[BlueMoon]

You can keep your eyes closed all you want man the proof is there in black and white. Its not a secret society, because the fact it's not secret. Look at the back of a dollar bill. It's a hide in plain sight type of thing.

And don't forget, I wholesale question the validity of the appolo missions, so the first "astronauts" really didn't need many skills to speak of to be recorded jumping around a movie set.

But just because you deny the missions doesn't mean you can ignore the training and accomplishments they had on the ground. 
Like I said, the early astronauts were test pilots.  Best of the best.  How many of them would be freemasons? 


What sort of purpose could hiding an occult symbol on a dollar bill possibly serve??  Is someone going to see the pyramid, and then just go to their nearest Conspiracy Clubhouse and say "I got your invitation, where do I sign up?"


To quote Wikipedia:

Popular among conspiracy theorists is the claim that the Eye of Providence shown atop an unfinished pyramid on theGreat Seal of the United States indicates the influence of Freemasonry in the founding of the United States. However, common Masonic use of the Eye dates to 14 years after the creation of the Great Seal. Furthermore, among the members of the various design committees for the Great Seal, only Benjamin Franklin was a Mason (and his ideas for the seal were not adopted). Indeed, many Masonic organizations have explicitly denied any connection to the creation of the Seal.

 

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Sigh... Do your research or don't. Your choice man. I'm not here to educate or indoctrinate.

The purpose of symbols in general are to imprint ideas and concepts into your head without your knowledge of it happening. A lot of symbols and rites date to prehistory, and in particular, those involving sun worship began to be obvious in Egyptian mythology.

Believe what you will, but ignorance doesn't make you exempt of the influence.

[BlueMoon]

Sigh... Do your research or don't. Your choice man. I'm not here to educate or indoctrinate.

The purpose of symbols in general are to imprint ideas and concepts into your head without your knowledge of it happening. A lot of symbols and rites date to prehistory, and in particular, those involving sun worship began to be obvious in Egyptian mythology.

Believe what you will, but ignorance doesn't make you exempt of the influence.

Remaining ignorant of your incorrectness will not make you correct. 


I have no desire to discuss this further with you.  Thinking that there is a world organization out to get me will not make a difference; it will only make me paranoid. 

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Sigh... Do your research or don't. Your choice man. I'm not here to educate or indoctrinate.

YOU of all people tell us to research ourselves? When was the last time you even research of my explanations?

Believe what you will, but ignorance doesn't make you exempt of the influence.

Same goes for you.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

But I'm not wrong.

Evidence is there. And trust me I do th research on a lot of the stuff you guys throw at me and if I still have unresolved questions you'll know it.

But the conversation was between mean bluemoon to which it appears he has disrespectfully declined to continue.

The shit was getting too real for him.

[rabinoz]

But I'm not wrong.
Evidence is there. And trust me I do th research on a lot of the stuff you guys throw at me and if I still have unresolved questions you'll know it.
But the conversation was between mean bluemoon to which it appears he has disrespectfully declined to continue.
The shit was getting too real for him.

Stop pretending that you know what others think and feel! It just possible he has other things to do than to pander to your every whim!

Hope you lurv the formatting you self centred little know it all!

[Pete Svarrior]

And eventually there will be space tourism, though it will probably be prohibitively expensive.

Oh, how convenient. The thing that makes your equivalency false will eventually not be a problem... but it'll still be horrendously inaccessible.

How very convenient, indeed...

Shall we wait until space tourism actually becomes a thing (which is totally, definitely happening) before you try to compare space to the Grand Canyon?

[BlueMoon]

And eventually there will be space tourism, though it will probably be prohibitively expensive.

Oh, how convenient. The thing that makes your equivalency false will eventually not be a problem... but it'll still be horrendously inaccessible.

How very convenient, indeed...

Shall we wait until space tourism actually becomes a thing (which is totally, definitely happening) before you try to compare space to the Grand Canyon?

I'm saying once it becomes a regular thing, then will you believe it?  It'll be like a cooler, more expensive form of skydiving, yet it won't be wingsuit jumping, which is also a cooler and (I would imagine) more expensive form of skydiving. 

[Rounder]

I'm saying once it becomes a regular thing, then will you believe it?

I doubt that will convince anybody.  Tourism to Antarctica is a regular thing now (thousands of 'not scientist' people do it every year) and far more affordable than space tourism is ever likely to be, and yet over and over on this board we still hear variations on the theme of "You can't go to Antarctica...guarded by Navy...forbidden by The Antarctic Treaty..."

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I'm saying once it becomes a regular thing, then will you believe it?

I doubt that will convince anybody.  Tourism to Antarctica is a regular thing now (thousands of 'not scientist' people do it every year) and far more affordable than space tourism is ever likely to be, and yet over and over on this board we still hear variations on the theme of "You can't go to Antarctica...guarded by Navy...forbidden by The Antarctic Treaty..."

It's still very cost prohibitive. And it's a closed loop, limited guided tour. You pay $40,000 a person. Fly to one place in Antarctica in a windowless plane, stay in a hut, then leave. Also the main company out of the very very few that do it is a relative of the chief scientist of the NOAA. That is a link to a plausible vested interest.

And as a tourist, you're obviously not going there for a scientific expedition of any sort. You're just trying to find a way to blow some of the money you obviously have too much of.

[Rounder]

It's still very cost prohibitive. And it's a closed loop, limited guided tour. You pay $40,000 a person. Fly to one place in Antarctica in a windowless plane, stay in a hut, then leave.

According to Antarctic Division of the Australian Government's Department of the Environment: "Most visitors reach Antarctica by ship. These voyages last from 10 days to several weeks, and ships range from the basic to the luxurious. Most (except the largest cruise ships, of 500 or more passengers) offer the chance to go ashore." So mostly NOT by plane, windowless or otherwise. 

I'll agree with you on the cost though.  Once you add in travel to and from the embarkation point, one could easily spend $40k or more.

Also the main company out of the very very few that do it is a relative of the chief scientist of the NOAA. That is a link to a plausible vested interest.

Well, "very few" is somewhat misleading.  The International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators lists 45 companies offering various levels of service to the continent.  Which is NOT an exhaustive list, since the company you are referring to (which is Polar Cruises for those who are just joining us) doesn't even appear on the list because they don't actually provide the travel service, they are more of a travel arranger.

And as a tourist, you're obviously not going there for a scientific expedition of any sort. You're just trying to find a way to blow some of the money you obviously have too much of.

True, and on point.  As a tourist, you are not vested in the Conspiracy.  You might see something that you can't reconcile with the RE dogma you've been taught, and even photograph it.  Not knowing the Conspiracy's official explanation, you might blow the whole thing wide open.  This feels to me like an argument against the existence of a Conspiracy, since it would be against their interests to allow anybody not 'in the know' to go to a place where the Conspiracy risks being uncovered.  Therefore, the Conspiracy should have banned tourism when the Antarctic Treaty was signed.  Tourism is not banned.  Therefore either there is no Conspiracy, or the Conspiracy is too weak to influence The Treaty.  If they are too weak to influence The Treaty, how could they at the same time be strong enough to hide the true shape of the Earth from everyone on Earth for hundreds of years?

[Woody]

I'm saying once it becomes a regular thing, then will you believe it?

I doubt that will convince anybody.  Tourism to Antarctica is a regular thing now (thousands of 'not scientist' people do it every year) and far more affordable than space tourism is ever likely to be, and yet over and over on this board we still hear variations on the theme of "You can't go to Antarctica...guarded by Navy...forbidden by The Antarctic Treaty..."

It's still very cost prohibitive. And it's a closed loop, limited guided tour. You pay $40,000 a person. Fly to one place in Antarctica in a windowless plane, stay in a hut, then leave. Also the main company out of the very very few that do it is a relative of the chief scientist of the NOAA. That is a link to a plausible vested interest.

And as a tourist, you're obviously not going there for a scientific expedition of any sort. You're just trying to find a way to blow some of the money you obviously have too much of.

People go to Antarctica with their own boats.  I ran into a couple in South America that went.  The reason they went is because they ran into another couple who went and told them how beautiful it was.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sailing+antarctica&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=955&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF_p7u-8rLAhVH22MKHVD7D1MQ_AUIBygC

http://www.bwsailing.com/bw/cruising-news/antarctica-on-our-own/

Here is a guide created by the US government:
http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/SD/Pub200/Pub200bk.pdf

I have a boat that I am preparing to go to either North up the west coast or south to Central and South America and on to Antarctica.  I am not rich, but do ok and can afford the trip.  The main reason I can accomplish this is I want to. It seems to me some FE somewhere would want to make the trip.  If it is within my means and ability it is within many people's.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I'm saying once it becomes a regular thing, then will you believe it?

I doubt that will convince anybody.  Tourism to Antarctica is a regular thing now (thousands of 'not scientist' people do it every year) and far more affordable than space tourism is ever likely to be, and yet over and over on this board we still hear variations on the theme of "You can't go to Antarctica...guarded by Navy...forbidden by The Antarctic Treaty..."

It's still very cost prohibitive. And it's a closed loop, limited guided tour. You pay $40,000 a person. Fly to one place in Antarctica in a windowless plane, stay in a hut, then leave. Also the main company out of the very very few that do it is a relative of the chief scientist of the NOAA. That is a link to a plausible vested interest.

And as a tourist, you're obviously not going there for a scientific expedition of any sort. You're just trying to find a way to blow some of the money you obviously have too much of.

People go to Antarctica with their own boats.  I ran into a couple in South America that went.  The reason they went is because they ran into another couple who went and told them how beautiful it was.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sailing+antarctica&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=955&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF_p7u-8rLAhVH22MKHVD7D1MQ_AUIBygC

http://www.bwsailing.com/bw/cruising-news/antarctica-on-our-own/

Here is a guide created by the US government:
http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/SD/Pub200/Pub200bk.pdf

I have a boat that I am preparing to go to either North up the west coast or south to Central and South America and on to Antarctica.  I am not rich, but do ok and can afford the trip.  The main reason I can accomplish this is I want to. It seems to me some FE somewhere would want to make the trip.  If it is within my means and ability it is within many people's.

I hear it's lovely this time of year in Antarctica. /s

I wouldn't waste your time, the main reason I'm sure most people don't go there is because it sucks. Brutal weather, crazy seas, no discernible signs of life. I would go towards Alaska, which despite having similar latitude and sun exposure to regions of Antarctica, is not just a frozen tundra for miles and miles and miles.

[nametaken]

Edit: I'm a late commer, so this may have been brought up already - I only read OP (for now). Just one thing I got for now:

However, this is not the case.  Consider for a moment that you are riding in a bus.  While it is moving at a constant speed, you get up and move to the other side.  Why don't you get thrown to the back?  The reason is that you retain momentum, and you can only feel acceleration. 

Exactly. However, follow this through to it's logical conclusion, and you realize not only are you right; you are entirely right.

Imagine you jump off that bus, wile it is moving; essentially what we've [allegedly] been doing for years with astronauts. What happens to your organs? Or, is space itself just conveniently moving at the same speed of the Earth, so the 'astronauts' whom have 'already done this' managed to survive, as you were, by 'hitting the ground running'?

Regardless, if the world is spinning and hurtling through space, there should be some sort of 'transition' when exiting the 'vehicle' as you must realize your analogy inevitably must conclude; Yes - you wouldn't know how fast you were going - until it was too late.

Now, obviously, these organizations aren't stupid and would recognize this, and take the measurements into consideration to make a trajectory and exit velocity to 'ease' out of [not knowing how fast they are going]; I'm not saying they didn't do it.

[geckothegeek]

Flat-earthers often say that it's unbelievable that we would be moving through space so fast. They say that the earth seems solid and stationary, and we would be able to feel if it was whizzing through space or spinning at 1000 mph. 

However, this is not the case.  Consider for a moment that you are riding in a bus.  While it is moving at a constant speed, you get up and move to the other side.  Why don't you get thrown to the back?  The reason is that you retain momentum, and you can only feel acceleration. 

Now, about that "1000 mph" statistic.  The equation for centripetal/centrifugal acceleration is a=v²/r.  The radius r is 6371 km, or 6371000 m.  THe velocity v is about 1000 mph, or 460 m/s.  So our function is 460²/6371000 which gives us...
.033 m/s²
For comparison, acceleration due to gravity at the poles is 9.83 m/s².  You certainly wouldn't be flung off by that, but it has been measured. 

So why does the atmosphere stay with the earth's surface?  Well, it too has initial momentum.  This confines it to earth's reference frame. 
This initial momentum also explains the Coriolis effect.  Since the surface is spinning faster at the equator, and slower toward the poles, air that moves away from the equator is deflected to the east relative to the surface.  So, if you have an area of low pres***sure, air is drawn toward it, but air from the equator is deflected east, and air from the poles is deflected west.  That causes hurricanes to rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere.  The deflection is measurable and consistent, and weather forecasters have to take it into account in their simulations.  It is also visible in the bands and storms of Jupiter. 

So what do you, the Flat Earth Society, have to say about that?  Can you find a better explanation that accounts for the weaker gravity at the equator and the Coriolis effect?  Good luck.

I think this been posted on another subject.Consider the speed of rotation from an "RPM" standpoint. 1 Revolution per 24 hours works out to a very small "Revolutions  Per Minute".

[Woody]

I'm saying once it becomes a regular thing, then will you believe it?

I doubt that will convince anybody.  Tourism to Antarctica is a regular thing now (thousands of 'not scientist' people do it every year) and far more affordable than space tourism is ever likely to be, and yet over and over on this board we still hear variations on the theme of "You can't go to Antarctica...guarded by Navy...forbidden by The Antarctic Treaty..."

It's still very cost prohibitive. And it's a closed loop, limited guided tour. You pay $40,000 a person. Fly to one place in Antarctica in a windowless plane, stay in a hut, then leave. Also the main company out of the very very few that do it is a relative of the chief scientist of the NOAA. That is a link to a plausible vested interest.

And as a tourist, you're obviously not going there for a scientific expedition of any sort. You're just trying to find a way to blow some of the money you obviously have too much of.

People go to Antarctica with their own boats.  I ran into a couple in South America that went.  The reason they went is because they ran into another couple who went and told them how beautiful it was.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sailing+antarctica&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=955&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF_p7u-8rLAhVH22MKHVD7D1MQ_AUIBygC

http://www.bwsailing.com/bw/cruising-news/antarctica-on-our-own/

Here is a guide created by the US government:
http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/SD/Pub200/Pub200bk.pdf

I have a boat that I am preparing to go to either North up the west coast or south to Central and South America and on to Antarctica.  I am not rich, but do ok and can afford the trip.  The main reason I can accomplish this is I want to. It seems to me some FE somewhere would want to make the trip.  If it is within my means and ability it is within many people's.

I hear it's lovely this time of year in Antarctica. /s

I wouldn't waste your time, the main reason I'm sure most people don't go there is because it sucks. Brutal weather, crazy seas, no discernible signs of life. I would go towards Alaska, which despite having similar latitude and sun exposure to regions of Antarctica, is not just a frozen tundra for miles and miles and miles.

Actually similar to sailing on around the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn the reason to go is to challenge yourself.

[Rounder]

Imagine you jump off that bus, while it is moving....What happens to your organs?

I don't understand; why should anything happen to your organs?

Or, is space itself just conveniently moving at the same speed of the Earth, so the 'astronauts' whom have 'already done this' managed to survive, as you were, by 'hitting the ground running'?

No, it isn't that 'space is moving', but instead that space is empty (OK, it's mostly empty).  When an astronaut leaves the vehicle in space, it isn't like jumping from a moving bus onto stationary earth or into air moving at a different speed (if moving at all).  He's going from a vehicle moving through vacuum, to moving through that vacuum without a vehicle.

Regardless, if the world is spinning and hurtling through space, there should be some sort of 'transition' when exiting the 'vehicle' as you must realize your analogy inevitably must conclude; Yes - you wouldn't know how fast you were going - until it was too late.

You've missed the original poster's point, which is: ON EARTH you cannot detect the velocity of the spot you are standing on, because you detect acceleration, not speed.  If you close your eyes in a moving car, you cannot detect the speed you are travelling.  You can infer it from road noise, wind noise, vibration, etc, but you cannot actually tell how fast you are going.  Once an airliner is up to speed, you don't have any sensation of the forward speed.  You feel the shaking, the up and down, the side to side: in other words, CHANGES in speed, otherwise known as acceleration.  All this subsequent talk of orbiting and leaving spacecraft is all tangential.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Why in videos of the astronauts inside the ISS are they constantly moving around, catching themselves and grabbing stabilization bars? If they aren't experiencing any acceleration then why would that happen?

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Why in videos of the astronauts inside the ISS are they constantly moving around, catching themselves and grabbing stabilization bars? If they aren't experiencing any acceleration then why would that happen?

They need something to absorb their momentum, once they accelerate to move somewhere, they must decelerate to stop somewhere.
Just look up Newton's first law of motion.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

This happens when theyre seemingly standing still, not just demos of them moving around the station.