since the cube is rigid, the forces on opposite sides cancel out so there is no net force on the rocket. Up cancels down, left cancels right and forward cancels backward. Now open a 1 square inch hole(or valve) on any face - i'll pick the bottom. This is a simple thought experiment so we'll ignore refinements that would be dictated by proper fluid mechanics - entrance losses and vena contracta and all that. Bottom face of your cube is now only 143 square inches, but top face is still 144. So forces are no longer balanced. 143 pounds push down against bottom, but 144 still push up against top. So rocket will accelerate up. So - a rocket in a vacuum accelerates not because of propellant pushing against air, but because of propellant NOT pushing against anything!
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/rocket-thrust-in-vacuum.708263/
-
So where's the link to your story?
What link? What story? You're rambling about how they're not interested. They obviously are. Even provided me with a digitised copy of the original ENaG. Stop being a presumptuous asshole and try to focus on something else than your fantasies.
From an educational or a psychological standpoint I suppose someone might take an interest. A few are curious. What are the overwhelming numbers of round earthers on this site? Divide that by 7 billion and work out the percentage.
For someone who claims to be so into education, you sure are terrible at keeping your reasoning sound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).
Now that the young earth creationism debate is mostly past there will likely be a lot of awareness of the existence of flat earthers.
Why don't you take that to a YEC website? We hardly have any here. Again, stop focusing so hard on your presumptions and fantasies.
You act as if the YEC "debate" in America is something recent, revolutionary, or even relevant. It's not. Get your head out of your asshole and you might be able to observe some of the world around you for once.
But if you like I could do a survey in my spare time. Head out onto the street in Seattle and see what percentage know of your existence and how and when they became aware of it.
Go ahead. Please make sure to record your methodology and justify the selection of subjects. Bear in mind that the sample size is gonna need to be quite substantial. It would make for a nice story for our homepage.
With regard to Islam I know enough to know that it's bunk.
http://islamqa.info/en/14085
I'm glad to see I wasn't wrong about you.
-
first off: they've never been that high up any-way(s);
So you suppose you are revealing an inconsistency in a "hoax."
second off: my understanding of it is that the temperature is consistent and homogenous;
It is.
even if it was only furnace-like in small patches
It isn't, unless individual particles are to be considered small patches.
You are confusing temperature with thermal conductance. Metal and water feel colder than air at the same temperature because the heat transfer is greater. In rarified air even though the collisions that occur are energetic they are few and far between so there is little heat transfer.
You get hit by cosmic rays here on the surface of earth that are even more energetic. Why do you not burn up from those?
oh....i also omitted.....rockets or missiles or any such vehicle using chemical propulsion don't work in "vacuums" any-way(s)....so.....its all, pretty much, academic.....
Conservation of momentum works in a vacuum.
Here's a pretty good explanation I found from the Physics Forums:
Here is a simple thought experiment that will make it intuitive..... Imagine a very un-streamlined rocket out in space. With no atmosphere there it need not be streamlined, does it? So in your mind make it a perfectly sealed and rigid cube one foot by one foot by one foot. (I use English units because i'm both old and in USA, use metric if you like and make it a 1 meter cube for same logic will apply). Now internally pressurize your rocket to 1 PSI. What are forces on each of the six sides? Clearly 144 pounds pushing outward on each side. Since the cube is rigid, the forces on opposite sides cancel out so there is no net force on the rocket. Up cancels down, left cancels right and forward cancels backward. Now open a 1 square inch hole(or valve) on any face - i'll pick the bottom. This is a simple thought experiment so we'll ignore refinements that would be dictated by proper fluid mechanics - entrance losses and vena contracta and all that. Bottom face of your cube is now only 143 square inches, but top face is still 144. So forces are no longer balanced. 143 pounds push down against bottom, but 144 still push up against top. So rocket will accelerate up. So - a rocket in a vacuum accelerates not because of propellant pushing against air, but because of propellant NOT pushing against anything!
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/rocket-thrust-in-vacuum.708263/
You seem like a REer. If that is the case, you do realize the they believe space is a vacuum. Because of the vacuum the fuel will be sucked out the moment it enters space. I'm sorry, that is what vacuum does, it sucks. Rockets need an atmosphere to push against the same as a car needs the road to push against. try putting your knees in an office chair that has rollers and face the seat back and begin pushing on the seat back, make sure you don't use your feet. Tell me how far you move. I'd venture to you wont move at all. The same as a rocket, it won't move with pressure pushing on its self.
-
What link? What story? You're rambling about how they're not interested. They obviously are. Even provided me with a digitised copy of the original ENaG. Stop being a presumptuous asshole and try to focus on something else than your fantasies.
My fantasy being that flat earth isn't on the radar at NASA? Shall we take a poll of NASA employess? And subtract the number who learned about your existence from YEC debates?
Did someone slap you about with the digitized copy of the ENaG? Or did they use it to show you where it was incorrect? Was it a psychiatrist from NASA who wanted to understand your mental disorder? Was the NASA employee hired as a janitor? Maybe. Who knows. You haven't related anything other than that you were contacted.
If you can't be troubled to relate your own experience then why should I be obligated to consider it as evidence of anything at all?
For someone who claims to be so into education, you sure are terrible at keeping your reasoning sound.
Umm, you claimed you were "on the radar" which broadly interpreted is a claim to popular recognition.
Why don't you take that to a YEC website? We hardly have any here.
That isn't the point. We are talking about how much you are on the radar remember? "You aren't" is my position. Of course creationism is not a new debate but recent discoveries in sequencing DNA had revived that debate for a while and flat earth was mentioned and so more have become aware of you as a result of those renewed debates. I didn't say flat earth had anything to do with YEC. Young earth creationists are compared to flat earthers as a point of derision in that their denial of science is almost as great as that of flat earthers.
I'm glad to see I wasn't wrong about you.
Likewise. People being turned into monkeys and pigs makes good sense as does the Cavendish experiment working with matter with the exception of bananas. ::)
-
Rockets need an atmosphere to push against
No they don't. See previous post for the explanation. In fact in the example given if the pressure outside were at 1 PSI there would be no thrust at all. If at 1/2 PSI there would be some thrust but not as much as there would be in a vacuum.
try putting your knees in an office chair that has rollers and face the seat back and begin pushing on the seat back, make sure you don't use your feet. Tell me how far you move. I'd venture to you wont move at all. The same as a rocket, it won't move with pressure pushing on its self.
Now perform an experiment for me. Make sure you are on a rolling chair with very little friction on a hard surface. Have someone hand you a bowling ball and then throw it any direction you like as hard as you can. That is basically the principle of how a rocket engine works. If you are really adventurous you could build a chamber large enough to perform this experiment in a vacuum. Throwing the bowling ball still makes you move in the opposite direction. Don't forget your goggles and air tank.
-
My fantasy being that flat earth isn't on the radar at NASA? Shall we take a poll of NASA employess? And subtract the number who learned about your existence from YEC debates?
Go ahead. Same rules as before apply.
Did someone slap you about with the digitized copy of the ENaG?
I'm not sure how you'd slap someone with a PDF. You truly are unobservant.
Or did they use it to show you where it was incorrect? Was it a psychiatrist from NASA who wanted to understand your mental disorder? Was the NASA employee hired as a janitor? Maybe. Who knows. You haven't related anything other than that you were contacted.
It was donated to our Library. There's a big official announcement about that in Announcements. I related [sic] everything ages ago - you just haven't bothered to do even the most rudimentary of research before you came here to claim your YEC fantasy.
If you can't be troubled to relate your own experience then why should I be obligated to consider it as evidence of anything at all?
You're not obligated [sic] to do anything at all. I'm just telling you why you're hopelessly wrong, and suggesting that you stop guessing and start observing. Whether or not you choose to take advice from a guy on the Internet is entirely your prerogative.
That said, you assuming that I consider you obliged to do anything is yet another great example of your problem.
Umm, you claimed you were "on the radar" which broadly interpreted is a claim to popular recognition.
"Popular recognition" with a single organisation? That doesn't even make sense. But hey, let's investigate your claim about the idiom's meaning! In my usual manner, I'll look at what lexicographers have to say, since they're the authorities on the subject:
to be noticed or important
Hrm.
used to say that people [...] know about something or that something is or is not important to someone
Hrrrm...
[radar:] range of notice <fell off the radar after losing their first three games>
Hrmmmmm...
Ah, yes, that's right, you're full of shit. Not only did your own use make no sense in the context you used it (it is impossible to be "popularly recognised" by a tiny organisation), it also isn't the idiom's meaning at all.
Again, again, and again, you let your assumptions and imagination take the lead, causing you to forget to pay attention to the perceivable world.
That isn't the point. We are talking about how much you are on the radar remember?
Actually, we're talking about space missions. The thread title appears numerous times on each page here. You butted in here and started saying stupid things, so I'm pointing them out to you as a courtesy.
Of course creationism is not a new debate but recent discoveries in sequencing DNA had revived that debate for a while and flat earth was mentioned and so more have become aware of you as a result of those renewed debates. I didn't say flat earth had anything to do with YEC. Young earth creationists are compared to flat earthers as a point of derision in that their denial of science is almost as great as that of flat earthers.
Okay, provide some evidence to the following:
- The YEC "debate" has been "renewed", rather than always having been present.
- YEC somehow increased awareness of the FES.
Likewise. People being turned into monkeys and pigs makes good sense as does the Cavendish experiment working with matter with the exception of bananas. ::)
See, again with the fantasies. You made an attempt at recalling something I said years ago, but sadly you failed. Since according to RE'ers the Cavendish Experiment clearly works with any and all matter, I'd like to see it evaluated on a kind of matter of my choosing; namely, bananas. So far, nobody even attempted to construct as little as a thought experiment for this. Surely this should be trivial for someone who's so certain of his success, and someone who has so much free time as to volunteer to poll both Seattle and NASA just to figure out how popular the FES is.
-
I'm not sure how you'd slap someone with a PDF. You truly are unobservant.
Like they can't be printed out as a hard copy? And like you provided sufficient details to make a distinction?
It was donated to our Library.
Missed it. Just to be sure I did a search of the page for the title, NASA. Nope not there.
Forum Announcements, hmmm, "The Flat Earth Society Manifesto, version2? Search for NASA yields...nada. The rest of the pins, nada.
Page one titles search for NASA, nada.
Page two titles search for NASA, nada.
Page three, three strikes. No more pages.
facebook maybe? Search found one reference to NASA. Nope, not it.
Two references on Twitter, nope they aren't it.
Nothing under Reddit.
Nothing on your home page.
you just haven't bothered to do even the most rudimentary of research before you came here
I did read your entire wiki before making a post here, not there either.
"Hrm" indeed.
You're not obligated [sic] to do anything at all. I'm just telling you why you're hopelessly wrong, and suggesting that you stop guessing and start observing. Whether or not you choose to take advice from a guy on the Internet is entirely your prerogative.
More hrm here too. Stop guessing and start observing. Umm yeah, that would be why I requested some information? Which you haven't provided, which leaves me guessing.
That said, you assuming that I consider you obliged to do anything is yet another great example of your problem.
And lack of genuine dialog would be yours. Does it hurt the revenue stream from your sales area?
"Popular recognition" with(in) a single organisation? That doesn't even make sense.
Why not? Organizations are comprised of people with a head count. You told me to go ahead and take a poll of NASA employees so I guess you are just being inconsistent now.
to be noticed or important
Yep, applies. And you aren't.
used to say that people [...] know about something or that something is or is not important to someone
Yes, yes, you are getting it now.
[radar:] range of notice <fell off the radar after losing their first three games>
I could quote Obama here but I'll pass on that.
Ah, yes, that's right, you're full of shit. Not only did your own use make no sense in the context you used it (it is impossible to be "popularly recognised" by a tiny organisation), it also isn't the idiom's meaning at all.
Well I have to disagree. You are not on Obama's radar, you are not on NASA's radar, you are not considered important by anyone that I can find outside of your little website. And being popular in a small organization is possible. Let me give an example. The concept of a flat earth is popular here at this forum. Are you larger or smaller in number than NASA? Let's see, 412 total members, yikes! NASA has currently 18,000 civil service employees and an additional 40,000 contractors and grantees doing work for NASA.
Again, again, and again, you let your assumptions and imagination take the lead, causing you to forget to pay attention to the perceivable world.
I assume that I can rely on the findings of others in the fields of science. I imagine that work that is checked by others and can be re-investigated at any time by anyone else is the basis for a valid accumulation of knowledge by our species. Perceptions can be wrong and have been wrong. I first perceived you to be an educated astronomy geek making fun of people trying to defend RE. Then I perceived you to be a troll. Now I percieve you perhaps making a slight income off of this site. You see the issue is that perceptions are largely biased crap based on stuff like intuition. That is why it is better to rely on experimentation and collect data and make hypotheses to explain the data that have predictive power and use anomalies to improve our theories after we gather enough further data.
Actually, we're talking about space missions. The thread title appears numerous times on each page here. You butted in here and started saying stupid things, so I'm pointing them out to you as a courtesy.
Nice way to skirt your miscategorization my argument as an ad populum fallacy when it was nothing of the sort.
Okay, provide some evidence to the following:
The YEC "debate" has been "renewed", rather than always having been present.
YEC somehow increased awareness of the FES.
The second is self evident in that you guys get mentioned a lot in the debates. And the debate being revived does not imply it was dead previously. Check the definition. (specifically: give new strength or energy to)
See, again with the fantasies. You made an attempt at recalling something I said years ago, but sadly you failed. Since according to RE'ers the Cavendish Experiment clearly works with any and all matter, I'd like to see it evaluated on a kind of matter of my choosing; namely, bananas.
And that's different how? Nevermind I'm almost out of Excedrin. You do realize that bananas are made of the same elements as everything else right? Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, etc.
So far, nobody even attempted to construct as little as a thought experiment for this.
Really. I wasn't aware that a thought experiment for this was necessary. But here goes.
In place of the lead spheres on the balance arm we place fishbowls filled with the goop of Vitamixed whole bananas.
So your pass on the people being turned into monkeys and pigs by Allah means... you're afraid of Muslim retribution. OK, at least that much makes sense.
-
a good deal of modern physics is bogus.....either out-right lies or, @ best, ½-truths;
good examples: electro-magnetic theory, gravitational theory and relativity.....the latter being, mostly, a concoction of bald-faced jew baloney >:(
whilst its reasonable to argue that no chemically propelled projectile could break through the Thermosphere, it is more than possible that TPTB do have "flying saucer"-type craft that could do it.....working on completely different propulsion principals;
the evidence that they have such craft is, pretty much, overwhelming.....especially when you take into account Nikola Tesla's theories....
(see, also, the theories of Rupert Sheldrake (http://www.sheldrake.org/); re: morphic resonance; although, that's usually more applicable to biology but it does demonstrate how materialistic, reductionist science gets huge slabs of stuff dead wrong :( )
AFA "yec" goes.......they are, i think, right in some areas and wrong in others......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FSpNwb3DOs
-
a good deal of modern physics is bogus.....either out-right lies or, @ best, ½-truths;
good examples: electro-magnetic theory, gravitational theory and relativity.....the latter being, mostly, a concoction of bald-faced jew baloney >:(
whilst its reasonable to argue that no chemically propelled projectile could break through the Thermosphere, it is more than possible that TPTB do have "flying saucer"-type craft that could do it.....working on completely different propulsion principals;
the evidence that they have such craft is, pretty much, overwhelming.....especially when you take into account Nikola Tesla's theories....
(see, also, the theories of Rupert Sheldrake (http://www.sheldrake.org/); re: morphic resonance; although, that's usually more applicable to biology but it does demonstrate how materialistic, reductionist science gets huge slabs of stuff dead wrong :( )
AFA "yec" goes.......they are, i think, right in some areas and wrong in others......
Sigh!, so I'll bite, let's just do an easy one for now, what exactly do you think is bogus about electromagnetic theory?
-
Sigh!, so I'll bite, let's just do an easy one for now, what exactly do you think is bogus about electromagnetic theory?
please do yr own research, eh?
http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/ ;
http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm ;
get hold of Bearden's books;
read them!
get hold of books on Nikola Tesla;
read them!
thank-you! ::)
-
Missed it.
Sigh. Okay, you numpty. Here, have a link.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2400.0
Wow, that was hard. And guess where it was. Announcements! You really need to stop making things up and start observing your surroundings. Snap out of it. You can do it.
Of course, since Announcements feed directly to the home page, that makes you wrong twice.
More hrm here too. Stop guessing and start observing. Umm yeah, that would be why I requested some information? Which you haven't provided, which leaves me guessing.
I provided you with all the information you needed. The thread was in Announcements. All you needed to do is exert the effort of clicking a few buttons. Instead, you chose to not do that and make guesses.
And lack of genuine dialog would be yours. Does it hurt the revenue stream from your sales area?
Given that our store is entirely non-profit (all markups set to $0), I don't think anything can hurt (or boost) our revenue stream. Again, there are threads about it. This time I won't make the mistake of trusting you to find them:
- We don't accept donations: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=678.0
- The thread that resulted in the store's conception: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1731.0
- Addition of new designs, again with markup at $0: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2296.0
See? You've done it again. You've ignored information which was readily available to you, and opted to go with whatever you made up in your head instead. That's not how the world works, frisbee. Snap out of it.
Why not? Organizations are comprised of people with a head count. You told me to go ahead and take a poll of NASA employees so I guess you are just being inconsistent now.
You offered to perform an experiment to back up your claims. I accepted. I'm not sure what's inconsistent about that, but I await your results.
Well I have to disagree.
That's great. Just make sure you disagree with what I actually said and not with...
You are not on Obama's radar
...something I never said. God damn it, frisbee! Reality is so much better than fantasy!
I assume that I can rely on the findings of others in the fields of science.
Hoo boy, there's a whole field of science that determines what I said or didn't say? Gosh darn it, why wasn't I informed!?
Perceptions can be wrong and have been wrong. I first perceived you to be an educated astronomy geek making fun of people trying to defend RE. Then I perceived you to be a troll. Now I percieve you perhaps making a slight income off of this site. You see the issue is that perceptions are largely biased crap based on stuff like intuition. That is why it is better to rely on experimentation and collect data and make hypotheses to explain the data that have predictive power and use anomalies to improve our theories after we gather enough further data.
I agree. That's why I oppose you making blind guesses which can be dismissed with a single search on this site. Accusing us of making a profit here is ridiculous. The FES is, and always has been, a money-losing operation for all parties involved, largely because we're not trying to make money.
Nice way to skirt your miscategorization my argument as an ad populum fallacy when it was nothing of the sort.
But of course it was, sweetheart. A reversed ad populum is still an ad populum.
The second is self evident in that you guys get mentioned a lot in the debates.
Again with the making shit up. If you can't argue something, it's "self-evident" to you. Come on. You can do this. R to the E to the A to the L to the I to the T to the Y. REALITY! It's better than your fiction! Go frisbee, go frisbee, you can do it!
And the debate being revived does not imply it was dead previously. Check the definition. (specifically: give new strength or energy to)
Also inapplicable.
And that's different how? Nevermind I'm almost out of Excedrin.
Oh God, are you overdosing on paracetamol? Is that why you're struggling to cling to reality so hard? Don't do this, frisbee. You still have so much to live for!
You do realize that bananas are made of the same elements as everything else right? Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, etc.
I do realise that that's the claim. I'd like to see it confirmed through a simple and direct experiment.
In place of the lead spheres on the balance arm we place fishbowls filled with the goop of Vitamixed whole bananas.
Excellent, now go and perform it.
So your pass on the people being turned into monkeys and pigs by Allah means... you're afraid of Muslim retribution. OK, at least that much makes sense.
No, I just find it hilarious that you know fuck all about the subjects you talk about. Googling "why is islam wrong" doesn't make you quite the genius you try to pose as.
-
Don't flatter yourselves, the FES is not on NASA'a radar (or anybody else's for that matter).
I have been personally approached by both NASA and the Library of Congress regarding this site.
Why did NASA and the LoC approach you about FES? Not a jab, just curious.
-
Sigh. Okay, you numpty. Here, have a link.
Great SW, thanks for the link.
Wow, that was hard
In the link you state:
"To those not in the know, this pamphlet was Rowbotham's first attempt at laying down his model of the Flat Earth, which has then been expanded into the much more thorough book Earth Not a Globe."
Wouldn't you expect me to be one of those people "not in the know?"
Given that our store is entirely non-profit
Oh good. But you are misunderstanding what I stated. I was comparing the collecting of knowledge and the scientific method with perceptions which are sometimes wrong and then went on to list how I was perceiving you. IOW I wasn't stating that my perceptions were real. I was trying to explain why basing your world view on "obvious" perceptions can be faulty. Sorry that was not clear.
You do realize that bananas are made of the same elements as everything else right? Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, etc.
I do realise that that's the claim. I'd like to see it confirmed through a simple and direct experiment.
Ok this is a concern. Is this for real? You aren't pulling my leg?
In place of the lead spheres on the balance arm we place fishbowls filled with the goop of Vitamixed whole bananas.
Excellent, now go and perform it.
So you would accept my results? I'm having some doubts about that SW seeing how FEers seem to reject the results of scientists and how you perceive me to be a poser. But oh look it's a simple experiment that anyone can do for themselves. At least to verify that matter attracts matter, not maybe as easy to determine the value of the constant of gravity though.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/
I just find it hilarious that you know fuck all about the subjects you talk about. Googling "why is islam wrong" doesn't make you quite the genius you try to pose as.
I'm posing as a genious now? I got to those passages by reading through the Qur'an online BTW.
http://quran.com/
Why did NASA and the LoC approach you about FES? Not a jab, just curious.
I agree with this request from Gary. This is the part of your story that was interesting.
-
AFA "yec" goes.......they are, i think, right in some areas and wrong in others......
I am not YEC. I have debated against YEC showing that the earth is very old and evolution is real. I'm glad Rayzor is willing to bite. I think these more advanced topics are pointless to take up if you can't even wrap your head around conservation of momentum. Good to see what passes as "research" in your view as well.
-
Rockets need an atmosphere to push against
No they don't. See previous post for the explanation. In fact in the example given if the pressure outside were at 1 PSI there would be no thrust at all. If at 1/2 PSI there would be some thrust but not as much as there would be in a vacuum.
try putting your knees in an office chair that has rollers and face the seat back and begin pushing on the seat back, make sure you don't use your feet. Tell me how far you move. I'd venture to you wont move at all. The same as a rocket, it won't move with pressure pushing on its self.
Now perform an experiment for me. Make sure you are on a rolling chair with very little friction on a hard surface. Have someone hand you a bowling ball and then throw it any direction you like as hard as you can. That is basically the principle of how a rocket engine works. If you are really adventurous you could build a chamber large enough to perform this experiment in a vacuum. Throwing the bowling ball still makes you move in the opposite direction. Don't forget your goggles and air tank.
you used the bowling ball nonsense? Just think for a second. When you push the bowling ball away from you, you are applying a force with your arms and hands while pushing the ball outwards and you are applying that force against the 14.7 psi atmospheric pressure. If you can find a true vacuum chamber large enough for you to get in and it pulls the same vacuum as space, I guarantee you will not move any when you push the ball outwards. Tell me one thing on Earth that can move without applying force to something.
-
Wouldn't you expect me to be one of those people "not in the know?"
Honestly, I would, but you were claiming to have done your research. I could choose between taking your word for it and seeing how far you'll take it before you admit it, or I could point it out straight away and be accused of making unfair accusations. I chose the former.
Ok this is a concern. Is this for real? You aren't pulling my leg?
Okay, fair enough, I misspoke on that one. I don't claim that bananas consist of other elements than anything else in the world.
So you would accept my results? I'm having some doubts about that SW seeing how FEers seem to reject the results of scientists and how you perceive me to be a poser.
This is where we differ. You "perceive", I observe. So far, you've been acting like a poser. When you stop acting like one, I'll stop treating you like one.
Why did NASA and the LoC approach you about FES? Not a jab, just curious.
I'll keep the NASA contact to myself, it was fairly private. If you choose to disbelieve me on the basis of no evidence, that's fine.
LoC contacted me while I was hunting for some documents around other (mostly UK-based) libraries to offer assistance. They likely got my details from one of the libraries I initiated contact with.
-
Frisbee,
You haven't got an answer to my question?
you used the bowling ball nonsense? Just think for a second. When you push the bowling ball away from you, you are applying a force with your arms and hands while pushing the ball outwards and you are applying that force against the 14.7 psi atmospheric pressure. If you can find a true vacuum chamber large enough for you to get in and it pulls the same vacuum as space, I guarantee you will not move any when you push the ball outwards. Tell me one thing on Earth that can move without applying force to something.
-
I guarantee you will not move any when you push the ball outwards.
Trolling now?
I said throw the bowling ball away from you as you sit on your chair (or skateboard or ice skates), not push it out to arms length.
All that needs to be done to disprove your assertion is to use both the bowling ball and the same size styrofoam ball in the experiment. If the movement is due to pushing against the air then the amount of movement you experience in the other direction should be the same in both cases. No need for a vacuum chamber to discredit this idea.
-
poser...
It's quite alright. I don't really care what you think of me. :-*
-
It's quite alright. I don't really care what you think of me. :-*
That's fine. I'm just trying to have you understand the difference between thinking something baselessly (what you do) and making an observation (what most humans do). So far it's an uphill battle, but you've made some concessions. We'll get there eventually.
-
I guarantee you will not move any when you push the ball outwards.
Trolling now?
I said throw the bowling ball away from you as you sit on your chair (or skateboard or ice skates), not push it out to arms length.
All that needs to be done to disprove your assertion is to use both the bowling ball and the same size styrofoam ball in the experiment. If the movement is due to pushing against the air then the amount of movement you experience in the other direction should be the same in both cases. No need for a vacuum chamber to discredit this idea.
Any time you create a force in one direction you create a force in the opposite direction. That only works in an atmosphere or some kind of medium that has resistance. Of course a vacuum is necessary. Have you seen an astronaut floating around in space by waving his arms in a certain direction? they can't, they show them using those little jet packs to move around. This is because there is no medium or resistance to push against.
Again, tell me one thing on Earth that can move without some kind of resistance or something to push against. Think of a row boat setting on the water and trying to row the boat without the oars in the water. How far do you think you can get? If you don't know, ask and I will tell you.
-
It's quite alright. I don't really care what you think of me. :-*
That's fine. I'm just trying to have you understand the difference between thinking something baselessly (what you do) and making an observation (what most humans do). So far it's an uphill battle, but you've made some concessions. We'll get there eventually.
Yeah sure SW. I may get there when dementia sets in. ;)
Just a few comments and questions about the Zetetic "masterpiece."
First up, is this just historical or is this considered current FE fare?
Let the practice of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers.
After which various experiments are presented to establish the "theory" that the earth is flat.
How, then, when the waters are drawn up by the moon from their bed, and away from the earth's attraction,--which at that greater distance from the centre is considerably diminished, while that of the moon is proportionately increased--is it possible that all the waters acted on should be prevented leaving the earth and flying away to the moon?
It's called superposition. It's why well founded theories work and zetetic "thinking" fails.
However great such operations may seem to the mind of present man, all the vast structure of the physical world, and its innumerable myriads of organic beings, were the work of only a few hours. It is easily demonstrable that so rapid and intense were the processes and chemical changes, that a few days--such as we now understand by the word--were ample time to bring out of invisible, imponderable chaos, all the tangible and varied elements which now exist, and to develope every possible form of beauty and elegance, and every condition of happiness and wisdom. All opinions to the contrary which are held by philosophers of the present day, are the result of insufficient perception of the whole subject, which insufficient perception is again the result of self-imposed hypotheses, which bias the judgment and confuse the understanding. No man, however learned and accomplished he may be, is able to understand the simple processes of creative effort unless he is himself a simple and humble observer of phenomena, free from the prejudices of education,...
There goes the claim that FE is not religious right down the drain. More anti-education, anti-knowledge, anti-science rant. Must stay away from hypotheses because they leave no room for the pixies.
FIRST. The earth floats on the waters of the "great deep."
That it thus floats is concluded from the fact that it is surrounded with water, in which it fluctuates; and that if limited in extent, water could not surround it without also gathering underneath it. If not limited in extent, then it extends downwards for ever. If so, it could not fluctuate in a limited mass of water. It does fluctuate, therefore it floats, and hence there must be "waters under the earth."
Okee dokee. Thinking zetetically, why don't we feel these bobbings up and down?
SECONDLY. What supports the waters?
If the waters are limited in extent there must be some-thing below them; if not limited in extent then they extend downwards for ever. Then indeed would the "great deep" be the "mighty deep," the "fathomless deep" the "great abyss of waters," the "illimitable depths;" and further inquiry would be useless, for the earth simply floats on the surface of the illimitable fathomless deep. It is in fact and literally
"Founded on the seas, and
Established on the floods."
More religious supposition?
IT has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern "hemisphere" move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round "Polaris," or the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural.
Unnatural??
Here, however, we are met with the positive assertion that there is a very small star (of about the sixth magnitude) in the south, called Sigma Octantis, round which all the constellations of the south revolve, and which is therefore the southern polar star. It is scarcely polite to contradict the statements made, but it is certain that persons who have been educated to believe that the earth is a globe, going to the southern parts of the earth do not examine such matters critically.
Yes, let us examine the matter "critically." /sarcasm
To remove every possible doubt respecting the motions of the stars from the central north to the most extreme south, a number of special observers, each completely free from the bias of education
Of course, can't be expected to buy into any of this if you are educated.
IF the earth is a revolving globe, moving rapidly in an orbit round the sun, with its axes of revolution inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, as the Newtonian hypothesis affirms, there may be six months' continued light alternating with six months' continued darkness, at both the northern and southern axial or central points. That such is the case in the northern centre is matter of certainty, but that it is so in the south there is no positive evidence.
Nowadays there is. So FEers what's your excuse?
MOON TRANSPARENT.
Wow. This wouldn't even make a good scifi movie. It'd be about as popular as Zu Warriors.
-
I guarantee you will not move any when you push the ball outwards.
Trolling now?
I said throw the bowling ball away from you as you sit on your chair (or skateboard or ice skates), not push it out to arms length.
All that needs to be done to disprove your assertion is to use both the bowling ball and the same size styrofoam ball in the experiment. If the movement is due to pushing against the air then the amount of movement you experience in the other direction should be the same in both cases. No need for a vacuum chamber to discredit this idea.
Any time you create a force in one direction you create a force in the opposite direction. That only works in an atmosphere or some kind of medium that has resistance. Of course a vacuum is necessary. Have you seen an astronaut floating around in space by waving his arms in a certain direction? they can't, they show them using those little jet packs to move around. This is because there is no medium or resistance to push against.
Again, tell me one thing on Earth that can move without some kind of resistance or something to push against. Think of a row boat setting on the water and trying to row the boat without the oars in the water. How far do you think you can get? If you don't know, ask and I will tell you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKbawIq3w7U
Just sit in your chair and throw the bowling ball umkaaay? Then sit in the chair and throw the same size styrofoam ball umkaaay? Both push equally against the air. Why does the bowling ball cause more motion for you in your chair than the styrofoam ball?
-
Again, tell me one thing on Earth that can move without some kind of resistance or something to push against.
I'm in a pedantic mood, lol.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/
I suppose now that "Myth Busters" will be added to the global conspiracy. ::)
-
I guarantee you will not move any when you push the ball outwards.
Trolling now?
I said throw the bowling ball away from you as you sit on your chair (or skateboard or ice skates), not push it out to arms length.
All that needs to be done to disprove your assertion is to use both the bowling ball and the same size styrofoam ball in the experiment. If the movement is due to pushing against the air then the amount of movement you experience in the other direction should be the same in both cases. No need for a vacuum chamber to discredit this idea.
Any time you create a force in one direction you create a force in the opposite direction. That only works in an atmosphere or some kind of medium that has resistance. Of course a vacuum is necessary. Have you seen an astronaut floating around in space by waving his arms in a certain direction? they can't, they show them using those little jet packs to move around. This is because there is no medium or resistance to push against.
Again, tell me one thing on Earth that can move without some kind of resistance or something to push against. Think of a row boat setting on the water and trying to row the boat without the oars in the water. How far do you think you can get? If you don't know, ask and I will tell you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKbawIq3w7U
Just sit in your chair and throw the bowling ball umkaaay? Then sit in the chair and throw the same size styrofoam ball umkaaay? Both push equally against the air. Why does the bowling ball cause more motion for you in your chair than the styrofoam ball?
Because it takes more force to push out the bowling ball because of higher resistance do to the extra weight of the bowling ball. If you could push out both balls with equal force and equal resistance, you would move the same distance. In a vacuum there would be no force because there would be no resistance so you wouldn't move.
-
Again, tell me one thing on Earth that can move without some kind of resistance or something to push against.
I'm in a pedantic mood, lol.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/
I suppose now that "Myth Busters" will be added to the global conspiracy. ::)
Come on now. Myth Busters is a TV show. You surely don't believe everything you see on TV. Do you think they are going to say anything against what the producers tell them to say or the scientist and engineers?
-
Because it takes more force to push out the bowling ball because of higher resistance do to the extra weight of the bowling ball.
Bingo! Inertia. So you are agreeing with me. You just don't realize it. The air resistance is almost a negligible consideration at the speed you can thrust a bowling ball but acts against your ability to move the bowling ball quickly making it harder to impart more momentum to the ball. So you move less the greater the air pressure and you move more the lower the air pressure though that contribution is small. Rocket motors have greater thrust in a vacuum.
Come on now. Myth Busters is a TV show. You surely don't believe everything you see on TV. Do you think they are going to say anything against what the producers tell them to say or the scientist and engineers?
So I'm right? Myth Busters is part of the conspiracy along with the producers the engineers and the scientists. Got it. I also suspect I am right that you are just a troll.
-
Sigh!, so I'll bite, let's just do an easy one for now, what exactly do you think is bogus about electromagnetic theory?
please do yr own research, eh?
http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/ ;
http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm ;
get hold of Bearden's books;
read them!
get hold of books on Nikola Tesla;
read them!
thank-you! ::)
Just as I thought, you've got nothing. Maybe you should link to a few free energy sites, or perpetual motion machine designs. You want to try quoting some Nikola Tesla for me, I've read all his stuff many times?
-
Come on now. Myth Busters is a TV show. You surely don't believe everything you see on TV. Do you think they are going to say anything against what the producers tell them to say or the scientist and engineers?
Conservation of Momentum, rockets work just fine in space. Exhaust velocity times exhaust mass = rocket velocity time mass. Because the mass varies during the burn, you need to use the Tsiolovsky ideal rocket equation.
(https://www.themittani.com/sites/default/files/ideal%20rocket%20equation.jpg)
In any event this topic was beated to death on the other forum. Why debate it again, unless you are just continuing your trolling ways.
By the way, how did those plastic antenna's and filters work out? ROTFLMAO!
-
Flat earthers - ignore this guy who claim arguments with mathematics - mathematics don't work in reality it is a big lie that has nothing to add to our life,
mathematics are hoax, and don't work in reality, nothing in mathematics works in reality and no matter what this liar will bring, would change it.
mathematics is a false and hoax.
-
Flat earthers - ignore this guy who claim arguments with mathematics - mathematics don't work in reality it is a big lie that has nothing to add to our life,
mathematics are hoax, and don't work in reality, nothing in mathematics works in reality and no matter what this liar will bring, would change it.
mathematics is a false and hoax.
Pretty obvious trolling attempt. Trolls are tasty treats sometimes..
Our civilization is built on mathematics, you are welcome to stop using your computer and the internet any time you like seeing it adds nothing to your life.
Do you eat? Maybe you live in a tree and hunt your own food, have you discovered fire yet, you surely can't use electricity, that involves mathematics too.
BTW. Flat Earthers will ignore me anyway, logic and thought processes involving more than one or two braincells is above their capability.
-
Flat earthers - ignore this guy who claim arguments with mathematics - mathematics don't work in reality it is a big lie that has nothing to add to our life,
mathematics are hoax, and don't work in reality, nothing in mathematics works in reality and no matter what this liar will bring, would change it.
mathematics is a false and hoax.
What? No math?
http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun
More flat earth inconsistency? I'm shocked.
-
Just as I thought, you've got nothing. Maybe you should link to a few free energy sites, or perpetual motion machine designs
so.....you disagree with the likes of Eric Dollard and Stephen Wolfram, then?
(according to Wolfram...most of the current "mathematical models" of the Universe are bogus rubbish.....you prblby know where Dollard stands)
You want to try quoting some Nikola Tesla for me, I've read all his stuff many times?
you couldn't have!
most of his more important stuff is inaccessible to the general public.....
(having been confiscated "back in the day" by T [jew]PTB who run the US gov' >:( )
but....his over-unity theories have been experimentally verified......
in fact, any-one can follow Bearden's plans and build a free energy machine;
have you?
if you hvn't, then, i guess that proves you've read very little of Tesla's stuff, eh?
-
Just as I thought, you've got nothing. Maybe you should link to a few free energy sites, or perpetual motion machine designs
so.....you disagree with the likes of Eric Dollard and Stephen Wolfram, then?
(according to Wolfram...most of the current "mathematical models" of the Universe are bogus rubbish.....you prblby know where Dollard stands)
You want to try quoting some Nikola Tesla for me, I've read all his stuff many times?
you couldn't have!
most of his more important stuff is inaccessible to the general public.....
(having been confiscated "back in the day" by T [jew]PTB who run the US gov' >:( )
but....his over-unity theories have been experimentally verified......
in fact, any-one can follow Bearden's plans and build a free energy machine;
have you?
if you hvn't, then, i guess that proves you've read very little of Tesla's stuff, eh?
Funny you should take that approach, I have built over unity designs and done a bit of work on them on a consulting basis, two conclusions I will pass on for free, (1) none of the over-unity designs we investigated work. (2) I know of no-one who has a proven over unity machine of any kind that has stood up to event the most basic scrutiny. One of the designs we were contracted to investigate turned out to be fraud, pure and simple. Con the unsuspecting suckers out of their money. Another turned out to be a complete nutter who thought that the flyback energy in a coil was free energy.. I'm still waiting to find a working zero point free energy device, if you have a working one, or know who has, I'm interested. I'd like to see a real cold fusion generator, but those hopes have faded.
I've no idea what Tesla may or may not have written that has been destroyed or hidden. But he certainly was an interesting character.
-
Funny you should take that approach, I have built over unity designs and done a bit of work on them on a consulting basis, two conclusions I will pass on for free, (1) none of the over-unity designs we investigated work. (2) I know of no-one who has a proven over unity machine of any kind that has stood up to event the most basic scrutiny. One of the designs we were contracted to investigate turned out to be fraud, pure and simple. Con the unsuspecting suckers out of their money. Another turned out to be a complete nutter who thought that the flyback energy in a coil was free energy.. I'm still waiting to find a working zero point free energy device, if you have a working one, or know who has, I'm interested. I'd like to see a real cold fusion generator, but those hopes have faded
i don't know what, if any, models you have worked on but there was a workable unit made some yrs ago in Australia.... (http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/02/11/website-video-free-energy-home-generator-zero-point-energy-grid-lutec-australia-pty)
the problem is that such inventors are, usually, intimidated and harrassed by T[jew]PTB to shut down their discoveries;
this intimidation and harrassment can be either overt or covert ..... involving large men with sunglasses and noticeable bulges under their left arm-pits or a bank refusing to advance loans on some trivial pre-text;
the overt stuff is especially prevalent in Australia because the public is, pretty much, totally disarmed and helpless;
(there was another outfit in Ireland who, also, developed a workable unit...i think they called it "orbo" or some such but, again, i don't know what happened to them.....most likely the same tactics....a combination of overt intimidation and harrassment >:( )
(this happened to John Bedini in the US.....over intimidation)
I've no idea what Tesla may or may not have written that has been destroyed or hidden. But he certainly was an interesting character
unlike that jew fraud Einstein, Tesla was a real scientist.....a total genius to whom we owe, pretty much, almost every bit of technology that we currently use....from flourescent lights to AC power to radio to electric motors to remote control to the internet......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98QwPO1b5j4
-
Lutec wasn't one that we looked at but, it's yet another rotary magnetic machine, and their claims of 440% over-unity were based on miscalculations of the energy in a chopped sine wave. I don't know about large men in sunglasses, but I have heard there are a lot of extremely pissed off investors who were defrauded. Their web site has long since vanished. A quick google search turned up this http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/lutec.htm
I noticed in that article that John Newman claimed they stole his design. Now that's interesting....
Beware of scammers who claim their work is somehow related to Tesla's work, I think they just trot out the Nikola Tesla name thinking it somehow increases their credibility.
-
Lutec wasn't one that we looked at but, it's yet another rotary magnetic machine, and their claims of 440% over-unity were based on miscalculations of the energy in a chopped sine wave
"miscalculations" or not, in the practical demonstrations, the machines ran as per you'd expect for over-unity!
I don't know about large men in sunglasses, but I have heard there are a lot of extremely pissed off investors who were defrauded
first i heard of it.....
Their web site has long since vanished
or was made to....or they were told to shut it down....
again...as i'v said....its very easy for T[jew]PTB to intimidate Aussies because the overwhelming majority are helpless and dis-armed!
A quick google search turned up this http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/lutec.htm
either a [jew]PTB shill or, more likely, some Aussie with too much time on his/her hands engaging in "tall poppy syndrome"; a national past-time indulged in by the lazy, the shiftless and the down-right stupid against the hard-working/achievers, industrious, creative, motivated and intelligent.... :(
I noticed in that article that John Newman claimed they stole his design Now that's interesting....
not really.....
the only person that could claim the design as their own would be Nikola Tesla....who has been dead now for ¾-of-a-century ::)
Beware of scammers who claim their work is somehow related to Tesla's work, I think they just trot out the Nikola Tesla name thinking it somehow increases their credibility
maybe.....but...the biggest "scammers" are T[jew]PTB who push planet-destroying fossil fuels when, as all the evidence indicates, there are free and abundant sources of energy; Tesla's being the simplest and the most abundant....
-
"miscalculations" or not, in the practical demonstrations, the machines ran as per you'd expect for over-unity!
Therein lies the problem, it didn't work. It was only 33 % efficient instead of the claimed 440% they screwed up. It was either fraud or incompetence, take your pick.
-
Lets remember that this this tread is about what space missions are considered legit. Not the veracity nor verisimilitude of flat-earth theory.
-
Lets remember that this this tread is about what space missions are considered legit. Not the veracity not verisimilitude of flat-earth theory.
Perhaps we could benefit from a split? It looks like there are at least 3 different things being discussed here, and I imagine people will want to continue said discussions.
-
Come on now. Myth Busters is a TV show. You surely don't believe everything you see on TV. Do you think they are going to say anything against what the producers tell them to say or the scientist and engineers?
Conservation of Momentum, rockets work just fine in space. Exhaust velocity times exhaust mass = rocket velocity time mass. Because the mass varies during the burn, you need to use the Tsiolovsky ideal rocket equation.
(https://www.themittani.com/sites/default/files/ideal%20rocket%20equation.jpg)
In any event this topic was beated to death on the other forum. Why debate it again, unless you are just continuing your trolling ways.
By the way, how did those plastic antenna's and filters work out? ROTFLMAO!
Hello Razor, I answered your questions on the other site. You know where you called me a clown. Because you didn't come back to me, you didn't read it or you can't comprehend it. Just saying.
-
Okay, I won't wast any more of my time explaining how rockets don't work in a vacuum to you guys. Good day!
-
Hello Razor, I answered your questions on the other site. You know where you called me a clown. Because you didn't come back to me, you didn't read it or you can't comprehend it. Just saying.
Rodney, I'm not in your timezone. Sometimes maybe not even on the same planet. ;)
Back to legitimate space missions, I'm happy to accept them all, but let's stick with missions that are easily proven to be real.
GPS satellites. ( I'll include Russian and Euro systems)
Each satellite broadcasts it's position in real-time, because of that we can just look at the signal from the satellite and we know exactly where each satellite is in real time. If you have a GPS that will let you look at the NMEA sequences then one of the commands lists all the satellites the receiver can see, together with azimuth and elevation as well as signal strength.
Weather Satellites. ( Multiple international agencies ) Especially those in Geostationary orbit that take full disk images from multiple points around the globe every 10 minutes or 30 minutes.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/10/science/An-Image-of-Earth-Every-Ten-Minutes.html?_r=4
Satellite TV.
Look at the dish aiming data, and you will find that all the dishes are pointing to satellites in geostationary orbit over the equator. The signals cannot be bounced off anything, and ground based transmitters wouldn't propagate very far at satellite downlink frequencies.
-
there could well be some satellites stuck to the under-side of the dome covering the Earth.....that'd make them geo-stationary;
(but...then again....that would mean the rockets carrying them would have to penetrate through the Thermosphere....highly unlikely)
AFA sat' dishes are concerned, they all seem to point upwards @ the same angle..... abt 45°;
as per GPS....there is no explanation as why it seems to "conk out" in the sthrn hemisphere over the Pacific Ocean...unless there ain't any satellites/GPS to start with.....and it all works on a combo' of WWII-era/souped up "radio beacons" & mobile 'phone cell towers.....which would certainly explain the huge "dead spots" in the southern Pacific :o
-
there could well be some satellites stuck to the under-side of the dome covering the Earth.....that'd make them geo-stationary;
(but...then again....that would mean the rockets carrying them would have to penetrate through the Thermosphere....highly unlikely)
AFA sat' dishes are concerned, they all seem to point upwards @ the same angle..... abt 45°;
as per GPS....there is no explanation as why it seems to "conk out" in the sthrn hemisphere over the Pacific Ocean...unless there ain't any satellites/GPS to start with.....and it all works on a combo' of WWII-era/souped up "radio beacons" & mobile 'phone cell towers.....which would certainly explain the huge "dead spots" in the southern Pacific :o
The themosphere is very high temperature, but bugger all heat capacity, you would get hotter in a sauna than the thermosphere.
Satellite dishes are at angles which are directly in proportion to the lattitude, look at a satellite dish on the equator, they are pointing at an arc which goes directly overhead, or for the right satellite it will be straight up. And in far north finland they are almost pointing at the horizon.
There are no GPS dead spots, what gave you that idea? I have used GPS on a plane in mid pacific.
-
The themosphere is very high temperature, but bugger all heat capacity, you would get hotter in a sauna than the thermosphere
uh.....'course....we just gotta take the word of NASA & their "ilk" for that 1, right?
and....you see.....here's yr problem with them....if the so-called moon missions were a hoax....(for which there is not inconsiderable evidence)....then....every-thing else they say is, more likely than not, also bogus :(
no!
we just don't know 100% for sure abt those 2000º temps...i'm plonking for there being enough of an 'atmosphere' to transfer most or all of that intense heat.....
Satellite dishes are at angles which are directly in proportion to the lattitude, look at a satellite dish on the equator, they are pointing at an arc which goes directly overhead, or for the right satellite it will be straight up. And in far north finland they are almost pointing at the horizon
i'm only going by what the FEs on Y-tb say, quite frankly...
they've got numerous photos of sat' dishes in numerous locations and they're all pointing in the same direction;
all the ones i'v seen here in Aussie also do that....although i didn't take any notice of that until i stumbled across that little tit-bit on Y-tb....
There are no GPS dead spots, what gave you that idea? I have used GPS on a plane in mid pacific.
it was the southern Pacific, mostly.....
again....i'm going by what Sargent and others have said vis á vis flights "dropping off" planefinder sites on the web....
(in the southern Pacific....especially Aucklnd/Syd to Santiago/Buns Ars route )
-
All of them. I'm curious if anyone has solid evidence to the contrary...
I totally agree with this!
Because everything they show us on TV is real!
I just got finished watching X-Men.
—
-
The themosphere is very high temperature, but bugger all heat capacity, you would get hotter in a sauna than the thermosphere
uh.....'course....we just gotta take the word of NASA & their "ilk" for that 1, right?
and....you see.....here's yr problem with them....if the so-called moon missions were a hoax....(for which there is not inconsiderable evidence)....then....every-thing else they say is, more likely than not, also bogus :(
no!
we just don't know 100% for sure abt those 2000º temps...i'm plonking for there being enough of an 'atmosphere' to transfer most or all of that intense heat.....
Satellite dishes are at angles which are directly in proportion to the lattitude, look at a satellite dish on the equator, they are pointing at an arc which goes directly overhead, or for the right satellite it will be straight up. And in far north finland they are almost pointing at the horizon
i'm only going by what the FEs on Y-tb say, quite frankly...
they've got numerous photos of sat' dishes in numerous locations and they're all pointing in the same direction;
all the ones i'v seen here in Aussie also do that....although i didn't take any notice of that until i stumbled across that little tit-bit on Y-tb....
There are no GPS dead spots, what gave you that idea? I have used GPS on a plane in mid pacific.
it was the southern Pacific, mostly.....
again....i'm going by what Sargent and others have said vis á vis flights "dropping off" planefinder sites on the web....
(in the southern Pacific....especially Aucklnd/Syd to Santiago/Buns Ars route )
The air density in the thermosphere is close to zero.
I'll skip the satellite tv dish alignment issue, you can google it yourself. No point me just googling it and then regurgitating it here.
I have seen that Mark Sargent video, what he doesn't appear to know is that those tracking services don't use GPS, they mostly use ADS-B, which is VHF and radar based and as soon as you get out of range of land the tracking will change to an estimated position. ( Or just stop tracking) There are other systems that use satellite telemetry to monitor aircraft performance parameters, but not all airlines opt to pay for that service, and I don't know if any of the tracking web services can access that data anyway. There is also ACARS, which can use satellite links. Following the disappearance of MH370 there is likely to be a move to get mandatory remote GPS tracking on all airlines.
Anyway, the important point I am making is that we know with 100% certainty that the GPS satellites are in orbit exactly where they are supposed to be, the signal cannot be repeated or reflected because the time of transmission is a part of the position calculation, and the actual satellite position is contained in the data stream. If the satellites were not in those orbits the system would not work.
There are ground based GPS transmitters also, but they are for AGPS or DGPS systems to provide higher accuracy, they still require the satellite systems.
Could the transmitters be located elsewhere, other than in orbit? Yes they could be anywhere, provided that they accurately transmit their REAL position, then the GPS receiver can use that information to calculate a position fix. Because we can look at the actual positional data coming from the GPS transmitters, we know with certainty that they are in orbit, exactly where they are supposed to be.
-
The air density in the thermosphere is close to zero
OK....then....but....you can't have yr cake and eat it too, eh? ::)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfVfsnL-zbo
I have seen that Mark Sargent video, what he doesn't appear to know is that those tracking services don't use GPS, they mostly use ADS-B, which is VHF and radar based and as soon as you get out of range of land the tracking will change to an estimated position. ( Or just stop tracking) There are other systems that use satellite telemetry to monitor aircraft performance parameters, but not all airlines opt to pay for that service, and I don't know if any of the tracking web services can access that data anyway. There is also ACARS, which can use satellite links. Following the disappearance of MH370 there is likely to be a move to get mandatory remote GPS tracking on all airlines.
Anyway, the important point I am making is that we know with 100% certaintythat the GPS satellites are in orbit exactly where they are supposed to be, the signal cannot be repeated or reflected because the time of transmission is a part of the position calculation, and the actual satellite position is contained in the data stream. If the satellites were not in those orbits the system would not work
uh....see....now....that's where i smell a big, fat rat....that right there..... "100% certainty" ....we don't know ANY-thing with 100% crtnty;
even mathematical theorems ain't 100% crtn ......... to be 100% certain of any-thing....you would have to be 100% certain of yr premises via a system of deductive logic....but....almost all science uses "inferential" logic....or probable inferences....
for me, all that is 100% certain is the Word of God;
any-thing deducible from that is valid;
There are ground based GPS transmitters also, but they are for AGPS or DGPS systems to provide higher accuracy, they still require the satellite systems.
Could the transmitters be located elsewhere, other than in orbit? Yes they could be anywhere, provided that they accurately transmit their REAL position, then the GPS receiver can use that information to calculate a position fix. Because we can look at the actual positional data coming from the GPS transmitters, we know with certainty that they are in orbit, exactly where they are supposed to be
that still doesn't explain why you can track 'planes in the northern hemisphere but not in the sthrn Pacific region;
look....let's face it...."radio location" (which is, basically, what GPS is) originated in WWII;
with a few tweaks and twiddling of knobs and electronic upgrades.....its more than reasonable to argue that, basically, that's all we got now....oh...and...if rockets don't work in the vacuum of 'space', then, how did the stllts get up there?
(unless they're all in v low Earth orbit.....but could they be?....if the Theory of Gravity is bogus too....then.....how can they stay in 'orbit'? ??? )
re: WWII;
the OBOE system & its successor.....the Gee-H system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oboe_(navigation) ;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gee-H_(navigation) ;
the civilian successor to the above....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measuring_equipment ;
could GPS be a modified version of these?
-
That video is bogus, the loop of paper is attached to the rocket, so it will stop the thing from moving. Most of what the guy says is actually correct, until he fall flat on his face with the loop of paper.
As for 100%, certainty. I am 100% certain that I am exactly where the GPS receiver tells me I am. If the satellites were not in orbits where the transmissions tell the receiver they are then the receiver could not fix my location correctly.
Since I know where I am, I know the satellites are where they are supposed to be. They can't transmit false information and still give accurate location fix.
I have a GPS receiver connected to a server being used as a network time reference, When look at the satellite constellation. I can see the current positions of all the GPS satellites the receiver can see.
The column on the left is PRN (pseudo random number for identifying the satellite SS sequence) The Azimuth and Elevation, and SNR ( Signal to Noise Ratio) The Y or N tells me if that satellite was used in the position fix.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/901/7Kj6ou.png)
Some hours later..
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/673/d0FubA.png)
If they are ground based towers, then the towers are moving. If they are balloons or stratellites, then they are 12,000 miles away, if the signals are faked then the thing that's faking the signals is in orbit 12,000 miles away and moving.
Yes I'm 100% certain GPS is satellite based and works, exactly as they say it does.
Flight tracking, Rocketry and Gravity can wait for another day.
-
That video is bogus, the loop of paper is attached to the rocket, so it will stop the thing from moving. Most of what the guy says is actually correct, until he fall flat on his face with the loop of paper
until some-one can post/produce a convincing vid' of a rocket actually working in a vacuum in a laboratory, i'm going with the Y-tb vid' as being a reasonable & valid practical demonstration/experiment ;
(all that counts in the end....not gooble-de-gook mathematics which can be made to say any-thing!)
As for 100%, certainty. I am 100% certain....[.......]
famous last words :(
are you now or have you ever been "100% certain" of the moon missions ::)
Since I know where I am, I know the satellites are where they are supposed to be. They can't transmit false information and still give accurate location fix
how do you know all that?
have you been involved in the construction and launch of stllts?
have you gone up into 'space' and actually checked ?
I have a GPS receiver connected to a server being used as a network time reference, When look at the satellite constellation. I can see the current positions of all the GPS satellites the receiver can see
are you a fully qualified electronic engineer ?
(IEEE certified)
are you able to take apart yr GPS 'receiver' and analyse every single component and explain in detail how they all work and interact?
If they are ground based towers, then the towers are moving. If they are balloons or stratellites, then they are 12,000 miles away, if the signals are faked then the thing that's faking the signals is in orbit 12,000 miles away and moving
and you know this....how ???
Yes I'm 100% certain GPS is satellite based and works, exactly as they say it does
nice to be that certain...abt any-thing :(
Flight tracking, Rocketry and Gravity can wait for another day
another day.....another nail in the coffin for the "round"/spherical Earth & Big Bang 'universe' ::)
-
Since I'm 100% certain I know where I am standing. I'm 100 % certain the GPS position calculation is correct.
If you have a GPS receiver you can verify that it does in fact report your location correctly.
I have designed and built GPS receivers, I have used a couple of different chipsets, and all the smarts are embedded in the chip sets these days. Most provide a simple interface, the standard is NMEA, but there are other interfaces, SIRF have their own, UBLOX are nice, you can get access to raw data. Apple iPhones don't even have the NMEA data in the API, some Android phones do.
But if you want verification of more than just what the NMEA sequences will tell you then you need to look at the raw data, the raw data contains the WGS-84 co-ordinates of each satellite that the receiver can see, and the distance to each satellite, each set defines a spherical surface, and with multiple intersecting spheres you can get the receiver location.
The transmitters can be anywhere, they don't actually need to be in orbit, all that is required is that the transmitters transmit their actual location, if they don't then the system will fail to report your location correctly.
When you look at the data stream you find that they are actually in orbit where they are supposed to be. (see the constellation positions I posted earlier, for some idea of what it looks like)
You can prove it all to yourself, you don't have to take my word for it. Just get a GPS receiver with raw binary data capability and write your own software to decode the raw data stream.
Here is an example of raw data.
Getting the pseudo range data requires a GPS receiver that will allow access to the raw binary data stream, and a bit of software.
34357445.85408 104694103.10708 25567381.586 9 25567371.842 9 25567379.669 7 76.000 84.000
Those numbers in bold, are the range to the satellite in meters, three readings, all around 25567380.000 meters, which is 25,567.383 km or about 16,000 miles away.
-
not disputing yr abilities, per se....but there's a dffrnc between assembling some-thing in "kit" form and having a detailed knowledge of all the electronic components/chips in a device;
you'd have to have a (reliable) schematic of the architecture and be able to analyse and interpret all the components and their interactions;
The transmitters can be anywhere, they don't actually need to be in orbit, all that is required is that the transmitters transmit their actual location, if they don't then the system will fail to report your location correctly
pretty much what i'm saying, eh?
again: there is not the slightest proof/hard evidence that these GPS sttlts are up there.....or, indeed, that any stllts are up there, period.....or...that rockets can get up past the Thermosphere.....in fact...i'd be sorely tempted to say that the WWII-era V2 rockets most likely achieved the maximum alt' possible :(
in fact: i think that what we're dealing with here is, again, nothing more than souped-up WWII tech'
-
not disputing yr abilities, per se....but there's a dffrnc between assembling some-thing in "kit" form and having a detailed knowledge of all the electronic components/chips in a device;
you'd have to have a (reliable) schematic of the architecture and be able to analyse and interpret all the components and their interactions;
The transmitters can be anywhere, they don't actually need to be in orbit, all that is required is that the transmitters transmit their actual location, if they don't then the system will fail to report your location correctly
pretty much what i'm saying, eh?
again: there is not the slightest proof/hard evidence that these GPS sttlts are up there.....or, indeed, that any stllts are up there, period.....or...that rockets can get up past the Thermosphere.....in fact...i'd be sorely tempted to say that the WWII-era V2 rockets most likely achieved the maximum alt' possible :(
in fact: i think that what we're dealing with here is, again, nothing more than souped-up WWII tech'
What makes you think I'm assembling something in kit form? Detailed data sheets are available for all GPS chips, at least the ones I've used. I'm not interested in trying to explain internals of gps chip sets to you, go find out for yourself. It's impressive technology, but it's not magic. The Russian and European systems are very similar to the US, Chips these days can do all three, when the European system gets up and running.
Yes the transmitters can in fact be anywhere, they can be in your dining room or on a nearby hilltop, they critical requirement is that they are ACTUALLY where the transmissions say they are. We can look at the signals and see exactly where the transmitters actually are located, and that happens to be in orbit. 12,500 miles up. If they were anywhere other that where they say they ACTUALLY are the system wouldn't work.
I hope I don't have to keep repeating myself. The GPS transmitters that I can see on my receiver are on satellites in orbit. No question at all.
I realise that you are going to keep raising this thermosphere issue, the temperature is high but the heat capacity is zero, imagine you have a bucket of water, and you throw a spark at it. the spark might be thousands of degrees, how much do you think the temperature of the water will increase by? There is no heat transfer of any significance in traversing or flying through the thermosphere.
PS. When The ESA manages to get all the Galileo satellites in orbit, ( another 6 planned for this year, they launched two into wrong orbits a few years back, on a Soyuz ) it's supposed to be operational by 2020, at that stage there will be three seperate GPS systems, the US GPS, The Russian GLONASS, and the ESA's Galileo. Some later model receivers can pick all three.
-
again: there is not the slightest proof/hard evidence that these GPS sttlts are up there....
The abscence of proof is not proof of anything, altough there probably is proof but lets assume for the sake of this
thought experiment that there is not.
Imagine you have 3 GPS recievers in 3 different Cities.
Depending on the position of the satelite its signal will take longer/shorter to arrive at each reciever.
if you measure how long it takes for each reciever to recieve the signal you can calculate the position of the satelite.
( assuming the recievers have synchronized clocks etc..)
If you want to prove that thoose Satelites are faking their position in the GPS System, this is how you do it.
You say thoose satelites are fake.
the world says they are not.
the burden of proof is on you.
do it.
-
Is it not funny that the flat earth theory jumps a whopping 600% in people searching it. As that happens all of sudden a deep space climate observatory takes a pic of the earth from the other side of the moon with some fancy camera HUMM
Don't flatter yourselves, the FES is not on NASA'a radar.
I have to agree with you on that one. NASA does't concern itself with anything having to do with earth space or science. :P
—
-
Is it not funny that the flat earth theory jumps a whopping 600% in people searching it. As that happens all of sudden a deep space climate observatory takes a pic of the earth from the other side of the moon with some fancy camera HUMM
Don't flatter yourselves, the FES is not on NASA'a radar.
I have to agree with you on that one. NASA does't concern itself with anything having to do with earth space or science. :P
—
It was a real estate scam from the start. By convincing people the earth was a globe NASA was able to buy up land in South America before people began to notice that a South American acre is three times larger than a North American acre.
It all fell apart when they discovered that the sun deposits three times less energy in the Southern Hemisphere. Now they are trying to keep up the charade long enough to off load all the useless real estate. They'll come clean once that goal is achieved.
-
Is it not funny that the flat earth theory jumps a whopping 600% in people searching it. As that happens all of sudden a deep space climate observatory takes a pic of the earth from the other side of the moon with some fancy camera HUMM
Don't flatter yourselves, the FES is not on NASA'a radar.
I have to agree with you on that one. NASA does't concern itself with anything having to do with earth space or science. :P
—
It was a real estate scam from the start. By convincing people the earth was a globe NASA was able to buy up land in South America before people began to notice that a South American acre is three times larger than a North American acre.
It all fell apart when they discovered that the sun deposits three times less energy in the Southern Hemisphere. Now they are trying to keep up the charade long enough to off load all the useless real estate. They'll come clean once that goal is achieved.
How much land did NASA buy in Australia ? The Australian acre is even larger than the South American acre ? At least it's a lot wider ?
-
How much land did NASA buy in Australia ? The Australian acre is even larger than the South American acre ? At least it's a lot wider ?
Sorry, that is information I do not have as I didn't have "a need to know." Besides I've already violated my NDA. Imagine my surprise when hired to discover that I'd be involved with cinematography and CGI rather than engineering. But I was able to transition nicely from NASA to working for George Lucas, so not all bad.
-
How much land did NASA buy in Australia ? The Australian acre is even larger than the South American acre ? At least it's a lot wider ?
Sorry, that is information I do not have as I didn't have "a need to know." Besides I've already violated my NDA. Imagine my surprise when hired to discover that I'd be involved with cinematography and CGI rather than engineering. But I was able to transition nicely from NASA to working for George Lucas, so not all bad.
Maybe some "whistle blower" will come across with some information re the Australian acre scheme ?
-
Maybe some "whistle blower" will come across with some information re the Australian acre scheme ?
Not likely gecko, the shill pay is too good. I myself am off to Cabo for a bit due to the windfall payment for posting here. Good thing they don't check all of the posts eh?
-
Meanwhile I have to make a trip to the bank to deposit the money from the Nigerian widow.