181

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon Landing

« on: April 04, 2016, 09:34:00 PM »

Hi everyone, first thread here! Thanks for having me.

I'm recently awakened to the truth of flat earth and one thing i'm pondering is this:

Does the truth of Flat Earth NECESSARILY logically mean that a Moon landing is impossible? If you launched while the Moon was above Earth, at it's shortest trajectory away, and departed back to Earth when you were facing the right way again, presumably you'd be able to make the trip. Perhaps the astronauts rode the Moon all the way around the Earth-disc and NASA is keeping that info hidden. Maybe NASA even has photos of the underside of Earth.

Thoughts?

There is no evidence of a terrestrial craft progressing beyond where we can fly high altitude craft.

This claim that there is no evidence is supported by the complete absence of continuous footage from launch to orbit amongst the multitude of space launch videos provided by NASA, ESA, and the like. The moment things will reach a transition from high altitude to orbit, the video either completely stops or inexplicably transitions into a CGI/computer view of the space craft with telemetry data rather than maintaining the same camera view we had since launch.

My thoughts, as some others conclude is that the footage of the launch and high altitude provides the foundation of a cognitive bridge built to guide the viewer to resigning further critical thought of what they are witnessing while simultaneously exploiting the viewer's reliance on the "trusted" source such as your national space agency.

Because CGI in in July of 1969 was top notch technology then. I mean slide rules could do unbelievable things in photography.

I grew up around the Space Program; my dad worked for Rocketdyne/North American Rockwell. The Santa Susana Engine Test site was less than 7 miles as the crow flies from our house. I got to see more things first hand as they happened than most people.

I trust NASA et al because I saw it happen. I learned some of the math, read everything I could get my hands on, science was the one subject I never worried about my grades.

My Aunt  worked for Howard Hughes, the company that built the Surveyor that soft landed on the Moon, (dad later went to work there too) and I have more stuff and info on that program. Southern Ca was in some ways better than KSC or JMSC in Huston to live in. We WATCHED IT HAPPEN.

There are literally billions of proofs that we went to and landed on the Moon.

You don't believe it. Fine with me. But if you insist in berating the facts it is up to you prove your case, not me to reprove mine.

182

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon Landing

« on: April 04, 2016, 09:17:10 PM »

The moon landing has been proven to be a hoax several times. Armstrong was sadly a puppet for NASA. Assuming they paid him well, I would have done the same 

Source?

Every time someone says this it ends up BS.

Did you ever talk to Armstrong or Aldrin?

Yeah I didn't thinks so.

183

Flat Earth Theory / Re: edge of the earth

« on: April 04, 2016, 08:46:10 PM »

So why has no flat earther hired a plane flown at 30,000 feet got as far they can get before having to turn around? at least they could confirm a minimum distance which the earth would stretch beyond the wall?

#1 it's illegal
#2 some have tried, and been shot down; others, simply vanished.
#3 HP Lovecraft predicted the above #1-2, plus whatever shenanigans exist today, as well as elder gods shenanigans, over 100 years ago.

Well some one should tell these people;http://www.marathontours.com/index.cfm?pid=10734

184

Flat Earth Theory / Re: gravity

« on: April 04, 2016, 05:53:36 PM »

But when did I pretend to be knowledgeable about anything? I have my reasons for being the guy that questions everything, as I'm sure others do... but trust me my point of view is that actually knowing anything can never be wholly achieved.

That's what drove me to look into the flat earth concepts, because at some point a whole lot of people knew the earth was flat, "scientists" included.

First you say: "actually knowing anything can never be wholly achieved", 
then: "at some point a whole lot of people knew the earth was flat"

Enough said, with such an illogical attitude, further discussion would be fruitless! /b]

Note that I put it "knew" in italics. Anyway, I've been looking into Newton's theories of gravitation more, and the following quote from Newton in a letter to his colleague Richard Bentley speaks volumes about the faith he actually had in his theory of objects acting upon each other through space.

"That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body should act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent, acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I leave to the consideration of my reader. "

This paper by Immanuel Velikovsky also raises a lot of critical points about gravity in general. It is very well worth the read.

Point being, let's not pretend that there aren't multitudes of questionable aspects about Newton's theories on gravitation. So if the theory turns out to be unequivocally false, how do we explain Nasa's persistence that they have applied their knowledge of gravity to make man-made objects "orbit" the earth, in the thermosphere I might add. (the place where radiation from the sun causes temperatures reach 2400 degrees)

The whole thing reeks.

When I was in 7th grade, we saw two large lead balls hung in a vacuum chamber. One ball was released to swing very close the other. After a while the stationary ball started to swing too

185

Flat Earth Theory / Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 04, 2016, 04:05:26 PM »

If the Earth is flat why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?

Polaris would be 13.09 degrees above the horizon and being a less than 2 magnitude star, easy to see.

186

Flat Earth Theory / Why a sunrise and sunset?

« on: April 04, 2016, 04:00:21 PM »

FET says the sun is 3k above the surface. That means that from any point on earth the minimum angle  of the sun above the horizon/surface is 9.02 degrees.

Refraction says the light from the sun will react UP not down

So how can there be a sunset or sunrise?