8621
Flat Earth Community / Re: Today is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger Disaster...
« on: February 16, 2017, 04:30:00 PM »There's again no motive. Why would they fake a failure?
The motive is covering up a prop malfunction.
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.
There's again no motive. Why would they fake a failure?
Bahahahaa! This makes zero since. So they are still operating under their old SSN? And that's not riskier than trying to get their name changed? Or did they get them a new SSN, forge a work history, family history, but decided "nah, let them keep their old name"? Lol.
Alright, that's all the stupid I can handle for today...
Which is why witness protection never bothered changing people's names either... oh wait. They did.
I noticed you deleted some stuff questioning Judith Reznik's past. In case you are still curious...
https://www.law.yale.edu/judith-resnik
https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/JResnik_Publications.pdf
"Hey, what should my back story be?"
"Pretend to be a CEO. That should be easy to get away with!"
"Brilliant!"
So good that they managed to pull off a massive conspiracy without being caught, but so incompetent that they would let the people whose deaths they faked just walk out and live public lives without changing their names or appearances? Lol, ok...
And "lie low"? Richard Scobee was a CEO even before disaster happened!
Right, and you are making that call based on a 30 year timelapse between the photos? Lol. You are seeing what you want to see.
Newspapers and TV's were a thing back then. This event was all over the news. Their names and faces were all over the news.
Like I said, you are seeing what you want to see. Their voices definitely don't sound alike. Finding a picture of them making a similar facial expression is not particularly convincing.
2 of them are pictures of their brothers. Lol. Surprise, surprise, brothers look alike.
The entire premise of this is ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that if NASA really faked their deaths, they would let them keep their old names? Or that they would make them assume the lives of their brothers without anyone noticing?
Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."
Amir D. Aczel, Pendulum: Léon Foucault and the triumph of science
Of course it works for RET. It works for RET on pretty much any day of the year and from pretty much any latitude. The problem is that it only works for FET on certain days of the year and from certain latitudes. Why is that?Are you saying that days of an equinox are the only days that the FE version of the experiment ever work properly? Why is it that the RE version works just fine on any day of the year?
Actually, the method described in the article works for RET as well. There are several ways to get your latitude, that is only one of them.
Are you saying that days of an equinox are the only days that the FE version of the experiment ever work properly? Why is it that the RE version works just fine on any day of the year?
Actually, the method described in the article works for RET as well. There are several ways to get your latitude, that is only one of them.
You are right, Tom, it does say equinox. I mis-applied the wiki latitude formula to a time that wasn't at equinox. My bad.
Can you please explain how it works on a flat earth? The north pole for example is 6215 statute miles from the equator. If the sun is 3,000 miles above the flat earth right over the equator on equinox then its elevation angle would be 25.8 degrees at the poles. Real observations show the sun to be right on the horizon during the equinox at both poles simultaneously.
How does the flat earth model explain it? How has TFES derived its latitude formula?
To me, the observations are explained by the spherical earht heliocentric model.
I'm pretty sure that independent people also found pieces of Challenger.Prop malfunction.What a disgusting way to pass off the deaths of seven people, just because your closed mind can't accept the truth.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/18/us/challenger-parts-wash-ashore-almost-11-years-after-explosion.html
If you are claiming that they are insulation materials, then you seem to be claiming that NASA took great care with constructing the real space ship underneath and just slaps on the important heat shielding loosely and haphazardly, in an apparently sloppy manner.Again, I never said that, Tom. Are you smoking and hallucinating?
The narrative that NASA was sending sloppy Lunar Landers to the moon with the externals seemingly built by teenagers just doesn't fit with the story that this was a professionally built marvel of engineering that was sent to the moon.
I'm stating that both the exterior hull and the insulation blankets were carefully crafted and revised a number of times. I'm stating that what you call tape was deemed enough for the blankets to stay in place and not tearing. I'm stating that given that it takes circa 1.6 newton's of thrust to lift 1kg from the moon and the LM weighed more than 16,000 kg, the lightest possible solution was key to the design. Installing heavy metal brackets to keep insulation in place (and being a too rigid solution to not tear the insulation apart) would seriously impact the fuel budget, and as you might know, you have to bring both propellant and an oxidizer.
"The photo shows the Ascent Stage in the process of assembly, before the heat shielding had been put on it:"
I'm talking about the many gaps in the exterior white hull. The pieces of the hull are not properly fitted or sealed together and there are gaps everywhere.
that's not the hull. that's paper taped to the hull.
You are aware, that in an environment with no atmosphere, dust doesn't behave like you think it does, right?Could you at least point us to the part that looks like it is "loosely held together"? I honestly have no idea what part you are talking about.
The general answer is this: making something air tight is more time consuming, heavier, and costlier than not making it air tight. If there is no reason to make it air tight, then they aren't going to bother. Electronics don't need an airtight compartment.
You are aware that when the craft landed it allegedly made large clouds of lunar dust that went everywhere. Are you telling me that NASA didn't really care about the then unknown properties of the lunar dust getting into the many gaps in the exterior hull, and onto all of the electronics?
The dust would leave the surface in the direction it's being pushed, which is, below a rocket exhaust, outwards. Dust doesn't swirl around in a vacuum like it does here on earth.
The dust would go in many directions. If you stick your face up to fine soot and give it a puff with your mouth, you will get bounceback directly into your nose -- and the fact that it gets into your nose has little to do with the atmosphere.
A real space agency and real engineers would have properly sealed the hull. Your denial and excuses are pathetic.
Pathetic? I'm not making up excuses or denying anything. Making up stuff is on your account, Tom. Be as offensive as you see fit, you're quite clearly the dumber of the two of us no matter how hard you try. Browsing this thread for replies is all it takes to confirm.
For instance, you just compared sticking your face in the sand and giving it a puff on earth with rocket engines delivering several thousand pounds of thrust against the regolith on the Moon. Heh, really?
Thank you for confirming that you're taking the bury your head in the sand approach. Even though it's not that surprising to me.
A real space agency and real engineers would have properly sealed the hull. Your denial and excuses are pathetic.
this has been explained to you many times before. the paper is not the hull. the paper covers parts of the exterior of the craft. that's it. its function is to keep some components from getting hot from sunlight exposure.
Yes, so often we find some flat-earthers swearing black and blue that Antarctica is inaccessible, that we are stupid to talk about a South Pole and lying (yes, I have been accused of thst) to claim that we can see the rotation of stars about the South Celestial Pole.
Then when we try to give evidence for these things we again told not to be stupid, "That''s not the official map!"
There is no such thing as "The Flat Earth"! It seems as though there is a different flat earth model dragged out to suit the occasion!
I know of three or more "maps" (continental layouts) and three or more different explanations for gravity - though not on this site.
But how is any newcomer meant to sort this out? The Wiki saysQuoteCircumnavigation
The Flat Earth is laid out like a North-Azimuthal projection.
The North Pole is at the center while Antarctica is at the rim. The continents are spread out around the North Pole.
It really does seem a case of "Would the real flat earth please stand up!"
You are aware, that in an environment with no atmosphere, dust doesn't behave like you think it does, right?Could you at least point us to the part that looks like it is "loosely held together"? I honestly have no idea what part you are talking about.
The general answer is this: making something air tight is more time consuming, heavier, and costlier than not making it air tight. If there is no reason to make it air tight, then they aren't going to bother. Electronics don't need an airtight compartment.
You are aware that when the craft landed it allegedly made large clouds of lunar dust that went everywhere. Are you telling me that NASA didn't really care about the then unknown properties of the lunar dust getting into the many gaps in the exterior hull, and onto all of the electronics?
The dust would leave the surface in the direction it's being pushed, which is, below a rocket exhaust, outwards. Dust doesn't swirl around in a vacuum like it does here on earth.