Flat Earth

[jtc]

Feb 14, 2016 19:45:17 GMT gm111 said:

Feb 14, 2016 17:32:37 GMT jtc said:

Allegedly the earth is the centre of our universe and the rest circles us
Isn't that in the bible?

The sun orbits the Milky Way Galaxy, all planets orbit the sun and all moons orbit their planets.. Does to moon look flat? If this planet was flat we'd always see the sun and moon? Also if the earth is flat how would you explain seasons?

Easy
The sun takes different circular paths above us

[jtc]

I'm not saying I believe it's flat but I'm intrigued by their arguments and yeah I know it's sounds like over the cuckoos nest but I do believe nasa is fooling most of the world and it's all staged.
So if that big a lie is in our faces and all staged then I think this could also be just another big lie.
Ive never trusted the powers of the world about anything tbh so nothing would surprise with what they get up to

[chykensa]

Living by the sea, and using it quite a bit by kayaking on it, I can categorically state that the tides do follow the moons. If the moon is full or new, we are on Spring tides, half moons means Neap tides. Explain that away. Unless you are trying to convince me that the 'sun takes different circular paths above us'!!
I'm sorry everybody, but I've ploughed through the whole of this thread, and find the FE arguments half-hearted at best, and laughable at worst.
I'm too old and cynical to be convinced that NASA, all the space exploration, scientists for the last 500 years and my own observations are not correct in that we are inhabiting a spherical earth, just like every other planet in the known universe (and that numbers some 500 million).
I'm out, and will not be reading any more of this thread.

EDIT: as my last contribution to this thread, could someone please explain to me why NASA would want to fabricate the moon landings? What would they gain from this? What benefits would mankind receive from this supposedly gross packet of lies? NASA themselves have admitted doctoring their images shot from the surface of the Moon, not realising that in 40 years everybody would have the wherewithall on their own personal computers of discovering these edits for themselves. The editing took place to improve the quality of the image released to the world, nothing less, nothing more.
Out.

[VapingBad]

[Postmodern Smoking]

Mythbusters debunking of some of the conspiracy theorists on the moon landing:

[jtc]

Feb 14, 2016 23:07:32 GMT chykensa said:

Living by the sea, and using it quite a bit by kayaking on it, I can categorically state that the tides do follow the moons. If the moon is full or new, we are on Spring tides, half moons means Neap tides. Explain that away. Unless you are trying to convince me that the 'sun takes different circular paths above us'!!
I'm sorry everybody, but I've ploughed through the whole of this thread, and find the FE arguments half-hearted at best, and laughable at worst.
I'm too old and cynical to be convinced that NASA, all the space exploration, scientists for the last 500 years and my own observations are not correct in that we are inhabiting a spherical earth, just like every other planet in the known universe (and that numbers some 500 million).
I'm out, and will not be reading any more of this thread.

EDIT: as my last contribution to this thread, could someone please explain to me why NASA would want to fabricate the moon landings? What would they gain from this? What benefits would mankind receive from this supposedly gross packet of lies? NASA themselves have admitted doctoring their images shot from the surface of the Moon, not realising that in 40 years everybody would have the wherewithall on their own personal computers of discovering these edits for themselves. The editing took place to improve the quality of the image released to the world, nothing less, nothing more.
Out.

Well FE believe it's all about money and control and nasa takes billions.
You said it
They've admitted to doctoring images so they appear pleasing to the eye.
Exactly
And every staged scene they make and picture is obviously fake and cgi imo.
If it all upsets you so much sir then that's your choice to dismiss the thread.
Personally I find the subject interesting so I thought it would be good to share and have the debates, opinions and even a laugh

[VapingBad]

It went down in history as the Space Race between the super powers if The USSR didn't get to space the Yanks would have shamed them and vice versa for the moon landing, it was just WW2 rocket technology no flux capacitors or warp drives. If lying about it is so easy why is it only recently the North Korea have rocket tech, surly they would have been making empty boasts for years.

[jtc]

I wish I knew all the answers but why is it then that in 1972 they could travel 245,000 miles to the moon but now a shuttle can only go about 350 miles up.
Something doesn't add up to me there

[DiscoDes]

Feb 15, 2016 4:14:30 GMT jtc said:

I wish I knew all the answers but why is it then that in 1972 they could travel 245,000 miles to the moon but now a shuttle can only go about 350 miles up.
Something doesn't add up to me there

I've been to Kennedy Space centre, once again it's simple maths. Just compare the size of a Saturn iv rocket to the shuttle along with the payload. The shuttle was designed to get heavy loads into low earth orbit, it built a lot of the International Space Station. It could probably reach the moon on the right trajectory, but was never designed to do so.

The Saturn iv rocket is HUGE with a modest payload, it's also not reusable so can carry more fuel for its size. The shuttle had a lower thrust to mass ratio.

[Get Off My Cloud]

To scale.


And yes the shuttle could get to the Moon but it wasn't made for that job, it's like asking why do people use trains or cars to commute to work and back when they could pogo stick it?
It's technically possible so why don't they?

Also what would be the purpose of sending the shuttle to the Moon?
It couldn't land on the surface only orbit and take images from orbit which a smaller cheaper unmanned orbiter could do.

[jtc]

Feb 15, 2016 7:33:56 GMT Get Off My Cloud said:

To scale.


And yes the shuttle could get to the Moon but it wasn't made for that job, it's like asking why do people use trains or cars to commute 60 miles a day to work and back when they could pogo stick it?
It's technically possible so why don't they?

Also what would be the purpose of sending the shuttle to the Moon?
It couldn't land on the surface only orbit and take images from orbit which a smaller cheaper unmanned orbiter could do.

Now this makes quite a lot of sense.
But if they went 245,000 miles to the moon but now they decide to only go around 350 that's a massive change.
Surely it would make more sense to go further and explore more after such great feats .
And as for a shuttle being cheaper I don't think the tax paying public would agree.
Id certainly like to see the difference in price if made today
A shuttle (plane) is certainly easier to hide and move around

[VapingBad]

Plus the huge cost of going to the same place, so the spend is on the space station, Hubble and unmanned craft for the journeys that take years.

[sydsut]

Feb 15, 2016 7:33:56 GMT Get Off My Cloud said:

To scale.


And yes the shuttle could get to the Moon but it wasn't made for that job, it's like asking why do people use trains or cars to commute to work and back when they could pogo stick it?
It's technically possible so why don't they?

Also what would be the purpose of sending the shuttle to the Moon?
It couldn't land on the surface only orbit and take images from orbit which a smaller cheaper unmanned orbiter could do.

Couldn't put it any better. Saying that we no longer do something is somehow proof that we never did is totally crackpot logic.

[VapingBad]

And on gravity look at the size of solid rocket fuel sections needed for 3 humans to escape the Earth's gravity compared to the relatively small rocket on the lunar lander needed for 2 humans to escape the Moon's gravity.

[phatfil]

Feb 15, 2016 8:36:12 GMT jtc said:

But if they went 245,000 miles to the moon but now they decide to only go around 350 that's a massive change.
Surely it would make more sense to go further and explore more after such great feats .
And as for a shuttle being cheaper I don't think the tax paying public would agree.
Id certainly like to see the difference in price if made today
A shuttle (plane) is certainly easier to hide and move around

how much demand is there for coms satellites beyond the orbit of earth??