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.
Of course, FET contends that the rockets were all real, so how would declassifying how they did the rest undermine ICBMs?Consider the purpose of NASA's creation during the Cold War and you will see the consequence of it being all fake.Funny you should mention that, because §1.7(a)(2) specifically forbids classifying documents in order to "prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency".
And remember, §1.1(b) puts the burden of proof on the person who wants it classified.
Wrong. NASA's creation during the Cold War was all about nukes with an international range, space weapons, and weapon delivery systems.
Consider the purpose of NASA's creation during the Cold War and you will see the consequence of it being all fake.Funny you should mention that, because §1.7(a)(2) specifically forbids classifying documents in order to "prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency".
Erasing one-of-a-kind scientific data on 200,000 tapes in bulk and losing moon rocks worth millions of dollars is no small thing. These are deliberate actions.A million dollars' worth of moon rocks would be less than 20 grams. Even $100 million could be shipped by mail, so sure, they could have lost them. It would also be a fraction of the total samples.
But i guess moon landing would fall under 6It would certainly discredit the US, but how would it do any more damage than that?
4.Care to elaborate? I can't see how the mere fact that the Moon landings were faked could weaken a state-of-the-art weapons system.
Because you googled a picture of a satellite dish the burden of proof for explaining how it works is on me?No, the Google images picture was only a demonstration of the setup. The burden of proof is for demonstrating that it ISN'T from a satellite, because Tumeni has already posted a video of someone photographing one such satellite from the ground.
Many people have pointed out that these "whoops we lost it all" excuses are a telltale sign of fraud. The Russian official is rightly suggesting that NASA is investigated over it.I'm all for an investigation, but don't immediately assume it's because of fraud. It's just as likely to result from mismanagement and incompetence.
I get the feeling that NASA denied the Soviets' achievement because it conflicted with the worldview of capitalism always being better, not on any reasonable grounds.I have to say Tom, all this does is help cement the idea that things are actually in space. The fallout from the collapse of the USSR, the rivalry between the two. Neither side during that period was 'debunked' on going into space or orbit. Both sides had all the reason in the world to show they hadn't managed their claims. Hell, the US even after the collapse/fall had more than enough reason (if it was found to be so) to show how Russia and Russians never got into space. How could it have hurt their credibility at all in that time period? To me at least everything you've presented here points away from a now global conspiracy of space flight.
The countries did cast doubt and yell "fake!" after each achievement at the time. It took a long time for NASA to accept Russia's claim of the first man in space. Russian officials are still yelling "fake!"
You have no idea what you are talking about. What are you are claiming that would happen has happened. The world just ignored it.
Did you actually read my post or did you copy-paste it?................Do not hypnotise me. I know, that "He is referring to the antimatter asymmetry problem, or the paradox that, although experiments show that antimatter is created in 50:50 proportions to normal matter, the observable universe has almost no observable antimatter." But I am not "really misunderstanding the point that Kaku was making.".
You're really misunderstanding the point that Kaku was making. He is referring to the antimatter asymmetry problem, or the paradox that, although experiments show that antimatter is created in 50:50 proportions to normal matter, the observable universe has almost no observable antimatter.
Once again, knowledge of the history of the universe has nothing to do with knowledge of the Earth's shape.
How about this, literally taken from Google images?Not needed is not the same as do not exist. I have a dish that receives multi channel tv pointing at an object over the equator. Maybe you can explain how it works with links to the satellite or otherwise operator.It's hardly fair to expect me to explain how something on your property, which could be anywhere in the world away from me. We've already established there are many methods of technology that could be used. I can't be expected to describe a specific set-up that I literally can not observe.
You've already been shown photos of satellites from the ground. That gives you the burden of proof.The presence or absence of those other methods is not, of itself, a disproof of satellites.I can't prove a negative. You're the one making the claim and I have to provide the evidence?
Their mandate does not include determining the shape of the world, but they did so on the way.At no point has anyone claimed that funding for NASA was used to confirm what the shape of the earth was. You came up with that assertion all on your own.So NASA isn't proof of a round earth? Got it.
And if they're credibility was lost after the secret war cover up then is it a stretch to say that 3 administrations straight lied about everything they did?Not just 3 administrations, but 9 administrations: Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump have all maintained that the Apollo program was not a hoax.
You're really misunderstanding the point that Kaku was making. He is referring to the antimatter asymmetry problem, or the paradox that, although experiments show that antimatter is created in 50:50 proportions to normal matter, the observable universe has almost no observable antimatter.Follow the hands:Would Dr. M.Kaku say in public, that the Reality can be described by the Flat Earth Model?No, because it can't be described by the flat Earth model.
And again, our lack of understanding of the universe's history has nothing to do with our actual understanding of Earth's shape.
1. If Earth is flat, then only God could have made it.
2. Because the God exists in Flat Earth Model, then the Universe must exists.
3. Dr. Kaku says, that Earth is round, and it should not exists.
Our largest telescopes can barely make out exoplanets as tiny dots. Do you really think that we'd see aliens?They are also barren and lifeless.Only as far as we know. My favorite solution to the Fermi Paradox: they're out there somewhere, just impossible to see.
That's not a solution, that's a concession.
Ah, so pirates prevent global warming? Got it.QuoteThe two are quite related.Correlation =/= causation.
An idea parroted by people who have never once touched the subject of data analysis in their entire lives.
Perhaps I should restate it: how does the fact that Europa is a sphere preclude the formation of life?QuoteRound worlds can't support life.If Europa's surface ice suddenly melted, what would stop life from forming?
What exactly would cause life to form there? I'm sure you know exactly how life is formed, and you can prove it. Your Nobel prize in chemistry awaits!
Would Dr. M.Kaku say in public, that the Reality can be described by the Flat Earth Model?No, because it can't be described by the flat Earth model.
Flight times provided by "trustworthy internet sources" I'm sure.You mean the airlines themselves, and the hundreds of passengers on each flight who rely on their being on time? I would think that they'd be reliable.
Also, planes would follow Kepler's laws, if they existed, since Kepler's laws would govern the orbit of the Earth, which would govern airplanes. If they magically don't follow Kepler's laws, then perhaps you should explain why.Planes don't follow Kepler's laws because they aren't in orbit. As I said, they don't move at orbital speeds. If they did, they'd go around the world in 6 minutes.
Still, he would not have been able to go around gassing Jews on a whim.They only gave him authority as an aerospace engineer. Have you heard of "power corrupts"?
Von Braun was made a NASA director. Look him up.
Von Braun freely used slavery, torture, and murder to achieve his ends. He was a Colonel in the SS! And yet some argue that he was an innocent rocket scientist?They only gave him authority as an aerospace engineer. Have you heard of "power corrupts"?
Are we supposed to believe that NASA, which was created by liars, harbored the most evil criminals on earth within their ranks, appointed them to high positions in their governance, and then take their word of scientific achievements without question?
Recently is found special Galaxy without Dark Matter, and so is concluded, what there is Dark Matter in cosmos. There is action of Dark Matter, but Dark Matter itself is not detected: it has no material interactions (no strong, no weak, no electromagnetic). A matter without matter interactions is not matter. If a matter curves space-time (and produces gravity then), why then Dark Matter curves the space-time? It is miracle! It is divine miracle! Bound before your God!Dark matter is only known to be non-interacting with light. It has mass; for all we know it could have a strong interaction.
The Gravity is not material interaction, because it is not a force-field in General Relativity: the free falling body feels no-force but the weightlessness.What are you talking about? It's not a force, relativistically speaking, but it can be simulated like any other force.
The Academic Science is built on the conservation Laws (latter are defined as divine-free [it means natural] mechanisms to control the Nature). Showing the violation of latter, one opens door to any models of the Reality, including the Flat Earth. But indeed, the action of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is without source: no Dark Matter was observed practically or theoretically.We have a pretty good idea where dark matter is, in theory. The lack of observation through light is not evidence that it isn't there.
There are two kind of models: Flat Earth model (it uses God's Grace to bent the lights and motions, to make objects appear to any observer as being far away), and the Round Earth. The latter kind of Science came to conclusion, that "the Universe should not exist." The people, who said ``Earth is round" have said also ``There is no Earth, because the Universe should not exist".Congratulations on identifying one of the biggest open questions in science! There are many ideas that physicists have, and our lack of understanding of the history of the universe is in no way related to our knowledge of the Earth's shape.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325022362_Violation_of_energy-momentum_conservation_Laws
One video is longer, than other. But the Academic Science destroys itself:
“The collapse of physics as we know it”
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ac_1372191290
“Science v s God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it”
www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jbd7x
The Academic Science came to conclusion, that round Earth (and flat, no matter) does not exist. What is better: existing Flat Earth Model with God, or non-existing Spherical Earth without God?
"Michio Kaku - The Universe Shouldn't Exist"
https://youtu.be/esPXpagkVwY
