• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why not admit that Hubble is lost and gone ?

smartcooky said:
This is the single common thing that undermines the vast majority of Conspiracy Theories.

The CT nut bars can all wax lyrical about how "this" doesn't fit, and "that" doesn't fit, and there's this (imagined) anomaly, and that (imagined) anomaly, but ultimately.... ultimately, the CT nuts are never able to provide a motive for the conspirators to perpetrate their conspiracy.
Click to expand...

^^^exactly this

As a bartender, I met so many *********** loons it was unreal. (and they usually weren't drunks, they came to the bar because it was an accessible public venue for their rants.)

99% of these CTs come down to this: Why is X group doing Y to deceive us? ***** and giggles?

Unfortunately, it usually just leads you further down the rabbit-hole as they come up with ANOTHER conspiracy theory to explain the motive for the first one, and the merry-go-round just gets faster and faster.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
99% of these CTs come down to this: Why is X group doing Y to deceive us? ***** and giggles?
Click to expand...

And I've never met a conspiracy that didn't for some reason have the conspirators using two totally different, at times even contradictory lies for no good reason.

Okay so if NASA is willing to lie and say the Hubble is still up there and are capable of maintaining that lie from the public... why did they even go through the effort of launching the Hubble in the first place? Never even build the damn thing, fake all the pictures in Photoshop, and spend the money on hookers and blow.

This almost always the flaw in conspiracy theories, the idea that the conspirators just pick random points to either stop or start lying with there is no benefit to them in it.
 
Unfortunately in my experience a fair percentage of CTs don't think there has to be a motive beyond "they are I charge, and they are telling lies".

As far as I can tell a lot of CTists are drawn by alure not of solving the puzzle, or explaining the lie, but of being the only guy in the room smart enough to see the lie. Let somebody else worry about the details and evidence, as long as the CTist can applaud themselves for not being fooled. It appears this is why they are so quick to applaud other fringe thinkers, even those who contradict them, for also not being fooled. As long as you agree the majority are sheeple, and "They" are controlling stuff, then you are in the club.

I have seen CTists by the dozen willing to poke holes in an official story. Those who are willing to prove their claims? Not so much. Those willing to sneer and claim superior education, or intellect? Far more...
 
JoeBentley said:
And I've never met a conspiracy that didn't for some reason have the conspirators using two totally different, at times even contradictory lies for no good reason.

Okay so if NASA is willing to lie and say the Hubble is still up there and are capable of maintaining that lie from the public... why did they even go through the effort of launching the Hubble in the first place? Never even build the damn thing, fake all the pictures in Photoshop, and spend the money on hookers and blow.

This almost always the flaw in conspiracy theories, the idea that the conspirators just pick random points to either stop or start lying with there is no benefit to them in it.
Click to expand...

After all - that's exactly what they did with Apollo!

:rolleyes:
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Not a coherent one, no.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be coherent, let alone be consistent with reality. The OP is simply part of an ongoing troll. The fact that the poster has no idea what he is talking about is actually part of the troll; it makes it easier to simply make up stuff - or more accurately, to regurgitate the latest drivel found on some crackpot site.

Never mind that any layman with a high-school education can see how asinine the OP claims are with a few minutes of research; the point is not to be correct, but to be irritating enough that the grown-ups pay some attention to the troll.
 
MikeG said:
conspiracy theories
Click to expand...


Yea...those plans by 2 or more people never EVER happen :rolleyes:


Why would a flat earther like Bassano have any conspiracy theories about NASA, I wonder?
Click to expand...


I'm just "Spit-Balling" here but maybe because 'nasa' was to be birthed and Headed by NAZIS as a result of Operation Paperclip....

[IMGw=840]https://evbdn.eventbrite.com/s3-s3/eventlogos/85795435/anniejacobsen2-1.jpg[/IMGw]

:covereyes. Russia took the rest.


This fruit loop...
Click to expand...


Ad Hominem (Fallacy)
Appeal to Ridicule (Fallacy)
2nd grade name calling in lieu of any coherent substantive arguments.


The man's a half-wit.
Click to expand...


Ad Hominem (Fallacy)
Appeal to Ridicule (Fallacy)
2nd grade name calling in lieu of any coherent substantive arguments.



...also thinks the ISS is a fraud.
Click to expand...


It is. Start @ 9:45 -- www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuKTENd1wTc

regards

Edited by jsfisher: 
Image resized to reasonable width.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought NASA was birthed by black magicians and the sexually liberated, and simply employed Nazis?
 
Daniel, are you also of the opinion that the Hubble is lost?

Have you looked for it yourself?
 
NASA is capitalised, Nazi is not.

Daniel said:
I'm just "Spit-Balling" here but maybe because 'nasa' was to be birthed and Headed by NAZIS as a result of Operation Paperclip....
Click to expand...
FYI, NASA was birthed by president Eisenhower and the United States Congress.
No Nazi was ever head of NASA, these gentlemen were: List of Administrators of NASA.

Von Braun and his team of rocket engineers were only transferred from the US Army to NASA in 1960, when it was decided that NASA needed a BFR.
Von Braun was the director of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, from 1960 to 1970.
MSFC is the place where NASA develops rockets, an eminently reasonable place to employ rocket engineers.

Honestly, it is as if CTers pass on their 'information' Human Centipede style.
The notion of doing something as novel as cracking open a book to do actual research seems to bewilder them.
 
Daniel said:
I'm just "Spit-Balling" here but maybe because 'nasa' was to be birthed and Headed by NAZIS as a result of Operation Paperclip....

Russia took the rest.
Click to expand...

Read a book.

The US took Nazi rocket engineers precisely to stop the USSR getting hold of them.

After they got them they didn't really know what to do with them, they were deeply mistrusted and were sidelined in the US's rocket development programme for many years. It was only after many very public cock-ups that they were finally allowed some input.
 
smartcooky said:
Now, if you want to see some real "seat of the pants" science, look no further than this....(its something of a TL;DR but it IS worth the read)

In 2015, a young Nelson high school Third Form student (US 9th Grade) made an unusual entry in that year's Cawthron Institute Science Fair. Following is a reprint (with the student and her mum's permission) of her presentation, which was called - SPEEDY SATELLITES.

Question​

How many times does the International Space Station orbit the earth in one day?

Hypothesis​

I think that the space station will go around the earth 7 or 8 times a day because it seemed to be traveling extremely fast when I saw it.


IMO, this is rough science it is very best.
Click to expand...


LOL, Thanks!! It just get's Better and Better! "rough" and "seat of the pants" Science is close :cool:. I'd characterize it more aptly as Super Duper PSEUDO "Science".

Have you ever heard of the Scientific Method, by chance? It's this....

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

For brevity, let's focus on the highlighted: (Step 1 Observe a Phenomenon):


It "appears" the First Step in the Scientific Method is somewhat confusing to most. It's not: "Make an Observation" or "Ask a Question" or "Conjure a Phenomenon"; it's "OBSERVE A PHENOMENON".
It's an "ACTION" that you OBSERVE, that must be based in " Reality " so as to afford the ability to TEST it. It's also NOT just "observe" as in observe "Nouns" (rock, fossil, et al)...you have to Observe a "Phenomenon", an action/verb tense. And it has to be repeatable, it can't be a "One-Off" event...if so, How can you TEST it? ...

"No phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon."
Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize, Physics), as quoted in; Science and Ultimate Reality; Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity: Cambridge University Press, p. 209

If you try and circumvent The Scientific Method and Hypothesize Observations of Nouns/Make an Observation, this is what you're reduced to (an example)...

I Observe a Tree "Noun". What's the Hypothesis...? ...

How did this Tree Form? (Invalid, not Observed)
What circumstances led to this Tree growing in my backyard? (Invalid, not Observed)
The Tree formed by evolution. (Invalid, not Observed). And lol, you have a Begging The Question Fallacy in the Hypothesis.
* btw, these are not VALID Scientific Hypotheses.

OK what's the TEST? Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis, then please elucidate...
The Independent Variable and what are you measuring (Dependent Variable) ?

"You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations."--
www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm

OK, lets Hypothesize an Explanation which accounts for ALL the Observations.... So with our Tree:

Since we just "Observe the Tree", how do we account for all the Observations? THIS IS YOUR ONLY RECOURSE (Each and every Time you just "Make an Observation" of Nouns): Your Hypothesis from the Trainwreck Observation...

[In the daytime] Open your Eyelids then billions of bits of data hit the Retina which the Photo-Receptors have to ENCODE then send to the Visual Cortex for DECODING (Symbolic Logic)--- which btw, the Laws of Physics and Biochemistry have no Symbolic Logic Functions --- Viola, A Tree!

The Independent Variable here... is YOUR EYELIDS !!

It's OBSERVE a PHENOMENON, not just "Make an Observation"--- of Nouns OR "Ask a Question"!!


** And **...
the 'question' could have been answered by a simple "LITERATURE REVIEW":
ISS
"revolutions per day: 15.54772489"
http://heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=25544


Step 3 Hypothesis:

Ya see...

"Forming Testable Hypotheses:

The key word is testable. That is, you will perform a test of how two variables might be related. This is when you are doing a real experiment. You are testing variables.

Formalized Hypotheses example: If skin cancer is related to ultraviolet light , then people with a high exposure to uv light will have a higher frequency of skin cancer.
If leaf color change is related to temperature , then exposing plants to low temperatures will result in changes in leaf color.
Notice that these statements contain the words , if and then. They are necessary in a formalized hypothesis.

Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent." The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results.
The ultimate value of a formalized hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.
Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “if” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “then” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment. An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion."
www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm

Scientific Hypotheses. Scientific Hypotheses contain " Independent Variables ".

"Independent Variables" are what the Scientist "MANIPULATES" to TEST it's EFFECT.... "Dependent Variables"... so as to make "PREDICTIONS". It's a "Cause and Effect" motif.

If you don't have viable "Independent Variables" you don't have.....

" SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES "

If you don't have " SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES ", you don't have " SCIENCE "! Hard Stop!!

Here's the 'hypothesis' you posted...

'I think that the space station will go around the earth 7 or 8 times a day because it seemed to be traveling extremely fast when I saw it.'

If that's a Scientific Hypothesis... then I'm a Mau Mau Fighter Pilot !!!

What's the "Independent Variable" here...Imagination/Conjecture "I think"??

Now, I'm not impugning the Students Integrity/Acumen here, she's merely regurgitating "Conceptually" what she's been taught; BUT her 'teachers' need to pass 5th Grade General Science BEFORE being allowed to propagate nonsense!!!


How bout this one:

Question​

Do Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragons Exist?

Hypothesis​

I think if I found unexplained Scorch/Burn Marks anywhere, I can reasonably conclude their existence...the observations are consistent with the postulate. :eye-poppi


He is an amateur astronomer, a physics and cosmology buff, and all-around very smart man; awarded the ONZM (Officer of the NZ Order of Merit) for services to Astronomy in the Queen's Birthday Honours list in 1999.
Click to expand...


Ahhh, 'astronomy'/'astrophysics'/'cosmology' aren't "Science" :rolleyes: I'd bet the farm you have no idea why?


ps. noted all the posts "Singing The Praises' of this "alleged" Science :cool:

Nothing like "Hammering The C4 Fire", Unsolicited!! Priceless :thumbsup:


And BTW...this is just a dressed up Begging The Question Fallacy: The ISS, just like it's fairytale sister "Hubble", is no more 'orbiting' the Earth than Humpty Dumpty is 'orbiting' Pluto.

You don't agree?? Please provide Empirical Evidence to the contrary...?


regards
 
Daniel said:
...snip....[/URL]
Click to expand...

So you've stepped into Malbec shoes eh? Might help to read the thread.

Oh and Malbec's style is to constantly tell everyone how smart he is then contradict himself by posting a booboo.

Are you going to do the same?

lol
 
And BTW...this is just a dressed up Begging The Question Fallacy: The ISS, just like it's fairytale sister "Hubble", is no more 'orbiting' the Earth than Humpty Dumpty is 'orbiting' Pluto.

You don't agree?? Please provide Empirical Evidence to the contrary...?
Click to expand...

Why? you eould just ignore it as you ignore the evidence for the Coriolis effect.

You just quoted the experiment and it's results that confirm that the published orbits and velocity of the ISS are exactly as advertised.
You yourself can go outside at the published time and look in the published direction and see this for yourself.
 
So what did I see if it was not the ISS? What follows the described orbital path?
 
AdamSK said:
Have you looked for it at the location it is supposed to be in the sky?
Click to expand...


Why?? "LOOKING" (Observing) is not TESTS. Observe this...

Hubble Telescope:

So the Hubble Telescope (HST) @ ~340 Miles above the Earth. "Hubble doesn't even have a Propulsion System so it can't possibly change it's orbit by itself" (HST Deputy Missions Operation Manager --- Mike Myslinski NASA)-- Planate Veritas Phone Interview.

Even though its about 100 miles above the ISS, HST still suffers from Orbital Decay (Atmospheric Drag). There are many variables to consider (Sun Cycle ect); however, we can reasonably calculate a "Ball Park" figure. I've seen a few approximations for the ISS orbital decay....it comes in about 1-2 miles every 95 minutes or so (1 Orbit). Both ISS and Hubble orbit the Earth roughly 15 times/day ( www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=20580 )

The last servicing mission for HST was 11 May 2009 (STS-125). So from then until this year 11 May 2016 is 7 Years.

Let's give an EXTREME benefit of the doubt and say HST only suffers Orbital Decay @ a Quarter of a Mile per Orbit. So....

Hubble Telescope Altitude: 340 Miles


Loss in altitude per day (15 orbits): 3.75 miles

Loss in altitude per year: 1368 miles !!!

Loss in altitude in 7 YEARS: 9,581 Miles !!!!

The Hubble Telescope should be 9,574 Miles beneath the Mariana Trench !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


1/8th of a Mile 'Orbital Decay' per orbit...

Loss in altitude per day: 1.87 Miles

Loss in altitude per year: 684 Miles

Loss of altitude in 7 Years: 4,790 Miles

The Hubble Telescope should be 4,784 Miles beneath the Mariana Trench !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


1/16th of a Mile 'Orbital Decay' per orbit ...

Loss in altitude per day: .93 Miles

Loss in altitude per year: 342 Miles

Loss of altitude in 7 Years: 2,395 Miles

The Hubble Telescope should be 2,389 Miles beneath the Mariana Trench !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


oy vey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom