One thing no one can disprove...

[zorgon]

I'm demanding they "put up or shut up" or, like Carl Sagan used to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Well in this case since the majority of the world knows that rockets work in space because all they have to do is look UP and see the satellites in orbit and the ISS fly overhead. Their cell phone signals bounce off satellites and go around the world so we know that they were put into orbit.

So at this point it is on YOU to provide your "extraordinary proof" because it is YOU making the "extraordinary claim"

It's funny how on a forum such as this, which is supposedly devoted to questioning what we are told by the PowersThatBe(tm)--especially NASA, that this notion would encounter such resistance.

No that is not what we are devoted to. We do not throw out real science in our search for more answers

It seems double minded to doubt what authorities say on the one hand and simultaneously attack anyone who questions said authorities with the other, because anyone who would question what authorities tell them is a tin foil hat nutjob even though the authorities are believed to be liars. 

In the case of rockets in space their is no need to believe or dis believe the authorities. We can track the evidence ourselves. Amateur trackers have followed the X37 space plan make changes in orbit. If the rockets didn't work, then how would it change orbit?

[Wrabbit2000]

Well, I do appreciate the lengthy reply. My points my run along with others who posted after I last did, but I'll reply to what you wrote to me.

It's funny how even though space is quite a different environment than that of terra firma people just assume things must work the same up there as they do down here.

I don't assume anything. In fact, I tend to laugh at people who do, as it normally makes an ass out of them and proves the old saying true. We have over 50 years of chemical rockets delivering all shapes and sizes of objects to Earth Orbit and beyond for successful space flight. There is no assuming involved. It's watching the time tested and long proven methods which were considered old and well proven before I was born.

That's a point I've expounded on in previous posts: In the vacuum of space there is no "release of great pressure" from the nozzle of a rocket engine because the exhaust gases themselves are not *under* pressure.

Well, I suppose I'll put this very simply. I don't recognize you as possessing any credentials or authority by which to claim superior positions for data, and you're supplying nothing but your own very shaky personal opinions as proof of claims against basic, simple physics and known science.

If you can begin to support or at least show reason to think you may be onto something....aside from pure personal opinion or other blogs to support a blog post? I'll be happy to discuss this...but you lost me for chat when you threw out well established science as if it were as kooky as a theory suggesting physics just stop functioning at the line into space.

[Norval]

Zorgon posted enough EVIDENCE for me to say, , ,

Jets DO NOT work in space, rockets DO work in space.

Nuff said. sheeeeeeeeeesh 18 freakin pages of this crapola?

[thorfourwinds]

I believe you--I really do. If you say so it must be true especially with that image to back it up.
After all, images equate to reality. 

Published on Dec 22, 2014
Watch Earth roll by through the perspective of ESA astronaut Alexander Gerst in this six-minute timelapse video from space. Combining 12,500 images taken by Alexander during his six-month Blue Dot mission on the International Space Station, this Ultra High Definition video shows the best our beautiful planet has to offer.

Marvel at the auroras, sunrises, clouds, stars, oceans, the Milky Way, the International Space Station, lightning, cities at night, spacecraft and the thin band of atmosphere that protects us from space.

Often while conducting scientific experiments or docking spacecraft Alexander would set cameras to automatically take pictures at regular intervals.

Combining these images gives the timelapse effect seen in this video.

Watch the video in 4K resolution for the best effect and find out more about Alexander Gerst's Blue Dot mission here: http://www.esa.int/BlueDot

[Logos]

I never liked that Carl Sagan expression, as the proof only needs to be correct, it doesn't need to be extraordinary to proof something is real, but I never really liked Carl Sagan either. Agreed, and I never liked Sagan either.

Anyway, I think all those satellites around us prove that the system works, so I think that anyone saying that's not true are the ones that need to prove their point. There is no such proof because we can't actually observe there are "all those satellites" as the PTB claim. Your statement starts with the assumption there are "all those satellites". Again, you have it wrong: one who doubts another's claim need not prove anything. The claimant (the PTB) has the onus probandi to prove they do indeed have "all those satellites" as they would have us believe.

I don't start by considering anyone a liar, authorities or not, I always start to accept what anyone tells me, if they show enough evidence and until proven wrong.
NASA, and "authorities" in general, do not have a good track record of being truthful with the public. Therefore, I start with the assumption that this liar is lying to me until proven otherwise. Even if they weren't caught lying in the past it would behoove anyone to take what they claim with a chunk of salt simply because there's no way for anyone to prove or disprove much of what they say. And what sort of "evidence" satisfies you in regards to NASA's claims? Imagery? 

[Logos]

Well in this case since the majority of the world knows that rockets work in space because all they have to do is look UP and see the satellites in orbit and the ISS fly overhead. People aren't seeing anything that clearly looks like satellites and the purported ISS. Their cell phone signals bounce off satellites and go around the world so we know that they were put into orbit. They've been bouncing signals of the atmosphere and using repeaters for ages, so that doesn't mean there are satellites in orbit.

So at this point it is on YOU to provide your "extraordinary proof" because it is YOU making the "extraordinary claim" I'm not the claimant thus I need not prove anything.



No that is not what we are devoted to. We do not throw out real science in our search for more answers. No, you just ignore the real, published science that disagrees with your viewpoint.

In the case of rockets in space their is no need to believe or dis believe the authorities. We can track the evidence ourselves. Amateur trackers have followed the X37 space plan make changes in orbit. If the rockets didn't work, then how would it change orbit? Sure.

[Logos]

Well, I do appreciate the lengthy reply. My points my run along with others who posted after I last did, but I'll reply to what you wrote to me.

I don't assume anything. In fact, I tend to laugh at people who do, as it normally makes an ass out of them and proves the old saying true. We have over 50 years of chemical rockets delivering all shapes and sizes of objects to Earth Orbit and beyond for successful space flight. There's just a belief that rockets have been going into orbit. There is no assuming involved. There's plenty of assumption here regarding what can't be observed. It's watching the time tested and long proven methods which were considered old and well proven before I was born.

Well, I suppose I'll put this very simply. I don't recognize you as possessing any credentials or authority by which to claim superior positions for data, and you're supplying nothing but your own very shaky personal opinions as proof of claims against basic, simple physics and known science. I never claimed to possess credentials or authority. I've just presented the known, published physics that rebuts some people's "very shaky personal opinions" about certain space-related matters.

If you can begin to support or at least show reason to think you may be onto something I already have in this thread. However, if you want to ignore it and pretend I haven't repeatedly supported my position then there's little I can do about that. ....aside from pure personal opinion or other blogs to support a blog post? I'll be happy to discuss this...but you lost me for chat when you threw out well established science as if it were as kooky as a theory suggesting physics just stop functioning at the line into space. You lost me when you ignored the established physics that demonstrates what would--or should I say, "wouldn't"--happen in space.

[Logos]

Zorgon posted enough EVIDENCE for me to say, , ,

Jets DO NOT work in space, rockets DO work in space.

Nuff said. sheeeeeeeeeesh 18 freakin pages of this crapola?

No evidence, just theories on both sides. As previously stated, it's not like we can readily observe what would/wouldn't happen up there.

[Logos]

At this point we're just repeating ourselves, so there's little left to say.

[ArMaP]

There is no such proof because we can't actually observe there are "all those satellites" as the PTB claim. Your statement starts with the assumption there are "all those satellites". Again, you have it wrong: one who doubts another's claim need not prove anything. The claimant (the PTB) has the onus probandi to prove they do indeed have "all those satellites" as they would have us believe.

Does that mean that you don't believe in satellite TV, GPS, satellite photos, etc?

And there's at least one satellite I have seen (and photographed) more than once, the ISS.

NASA, and "authorities" in general, do not have a good track record of being truthful with the public. Therefore, I start with the assumption that this liar is lying to me until proven otherwise.

I don't like that approach.

But even regardless of any track record, NASA was not even the first to put a satellite in orbit, does that mean that they followed the USSR's lie when they could have shown that they were lying?

And what sort of "evidence" satisfies you in regards to NASA's claims? Imagery?

Why not imagery? How do you think they get all those satellite photos, with big kites? 

[ArMaP]

At this point we're just repeating ourselves, so there's little left to say.

You could answer this, from a post you ignored.

No work == no movement.

I think there's a definition missing in this, the definition of "work". In this context, what does "work" represents?

[Pimander]

The trouble with, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" is that anyone can say something that they don't believe is "extraordinary" and therefore demand impossible proofs.  It's nonsense basically.  Something is either true (and not extraordinary) or untrue (or unknown entirely).  None of those cases fit the definition of "extraordinary.

Carl Sagan wrote an absolutely terrible book full of things that he had no proof of called "The Demon Haunted World."  I keep a copy of that book to remind me how often people take what a scientist says to be true without looking at the evidence. 

[FreeSlave]

@ thorfourwinds

""It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, "

That quote by Wernher von Braun was about an alternate design, the single-vehicle spacecraft, instead of the multiple stages used by his rocket design, the Saturn V.

The various stages of the rocket deplete their fuel then drop away, leaving a much smaller, much less massive spacecraft behind.  This design requires much less fuel.

"Notice that the 10,000 lb thrust motors did not disturb the lunar surface, nor splash dust on those landing pods.   "

The lander was parking, so it wasn't using all of its 10,000 lbs of thrust.  Do you park your car by putting the accelerator to the floor?  No.  The thrust was around 2000 lbs at landing and there is no air between to get pushed into the surface.  Besides, the surface WAS disturbed, just not burned or scorched into a crater.

"And incredibly enough, it was also capable of blasting off from the Moon and flying 69 miles back up into lunar orbit!"

It flew into a much closer orbit to the moon, then adjusted its orbit to meet up with the orbiting Command/Service module.

Here is a video demonstrating Lunar Orbit Rendezvous:

https://youtu.be/UOnKHX1p8s4?t=3m40s


Basically, everything you've said is just uninformed opinions and bad assumptions.

[zorgon]

@ thorfourwinds

""It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, "

Sometime no matter how you try to show people... the best evidence slips right through NASA's censors 
All you Apollo Huggers out there... waiting for your explanation

[ArMaP]

All you Apollo Huggers out there... waiting for your explanation

Explanation of what?