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.

8622

Flat Earth Community / Re: Today is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger Disaster...

« on: February 16, 2017, 02:10:42 AM »

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...

The author of the article exposing the astronauts notes that he searched ancestry.com for SSDI death records for several astronauts and they were not found. A later update towards the bottom in May of 2015 he says that he was suddenly able to find SSDI records for the astronauts on Ancestry and hints at the possibility of the government modifying the SSDI records similar to another case.

Presumably the government did not file proper death records until people started to investigate this matter and they had to sound the alarms and cover up their sloppy mistakes, just as they have tried to cover up so many other mistakes.

8623

Flat Earth Community / Re: Today is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger Disaster...

« on: February 16, 2017, 12:17:28 AM »

Which is why witness protection never bothered changing people's names either... oh wait. They did.

That would involve convincing other federal agencies to join in on your scam. Sounds risky.

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

She wrote and dated all of that herself. But it appears that most of her career achievements took place after 2000. Pretty late for an old lady like that.

"Hey, what should my back story be?"
"Pretend to be a CEO. That should be easy to get away with!"
"Brilliant!"

He went back to school for an MBA. If he was as ambitious as he was in his past life, it follows that he would be a CEO in his new one.

These dead astronauts were reckless and ambitious and achieved too much. Now their pictures are plastered all over the internet.

8624

Flat Earth Community / Re: Today is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger Disaster...

« on: February 15, 2017, 11:50:35 PM »

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...

Again, in 1986 the internet was barely an email and bulletin board system, no one had any idea what it could become. None of this would have been discoverable back then at all. The technology of today was unimaginable. People were more anonymous back then. Simple instructions like move to another city and work in a different field may have seemed sufficient to an organization who had never really done this before. They may have even offered to pay to send them back to school.

And "lie low"? Richard Scobee was a CEO even before disaster happened!

Did you think he would list "Dead Astronaut" on his bio?

Notice how he does not list the date of graduation from his university.

8625

Flat Earth Community / Re: Today is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger Disaster...

« on: February 15, 2017, 10:57:05 PM »

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.

Towards the end of my source article the author attempts to look for birth records of those brothers on Ancestry.com, the most comprehensive genealogy website in the US, and found no records of their birth.

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.

Yes, but no one was really looking for them, and trust in NASA was through the roof. They may have had them lie low for a while, and figured that everything would be okay. No one said that NASA was very good at this.

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.

This isn't just passing resemblance here. They are twins right down to that odd lip dip thing she has going on.

They have the same name, they look alike, and have the same facial ticks. It's more than mere chance coincidence.

8626

Flat Earth Community / Re: Today is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger Disaster...

« on: February 15, 2017, 10:29:00 PM »

2 of them are pictures of their brothers. Lol. Surprise, surprise, brothers look alike.

Plausible, but adult brothers of the same parents usually look different, not identical.

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?

The disaster happened on Jan 28th, 1986, long before the internet took off. They may have moved the astronauts to a new city and thought that would be enough. The internet was still very early and mostly in text only stage, and this kind of independent investigation may not have been forseen.

The Judith Resnik women are definitely the same woman.

8627

Flat Earth Community / Re: Today is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger Disaster...

« on: February 15, 2017, 09:40:40 PM »

Notice the upper lip of the Judith Resnik woman:



Also compare the voice and tone of the astronaut Judith Resniks and the professor Judith Resniks:

8628

Flat Earth Community / Re: Today is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger Disaster...

« on: February 15, 2017, 08:06:48 PM »

It's interesting that several of those people have the same or similar names as their Challenger doppelgangers.

Source: https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/04/30/are-the-crew-members-of-1986-space-shuttle-challenger-still-alive/

8629

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Foucault Pendulum

« on: February 15, 2017, 01:11:35 AM »

http://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

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

8630

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude

« on: February 13, 2017, 10:14:57 PM »

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.

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?

The method being discussed doesn't work for RET on any day of the year.

8631

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude

« on: February 13, 2017, 10:14:18 PM »

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.

The sun is at or near the horizon at the poles. This is due to other effects which limits its duration, otherwise the earth would be in perpetual daylight.

8632

Flat Earth Community / Re: Today is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger Disaster...

« on: February 13, 2017, 09:36:10 PM »

Prop malfunction.

What a disgusting way to pass off the deaths of seven people, just because your closed mind can't accept the truth.

I'm pretty sure that independent people also found pieces of Challenger.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/18/us/challenger-parts-wash-ashore-almost-11-years-after-explosion.html

They found pieces of a prop.

8633

Flat Earth Community / Re: This wiki entry though......

« on: February 12, 2017, 08:48:31 PM »

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.

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.

Again, I never said that, Tom. Are you smoking and hallucinating?

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.

Nope, scroll up to my next post. One of your Stack Exchange experts says that the electronics were right under the heat shielding. There is no real external hull.

8634

Flat Earth Community / Re: This wiki entry though......

« on: February 12, 2017, 08:41:44 PM »

According to one of your stack exchange experts the heat shielding WAS the external hull.

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/why-does-the-ascent-stage-of-apollo-11s-lunar-module-look-like-its-made-of-pap

"The photo shows the Ascent Stage in the process of assembly, before the heat shielding had been put on it:

"

8635

Flat Earth Community / Re: This wiki entry though......

« on: February 12, 2017, 08:35:17 PM »

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.

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.

8636

Flat Earth Community / Re: This wiki entry though......

« on: February 12, 2017, 08:18:57 PM »

You are the one with the position that NASA really did not care whether lunar dust, with then-unknown properties, gets into the exterior hull and onto all of the electronics, and that a flimsily held together external hull with lots of gaps is just great for a space ship which goes to the the lunar surface. I'm not really sure how much sadder the denial can get. 

8637

Flat Earth Community / Re: This wiki entry though......

« on: February 12, 2017, 07:44:24 PM »

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.

Sure, sure, the real space ship is underneath the poorly crafted space ship.

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?

You are aware, that in an environment with no atmosphere, dust doesn't behave like you think it does, right?

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.

When the Lunar Lander lands, the exhaust is gradually lowered for the landing as it travels along the surface. You knew that, right? The engine is not always on many thousands of pounds high. The engineers should be prepared for the lunar dust to go everywhere.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/landing_site/

"On Apollo 11, a significant dust cloud was visible when the lunar module was still 30 meters above the surface."

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4214/ch9-5.html

"While Armstrong was maneuvering to avoid a boulder field, alarms sounded in the lunar module indicating that the computer was overloaded. Mission Control quickly told the crew to proceed. Then, as fuel was running low, a dust cloud obscured the surface and Armstrong had to touch down without a good view of his landing spot."

Very dusty!

However, the prop masters and film makers did such a terrible job that they did not bother to put any lunar dust on the post-landing Lunar Lander at all to account for this dust cloud story. The astronauts are remarked saying that a lot of dust was kicked up, yet the pictures of the craft and of the footpads of the craft lack the presence of any dust at all.

And then to top it off we are expected to believe that Neil Armstrong hops out of the craft and famously plants a first deep footprint into the Lunar soil! 

8638

Flat Earth Community / Re: This wiki entry though......

« on: February 12, 2017, 06:24:57 PM »

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.

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.

8639

Flat Earth Community / Re: Testing Flattards Part 2 - Cool Hard Logic

« on: February 12, 2017, 06:22:47 PM »

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.

And if you ask four different physicists or physics teachers what causes Gravity you might be told by one that its a bending of space time, another that its a messenger particle, that it is a force of some kind, and yet another might tell you that we don't really know at all.

But how is any newcomer meant to sort this out? The Wiki says

Circumnavigation
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!"

Since the article provides an accompanying illustration using the mono-pole model, it's clearly talking about circumnavigation on the mono-pole model. I see that article as useful for explaining some introductory concepts.

The Wiki doesn't hold any official model. Eventually it will contain separate explanations for the bi-polar model as well.

8640

Flat Earth Community / Re: This wiki entry though......

« on: February 12, 2017, 06:09:22 PM »

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?

You are aware, that in an environment with no atmosphere, dust doesn't behave like you think it does, right?

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.