NASA Faking Space proves flat earth?

On a recent visit to NASA in Houston I spoke with many NASA employees and their public relations people and none of them were firmly convinced that the Apollo moon landings were real. None of them were prepared to put forward any arguments to try to “prove” they sent men to the moon in the 1960s. So now, in 2018, we have reached the point where even the NASA employees are not sure the Apollo manned moon landings were real.

So it is obvious, NASA faked the Apollo manned lunar landings, and every thoughtful person knows this by now. NASA makes no attempt whatsoever to prove they landed men on the moon. Basically they don’t talk. Even the NASA employees complained that they have no one to ask questions about these things to and that they are kept completely in the dark. NASA scientists don’t talk to anyone. At the same time NASA openly admits that now, in 2018, it is not possible for them to send men to the moon, they can’t even send men out of low earth orbit.

So the obvious conclusion is if NASA can’t send men out of low earth orbit today they could not send men out of low earth orbit in 1966…

So flat earthers talk a lot about NASA fakery, and there is a lot of real NASA fakery. After faking the moon NASA went on to fake a lot of other things they were being funded trillions of dollars for doing in space. So there is not question, a very large percentage of what NASA tells us is lies and fakery. But NASA’s fakery is not actually proof that the earth is flat.

The only purpose of exposing NASA’s fakery from the point of the flat earth is to show that if NASA did not send men to the moon then the fabulous photograph of earth from space, the “Blue Marble” is also fake.

Obviously if we have photographs of a globe earth from space then that is proof the earth is a globe. So flat earthers attempt to show that the few photos of earth from space NASA have given us are fakes. And they have quite convincingly proven this.

So it seems NASA not only faked the Apollo manned lunar landings, they also faked their earth from space photographs.

In this way NASA has enabled the flat earth movement. Because of their wholesale fakery very few people trust anything they say anymore.

There is truly an enormous amount of proof of NASA’s fakery, from the flat earth perspective the only thing that is really important is to establish that NASA has not been far enough away from the earth to look back and take a photo of the entire globe. And they have been able to do this quite convincingly.

Conclusion: The fact that NASA faked the Apollo manned moon missions in the 1960s and have faked many other things in the years to follow does not prove the earth is flat. But it does indicate the possibility that we have not be far enough away from the earth to take a photo of the full globe, thus leaving open the possibility that the earth is not a globe.

 

Supporting Flat Earth Proofs

  • 160) It is impossible for rockets or any type of jet propulsion engines to work in the alleged non-atmosphere of vacuum space because without air/atmosphere to push against there is nothing to propel the vehicle forwards. Instead the rockets and shuttles would be sent spinning around their own axis uncontrollably in all directions like a gyroscope. It would be impossible to fly to the Moon or go in any direction whatsoever, especially if “gravity” were real and constantly sucking you towards the closest densest body.
  • 161) If Earth were really a ball, there would be no reason to use rockets for flying into “outer-space” anyway because simply flying an airplane straight at any altitude for long enough should and would send you off into outer-space. To prevent their airplanes from flying tangent to the ball-Earth, pilots would have to constantly course-correct downwards, or else within just a few hours the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph would find themselves lost in “outer-space.” The fact that this never happens, artificial horizons remain level at pilot’s desired altitudes and do NOT require constant downwards adjustments, proves the Earth is not a ball.
  • 162) All NASA and other “space agencies” rocket launches never go straight up. Every rocket forms a parabolic curve, peaks out, and inevitably starts falling back to Earth. The rockets which are declared “successful” are those few which don’t explode or start falling too soon but make it out of range of spectator view before crashing down into restricted waters and recovered. There is no magic altitude where rockets or anything else can simply go up, up, up and then suddenly just start “free-floating” in space. This is all a science-fiction illusion created by wires, green-screens, dark pools, some permed hair and Zero-G planes.
  • 163) NASA and other space agencies have been caught time and again with air bubbles forming and floating off in their official “outer-space” footage. Astronauts have also been caught using scuba-space-gear, kicking their legs to move, and astronaut Luca Parmitano even almost drowned when water started filling up his helmet while allegedly on a “space-walk.” It is admitted that astronauts train for their “space-walks” in under-water training facilities like NASA’s “Neutral Buoyancy Lab,” but what is obvious from their “space bubbles,” and other blunders is that all official “space-walk” footage is also fake and filmed under-water.
  • 164) Analysis of many interior videos from the “International Space Station,” have shown the use of camera-tricks such as green-screens, harnesses and even wildly permed hair to achieve a zero-gravity type effect. Footage of astronauts seemingly floating in the zero-gravity of their “space station” is indistinguishable from “vomit comet” Zero-G airplane footage. By flying parabolic maneuvers this Zero-G floating effect can be achieved over and over again then edited together. For longer uncut shots, NASA has been caught using simple wires and green screen technology.
  • 165) NASA claims one can observe the International Space Station pass by overhead proving its existence, yet analysis of the “ISS” seen through zoom cameras proves it to be some type of hologram/drone, not a physical floating space-base. As you can see in my documentary “ISS Hoax,” when zooming in/out, the “ISS” dramatically and impossibly changes shape and color, displaying a prismatic rainbow effect until coming into focus much like an old television turning on/off.
  • 172) If you pick any cloud in the sky and watch for several minutes, two things will happen: the clouds will move and they will morph gradually changing shape. In official NASA footage of the spinning ball Earth, such as the “Galileo” time-lapse video however, clouds are constantly shown for 24+ hours at a time and not moving or morphing whatsoever! This is completely impossible, further proof that NASA produces fake CGI videos, and further evidence that Earth is not a spinning ball.
  • 173) NASA has several alleged photographs of the ball-Earth which show several exact duplicate cloud patterns! The likelihood of having two or three clouds of the exact same shape in the same picture is as likely as finding two or three people with exactly the same fingerprints. In fact it is solid proof that the clouds were copied and pasted in a computer program and that such pictures showing a ball-shaped Earth are fakes.
  • 174) NASA graphics artists have placed things like faces, dragons, and even the word “SEX” into cloud patterns over their various ball-Earth pictures. Their recent 2015 Pluto pictures even clearly have a picture of Disney’s “Pluto” the dog layered into the background. Such blatant fraud goes unnoticed by the hypnotized masses, but provides further proof of the illegitimacy of NASA and their spinning ball planet mythos.
  • 175) Professional photo-analysts have dissected several NASA images of the ball-Earth and found undeniable proof of computer editing. For example, images of the Earth allegedly taken from the Moon have proven to be copied and pasted in, as evidenced by rectangular cuts found in the black background around the “Earth” by adjusting brightness and contrast levels. If they were truly on the Moon and Earth was truly a ball, there would be no need to fake such pictures.
  • 176) When NASA’s images of the ball-Earth are compared with one another the coloration of the land/oceans and relative size of the continents are consistently so drastically different from one another as to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the pictures are all fake.
  • 188) Over the years NASA has twice changed their story regarding the shape of the Earth. At first they maintained Earth was a perfect sphere, which later changed to an “oblate spheroid” flattened at the poles, and then changed again to being “pear-shaped” as the Southern hemisphere allegedly bulges out as well. Unfortunately for NASA, however, none of their official pictures show an oblate spheroid or pear-shaped Earth! All their pictures, contrary to their words, show a spherical (and clearly CGI fake) Earth.
  • 177) In the documentary “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon,” you can watch official leaked NASA footage showing Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins, for almost an hour, using transparencies and camera-tricks to fake shots of a round Earth!

108 Replies to “NASA Faking Space proves flat earth?”

  1. Mike

    The people who believe the earth is flat need help, they should not be criticised. To completely ignore gravity so that a plane could just fly off the earth is laughable.

    • nik allpress

      buoyancy, air pressure and density are all real provable things that can explain the so called gravity effect, also gravity must be super strong to hold the sea to a Spinning ball whilst super weak so you can walk around and not be outright squashed GRAVITY makes no sense and without it the whole big bang theory and most other ones fall part lol

      • Flat Earth Facts

        Actually buoyancy, air pressure and density do not explain gravity. All buoyancy can do is hold things up. So if something is in a medium like air or water and it is less dense it will be held up by the medium. But if you take away the medium that is holding it up it will fall at the gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s.

        So this force exists that is pulling things down, if you think the earth is flat there is a force pulling things down, that is gravity, and if you think the earth is a globe there is a force pulling towards the center of the globe and that is “down” on the globe.

        So there is no way buoyancy, air pressure and density can explain the phenomenon that we call ‘gravity’ because that force still exists if you remove the medium [air, water, etc] that is holding the thing up and in this way causing the gravity to not act on it or reducing the action of gravity on it…

        • Sarnaduti

          Yes, buoyancy and air pressure do not explain gravity. Rather, buoyancy and air pressure can be explained by, and is a result of gravity. Density, however, is an inherent property of matter – it is mass per unit volume, and is independent of gravity.

          Fluid (e.g. air, water) pressure is caused by the weight of fluid due to gravity. So at the bottom of a fluid, there is more pressure due to more weight of the fluid above it, and at the top there is less pressure due to less weight. All this are due to the gravity acting on each of the particles of the fluid to pull it down. So fluid pressure “is” caused by gravity.

          Buoyancy is the upward force that results due to fluid pressure being different at the bottom of an object than at the top, allowing the object to float. Lift is another upward force that acts on moving objects (like planes, birds) due to pressure differences in the fluid between an object’s top and bottom due to its speed – by Bernoulli’s principle, which can be derived from Newton’s laws and the law of gravity.

          So gravity acts on all masses, including the fluids – but its effect on fluids, and objects in it, ultimately makes it counter-intuitive to us – that things can float in the fluid – thereby we say it “defies” gravity, when in fact that phenomenon can also be explained by gravity! And yes, if we take away fluid medium, we get to see raw gravity in action, everything will fall at 9.8 m/s/s (not 9.8 m/s exactly, as you say – that is speed, we are talking about an increase in speed per second, that is 9.8 m/s/s).

        • Cyrena

          There is no gravity that is made up physics that they continue to have to recalculate large caluculus and trig formulas over and over again because they keep coming up short every which way even to this day. Then they make up terms like photons and dark matter to top it off just as delusional as gravity. Simple magnets defy gravity. There is no gravity it is all magnetism. Research The Thunderbolt Project, Eric Dollard’s continued Tesla work in electrical engineering, even Steinmetz. Real provable science. You would be amazed how much and how far scientific community has gone in lying ro the general public. Most people don’t know anything about what electricity is and we use it everyday. General public has been indoctrinated to make people dumb. Truth is simple and easily verified provable and Fantasy will lead you through long equated rabbit holes.

          • Ron

            I study physics and electrical engineering and also the work of Tesla! I have found that just simple sound made up of different harmonics derived from the Schumann Resonance not only manipulates “GRAVITY” but controls it. I was in a big argument with a Professor at Rice University about one of my experiments that showed gravity is not a constant!! Tesla got his information on a visit to the great pyramid. He measured the harmonic wave length at different heights and concluded it was an energy generator!! He spent the rest of his life trying to develop free energy for everyone. Electromagnetism also has an effect on “little g” if emitted in harmonic intervals in conjunction with the Schumann Resonance frequencies. I am a musician, that is how I discovered it. You cannot use the standard counting system we are taught though or you end up in an equation that is almost endless. Did you know ancient that the ancient cultures did not use a 9 place counting system??? Many used a counting and math system divisible by 6!! 1,2,3,4,5,6, 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,20. this makes is a 6 place counting system with 0 having absolute value!! Try dividing 1/7, 2/7,3/7,4/7.5/7,6/7. You will notice a in final decimal. this is the Schumann Resonance increments. Of course I’m not going to spell out some equations for you because you just would not understand the math. You must un learn what you have been indoctrinated into believing,

      • Michael

        It may make no sense to YOU but, like it or not, there are people in the world that are smarter than you are, and who DO understand the nature of gravity. There are probably a few hamsters that are smarter than you if you’re having trouble understanding that your body has less mass than the oceans. “I don’t understand this, therefore it’s wrong” is not a valid argument.

          • Flat Earth Facts

            It is a fact that things fall down to the ground and accelerate at 9.8 meters per second and if you want to call this gravity then it is an indisputable fact. And this fact is true either on a globe earth or a flat earth. Things fall down towards the earth. That definition of gravity everyone can agree on. However the gravity that the globe earthers talk about does quite a lot more than just cause objects to fall down…

          • On the level

            Flat Earth Facts,

            Good points. Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation is not an observed fact but a claim that all matter attracts all other matter with force proportional two the mass of the attractors. To do this he makes assumptions about Earth’s mass and inserts a constant into his equation that for whatever reason seems to satisfy him. Like radiation gravity is said to decrease by the inverse square the further one is from said attractor. Of course it’s been sold so well that many forget the several problems that plague his opus LAW.

            Fortunately, Nikola Tesla did not and understood the likely connection between the force we call gravity and electromagnetic lines of force.

            Have a great day!

    • BOB

      Globers: “There are 2 ways to be deceived-one is to believe what isn’t true. The other is to accept what IS true, despite irrefutable evidence.”

    • Kris Fox

      They never said that . They were implying that if a pilot would put his plane in auto pilot or simply keep the plane going in a straight line without altering their elevation that the plane would reach a no gravity zone , low earth orbit in a matter of minutes. The pilot would or should have to carefully monitor the elevation and do some kind of manipulating so they do not end up in low earth orbit. Or at least that’s how I understood it . When you think about it , it makes sense . By the way gravity is just a theory . How does water always find level. Still so many unanswered questions. And how does someone destroy and/or loose the technology to go to a place that only a handful people have supposedly gone and then think they are going to send more to mars It would appear easier to me that we terraform earth into remaining a livable planet than to seek out other planets to terraform into becoming a livable planet.. We are already here to perform the task.. Some of their ideas just don’t make sense

    • ON THE LEVEL

      Good morning,

      Last night I thought of a few more questions regarding satellites and space.

      1. The Hubble space telescope supposedly orbited Earth for several decades but in all that time never took a detailed close-up of the earth or of neighboring satgellites numbering supposedly 17K+, it appears it didn’t even take close-ups of the moon, why?

      2. During the several supposed moon landings astronauts brought 3 electric go carts billed to the US government at approximately 60 million dollars a piece but never brought a telescope or telescopic lens for their expensive video cameras with costly Zeiss lenses, why?

      Keep in mind the amazing footage a telescope on the moon shooting live video footage of Earth could not have been faked with CGI at that time. Very difficult to realistically fake detailed images of Earth in all it’s glory with technology of the day ( not much CGI going on ). However, film crews did have Scotchlite ( [paper covered with small glass beads that made it a very reflective surface screen ) that allowed them to project fake backgrounds for movies like the monkey-monolith scene in Stanley Kubrick’s opus to fake space 2001 a Space Odyssey. Similar techniques could be used to fake the astronaut’s various walks on the moon as well.

      Have a great day!

      Reposted from another thread, might be topical.

          • On the Level

            Thanks for the reply. You are apparrntly correct. I remember reading that figure some where, but an automotive website went into the history of the moon rovers and claimed that for $38 million dollars NASA got the use of 4 moon rovers. Assuming their figure is more accurate it still comes to between 9 and 10 million dollars per moon river. That’s still quite a lot of bread for an electric go cart with fewer parts than a jeep, and still a total scam.

            Have a great day!

      • Michael

        Evidently you didn’t bother to do even the most basic research. The Hubble Space Telescope or “HST” was launched in 1990 and is still in service. It was placed into orbit not to take detailed photos of the Earth (it’s only 337 miles above the Earth and its optics are pointed AWAY from the Earth anyway), it was designed to image deep-space objects like stars, galaxies and nebulae. There are plenty of cameras mounted on plenty of satellites that routinely take detailed photos of the Earth. And speaking of those satellites, Hubble can’t photograph one of them either, for the same reasons it can’t take detailed photos of the Earth – it’s pointed in the wrong direction and it’s moving too fast. Hubble’s fastest imaging instrument has an exposure time of 0.1 seconds, but in that time the HST has moved about 760 meters, so anything it was imaging would come out as a long streak of light. But HST has taken detailed photos of the Moon, despite your belief to the contrary.

        • On the Level

          Hi Mike,

          Your reply seems to me a litany of excuses. A space based telescope pointed at earth would provide invaluable assistance in weather prediction and information about conditions on the ground. Supposed images of planets ( cgi ) benefits humanity very little.

          Please show me these “detailed” images of the lunar surface. If they’re so wonderful where are all the streaming photos of meteor showers pounding the surface Werner Von Braun claimed to have knowledge of. It’s been claimed we’ve sent many satellites close to the lunar surface where are the high resolution pictures of all those landing sites? Or is it all just a cgi fantasy?

          Have a great day!

          • Michael

            I’ve already explained to you twice that the Hubble Space Telescope is not pointing TOWARDS the Earth, it’s pointed towards outer space. That’s what it was designed for, observations of very distant deep-space objects. Its resolution limits and its nearness to the surface make it unsuitable for Earth observations, as I’ve also explained. In addition to the Earth rotating, the telescope is moving at over 27,000 kilometers per hour in orbit, about 7.6 kilometers a second. As I told you before, the shortest exposure time of any of Hubble’s instruments is 0.1 second, during which time the telescope has moved about 760 meters. Also, to be able to follow an object on the rotating Earth below, the moving telescope would have to slew from side to side to keep the object in focus. The fastest that the telescope can slew is about as fast as the minute hand of a clock, and even then the onboard gyroscopes can’t prevent vibrations from ruining any image quality. It’s simply that the Earth is too close and objects on its surface are whizzing by too quickly for Hubble to track. Add to this the fact that Hubble was placed in orbit to avoid the blurring effects of the atmosphere, so why waste time looking back down through it?

            In any case, Hubble IS regularly pointed back at the Earth – not to take detailed photos, but to calibrate one of the cameras. You can read about it here:
            http://www.badastronomy.com/mad/2000/hubbleearth.html

            If you want to see pictures that Hubble took of the Moon, search online for them if you’re really interested (I suspect you aren’t). Or watch this video:
            https://youtu.be/rUvDf-DB_is

      • Langerak

        1. “The surface of the Earth is whizzing by as Hubble orbits, and the pointing system, designed to track the distant stars, cannot track an object on the Earth. The shortest exposure time on any of the Hubble instruments is 0.1 seconds, and in this time Hubble moves almost half a mile, about 700 meters. A picture Hubble took of Earth would be completely streaked.”

        https://hubblesite.org/quick-facts/telescope-quick-facts

        The Hubble Space Telescope doesn’t take pictures of the Earth because it is not a good platform for that. We have numerous other satellites that image the Earth. (Have you seen Google Earth?)

        The Hubble Space Telescope has taken pictures of the Moon.

        https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/1999/news-1999-14.html

        As for images of other satellites, why? Time on the Hubble Space Telescope is expensive and hard to get. Why would anyone waste their time and money imaging other satellites?

        2. We went to the Moon to get pictures and video and samples from the Moon. If you want close-up pictures of the Earth, grab a camera. We already had pictures and video from aircraft and balloons and manned orbital missions. Why would we go to the Moon to take pictures of the Earth?

        • On the Level

          Hi Langerak,

          Do you know why Google apparently owns a fleet of planes so I’m told. No evidence they’re using satellites that I’ve seen.

          • Michael

            Not surprising that one of the largest companies on Earth has a fleet of jets to fly its top executives around. What do jets have to do with satellites, other than getting their GPS signals from them?

          • Flat Earth Facts

            What he is saying is google use imaging from planes, not satellites, on their “Google Maps.” Which is true, particularly for the high resolution images. Flat earthers claim satellites don’t exist because they can not imagine how they could be floating up their above their flat earth…

            Flat earthers are not scientists, not logical. One of their leaders, like Eric Dubey, says something and they, without thinking, blindly believe in it. Flat earthers don’t look up in the sky and see the satellites going above their heads. So he is trying to prove that satellites don’t exist by saying google are using imagery from planes on google maps. So maybe you can convince him that satellites exist?

            Of course most of the globe earthers do the same thing, they just blindly believe in what NASA and the scientists say, and repeat that, without thinking about it…

          • On the level

            Flat Earh Facts,

            Flat Earthers are quite logical, simply not gullible. Arthur C Clarke invented artificial orbiting satellites for the globe model. They don’t appear to function on an actual flat Earth.

            In the globe model satellites accelerate centripetally ( free fall ) but with sufficient tangential velocity maintain altitude over the globe’s surface declination.

            On an actual flat Earth this doesn’t appear to happen. Velocity proves irrelevant to elevated objects in parallel motion to the surface. They simply accelerate parabolically to the flat surface at the same gravitational rate 9.8 m/s2. High altitude Balloon satellites overcome this challenge all the time, but occasionally fail. In 2019 a Samsung 5G communication satellite with solar panels fell tethered to a balloon on a Michigan farm owned by Ms. Nancy Welke. Another “space” satellite fell in Brazil attached to a balloon as well.

            Question:
            Why does one need 17000 imaginary space satellites orbiting the earth 20000 miles away smack-dab in the ( ( dangerous and deadly to electronics and living organisms ) Van Allen radiation belts when 99% of international communication traffic can be handled by undersea cables and the rest by stratospheric balloon satellites and other means at much closer and safer ranges? Well you don’t unless your confused by the globe.

            Thanks for your consideration and hopefully this reply gets through.

          • Flat Earth Facts

            Flat earthers are stupid if they choose to not believe in things that absolutely certainly exist and that anyone with half a brain can confirm exist. And anyone with half a brain can confirm that low earth satellites most certainly exist. We absolutely certainly know for sure that you can shoot something up there with a rocket and if you can get it going fast enough and get the direction of it parallel with the ground below, thanks to Neuton’s law it just keeps going if there is no resistance and there is very little resistance in space. So this is a real thing, some natural phenomenon. Why and how, we don’t really know. But we do know for sure if you shoot something up there and it is going fast enough it will orbit the earth for a long time.

            They do gradually loose speed and drop down and will eventually fall back to earth. But they stay up there for a long time.

            So if you choose not to believe in low earth satellites, that is quite insane. Because they are quite real and anyone, as I said, with half a brain, can verify that they are real.

            Geosynchronous satellites, they also work, but their action is more passive than the sort of things done by the low orbit satellites. Basically the geosynchronous satellites really only reflect a radio signal. You fire a signal at a certain frequency to a very specific location in the sky and the ground station for that satellite is also pointing to that exact point in the sky and the ground station picks up your transmission. And ground station replies on a different frequency to the same spot in the sky and you receive the reply from the ground station. So actually geosynchronous satellites, they don’t do anything, they are inert. They are just reflectors. So it is possible that just as there is some natural phenomenon allowing you to throw things up into low earth orbit and have them stay there orbiting for a long time, there may also be some natural phenomenon that certain points in the sky reflect radio waves. So it is possible that they don’t have to put up geosynchronous satellites at all. Maybe they just have to find these points in the sky that naturally reflect radio waves and point their antennas at them. Or maybe they really put the satellites up there. Actually we don’t know. We have no way really to verify that the geosynchronous satellites exist because they don’t do anything except reflect radio signals. But we do know the low earth satellites exist. They do things. They do give us imagery that would not be possible to get any other way, they transmit radio signals that you can pick up. You can track the low earth satellites as they pass over your head, you can see them with a telescope, some even with your naked eyes, and you can pick up the radio signals that they transmit. So realistically no intelligent person can say low earth satellites don’t exist. So if someone is saying this they are not an intelligent person.

          • ON THE LEVEL

            Good afternoon Flat Earth Facts,

            You stated: “Flat earthers are stupid if they choose to not believe in things that absolutely certainly exist and that anyone with half a brain can confirm exist. And anyone with half a brain can confirm that low earth satellites most certainly exist.”

            Hmmh! Balloon satellites are by definiation “:Low Earth Satellites” and I’ve already claimed them to exist. Reading is fundamental. My post sarcastically referred to orbiting space satellites supposedly beyond the first few hundred miles from the surface, in particular those 17,000 astonishing work of deception that supposedly function flawlessly thousands of miles from Earth in the Van Allen radiation belt, which for some reason known only to NASA no other current vehicle can operate in safely or pass through using similar technology except the moon landers and Gemin/Apollo men of yore.

            You go on to assert: ” We absolutely certainly know for sure that you can shoot something up there with a rocket and if you can get it going fast enough and get the direction of it parallel with the ground below, thanks to Neuton’s law it just keeps going if there is no resistance and there is very little resistance in space.”

            Several of Newton’s Laws could apply here including his Laws of Motion especially the Third Law of Motion that I whole heartedly agree with. However, do you refer to his Universal Law of Gravitation instead?

            F∝m1m2r2 ⇒F=Gm1m2r2

            If so I must depart since it’s based on assumptions and yet to be established claims. Btw I have no problem with rocketry, ballistics or even EM propulsion or other such technologies. However, simply making a claim that satellites exist or that they can maintain a position over a fixed location on Earth ( all which applies to balloon satellites, which as I’ve indicated crash all the time still tethered to their balloons like the Samsung 5G communication satellite that crashed not long ago ) does not prove the existence of orbiting free-fall satellites circling a spinning globe. Try again.

            Have a great day!

          • Flat Earth Facts

            I don’t think you have read what I have written. We are not talking about balloons. If you don’t believe in things you can easily prove exist if you do a little research, that shows a lack of intelligence certainly.

      • Michael

        The Apollo astronauts that landed on the Moon were not there as tourists taking cool pictures to show the folks back home after Thanksgiving dinner – they were there to collect soil and rock samples, set up scientific experiments and monitoring equipment and to explore the nature of the Moon’s surface. Sorry to burst your bubble. If they had brought a telescope with them and set it up pointing back towards the Earth, who would have been looking through it when they left the Moon?

        • On the Level

          Hi Mike,

          Moon rocks provided by Buzz Aldrin to European monarchs were reported upon testing to be petrified wood! They never went to the moon, apparently just New Mexico.

          A telescope and telescopic lenses for their cameras would have allowed humanity a view and perspective of earth unparalleled in information, beauty and motion that could not have been faked easily with computers. That’s also precisely why it was never done.

          Have a great day!

          • Michael

            The typical Apollo 11 Moon rocks given out to foreign dignitaries weighed about 5 hundredths of a gram, or about as much as one grain of rice. The ones that were brought back from the last lunar mission, Apollo 17, were around 1 gram each. In all, Apollo 17 returned over 100 kilograms of lunar material. The “Moon rock” given to the Netherlands Prime Minister in 1969 weighed nearly 90 grams. The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam never even questioned the authenticity of the “rock” they inherited from Drees’ estate. How do we know that Drees himself, or possibly his grandson, decided to keep the expensive Moon rock for himself and donated a worthless Earth rock to the museum?

          • Flat Earth Facts

            Hi Michael. I wonder how you can have such strong faith that NASA sent men to the moon in 1969 but NASA, nor anyone else, is able to send men to the moon now, more than 50 years later?

            Has that ever crossed your mind? I was born in 1959 so I was there in the 60’s and know the cave-man technology (compared to what we have today) that was available then. Our technology is now hundreds of times better. And do you seriously believe that sending men to the moon and bringing them home safely was almost a routine activity in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and now with such huge advances in technology, sending men to the moon is impossible?

            How do you account for this?

            Today they say there are many obstacles that we have to cross, problems that we need to solve, not only to send men to the moon, but to even got out of low-earth orbit!

            Do you realize that now it is not only impossible to send people to the moon, it is impossible to get people out of low earth orbit?

            How do you account for this?

            And surely you have to at least consider the possibility that NASA faked the Apollo moon missions?

          • On the Level

            Hi Mike,

            You’re not making sense.
            Think. What good would it do the Drees family or their estate to publicly pawn off a normal earth rock as a moon rock and donate that to a museum then keep the moon rock? If Drees later tried sell the gram or two of lunar pixy dust no one would believe him since he supposedly donated it to the museum. He would either be lying to them or the museum and no one with a functioning cerebellum would credit him with any integrity at all or even the brains God gives a slug. In fact, you seem far to willing to insinuate that Drees who merely accepted a gift lied for which there exists no evidence rather than NASA and their astro-nots that have a long history of tall tales and unexplained accidents.

            Above all of this remains the fact that all lunar claims are mere assertions no scientific evidence exists that any rock anywhere came from the moon. It’s all conjecture a tall tale told by those with a strong incentive to make sure the world never gloms to the facts before they leave this world for real.

            Have a great day!

          • Michael

            I was born in 1955, so I was there as well. My Dad and I traveled to Florida to watch the launching of Apollo 10, and if you had been there there’s no way you could deny the reality of what NASA had accomplished with what you call “cave-man technology”. Your evident mistrust of anything that America has achieved is a relatively recent phenomenon. No amount of evidence that men walked on the Moon’s surface in 1969 will satisfy you, it seems. Go look at the photos returned by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and you’ll see all six landing sites, and even the tracks left by the Lunar Rovers. What would be the point in faking all of this for the past 50+ years at a cost which far exceeds the entire cost to date of the space program?
            As to why we haven’t been back to the Moon, we figured out how to safely gather the information we want for a much smaller cost and no risk to human life. But that won’t satisfy you, I’m sure.

          • Flat Earth Facts

            You are dishonest Michael. You are trying to avoid the point I made. I did not ask you “Why haven’t we been back to the moon.” What I am asking you is why can’t we send people to the moon now when sending people to the moon and bringing them home safely was routine in the 1960’s and 1970’s. That is the question.

            And you know very well the answer to this question. We could not send men to the moon in the 1960’s either. So we faked it.

            That is the only logical explanation for the facts.

            NASA has now many times been offered as much money as they want to go back to the moon (by presidents George Bush and also by Donald Trump), but NASA’s reply, “Can’t do it…” “Give us ten trillion and we might be able to go in 2020…”

        • On the Level

          Hi Mike,

          Just a little more info. Apparently Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin gave Holland the petrified wood presented as moon rocks back in 1969. This story has been around for some time.

        • On the Level

          Hi Mike,

          Can you tell me where the space capsule and lunar lander on the moon missions stored their oxygen? Can’t see where they’d have enough room. A standard aluminum scuba tank at 3000psi lasts a diver 45-60 minutes. The 240,000 mile journey for the three man crew from earth to the moon takes supposedly 76 hours. The first mission left at 9:32am, July 16, 1969 and returned supposedly 8 days later on July 24, 1969 at 12:50pm! That’s a lot of air tank storage capacity for vessels that don’t even appear air tight or show any indication of having adequate storage. Apart from breathing the crew may need oxygen for other tasks.

          If you carefully look at the logistics involved carefully there is simply no way they could carry the fuel, air and other resources required for such a journey. It’s the real reason NASA destroyed their own telemetry data which showed the mission to be a fabrication and why Werner Von Braun initially claimed it would take a rocket at least the size of the Empire State Building if I remember correctly to reach the moon.

          What do you think?

          • Flat Earth Facts

            It is a VERY good point On the Level… Yes. They need oxygen on the Apollo missions for reasons other than breathing. Apollo missions, except the luna lander, are powered by fuel cells that work by burning hydrogen and oxygen. So they have to store a lot of hydrogen and oxygen also to burn in their fuel cells. Another interesting point is Luna lander is only powered by batteries!!! And they had no way of recharging batteries because they didn’t have solar panels then…

            But back on the oxygen, another strange thing is they used an atmosphere of 100% oxygen at about a quarter of the pressure we have on earth. The air we breathe is about 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen. But on the Apollo missions they only had 100% oxygen. This is the only time in history when people have existed on a 100% oxygen atmosphere. Generally you can’t breathe 100% oxygen for an extended period without serious ill effects. But our NASA astronauts managed to live in 100% oxygen atmosphere for a week or two, no problems?

            And another interesting point on the oxygen requirements is the Luna Lander on the moon did not have an air lock. They had an atmosphere inside it, they could take their space suits off inside, but because no air lock, when they opened the door all their oxygen went out into the vacuum of space. Every time they opened the door…

            So every time they come back into the Luna Lander they have to fill it up with oxygen again so they can take off their space suits and breath.

            So yes. There does seem to be an oxygen problem for sure. There is also a very serious power problem on the moon. They had a few car batteries only, and most of the power in those batteries was required for the pyrotechnics, firing the rockets, for the landing and the takeoff. So realistically they stayed on the moon for up to a week with virtually no power source at all. More NASA magic.

            They did not even try to make it believable. These days no thoughtful person can believe in the ‘man on the moon’ story.

          • Michael

            Most of the oxygen, hydrogen, propellant and other “consumables” were stored in tanks in the Service Module, directly behind the Command Module on the lunar stack assembly. The Lunar Module also had oxygen and other consumables storage for use while on the lunar surface. In addition, each astronaut had a PLSS (personal life support system) worn on a backpack which had a four-hour oxygen supply that could be refilled from the LM supply. Remember that on the surface they were breathing 100% oxygen at only 3.9 psia pressure, not normal sea-level pressure of 14.7 psia. All in all, Apollo carried enough oxygen for a 14-day mission to the Moon and back, so an 8-day mission was no sweat. And they had the ability to “scrub” the carbon dioxide expelled and thus recapture that oxygen. This became a problem on Apollo 13 because the three astronauts were overloading the Co2 scrubbers. See the movie Apollo 13 with Tom Hanks and you’ll see how they improvised a solution.

          • Flat Earth Facts

            Yes. He does not understand the difference between scuba diving oxygen usage and usage of oxygen in space. The difference is when you are scuba diving the tank is filled up with 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen approximately and diver breathes it in then when he breathes out that air bubbles up to the surface. So scuba diver looses 100% of the oxygen he breaths out.

            But on Apollo they only had oxygen, no nitrogen. So they used a lower pressure, and breathed in 100% oxygen. So immediately you have saved 80% of the storage space because there is no nitrogen which makes up 80%. And when we breathe in we do consume some of the oxygen, but most of it we breath out, with carbon dioxide added. So most of the oxygen is not lost, only problem is carbon dioxide is being added, and they have ‘scrubbers’ which remove the carbon dioxide. So they can keep on breathing the same air over and over again with the aid of the scrubbers that remove the carbon dioxide.

            But there is a big problem on the moon. Luna Lander does not have an airlock. So every time they open the door their whole atmosphere vanishes into the vacuum of space. Then when they come back in they have to fill it up with oxygen again. Towards the later missions they were staying on the moon for a week or more. And opening the door dozens of times, loosing the whole Luna Lander full of oxygen dozens of times. It does seem far fetched that they would have been able to bring so much oxygen with them.

          • On the level

            Flat Earth Facts,

            Please know I do understand the difference between scuba air tanks and the conjectured 100% pure oxygen environment supposedly used by their Apollo crews. Simply seems hard to believe you can’t see the absurdity of this since you seemed to glom upon it in your previous post.

            On Earth humans as you mentioned breathe an air mixture of approximately 22-23% oxygen and 78% nitrogen. Problems occur when oxygen concentrations rise beyond these levels, like spontaneous combustion. This phenomenon is well known and documented. Mr. Mr. Roger Chafee, Edward White and Mr. Gus Grissom might have something to say about if they were still alive.

            Pulmonary edema, slowed oxygen absorption and other issues such as oxygen binding to surface proteins of the lungs, interfering with operation of the central nervous system and attacking the retina. Chest pains can occur during deep breathing. Astronauts apparently in the Gemini and Apollo programs breathed 100% oxygen at reduced pressure for up to two weeks with no problems. However, ground based testing labs are not outer space.

            In space high energy regions named after James A. Van Allen ( Van Allen radiation belts ) apparently exist and are dangerous and often lethal to living organism and electronics. In fact, it’s one the reasons/excuses given by NASA bots like Dr. Kathleen Rubins and Dr. Kelly Smith as to why they can’t leave low earth orbit and go to the moon, like they supposedly did without any problems decades before. Moreover, it’s very likely such unstable, high energy fields interacting with a pure oxygen environment might result in spontaneous combustion!

            Of course thanks to NASA wizardry or just plain cover-your-rear-ethics we’ll never know clearly what really happened especially since they destroyed all their telemetry data. Convenient wouldn’t you say?

            Have a great day!

          • Flat Earth Facts

            Yes. All very good. I do think they would not have had anywhere near enough oxygen for two weeks, particularly as they were burning it in their fuel cells constantly, 24 hours a day, of course it created some water, but used A LOT of oxygen, and on the moon where every time the open the door of the luna lander they vent out their entire lander full of oxygen, and then have to fill it up again with oxygen when they go back in. Very unlikely they had enough oxygen on the moon to do this…

            And yes. They must have been very special creatures, the astronauts, to breath 100% oxygen for two weeks. No one else has ever achieved this. And it is very unlikely they could have done it without serious health consequences.

          • Ross Langerak

            The answers are out there. You just have to look for them.

            According to NASA, an astronaut requires about 1.85 lbs (0.84 kg) of oxygen per day. The decent module carried two tanks with 48 lbs each of oxygen. More than enough to keep the astronauts alive. Oxygen was also used in fuel cells for power.

            Maneuvering thrusters and motors used hypergolic propellants. No oxygen required. The components ignite when mixed. No ignition system was required.

            The entire mission for three people would have required less than 48 lbs of oxygen for breathing.

          • Flat Earth Facts

            What about the lack of a airlock on the luna lander. How much oxygen does it take to pressurise the luna lander? How much oxygen so they can take off their spacesuits and breathe? And every time they opened the door, woof… All that oxygen gone out into the vacuum of space. They were on the moon for up to a week. Coming and going from the Luna Lander up to dozens of times, every time a whole luna lander full of oxygen, woof… Lost in space…

            Not possible to take that much oxygen with them in the lander I think.

            And you are mistaken about the pyrotechnics, the rockets. You say “no ignition system necessary.” Rubbish. There was an ignition system and it used a lot of power, OK when you’ve got the fuel cells to make power, but luna lander just had a few truck batteries. 1960’s truck batteries. AND NO WAY TO RECHARGE. No solar cells invented yet…

            So on the moon there is both a very serious oxygen problem and a very serious lack of power. Most of the power in the batteries was used for the pyrotechnics, rocket control, for landing and take off, leaving very little power for life support and everything else on the moon. That rover for example, they took it out for up to seven days and were zooming over the moon, covering maybe 100 KM or more, but they had no power. No way of recharging it. It was all done on one battery. One 1960’s truck battery. Not possible actually. I think you will have to admit that.

          • Ross Langerak

            How much oxygen DOES it take to pressurize the lunar lander? You asked the question, but didn’t make any effort to answer it. I don’t know what the volume of the lunar lander may have been, but they pressurized the lander to about 5 psi, and they pressurized the oxygen tanks to a little less than 3000 psi. That’s about a 600:1 ratio. For every cubic foot of lander volume, they needed 3 cubic inches of compressed oxygen to pressurize the lander.

            Apollo 17 was one of the longest missions, with three days on the Moon and three moonwalks. So for the entire mission, they would need to pressurize the lander three times. Does that really sound impossible to you?

            Fuel cells were used to produce electricity to charge any batteries.

            As for the lunar rovers:

            https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html#:~:text=On%20Apollo%2017%20the%20rover%20went%2035.9%20km,meters%20long%20with%20a%20wheelbase%20of%202.3%20meters.

            Nowhere near 100 km.

            The chemicals used in the maneuvering thrusters and motors spontaneously ignited when mixed. They did not require an ignition system. They just opened the valves and the engines fired.

          • Flat Earth Facts

            Hi Ross. You just blindly believe what NASA says. In your mind, if NASA says it, it must be true. So where do you get such great faith in NASA from? It is faith, blind faith. So you are the faithful believers.

            You guys keep changing the story. It is not a good story, it doesn’t work the way it was originally told. The pyrotechnics required batteries in the original story, but that story didn’t work, so you change it. That is the reality. It is an impossible story, “men on the moon”, and like intelligent people can’t believe satellites don’t exist, intelligent people can’t believe NASA sent men to the moon in 1969 but we can’t even send people out of low earth orbit today. This is impossible. If we could do it in 1969, then we would be able to do it today.

            So this debate is going on between two groups of fools.

            You know these things are impossible and you are trying to make excuses for NASA, trying to make their story more believable that it is. You say “Fuel cells were used to produce electricity to charge any batteries.” Yes. But only on the command module, Luna Lander has no fuel cells, only batteries, so it was not possible to recharge anything at all on Luna Lander.

            (from https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15mr-6.htm) “The electrical power system batteries and fuel cells performed satisfactorily throughout the mission. The entry, auxiliary, and pyrotechnic batteries performed normally.”

            There used to be very elaborate descriptions of the batteries and a fair percentage of the batteries were “pyrotechnic batteries” at least in the original story.

            If we could go to the moon in 1969, we would have gone back during the past 50 years, instead, we don’t even know how to get people out of low earth orbit more than fifty years later! How on earth can you believe in men on the moon?

            You know the NASA scientists do not believe this story. You will not find any official NASA scientist defending the man on the moon story. They just want people to forget about it so they can get trillions of dollars of new funding to work out first, how they can get people out of low earth orbit, then how they can get people to the moon. We don’t know how to get people to the moon now, that means we did not know how to get people to the moon in 1969. Try and understand this simple point.

  2. Leroy turknett

    I we are on a spinning ball traveling around a sun that is speeding through space at The speed that it is claimed, How is our atmoaphire not stripped away

      • JP

        GRAVITY..
        When the feelings gone and you still go on
        it’s GRAVITY..
        When things fall down and you don’t know why
        its GRAVITY..
        It’s really hard to bare, you ain’t going no where

    • Marc

      Stripped away by what?

      Space is a near-perfect vacuum-provides no “resistance” to travel through.

      There are “solar winds” which can slowly strip away atmosphere, fortunately our magnetosphere provides a good protection- Mars is not so lucky in this regard.

      At the end of the day, the air molecules are much like other molecules- they follow the path of least resistance for the most part. Which on this case means that they flow to the bottom of the “sinkhole” which in this case is the “gravity well” of the earth’s mass. They bunch up at the bottom, where these lower molecules have to bear the weight of the molecule above them trying to get to the same place- which is why we have high pressure at sea level, that reduces with altitude.

      • Marc

        There are solar winds, which can wreck havoc on atmospheres. Earth’s molten iron core provides a wonderful magnetosphere which provides stellar protection from these forces, and helps block other harmful radiation. Mars is not so lucky- it’s core has long cooled and lacks this magnetic force field, which caused it to slowly lose its atmosphere to these winds, which was believed to be somewhat comparable to our own atmosphere eons ago, now being barely 1%.

  3. Ken

    Read Warner Von Braun’s headstone fools…
    The father of rocket technology is telling you something very important….
    Psalm 19;1. etched alone in bold print says ;
    The heavens declare the glory of God
    And the firmament showeth his handiwork…
    End of story and end of Conspiracy
    Admiral Richard Byrd knew of the dome also
    Operation fish bowl was his attempt to nuke
    through the wall he found over the ice wall..
    Explain how you make water curve moron…
    There are so many easy ways to know if you look for truth and not dogma which is what science has become through NASA and so called aerospace technology. They all will be hiding in shame soon once the public wakes and locks them up for all their crimes…

    • Larry J Risolio

      HELL YES KEN ON 19.1 PSALM DAY 2 OF CREATION
      LET THE FIRMAMENT DIVIDE THE WATERS FROM THE WATERS. WE CAN NOT GET THREW THE DOME.

      VON BRAUN ADMIRAL BYRD YES IM WITH YOU KEN. COAST LINE OF ANTARCTICA , THE TREATY??
      NASA STANDS FOR DECEIVE IN HEBREW.
      NEXT HUMAN EVIL IS ADDING FLUORIDE TO OUR DRINKING WATER . THANKS KEN HOPE ALL IS WELL.

    • Michael

      “I” don’t make water curve, it does that naturally by following the curvature of the Earth. Don’t try and refute things that you don’t understand, because frankly, you’re not very good at it.
      Admiral Byrd did NOT believe there was a “Dome” over Antarctica, and don’t go quoting that excerpt from his book, that refers to an ice dome on the ground.
      Moron indeed.

        • Michael

          What do you mean by “beyond Antarctica”? Antarctica is a continent that is (more or less) centered on the South Pole. Once you’ve reached the South Pole, there’s nowhere else to go but North. You could go north to Africa, South America, India or Australia from the South Pole, all of which are “significant” land masses. Admiral Byrd was an intelligent man, and knew of the existence of Africa, South America, India and Australia so yes, he believed it.

  4. John Smithson

    Oh. My. God.

    You’re all so god damn delusional. Think you’re so ‘enlightened’ to disregard common sense and the work of brilliant scientists. Fools through and through. Give up.

  5. Ross Langerak

    For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. When a spacecraft burns fuel and oxygen, it accelerates the exhaust in one direction, which causes the spacecraft to accelerate in the other. The spacecraft doesn’t need any air to push against. It pushes against its own exhaust.

  6. Ross Langerak

    Wow! Somebody needs to talk to a real pilot. Gravity pulls you toward the center of the Earth. The lift to resist that gravity is generated by an aircraft’s wings. If you try to increase altitude by bringing the nose up, the center of gravity falls behind the aircraft, causing it to slow down, lose lift, and either return to its previous altitude or stall. If you want to gain altitude, you have to increase your velocity, which increases lift.
    If you tried to maintain a straight flight path, independent of the curvature of the Earth, the result would be the same as slowly trying to gain altitude by bringing the nose up. The center of the Earth’s gravity would fall behind you and slow you down. You would be forced to return to your previous altitude.
    If you compensate by increasing thrust, you will run out of throttle because most aircraft engines don’t have enough thrust to lift the weight of an aircraft. And because aircraft engines need air to burn fuel, as altitude increases, engines lose power. Wings also lose lift due to thinning air.
    Once the engines and wings hit their limit, you won’t be able to fly any higher. No matter how hard you tried, you would not be able to fly off into space. You don’t have to nose down. Just set your speed and the plane will naturally follow the curvature of the Earth.

    • Kris Fox

      I did not know that . So when a pilot sets his plane to auto pilot at 35,000 thousand feet the engines computer will go in the direction set and also automatically remain at 35,000 feet away from he earth , right ? Please don’t tell me it just feels the change of thinning air because of loss of power and gravity pull all by itself and adjusts at will . I absolutely hate flying and if that is true I will never fly again except for a very small plane close to the ground if I absolutely have too.. I do need to learn about how a plane that weighs god knows how many tons get off the ground in the first place and stays in the air. I live by an international air port and they fly right over my head just taking off or right about to land . They are quite close to me when I’m crossing the bridge . The huge airliner seems to be going way too slow to stay in the air . I guess my worst fear is being at 35,000 feet and the engines die or a wing catches fire or falls off . That would mean I will have about 7 minutes of knowing I’m going to die . That would be an awful way to go , you know what I mean ? At first it made perfect sense that say a plane flying north at 35,000 feet with no destination set except north , that the plane would hit low earth orbit at some point and then I would be stuck orbiting the earth with Elon Musk ‘s Tesla Roadster passing by periodically. lol It probably would be in my best interest to talk too a pilot someday who can explain to me and make me believe that it really is the safest method of transportation because it just doesnt seem like it would be that’s all. A plane doesn’t have a shop at 35’000 feet to stop at if they hear a funny sound or a warning light starts blinking on the dashboard. There’s a project for Elon to work on !!

  7. Ross Langerak

    Someone needs to take a course in physics. Rockets don’t go straight up because the orbital velocity of a near Earth orbit is faster than the surface of the Earth. Rockets need to accelerate eastward so they can stay in space once they reach orbit. Even geostationary satellites travel faster, because they travel farther per day than the surface of the Earth.
    There is an orbit that you can get to by going straight up, but it’s about 8 times the distance to the Moon, so it’s not very useful. There are sites on line that will calculate orbital parameters for you. Google “orbit of a satellite calculator”. Try entering 1 to see why we don’t just fly off the Earth.

    • Kris Fox

      Isn’t it true that the international space station is traveling at around 6000 miles per hour ? Well they take repair parts and food and such up there a lot how the hell do they meet up and attach themselves to things to retrieve those items traveling at such a speed . The other rocket would have to be traveling at the same speed . When they show the docking process on TV it looks as if they aren’t even moving at all . How does that work ? And please don’t answer very carefully . That’s the only answer I can get from anyone. lol

      • Michael

        No, the ISS moves about 17,100 miles an hour (or around 7.66 kilometers per SECOND) in order to remain in orbit as it has for over 22 years. Any spacecraft that dock with the station have to reach this same speed. But when a spacecraft gets close to the ISS it has to gradually adjust its speed so as to slowly approach the docking module. It’s not much different than one car traveling down a road at 60 mph being approached by another car gradually catching up to the first car. When the two cars are alongside one another, a person in car 1 could easily hand something to someone in car 2 because their speed RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER is zero. In the case of the ISS, a spacecraft at rest on the Earth has to launch and travel faster than the ISS in order to catch up to it. And on TV there’s nothing whizzing by to give the viewer any indication of the high speeds involved. That’s why it LOOKS like they’re hardly moving at all. Relative to each other, the spacecraft is closing on the ISS at just a few inches per second.

  8. Ross Langerak

    No, astronauts have not been caught “faking” anything. I suspect someone is confusing training video with actual space video.
    Water has surface tension. In space, a blob of water will float like a bubble. If it attaches to something, it could stay in place, or it could extend itself to cover more surface. During Luca Parmitano’s space walk, his movements caused the blob of water to extend over his forehead and cover his eyes and nose. The water was not filling the helmet – it was attached to his head. This is something that would only happen in space.

  9. Thoughts

    In the article, you stated “At the same time NASA openly admits that now, in 2018, it is not possible for them to send men to the moon, they can’t even send men out of low earth orbit.” My view on that is NASA don’t have enough resources just to send someone to the moon or out of low earth orbit. There are many steps comes into play for a mission: Payload, Fuel, Designs, Astronauts, Astronaut’s safety, etc. Also keep this in mind, the ORION project only getting (if $1 is the national’s budget) NASA is only getting 1/10 of a penny.

  10. the earth isn’t flat

    it is impossible to fake the moon landing and if your saying that “what about the lights it’s really bright” my answer to that is the sun’s light the moon may reflect light but not all of the light will be reflected and they cant have too much light and what they would need would be millions of laser light things to match of the movement of light at the moon and they cant use them because it would go way over their budget but if people were donating money to NASA and they have enough budget to buy the millions of lasers it would still be impossible because the laser that they had at the 60’s or i don’t remember the year are only single colored which is red also if you say “what if they secretly mad computer programing” still impossible i mean how would you make at least hundred of thousands or millions of NASA employee’s shut their mouth about it?

    • Jbud

      If the moon reflects the sunlight then why are they diametrically opposed types of light? The sun is generative and the moon putrefying, also when put through a magnifying glass the sun gets hotter while the moon only gets brighter??

      The replies to most of these topics are hysterical, built on assumptions and range from the absurd to the easily dismantled. If the earth was of the dimensions were told and travelling at the velocity asserted it would be easily demonstrated however we still await that repeatable, scientifically sound experiment after all this time, hmmm!

      Food for thought guys

    • Dd

      One has to be beyond dumb to believe that NASA sent some three guys to the Moon, in a little device not more than twice the size of a modern SUV, 50 years ago, and, since then, nothing similar was not only achieved, but not even attempted. That doesn’t mean that the Earth is flat though, it simply shows that it’s populated by dumb sheep …

      • On the Level

        Dd,

        Not only that but apparently according to NASA they sent astro-nots to the moon a quarter of a million miles away six times to a harsh alien environment void of air, bombarded by lethal radiation and meteors and yet not one serious mishap! The lunar lander that never appeared to function well on earth found it’s groove and worked flawlessly several times. Moreover, apparently Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong found a fossilized petrified forrest that they forgot to film recovered the petrified wood heroeically returned to Earth and presented this treasure to the Dutch. This story is more incredible than the wizard of Oz but a lot more harmful.

        Keep in mind that all the Apollo missions supposedly went without a hiccup and then remember how many dead bodies litter mount Everest in a simple attempt to climb a hill. Remember how many airmen died testing new aircraft, seamen died simply traveling from one land mass to another and all the men and women who perished simply trying to survive in a wilderness. All those environments and ventures would be far friendlier to human life than the claimed lunar landscape of NASA delusion.

        Have a great day!

        • Michael

          You probably don’t realize that the Lunar Module (LM) was designed for flight in the Moon’s gravitational field, just one-sixth the strength of Earth’s. So naturally it would have functioned less than ideally had it been tested here. Which is why it was tested in low Earth orbit before it went to the Moon.

          And please stop with the petrified forest crap. The genuine Moon samples presented to the Netherlands are still in the museum there.

          • Flat Earth Facts

            Yes. Amazing that. Something designed for an atmosphere no one had ever been in before that just happened to work perfectly the first time. Very unlikely. Have you heard of Murphy’s law? Seems like it was suspended for the Apollo missions…

        • Marc

          The Apollo missions did not go “without a hiccup”

          Apollo 1- complete failure, all three astronauts dead in most gruesome manner.

          Apollo 13- Ended almost as badly- saved by little more than miracle.

          And the LM was not designed to work in “an atmosphere no one had been to before”- it was designed for the moon’s surface- which is a vacuum. (So close to a vacuum that the fees gas particles are not considered an atmosphere)

          • Flat Earth Facts

            Yes. Of course. 2 hiccups. The first one to murder the non-believers and to put fear in anyone else who may dare not believe in the story. And second one a desperate attempt to get some people to watch the totally boring NASA moon mission television show.

          • ON THE LEVEL

            Marc,

            How would NASA design the LM to work in a vacuum properly without testing it in a vacuum before going to the moon?

            How does testing it in the Earth’s atmospheree help in this regard? If it doesn’t, then why did NASA spend so much time and money doing precisely that only to have repeated failures?

            How does testing the LM in Earth’s atmosphere and encountering repeated failures prepare NASA to actually operate a craft in a vacuum a quarter of a million miles away? If it doesn’t then why do you and quite a number of people on this website think they accomplished their mission?!

            Have a great day!

  11. the earth isn’t flat

    i forgot about one last thing
    “there’s wind there they must be really hot on their suits maybe they turned the ac on”
    nope without any wind the flag would just keep waving on and on and on because there would be no wind to stop the waving flag so the earth cannot be flat unless people start being dumb and make more theories

      • Ross Langerak

        On the Earth, the movement of a flag is dampened by the air. If you hold a flag pole parallel to the ground, hold the flag out so it is also parallel with the ground, and release it, the flag will swing down and almost immediately stop. This is due to the resistance of the air.

        On the Moon, there is no air. If you perform the same experiment, the flag will swing back and forth. The only thing stopping it is internal resistance of the material and perhaps resistance where the flag is attached to its pole. Any movement induced in the flag will continue until it is damped by internal forces.

  12. I The Preacher

    A Dilettante Presumptuous Theorem:
    APOLLO 11 PROVES THERE IS NO OUTERSPACE BEYOND THE STARS
    Simple everyday things like our Waste Matter proves there is no outer space and no planets.
    Apollo 11 – The Poop & Pee Theory Proves
    No Outer Space and No Moon Landing
    By the way there are no planets either. The so-called planets, except for the flat Earth, were named after Roman gods and goddesses. Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Venus and Mercury were given their names thousands of years ago. Those were the planets that the ancient Romans claimed they could see in the sky without a telescope. The Romans claimed they could see the so-called planets with their naked-eye. So-called out-space is a huge $monetary racket$. Here is a reasonable Theory why there is no outer space or universes or space stations etc.
    A Presumptuous Opinion: APOLLO 11 PROVES NO OUTER SPACE BEYOND THE STARS
    Apollo 11 – The Poop & Pee Theory Proves No Outer Space and No Moon Landing
    The astronauts supposedly spent 3 days to reach the moon and only 2 days to come back.
    It is told by NASA that a clear plastic bags were used to urinate in and obviously someone had put catheters into the astronaut’s urinary tract into their bladder.
    On a documentary just two days ago the urine bag was shown and it was a small thin clear plastic bag with pee in it. Looked like they could only urinate maximum 2 times and it’s full.
    What a minute? How did you astronauts hold your pee for 5 days.
    Also, the inside of the capsule barely had room for 3 people, so there certainly was no toilet.
    Wait a second? Where is all the poop from 3 men for 5 days. That is a lot of poop. We’re talking pounds of poop. Were you astronauts wearing outer-space-diapers? How did you astronauts hold your poop for 5 days? Can’t imagine the smell inside that capsule. When the astronauts came out of the capsule, they must have had such a lovely fragrance to smell that made people immediately vomit.
    This was A Presumptuous Opinion on the Poop & Pee Theory.

  13. Marc

    160) It is impossible for rockets or any type of jet propulsion engines to work in the alleged non-atmosphere of vacuum space because without air/atmosphere to push against there is nothing to propel the vehicle forwards…

    Rockets create thrust for the same reason guns create recoil- a gun will have almost identical recoil whether it is fired in a vaccum chamber or sea level (it will still fire so long as the cartridge is air-tight.) Rockets will actually make more efficient thrust in a vacuum than at sea level, as the effective thrust is relative to exhaust velocity, and he denser the air is, the more it inhibits the velocity of the exhaust.

  14. Marc

    161) If Earth were really a ball, there would be no reason to use rockets for flying into “outer-space” anyway because simply flying an airplane straight at any altitude for long enough should and would send you off into outer-space. To prevent their airplanes from flying tangent to the ball-Earth, pilots would have to constantly course-correct downwards, or else within just a few hours the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph would find themselves lost in “outer-space.”

    LOL….no.

    Most airliners have a max altitude of around 40,000 ft. Much higher than this and the air gets so thin that the gas-turbine engines can’t generate enough thrust, nor can the wings generate enough lift, to keep it at these elevations, as both depend on the density of the air in order to function.

    A few military planes can achieve more than this, but even the famed, and retired, SR71 was well below 90,000 feet, not even 1/6th of the way to “space” and at only 2200mph, 1/7th the velocity required to keep you in orbit around the earth- any slower and you would re-enter the atmosphere, even if you were able to magically teleport to typical orbital altitudes.

    A plane has an equilibrium altitude for a given weight and thrust level. Once you trim it out, you will maintain a given altitude more or less indefinitely, rising slightly as you lose mass due to burning off fuel (thereby raising the equilibrium altitude.)

    You adjust to a higher or lower altitude primarily by modulating power, not by pointing the nose up or down. If you try to gain altitude by pulling back on the yoke, you’ll go up a few hundred feet, and then start stalling out and losing altitude.

    Anyway, it’s physically impossible to reach orbit via an airliner, or pretty much any aircraft, as there is no usable amount of air in “space”. Rockets sidestep this issue by carrying along their own “air” (usually Liquid oxygen) to oxidize (burn) their fuel (Hydrogen, Methane, Kerosene, or twenty dozen other chemicals) and accelerate it through a nozzle to generate thrust (Recoil)

    Unlike aircraft, which work with the air, most rockets are kind of just hampered by it, which is part of the reason why rockets fly almost vertically for the first part of their ascent, in order to get through the thick, draggy atmosphere as fast as possible, before they turn more towards the horizon to do the real task, which is accelerating up to 17,000 mph parallel to the surface to sustain orbit.

  15. Dr Kenneth Robinson

    Really … wakie wakie

    Space and space travel in a vacuum is impossible.
    How does water curve on a spinning ball turning at 1000 mph. Really …Admirable Bill Byrd and his lost diary a hoax…. really , Werner von Braun and
    on his headstone… psalm 19:1 really… Elon Musk and CGI fake rocket booster landings on moving platforms on the ocean … really… Satellites in orbit
    at 17,000 mph with over 30,000 others all at different vector launches never seem to collide after all these years… really … why do we need soo many cell towers for communication with all these satellites ….really … and soo many more lies…

    • Marc

      “Space and space travel in a vacuum is impossible.”

      Tell that to the countless impact craters on the surface of the moon.

      “How does water curve on a spinning ball turning at 1000 mph. Really …”

      Like, why does water maintain a fairly level surface over the earth? Why wouldn’t it?

      “Elon Musk and CGI fake rocket booster landings on moving platforms on the ocean”

      Err, if you say so? Source please.

      “Satellites in orbit
      at 17,000 mph with over 30,000 others all at different vector launches never seem to collide after all these years… really …”

      Space is big. Leo-to geo orbit is big. Really big. So big that you would have trouble comprehending. Satellites are small. And there’s not that many in relative terms. And orbital collisions are a pressing issue. Google “satellite collisions” and pay particular attention to the Russia/iridium collision from 09 and the resulting debris cloud.

      “why do we need soo many cell towers for communication with all these satellites”

      Bandwidth and signal to noise. Satellite communication is possible, but you need some pretty high power receivers/emitters to manage any significant bandwidth. And the network would quickly be overwhelmed with even a tiny fraction of the current cell tower traffic handles.

      “….really … and soo many more lies…”

      …really … I’m sure they are soo profound…

  16. Michael

    What do you hold a doctorate in, ignorance? Your “opinions” regarding space, vacuum, satellites and curving water aren’t worth commenting on as you don’t seem to have a grip on reality. What difference does it make whether Von Braun had a Bible passage engraved on his headstone?

  17. ON THE LEVEL

    5 REASONS SATELLITES ARE STUPID

    1. A one-ton machines traveling 10x the speed of a bullet 20,000 miles up staying in orbit with bursts of air.

    2. I’ve been informed, all the pictures of Satellites on Google images are appear fake.

    3. It makes no sense to bounce a signal off a moving object to determine the location of a stationary target. The first iphones used Cellphone Tower Triangulation for GPS and NOT satellites.

    4. Some claim the Highest Altitude Records shows humans have only managed to get about 120,000 feet up. Don’t you think that is a bit odd that NASA was able to travel 220,000 miles to the moon in the 1970s using calculator technology in only 72 hours…. while no independent space program can break through the atmosphere 40+ years later?

    5. They can’t even take a real picture of earth from space. With thousands of satellites orbiting at 20,000 miles up you’d think they could provide a real picture of earth, but all the pictures in the last 40 years have been composites. Apparently, they still continue to show the Apollo 17 picture as earth.

    Just some problems people have expressed.

    • Flat Earth Facts

      Hi On the Level. You are mixing everything up without understanding it very clearly. Some of your points are very good, but other points show you have no understanding of things. You don’t know how anything works, that is a big problem. You don’t understand these things. For example GPS, you imagine it works by “bouncing a signal off a moving object to determine the location of a stationary target.” That is absolutely NOT how GPS works. All a GPS satellite is is a radio transmitter. There is no 2 way communication. It is just broadcasting a very exact time signal. And in your car you just have a radio receiver that picks up these time signals from the GPS satellites and by calculating the difference between the current time and the time received from the GPS satellite it can work out how long it took to get from the satellite to your GPS receiver, so, knowing the time, using the speed of light, it calculates the distance from your GPS receiver to the satellite. And it knows the exact position of the satellite at that time. So its just a matter of picking up enough GPS signals [3 at least but the more the better] and with trigonometry it calculates your position. So for GPS moving satellites are perfectly suitable.

      So if you don’t understand things it may seem impossible. But if you understand how it works then it becomes possible. I think that is a problem with today’s education system and the younger than 50 people. They don’t understand how things work. So to you satellites seem impossible. And you don’t know that you can see them, you can pick up the radio messages they are transmitting, you can 100% conclusively prove that low-earth orbit satellites exist. This is proof, if you can see them, and pick up the radio signals they are transmitting as they pass across by pointing an antenna at them, they exist. Your GPS is proof also of the existence of GPS satellites. Yes. GPS can also be done with ground-based transmitters. You could put GPS transmitters on the top of hills, etc. But it would not work very well because GPS requires line of sight between the transmitter and receiver. So it works much better if you can put the transmitters in the sky on GPS satellites. Which is what they do.

      As far as your point 5, it is a very good point. Yes. If they have got thousands of geosynchronous satellites up there there should be no problems whatsoever for them to provide us with gorgeous super high-resolution live feeds of the earth from every angle of vision. But they are not doing that. Such super high-resolution realtime views of the globe would be very useful for many reasons. But there is very little, very very little available.

      So although we know for sure that low-earth satellites exist, and we know for sure that the geostationary satellites [that give us satellite TV, satellite internet, etc] work. Because we can point an antenna into the sky and pick up TV or connect to the internet, exactly what we are pointing at, that we have no idea. And because these ‘satellites’ don’t do anything, they just reflect the radio signal, it is possible there is just some natural thing up there that is reflecting the radio waves. Or it is possible they have their satellites up there.

      So summary is we know for sure that the low earth satellites [GPS, weather, etc] exist, and we know that geostationary satellites work in the sense they reflect radio waves, but we do not really know what they are and that reflecting of radio waves could be occurring due to some other cause perhaps.

    • Michael

      Wow. I could probably list more than 5 reasons why your whole post is STUPID. Have you ever bothered to find out on your own HOW THINGS WORK, or do you just wait for someone to “inform” you – someone that doesn’t understand the subject themselves? I’ll address each of your “reasons” here:

      1) Satellites do not use “bursts of air” to maneuver in space, they either use onboard chemical thrusters (hydrazine, for example) or electric thrust (ion propulsion or Hall-effect thrusters) to move in space. Many use spinning reaction flywheels to maintain optimum orientation of their antennas, cameras and other instruments as well as solar panels.

      2) Again, you’ve “been informed” but you’re too lazy or too arrogant to believe that the information you were given was incorrect. The ISS is a great example of a visible satellite, and it’s been photographed thousands of times. Many smartphone apps will TELL YOU when and where to look for it in your area. All you need to do is look up, but a telescope tracking the ISS is a big help. Geostationary satellites (indeed, ALL other satellites) are MUCH smaller than the ISS and, since they’re much further away from Earth (over 22,000 miles) and moving fast enough to appear to be stationary over one point on Earth as it rotates, they require a telescope to even see them as a point of light. But if you point an antenna at them, you receive the signals being relayed off of them. Did you believe that empty space reflected signals back to you?

      3) You’re correct, it makes no sense to bounce a signal off a moving target to determine the location of a stationary target. That’s why GPS doesn’t work that way. GPS satellites are merely broadcasting time signals from the atomic clocks on board each satellite. The satellites aren’t aware of who’s listening on the ground, like a radio station doesn’t know how many receivers are out there listening to its broadcast. No one is “bouncing” signals off of the moving satellites, the GPS receiver in your car or smart device is simply listening for those signals and then computing the distance to the satellite at that moment. Ideally, signals from at least 4 of the 24 or so satellites in orbit are enough to figure the receiver’s position on the ground to within a few inches. Did you REALLY believe your Apple watch has the ability to bounce signals off multiple satellites simultaneously? You’re living in a dream world if you do.

      4) Everything ever launched into orbit has left the atmosphere, that’s why we say they’re “in space”. That’s what space IS – the area outside a planet’s atmosphere. The Moon is far outside the atmosphere of Earth and Russia, China, Japan and even Israel have reached the Moon’s surface, so your statement is simply wrong.

      5) Real pictures are taken of Earth from orbit every single day. Because the vast majority of orbiting satellites are too close to Earth to see much of its surface, these photos must be composites that are “stitched together” like the stitch function on your digital camera creates a panorama. But the HIMAWARI-8 and -9 satellites take daily photos of half the visible Earth from geostationary orbit and the DSCOVR satellite does so from nearly a million miles out, at one of the Lagrange points between the Earth and the Sun. They’re real photos of Earth, so what’s your issue?

      None of these are “problems” or “issues” for the vast majority of intelligent people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *