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.


Topics - Tumeni

Pages: [1]
1
Tom, do you think there's any Inferior Mirage at play in this instance?



Tried to discuss here, but you walked.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14416.0

2
Flat Earth Investigations / What Investigations are ongoing?
« on: April 22, 2019, 05:42:37 PM »
Title of sub-forum is Flat Earth Investigations.

What investigations are ongoing?
Who is doing the investigating?
What methods are they employing?

??

3
Original thread - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11968.0


1. Kaysing never worked for NASA, so he was never a "NASA Rocketdyne Engineer"

Based on his employment history at Wikipedia, thus;

"Kaysing began work as the senior technical writer at Rocketdyne, starting on February 13, 1956. On September 24, 1956,
he became a service analyst; starting September 15, 1958, he worked as a service engineer; and starting on October 10, 1962,
as a publications analyst.

From 1956 to 1963 Kaysing also served as head of technical publications for Rocketdyne, where Saturn V rocket engines were
designed and built. On May 31, 1963, he resigned for personal reasons."



2. He left Rocketdyne in 1963, at the point where the Apollo programme had not even launched its first crewed Earth orbital
mission. Without access to anything beyond that point, what would he know?

3. The above shows him working as an analyst or publications specialist for longer than he worked as an engineer. So why should
any credence be placed on what he claims?

4. The claim that he "worked with NASA" is vague and unclear, at best. Nothing in his employment history suggests he worked
directly with them at any point, beyond the possibility of some interaction on the Saturn V engines. Does this really qualify
him as an expert on the whole project?


The content of the video has been comprehensively debunked on YouTube. Links to follow.

4
Mike Helmick received an 'award' for this;




On the basis that the looped video with the green-shirted astronaut is the 'big mistake', have a look at the original;



On a number of occasions, he is clearly seen with his hands clasped in front of him. At the point we're looking at, the action which Mike has deceptively looped to make it look odd, he simply goes to do this once again, then changes his mind. That's it. That's the 'biggest mistake'? That an astronaut goes to clasp his hands, then feels off-balance, and reaches for a handhold instead?


Like I said in my previous thread - a big truckload of Dingo's Kidneys.

5
Posting new thread, as suggested/requested by Tom ;

Quote from: Tumeni
Just look at the comments. They're FULL of contrary voices, pointing out how Morgile's simplistic 2D view of the solar system is lacking ....



Around the 4 minute mark he is making the argument that Venus should never be seen past 11pm due to where the horizon is for the observer. The problem is that his model is not in 3D?

The argument seems to be perfectly valid. If you want to debate it with bad arguments you pull from YouTube start a thread in the main forums and post a link here to your thread. You are distracting from this collection of videos.

Look into the comments far enough, and you'll find my comments as one of the contrary voices. Also on Morgile's previous video on exactly the same topic, with exactly the same faulty logic. Part of the problem is he's not looking at it in 3D. I don't find his argument to be valid.

Still, considering the issue in 2D only, here's my rebuttal video to his first one;



Bottom line - if Venus and Mercury are at their maximum elongation from the Sun, an observer on Earth who is up to 21 degrees (for Mercury) or 36 degrees (for Venus) past the terminator line on Earth will have a clear sightline to either planet.

Since Earth rotates approximately 15 degrees per hour, then observing Venus, given a perfectly upright Earth, with no axial tilt, and Venus in the best position for observation, will be possible for (36/15 = ) 2.4 hours approx after sunset.

We're told the photo in the video was taken at 11pm approx, and, as some have pointed out in the video comments, sunset was well after 9pm, so that would place Venus well within the 2.4 hour limit of visibility.

Once axial tilt for the time of year is taken into account, that makes it even more visible. See my comments at Morgile's video (if he hasn't deleted them, or blocked me ... I'll try and requote it here). I have no difficulty visualising it in 3D, and could easily model it.

6
Suggestions & Concerns / Warnings
« on: August 02, 2018, 04:08:42 PM »
I've just realised that there's three warnings in my messages from the beginning of June, but there's no indication which threads or posts they relate to.

How am I supposed to know what I've been warned for?

7
Flat Earth Investigations / It's not all about NASA
« on: July 30, 2018, 08:10:01 AM »
Following on from a Suggestions and Concerns post where I was prompted to open a new thread;

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10277.0

NASA's image is already tainted and questionable.

Why is it particularly about NASA?

Humankind had figured out the Earth was a globe long before NASA. NASA are now only a small player in a worldwide satellite and space launch industry. Look at this schedule, and count how many of the upcoming launches are NOT NASA launches....

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

NASA aren't the only ones involved. There are Russian, European, Japanese, weather satellites sending pictures of the globe
every 10 minutes or so. International agencies are involved in independent tracking of other orbital satellites. Some of these are independent operators, not Governmental space agencies.

8
Flat Earth Investigations / The Lunar Module
« on: July 10, 2018, 05:36:09 PM »
How many innocents continue to believe sweet fictions like Neil Armstrong hobbling about on the moon after climbing out of a capsule made of tin foil?

In itself, this statement is a lie. The lunar module was not "made of tinfoil". Much of it required little in terms of structural integrity, since it would be exposed to no wind, weather, or other environmental elements. At the core of it was a pressure vessel for the astronauts, and many of the functional elements were bolted on to the side of this.

Here's the pressure vessel viewed toward the top of the vehicle, showing the docking hatch which connected to the Command Module, and the rectangular window for viewing the docking aid. The windows and hatch used for entry and exit on the Moon are hidden, and are to the top of the assembly.



Here's the view from the rear once most/all of the ancillary 'stuff' has been bolted onto the side of the pressure vessel. This includes various tanks, and the electrical/system panel (to the left in this photo). The CM hatch is to the top, and lunar hatch hidden to the right.



As you can see, we have pictures noID-05 and noID-16 here - change the URL manually in your browser bar, and you can see a host of others, from 02 to nn.

02 shows the intermediate stage of foil wrap
03 shows a tech working on the rear section, with CM hatch to the top
04 shows the descent stage
05 is referenced above
06 shows the descent stage from below
07 shows the ascent and descent stages together
08 shows both stages from the side, lunar hatch to the right
09 shows ascent stage with lunar hatch to front right
10 shows ascent stage with lunar hatch to the front, and some ancillaries attached
11 shows ascent stage from below with lunar hatch front left
12 shows ascent and descent stage with some ancillaries
13 shows 'naked' ascent and descent stages
14 shows descent stage
15 shows descent stage
16 is referenced above
17 shows transport of LM
18 shows rear of ascent stage with ancillaries, especially the electrical panel
19 shows the ascent stage with lunar hatch to the front
20 shows ascent stage from rear left with ancillaries
21 shows descent stage
22 shows transport of LM
23 shows ascent stage with ancillaries, lunar hatch front right
24 shows the fairing to go around the LM on the Saturn V
25 shows an almost-complete ascent stage, lunar hatch to the left
26 shows the pressure vessel atop the descent stage skeleton
27 shows almost-complete ascent and descent stage from the rear
28 shows almost-complete ascent and descent stage from the side, lunar hatch to the left

etc
etc



No doubt JRowe will take me to task for "discussing space travel" when he doesn't think I should, but I really don't see the need for a new thread to specifically rebut something within this one.

9
I've seen the ISS, on more than one occasion, cross my sky twice in the same evening.
Who says you saw the same vehicle?

I do, because it appeared exactly as predicted for a single vehicle, both for me, and for everybody else who looked for it those nights from other locations. Nobody saw any occurrence of it outwith this predicted timetable for a single craft. Otherwise, someone, somewhere would have reported it.



You saw TWO instances of a machine pass overhead. Why do you make the immediate inference they must be the same machine?

Because the predicted timetable is based on such. Because all the other data and documentation states as such. Because, if there were more than one, people would see one or more at different times from different places, and nobody has done so.

If I saw a train go past me on the platform at my local train station, and then another identical one go past 10 mins later in the same direction, I wouldn't leap to the conclusion it was the same train. I'd assume it was two trains run by the same company with the same paint job on them.

... but if that were the case, a train spotter at another station would note the one that's not passing your station go past at another station. But all the observations of the ISS occur in a serial fashion. If the only observations you and all the other trainspotters had were of one train passing them by, exactly at the time expected for one train, and each followed each other in a sequential timeline following the direction of track and sequence of stations, you would conclude there's only one train.

If the same happened again in 90 minutes, you could only conclude that -A  there's a track leading back in the opposite direction to get back to the start point before your first station (in which case someone would have to see the train going the other way - which never happens with the ISS), or -B  the train track must go around a sphere to return it to the start point.

What other conclusion is there? Matter transference, with a Star Trek-style transporter? Please don't suggest we google that to see .....
 

It did so exactly as predicted for me by in-the-sky.org,
My regional train company does that with trains.

100% of the time? Really? No breakdowns, no stoppages due to weather, absolutely NO changes in the timetable for years?

it went into Earth's shadow as predicted by the app, and went in the same direction each time. It shows no deviation from wind, weather or such, it shows no vapour, propellant or other trail behind it.
Again, how do you know what type of propulsion secret military aircraft use?

I don't. But I suggest it's impossible to have had a secret military aircraft in the air, 24/7/365, for this period of time. I also suggest you have NOTHING to actually reinforce this suggestion. No observations, no data.   

I know that planes cannot cross my sky at one time, then cross my sky again in the same direction, 90 mins later, without doing one of two things
A- going around our planet in 90mins at approx 17k mph (Mach 16+), or
B- changing direction to go back to the starting point in my sky.
Or C, its not the exact same aircraft.

Again, that does not fit with the observations. The predicted timeline shows one craft. Nobody every sees another craft outwith the timeline. It's impossible to have more than one and have both fit a timeline based on one.

They're not putting on a display specifically for me, they don't know where I am when observing, so we have to rule out option B.   Else, how would they know when to turn?
Why would they turn? Fly straight, get from edge to edge. Fly a different route home, pretending to be any other 'satellite' on a different 'orbit' (route) going a different direction.

How can you fly a different route to get back to a starting point without turning? The only way to keep going straight, and get back to the same part of someone's sky is to go around a globe. Anything else involves a turn, and deviation away from the predicted path and timeline.

Also, other observers are seeing the ISS go in the same direction, nobody sees it change direction, nobody sees it go East - West, so we can further rule out B from that.
How do you even know what you are seeing? If I projected a hologram onto a glass-like firmament, you'd see whatever shape I decided to put there. This is even easier than multiple vehicles. I just point a powerful light source at the firmament and you'll see whatever I show you. And I can turn the light off whenever I want a 'shadow of the earth'.

I'm not the only one seeing it. Forget the "what if", and face up to it. Nobody is projecting a travelling hologram onto anything from different parts of a flat earth, in order to simulate a single craft going around a globe, such that every single observer on Earth, regardless of where they are, sees something that fits exactly with the timeline of such a craft. 

Again, how would the pilot know when to turn, such that they were out of sight for the observer / all observers, and able to turn back to the starting point?
Pilot? We live in an age of UAVs. Why the hell would I want a pilot? He needs life support, oxygen, warmth, pressurisation, instrumentation, knobs and dials, ejection facilities ... he's a pain in the backside. I'm going to replace him with a pentium processor.

Good for you. Got any actual evidence that anyone is doing this? You still can't provide a realistic scenario to get the craft to go between end point and start point of my first personal observation, in order to set up the second, without it either changing direction (and being seen in a non-congruent path by others) or going around the globe

The only sensible option is A.
Or C ... multiple UAVs ... or better yet, D ... holographic projection.

C doesn't fit, as stated above. D is just idle speculation to conjure a counter-argument


You're just speculating - maybe a plane could do this, maybe that. Have you any proof that a plane is actually doing this?
You're just speculating that you are being told the truth.

No, I'm watching in person and basing my argument on the empirical observations that I and others have made.

10
Flat Earth Theory / A new Earthrise shows the globe Earth
« on: June 15, 2018, 03:14:28 PM »
"Longjiang-2 sends back first images"


11
Flat Earth Investigations / New 'Blue Marble'
« on: June 02, 2018, 05:52:47 AM »
"Despite a serious cooling problem, the newest U.S. weather satellite has produced a sharp snapshot of Earth. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released the GOES-17 satellite's first image Thursday. It shows the Western Hemisphere in detail from 22,000 miles up, with cloud moving across the planet."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5795841/Ailing-350m-weather-satellite-sends-stunning-blue-marble-video.html

(and Yes, the continents are different sizes from other 'blue marbles' ... )

12
Flat Earth Theory / Clouds illuminated from below
« on: May 02, 2018, 10:13:41 AM »


If the Sun moves around a flat earth at a constant height, how can clouds be illuminated from above on some flights, but below from others, like this one in the video?

Can the sun ever be below the clouds on a flat earth?

Pages: [1]