Put a flat earthier into space

[Nobby]

Can you explain how the moon landings are faked?

That's a whole different can of worms, but fair to say in his reality, as the moon doesn't exist they had to be

 

[ned_werby]

I did ask him if there were other big things that he went against the grain with but never really got an answer.
Each to their own like but I can't get my head around this at all.

Eddie Howe being a good appointment for the TaliToon

 

[monkeytassle]

Thousands of years of maths and the greatest minds in history v some bloke who puts plates in a box in his loft and loves in byker

 

[Kevj]

“Tell me how a so called planetarium works.
1. Is it the actual ceiling/dome that has visual light moving around it.
2. Is the actual seating area and building actually rotating?
3. Is there a projector somewhere that projects the images onto the dome?”



1.Show me a planetarium that can accurately show how the sky as we can see it works for a non-globe world.

2. Not in relation to the projected images, but then neither has it been there throughout all recorded history.

3. Yes, and it’s easily found and proved to be there. You not only have no projector and no dome, but you have no mechanism by which they would work and nothing to suggest that they even exist.

Either every one of billions of stars is centred on and revolving around the one star that just happens to sits at or near our celestial pole, all inexplicably moving at different speeds, yet co-ordinated so as to keep the same pattern for any observer on the Earth.

OR

We are on a rotating globe.



“Actually the stacked layers do get to decide.”

Ok, go a bit deeper on this one for me. You’re saying that a layer of air, differing from the air nearby only in density, actually gets to decide which way is up and down, and that the result of these decisions, made by air, is what we know as gravity.

Tell us how that works.

The other thing to consider about a planetarium is the massive projector in the middle of the room.

 

[Nobby]

Eddie Howe being a good appointment for the TaliToon

So called Eddie Howe. Our resident flat earthing mag thought Bruce was a decent manager so he has as much clue about football as reality

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

The other thing to consider about a planetarium is the massive projector in the middle of the room.

and how the two sides of the room see different projections but can't see each others.

But a simple diagram on page 202 is still causing difficulties ten pages later so lets not expect much.

 

[DaveH]

I never said I didn't.
It seems you think I did.

Are you arguing the angle of the line or the angles for each side of the circle the line runs over from the pivot point?

And how do you get a perfect 90 degree angle on the circle?

Yep and we need to find this normal and know it by reference on the circle.
How?


You first have to find the centre of the circle.

That depends.

Of course I'm with you but me being with you does not mean you don;t get to just tell me this stuff you need to explain how and why it works.


Dump what?

Behave as in, how?
You mean behave is space as you would see it with your own telescope or what they show us on TV?

What data?

All, as in who are the all?


You mean like the supposed moon landings being so perfect and what not?

I wonder.

Do you really need to ask these questions? Surely they are obvious from what I posted?

James Webb Space Telescope. A really big thing that has been built and transported ready for launch in front of the attention of the world media. There is clearly a physical object there and like other rockets they will blast them upwards in front of an audience, until they fade from view (but still emit radio signals tracked by many). In reality these go off into space. In mental conspiracy land, what happens to them? The only explanation can be they sneak them back down somehow and trash this thing they built, chuckling "phew, fooled them again".

If you have another explanation, I'd like to hear it.

Then there is the whole purpose of this space telescope. It is to send back data gathered by various sensors (not all visual light). That data will be poured over by the world. The images will be plastered all over the press, but science teams around the world will be using the visual and other data for all sorts. In reality this works fine, data back, use it. In mental conspiracy land there are two possibilities. 1 - all images and other data is faked or 2 - everyone claiming to use the data just pretends it is there. The second is a massive massive conspiracy where as the first is just a rather large conspiracy.

If you have another explanation for how thousands of people worldwide in industry, research and Universities will be sourced with this data, I'd like to know.

There is the question, why bother? Leave fake Hubble 'up there' and keep feeding the world that data. You barely need to get out of bed. Make up a major fake discovery every few years. Costs very little, can keep those on the 'in' to a small group and keep it all ticking over. Seems far more sensible to me.

Or of course the real answer is that conspiracies on that large scale just don't work and it is all mental paranoia that millions of people are out to trick you for no apparent reason.

 

[payne]

Do you really need to ask these questions? Surely they are obvious from what I posted?

James Webb Space Telescope. A really big thing that has been built and transported ready for launch in front of the attention of the world media. There is clearly a physical object there and like other rockets they will blast them upwards in front of an audience, until they fade from view (but still emit radio signals tracked by many). In reality these go off into space. In mental conspiracy land, what happens to them? The only explanation can be they sneak them back down somehow and trash this thing they built, chuckling "phew, fooled them again".

If you have another explanation, I'd like to hear it.

Then there is the whole purpose of this space telescope. It is to send back data gathered by various sensors (not all visual light). That data will be poured over by the world. The images will be plastered all over the press, but science teams around the world will be using the visual and other data for all sorts. In reality this works fine, data back, use it. In mental conspiracy land there are two possibilities. 1 - all images and other data is faked or 2 - everyone claiming to use the data just pretends it is there. The second is a massive massive conspiracy where as the first is just a rather large conspiracy.

If you have another explanation for how thousands of people worldwide in industry, research and Universities will be sourced with this data, I'd like to know.

There is the question, why bother? Leave fake Hubble 'up there' and keep feeding the world that data. You barely need to get out of bed. Make up a major fake discovery every few years. Costs very little, can keep those on the 'in' to a small group and keep it all ticking over. Seems far more sensible to me.

Or of course the real answer is that conspiracies on that large scale just don't work and it is all mental paranoia that millions of people are out to trick you for no apparent reason.

Why

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Why

Show me what you mean by why.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Can you explain how the moon landings are faked?

I could go into all kinds of reasons as to why I believe it to be faked in terms of what they tell us and show us.
The simplest reason for any of it is, rockets cannot fly in the environment they say space is. That alone kills it off without all the rest of the dodgy suspicious stuff that stands out.

 

[DaveH]

I could go into all kinds of reasons as to why I believe it to be faked in terms of what they tell us and show us.
The simplest reason for any of it is, rockets cannot fly in the environment they say space is. That alone kills it off without all the rest of the dodgy suspicious stuff that stands out.

Have you tried burning rocket fuel in the environment of space, or is this just a wild guess because it doesn't sound to you like it would work?

 

[What A Waster]

Have you tried burning rocket fuel in the environment of space, or is this just a wild guess because it doesn't sound to you like it would work?

He's done loads of experiments. He just doesn't share them.

I could go into all kinds of reasons as to why I believe it to be faked in terms of what they tell us and show us.
The simplest reason for any of it is, rockets cannot fly in the environment they say space is. That alone kills it off without all the rest of the dodgy suspicious stuff that stands out.

Why can't they?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

“Tell me how a so called planetarium works.
1. Is it the actual ceiling/dome that has visual light moving around it.
2. Is the actual seating area and building actually rotating?
3. Is there a projector somewhere that projects the images onto the dome?”



1.Show me a planetarium that can accurately show how the sky as we can see it works for a non-globe world.

You view them regularly, I'd suspect. I assume you've seen one, right?
Well it's called a planetarium but it shows how a dome works with a central projector to it.

2. Not in relation to the projected images, but then neither has it been there throughout all recorded history.

Are you answering this to number 2 quote?

3. Yes, and it’s easily found and proved to be there. You not only have no projector and no dome, but you have no mechanism by which they would work and nothing to suggest that they even exist.

Are you answering this to number 3 quote?

Either every one of billions of stars is centred on and revolving around the one star that just happens to sits at or near our celestial pole, all inexplicably moving at different speeds, yet co-ordinated so as to keep the same pattern for any observer on the Earth.

But those so called stars can easily be moving in accordance with what's moving inside Earth as points of light, like a projector rotating.

OR

We are on a rotating globe.

A rotating globe in a space vacuum with atmosphere just adhering to it all around with no container for it and no medium around it.
It literally makes no sense.
It's a fantasy story told with models and pictures to supposedly rubberstamp a reality.

“Actually the stacked layers do get to decide.”

Ok, go a bit deeper on this one for me. You’re saying that a layer of air, differing from the air nearby only in density, actually gets to decide which way is up and down, and that the result of these decisions, made by air, is what we know as gravity.

Tell us how that works.

They're stacked according to dense mass of molecules.
The more molecules that are stacked the more compressed the below molecules become and the less compressed the above molecules become.

Do you really need to ask these questions? Surely they are obvious from what I posted?

Obvious as in, how?

James Webb Space Telescope. A really big thing that has been built and transported ready for launch in front of the attention of the world media.

And you know this, how?

 

[What A Waster]

You view them regularly, I'd suspect. I assume you've seen one, right?
Well it's called a planetarium but it shows how a dome works with a central projector to it.

Are you answering this to number 2 quote?

Are you answering this to number 3 quote?



But those so called stars can easily be moving in accordance with what's moving inside Earth as points of light, like a projector rotating.

A rotating globe in a space vacuum with atmosphere just adhering to it all around with no container for it and no medium around it.
It literally makes no sense.
It's a fantasy story told with models and pictures to supposedly rubberstamp a reality.

They're stacked according to dense mass of molecules.
The more molecules that are stacked the more compressed the below molecules become and the less compressed the above molecules become.

Obvious as in, how?

And you know this, how?

What causes them to stack?
Why do more dense ones go to the bottom?

 

[ned_werby]

Show me what you mean by why.

Show me what you mean by 'show me'

 

[Nukehasslefan]

There is clearly a physical object there and like other rockets they will blast them upwards in front of an audience, until they fade from view (but still emit radio signals tracked by many).

Where are the audience to see this?
And what radio signals are emitted?

In reality these go off into space.

In your mind they do.

In mental conspiracy land, what happens to them?

That depends on what's being launched.

The only explanation can be they sneak them back down somehow and trash this thing they built, chuckling "phew, fooled them again".

Basically, yes.

If you have another explanation, I'd like to hear it.

No, that seems plausible.

Then there is the whole purpose of this space telescope. It is to send back data gathered by various sensors (not all visual light). That data will be poured over by the world. The images will be plastered all over the press, but science teams around the world will be using the visual and other data for all sorts.

The so called moon landings were plastered all over the press.
The so called 1970's probes were plastered all over the press and still are.
Star trek was once plastered all over the press.
Star trek conventions are a thing.
Star wars, the same.
Superman was from the planet krypton we are told.

Do I need to go on?

In reality this works fine, data back, use it.

In your mind it works fine because that's what you believe. And fair enough.

In mental conspiracy land there are two possibilities. 1 - all images and other data is faked or 2 - everyone claiming to use the data just pretends it is there.

That depends on the data and how a person is using it and what they believe it pertains to rather than what they know..

The second is a massive massive conspiracy where as the first is just a rather large conspiracy.If you have another explanation for how thousands of people worldwide in industry, research and Universities will be sourced with this data, I'd like to know.

It doesn't need to take a lot on the grand scheme of it, overall.
Compartmentalisation is all that's required. Peter doesn't know what Paul's doing or Julie doesn't know what Janet's doing.

There is the question, why bother?

Why bother lying about anything? But people lie. People act and people will sell their own granny for fame and/or fortune.
People like to feel important and people love control.
All kinds it takes.

Leave fake Hubble 'up there' and keep feeding the world that data.

Or pretend it's up there and throw out data from a mountain top scope, or similar? Or even from an aircraft.

You barely need to get out of bed. Make up a major fake discovery every few years.

The piltdown man as told to us. Or the petrified wood moon rock...and so on and so on.
Anyone can make up anything if they don't have to prove anything.
The issue is, are people making up stuff because they believe in something or something has potential even though it's hard to prove or can't be physically proved or simply telling porkies?

Costs very little, can keep those on the 'in' to a small group and keep it all ticking over. Seems far more sensible to me.

Your perception is on hundreds of thousands of people supposedly being in on something. I've explained why this does not have to be the case.

Or of course the real answer is that conspiracies on that large scale just don't work and it is all mental paranoia that millions of people are out to trick you for no apparent reason.

Nothing works in that respect as far as people like you are concerned. You believe the set narratives so why would you go against them?
You wouldn't for a few reasons. Most of which you would likely deny, I would think.

 

[GK]

Ok, I know you don't believe in stars or their demonstrably immense distance, so lets agree on points of light.
The constellations, made up as they are of points of light, are consistent and recognisable all over the globe/cell. Doesn't matter if you're in UK or USA, Ursa Major is Ursa Major and is going to appear exactly the same shape, whatever time of the night you see it, at whatever time of year. Yes, it rotates throughout the course of the night, its orientation changes, but the shape remains the same. It's always above the non-existent horizon in the so called northern hemisphere, and it rotates around a central point of light, let's call it Polaris. It's on this picture. No, I didn't take this one, but I have taken similar as can anyone with access to a camera and a sky.

Logon or register to see this image

It only takes about 30 - 60 seconds to show movement in these points of light, but you'll notice that the points of light toward the outer edge appear to have moved much further than those closer to the Polaris. There are only two possible explanations for this.
Either -
They all rotate at different speeds, yet magically communicate with every other point of light in order to synchronise their vastly different speeds so as to ALWAYS appear in the same patterns to you on Earth, no matter where on Earth you are AND they do this simultaneously for absolutely anyone who looks at the sky, anywhere, any time
OR
They don't move and the observer is on a f***ing globe that rotates!
If all of this were to be played out on your dome, not only would it have to be the most highly polished and geometrically precise and incredibly reflective surface ever, an absolutely perfect hemisphere, you would only have to travel a few hundred miles in any direction before all the constellations took on a different shape.

I know you will reject this, but it's simple and factual and I didn't find it in school, in a book or on YouTube. I mused.

I asked him about this in another thread. Showed him a timelapse video of both the southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere stars rotating in opposite directions to each other. He said a mirror is used to achieve this. So I asked two questions. If a mirror is used - how are the constellations visible in both hemispheres different. And where can I travel to see stars rotating both counterclockwise and clockwise - that place must exist on a flat earth with a mirror in the sky - he just disappeared. Literally refused to answer and left the thread.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Have you tried burning rocket fuel in the environment of space, or is this just a wild guess because it doesn't sound to you like it would work?

Just trying it in extreme low pressure is enough.

He's done loads of experiments. He just doesn't share them.

Why can't they?

No medium in which to push against. No resistance to energy applied.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Show me what you mean by 'show me'

Show me who so-called I, supposedly am and I'll forget to draw a so-called diagram.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What causes them to stack?
Why do more dense ones go to the bottom?

More tightly packed. More layers in the molecule.
What causes the stacking is applied energy pushing molecules through what is above so they sit on those molecules pushed through as their foundation. And so on and so on all the way up is stacked layers.