The flat earth conspiracy

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
You take one obvious and well known effect like atmospheric distortion, and you lie. And lie. And lie again.

Close, but the liar is on your side. The guy who thinks because there are atmospheric effects, he can lie about magical effects of the atmosphere, which cause Saturn to appear to spin like a top for all eternity, and causes thousands of different magical effects on each and every star, with unique movements, patterns, details, and colors on each one, while every one is DIFFERENT. Plus, it's caused by an 'out of focus' camera, because he thinks everyone who has filmed stars, does not focus properly. Of course, who would ever know how to focus a camera but someone who needs to lie about something, because it IS in focus, and shreds his entire fairy tale with one blow?


If you think those aren't lies, you need help.

From a person that just debunked their own flat earth model in another thread?

You

Seeing one comet on video traveling through clouds is enough to show they're full of crap, dude.

What they Duck are you talking about?

Yes. Comets are viewed through clouds and earth’s atmosphere when using a telescope on earth.

Now. Post videos of comets traveling through earth’s atmosphere.

Your full of crap, and only can lie.

a reply to: turbonium1

Funny. How you have to change your argument. From there are no comets, to comets are shooting stars, to now comets fly through earths atmosphere.

Why does my argument stay its course. While you grasp at ever changing lies?

You do know the difference between meteorites and comets.

But they have to come from somewhere. So that still doesn’t help your argument there is a water layer above earth. And the heavens are permanently fixed

You just lied about comets, and you managed to contradict and debunk your flat earth model.

Congratulations to being totally exposed as a fraud.

a reply to: turbonium1

If Hercule Poirot was a real person, he would have loved you as a murder suspect...

And then?"
"And then," said Poirot. "We will talk! Je vous assure, Hastings - there is nothing so dangerous for anyone who has something to hide as conversation! Speech, so a wise old Frenchman said to me once, is an invention of man's to prevent him from thinking. It is also an infallible means of discovering that which he wishes to hide. A human being, Hastings, cannot resist the opportunity to reveal himself and express his personality which conversation gives him. Every time he will give himself away."
"What do you expect Cust to tell you?"
Hercule Poirot smiled.
"A lie," he said. "And by it, I shall know the truth!

www.goodreads.com...

Agatha Christie, The A.B.C. Murders (Hercule Poirot, #13)

a reply to: turbonium1

Prove it's a lie. You literally have nothing. You are utterly clueless about the subject, can present no evidence in support of your delusional claims and seem to think the entire world is wrong when in fact it's you. Trying to educate you is a waste of time, you don't have the intellectual capacity or honesty to come anywhere close to grasping the topic.

Make no mistake- it isn't you I'm talking to, you're not worth the effort, it's those who might somehow fall for your utter horse manure if they didn't have actual facts presented to them. That's the reason your calorie free word salad gets eviscerated every week. Humanity doesn't need dumbimg down by allowing this drivel to go unchallenged.

Until you can actually present some evidence of your own, respond to the evidence you've been given, stop lying about having not been given it, and stop employing every lazy diversionary tactic and logical fallacy to camouflage just how empty ond devoid of substance your arguments are, then all there is left is to assume you're just a pointless troll.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Funny. How you have to change your argument. From there are no comets, to comets are shooting stars, to now comets fly through earths atmosphere.

It's sad when one must twist/revise words to hold up failed arguments, over and over again!

I've always said there is NO PROOF that 'comets' exist, as in 'comets, objects claimed to be from outer space', I'm not referring to the objects themselves as not existing, or not having proof of existing.

So when I said comets' didn't exist, it's because they are really 'shooting stars', although a rare type, unique from other types. What do you see that supports your claim of objects from 'outer space', 'far away in our 'galaxy'?

Nothing supports it, but the usual BS claims they always make up, cannot prove, do not ALLOW us to confirm are true, or false, with their OWN instruments, the same instruments used to 'prove' their claims!

That's your idea of proof, maybe, but it's pure nonsense.

Why don't we ever see a 'comet' approaching Earth? We only see them above Earth, often going in the very same path as the stars - circling and circling above the Earth? If they ARE stars, then they'd often follow along the same paths as all the other stars, obviously. Look at timelapse videos of a 'comet', if you doubt me on that.

They claim 'comets' can be seen far away, with a telescope, but not at closer range, before appearing by eye? Good one!

It's absolute nonsense.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
Funny. How you have to change your argument. From there are no comets, to comets are shooting stars, to now comets fly through earths atmosphere.

It's sad when one must twist/revise words to hold up failed arguments, over and over again!

I've always said there is NO PROOF that 'comets' exist, as in 'comets, objects claimed to be from outer space', I'm not referring to the objects themselves as not existing, or not having proof of existing.

So when I said comets' didn't exist, it's because they are really 'shooting stars', although a rare type, unique from other types. What do you see that supports your claim of objects from 'outer space', 'far away in our 'galaxy'?

Nothing supports it, but the usual BS claims they always make up, cannot prove, do not ALLOW us to confirm are true, or false, with their OWN instruments, the same instruments used to 'prove' their claims!

That's your idea of proof, maybe, but it's pure nonsense.

Why don't we ever see a 'comet' approaching Earth? We only see them above Earth, often going in the very same path as the stars - circling and circling above the Earth? If they ARE stars, then they'd often follow along the same paths as all the other stars, obviously. Look at timelapse videos of a 'comet', if you doubt me on that.

They claim 'comets' can be seen far away, with a telescope, but not at closer range, before appearing by eye? Good one!

It's absolute nonsense.

Yes, congratulations, you are speaking complete nonsense. Please stop doing so if you wish to be taken seriously - which you are not on this site.
Shooting stars are meteors - space debris that meets our atmosphere and which heats up and creates a fiery trail in the sky. Some fall onto the surface of the Earth as meteorites. Others literally die in the skies above us.
Comets are vastly larger and orbit the Sun. They do not orbit the Earth and we should be very glad about that point. Comets slingshot around the Sun, sometimes being destroyed in the process.
And... you either know nothing about them or are baselessly peddling yet more untruths about them.

Those are untruths, when told something is true, by others, while it cannot ever be confirmed as true, in any way.

They will never let us go 100-200 miles off the coast, to see a rocket. Not safe to go there, they tell us. Safe at the launch site, though!

That's what you would really believe, that it's not safe for us to go out there, but it's safe to go to the launch site?

Why do I bother asking that, I know your answer already. It's a painful choice

Assuming as a proven fact that all stars are trillions of miles from Earth, ignores all the proof available to us, that it is an absolute lie, and more every day confirms it's a lie, and much, much more will confirm it in future.

It will come to a breaking point, where nobody can ever hope to defend that lie, anymore. It's inevitable. And it will be absolutely beautiful to see.... for most who lives to see that day. Not so nice for others to see, of course.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

I've always said there is NO PROOF that 'comets' exist, a

I have seen comets with my own eyes. As others on ATS so your assertion is a lie.

Comets' are simply stars, 'shooting' stars, of which there are various types, various in appearance, movement, altitude, and speed. Most shooting stars are the ones we can see every night in a clear, desert sky. But some of them appear differently, some will move much slower, and at lower altitudes, and these types are much more uncommon than the other shooting stars are, so when they DO appear, it's a rare event.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You assert an object that doesn’t exist is a “shooting star”

Man. Your one messed up lier.


You have one year to prove this is something other than a comet.

Newly found Comet Leonard might become 2021’s brightest

earthsky.org...

Exciting news! A newly found comet might become 2021’s brightest comet. Astronomer Greg Leonard discovered the comet that now bears his name – C/2021 A1 (Leonard) – on January 3, 2021 at the Mount Lemmon Observatory in Arizona. Astronomers report that discovery images show a tail for the comet, suggesting we might see a nice tail as Comet Leonard draws closer to the Earth and sun. The comet is still far away, currently between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars, heading inward. It’ll reach perihelion, its closest approach to the sun, around January 3, 2022. And so we’ll have a whole year to watch this comet get brighter, and brighter

————

Your caught like a rat in a trap...

originally posted by: turbonium1
Assuming as a proven fact that all stars are trillions of miles from Earth, ignores all the proof available to us, that it is an absolute lie, and more every day confirms it's a lie, and much, much more will confirm it in future.

It will come to a breaking point, where nobody can ever hope to defend that lie, anymore. It's inevitable. And it will be absolutely beautiful to see.... for most who lives to see that day. Not so nice for others to see, of course.

The above is nonsense. It's a word salad of ignorance. It defies basic scientific facts. Why do you post such utter rubbish? Why are you dragging this endless, pointless, joke of a thread out?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
Funny. How you have to change your argument. From there are no comets, to comets are shooting stars, to now comets fly through earths atmosphere.

It's sad when one must twist/revise words to hold up failed arguments, over and over again!

Here comes that irony hammer again...

I've always said there is NO PROOF that 'comets' exist,

True, you've always said that. Doesn't make it correct though.

as in 'comets, objects claimed to be from outer space', I'm not referring to the objects themselves as not existing, or not having proof of existing.

There is evidence, you just choose to pretend that there isn't. Do you really think comets just magically appear in the sky - one day they aren't there, the next they are? The fact is that they are spotted in deep space by telescopes long before they appear visible to the naked eye.

So when I said comets' didn't exist, it's because they are really 'shooting stars', although a rare type, unique from other types. What do you see that supports your claim of objects from 'outer space', 'far away in our 'galaxy'?

Oh I don't know, maybe the telescopic observations of them millions of miles away that allow for the computation of trajectories? That kind of thing?

Nothing supports it, but the usual BS claims they always make up, cannot prove, do not ALLOW us to confirm are true, or false, with their OWN instruments, the same instruments used to 'prove' their claims!

Instruments you could actually go out and buy, if you had a job with an income. Many comets have been discovered by amateurs.

That's your idea of proof, maybe, but it's pure nonsense.

I know, silly us believing all that verifiable evidence and observation. How stupid of us...

Why don't we ever see a 'comet' approaching Earth?

We do. I say 'we', I mean people who have telescopes.

We only see them above Earth,

Nope, wrong.

often going in the very same path as the stars - circling and circling above the Earth? If they ARE stars,

They aren't.

then they'd often follow along the same paths as all the other stars, obviously.

Make your mind up, do they or don't they?

Look at timelapse videos of a 'comet', if you doubt me on that.

Why don't you provide us with one and explain what you think you're seeing and how it supports your stupid ideas?

They claim 'comets' can be seen far away, with a telescope,

They can.

but not at closer range, before appearing by eye? Good one!

Did you thnk this made sense when you wrote it?

It's absolute nonsense.

You should have that as your sig.

Here, try a little reading, see if you can grasp what it says before you shoot yourself in the foot some more:

earthsky.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: turbonium1
Why do I bother asking that,

This could be applied to any question you ever ask, because you are absolutely not interested in the answer.

a reply to: turbonium1

Just because you claim comets don't exist does t.make.your claim credible let alone realistic. I mean ita not like the ESA's Rosetta.didnt orbit comet 67P amd then release the Philae lander which.actually landed on 67P and sent data back. You wouldn't know science if it bit you on the face.

originally posted by: turbonium1

That's what you would really believe, that it's not safe for us to go out there, but it's safe to go to the launch site?

Why it isn't safe to be too close to launch sites and underneath launch flight paths:





Spectators watching rocket launches are generally several miles way, because bad stuff can happen.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

This story always blows my mind...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

On 24 October 1960, Nedelin, along with approximately 120 other individuals, were killed in a test rocket explosion at Baikonur Cosmodrome. The incident became known as the Nedelin catastrophe, named after Nedelin due to being its most notable victim, and was covered up by the authorities. Nedelin foolishly assured his team that all was safe, and to prove that he purposely sat close to the launch site; this decision cost him his life. Nedelin's death was officially listed as having occurred in a plane crash until the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s uncovered the incident.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Damn what happened you loose your pw?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

This story always blows my mind...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

On 24 October 1960, Nedelin, along with approximately 120 other individuals, were killed in a test rocket explosion at Baikonur Cosmodrome. The incident became known as the Nedelin catastrophe, named after Nedelin due to being its most notable victim, and was covered up by the authorities. Nedelin foolishly assured his team that all was safe, and to prove that he purposely sat close to the launch site; this decision cost him his life. Nedelin's death was officially listed as having occurred in a plane crash until the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s uncovered the incident.

See also www.vice.com...

Rocket debris was hurtled as far as ten kilometers from the blast epicenter, and windows of the surrounding communities were shattered as far as 40 kilometers distant.

Even a cursory trawl of youtube will reveal lots of launch pad and other explosions of rockets (the last 3 starliner experiments alone made very big bangs). The security perimeters around US launch sites are based on how far a piece of rocket will travel if the whole lot goes boom. For a Saturn V this was about 5 miles.

Apparently though it's wrong of those in charge of managing ocean traffic and airways to try and stop people from getting into a position where somethign could kill them. The Challenger explosion aftermath shows lots of debris falling into the ocean, but hey, what better place to see a rocket go off.

If you want to see a rocket take off, you get as close to the point where it takes off as possible. Going out 150 miles to sea would just be a massive disappointment.

And this is what a launch looks like from a boat from several miles away:

originally posted by: neutronflux
You assert an object that doesn’t exist is a “shooting star”

What you call 'comets', are simply a type of shooting star, which are, indeed, objects which exist.

What is so confusing for you to grasp here? I said 'comets', as objects from 'outer space', do not exist, because they are just shooting stars, which are NOT from 'outer space' - which ALSO doesn't exist, to begin with!

Lie upon lie upon lie, that's your whole story, in a nutshell.

138 not out....WOW

a reply to: turbonium1

I know I shouldn't.
I know I really shouldn't, but.....

I've had a quick catch up of the last few pages in this thread.
I see you reputing that comets exist and explain them away as 'types of shooting stars' yet you offer nothing as to an explanation as to what exactly these 'types of shooting stars' are, where they come from, how they exist, what forces govern their motion etc. Basically no detail whatsoever.

Care to shed any light on any of that?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Going out 150 miles to sea would just be a massive disappointment.

That's putting it mildly!

It's never going to be allowed, because we would clearly know, for all time, that rockets all crash into the ocean. It'd be toast for the liars.


Why does most of the footage inexplicably CUT OUT, when the rocket is still visible? Isn't that the whole REASON? To film the rocket? So why stop filming it, when it's still visible?

I've seen many videos of rockets, and the ones that cut out, when it's still visible, have clues to why they cut it so abruptly, when the rockets are still very much in view....


Moments before it's cut, look at the rocket's trajectory. Downward. It's burning the last of it's fuel reserves, which makes it dip downward, slightly, at first. Watch a video where it continues further, and watch how it dips more and more...

But even those videos are cut out, before the rockets die completely, and crash into the ocean. But we see enough to know what the inevitable result will be..


Why would rockets, with precious fuel, veer off at low altitudes, and wastes much more fuel? If it was about saving fuel, whenever possible, rockets would KEEP flying straight up, until at CRUISING altitudes, at very least, just like airplanes do.

That's what we'd see, if rockets really DID go into 'orbit'. I've heard some claim that this wastes LESS fuel, than it would to fly up to cruising altitudes, which is pure nonsense. They claim 'gravity' is stronger if they go straight up, instead of going more horizontally, but claim 'gravity' weakens with distance, or equal in strength, but NOT stronger with more distance, at any point! So they cannot even get their own story straight, as it's built on lies. And lies will inevitably conflict with one another, just as we find out here!

Why do rockets waste precious fuel, in lower altitudes? It's the same reason they all fly over the ocean, out of sight.

If a rocket kept flying upward, to higher altitudes, which would make sense, to save fuel like planes do, they'd also take much more TIME, and we'd see the rockets, for more than 3-4 minutes, like we always have.

Let's say it takes 2-3 minutes to reach optimum altitude. Then it veers off at that point, as usual. We see it for 6-7 minutes, instead of 3-4 minutes.

We'd see the rocket burn it's fuel, and dip downward, which is why they do NOT fly to cruising altitudes after launch.

Perhaps today, they've developed rockets which COULD fly to cruising altitude, and have enough fuel to fly out of sight, but they wouldn't change their story, unless for very important reason.


A rocket is nothing more than a missile, under a different name, and that's where it became a grand illusion, and it still is.


The only difference is that people think it is NOT an illusion, that it is real. So it's almost a perfect illusion, too! Everyone thinks it's real, unlike with other illusions, on stage.

Nobody thought about why we only see rockets for the first 3-4 minutes, because it's always about seeing them 'launch'! It doesn't matter after that point, does it? Big deal. A launch is good enough, so all we HAVE seen is the launch! It's the greatest spectacle of all! Great fires, and thunderous sounds, wowee!

Who cares about seeing it after that point? We all see it later on, in 'orbit', anyway!

That's how illusions work. What happens at first is seen as real, and later on, it's also 'seen' as being real! If the middle part isn't considered, the illusion works beautifully.


I really love when they claim a rocket, in view, is speeding oup 1000's of mph, and reaching ever higher altitudes, supported by 'instrument readings', placed in their videos! The rocket isn't speeding up, and no higher than before!

Look at it's nose, and tail, for a few seconds, and compare it with their 'altitude readings', on the screen. Yikes!

If those are it's actual altitudes, then flying pink elephants must be real, too! Get serious!

A few videos clearly prove they are all liars....once again.

Some videos have clouds, and allow for a general gauge of altitude, a scale, to assess a rocket's altitude when around clouds, or moments before or afterwards....

When looking at some of those videos, rockets fly through clouds, fly near clouds, then fly past other clouds, or clear skies later on, and that shows what it's general altitude is, and when their 'instruments' show altitudes 2,3, or 4 times higher than cruising altitude, 40-50 thousand feet, which is ALREADY twice the altitude of any clouds, then their 'instruments' are all BS, and they are liars, using fakes to support their lies. More and more BS spewed out in future, of course.


The actual altitudes do not matter, clouds show their 'altitudes' are total BS.


If you want proof they're liars, this is just another example of it.