1
Technology & Information / Re: T-minus 10 hours - Artemis Mission to Moon
« on: November 17, 2022, 12:58:39 AM »
Are people suggesting that it is just flying away into the distance just to land somewhere? lol
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.
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?
Being gay is sexual. Being straight is...not sexual.
Quote from: secretagent10Tom, 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.
Presumably beyond the light of the Sun the water would naturally freeze.
That is incorrect, one person absolutely can moonbounce to themselves. Here's an article from the Radio Society of Great Britain: https://rsgb.org/main/technical/space-satellites/moonbounce/
"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.