For the flat Earth people!

Do Astronauts Have Sex?
In space, no one can hear you moan.

Astronaut Lisa Nowak is facing attempted murder charges after she drove nearly 1,000 miles to confront a rival for the affections of another astronaut, Bill Oefelein. Nowak said that she and Oefelein had "more than a working relationship, but less than a romantic relationship." Wait, did they ever get it on in space?


No. Nowak and Oefelein were never on the same mission, so they couldn't possibly have joined the 62-mile-high club. But some of their colleagues may well have engaged in some extraterrestrial hanky-panky. Former and current astronauts don't like to talk about space-shuttle sex, and NASA says that if it's ever happened, the agency doesn't know anything about it. (NASA has never conducted official experiments on animal reproduction in space, says a spokesman.)

If astronauts have had space sex, it would have been very difficult. First off, there isn't much privacy up there. A regular shuttle is about as big as a 737, and the two main areas—the crew cabin and middeck—are each the size of a small office. The bathroom is little more than a seat with a curtain, and there aren't any closed rooms where two people could retreat. The space station, on the other hand, has a little more room to operate. The three-person crew generally splits up for sleeping time: Two of them bed down in a pair of tiny crew cabins at one end of the station, and the third might jump in a sleeping bag at the other end, almost 200 feet away. (The panel-and-strap design of a space bed might not be that conducive to lovemaking.) Astronauts also have a demanding work schedule, leaving them with little time or energy for messing around. Space-station crews do get time off on weekends, though, when they can watch movies, read books, play games, "and generally have a good time."

Of course, speculation has been rampant. The first mission that included both men and women launched in 1982. But on that flight, cosmonaut Svetlana Savitskaya's reputation for toughness, not to mention her married status, stamped out rumors. The first married couple went to space in 1991, when training-camp sweethearts Jan Davis and Mark Lee served together on a mission. NASA normally has a policy against letting married couples fly together, not because they're afraid they'll have sex, but because it might hurt the team dynamic. However, they made an exception for Davis and Lee since the couple got married so close to launch time. (In this photo, taken during the mission, Lee has his arm around Davis.) Both have refused to answer questions about the nature of their relationship during the mission. In the 1990s, rumors circulated about unorthodox coziness between Elena Kondakova and Valery Polyakov on a mission to the space station Mir, especially after a video got out showing Valery playfully splashing water on Elena during the flight.

The question of space sex has prompted at least one hoax. In his book The Last Mission, French author Pierre Kohler claimed that NASA had commissioned a study on sexual positions in outer space. He cited a fictional document, widely available online, that describes subjects experimenting with 10 different positions, six of which required an elastic band or sleeping-baglike tube to keep the couple together in zero gravity.

Which raises the question: Would space sex be any good? Recent research suggests it would not. For one thing, zero gravity can induce nausea—a less-than-promising sign for would-be lovers. Astronauts also perspire a lot in flight, meaning sex without gravity would likely be hot, wet, and surrounded by small droplets of sweat. In addition, people normally experience lower blood pressure in space, which means reduced blood flow, which means … well, you know what that means.
 
That Felix Baumgartner dude rode a balloon up 25 miles and jumped out of it. Of course he was still in the field of earth's gravity.

The ISS is 205 miles above the surface. 8X as far. The ISS is still with the pull of earth but its mass resists the gravity so it doesn't immediately fall back to earth. It will eventually without regular attitude boosts.

The moon has its own mass and it too resists the gravity of the earth. the gravitational pull of the moon is what fixed the capsules, vehicle, objects and people to the moon.

FLAT EARTHERS don't believe the earth is flat. They believe the land is a solid layer on top of an ocean with a thin layer of air under a dome with hanging lights that rotate which is under another oceans that is under another layer of land where God and the angel live.
 
That Felix Baumgartner dude rode a balloon up 25 miles and jumped out of it. Of course he was still in the field of earth's gravity.

The ISS is 205 miles above the surface. 8X as far. The ISS is still with the pull of earth but its mass resists the gravity so it doesn't immediately fall back to earth. It will eventually without regular attitude boosts.

The moon has its own mass and it too resists the gravity of the earth. the gravitational pull of the moon is what fixed the capsules, vehicle, objects and people to the moon.

FLAT EARTHERS don't believe the earth is flat. They believe the land is a solid layer on top of an ocean with a thin layer of air under a dome with hanging lights that rotate which is under another oceans that is under another layer of land where God and the angel live.

???

This feels like arguing about the plight of black people with christians. You start talking about economics, breaking dependency on white folx, supporting black-owned businesses, you know...tangible things. And they reply talking about Jesus coming back, the curse on Ham, etc.

Gravity (y'all's Lord and savior) is the answer for everything. The big G is your answer, your friend. That's why this shit is pointless, because y'all always pull out gravity, even though y'all use gravity to make contradictory arguments. Y'all use it to argue pulling, pushing, pausing, and whatever other justification you see fit.

You're telling me the ISS is resisting the gravitational pull of the earth now? It has it's own gravitational pull now? Is that the microgravity that @sammyjax was crying about?

Niggas wanna talk about physics but act like there is another macroscopic system on top of the one we're already in, where big circles of rock can just magically float and create their own gravitational pulls and shit. THINK, that's all I ask.

THIS is Venus viewed through a Nikon P900, a consumer grade camera you can pick up from your local Best Buy.



26499_P900_left.png


This world you live in is vastly different from what you've been taught.
 
Last edited:
Just consider that in 1865, when we were supposedly freed, that cacs let us read, but didn't let us read EVERYTHING. Consider that some knowledge they may have kept hidden to support white supremacy and world domination.....think about it.

Wool been pulled. Cake been baked.
 
If you can't get what I'm clearly saying and implying, then I don't know what to tell you.
please - explain it to me like I'm 6 y/o
In what way does a picture of Venus taken by a dslr (with no mention of the power of lens used nor shutter and apperture settings) prove or help your argument with flat earth or no gravity?
 
please - explain it to me like I'm 6 y/o
In what way does a picture of Venus taken by a dslr (with no mention of the power of lens used nor shutter and apperture settings) prove or help your argument with flat earth or no gravity?

It's the factory lens shot at an aperture/iso low enough to dim the light to see that it's not a sphere nor is it physically behaving like one.

"They believe the land is a solid layer on top of an ocean with a thin layer of air under a dome with hanging lights that rotate which is under another oceans that is under another layer of land where God and the angel live.

What I'm saying is that the p900 video looks more like what ya boy described in the quote above rather than the official explanation of a planet/sphere. The light source from Venus is supposed to be the illumination by the sun, correct?....right? So we shouldn't be seeing a fully illuminated flat circle with wave patterns, right?

Now, I don't know what the system is entirely, if there is a God/angel above, hey, that's a possibility. But if y'all wanna talk that respect the ancestors, original black man, kemet, fractal, sacred science shit with me, you gotta accept that before the white man went on his quest for world domination every ancient society including black kemet said the world was flat.

Y'all trust these cacs more than the ancestors. Y'all realize that right? Everybody was ignorant and savage until the white man showed up right??

Tesla makes more sense on a flat earth.

The pyramids as wireless energy transmitters make more sense on a flat earth.

Electromagnetism. Zero point energy!

THINK y'all, THINK.
 
???


THIS is Venus viewed through a Nikon P900, a consumer grade camera you can pick up from your local Best Buy.





This world you live in is vastly different from what you've been taught.


Simple shit you can see with your own fucking eyes.

Are these objects fake? Are we just looking at illuminations?



 
Don't laugh. These are the same people that believe, dinosaurs didn't exist, an invisible spirit and that a man rose from the grave three days later!

This is actually the dumbest shit I have heard all day. Scientifically it's more probable that god exist and Jesus rose from the grave three days later than Dinosaurs existing. You actually believe there were 70,000 pound leaf eating animals roaming the earth laying eggs? What did they eat in the winter?

:lol:
 
Simple shit you can see with your own fucking eyes.

Are these objects fake? Are we just looking at illuminations?





not talking about a heat mirage, that video is not a heat mirage.

how do you go from this NASA (.....photoshop, but this is what y'all support remember) pic of Venus...


venus_med.jpg


to this??



Anyway, I'm done for the night gentlemen. Catch me another day on this shit.

:beammeup:
 
Last edited:
This is actually the dumbest shit I have heard all day. Scientifically it's more probable that god exist and Jesus rose from the grave three days later than Dinosaurs existing. You actually believe there were 70,000 pound leaf eating animals roaming the earth laying eggs? What did they eat in the winter?

:lol:

Show proof or STFU!

Your slavemasters did an excellent job with you!
 
This is actually the dumbest shit I have heard all day. Scientifically it's more probable that god exist and Jesus rose from the grave three days later than Dinosaurs existing. You actually believe there were 70,000 pound leaf eating animals roaming the earth laying eggs? What did they eat in the winter?

:lol:

A whale weighs 400.000 pounds.
An elephants weighs 10000 pounds.
A Wooly Mammoth weighed up to 20,000 lbs.

No one has ever seen a man that has been dead for 3 days to come back.


Blue-Whale-Infostheticscom.jpg
 
Nah bro. Only rule is against fraternization. Marines mostly on land. On ship some. Mostly land tho. That's what the navy for tho. We have liberty even when in the field. When on fire watch is different. Try telling a company of marines that do 12 on 12 off not to fug some in whatever club. That's the REAL mission nigga.
That's different though.
When on land, you guys were pretty much "R&R", right?
You were technically "deployed" and all business while on the boat.
The Marines, along with the Army have strict "General Order #1" also; meaning:
-No Sex
-No alcohol
-No pornography
-No drugs
While deployed

But the funny thing is... that shit is slowly going away.
Minus the alcohol. Some places you have to be ready to fight and carry weapon at all times so you still can't have alcohol.
 
Looked at your list again and the only times those rules are evenly remotely enforced is in a combat zone. All bets off otherwise minus the drugs.
 
Looked at your list again and the only times those rules are evenly remotely enforced is in a combat zone. All bets off otherwise minus the drugs.
But yeah, that's what my deployments are.
Combat zones.
I thought you were considered deployed while on boat.
Shit, idk.
Maybe the ISS is just considered TDY and not deployed.​
 
But yeah, that's what my deployments are.
Combat zones.
I thought you were considered deployed while on boat.
Shit, idk.
Maybe the ISS is just considered TDY and not deployed.​

I mean technically you not wrong by the books either way. On boat would be fwd deployed more than likely. meu (marine expeditionary unit)
 
not talking about a heat mirage, that video is not a heat mirage.

how do you go from this NASA (.....photoshop, but this is what y'all support remember) pic of Venus...


venus_med.jpg


to this??



Anyway, I'm done for the night gentlemen. Catch me another day on this shit.

:beammeup:


It's the factory lens shot at an aperture/iso low enough to dim the light to see that it's not a sphere nor is it physically behaving like one.
dude, you are guilty of the same of thing you accused others of in this thread-
you are just repeating what some white man said
- you don't know shit about cameras or photography... but you think it may prove a point (it really doesn't)
That model Nikon is available with 2 different kit lenses (not factory lenses), for your example to make sense it would help if you knew if its a fixed or telephoto lens and at what power was it when the pic was taken and just as important
what was the shutter speed, was the aperture wide open and what is the widest opening of the aperture for that lens?
cont...

The light source from Venus is supposed to be the illumination by the sun, correct?....right? So we shouldn't be seeing a fully illuminated flat circle with wave patterns, right?
That completely depends on the camera's shutter speed and the power and aperture of the lens that was used.
was the camera on auto focus or focused manually?
you can't argue about the light being captured if you don't know how it was captured

bokeh-105mm.jpg
nikon_50G_vs_50D_bokeh.jpg


christmas-tree-decorations-video-id163086190

to
1.jpg


xmas lights:
3082084195_562fb04328.jpg



and one more thing - you can NEVER EVER EVER get a good image in low light using a cheap lens
that's the equivalent of you trying to see clearly when you wake up without wiping your eyes first...
 
dude, you are guilty of the same of thing you accused others of in this thread-
you are just repeating what some white man said
- you don't know shit about cameras or photography... but you think it may prove a point (it really doesn't)
That model Nikon is available with 2 different kit lenses (not factory lenses), for your example to make sense it would help if you knew if its a fixed or telephoto lens and at what power was it when the pic was taken and just as important
what was the shutter speed, was the aperture wide open and what is the widest opening of the aperture for that lens?
cont...

That completely depends on the camera's shutter speed and the power and aperture of the lens that was used.
was the camera on auto focus or focused manually?
you can't argue about the light being captured if you don't know how it was captured

bokeh-105mm.jpg
nikon_50G_vs_50D_bokeh.jpg


christmas-tree-decorations-video-id163086190

to
1.jpg


xmas lights:
3082084195_562fb04328.jpg



and one more thing - you can NEVER EVER EVER get a good image in low light using a cheap lens
that's the equivalent of you trying to see clearly when you wake up without wiping your eyes first...

:rolleyes2:

Showing me a bunch of bokeh and comparing that to the movement of light in the video I posted is totally irrelevant, that argument makes no sense. Obviously the shit ain't a wide angle lens, if you're zooming in on something that far away there's no way around using a telephoto, duhh. The key is having a focused image, which the P900 footage undoubtedly had, NOT some out of focus bokeh that you're trying to make mean something in this context. You're reaching like a muthafucka.

And no, I'm not just repeating what some white man said. Y'all are the ones all on NASA's nuts. I'm using scientific principles and observations to make my claims.
 
Last edited:
This is actually the dumbest shit I have heard all day. Scientifically it's more probable that god exist and Jesus rose from the grave three days later than Dinosaurs existing. You actually believe there were 70,000 pound leaf eating animals roaming the earth laying eggs? What did they eat in the winter?

:lol:
wait, you're serious?
 
Yo cashwhisperer, you may be the most ignorant bastard to ever post on bgol, b.

I say that with pity.

If you teach your or anybody else's kids that bullshit, you should be charged with a crime.

It's fucking sad, really.
 
:rolleyes2:

Showing me a bunch of bokeh and comparing that to the movement of light in the video I posted is totally irrelevant, that argument makes no sense. Obviously the shit ain't a wide angle lens, if you're zooming in on something that far away there's no way around using a telephoto, duhh. The key is having a focused image, which the P900 footage undoubtedly had, NOT some out of focus bokeh that you're showing trying to make mean something in this context. You're reaching like a muthafucka.
:giggle:- with photography you are talking about stuff I KNOW and still work with...
I can tell you for fact if that was a kit lens full zoom (75mm or 135mm? no matter both are pathetic) and focused to infinity at night at best using f5.6
That the shot was definitely out of focus - the shutter speed wasn't set slow enough -
because if it was there would light trails all over because of his shaky hands.
any photographer with experience shooting the night sky knows this:
to photograph properly he would have to use a tripod and his shutter speed would be set for at the very least .5 second....
but just to be sure ask for the exif....
the bokeh was to show you how color, light and shapes are distorted out of focus and in each example we're talking inches to feet away from the subject- it gets increasingly worse proportionally as the distance increases


-why do you argue about stuff you never bothered to research or try for yourself?

why not rent a telescope to use on a evening with low humidity and observe for yourself or go to an observatory and use their telescope?
 
Last edited:
Yo cashwhisperer, you may be the most ignorant bastard to ever post on bgol, b.

I say that with pity.

If you teach your or anybody else's kids that bullshit, you should be charged with a crime.

It's fucking sad, really.

I don't give a flying fuck what you say nigga. You sound like a lil bitch right now.

Nigga talm bout...

2v3qa9w.gif~c200


Fuck outta here nigga, cuz I'm beyond all that fuck shit.
 
:giggle:- with photography you are talking about stuff I KNOW and still work with...
I can tell you for fact if that was a kit lens full zoom (75mm or 135mm? no matter both are pathetic) and focused to infinity at night at best using f5.6
That the shot was definitely out of focus - the shutter speed wasn't set slow enough -
because if it was there would light trails all over because of his shaky hands.
any photographer with experience shooting the night sky knows this:
to photograph properly he would have to use a tripod and his shutter speed would be set for at the very least .5 second....
but just to be sure ask for the exif....
the bokeh was to show you how color, light and shapes are distorted out of focus and in each example we're talking inches to feet away from the subject- it gets increasingly worse proportionally as the distance increases


-why do you argue about stuff you never bothered to research or try for yourself?

why not rent a telescope to use on a evening with low humidity and observe for yourself or go to an observatory and use their telescope?

You just talking out ya neck now. You don't know what research I've done, experiments, nothing.

And I notice how when I drop irrefutable jewels on y'all niggas you conveniently change the subject. Y'all wanna talk about some goddamn bokeh. The dumb shit is, that had the shit been outta focus we would have seen bokeh just like those dumbass pics vicious posted. How the fuck do you see defined lines and wanna say it's out of focus?? Are you serious?Obviously the shutter speed was right if there wasn't any ghosting. AND that ain't the only video. There are plenty more showing the same goddamn results.

Fuck outta here nigga, y'all ain't about to school me on photography.
 
I don't give a flying fuck what you say nigga. You sound like a lil bitch right now.

Nigga talm bout...

2v3qa9w.gif~c200


Fuck outta here nigga, cuz I'm beyond all that fuck shit.
I expect you to lash out, b.

It's gotta be hard knowing deep down you're a dimwit. But just remember, you don't have to be.

Come to science.

tumblr_nkbj35zfTe1uorxjno1_400.gif
 
You just talking out ya neck now. You don't know what research I've done, experiments, nothing.

And I notice how when I drop irrefutable jewels on y'all niggas you conveniently change the subject. Y'all wanna talk about some goddamn bokeh. The dumb shit is, that had the shit been outta focus we would have seen bokeh just like those dumbass pics vicious posted. How the fuck do you see defined lines and wanna say it's out of focus?? Are you serious?Obviously the shutter speed was right if there wasn't any ghosting. AND that ain't the only video. There are plenty more showing the same goddamn results.

Fuck outta here nigga, y'all ain't about to school me on photography.
:lol:no ghosting means proper exposure with such a limited and distant light source??
the entire video is a bokeh
next time post work from someone that used a professional grade camera and lens not the grandma special


I don't need to know what you think you may have researched - all that matters is every time you post about science or tech in a flat earth thread your facts are wrong.
I have observed Venus and Mars through a telescope and about 25 years ago while in school I photographed both

Go out and observe and learn for yourself
 
Back
Top