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.
But why wouldn't they just cover up that there was any failure at all?There's again no motive. Why would they fake a failure?
The motive is covering up a prop malfunction.
There is no up or down, it is all relative, on earth "Up" would be away from the center of the earth, "Down", would be towards the center, although that's debatable alsoFlat earthers argue that things fall due to density. For example, my shoe is denser than the air that surrounds it, so it falls down. The problem with this is that things do not move unless moved. Meaning a force must act upon the shoe for it to fall. Since this is the case, what force is pulling or pushing things down?
Any object does not fall unless it is released to fall.
Once an object is released (the action), density takes over.
Why anyone claims there is no buoyancy is beyond me.
I'm most curious about what defines "up" and "down," as far as the 3rd dimension is concerned
http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/Simply amazing. I love it when someone determined does something this cool. Great evidence, I'll be adding this to my collection.
i find baysinger's recordings extremely compelling
The moon landing wasn't real. The technology didn't exist and it still doesn't exist.Any proof of this?
So you're ACTUALLY telling me that they made an ACTUAL shuttle that COULD FLY....... but it was just a prop..... that malfunctioned? Okay. Assuming that you're correct, I'll look at this from your perspective. They spent millions of dollars on fake math and engineering to find what a spacecraft should look like and do on a spherical earth. They spent more on fake math of how the orbits would work, and then published all of this completely useless math that works on a round earth that doesn't exist. So they've already invented an entire new planet, reality, and several new types of math, along with inventing quite a few new laws of physics. They then build on this by making several hugely expensive rockets, many of which fail on launch, just to.... hit the dome? They then recruit astronauts, brainwash them or whatever, and send them somewhere and back down, either tricking them or keeping them quiet. They continue to send up more and more complex rockets, again publishing huge volumes of work, all of which checks out flawlessly, all with the assumption of the globe earth, also publishing limited amounts of pictures and videos and broadcasting them live. They then go on the Apollo Program, hiding the astronauts somewhere (They got in the rocket, they didn't get out, it launched and nothing came down but parts that hit the ocean), for several days, sending back hundreds of pictures of our moon, then they fake a landing there (They would need some kind of.... zero gravity chamber?..... to simulate the movement of the dust in the videos and there is too much footage for a plane in a parabolic arc) They then get their funding lowered due to Vietnam and low public interest, and start to work on the shuttle "Prop", which can obviously fly, as many have seen, and caries a fuckton of fuel, so it's going SOMEWHERE. They continue through test flights, not any great accomplishments, but the shuttle does its job, and it does it well. You then have the Colombia disaster, where Shuttle Columbia disintegrates over Texas, after re-entering with a loose heat shield. (No idea what the flat earthers think about how this happened) You start building the International Space Station (That's an argument for another day), and then you lose Challenger, shortly after liftoff. The shuttle program gets shut down a bit later, and now they're going to space courtesy of the Russians, with unmanned probes being launched every so often, and returning a lot of data (Let me guess, they just INVENTED unique characteristics for every planet). SO for this conspiracy to work you need the government of every country to collaborate, you need somewhere to put the Apollo astronauts for a few days, as radar would detect any return, you need to somehow keep International Space Station astronauts in the sky for months when space doesn't exist, and invent an entire new reality and make several books worth of calculations based on it. That's a bit..... far fetched, to say the least.I'm pretty sure that independent people also found pieces of Challenger.Prop malfunction.What a disgusting way to pass off the deaths of seven people, just because your closed mind can't accept the truth.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/18/us/challenger-parts-wash-ashore-almost-11-years-after-explosion.html
They found pieces of a prop.
The Ballon popped when it hit the electromagnetism of the firmament............. Have you ever put a balloon in a vacuum chamber? And how would electromagnetism cause a balloon to pop exactly?
I want to know his opinions and his support for them, which he is supposedly using to disprove my statements. I still haven't seen a single rebuttal with EVIDENCE to these, all that you've put up are thoughts.You have posted it.Your opinion is WRONG. That's why I won't acknowledge it. If you have nothing to say, let someone else put up an argument against my original post.
It is your interpretation of the events and reports that are lacking in depth and vetting.
That is my opinion.
Your opinion is different.
What is so hard to understand about that?
You are looking really desperate and sad right now Rekt. How can you tell someone their opinion is wrong? He gave you his interpretation of things, and his reasons behind his interpretations. All you are doing is shouting "Nah Uh!" like a petulant child.
He has no reason to want to convince you, and he isn't even pushing his ideas on you, you are begging him for them. I don't usually do this, and I HATE when other people use terms like this, but if this isn't the most clear cut case of cognitive dissonance I've seen on TFES than I don't know what is.
Feel free to continue to believe what you want, and lackey will do the same. You demanding more from him is selfish and would be a waste of his time considering you have no true intention to understand, just deny and ridicule. Just being a combative pain in the dick isn't exactly "Rek"ing anyone.
I'm pretty sure that independent people also found pieces of Challenger.Prop malfunction.What a disgusting way to pass off the deaths of seven people, just because your closed mind can't accept the truth.
But, however, they don't understand the contractor system of NASA's operations. For example, their "Muh scotch tape use" argument is completely invalid, as Scotch was chosen as a CONTRACTOR to create SPECIFIC TYPES of tape for use in the Lunar Module, due to their industry prevalence and experience. Why would an aircraft company build a spacecraft? Because NASA contracts are a lot of fucking money.Why would a space agency hold pieces of its lunar lander together with tape?Just as an FYI, NASA did not design or build the Lunar Module. Grumman Aircraft did.
You have posted it.Your opinion is WRONG. That's why I won't acknowledge it. If you have nothing to say, let someone else put up an argument against my original post.
It is your interpretation of the events and reports that are lacking in depth and vetting.
That is my opinion.
Your opinion is different.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Heat shielding is pretty important. The heat shielding should be properly embedded. The thought of haphazardly using scotch tape to affix the heat shielding onto a lunar space craft that did all of the things NASA claimed it did is ridiculous, and anyone can see that.You're so horribly incorrect. Those 'Holes' are in the insulation. That craft never re-entered earth, there was a separate module for that.
If you zoom into the image we also see that the exterior white walls of the craft are not even air tight or firmly sealed. There are gaps everywhere. The whole thing appears to be incredibly amateur.
Are we really expected to believe that a real lunar lander built by the best engineers in the world would look like something some teenagers threw together in a weekend after a trip to the stationary store and the junk yard?
You're again spewing gibberish. Give me facts and figures.Give me evidence your idea is correct.
The evidence you provided is the same evidence I provided.
My contention is your interpretation of that evidence is lacking steps.
Give me evidence your idea is correct.Again, do you have evidence of this power brokering? Give me evidence of such and I'll consider it, until I have cited sources and such I won't take any of your statements as truth. Please don't twist my words, if you interpret my words a certain way make a quote that displays that.
I am not twisting your words.
The fact the candidates are trotted out as choices of the year or choices of the month or whatever time frame you choose is the proof of the power brokering.
My god, you are arguing simply to argue.
I offered an alternative view and interpretation relative to world events.
You choose the OS.
Nothing wrong with that.
It is simple, easy, and probably provides you and many others a great deal of comfort and relaxation.
You keep asking for proof when all you have provided is evidence.
I have my own interpretation of the evidence and that is all. I am not alone in my interpretation nor am I in the majority.
I can live with that the same as you can live with yours.
No, I simply acknowledge that the candidates that were presented this year in the general election, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, were not to my liking. Some years an individual may like the candidate(s), some years they may not, this year I liked neither, but most people apparently did. A sample size of 1, me, is not at all indicative of the popularity of the presidential candidates. Furthermore, the two candidates this year were qualified, with Hillary Clinton having extensive government experience and Donald Trump being a good organizer of business, a skill that can be projected to politics. I never once said that every year the candidates aren't popular or qualified, take for example Ronald Reagan. Extremely popular, extremely qualified. In the 2012 election, I didn't per se like Barack Obama as a candidate, I preferred Mitt Romney, but I felt that in that election I would be fine with the results either way. You again say that I agree that the candidates are unqualified and unpopular (A viewpoint I don't have, for many reasons, chief among them being that they were ELECTED). Again, do you have evidence of this power brokering? Give me evidence of such and I'll consider it, until I have cited sources and such I won't take any of your statements as truth. Please don't twist my words, if you interpret my words a certain way make a quote that displays that.Do you have any evidence of such? If you don't then I require no evidence to deny your claims.
Evidence of what?
You conceded the candidates are not eminently qualified nor popular, yet those types of candidates are presented year in and year out.
You deny the existence of power brokering?
You keep asking for proof of things you acknowledge.
WTH is the matter with you?
Do you have any evidence of such? If you don't then I require no evidence to deny your claims.I don't like some of the candidates, but they are just legitimate people who are running for office. You again have no evidence that they aren't.The POTUS is the Supreme Commander of the military, he can stop laws from passing with a veto, and he can pass executive orders. Pretty powerful if you ask me, especially considering that being POTUS gives you a LOT of influence over many people. It is, after all, the highest office in the land. And if you tell me that there is some kind of secret position even more powerful than POTUS, I'll need to see some evidence backing that up. All I've seen is your opinions in this thread. You haven't given a single fact or figure. Contrary to your belief, some wikipedia articles are completely valid, if they have several well-cited sources. I still have yet to see a single proof of what you believe, once I see that I'll consider it, for now I'll laugh you of as some stupid crazy person on the internet. Give me valid cited resources.
Answer the question.
Do you believe the choices offered during the primaries and subsequent general elections are the most legitimate candidates available?
The question has nothing to do with the reality of the candidates.
Stop being purposefully obtuse and acting like a total _ _ _ _ _ _ on the point.
You raised the point and I countered it offering a different view of the mechanisms in place.
The reality is the candidates offered up in each election are not chosen by the people and you know it.
They are chosen by SOME PEOPLE.
And it is that group of SOME PEOPLE that are really calling the shots.
And that GROUP have consolidated their power and have passed it along to subsequent generations.
I don't like some of the candidates, but they are just legitimate people who are running for office. You again have no evidence that they aren't.The POTUS is the Supreme Commander of the military, he can stop laws from passing with a veto, and he can pass executive orders. Pretty powerful if you ask me, especially considering that being POTUS gives you a LOT of influence over many people. It is, after all, the highest office in the land. And if you tell me that there is some kind of secret position even more powerful than POTUS, I'll need to see some evidence backing that up. All I've seen is your opinions in this thread. You haven't given a single fact or figure. Contrary to your belief, some wikipedia articles are completely valid, if they have several well-cited sources. I still have yet to see a single proof of what you believe, once I see that I'll consider it, for now I'll laugh you of as some stupid crazy person on the internet. Give me valid cited resources.
Answer the question.
Do you believe the choices offered during the primaries and subsequent general elections are the most legitimate candidates available?