T1B

Roux wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:57 am“When you're over water, the humidity is a bit higher, and so the index of refraction is higher, and it would cause light to bend towards the surface of the Earth.”

An unedited example:

Yes, refraction.


One laser is 95 feet under the horizon and the other laser is 285 feet under the horizon.

All-powerful refraction has selectively, and miraculously, raised one laser by 95 feet, while simultaneously raising the other laser by 285 feet, so that both lasers are now both visible on the same line, at the horizon.


Every knee shall now bow to refraction, which joins gravity as co-god of this world!

You may want to sit down for this, Poptart.

Yes, refraction is more powerful than your God. Because, you know, it actually exists and isn't imaginary.

There's no good reason to take potshots at his faith, roux. Nun... I mean, none.

If this goes back to an old thread that I missed or wasn't here for, post a link to it.

Yeah, you're right. I actually do respect people's right to their faith. Plus what I did is contrary to basic rules of persuasion, it will only make them dig their heels in deeper.

But assuming he actually gets his beliefs thru what he observes, he'll reach that conclusion eventually.

In any event, sorry Poptart.

It's no problem.

People are free to express whatever they want in here, unless it violates the rules.
Your post violated no rule that I am aware of.

Not trying to weigh in on the seriousness of the discussion but I found This reasonably entertaining

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 2:09 am Not trying to weigh in on the seriousness of the discussion but I found This reasonably entertaining

Fiatlux's twin brother, he got the brains.

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 2:09 am Not trying to weigh in on the seriousness of the discussion but I found This reasonably entertaining

Well that settles it then, eh? Flat Earth confirmed1

Can you imagine dude's halitosis though?

Chip, is your friend back on The Ice this summer (in Antarctica)?

I actually have two friends who have been to Antarctica. Both on LSU trips, one with the geology program and the other with astrophysics, or something like that. The geology professor definitely will be going back although I'm not sure when. I posted a bunch of his Antarctica pics here before, here's one of them.

StrawMan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 5:25 pm

Roux wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:57 am“When you're over water, the humidity is a bit higher, and so the index of refraction is higher, and it would cause light to bend towards the surface of the Earth.”

An unedited example:

Off topic, Fata Morgana by Steven R. Boyett is my favorite retro-Buck Rogers-esque sci-fi novel of all time. That epilogue ...

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:22 pm Off topic, Fata Morgana by Steven R. Boyett is my favorite retro-Buck Rogers-esque sci-fi novel of all time. That epilogue ...

I'll have to pick up a copy. Thanks for the recommendation!

'tart - Didn't you want to see a rocket's flight video uninterrupted from launch to round earth?

[youtube3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8DjjdujmGk&t=111s[/youtube3]

poptart wrote:There is still no uncut video of a rocket going from earth to space

It is a video of a rocket going up to an altitude of 56 kilometers.

Space supposedly starts at 100 kilometers.

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... e+begin%3F

StrawMan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 5:25 pm

Roux wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:57 am“When you're over water, the humidity is a bit higher, and so the index of refraction is higher, and it would cause light to bend towards the surface of the Earth.”

An unedited example:

As long as it isn't dropping hundreds of TIE fighters, I'm not shook.

Roux wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 7:37 pm You may want to sit down for this, Poptart.

Yes, refraction is more powerful than your God. Because, you know, it actually exists and isn't imaginary.

God is real.
The moon landing isn't.
The Earth is round.
Disclosure is a slow-drip.

StrawMan wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:22 am

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:22 pm Off topic, Fata Morgana by Steven R. Boyett is my favorite retro-Buck Rogers-esque sci-fi novel of all time. That epilogue ...

I'll have to pick up a copy. Thanks for the recommendation!

That dude needs to write more, DJ less. Hard sci-fi is like reading an instruction manual. No soul. Sci-fi which focuses on question relating to the human condition though...that's the shit. That's great, someone figured out a way to jump timelines (even by accident); ok, but then what? How does that affect those who make the jump? How does it affect those left behind, at either end of the jump(s)? Is it worth it? Do you want the world you imagine at its best, or would you rather just go home (however you define 'home') even if you don't get all of the wins?

It's why I can't deal with Turtledove. But Boyett, that boy can write.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 11:38 pm

poptart wrote:There is still no uncut video of a rocket going from earth to space

It is a video of a rocket going up to an altitude of 56 kilometers.

Space supposedly starts at 100 kilometers.

I don't normally get involved in these things, but in order to get that shot, you'd have to build a second rocket, attach a camera to it and launch it simultaneously beside the first one.

I know Orson Welles did that in 'The Magnificent Ambersons', but it's an awful lot of money to spend on production value.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 2:27 am

God is real.
The moon landing isn't.
The Earth is round.
Disclosure is a slow-drip.

Worse Haiku ever.

Dr_Phibes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 12:19 am

poptart wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 11:38 pm

poptart wrote:There is still no uncut video of a rocket going from earth to space

It is a video of a rocket going up to an altitude of 56 kilometers.

Space supposedly starts at 100 kilometers.

I don't normally get involved in these things, but in order to get that shot, you'd have to build a second rocket, attach a camera to it and launch it simultaneously beside the first one.

In the video The Seer posted, they show a rocket going 56 kilometers up, and then the video cut off.
Is there a reason why a camera cannot be attached to the second stage of the rocket, so that a rocket launch from land to space can be seen uncut?

Rockets are needle-like affairs, no different than a dart or a bullet. If you have allsorts like cameras poking out the sides, they would snap off or upset the trajectory. The resistance at the top end of a rocket is much greater than at the bottom. Thus, you cannot put cameras on the upper stages of a rocket, think of putting a massive hood ornament on an Aston Martin Valkyrie.

poptart: Did Apollo missions have a camera mounted on the outside of the command module (top of the rocket)?

ChatGPT: Yes, the Apollo missions did have cameras mounted on the outside of the command module. One of the key cameras used for this purpose was the 70mm "Hasselblad" camera, which astronauts carried to take photos during spacewalks and other activities. There were also cameras mounted on the exterior of the spacecraft, primarily for capturing images of Earth, the Moon, and the spacecraft itself in space.

For example, the Apollo 8 mission had a camera mounted on the service module (the part of the spacecraft that housed the engines and other equipment). This camera was used to capture stunning images of the Moon and Earth from space. Similarly, during later Apollo missions, additional cameras were mounted to provide various perspectives and document the journey.

So, the external cameras played a significant role in capturing some of the most iconic images of space exploration!

https://chatgpt.com/

Moon landing didn't happen, and the Apollo program was Cold War hasbara.

Tom Wolfe ain't shit (especially if the Grissom, Chaffee and White were murdered rumors are true), and the US Government needs to explain why 'moon rocks' are petrified wood. I mean, there is an explanation which doesn't involve discrediting the entire program -- but they need to be up front precisely because of the implications.

We can handle disclosure. It's no big deal.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 6:29 pm Moon landing didn't happen

You're too smart for this nonsense.

Rest up for your procedure tomorrow.

Fluids.
Listen to soothing music.
Bake cookies for the staff.
Sleep.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 7:27 pm Rest up for your procedure tomorrow.

Fluids.
Listen to soothing music.
Bake cookies for the staff.
Sleep.

They haven't ribbon-cut an executive wing just him yet? The Roux Pavilion, or Roux Tower, 36 Chambers of Roux, dang, anything?

Well, can't wait for the thank you dish PET. Hope the prognosis is good.

As for the moon landing, Candace Owens interviewed Bart Sibrel last month or so. He's a prick, with a point. He shouldn't bumrush astronauts like that, they owe him nothing -- but the questions he raises about the moon landing are legitimate.

Especially with us not going back.