Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - scomato

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: May 27, 2022, 07:15:56 PM »
The true and factual history of moon missions is much more complex than is presented above.

Look at the chart of all moon missions, starting with Pioneer 0. It wasn't just a simple matter of who did what first. Both the US and the USSR experienced countless mission failures for every narrow success. There were different mission objectives, from orbiters to flybys, impactors and finally landers. The space race wasn't just one achievement, NASA didn't decide one day to put a man on the moon - it was the culmination of decades of rapid but incremental advancements in rocket science.

If space is a hoax, then does that mean every space professional is also in on the hoax? According to this source [1] "the global space sector employed around 1 million persons around the world in 2017. To give orders of magnitude, around 350 000 full-time employees are active in the United States, 200 000 in the Russian Federation and around 60 000 in Europe." 

That is quite a lot of people who are in on the conspiracy. It is quite incredible that 1 million people are able to keep the existence of a super secret criminal organization completely and utterly hidden. Imagine the life of fantastic wealth and luxury that they could afford by collectively embezzling tens of billions of dollars a year. Don't conspiracy theorists every feel jealous that they are being left out?


What is the motive of Spacex?

What is the motive of the Japanese Space Agency, and India Space Agency?

When the Chinese decided to have a space program, did NASA go over there, explain the situation, and get them to go along with the hoax? For what motive? Or did they have a missile go splat against the dome, contact NASA and ask them what to say? I find the image of a meeting such as this where one side is revealing the earth is flat and securing the cooperation of someone grown up in RE world, even more fascinating when they come out of the meeting faking RE without missing a beat.

If one speculates about such a motive? Details and corroboration, or just speculation?

It must be really disappointing for the astronauts, aerospace engineers, and scientists who spend 10+ years training to work in this field only to be presented with a Powerpoint document at the very end telling you that your entire worldview is a lie, and the Earth is actually how it is described 2000 years ago by Levantine monks. Even more incredible that none of these people leak this information.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path
« on: April 13, 2022, 02:13:56 AM »
Can I raise another interesting flight path? I want to raise two routes to the same destination: to Amundsen-Scott South Pole Base.

It is about an 8-hour flight from Christchurch, New Zealand to the South Pole.
Similarly, it is about an 8.5-hour flight from Punta Arenas, Chile to the South Pole.

Represented on the Flat Earth is obviously impossible, as the South Pole is infinitely smeared across the circumference of the Earth.

On a globe it is simple enough.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: UFO's on a Flat Earth.
« on: April 08, 2022, 05:13:58 AM »
I don't think there is such thing as 'space' in flat earth, there are no 'other planets', there is not even a solar system as science understands it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
« on: April 08, 2022, 03:27:46 AM »
Teaching queer perspectives on all facets of life is very important, sexuality and gender is only a small part of it.

And, if we're going to be pedantic about this, being LGBT is only a 'queering' of gender and sexuality because heterosexuality and 'family values' are oppressively enforced, globally. Stop thinking only within western contexts.

For example queerness in America and queerness and India are two completely different conversations involving a queering of two completely different sets of social and cultural relationship/marital norms. There is not one 'gay' monolith, but conservatives have created a bogeyman out of thin air.

Queerness, and oppression, are two sides of the same coin. They do not exist without the other, for if there were no oppressive societal externalities there would be no queering.

You could very much argue that flat earth, and alternative sciences like it, are 'queer' science, and conspiracy theories 'queer' politics, because they subvert the status-quo of what is widely socially accepted, and you will find that there is soft social pressures everywhere that see this enforced. I mean, try getting a job as a scientist, policymaker, or teacher, if you're 'out' as a flat earther? Doors will be shut on your face, that is what it means to be queer.

Thinking that queerness starts and stops inside the bedroom is small-minded.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers
« on: April 05, 2022, 03:30:23 PM »
Being gay is sexual. Being straight is...not sexual.

 ??? ??? ???

What does it even mean to be heterosexual then, to you?

Talking to kids about gay/trans people doesn't make them gay, by that logic teaching kids about Dinosaurs causes them to mutate into reptilian monsters.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers
« on: April 05, 2022, 12:28:24 AM »
If we are going to start discriminating against people for having a biological advantage, then let's start with stripping Michael Phelps of all of his gold medals.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« on: April 04, 2022, 11:49:32 PM »
If pictures, videos, launch documentation, press releases, names of project contributors, project timelines, budgets, etc etc are not high enough quality evidence to be accepted, what is?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 04, 2022, 11:46:14 PM »

Trumpism is a threat to the free world itself.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« on: March 23, 2022, 03:47:55 AM »
Quote from: secretagent10
Tom, my original post was a little bit more than saying “here’s some footage, accept it”. It was a bit of a meta argument.

I’m completely admitting that you can just say it’s fake and I can’t do much about it. I’m asserting that the REASONING used by FE’ers in the comments are based on false interpretations/misunderstandings.

If these are the things that made them FE’ers, they got to their position for the wrong reasons. All that FET really has is desperate skepticism that you “technically” can’t disprove as long as you push the bar for evidence back enough.

NASA faking the data is sort of the underlying premise of this concept and website.

Most of the discussions resolve around the next step of whether FE/RE is possible. NASA's possible fakery is already part of the premise of the discussion and is typically conceded as possible even by RE'ers here to allow for further discussion.

The reality of the Round Earth should be irrefutable through mountains of functional evidence and not just at the whims of whether space agencies are possibly faking data or not. If you leave things as "possible" and argue through incredulity, then it remains "possible" that you are wrong.

As an empirical matter you should be also concerned that you believe in something which you have not seen verification for and that your belief is based on trust in authority. That sounds more like a faith issue to me.

If not NASA, do you trust the Japan Meteorological Agency, and JAXA? Because they launched and operate Himawari 8, a weather satellite which you can tune into to see a new full-disc photo of the Earth every 10 minutes.

You can prove the photo is real because it's corroborated by ground-based weather radar.

If this were all a fakery, it would have to be an international conspiracy (no NASA in sight) between Japan, Australia, and everyone in between. It would need to be maintained forever, with no margin for error, updated every 10 minutes, accurately reflecting real cloud formation patterns, and smoke from forest fires. With all that would be required to fake this, it would be so much easier to just... put a geostationary earth-cam up in space to take real pictures.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.
« on: March 20, 2022, 03:41:05 PM »

Presumably beyond the light of the Sun the water would naturally freeze.

Do you have any evidence for this new ice wall? At least the old Antarctic ice wall had photos of the Ross Ice Shelf as an attempt at proof.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.
« on: March 20, 2022, 03:00:30 AM »
So the Bipolar model at least acknowledges the existence of the Antarctic continent, I hope that puts to rest some of the sad arguments such as Amundsen-Scott base being fake.

But if Antarctica is a continent and not the ice wall, does the Bipolar model flat earth still have an ice wall perimeter?

The House votes 424-8 to suspend normal trade relations with Russia, those 8 are a real who's who of crazies:
Andy Biggs of Arizona
Dan Bishop of North Carolina
Lauren Boebert of Colorado
Matt Gaetz of Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia
Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin
Thomas Massie of Kentucky
Chip Roy of Texas

At least they made it clear which side of the democracy/dictatorship debate they stand on.

Technology & Information / Re: James Webb telescope launches!
« on: March 17, 2022, 08:38:35 PM »
First image back from the alignment test, taken in near-infrared on a star 100 times fainter than the human eye can see. The galaxies in the background!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: February 07, 2022, 02:54:23 AM »
If OP is claiming that via arbitrary transformation the globe can be a disc and vice versa, what’s to say then the Earth isn’t a rhombus, donut, non-euclidean, or shaped exactly like Howard Stern?

If we ignore reality we can arbitrarily transform one coordinate system into another, welcome to the history of map making, this was never even a point of debate in the first place and I fail to see how it has any relevance to Flat Earth theory at all.

That is incorrect, one person absolutely can moonbounce to themselves. Here's an article from the Radio Society of Great Britain:

"One of the unique characteristics of EME is that it is possible to hear and observe your own transmissions echoed back approximately 2.5 seconds later as the transmitted signal propagates from the earth to the moon, is reflected, and propagates back to the earth."

There is no reason one person could not transmit and receive back to themselves. Anywhere the moon is visible, you can receive a moonbounce, it's no different if you're 50 feet from the source or 50 miles.

You posted an article of someone who thinks it's possible, and who makes no attempt at demonstration. A very low level of evidence. That you can find anonymous authors who make such ignorant claims means nothing.

I'll find all the sources you want. How about this, then: WA6PY as he was known in the radio community, has a well-documented account with many photos, and magazine appearances, one calling him the Master of Moonbounce.

But answer me this - if a transmitter and receiver can pull off an EME, why can't that be one person? I fail to see the logic there. Any place with a sight-line to the Moon, can receive an EME transmission, it's not like you have to know where your receiver is. Radio is a wave, not a laser pointer that must be precisely beamed back and forth.

The reason nobody does this is because communicating with people over long distances is the point of an EME, not to measure the distance of the move, although it can be used in that way.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« on: February 02, 2022, 05:19:02 PM »
In physics, there's a very big difference between the way things look, and they way they calculate.
Math doesn't care how i draw things, it only cares about the numbers, and even numbers are surprisingly flexible because you can change the formulas.
A very simple example: imagine i make the entire universe twice as big, you and your ruler included. Would you notice?
The math/physics can be tweaked so it also doesn't notice.
Have a look at  It shows physics working on a variety of differently shaped earths.

- coordinate transformations can turn any shape into any other shape
- coordinate transformations don't break physics
-> physics can be made to work on any shape universe (have a look at for pictures)
-> There is no test to differentiate between the shapes. In reality we can only observe/measure the physical properties, not the shape.

So have a look around you and try these two views: i'm standing on a globe and lightrays are straight,
or you could say: i'm standing on a flat plane, and light curves to exactly counteract the missing curve.
Your eyes wouldn't be able to tell the difference and there's no physical test to distinguish between the two views, it's just a matter of perception.

It's like the old question: Am i moving, or is the entire universe moving around me? It's just a matter of how you look at the world.

Also this result shouldn't be very surprising. The universe could already be a sphere, a simulation, have no shape (QM), be a restored backup from 5 minutes ago ... We will simply never know the shape of the planet. It can be flat, it can be a globe or even a velociraptor.

But physics doesn't just exist in the woo woo air, it is proven through observation. Take for example, general relativity. Yes, it's just math that Einstein put down on paper, and exists purely in the mathematical world. But it can be proved, such as in the Eddington experiment, where Einstein correctly predicted the deflection of the position of a star as it is curved by the Sun's gravity on its path to us. Newtonian physics when applied to this problem, got it wrong.

There are galaxies in the night sky that look as though they've been twisted into a ring, evidence of gravity's influence on light. Physics makes predictions, predictions that come true under the most rigorous epistemological scrutiny.

By your own account, you say that your model is unobservable and unpredictable, so what makes it a theory and not just a fantasy?

Quote from: stack
What’s the significance of “two-way”?

The suggestion in the OP was that you could independently determine the distance to the Moon for yourself, and that many amateurs independently verify the Moon's distance on a regular basis. It was claimed that "It is a quite elegant and simple experiment for any Flat Earthers who wish to deduce for themselves the true distance of the Moon." This is incorrect.

That is incorrect, one person absolutely can moonbounce to themselves. Here's an article from the Radio Society of Great Britain:

"One of the unique characteristics of EME is that it is possible to hear and observe your own transmissions echoed back approximately 2.5 seconds later as the transmitted signal propagates from the earth to the moon, is reflected, and propagates back to the earth."

There is no reason one person could not transmit and receive back to themselves. Anywhere the moon is visible, you can receive a moonbounce, it's no different if you're 50 feet from the source or 50 miles.

The reason few people do this is because setting up a 3-meter radio dish is 1) expensive and 2) wildly space prohibitive, what are you doing to do with your $10,000 dollar 4-meter dish when you're not using it? It's much better to just listen to EME receivers that other people have sunk their lives into, like this one: and the hundred others like it: The dishes are better, the recording instruments are better, it's free, there's just little reason to be your own receiver. Unless you believe that the internet is being rigged by unseen powers in an effort to invisibly deceive you, that is. There's not really a rational point to make in response to that.

But there's nothing stopping someone from doing it themselves.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: February 01, 2022, 11:23:45 PM »
I have one question about what people see on the ground, vs. what the map describes. In the animated diagram below you have light from the Sun warping every which way, stretching and contracting as needed to illuminate the Earth as we observe it. Wouldn't the sun appear to be wildly contorted in the sky, as the light from one part of the Sun will go on a roller coaster ride around Antarctica, while another will fall straight down? The shape of the sun in the sky should appear to alternate between an elliptical and crescent-moon shape with the changing seasons.

Yet what we actually observe when we look at the Sun is a perfect sphere of unchanging size disappearing over the horizon. You can see dark spots on the Sun, which refutes the idea that sunlight takes different diverging paths to arrive at their special destinations, depending on where it is emitted from. From the observer's perspective, the light from the Sun has taken a straight-line path between its surface and your eyes. Regardless of whether the light was emitted from the top of the Sun or the bottom, straight-line path.

So the only possible explanation I can see is that spacetime itself is warped in between the Sun and the ground observer, creating the illusion that the light travelled in a straight line, configured precisely to simulate the appearance of a massive Sun-like object in distant space. But this introduces more problems than it answers - warping space to that degree would require a phenomenal source of mass or energy - that somehow only acts upon sunlight, without interfering with other forms of matter or energy on Earth.

Quote from: scomato
It is a quite elegant and simple experiment for any Flat Earthers who wish to deduce for themselves the true distance of the Moon.

No, you cannot determine this for yourself. The process involves sending your device information over the internet to get a response from a large facility.

See this video of a Moonbounce:

He is communicating with a third party installation, and says "he heard me" and at 4:54 that "you need a pretty big station at the other end".

The Moonbounce is not conducted by setting up your own antenna, broadcasting a signal, and then receiving it. The process involves sending your data over the internet to a large (likely government funded) radio astronomy facility and then receiving back the results.

This "evidence" essentially involves asking the government how far away the Moon is. For what reason this service was made open to the public is unknown. But we may as well just go to the NASA website if we are relying on the government for our information.

From an article on the Moonbounce:

Moonbounce basics

The basis of operation of Moonbounce or EME, Earth-Moon-Earth is the use of the Moon as a passive reflector. In view of the very large distances involved and the fact that the Moon's surface is a poor reflector the path losses are colossal, but nevertheless it is still a form of communication that is theoretically possible to use, and one that many radio amateurs regularly use.

There are clearly two stations in this diagram, not one. References can be found that the technique was developed by the U.S. Military after WWII.

From another Moonbounce reference of someone in Antarctica making a Moonbounce:

Amateur radio operator Craig Hayhow has used the moon to bounce
a radio signal 742 000 km, from Mawson station in Antarctica to
Cornwall in England.

The Cornwall facility mentioned here is likely the Goonhilly Earth Station and 32-Meter Dish used for Moonbounces operated by the ESA:

Goonhilly 32-Meter Dish to be Active on Moonbounce on September 1 – 2

A team of moonbounce enthusiasts expect to activate the 32-meter antenna GHY-6 at Goonhilly, on the Lizard Peninsular in Cornwall (IO70jb) in the UK on September 1 – 2, operating as GB6GHY. The group, including G8GTZ, G8GKQ, and G4NNS, will be on the HB9Q logger while operational, which should be between 0800 and 1200 UTC, but “earlier if possible,” they’ve said.

GB6GHY will concentrate on 3.4 GHz on September 1 and 5.7 GHz on September 2, with the ability to switch bands immediately.

Anyone with a relatively small dish (3-meter or less) should be able to work us,” their announcement said. The European Space Agency is undertaking a project to upgrade Goonhilly Earth Station to track missions to the Moon and Mars. The work will see the GHY-6 antenna — which carried the 1985 Live Aid concert around the world — upgraded over the span of 2 years.”

This cunning proof is a service that a space agency provides.

The assertion that this is a proof that amateur operators can perform for themselves is incorrect.

Do you mean to say that the Government is spoofing the true nature of the moon by artificially adding ~2.5 seconds to the receiving time?

That seems incredulous since EME propagation predates the internet by a veeery long time.

See this German article (translation provided) describing an early moonbounce experience from 1943.

"After activating the Würzmann, I made the following observation: the "perturbation" again appeared, had a duration of several impulses, and larger impulse strength than the strongest nearby targets. It didn't appear until about two seconds after switching on the transmitter and disappeared (pulsatingly) correspondingly later after switching it off. But the rest of the echo image appeared and disappeared at the instance of switching the transmitter on/off. The "perturbation" only occurred when the antenna was aimed to the east, and it disappeared immediately upon a major change of direction, but reappeared only about two seconds after rotating back to the original direction. Apparently we had detected the rising moon behind the clouds with the equipment."

The internet would not be invented for another 40 years, yet the 2-second propagation time is observed. Therefore the hoax-via-internet theory doesn't float.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >