'Unprecedented' images of Martian Moon Deimos up close and personal

a reply to: InachMarbank

By who and from where also for what purpose?

Sorry, but it has to be said.

You really are a special kind of nuts.

a reply to: InachMarbank

So there is a place where your firmament meets the land?

And praytell where is that located geographically speaking, how did we miss that?

a reply to: andy06shake

My guess is from UFOs. For the purpose of fertilizing wild plants, which is for the purpose of creating oxygen.

a reply to: andy06shake

Antarctica. Looks like a tough hike to make.

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: UpThenDown

Not nearly as heavy as Earth.

It’s supported at the base.

If you say it’s connected at the base

Part of the glass is actually on planet earth ?

And your quite happy that a piece of glass 402,132,860,000 tonnes could be supported through millennia and never need any repairs / cleaning

a reply to: UpThenDown

Might be quite a challenge to find it in the middle of Antarctica.

It’s cleaned by ozone and airborne viruses from the inside. From the outside, I don’t think there’s anything to get it dirty.

And it did need repairs after the “flood” which happened near the borders of Libya, Egypt, Sudan, and is evidenced by 80 by 30 miles of glass fields in that area.

Another very obvious point you all are missing is how the Earth could rotate at 1000 miles per hour at the equator, and not rip everybody apart, if there were no glass shield to protect from the wind. Would you fly a commercial airplane with the windows open???

Of course that’s aside from the absolutely absurd theory that the sun is pulling the Earth around it at 666000 mph without utterly crushing every thing!

My comment is pointing to the Soviets not believing NASA is fake. If the Soviets had proof NASA was faking the space program and they didn't call NASA out then the Soviets were handing the US a massive propaganda victory. Do people understand how heavily the Soviets were invested in propaganda? What I'm saying is: giant plot hole in the NASA is completely fake theory. 'They were in it together' is too broad a generalization to cover how extensive the vying and animosity there was between the Soviets and the West. And NASA could be faking some of their space station releases now to see what they can get past people. a reply to: andy06shake

a reply to: Dionysaur

The Soviet space program was also fake. If they called out the NASA program as fake they would be calling themselves out as fake too. The big lie would unravel.

Not good enough. The Soviets were handing the US a massive propaganda victory. What makes more sense is that NASA will fake some things to save money because of budget constraints and to see what they can get away with. Real, real, real...fake. And the Soviets were going to lose the big game just to protect their space program? That is the hoax.

a reply to: Dionysaur

The space programs of all nations are fake. This much I am absolutely certain of.

IMO:

The reason space programs began was to deny satellites were UFOs.

In this sense the victory was of national governments over the populations whose minds they govern.

The Russian government does not give 2 craps if the USA government fakes the moon landing before they do, as long as Americans buy the big lie.

All either government cares about is maintaining supremacy and dominance over their respective populations.

Neither can have their populations thinking that there is a greater governing force out there.

That's plausible for the coverup. Are the flying craft it our skies only satellites, though?

a reply to: InachMarbank

Not sure finding something the size of what you are suggesting would be a challenge but if that’s what you believe

Next questions if you have time

What about condensation from water evaporation?

And back to the point of nations launching internal meteors, what are they using to launch them at speeds of 40 miles per second

a reply to: InachMarbank

Let me guess ice wall?

That's just not true you can even go on holiday there in this day of age if you have the funds and the will to go.

a reply to: InachMarbank

Well, that doesn't sound bat crap crazy in the slightest.

And i don't quite think you understand how plants fertilise one another but it's certainly not via meteor strike.

You see pollen is carried by insects or blown by the wind from one flower to another.

Pollination has nothing to do with meteor strikes period.

a reply to: Dionysaur

Well if it makes sense you will be able to provide proof or such ramblings.

Real proof that is, of the tangible sort.

Where is that now?

a reply to: Dionysaur

Do people understand how heavily the Soviets were invested in propaganda?

Yes, but they were also invested in ICBM development and space programs just like the USA, hence Sputnik was launched into a low Earth orbit in 1957 as part of the Soviet space program.

What I'm saying is: giant plot hole in the NASA is completely fake theory. 'They were in it together' is too broad a generalization to cover how extensive the vying and animosity there was between the Soviets and the West.

Again if you could simply provide evidence to back up your claims that might be helpful.

And NASA could be faking some of their space station releases now to see what they can get past people.

So do you believe they went to the moon and/or launched the Voyager and Pioneer probes since you obviously don't believe in the ISS?

Space is very real, same with the programs associated with such and the universe is rather a big place.

a reply to: andy06shake

Plants need nutrients from the soil. Soil nutrients are called fertilizer. Are you suggesting plants can get all their nutrients from pollination??? That doesn’t sound ignorant at all.

Here’s some observations about the site of a meteor blast.

Following the 1908 Tunguska meteoritic blast.

"After 1958, expeditions to the Tunguska region also noted genetic changes in the plants at the fall point
since 1908. There was accelerated growth both in new trees and in those damaged by the explosion. In
some cases, a fungus infection had spread over the dead wood, then been covered by the wild new
growth. Examination of growth rings on living trees showed that around the period of the blast there
was a noticeable increase in cell production; the rings were both wider and more pronounced. Those
before 1908 varied from .04 to 2 millimeters in width, while after the blast they became as wide as 5 to
10 millimeters. Trees which germinated after the explosion would normally have grown to about 23 to
26 feet in height by 1958; instead, they towered between 55 and 72 feet high. Some of those which
survived the blast were now almost four times their expected girth.
Zolotov's 1959 expedition drew attention to these anomalies, and Florensky's 1961 party made detailed
examinations. The latter's report stated that "the features of accelerated tree growth established in
1958 have been confirmed by a great volume of data and are peculiar to the central region of the impact
area. In view of the fact that the causes of the phenomena are not clear, work along this line should be continued." Later the report said, "Although literature sources indicate that the aftereffects of ordinary forest fires and forest uprooting with which we are familiar from European silviculture should not last longer than 15 to 20 years, they persist, occasionally without noticeable abatement, for a period of 40 to 50 years in the area of the meteorite fall. V. I. Nekrasov [participant in 1961 expedition] has expressed doubt as to the possibility of explaining this phenomenon in terms of purely ecological factors." Thinking
that meteoric dust may have fertilized the area so as to encourage growth, the 1961 party planted test
areas of grain to see if it grew better than in traditional soil. It did not, proving that whatever affected the trees at the fall point did so only at the instant of the blast and for a short time thereafter."

a reply to: andy06shake

No. Probably more likely a mountain of glass in the dead center of the continent. Antarctica has barely been discovered. Good luck trying to get to the middle of Antarctica without being killed. Cut the crap about vacations in Antarctica.

a reply to: UpThenDown

Almost all water condensation happens at lower altitudes where clouds are about 6 miles high.

Very little if any should make it 60 miles high. Rarely you see noctilucent clouds that are about 50 miles high.

Like satellites are technology too advanced for me to explain, so is the technology that is used to launch meteorites.