[iOkay , Lets take on the Moon landing subject, NASA's evidence of the Lunar landing has been pulled apart. by "Scientists".Their evidence is full of glaring holes and the Actornaughts have been secretly filmed faking the Globes curvature in Very low orbit see in this [url=https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4Footage[/url or if you can't digest it watch it from [url=https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4?t=126922 minutes[/url is where the real meat on the bones begins. So here is actual secret footage of the Actornaughts caught red handed faking their mission. So the question must be put to you. Does 100% evidence still adjudicate your judgement.?. This documentary smashes holes in the Moon Landing. You've done the talking can you do the walking. Simple question[/i

[iYou see Butcher your very good at observing splinters in other peoples eyes, but you fail to see the plank in your own. Your stuck in the theoretical Darwinian Rabbit hole where evolution is more bizarre than any outrageous conspiracy. The Globe has never been proved, NASA really do fake space, Satellites have never been proven, The World is absolutely being dominated by an occult Shadow Organisation, Stars are just wandering and twinkling in the firmament, The ISS is in a specialised studio,, GPS is ground based triangulation, the earth is old, we're all related through creation, I'm am 100% human and not an Ape. You are totally indoctrinated into Heliocentric Darwinian Theories which is a world view religious concept. And who said that my ideas are based on a Religious Ideology, when your true belief system proves this very contradiction. Its just Freemasonic Theories indoctrinated into the curriculum and never was proven it was just accepted as truth without any conviction. Take the plank out of your own eye before observing splinters in others..Cheers[/i

Loved the Matthew 7-4.5 metaphor. I couldn't stay silent on this discipline so heres my detailed affinity. Darwin himself failed to conceive his own theorized natural process belief as he was a Freemason. This Society itself holds a significant account of its formation and its existence based upon the scriptures of the Genesis account where Eve was fooled by Satan in the Garden of Eden where she ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge. In Freemasonry this scripture is the baseline of their dogma to worship Satan for setting free mankind and giving mankind the knowledge of perceiving what is Good and Evil.

The Darwinian theory is just Science propagating or opposing against Creationism in all forms. I believe in the Creation Scriptures too. The Atheist, Big Bang, Darwinian Everything came from nothing theory to me is purely fabricated to fit the Freemason agenda of swindling the publics perception of God the Creator. So Darwin himself believed the Biblical Genesis account worshiping Satan, Satanism dogma ignores the existence of God, implores man to become god. Darwinism is exactly the same, it negates God's existence and excels mans superiority to become your own god through science and people buy into this junk hook line and sinker the comparisons of the two dogma are identical.

Come on, Stan. Stooping to creating another account to back yourself up is a bit sad. How many is that now?

As for creationist viewpoints...

Like arguing with a pigeon.

Bloody hell its hard enough with one account debating the gruesome twosome nevermind two accounts. Seriously my software is a mountainous task to inscribe emails for a start. I don't need another account i can fight my own battles.

To (WTFIA) welcome, its great to have a fellow Christian on board, real debates can now take place.

They could, if you had the slightest interest in debate. But you don't.

Unless you are going to reply what the "ISS" that you can see with your own eyes, really is, if it isn't the ISS?

I'm restricting myself to one, simple, question, but you won't tell me what you think that is. You refuse to look up into the sky and see the ISS go by, as seeing it would probably overload your denial circuits and you can't take the risk.

But it will predictably pass overhead again...and again...and again. How irritating of it for you.

I really don't have an issue answering your questions its my questions that get greatly ignored, The simulated ISS is simply a [url=https://youtu.be/O0myKCdECU8?t=106Holographic Projection.[/url
[iMost people believe that the Space Station exists for 3 reasons
1. They can see what appears to be the space station through a telescope. Which is the Hologram.
2. They have seen what they are told in video interviews on Mainstream TV coming from the inside the Space Station (which are actually carefully choreographed Green Screen short events) The reason there isn't a live 24 hour webcam feed is because that would be nearly impossible for them to produce, because they are not in fact on the ISS.
3. Other countries have also participated in the project. Upon closer inspection, none of these arguments hold water.[/i

[iThe images people are seeing through a telescope and by naked eye are very blurry, they fade in from a rainbow, and the ISS doesn't move at a uniform pace across the sky. The ISS through a telescope looks much more like a holograph than a solid object actually flying in space. Holographic arrays are commonplace today, and complex systems such as project Blue beam designed by the military show that projecting images in the sky is not difficult now. The "Norway Spiral" and the "rapture of Jesus Christ in Africa" are two other examples of this type of technology used.[/i
[iIF THE SPACE STATION WAS REAL WE WOULD SEE THE ABUNDANCE OF ORBITING SATELLITES FLYING ABOUT, WHICH ADDS MORE FUEL TO THE FRAUD KILLING TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE..[/i

Do you ever read back what you copy and paste Stanley? You're insane!

Can you explain to me the following then please:

I can see the ISS from my location at a known, predictable magnitude (i.e. brightness). I say this is because the angle of the ISS to the Sun (which iluminates it and reflects the light that I can see) is known, predictable, and measurable. SO, for example, at my location the ISS might appear at magnitude -2.0

But another observer at a location further away, at the same time, might only see it at mag -1.0. And so on. The brightest appearance is along the centre of the reflected path. Observers away from the centre of the path naturally get a corresponding decrease in brightness.

1. How would a hologram project this much light?
2. How could a hologram appear bright to one observer, but faint to another observer?
3. Given that over time the ISS crosses most places, where are the millions of mega-projectors around the globe which project this moving "hologram" 24/7?
WHAT PROJECTS YOUR HOLOGRAM??


2. They have seen what they are told in video interviews on Mainstream TV coming from the inside the Space Station (which are actually carefully choreographed Green Screen short events) The reason there isn't a live 24 hour webcam feed is because that would be nearly impossible for them to produce, because they are not in fact on the ISS.
3. Other countries have also participated in the project. Upon closer inspection, none of these arguments hold water.[/i


No they are not. They vary greatly, depending on the degree of atmospheric distortion, and the equipment used.


But OF COURSE it does! It moves at an absolutely dead-set unifrom pace! This is why it is PREDICTABLE. To the exact SECOND! Any day it comes your way, you can know in advance the second it will appear and (if it will cross into the Earth's shadow) the exact second it will quickly disappear. It does you arguments no favours to claim something so ridiculous as "it doesn't move at a uniform pace". It couldn't BE more uniform.


From someone who has never seen it, that seems an odd claim

But, answer me this:

How does this here "holograph" r whatever you claim it is, actually BLOCK the light of the Sun, when it crosses its path, then? Come on Stan, we all know a holograph is a projection, and not an actual material object. So tell us, how is that trick done?




The reality of the ISS has nothing to do with the existence of other satellites. However, I have previously provided you with resources to discover the identity and exact (predictable) orbits (or locations, for geostationary satelites) and you can therefore on a clear night observe your fil of satellites, AND know which ones they are. How can that be possible, if they don't exist? Or does NASA also project moving holographs of thousands of satellites too?

And how exactly does Sky tv (and other satellite based systems) work? All the millions of Sky dishes are all pointed precisely so that they aim at the relevant satellite. If you point your dish there, you get a signal. If you move it, the signal disappears.

Given you think the Sky broadcasting satellites don't exist, how is this trick done?

I await the "truth" with great interest

=#FF0000Ferocious Aardvark
You've give me a lot of questions there quite a lot of information, however if you hadn't of ignored the Project Bluebeam links, most of your questions would be answered their. I will reply to your long winded plagiarized post in due course but i'm sat here in hysterics knowing that you've Copied And Pasted these questions from the YouTube page of the Video i posted,

Also why do you continue to keep posting CGI composites.

Sorry Stan, but my post was all my own work, and I certainly have no time to click on any more of your links, some time ago I had a look, but they are clearly all as or more deluded than you. They were all utter childish nonsense, and not worth a second of anyone's time.

But I do note you cannot advance an explanation as to why the ISS can be photographed crossing the face of the Sun, and so your last resort is to say therefore any image showing this must be a fake! That really is pathetic.

Anyway, whether you are for real or a troll, either way I think that is enough of your nonsense for me. Goodbye.

Firstly i'll give a detailed TV view as i'll address your other million questions in due course. Digital is an analogue radio signal, digitized compressed and so they're able to carry more information. You can still use your old analogue aerial to pick up digital signals as an example,, or you can be conned into paying for a satellite TV package and all they did is put a dish up which picks up digital same as an old aerial connection it's definitely not picking up signals from satellites they do not exist. Satellite dishes are just digital signal antennas in disguise that receive directly from land based signal relay and Deep Sea Cables with repeaters to boost the signal. The whole dish thing is a diversion.Thought this was obvious.

So if anyone who wants to take a bit of time to look up the launch to satellite ratio..seriously have a look. If you are doing it to grasp the rip off then great. If you are doing it to come back at me to argue that is perfectly plausible, then don't waste your time with me, seriously. I don't want my mind poisoned with clap trap and stuff that should be ridiculously evident to a person with the basic of basic common sense to see it for what it is. Bull.

I'm quite sure that there's plenty of people who have satellite dishes on their walls who have had them there for maybe 15/20 years and never had them aligned since they were installed. Bear in mind that satellites are supposed to have lives of 10/15 years and some lately being longer. That's due to covering their s. The point is, how come your dish has never had to be re-aligned when they change a so called satellite.

The sensible thinkers among us will have the answer easily. It's because satellites in space are a fantasy. They are a fantasy money maker so we have to pay for TV with the old excuse that it costs so much to send them up and maintain them. The silly thing is that once a satellite is in this 23,000 mile orbit. Yes, I said 23,000 mile orbit, just perfectly in Geo-synch with Earth, it cannot be repaired if anything goes wrong. Luckily they never ever need repairing until they fall out of orbit until the tefal headed fantasy merchants decide they fall. If people want to believe in all this crap then go right ahead, just don't try and convince me, because I'm done with the old "heads they win, tails I lose" bull. It's about time the coin has a heads and a tails and is tossed by fair means. Until that happens, we will always be slaves to the system.

For those who argue about GPS and such. It's all triangulation. It's a pretence of something special. Well just remember that when you're driving along with your Sat Nav stuck to your dashboard with no aerial or dish and yet you're getting told where you are. The voice that tells you to turn left or whatever is just following a pre-set map that is picked up as you drive to your destination between cells, just like your phone and even your radio. You notice your Sat Nav re-adjusts as you drive. As you hit another marker. Your radio re-tunes just the same. It's just a different set of frequencies and booster signals, etc.

The trouble with fantasy merchants who sell you bull is, they want more. they want to keep hitting you with more fantasy and sometimes they over do it. You see, one minute your satellite dish on your home is aligned perfectly to a Geo-synch satellite in 23,000 mile orbit and the next minute you've just bought a car satellite system that sits on your car roof and "Voiila" gives your kids the TV as you move about. And weirdly...no dish.

I understand that there will be many that are GENUINELY perplexed by some of this and will not accept it so readily. All I say to you people is, spend the time to sit back and think. Look up stuff. Do the jigsaw puzzle of the real picture and paint over the fantasy one that was set out for you. It can be slow and painstaking. I understand that. All I ask is, please learn to use your logic and your own common sense by not allowing the bullter fantasy merchants to bamboozle your mind and scramble it. Peer pressure and ridicule are two massive obstacles to overcome to even start to think. Do this and you have a chance to actually see through the blindfold's you/we were made to wear.

.As i said with GPS, TV the same, there is nothing that is allegedly done by 'communication satellites' that cannot be done with ground-based systems. Good luck and happy thinking.

Map of new Flightradar24 receivers coming online in first 2 weeks of January Explanatory article www.flightradar24.com/blog/new-f ... uary-2016/

Map of new Flightradar24 receivers coming online in first 2 weeks of January Explanatory article www.flightradar24.com/blog/new-f ... uary-2016/

And ? Please elaborate. .

I think he's getting back on topic rather than it be for your benefit.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"And ? Please elaborate. .'" I'm not sure why you ask, but the link I cited explains the developments fully and will be fascinating to those interested in the subject. I found especially interesting the continued extension of MLAT coverage. MLAT, or Multilateration, is a well tried and tested technology based on the fact that any aircraft will obviously be at different distances from any given ground stations that pick up the aircraft's transmission; those transmissions travel at a known speed; they are therefore received by any listening station at fractionally different times. From these individual time differences some advanced computer calculation allows an aircraft’s position to be precisely calculated. A more detailed explanation of how MLAT works here: www.multilateration.com/surveill ... ation.html It is also possible to join in and expand the coverage, by joining the Flightradar24 network, using no more than a Raspberry Pi with a suitable standard dongle, and an internet connection. I would myself but there's not much point for those of us who live in an area already thick with stations.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"And ? Please elaborate. .'" I'm not sure why you ask, but the link I cited explains the developments fully and will be fascinating to those interested in the subject. I found especially interesting the continued extension of MLAT coverage. MLAT, or Multilateration, is a well tried and tested technology based on the fact that any aircraft will obviously be at different distances from any given ground stations that pick up the aircraft's transmission; those transmissions travel at a known speed; they are therefore received by any listening station at fractionally different times. From these individual time differences some advanced computer calculation allows an aircraft’s position to be precisely calculated. A more detailed explanation of how MLAT works here: www.multilateration.com/surveill ... ation.html It is also possible to join in and expand the coverage, by joining the Flightradar24 network, using no more than a Raspberry Pi with a suitable standard dongle, and an internet connection. I would myself but there's not much point for those of us who live in an area already thick with stations.

[iA serious Question to the OP.
Now i've pre-booked a non stop flight from[/i [url=http://www.skyscanner.net/transport/flights/lond/wars/160119/160120/airfares-from-london-to-warsaw-in-january-2016.html?adults=1&children=0&infants=0&cabinclass=economy&rtn=1&preferdirects=false&outboundaltsenabled=false&inboundaltsenabled=false#resultsSKYSANNER[/url
=#BF0040London - Warsaw. Flight time 3 hours 50 minutes. ( Travelling East with the Easterly Wind )
=#BF0000Warsaw - London, Flight time 4 hours 20 minutes ( Travelling Westward Against the Easterly Wind ) Hence a 30 minute difference.
[iSo if we live on a spinning Ball travelling Eastward at 1000 mph how are these flight times with the exception of wind speed possible they're the same flight time with the exception of the tailing wind. Surely with the Earth's supposed spin these times should differ.?. I'm well aware of the Relativity Theory but it doesn't add up. If the Earth is spinning Eastward at 1000 mph and the plane is moving 500 mph in the same direction what is going on here thanks.
[/i

Wind.

As an example, consider two hypothetical flights at 30,000 feet with the winds shown below:


With these winds a flight from A to B (East-to-West) will be fighting headwinds the whole way. flight planning programs tell you that at 500 knots (airspeed) you'd be in the air for about 5 hours 30 minutes.

Traveling in the opposite direction from B to A you'd have a tailwind, and with the same 500 knot airspeed you would make the trip in roughly 4 hours.

The winds aloft vary seasonally, which can affect flight times for summer versus winter trips. According to pilots who are regularly up at those altitudes even the daily variations can be noticeable, and may make the difference between being able to make a nonstop trip or having to stop for fuel on the way.

Pilots and flight dispatchers will often review the wind data prior to flight and try to select an altitude that affords a "good ride" (free of turbulence) and favorable winds (either a tailwind or the lowest headwind they can find).

Flat earthers always forget that the atmosphere and everything in it also rotates with the earth, so they are always coming up with these nonsensical questions about flight times. What's important is the plane’s speed relative to the Earth’s atmosphere – the air around it because that’s what's giving it its lift up into the air and that's what is providing the the friction which is meaning it's having to thrust to keep going forward. The Earth’s atmosphere is rotating with the surface of the Earth below it. The reason is, because it’s got friction with the land masses beneath it and that means the air is always being pulled to rotate with the Earth. So in fact, because the air above us is rotating at the same speed as the land below, and what matters is your air speed – your speed versus the air – it doesn’t matter whether you're going with or against the rotation of the Earth.

Simple. Although I'm sure you will either deny it, ignore it, or ask a different nonsensical question. I'd be interested to hear your answer to your own question though...

=#FF0040TheButcher

I asked the OP not you.

Nonsensical. Seems a logical question to me, Is the plane travelling eastward at 500mph or is it travelling an extra 1000mph with the earths rotation giving it a total 1500mph? Simple question.

=#BF0000TheButcher [ihates being challenged he avoided my Moonlanding questions like the plague[/i.

1. The wind speed and direction is extremely variable, but in general, as any image from space will tell you (or any weather map) air currents are in broad terms curved, or circular (picture a huge hurricane system).

2. Wind speeds aren't (hurricanes and cyclones apart) that great but as planes fly in air, their airspeed always differs from their groundspeed, as the air is never stationary.

3. The atmosphere is part of the globe, it isn't separate or detached. If, for example, you watch a speeded up video of a hurricane system you will see that it will track along a curve towards a general direction, and this motion will continue, irrespective of the spinning of the globe. The principal effect of the spinning of the globe is, of course, the well-known Coriolis effect. (The anticlockwise rotation of the Earth deflects winds to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere. If the globe did not spin, this would not happen).

But the hurricane as you watch it will go round and round with the globe, as well as its motion relative to the Earth's surface. You can witness the same thing on other planets, e.g. Jupiter's famous red spot. Although Jupiter is a gas giant, so the comparison isn't exact, but still you can see that the weather systems spin around Jupiter, irrespective of their local currents and movements, as the planet as a whole rotates.

4. So, the atmosphere as a whole goes round and round just like the ground beneath it does. And indeed as the liquid oceans do, though they too generate worldwide currents.

5. A plane taking off in any direction is already "travelling" at the same speed and in the same direction as the piece of ground on which it is situated. Apart from the local wind conditions, which at ground level may be anything from a few mph to 20 mph on most days, the plane leaving the ground only needs to reach it's take-off airspeed, relative to that wind. (So if it is taking off into a headwind of 30 mph, and if it become airborne at 100mph, this will occur at a ground speed of 70 mph in this situation, as 70mph plus 30 mph gives the air a speed of 100 mph over the wing surfaces and lifts the plane off the ground.

6. Once in the air the plane can fly in any direction it wants, and its air speed will depend on how much power the engines are set to generate. Its ground speed will be the product of its airspeed plus or minus the net wind speed at any given time in the direction of travel. In (for example) a favourable and strong Jet Stream, the plane can get from A to b significantly faster, using significantly less fuel. Into a headwind, the plane will conversely need to apply extra power to increase airspeed, if it wants to maintain the desired groundspeed and land at the desired time.

7. The Earth's spin is not really anything to do with it, because as I have explained, the atmosphere overall (local currents notwithstanding) as a whole, spins at the same rate as the Earth spins. If you want to look at it another way, if a plane is on a runway which is "spinning eastward at 1000 mph" and wants to fly east, it will need to achieve its takeoff speed in an easterly direction. If that is 150 mph then as the plane leaves the runway, you could say it is travelling eastwards at 1,150 mph, if you take into account the Earth's spin, but of course you don't, any more than it would be useful to claim the plane was travelling eastward at 1000 mph as it stood on the tarmac. It isn't. Relative to the globe, and therefore relative to our arbitrary compass points, the stationary plane isn't travelling in any direction, for the purposes of us humans on the surface of the planet, or indeed its passengers. They can sit on the stationary plane for 24 hours, and will by then have "travelled" one spin of the globe, at 1000 mph or whatever, if you want to measure their journey through space in that vector, but unfortunately for them, that will position them in precisely the same spot as they started off from, because the ground they are on has done precisely the same journey.

From the plane's perspective, it hasn't moved at all. At least, not relative to the planet it sits on. If however the pilot wanted to know how far his plane had moved through space, then that would be quite a different matter. For just one example, we're in the Milky Way galaxy and that galaxy is moving at 1.3 million mph (2.1 million kmh), in the direction of the constellations Leo and Virgo. And so therefore, give or take the necessary local adjustments for local factors such as our speed of rotation around the Sun, and the speed of rotation of the solar system around the Milky Way, am I, and so are you.

1.3 million mph is quite a rate of progress in one sense, but not much compared to the speed of light, which is in round figures 670 million mph.

It's doing both. The 1500 mph is its speed through local space. To get this, just remember that as it sits stationary on the ground, the plane is also travelling (in your example) at 1000mph with the Earth's rotation. But for people sitting on the plane waiting to take off, that in their frame of reference equals a speed of zero. Because the plane is moving at the same speed as the ground.

=#FF0000Eyeroll
Again you fail to answer a direct question and bring up nonsensical plagiarized gibberish. Hurricanes, space and windcharts have got nothing to with this easy question .

What speed is this eastward bound plane travelling if the 1000 mph ball is spinning eastward. 500 or 1500. ? Its not a hard question.

I think he's putting alternate scenarios into the equation in an attempt to throw you off Stanley. 500mph if its here 1500mph if its their. He simply doesn't know himself. Ha.

It was a detailed if summarized explanation, in good faith, in answer to what I thought was a straight question. I afforded you the courtesy of a full answer to your question. I note your aggressive "nonsensical plagiarized gibberish" barb with regret though sadly not surprise, but my response was none of those things. If there's anything you can't understand then read it more carefully.

The answer you want is very well explained in my answer. For the purposes of the passengers and their desire to reach a specific destination, the plane is going at 500 mph.

If you want for some reason to take into account the rotation speed of the Earth, then from that frame of reference the plane is also going at 1500 mph. But in that frame of reference was travelling at 1000mph whilst stationary on the runway. It isn't therefore a useful frame of reference.

And if you want to take into account the speed of the Earth, as a part of the galaxy, through space, the plane is also travelling at approx. 1.3 million mph. But that is also a pretty irrelevant frame of reference.

It's not a hard answer. It's very simple. Different speeds. All true, from the respective frames of reference.