• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space

Nukehasslefan said:
You mean like this picture supposedly of pluto that just happens to have a picture of pluto on it, taken from a supposed probe, cassini?
You must be logged on to see external links


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sorry, where's the picture of Pluto on it? I'm not seeing it.
DaveH said:
If it didn’t have pluto on the picture, it would not be a picture of pluto.

What next? Why pictures of the moon always have a picture of the moon and not a salted caramel sundae? That is suspicious I have to admit.
Click to expand...

I was assuming he meant the Disney dog Pluto as oppose to a picture of the planet on the planet (or even a picture of Pluto, god of the Underworld, after whom the (dwarf) planet was named).
 
Last edited:

southstander said:
Would it blow their mind?

You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
that's an image of a flat earth but its still round... do flat earthers have any other shape in mind? otherwise it opens up another crazy box, for instance it could be square so therefore flat on all sides..

if its flat, whats on the underside? (apart from Australia)
 
bernardbresslaw said:
How many of your mates agree with this shite?
Click to expand...
Agree with what tish?
legend7 said:
But on your drawing there are large areas of water (seas in our terminology) on a slope with no barriers to stop them running down to the lowest parts of your "map"
Click to expand...
Indentations.
DaveH said:
If it didn’t have pluto on the picture, it would not be a picture of pluto.

What next? Why pictures of the moon always have a picture of the moon and not a salted caramel sundae? That is suspicious I have to admit.
Click to expand...
You must be logged on to see external links


You must be logged on to see external links



Just a coincidence....right?
I mean, they wouldn't mock us, would they?
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
Agree with what tish?

Indentations.

You must be logged on to see external links


You must be logged on to see external links



Just a coincidence....right?
I mean, they wouldn't mock us, would they?
Click to expand...

Us, no. You? Maybe.

Seriously, that's such a stretch. If anything it looks more like Mickey Mouse...

 
Nukehasslefan said:
Agree with what tish?

Indentations.

You must be logged on to see external links


You must be logged on to see external links



Just a coincidence....right?
I mean, they wouldn't mock us, would they?
Click to expand...
Oh, so what are you saying, the planet doesn’t exist?
 
DaveH said:
Oh, so what are you saying, the planet doesn’t exist?
Click to expand...
I don't believe any planet exists in how we're told but that's not really the issue with this.
This is just another example of mockery of the public as far as I'm concerned.

A pretence of seeing a so called small planet in clear sight with the outline of pluto the dog on pluto the so called dwarf planet. Lit up like a beacon at 3.7 billion miles from Earth's sun, as we're told.

Taken by a probe that just never gave up taking pictures and sending that data 3.7 billion miles back to good old spinning Earth from a vacuum and through a supposed radiation belt then through a big atmosphere as we're told about, then back to a receiver.

Fantastic story writing and good sci-fi stuff. But that's all it is in my honest opinion.

Imagine circuit boards in a space vacuum as we're told it is.
I have to admire the genius of the sci-fi stories and the mockery bestowed upon us. It does make me grin a lot, seriously.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
I don't believe any planet exists in how we're told but that's not really the issue with this.
This is just another example of mockery of the public as far as I'm concerned.

A pretence of seeing a so called small planet in clear sight with the outline of pluto the dog on pluto the so called dwarf planet. Lit up like a beacon at 3.7 billion miles from Earth's sun, as we're told.

Taken by a probe that just never gave up taking pictures and sending that data 3.7 billion miles back to good old spinning Earth from a vacuum and through a supposed radiation belt then through a big atmosphere as we're told about, then back to a receiver.

Fantastic story writing and good sci-fi stuff. But that's all it is in my honest opinion.

Imagine circuit boards in a space vacuum as we're told it is.
I have to admire the genius of the sci-fi stories and the mockery bestowed upon us. It does make me grin a lot, seriously.
Click to expand...

how did you become so paranoid?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I don't believe any planet exists in how we're told but that's not really the issue with this.
This is just another example of mockery of the public as far as I'm concerned.

A pretence of seeing a so called small planet in clear sight with the outline of pluto the dog on pluto the so called dwarf planet. Lit up like a beacon at 3.7 billion miles from Earth's sun, as we're told.

Taken by a probe that just never gave up taking pictures and sending that data 3.7 billion miles back to good old spinning Earth from a vacuum and through a supposed radiation belt then through a big atmosphere as we're told about, then back to a receiver.

Fantastic story writing and good sci-fi stuff. But that's all it is in my honest opinion.

Imagine circuit boards in a space vacuum as we're told it is.
I have to admire the genius of the sci-fi stories and the mockery bestowed upon us. It does make me grin a lot, seriously.
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that you're communicating with people all over the world via something called the "internet"?
 
bernardbresslaw said:
Do you really believe that you're communicating with people all over the world via something called the "internet"?
Click to expand...
I believe I'm communicating with a name of bernardbresslaw at this very time of which I do not know anything about in reality.
The location of where this name is typing frm is of no issue to me. I merely answer to the question or the post.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I wouldn't class it as paranoid.
I question the narratives set out but I don't go into any frenzy about it.
Try not to get too embroiled with words on a screen on a chat forum.
Click to expand...
ok then. why do you think your questioning is so right compared to the richness of the species' learned knowledge over thousands of years?
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
I don't believe any planet exists in how we're told but that's not really the issue with this.
This is just another example of mockery of the public as far as I'm concerned.

A pretence of seeing a so called small planet in clear sight with the outline of pluto the dog on pluto the so called dwarf planet. Lit up like a beacon at 3.7 billion miles from Earth's sun, as we're told.

Taken by a probe that just never gave up taking pictures and sending that data 3.7 billion miles back to good old spinning Earth from a vacuum and through a supposed radiation belt then through a big atmosphere as we're told about, then back to a receiver.

Fantastic story writing and good sci-fi stuff. But that's all it is in my honest opinion.

Imagine circuit boards in a space vacuum as we're told it is.
I have to admire the genius of the sci-fi stories and the mockery bestowed upon us. It does make me grin a lot, seriously.
Click to expand...
That leads to a lot of questions to address your idea of conspiracy. First of all, why?

Second, so you see a very vague similarity to a cartoon character in one image from a mission? What about all the other images? Why would they do this? If it is a billion pound industry, why would they risk bringing the whole thing down? Why even pretend to send a mission in the first place? Why do all the other images appear normal?

What about all the other missions which have taken images of other solar system objects and don't see this so called mockery? Why just this one image from one planet?

The only other one I can think of is the famous rabbit on the moon. Is this image on the left a fake too?
Logon or register to see this image

The human brain is very good at trying to match shapes, with animals in the clouds being a famous known phenomena. I believe clouds are real, god only knows what you think about them.

Then, lets for a minute assume that space and the dwarf planet pluto is real and we could send a probe there. With a camera at a suitable distance, why could we not see it in plain sight? Surely that is the most logical thing to assume. On earth we are used to seeing things in plain sight, getting to more detail and looking bigger as we get closer. Like above, we can see the moon in plain sight, why not something else if it were closer or we were closer to it?

The probe never give up. Why would it? Why does your phone or car keep going for as long as it does? Because you give it a suitable sized power source. If you are sending a probe into the furthest reaches of the solar system, why not give it a power source that will last, rather than a cheap mobile phone battery? If you are spending all that money, you design it to last. "Oh sorry, we forgot to charge the space probe and just picked up a battery of eBay. Sorry about the rocket and all that".

On earth, what do we do with radio signals to combat natural interference? We increase power, we increase size of the receiving dish and we also increase the resilience in the signal. Wireless networking is a great example, we use it every day, but the signals are all bouncing off all sorts of objects, going through walls etc. So we use a technique called tokenisation. A single byte of data is converted into tokens with a specific binary pattern. These tokens are much larger than the data being sent and with mathematical (I know that hated word again) algorithms, you can detect not only that something has changed, what what has changed and self-correct. So long as the data corruption is not too great it works. Clearly there is a threshold where it stops working but it allows for a lot of data corruption. It does mean over wireless, the actual amount of data transmitted is huge compared to what you think you send (e.g. 100 bytes text is a lot more than 8x100 bits) Why would that not work from deep regions of space? Satellites send signals through the atmosphere all the time. Why would this not work from other space probes?

Imagine an animal in the vacuum of space. Animals have internal pressure equal to the usual external pressure on the surface of the earth and as a result the two balance out and we don't get crushed or burst. In a vacuum that internal pressure would be greater so while a lot of the components of our bodies would do ok, blood cells, lungs, ear drums, sinuses etc, anywhere with air cavities, would expand rapidly and burst. (Though the boiling point of water changes due to pressure. In a low pressure environment this is lower than body temperature, so the inside of your mouth, the linings of your lungs and your eye balls would boil and essentially cook before you really started to worry about the fact your ear drums have just burst and your lungs are exploding through your chest. In the interests of safety, I strongly recommend you don't do this).

So circuit boards. What are they made of? I'm not sure what the ones used in space probes use, but likely some glass fibre based resin. Components are made of silicon and various types of metal, with glass lenses. No air cavities, no moisture. So the question should be, why would a circuit board not survive or function in a vacuum (actually near vacuum)? You claim to have done numerous experiments (details yet to be revealed) with evacuation chambers. Can you provide any evidence of circuit boards not working in a near vacuum? What happens to them? Do they just explode at certain low pressures? Have you repeated this yourself?

Again, a lot of waffle saying "this doesn't match my personal expectations so conspiracy. I have some doubts about how this would work, so rather than think about it, millions are out to trick me and it is all a lie". But when you take the time to just scratch into the detail (yes, another hated word) then actually, why not?
 
payne said:
ok then. why do you think your questioning is so out there compared to the richness of the species' learned knowledge over thousands of years?
Click to expand...
I don't.
I have questions. I merely want to find out the reality of what we're about and what we actually live on.
I do not buy into what we're told we live on.
I do not buy into religion in any form it takes in terms of the variations.

I class the Earth narrative no differently from a religious belief.

Many many people are religious and yet more and more seem to have given up on it from their indoctrination into it as a child.
If there is a god then I want proof. I don't want to have to be forced into a belief of a proof by peer pressure pushing of a faith.

I have a different mind to what Earth may be. I have it based on my own processes but I do not expect anyone to make sense of it if they are set on something else, just as I wouldn't expect someone to follow another religion, counter to what they generally follow of their own indoctrinated teachings.

The thing is, the biggest religion seems to be christianity as we're told.
The next is islam, as we're told.
And so on and so on.


When does it become an issue for people to decide which religion is worthy and which one's are dangerous cults or stark raving lunatic odd #ball cast off stuff?

Is one right or are two right or are 10 right or all right.....or are they all wrong?
There's mountains of evidence for many if you ask the people of that religion.

I can walk into a church full of people who are worshipping their god. I can see that many are classed as intelligent pillars of society.
I can then ask for proof of their go d and I'll join them in their worship.
What would the answer be?


I could even say that I pray to my own god who comes to me in my bed and I talk to my god at every low in my life. I can call my god, Bob.
How long before I'm classed as the nutter I'm classed as right now?

And yet those who stand in a big building are all fine and dandy.

I'm fine with my thoughts and to change them will require the debaters to offer proof for the Earth they go with just as they should for anything else, if they want to validate their stance on calling someone out as a nut job for alternate thoughts.
bernardbresslaw said:
I'm in Shields mate. Amazing isn't it?
Click to expand...
No problem. I'll accept that.
 
DaveH said:
That leads to a lot of questions to address your idea of conspiracy. First of all, why?

Second, so you see a very vague similarity to a cartoon character in one image from a mission? What about all the other images? Why would they do this? If it is a billion pound industry, why would they risk bringing the whole thing down? Why even pretend to send a mission in the first place? Why do all the other images appear normal?

What about all the other missions which have taken images of other solar system objects and don't see this so called mockery? Why just this one image from one planet?

The only other one I can think of is the famous rabbit on the moon. Is this image on the left a fake too?
Logon or register to see this image

The human brain is very good at trying to match shapes, with animals in the clouds being a famous known phenomena. I believe clouds are real, god only knows what you think about them.

Then, lets for a minute assume that space and the dwarf planet pluto is real and we could send a probe there. With a camera at a suitable distance, why could we not see it in plain sight? Surely that is the most logical thing to assume. On earth we are used to seeing things in plain sight, getting to more detail and looking bigger as we get closer. Like above, we can see the moon in plain sight, why not something else if it were closer or we were closer to it?

The probe never give up. Why would it? Why does your phone or car keep going for as long as it does? Because you give it a suitable sized power source. If you are sending a probe into the furthest reaches of the solar system, why not give it a power source that will last, rather than a cheap mobile phone battery? If you are spending all that money, you design it to last. "Oh sorry, we forgot to charge the space probe and just picked up a battery of eBay. Sorry about the rocket and all that".

On earth, what do we do with radio signals to combat natural interference? We increase power, we increase size of the receiving dish and we also increase the resilience in the signal. Wireless networking is a great example, we use it every day, but the signals are all bouncing off all sorts of objects, going through walls etc. So we use a technique called tokenisation. A single byte of data is converted into tokens with a specific binary pattern. These tokens are much larger than the data being sent and with mathematical (I know that hated word again) algorithms, you can detect not only that something has changed, what what has changed and self-correct. So long as the data corruption is not too great it works. Clearly there is a threshold where it stops working but it allows for a lot of data corruption. It does mean over wireless, the actual amount of data transmitted is huge compared to what you think you send (e.g. 100 bytes text is a lot more than 8x100 bits) Why would that not work from deep regions of space? Satellites send signals through the atmosphere all the time. Why would this not work from other space probes?

Imagine an animal in the vacuum of space. Animals have internal pressure equal to the usual external pressure on the surface of the earth and as a result the two balance out and we don't get crushed or burst. In a vacuum that internal pressure would be greater so while a lot of the components of our bodies would do ok, blood cells, lungs, ear drums, sinuses etc, anywhere with air cavities, would expand rapidly and burst. (Though the boiling point of water changes due to pressure. In a low pressure environment this is lower than body temperature, so the inside of your mouth, the linings of your lungs and your eye balls would boil and essentially cook before you really started to worry about the fact your ear drums have just burst and your lungs are exploding through your chest. In the interests of safety, I strongly recommend you don't do this).

So circuit boards. What are they made of? I'm not sure what the ones used in space probes use, but likely some glass fibre based resin. Components are made of silicon and various types of metal, with glass lenses. No air cavities, no moisture. So the question should be, why would a circuit board not survive or function in a vacuum (actually near vacuum)? You claim to have done numerous experiments (details yet to be revealed) with evacuation chambers. Can you provide any evidence of circuit boards not working in a near vacuum? What happens to them? Do they just explode at certain low pressures? Have you repeated this yourself?

Again, a lot of waffle saying "this doesn't match my personal expectations so conspiracy. I have some doubts about how this would work, so rather than think about it, millions are out to trick me and it is all a lie". But when you take the time to just scratch into the detail (yes, another hated word) then actually, why not?
Click to expand...
Your patience, man.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I don't.
I have questions. I merely want to find out the reality of what we're about and what we actually live on.
I do not buy into what we're told we live on.
I do not buy into religion in any form it takes in terms of the variations.

I class the Earth narrative no differently from a religious belief.

Many many people are religious and yet more and more seem to have given up on it from their indoctrination into it as a child.
If there is a god then I want proof. I don't want to have to be forced into a belief of a proof by peer pressure pushing of a faith.

I have a different mind to what Earth may be. I have it based on my own processes but I do not expect anyone to make sense of it if they are set on something else, just as I wouldn't expect someone to follow another religion, counter to what they generally follow of their own indoctrinated teachings.

The thing is, the biggest religion seems to be christianity as we're told.
The next is islam, as we're told.
And so on and so on.


When does it become an issue for people to decide which religion is worthy and which one's are dangerous cults or stark raving lunatic odd #ball cast off stuff?

Is one right or are two right or are 10 right or all right.....or are they all wrong?
There's mountains of evidence for many if you ask the people of that religion.

I can walk into a church full of people who are worshipping their god. I can see that many are classed as intelligent pillars of society.
I can then ask for proof of their go d and I'll join them in their worship.
What would the answer be?


I could even say that I pray to my own god who comes to me in my bed and I talk to my god at every low in my life. I can call my god, Bob.
How long before I'm classed as the nutter I'm classed as right now?

And yet those who stand in a big building are all fine and dandy.

I'm fine with my thoughts and to change them will require the debaters to offer proof for the Earth they go with just as they should for anything else, if they want to validate their stance on calling someone out as a nut job for alternate thoughts.

No problem. I'll accept that.
Click to expand...
You don't want proof. Anything that doesn't conform to your musings you dismiss out of hand as not proof.

If anything you hear doesn't conform to dome logic you shout lie.

Whether you want to admit it or not you're basically claiming that billions of people are lying to us on a daily basis and have been for thousands of years.....why....who knows.

The comparison to God you've brought up many times to somehow mirror scientific understanding as both been stories shows how warped your reasoning is.
 
DaveH said:
That leads to a lot of questions to address your idea of conspiracy. First of all, why?

Second, so you see a very vague similarity to a cartoon character in one image from a mission? What about all the other images? Why would they do this? If it is a billion pound industry, why would they risk bringing the whole thing down? Why even pretend to send a mission in the first place? Why do all the other images appear normal?

What about all the other missions which have taken images of other solar system objects and don't see this so called mockery? Why just this one image from one planet?

The only other one I can think of is the famous rabbit on the moon. Is this image on the left a fake too?
Logon or register to see this image

The human brain is very good at trying to match shapes, with animals in the clouds being a famous known phenomena. I believe clouds are real, god only knows what you think about them.

Then, lets for a minute assume that space and the dwarf planet pluto is real and we could send a probe there. With a camera at a suitable distance, why could we not see it in plain sight? Surely that is the most logical thing to assume. On earth we are used to seeing things in plain sight, getting to more detail and looking bigger as we get closer. Like above, we can see the moon in plain sight, why not something else if it were closer or we were closer to it?

The probe never give up. Why would it? Why does your phone or car keep going for as long as it does? Because you give it a suitable sized power source. If you are sending a probe into the furthest reaches of the solar system, why not give it a power source that will last, rather than a cheap mobile phone battery? If you are spending all that money, you design it to last. "Oh sorry, we forgot to charge the space probe and just picked up a battery of eBay. Sorry about the rocket and all that".

On earth, what do we do with radio signals to combat natural interference? We increase power, we increase size of the receiving dish and we also increase the resilience in the signal. Wireless networking is a great example, we use it every day, but the signals are all bouncing off all sorts of objects, going through walls etc. So we use a technique called tokenisation. A single byte of data is converted into tokens with a specific binary pattern. These tokens are much larger than the data being sent and with mathematical (I know that hated word again) algorithms, you can detect not only that something has changed, what what has changed and self-correct. So long as the data corruption is not too great it works. Clearly there is a threshold where it stops working but it allows for a lot of data corruption. It does mean over wireless, the actual amount of data transmitted is huge compared to what you think you send (e.g. 100 bytes text is a lot more than 8x100 bits) Why would that not work from deep regions of space? Satellites send signals through the atmosphere all the time. Why would this not work from other space probes?

Imagine an animal in the vacuum of space. Animals have internal pressure equal to the usual external pressure on the surface of the earth and as a result the two balance out and we don't get crushed or burst. In a vacuum that internal pressure would be greater so while a lot of the components of our bodies would do ok, blood cells, lungs, ear drums, sinuses etc, anywhere with air cavities, would expand rapidly and burst. (Though the boiling point of water changes due to pressure. In a low pressure environment this is lower than body temperature, so the inside of your mouth, the linings of your lungs and your eye balls would boil and essentially cook before you really started to worry about the fact your ear drums have just burst and your lungs are exploding through your chest. In the interests of safety, I strongly recommend you don't do this).

So circuit boards. What are they made of? I'm not sure what the ones used in space probes use, but likely some glass fibre based resin. Components are made of silicon and various types of metal, with glass lenses. No air cavities, no moisture. So the question should be, why would a circuit board not survive or function in a vacuum (actually near vacuum)? You claim to have done numerous experiments (details yet to be revealed) with evacuation chambers. Can you provide any evidence of circuit boards not working in a near vacuum? What happens to them? Do they just explode at certain low pressures? Have you repeated this yourself?

Again, a lot of waffle saying "this doesn't match my personal expectations so conspiracy. I have some doubts about how this would work, so rather than think about it, millions are out to trick me and it is all a lie". But when you take the time to just scratch into the detail (yes, another hated word) then actually, why not?
Click to expand...
Good post, very informative
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top