The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Science & Alternative Science => Topic started by: AATW on March 02, 2025, 02:35:55 PM
-
A second private company have landed a craft on the moon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9208qv1kzo
Or…pretended to?
-
I don't understand the obsession with declaring NASA subcontractors as something other than NASA subcontractors. Does it feel more "correct" when they're "independent"?
-
I don't understand the obsession with declaring NASA subcontractors as something other than NASA subcontractors. Does it feel more "correct" when they're "independent"?
I don't know about obsession, but I don't really see how them being a sub-contractor is relevant.
It's another company, another set of people who have to be "in on it" if it's all being fake.
I don't understand the reticence of FE to investigate their claims.
-
I don't know about obsession, but I don't really see how them being a sub-contractor is relevant.
It's another company, another set of people who have to be "in on it" if it's all being fake.
Well, that's the thing - it isn't. It's just that America has turned more right-wing over time and it now prefers subcontracting over giving people government jobs. It changes preciously little, other than their tax status and public accountability.
I don't understand the reticence of FE to investigate their claims.
What claims? NASA has claimed to totally go to space for a few decades now. How is NASA claiming it again introducing a new claim?
Remember when Elon Musk was the RE sweetheart? How's that gone? You reckon this one is gonna go any better?
-
I know you guys are in the UK, so you probably aren't very familar with how US government procurement process works. I've worked the legal and admin side of federal contracting for nearly 20 years.
Firefly isn't a "subcontractor" that just does what the government tells it to do. The work was competed under an IDIQ RFP, which was publically available. So the scope of work wasn't exactly top secret .
The IDIQ was competed under NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. 14 different companies hold prime contracts under the program all of whom are eligible to bid on individual task orders. NASA issues an RFP with a scope of work and each company submits a proposal. Awards under this particular contract are performance based, which means NASA just tells the contractor what the ultimate outcome should be and leaves it up to the contractor to figure out how to do it. The whole point of performance based contracting is allowing the contractor as much independence and flexibility in how the work is performed as possible. The whole reason NASA does it this way is to take advantage of research and technology that has already been commerically developed. NASA itself, is doing very little of that these days because it is cheaper to to "buy" the services.
The CLPS is also a commercial contract, which is defined by regulation as "services offered and sold competitively in the commercial marketplace based on established catalog or market prices". The whole point of commercial contracting within the fed gov't is to use technology that isn't unique to government services and has already been developed independently.
There's any number of databases and websites you can go on that post the government solicitations. For work like this, they can often be simmarized as "this is what we want to do and we are looking for companies who can already do it". In fact, past performance is always a big part of the selection process. During the proposal stage,there is an extensive Q&A period and every question from a contractor or clarification from the governmetn is publoically posted. Once a contract is awarded, all modifications and dollar amounts are also publically available. When the contract is finished, there is a performance review.
The whole process is very transparent, very competitive and highly regulated. There's a whole set of very extensive regulations called the FAR that contracting offiers must abide by when competing and issuing work. Each agency also has its own supplement, which usually adds even more stringent requirements.
The idea that federal contracts are being handed out willy nilly and nobody really knows what work is being performed is nonsense. If for no other reason, industry wouldn't put up with it because there is too much competition for federal dollars. If anything is even the slightest bit fishy, somebody is filing a protest.
-
You seem to be running in circles. In the same message, you said "they don't just do what the government tells them to do" and "they are hired for a very express purpose, which is to do what the government tells them to do".
Your main counterpoint seems to be that they're given a task and expected outcome, rather than a step-by-step process to mindlessly execute, but that's not particularly different from any other process of delegation.
You also choose to fight arguments that nobody has made - like "The idea that federal contracts are being handed out willy nilly and nobody really knows what work is being performed". You also go into great detail on the fact that we can find out how NASA subcontractors are chosen... which I don't think anyone questioned, have they?
-
How is NASA claiming it again introducing a new claim?
It's not a new claim, but it's a new company, a new set of people who have to be "in on it", a new opportunity to inspect the claim.
Remember when Elon Musk was the RE sweetheart?
Not really. Obviously private enterprises making space travel more accessible opens the possibility for more people to experience it for themselves - again, more opportunities to test the claims. But we are nowhere near it being an experience that is accessible to all. It's still prohibitively expensive for most.
I was excited about the promised space hotels and moonbases when I was a kid. Turns out we never managed to find a cheap way of propelling stuff fast enough for it to be practical. Like we never cracked cold fusion.
But it's the same reason we don't have flying cars and flights across the Atlantic still take 7 hours or whatever. We dabbled with supersonic flights with Concorde but it was incredibly expensive, so instead they worked on ways to make the experience more pleasant. Better in-flight entertainment was an easier and cheaper problem to solve.
None of that means planes aren't real, any more than space travel being inaccessible to most means it isn't real. We have multiple technologies which very much rely on it being real.
How's that gone? You reckon this one is gonna go any better?
He seems to be president now. But no, it's not going to go better. The people who dismiss all the other claims about space travel as being fake will dismiss this as fake too.
It's just a bit lazy, which is kind of my point. If this is real then it has to change some FE models in which this would not be possible. Isn't that a claim worth investigating?
-
It's not a new claim, but it's a new company, a new set of people who have to be "in on it"
I'm sure the people at NASA have changed quite significantly over the last few decades, too. I really struggle to see the novelty.
a new opportunity to inspect the claim.
Inspect away! Who's stopping you?
Remember when Elon Musk was the RE sweetheart?
Not really.
Eh. No surprises there.
Isn't that a claim worth investigating?
Maybe. What do you propose? You just keep saying "inspect" and "investigate", but what specifically do you want us to do (presumably free of charge), and why aren't you doing it yourself if you want it so badly?
I think part of the problem is that you're asking us to veer away from Zeteticism. We're primarily interested in exploring the phenomena around us, and it sounds to me that you expect us to read a news article and emptily debate it. If that's the case, then you chose a forum of people who are explicitly not interested in that form of inquiry - a forum specificially dedicated to another form - and you're expressing frustration that they're not playing ball with you. Cue the usual analogy to someone gatecrashing a footie forum and complaining that no one's talking about trains.
Of couse, I could have misunderstood you. If I have, that's what the questions above are for.
-
We have multiple technologies which very much rely on it being real.
I could be wrong, but I think AATW cannot provide one instance of any piece of technology relying on space travel as a reason for existence (i.e., "The reason "whatchamacallit" exists is due to space travel.")
-
AATW needs to learn more and actually take a job with a government contractor. For the most part the contractors act as temp agencies who hire people out to work for government managers at government facilities. This is also how it works in the private industry for the contractors that Disney, IBM, Kraft, and other big companies use. Some types of contractors are actually independent, such as waste management services, but the main ones doing the work act as temps.
For Firefly, a big hint is that they list several government bases (https://fireflyspace.com/locations/) on their "locations" page. Another hint should be that advanced rockets aren't actually public products and require extreme secrecy since they could be used for ICMBs.
Also, even if you believe in the RE Theory narrative you have to be a retart to think that a company could send a lander to the moon after a few years of research without serious government help and oversight.
-
Contractors are just the US government wearing a mask in order to avoid legal and fiscal responsibility. And, as Tom pointed out, Blue Ghost doesn't have any private facilities where they developed this supposed moon lander. Go figure.
-
Your main counterpoint seems to be that they're given a task and expected outcome, rather than a step-by-step process to mindlessly execute, but that's not particularly different from any other process of delegation.
No, my main counterpoint is that the technology involved in getting to the moon and back is developed by, belongs to and is 100% controlled by the contractor, not the US government.
This is from the SOW for the original RFP for the main IDIQ, where contractors basically compete for the right to compete on individual task orders
“The Contractor shall provide all resources and functions to perform the Commercial Lunar Payload Services identified within this Statement of Work for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Contractor shall select launch opportunities, determine the overall Mission Architecture, and provide the end-to-end service including operations associated with the Launch Vehicle, Launch Site, Spacecraft, Lander, Mission Design and Analysis, Ground Systems, and Payload Support. “
Its a payload delivery contract, the space equivalent of Fedx. The contractor determines and controls virtually everything about the mission, except the freight.
You’re free to look up the solicitation for yourself at sam.gov The solicitation # is 80HQTR18R0011R, just choose Contract Opportunities and make sure you include “inactive” in the search since its already been awarded. Its all public knowledge. Hundreds of thousands of people have probably looked at it. NASA isn’t trying to hide it or keep anybody from bidding if they open up a new solicitation.
Maybe willynilly isn’t the right phrase, but suggesting the mission was anything different from what is reported implies the contractor is participating in a conspiracy to fake a moon landing. If that is what is happening, then contracts would have to be awarded discreetly with zero oversight or transparency, which is far from reality.
but it's a new company, a new set of people who have to be "in on it",
It isn’t just one new company or set of people. The program started out with, I think, 5 contract holders. There’s 14 now and the option to add more. One of the other contractors is scheduled to make another lunar landing tomorrow.
NASA][url]NASA (http://[url)[/url]
-
AATW needs to learn more and actually take a job with a government contractor. For the most part the contractors act as temp agencies who hire people out to work for government managers at government facilities. This is also how it works in the private industry for the contractors that Disney, IBM, Kraft, and other big companies use. Some types of contractors are actually independent, such as waste management services, but the main ones doing the work act as temps.
I've worked for a government contractor for 20 years with a engineering and construction firm and you don't know what you are talking about.
It is true that some facilities like LANL, Argonne, and Lawrence Livermore contract out the management of facilities, they are primarily DOE facilites that focus on laboratory research, national security and nuclear programs and are a very small percentage of the total work done under federal contracts. They are contracted out because the work is highly specialized, technical and usually more academic in nature.
LANL, for example, is managed by a company called Triad which is composed of Battelle Memorial, a non-profit research compay, Texas A&M University and the University of California. It's hardly a "temp agency". Lawrence Livermore is managed by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS), which is a partnership between the University of California, Bechtel National, BWX Technologies, and AECOM (one of the largest engineering firms in the country). Again, hardly a temp agency. Lockheed Martin holds the largest $ of federal contracts. They are hardly a temp agency.
GSA contracts out building and facility management services, not the managment of the actual facilities, under GSA schedules. Like every other federal contracting opportunity, there is a vetting process called a responsibility determination and every government contractor has to be registered. To maintain active registration you have to update and certify certain information on a yearly basis. Financial records (including how much senior management makes in compensation, if you meet certain criteria), ownership changes, potential conflicts of interest , that you comply with certain federal regulations regarding what type of IT equipment you use and that it meets certain security requirements, socioeconomic regulations, hiring practices, import/export regulations, that you're properly registered with and filing compliance reports the SBA, VETS, EEOC and any number of other agencies that track compliance. If you are a prime contractor, you have to report and meet certain goals for subcontracting in about 9-10 different types of business entities. For certain types and dollar value contracts, you have to literally open your books up to be audited by the federal government and file yearly reports on all your accounting practices and report any changes. Get new accounting software? That's about a 10 page document that has to completed and submitted.
And all that can be before you even win any work. There's little to no negotiating room in contract terms because 95% of it is governed by federal law. The Federal Acquistion Regulation. Look it up. The amount of oversight during performance is best described as micromanagement.
Get the picture? You make it sound like government contractors aren't much better than used car salesmen. Nothing could be further from the truth. Alot of government work is highly specialized both in terms of the work and how it must be executed. All of the largest, most respected engineering, construction and STEM firms (including mine) in the world have dedicated divisions doing only US government work because despite all the hoops you have to jump through, it is low risk, provided you know the rules, it pays well and on time and is recession proof. Companies looking to make a quick, easy buck need not apply, though. If they manage to get through the vetting process, they won't last long before getting debarred. Screw around enough and go to jail.
The difference between what you think you know and what you actually know would be funny, if it didn't border on delusional. I can't fault you for not knowing what you don't know, but I do fault you for thinking that there isn't anything that you don't know.
-
Also, even if you believe in the RE Theory narrative you have to be a retart to think that a company could send a lander to the moon after a few years of research without serious government help and oversight.
Try doing some basic research. The CEO was previously the CEO of Millennium Space Systems, was in senior management at Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. and in the U.S. Air Force. His CV is right there on the website. He’s hardly a graduate student. Also take a look at the rest of the leadership. This isn’t a bunch of guys working out of their parents’ basement.
For Firefly, a big hint is that they list several government bases on their "locations" page
Blue Ghost doesn't have any private facilities where they developed this supposed moon lander
Their production and test facilities aren’t anywhere near government facilities. It’s right there on the website. It isn’t unreasonable that they use government launch facilities. If your are in the business of building airplanes and want to fly it...you take it to an airport. You don’t build your own.
Cedar Park, TX Headquarters and Spacecraft Facility Firefly’s north Austin headquarters and spacecraft production facility includes open engineering environments to rapidly innovate, two Mission Control Centers, and an ISO-8 cleanroom that accommodates multiple spacecraft.
Briggs, TX Launch Vehicle Production and Test Facilities Just 30 minutes north of headquarters, Firefly’s 200-acre Texas Rocket Ranch enables launch vehicle production, integration, and testing all in one convenient location. Here Firefly operates six test stands, automated fiber placement machinery, a 7-axis robotic powermill, and state-of-the-art engine production technology.
advanced rockets aren't actually public products and require extreme secrecy since they could be used for ICMBs
First, A moon launch vehicle and an ICBM have completely different design specs.and capabilities. It like saying you could use a cargo van to win a Formula 500 race.
Second, read the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)
Third, there’s nothing secret about how rockets work. There are at least 14 different companies that have the capability of launching a rocket and landing on the moon. How do I know this? Because they all have contracts to do it. Another one of them is doing it later today and there is nearly a dozen more missions scheduled this year.
-
William69 did a whole lot of writing claiming the contract is public, but mysteriously failed to directly link said contract.
Second, for being such a smart guy, he should understand that if a cargo van had a 2-cylinder, water-cooled engine, it is possible for it to win such a race.
Third, everyone knows rockets do not go to the moon.
-
a new opportunity to inspect the claim.
Inspect away! Who's stopping you?
Well, no-one. But I accept the claim. I've watched some video of the landing and it orbiting the moon but I don't feel the need to inspect it or micro-analyse every frame of it.
I don't have the skills to anyway - the people who call all this sort of stuff fake definitely don't either.
I am interested in all this stuff. I've seen a Shuttle launch - more by luck than judgement, just happened to be in Florida on holiday when one was going up.
I've visited the Kennedy space centre a few times, watched some documentaries about it all. I read "A Man On The Moon" - an excellent book about the Apollo programme and touches on the Gemini and Mercury ones that preceded it. I've read about how Jodrell Bank were tracking Apollo 11 - and an unmanned Russian mission that was trying to land first. I've read how the Australians were relaying signals from the Apollo craft to the US.
I've done what I practically can and based on the evidence I've seen I'm satisfied that it all happened. Rocket technology demonstrably exists, it's not like they're claiming to have teleported there. All the stuff I've seen about it being a hoax are based on ignorance or incredulity. All of it.
Maybe. What do you propose? You just keep saying "inspect" and "investigate", but what specifically do you want us to do (presumably free of charge), and why aren't you doing it yourself. I think part of the problem is that you're asking us to veer away from Zeteticism. We're primarily interested in exploring the phenomena around us, and it sounds to me that you expect us to read a news article and emptily debate it.
I've covered the why aren't I doing it above. I've suggested some things above which could be done.
Fair point about Zeteticism, but you must have some strategy for coming to beliefs about stuff you can't directly experience.
Mine is to evaluate the evidence. What other option is there?
and you're expressing frustration that they're not playing ball with you.
I'm just surprised that more effort isn't put in to this. OK, going in to space isn't that accessible, but you can go see rocket launches for yourself (easier for those in the US, admittedly). With decent optics you can see the ISS. Most FE people seem to just put it all in one big box marked "FAKE" and leave it at that.
I guess the reason I see this as something you'd want to be looking in to more is that it's a discriminator between the two models.
If there are things like GPS satellites and the ISS orbiting the earth, if there are things orbiting the moon and landing on it then I'd submit that the FE model as presented in the Wiki isn't possible.
I think you dispute that, and I'd be interested in your ideas about that, but most FE people seem to just call it all fake without putting much effort in to assessing the evidence.
-
We have multiple technologies which very much rely on it being real.
I could be wrong, but I think AATW cannot provide one instance of any piece of technology relying on space travel as a reason for existence (i.e., "The reason "whatchamacallit" exists is due to space travel.")
A fair amount of technology and products were developed because of the space race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
But my point above is that technologies like GPS and satellite TV only work because of satellites orbiting the earth.
As I said in my reply to Pete, the ISS can be seen from the ground and with decent optics you can make out its shape.
-
The list you provided only claims "space travel" as a reason for their development...like thermometers wouldn't exist unless space travel happened...
C'mon...
-
The list you provided only claims "space travel" as a reason for their development...like thermometers wouldn't exist unless space travel happened...
C'mon...
It's claimed that a certain type of thermometer was developed as part of the research for the space race - obviously thermometers existed before space travel existed.
But my point was more the other way around - technologies like GPS exist and work because of the space race. The ISS can be seen from the ground. Have a look.
-
LANL, for example, is managed by a company called Triad which is composed of Battelle Memorial, a non-profit research compay, Texas A&M University and the University of California. It's hardly a "temp agency". Lawrence Livermore is managed by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS), which is a partnership between the University of California, Bechtel National, BWX Technologies, and AECOM (one of the largest engineering firms in the country). Again, hardly a temp agency. Lockheed Martin holds the largest $ of federal contracts. They are hardly a temp agency.
Do they answer to the instructions and oversight of the parent organization? If so then it's not truly an independent contractor who has complete freedom to choose how to do the work. They are basically temp workers - disposable workers from a third party company who operate the main business under managerial instruction of the parent organization and are used for various legal and financial reasons. They may even have 401K plans and six figure salaries, but are used because they are more legally disposable than direct hires nonetheless.
You stated: "LANL, for example, is managed by a company called Triad" - Can Triad decide to expand their business to the pornographic film industry and get away with filming a pornographic movie on publicly funded Los Alamos National Laboratory facilities? Absolutely not. It is not their facility and they are likely operating with oversight. So I recommend that you just keep quiet about this.
-
You stated: "LANL, for example, is managed by a company called Triad" - Can Triad decide to expand their business to the pornographic film industry and get away with filming a pornographic movie on publicly funded Los Alamos National Laboratory facilities? Absolutely not. It is not their facility and they are likely operating with oversight. So I recommend that you just keep quiet about this.
Do you even know how contracts work? They have a Scope of Work that contractors agree to and the buyer can't require anything beyond. Contractors aren't indentured servants who have to blindly follow orders when they agree to work for the government. If you agree to build widgets they can't arbitrarily decide that should start makng gadgets instead. And of course there is oversight. There should be, especially when tax dollars are involved. It's strange that you think there is something fishy about the government making sure a contractor is doing what they are getting paid to do.
Triad can "get away" with doing anything that is included in the SOW of their contract and the government can't "get away" with requiring them to do anything that isn't in the SOW, which you can find here https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/contract-no-89233218cna000001_Redacted.pdf (https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/contract-no-89233218cna000001_Redacted.pdf)
The SOW for the contractors on the CLPS program is to " provide all activities necessary to safely integrate, accommodate, transport, and operate NASA payloads using contractor-provided assets, including launch vehicles, lunar lander, lunar surface systems, Earth re-entry vehicles, and associated resources. That's straight from the on-ramping award notice, which you can find here https://sam.gov/opp/e0670ab07ac44fc5b8149fbe04201f64/view (https://sam.gov/opp/e0670ab07ac44fc5b8149fbe04201f64/view)
You should really read the whole thing. You might learn a few things.
Another interesting thing I found is that part of the on-ramp solicitation was a sample project that required the offerors to produce a User's Manual, which would be made publically available. It's really odd that NASA is not only allowing, but requiring these companies to make this super secret technology that could be used by our enemies to make ICBMS public.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/11/29/nasa-picks-nine-companies-to-compete-for-commercial-lunar-lander-missions/
https://docslib.org/doc/8544219/new-glenn-payload-users-guide (https://docslib.org/doc/8544219/new-glenn-payload-users-guide)
-
William69 did a whole lot of writing claiming the contract is public, but mysteriously failed to directly link said contract.
Second, for being such a smart guy, he should understand that if a cargo van had a 2-cylinder, water-cooled engine, it is possible for it to win such a race.
Third, everyone knows rockets do not go to the moon.
It's not about being smart. Its about having information. There's nothing wrong with believing you are right based on the information you have. But it is arrogant and lazy to assume that the information you have is all you need to know to be right.
-
I've wondered about this. Did every person who claim to be a Zetetist personally test the COVID vaccine before they got it? Have they performed all the research and experiments for Global Warming before they accepted it as true?
I've come to realize that Zeteticism means that information that I already believe is true, or that I want to believe is true, is true. If I don't believe it, then there's no reason to investigate further. The mere fact that I don't believe something is evidence that it is not true. It isn't a philosphy of believe what you see, it's a philosophy of see what you believe and ignore everything else.
It's very child-like, almost magical thinking.
-
I've wondered about this. Did every person who claim to be a Zetetist personally test the COVID vaccine before they got it? Have they performed all the research and experiments for Global Warming before they accepted it as true?
I've come to realize that Zeteticism means that information that I already believe is true, or that I want to believe is true, is true. If I don't believe it, then there's no reason to investigate further. The mere fact that I don't believe something is evidence that it is not true. It isn't a philosphy of believe what you see, it's a philosophy of see what you believe and ignore everything else.
It's very child-like, almost magical thinking.
Firstly, it's just bizarre that Tom thinks it's in some way fishy that NASA would award contracts to 3rd parties and then want some oversight or governance on what they're doing. Does he think they just go "here's 200 million dollars, tell us when it's on the moon!". Of course there's some governance on what the contractor is doing with the money.
My point was it's another set of people who have to be "in on it", people who don't work for the government, even if they're working on government contracts. My old company used to work on government contracts so I'd be doing work on those. That doesn't mean I was in any way working for the government, they just happened to be awarding some of our contracts.
Secondly, this whole Zetetic thing. Jeran went to Antarctica for TFE and both literally and metaphorically saw the light. He observed the 24 hour sun and has stepped away from FE as a result. I saw a video from...I think Dave McKeegan where he talked about it. He commended Jeran for intellectual honesty - Jeran saw something which contradicted his beliefs and instead of trying to hand-wave it away or reconcile it with his beliefs somehow, he resolved the contradiction by changing his beliefs. That is how progress is made. But Dave did also comment on the fact that Jeran had to see it for himself before he believed it. Which I think is how some people on here operate. The Wiki says:
"using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation".
OK, but you can't observe everything, you have to have some strategy for forming beliefs about things you can't directly observe. For me that's by assessing how plausible and well evidenced claims are. If NASA were claiming to have teleported people to the moon in 1969 then I'd be raising an eyebrow. Teleportation doesn't exist. But they were using technologies which do demonstrably exist and you can see in the Apollo missions leading up to XI how they tested all the technologies and techniques they would need for the final landing. Apart from the landing itself but even then they had that flying bedstead thing which allowed him to approximate that. Plus it's all on film and many of the protagonists are still alive. Then there's all the 3rd party evidence - I mentioned Jodrell Bank and the Australians before, more recently a Japanese probe took photos of the Apollo landing sites. I'd say the evidence is pretty strong. It just feels like too many FE people just don't bother looking in to any of this and declare it all fake because it contradicts their beliefs without. An example, a thread I posted some years back:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17989.msg236209#msg236209
3 VFX artists reviewing the footage and basically concluding that with the technology available in 1969 it would have been pretty much impossible to fake it. It was way before CGI, now you can basically do anything. Note how the thread immediately devolves in to baseless claims about fakery - how the astronauts behaved in the press conference, the old Van Allen belts thing. All the incredulity and ignorance I mentioned above. No-one comments directly on the video I posted.
-
There are a multitude of alternative explanations for the existence of GPS.
It is a faith claim to state GPS exists because of space exploration.
RE-adherents have a terrible habit of blatantly ignoring the willful, open disinformation campaigns waged by world-wide governments and corporations since the dawn of time and simply state the space race is real, cause "daddy told me so," or the "New York Times reports..."
Yeah, well... daddy told you Santa was real and the New York Times cosigned onto that lie.
-
There are a multitude of alternative explanations for the existence of GPS.
OK. And which of those do you believe and what is your evidence for it?
Or is your belief just a different faith claim?
RE-adherents have a terrible habit of blatantly ignoring the willful, open disinformation campaigns waged by world-wide governments and corporations since the dawn of time
I don't think anyone believes that governments or corporations are shining beacons of truth or integrity.
But that doesn't mean they lie about literally everything and I see no reason that multiple countries would claim to be able to launch things in to space. If they are pretending to be able to that then they're making it hard for themselves by publishing so many photos and so much video from the missions which can be analysed. It would probably be easier if they hadn't done all the ISS stuff too, especially as you can see it from the ground. And are the companies providing satellite TV just sending out millions of dishes which don't really point at anything? I know from personal experience that mine is pointing at something - when a neighbour did some work on his house which needed some scaffolding it blocked the signal. I've also observed on work trips to countries near the equator that the dishes there point up at a noticeably steeper angle.
Why are the Japanese publishing pictures of Apollo landing sites? What do they gain from backing up the US narrative? Why are people at Jodrell Bank in the UK and people in Australia saying they were tracking the Apollo craft and relaying signals? Are they in on it? Why? While we're here, why are NASA handing out contracts to 3rd parties anyway? That's another lot of people who need to be in on it and kept quiet.
and simply state the space race is real, cause "daddy told me so," or the "New York Times reports..."
Well, no. I've seen a shuttle launch. I've listed above the other pieces of evidence I've seen and evaluated.
Your turn. What evidence do you have that GPS is ground based or that the space race didn't happen and satellites aren't really orbiting?
What is that thing in the sky if it isn't a space station? Those people who are currently stranded on it - where are they really?
-
There are a multitude of alternative explanations for the existence of GPS.
OK. And which of those do you believe and what is your evidence for it?
Or is your belief just a different faith claim?
It would be another faith claim.
Are you beginning to get the idea?
RE-adherents have a terrible habit of blatantly ignoring the willful, open disinformation campaigns waged by world-wide governments and corporations since the dawn of time
I don't think anyone believes that governments or corporations are shining beacons of truth or integrity...(and a bunch of other words explaining that satellite dishes absolutely must be pointing at something thousands of miles above our heads).
Too bad, I thought you were getting the idea.
Actually, there are so many conclusively demonstrated lies coming from world-wide wide governments, there is no longer any rational reason to believe anything you hear or see released by them.
and simply state the space race is real, cause "daddy told me so," or the "New York Times reports..."
Well, no. I've seen a shuttle launch. I've listed above the other pieces of evidence I've seen and evaluated.
Your turn. What evidence do you have that GPS is ground based or that the space race didn't happen and satellites aren't really orbiting?
What is that thing in the sky if it isn't a space station? Those people who are currently stranded on it - where are they really?
Yeah, you see rockets go up. Everybody either sees it live or a picture or two later of it.
Once it lifts off, there is no independently verified evidence you have indicating it ever travels more than 100km or so above your head.
That's a fact.
-
My point was it's another set of people who have to be "in on it", people who don't work for the government, even if they're working on government contracts. My old company used to work on government contracts so I'd be doing work on those. That doesn't mean I was in any way working for the government, they just happened to be awarding some of our contracts.
Exactly, And that doesn’t even include subcontractors.
Secondly, this whole Zetetic thing. Jeran went to Antarctica for TFE and both literally and metaphorically saw the light. He observed the 24 hour sun and has stepped away from FE as a result
Have to give credit where credit is due. It’s the intellectual dishonesty that bothers me. The Zeteticism seems to be selective. Global warming is a perfect example. I wonder how many flat earthers that accept it, have done any investigating themselves or have an in depth understanding of the science? Would they still accept it if they knew that a lot of the data comes from tracking changes in the earth gravitational field to measure how much icecaps are melting?
For me that's by assessing how plausible and well evidenced claims are
That requires a level of reasoning skills I’m not sure some “Zetetics” have. Never accepting evidence that you haven’t personally verified is the only thing worse than accepting any and all claims without question. Both extremes are, at best ,lazy, and at worst reflect a lack of critical thinking.
No-one comments directly on the video I posted.
Sometimes you can tell how valid claims are more by what isn’t stated than what is and what questions are ansered and which aren't. The wiki is a perfect example of that. Its a lot of selective, cherry picked info. I mean you’d think that a theory based on special relativity and constant acceleration in flat space would go into more detail than just explaining why it doesn’t mean the speed of light is exceeded. That’s true, as far as it goes. But you can’t stop there, There’s much more to SR that contradicts UA, but none of that is addressed in the wiki and shut down or ignored if brought up in a the forums. Whether that’s from ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead, I don’t know. I do know that it is hypocritical to disparage people for blindly accepting evidence while also ignoring any evidence that contradicts what you believe.
Firstly, it's just bizarre that Tom thinks it's in some way fishy that NASA would award contracts to 3rd parties and then want some oversight or governance on what they're doing. Does he think they just go "here's 200 million dollars, tell us when it's on the moon!
On the other hand, I bet he’s the type to micromanage the guy he hires to cut the grass.
-
Well, no-one. But I accept the claim.
That's fair, I suppose. I think this might be a cultural difference between you and me. For me, it's genuinely hard to comprehend that you keep coming here and telling others what they should be interested in, or what they should be doing based on your understanding of their interests. It's so far removed from my cognition that even putting this description together took some effort.
Fair point about Zeteticism, but you must have some strategy for coming to beliefs about stuff you can't directly experience.
Sure. I can also cook - I'm far from an expert, but I'm good enough to entertain guests and earn some compliments, maybe even teach some basic knife skills. But I don't post about cooking here, and you don't have an insatiable need to probe my cooking skills.
Mine is to evaluate the evidence. What other option is there?
The problem is that "evaluating the evidence" is extremely vague. You're openly dismissive of people who seem to form their opinions based on YouTube videos, for example, but that absolutely falls under "evaluating evidence". To a more cynical eye, your "evaluation of evidence" is just reading unverifiable claims made by people in positions of power and vibe-checking whether you feel like trusting them.
To be clear - that's FINE. Most people form beliefs without demanding direct proof, and it would be impossible to get by in the world by meticulously investigating every small thing. You probably took my word for it when I said I can cook, unless you chose to fervently question it for comedic value. That's just part of the human condition.
But: why would you go online and try to force others to follow your unevidenced belief? It's the fervour and zealotry I don't understand.
Most FE people seem to just put it all in one big box marked "FAKE" and leave it at that.
Right, you really like saying that, but that's just not what's happening. And, tbh, you know that. It's just easier for you to hand-wave things away, because you're lazy.
It’s the intellectual dishonesty that bothers me. The Zeteticism seems to be selective.
No fucking shit. I hope you're not claiming to apply the scientific method to every single aspect of your life, at all times, with no exceptions. It would be very funny if you did.
Global warming is a perfect example.
Since it's such a good example, could you recall a few of the statements this society made about climate change, and explain why they led you to this conclusion?
-
Since it's such a good example, could you recall a few of the statements this society made about climate change, and explain why they led you to this conclusion?
(https://i.postimg.cc/k2nKQnS3/Capture.png)
What the Zetetic considers "overwhelming evidence" is pretty selective. My point isn't about what they believe or don't believe, its about consistency, also known as having intellecutal honesty. Part of the overwhelming evidence for global warming is that the gravitational field of the earth shifts as the ice caps are melting. (http://[url=https://postimg.cc/k2nKQnS3)
-
Global warming being linked to magnetic pole shifting is about as likely as you posting a working link.
-
What link doesn't work?
-
What the Zetetic considers "overwhelming evidence" is pretty selective. My point isn't about what they believe or don't believe, its about consistency, also known as having intellecutal honesty.
Ok. Now, read what I said immediately above the part you're responding to.
Part of the overwhelming evidence for global warming is that the gravitational field of the earth shifts as the ice caps are melting.
How have you concluded that the author was referring to this phenomenon as their evidence?
-
The link you posted. I receive a tab labeled "about:blank#blocked".
-
How have you concluded that the author was referring to this phenomenon as their evidence?
The phenonemn happens whether someone uses it as evidence or not. Anyone who accepts that the ice caps are melting and tha the sea levels are rising and ocean temps are dropping accepts that there are changes to the earth's gravitational field whether they realize it or not. They track how much the ice caps are melting and the effect it has on the ocean levels by monitoring changes in the gravitational field.
-
The link you posted. I receive a tab labeled "about:blank#blocked".
I don't know what to tell you. If you want info on the CLPS program, just go the SAM.gov and in the "Opportunites" link just search for CLPS. When you get "no result, do you want to include inactive opportunities?", click yes. I explained that before. A direct link won't work.
If you're looking for info on the Triad contract at LANL, just google it. If you are using a VPN or something like that, it might be blocking you.
-
I don't know what to tell you.
What he's telling you is that you made an error when pasting the image in this post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=20609.msg291704#msg291704), which resulted in your entire message appearing as a malformed URL. You can see this if you go back and edit your post and preview the BBCode - there's a random [url] tag chilling there for no reason.
What you could tell him is "Oh, thanks, didn't notice that. Fixed." (After you've fixed it, or asked someone to help you, of course.)
The phenonemn happens whether someone uses it as evidence or not.
Irrelevant. Please focus on the subject at hand. You can't just move from "they're selectively using this evidence, how intellectually dishonest" to "it doesn't matter if they're using this as evidence". It absolutely does matter, it's the core of your argument. If you lack the intellectual honesty to appreciate that, then I'd suggest caution the next time you make these sort of accusations against people.
Anyone who accepts that the ice caps are melting [...]
Epic. And how much sugar am I allowed to put on my porridge, again?
-
For me, it's genuinely hard to comprehend that you keep coming here and telling others what they should be interested in, or what they should be doing based on your understanding of their interests.
On this site I see a set of people who claim to be trying to make sense of the world. Which is commendable, I guess that's what we should all be doing.
But the conclusion they have come to is so different from the mainstream understanding that I would imagine they would be checking their workings pretty carefully.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say.
If I didn't believe kangaroos existed and maintained that all images and footage of them has been faked then I think we could agree that would be a bit of an "out there" view. It would be reasonable of people on the kangaroosarefake.org forum to raise an eyebrow if I'd never bothered to go to a zoo. If someone is going to go around saying that the ISS is fake and they've never bothered to look to see if they can see it then yeah, I think that's lazy. And where have these people been for the last 9 months?
https://news.sky.com/story/crew-arrives-at-international-space-station-to-replace-astronauts-stranded-for-9-months-13329910
Does anyone know them? Surely someone can verify that they've not been around and that, all being well, they soon will be again.
The problem is that "evaluating the evidence" is extremely vague. You're openly dismissive of people who seem to form their opinions based on YouTube videos, for example, but that absolutely falls under "evaluating evidence". To a more cynical eye, your "evaluation of evidence" is just reading unverifiable claims made by people in positions of power and vibe-checking whether you feel like trusting them.
YouTube videos are definitely evaluating the evidence, but if that's all someone does - and if the YouTube channels they watch are spouting obvious bollocks, then yes I'm going to be scathing. Obvious is in the eye of the beholder of course, but if someone is getting their views from the YouTube FE mob saying that gravity doesn't exist and objects fall because of "density", and they haven't bothered to learn enough basic physics to understand why that's bollocks, then they need to give their head a wobble.
Your characterisation of the way I evaluate evidence isn't that unfair. But isn't that what everyone does? I believe you about your cooking prowess on the basis that being good at cooking is a fairly common skill and it would be a silly thing to lie about. I can't directly verify your claim unless you're inviting me round for dinner, I don't think we're quite at that stage of our relationship yet.
I'd suggest a lot of claims are unverifiable. With space travel yeah - most of it is me reading and watching stuff and deciding what I find credible. There's no way of me directly verifying claims about events which occurred before I was born. You could say that about any historical event. Don't most people check claims against their overall model of reality? Famously, people can't fly. So when I see David Copperfield flying around, I might not be able to see the wires, but at some level I know they must be there. I know I'm being tricked, I don't think "oh ok, so I guess some people can fly then".
With the moon landings - I've said this before, they're not claiming to have teleported there. If they did claim that then I'd probably want to see some pretty good evidence. As it is, they claimed to use technology which I know exists, it's all well documented by the protagonists, may of whom are still alive. It's all on film. There's plenty of documentation of it all. There's lots of 3rd party evidence - what interest do all those people have in lying? Did the Japanese fake their pictures of the Apollo landing sites? Why would they be bothering to do that? And literally all the hoax theories are based on complete ignorance - the "BuT wHy CaN't YoU sEe ThE sTaRs?" sort of thing. Or it's just incredulity - see my sig for further details.
But: why would you go online and try to force others to follow your unevidenced belief? It's the fervour and zealotry I don't understand.
Fervour is overstating it, I just find it odd. People on here have come to such a radically different view of reality from most that I would have thought they'd want to check their workings, so to speak. If I saw a dog out the window I'd think nothing of it. If I saw a dragon I'd probably want to look in to that a bit.
Investigating space travel is one of the ways to check your workings because it's a claim which, if true, would show the FE model that many people hold to be false. And there's space missions going on all the time. I agree that it's hard to verify some of these things directly but if A69 hasn't even bothered to see if he can see the ISS and use some fairly inexpensive optics to see its shape then I think that's a bit weird/lazy.
Say what you like about TFE and Jeran, but at least he got off his arse and went there. He saw something which contradicted his worldview and as a consequence changed that view. The fact he had to see it for himself before believing it is still a bit weird, I don't know why he thinks anyone would have faked all the other timelapses of the 24 hour sun in Antarctica, but at least he did it.
-
Once again, AATW offers the real existence of a terrestrial-based land marsupial as a comparative thought experiment to the visual land-based sightings of the ISS as equivalent in form. Pro-tip: They are not.
He also lies again when he claims I haven't bothered to see the ISS, when I am on written record in this forum as having done so.
It is sad he needs to resort to these type of posts. He should pay heed to his own words and just leave.
-
Once again, AATW offers the real existence of a terrestrial-based land marsupial as a comparative thought experiment to the visual land-based sightings of the ISS as equivalent in form.
The thought experiment wasn't about whether kangaroos exist or not, or whether the ISS does.
It was more about the level of effort a person puts in to examining their beliefs.
He also lies again when he claims I haven't bothered to see the ISS, when I am on written record in this forum as having done so.
Do you know what the word "if" means? ???
I don't know what you have or haven't done, I can't remember every post you make.
OK, so you've seen it. Great, so you acknowledge it's there. Why are you still a flat earther then?
-
OK, so you've seen it. Great, so you acknowledge it's there. Why are you still a flat earther then?
I have convinced you of my ability to cook. Great, you acknowledge I can cook. Why are you still a round earther then? This is a profound deliberation, worthy of only the most sophisticated RE minds.
-
He also lies again when he claims I haven't bothered to see the ISS, when I am on written record in this forum as having done so.
Do you know what the word "if" means? ???
I don't know what you have or haven't done, I can't remember every post you make.
OK, so you've seen it. Great, so you acknowledge it's there. Why are you still a flat earther then?
Ooh...What happened to the demands for "researching and verifying!?!?!" You know, something so simple as searching the very forum threads in which you are posting!?!?!
Pro tip:
I have learned
enough basic physics to understand why that's bollocks
to believe an object I can see in the sky over my head tells me absolutely anything about the shape of the flat earth plane under my feet, unlike others I will not name.
-
Ooh...What happened to the demands for "researching and verifying!?!?!" You know, something so simple as searching the very forum threads in which you are posting!?!?!
I had a look back through this thread. I can't see anywhere you have said you have seen the ISS yourself. You did say:
Yeah, you see rockets go up. Everybody either sees it live or a picture or two later of it.
Once it lifts off, there is no independently verified evidence you have indicating it ever travels more than 100km or so above your head.
That's a fact.
The ISS is at altitude of 408km. And it isn't a rocket.
By the way saying "That's a fact" doesn't make it one.
to believe an object I can see in the sky over my head tells me absolutely anything about the shape of the flat earth plane under my feet,
Well, it kinda does actually. Or it could help you investigate it. You can find websites which tell you the path of the ISS. That path can be verified by sightings from the ground. This shows the orbit of the ISS and an attempt to visualise it on a FE map (would advise muting it, no idea why they put that annoying sound on it):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foQpkvW_N2U
The issue for you to consider is whether the FE path is possible. HINT: How would it keep changing direction like that? Once something is in orbit it will keep in orbit without any further propulsion. (Sort of, the ISS does have to make occasional burns as it does lose some altitude over time, it's not a perfect vaccuum so there is some atmosphere even at that height which means there is some drag). The FE path as shown in that video would require a lot of fuel constantly. The existence and path of the ISS, and the observations from it, do provide evidence for the shape of the earth.
-
OK, so you've seen it. Great, so you acknowledge it's there. Why are you still a flat earther then?
I have convinced you of my ability to cook. Great, you acknowledge I can cook. Why are you still a round earther then? This is a profound deliberation, worthy of only the most sophisticated RE minds.
Holy false equivalence, Batman!
Your ability to cook has no bearing on the shape of the earth.
The space race and space exploration clearly does. You seem to have some thoughts on how some parts of space travel could work on a FE - thoughts I'd be interested to understand more. But most FE people I've encountered just call it all fake - I assume because the idea of things orbiting a globe and men landing on the moon doesn't really sit well with their FE model.
-
You being too lazy to search for threads containing "ISS" sheds light on your ability to process information.
It isn't good.
And it is a fact you have no independently verified evidence. The evidence you provide is made up by someone else.
-
The FE path as shown in that video would require a lot of fuel constantly. The existence and path of the ISS, and the observations from it, do provide evidence for the shape of the earth.
What have you done to verify it is coming from the horizon at those specific angles? You have zero real world data and several assumptions here, including which FE map is correct.
-
The FE path as shown in that video would require a lot of fuel constantly. The existence and path of the ISS, and the observations from it, do provide evidence for the shape of the earth.
What have you done to verify it is coming from the horizon at those specific angles? You have zero real world data and several assumptions here, including which FE map is correct.
Some riposte Tom; "It can't be incompatible with the FE map, because we haven't decided which version is correct. Hah!". Yes, some assumption by AATW.
And what's with the "specific angles" question? What specific angles? The NASA Sighting Opportunities site gets as "azimuth specific" as WSW, or ENE; those are bands 22.5 degrees wide. They are just advising amateurs what bit of the sky to look at.
The elevations are specific, yes. Have you noticed that all sightings start or finish 10 deg above the horizon? That's not a prediction, it's just a fact that many observers will not have a visible zero-degree horizon due to terrain, urban structures and light pollution. By using a common parameter of 10 deg-above they can specify an observable time and duration. The non-horizon start/finish however is quite specific, as the point at which the ISS enters or leaves Earth's shadow is absolutely predictable, regardless of terrain. The 10 degrees is also quite specific; an American standard fist at arm's length (metric equivalent also available).
I can't speak for AATW, but I have witnessed it many times. How about you, do you have a compass? I'm sure we all await your contradictory observations with interest.
-
Some riposte Tom; "It can't be incompatible with the FE map, because we haven't decided which version is correct. Hah!". Yes, some assumption by AATW.
I didn't map the Flat Earth and you have done nothing to map the Round Earth, so I am not sure how you can claim that every continent, island, and ocean is exactly as you imagine it to be. I say that various possibilities exist. You, however, are making a specific claim. Your imagination is not evidence, and the evidence you claim exists is imagined and not posted.
If you post a flight experience, the next question will be were they in a jet stream, how fast was the wind, how does the plane know how fast it is moving in a moving wind stream, etc. Unless you come to the discussion prepared with demonstrative answers, you haven't shown anything and don't know where you live at all.
This combined with the fact that you make excuses for the evidence against you, such at the 92-102 day sailing circumnavigations of Antarctica (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=20486.msg289374#msg289374), shows that you have very little in the way of actual demonstrative evidence for your beliefs.
And what's with the "specific angles" question? What specific angles? The NASA Sighting Opportunities site gets as "azimuth specific" as WSW, or ENE; those are bands 22.5 degrees wide. They are just advising amateurs what bit of the sky to look at.
It is possible that the NASA calculators are correct (which you have yet to demonstrate), but you would also need to demonstrate that they represent a globe, or that video AATW posted, and are not pattern generators. It is possible to predict future celestial events with patterns of previous occurrences and no model at all.
There is a lot to demonstrate here. At present, I will not believe a single word you say until your claims are demonstrated.
-
I didn't map the Flat Earth and you have done nothing to map the Round Earth, so I am not sure how you can claim that every continent, island, and ocean is exactly as you imagine it to be.
There are thousands and thousands of pictures and film of the earth from space. You can see where the continents are.
We have GPS - something you acknowledge you use regularly. How does it work without extensive and accurate mapping data of the whole earth?
We have a global transport system which ships goods and people around the world. Planes follow roughly great circle routes.
This is all predicated on knowing where places are, how far apart they are and the quickest routes between them.
Your only counter argument is to shout "FAKE!" and run away, or cite occasional examples of emergency plane landings, your usual cherry picking
I say that various possibilities exist.
Which is a bit of a cop out, and a stupid thing to say about the world map in the 21st century. There aren't various possibilities. This isn't a theory, we are talking about the earth. It's a physical object. We know its shape and size and we know where landmasses are on it. It has been endlessly mapped and surveyed. Its shape has been known for millennia.
It is possible that the NASA calculators are correct
You can test it yourself.
you would also need to demonstrate that they represent a globe
The video above shows the path mapped out on to a globe. It shows the ISS orbiting exactly as claimed. The FE path is all over the shop. Now, you can say "that isn't an accurate FE map". Which is part of the problem, isn't it? You don't have one. There's a reason you don't have one - it isn't possible to make one. No matter how you shuffle places and landmasses around it's not possible to match the reality. You may wish to consider why that is...
-
If you post a flight experience, the next question will be were they in a jet stream, how fast was the wind, how does the plane know how fast it is moving in a moving wind stream, etc. Unless you come to the discussion prepared with demonstrative answers, you haven't shown anything and don't know where you live at all.
There is a lot to demonstrate here. At present, I will not believe a single word you say until your claims are demonstrated.
Let's do this one claim at a time. Conveniently this morning (around 10.00 UTC March 25) there are 5 Boeing 787s over the South Pacific:
LAN800, Aukland - Santiago.
QFA27, Sydney - Santiago.
LAN804, Melbourne - Santiago.
LAN809, Santiago - Sydney.
LAN805, Santiago - Melbourne.
That's 5 Dreamliners; 3 eastbound, 2 westbound. Operated respectively by Latam and Qantas, the national flagcarriers of Chile and Australia. Both regulated by their respective national airworthiness regulators which, like the FAA, are operating in accordance with ICAO regulations governing the safe passage of international aircraft as required by the Chicago Convention. All 5 crews know when they took off, think they know what route they are flying, and are making predictions of their ETA. Here's the questions;
Are they all in jetstreams; easterly and westerly, when west-flowing jetstreams are almost unknown?
How did they know where the contraflowing jetstreams would be? Can you demonstrate?
How did they calculate how much fuel to carry, when the ground-distances were unknown and the winds anomalous?
Are their crews unaware of their positions, true airspeeds, groundspeeds? If so, shouldn't we tell the authorities?
Or are they not actually flying at all? Flights get cancelled all the time, apparently.
-
And now Katy Perry is "in on it"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyHr_Xsv91g
-
And now Katy Perry is "in on it"
Along with those folks from FRAM2. But then Elon is obviously in on the grift.
-
And now Katy Perry is "in on it"
Along with those folks from FRAM2. But then Elon is obviously in on the grift.
Oh no; in an embarrassing faux pas, WTF has now mentioned the unmentionable Elon-phant in the room.
Yes, whilst Musk, Donald's DOGE poster-boy, spends half of his time sacking civil servants for taking money in return for precious-little National-benefit, he spends the rest of his waking hours accepting government cash to spend on ficticious ISS-commuting, launching supersonic helium-filled Starlink blimps and pretending to develop Mars-shots.