The flat earth conspiracy

a reply to: turbonium1

VSI works by pressure differently. Not actually distance to ground. If the jet flys a constant 30,000 feet. Stays in the pressure band at 30,000 feet. Why would the VSI registers anything? VSI does not measure pitch of the jet. It measures if the jet leaves a specific pressure in the atmosphere called static pressure, and is calibrated to show it as vertical speed.

In this context...

If you fly over London then Paris, is 30,000 feet above sea level any different over Lindon than Paris? If 30,000 feet is maintained between the two cities, why would there be any vertical speed indication on the VSI? In either model?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Rocket launch locations are clearly publicised and well attended. Orbital trajectories for those launches are known and publicised in advance. The fact that they are known and publicised means that when one is launched in Florida I (along with many many other people) am able to go and photograph it exactly where it was predicted to be 20 minutes later. You conveniently ignored my posts demonstrating what an absolute fabrication your nonsensical posts are.

What I'm referring to is the period after launch, after the first 3-4 minutes.

This is simple enough to understand, is it not?

First - a rocket launches, and then, it flies out of sight.

The first three or four minutes have been seen at the launch site, and that's it. Nobody ever sees a rocket from that point, ever.

If we can see a rocket for the first 3-4 minutes, after launch, then we could also see a rocket after the first 3-4 minutes, right?

So why haven't we EVER seen a rocket after the first 3-4 minutes, then?

It's very simple, very logical, right?

a reply to: turbonium1

it must disappear into the fermentation that you say exists or the earth is curved coz how else does it disappear in flat world.

Come on prove something instead of denying everything

a reply to: turbonium1

You

You think shortwaves have the exact same range as FM waves, then? Is that your argument here?

FM is at a higher frequency and has more energy than shortwave. Thus should have a greater broadcast distance. So why is shortwave picked up at greater distances than FM. Why can one broadcast distances from the ground by shortwave in distances not obtainable by FM ground transmissions.

Then you have actual transmissions power.

Ham Radio Equipment

electronics.howstuffworks.com...

Power Output
Depending on the size (hand-held or desktop), power can be from a few milliwatts to 1,500 watts. Many new hams are graduates from citizens band (CB) radio. Unlike the 5-watt limit on CB, hams can use quite a bit more power (1,500 watts).

How are home ham 1,500 watt units broadcasting around the world? And FM stations broadcast at 50,000 watts not achieving the same broadcast distances?

Skywave

en.m.wikipedia.org...

As a result of skywave propagation, a signal from a distant AM broadcasting station, a shortwave station, or – during sporadic E propagation conditions (principally during the summer months in both hemispheres) a distant VHF FM or TV station – can sometimes be received as clearly as local stations. Most long-distance shortwave (high frequency) radio communication – between 3 and 30 MHz – is a result of skywave propagation. Since the early 1920s amateur radio operators (or "hams"), limited to lower transmitter power than broadcast stations, have taken advantage of skywave for long-distance (or "DX") communication.

a reply to: turbonium1

You think the earth is flat because of ignorance and right out lies. Got it.

a reply to: turbonium1

Or you cannot afford a dominatrix? So your here for cheap abuse?

a reply to: turbonium1

Why would 100kw KENW-FM have a vastly smaller broadcast area than 100kw WTWW

WTWW Broadcast area
Canada, Europe, Middle East, Asia, Africa[1]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

And KENW needs repeaters?

KENW-FM repeaters

KMTH-FM 98.7, Maljamar
KENM 89.3, Tucumcari
(see translators table for others)

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: turbonium1

More here on broadcast distances and curvature of the earth.

Radio Line of Sight Calculator/VHF/UHF

www.hamuniverse.com...

As an example using "Height in Feet" in the calculator below, and assuming we are using an HT, the antenna is about 5 and 1/2 feet above the ground, then just plug in 5.5 in the "Feet" window, click "Compute" and read the answer in the "Miles" window directly below. You should see 2.9 miles in the answer.

So with an antenna height of 5 1/2 feet above the ground and assuming there are no obstructions and the ground between you and the horizon is perfectly flat, then it is 2.9 miles before the curvature of the Earth starts to take effect on your signal strength at the level of the horizon! It does not account for any higher angle radiation coming from your antenna that may be "seen" by a much taller antenna such as on a tall tower standing beyond the horizon. It acts much like you were aiming a laser beam or spot light toward the horizon rather than a radio wave. The result is like a straight and level line from your antenna to the start of the curvature of the Earth.

a reply to: turbonium1

Quit trying to move the goal posts troll.

You've been busted wide opn. Get over it. You made lots of wild claims and they are all proven to be false. You've been given links to videos of rockets flying well after those first 3 or 4 minutes, don't pretend you haven't.

After 3 or 4 minutes the rocket is hundreds of miles way, you need specialist cameras and tracking equipment to see it, like the stuff this guy uses:



Oh look, it shows a rocket over 6 minutes into the flight in continuous footage. In another 14 minutes it will be over Europe.

Why is this difficult for you? I saw the rocket from this week 20 minutes after launch. I knew where it was because the information was freely available. You claimed it wasn't.

Oh look, here are more sites telling people where to look to see a rocket launch and its flight path:

www.delaware-surf-fishing.com...

eu.delmarvanow.com...

Here's some info on launches from Vandenburg

www.spacearchive.info...

Care to speculate why a rocket might launch from there instead of Cape Canaveral?

The earth is not flat. Your claims are garbage.

a reply to: solve

see.. complete stupidity drives people nuts!

its maddening, frustrating... and a waste of time

Sure, good for amusement... but inevitably will give you gray hair LOL

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: turbonium1

AND I ASKED YOU FOR A FLIGHT PATH THAT YOU SAID EXISTED FOR A PLANE AND YOU HAVEN'T REPLIED.

You are incapable of answering anything asked directly of you. Yes You live in a fantasy land, sadly.

Two sites that show flight paths, and much more info, as well...

notams.aim.faa.gov...#/results

www.flightradar24.com...


Search for a flight or two, it's simple to do.

We also see planes in flight, along route, when skies are clear, if there is a plane above us, even at cruising altitudes, and the plane appears as a small speck in the skies, as well.

Nobody has to know the plane's flight path to see it, or may also know about a regular flight path, and watch planes along their daily routes, as well.

These are common planes, nothing special about them.

But rockets, specifically Saturn V rockets, are clearly special, compared to common planes, so why don't we see flight paths for them, after launch, over ocean, and land - this would be well before any sort of 'orbit'....

Is it not interested to you, to know exactly what the Saturn V flight paths were, right after launch?

I'm sure many people would love to know the historical Saturn V flight paths, from launch, to their initial flight paths, over Earth....no doubt about it.

So why haven't they ever shown us these historical Saturn V flight paths, then?

The same reason they have NEVER shown us a flight path of a rocket, in over 50 years. And never will.

Because rockets have never flown into 'orbit', or 'space', they are all for show, to look powerful, and capable of 'space travel', which is another huge lie, itself, btw.

Anyone knows if a rocket actually goes into 'orbit', there would be absolutely no reason for them to hide all their flight paths from us.

That is the most important piece here, because we would know what happens to a rocket after the first 3-4 minutes, which is they spend all their fuel in the next few minutes, or even sooner, depending on certain factors, but they all crash in the ocean, when all of their fuel is spent.

That is why they will NEVER tell us where to see a rocket after the first 3-4 minutes, and never will show us a flight path of a rocket, not even the most famous of all rockets - the Saturn V missions which supposedly flew men to the 'moon'. And back again, of course!


This is a grandiose illusion, nothing else. All the best illusions are when nobody sees the trick, or is unaware of it, even when it's right there, in front of their own faces, they don't see it.

Often, the trick is something that is NOT in our faces, something that we SHOULD all see, that fools people, as well.

They have a trick, which they've used for over 50 years now, and will continue to use in future, because it works just as well today, as it did before, sadly.

The trick is to NEVER, EVER show what happens to a rocket after the first 3-4 minutes after launch.

How was it possible to make rockets that we all see launch, so quickly become all imaginary, all unseen, yet still appear to us as real?

By focusing on the greatest diversion of all time, and almost the only real part of it - the launch of a rocket.

It remains the only part we ever see, and is still the only place we HAVE ever seen it, to this very day, over 50 years later on.

Does anyone really believe we could not see a rocket fly over the ocean, after the first 3-4 minutes? Nobody believes that one, I hope!

And this is where denial comes along, because realizing rockets crash in the ocean isn't a pleasant thought for many folks, and denying the ugly truth might seem better than to accept the ugly truth. It is not better denying the truth, than accepting the truth, even a horrible truth, as some of you may see it.

I would certainly have preferred it was true, but knowing it is fake, does not bother me at all. It is the truth, I accept truth in all forms, whether grim, or good, so be it.


This trick doesn't work by itself, it takes planning, and execution, from day one, to this very day.


They have a great distraction, diversion - the launch of a rocket. A great spectacle. The 'countdown' adds a lot of drama to the event. No need to have a countdown, but it lends more tension to this spectacle.

Everyone remembers the launch, if they lived back then, or seen it all, many times, of course.

If the next step worked, it was smooth sailing.

After the launch, the diversions never stopped, and the last spectacle was landing on the 'moon', and we loved it, celebrated it, and when they landed back on 'Earth', that made us feel very proud, happy, and so forth.

Nobody ever thought about the actual rocket not being seen after a couple minutes, nobody ever considered it, or cared about it, in any way. They'd say it doesn't matter anyway, we did it, and that's the ony thing that matters, isn't it? So don't worry about the little details, it's not a big deal!


There is nothing more important, more relevant, in fact.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Quit trying to move the goal posts troll.

You've been busted wide opn. Get over it. You made lots of wild claims and they are all proven to be false. You've been given links to videos of rockets flying well after those first 3 or 4 minutes, don't pretend you haven't.

After 3 or 4 minutes the rocket is hundreds of miles way, you need specialist cameras and tracking equipment to see it, like the stuff this guy uses:

Oh look, it shows a rocket over 6 minutes into the flight in continuous footage. In another 14 minutes it will be over Europe.

Why is this difficult for you? I saw the rocket from this week 20 minutes after launch. I knew where it was because the information was freely available. You claimed it wasn't.

Oh look, here are more sites telling people where to look to see a rocket launch and its flight path:

www.delaware-surf-fishing.com...

eu.delmarvanow.com...

Here's some info on launches from Vandenburg

www.spacearchive.info...

Care to speculate why a rocket might launch from there instead of Cape Canaveral?

Because nobody else can see it, at the launch site, or anywhere after that, so they just claim it, without proof, and not witnessed by the public. Nice try.

That video shows a launch at night, the last part is obviously fake, and not even a very convincing fake, either.

It also shows why nearly every rocket launch video is cut before 3-4 minutes, and most are less than that. Every launch video shown in daylight is cut off after only two minutes, or so. Look at them yourself, and you'll see this happens all the time in daylight launch clips.

Only the few night launch clips are longer than that, because they can easily fake it anywhere, usually after a few minutes of real footage.

And even your video shows a rocket plummeting downward towards Earth after three minutes or so, if that long. It certainly doesn't help your argument, for sure. It only helps to confirm my argument, in fact.


This shows how rockets actually wind up, after 4-5 minutes, plummeting towards Earth, as all their fuel is spent, with shaking, sputtering, unstable fuel coming out, as the rocket plummets downward to Earth, crashing into the ocean.

That's where it became a fake, when the real rocket was plummeting to Earth. And suddenly, it transforms into a bizarre 'molasses rocket', the slowest rocket of all time, and amazingly changes its direction within a split second, and speeds up too, at the same time!


A good laugh, anyway.

a reply to: turbonium1

It only takes on true item to show the earth is spherical.

Over the horizon radar
Skywaves
Why shortwave has greater broadcast areas than ground FM
Why increasing antenna hight increases broadcast area
The sun sets over the horizon
The seasons
Why certain constellations are only seen from specific hemispheres
Retrograde travel of planets in the sky
Equatorial mounts for telescopes
Why Mars is closer to the earth at times then farther away
Visible man made objects orbiting the earth that were not there in the sky 100 years ago
Satellite TV
You can actually sail around the world
Airplane flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere
Eratosthenes of Cyrene measures circumstance of the earth around 249 BC


.....it only take on of many facts being true to prove the earth is spherical. Only one.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

VSI works by pressure differently. Not actually distance to ground. If the jet flys a constant 30,000 feet. Stays in the pressure band at 30,000 feet. Why would the VSI registers anything? VSI does not measure pitch of the jet. It measures if the jet leaves a specific pressure in the atmosphere called static pressure, and is calibrated to show it as vertical speed.

In this context...

If you fly over London then Paris, is 30,000 feet above sea level any different over Lindon than Paris? If 30,000 feet is maintained between the two cities, why would there be any vertical speed indication on the VSI? In either model?

The VSI measures ascent, descent, and level flight, which is neither an ascent, nor a descent. Why you said the VSI doesn't measure by ground distance, no idea, but I never said anything of the sort, if you had read my posts you'd know that already.

No 'pressure band' marks it at 30,000 feet, they are pressure gradients, and they are hundreds or thousands of feet each, they are not in one or two-ft layers, or something!

A gradient has no relevance to this matter. The VSI uses pressure around the plane to measure level flight, ascent, and descent, the surface below doesn't matter at all.

The altimeter doesn't measure level flight, either. The VSI does. A plane in ascent, descent, or level flight is only measured by the VSI, in air, during flight. This information connects to the altimeter, then the altitude is adjusted to it.

Ascent or descent is measured by the VSI, in feet per minute. A plane that descends one or two feet will be measured by the VSI, so if 'curvature' existed, a plane would have to descend about 4-5 feet per minute throughout a flight, and would obviously be measured by the VSI as well.

No way around it, facts are facts.

The fact is that a plane would have to constantly descend to 'curvature', to stay at altitude. And such a descent would certainly be measured by the VSI.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

It only takes on true item to show the earth is spherical.

Over the horizon radar
Skywaves
Why shortwave has greater broadcast areas than ground FM
Why increasing antenna hight increases broadcast area
The sun sets over the horizon
The seasons
Why certain constellations are only seen from specific hemispheres
Retrograde travel of planets in the sky
Equatorial mounts for telescopes
Why Mars is closer to the earth at times then farther away
Visible man made objects orbiting the earth that were not there in the sky 100 years ago
Satellite TV
You can actually sail around the world
Airplane flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere
Eratosthenes of Cyrene measures circumstance of the earth around 249 BC


.....it only take on of many facts being true to prove the earth is spherical. Only one.

But there are none, sorry to say.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

The altimeter doesn't measure level flight, either. The VSI does. A plane in ascent, descent, or level flight is only

Wrong again..

So you have to lie about or ignore the principles on how VSI works through differential pressure and the “static” pressure used by the altimeter. Got it.

Again..

a reply to: turbonium1

VSI works by pressure differently. Not actually distance to ground. If the jet flys a constant 30,000 feet. Stays in the pressure band at 30,000 feet. Why would the VSI registers anything? VSI does not measure pitch of the jet. It measures if the jet leaves a specific pressure in the atmosphere called static pressure, and is calibrated to show it as vertical speed.

In this context...

If you fly over London then Paris, is 30,000 feet above sea level any different over Lindon than Paris? If 30,000 feet is maintained between the two cities, why would there be any vertical speed indication on the VSI? In either model?


And your list


It only takes on true item to show the earth is spherical.

Over the horizon radar
Skywaves
Why shortwave has greater broadcast areas than ground FM
Why increasing antenna hight increases broadcast area
The sun sets over the horizon
The seasons
Why certain constellations are only seen from specific hemispheres
Retrograde travel of planets in the sky
Equatorial mounts for telescopes
Why Mars is closer to the earth at times then farther away
Visible man made objects orbiting the earth that were not there in the sky 100 years ago
Satellite TV
You can actually sail around the world
Airplane flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere
Eratosthenes of Cyrene measures circumstance of the earth around 249 BC


.....it only take on of many facts being true to prove the earth is spherical. Only one.

Add this one to your list

Earth's Curvature and Battleship Gunnery

www.mathscinotes.com...

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

It only takes on true item to show the earth is spherical.

Over the horizon radar
Skywaves
Why shortwave has greater broadcast areas than ground FM
Why increasing antenna hight increases broadcast area
The sun sets over the horizon
The seasons
Why certain constellations are only seen from specific hemispheres
Retrograde travel of planets in the sky
Equatorial mounts for telescopes
Why Mars is closer to the earth at times then farther away
Visible man made objects orbiting the earth that were not there in the sky 100 years ago
Satellite TV
You can actually sail around the world
Airplane flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere
Eratosthenes of Cyrene measures circumstance of the earth around 249 BC


.....it only take on of many facts being true to prove the earth is spherical. Only one.

But there are none, sorry to say.

Your stuck on VSI VSI VSI and the list that shows your full of crap grows longer and longer.

Isn’t lying a sin in your fish tank flat earth god model? While you deny a whole universe filled with whole other galaxies? Shame you put your god in a fish tank.

a reply to: turbonium1

What is it like to be shown that flat earth is a lie? And you are part of a lie?

Or are you really here for punishment? Because something as common as an equatorial mount for a telescope shows flat earth is blatant lie.

So I show you a link that details how to see a launch at Vandenberg and this is somehow proof that you aren't allowed to see launches at Vandenberg?

I guess this site is also not allowing people to see those launches:

www.spacelaunchschedule.com...

and this guy didn't film one



or this guy



Top tip: screeching fake doesn't make something fake. Your claim that every launch video is cut at 2 minutes is bull. The thing 'spluttering back to Earth' is the spent first stage. There is a second stage. You can clearly see it fire up and continue the journey to orbit. The fact that this happens 5 minutes into a video when you claim they cut feeds long before that makes an even bigger mockery of your claim.

As for your previous post, the flight paths of the Saturn V after launch are well documented, you've been given the links. Not only did they actually go into orbit, they broadcast live TV from there and took photographs that are verifiable. The switched radio receiving stations about every 10 minutes as they passed from one to another. All verifiable. Your ignorance and denial of it is no proof of anything.

Don't lie and pretend you haven't been told all this before. The flight paths are not hidden, you've been given them. They do tell everyone exactly where rockets will be, you've been shown this. I showed you proof of that and right on cue, exactly as predicted, you give a knee jerk "fake" response and try and bury it in a wall of word salad garbage to pretend it was never posted.

The Starlink launch was well publicised, its flight path well advertised and I and many other people witnessed the result in the UK 20 minutes after it launched. I posted a photo of that not long afterwards.

You know nothing. You should really stop pretending that you do. That way everyone might stop laughing at you.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

It only takes on true item to show the earth is spherical.

Over the horizon radar
Skywaves
Why shortwave has greater broadcast areas than ground FM
Why increasing antenna hight increases broadcast area
The sun sets over the horizon
The seasons
Why certain constellations are only seen from specific hemispheres
Retrograde travel of planets in the sky
Equatorial mounts for telescopes
Why Mars is closer to the earth at times then farther away
Visible man made objects orbiting the earth that were not there in the sky 100 years ago
Satellite TV
You can actually sail around the world
Airplane flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere
Eratosthenes of Cyrene measures circumstance of the earth around 249 BC


.....it only take on of many facts being true to prove the earth is spherical. Only one.

But there are none, sorry to say.

Your stuck on VSI VSI VSI and the list that shows your full of crap grows longer and longer.

Isn’t lying a sin in your fish tank flat earth god model? While you deny a whole universe filled with whole other galaxies? Shame you put your god in a fish tank.

I'm simply explaining how the VSI works, and you have no excuses for it, so get over it, admit the truth, and I'm sure God will not punish you for your sins, by putting you in an eternal fish tank!