DEADSKINS GIANT "FLAT EARTH" PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION....

[deadskinmask]

when they all have chips in their hands and eating bugs, they'll remember us and wish they had listened....

[Frood]

I hope they eat their hands... battered and deep fried...

Bitch and Chips

[deadskinmask]

I hope they eat their hands... battered and deep fried...

Bitch and Chips

lol.... its fuckin scary how fast this is picking up steam.... every day is another level of crazy....

[Adolf Oliver Bush]

Alright, I just caught this perennial moon landing - real or fake - and figure the truth to actually lie somewhere in the middle. I'll explain.

First, I do think that successful missions have placed a number of men on our nearest celestial neighbour. "We have the technology". I'm sure that anyone who has ever bounced a LASER off the specially planted mirrors on the moon's surface can attest to this.

However, I am quite prepared to entertain the notion that the footage itself is fake, since direct video transmission requires a far greater power and bandwidth than the audio transmissions demonstrated and film emulsions have traditionally proved particularly susceptible to damage and corruption from x-rays and gamma rays. Remember, these "archival footage" documents would have been exposed to vast amounts of magnetic radiation on their two trips through the Van Allen belt, along with the constant bombardment of stellar radiation and any other sources strong enough to penetrate the heliopause.

It isn't clear that NASA were adequately aware of these phenomena, but I have to guess they had a good idea of the possibility their film stock would in all likelihood be useless. You may have heard of journalists and holidaymakers setting their exposed film cannisters aside at airport baggage checks rather than run them through the X-Ray scanners for this reason. The levels of such radiation in space are greater by magnitude of order and shielding against them quite problematic to say the least.

Which is where the rumours of Stanley Kubric faking the moon landing footage comes in. "Pics or it didn't happen" so to speak. Friend and foe alike had to be convinced that NASA had pulled off the grandest venture ever and with no genuine documentary evidence to wow the world with, NASA went with the next best thing... a "precreation" authored by one of the greatest filmmakers of our time.

So in sum... much, if not all of the footage is likely faked documentation of an event that did in fact happen.

Yes, this is theory, but one that fits the facts as I know them to be. I do not offer this as categoric proof, rather instead as a logical "Occams Razor" for your consideration.

[caskur]

Anything travelling through Van Allen's belts burn up before they reach earth except the spaceships apparently... they just came straight through intact...

 

[deadskinmask]

"as anyone whos ever bounced a lazer off the specifically planted mirrors can attest to".... lmmfao.... the whole damn surface is allegedly reflective as hell.... but theres no way they could determine which areas were MOST reflective and pass them off as "specifically planted mirrors".... okay, chief.... so they brought golf clubs, duct tape, a landline phone and tiny fuckin mirrors.... but didn't think to bring a telescope to see what they could observe 239,000 miles away from any previous vantage point.... 

[deadskinmask]

boy howdy.... you motherfuckers hug the moon almost as tight as you hug the fuckin globe.... 

[Adolf Oliver Bush]

Anything travelling through Van Allen's belts burn up before they reach earth except the spaceships apparently... they just came straight through intact...

 

I'm not so sure it's the Van Allen belts doing the burning, you get that from any object traveling at speed through the atmosphere. The friction against the gasses in our atmosphere cause the heat, and there are various shielding methods to take the brunt of that. Most of these are replaced on multiple use spacecraft between missions.

The Van Allen belts as I understand it are largely independent of this - they aren't as much a physical consideration as much as they are an electromagnetic one. The inner Van Allen belt consists mostly of highly charged protons... up to 20,000 particles per second crossing a spherical area of one square cm in all directions. Given these are ions, they are more inclined to build up charge on anything they bond with, which can really fuck up the chemistry of anything they encounter. Satellites and missions crossing South America where the belt is at its lowest altitude regularly power down much of their electronics to avoid damage and manned missions will encourage their astronauts to shield themselves between the water tanks.

The upper Van Allen belt is largely a mix of solar radiation and stellar wind... all the shit that would have otherwise bombarded the earth and significantly reduced the lifespan of anything on it. Between that ant the ozone layer, it's thought to be the only reason life could have flourished above the water in the first place. And we're sending people through that shit on the regular. The things some people do.

But yeah, whether they're burning things or not, they still represent something you don't wanna fuck with. Astronauts have commented on brief flashes in their vision as a result of high energy bombardment and I have to figure it's not just their retina's and optic nerves encountering this bombardment. I'd be interested to learn the rate of cancers in this particular line of work.

[deadskinmask]

fuckin "van allen belts".... you motherfuckers need therapy.... 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/uIltpfF01zX4/

[Adolf Oliver Bush]

"as anyone whos ever bounced a lazer off the specifically planted mirrors can attest to".... lmmfao.... the whole damn surface is allegedly reflective as hell.... but theres no way they could determine which areas were MOST reflective and pass them off as "specifically planted mirrors".... okay, chief.... so they brought golf clubs, duct tape, a landline phone and tiny fuckin mirrors.... but didn't think to bring a telescope to see what they could observe 239,000 miles away from any previous vantage point.... 

A high albedo does not necessarily confer a mirror finish and I'm surprised you would attempt to conflate the two. I figured you for being smarter than that. Yes, you can bounce a light off a highly reflective surface, the light scattering however does not afford as accurate a measurement as something that can reflect a pulsed beam of coherent light back to it's source.

I'm sure the telescope reference has some significance in your mind, but it's totally lost on me. How about you put away your sarcasm for five minutes on your next reply so we might have a reasoned discussion... unless you're angling for me to respond in the kind of disdainful vein and euphemistic rhetoric that would make even Biggie Smiles blush?

Wait... I believe I have your answer...

fuckin "van allen belts".... you motherfuckers need therapy.... 

More like you need a brain enema to flush a lifetime of turds from your otherise vacuum packed skull, Dumpskunkminge. Or maybe you might prefer to fondle your furry little monkeynuts a little harder before your next copraphilic ejacumenta exercise. Get yourself a good squirt going on so you don't blister your champignon bell-end unmerciful.

Here... you're gonna need this, Seamajor-lite.



Feel free to present it when you're done wanking and are ready for a civilized discussion. Or hold onto it to wipe the bloodstains from your wrinkled sphincter should I dunk this thread into The Octagon for the purposes of kicking your distended freckle all over the shop, your choice.

[deadskinmask]

what discussion, chief? you already said "the footage is most likely faked".... thats good enough for me.... you wanna ascribe a whole reason why there are small parts of the moon that allegedly reflect a lazer.... i have no way of knowing the actual reason why.... but having technology is not the same as having the ability.... we ARE NOT.... NOR HAVE WE EVER - gone past the firmament....

[Adolf Oliver Bush]

what discussion, chief? you already said "the footage is most likely faked".... thats good enough for me.... you wanna ascribe a whole reason why there are small parts of the moon that allegedly reflect a lazer.... i have no way of knowing the actual reason why.... but having technology is not the same as having the ability.... we ARE NOT.... NOR HAVE WE EVER - gone past the firmament....

Let me guess, this is the same "firmament" that is responsible for bouncing low energy radio signals back to your fundament while the microwaves shoot straight up the Mighty and All Powerful Creator, giving him the kinds of assgasms us mere mortals might only dream of, right?

Sorry, not buying it. This is definitely one field of scientific study you'll have to work to disprove, I'm well acquainted with how radio signals propagate, I was sending QSO's and QSL's to various distant radio stations as a kid and by adulthood understood the mechanisms by which it happened, enough to even ballpark what areas on your "flat disc" were likely to be received on my shortwave radio. For your purposes, if this was being done by your "firmament", then I can tell you this much... it's about as firm as the soft spot on the back of your head. Do try not to let too many doorhandles hit you in it, ya mental midget in an Ed Gein mask.

Furthermore, technology without the ability to use it? Now I know you're overdosing on the Crayolas. Om nom nommity nom - try loosening the straps on your sped helmet and attend a high school physics class. LASERs are plentiful these days, pretty much any decent science department can get a hold of one (even the dopey bastards that are trying to get creationism taught in biology class) and point it in the right direction. I've already done it,,, years ago... and have satisfied to my own requirements there are high incidence reflective spaces up there that can only be accounted for someone bothering to put them up there in the first place.

So shove your impenetrable firmament where the sun don't shine, Shitlock. Then grab your ankles and ask in your most submissive and respectful tones for me to kick it out the back of your neck. I've had this sort of bullshit out with Lokmar; he couldn't stump up the proof for his outrageous airclaims and I'll be damned if I'm gonna wear it from someone who should know better.

[deadskinmask]

i think we are surrounded by a semitransparent and indestructible firmament - url="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl



i also believe we are surrounded entirely by a giant ice wall we call antarctica - url="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Highjump">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Highjump



and i believe we are seated on a immovable and indestructible surface - url="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mohole">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mohole

i also believe that the dead center of earth is a large magnetic mountain - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupes_Nigra

we can agree that the "moon landing footage" is fake.... we can agree that the "totally real pictures" of earth are admittedly composite images.... outside of that, everything else is speculation as "why is that".... i don't dabble in speculation when i can avoid it....

[deadskinmask]

we "have the technology" to cool "the center of the earth".... we don't "have the ability" to get there.... i get that you may be trying to push a verbal altercation.... thats cool.... i'm not though....

[Adolf Oliver Bush]

i think we are surrounded by a semitransparent and indestructible firmament - i also believe we are surrounded entirely by a giant ice wall we call antarctica - and i believe we are seated on a immovable and indestructible surface - i also believe that the dead center of earth is a large magnetic mountain -

All very well and good if you can prove it via your own observation and experimentation. Otherwise you are taking the word of "experts" at face value.

I've heard these "experts", I have made my observations based on various ones of their say-so. For instance, when I was thirteen years old, I was handed the controls of a Piper Warrior aircraft. My parents paid the fuel costs, one of my grandparent's ex-airforce buddies rode shotgun.

He handled the takeoff and landing, which left me free to observe. And strangely enough, the further up we went, the more I saw. Stuff I couldn't see from the ground started materializing on the horizon, with more and more marching in behind it the higher we got.

Almost as though the ground was.... curved. Fucken fancy that, eh? This flat disc wasn't flat at all! Fuck me rigid, what a fucken revalation!

Well, the waters were flat I guess... no carbonation. A lucky thing I guess, or otherwise the sparkly bubbles would get up peoples noses when they went surfing. Fat fucks would be beaching themselves on the sands on the regular, sucking up the sweet bubbly briney goodness. Fuck that noise, I'm glad the ocean isn't made of 7Up.

But the land? Definitely fucken bent. So much for a flat disc.

Add to this my apparently better than average working knowledge of the Van Allen belt, something which apparently pounds your prostate until you felt it necessary to giggle like a schoolgirl. It was my bent for dx listening that led my towards researching it, especially the times past when I would pick a station while my parents would drive the breadth of Australia, amusing myself by logging the station's events as the station faded in and out. Sent the last events on the back of a postcard from the next roadhouse, found a bunch of the station's merch waiting for me on my return to Melbourne. Yay Van Allen belt.

we can agree that the "moon landing footage" is fake.... we can agree that the "totally real pictures" of earth are admittedly composite images.... outside of that, everything else is speculation as "why is that".... i don't dabble in speculation when i can avoid it....

Yeah well I do. I'll entertain any story until I've figured out it doesn't fit. One thing I have noticed, composite or no, the "blue marble" has way too many clouds covering to surface on all the shots I've seen, so I can't accurately guage how much of the surface it visible, but certainly enough to know that any "ring of Antarctica" is absent from the edge.

Which means only one of two things - either it is hiding behind the horizon of an increasingly un-flat earth... or no such ring exists at all. At least not in those photos.

I've been on enough flights to judge which is the more likely of the two scenarios. You want it proved it one way or the other to yourself, buy a plane ticket or three.


ps: I heard you lost this