21

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 24, 2014, 10:00:00 PM »

Hi Model29,

the point is that if there was a curve on the earth as you have accepted as fact, then we would be unable to see the vessel at the waterline.  There are no ifs or buts about this point when the observation is taken at eye level from the waters edge.

The papers are:

Michelson and Morley 1887 "on the relative motion of the earth and Luminiferous Aether"
Airy G 1871 Proc Royal Sc. London V 20 p35
Michelson and Gale 1925 Astrophysical Journa v61 pp 140-5 Detection of 24 hr . rotation of aether around earth to 2% accuracy
Sagnac M 1913 "Sur la preuve de la realite de ''ether lumineaux par l'expeience de l'inerpherograph tournant" (On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether using the experiment of a turning interferometer")  Comptes Rendus v157 p708-710 and 1410-1413.  (proof the aether really exists - demolishing the BS of relativity)

enjoy... and welcome to the real world!

22

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 24, 2014, 09:31:16 AM »

Hi Rama... you will have to look elsewhere for the satellite GPS discussion.. I didn't raise it and, quite frankly, I don't give a damn. 

I simply point out that satellites are not relevant to the previous discussion and, moreover, that any "benefits" attributed to them could be achieved in any either model of the world, namely global or dinner plate.   The reference to the poles was made by me to clearly indicate my view that both satellites and the Poles are covered in BS as well.

Summarising the discussion to date.  A CGI reproduction does not prove a pic of a man on the moon is real.  There are no real world applications of the correction to survey data  to compensate for the putative curvature of the earth.  There is no curving of light running parallel to the ocean because the medium does not vary with distance, only with altitude.  The purported lunar landing missions to the purported moon are physically impossible for many reasons, not the least of which is the inability to provide sufficient quantity of "sublimatable" liquid to maintain a temperature that would permit humans to continue to function.  Of course that discussion used the questionable assumptions that there is a vacuum in space.  The point being that the BS based on BS assumption is entirely contradictory of its own assumptions and is a complete fail.

So I am still looking for a globalist who would like to discuss the Flat Earth topic for an internet radio program.  If any globalists are interested, please send me a message.

23

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 23, 2014, 08:04:23 PM »

Yes, surveying exactly... using the reference you provided ... and I quote... Refraction and curvature[edit]

The curvature of the earth means that a line of sight that is horizontal at the instrument will be higher and higher above a spheroid at greater distances. The effect may be significant for some work at distances under 100 meters.

The line of sight is horizontal at the instrument, but is not a straight line because of refraction in the air. The change of air density with elevation causes the line of sight to bend toward the earth.

The combined correction for refraction and curvature is approximately:[3]
\Delta h_{meters} = 0.067 D_{km} ^2  or \Delta h_{feet} = 0.021 \left(\frac {D_{ft}}{1000} \right)^2
For precise work these effects need to be calculated and corrections applied. For most work it is sufficient to keep the foresight and backsight distances approximately equal so that the refraction and curvature effects cancel out. Refraction is generally the greatest source of error in leveling. For short level lines the effects of temperature and pressure are generally insignificant, but the effect of the temperature gradient dT / dh can lead to errors.[4]


Over the distance of Bedford Canal experiment, this correction is 6.7m.  Yet such a correction is NEVER applied in any mining or civil engineering project... and in particular NOT  the Chunnel which is well over this distance.  The reason, we are told, is because the rate of refraction CANCELS out the rate of curvature on the earth.  But this is nonsense of course, because the air density close to sea level will be the same for a horizontal line of sight.  To get light to bend 6.9m over the distance of 10 km with a line of sight over sea level... you guys just believe anything....

The GPS reference will have to be explained to me.  GPS outcomes are easily achieved from land stations and blimps.  Even if the satellite myth were true, there is simply no need to deploy such things to achieve GPS.  And why don't we have any pics of the north and south pole from these satellites?

24

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 23, 2014, 12:29:04 PM »

Gulliver et al...  The lunar lander will also need to have its heat dissipated..  be sure to consider that.

Since you have vacated the field,  I claim COMPLETE vindication of my hypothesis that there are NO REAL WORLD applications of globalist thinking in mining or civil engineering applications. 

The whole point is that any ship will ALWAYS be in front of the horizon because the undisturbed sea level is flat.  If the earth was a globe then two points ten kilometres apart would have a hump 1.9m high etc etc.

Game, set and match.  Thank you ball boys, thank you linesmen.

25

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 22, 2014, 09:06:54 PM »

Thanks Gulliver and Rama Set.  As discussed, I am sceptical that the purported Apollo missions took place. 

Ships..   start looking at 7.30 minutes.

With respect to the surveying discussion Gulliver, you need to apply the scientific method.  I have put forward the hypothesis that there are NO REAL WORLD civil or mining applications which make allowances for the purported curvature of the earth and that in every PRACTICAL sense, the zero datum of the earth is planar.  You can easily disprove this hypothesis simply by finding a real world example.  Simple task for you.

I am completely sceptical about the space suit... I think it is BS.  How many litres of fluid have to be evaporated?  How many litres were required for the lunar lander?  Rama, the days on the moon are 28 days long.  The landing took place in daylight and Armstrong purportedly set foot on the moon six hours later.  They stayed 21.5 hours. The amount of liquid (presumably water) that had to be carried simply to be "sublimated" would be pretty hefty methinks.  It will be a pleasant diversion to walk through this arithmetic at some stage.

26

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 22, 2014, 12:37:09 PM »

you just believe anything don't you?  how does a thin sheet of ice (formed by a separate feed water source get formed externally at 127oC? A separate water supply?  I am now HIGHLY sceptical of this.  I suspect that the blueprints and specific design for these spacesuits are a little difficult to get hold of.  Please provide the blueprint and complete design for this suit.  I shall review the mathematics of this at my leisure over the coming weeks.

I think you should review your previous comments... you clearly requested that I commence a new thread.

I notice that you completely avoid commenting on the COMPLETE LACK of real world applications of globalist influenced surveying.

27

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 22, 2014, 11:48:15 AM »

up to 127 in fact.. what is that in farenheit? hmm well over 200

28

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 22, 2014, 09:10:03 AM »

that is easy... my everyday experience will not be denied...  I reiterate what I type earlier in this thread...

so the bottom line for me is this.  In my everyday life I experience the world as being flat.  I can see ships in the distant horizon with the use of a telescope down to the waterline when they should have long disappeared over the horizon.  In my work as a mining engineer, I never make any allowance for the putative curvature of the earth.  To my knowledge, there is not a single real world application of geodetics.  Any bridge, canal, railroad or tunnel constructed assumed that the earth is flat and this continues to be the case today.  I constantly request a 3D model of the putative sea level globe in its entirety and I am simply unable to shake one loose.


There is a series of four well known astronomical observations which clearly demonstrate that the motion of the sun is geocentric and not heliocentric.

To offset this, we have the images of NASA and the space program.  Werner Von Braun is mostly known for his Disney publications and films.  The first director of NASA came from Paramount studios http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Keith_Glennan. 

The Apollo missions coincided with the film A Space Odyssey.  As discussed above, the salient documentation to verify these missions has been lost.  The machinery that is on display is just not capable, in my humble opinion, of performing the tasks that have been claimed for them.    Moreover, the physics of the mission are clearly demonstrating that the mission could not have taken place. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm .  In particular, Anders notes that "You cannot step on a 200° hot surface of any kind in vacuum without melting your protective gear and getting burnt. "

This thread commenced with the claim that a CGI rendering proved that a photograph purportedly of a man on the moon proves that the photo is genuine.  Gulliver has commented that I have not provided "proof" that key documents have gone missing.  On both of these last points, I would suggest that I have had a COMPREHENSIVE vindication of my views.

You just keep saying.... the documents are there.  I keep pointing to the reference that clearly says that documents are missing and that they are not held by NASA.

I am sceptical that the original data has "suddenly been found" but I am sure someone will review and find it to be faked. 

Also, you required me start a new thread to discuss Bedford Canal phenomena and then you want it reinstated to this thread.  What do you really want?

Just another example of the more obvious physical impossibilities is that if these guys are supposed have stood in two hundred degree sun with "water cooling" in a vacuum, how did the coolant disperse its heat?  there is no way for the coolant to pass its heat to the environment.

29

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 22, 2014, 07:55:12 AM »

Gulliver,  I don't believe anything at all.  I will remain a skeptic until the evidence confirms that the Apollo missions took place to my satisfaction.

What is the story with the restorations btw?  was the original data found or not?  In what way was my reference to the newspaper article out of date?  Are you telling me that the data has been found?

30

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 21, 2014, 10:42:14 PM »

just explain this one for me Gulliver...

Back to the blueprints.  The reference clearly states that they are not in one place and that they don't all exist.  I have now built several factories and organised the design and construction of many machines.  The companies that I worked for always kept the blueprints, BOM etc etc in a catalogued system.  Some as far back as 1920.  This would be considered normal practice.  NASA can't be bothered keeping records to 1972... fine... it obviously wasn't important.  (my conclusion, it wasn't important, it was a hoax). 

The article then goes on to say that the drawings were never all together at the one time.  So exactly how were these devices put together?  There was no single manager in charge of piecing the rocket together?  The various contractors arrived in a group consciousness system and randomly placed their parts into the jigsaw?  While that is clearly what really happened, I have little doubt that NASA is not claiming that process.  NASA will claim that construction was done using a tightly disciplined military style procedure.  Someone was in charge.  That person would need total control over all aspects of the design and build... delegated for sure, but still in control.

I remain sceptical about the competition you are talking about... no references provided.

31

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 21, 2014, 11:57:58 AM »

Gulliver, once again I simply reiterate to claim victory in this discussion.  The reference post http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/25.html clearly states, in its way, that we do not have the blueprints in one place and why should we?  Furthermore, we do not have all the blueprints and why should we?  Since they don't have them, I remain sceptical.

The video site you directed me to is a "restoration" .  What is it a restoration of?  The crappy video?  Apparently the pics we saw were televised screen projections, not even direct feed.  My scepticism is unappeased.

Finally, tell me about this money I can claim... I look forward to it... sadly for you, the Bedford canal experiment is easily repeated on Victoria's Port Phillip Bay.

32

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 21, 2014, 09:05:16 AM »

  Wasn't the simulation performed on a computer?

Doesn't all CGI use the laws of physics?

Isn't this the definition of CGI?  Just better simulations used?

Of course of the above is true.  Another COMPREHENSIVE vindication for me.

33

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 21, 2014, 03:54:50 AM »

so the bottom line for me is this.  In my everyday life I experience the world as being flat.  I can see ships in the distant horizon with the use of a telescope down to the waterline when they should have long disappeared over the horizon.  In my work as a mining engineer, I never make any allowance for the putative curvature of the earth.  To my knowledge, there is not a single real world application of geodetics.  Any bridge, canal, railroad or tunnel constructed assumed that the earth is flat and this continues to be the case today.  I constantly request a 3D model of the putative sea level globe in its entirety and I am simply unable to shake one loose.

There is a series of four well known astronomical observations which clearly demonstrate that the motion of the sun is geocentric and not heliocentric.

To offset this, we have the images of NASA and the space program.  Werner Von Braun is mostly known for his Disney publications and films.  The first director of NASA came from Paramount studios http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Keith_Glennan. 

The Apollo missions coincided with the film A Space Odyssey.  As discussed above, the salient documentation to verify these missions has been lost.  The machinery that is on display is just not capable, in my humble opinion, of performing the tasks that have been claimed for them.    Moreover, the physics of the mission are clearly demonstrating that the mission could not have taken place. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm .  In particular, Anders notes that "You cannot step on a 200° hot surface of any kind in vacuum without melting your protective gear and getting burnt. "

This thread commenced with the claim that a CGI rendering proved that a photograph purportedly of a man on the moon proves that the photo is genuine.  Gulliver has commented that I have not provided "proof" that key documents have gone missing.  On both of these last points, I would suggest that I have had a COMPREHENSIVE vindication of my views.

34

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 21, 2014, 12:25:45 AM »

Hi Gulliver,

My comment was that the salient records have been "lost".  The original high quality video images have been "lost".  If we wish to examine the detailed construction drawings of the appollo hardwared, BOM etc etc we simply cannot do that because they have been "lost".   

If the Apollo mission myth were true, it would represent the greatest achievement of mankind.  If we wish to do this excursion again, then the detailed construction drawings, BOM and project documents would be vital.  Instead, we have a litany of apologetics... e.g.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/one-giant-blunder-for-mankind-how-nasa-lost-moon-pictures/2006/08/04/1154198328978.html . 

So, despite the fact that I have provided you with a reference that unambiguously declares that the blueprints DO NOT EXIST  "A complete set of blueprints of the world's first Particle Accelerator don't survive to this day nor does the very first aircraft, HMS Victory or even the Titanic. Does it mean that they didn't exist or were not built? It's another ridiculous claim."  ..  Gulliver makes the statement that I am supporting the view that the documents do exist.

The above quote is AN APOLOGIST attempt to explain why there are no SALIENT blueprints.... after all... we can't expect anyone to keep them can we? 

The unambiguous point that I am making is that NO SALIENT EXAMINABLE DOCUMENTATION now exists which I can use to allay my skepticism.

You and I arguing about whether it did or didn't exist in the past IS NOT the point of my original posting.

Your comments on decompression are quite different to what is in my memory about door opening... I will get back to you on that.

PS Gulliver, are you interested in having a FE discussion which I will record for possible use on Markus Allens "truth in 7 minutes" ?

35

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 20, 2014, 06:26:52 AM »

Hi Gulliver, these drawings are not blueprints.  The level of technical detail is reminiscent of Gundamn Anime technical manuals.   For me, these drawings confirm my skepticism that objects described therein could have achieved the outcomes that have been posited.  How, for example, did the lunar buggy get stowed and how did they get it out?  Where is the film evidence of that task being undertaken?   How did the craft protect the personnel from the heat and the cold?  How did they even open the door of the lunar lander inwards when the air pressure inside the module would have made such a feat practically impossible?  I remain skeptical until I have convinced myself that such feats are possible.

I quote from NASA ...http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.lrvdep.html

Figure 1-39 is a cartoon of the deployment sequence. Section 1.9.3 of the document contains a complete description of the deployment. See, also, a set of Grumman LRV Deployment Cartoons.]


and here

http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/25.html

"Plans for the Lunar Module and Lunar Rover have been destroyed and no longer exist."

Much paperwork relating to the Lunar Module and Rover has been discarded, however this is to be expected. No company is going to keep in storage millions of documents for an obsolete project that has no chance of being resurrected. But it is not true to say the documents no longer exist. The National Archives microfilmed everything they thought was historically significant and those films are currently in storage. It is not uncommon for space enthusiasts and modelers to find many obscure facts and details about the LM, Rover, and other Apollo hardware from this archive.

A complete set of blueprints of the world's first Particle Accelerator don't survive to this day nor does the very first aircraft, HMS Victory or even the Titanic. Does it mean that they didn't exist or were not built? It's another ridiculous claim.

[A film clip (8.6Mb) shows Charlie Duke and Bob Parker participating in a shirtsleeve demonstration of Rover deployment. Digitization by Gary Neff.]

[Don McMillan has provided an animation ( 0.7 Mb ) of his Virtual Rover unfolding during deployment. A second animation shows the hinges in action.]

36

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 20, 2014, 05:05:52 AM »

Hi again Gulliver,

what evidence remains of this tracking?  Is it more than the text in the wikipedian entry?  What happened to the hours and hours and hours of the transmissions from these missions?  What happened to the blueprints of the "spacecraft".

I shall repeat ad nauseum, "extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence".

37

Flat Earth Community / Internet Radio Program - Any Globalists Interested?

« on: September 20, 2014, 04:40:41 AM »

Hi Globalists,

I am interested in discussing the issue of global vs flat earth and record the discussion on skype.  My objective would be to have the recording put into Markus Allens Vault if he accepts it.

My thinking is that we jointly develop an agenda for the discussion and ensure that both parties have their views on each agenda item expressed in full.  This would be obtained by asking the question "do you agree that your views on this topic have been fully aired?" and seeking a "yes" before moving from the agenda point.

If anyone is interested, please post a message in my inbox.

Anounceofsaltperday

38

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 20, 2014, 04:35:55 AM »

Hi Gulliver,  most amusing... the space agencies are totally independent.. very droll

39

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 20, 2014, 02:04:05 AM »

Hi Pythagoras.  I have to type that I am with the skeptics here.  As far as I can see, you have provided ABSOLUTE PROOF that the moon landing could have been faked easily.  How can a CGI reconstruction prove anything?  If we accept your argument, it shows at best that the lighting of the astronaut is not inconsistent with the possibility that this photo was taken on the putative moon.  I for one do not rely on the conjecture that the lighting of the astronaut is impossible to have the view that the apollo missions are fraudulent. 

The extraordinary claim that the Apollo missions are as they are painted requires extraordinary proof.  All the salient original records, blueprints, films, video records and documents have been "lost" so I guess that's that.

40

Flat Earth Community / Re: Elections and Impeachment

« on: September 18, 2014, 10:54:42 AM »

I wish to nominate for the council.