Just a friendly reminder to everyone who saw the eclipse today. Despite that the sun's diameter is hundreds of times larger than moon and millions of miles distant, the sun and moon appear to be the same size from earth and fit perfectly into each other during the Solar Eclipse. The official scientific reason for this is that it is a coincidence.
(http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/full/public/2017/08/21/eclipse_6.jpg)
Just a friendly reminder to everyone who saw the eclipse today. Despite that the sun's diameter is hundreds of times larger than moon and millions of miles distant, the sun and moon appear to be the same size from earth and fit perfectly into each other during the Solar Eclipse. The official scientific reason for this is that it is a coincidence.I mean, why do they match up exactly for FE? Isn't it simply coincidence they're the same size? Actually, what is the origin of Earth and everything in the FE hypothesis? I don't recall seeing it before. Do you rely on a powerful being a la religion? Or something else?
(http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/full/public/2017/08/21/eclipse_6.jpg)
I mean, why do they match up exactly for FE? Isn't it simply coincidence they're the same size? Actually, what is the origin of Earth and everything in the FE hypothesis? I don't recall seeing it before. Do you rely on a powerful being a la religion? Or something else?
While interesting, and nothing I've ever heard before (got any math or examples where there's only a single force acting upon something that creates this requirement? Water can certainly form larger droplets when sheltered from wind resistance for example) how about the actual creation? I mean, if everything else is a sphere, that would dictate the Earth had to be made in a different manner would it not? It can't be obeying the same laws as every other object, so that seems to rule out the Big Bang Theory as how things formed. Is there not one right now? Or do you chalk it up to god/gods?I mean, why do they match up exactly for FE? Isn't it simply coincidence they're the same size? Actually, what is the origin of Earth and everything in the FE hypothesis? I don't recall seeing it before. Do you rely on a powerful being a la religion? Or something else?
Under FE the explanation is that the sun and moon appear to be the same size because they are the same size. The Sun and Moon being the same size may be explained as the result of a physical process which limits the maximum size of a body, similar to how wind can limit the maximum size of a sand dune. Finding two large sand dunes at the same maximum size is no coincidence.
Consider rain drops. When drops are formed, they can only become so small else they are whisked and flitted away into the air and evaporate. They can also only get so large before they break up into multiple drops by air friction. Therefore we have rain drops which can only exist in a narrow size range. The largest of the raindrops are all the same size and the smallest of the rain drops are all the same size.
Examples of forces in nature which compel bodies to be of similar sizes are seen all around us, and while it is unknown exactly what forces the Sun and Moon are under, it is no coincidence that maximums exist in nature.
Under this Round Earth Theory scenerio, however, there is no other way to describe this phenomenon of two radically different bodies appearing as the same size other than it being a coincidence of cosmic proportions.
Just a friendly reminder to everyone who saw the eclipse today. Despite that the Sun is 4 million times larger than the Moon, the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size from earth and fit perfectly into each other during the Solar Eclipse. The official scientific reason for this is that it is a coincidence.
(http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/full/public/2017/08/21/eclipse_6.jpg)
"The sun in the sky walked
And for cloud ran,
Looked sainika in the window,
Became saince dark.
And magpies
White-sided
Galloped through the fields,
Cried the crane:
“Woe! Woe! Crocodile
The sun in the sky swallowed!
There was darkness,
Do not go outside the gate:
People on the street got -
Lost and gone.
Cries grey Sparrow:
“Come, honey, hurry!
Us without the sun it's a shame -
In the field of grain is not visible!”
Cry of Bunny
On the lawn:
Lost, the poor, the way,
Them to the house not to walk.
Only cancers eyed
On the earth in the darkness of the climb,
Yes in the ravine behind the mountain
The rabid wolves howl.
Early
Two sheep
Banged on the gate:
Tra-TA-TA, tra-TA-TA!
“Hey you, animals, going out,
Crocodile defeat,
To the greedy Crocodile
The sun in the sky captains!”
But shaggy afraid:
“Where we like to fight!
He and menacing, and toothy,
He told us the sun will not give up!”
And run them to Bear in the den:
“Come here you, Bear to the rescue.
Fully paw you, bum, suck,
Should the sun go fetch!”
But the Bears don't want to fight:
When he goes he goes, Bear, round swamp
He is crying, the Bear, and roars,
The cubs he calls from the swamp:
“Oh, where are you, mastopatie disappeared?
Who are you me old, threw?”
And in the swamp bear prowling around,
Cubs under the driftwood is looking for:
“Where are you, where are you gone?
Or in the ditch fell?
Or a stray dog
You broke the darkness?”
And all day she wanders through the forest,
But nowhere bears no finds.
Only black owls from the thicket
On her eyes teramat.
Then the angel went
And the Bear said:
“It's a shame the old blub -
You're not a hare and a Bear.
You podi, clumsy,
Crocodile escarpa,
Tear him to pieces,
Pluck the sun out of his mouth
And when it again
Will be in the sky to Shine
Kids your furry,
The cubs mastopatie,
Themselves to home resort:
“Hello, grandpa, here we are!”
And stood
Bear,
Growled
Bear,
And to the Great River
Ran
Bear.
And in the Big River
Crocodile
Lies,
And his teeth
No fire is lit -
Red sun,
The sun is stolen.
Came the Bear quietly,
He alkanol it lightly:
“I tell thee, villain,
Spit out the sun soon!
Not that he'll get it -
Half break, -
Are you ignorant, know
Our sun to steal!
Lost the whole world,
And him and grief no!”
But shameless laughs
So that the tree shakes:
“If you want,
And the moon I'll swallow it!”
Not stand,
Bear,
Roared
Bear,
And evil enemy
Bumped
Bear.
He rumpled his
And broke it:
“Give here
Our sun!”
Scared Crocodile,
Screamed, cried,
And out of his mouth
From toothy
The sun fell,
The sky was rolled out!
Ran through the bushes,
On birch leaves.
Hello, the sun was Golden!
Hello, the sky is blue!
Steel birds Twitter,
For insects to fly.
Became the Bunny
On the lawn
Tumbling and jumping.
And look: the cubs,
How funny kittens,
Straight to grandpa hairy,
Mastopatie, run:
"Hello, grandpa, here we are!"
Happy bunnies and squirrels,
Happy boys and girls
Hug and kiss clumsy:
"Well, thank you, grandpa, for the sun!"
Tom Bishop, i don't ever believe in coincidences! Everything in our reality always seems to have "multi-layered" premises.
On one layer, for example, the sun possibly gets (autonomous) maintenance, on other it could be a flaw in design, and the third could be, that the flaw is very intelligently and smartly used for other purposes of the designer.
It doesn't quite relate to the topic or answers, but the sun and the moon are definitely artificial and are in multitudes, deployed in various regions. I don't know who made, or makes them regularly.
Just in case it might be interesting for someone(i hope someone will get insipiration from this for their artwork), i'm gonna retranslate a crazytheoryhypothesis by ukrainian conspirologist Vyacheslav Kotlyarov (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0fbdkEwsR9RQRWPGHGONlA/playlists) about the sun, that more reads like a fantasy story:
There was a single sun on earth, just as in both flat earth and oblate spheroid earth theories( i personally assume and start to believe, right now there are many suns). It was larger than 32 miles in diameter, it was higher than 6000 miles up. And There was and is a bi-dome/shell/mantle/"egg"/"snowball"/"bubble" surrounding earth with bigger altitude relative to ground.
But the sun was replaced by, if they actually existed and exist now, reptilian-draconian-insectoid hierarchical/hive consciousness alien(4th dimensional entities) bond at the time of beginning of human enslavement/"occupation" 200-300 years ago. And after the enslavement there was a "reboot" of human history. And even today constant history rewrites are happening via intelligent deep brainwashing from childhood to death of humans and complete infiltration in every aspects of human life of aliens(4th dimensional beings), hiding in interactive holographic human cloaks.
Brainwashing and aliens are the only parts, which i'm starting to believe in myself.
This wouldn't be nearly as interesting if there was actual evidence for any of this. (don't bother linking the half-baked videos you've already posted)It depends on a person. Some, religious or not, people( like me) will be amazed by this hypothesis and " half-baked" videos, and will start to question whether it's real or not. So as i wrote it before, i'm beginning to believe it's more to the truth than ever, but i'm still tiny bit,
There's probably a better thread to put this in, but I would think you would appreciate this some Hmmm. http://i.imgur.com/VHcCgPe.mp4This wouldn't be nearly as interesting if there was actual evidence for any of this. (don't bother linking the half-baked videos you've already posted)It depends on a person. Some, religious or not, people( like me) will be amazed by this hypothesis and " half-baked" videos, and will start to question whether it's real or not. So as i wrote it before, i'm beginning to believe it's more to the truth than ever, but i'm still tiny bit, unnoticeably, skeptical.
This wouldn't be nearly as interesting if there was actual evidence for any of this. (don't bother linking the half-baked videos you've already posted)It depends on a person. Some, religious or not, people( like me) will be amazed by this hypothesis and " half-baked" videos, and will start to question whether it's real or not. So as i wrote it before, i'm beginning to believe it's more to the truth than ever, but i'm still tiny bit, unnoticeably, skeptical.
... the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size from earth and fit perfectly into each other during the Solar Eclipse. The official scientific reason for this is that it is a coincidence.
At present, the Moon gets 3.8 cm further away from Earth every year, and it was much closer to Earth in prehistoric times.
https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/will-the-moon-ever-leave-earths-orbit/ (https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/will-the-moon-ever-leave-earths-orbit/)
Measurements disagree.... the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size from earth and fit perfectly into each other during the Solar Eclipse. The official scientific reason for this is that it is a coincidence.
Coincidence is an interesting way of putting it. Probability is the word I would choose. Look at this...Quote from: David DoranAt present, the Moon gets 3.8 cm further away from Earth every year, and it was much closer to Earth in prehistoric times.
https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/will-the-moon-ever-leave-earths-orbit/ (https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/will-the-moon-ever-leave-earths-orbit/)
For millions of years the moon has appeared to be larger than the sun and for millions of years into the future the moon will appear to be smaller than the sun. At some point in the cosmic time line it must appear the same size. That is not coincidence; that's probability.
Measurements disagree.... the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size from earth and fit perfectly into each other during the Solar Eclipse. The official scientific reason for this is that it is a coincidence.
Coincidence is an interesting way of putting it. Probability is the word I would choose. Look at this...Quote from: David DoranAt present, the Moon gets 3.8 cm further away from Earth every year, and it was much closer to Earth in prehistoric times.
https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/will-the-moon-ever-leave-earths-orbit/ (https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/will-the-moon-ever-leave-earths-orbit/)
For millions of years the moon has appeared to be larger than the sun and for millions of years into the future the moon will appear to be smaller than the sun. At some point in the cosmic time line it must appear the same size. That is not coincidence; that's probability.
While gravitation causes acceleration and movement of the Earth's fluid oceans, gravitational coupling between the Moon and Earth's solid body is mostly elastic and plastic. The result is a further tidal effect of the Moon on the Earth that causes a bulge of the solid portion of the Earth nearest the Moon that acts as a torque in opposition to the Earth's rotation. This "drains" angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy from Earth's spin, slowing the Earth's rotation. That angular momentum, lost from the Earth, is transferred to the Moon in a process (confusingly known as tidal acceleration), which lifts the Moon into a higher orbit and results in its lower orbital speed about the Earth. Thus the distance between Earth and Moon is increasing, and the Earth's spin is slowing in reaction. Measurements from laser reflectors left during the Apollo missions (lunar ranging experiments) have found that the Moon's distance increases by 38 mm (1.5 in) per year (roughly the rate at which human fingernails grow). Atomic clocks also show that Earth's day lengthens by about 15 microseconds every year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Tidal_effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Tidal_effects)
the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size from earth and fit perfectly into each other during the Solar Eclipse.Except when it's an annular solar eclipse.
Except when it's an annular solar eclipse.
What if the solar eclipse is a part of a sun hologram, and the sun is definitely an interactive hologram!What if we're all floating unconscious in a giant jar of magical peanut butter along with unicorns and leprechauns with 3.1415 fingers on each hand, and they're manipulating our brains Matrix-style using fairy dust and reptilian magic to make us experience the things we do, AND make annular solar eclipses possible?
Just fixing your finger count.What if the solar eclipse is a part of a sun hologram, and the sun is definitely an interactive hologram!What if we're all floating unconscious in a giant jar of magical peanut butter along with unicorns and leprechauns with3.14153.1416 fingers on each hand, and they're manipulating our brains Matrix-style using fairy dust and reptilian magic to make us experience the things we do, AND make annular solar eclipses possible?
Everyone can write up some bullshit that is impossible to directly disprove. It will still be bullshit, though.
And that's disregarding the fact that my bullshit is still even harder to disprove than yours...
Just fixing your finger count.What if the solar eclipse is a part of a sun hologram, and the sun is definitely an interactive hologram!What if we're all floating unconscious in a giant jar of magical peanut butter along with unicorns and leprechauns with3.14153.1416 fingers on each hand, and they're manipulating our brains Matrix-style using fairy dust and reptilian magic to make us experience the things we do, AND make annular solar eclipses possible?
Everyone can write up some bullshit that is impossible to directly disprove. It will still be bullshit, though.
And that's disregarding the fact that my bullshit is still even harder to disprove than yours...
Just a friendly reminder to everyone who saw the eclipse today. Despite that the Sun is 4 million times larger than the Moon, the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size from earth and fit perfectly into each other during the Solar Eclipse. The official scientific reason for this is that it is a coincidence.
(http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/full/public/2017/08/21/eclipse_6.jpg)
Also, it's not a perfect coincidence (see annular eclipses, which by the way are yet another problem for the mechanism proposed by the FES)In what way are annular eclipses less coincidental than any other type of eclipse?
The coincidence Tom and other FE mock is that Moon and Sun appear to be exactly the same size in the sky despite being vastly different sizes. During the annular eclipse the moon does not appear to be exactly the same size, it appears to be a little smaller.Also, it's not a perfect coincidence (see annular eclipses, which by the way are yet another problem for the mechanism proposed by the FES)In what way are annular eclipses less coincidental than any other type of eclipse?
As Rounder said. Tom put it as if the relative sizes and distances were a perfect coincidence, too good to be true. They aren't, see annular eclipses.Also, it's not a perfect coincidence (see annular eclipses, which by the way are yet another problem for the mechanism proposed by the FES)In what way are annular eclipses less coincidental than any other type of eclipse?
The coincidence Tom and other FE mock is that Moon and Sun appear to be exactly the same size in the sky despite being vastly different sizes. During the annular eclipse the moon does not appear to be exactly the same size, it appears to be a little smaller.Which is exactly what you'd expect as the altitude of the bodies relative to Earth's surface varies slightly. This is true of both models, but the "coincidence" element of RET remains unexplained. Ga_x2's claim was that it's no longer a coincidence because sometimes they don't appear identical, but rather near-identical. I fail to see how that's any less of a coincidence and would appreciate an explanation.
That's a good question about annular eclipses, but I'm certain Tom has figured this one out. He's the greatest FE mind of our generation. Tom?
It's a coincidence to the extent that the moon happens to be able to cover the sun most of the times, yes. I was just pointing out that that's not one of those perfect clockwork things.The coincidence Tom and other FE mock is that Moon and Sun appear to be exactly the same size in the sky despite being vastly different sizes. During the annular eclipse the moon does not appear to be exactly the same size, it appears to be a little smaller.Which is exactly what you'd expect as the altitude of the bodies relative to Earth's surface varies slightly. This is true of both models, but the "coincidence" element of RET remains unexplained. Ga_x2's claim was that it's no longer a coincidence because sometimes they don't appear identical, but rather near-identical. I fail to see how that's any less of a coincidence and would appreciate an explanation.
Actually (at least according to Tom in another post) the FE hypothesis claims there's a maximum size anything can naturally be. Thus the moon/sun being the same size isn't a coincidence, but rather simply a factor of the universe. He pointed to raindrops only being within a relatively small band, as well as sand dunes only being so high and many of them will be that height.That's a good question about annular eclipses, but I'm certain Tom has figured this one out. He's the greatest FE mind of our generation. Tom?
If that's the case, the FE movement may be in trouble. lol
There are a lot of coincidence. It's a coincidence that the sun is close enough to provide the right amount of light and heat but not so close as to burn us up. There are many more. These would be coincidences under FET or GET. This proves nothing about the shape of the earth.
These coincidences may be an argument for a creator or some type of ID but not for the shape of the earth.
Actually (at least according to Tom in another post) the FE hypothesis claims there's a maximum size anything can naturally be. Thus the moon/sun being the same size isn't a coincidence, but rather simply a factor of the universe. He pointed to raindrops only being within a relatively small band, as well as sand dunes only being so high and many of them will be that height.Sorry I missed that one spectacularly ad hoc explanation... these threads go everywhere :D
He did not mention anything. Upon a quick inspection the post appears to be his second in this thread. http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6772.msg123434#msg123434Actually (at least according to Tom in another post) the FE hypothesis claims there's a maximum size anything can naturally be. Thus the moon/sun being the same size isn't a coincidence, but rather simply a factor of the universe. He pointed to raindrops only being within a relatively small band, as well as sand dunes only being so high and many of them will be that height.Sorry I missed that one spectacularly ad hoc explanation... these threads go everywhere :D
Did he say anything about annular eclipses too?
He did not mention anything. Upon a quick inspection the post appears to be his second in this thread. http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6772.msg123434#msg123434Thank you!
I asked him after he said that, but he never got back to me. So no idea, because I haven't found anything either.He did not mention anything. Upon a quick inspection the post appears to be his second in this thread. http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6772.msg123434#msg123434Thank you!
It still looks like he's making stuff up to justify the coincidence after the fact, but at least it's a start :D
By the by... is there anything on the origin of the sun, the moon or the whole shebang somewhere? He makes it sound as if it is some sort of accretion, with those examples, but I haven't found anything in the wiki.
I asked him after he said that, but he never got back to me. So no idea, because I haven't found anything either.Judging by the posts, as of right now I would pick:"special creation by a drunken god".
It WOULD make The Big Bang pretty hard to be the origins though, considering it would need a mechanism to make Earth not follow the laws/rules of everything else.
In what way are annular eclipses less coincidental than any other type of eclipse?
That's a good question about annular eclipses, but I'm certain Tom has figured this one out. He's the greatest FE mind of our generation. Tom?
Just look to the dozen or so threads I've started in the "Debates" forum...read the sequence of posts from me and from Tom - not a single one of them ended up with an FE "win".
I claim the Earth is round.Just look to the dozen or so threads I've started in the "Debates" forum...read the sequence of posts from me and from Tom - not a single one of them ended up with an FE "win".
We win when you present a positive claim, we ask for evidence for that claim, and you are unable to provide any.
You claim that military space agencies are honest. Where is the evidence for that claim? We can show plenty of reasons not to trust military.
You claim that military space agencies are honest. Where is the evidence for that claim? We can show plenty of reasons not to trust military.
You claim that military space agencies are honest. Where is the evidence for that claim? We can show plenty of reasons not to trust military.
No one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence that NASA is fake or lying to you.
That was a pretty funny film, thanks for the watch. The guy plays a stereotypical conspiracy theorist to a 'T' and is very believable. Shame all he's doing is parroting someone else, would have loved to see him try some of his own material.You claim that military space agencies are honest. Where is the evidence for that claim? We can show plenty of reasons not to trust military.
No one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence that NASA is fake or lying to you.
You're grinning ear to ear right. NASA lies more than it says anything truthful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNBebmu4UbY
That was a pretty funny film, thanks for the watch. The guy plays a stereotypical conspiracy theorist to a 'T' and is very believable. Shame all he's doing is parroting someone else, would have loved to see him try some of his own material.You claim that military space agencies are honest. Where is the evidence for that claim? We can show plenty of reasons not to trust military.
No one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence that NASA is fake or lying to you.
You're grinning ear to ear right. NASA lies more than it says anything truthful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNBebmu4UbY
You claim that military space agencies are honest. Where is the evidence for that claim? We can show plenty of reasons not to trust military.
You claim that military space agencies are honest. Where is the evidence for that claim? We can show plenty of reasons not to trust military.
SpaceX isn't a military operation. It's a private company. Are you claiming that all private enterprises are inherently untrustworthy as well? Private companies must deliver a service or good to customers to stay in business. Almost 90% fail in 5 years or less. SpaceX was founded in 2002 and has delivered products to customers successfully enough to last beyond the 5 year mark. How could they have faked all of their products and results without their customers filing a class action lawsuit?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
You claim that military space agencies are honest. Where is the evidence for that claim? We can show plenty of reasons not to trust military.
SpaceX isn't a military operation. It's a private company. Are you claiming that all private enterprises are inherently untrustworthy as well? Private companies must deliver a service or good to customers to stay in business. Almost 90% fail in 5 years or less. SpaceX was founded in 2002 and has delivered products to customers successfully enough to last beyond the 5 year mark. How could they have faked all of their products and results without their customers filing a class action lawsuit?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
The rockets are real and need to get to very high altitudes under FET, so I am not sure why you think the rockets would be fake and that SpaceX wouldn't need to deliver any working rockets.
Because beyond just launching rockets into the sky, they are delivering payloads into space. SpaceX has done resupply missions to the ISS, which I'm guessing you think doesn't exist. (oddly enough, there is a website that allows you to see when the ISS will be passing over your location and you can actually go outside and see it at night. Not sure how they pull that one off) Other companies are deploying commercial satellites and cubesats. (small satellites, often made by students) If I pay a large sum of money, I want my satellite in orbit. The commercial companies building sats are spending many millions of dollars to launch these things. (think sat radio, for instance) If their service doesn't work, they are going to know it and be out huge sums of money. When does all of this start to make flat Earth theory just untenable? It is frankly a little bit ridiculous to think that all these private companies are faking their services so NASA can basically steal from them. (they pay taxes, NASA supposedly keeps the tax money given to it and fakes things in return) It makes NO sense.
Because beyond just launching rockets into the sky, they are delivering payloads into space. SpaceX has done resupply missions to the ISS, which I'm guessing you think doesn't exist. (oddly enough, there is a website that allows you to see when the ISS will be passing over your location and you can actually go outside and see it at night. Not sure how they pull that one off) Other companies are deploying commercial satellites and cubesats. (small satellites, often made by students) If I pay a large sum of money, I want my satellite in orbit. The commercial companies building sats are spending many millions of dollars to launch these things. (think sat radio, for instance) If their service doesn't work, they are going to know it and be out huge sums of money. When does all of this start to make flat Earth theory just untenable? It is frankly a little bit ridiculous to think that all these private companies are faking their services so NASA can basically steal from them. (they pay taxes, NASA supposedly keeps the tax money given to it and fakes things in return) It makes NO sense.
SpaceX is just delivering a product. Who do you think is operating the control room which tells the rockets what to do?
You ALWAYS try to dance around things. SpaceX controls their own rockets. They lease launch facilities currently, but are building their own in Texas which is to be open next year. Also, they aren't the only players. NASA does NOT control all space launches. They don't even control MOST space launches.
One question, Tom - why would DirecTV spend millions on launching a satellite that their business depends on knowing it would fail and they couldn't provide their service??
You ALWAYS try to dance around things. SpaceX controls their own rockets. They lease launch facilities currently, but are building their own in Texas which is to be open next year. Also, they aren't the only players. NASA does NOT control all space launches. They don't even control MOST space launches.
One question, Tom - why would DirecTV spend millions on launching a satellite that their business depends on knowing it would fail and they couldn't provide their service??
SpaceX needs to follow the instructions of its customer, NASA. If NASA says that they wants ultimate control, then NASA gets ultimate control.
Why are you bringing up a contractor who has to follow the instructions of its boss as some kind of proof that the boss is innocent?
OMG - Stick with me here, DirecTV can't operate without satellites!!! If they pay someone to launch their satellite into space, it has to get there or they have no service to offer their customers!!! There is no faking that. NASA can't fake DirecTV or Sirius radio, or any other commercial enterprise that relies on the satellites they build.
Now for the kicker, NASA didn't launch or control any of DirecTV's satellites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV_satellite_fleet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV_satellite_fleet) They used European launch vehicles! (Russian and French)
That is what a win looks like, Tom. Logic and backing proof. You say yourself that there is no conspiracy.
OMG - Stick with me here, DirecTV can't operate without satellites!!! If they pay someone to launch their satellite into space, it has to get there or they have no service to offer their customers!!! There is no faking that. NASA can't fake DirecTV or Sirius radio, or any other commercial enterprise that relies on the satellites they build.
Now for the kicker, NASA didn't launch or control any of DirecTV's satellites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV_satellite_fleet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV_satellite_fleet) They used European launch vehicles! (Russian and French)
That is what a win looks like, Tom. Logic and backing proof. You say yourself that there is no conspiracy.
You don't think the Russian Space Agency would have ultimate control over the launches from their facilities?
Irrelevant, DirecTV would not function of Russia blew up their satellite! Can you answer the question with a statement and not another meaningless question??
Irrelevant, DirecTV would not function of Russia blew up their satellite! Can you answer the question with a statement and not another meaningless question??
Obviously they have a plan in place. Have you seen all of the high altitude balloon experiment NASA and Co. have been doing to simulate the functionality of a satellite?
https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/balloon/
Tom, you lost. Take a guess how long satellite TV was been around. It started in the 1970s.
Tom, you lost. Take a guess how long satellite TV was been around. It started in the 1970s.
Take a guess at how long high altitude dirigibles have been around.
So are you actually asserting that for the last 40 years, all around the globe, in various countries, and unrelated companies, they ALL decided to lie about using blimps instead of satellites to...to....to...what would be the point of lying, Tom? To trick all the rubes out there that the Earth is round? That is seriously the LOGICAL argument you are going to try to make here? And not just lie about it, but create a false history of supposed sats that they used. THAT is your argument???
PROVE IT!
So are you actually asserting that for the last 40 years, all around the globe, in various countries, and unrelated companies, they ALL decided to lie about using blimps instead of satellites to...to....to...what would be the point of lying, Tom? To trick all the rubes out there that the Earth is round? That is seriously the LOGICAL argument you are going to try to make here? And not just lie about it, but create a false history of supposed sats that they used. THAT is your argument???
PROVE IT!
The private companies worked with NASA to get their technology correct and in place. What makes you think that the companies need to be "in" on anything? In many cases, such as with SpaceX, those private companies are working for NASA and doing its bidding.
There is a motive on the Wiki. Feel free to check it out.
So are you actually asserting that for the last 40 years, all around the globe, in various countries, and unrelated companies, they ALL decided to lie about using blimps instead of satellites to...to....to...what would be the point of lying, Tom? To trick all the rubes out there that the Earth is round? That is seriously the LOGICAL argument you are going to try to make here? And not just lie about it, but create a false history of supposed sats that they used. THAT is your argument???
PROVE IT!
The private companies worked with NASA to get their technology correct and in place. What makes you think that the companies need to be "in" on anything? In many cases, such as with SpaceX, those private companies are working for NASA and doing its bidding.
There is a motive on the Wiki. Feel free to check it out.
So are you actually asserting that for the last 40 years, all around the globe, in various countries, and unrelated companies, they ALL decided to lie about using blimps instead of satellites to...to....to...what would be the point of lying, Tom? To trick all the rubes out there that the Earth is round? That is seriously the LOGICAL argument you are going to try to make here? And not just lie about it, but create a false history of supposed sats that they used. THAT is your argument???There is a motive on the Wiki. Feel free to check it out.
PROVE IT!
So are you actually asserting that for the last 40 years, all around the globe, in various countries, and unrelated companies, they ALL decided to lie about using blimps instead of satellites to...to....to...what would be the point of lying, Tom? To trick all the rubes out there that the Earth is round? That is seriously the LOGICAL argument you are going to try to make here? And not just lie about it, but create a false history of supposed sats that they used. THAT is your argument???
PROVE IT!
The private companies worked with NASA to get their technology correct and in place. What makes you think that the companies need to be "in" on anything? In many cases, such as with SpaceX, those private companies are working for NASA and doing its bidding.
There is a motive on the Wiki. Feel free to check it out.
Well, how about we do just that.
It starts off with this fascinating statement:
"There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort."
Well, that's certainly an interesting assertion. But then it says:
"There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to)."
OK...then it says...
"NASA's early rocket research is well documented to have been a complete failure, plagued by one disaster after another. At some point, perhaps after the Apollo 1 disaster, it was decided to fake the space program outright and use rockets which only needed to fly into the air until they disappeared from sight."
Aha! But isn't there a problem here? Apollo 1 caught fire in January 1967. If that was when NASA decided to start faking things - then BEFORE 1967, it must all have been "real".
So the entire set of seven Mercury and ten Gemini manned missions - all of which were prior to '67 and were successful must have happened as advertised.
Then the Wiki says:
"NASA went from nearly every launch being a failure to a near flawless track record"
...but every one of the manned Mercury and Gemini missions went well. Sure not absolutely flawlessly - but "within mission parameters". The Apollo 1 disaster was a consequence of using pure oxygen in the crew compartment and lots of nylon in spacesuits, etc. Those things were fixed by using only 60% oxygen during launch and ruthlessly replacing anything flammable from within the capsule - nylon was replaced with fiberglass and teflon.
With those (relatively simple) fixes - why wouldn't they continue? Abandoning all of everything after such a minor setback - and especially abandoning satellite launches - seems like a crazy overreaction.
But from the Wiki - we can assume that those Mercury and Gemini missions were "real"? They get the Tom Bishop/TFES stamp of approval?
That's rather interesting!
So where is the "evidence" that this abandonment of space flight happened?
I know you zetetics will only accept new facts with evidence - so there must be some kind of proof here. Do enlighten us!
I'll give Tom credit, I'm surprised he came back to this thread after losing the argument so badly. Honestly, I think he knows the Earth is round, but can't express that here so he argues little points hoping to frustrate us into letting it go.
I'll give Tom credit, I'm surprised he came back to this thread after losing the argument so badly. Honestly, I think he knows the Earth is round, but can't express that here so he argues little points hoping to frustrate us into letting it go.
Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. If you have nothing to actually add beyond your obsession with Tom Bishop, then there is no need to post. Warned.