Show Posts

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.


Messages - shaunm1963

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE
« on: October 22, 2015, 09:57:17 PM »


I don't wish to see a cumulative picture of many dozens of satellites, just one. Surely there must be just ONE photograph/video of ONE satellite in actual space? Also, you make an assumption that there is a 'back side', that the Earth is round. OK, let's assume that it is. The back side is when it's night. I don't see 3000 or so 'not-stars' in the night sky. If you know where I should look, please tell me. Are all these satellites moving WITH the Earth or are some following a non-geostationary path? Surely, from around 3000 of these objects there must be lots of night sky activity?


I missed this part in my original reply.  :P
In short, your inability to see lots of night sky activity work against the FE model. Mostly because the FE theory reports that satellites are much lower than claimed by conventional science, and held up artificially. If this was true, you'd be able to see many more of them. Also, some of the man-made satellites out there are incredibly small, as little as a foot square. Odds are you're not going to pick that up visibly. Larger, communications satellites can be as big as a school bus. So you're talking about a range in size from 'as big as a bread box' to 'that's a huge bitch!' ...and everything in between. Visibly picking them up is going to be tough, nearly impossible if they're actually as high as we're told they are by a RE model.

Now, with modern optics, you ought to be able to see at least some of them, although I am not privy to their projected orbit patterns. You could probably do a little more research on that and come up with something.

Two points that would need to be addressed for a FE model:

1. If the proposed altitude of all satellites (which are reportedly held aloft by cosmic ray devices) is lower than conventional science reports, It should be easier to see them at night, possibly even with the naked eye when it comes to the larger ones as well as the more significant pieces of 'space junk.'

2. Back to the concentration of satellites. At low(er) altitudes not only should we be able to see more of these smaller satellites, but they'd all be held up on one side of a flat disc, so your traffic would be a lot higher.

I'm certainly not going to enter into any conversation about cosmic ray devices. However, just looking at what's written:

with modern optics, you ought to be able to see at least some of them......................can you? show me!
although I am not privy to their projected orbit patterns....................is anyone? and where's the info? after all there's no cover up or conspiracy, is there?
probably do a little more research on that and come up with something.............come up with what? all I want is the truth, not fiction
visibly picking them up is going to be tough, nearly impossible if they're actually as high as we're told they are by a RE model...........the key phrase is "as we're told they are"

and still, I don't have the evidence....real photos, real videos of real actual satellites. All I have are opinions that they must be there because the flat earth theory being untrue proves that the satellites, all 3000+ of them are so high up, so far away and generally so small, and on the dark side of the earth (night time) that given the right optics we may be able to see them.

So, I ask again, to anyone, FE or RE, show me evidence.



2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8
« on: October 22, 2015, 10:55:09 AM »
Thanks in anticipation to anyone out there reading this.......because, I reason, surely there must be some rock solid proof of the existence of a satellite especially by the people that put them out there.....?!

The rock solid proof is that co-ordinates transmitted by the GPS satellites themselves shows they are in orbit.   Try pointing your Satellite TV dish in some other direction and see what happens.   You can use multiple dishes to triangulate the satellite positions.

As far as pictures of satellites from space,  there have been numerous shuttle missions to repair and overhaul satellites,  but I guess you think those are all somehow faked. 

Here's a 1992 mission to repair Intelsat VI     there are plenty of others.

Try pointing your Satellite TV dish in some other direction and see what happens.

My satellite dish does not work as a GPS, I have a Garmin for that.

My satellite dish and the aerial on the roof are affected by tall buildings and trees. If satellite dishes work by pointing at satellites in space then why aren't all dishes pointing straight up. In bad weather in winter especially, the signals are poor because Winter Hill is affected.

The rock solid proof is that co-ordinates transmitted by the GPS satellites themselves shows they are in orbit.

GPS co-ordinates/signals prove that there is some technology. This statement does not prove that the satellies exist, only that the signals do. However, let's assume/accept that there are man-made objects high above us, triangulating signals for locational purposes. This does not imply a deep space/high orbital location, for 3000+ (as has elsewhere been stated) objects. Official figures are for 27 (?) (24 active and 3 extra) GPS satellies. This does not rule out a flat-earth model. It means that there are 27 objects high above us triangulating signals.

So far then, I have yet to be given real evidence of the existence of satellites spinning around a globe earth.

Oh, and as far as your video is concerned. I'll include a link: please watch it without a viewpoint/belief (hey, don't make any assumptions about me  "but i guess you think they are all somehow faked"   ) I'm 52 and I spent 51 years 'believing' everything I was told, everything YOU still believe in (sorry, did I make an assumption?). I've spent a year looking at everything from a different angle, asking questions that shouldn't be asked, considering other possibilities..........perhaps more people should. If at the end of the day, the truth is just what the official experts and government agencies tell us it is, then great, nothing lost. BUT, unless we remove our supposed blinkers we may remain in a darkness that up to know we didn't know we were in.)



Now, looking at this, and seeing it from an untainted standpoint, what do you see? What do you conclude? I suppose you think this is mindless conspiracy nonsense? Surely, our own government wouldn't lie to us? Surely, our own government is honest and good...? (Don't consider Cambodia, for example when answering this, it might just taint your opinion).

And here's another for good measure. Is she, or isn't she? (that 's what was asked on the Harmony hairspray ad in the 70's.........so, is she or isn't she?) and look at the Comments I made under the vid. I am still awaiting anyone to re-comment!




3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth
« on: October 22, 2015, 10:14:12 AM »
You just linked to a reference

For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum. The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared to interplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunar atmosphere' for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelopes surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar system—less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) of Earth's atmospheric density at sea level. Otherwise, the Moon is considered not to have an atmosphere because it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment due to the high rate at which its atmosphere is lost to space.

Although it is very little it is not "deep space".

So called Deep Space is full of gases, but we couldn't go there in the space suits we currently have. Neither can we go to the Moon (lending assumption that it is what the official bodies say it is). Please refer to my earlier thread which included this:

BBC iWonder - What makes space travel so dangerous? Dara O-Briain (you know, Prof. Cox's side-kick) comments:

In Earth's orbit, astronauts might experience temperatures as low as -129C (-200F) and as high as 121C (250F). Spacesuits have been cleverly designed to protect us from these extreme
conditions. They also provide air pressure to prevent our bodily fluids from boiling in the hard vacuum of space. But astronauts can only travel so far in the spacesuits that exist today. Even
our best suits are limited to a ‘low-Earth orbit’. To push farther into the Solar System we will need a new suit – one that will shield us from the lethal hazards of deep space. But even then,
are we sturdy enough to survive a long mission?


So, writing this frustratingly, if we don't yet have the tech to go to the moon which despite it's leaking gases does not have a human atmosphere pray, tell me, how did we manage to get to and jump-around on the moon in the 60's....???

If you reply that we did go to the moon then answer including the BBC iWonder reference above. These guys are on TV pushing the whole space mission saga to millions of keen viewers so they must be telling the truth, right?

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE
« on: October 22, 2015, 10:04:51 AM »

There should be thousands of satellites circle earth. But I can't find
Any good image of anything that looks real.
That's just to weird for me.

It could be said that your not seeing a cumulative picture of many dozens of satellites 'doing their thing' is more indicative of a round earth than a flat one, since some of the around 3,000 man made ACTIVE satellites are 'hidden' around the 'back side' of the globe in any pictures taken. If there were no 'back side' and everything was flat, the concentration of satellites would be a lot higher, and you're more apt to find the picture that you're looking for.

I don't wish to see a cumulative picture of many dozens of satellites, just one. Surely there must be just ONE photograph/video of ONE satellite in actual space? Also, you make an assumption that there is a 'back side', that the Earth is round. OK, let's assume that it is. The back side is when it's night. I don't see 3000 or so 'not-stars' in the night sky. If you know where I should look, please tell me. Are all these satellites moving WITH the Earth or are some following a non-geostationary path? Surely, from around 3000 of these objects there must be lots of night sky activity?

And, with 3000 or so objects spinning through the space around the ball Earth, what agency/agencies co-ordinate the flight paths of all these objects and stop them colliding? Or, if their paths are fixed, then where can I look (online or otherwise) to see the evidence for this feat of co-ordination? Is the ISS figured into this so that it completely avoids hitting anything? Do Space Shuttle flights figure-in the real-time positions of these 300+ satellites so as to avoid a collision? Where is all the data and evidence for all these issues? Or are these satellites so far away from the ISS?Shuttle flight-paths that collision is impossible? If so, how are gps signals sent with no delay and IF they are always on the 'back-side' how do i get my signal in the day?

Also, you say ACTIVE satellites. Does this imply that there are more satellites up there that are NON-ACTIVE?

Thanks in anticipation of your reply.

Finally, the 'round-earthers' are often, in this forum and elsewhere, critical of the 'flat-earthers' in that they cannot provide REAL evidence. Yet, apart from assumptions in this thread, I have yet to be shown REAL evidence of the existence of satellites. Real photos, real videos, real night sky viewing of 100's or 1000's of objects. I've used a telescope for years and while I'm viewing Vega or Deneb or any other of the night wonders (of supposedly millions of miles away...another thread for this), I have yet to see anything that presents as man-made objects of the number you describe. Yes, I do see a star-like object pass over in the same direction on a clear night (certainly NOT a geostationary object) and it's moving rapidly South to North!!. But that's it!

Any help and reflection in this matter would be enlightening. Because so far all I'm receiving is a lot of 'round-earther' assumptions that it all must be true because this is what we all believe because the official bodies tell it so.

The title of this thread is EVIDENCE........let's have some!

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scope of Conspiracy Seems Implausible
« on: October 19, 2015, 02:03:50 PM »
Mention is made of a conspiracy/cover-up/secret.

It isn't needed.

How many people in the 'western world' actually believed for years that the Native Americans were the primitive, scalp-collecting aggressors as 'seen' in cowboy films?

Most.

It wasn't that we were all told that that was the case. The spread of propaganda and brain-washing through the medium of film, TV and radio a 'belief' was established that has lasted for decades. Only now, because some people are asking the right questions are the real truths coming to light. Still, these real facts about native peoples current and historical are not widely broadcast. Although Native Americans Day was established, we still have Thanksgiving Day. There is also Un-Thanksgiving Day because there are people that claim that the real truth about the way the Native Americans were treated has been kept 'hidden', kept a 'secret', kept from the public 'MIND' for a very long time...it isn't difficult in the tight confines of this relatively small arena to sell an idea, to create a truth, so that it becomes fact, unquestionable....because why should the rulers make something up...???

The moon-landings are in question.....look at the data being presented across the web and other media ....everything from cross-hairs, shadows, dust, same landscape different mission, and other issues...(see my comments elsewhere re. Dara O'Braian/Brian Cox re. current spacesuits only suitable for low orbit use), yet we have supposedly gone to the moon....???!

And others on this thread have mentioned the treatment of scientists who don't comply with given dogma. Most comments disregarded, however.

You have to ask questions and not just believe what you think you know to be true simply, and especially because, the official, funded, franchised 'experts' tell you it's so. Have you read Darwin's Origin of Species?  Have you read Darwin's own comments on his ideas? If the book was only written today, and no concept of evolution existed, and it was pushed out on the web with the YouTuber attitude of question and doubt, do you really think that the world would be saying yes, Darwin is right???

No!

The so-called experts are all in the same staff-room. They do not allow any other viewpoint, no challenge to their authority. Very similar to the catholic Church a 1000 years ago, very similar to islamic doctrine today (don't attack me over this comment....islamic doctrine DOES NOT ALLOW FREE INTERPRETATION), very similar to any totalitarian state control.

I read a book years ago, in a series of science books by those thinkers who were not allowed in to the system, written by a scientist who studied the remains of mammoths up in the mountains of Norway, frozen and completely covered by marine shells...............his idea that, considering that there are so many references from across the 'Globe!!' (ha ha!) from different cultures referencing a global FLOOD, perhaps, he suggested, that there was indeed something in it........can anyone explain the presence of marine shells up in the Norwegian mountains?????? But his idea was quashed and he was not allowed to practice in the Uni system. The truth has been established AND eventually they will discover the real reason for marine shells up mountains,  reasons that FIT-IN with this established framework of thought/belief.

The truth also includes a Big Bang Theory (and I don't mean Penny, Sheldon, and co.). A theory which is the root of all the rest of the truth, a theory which can never be proven true, a theory which has to somehow explain how something can come from nothing and (one day) suddenly come into existence.............isn't that bordering on magic? Almost begs that there is a creating pointy finger behind it all to help things along..........



However, I'm sure those that think everything is just right, will dismiss all these arguments and keep their heads in the sand. It's true that in this VILLAGE that "questions are a burden to others, the answers a prison to oneself......", and for all those that don't want their beliefs ruffled, "a still tongue makes a happy life"



However, I urge you all: Follow the Signs, Number Six

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth
« on: October 18, 2015, 05:20:35 PM »
"Yet, we are expected at the same time to believe that humans have been to the moon??!! This moon business is a lie.....what else is? The moon-landings are real but we don't as of today have the space-suit tech to get us there!! What gives, Man; what gives?"

The moon actually has an atmosphere -it is not "deep space"

If the moon has an atmosphere could be please direct me to any link that verifies this. What kind of atmosphere?

Here's one for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon





7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth
« on: October 18, 2015, 05:16:34 PM »
To Andruszkow

YOU SAID:
Truth is, you're so set on your misguided beliefs that you will come up with any excuse or unsound mathematical or scientific fact to support an idea that's so firmly nailed to your very existence, that you reject to accept the one and only proven truth: The Earth is a globe.

(sorry, I'm still struggling with the quote part of the forum; I'm not technically minded)

However, I do find it offensive that, despite the ongoing debate here in this forum which is seeking to find the truth, you seem to know me so well that you know the TRUTH about what I actually believe and accept to be true or not. Please stick to the debate/argument(s) in question and don't attempt to make assumptions about me especially in a way that is insulting. I have lived a long and interesting and at times difficult life. I have had experiences that make the subjects discussed in this forum seem petty by comparison. I have seen things that most people (perhaps yourself included) would dismiss out-right, calling me a liar to boot, if not a deluded lunatic. Let me tell YOU, sir, that the world is not just what the 'experts' would have us accept as truth and final. So, please be aware that nothing is set, nothing is final, nothing is proven with absolute total certainty. If you believe that to be the case then you are no different to those that believe any other idea or concept as true and final. There has to be questions and the answers have to be sought and if you believe that you know all the answers because others have told you that those answers are true and final then you aren't looking for yourself and you certainly aren't asking the right questions.

Thank you for your time.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8
« on: October 18, 2015, 04:57:46 PM »
There are plenty of videos on youtube, showing a satellite transit across the moon, the ISS transits across the sun/moon.

http://home.clara.net/robertkeddie/Astro/geo.htm

Hi and thanks for the reply/link. In my opinion these images show very little of interest and evidence of satellites. I can see white marks. What I really want to see are images/videos of satellites out in space taken by space shuttle/space station crews (ISS, Sky Lab...what happened to that?), other satellites, all the high powered telescopes we have on Earth.

I'm determined to get to the bottom of this FE/RE debate. I don't have a science education nor do I have access to high flying techno talk. I just want simple questions answered in a way that when presented with the data I can then say Ah Yes....therein lies the truth......

So, photos, videos.......actual, close-up, HD, no doubt about it info...

Thanks in anticipation to anyone out there reading this.......because, I reason, surely there must be some rock solid proof of the existence of a satellite especially by the people that put them out there.....?!

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:20:42 AM »
If the Earth isn't a globe, how do you explain the picture in the bottom of this blogpost?

If it's not curvature, and the camera has no extended FOV settings applied, then what explains this?



Firstly, the Flat Earth idea does NOT mean a Square Earth. Try taking a circle, a dinner plate for example, look at the edge...what shape is it? It's curved!!

The image you present could either be a ball or a disc......?


10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE
« on: October 12, 2015, 07:47:29 AM »
Satellites have  never been discounted by flat earth theorists,  and it's easy to prove they are where they say they are.  GPS systems are a good example,  The American, European and Russian GPS systems all rely on the earth being a globe. 

Satellite TV  transmitter locations can be easily triangulated,  and guess what they are all in geostationary orbits over the equator.

Weather satellites transmit real time weather data that can be received and decoded by anybody.   

Game over.  The evidence cannot be refuted.

Hi, Rayzor, I've just posted a question on the thread about Himawari-8. In brief: ......can anyone link to photographs and/or videos of actual satellites in space, doing their thing? Answer in the thread if possible, many thanks.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8
« on: October 12, 2015, 07:41:56 AM »
Hi, thanks for all the wonderful replies, especially to sandokhan for introducing me to entirely hitherto unknown concepts (which I will look into). However, just for a moment put all theorizing, speculation and argument aside...............can anyone link to a web page or two that shows photographs and/or videos of actual satellites in space, doing their thing? We can take photographs of Pluto, so surely, someone must have snapped or filmed a passing satellite; I don't just mean the star-like passing in the night sky. Thanks.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8
« on: October 09, 2015, 08:48:34 AM »
Hello, Sandokhan......sorry, a bit confused...are you saying that, through this Tesla technology the satellite does exist and the images are real, or that the satellite could only exist if this technology was employed, but currently isn't...??

Thanks, Shaun

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE
« on: October 09, 2015, 07:16:33 AM »
They really don't have much if space research is discounted.

Thanks, Tom. This is what I suspected. However, surely those in the FE camp must number a few people that are grounded with an 'official' scientific background, but have questioned the validity of their given 'knowledge'....and then, with skills aplenty endeavored to show FE through a scientific process, and if this has not been done, yet those individuals are out there, then take this as a shout to you to get together and do so.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE
« on: October 08, 2015, 08:52:44 PM »
Hi and thanks for the replies. However, what I'm asking for is: does anyone know of any person or body that has conducted such exhaustive and extensive inquiry to conclusively prove that the earth is a ball or indeed, and more importantly, that the earth is flat? I don't believe it is wise to simply accept what NASA and other official bodies have to say, as lying about one thing (moon-landings) means that nothing else can be considered true. Universities are also out of the question as their bias and funding source go hand-in-hand. Surely, I think, with all the numbers of people that have an interest in the FE concept surely someone or group with a scientific bent has decided to do the science properly? If the FE is to be made 'official' in the world then it's no use speculating and surmising and arguing on this forum and YouTube, real science has to take place. Has it, is it?

15
Flat Earth Theory / EVIDENCE
« on: October 08, 2015, 02:47:15 PM »
Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth
« on: October 08, 2015, 01:06:38 PM »

We have hundreds of thousands of pics from space and hundreds of actual eye witnesses who have been in space and seen it.



Firstly, the pics from space are dubious at best (no moving clouds/clone-tooled clouds/overly-large continents, and so on). Eye witness accounts?.....anyone NOT affiliated with NASA to corroborate these NASA accounts? No!

Oh, and as far as going into space is concerned....please go to: BBC iWonder - What makes space travel so dangerous? Dara O-Briain (you know, Prof. Cox's side-kick) comments:

In Earth's orbit, astronauts might experience temperatures as low as -129C (-200F) and as high as 121C (250F). Spacesuits have been cleverly designed to protect us from these extreme
conditions. They also provide air pressure to prevent our bodily fluids from boiling in the hard vacuum of space. But astronauts can only travel so far in the spacesuits that exist today. Even
our best suits are limited to a ‘low-Earth orbit’. To push farther into the Solar System we will need a new suit – one that will shield us from the lethal hazards of deep space. But even then,
are we sturdy enough to survive a long mission?


Yet, we are expected at the same time to believe that humans have been to the moon??!! This moon business is a lie.....what else is? The moon-landings are real but we don't as of today have the space-suit tech to get us there!! What gives, Man; what gives?

So are these images genuine? If THE space body has lied about the singular most important space venture ever, do you believe everything else they tell you? WHY?

Cheers.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Himawari-8
« on: October 08, 2015, 12:40:03 PM »
Hello, for the record, I am pro-FE. I am very concerned by the following:

I commented thus: Hi, just wondering:

1. The satellite must be speeding around the Earth at the SAME speed that the Earth is rotating in order to keep the same facing position.
2. The satellite must be doing 1. AND following the path of the Earth as IT rotates around the Sun.
3. The satellite must be keeping pace with the Sun as IT moves through it's galactic path. This must take some pretty smart calculations and flight path maneuvering.
4. Would the Sun at a rough distance of 93 million miles cause a shiny spot on the Earth as seen in this footage?
5. I thought that the earth was supposed to be an OBLATE SPHEROID......I can't see that particular shape in this footage.
6. Why can no stars be seen even when the Earth is in full shadow? Can anyone help me with these issues? Please help! .....

I received this answer:
1. Sort of, it's moving at 7000 mph which at 22000 mile altitude means it keeps pace with the rotation of the Earth.
3. The gravity of the Sun actually makes next to no difference to the satellite. The moon has more effect and that is still very small and only requires small alterations to the orbit.
4. Yep, that is the sun reflecting off the water.
5. It is, but the difference is very small and won't be visible in images this small. The diameter of the earth is only 26 miles more measured across the equator as from pole to pole. 6. The exposure time on the camera does not change at all. So it is only set to expose for the sunlit earth. And will not be sensitive enough to pick up the stars. Not sure how clear these answers are, if you want elaboration on any give us a shout. Hope it helps anyway. Any thoughts?

I really don't want this to be happening; I considered thus: Could these Earth 'images' be high-altitude shots rendered on a concave, stretched around a ball to make it look like a globe Earth? You see, if this satellite is real and the photos ARE taken from 22,000 miles away then we all may as well forget any notion of a flat Earth. These images need to be debunked now. Please go to the youtube page (title above) and go to http://www.jma-net.go.jp/msc/en/index.html AND http://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is this proof that the Earth is indeed a ball? Or is this just more imagery-fakery to put us all off the scent?

Shaun

Pages: [1]