Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Matthew on December 31, 2021, 12:14:48 PM

Title: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: 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.

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.

If I could cash in $0.25 for every bit of evidence of NASA fraud I found, I think I'd be able to retire early.

Those refusing to entertain the notion of a Flat Earth throw out these tenuous arguments here and there, usually quite easily debunked by those knowledgeable, but even if they could make a solid case, you would still be left with my important question, the Elephant in the Room:

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?


P.S. What do you do when a man has been caught in a lie? 100 lies? 1000 lies? He is a LIAR and no longer to be trusted, that's what. NASA has been caught in so many lies, it's morally certain that everything they do is a lie, or if they occasionally tell the truth (about the weather or some such), it's to bolster their otherwise non-existent credibility. It's all for the purpose of more deception.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: FiannFdla on December 31, 2021, 01:06:27 PM
A good rule of thumb is that everything in the post-WW2 NWO is contrived and fake.

99.9% of the time if the media says something is a conspiracy theory it is true. And for any prominent contentious topic if you take the opposite stance to the mainstream you will generally be right. It's a pretty good heuristic. You can always then do your own independent research to corroborate your stance later.

So even without doing much research into the moon landings and the typical conception of the earth as a globe I will say that they are both fake and ghey.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Yeti on December 31, 2021, 01:12:31 PM
There is the International Space Station, which floats in space above the earth. I don't know how the flat earth idea accounts for that or any other satellite floating in orbit. Obviously there are satellites floating over the earth because we have GPS, satellite telephones, satellite internet, and other things. So how do those satellites stay suspended over the earth? Why don't they fall down? They don't have rockets continuously blasting downwards to keep them in the air.

Another thing that I thought of from another thread, distantly related to this, is how a compass works. The globe earth believes that the earth is a giant magnet, and a compass works because the needle is magnetized and drawn to the north and south magnetic poles. According to the flat earth model, Antarctica is not a continent but a wall of ice around the edge of the earth. So, where exactly is the southern magnetic pole? It must be somewhere. Let's say it's just south of Tierra del Fuego, South America. If it were there, then when you went to the Cape of Good Hope, you would be roughly east of the south magnetic pole, so the southern end of your compass needle would point towards South America, not Antarctica. And depending on where you went in the world, the direction the compass needle pointed would be dramatically different.

I have still not heard an explanation for how the sun moves in the flat earth system. Flatties claim the sun moves parallel to the ground, and in a horizontally circular motion. Both those things are independently impossible, and for different reasons. When you throw a ball through the air, it falls to the ground, it does not move parallel to the ground for even one instant of its trajectory. Moreover, an object cannot move in a horizontally circular path through the air because it takes force (centrifugal force, I believe it would be) to make something move in a circle. Unless you're talking about a boomerang, which the sun sure doesn't look like, objects move in a straight line relative to the ground when they are flying, in the sense that, if you were to throw a rock and then draw a line on the ground that precisely followed the path of the rock through the air, the line would be straight. It would not be curved.

There is no example in nature of any object being able to move in the way the flat earth system claims that the sun moves. It effectively claims that the sun (and moon) are exempt from the laws of physics.

Now, the sun in the globe earth system (whether you choose to heliocentric or geocentric model, it makes little difference) simply behaves in a manner that we see numerous other objects moving in space, so that we know for certain that such motion is physically possible. You can look at Jupiter and see its moons rotating around it in a circular motion. The globe earth simply says that that is how the sun moves around the earth, or the earth around the sun, or whatever. That is also the type of movement that we claim the satellites use that orbit the earth, that make possible GPS systems and other stuff. No one needs to posit ad-hoc explanations or invent phenomena that aren't otherwise known to exist to explain any of these things.

EDIT: typo
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: angelusmaria on December 31, 2021, 01:37:18 PM
I don't want to derail the thread, but I am new to considering the geocentric/fe model.  Where can I find opinions about what is beyond the Antarctic ice wall, what's on the other side?  I ask because I find that search engines are increasingly biased against these things, maybe I could get some good pointers.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Miser Peccator on December 31, 2021, 03:58:43 PM
I don't want to derail the thread, but I am new to considering the geocentric/fe model.  Where can I find opinions about what is beyond the Antarctic ice wall, what's on the other side?  I ask because I find that search engines are increasingly biased against these things, maybe I could get some good pointers.  Thanks.


This is a good starter:
10:45
https://www.bitchute.com/video/E4yZxHcTtxB3/

Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Miser Peccator on December 31, 2021, 04:51:33 PM

This is a good starter:
10:45
https://www.bitchute.com/video/E4yZxHcTtxB3/


This is a bit longer and more in depth:

30min 6sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmYRFtY_jfQ

That channel has lots of good vids on FE
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 31, 2021, 08:14:26 PM
There is the International Space Station, which floats in space above the earth. 

So then why is so much of the alleged footage from ISS cleary faked?  Not necessary if there's actually a real ISS up there.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on December 31, 2021, 08:28:50 PM
Come on, Matthew.  We all know that Google and Youtube have the best interests of humanity in mind when censoring Flat Earth stuff.  They're driven by service to humanity.  NASA's mission is to do the same .  And I'm glad that all the nations of the earth could agree (even if they agree on nothing else) that the habitat of penguins must be ruthlessly preserved from being damaged by the one or two people who might try to disturb them with their snowmobiles. [/sarcasm]

All this stinks to high heaven.

1) heavy censorship of FE by Google/Youtube/Facebook and Big Tech
2) massive amounts of fraud from NASA (you could look at hours of footage with clearly-demonstrable hoaxing going on)
3) NASA's ties to Satanism and the occult (Parsons->Crowley, Masonry, etc ... and I read an entire book on the subject).
4) closing off Antarctica as if it were some top secret military base ... I saw video of a couple guys who tried to get close in a small boat and were intercepted by a destroyer, and another guy who tried to fly there on a plane and was itercepted by a fighter jet (once escorted to the military base, the commander indicated that they would have shot him down had he not complied and turned around).  We need to waste precious resources on patrolling Antarctica and save a couple penguins.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on January 01, 2022, 08:02:24 AM
So then why is so much of the alleged footage from ISS cleary faked?  Not necessary if there's actually a real ISS up there.

Yes. That is the point of this thread. Why the fakery? Why would they play Hollywood in a studio somewhere with CGI, harnesses, hair gel, and other nonsense, if they could just film the real astronauts on the space station? It's almost as if there IS no real space station, which is why they have no choice but to fake it...
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Tradman on January 01, 2022, 08:44:35 AM
Yes. That is the point of this thread. Why the fakery? Why would they play Hollywood in a studio somewhere with CGI, harnesses, hair gel, and other nonsense, if they could just film the real astronauts on the space station? It's almost as if there IS no real space station, which is why they have no choice but to fake it...
(https://i.imgur.com/tGHzHEA.png)
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on January 01, 2022, 08:52:23 AM
What bothers me, is when people give SOME organizations 500 "passes" for lying, while they give other men and organizations just 1 or 2 passes. Why the inconsistency?

Imagine if Fr. Pfeiffer, Pope Michael, or the Dimond Brothers claimed to have a Trad Catholic commune of 5,000 souls, but every piece of "evidence" for this place turned out to be horribly fake. Say their scenic photos are found in Google images; several of their scenic photos were screen captures from Lord of the Rings; vast evidence of using CGI/green screens, and many individuals pictured are tracked down, and actually live in subdivisions in other cities throughout the USA. And plenty of other evidence of fakery and chicanery.

Let's say their motivation was to collect donations and bequests from all over the world, to fund their heroic venture.

How long before you wrote them off as liars and con-men? Would they be given as many "passes" as mainstream-lovers give NASA? I guarantee you they would NOT. For some reason, because NASA is NASA, little boys like rocket ships, exploring the "planets" fires the imagination, a love of sci-fi, boyhood memories of the "moon landings", a love of science from their youth, a love of astronomy, and a host of other reasons -- some men will give NASA a ridiculous latitude to be caught in lies. When faced with such lies, these individuals get hostile and/or plug their ears and sing "lalala I can't hear you..." The cognitive dissonance is painful.

But I struggle to come up with an adequate analogy, because in the case of a commune, you'd have Google Earth/Google Maps, possibly an address, and unlike Antarctica, there aren't dozens of countries (many of them enemies to each other!) guarding it with ridiculous quantities of powerful military hardware. So realistically we COULD get in our car and find out the truth about a "mythical Trad Catholic commune" for ourselves. With "outer space" or Antarctica, however, it's outside the reach of most of us to verify it personally.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on January 01, 2022, 09:05:06 AM
All this stinks to high heaven.

1) heavy censorship of FE by Google/Youtube/Facebook and Big Tech
2) massive amounts of fraud from NASA (you could look at hours of footage with clearly-demonstrable hoaxing going on)
3) NASA's ties to Satanism and the occult (Parsons->Crowley, Masonry, etc ... and I read an entire book on the subject).
4) closing off Antarctica as if it were some top secret military base ... I saw video of a couple guys who tried to get close in a small boat and were intercepted by a destroyer, and another guy who tried to fly there on a plane and was itercepted by a fighter jet (once escorted to the military base, the commander indicated that they would have shot him down had he not complied and turned around).  We need to waste precious resources on patrolling Antarctica and save a couple penguins.

Very good points.

But I'd like to add to #4 -- it's not just a "top secret" military base they're pretending to have, but a large, expensive, and strategically important one! In the farthest flung reaches of the earth, you'd think it couldn't be less valuable. Antarctica is almost unusable, especially according to the "mainstream science view". For whatever scientific reason, it makes the north pole look like California as far as climate. What are they guarding so jealously, a bunch of penguins and wasteland? Seriously?

And why do we have this magical "peace on earth, all countries hold hands" when it comes to closing off antarctica? Many of these countries are enemies out here in the rest of the world. But for some reason, all these countries have an internal line they won't cross, as if they're guarding some important secret or something, when it comes to antarctica. Maybe they know that if they fell out of lock step on that issue and tried to "spill the beans", in a moment of anger, tribal warfare, or whatever, that the other 199 countries would quickly bomb their country out of existence, so that keeps them in line? Sure makes you wonder.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Tradman on January 01, 2022, 09:11:52 AM
What bothers me, is when people give SOME organizations 500 "passes" for lying, while they give other men and organizations just 1 or 2 passes. Why the inconsistency?

Imagine if Fr. Pfeiffer, Pope Michael, or the Dimond Brothers claimed to have a Trad Catholic commune of 5,000 souls, but every piece of "evidence" for this place turned out to be horribly fake. Say their scenic photos are found in Google images; several of their scenic photos were screen captures from Lord of the Rings; vast evidence of using CGI/green screens, and many individuals pictured are tracked down, and actually live in subdivisions in other cities throughout the USA. And plenty of other evidence of fakery and chicanery.

How long before you wrote them off as liars and con-men? Would they be given as many "passes" as mainstream-lovers give NASA? I guarantee you they would NOT. For some reason, because NASA is NASA, little boys like rocket ships, exploring the "planets" fires the imagination, a love of sci-fi, boyhood memories of the "moon landings", a love of science from their youth, a love of astronomy, and a host of other reasons -- some men will give NASA a ridiculous latitude to be caught in lies. When faced with such lies, these individuals get hostile and/or plug their ears and sing "lalala I can't hear you..."

But I struggle to come up with an adequate analogy, because in the case of a commune, you'd have Google Earth/Google Maps, possibly an address, and unlike Antarctica, there aren't dozens of countries (many of them enemies to each other!) guarding it with ridiculous quantities of powerful military hardware. So realistically we COULD get in our car and find out the truth about a "mythical Trad Catholic commune" for ourselves. With "outer space" or Antarctica, however, it's outside the reach of most of us to verify it personally.
It is mind blowing that Catholics sidle up to liars even after they are proven liars.  The geocentric globers for instance, know that NASA has lied, but they say that NASA doesn't lie about everything.  How do they know that? Why give liars another opportunity to lie to you by believing a single thing they say?  Robert Sungenis is one of those Catholics and leads their pack.  More interesting about Sungenis however, is that every single science source of his is an evolutionary Big Banger. Is there not some point at which one has to question the rocket scientists?  Knowing many of the arguments, Sungenis wrote a tome attempting to shame flat earth.  I do believe some people are duped, but others, like Sungenis, I wonder if he isn't a shill for bigger entities.  It's not just the globe, Sungenis vigorously defends the notion that Russia was already consecrated and the SSPX are in schism.  3 big strikes, all based on lies.     
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on January 01, 2022, 09:15:05 AM
Knowing many of the arguments, Sungenis wrote a tome attempting to shame flat earth.  I do believe some people are duped, but others, like Sungenis, I wonder if he isn't a shill for bigger entities.  It's not just the globe, Sungenis vigorously defends the notion that Russia was already consecrated and the SSPX are in schism.  3 big strikes, all based on lies.   

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.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Tradman on January 01, 2022, 09:24:30 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.
Yep. I have to wonder, how can someone be squarely on the wrong side of three of the most divisive and important problems leading Catholics into a great apostasy?  
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 01, 2022, 01:50:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 01, 2022, 01:52:49 PM
There are some really good videos on this page here ...
http://flatearth101.com/space-is-fake
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Tradman on January 01, 2022, 02:24:20 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.       
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on January 01, 2022, 04:33:58 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.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Yeti 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?
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on January 01, 2022, 05:55:34 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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_ADBlrIRsM

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):
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/368680598853648405/926979382164197426/curvature1.jpg)
You can clearly see the straight edges of the solar panels, so the camera is not producing a fisheye effect. Welcome to the globe :)
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on January 01, 2022, 06:52:00 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.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 01, 2022, 07:47:59 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.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 01, 2022, 08:10:33 PM
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/368680598853648405/926979382164197426/curvature1.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZUZsVwbOVA
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on January 01, 2022, 09:27:32 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.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on January 02, 2022, 12:42:36 AM
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.

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.
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/5564a47ad5dded3a4f20b358b6c4e0a2.gif)
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward 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).
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: MiserereMei on January 02, 2022, 06:27:17 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.
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/5564a47ad5dded3a4f20b358b6c4e0a2.gif)
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.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on January 02, 2022, 09:07:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on January 02, 2022, 09:28:04 AM
One of the many things I never questioned, until someone brought up the absurdity -- how do you have THRUST -- even if you bring your own oxygen (solid, liquid propellant) with a rocket in the vacuum of space? I've seen rockets work -- on earth. There is AIR to push against, giving you forward momentum or thrust. When there is NOTHING THERE -- a vacuum -- you get no thrust.

It would be like trying to swim -- tread water -- in rubbing alcohol. It's too thin (low-density). It wouldn't give you anything to push off of, like water does.

Rockets couldn't work in the vacuum of space, even according to science. Busted.

It's similar to the argument that there should be no sounds in space, but all hollywood movies place all kinds of sounds there anyhow. With no air, you can't have certain common phenomena that we experience everywhere on earth. Sound, or explosions having something to thrust off of, or push.

Do you realize you could detonate a HUGE bomb just 10 feet from a theoretical structure in a vacuum, and no damage would be done? Damage is normally done by a SHOCK WAVE which travels by air. With no air particles in a "vacuum of space" as taught by mainstream science, there would be no damage inflicted. All explosives operate on the principle of extremely-rapidly-expanding air, due to heat, reaching super-sonic levels. But the whole thing needs air.

See, you have to turn on your thinking cap.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Tradman on January 02, 2022, 10:04:10 AM
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.
Re entry from space.  Laughable.  Imagine you're an astronot on a rocket, leaving earth, which according to the heliocentric model is going 67,000 mph.  It would take an entire year to catch earth again and only if you waited in the exact right spot for it to come back around.  Unless we have a space ship that goes 68,000 mph they never mentioned. This is the nonsense NASA wants us to believe and for some odd reason people are still trying to piece together this corpse of an idea hoping to resurrect portions of it. To include the globe.  Neither is there such thing as "orbit". Any man-made thing that goes up, must come down, after the fuel is consumed.  Until it comes down, it's fueled.  As pointed out before in this thread, fuel operates in earth's atmosphere only, so it's obvious "space" rockets are a lie.  It becomes clear how people will be persuaded to believe the Antichrist is god if they are willing to believe pathetic NASA lies.             
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 02, 2022, 10:16:46 AM
Neither is there such thing as "orbit". Any man-made thing that goes up, must come down, after the fuel is consumed.

... unless it's something like a gigantic helium balloon.  Those too will EVENTUALLY come down, but the newest ones can stay aloft for years.

Behold your "satellites" ...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FAT3f8NwprOk/  (warning:  a bit of foul language here ... a fair number F-bombs as the guy sees it "transiting" the moon)
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Tradman on January 02, 2022, 11:33:10 AM
... unless it's something like a gigantic helium balloon.  Those too will EVENTUALLY come down, but the newest ones can stay aloft for years.

Behold your "satellites" ...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FAT3f8NwprOk/  (warning:  a bit of foul language here ... a fair number F-bombs as the guy sees it "transiting" the moon)
Right, I just considered helium a fuel.  The fact that balloons are employed at all, and they are, and that communication systems operate by cable and transmitters, a known fact, the whole idea of satellites is just preposterous.  
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on January 02, 2022, 11:44:01 AM
One of the many things I never questioned, until someone brought up the absurdity -- how do you have THRUST -- even if you bring your own oxygen (solid, liquid propellant) with a rocket in the vacuum of space? I've seen rockets work -- on earth. There is AIR to push against, giving you forward momentum or thrust. When there is NOTHING THERE -- a vacuum -- you get no thrust.
No, these are just plain wrong. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is?

A rocket engine doesn't work by pushing against matter, but by combusting fuel which evaporates gases (remember, a rocket engine produces trust by a constant controlled explosion). These expand out of the engine nozzle and create an opposite thrust vector. There are actually rocket engines which are designed to work better in vaccuum than in a pressurized environment, but that's besides the point.

Here's a small demonstration of a rocket engine in vaccuм:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxBRQXxBRic

Yeah, there is practically no sound in space because there is no matter to transport the waves.

Quote
Do you realize you could detonate a HUGE bomb just 10 feet from a theoretical structure in a vacuum, and no damage would be done? Damage is normally done by a SHOCK WAVE which travels by air. With no air particles in a "vacuum of space" as taught by mainstream science, there would be no damage inflicted. All explosives operate on the principle of extremely-rapidly-expanding air, due to heat, reaching super-sonic levels. But the whole thing needs air.
The huge bomb point is wrong too - you only need rapidly expanding / accelerating matter to wreak havoc. It's not a classical "faster than sound" shock wave that's happening, there are multiple kinds of shock waves. As you can see here in this neat little video demonstration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR9WIMKLhc4
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on January 02, 2022, 11:52:04 AM
Re entry from space.  Laughable.  Imagine you're an astronot on a rocket, leaving earth, which according to the heliocentric model is going 67,000 mph.  It would take an entire year to catch earth again and only if you waited in the exact right spot for it to come back around.  Unless we have a space ship that goes 68,000 mph they never mentioned. This is the nonsense NASA wants us to believe and for some odd reason people are still trying to piece together this corpse of an idea hoping to resurrect portions of it. To include the globe.  Neither is there such thing as "orbit". Any man-made thing that goes up, must come down, after the fuel is consumed.  Until it comes down, it's fueled.  As pointed out before in this thread, fuel operates in earth's atmosphere only, so it's obvious "space" rockets are a lie.  It becomes clear how people will be persuaded to believe the Antichrist is god if they are willing to believe pathetic NASA lies.
I'm sorry to say that you're embarassing yourself here, Tradman, as you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

I'd advise you to research frames of reference, inertial systems, and orbital mechanics before you say anything on this topic again.

A rocket leaving Earth moving at 68,000mph retains the same speed ± it's own velocity obviously, also called deltaV.

An object moving fast enough around a center of mass can counteract its gravitational pull by canceling out the centrifugal and the centripetal (gravitational) forces - it remains constantly in free fall around the center of mass. Because these orbits are not perfect, a tiny amount of fuel is needed every year to keep a spacecraft in a healthy orbit.

What actually creates the reentry heat is a spacecraft that orbits Earth and starts entering the atmosphere at very high speeds - still relative to the 68,000mph movement vector - which creates immense friction with the air molecules brushing against the hull.

Also, it's not just NASA. But because you like it so much, here is footage of a reentry, filmed directly from the spacecraft:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vmVJKqUFE

Gorgeous CGI, or is it? Oh, here's a Russian spacecraft that is intentionally deorbited and disposed of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR-kJ15i2-4
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on January 02, 2022, 11:58:15 AM
A rocket engine doesn't work by pushing against matter, but by combusting fuel which evaporates gases (remember, a rocket engine produces trust by a constant controlled explosion). These expand out of the engine nozzle and create an opposite thrust vector. There are actually rocket engines which are designed to work better in vaccuum than in a pressurized environment, but that's besides the point.

Says NASA and other liars. I don't believe liars. You can believe them with worse-than-blind faith if you wish; I choose not to.

What if there IS no "vacuum of space", as many individuals hold?

That's called BEGGING THE QUESTION.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Tradman on January 02, 2022, 11:58:25 AM
I'm sorry to say that you're embarassing yourself here, Tradman, as you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

I'd advise you to research frames of reference, inertial systems, and orbital mechanics before you say anything on this topic again.

A rocket leaving Earth moving at 68,000mph retains the same speed ± it's own velocity obviously, also called deltaV.

What actually creates the reentry heat is a spacecraft that orbits Earth and starts entering the atmosphere at very high speeds - still relative to the 68,000mph movement vector - which creates immense friction with the air molecules brushing against the hull.

Also, it's not just NASA. But because you like it so much, here is footage of a reentry, filmed directly from the spacecraft:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vmVJKqUFE

Gorgeous CGI, or is it? Oh, here's a Russian spacecraft that is intentionally deorbited and disposed of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR-kJ15i2-4
That may be what they say, but it is utter nonsense.  When you leave the ground you become independent of it and if travelling along at thousands of mph, it will leave you up in the air.  But, since the ground doesn't travel anywhere, and rockets don't go into space, convince yourself it's one big travelling circus.     
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on January 02, 2022, 12:00:06 PM
... unless it's something like a gigantic helium balloon.  Those too will EVENTUALLY come down, but the newest ones can stay aloft for years.

Behold your "satellites" ...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FAT3f8NwprOk/  (warning:  a bit of foul language here ... a fair number F-bombs as the guy sees it "transiting" the moon)
He filmed a nice weather ballon, that's great. Way to slow for an actual spacecraft, but he filmed a lunar transit, that's great.

So what does that show? Did that remotely resemble an actual satellite in size, speed and structure? Not at all.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on January 02, 2022, 12:00:36 PM
Also, it's not just NASA. But because you like it so much, here is footage of a reentry, filmed directly from the spacecraft:


Gorgeous CGI, or is it? Oh, here's a Russian spacecraft that is intentionally deorbited and disposed of:

I don't have time to watch cartoons or fake CGI. I've seen better material from Hollywood -- they're the real masters of making fiction look real. NASA are just amateurs by comparison.

An interesting sidenote about how easily humans are deceived, and human nature -- do you know how many people think Sandra Bullock was in outer space, because she starred in the recent film, "Gravity"? People think it really happened, because IT LOOKED SO REAL. 
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on January 02, 2022, 12:44:56 PM
Says NASA and other liars. I don't believe liars. You can believe them with worse-than-blind faith if you wish; I choose not to.

What if there IS no "vacuum of space", as many individuals hold?

That's called BEGGING THE QUESTION.

Again, argument from ignorance. I showed video of a dude testing a rocket engine in his homemade vacuum tube, and it still works:

(https://i.imgur.com/Se8negT.png)

That proves your previous claim wrong.

The pressure gradient, which is a fact, slowly fades to near zero pressure. Space is one of the most perfect vacuums known to us.

I'm not begging the question, it is you guys. Not a single solid proof, no model, no map, no zodiac / star map, not a single scientific work, no research paper, nothing of substance was released on flat Earth in over 70 years of its modern existence. That really makes you wonder whose logic is based un unproven premises.

But yes, believe what you want.

I'm done arguing here, it is a waste of time.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 02, 2022, 01:49:31 PM
Again, argument from ignorance. I showed video of a dude testing a rocket engine in his homemade vacuum tube, and it still works:

You can get miniscule amount of thrust do the the equal+opposite reaction principle.  No "homemade" vaccuм tube will completely evacuate the tube.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 02, 2022, 01:50:12 PM
I'm done arguing here, it is a waste of time.

Don't let the door hit you on the backside as you leave.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 02, 2022, 01:53:59 PM
He filmed a nice weather ballon, that's great.

And that's what nearly all satellites are.  NASA is the biggest consumer of helium in the world and puts up tons of helium-borne satellites.  99% of all internet communication travels through ocean-floor cables that are constantly under threat.

Some mathematician worked out the numbers and indicated that you should see 15-30 satellites transit the moon every hour, given how many are claimed to be up there.  So one amateur astronomer ... who used to believe in satellites ... set up to find them.  He spent hours and hours looking for them but found one or two circular things the entire time he's been filming.  He came to the conclusion that they don't exist.  He's not a flat earther either.  And those circular things he saw, given how high satellites are supposed to be, would have calculated to be about 80 miles in diameter.  So what he saw were not the satellites they claim are actually up there.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on January 02, 2022, 01:55:45 PM
You can get miniscule amount of thrust do the the equal+opposite reaction principle.  No "homemade" vaccuм tube will completely evacuate the tube.

And wouldn't the thrust hit the walls of the small tube? Wouldn't the relatively small size of the "vacuum tube" invalidate the experiment?

How about when there are thousands of miles of NOTHING, not even air, in all directions? What are the heated gasses from a rocket nozzle supposed to push off against to generate thrust in a given direction?

I don't think most people appreciate how different the "rules of the game" are, when there's NO AIR.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 02, 2022, 02:23:54 PM
I don't think most people appreciate how different the "rules of the game" are, when there's NO AIR.

Absolutely.  When man allegedly first went to the moon, they should have had absolutely no idea how their propulsion systems would function in the vacuum of space.

Heck, they couldn't get the Lunar Module stable even when testing on the earth, and they had absolutely no chance to practice on how it would react in vacuum and low "gravity" on the moon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUJDbj9Vp5w  
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on January 02, 2022, 02:48:40 PM
Where did you all study vacuum rocket science?

Jet propulsion simply works based on conservation of momentum. Think of a gun and recoil.

It's very basic mechanics. 
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Tradman on January 02, 2022, 03:34:43 PM
Where did you all study vacuum rocket science?

Jet propulsion simply works based on conservation of momentum. Think of a gun and recoil.

It's very basic mechanics.
Yea, so basic that the necessary means of explosion to propel the bullet or rocket is impossible in a vacuum.  You don't have recoil without the explosion.  
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on January 02, 2022, 04:46:10 PM
Yea, so basic that the necessary means of explosion to propel the bullet or rocket is impossible in a vacuum.  You don't have recoil without the explosion. 

The surrounding is vaccuum. The rocket carries the oxidant and fuel.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Tradman on January 02, 2022, 04:49:35 PM
The surrounding is vaccuum. The rocket carries the oxidant and fuel.
That cannot burn without oxygen. 
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on January 02, 2022, 05:49:05 PM
That cannot burn without oxygen.

As I said, the rocket carries fuel and oxidant. Not sure, what your problem is, replying like you do.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: angelusmaria on January 02, 2022, 06:06:18 PM

This is a bit longer and more in depth:

30min 6sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmYRFtY_jfQ

That channel has lots of good vids on FE
Thanks, I'll check them out
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Tradman on January 02, 2022, 06:08:39 PM
As I said, the rocket carries fuel and oxidant. Not sure, what your problem is, replying like you do.
Oxidant and fuel will not burn without oxygen because they are inhibited by lack of oxygen.  I don't have a problem, lack of enough oxygen is the problem for burning. 
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on January 02, 2022, 06:21:52 PM
Oxidant and fuel will not burn without oxygen because they are inhibited by lack of oxygen.  I don't have a problem, lack of enough oxygen is the problem for burning.


Here some info:  Oxidant Definition in Chemistry (https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-oxidant-605455).

Oxygen is one oxidant. Other's can be used and are used with jet propulsion in vaccuum environment. There's a list of examples of oxidants on that page.




Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: angelusmaria on January 02, 2022, 06:23:19 PM
, 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;
The needle always points north, regardless.  Some manufacturers will reverse the red depending on geography.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Donachie on January 02, 2022, 08:03:02 PM
NASA's been a part of the development of "scientific materialist" control. It goes back in some sense to the Bank of England and Newton, etc. The "ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic" conspiracy. Kant and modern philosophy, for example, are all heliocentric like the Syfy Channel.

I accept low Earth orbit. It seems to me they were able to accomplish a little low Earth orbit with Apollo. There's footage of them trick filming the Earth from high altitude and manipulating the setting of the window view to make it seem like they were 130,000 miles out in space, or about halfway to the Moon, when they were maybe 100 to 200 miles up. 

They're full of tricks and tricks and tricks. Since you can't trust them about the Moon, you can't really trust them about LEO either.

Space itself is created, besides the objects in it, but modern philosophy wants space to be infinite. One way to reckon this is that there is no contact among numbers only succession. 2 does not cause 4 or another number and every number is discreet. Numbers by themselves don't cause other numbers, and the way to get numbers from numbers is from the operations involved which represent the power of cause and effect.

Space is extensive which is also numeric. The extensive nature of space is from operation of cause and effect which can't go on forever or to infinity. Therefore, it's finite, like the operations and numbers themselves. Infinity doesn't fit in mathematical operations or space, but they want it to so they are crazy with heliocentrism or acentric cosmology. NASA is a part of the big confusion.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on January 02, 2022, 08:13:24 PM
I don't believe that they brought even one man into orbit and back again, alive. This includes Gagarin, Apollo missions, MIR, ISS, and whatever. Main problems are radiation and re-entry. 
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on January 02, 2022, 08:25:20 PM
The surrounding is vaccuum. The rocket carries the oxidant and fuel.

I understand that. Getting fuel to burn in a theoretical vacuum of space is one thing. Having it propel a vessel forward in a vast vacuum environment is another.

It's hard to say what happens in a vacuum as large or perfect as "outer space" since it's only theoretical. I can't trust NASA's word for what's "up there" in the sky. They lie too much. They say we came from monkeys, created by random chance for crying out loud. They're full of it up to their neck.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on January 02, 2022, 08:28:15 PM
I don't believe that they brought even one man into orbit and back again, alive. This includes Gagarin, Apollo missions, MIR, ISS, and whatever. Main problems are radiation and re-entry.

So you're completely on-board that NASA lies through their teeth. Why are you so averse to the idea they're lying about the shape of the earth as well?

You also quickly answered the question about the age of the earth -- with the correct Catholic answer I should note. 
Meanwhile, Stanley N, Dankward (et alia) have NOT yet answered said question.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on January 02, 2022, 08:42:41 PM
So you're completely on-board that NASA lies through their teeth. Why are you so averse to the idea they're lying about the shape of the earth as well?

Because we're not talking about NASA lying through their teeth, but rather about our Catholic western civilisation lying through our teeth. The earth was a globe even before protestants and enlightenment, masons etc. came up. And: I am an engineer, and I verified that the earth isn't flat, as reported on CI.

I know of two ideas, why FE BS is used to fool you and others. One is: Sungenis messed with Krauss, Epstein et al.

"Conspiracy theorist" atheists on the other hand (e.g. cluesforum.info) say it's to destroy NASA critics. Critics of NASA are labelled flat earthers, to ridicule them and make them innocuous. I can only guess what's the case, and my guess is: One of both alternatives, or both are true.

There hasn't been a flat earther on CI before 2015. And you had "banned" them into a "ghetto". That was wise, IMHO.


You also quickly answered the question about the age of the earth -- with the correct Catholic answer I should note.
Meanwhile, Stanley N, Dankward (et alia) have NOT yet answered said question.

You banned Stanley N, but Dankward still may answer your question.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on January 02, 2022, 08:54:29 PM
In 2015, out of nowhere, there were rising Eric Dubay and jeranism, the two main FE shills on youtube and elsewhere. Dubay had supported the view of Sungenis before, as I have docuмented on CI, before he came up as the FE king having published his tract in Nov or Dec of 2014.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 02, 2022, 09:18:52 PM
In 2015, out of nowhere, there were rising Eric Dubay and jeranism, the two main FE shills on youtube and elsewhere. Dubay had supported the view of Sungenis before, as I have docuмented on CI, before he came up as the FE king having published his tract in Nov or Dec of 2014.

Not this crap again.  You seem to have a unnatural obsession with Dubay.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on January 02, 2022, 09:22:07 PM
Not this crap again.  You seem to have a unnatural obsession with Dubay.

There hasn't been flat-earthism on CI before Dubay came up. And, in the the rest of the world, flat earthers were vastly unknown. You can't deny the facts.

Show one flat earth post on CI before Dubay! You can't!

And you can't turn St. Thomas Aquinas into a flat earther, either.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: curious2 on January 02, 2022, 09:35:37 PM
In 2015, out of nowhere, there were rising Eric Dubay and jeranism, the two main FE shills on youtube and elsewhere. Dubay had supported the view of Sungenis before, as I have docuмented on CI, before he came up as the FE king having published his tract in Nov or Dec of 2014.
I admit I was convinced of the truth of flat earth by Eric Dubay, but so what?
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on January 02, 2022, 09:39:06 PM
I admit I was convinced of the truth of flat earth by Eric Dubay, but so what?

Do you admit that you were convinced by the "man", or by arguments? In the latter case, which ones?
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: curious2 on January 02, 2022, 09:45:21 PM
Do you admit that you were convinced by the "man", or by arguments? In the latter case, which ones?
Definitely the arguments. He's not that charismatic, lol. 

What was the most striking proof to me was the countless examples of people being able to see much further than 3 miles out at sea level(which is the distance predicted by the globe earth model). Also, when you look out across a body of water, it is clearly level and rises to meet the eye line of the observer, which is what universally happens along flat surfaces. 
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on January 02, 2022, 09:50:12 PM
Definitely the arguments. He's not that charismatic, lol.

What was the most striking proof to me was the countless examples of people being able to see much further than 3 miles out at sea level(which is the distance predicted by the globe earth model). Also, when you look out across a body of water, it is clearly level and rises to meet the eye line of the observer, which is what universally happens along flat surfaces.

Congrats! What about the position of the Church?
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: curious2 on January 02, 2022, 09:53:51 PM
Congrats! What about the position of the Church?
Not sure what you mean.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on January 02, 2022, 09:54:32 PM
Not sure what you mean.

I thought so.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: curious2 on January 02, 2022, 09:56:33 PM
As far as I know, the Church takes no official position on the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on January 02, 2022, 09:58:54 PM
As far as I know, the Church takes no official position on the shape of the earth.

You should check out the many threads on this topic of the past weeks here on CI. You will wonder about many posts.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Donachie on January 02, 2022, 10:13:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePvBRA9P5As&t=2410s

the 36 to 40 minute is where you can see the camera trickery. i don't think they can make it to the Moon in four days with any rocket. It would take more than a rocket and a long time. It would take months or years imho.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Yeti on January 03, 2022, 12:04:31 AM
In 2015, out of nowhere, there were rising Eric Dubay and jeranism, the two main FE shills on youtube and elsewhere. Dubay had supported the view of Sungenis before, as I have docuмented on CI, before he came up as the FE king having published his tract in Nov or Dec of 2014.

You're right that flat earthism became a popular idea in modern culture in 2015, but it wasn't for the reasons you give here. (By the way, of all the people defending flat earthism in these discussions, I'm curious how many of them believed the earth was flat at the beginning of 2015? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?)

No, what happened to popularize flat earthism with mainstream modern culture was that a black rap singer named B.o.B. started posting on Twitter (https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/entertainment/rapper-bob-earth-flat-theory/index.html) in January of 2016 that he thought the earth was flat, and since he was a black rap artist and everyone followed what he said, the idea went viral. It has been viral ever since.

Here is the picture of the "gentleman" in question. This is the guy that popularized and mainstreamed the theory that the earth is flat (https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41399164):

(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.a73294852c533618c426150dc98af85b?rik=P95lQELfk95UuQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fesq.h-cdn.co%2fassets%2f16%2f04%2f1600x800%2flandscape-1453732216-bob.jpg&ehk=DSd4VnbGX69I3M8tq6XH23hTv0yoKhRgHgB6BiQFnzI%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Stubborn on January 03, 2022, 04:29:32 AM
Do we even know that in space there is a vacuum, no trace amounts of oxygen at all?
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 03, 2022, 06:23:47 AM
Do we even know that in space there is a vacuum, no trace amounts of oxygen at all?

We don't even know that there is a space.  And, if there is a space, doesn't it have some substance like an ether in it?  Sungenis, for instance, posits that there's a dense medium in space.  Even the modern scientists are now playing with the notion of "Dark Matter" because their observations violate the core principles of their cosmology.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on January 03, 2022, 10:48:12 AM
You also quickly answered the question about the age of the earth -- with the correct Catholic answer I should note.
Meanwhile, Stanley N, Dankward (et alia) have NOT yet answered said question.
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.

Some examples, non-exhaustive list:

- old starlight, up to millions of lightyears away
- age of meteorites that collide with Earth
- old ice cores in Antarctica (800,000 years at least)
- age rocks and sediments using various dating methods, e.g. radiometric
- old fossils and cadavers dated using radiocarbon methods (only goes back ~50,000 years)
- old trees (tens of thousands of years old)
- etc.

Am I disagreeing with Holy Scripture? No. Even St. Augustine held the belief that the "days" of Genesis didn't refer to 24h periods.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 03, 2022, 11:26:29 AM
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.

Some examples, non-exhaustive list:

- old starlight, up to millions of lightyears away
- age of meteorites that collide with Earth
- old ice cores in Antarctica (800,000 years at least)
- age rocks and sediments using various dating methods, e.g. radiometric
- old fossils and cadavers dated using radiocarbon methods (only goes back ~50,000 years)
- old trees (tens of thousands of years old)
- etc.

Am I disagreeing with Holy Scripture? No. Even St. Augustine held the belief that the "days" of Genesis didn't refer to 24h periods.

Holy Office under Pope St. Pius X did say it was permissible to speculate that the "days" of creation weren't 24-hour periods ... but only because Sacred Scripture teaches that the sun and moon were made after the earth.

Do you believe that God made the earth first and then later the sun and the moon?  There's no snaking out of that one.

And we are also bound to believe that human beings have been around only for about 6,000 +/- years, not hundreds of thousands or even millions, or even 10,000 for that matter.

As for the "evidence" you cite, that's a separate issue, but it's been thoroughly debunked.  I urge that you watch the videos from the Kolbe Center regarding that matter.  This here is a great series:  https://foundationsrestored.com (https://foundationsrestored.com)
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: DigitalLogos on January 04, 2022, 06:53:07 PM
Am I disagreeing with Holy Scripture? No. Even St. Augustine held the belief that the "days" of Genesis didn't refer to 24h periods.
You're right, he didn't. He posited that they were seven subsequent instances instead, far shorter than 24 hour periods.

The theistic evolutionists also attempt to point to St. Augustine as if he were proposing a way to get around the fact that God created the earth swiftly and try to stretch the "days" to mean literally whatever they want.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on February 23, 2022, 09:50:45 PM
I admit I was convinced of the truth of flat earth by Eric Dubay, but so what?


So here we have one more 'Croix'.

Other flat earthers, like Ladislaus, chuck up if I mention Dubay. They prefer Lady Elizabeth Anne Mould Blount.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Lady_blount.png/220px-Lady_blount.png)
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on February 24, 2022, 07:30:15 PM
Oh, this thread.

Well, let's have some LEO space travel, shall we?

Here is a video. Is it CGI? Perhaps. Looks very realistic either way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je3YIdtf-_s

Here it was claimed that the SpaceX dragon capsule was docked to the station, photo from space, on the right:
(https://i.imgur.com/BFF0TIG.jpg)

How can we confirm that? We check from the ground.
(https://www.startpage.com/av/proxy-image?piurl=https%3A%2F%2Fspacestationguys.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F05%2F9.-Michael-Tzukran-best-animation-so-far-2-gif.gif&sp=1645751299T5a6ecc2c41985679eea3cd2b381f89c797a5afe0a2eb5e2b24beecc93e451498)

Also extremely interesting (sped up footage because docking takes long):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW-0WM1VjIQ

Here is a gallery of good footage: https://spacestationguys.com/gallery-my-best-shots/
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Donachie on February 25, 2022, 12:12:55 AM
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.

Some examples, non-exhaustive list:

- old starlight, up to millions of lightyears away


- age of meteorites that collide with Earth
- old ice cores in Antarctica (800,000 years at least)
- age rocks and sediments using various dating methods, e.g. radiometric
- old fossils and cadavers dated using radiocarbon methods (only goes back ~50,000 years)
- old trees (tens of thousands of years old)
- etc.

Am I disagreeing with Holy Scripture? No. Even St. Augustine held the belief that the "days" of Genesis didn't refer to 24h periods.
I think the lightyears concept is false. When any one sees starlight it is current to that time, not from lightyears or lightyears away. It may be far but it is a simple measure of distance away at a time, also as that part of the 24 hour cycle, and the stars all rotate around the Earth in 24 hours. When Sirius is up in the sky and going around, it is right then at that time that the light transmission is and is seen. The lightyears idea is illogical and heliocentric. The way time works, the past has been dismissed and is being dismissed even from moment to moment. Time is current to now and so is the light.

As to space, rockets have only so much capacity and the capacity of the Saturn V was hugely exaggerated. Communist China and ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA can't reach the moon with any rocket. In the City of God, St. Augustine wrote about deceiving spirits and the power of deceiving spirits, etc., and JPL and NASA are both Satanically influenced, i.e.,  they are communicating deceptions and are in the service of deceiving spirits.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: cassini on February 25, 2022, 07:32:34 AM
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.

Some examples, non-exhaustive list:

Am I disagreeing with Holy Scripture? No. Even St. Augustine held the belief that the "days" of Genesis didn't refer to 24h periods.

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) (Vatican Council I, 1870)

Most of the Church Fathers held this was done in a literal six-day Creation until Saint Augustine proposed that all was created complete immediately but presented in Genesis by way of six-days to emphasise order in His creation. St Augustine had a problem with light. He believed light was caused by the sun whereas Genesis said God created light before the sun. Augustine solved this problem of his by saying that God must have created the sun and light and everything else together not over six days.

‘So then, although it is without any stretch of time being involved that God makes things, having ‘the power to act available to him whenever he will,’ (Wisdom of Solomon 12:18) all the same the time-bound natures made by him go through their temporal movements in time.’ --- Augustine, commentaries on Genesis.

St Basil, in his Hexaemeron, disagreed and explains why God created light before the sun:

‘However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.”’ (Hm. VI:2)

St Augustine was not aware that light is but an effect of electromagnetism. He must never have seen lightening duiring the darkness of night. If St Augustine were to come back and go see a football match under lights at night, he wouldn't believe it. 

‘Day 1: In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said: Be light made. And light was made. And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. And he called the light Day and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.   

So God did create light before the sun. Anyway, Augustine's iimmediate creation, nor the six-day creation, did not allow any time for al old universe.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: cassini on February 25, 2022, 07:58:55 AM
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.

Some examples, non-exhaustive list:

- old starlight, up to millions of lightyears away

Day 4: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth, to rule the day and the night and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and morning were the fourth day. God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

Day 6: And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

We see then, if we believe Genesis was the word of God, that the Creator made the stars IMMEDIATELY visible on Earth. There is no time delay then between the nearest star or the furthest star. In other words the whole universe was created in the one time unit. A day is a universal day, with the stars, near and far, all turning with the sun to bring days and seasons. The only time delay now is the time it takes for the light of exploding stars to reach Earth. Such times are within the 6-7,000 years since creation.

Katarina Emmerick wrote: 'I saw these false computations of the pagan priests at the same time as I beheld Jesus Christ teaching on the Sabbath at Aruma. Jesus, speaking before the Pharisees of the Call of Abraham and his sojourn in Egypt, exposed the errors of the Egyptian calendar. He said the world had now existed 4028 years. When I heard Jesus say this, He was thirty-one years old.’

Katarina’s age for Jesus Christ is the exactly the same as found in the Scriptures: Adam 5 days, Noah and the flood 1056 years (2941BC), Abraham 1950 after Creation (AC), Exodus 2540AC, birth of Jesus 3997AC, death of Jesus 4030AC at 33 years, fall of Jerusalem 4070AC, world on 2000AC was 5997 years old, 2021 years after Christ was the year 6,017AC and so on.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: cassini on February 25, 2022, 11:00:18 AM
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.

Some examples, non-exhaustive list:

- age rocks and sediments using various dating methods

Uniformitarianism (Global Earth Formation over Long Ages)

‘Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.' (Wikipedia)

 Remember now, long-ages are an assumption. Assumptions made up to discredit God as Creator.

‘Sedimentary rocks form by an accuмulation of layers in a variety of environments such as the sea floor, lake or desert. The sediment will eventually consolidate to become rock strata (layers). Generally, the lowest layers are older than the upper layers and any plant or animal remains they contain will be older [and more evolved?], as will any minerals that formed during or soon after the deposition.’ ( GNS science website)

 Is that a fact now? Well, experiments conducted at the University of Colorado by sedimentologist Guy Berthault (Guy Berthault: Principles of geologic dating in question, Fusion, May-June, 2000) between 1985 and 1990 have shattered all conceived assertions that sediments were laid down one layer on top of another throughout time. In fact, Berthault, testing sedimentation with sediments in moving waters, found sediments are laid down in a sideways motion, so that the bottom strata of deposits, always considered the oldest according to that ‘science,’ can well be younger than the top strata further back along the path of any deposit. Berthault’s tests offered scientific evidence that showed the long-age sedimentation geology of Lyell and others used by Darwin for his evolution is no longer feasible
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: cassini on February 25, 2022, 11:25:31 AM
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.

Some examples, non-exhaustive list:

- age rocks and sediments using various dating methods, e.g. radiometric dating
- old fossils and cadavers dated using radiocarbon methods (only goes back ~50,000 years)


Now google and find out when the evolution of flora and fauna began; life that must undergo a radio-carbon period. The website NewScientist began with ‘Pinning down when specific events occurred is often tricky. For this, biologists depend mainly on dating the rocks in which fossils are found, and by looking at the “molecular clocks” in the DNA of living organisms.’ Because of the problems in making up ages that were never there, they start with 3 billion years. Given the 50 to 100 thousand-year fossils are the only ones that can have some Carbon 14 left in them, how come an investigation by the Kolbe Center states that every single fossil they examined from around the world had carbon 14 still in them, with none less than 7-8,000 years?

‘“You read statements in books that such or such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old,” he commented, “but we learn rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is about the first dynasty of Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.”’ --- A. J. White, Radio-Carbon Dating, Cardiff, Wales, 1955, p.10.


In other words, no bones, buildings, artefacts, cloths etc., should be found older than the dates given in Genesis if the Bible is to be authentic. Try as they did, no trace of any civilisation could be dated with certainty as being more than 5,000 years old.

Radioactive Halos


Such an evolution and rock formation, of course, would have to include aspects of atomic radiation left behind in certain rocks, but that science did not begin until 1895. It seems that there is radioactivity going on within some rocks and it leaves behind evidence of this activity and decay. As one would expect it is a complicated science and is of course used to age the Earth at billions of years old, just like the layers of sediments themselves and the fossils found in them are used by the evolutionists to convince all it took millions of years to happen. Well, just as we had a Berthault who investigated the Earth’s sediments, the nuclear science of rocks had its man who investigated the history of radiation in them. His name is Robert Gentry (1933-2020) and he wrote up his findings in his book Creation’s Tiny Mystery in which he also tells us of the rejections he received from the ‘expert’ scientists in his field, exactly the same response Berthault experienced. In 1962, when he first proposed that he do a thesis on earlier investigations of the radioactive history of rock as his PhD, it was rejected on the basis that that science had already ended and any find other than established would challenge years of evolutionary findings. Such was Robert Gentry’s determination to do the retesting; he began it in his own premises, with his own money, whereas he said, many millions of taxpayers’ dollars were given to the evolutionists to pursue their propaganda there was no funding for something that might contradict their findings. So how does one go about dating a piece of granite? You crush it, he said in his lecture, found in his website (www.halos.com),  do some chemistry on it, and extract chemical elements out of it like uranium, an active radiation, and examine the halos left after activity.

To make a long story short, Gentry found halos in certain rocks like granite that were instant, with little or no time in their decay. In other words, he said, it was God’s marker, left behind when He created rock instantly, to thwart the evolutionists God knew would eventually try to eliminate Him from His Creation. Needless to say, because his findings made the radioactive Earth-ageing business redundant, they gave him hell. Nevertheless, he challenged all of them to try to prove his instant creation wrong, which none could do. Now whereas Gentry’s find does not age the Earth scientifically, it prevents the evolutionary science from using rock formation as billions of years old.

Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: cassini on February 25, 2022, 11:33:46 AM
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.
Some examples, non-exhaustive list:

- old trees (tens of thousands of years old)
Just googled what is the age of the oldest tree on earth.    The answer:

'The Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus Longaeva) has been deemed the oldest tree in existence, reaching an age of over 5,000 years old. The Bristlecone pines' success in living a long life can be attributed to the harsh conditions it lives in.'

People also ask

How old is the oldest tree in the world 2020?
5,070 years
An even older specimen of bristlecone sampled by Schulman in the White Mountains before he died was also crossdated by Tom Harlan, but not until 2009. This sample was also from a living tree, so the tree is aged 5,070 years as of 2020; this unnamed tree is currently the oldest verified living tree in the world.

Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 25, 2022, 11:38:41 AM
Day 4: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth, to rule the day and the night and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and morning were the fourth day. God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

Don't waste your time on Dankward.  He's a Modernist who prefers to accept the fabricated evidence of atheistic science to the testimony of Sacred Scripture.  It's clear that the earth was made before the sun, moon, and stars.  One COULD argue for an older earth (per the Holy Office under St. Pius X) based on the idea that "day" might mean something other than a 24-hour day due to the sun not having been created yet.  But human beings have been around only for 6,000 years or so.  And the earth was created first and the center of creation, and the rest  of the universe created around it later.  To deny that is heresy.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on February 25, 2022, 08:47:40 PM
I think the lightyears concept is false. When any one sees starlight it is current to that time, not from lightyears or lightyears away. It may be far but it is a simple measure of distance away at a time, also as that part of the 24 hour cycle, and the stars all rotate around the Earth in 24 hours. When Sirius is up in the sky and going around, it is right then at that time that the light transmission is and is seen. The lightyears idea is illogical and heliocentric. The way time works, the past has been dismissed and is being dismissed even from moment to moment. Time is current to now and so is the light.

As to space, rockets have only so much capacity and the capacity of the Saturn V was hugely exaggerated. Communist China and ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA can't reach the moon with any rocket. In the City of God, St. Augustine wrote about deceiving spirits and the power of deceiving spirits, etc., and JPL and NASA are both Satanically influenced, i.e.,  they are communicating deceptions and are in the service of deceiving spirits.
Light is a wave and a particle which travels through a distance through space over a time.

Its speed can be measured accurately. We also know the distance to the stars and thus can find out how ling it takes for light to arrive at an observer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Measurement
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Marion on February 26, 2022, 01:02:27 AM
Light is a wave and a particle which travels through a distance through space over a time.

A wave is a movement of a medium. Nothing doesn't move. To say otherwise, like physicist do since 1905, is simply nonsensical.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: cassini on February 26, 2022, 03:58:49 AM
Light is a wave and a particle which travels through a distance through space over a time.

Its speed can be measured accurately. We also know the distance to the stars and thus can find out how ling it takes for light to arrive at an observer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Measurement

Yes, the speed of light can be measured. The distance of stars cannot be measured. Given Einstein's lot says heliocentrism and geocentrism cannot be confirmed by science, then the distance of stars, calculated only by the heliocentric method, is mere speculation.

Your Big Bang age for the stars then, cannot be confirmed. But if one believes in God's Word then all stars were created visible on Earth immediately which means one cannot age the universe by the stars. The only diastance-age man's science can measure is the light from exploding stars that could have taken no more than 6,000 to be seen on Earth, if God's word is true that is. So Dankward, its you or God. I will stick with God. 
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 26, 2022, 08:38:28 AM
A wave is a movement of a medium. Nothing doesn't move. To say otherwise, like physicist do since 1905, is simply nonsensical.

Wow, we actually agree on something.  After Michelson-Morley, they decided that they had to do away with the concept of the "luminiferous ether" (the medium through which light travels) and decided that light is the only known wave that travels through nothing, somehow.  Now that their theories of gravity are falling apart at the cosmic level, they've had to posit "Dark Matter", yet they'll do anything but admit that they were wrong about getting rid of ether.  Problem with reintroducing a medium in which light travels is that Michelson-Morley becomes a renewed problem for the atheistic cosmologists.

For all the money NASA spends, they could simply have put a Michelson-Morley apparatus on the moon and run the experiment there (since they believe there's a moon), as Sungenis pointed out, to determine once and for all whether the earth moves.  But, if the moon's motion were detected, then that would men 1) the earth does not move and 2) there is in fact a luminiferous ether.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 26, 2022, 08:47:59 AM

So here we have one more 'Croix'.

Other flat earthers, like Ladislaus, chuck up if I mention Dubay. They prefer Lady Elizabeth Anne Mould Blount.

I'm neither here nor there on Dubay.  I recall seeing Dubay's "200 proofs" video at some point and I didn't find it particularly convincing, and didn't really know who the guy was at the time.  It was other evidence presented by other groups that made me a believer in FE.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on February 28, 2022, 03:06:51 PM
A wave is a movement of a medium. Nothing doesn't move. To say otherwise, like physicist do since 1905, is simply nonsensical.
Light / EM waves are not just a mechanical wave like sound.

The massless particles called photons don't need a medium to traverse space.

Wave-particle duality - EM waves have characteristics of both a wave and a particle.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on February 28, 2022, 03:08:24 PM
Yes, the speed of light can be measured. The distance of stars cannot be measured. Given Einstein's lot says heliocentrism and geocentrism cannot be confirmed by science, then the distance of stars, calculated only by the heliocentric method, is mere speculation.
Not all distance measurements depends on the heliocentric model.

Stellar parallax would also happen in a geocentric universe, but it still allows for distance calculations due to the parallax.

Redshift of starlight also works.

There are more methods which are quite interesting, perhaps you want to look them up.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: cassini on March 01, 2022, 06:21:32 AM
Not all distance measurements depends on the heliocentric model.

Stellar parallax would also happen in a geocentric universe, but it still allows for distance calculations due to the parallax.

Redshift of starlight also works.

There are more methods which are quite interesting, perhaps you want to look them up.
Once stellar parallax was found and said to be a heliocentric fact, they then claimed the distance between the Earth and these near stars showing annual parallax could be measured for certain. Using a non-proven heliocentric parallax, angles can be measured. This way, they say, the distance between the earth and a near star can be calculated geometrically. The 149.5 times 1,000,000 km semimajor axis of the Earth’s orbit provides a base line for trigonometrically determining the distance of these near stars. This method, they claim, can measure stars up to 400 light years away. In the geocentric system, with the rotating universe showing stellar parallax, there are no such angles with the sun to calculate distances. So, only if a heliocentric solar-system was proven could we say the up to 400 light-year distances of stars can be known.

As for the distance of further stars, well, here is what the experts tell us:
‘There is no direct method currently available to measure the distance to stars farther than [their unproven parallax] 400 light years from Earth, so astronomers instead use brightness measurements. It turns out that a star's color spectrum is a good indication of its actual brightness. The relationship between color and brightness was proven using the several thousand stars close enough to earth to have their distances measured directly. Astronomers can therefore look at a distant star and determine its color spectrum. From the color, they can determine the star’s actual brightness. By knowing the actual brightness and comparing it to the apparent brightness seen from Earth they can determine the distance to the star.’ --- (Howstuffworks website)

Star distances then remain unproven, a fact that makes Einstein’s space-time as a scientific fact redundant before he was born. Here again we have a case of trying to confirm something from a consequent when there are different movements that can cause such a consequent. That is like saying because an eclipse of the sun causes dark streets, then dark streets prove there is an eclipse of the sun. 

The search for stellar parallax also assumes astronomers can tell whether a star is a near star or a far star. Now search as much as you like and you will not find anything specific. It seems modern cosmologists decide such nearness and farness by using yet another assumption; that near stars are brighter than far stars, which I suppose will be correct in most cases. The possibility that their brighter near-stars are actually far-stars that are intrinsically bigger and more brilliantly lit, and that their fainter far-stars are actually nearer stars that are intrinsically smaller or less illuminated seems not to have bothered them. What, just for argument’s sake, if many visible stars reside at around the same distance from Earth, bright ones and faint ones together, just like different wattage bulbs attached to the roof of a large dark theatre? There are many possibilities that could explain why some bright stars and faint stars are not near stars or far stars. We throw this in just to show how presumptuous this science can be. 

Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: DigitalLogos on March 10, 2022, 08:25:59 AM
Let's give this pot a quick stir....

https://youtu.be/XVA3TlB_AzM
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on March 11, 2022, 10:43:05 AM
Well actually it doesn't show a flat earth.

(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/v2.jpg)

Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 11, 2022, 11:34:23 AM
Well actually it doesn't show a flat earth.

(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/v2.jpg)

Nope.  There was one shot in which the "edge" that happened to be captured was pointing up.  Any tiny movement at the edges when picked up the right angle is do nothing more to geographical elevation of the land mass.  In fact, you can see it undulating up and down even across the center due to nothing more than geography.

That simulation is also a lie, from 360,000 feet.  I've seen one simulation after another from globetards that was simply faked and made up.  Also made up is the allegation that the camera had a "narrow field of view".  This shot here just get cut off because it's in the corner, but you stop the video in other spots and it's got a much narrower vield of view.  I'll find the shot from the original video where the edges actually slightly point UP.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 11, 2022, 11:46:08 AM
(https://i.ibb.co/VvwmfcR/FE-V2.png)

Look at the lower Left.  At the very corner, the line is practically touching the land, and then it drops lower as it moves toward the center of the line-length.  You can see the black between the line and the earth.  Toward the center there's still some black.  Then as you move toward the upper right, the land mass or geography gets higher and comes closer to the line, and then in the far upper corner it slips slightly down.

So the lower left tip actually moves upward and touches the line, and it's only again close to the upper right where the land touches the line.  It just happens to dip back down a tad at the upper right corner, but no more so than it did in the center.  That undulation of geography is what the globetard who made the graphic above is claiming to be "curvature.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 11, 2022, 11:49:27 AM
And then the globers try to pass this off as proof of curvature, even though this guy was at 1/3 the elevation as the V-2 rocket.

(https://img.redbull.com/images/c_crop,w_3000,h_1500,x_0,y_0,f_auto,q_auto/c_scale,w_1200/redbullcom/2012/12/21/1331580141147_1/red-bull-stratos-mission-attempt)
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on March 11, 2022, 11:57:52 AM
Well, the footage does indeed show a curving horizon. This is the uncropped image, rotated to horizontal.
(https://i.imgur.com/9QXeigx.png)
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on March 11, 2022, 12:03:34 PM
And then the globers try to pass this off as proof of curvature, even though this guy was at 1/3 the elevation as the V-2 rocket.

(https://img.redbull.com/images/c_crop,w_3000,h_1500,x_0,y_0,f_auto,q_auto/c_scale,w_1200/redbullcom/2012/12/21/1331580141147_1/red-bull-stratos-mission-attempt)
Well, this is obviously a fisheye lens and doesn't prove anything as such.

But, if we know the camera which took the image, we can correct for barrel distortion (usually fisheye distortion).

Using Adobe Lightroom for example.

Some interesting info here:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Lens+Distortion+and+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth#H_Lens_Correction

So we can take a distorted image and correct the lens distortion to get an undistorted image to see the actual, geometric curvature (shape) in a photo.

(https://i.imgur.com/EPY8mZ1.jpg)
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 11, 2022, 12:22:59 PM
Here's an earth curve simulator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08-YbvOCwGw

Let's compare what the eye level would look like at ground level vs. what it would be at 120,000 feet, which is the altitude from which Baumgertner made the Red Bull jump.  Screenshots below are taken from the simulator above.

(https://i.ibb.co/0JgqdSx/eyelevel.png)

Now let's compare the view from within Baumgertner's capsule when he was down on earth and then when he was up at 128,000 feet (my earlier screenshot was from 120,000 ... so giving him a bit of an edge here).

(https://i.ibb.co/m88xcCM/baum.png)
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on March 11, 2022, 01:16:07 PM
I like this one too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhEOw0UfqKI
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 11, 2022, 04:15:47 PM
Well, this is obviously a fisheye lens and doesn't prove anything as such.

But, if we know the camera which took the image, we can correct for barrel distortion (usually fisheye distortion).

Using Adobe Lightroom for example.

Some interesting info here:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Lens+Distortion+and+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth#H_Lens_Correction

So we can take a distorted image and correct the lens distortion to get an undistorted image to see the actual, geometric curvature (shape) in a photo.

That's not what this guy says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK_R5d6YD4c
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 11, 2022, 06:36:59 PM
So this little clip from about 2:40 - 2:45 in the video had me laughing out loud as I watched it repeatedly.

[https://www.facebook.com/LoveTruth1035/videos/1920035241625563]

It won't embed, so you have to copy the link and paste it in.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Dankward on March 11, 2022, 08:37:16 PM
Here's an earth curve simulator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08-YbvOCwGw

Let's compare what the eye level would look like at ground level vs. what it would be at 120,000 feet, which is the altitude from which Baumgertner made the Red Bull jump.  Screenshots below are taken from the simulator above.

(https://i.ibb.co/0JgqdSx/eyelevel.png)

Now let's compare the view from within Baumgertner's capsule when he was down on earth and then when he was up at 128,000 feet (my earlier screenshot was from 120,000 ... so giving him a bit of an edge here).

(https://i.ibb.co/m88xcCM/baum.png)
We need a horizontal reference in your picture or it will not be evidence of how the horizon behaves relative to altitude of an observer. I'm afraid no such thing exists, and that the camera is actually angled down slightly.

Here's an actual measurement.
(https://i.imgur.com/1zGBx4h.png)
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: angelusmaria on March 11, 2022, 11:13:25 PM
So this little clip from about 2:40 - 2:45 in the video had me laughing out loud as I watched it repeatedly.

[https://www.facebook.com/LoveTruth1035/videos/1920035241625563]

It won't embed, so you have to copy the link and paste it in.
Okay, now I am going to show my "guilty pleasures."  The soundtrack sounds almost exactly from Sid Meier's (yes, I know, name gives him away) Civilization Beyond Earth strategy game.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Matthew on March 12, 2022, 12:13:36 AM
So this little clip from about 2:40 - 2:45 in the video had me laughing out loud as I watched it repeatedly.

[https://www.facebook.com/LoveTruth1035/videos/1920035241625563]

It won't embed, so you have to copy the link and paste it in.

I learned today that you can download such videos with youtube-dl (command-line utility for Linux).
It's 54 MB. A very good summary of the Flat Earth position; I had to have it.
Title: Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
Post by: Ladislaus on March 12, 2022, 07:12:22 AM
We need a horizontal reference in your picture or it will not be evidence of how the horizon behaves relative to altitude of an observer. I'm afraid no such thing exists, and that the camera is actually angled down slightly.

Nice try, but it's the exact same camera in both shots, with both being shot from the same angle.  So, fail.

You've already been thoroughly brainwashed and refused to look at the issue objectively, and your answers are becoming more and more pathetic with each post.  You're clinging in desperation, with white knuckles, to your brainwashing.