Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: RAW FOOTAGE: Balloon, aka NASA "Satellite" Floats Across Full Moon
Source:
YT
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAfdkWy0QtE&feature=youtu.be
Published: Feb 3, 2018
Author: Flat Earth Dude
Post Date: 2019-09-28 17:41:37 by Liberator
Keywords: NASA, Satellite, Balloon
Views: 31261
Comments: 184
(Video taken through a Nikon P900 camera)
Poster Comment: Cool! Great shot of the Moon as well. (Sure doesn't seem like it's 239,000 miles away.) So.... is balloon technology how NASA really photographs earth? It appears they are able to attach an equipment gondola to the Balloon...and let 'er rip into Low Earth Orbit. One also wonders if "Astronauts" are actually embedded into a special Balloon gondola instead what's depicted in those dodgy "ISS" shots. Orbital velocity is the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity's pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite's motion -- the satellite's tendency to keep going. This is approximately 17,000 mph (27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers). Without gravity, the satellite's inertia would carry it off into space. Moving juuuust a bit slower than 17,000 MPH. Source: 'HOW STUFF WORKS' https://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite6.htm
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1) not displayed.
.
.
.
#2. To: Liberator (#0)
That's not how any of this works.
Your "wonder" can be construed in a couple different contexts... Lol, "high" as in "doing doobies"? OR, "high" with respect to the height (and speculation) that there are passengers/"astronauts" floating in what may be a NASA balloon/satellite? I realize this is NOT what we are told is the case, but, yup, it's true; "Astronauts" and Equipment actually do float around in gondolas attached to high altitude balloons. (Sure -- they are always referred to as "Weather Baloon." It provides reasonable cover for NASA. This is actually a fact my friend. (Not that NASA wants that kind of secret leaking, given its massive $52 mil per day budget for the last quarter century, and the imagery of massive rocket ship seen blasting off into the sky, presumably to orbit the alleged "globe" at 17,000 mph.) (For those interested, I'll be providing official documentation that goes back to the 1950s.) Most people also don't realize that there's currently a helium shortage and restrictions on its purchase...yes, due to NASA's "resource priority" and necessity for its ongoing NASA balloon program. Btw, these balloons are massive. They are used to lift NASA's "satellites" into Low Orbit.
Pissah.
Actually...IT IS. With respect to, 'HOW STUFF WORKS', I mis-formatted the post, so it's my fault there's some confusion. OF NOTE: According to 'HOW STUFF WORKS' and the link I provided: "Orbital velocity is the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity's pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite's motion -- the satellite's tendency to keep going. This is approximately 17,000 mph.(27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers). Without gravity, the satellite's inertia would carry it off into space. We see neither traveling at 17,000 mph -- whether a gi-normous NASA balloon or the pix taken from NASA "Satellites" (which are actually "gondolas" tethered TO balloons at low earth orbit.)
NASA's Giant Helium Balloons will neither be escaping much beyond the stratosphere, nor dragged to earth via "gravity"... They drift (or are guided) at a very manageable speed (as captured by this amateur videographer in front of the moon), thus it is the perfect medium from which to view and photograph the earth....or be its passenger.
What would be the point of a randomly-drifting mission for either photography or passenger flight? Go take a look at the KH-11, from which the Hubbell telescope is derived. These are not randomly-drifting machines - I know; in a past life I helped to track them. When you know weeks, months or years in advance exactly when and where one would clear the horizon, that's pretty much the opposite of random.
IF you're interested in the truth of the matter...(IF NOT, PLEASE IGNORE) Check out the various links to related subject to the right (Top Chat Replay) MIND BLOWING EVIDENCE...and presentation from someone who may not be your cup of tea in manners, but he is certainly one who crushes the truth. And that's really all that matters. *Please don't dismiss this hour-plus video and case because of the uncalled for salty language within the first couple of minutes...as well as sprinkled here and there.* THIS IS WORTH YOUR ATTENTION. The Content Provider (who was coincidentally also in the service and familiar with some missions) soon calmed down and proceeds to make the case based on researched information, analyses, de-classified official documents, videotape and photos that satellites are perhaps NOT actually in orbit in space but instead are floating from high-altitude meteorological balloons. This included specific missions and sections of documents that testify to protocols, flight ranges and heights, and how HUGE balloons (the size of a football field)....(including "Drag Net" gondolas," payloads and capsules) have been captured by special aircraft. This balloon program has actually been in effect since the mid-1950s. Some interesting bookmarks: Documents of Q & A interviews with a Flight Commander regarding various missions and 9:45 (protocol in capturing the Gondola payloads) 13:00 (video of balloon launch from Antarctica, Satellite "payload.") 15:45: Antarctica Balloon Launch Program and specially outfitted aircraft that capture balloons designed to carry 8,000 lbs satellites (according to docs.) 23:45... Pilot interviewed about role in balloon-capturing protocol 25:30... Astronauts are sent to Antarctica for training. (AND FOR PRIVACY SAKE...which MAY be one reason accessing ALL land latitudes 60 degrees and south IS STRICTLY VERBOTEN.) 28:48...Chute/Deployment/Capture/Area Recovery protocol Could satellite signals be emitters placed around the edge of the flat earth? From here do they send the signal to the sky (to the dome) and the signals bounce from the top to the ground? So it seems to come from above. Maybe that's why you can't go visit what's in Antarctica. 32:27 ...On Satellite Tracking by relatively primitive means, explanations and dynamics; Number of Balloon ID'd in missions, frequency % codes; purpose. (Also launched from several European nations as early as during the mid-1950s.) HISTORY OF SATELLITE RECON (Dec-Classified 2012) Among those listed: that you might remember: the Soviet Module/Space Station, "MIR", from 1997-2002. It was launched VIA BALLOON from Norway... (see docs under "Payloads" at 44:55 and onward.) You will be shocked at just how many "Satellites" were launched NOT from "Space Rockets" but from BALLOONS.) 46:23 -- loose tethers hanging from payloard capsules) 48:05 -- NASA's Enviasat ...and other awkward listed Balloon payloads and NASA docs. 51:16 etc -- HOW IT WORKS, including balloon recon/capture aircraft like U-2S (mannned/unmanned.) The NASA $$$$$$$ money and charade this 60 year old "Space Mission is costing the USA is stratospheric (pun intended.)
I don't believe they are randomly drifting; I believe it/they are radio-controlled (just like drones and other aircraft.) There are potentially plenty of purposes or missions. Recon? Weather and atmospheric gauging and mapping? Sensor Equipment? Carrying Radio Frequency equipment? The whisper-quiet monitoring of specific people, places, and things? Go take a look at the KH-11, from which the Hubbell telescope is derived. These are not randomly-drifting machines - I know; in a past life I helped to track them. When you know weeks, months or years in advance exactly when and where one would clear the horizon, that's pretty much the opposite of random. I concur that something like a Hubble is NOT floating/drifting randomly. (I know -- in your past life knowledge and participation in space projects and engineering were your wheelhouse. It's very likely you were excellent in your expertise -- though at the same time it doesn't necessarily mean you knew what other departments' missions were or "science" from which *they* based they area of expertise on. (Fwiw, in the about video, the Hubble is discussed a bit.) Regarding "the horizon," we will have to disagree on its definition, given our limited perspective due to vanishing point of sight-line. I don't believe one technically exists as I disbelieve in the existence of earth curvature. I was going to post a very brief vid titled, "STILL FLAT." But...according to YouTube sign-in is require because the material was flagged as "Inappropriate For Some Users." (!!?!! HUH??!) Was THAT tell us?? When G00gle is deeming "Flat Earth" as "Dangerous", it means..."DANGER! TRUTH AHEAD!" Here's what I see. Am I nuts? Or is some (any) of this plausible?
Facts don't count when you debate Flattards. Math is irrelevant to Flattards and they don't recognize the concept of mathematical proofs or their finality as a problem's correct solution. I have noticed some interesting theories recently on the rise of Flat Earthers on YouBoob. Naturally, we all recognize how YouBoob is monetizing all of this while trying to use it to smear all religions, many of whose fundamentalists do reject science. It's a subtle attack strategy used by the TED people and Silicon Valley. But there is a real question of just how 'tarded the Flattards really are. And it is a serious question. These are the kids who flunked algebra and geometry and chemistry and physics. And they're the kids who argued with the teachers in every class you ever took, the contrarian adolescent types. It is a pronounced personality characteristic that they exhibit. Some people might consider the questioning of their fundamental intelligence and competence to be hitting below the belt but you can't view many of their top-rated videos - their best stuff - without starting to question if Flattards should be a category in the DSM as a mental disability or condition. [I thought Neil might like these videos; the first vlogger shows his test for dyscalculia based on an aircraft flight plan and says that no Flattard has managed to pass it with only a few even willing to try to. It reminded me of Neil's posts about aircraft flight plans on some old flat earth threads here at LF.]
No, it's not worth our attention. None of it is. We aren't going to be truth-bombed into becoming your fellow-Flattards. Nor are any of us likely to be drawn into the usual endless lists of videos and the constant moving of goalposts to allow you to harangue us all with your little problem in understanding basic science concepts that are not at all mysterious to the rest of us. It just isn't happening. Maybe you should seek help for your paranoid personality traits and your learning disabilities and your authority figure problems. But none of those is our fault or our problem. Nor are they anything new in your life because they do date back decades IMO.
Who is "our", Kemosabe?? You represent yourself, your own personal biases, programming, and ignorance. And projection. Just because YOU are blindly accepting of everything you've been told, mesmerized by and indoctrinated at all levels of consciousness by every authoritah and Rockefellerian public school/university gulag doesn't mean EVERYONE ELSE is. Sheeet. You still believe in the fairy-tale the criss-crossing of Chemtrails are "contrails" -- even though yor gubmint overlords ADMIT they are spraying the sky. We aren't going to be truth-bombed into becoming your fellow-Flattards. Again, you presume to be part of some kind of fraternal Magoo-ian Society of Lemmings. (And yes you just may be) BUT it doesn't preclude free-thinkers and truth-seekers from abandoning the zombie-land of WikiTardia and Cult of Fake Science. Are you also onboard with your fellow Magoo-ian Lemmings on 'The Big Bang'? '4.7 year old Universe'? 'Evolution' (from Plankton-to-Man)? I'll bet your "proof" of a "globe" is the one on your desk. OR cartoons & movies. The 'Universal' globe logo. Or...especially the "photos" of NASA from "Outer Space". (Did Buzz Aldrin autograph your fav?) .... the constant moving of goalposts to allow you to harangue us all with your little problem in understanding basic science concepts that are not at all mysterious to the rest of us." Aaah. The truth slithers out. It's PRIDE that won't allow you to pursue or consider the truth. Here's some "Science" for you -- NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT." (But they're "working on it!") Then please tell me, Einstein -- so exactly how did NASA fly 778,000 miles (round trip) TO the Moon and back 5 times from 1969-1972? BUT CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT 50 YEARS LATER?? Here's more "Science" AND "Math for you: Tell me. How does NASA -- which allegedly accomplished the greatest feat in the annals of Human History -- "LOSE THE TECHNOLOGY" (or threw out) the "knowledge" that supposedly GOT them back & forth to the Moon?? Either NASA is lying about it and EVERYTHING -- OR worst -- you actually believe this "WE WENT TO THE MOON!" lie (along with every other lie.) If you choose to remain ignorant of the same "basic science" and "math" you claim supports truth and logic, perhaps you can explain THIS simple "Science 101" as well?: Given "Water seeks it's own level," the Nile River for 3,000 miles IS LEVEL. Ergo, that means it is FLAT. (that's right -- PROVEN: No Curvature. No "curvature" means "NO 'GLOBE''.") All this isn't even about "education" or lack of; It's about INDOCTRINATION. Maybe you should seek help for your paranoid personality traits and your learning disabilities and your authority figure problems. For demanding the truth be sought and embraced? For rejecting the obvious lies? That's a strange solution you propose.... Good luck with that altar of yours in the living room/"sanctuary," featuring a Giant Globe. The walls? Perhaps festooned with pictures of Einstein, Rockefeller, Buzz Aldrin, the NASA logo, Freemason logo, and 'All Seeing Eye'. I'm only guessing a wee bit here. And just because you hold a Doctorate in Mis-Direction (Minor in Deflection) from 'Oz U.' doesn't mean I don't respect your position.
If the earth was flat and the Nile was flat the river wouldn't flow. No rivers would flow. This is a retarded topic.
Because the public and the pols don't care about manned space exploration. The later Apollo missions aroused no public interest other than complaining about what a huge waste of money they were. So we ended up abandoning our Saturn and Jupiter launchers and any plans to build any platform big enough for manned interplanetary missions. At present, we can't even reach low-earth orbit ourselves because, since the end of our disastrous and expensive Shuttle program, we've been paying Russia to launch our astronauts and payloads to low-earth orbit. SpaceX is likely to change that in the next two years. We'll have the launch vehicles needed for manned launch to low earth orbit and to the moon and a very good prospect for launchers capable of a Mars mission, even if it isn't clear whether humans can survive long enough in space to make it to Mars aboard those ships. The Bezos rockets (Blue Origin) will also surface sooner or later and they may be quite formidable. SpaceX was first but Bezos and other will compete and the EU and Asian space agencies are trying to steal SpaceX's technology for themselves. Oh? I hadn't read that before so let's have your source for this breakthrough discovery. I am aware that many people find the behavior of rivers mysterious as can be seen on Q&A sites like Quora. Do you also assert that all oceans are exactly as "FLAT" and "LEVEL" as you claim the Nile River is? If the Nile is FLAT but the oceans are not FLAT, can you explain why? Are all other rivers also FLAT or is it only the Nile? Just a quick question: do you believe that rivers flow downhill, that water flows downhill relative to local topography? Yes or no.
Ever drove cross-country? Ever wonder who is in charge of pushing the Rockies up out of the ground so you can see them suddenly come into view,and then letting them sink back into the Earth again once you have passed that area? Where does all the ocean water go at low tide?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The oceans would go dry after a few low tides unless there was a HELL of a lot of rain every day,
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
As higher education, Hollywood and MSM indoctrinate the sheeple into weak, over sensitized sheep, to move us further left, YOU make the idea of indoctrination more unbelievable when you associate the term with flat earth. lol
The tides are a mass illusion, created by the Freemasons on the orders of the Illuminati and with the aid of NASA. Ignore the fact that tides have been known and written about for thousands of years, it's all just #FakeHistory. They are aided in the Tidal Deception by the Jesuits who are funded by the Build-a-burgers, a new hamburger franchise. And almost no one can connect all those dots... If you don't hear from me again, you'll know that the Freemasons sent a hit man to rub me out.
I’ll suggest that it’s Liberators deep religious conviction, that doesn’t allow him to believe the earth is round. Just a hunch.
This particular post of yours is hysterical. BRAVO!! "Debate"?? Did you really mention, "Debate"?? Can you FAIL more miserably on that count, my frothing friend? At least I see others here posing serious, valid questions and challenges -- even though they may disagree with NASA/Flat Earth/911 challenges. Back to your concept of "debate": ""FLATARD! FLATARD! FLATARD!...YouBoob! YouBoob! YouBoob! Mental disability!!" does NOT constitute a "debate"; Or any reasoned discussion and challenge of simple claimed facts, math, or science. Neither do tantrums and hysterics over sources you hate and resent (YouTube) because they circumvent the "official" sources of "truth" and happen to expose previously pre-YouTube actual hidden truth. (Btw, baiting Neil/Ping into entering the fray? Lame.) As the resident self-annointed arbiter of consensus and "acceptable subject matter" at LF, are you sure you even know the definition of "debate"? (I mean other than the same ol' puerile "Flatard" ad hominims I've seen from millennials and "adolescent types" -- yes, the same compliant pods you attempted to control, and indoctrinate as a teacher of the Rockefellerian agenda.) Facts don't count when you debate Flattards. Math is irrelevant to Flattards... Oh, the irony. Have you always been such a condescending, no-nothing little pr*ck? Last evening, Prof. TooConservative, I lobbed 4 clear Test Questions for you to answer. They were "Factual," "Scientific," AND "Mathematical". As you routinely do, you engaged in your usual gaslighting attempt, not only failing to answer the questions, but changing the subject and entire premise... But for now -- and for the sake of credibility and honesty, please answer just these a few still un-answered questions and explain NASA's own large credibility problem. Ignoring them won't make it go away. And besides -- I reeeeealy wanna believe!! QUESTION #1: FACT: Given NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT" (But they're "working on it!"). Simple logic and math: How then is NASA's claim to have traveled 778,000 miles (round trip) to the Moon AND back 5 times from 1969-1972 possible? (especially when 50 YEARS LATER they CAN NOT?) Can you kindly work out that "Math" AND "Science" for us? QUESTION #2 (includes assumptive premise): Can we all agree on this? Given one accepts the established "Historical/Scientific Fact" NASA claims to have accomplished -- that is the greatest of feat in the annals of Human History: Plotting a precise course to and landing men on the Moon 239,000 miles away AND returning. Safely. FIVE TIMES. 50 years ago. But...HOW is this all possible when NASA now admits escaping the SAME "Low Earth Orbit" is now NASA's "biggest challenge"? They admit it's a problem that is still not figured out... QUESTION #3: Please rationally or logically explain how it was possible (or believable) that NASA "LOST THE TECHNOLOGY" (or threw it out)? IF NASA has indeed already traveled back & forth to the Moon FIVE times, without any discussion about what it now says are current grave problems/solutions about leaving "Low Earth Orbit", how are NASA and any of those 169-1972 missions believable or credible?? Yes, I'm stupid; (Maybe I have a "mental disability" as you suggest.) Because I don't understand the above unanswered questions. But as a really smart teacher and person, I'm sure YOU can explain how these "facts," "Math," and "Science" is possible. And how NASA went to the Moon 5 times. And now? Nope, we are told by NASA itself: WE. CAN. NOT. THANKS.
Just a hunch. GI, in case you hadn't seen my posts on how and why I disbelieve the "Earth is Round" indoctrination/lie we've been taught from the crib-to-grave, it's short and sweet... Once upon a time (until this past February) I was just like you. I never gave the shape of earth a passing thought. The idea of considering this world was anything BUT round hadn't even entered my mind. I thought "Flat Earthers" were nutty, looking for another "conspiracy theory" to embrace. I even shared this thought with Deckard: "They are making ALL CTs look bad." Then on a whim I lightly investigated the subject, "Flat Earth." I found it strange that for such a wacky, absurd subject, it was being too heavily censored and overly ridiculed. Especially now. IF it's so ridiculous, it should just blow away on its own, right? (But it's not. Flat Earth belief is instead spreading. For good reason.) The further process of mine went this way: On WHAT scientific "evidence" could Flat Earth possibly be based on? It began with and was reinforced by the Lack-of-Any-Credibility of our institutions. THEY opened up this can o' worms. NASA has always been suspect. Flat Earth/Spinning Ball belief is a slow process. It is based on challenging several institutional baked-in "Scientific facts." (which turn out only to be theories supported by OTHER theories.) OTHER people who have explained and figured out the truth via real science. Belief in my own personal observation (that's shared by others.) Understanding physics (ex; water seeks its own level; the earth = 70% water.) Antarctica restrictions. NASA hoaxes. Yes -- the Genesis chapter on Creation and the Bible did become a big factor in my belief. It spoke of and reinforced the truth about this world/realm. Truths snowball. You don't return to a world that lies to you, to me every day. Why? DECEPTION = CONTROL. We see it in play EVERY day, don't we? (And yes, "Globe Earth has especially been about "hiding God.")
Well, yeah, pretty much. Simple logic and math: How then is NASA's claim to have traveled 778,000 miles (round trip) to the Moon AND back 5 times from 1969-1972 possible? (especially when 50 YEARS LATER they CAN NOT?) Elon Musk could do it, now. He's got Falcon 9 to reach low- and high-earth orbit and Falcon Heavy to reach the moon and he's starting testing on SpaceX Starship to send large payloads to Mars (or very large payloads to Earth orbit or to the Moon, the kind you need for big space colonies or a moon colony). But NASA itself? Hell no. They have no contracted production of Saturn and Jupiter launchers that they own which they did have during the Apollo launches. And they don't even have the crappy, explosive, crew-killing, vastly overpriced Shuttles. So they can't even actually get to the ISS using NASA-owned launchers. Instead, they're paying SpaceX for cargo resupply flights and NASA and its Western partners all have to pay through the nose to use the old Russian launchers which are developing a really bad safety record. Not only that, but they don't have the Shuttle to launch the KH spy satellites and other classified military launches; those are now controlled directly by the Pentagon and they launch on their old ICBM-based launchers which NASA never operated or launched at all. So the Pentagon and SpaceX and SLS and Boeing and others can all make orbit and some of them can or will reach the moon in the next few years and SpaceX (and likely Blue Origin) will go to Mars by 2025. But NASA? They have nothing but a fistful of options to buy rides at $60M a pop from the fucking Russians. NASA does have contracts for SLS (Space Launch System) to produce some very large launchers through 2030 which cost upward of a billion dollars a launch. Good luck to NASA trying to sell that to Congress! But SLS is actually just a front for Boeing and Lockheed to sell their very overpriced single-launch crappy technology to Congress under cost-plus contracts, the kind they love for Pentagon contracts that are so lucrative. Here's a 2-minute video on the various launch platforms that are current or upcoming. You should watch it so you can grasp a few basic facts about modern American rocketry. One way or the other, we are going to have launchers far bigger than the old Saturn/Jupiter rockets that we used for Apollo. If we choose well (SpaceX or Blue Origin), we'll slash launch costs to a small fraction of what we pay for launches currently. SLS continues to miss its mileposts. And Trump and Company are taking launches away from SLS and they're giving those launches to SpaceX. Musk is gobbling it all up. NASA can barely launch a weather balloon using its own owned-and-developed technology. So that statement by NASA was entirely correct and probably understates just how defunded NASA has become, largely because there are a lot of U.S. senators that think we need to go to private launch companies to commercialize space. Which is the correct way to do space, given how cheap SpaceX launches are compared to anything NASA can contract from SLS or the upcoming Blue Origin vehicles. NASA really just runs our legacy spaceports and tracking system and providing some astronaut training serverice and not much more. Because Congress doesn't trust them to build anything any more. And with good cause. It's very clear to me that you have almost no factual knowledge of these programs and the technology involved, let alone the political wrangling in Congress. You simply don't understand these things and so you huddle back, posting these fact-free CTs about how "it's all a lie!". Pretty sad really. You don't seem to have the knowledge even to evaluate these programs on even an elementary basis, the kind we might expect to see from a middle-school student. NASA did scrap its Jupiter/Saturn launchers entirely. And much of the data used for launches and for vehicle tests was in software for obsolete computers. Over the decades, if you follow the computer tech news as I have for many years, you would be aware of the efforts to salvage the poorly-stored mag tapes and punched cards that NASA did keep. Hobbyists actually had to build custom hardware or use very old surplus tape drives and card readers and then write software just to extract the original data and source code. And it is not complete because the originals were so poorly stored that some are simply unsalvageable. This is not dissimilar to Hollyweird losing a lot of old B-movies because the celluloid film aged badly or was stored poorly, leaving us without archival copies of a lot of old movies and cinema serials and old theater newsreels. Then you also have a number of fires that happened in the film archive warehouses of the now-defunct movie studios of the era. When your studio is failing and you're firing people, preserving your worthless old films is low priority. And if you've insured your film archive (which is commercially worthless), an insurance payout from an arson is a good way to monetize it instead of continuing to pay to keep an archive that no one wants. So...once they had the Shuttle, NASA made preserving the documents and software and toolchains a very low priority. At the time, NASA believed we wouldn't want to go back to the moon, that the future of space flight was Shuttles in Earth orbit and that the moon and the other planets would all be explored by robots which were much cheaper. But you don't know any of this because you actually prefer these laughable Flattard conspiracy theories. You spend your days watching their Flattard videos with three fingers buried deep in your ass, finally convinced you've caught those bounders in their lies. You convince yourself that people don't want to be around you because the Freemasons and Jesuits have brainwashed them while NASA manufactures fake space programs and launches fake moons and planets to deceive them all and that you are some brave freedom fighter, fightin' for da Trut' against The Man. And that someday you will finally prevail over all those Smart People who passed those darned math and science classes back in high school. And it never works out for you, does it? I suppose it really eats you up when you really let yourself think about it. So you don't think about it and prefer to flood some meaningless chitchat forums like LF with your propaganda. At least it keeps you busy so you don't have to confront the real problem you have in bringing the hoi polloi to understand what you think is Da Trut' on any given day (but which is guaranteed to change regularly). It's all very mysterious to you, isn't it? I don't doubt that it is. Have a nice day.
G.I., this statement of the hardships of the CT lifestyle made me LOL. Not quite enough to bring tears to my eyes but close enough. Ah, the hardships of unrelenting unrequited paranoia over decades as the entire framework of your mental function... I think Liberator needs a new gig, something novel. We should try to help Liberator create his own lucrative Kookery so he can make some money from being retarded. How about Flat Moon theory? Or Flat Mars theory? Or even Flat Sun theory? Or is it all just a conspiracy to make us believe that only the Earth is FLAT? It is a little fun to review the physicists who posit that the entire universe itself is actually a flat disc and that the apparent 3 dimensions of Newtonian physics is actually merely an artifact of our senses and instrumentality. But they can't prove that any more than they can prove anything from String Theory or that huge waste of time they call the Multiverse.
Fair question... I obviously don't have all the answers, but since "Science" deals far more presumptive theory more than Fact (like "Gravity"), I'll share what I've researched: Vast subterranean oceans below the earth's existing oceans and even under the land ebb and flow. What causes it is anybody's guess. This has been theorized by some scientists as a large factor in causing the tide fluctuations. (Of course we've all been taught to believe the Moon's "gravitational pull" is THE one and only cause.) To what degree you consider the possibilities of recent theories, "Settled Science" or today's "science" is up to you. Ever drove cross-country? Ever wonder who is in charge of pushing the Rockies up out of the ground so you can see them suddenly come into view,and then letting them sink back into the Earth again once you have passed that area? Sure... Yup. That's one amazing sight; Mountains emerging at the horizon, then eventually disappearing beneath it. You're referring to the optics of perspective and objects that seemingly disappearing below the horizon. It's because our ability to see is limited by factors -- like haze. But mostly because everything has a vanishing point at which objects converge into a point...finally disappearing. For instance: This is the perception of expected curvature (based on the formula of 8 inches per mile squared) that appears to "hide" the Rockies, ships, land, etc which appear as if they pass beneath the horizon. One problem: That "formula" is proven NOT to work. It's documented that people are seeing 40-hundreds of miles to objects over a horizon that should not be able to be seen. IF you were to look through high-powered binoculars or telescope at the Rockies you've just "seen" disappear below the horizon, they'd suddenly re-appear again through those magnified specs. This proves they actually did not "fall below the horizon." Here is an excellent, detailed explanation of why "curvature" is a matter of perspective, and why all the world's water and oceans are absolutely level.
Another TooConservative FAIL. (and More irony, lol.) Here a "new gig" for you, TC: Instead of creating your usual silly, embarrassing mis-direction and diversions, stop attempting to distract everyone from your painful inability to answer the simple questions I posed to YOU. Yes, YOU. So...why not ANSWER THEM? Those NASA questions I asked YOU are not going to go away by themselves, are they? Hey -- we can play this game all day....
[NASA lost/sh*t-canned the Moon Technology, because it's] "archive that no one wants...Low priority." Have a nice day. Hilarious. Are you fricking kidding me?? All that wasted time and space. And yet, you still managed NOT to answer my simple questions reasonably, logically. AGAIN: HOW did NASA land men on the Moon 50 years ago...BUT NOW ADMITS IT CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT? Ergo, CAN'T RETURN TO THE MOON? If that "technology" was so obsolete and unwanted, wouldn't it have made sense to refine EXISTING MOON-TRAVEL KNOWLEDGE and TECHNOLOGY?? (unless...it never existed to begin with. Oooops.)
LF such a "meaningless chitchat forum" that you've compulsively obsessed on and tossed away quite a bit of personal credibility capital on trying awfully hard to discredit every "CT" that's come down the pike. Is this my problem...OR YOURS?
I know you think you're being all critical here but this only reveals exactly how ignorant of the subject you really are. NASA is, in fact, lying here. You don't even seem to notice the actual lie they are telling the public. NASA can't even reach low-earth orbit since the end of the Shuttles. They simply don't own any hardware. And everything they're doing relies on Russian launches, on SpaceX, and on eventual SLS launches. Yet you keep believing that somehow NASA actually can, today, reach low-Earth orbit? Using what launch platform, you dumbass? They don't have any. And the Pentagon's launchers belong to the Pentagon, SpaceX and Blue Origin and a few other small launch operators are not owned or controlled by NASA. And SLS is probably 2-3 years away from launching anything despite the fact that their entire launch platform is based on those stupid solid boosters that the Shuttle used. And that was supposed to be a way to save money? Yet most big SLS launches will cost over a billion each. You could argue that NASA controls and funds SLS so NASA will finally pretty much own a launch platform if/when SLS flies. But Congress and the entire tech community increasingly want to defund SLS too as SpaceX keeps demonstrating that it can capably launch the scheduled SLS payloads to spec and at a small fraction of the cost that SLS (Boeing/Lockheed) were going to charge for those same launches. You really should read the Ars Technica articles on space launches. They do weekly updates on all the different platforms, have live launch videos, etc. It's probably the best space news site around nowadays; they want to capture the space nerds long-term and they have pretty much succeeded. ArsTechnica: Rocket Report: 9/27/19 More work to go ... "It's not certified for all of our most stressing national security space orbits," Gen. Thompson said. "We continue to work with SpaceX to mature their design, and I think that's going well." Launch vehicle systems are certified for specific mass and orbit combinations. Eventually, the Falcon Heavy is likely to be certified for all nine of the DOD reference orbits. (submitted by Ken the Bin and Unrulycow) At some point, I think Musk might just buy NASA. And Congress might just let him. The space nerds would likely all approve.
Can you tell me what you think is at stake here at LF? Let's assume you achieve your maximal goal: to convert every last contrarian old asshole at LF to all your CTs. You'd have a small cheering section for your CT nonsense. All 20 of them. And they aren't on Twitter or Fakebook so you can't even consider any of LF's readers to ever post anything anywhere else to advance your kookeries on any other website. With LF, there is no there there. Deckard faces the same problem with his stuff. The only people who believe are the same people who already believed the same CT material well before Deckard or you posted about your Latest Kook News. We shouldn't overestimate the reach of LF as a forum. It's just chitchat for 25 rightwing men over 50.
Ah.... no. If I was out with a group a guys having beers, and one stated out loud that... “ Rosie O’Donnell is the hottest, sexiest, bitch alive and he dreams night and day of her naked”... I wouldn’t let that just blow away. If he was a true friend, I’d stage a fucking intervention.
That’s impossible. Even a flat earther... can see that the moon is FUCKING ROUND... it’s funny how the government makes the flat moon appear round. lol
Just the fact that at night, you see a ROUND MOON... should start some critical thinking, outside of the government distrust. Unless you think the government is projecting that in the nights sky... to indoctrinate you. So, here is the million dollar question. If you were standing on the moon... and you looked at earth and noticed it was ROUND... would you believe your eyes?
Maybe - Gatlin might be a woman though. Anyways, as I was driving east this morning I watched a beautiful sunrise over Lake Huron and started thinking about this flat earth stuff. The sun appears to move across the sky from east to west, right? If the earth is flat, why doesn't the entire earth experience daylight the same way? Why is it nighttime on the other side of the world when it is daylight here?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Well, it could be round in profile but still just be a flat disk. The Freemasons might be involved, trying to make us think those flat disks are globes (a.k.a. planets). And the Jesuits are involved. And the Bildybergs. And the Illumnati. And maybe the Reptile People. Come to think of it, the only kook theory Liberator hasn't posted about here at LF is the Reptilians. The Atlantic: How to Spot the Reptilians Running the U.S. Government Yep, supposedly 12 million Americans think the world is run by lizard people. Here's an old clip from 2012 where comedian Louis CK asks Donald Rumsfeld about Reptilians on the Opie & Anthony show.
Well, he is very bitchy and does like to try to be emotionally manipulative. So you might be right. Well, as I understand it, most of them think the sun is much smaller and weaker than we are taught and it has kind of a directional light, like a flashlight. And it circles around the Flat Earth in a circle which makes it look like we're on a rotating globe that circles a star with the globe's rotation causing half of the globe to illuminated at once, resulting in a steadily moving day/night on the surface of the globe. Here's a picture of what most of them think the sun and moon are. Of course, they all seem to have their very own special theories about this and how it works. They get Very Angry if someone questions any of it. Here's a more animated version.
So, the moon is a huge fucking casino chip... or is it more like a gargantuan tuna can?
And when the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth casts a shadow on the surface of the Moon, and the shadow is fucking CURVED, as in coming from a SPHERE.
I don’t think I’ve laughed this hard, from a LF thread, ever.
Well, it's already too late for Liberator to launch a Flat Sun theory. The Flat Sun Society is already around with websites, Fakebook pages, and videos.
Well...um...shit, I don't know. Trying to keep all these kook theories straight is too confusing. : )
Interesting. If the sun is flat, is it fucking hot on both sides, or just the side that faces the earth? So the sun is like a gigantic puck light?
Comments (42 - 184) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest'HOW STUFF WORKS'
#3. To: Hank Rearden (#1)
Unless One was high, why in the world would anyOne wonder that?
#4. To: Hank Rearden (#1)
I hope to God you still believe pizza really exists.
#5. To: Tooconservative (#2)
That's not how any of this works.
#6. To: TooConservative (#5)
(Edited)
#7. To: Liberator (#6)
They drift (or are guided) at a very manageable speed (as captured by this amateur videographer in front of the moon), thus it is the perfect medium from which to view and photograph the earth....or be its passenger.
#8. To: All, TooConservative, Hank Rearden, Deckard, Watchman (#6)
#9. To: Hank Rearden (#7)
What would be the point of a randomly-drifting mission for either photography or passenger flight?
#10. To: Hank Rearden, Pinguinite, Liberator (#7)
Go take a look at the KH-11, from which the Hubbell telescope is derived. These are not randomly-drifting machines - I know; in a past life I helped to track them. When you know weeks, months or years in advance exactly when and where one would clear the horizon, that's pretty much the opposite of random.
#11. To: Liberator (#8)
(Edited)
*Please don't dismiss this hour-plus video and case because of the uncalled for salty language within the first couple of minutes...as well as sprinkled here and there.* THIS IS WORTH YOUR ATTENTION.
#12. To: Tooconservative (#11)
(Edited)
No, it's not worth our attention.
#13. To: Liberator (#12)
#14. To: Liberator, Hank Rearden, Pinguinite, sneakypete (#12)
Here's some "Science" for you -- NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT." (But they're "working on it!")
Given "Water seeks it's own level," the Nile River for 3,000 miles IS LEVEL. Ergo, that means it is FLAT. (that's right -- PROVEN: No Curvature. No "curvature" means "NO 'GLOBE''.")
#15. To: Liberator (#12)
#16. To: A K A Stone (#13)
No rivers would flow.
#17. To: Liberator (#12)
All this isn't even about "education" or lack of; It's about INDOCTRINATION.
#18. To: sneakypete (#16)
The oceans would go dry after a few low tides unless there was a HELL of a lot of rain every day,
#19. To: sneakypete (#15)
#20. To: Tooconservative, Hank Rearden, Pinguinite, Grand Island, sneakypete, A K A Stone, Deckard (#10)
"Facts don't count when you debate Flattards...[[blah, blah]...Globetards...YouBoob...mental disability..."
#21. To: GrandIsland (#19)
I’ll suggest that it’s Liberators deep religious conviction, that doesn’t allow him to believe the earth is round.
By what common sense and observations could it be based on?
By whose authority is it based on?
Aren't these very same authorities and scientists obviously lying about more than two genders? "Climate Change"? "Evolution"? The Coup against Trump? Colleges teaching "Resistance 101"? "Diversity is our Strength"? "White Privilege"? "Evil Men." All-things-0bama. 911. Politically-based False Flags. And so forth. Big Lies, Small Lies, Medium Lies from our establishment. Big Picture: Agenda supported by Lies is out of hand...
#22. To: Liberator, Hank Rearden, Pinguinite, Grand Island, sneakypete, A K A Stone, Deckard (#20)
Oh, the irony. Have you always been such a condescending, no-nothing little pr*ck?
QUESTION #1: FACT: Given NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT" (But they're "working on it!").
QUESTION #3: Please rationally or logically explain how it was possible (or believable) that NASA "LOST THE TECHNOLOGY" (or threw it out)?
#23. To: GrandIsland, Liberator (#21)
I thought "Flat Earthers" were nutty, looking for another "conspiracy theory" to embrace. I even shared this thought with Deckard: "They are making ALL CTs look bad."
#24. To: sneakypete (#15)
(Edited)
Where does all the ocean water go at low tide?
#25. To: Tooconservative, GrandIsland (#23)
I think Liberator needs a new gig, something novel.
#26. To: Tooconservative (#22)
(Edited)
(TC SPAMMING NONSENSE)
#27. To: Tooconservative (#22)
"...meaningless chitchat forums like LF..."
#28. To: Liberator (#26)
HOW did NASA land men on the Moon 50 years ago...BUT NOW ADMITS IT CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT? Ergo, CAN'T RETURN TO THE MOON?
This is how SpaceX just keeps stealing payloads from cancelled SLS launches and expanding the launches it is qualified to perform, all without any real competitors. Everyone else just talks while Musk launches stuff and makes it look easy. Falcon Heavy rocket is now fully certified. Now that the Falcon Heavy rocket built by SpaceX has flown three flights, it is "fully certified" for Air Force missions. However, work remains to make the vehicle eligible to fly missions to all of the Department of Defense's reference orbits, Lt. Gen. John Thompson, commander of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, told SpaceNews.
#29. To: Liberator (#27)
Is this my problem...OR YOURS?
#30. To: Liberator (#21)
I found it strange that for such a wacky, absurd subject, it was being too heavily censored and overly ridiculed. Especially now. IF it's so ridiculous, it should just blow away on its own, right?
#31. To: Tooconservative (#23)
How about Flat Moon theory?
#32. To: Liberator (#21)
(Edited)
#33. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#29)
We shouldn't overestimate the reach of LF as a forum. It's just chitchat for 25 rightwing men over 50.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#34. To: GrandIsland (#32)
So, here is the million dollar question. If you were standing on the moon... and you looked at earth and noticed it was ROUND... would you believe your eyes?
#35. To: Deckard (#33)
(Edited)
Maybe - Gatlin might be a woman though.
Anyways, as I was driving east this morning I watched a beautiful sunrise over Lake Huron and started thinking about this flat earth stuff. The sun appears to move across the sky from east to west, right? If the earth is flat, why doesn't the entire earth experience daylight the same way? Why is it nighttime on the other side of the world when it is daylight here?
#36. To: Tooconservative (#34)
(Edited)
Well, it could be round in profile but still just be a flat disk.
#37. To: GrandIsland, Tooconservative (#31)
(Edited)
Even a flat earther... can see that the moon is FUCKING ROUND... it’s funny how the government makes the flat moon appear round.
#38. To: nolu chan (#37)
and the shadow is fucking CURVED, as in coming from a SPHERE.
#39. To: GrandIsland, Liberator (#23)
How about Flat Moon theory? Or Flat Mars theory? Or even Flat Sun theory? Or is it all just a conspiracy to make us believe that only the Earth is FLAT?
#40. To: GrandIsland (#36)
So, the moon is a huge fucking casino chip... or is it more like a gargantuan tuna can?
#41. To: Tooconservative (#39)
to launch a Flat Sun theory.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]