Author Topic: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO? (Read 8985 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #15 on:** January 01, 2022, 01:50:21 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on January 01, 2022, 09:15:05 AM

Wow, that doesn't look good for Sungenis. Just lost a ton, about 99%, of my respect for him.
What a flaming moron. He might have an IQ, but he completely lacks wisdom.

I saw his debate with Rob Skiba regarding flat earth, and Skiba cited references regarding the Hebrew meanings of terms, but Sungenis just kept repeating his understanding of a certain term, despite it having been contradicted by the sources cited. Hendrie's book on Flat Earth exposes how some of Sungenis' arguments were completely dishonest.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** January 01, 2022, 01:52:49 PM »

There are some really good videos on this page here ...
http://flatearth101.com/space-is-fake

Tradman · « **Reply #17 on:** January 01, 2022, 02:24:20 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 01, 2022, 01:50:21 PM

I saw his debate with Rob Skiba regarding flat earth, and Skiba cited references regarding the Hebrew meanings of terms, but Sungenis just kept repeating his understanding of a certain term, despite it having been contradicted by the sources cited. Hendrie's book on Flat Earth exposes how some of Sungenis' arguments were completely dishonest.

I saw the debate and everyone watching knew Sungenis was incredibly dishonest, which was devastating for Catholics.

Dankward · « **Reply #18 on:** January 01, 2022, 04:33:58 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 31, 2021, 12:14:48 PM

If we're truly living on a globe earth that spins (or even the Geocentric model, where the universe spins around IT), with gravity, curvature, the vacuum of OUTER SPACE, earth-like solid planets and all that --

Then why don't we go into outer space? We're supposed to have rockets and stuff, right? Even if you acknowledge we never went to the Moon because of the obvious fraud, lack of repetition by any country over a span of 50 years, the suspicious "loss" of the technology to go there, as well as all the evidence we went there (telemetry data, etc.). Let's say the Moon Landings were faked due to the Van Allen Belts which prevent human flesh from going too far away from earth. That's what I believed a year ago.

The Moon landings are definitely fishy. I believe that unmanned Apollo spacecraft has actually gone up there and took pictures, as has been observed and tracked by multiple third parties.

Building the technology for such an endeavor is a decades long endeavor, and incredibly capital and resources intensive, as all things related to space are. That's why every small satellite mission is basically a big deal. Now if it is a manned mission, things get even more complicated. Perhaps the private companies that enter the space industry will continue to bring a faster pace regarding those projects.

Quote

But now I see it's much worse than that. NASA is a *complete* scam, even Low Earth Orbit activities. They fake everything: rocket launches, humans floating in outer space, the space station, EVERYTHING. Their works are fakery and CGI. Nothing more. They are Astro-NOTs.

"Mars" looks like Greenland with a red tint applied. I've seen too many scuba diving suits reflected in "astroNOT" helmets -- and air bubbles escaping and rising up. In the vacuum of space. Oh, and countless funny business in Low Earth Orbit: CGI glitches, harnesses, astroNOTs getting caught in their harnesses when trying to do a somersault, dropping a beach ball and having it fall straight down, etc. Any weightlessness that's been filmed has been done using standard aircraft, such as the Vomit Comet.

You choose to believe what you do.
You choose to believe that all launches are faked, although watched and tracked by thousands of people.
You choose to believe the ISS is fake, although thousands of amateurs can observe and track a huge multi-module satellite orbiting Earth from their backyards. Who assembled that? How does it zoom about up there?
You choose to believe the occasional video glitch on the ISS is proof of all activities being CGI.
You choose to believe that an underwater ISS training environment is proof for it all being fake.
You choose to believe that strange behavior of objects is proof that we're not in a microgravity environment, or only in a zero-g-airplane, although there is hours of uncut zero gravity footage. I know you can use the internet well, so please employ that.
You choose to believe that all other footage from LEO, manned or not (Inspiration 4 mission, russian spacecraft), is all fake, with almost zero waterproof evidence.

Quote

Why not go into "outer space" then? Because we clearly HAVE NOT gone. It's all been a scam. Why fake it, if it's possible?

They've gone through a LOT of trouble and expense to fake it. To what end?

To what end, exactly. Just watch this small clip of the recently launched James Webb Space Telescope, that you believe to be faked, imagine all the resources employed to design and build it over 25 years, and still tell me how it's all a giant farce: https://twitter.com/NASAWebb/status/1476949778307166216
Now do the same for every single public project of any nation. It is ridiculous.

Most of these claims are made with zero evidence, nada. You see one fake picture, and claim it's all fake. Why is there not a single whistleblower, out of the hunreds of thousands who'd need to be in on the lie?

I'm not necessarily speaking to you personally, Matthew, but to all the people who think the same.

Yeti · « **Reply #19 on:** January 01, 2022, 05:13:54 PM »

This entire thread highlights a lot of the problems in the whole discussion. Near the beginning of this thread I posted a rather long quote in which I raised numerous scientific objections to the flat earth theory in which I questioned why satellites can float above the earth without having rockets continually firing downwards, I asked where the southern magnetic pole is and how a magnetic compass needle can always point to the south pole if flatties don't believe there is a south pole; I objected to the idea that it is physically possible for the sun to move parallel to the ground and also in a circle in the air when both of those movements are independently observable to be physically impossible. I concluded by saying that the globe earth model simply applies observable phenomena in outer space to our own planet, such as by saying that the moon orbits our earth in a way similar to how we see the moons of Jupiter orbit Jupiter, and therefore we can see with certainty that such movement is at least possible.

No one responded to anything I said except Ladislaus, who read the first three words in which I mentioned the International Space Station and simply said that there is no such thing as the ISS or something like that because NASA lies. He ignored the actual arguments I made.

Everyone in this thread has discussed little else except propaganda from various government agencies and used that as evidence for the shape of our planet (world, whatever you want to call it). If these agencies lie, then how on earth can any argument be made based on lies that come from the government?

But more importantly, how can a physical fact of reality, such as what the shape of the earth is, be argued either way based on statements from a government institution? Isn't it something to be measured with observations of nature? The problem I have been seeing with flatties in the long discussions that have occurred here recently is that their reasons for believing the earth to be flat have more to do with lies told by the government than with scientific observations. Leaving aside, as I said, the fact that *no* argument can be made using lies as evidence, and leaving aside also what I have said repeatedly on here that the idea of the earth being a globe is not something that comes from any government or modern false science, unfortunately I can't make an argument against such a position if that is why someone believes the earth is flat. I can't deny that the government lies. So if someone says, "The government lies and says the earth is a globe; therefore I believe it is flat," I cannot refute that because the base premise is true. The government does lie.

The syllogism that people in this thread are using is something like this:

MAJOR: Everything the government says is a lie.
MINOR: But the government says the earth is a globe.
CONCLUSION: Therefore the government's statement that the earth is a globe is a lie.

While logically correct, there are numerous problems with this syllogism.

So, can we try this again? Where is the south magnetic pole and how does a magnetized compass needle point to it if antarctica is a band that wraps around the entire earth? How does the sun float in the air? How does it move in a circle instead of in a normal straight-line ballistic motion? How do satellites stay up without falling down?

Dankward · « **Reply #20 on:** January 01, 2022, 05:55:34 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on January 01, 2022, 05:13:54 PM

So, can we try this again? Where is the south magnetic pole and how does a magnetized compass needle point to it if antarctica is a band that wraps around the entire earth? How does the sun float in the air? How does it move in a circle instead of in a normal straight-line ballistic motion? How do satellites stay up without falling down?

Very good points, Yeti.

The problem with the ISS is that from the flat Earth perspective, it cannot exist, or it would prove flat Earth wrong. The reasoning is simple. If you skip through one of the thousands of amateur ISS videos like this one:

It's reasonable to believe it is actually the ISS, and it has exactly the shape and modules that are officially claimed. Now if we take some actual footage from it (click to enlarge to see all the beautiful details):

You can clearly see the straight edges of the solar panels, so the camera is not producing a fisheye effect. Welcome to the globe :)

Matthew · « **Reply #21 on:** January 01, 2022, 06:52:00 PM »

Quote from: Dankward on January 01, 2022, 05:55:34 PM

Very good points, Yeti.

It's reasonable to believe it is actually the ISS, and it has exactly the shape and modules that are officially claimed. Now if we take some actual footage from it (click to enlarge to see all the beautiful details):

You can clearly see the straight edges of the solar panels, so the camera is not producing a fisheye effect. Welcome to the globe :)

Simple explanation: it's CGI fakery. It's a model, imposed over the fake globe earth background. Every apparent photo released by NASA is always a composite -- they even admit as much.

The so-called ISS in the videos must be a small model floating high up using weather balloon technology. Or some other explanation. Because the ISS can't be real:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/why-no-space-travel-not-even-leo/

Remember, there's not one second of footage showing the most monumental construction project since the Pyramids -- the building of the ISS. Consider me suspicious.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** January 01, 2022, 07:47:59 PM »

Quote from: Dankward on January 01, 2022, 05:55:34 PM

Very good points, Yeti.

The problem with the ISS is that from the flat Earth perspective, it cannot exist, or it would prove flat Earth wrong.

Not true at all. There's something up there that people are calling the ISS. But what it is remains to be proven. Tons of the ISS footage is demonstrably fake. If there's something up there, it's likely uninhabited. It could be anything. Most people don't know that the vast majority of satellites (and FEs would say alll of them) are actually suspended from gigantic helium balloons. Some of these crash from time to time in third world countries, and the wreckage has been filmed when it's found in a remote area before the Men in Black can come and clean it up.

"NASA says there's an ISS" is not proof. It's almost an anti-proof. Fact that NASA fakes so much ISS footage makes the entire story fishy. No reason for that if ISS is real. In fact, if NASA says something, there's ipso facto a 90% chance that it's not true. Such has been their track record. Seeing something in the sky that resembles what NASA claims ISS sortof looks like is not proof either. I saw one picture that claimed to be the space shuttle docking with ISS, and I thought it had to be a joke. Space Shuttle looked like a plastic model.

These are the logical distinctions you have to make.

Your entire syllogism rests on:

1) NASA says there's an ISS.
2) People have seen something up there that resembles what NASA claims ISS looks like.

ergo, globe earth.

Don't you see there are are about a half dozen missing logical steps missing? Just because NASA says there's an ISS and people see SOMEthing up there that resembles what they claim ISS looks like ... simply doesn't make it so.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** January 01, 2022, 08:10:33 PM »

Quote from: Dankward on January 01, 2022, 05:55:34 PM

You can clearly see the straight edges of the solar panels, so the camera is not producing a fisheye effect. Welcome to the globe :)

Anything produced by NASA is not acceptable as proof. Sorry. Welcome to being a gullible fool if you find them the least credible. It's like accepting in court the testimony of someone who's a known pathological liar and then convicting someone based on his testimony.

Matthew · « **Reply #24 on:** January 01, 2022, 09:19:50 PM »

And don't get me started on the Space Shuttle! That "thing" was about as aerodynamic as a fat bull.

Matthew · « **Reply #25 on:** January 01, 2022, 09:27:32 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on January 01, 2022, 05:13:54 PM

So, can we try this again? Where is the south magnetic pole and how does a magnetized compass needle point to it if antarctica is a band that wraps around the entire earth? How does the sun float in the air? How does it move in a circle instead of in a normal straight-line ballistic motion? How do satellites stay up without falling down?

Satellites are probably held up with balloons; various gasses.

As for the course of the sun, moon and stars, the Foundations of the Earth, the fountains of the Deep -- I think you are overly curious and need to ask God about the mechanics of His creation. If we fully understood Creation -- ANY PART OF IT -- we could do it ourselves. Note we can't make a single living cell. We are pathetic wannabes, total drooling imbeciles next to the greatness and omnipotence of God, and I'll be the first to proclaim it.

There are a lot more mysteries in life besides the sun. What is the nature of life? Why do good things happen to bad people? Why do bad things happen to good people?

Quote

Romans Chapter 11:

[33] O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! [34] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?

It is not given to man to understand every mystery, not even of the natural world. We are creatures. Stuck in time. Stuck here on earth. We either serve the great God and elevate ourselves, even unto the heights of heaven, or we refuse and de-facto serve the devil, a fallen creature "who has already lost", and partake in his reward which is eternal torment and misery.

Dankward · « **Reply #26 on:** January 02, 2022, 12:42:36 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on January 01, 2022, 06:52:00 PM

Simple explanation: it's CGI fakery. It's a model, imposed over the fake globe earth background. Every apparent photo released by NASA is always a composite -- they even admit as much.

The so-called ISS in the videos must be a small model floating high up using weather balloon technology. Or some other explanation. Because the ISS can't be real:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/why-no-space-travel-not-even-leo/

Remember, there's not one second of footage showing the most monumental construction project since the Pyramids -- the building of the ISS. Consider me suspicious.

Any evidence of such realtime fakes of epic complexity being done by all space agencies and companies, apart from some literal video glitches that can be interpreted in certain ways?

Any evidence of the "miniature model on balloons" theory? A very bold claim that the ISS can't exist, but I've explained how you get to that point in your ways of thinking.

Extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 01, 2022, 08:10:33 PM

Anything produced by NASA is not acceptable as proof. Sorry. Welcome to being a gullible fool if you find them the least credible. It's like accepting in court the testimony of someone who's a known pathological liar and then convicting someone based on his testimony.

I see your point. While I don't agree on it, I can accept it as a position.

The good thing is that we don't need NASA at all to prove the globe - remember the agency was only founded some 70 years ago.

But as we are talking about CGI and space agencies, riddle me how they took these high quality LEO pictures back in the 60ies and 70ies, which are consistent with what we are presented today, after 50 years of technological advancement (remember, CGI wasn't even possible in the 60ies, 70ies and most of the 80ies).

- first American to spacewalk: https://www.history.com/.image/c_limit%2Ccs_srgb%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_1240/MTcyOTkyNDIzNzc1OTcwNTQw/edward-white-nasa-9457842193.webp
- another image view: https://cdn.historycollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/800px-Ed_White_First_American_Spacewalker_-_GPN-2000-001180.jpg
- first rendezvous & docking of two spacecraft in orbit: https://cdn.historycollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Gemini_6_Views_Gemini_7.jpg
- another perspective: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Gemini_7_in_orbit_-_GPN-2006-000035.jpg
- damaged russian Spektr spacecraft, part of the Mir station, after a collision with a Russian "Progress" spacecraft: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Spektr_-_cropped.jpg
- first American to spacewalk without a tether: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/EVAtion_-_GPN-2000-001087.jpg

I chose these pictures because they show a consistent globe, have different sources and predate all kinds of digital image editing, let alone 3D computer graphics (CGI).

But as I said, you don't need NASA to debunk FE at all. Here you see refraction, compression, and a rare green flash sunset going on, with the Sun disappearing below the horizon, not due to perspective, but due to actual spatial obstruction by the curved surface of Earth which the water follows. There is no sound explanation of even a simple sunset by FE whatsoever.

Dankward · « **Reply #27 on:** January 02, 2022, 01:06:50 AM »

Matthew, here are some work in progress pictures of the ISS, if you scroll a bit through the thread: https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-pictures-of-the-construction-of-the-ISS

Many of the globe photos are indeed composites of smaller images, but not all of them. NASA explicitly states which are which. Many "Blue Marble" photos are original ones. The ISS footage is unedited and not a composite - why would it be? It's really just single cameras capturing footage, not satellites capturing Earth piece by piece.

There are also other satellites that take unedited photos of the complete globe, like the russian Elektro-L: http://electro.ntsomz.ru/en/ (use the slider).

MiserereMei · « **Reply #28 on:** January 02, 2022, 06:27:17 AM »

Quote from: Dankward on January 02, 2022, 12:42:36 AM

Any evidence of such realtime fakes of epic complexity being done by all space agencies and companies, apart from some literal video glitches that can be interpreted in certain ways?

Any evidence of the "miniature model on balloons" theory? A very bold claim that the ISS can't exist, but I've explained how you get to that point in your ways of thinking.

Extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.
I see your point. While I don't agree on it, I can accept it as a position.

The good thing is that we don't need NASA at all to prove the globe - remember the agency was only founded some 70 years ago.

But as we are talking about CGI and space agencies, riddle me how they took these high quality LEO pictures back in the 60ies and 70ies, which are consistent with what we are presented today, after 50 years of technological advancement (remember, CGI wasn't even possible in the 60ies, 70ies and most of the 80ies).

- first American to spacewalk: https://www.history.com/.image/c_limit%2Ccs_srgb%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_1240/MTcyOTkyNDIzNzc1OTcwNTQw/edward-white-nasa-9457842193.webp
- another image view: https://cdn.historycollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/800px-Ed_White_First_American_Spacewalker_-_GPN-2000-001180.jpg
- first rendezvous & docking of two spacecraft in orbit: https://cdn.historycollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Gemini_6_Views_Gemini_7.jpg
- another perspective: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Gemini_7_in_orbit_-_GPN-2006-000035.jpg
- damaged russian Spektr spacecraft, part of the Mir station, after a collision with a Russian "Progress" spacecraft: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Spektr_-_cropped.jpg
- first American to spacewalk without a tether: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/EVAtion_-_GPN-2000-001087.jpg

I chose these pictures because they show a consistent globe, have different sources and predate all kinds of digital image editing, let alone 3D computer graphics (CGI).

But as I said, you don't need NASA to debunk FE at all. Here you see refraction, compression, and a rare green flash sunset going on, with the Sun disappearing below the horizon, not due to perspective, but due to actual spatial obstruction by the curved surface of Earth which the water follows. There is no sound explanation of even a simple sunset by FE whatsoever.

Yeap! One of Jules Verne's novels is actually "The Green Flash" where he discusses this effect. Erastothenes of Cyrene, 2 centuries before AD made calculations of the curvature based on empirical observations that took him years. I think he didn't have any reason political or not for his conclusions.

Dankward · « **Reply #29 on:** January 02, 2022, 09:07:25 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on January 01, 2022, 09:19:50 PM

And don't get me started on the Space Shuttle! That "thing" was about as aerodynamic as a fat bull.

It was a fat bull - for the launch and ascent phase, not that much aerodynamics were needed anyway, it was just all engines thrusting at full capacity as the atmosphere gets thinner. The structural load

The real hard and dangerous part was the atmospheric reentry, because the heat tile system was a complicated and quite fragile design with multiple SS failures owed to it. The SS also only had one go at landing, because it was just coming down like a gliding rock with one try at making the perfect landing, there was no go around option.

Author Topic: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO? (Read 8985 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

Ladislaus

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

Tradman

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

Dankward

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

Yeti

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

Dankward

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

Matthew

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

Ladislaus

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

Ladislaus

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

Matthew

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

Matthew

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

Dankward

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

Dankward

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

MiserereMei

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?

Dankward

Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?