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 - Rekt

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Community / A misunderstanding
« on: August 09, 2017, 12:09:40 AM »
It is commonly thought that space is an extremely hostile environment, and that one of the big things proving that NASA has faked it all is this hostility. Such an idea is an uninformed one.
Take, for example, the surface of the moon. It looks barren and dangerous enough, but it's not actually that bad!
On Earth we experience a background radiation dose of 2.4mSv each year.
On the moon, annual background radiation is roughly  380mSv. This may seem like a lot, but take into account the duration of the stay. With 356 days/year, and a stay of ~1 day for the Apollo 11 astronauts (22 hours exactly). 380/365= ~1.041. So on the lunar stay the Apollo astronauts were hit with 1.041mSv of radiation during the stay. But that was how much they were HIT by. For the entire stay they were either wearing a suit (Layers of Kevlar, cloth, and polymers), and while not on EVA wearing both the suit and being surrounded by the metal of the Lunar Module (Minus suit helmet). With these numbers, you could realistically expect their radiation dosage to be lower than 1.041mSV. The radiation levels allowed for civil nuclear workers is 1mSv per year over the background dose. So radiation on the moon poses no major threat to these astronauts. Even considering the Van Allen Belts, the radiation is negligible. The limit for nuclear workers is for civil servants, who undergo that extra radiation year after year. The Apollo astronauts were only going to do this once. The human body can experience quite a bit of radiation without danger, as long as it is a) spread out or b) never repeated.

The gravity of the moon actually LESSENS the danger of the moon's surface. If you fall, the damage will be light, and your muscles undergo less strain while working in low gravity

The vacuum of the moon is a non-issue as long as correct protocols are followed and there is no suit or lander breach. If you want to deny the existence of pressure suits, then there is no hope for you.

The surface dust of the moon IS actually dangerous. It is in reality formed of silicon dioxide glass. The suits of the Apollo program were specifically designed with this in mind, however. It had Kevlar in its design, and extremely thick and strong boot soles. The astronauts tried to avoid kneeling as it would possibly wear down the knees. This glass abrasion is an issue, but quite solvable. The dust was quite happy to stick on suits and equipment, and the astronauts said that it got everywhere. However it did not cause any problems for the astronauts.

In conclusion, no environmental issues are in existence that could compromise the NASA story of the Apollo missions.


The wiki does not clearly explain what exactly the evidence against NASA is. Even the more lengthy explanations are not of the highest quality. For example, the page "A Close Look at the Lunar Lander", is a joke of an explanation. It even quotes Tom Bishop and someone called "Mizzle" as if they are experts

  "Anyone who thinks that this landed and launched from the surface of the moon and that
    grown men lived in it with their space car is sadly deluded."
    - Tom Bishop

So can anyone give me a good argument proving the faults in NASA's official story?

Flat Earth Community / NASA is not fake.
« on: April 12, 2017, 12:56:44 PM »
A simple argument can dispel all conspiracies about NASA: Why didn't the Soviets disprove it? And why wouldn't America disprove soviet successes such as Sputnik to give themselves a more prominent position? A rebuttal of an entire space program that is a main source of national pride would be a HUGE propaganda coup, and why wouldn't the Americans disprove the Soviet's missions or the Soviets disprove NASA's missions? You could say that they wanted to preserve themselves, but what about North Korea? They have no space program, the technology to show that there is nothing in space, and the hatred of America as a motive!
(Before Tom Bishop says something about the "Domination of space" and "ICBMs in orbit", let me tell him that ICBMs are stored in silos firmly rooted in the ground. If they have launched and are in orbit, that means that someone has started a nuclear war. There are no nukes in orbit.)

Flat Earth Community / How orbits work.
« on: March 14, 2017, 08:57:32 PM »
Some may not understand how the Earth is kept rotating around the sun, in its orbit. I am not an astrodynamicist, but here is a simple explanation: The earth is pulled towards the sun at all times by gravity, therefore giving it speed towards the sun. However, the earth is moving sideways so fast that it misses. This is repeated over and over again, with the pull not strong enough to pull it all the way in but the sideways movement not fast enough to allow the earth to escape.

Flat Earth Theory / 2+2
« on: February 13, 2017, 02:50:34 PM »
Why would you believe an ancient religious text when considering the shape of the earth?

Flat Earth Community / This wiki entry though......
« on: February 10, 2017, 05:25:51 PM »
Read the article. The top quote from a so called "Expert" is from Tom Bishop, first sign that it's bullshit
The other quotes belie a complete misunderstanding of the environment of the moon
The black stuff is thermal insulation
The gold foil protects it from micrometeoroids
The lunar lander didn't have to be solid, the gravity of the moon is 1/8 that of earth
Just one of the many flaws in FES's NASA denials

Flat Earth Theory / The Moon Landing was REAL.
« on: February 07, 2017, 01:46:21 PM »
Three basic arguments that I have not yet seen thoroughly refuted:
If NASA can fake great acheivments, then why haven't they faked, say, a Mars landing?
Why didn't the USSR discredit the moon landing? They had the ability to track the lander in, and the command module back, and never said it was fake. They were mortal enemies of the US at the time, and refutation of the moon landing would have been a propaganda coup for the Soviets.
Why, when hundreds of thousands of people worked on the Apollo missions, has nobody ever said that it was fake? No scientist on their deathbed, no anonymous engineer, there are no credible sources of workers exposing it as fake.

Flat Earth Community / Moon Landing Conspiracies Put to Rest
« on: January 27, 2017, 04:44:01 PM »
Read it. Cited sources, well written.
A common theory that I have heard is that the Lunar Lander is too flimsy. This is not the case. So for the forces it had to endure, it had to hold in 1 atmosphere of pressure difference. A commercial helium balloon has ~2 atmospheres of pressure inside of it, and when acted upon by the outside atmosphere, this means that it has ~1 atmosphere pressure difference. Also, the gravity on the moon is 1/8th of that on earth. So same pressure at 1/8th gravity.

Flat Earth Theory / Answer these:
« on: January 23, 2017, 11:52:22 PM »
So flat earthers, answer these simple questions:
How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?
What is the motive to cover up the flat earth?
If the earth isn't a planet, your explanation for how everything else is round but earth isn't, isn't that quite the human-centric point of view? Are all of you so arrogant that you truly believe that Earth and humanity is all that matters?
How does even but by when though?

Pages: [1]