Toepoke Posted January 5, 2019 Author Posted January 5, 2019 Scotty I'm starting to think you're trolling us with this nonsense to get us to succumb and crowdfund you a trip on Virgin Galactic. Quote
iainmac1 Posted January 5, 2019 Posted January 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Toepoke said: Scotty I'm starting to think you're trolling us with this nonsense to get us to succumb and crowdfund you a trip on Virgin Galactic. That's just a really good virtual reality machine. Like the ones you get down the shows where you pretend you're on a rollercoaster. Quote
Toepoke Posted January 5, 2019 Author Posted January 5, 2019 15 hours ago, thplinth said: The last one they landed went dark after about two minutes. Total mystery not explained I think. Just been having a read into that mission. Seemed like it had an erratic life but did last a good bit longer than that before it failed... https://www.newscientist.com/article/2099696-chinas-jade-rabbit-moon-rover-dead-after-31-months-on-surface/ Quote
Scotty CTA Posted January 5, 2019 Posted January 5, 2019 6 hours ago, Toepoke said: Scotty I'm starting to think you're trolling us with this nonsense to get us to succumb and crowdfund you a trip on Virgin Galactic. No, I'm genuinely serious about the flat earth. It makes perfect sense to my senses (and my understanding). Quote
Huddersfield Posted January 5, 2019 Posted January 5, 2019 Just now, Scotty CTA said: No, I'm genuinely serious about the flat earth. It makes perfect sense to my senses (and my understanding). Have you tested any of the challenges/experiments that were put to you on the other thread? If not, then your understanding is being weakened by an unwillingness to consider alternative evidence, which is something FE proponents tend to accuse everyone else of. Quote
Scotty CTA Posted January 5, 2019 Posted January 5, 2019 7 minutes ago, Huddersfield said: Have you tested any of the challenges/experiments that were put to you on the other thread? Unfortunately time is against me. 7 minutes ago, Huddersfield said: If not, then your understanding is being weakened... Fair enough. (It's on the list.) Quote
Toepoke Posted January 11, 2019 Author Posted January 11, 2019 New photos released from the lander and the rover. The moon's not changed much in 50 years... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46836047 Quote
exile Posted January 11, 2019 Posted January 11, 2019 (edited) On 1/5/2019 at 12:45 AM, Scotty CTA said: Point being that the lights wouldn't be that bright from 200 miles away. QUOTE WITHIN QUOTE Here's a list of claims from previous flat earth threads on here:- 1) South Pole does not exist. Correct! 2) The flat Earth is surrounded by an impenetrable ice wall called Antarctica. 3) 60 years of continuous space exploration has been fabricated. (There's no such thing as 'space' to explore.) 4) Southern hemisphere scheduled air travel is bogus. (Planes don't fly over the South Pole as a shortcut to another continent.) 5) Human eye is only capable of seeing for around 12 miles into the distance. (Further under the right conditions.) 6) Earth is able to survive despite being 3000 miles from a functioning star the 32 mile diameter sun. 7) Earth is encased in a dome like structure that cannot be explored penetrated. 8 ) Sun never rises or sets over the horizon but fades in and out of view. Correct! All of the above has to be correct or the argument totally falls down. Hi, sorry for going off the original topic again but would just like to note a few points here. The above point of view suggests: 2.. Not only all space exploration is a sham, but all Antarctic polar exploration (ie near the South Pole or dependent on the assumption of the South Pole existing) is also a sham. Scott, Shackleton, Amundsen were all part of the conspiracy. 3. Not only 60 years of space exploration (rocket flights etc) fabricated but hundreds of years of observations and calculations about the movement of 'heavenly bodies'. Astronomers from Copernicus and Galileo have been part of the conspiracy for over 500 years ! 4. Not only can there be no flights over the South Pole, but also no direct flights in the southern hemisphere between S America, S Africa and Australia where the airlines say they are but go via the northern hemisphere (see detailed maps in the summer!) (as implied in the original post which I think shouldn't be scored out) In fact if I follow correctly, there is no southern hemisphere, because there are no hemispheres, there is no sphere in the first place! All the airlines and shipping companies, and weather organisations, and naturalists, everyone who ever traversed or explored the southern hemisphere have been part of the conspiracy too. 7. The dome-like structure (celestial sphere or hemisphere) can't be penetrated... but could it be explored? That is not denied. So, how would one explore the explore the inside of the dome? Space travel? Finally I can't help wondering, if there's no space, why do people invest so much time and money in faking space travel, why don't they go and explore what's beyond the (not impenetrable) ice of Antarctica? All you need is a few huskies? Edited January 11, 2019 by exile Quote
Orraloon Posted January 11, 2019 Posted January 11, 2019 4 hours ago, Toepoke said: New photos released from the lander and the rover. The moon's not changed much in 50 years... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46836047 Is that a Mexican looking over the horizon at it? Quote
Toepoke Posted January 11, 2019 Author Posted January 11, 2019 Video released of the landing. Reminiscent of Apollo 11, but with Neil Armstrong replaced by suitably oriental music... Quote
Scotty CTA Posted January 12, 2019 Posted January 12, 2019 9 hours ago, Toepoke said: New photos released from the lander and the rover. The moon's not changed much in 50 years... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46836047 How come we can take pictures of the 'heavens' from earth, but no one seems to be able to do so from the moon? Quote
Scotty CTA Posted January 12, 2019 Posted January 12, 2019 6 hours ago, exile said: Hi, sorry for going off the original topic again but would just like to note a few points here. The above point of view suggests: 2.. Not only all space exploration is a sham... Any claims to have gone to or be in 'outer space' would be. 6 hours ago, exile said: ...but all Antarctic polar exploration... No, Antarctica exists (just not now we were taught/told). 6 hours ago, exile said: ...(ie near the South Pole or dependent on the assumption of the South Pole existing) is also a sham. Correct. 6 hours ago, exile said: Scott, Shackleton, Amundsen were all part of the conspiracy. Not necessarily. It's actually possible to travel to Antarctica. (It's just not possible for us to travel to the moon.) 6 hours ago, exile said: 3. Not only 60 years of space exploration (rocket flights to outer space etc) fabricated... Correct. NASA was created to deceive. 7 hours ago, exile said: ...but hundreds of years of observations and calculations about the movement of 'heavenly bodies'. Astronomers from Copernicus and Galileo have been part of the conspiracy for over 500 years ! People can mistakenly believe and subscribe to flawed theories. Quote
Scotty CTA Posted January 12, 2019 Posted January 12, 2019 7 hours ago, exile said: 4. Not only can there be no flights over the South Pole... Under... 7 hours ago, exile said: ...but also no direct flights in the southern hemisphere between S America, S Africa and Australia where the airlines say they are but go via the northern hemisphere (see detailed maps in the summer!) (as implied in the original post which I think shouldn't be scored out) In fact if I follow correctly, there is no southern hemisphere, because there are no hemispheres, there is no sphere in the first place! Correct. 7 hours ago, exile said: All the airlines and shipping companies, and weather organisations, and naturalists, everyone who ever traversed or explored the southern hemisphere have been part of the conspiracy too. Again... not necessarily. The people at the top... yes, but 'numbers' based on theory would be 'sold' through compartmentalisation. 7 hours ago, exile said: 7. The dome-like structure (celestial sphere or hemisphere) can't be penetrated... but could it be explored? Not by going there, no. The dome is highly polished mirror-like metal. 7 hours ago, exile said: Finally I can't help wondering, if there's no space, why do people invest so much time and money in faking space travel... By attempting to portray us as an insignificant 'lucky' random speck in the universe (instead of the centre of creation) the enemy goes a long way to hiding God from the masses. Money is of no consequence to Satan. Paying for the charade is essential. 7 hours ago, exile said: ...why don't they go and explore what's beyond the (not impenetrable) ice of Antarctica? Admiral Byrd went there. It's impenetrable, too... Every nation has agreed to a treaty. Quote
Toepoke Posted January 12, 2019 Author Posted January 12, 2019 8 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: How come we can take pictures of the 'heavens' from earth, but no one seems to be able to do so from the moon? Look at the shadow below the lander, the moon is covered in bright sunlight. It's hard enough to catch the stars in a photo, nevermind during the day. There are actually plans to utilise the shelter of the far side of moon for radio astronomy in particular... https://www.space.com/31811-universe-dark-ages-dare-moon-orbiter.html Quote
Eisegerwind Posted January 12, 2019 Posted January 12, 2019 8 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: The dome is highly polished mirror-like metal. Absolutely fascinating Scotty.I have a couple of questions. 1, Do we know what metal it is, or is it possibly an alloy? 2. Has the dome been cast in 'metat' or is it a formed 'metal'? 3. Was it cast or formed in a single piece or several pieces? 4. The polished surface implies that some post processing has been applied to the 'metal'. Essentialy polishing requires increasingly finer abrasives to be drawn across the surface to produce the polished finish. It's essentialy a very manual process although it can be made easier with the use of machines Did he have a special polishing machine or did he do it himself or maybe subbed it out to the angels. 5. See the chart below showing surface finishes, do you know what he managed to achieve on the dome? https://www.allsealsinc.com/surface_finish_chart.pdf Again, absolutely fascinting stuff Scotty. Quote
Huddersfield Posted January 12, 2019 Posted January 12, 2019 It's easy to find photos of the Earth taken from the surface of the Moon & even more so from lunar orbit. But you'll just say they are photoshopped so there's not much point linking to them. There were two main reasons (as I understand it) why the astronauts didn't get many images from the surface. Firstly, they weren't there to take pretty pictures & cared little about 'proving' they'd been there for the sake of a debate that didn't even really exist at the time. Secondly, the landings were predominantly in equatorial regions of the Moon, meaning that for the larger part of the time people were on the Moon, the Earth was generally very high in the sky so didn't show up on most of the photos that were taken. Quote
Toepoke Posted January 12, 2019 Author Posted January 12, 2019 9 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: People can mistakenly believe and subscribe to flawed theories. Can't argue with that. Quote
Toepoke Posted January 12, 2019 Author Posted January 12, 2019 2 hours ago, Huddersfield said: It's easy to find photos of the Earth taken from the surface of the Moon & even more so from lunar orbit. But you'll just say they are photoshopped so there's not much point linking to them. There were two main reasons (as I understand it) why the astronauts didn't get many images from the surface. Firstly, they weren't there to take pretty pictures & cared little about 'proving' they'd been there for the sake of a debate that didn't even really exist at the time. Secondly, the landings were predominantly in equatorial regions of the Moon, meaning that for the larger part of the time people were on the Moon, the Earth was generally very high in the sky so didn't show up on most of the photos that were taken. Worth looking at how difficult it was to pick out a bright object like Venus in photos from the lunar surface, nevermind distant stars... http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/as14venus.html Quote
kumnio Posted January 12, 2019 Posted January 12, 2019 This threads been an interesting read, apart from Scottys usual howling at the make up moon nonsense. From 9/11, to God bollocks, to the flat earth pish, Scotty, go get your hole, have a drink or something, just take the tin hat crap off FFS. Quote
Eisegerwind Posted January 13, 2019 Posted January 13, 2019 34 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: Racist. Quote
Chripper Posted January 13, 2019 Posted January 13, 2019 12 hours ago, kumnio said: This threads been an interesting read, apart from Scottys usual howling at the make up moon nonsense. From 9/11, to God bollocks, to the flat earth pish, Scotty, go get your hole, have a drink or something, just take the tin hat crap off FFS. I'm relatively new here, but what I want to know is why do people engage with him? Anyone and everything that people say questioning the existence of Jesus or God, etc, he's always going to do what people who are unable to think for themselves do, and that is quote a conveniently vague passage from The Bible Fairytales. You can only reasonably debate issues with people who are able to counter arguments with logical and concrete rebuttals. A person who has volumes of vague references and blurred texts (which are more flexible than a contortionist) can never be proved wrong, as they use aforementioned references to suit their agenda. If I ask him (or any person in Team Bible) "Where is God?" More chances than not they'll spout something akin to seeing God in what he has created. We can see him in when we read his words, see his landscape that he sculpted, breath his air, blah, blah, di blah. No. I want coordinates. I want the literal geographic destination. If he can't do that then he's full of shit. Quote
Eisegerwind Posted January 13, 2019 Posted January 13, 2019 11 minutes ago, Chripper said: I'm relatively new here, but what I want to know is why do people engage with him? Anyone and everything that people say questioning the existence of Jesus or God, etc, he's always going to do what people who are unable to think for themselves do, and that is quote a conveniently vague passage from The Bible Fairytales. You can only reasonably debate issues with people who are able to counter arguments with logical and concrete rebuttals. A person who has volumes of vague references and blurred texts (which are more flexible than a contortionist) can never be proved wrong, as they use aforementioned references to suit their agenda. If I ask him (or any person in Team Bible) "Where is God?" More chances than not they'll spout something akin to seeing God in what he has created. We can see him in when we read his words, see his landscape that he sculpted, breath his air, blah, blah, di blah. No. I want coordinates. I want the literal geographic destination. If he can't do that then he's full of shit. I'll only answer the first point really. Because you can't let this stuff go by and ignore it. Bus stop near me graffiti with 'earth is flat research' sign on M9 graffiti with similair. No doubt churches/chapels/synogogues/ mosques/temples spouting the same stuff. Quote
Scotty CTA Posted January 13, 2019 Posted January 13, 2019 47 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said: Racist. They should call it something else, then. 15 minutes ago, Chripper said: I'm relatively new here... I've been here 20 years. Many know me face to face. 18 minutes ago, Chripper said: ...but what I want to know is why do people engage with him? I encourage people to think outside the box, and they like to test themselves against what I present. 20 minutes ago, Chripper said: Anyone and everything that people say questioning the existence of Jesus or God, etc, he's always going to do what people who are unable to think for themselves do... You don't think that I can think for myself? 21 minutes ago, Chripper said: and that is quote a conveniently vague passage from The Bible Fairytales. There's nothing vague about the totality of Scripture. 22 minutes ago, Chripper said: You can only reasonably debate issues with people who are able to counter arguments with logical and concrete rebuttals. And? 23 minutes ago, Chripper said: A person who has volumes of vague references and blurred texts (which are more flexible than a contortionist) can never be proved wrong, as they use aforementioned references to suit their agenda. Not vague. Not blurred. It's the Truth that'll never be proven wrong. 24 minutes ago, Chripper said: If I ask him (or any person in Team Bible) "Where is God?" More chances than not they'll spout something akin to seeing God in what he has created. We can see him in when we read his words, see his landscape that he sculpted, breath his air, blah, blah, di blah. God being God, He would be omnipresent... everywhere at once. 25 minutes ago, Chripper said: No. I want coordinates. I want the literal geographic destination. You can't bring God down to what you think you understand. 26 minutes ago, Chripper said: If he can't do that then he's full of shit. And yet, when it's all said and done... "...at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:10-11 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.