Youtube comments of Randy Schissler (@randyschissler5791).
-
78
-
40
-
38
-
29
-
20
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Here is a partial list. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. Shot on celluloid film.
AS08-13-2369 to 88, that's 19 photos.
AS08-14-2507 to 80, that's 73 photos.
AS08-16-2619 to 58, that's 39 photos.
AS08-16-2587 to 609, that's 22 photos.
AS17-162-24047 and 48, that's two photos.
AS17-162-24066 to 73, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22669 to 71, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22679 to 86, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22699 to 702, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22717 to 51, that's 34 photos.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
"looking it didn't seem like it changed size at all."
You proved my point, then. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe, and not flat. On the usual flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle above the earth, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, thus, the earth is a rotating globe.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@TheIldebrandoz "Additionally, the intense radiation on the Moon would further compromise the battery’s integrity, potentially causing it to fail. How many spare batteries did they have in the module? How would they have replaced them with those bulky gloves? And it's not just about the battery: how did they change and adjust the film with those gloves? "
What was that intense radiation on the moon? You've shown that you don't have a clue about the supposedly extreme temperatures, and how heat transfer works or doesn't work in a vacuum environment. You don't know that a lunar day is 29.5 earth days, and that the moon walks were during the dawn of the lunar day. As critthought points out, not so extreme. Did you catch the point where he said "surface temperature?" You have no idea what that means, right? Perhaps the camera had to be sitting on the surface of the moon, to reach those extreme temperatures?
How often do you have to change a battery in a film camera? Once a year?
They changed film switching out the magazines that held the film. Easy, peasy! Why didn't you know that?
"But how on earth were the astronauts supposed to take perfectly adjusted photos, with the correct aperture and focus settings, without being able to look through the viewfinder and without even hearing the click of the shutter? "
By taking thousands of photos. Focus and aperture were preset to typical conditions on the moon, during the time they were there. No clouds or nighttime, so no need to worry much about change in exposure. Though you've only seen the few perfect photos that are the ones usually published, you should look at the entire photo archive. There are many out of focus or out of view shots, but like I said they took thousands of photos to compensate.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Here is a partial list. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS08-13-2369 to 88, that's 19 photos.
AS08-14-2507 to 80, that's 73 photos.
AS08-16-2619 to 58, that's 39 photos.
AS08-16-2587 to 609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-40-5923 to 24, that’s 2 photos.
AS14-64-9189 to 97, that’s 9 photos.
AS17-134-20383 to 84, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-134-20387, that’s 1 photo.
AS17-137-20910-11, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-162-24047 and 48, that's two photos.
AS17-162-24066 to 73, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22669 to 71, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22679 to 86, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22699 to 702, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22717 to 51, that's 34 photos.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Pick one thing and stick with it, don't let him change the subject to some other bit of nonsense. Best to pick something that is observable, like a sunset over an open ocean. Give him something like this:
To prove the earth a globe, all you have to do is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe. On your flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Even in darkness, that tiny little pinpoint of light, would still be visible. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, even at sunset. Thus, the earth is a rotating globe.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@davesantiago1827 " in actuality its going straight across the sky"
So, the sun is getting smaller and smaller and smaller, as it's going away from you?
Observe, the sun throughout the course of a day, at sunrise, mid day overhead, and at sunset, preferably on a clear day over the ocean. Notice how the sun maintains the same size throughout the course of the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset. The key point being, the sun keeps the same size throughout. This is what we see everyday in reality, and only works if the earth is a globe. Impossible on a flat earth.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@larebear1902 You have it all backwards. Most of the pressure is at the bottom (at the earth's surface), so as the elevation rises towards the start of the vacuum, it becomes less and less, until the pressure gradient eventually makes it negligible. Mountain climbers ascending Mt. Everest confirm this. The higher in elevation you go, the thinner the atmosphere becomes, less air particles means less pressure, and when the pressure gradient reaches the vacuum level, even the vacuum has air particles. It becomes such a mix at that point, that there is no differential between air and vacuum. Keep moving away from the earth, and the vacuum counts fewer and fewer air particles in it, that it eventually becomes 99.99% vacuum. Even the moon has a few air particles moving around.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Cormac-jd2kx Maybe you should watch the whole 17 minute interview with little girl Zoey, instead of the edited conspiracy theory version. Notice the question Zoey asks: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?" Long time means from the last time since going to the moon. Buzz answers appropriately, "We didn't go there" during the long time since the last time going to the moon. Please pay close attention to what he said immediately after, as it's very telling as to why no one has gone back to the moon since the last time going to the moon. It's not that hard to understand. Also, if you watch the first part of the interview he talks about going to the moon. And at the end of the interview, he still talks about going to the moon. With all that talk about going to the moon, he went to the moon.
Then again, maybe you are talking about the interview where he was asked "What was your scariest moment on the moon?" The scary moment didn't happen. He didn't have a scary moment. He wasn't scared. What's next, the Conan Obrien quote? He didn't say what you want to think he said, there, either.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Maybe you should look at what Dr. James Van Allen has said about the belts. You know, the same guy who discovered and studied the belts that even bear his name?
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.
The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.
A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.
However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James A. Van Allen
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Don Pettit, whom you seem to be alluding to in your "we lost the technology," is not and never was a spokesman or authority for NASA. Yet, conspiracy theorists seize upon that one misconstrued and misinterpreted quote, as if it means something monumental, when it doesn't at all. In 1972, when Congress cut funding to NASA, the Apollo program was scrapped. That meant everything that went with it, contracts with contractors, infrastructure, equipment, engineers, support personnel, all of it. That's what Pettit meant with his poor choice of the word "technology." It was never about the technology needed to get humans through the Van Allen belts. With Apollo done, this gave NASA the opportunity to do less cost draining projects, and they did a lot over the decades. If they had kept going to the moon, they couldn't have done those things.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@wesleyA4962 "Even a NASA engineer saying we have to figure out how to protect our astronauts from radiation won't convince y'all. "
You're very confused. You are referring to NASA engineer Kelly Smith, in the 2014 video Orion: Trial by Fire. Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Kelly Smith is not the NASA head representative, he is simply an engineer. Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts will likely die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@chrismanning9336 Anyway, here is a partial list of some of the best photos of the earth from space. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS17-148-22725 to 22751, that's 26 photos.
AS08-14-2383 to 2394, that's 12 photos.
AS08-15-2535 to 2580, that's 46 photos.
AS08-16-2588 to 2609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-44-6668 to AS11-44-6696, that's 29 photos.
AS11-36-5293 to 5309, that's 17 photos.
AS11-36-5317 to 5381, that's 65 photos.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheOriginalNatBurner "why isn't there an unedited picture or video of the Earth in its entirety. "
That's totally false. Also, you are letting yourself get conned by the slimy huckster Bart Sibrel. Anyway, here is a partial list of some of the best photos of the earth. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS17-148-22725 to 22751, that's 26 photos.
AS08-14-2383 to 2394, that's 12 photos.
AS08-15-2535 to 2580, that's 46 photos.
AS08-16-2588 to 2609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-44-6668 to AS11-44-6696, that's 29 photos.
AS11-36-5293 to 5309, that's 17 photos.
AS11-36-5317 to 5381, that's 65 photos.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
That's interesting, because this is what Dr. James Van Allen has said about Apollo passing through the belts. You know, the same guy who discovered and studied the belts, that even bear his name?
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.
The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.
A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.
However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James A. Van Allen
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"The Van Allen belts are over 12k sieverts of radiation "
False! Astronauts traveling through the belts would receive a total dose of 6milliSV. Astronauts traveling through the thinnest parts of the belts, which they did and very quickly, would spend about an hour in the belts. To receive a fatal dose, they would have had to spend an entire week in them.
" NASA an acronym defined as "to Deceive" "
False! NASA is an acronym and nothing else. It's just silly and dumb to think that it means something it doesn't, and there is no basis to think otherwise. Thus, the Eve reference is irrelevant.
"why did NASA use a forked snake tongue in their logo"
They don't. The red chevron is a wing representing aeronautics (the latest design in hypersonic wings at the time the logo was developed). Since it is not a serpent's tongue, the Eve reference is irrelevant.
"Pro photographers have looked at the "global" photos, and determined it is all CGI"
False! There are many photos of the earth from space, all the way back from 1946. From the late 60's to early 70's, there are many photos that show the entirety of the earth from space, shot on celluloid film. The first crude CGI (squiggly lines) was in 1972. The first photo realistic CGI wasn't until the late 80's. Photoshop was developed in 1987, but Photoshop 1.0 wasn't released until 1990. Realize that photos pasted together, composite, are not CGI, they are real photos pasted together. Panorama photos taken with your phone, are an example of composite photos. Surely, you would think of them as real photos, and not CGI?
"There are no photos of earth from outer space because the heavens are in the firmament, water above, water below"
False, as I explained above! You are grossly misinterpreting the Bible. Firmament has different meanings in the Bible, and in this reference it means the atmosphere we breathe from life. Oceans and lakes (waters below) and condensation in clouds (waters above). Surely you have heard of rain and great floods resulting from many days of rain?
"how heavy would the capsule be if it were 4" thick lead?"
Pretty heavy, but the capsules didn't need lead. The aluminum shell was plenty, to protect from radiation, as I showed above.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@JFrouny Here is a partial list of photos of the Earth. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS08-13-2369 to 88, that's 19 photos.
AS08-14-2507 to 80, that's 73 photos.
AS08-16-2619 to 58, that's 39 photos.
AS08-16-2587 to 609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-40-5923 to 24, that’s 2 photos.
AS14-64-9189 to 97, that’s 9 photos.
AS17-134-20383 to 84, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-134-20387, that’s 1 photo.
AS17-137-20910-11, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-162-24047 and 48, that's two photos.
AS17-162-24066 to 73, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22669 to 71, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22679 to 86, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22699 to 702, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22717 to 51, that's 34 photos.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Itsallgood842 "please provide me with some information on how to conduct an experiment that provides proof of a globe earth'
All you have to do, to prove the earth a globe, is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day, preferably over an open ocean. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe, and not flat.
On the usual flat earth model of the much smaller and much closer sun, going around in a circle above the earth, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot, since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, thus, the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ridiculous. Anyway, here is a partial list of some of the best. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS17-148-22725 to 22751, that's 26 photos.
AS08-14-2383 to 2394, that's 12 photos.
\AS08-15-2535 to 2580, that's 46 photos.
AS08-16-2588 to 2609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-44-6668 to AS11-44-6696, that's 29 photos.
AS11-36-5293 to 5309, that's 17 photos.
AS11-36-5317 to 5381, that's 65 photos.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You are talking about Reference Publication 1207, that flat earthers claim is saying that the earth is flat and non rotating, when it doesn't say that at all. It’s a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more quickly, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect. Such as the curve and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, so that everyone was on the same page. The equations that have been derived in the report are based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass,” which doesn't happen in reality, as aircraft burn fuel while they fly and change mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations in the report are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@MatthewScott420 "look up NASA Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft"
Just shows how ignorant you really are! You think NASA Reference Publication 1207 is saying that the earth is flat and non rotating, when it doesn't say that at all. It’s a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more quickly, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect. Such as the curve and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, so that everyone was on the same page. The equations that have been derived in the report are based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass,” which doesn't happen in reality, as aircraft burn fuel while they fly and change mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations in the report are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@coryleblanc The sun. What we see everyday in reality can only happen if the earth is a globe. Impossible on a flat earth. Observe the sun throughout the course of a day, at sunrise, mid day over head, and sunset. Preferably over an open ocean on a clear day. Notice how the sun maintains the same size throughout the day, the key point being that the sun keeps the same size, whether it be sunrise, mid day over head, or sunset until it rather abruptly goes over the horizon. Trust me, I know full well about the flat earth model of the sun travelling in a circle around the earth, but what I have just described, that we see everyday in reality, is impossible with that flat earth model.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@davesantiago1827 "Also I never claimed the sun got smaller"
You can't even explain how your flat earth works! The point is, which you totally ignored, is that on a flat earth, the sun would have to appear smaller, and smaller, and smaller, the farther away it moves away from you. Yet, in reality, that's not what happens, thus, the earth has to be a globe, because the sun can only maintain the same size if the earth is a rotating globe.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"then you are just flat out ignorant" "The only people in on the scam were the astronauts"
The only one ignorant is you. Astronauts, that spent their entire lives, dreaming about going to space, became decorated military pilots, test pilots, then astronauts. People with real integrity and pride, yet you think they would eagerly throw all that away, and submit to becoming actors and fakers.
Anyway, basically what you are saying it that all the people at the top, maybe a couple dozen, a hundred perhaps, agreed together that it would be a good idea to fake it all? Even then, how do you get such complete, loyal compliance to fake something so large? You really think that would be easy? What do they really have to gain, and everything to lose? 50 years go by, and no one would ever get a conscience about protecting a big lie? Are they the ones doing the faking too? Convincing real astronauts that now they are actors and faking would be good, organizing all the audio and video fakery themselves as I'm sure they must know all about that kind of stuff, somehow coming up with fake moon rocks to pass off as real moon rocks, convince the Navy that the splashdown is all going to be fake, etc., etc. And you don't think this would require a huge conspiracy? Also, mentioning the CIA just proves more of your ignorance. You know nothing about the CIA, what they do, and what their purpose is. They certainly could care less about any moon landings.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Social.Media.Is.A.Weapon. Here is a partial list of photos of the earth from space. They are neither CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. They were all shot on celluloid film.
AS08-13-2369 to 88, that's 19 photos.
AS08-14-2507 to 80, that's 73 photos.
AS08-16-2619 to 58, that's 39 photos.
AS08-16-2587 to 609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-40-5923 to 24, that’s 2 photos.
AS14-64-9189 to 97, that’s 9 photos.
AS17-134-20383 to 84, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-134-20387, that’s 1 photo.
AS17-137-20910-11, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-162-24047 and 48, that's two photos.
AS17-162-24066 to 73, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22669 to 71, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22679 to 86, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22699 to 702, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22717 to 51, that's 34 photos.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@roel2835 "one of the videos NASA presented that today it is impossible to pass through the Van Allen belts and that today no one has the capability to do so in America - that it is impossible. "
A totally false statement that you can't seem to back up.
I'm guessing are referring to NASA engineer Kelly Smith, in the 2014 video Orion: Trial by Fire, that's been brought up above. Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts will likely die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@wesleyA4962 Obviously, you didn't read a word of what I wrote. Are you really that desperate, to want to think that six moon landings by six different crews were fake?
Here, I'll give most of it to you again. Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@wojtek1500 "You really don't know the difference between an original and a copy"
In other words, you are clueless, and a typical conspiracy theory hack.
The original footage was the live TV broadcast, seen by millions of people around the world. But you didn't know that, obviously. A couple backup tapes of the apollo 11 moonwalk were recorded over. The backup tapes were made in case the live TV broadcast failed, but since the live TV broadcast didn't fail, and multiple other copies were made of it, the backup tapes were deemed mostly insignificant. Sure, it would be nice to have those backup tapes as a collectable, but oh well, they kept lots of other stuff from the missions.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Flat earthers can't comprehend how huge the earth really is, in regards to human activity. They think if something look flat, it must be flat, thought it isn't. Measuring curvature on small bodies of water is worthless, because the curvature is so miniscule, that it is insignificant. If there was a boat on the left and right of you, as far away as the boat going over the horizon in front of you, it would be the same thing. If there is no water seen beyond the boat, then the boat is farther than the horizon. If the earth was flat, there would ALWAYS be water beyond the boat, all the way to your mythical edge.
3
-
3
-
@livannal.t.9068 "Flat non-rotating plane" according to NASA. " Just shows how ignorant you really are! You think Reference Publication 1207 is saying that the earth is flat and non rotating, when it doesn't say that at all. It’s a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more quickly, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect. Such as the curve and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, so that everyone was on the same page. The equations that have been derived in the report are based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass,” which doesn't happen in reality, as aircraft burn fuel while they fly and change mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations in the report are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chrisbr1969 "You can see Chicago perfectly from 60 miles away."
The problem you are ignoring is that you can only see the skyline of Chicago. If the earth was really flat, you would see the base as well. Thus, the earth is a globe. The reason why curvature is so hard to see, from our tiny vantage point on earth, is because the earth is very, very, very big. Flat earthers seem to think that the earth should curve away, dramatically all around them, but that's not realistic. It's because the earth is very, very, very big. Even from 60 miles away, the curvature is miniscule, but still enough to block the base of Chicago.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yeah, here is that context you are ignoring: The BBC reported that witnesses came forward to the police with jurisdiction, the Beverly Hills Police Department, stating: "Mr Sibrel...lured Mr Aldrin to the hotel under false pretenses in order to interview him." By Aldrin's account, he went to the Beverly Hills hotel on that date under the pretext of an interview on space for a Japanese children's television show. So, the scope of the interview was a total lie. At the time, Aldrin was aged 72 and Sibrel was aged 37.
Sibrel attempted on-camera to coerce Aldrin to swear an oath on a Bible that he had been on the Moon. Witnesses came forward to the police indicating that "Sibrel had aggressively poked Mr Aldrin with the Bible". When Aldrin refused Sibrel's request, Sibrel followed him, saying: "You're the one who said you walked on the Moon when you didn't." The BBC reported that "Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Ratinoff told Reuters... [the] videotape shot by a cameraman hired by Mr Sibrel had shown the film-maker follow Mr Aldrin, calling him a 'thief, liar and coward'." Still being recorded by Sibrel's camera crew, Aldrin responded with "Will you get away from me?" and then punched Sibrel in the jaw. A well deserved punch.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Did you see the parts of the press conference where they were laughing and smiling? Or just the edited conspiracy theory version that told you they were miserable with shame and guilt? Don't be a sheep! They were mostly bored, and for good reason. That press conference wasn't until a couple weeks after their return. After being locked up in quarantine all that time, after being away from their families all that time, after being asked the same questions during the quarantine, after a grueling mission to the moon, after years of training for the moon missions doing the same things over and over, after years of being a military pilot, test pilot, then astronaut. The astronauts weren't private explorers seeking fame and fortune, they were mostly doing a job they were trained and paid to do, nothing much more to them than that.
3
-
@minnesotaflats "we can’t get to the moon, but somehow we can get to Mars."
That's as dumb as can be. Artemis/Orion should be on the moon in 2025. Mars, maybe in the 2030's. It's really not about the technology. It's about funding, drive, and purpose. Without those three, the technology is mostly irrelevant. If they don't have the funding, drive, and purpose to go to the moon, which they don't until now, they ain't going to the moon. It's really not that hard to understand.
More false nonsense about the "moon rocks have been exposed as petrified wood. One measly piece of petrified wood that was never even given by NASA or any astronaut. If you are going to make stupid claims, at least try to get it right. Anyway, that still leaves over 800 pounds of real moon rocks. Hundreds of samples given out by NASA, have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions, from around the world. Not one has ever been in dispute, and that's a fact.
ISS footage filmed underwater, what a joke! You think a conspiracy theory video that claims to show one bubble, is credible? Now, that's laughable and pathetic. Why are you so gullible to believe such nonsense? You obviously have no idea what it takes to film underwater.
Reply
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@raymond3803 "Bullshit! NASA admits all the moon landing telemetry was destroyed. Bill Nye admitted we can't leave earth. There's no place to go."
NASA never said telemetry was destroyed. You don't even know what telemetry is. Astronaut Don Pettit, not a spokesman for NASA, no one of any authority for NASA, said the technology was destroyed to keep going to the moon. When the Apollo program was cancelled in 1972 after six landings, everything associated with it went bye bye. That meant any left over parts, infrastructure, engineers, manufacturing contracts with contractors, everything. That's what Don Pettit was referring to.
Bill Nye is simply saying that we are not going to go off and live on another planet when the earth becomes a polluted wasteland, so take care of it and protect it for generations to come.
I suggest you quit taking little snippets from conspiracy theories, that get twisted and taken out of context, in attempts to manipulate into thinking that those little snippets mean something that they don't.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Dmaj089 "The moon landing is pure comedy."
You're so ignorant, you don't even know that there were six moon landings by six different crews, even if alleged. Yeah, Nixon made a call to Houston Mission Control, and it was patched to the moon via radio. You never heard of radio either, right? That's as dumber than dumb, on your part. Also, water curves around the big earth, because of gravity. Scientific as can be. Oh, but let me guess--gravity is fake, just like your brain.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jaythomas3224 What a clown. Anyway, here is a partial list of some of the best. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS17-148-22725 to 22751, that's 26 photos.
AS08-14-2383 to 2394, that's 12 photos.
AS08-15-2535 to 2580, that's 46 photos.
AS08-16-2588 to 2609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-44-6668 to AS11-44-6696, that's 29 photos.
AS11-36-5293 to 5309, that's 17 photos.
AS11-36-5317 to 5381, that's 65 photos.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That's quite a load of blather. Anyway, here is a partial list of some of the best photos of the earth from space. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS17-148-22725 to 22751, that's 26 photos.
AS08-14-2383 to 2394, that's 12 photos.
AS08-15-2535 to 2580, that's 46 photos.
AS08-16-2588 to 2609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-44-6668 to AS11-44-6696, that's 29 photos.
AS11-36-5293 to 5309, that's 17 photos.
AS11-36-5317 to 5381, that's 65 photos.
3
-
3
-
3
-
"The first thing that made me start having doubts was the Apollo 11 press conference "
Did you see the parts of the press conference where they were laughing and smiling? Or just the edited conspiracy theory version that told you they were miserable with shame and guilt? Don't be a sheep! They were mostly bored, and for good reason. That press conference wasn't until a couple weeks after their return. After being locked up in quarantine all that time, after being away from their families all that time, after being asked the same questions during the quarantine, after a grueling mission to the moon, after years of training doing the same things over and over, after years of being a military pilot, test pilot, then astronaut. The astronauts weren't private explorers seeking fame and fortune, they were mostly doing a job they were trained to do, nothing much more to them than that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No, not NASA or any astronaut, gave anyone a piece of petrified wood.
Who were the eight people that ran Mission Control, did all the staging and took 20,000 photographs, wrote all the scripts, convinced real astronauts that now they are actors and faking would be good, organizing all the audio and video fakery themselves as I'm sure they must know all about that kind of stuff, somehow coming up with fake moon rocks to pass off as real moon rocks, convince the Navy that the splashdown is all going to be fake, etc., etc?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Thought_Criminal_13
NASA didn't lose all the telemetry tapes. A few backup tapes were recorded over, because they were considered redundant and copies were made of the relevant data. If there are copies, nothing is lost!
NASA didn't lose any technology. You obviously have no idea what old astronaut Don Pettit was talking about. When congress canceled already scheduled moon missions after Apollo 17, everything associated with it went bye, bye. And yes, it is difficult to build it back again.
False on saying astronauts couldn't see stars. They couldn't see them while looking at the solar corona. Pay attention to the question by Sir Patrick Moore : "Could you actually see stars when looking at the solar corona, in spite of the glare?"
No astronaut or member of NASA has ever said it was impossible to travel through the Van Allen belts. Probably referring to the video clip that conspiracy theorists love to use, with NASA engineer Kelly Smith? Kelly never said anything of the sort. in that video.
A conspiracy theorist showed you a video that supposedly showed one bubble, (more likely a piece of debris or water) and you think that means they filmed underwater in pools? Are you really that gullible to believe such nonsense?
Buzz Aldrin never admitted he didn't go to the moon. Maybe you should watch the whole 17 minute interview with little girl Zoey, instead of the edited conspiracy theory version. Notice the question Zoey asks: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?" Long time means from the last time since going to the moon. Buzz answers appropriately, "We didn't go there" during the long time since the last time going to the moon. Please pay close attention to what he said immediately after, as it's very telling as to why no one has gone back to the moon since the last time going to the moon. It's not that hard to understand. Also, if you watch the first part of the interview he talks about going to the moon. And at the end of the interview, he still talks about going to the moon. With all that talk about going to the moon, he went to the moon.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Globeisahoax
I've seen the flat earth theory of the sun going around in a big circle.There are a few flaws with it though. Number one, is that the sun would not maintain the same size throughout a day. The sun would be closer, then farther away, which would cause it to get bigger, then smaller. But of course, in observable reality, that doesn't happen, as the sun is always the same size thoughout the course of a day. Another problem is that the sun going in a big circle on your flat earth, would always be visible, whether night or day. I know, you will liken it to a flashlight, just lighting a small portion of the earth at a time, but a flashlight can be seen at great distance, even in darkness. Yet, in observable reality, we don't see that tiny pinpoint of light from the sun in darkness, do we? The sun we see everyday, works the way we see it, only if the earth is a globe. Impossible on a flat earth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That one measly piece of petrified wood, never even came from NASA or any astronaut. J. W. Middendorf II, who was the US ambassador to the Netherlands at the time, gave it to a former Dutch prime minister, Willem Drees. When Drees died, it was put in the Dutch Museum, where it was discovered that it wasn't real. Maybe at one point it was a real moon rock, that got stolen and replaced hoping no one would notice, but who knows for sure. Even so, that leaves over 800 pounds of moon rocks that have never been in dispute. Hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world, and not one has ever been found to be fake.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rayburnyarborough4695 There isn't anything Biblical about flat earth. There isn't one verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. In fact, not one real Christian church supports or promotes a flat earth and dome. Out of the thousands of Christians I have met, only two were flat earthers. However, they believed in every cockamamie conspiracy theory there is, so it was no wonder to know that they were flat earthers too.
It's funny how you mention the Gleason map, which is a projection of the earth as globe. Flat earthers can't even come up with a map of their own, instead using a globe based map. That surely doesn't say much positive about flat earthers, right?
Go to the beach someday, over an open ocean. Watch the sun thoughout the course of a day, including sunset. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe, and not flat.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
When you take pictures, how often do you include the sun? Most people taking pictures want to avoid the sun, to avoid lens flare. You obviously haven't looked the thousands of photos available online, with the ones that show lens flare. The sun is 93 million miles away, and you want to talk about the moon being 230,000 miles closer?
No there aren't huge canyons on the moon. Try looking at the footage with the rover, Apollo 15, 16, 17, that show mountains thousands of feet high. You knew that there were six other missions to the moon, right?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aquavideoman All you have to do, to prove the earth a globe, is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day, preferably over an open ocean. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe, and not flat. On the usual flat earth model of the much smaller and much closer sun, going around in a circle above the earth, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot, since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, thus, the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@faithismespeaks6848 "So you're saying trillions of tons of curved water are being held down"
Here is something to think about. If the earth was the size of a basketball, the depth of the trillions of tons of water would only be a quarter of a millimeter in thickness. Now, a millimeter isn't much, but imagine only a quarter of a millimeter, in thickness of all that water! Wow, that doesn't seem like so much water for gravity to hold to the earth, does it?
One of the biggest problems flat earthers have, is they can't comprehend how huge the earth really is. That's why they think water looks flat, though it isn't. Their scale of reference of what their eyes can see, is extremely small, compared to the hugeness of the earth, and they can't understand that. We truly are like ants, on a great big world.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andrewaitken3684 "turn your flashlight on, shine it on the floor at one end standing in the middle then rotate it 180 degrees to the other end"
Also, notice how wherever you are standing in the room, you can still see the flashlight. Even if you are standing in darkness. On a flat earth, the sun would have to always be visible, everywhere on earth, at any time. Even if it got smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, to just a tiny dot, it would never set, always remaining visible.
But, we don't see that in reality, do we?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@danielswish41 "So tell me, what is the reason, no flat earther hast ever done that!? "
Because flat earthers are cowards, and their flat earth leaders are nothing but huckstering cons! The only videos you will see from flat earthers, about movement of the sun, are grossly overexposed, with lens flare that show the sun only as distorted giant blobs of blurry light. Nothing like the sun you would see in reality. Yet, they fool someone like you, into thinking that's a credible view of a flat earth sun, being zoomed back into full view.
If it really was perspective that you claim, the sun would get smaller, and smaller, and smaller as it moves away from you on your flat earth. So small, that it would eventually become a tiny pinpoint of light in darkness, but still visible. Yet, we don't see that in reality do we? Instead, throughout the course of a day, the sun maintains the same size, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset. The fact it stays the same size, proves the earth is a rotating globe.
PS. There is no official globe math, only false flat earth math that skews reality, and fools people like you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HenryDurth Yes, I know all about the goodwill tour. NASA nor any astronaut gave that one measly piece of petrified wood. Middendorf said later, that he got it from the State Department, but couldn't remember the details. It probably was a real moon rock during the presentation, but was later stolen from Drees desk and replaced with the petrified wood, hoping no one would notice. It's irrelevant to the over 800 pounds of moon rocks brought back over the course of six landings, from which hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world, None of which, have been declared fake.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aok4418 "Look at the photo of Tracy's rock with Schmitt. AS17-140-21496"
A high resolution photo (4400x4600) of AS17-140-21496 shows LM off to the top right of the rock. In the distance between the rock and the mountains. You can see the gold of the LM!
High resolution photo AS17-140-21493 also shows the LM off to the top right of the rock.
High resolution photo AS17-140-21494 also shows the LM off to the top right of the rock.
High resolution photo AS17-140-21495 also shows the LM off to the top right of the rock.
High resolution photos AS17-140-21493, 21494, 21495, 21496, all show the LM. You can see the gold!
Also, I've looked at those two photos you reference, and the backdrops are not even close. Break it down into thirds, and look at the right side third. Look at right side of the LM on 134-20513 and it is extremely obvious they are not the same. With those photos of the LM, the scale has everything to do with it. You think they are little hills of little distance, but they are not. If you look through the sequence of photos, you will see that the backdrop changes. How is that possible if it is the same 2D backdrop? The whole notion behind all this, is just plain stupid, anyway. Each photo would have to have it's own 2d backdrop. There are literally thousands of photos. Thousands of photos all requiring a different backdrop, so that's thousands of backdrops as well. And they would all have to seamlessly blend together. Tyson was right, to do all that meticulous documentation, "it's way easier to just go to the moon!"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@peppersrestaurant1462 So, you've never watched the sun during the course of a day then. Try it sometime, and notice how it stays the same size, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down over the horizon. On your flat earth model, it would have to get smaller and smaller and smaller, as it moves away from you, until it was just a tiny dot. But, that's not what we see in reality, is it? What we see in reality is impossible on a flat earth, and only works if the earth is a globe.
Also, level doesn't mean flat, and level requires gravity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@peteskipetek Isn't it funny how no one would likely know about the Van Allen Belts, if not for Dr. James Van Allen?
Here is what he has said about Apollo going through the belts.
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.
The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.
A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.
However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James A. Van Allen
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Maxim.ID4HO Do you realize that if it wasn't for Dr. James Van Allen, you wouldn't even know about the Van Allen Belts? Wouldn't you think that he would be a more credible source than yourself? Here is what he has said about the matter:
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.
The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.
A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.
However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James A. Van Allen
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Anyway, here is a partial list of some of the best. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS17-148-22725 to 22751, that's 26 photos.
AS08-14-2383 to 2394, that's 12 photos.
AS08-15-2535 to 2580, that's 46 photos.
AS08-16-2588 to 2609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-44-6668 to AS11-44-6696, that's 29 photos.
AS11-36-5293 to 5309, that's 17 photos.
AS11-36-5317 to 5381, that's 65 photos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yestervue4697 I've hardly said a word. You're the one blathering on and on about nothing, except for your little pity party.
But, if by chance you want to know one thing that proves a globe earth, all you have to do is look at sunrise and sunset. On our globe earth, the earth makes one rotation in a day. It is so slow in making that one measly rotation in a 24 hour period, that we don't even feel the earth moving. When the earth rotates, as we're sitting at whatever place we are, we can see the sun come up from the horizon, then after a few hours appear overhead, only to eventually disappear over the opposite horizon and plunge wherever we are, into total darkness.
Now, since we're all in different locations on earth, the times we see the sun at sunrise, at it's peak, or sunset, will be at different times than in other locations. Thus, the reason why we have timezones, and this all works perfectly on our globe earth.
However, on a flat earth, all that I have laid out above, is impossible. On a globe earth, while it is daylight in China, it is nighttime in New York City. On a flat earth, this is impossible. On a flat earth, the sun would have to be visible everywhere on flat earth at the same absolute time, and at night, everywhere on flat earth would be in darkness at the same absolute time. Yet it's not, so the earth can only be a globe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, I think they are getting stupider and stupider, with time. With the advent of internet and social media, most people rarely read books anymore. I used to go to the library all the time when I was younger, to look for different books to read. It's a quick fix nowdays. Look at how a lot of them get most of their information from Youtube or Facebook? Disinformation is a much more profitable endeavor now. Look at all the flat earther channels, Sibrel, etc., pushing their wares on here. How often have you heard the critical thinkers (the enlightened term the deniers give themselves) say "do your own research," which doesn't mean reading science books, but rather, watch Youtube videos.
2
-
2
-
"At the press conference upon return the astronauts didn’t seem like proud heroes "
Did you see the parts of the press conference where they were laughing and smiling? Or just the edited conspiracy theory version that told you they were miserable with shame and guilt? Don't be a sheep! They were mostly bored, and for good reason. That press conference wasn't until a couple weeks after their return. After being locked up in quarantine all that time, after being away from their families all that time, after being asked the same questions during the quarantine, after a grueling mission to the moon, after years of training doing the same things over and over, after years of being a military pilot, test pilot, then astronaut. The astronauts weren't private explorers seeking fame and fortune, they were mostly doing a job they were trained to do, nothing much more to them than that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dvdburno J. W. Middendorf II, who was the US ambassador to the Netherlands at the time, gave it to a former Dutch prime minister, Willem Drees. There was a plaque that went with it, describing it as a moon rock. Middendorf said he got it from the State Department, but couldn't remember the details. When Drees died, it was put in the Dutch Museum, where it was discovered that it wasn't real. Maybe at one point it was a real moon rock, that got stolen and replaced hoping no one would notice, but who knows for sure. Even so, that leaves over 800 pounds of moon rocks that have never been in dispute. Hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world, and not one has ever been found to be fake. You quote that "every single one of them that have been analyzed by a third party have been proven not to be from the Moon", is nonsense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@esra_oziskender "Even some scientists claim that there is no even moon! Moon is only a reflection!"
That's nonsense! No scientist has ever made that claim. Only some goofy flat earthers have made ridiculous claims like that.
Going to the moon is extremely expensive. To go to the moon, you need funding, drive, purpose, and technology, in that order. Without the first three, the technology is mostly irrelevant. When the Apollo program was cancelled, there had been six landings, and Congress and the general public had lost interest in more moon landings. So, over the decades with the reduced funding it did have, NASA branched out and did a number of other things, mostly with unmanned probes. However, if you had been paying attention you would know that Artemis/Orion plans to return to the moon in 2025. Didn't you hear about the last Artemis launch a couple months ago?
2
-
@super_ficial
"On a spinning globe the transition from day to night would be instantaneous."
Ridiculous. You talk about spinning, when the earth only makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. Also, you talk about the sunlight becoming smaller, when you should be talking about the sun becoming smaller. On flat earth, with the sun itself moving away from you, it would have to get smaller, but it doesn't in reality. Observe the sun, throughout the course of a day, preferably over an open ocean. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it gradually slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe, and not flat. On the usual flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle above the earth, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, thus, the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.
2
-
"According to the NASA official information, this was the first try to actually land on the moon and the mission was an absolute and perfect success, with everything executed without any mistakes, no unexpected events."
Seriously? What a naive and narrow way of thinking. Ever here about the Gemini program? Twelve Gemini missions from 1965-1966, ten manned, each with step by step tests and maneuvers to lead up to Apollo. Apollo 11 was the first landing on the moon. So, that meant ten previous Apollo missions, to get everything perfect for Apollo 11. Then Apollo 12. Apollo 13 aborted, because everything wasn't so perfect. Then Apollo 14, Apollo15, Apollo16, Apollo 17 in 1972. If it was all just to be fake, why would they have all those missions, just to be fake? Like, you don't think faking everything requires perfection as well?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lcx1876 Not sure if you deleted your post to me or not, but I'm answering anyway.
The Earth doesn't spin, it rotates. It makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. You know what an analog clock is, right? watch the big hand, and realize that it moves twice as fast as the earth rotates! That's so slow, it's hard to imagine that can be referred to as spinning.
Water sticks to the Earth because of gravity. Now, I know that since you are a flat earther, that you are required to think that gravity is fake, but try and be open minded. The Earth is much bigger than you think, and mass creates gravity. Gravity is pulling water and everything else to the center of the earth. The Earth is so big, that the water on it may look flat, but it's not. The water in your bathtub isn't flat either. Remember, level doesn't mean flat. Level exists because of gravity. A tool level, the long thing with a bubble in it, works because of gravity.
Here is something else you don't realize. If the Earth was the size of a basketball, the depths of the mighty oceans would only be a quarter of a millimeter in thickness! Now, a millimeter isn't much, but imagine only a quarter of a millimeter! That's not much water to stick to a basketball is it? Remember when I told you that the Earth is much bigger than you think? That's why the vast oceans aren't much water to stick to the Earth, either.
An "experiment on this Earth where you can have a large body of level water with no container," would be impossible, because the Earth's gravity would override it. It would be like pouring water on a basketball and watching the water fall to the ground. Some of the water would stick to the basketball, but most of it would fall to the ground because of Earth's gravity pulling it down.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@clarkanthony538 "Do you realize the thrust it took to land the thing? "
Being as how the moon gravity was only 1/6 of earth, not much.
"do we believe them (college clowns) or just take NASA's word for it?'
I would believe Dr. James Van Allen himself. You know, the guy who discovered and studied the belts, that even bear his name? You wouldn't even know about them, if it wasn't for him. Here is what he has said about the matter:
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.
The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.
A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.
However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James A. Van Allen
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Tell me at what scale does"
At a very large scale that you can't seem to understand. No flat earthers can. Flat earthers can't comprehend how huge the earth really is, in regards to human activity. They think if something look flat, it must be flat, thought it isn't. Measuring curvature on small bodies of water is worthless, because the curvature is so miniscule, that it is insignificant.
Also, why would you use the term "spinning?" The earth makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. That's as slow as can be, slower than the hour hand of an analog clock, slower than watching paint dry, while flat earthers love to use the term spinning. Why is that?
Here is something to think about, in terms of scale of how huge the earth is. If the earth was the size of a basketball, the depth of the billions of tons of water would only be a quarter of a millimeter in thickness. Now, a millimeter isn't much, but imagine only a quarter of a millimeter, in thickness of all that water! Wow, that doesn't seem like so much water for gravity to hold to the earth, does it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@flint20001 "We can see cities and islands100 miles away"
A curvature formula that ignores elevation, ignores line of sight, is not a valid formula. Were your eyeballs on the ground, looking outward, when you made that assessment? Likewise, seeing a city skyscraper skyline, or mountain top on an island, is not valid. Could you see the very base of the city, or the beach on the island? No!
"a spinning ball going faster than a speeding bullet"
The earth isn't spinning, it rotates. It makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. That's not exactly what I would call spinning. If you were looking at an analogue clock, the hour hand on the clock would be moving twice as fast as the earth rotates. You still think that is faster than a speeding bullet?
2
-
2
-
2
-
"show me one picture of Earth from space"
Here is a partial list. They are neither CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. Shot on celluloid film.
AS08-13-2369 to 88, that's 19 photos.
AS08-14-2507 to 80, that's 73 photos.
AS14-64-9189 to 97, that’s 9 photos.
AS08-16-2619 to 58, that's 39 photos.
AS08-16-2587 to 609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-40-5923 to 24, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-162-24047 and 48, that's two photos.
AS17-162-24066 to 73, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22669 to 71, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22679 to 86, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22699 to 702, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22717 to 51, that's 34 photos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Did you see the parts of the press conference where they were laughing and smiling? Or just the edited conspiracy theory version that told you they were miserable with shame and guilt? Don't be a sheep! They were mostly bored, and for good reason. That press conference wasn't until a couple weeks after their return. After being locked up in quarantine all that time, after being away from their families all that time, after being asked the same questions during the quarantine, after a grueling mission to the moon, after years of training doing the same things over and over, after years of being a decorated military pilot, test pilot, then astronaut. The astronauts weren't private explorers seeking fame and fortune, they were mostly doing a job they were trained to do, nothing much more to them than that.
2
-
2
-
@livannal.t.9068 Name all those documents then! You can't! You obviously didn't read or understand a word I said. Here, I'll repeat it for you:
You think Reference Publication 1207 is saying that the earth is flat and non rotating, when it doesn't say that at all. It’s a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more quickly, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect. Such as the curve and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, so that everyone was on the same page. The equations that have been derived in the report are based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass,” which doesn't happen in reality, as aircraft burn fuel while they fly and change mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations in the report are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth.
If the earth was flat, why would you have to "assume" that it is flat? If the earth was flat, assume wouldn't be needed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kaone3151 "I don’t buy NASA lost the technology"
Good, because no technology was lost. After six moon landings, they figured that with the enormous cost and effort required, they would try other things for awhile, and they did. Going through the Van Allen belts has been explained over and over. They went very quickly through the thinnest parts, to limit exposure, simple as that. If you can't find real photos of earth, you must not be looking very hard.
Anyway, here is a partial list of some of the best photos of the earth. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS17-148-22725 to 22751, that's 26 photos.
AS08-14-2383 to 2394, that's 12 photos.
AS08-15-2535 to 2580, that's 46 photos.
AS08-16-2588 to 2609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-44-6668 to AS11-44-6696, that's 29 photos.
AS11-36-5293 to 5309, that's 17 photos.
AS11-36-5317 to 5381, that's 65 photos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The idea that you can't go to Antarctica is flat earth propaganda. Most people wouldn't want to go there because it is a very hostile place, with few services available. The reason why flat earthers say that no one can go to Antarctica, is because they are all cowards. Too chicken to actually go there and look for the edge of flat earth, because they're too afraid that they won't find it, and thus their flat earth fantasy is nothing but foolish nonsense.
The moon was landed on six times. They took thousands of pictures, hundred plus hours of video, and brought back over 800 pounds of moon rocks. It costs an enormous amount of money to do so, and without funding, drive, and purpose, it hasn't happened since. Other than for nostalgia's sake, which isn't a good enough reason, I can't see a compelling reason to go back. More pictures, more rocks? However, I've been overruled, and the Artemis/Orion project should return by 2025.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nonsense! The only time they said they couldn't recall seeing any stars, was when they were asked if they "could actually see the stars in the solar corona, in spite the glare." Could you see stars while looking at the sun?
They did have a "genuine human reaction," as you call it, however.
Buzz Aldrin, the second person to walk on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission, had a memorable reaction when he set foot on the lunar surface. His first words were, “Beautiful view.” To this, Neil Armstrong, the mission commander, responded, “Isn’t that something?”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@realityhijack1985 That one measly piece of petrified wood, never came from NASA or any astronaut. J. W. Middendorf II, who was the US ambassador to the Netherlands at the time, gave it to a former Dutch prime minister, Willem Drees. When Drees died, it was put in the Dutch Museum, where it was discovered that it wasn't real. Maybe at one point it was a real moon rock, that got stolen and replaced hoping no one would notice, but who knows for sure. Even so, that leaves over 800 pounds of moon rocks that have never been in dispute. Hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world, and not one has ever been found to be fake.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DaemonZodiac Here is a partial list:
AS08-13-2369 to 88, that's 19 photos.
AS08-14-2507 to 80, that's 73 photos.
AS08-16-2619 to 58, that's 39 photos.
AS08-16-2587 to 609, that's 22 photos.
AS17-162-24047 and 48, that's two photos.
AS17-162-24066 to 73, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22669 to 71, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22679 to 86, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22699 to 702, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22717 to 51, that's 34 photos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrisbr1969 "And the fact you don’t know there are NASA documents STATING the earth is flat "
Totally false, you let yourself get fooled. NASA Reference Publication 1207: Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model, is a prime example of how flat earthers like yourself, cherry pick a couple words to try and say that NASA and the military state that the earth is flat and motionless. This document and others like it, don't say that at all. 1207 is a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation model written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more efficiently, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect on the model. Such as the curvature and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, because they are insignificant to the model. Notice how the document also states that the equations that have been derived based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass.” Which doesn't happen in reality either, as aircraft have flaps and ailerons, and burn fuel while they fly thus changing mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which also doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations in the document are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that has no flaps to change position, burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@1OnlyOneOnlyOne1 In other words, you never paid attention while watching the sun.
To prove the earth a globe, all you have to do is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe. On your flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Even in darkness, that tiny little pinpoint of light, would still be visible. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, even at sunset. Thus, the earth is a rotating globe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Not sideways, you didn't fall up onto the ground like you would have to in Antarctica. "
It's called gravity. But I know, as a flat earther, you are required under penalty of death or whatever, to believe that gravity is fake. On a globe earth with gravity, there is no sideways or upside down. Everywhere you are standing, is right side up. Mass creates gravity, and the earth is very, very, very big, so it has a lot of mass. In fact, the earth is so big that you have this false notion that if it looks flat, it must be flat. Right? It looks flat because the curvature is so miniscule that your eyes can't perceive the extremely slight curvature. Also, you seem befuddled by "1000mph spinning ball." Another factor to how you can't comprehend how huge the earth really is. The earth makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. That's as slow as can be, hardly moving, though it is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"NASA's Mr. Blue Marble, Robert Simmons says all those images you see of earth are fake"
Totally false. The composite images of Blue Marble are from 2002 and later. The Original Blue Marble was from 1972 and not composite. Of course, anyone who knows anything about photography, knows that composite images are made from real images. Anyway, here is a partial list of some of the best non fake images of the earth. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS17-148-22725 to 22751, that's 26 photos.
AS08-14-2383 to 2394, that's 12 photos.
AS08-15-2535 to 2580, that's 46 photos.
AS08-16-2588 to 2609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-44-6668 to AS11-44-6696, that's 289 photos
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
" you would think 50 years later we could go to the Moon as easy as driving to the store "
You don't realize how incredibly expensive it was to go to the moon, so that argument is silly. You also seem to think that it is the technology as to why they haven't gone back to the moon. The technology is very minor in comparison to other issues. It's more about funding, drive, and purpose. The technology ranks behind all those. I guess they should have asked you, for the idea to put a return camera on the moon! While no camera, laser reflectors were left on the moon. With the right equipment, you can access them yourself. A few backup tapes were accidentally recorded over. Mistakes happen. Why aren't you impressed that they admitted it? Anyway, since there were copies made of the same data, nothing was really lost, so it's irrelevant. You can watch all the film footage right here on Youtube, if you want.
Reply
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikewest9033 "they believed going to space was impossible because a human wouldn't live getting threw the van allen belts."
But when was that, 1958? In subsequent years, a lot more data about the belts was obtained with probes going through the belts. They found the belts to not be as dangerous as originally thought. Even Dr, James Van Allen changed his position on it, you know, the same guy who discovered and studied the belts, that even bear his name. Here is what he was said about the matter.
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.
The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.
A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.
However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James A. Van Allen
2
-
"Biblical enclosed cosmology is the truth and always was"
Your biggest problem is that you misinterpret the Bible to fit your flat earth agenda and other conspiracy theory nonsense. Firmament has never meant impenetrable dome. It means the expanse of the universe, the sky, the heavens, sometimes the atmosphere above the earth, but never an impenetrable dome. The "earth shall not be moved" and "foundation" has nothing to do with a physical movement of the earth, either. It is in reference to a spiritual connection with God, or God is in control. The Bible is made up of many parables, metaphors, hyperbole, similes, and figures of speech, not rigid literal phrases to fit flat earth fantasy. Isn't it interesting that not one real Christian church supports or promotes a flat earth and dome?
Also, your claims about old astronaut Don Pettit, not a head spokesperson for NASA, and Stanley Kubrick, are grossly wrong as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Say something about the ball earth that i can't debunk!! Let's go"
To prove the earth a globe, all you have to do is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe. On your flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Even in darkness, that tiny little pinpoint of light, would still be visible. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, even at sunset. Thus, the earth is a rotating globe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@REALStinkyCash To prove the earth a rotating globe, all you have to do is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day, preferably over an open ocean on a clear day. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe. On your flat earth model of a local sun going around in a circle, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Even in darkness, that tiny little pinpoint of light, would still be visible. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, even at sunset. Thus, the earth is a rotating globe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@vahagnmelikyan2906 If you looked at the sun all day long, why didn't you notice that it doesn't change size at all during the day, thus proving the earth is a rotating globe and not flat.
To prove the earth a globe, all you have to do is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe. On your flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Even in darkness, that tiny little pinpoint of light, would still be visible. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, even at sunset. Thus, the earth is a rotating globe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ok, I found the image from NASA. Here is what they say about it:
"The high-resolution Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) on LRO takes black-and-white images, while the lower resolution Wide Angle Camera (WAC) takes color images, so you might wonder how we got a high-resolution picture of the Earth in color. Since the spacecraft, Earth, and moon are all in motion, we had to do some special processing to create an image that represents the view of the Earth and moon at one particular time. The final Earth image contains both WAC and NAC information. WAC provides the color, and the NAC provides high-resolution detail."
The image from Apollo 17 (the one with the flag), was a wide angle shot, and not high resolution. So, of course the earth would be tiny and not that clear. The focus is on the flag, not the earth. The image you are referencing above, is narrow angle, so the earth appears very close to the moon. A wide angle shot would look much different. Also, the image has been processed, and looks more artsy, than what you would see standing on the moon.
2
-
@Sertao2013 You're making a silly request. Why should there be hundreds of photos of the earth being the main focus? Most of the time on the moon, the earth was high overhead, so the earth being in the right position was rare. The astronauts were there to take pictures of the moon, not the earth. Everybody knows what the earth looks like, the moon not so much. The cameras had a wide angle fixed lens, no zoom, and the f stop settings were either f/5.6 or f/11. What's your point about all this anyway?
Regardless, here is a partial list of photos of the earth. You can decide whether they are in good enough focus or not.
AS08-13-2369 to 88, that's 19 photos.
AS08-14-2507 to 80, that's 73 photos.
AS08-16-2619 to 58, that's 39 photos.
AS08-16-2587 to 609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-40-5923 to 24, that’s 2 photos.
AS14-64-9189 to 97, that’s 9 photos.
AS17-134-20383 to 84, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-134-20387, that’s 1 photo.
AS17-137-20910-11, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-162-24047 and 48, that's two photos.
AS17-162-24066 to 73, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22669 to 71, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22679 to 86, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22699 to 702, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22717 to 51, that's 34 photos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nimblejack Did you not see my post above? Here, I'll repeat it.
Because you have no idea what a flight model is. NASA Reference Publication 1207: Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model, is a prime example of how flat earthers like yourself, cherry pick a couple words to try and say that NASA and the military state that the earth is flat and motionless. This document and others like it, don't say that at all. 1207 is a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation model written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more efficiently, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect on the model. Such as the curvature and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, because they are insignificant to the model. Notice how the document also states that the equations that have been derived based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass.” Which doesn't happen in reality either, as aircraft have flaps and ailerons, and burn fuel while they fly thus changing mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that has no flaps to change position, burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RaptureHermit Too bad you are deceived by flat earther priests, and can't interpret the Bible correctly. Firmament means the expanse of the universe, the heavens, the sky, and sometimes our atmosphere, but never a flat earth and impenetrable dome. The Bible is filled with metaphors, hyperbole, similes, poetic verse, figures of speech and parables. Why don't you know that? The "earth has a foundation" is a reference to God is in control, and holds the power over the earth. There isn't one real Christian church that supports or promotes a flat earth and dome.
Also, rockets curve because they are going into orbit. Talking about the Bermuda Triangle just shows your silly ignorance about the real world. 1000mph at the equator shows how you can't comprehend how huge the earth is. That's still only one rotation in a 24 hour period. The hour hand on an analog clock moves twice as fast as the earth rotates.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@timid3000 Seeing land masses and city sky lines 50,60,70 miles and more doesn't prove anything. Notice how you said sky lines! Land masses and city sky lines are much higher than 100ft. The bottom of those sky lines and land masses aren't seen though, right? They disappeared. Oh, that's right, perspective... You haven't explained anything! Your head bobbing in the water so you can't see above the waves, and the van above your eye level that blocks your view, don't prove anything except you can't see above something that is above your eye level. If you are looking at the horizon and see a 2ft wave, it's still a 2ft wave. It isn't a 100 ft wave, it's a 2ft wave! Sit down with a piece of paper and diagram a 6ft person standing at shoreline, a 2ft wave, and a 100+ft ship in the distance. Show how that 2ft wave obliterates that 100+ft ship. It can't be done, unless the ship is on a globe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Did you see the parts of the press conference where they were laughing and smiling? Or just the edited conspiracy theory version that told you they were miserable with shame and guilt? Don't be a sheep! They were mostly bored, and for good reason. That press conference wasn't until a couple weeks after their return. After being locked up in quarantine all that time, after being away from their families all that time, after being asked the same questions during the quarantine, after a grueling mission to the moon, after years of training doing the same things over and over, after years of being a military pilot, test pilot, then astronaut. The astronauts weren't private explorers seeking fame and fortune, they were mostly doing a job they were trained to do, nothing much more to them than that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fanbutton5360 You're such a liar. Notice how the sun maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe, and not flat. On the usual flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle above the earth, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, thus, the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.
2
-
NASA, nor NASA engineer Kelly Smith, said that. In the 2014 video, Orion: Trial by Fire. Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts will likely die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jmckasyru You can't take pictures with stars in them, while it is daylight on the moon. Unless you have a camera set for that type of exposure. Just like you can't take pictures of stars in daylight, on earth.
Here is what Dr. James Van Allen has to say about going through the Van Allen Belts. You know, the same guy who discovered and studied the belts, that even bear his name.
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.
The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.
A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.
However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James A. Van Allen
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alanunruh7310 No that one piece of petrified wood was not given by any astronaut, or member of NASA. The Dutch national museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.
Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.
"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that.""
There is even a plaque for it, saying "With the compliments of the Ambassador of the United States of America J. WILLIAM MIDDENDORF, II." Originally, it could have been a real moon rock, then stolen and replaced with the much larger piece of petrified wood, hoping no one would notice.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Gentlemutilator The 8" per mile squared is the ridiculous Flat Earther Curvature Formula. Only flat earthers use it, because they ignore viewer height, and the line of sight angle, so its no wonder they get wonky numbers using it. It's silly to account for curvature for typical railways, canals, roads, because the amount of curvature is insignificant. The earth is very big, and tiny amounts of curvature over relatively short distances can be ignored. Some very long bridges like the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge do have to account for curvature. Curvature for the Suez Canal is irrelevant. It may be level, but certainly not flat, and no, ships don't have to go up hill or downhill, with the earth being a globe. That's flat earther foolishness, if you want to believe that stupidity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JA-oo9qp That one measly piece of petrified wood, never even came from NASA or any astronaut, or given by NASA or any astronaut. J. W. Middendorf II, who was the US ambassador to the Netherlands at the time, gave it to a former Dutch prime minister, Willem Drees. When Drees died, it was put in the Dutch Museum, where it was discovered that it wasn't real. Maybe at one point it was a real moon rock, that got stolen and replaced hoping no one would notice, but who knows for sure. Even so, that leaves over 800 pounds of moon rocks that have never been in dispute. Hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world, and not one has ever been found to be fake.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Because you are saying that creating a hoax to fake the moon landings is entirely plausible, based on the Manhattan Project. Even if you think the moon landings were real. Protecting the Manhattan Project was about keeping Hitler from getting the bomb, and thus save the whole world. Protecting a moon landing hoax, would be about protecting a big lie. Big difference! They don't compare!, one was real and one would be a lie! The idea that a lie could be kept secret by thousands of people for 50 years, is ridiculous. You must not know much about human nature. You don't think people can ever feel regret, or get a conscience, for bad things they have done in their lives, and would ever want to make amends? Anyway, basically what you are saying it that all the people at the top, maybe a couple dozen, a hundred perhaps, maybe thousands, agreed together that it would be a good idea to fake it all? Even then, how do you get such complete, loyal compliance to fake something so large? You really think that would be easy? What do they really have to gain, and everything to lose? Are they the ones doing the faking too? Convincing real astronauts that now they are actors and faking would be good, organizing all the audio and video fakery themselves as I'm sure they must know all about that kind of stuff, somehow coming up with fake moon rocks to pass off as real moon rocks, convince the Navy that the splashdown is all going to be fake, etc., etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidmclachlan6592 "they gave the prime minister of Holland a piece of 'moon rock' "
That one measly piece of petrified wood, never even came from NASA or any astronaut. J. W. Middendorf II, who was the US ambassador to the Netherlands at the time, gave it to a former Dutch prime minister, Willem Drees. When Drees died, it was put in the Dutch Museum, where it was discovered that it wasn't real. Maybe at one point it was a real moon rock, that got stolen and replaced hoping no one would notice, but who knows for sure. Even so, that leaves over 800 pounds of moon rocks that have never been in dispute. Hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world, and not one has ever been found to be fake.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Also I remember watching a video of a NASA expert saying in an interview that they haven't send anyone to the Moon ever since because they somehow "lost" the technology to do it. I think he said that they couldn't figure out how to get pass the radiation belt. "
Well, you sure got that all wrong. Don Pettit, not a NASA expert or NASA spokesman, just an old astronaut, said "destroyed" not "lost." Perhaps a wrong choice of words, but he's still right. When Congress and Nixon stopped funding the Apollo program, everything associated with it went bye bye. All the infrastructure, contractors, engineers, spare parts, all gone. Of course it's a difficult process to build back again. And no, he never said, nor did anyone else from NASA, say they couldn't get past the Van Allen belts.
I won't bother with the other "I think" nonsense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dildoswaggins2907 "yes he has, on talkshows and various media feeds."
Totally false! You got fooled! On the Conan O'brien show, he was correcting Conan about seeing him land on the moon. No one was on the moon to film them land, so of course it was an animation, and it was clearly labeled as such He was referring to animations used by broadcasters at the time in their coverage of the moon landing, intercut with real footage.
Maybe you should watch the whole 17 minute interview with little girl Zoey, instead of the edited conspiracy theory version. Notice the question Zoey asks: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?" Long time means from the last time since going to the moon. Buzz answers appropriately, "We didn't go there" during the long time since the last time going to the moon. Please pay close attention to what he said immediately after, as it's very telling as to why no one has gone back to the moon since the last time going to the moon. It's not that hard to understand. Also, if you watch the first part of the interview he talks about going to the moon. And at the end of the interview, he still talks about going to the moon. With all that talk about going to the moon, he went to the moon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheAIInvestor2024 The simplest, easiest example of a globe earth, and debunking of a flat earth, is sunrise and sunset. On a flat earth, there would be no need for timezones, because at sunrise the entire world would have sunrise simultaneously, at the same time. Whether it be China, New York City, or Los Angeles. Same with sunset, as on a flat earth the entire earth would go to nighttime simultaneously, at the same time. Yet, in reality it isn't like that at all, right? On a globe earth, while it is night in Beijing, it is daytime in New York City. Impossible on a flat earth!
1
-
@TheAIInvestor2024 Why would you feel the earth spinning? When you are on a train, do you feel some force wanting to throw you to the back of the train? When you are on a plane, do you feel some force wanting to throw you to the back of the plane? Besides, we're talking about one measly earth spin in a 24 hour period! You think that is some fast movement? Feeling that spin would be like watching paint dry!
Since I don't understand how sunrise and sunsets works on flat earth, why don't you explain it then?
Circular window of the surface of the earth can produce an image of a globe? Seriously? How long did it take you to make up that goofy nonsense?
I've studied the moon landing in depth, and haven't seen any evidence to prove a hoax. Care to elaborate on all that evidence? Please show the proof of fakery of 1/6 gravity in a vacuum? Especially since no Hollywood movie has ever been able to, to this day!
Of course things get smaller and smaller as they go further away, but why would the bottom of a ship disappear? What explanation would that be other than going over a curve? It can't be waves, unless they are 50-100 feet high! A straight road is not a valid example, as elevation comes into play.
So, why doesn't someone send a camera up in space to show the curve, just to try to appease a few misguided flat earther's? That's hilarious! It would be pointless anyway, since you would automatically declare it as fake! Right? You won't accept any photo or video, it all has to be fake, as far as you are concerned.
1
-
1
-
@TheAIInvestor2024 Strange how you are so passionate about your flat earth, make comment after comment about it, yet refuse to explain anything as to why you think it is flat? You just ramble on, making claims, but nothing to back it up. I suspect you are confused yourself, about how your flat earth is supposed to work.
Also, you say that this isn't about debunking flat earth, which we have, in many ways. If flat earth is debunked, then what are we left with? Uh...maybe a globe? So you see, debunking flat earth is proving the globe.
1
-
1
-
@TheAIInvestor2024 Because once the sunrise starts, the entire flat earth will see the sun, whether it be China or New York City, all at the same absolute time. Likewise, when the sun sets, the entire flat earth will go dark all at the same absolute time. To prove it in a simple experiment, all you need to do is suspend an opaque flat disc (or anything flat) in a darkened room, and use a handheld light to mimic the sun. Move it from comepletely below the disc, then above, then completely below the disc again and observe. The disc is either all lit or all dark, no partial states where some is and some isn't. That's why flat earth doesn't work.
Using the same experiment with a globe shows different results, which explains why some of the globe is dark, while another part of the globe is lit. That proves the globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christianpulido8360 "The moon blocks the the light of the sun."
But you said the moon was a light. If that was so, we would see a full moon every night.
"NASA has many documents that mention a flat non-rotating earth"
Just shows how ignorant you really are! You think Reference Publication 1207 is saying that the earth is flat and non rotating, when it doesn't say that at all. It’s a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more quickly, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect. Such as the curve and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, so that everyone was on the same page. The equations that have been derived in the report are based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass,” which doesn't happen in reality, as aircraft burn fuel while they fly and change mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations in the report are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth.
1
-
1
-
The earth makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. I'd hardly call that spinning. The hour hand on an analog clock moves twice as fast as the earth rotates. If you were on the moon, looking back at the earth, you would might not think it was moving at all, though it is. Also, realize that if the earth was the size of a basketball, the vast deep oceans would be less than a quarter of a millimeter in thickness. Now, a millimeter isn't much, so imagine only a quarter of a millimeter of water on a basketball sized earth. In that comparison, it doesn't seem like gravity would have to work that hard to keep the water to the earth. The biggest problem you and most flat earthers have, is that you can't conceptualize how huge the earth really is. With the earth so large, the curvature is miniscule and water looks flat, though it's not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FinanciallyWeGrow "u lie and say we can’t see a boat because it goes over the curvature maybe my eyes can’t see it but my binoculars can"
If you can see the boat in its entirety, then it hasn't gone over the horizon, it is in front of the horizon. When a boat starts to go over the horizon, the bottom also starts to disappear, because it is being obstructed by the curvature of the earth. No amount of zoom or magnification can bring back the bottom of the boat.
"Look up Pythagoras and see why he thought the earth was a globe"
His initial reasons are irrelevant. However, he still thought the earth a globe, and was convinced because of lunar eclipses, and how the horizon made ships disappear. Look up Eratosthenes, and how he calculated the circumference of the globe earth to a high degree of accuracy in 240BC.
"Did u know our internet and phone access comes from underwater cables? "
Yes there are underwater cables, and there have been for many decades. They certainly don't provide cellular service or GPS (Global Positioning System).
"Did you know that satellites were on helium balloons?"
False, that's flat earth nonsense. How would you keep them from being blown off course, or damaged from severe storms?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yestervue4697 Pilots on planes don't fly by straight lines, they fly by altitude. That's why they don't have to "dip" flying over the globe.
I'd still like to get back to sunrise and sunset, where you think the sun just goes out of the eye's range, and that's what you call sunset. Yet, like I said, on your flat earth, the sun would have to get smaller, and smaller, and smaller, to where it was just a tiny, tiny pinpoint of light in the sky. But that doesn't happen, doe it? The sun maintains the same size at sunrise, mid day, and sunset, almost no change in size through the whole course of a day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aok4418 So you ignored my list from the other thread. Many independent third parties, that had nothing to do with NASA, tracked different Apollo missions to the moon and back, by a variety of means: Bochum Observatory, Jodrell Bank Observatory, Larry Baysinger, Arcetri Observatory, Paul Maley, Sky and Telescope Magazine, Chabot Observatory, Corralitos Observatory, Paul Wilson and Richard T. Knadle, Jr., Jewett Observatory, radio amateurs W4HHK and K2RIW, Sven Grahn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mstr-menstandingfortheirrights Just as I suspected, you are referring to NASA engineer Kelly Smith, in the 2014 video Orion: Trial by Fire. I've seen it more than a few times. You should watch, and actually pay attention to what Kelly is saying. He doesn't say at all, that "we haven’t sent people to space", or anything close to that. Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts will likely die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nallen1006 You seem to think that indoctrination tells us the shape of the earth. That's narrow minded nonsense. You can go outside and observe the sun throughout the course of a day, to come to the conclusion that the earth is a globe. It's impossible for the sun to maintain the same size, throughout the course of a day, if the earth was flat. That's not indoctrination, that's observable reality.
In terms of Operation Paperclip, were they really hard core Nazi's, or just rocket scientists that were given the opportunity to resettle in the US, and work for the US? They certainly weren't going to be able to continue their work in Germany, and were smart not to want to be captured by the Russians, so why not take the best offer? While former Nazi's may have worked for NASA, it's false to say NASA was started by Nazi's, especially since NASA wasn't even created until 1958.
1
-
1
-
@mafijatom3828 Because it isn't about the technology. To go to the moon with humans aboard, it requires funding, drive, purpose, and technology. Without the first three, the technology is mostly irrelevant. Your problem is that you think it is all about the technology, and perhaps think they that should have kept 50 year old rocket parts lying around, just so they could keep going to the moon, along as they still had the funding, drive, and purpose to do so, which they didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Total nonsense! Anyway, here is a partial list of some of the best. Not composite, Photoshopped, or CGI. All shot on celluloid film.
AS17-148-22725 to 22751, that's 26 photos.
AS08-14-2383 to 2394, that's 12 photos.
AS08-15-2535 to 2580, that's 46 photos.
AS08-16-2588 to 2609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-44-6668 to AS11-44-6696, that's 29 photos.
AS11-36-5293 to 5309, that's 17 photos.
AS11-36-5317 to 5381, that's 65 photos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christianpulido8360 "The Sun disappears from your line of sight."
That's nonsense. You've never seen any sunset then. All you have to do, to prove the earth a globe, is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day, preferably over an open ocean. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe, and not flat. On the usual flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle above the earth, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, thus, the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bigtalk2598 "How can you not see that you are being deceived and that the earth is flat?"
Because all you have to do, to prove the earth a globe, is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day, preferably over an open ocean. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe, and not flat. On the usual flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle above the earth, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, thus, the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They were mostly bored, and for good reason. That press conference wasn't until a couple weeks after their return. After being locked up in quarantine all that time, after being away from their families all that time, after being asked the same questions during the quarantine, after a grueling mission to the moon, after years of training doing the same things over and over, after years of being a military pilot, test pilot, then astronaut. The astronauts weren't private explorers seeking fame and fortune, they were mostly doing a job they were trained to do, nothing much more to them than that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@link7412 If your reading of the Bible was more astute, you would realize that the Bible is filled with poetic and colorful metaphors, hyperbole, similes, parables and figures of speech. Not every word is to be taken literal. Look at this in reference to your verse from Job.
"Spread out the sky”: This phrase refers to the expanse of the heavens, the celestial canopy that stretches above us. It speaks of God’s creative power in forming the universe.
“Which is strong”: Despite its apparent delicacy, the sky is remarkably sturdy. It holds the sun, moon, stars, and clouds in place, providing a protective covering for the earth.
“As a molten looking glass”: The comparison to a mirror made of molten bronze emphasizes both its brilliance and its solidity. Just as a polished mirror reflects light, the sky reflects the glory of God’s creation.
In essence, this verse reminds us of God’s sovereignty over the natural world. It invites us to marvel at the intricate design of the sky and recognize the Creator behind it all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaydawg7200 Because all you have to do, to prove the earth a globe, is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day, preferably over an open ocean. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe, and not flat. On the usual flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle above the earth, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, thus, the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.
Also, the reasons why you don't feel anything is because one, the earth is hardly moving. One measly rotation in a 24 hour period. The hour hand of an analog clock moves twice as fast as the earth rotates. Try standing, and taking 24 hours to complete one revolution in the same spot. You won't feel a thing from the movement, and will likely fall asleep before the 24 hours are up.
Also, second reason, the earth is rotating at a constant speed. You only feel acceleration not a constant speed. An airplane travels at 500mph constant cruising speed, but you won't feel it, only the speed change, ascension, descension, and air turbulence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RJ-s41ty "why do they use such a more expensive and heavy metal (lead vests) when giving x-rays?"
Yes, you do need thick lead shielding against high intensity X-rays but the radiation in the Van Allen belts is not X-rays, its charged particles. There are two main types of radiation, the first is electromagnetic waves. This covers everything from the radio waves, though microwaves, infrared which we feel as heat, visible light on through ultra violet, X-rays to Gamma rays, that is the electromagnetic spectrum. The second type of radiation is charged particles, these are the component parts of atoms such as protons, neutrons and electrons which have been broken apart by nuclear reactions or extreme heat as in the sun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RJ-s41ty Independent third parties, tracking Apollo to the moon: The Soviet Union, Kettering Grammar School, Dr. Michael Moutsoulas at Pic du Midi Observatory, Justus Dunlap and others at Corralitos Observatory, Professor Heinz Kaminski at Bochum Observatory, Jodrell Bank Observatory, Larry Basinger, Paul Maley, Chabot Observatory, Paul Wilson and Richard T. Knadle, Jr., Jewett Observatory, Sven Grahn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did you see the parts of the press conference where they were laughing and smiling? Or just the edited conspiracy theory version that told you they were miserable with shame and guilt? Don't be a sheep! They were mostly bored, and for good reason. That press conference wasn't until a couple weeks after their return. After being locked up in quarantine all that time, after being away from their families all that time, after being asked the same questions during the quarantine, after a grueling mission to the moon, after years of training doing the same things over and over, after years of being a military pilot, test pilot, then astronaut. The astronauts weren't private explorers seeking fame and fortune, they were mostly doing a job they were trained to do, nothing much more to them than that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NatureBoyWooo I probably know the flat earth theory, better than you do. To prove the earth a globe, all you have to do is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe. On your flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Even in darkness, that tiny little pinpoint of light, would still be visible. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, even at sunset. Thus, the earth is a rotating globe.
1
-
@NatureBoyWooo The earth makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. If you look at the big hand on an analog clock, the big hand would be moving twice as fast as the earth rotates. If you were on the moon looking back at the earth, it would look like it wasn't moving at all, though it would be. Stand there for an hour, and you'd notice it moved a few degrees. Now, before you start talking about 1000mph, maybe you need to understand how huge the earth really is. That's one of the main things flat earthers can't understand, how huge the earth really is. They are totally bamboozled by big things, huge distances, and big numbers like 1000mph. That's why they look at something that appears flat, and call it flat, even though it really isn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DeadEyeJedi "when rail companies are laying tracks, or road-builders are building long distance roads, they also have to take curvature into account."
From an engineering aspect, I disagree with this. They pretty much follow the terrain, where slope and grade are the most important considerations, not the curvature of the earth. Laying track or roads as close to level (which means a globe earth, because of gravity) as possible is the goal, so curvature would rarely be a consideration. Roads and railroad tracks are built in fairly short segments, so deviation from the earth's curvature would be insignificant anyway. Regardless, the notion that flat earthers like to hold that straight roads and straight railroad tracks must mean a flat earth, is silly.
1
-
1
-
For something to be level, you have to have gravity, it really has nothing to do with flat. Of course something that is flat can be level, but not always. A vertical wall can be flat, but it sure isn't level. A wall with a slope can be flat, but it isn't level either. A tool level, you know with the bubble in a tube of liquid, works via gravity. Sea level isn't referring to flat, it is because gravity has pulled it around the globe of the earth. The earth being so massive, is why it may appear flat to the naked eye. Flat earthers will tell you that gravity doesn't exist, but that's because gravity can't work very well on flat earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@isaaclaumbach2522 When the Apollo program was cut, all the funding for future moon missions stopped. All the infrastructure, engineers, spare parts, assembly jigs, etc., weren't needed anymore, so they went away as well. The Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft were one use only, so they didn't build anymore of them. All that is the technology that's being referred to, that was lost, destroyed, or whatever word you want to use. It cost an incredible amount of money to go to the moon, so it's not that easy to start things up again.
1
-
@misterjones6696 "Take a Globe and dump a Bucket of water on it see if the globe will hold the water (Gravity=Theory) strong enough to hold entire oceans but cant hold down a helium baloon ,smoke, or a gnat."
The gravity of the earth pulls the water off the globe, and down to the earth, so of course that experiment won't work. The helium balloon is lighter than air, so can escape gravity to a point. Smoke is moved by air currents, but will eventually settle. A gnat has wings, so can counter gravity. When the gnat isn't flying, it is being held by gravity. Oceans don't have wings, and are not lighter than air, so of course gravity holds it to the earth.
Here is something to think about. If the earth was the size of a basketball, the depth of the billions of tons of the oceans would only be a quarter of a millimeter in thickness. Now, a millimeter isn't much, but imagine only a quarter of a millimeter, in thickness for all that water! Wow, that doesn't seem like so much water for gravity to hold to the earth, does it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@libertypltd4198 That's ridiculous. You've never seen a sunset over an open ocean on a clear day, obviously. I've seen your phony videos, they are nothing like we see in the real world. Have you ever noticed how your videos never show the sun in darkness?
To prove the earth a globe, all you have to do is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe. On your flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I asked Microsoft's CoPilot AI about this, and this is what it said:
Google did not conclude that footage from the 1969 U.S. moon landing was fake. A video circulating on social media claimed otherwise, but it’s essential to clarify the context12. Let’s explore a few instances where misinformation or conspiracy theories have led to confusion:
AI-Generated Images: Recently, a post on X purported to show images proving that the moon landing was fake. These images depicted camera crews on a stage resembling the moon’s environment. However, these images were not genuine; they were created using artificial intelligence (AI). The post was debunked, and the AI-generated content was identified using a tool called Hive Moderation21.
Stanley Kubrick Theory: In June 2023, another post claimed that the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing was faked. It shared footage of an alleged simulation, suggesting that filmmaker Stanley Kubrick directed it. However, this theory lacks evidence and is widely debunked34.
NASA Manipulation Claims: Some conspiracy theorists argue that NASA manipulated photos and film from the space program. However, these claims are often based on misinterpretations or misinformation. For example, a video presented by conspiracy theorist Dave Murphy claimed that certain NASA images were manipulated. Still, these claims lack substantial evidence43.
In summary, the Apollo moon photos are not fake, and extensive evidence supports the authenticity of the moon landings. NASA’s achievements remain a remarkable milestone in human history!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IndelibleHD Ridiculous!
A few backup tapes from the Apollo 11 moonwalk were accidentally recorded over. Since there were copies, nothing was lost. In fact, you can watch it all right here on Youtube. You can also watch all the moon walks from Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, Apollo 17, here on Youtube as well.
One measly piece of petrified wood that never even came from NASA or any astronaut. Even so, that leaves over 800 pounds of moon rocks that have never been in dispute. Hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world, and not one has ever been found to be fake.
The other stuff is pure speculation, with nothing to back it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BillyWhaler "But we took our foot off the gas pedal with space exploration. "
Speaking from more ignorance. Skylab, Voyager, Viking, other probes to planets in the solar system, Hubble, Space Shuttle, ISS, etc., all took place after the Apollo program. They never would have happened, if they kept going to the moon. With the enormous cost of manned trips to the moon, there would have been nothing left , to do anything else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You have to realize that after six successful moon landings, and twelve astronauts walking on the moon, public interest started to wane, as well as interest by Congress and the President, who control the funding. So, in 1972 the entire Apollo program was cancelled. All funding was cut off. There was supposed to be an Apollo 18, Apollo 19, and Apollo 20, but those were cancelled as well. Along with the funding, all the infrastructure, equipment, engineers, contractors working on parts, all went away. That is what is meant by "lost the technology."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HuWhiteNat "Does a pilot constantly have to adjust the nose of the plane down to compensate for the sphere?"
Why do you parrot the same, dumb, flat earth nonsense? This just proves your ignorance about altitude and how pilots fly planes, and no, many pilots don't admit the earth is flat. Pilots fly by altitude, using a device called an altimeter. They don't fly by straight lines, and worry about flying in a straight line out into space. Also, altitude is equidistant around the earth, so if you are flying a particular altitude, you just maintain that altitude, and ignore the curvature of the earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If we are spinning at 1000 miles per hour even with gravity we should either perceive it or we wouldn’t be able to survive it. "
The earth makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. If you look at the big hand on an analog clock, the big hand would be moving twice as fast as the earth rotates. If you were on the moon looking back at the earth, it would look like it wasn't moving at all, though it would be. Stand there for an hour, and you'd notice it moved a few degrees. Now, before you start talking about 1000mph, maybe you need to understand how huge the earth really is. That's one of the main things flat earthers can't understand, how huge the earth really is. They are totally bamboozled by big things, huge distances, and big numbers like 1000mph and the sun being 93 million miles away. That's why they look at something that appears flat, and call it flat, even though it really isn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timishere1925 Did you see this, that I posted above?
Here is a partial list of some of the best photos of the earth from space. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS17-148-22725 to 22751, that's 26 photos.
AS08-14-2383 to 2394, that's 12 photos.
AS08-15-2535 to 2580, that's 46 photos.
AS08-16-2588 to 2609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-44-6668 to AS11-44-6696, that's 29 photos.
AS11-36-5293 to 5309, that's 17 photos.
AS11-36-5317 to 5381, that's 65 photos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ty-Leo False! There is no border control, no immigration officers, no police force, no nothing. Since no country owns Antarctica, no visa is required to travel there. If you are a citizen of a country that is a signatory of the Antarctic Treaty, you do need to get permission to travel to Antarctica. This is nearly always done through tour operators. If you are going on your own, you will most likely be asked to register your intended visit, list your travel plans and possible environmental impact, and agree to follow the regulations of the Treaty. If you come from a country that is not a signatory, you are not required to get a permit, but the ports that you leave from may insist that you have some sort of permission before you go.
I guess you think that if you can't go there to drill for oil, destroy native life, build permanent structures, leave trash, etc., that is some sort of infringement keeping you from going there? If that's the purpose you want to go there, then that will be frowned upon, and perhaps the boat or plane you were planning to take you there, wouldn't let you on board. The biggest obstacle keeping you from traveling to Antarctica is that it is expensive, it’s remote, it’s a harsh environment, and if something goes wrong it’s a long way to get the level of medical help you might conceivably need.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tobyncummins "To debunk flat earth era once and for all the establishment only need to fly them down to Antarctica to prove once and for all that they were mistaken. "
That's a naive pipedream, at best. The establishment, whoever that is, wouldn't want to waste their time on what they perceive to be a relatively few group of people with mental problems. Flat earthers wouldn't volunteer for it, some too cowardly, for fear that their passionate flat earth fantasy world may be nothing but a fraud, and they couldn't take the embarrassment. Others would refuse, because they would seriously think that they were going to be taken and executed for their flat earth beliefs, never to be seen again. Maybe thrown over the edge, lol! Then others, like Eric Dubay, would never go, because it's too lucrative to keep up the show, enjoying that feeling of royalty, thus it's better to keep things the way they are. I don't think Eric Dubay personally believes the earth is flat, it's just a scheme for him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Phoenix80675 Ok, I just read it. My other reply still stands. Are "I am the light of the world,", "I am the door of the sheep," “I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep," "I am the vine; you are the branches," "he who comes to me will not hunger," the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready," all to be taken absolutely literal?
Ask yourself why is it that not one real Christian church supports or promotes a flat earth and dome? You really think that a few random flat earthers are the only knowers of truth? Out of all the thousands of Christians I have met, only two have been flat earthers. However, they also believed in every cockamamie conspiracy theory there is, so it was no wonder that they were flat earthers as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jan-zm2yv Why doesn’t the sun get smaller and smaller, as it moves away? Wouldn’t that make logical sense on your flat earth model, that the sun would appear smaller and smaller, as it moves farther away? Why doesn’t it get so small, until just a tiny pinpoint of light? Instead, why in reality, does the sun maintain the same size, throughout the course of a day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or at sunset?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Do you know all flight models for all air forces are based on a flat stationary earth."
Because you have no idea what a flight model is. NASA Reference Publication 1207: Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model, is a prime example of how flat earthers like yourself, cherry pick a couple words to try and say that NASA and the military state that the earth is flat and motionless. This document and others like it, don't say that at all. 1207 is a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation model written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more efficiently, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect on the model. Such as the curvature and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, because they are insignificant to the model. Notice how the document also states that the equations that have been derived based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass.” Which doesn't happen in reality either, as aircraft have flaps and ailerons, and burn fuel while they fly thus changing mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that has no flaps to change position, burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TrevorCrook-c1s You're clueless about what Don Pettit was trying to say. He said nothing about radiation. In 1972, when Congress cut funding to NASA, the Apollo program was scrapped. That meant everything that went with it, contracts with contractors, infrastructure, equipment for building spacecraft, engineers, support personnel, all of it went bye bye. That's what Pettit meant with his poor choice of the word "technology." And building that back up again, is very difficult and basically starting from scratch. With Apollo done, this gave NASA the opportunity to do less cost draining projects, and they did a lot over the decades. If they had kept going to the moon, they couldn't have done those things.
"Orian reported that radiation was effecting guidance systems. "
You're confused about that as well, can't even spell Orion correct. You are referring to NASA engineer Kelly Smith, in the 2014 video "Orion: Trial by Fire." Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts will likely die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
But that is old news. Last September, Polaris Dawn, with its crew of four, went through the most dangerous parts of the belts and came back just fine.
1
-
@TrevorCrook-c1s "Exposure to high levels of radiation will give you cancer and genetic mutations ."
That is true, but it all depends on the length of exposure, and the type of radiation. Not all radiation is the same.
Dr. James Van Allen:
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.
The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.
A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.
However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James A. Van Allen
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If i shine a small penlight on the ground"
If the penlight is the sun, and you're holding the penlight at arms length, and the scale is 2 miles by 2 miles, how is the penlight ever going to cover that scale of the earth? Even in a room the size of a gymnasium, you still wouldn't be able to cover the floor, and you would still be able to see a flicker of light from it on all corners of the gym floor. You seem to think that the sun is not as bright as it seems. The reality is that the sun is blindingly bright, and if only a pinpoint, you would still be able to see it. Look at the sun sometime and see how bright it is, hopefully you won't go blind in the process. Another problem, that in your theory, the sun gets smaller and smaller the farther away it moves. This is clearly false, just by observing the movement of the sun on a clear day. At sunrise, at mid day overhead, and sunset, the sun maintains the same size throughout the course of a day. Observe the sun setting at the ocean on a clear day. It certainly isn't getting smaller as it goes over the horizon. And again, it's going over the horizon, over the curve of the earth, not moving away and getting smaller as it goes.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I'm talking about covering the Earth in the circular motion you are talking about for flat earth. During that circular motion you are saying represents flat earth, after it's done it's full rotation, the whole earth should have been covered. A penlight, or 12 watt bulb would no way be able to accomplish that on a 2 mile field, or a gymnasium. The point is, that whatever light source you use, that is capable of covering the entire earth during it's rotation, would still be able to be seen from the farthest edges. This alone makes your flat earth model impossible, with the reality we see with our eyes. Also, your light source would have to get smaller and smaller as it gets farther away, which we know doesn't happen in reality either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@3_years_left All you have to do, to prove the earth a globe, is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day, preferably over an open ocean. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe, and not flat. On the usual flat earth model of the much smaller and much closer sun, going around in a circle above the earth, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot, since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, thus, the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RCTurbo79 All you have to do is go outside some day, and observe the course of the sun. Preferably, at the ocean on a clear day. Observe the sun at sunrise, mid day overhead, and sunset. Pay close attention at how the sun maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, overhead at mid day, and sunset, before rather abruptly going over the horizon. Remember, the sun stays the same size throughout the day, that is the key thing to think about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaykay9286 "And there are many videos of the Sun shrinking in size."
Total nonsense. You can't produce even one. The only videos that flat earthers produce of the sun, are the ones with overexposed lens flare, huge blobs of blurry light that don't resemble the sun at all.
If the earth was truly flat, the sun would start out as a tiny little dot, then magnify many times over until at its largest at mid day. Then gradually getting smaller, and smaller, and smaller, until just a tiny dot again, a pinpoint of light. A pinpoint of light, that you could still see in darkness, just as we see other stars. But, in reality, that doesn't happen, thus the earth is a rotating globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davisrichard3440 "They beat us first wit satellite, n first to orbit, "
And the US soon moved ahead of the Soviets in the space race. The space race was essentially over, a couple years before the first moon landing. Look at the Gemini missions preceding Apollo, Gemini 3 through Gemini 12. Those were all crewed missions that did a number of things that prepared for the Apollo missions. Have you even heard of the Gemini program? Then there were the Apollo missions, especially the crewed Apollo 7 through Apollo 10 missions. Apollo 10 did everything Apollo 11 did, except land the LM on the moon. The Soviets were no where near the US, with all those missions. In fact, the Soviets main moon rocket kept blowing up, and without that, no way they were going to the moon. Also, I hope you know that it wasn't just Apollo 11 that landed on the moon. Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17, all landed on the moon, with Apollo 17 in 1972. Apollo 13 was aborted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wesleyA4962 "Even a NASA engineer saying we have to figure out how to protect our astronauts from radiation won't convince y'all. "
You're very confused. You are referring to NASA engineer Kelly Smith, in the 2014 video Orion: Trial by Fire. Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sandmanbeaches565 As usual, Bart Sibrel lied! Why haven't you figured out yet that Sibrel is a lying con? Sibrel’s shortened version of the video is recut out of sequence: the unedited footage simply shows the astronauts preparing for TV transmissions and testing the camera settings. This is evident by listening to their communications in full, as available in the Apollo Flight Journal (Day 1, part 4: Navigation and Housekeeping and Day 2, part 2: TV Transmission), instead of taking selected quotes out of context. These communications report that the pictures show the eastern Pacific Ocean, the west coast of North America and the southern coast of South America (north is down and to the left).
Moreover, the camera trick alleged by Sibrel wouldn’t have worked even if the astronauts had tried it. If the Apollo spacecraft had been in low orbit around the Earth, with its TV camera peeking through a circular mask at a small portion of the planet below, the footage would have shown ever-changing clouds and parts of the planet rolling by as the spacecraft rapidly circled the globe. The uncut, less grainy version of the video presented by Sibrel instead shows exactly the same unchanging cloud patterns for as much as fifteen minutes.
In order to provide 1969 TV viewers back on earth with the best possible view of earth from space, it was necessary to eliminate the glaring reflected light and direct sunlight that was streaming into the spacecraft and interfering with the shot. The official Apollo 11 mission documentation from 1969 contains astronaut Michael Collins' own discussion of these lighting problems and the difficulties he experienced with the window shades in the Apollo spacecraft. Unfortunately for Bart Sibrel, he is obviously unaware of astronaut Mike Collins documented statements, or just lied as he does. The astronauts shuttered most of the capsule windows with special shades that blocked most of the glaring direct and reflected sunlight coming off of the bright, shiny Lunar Module which was docked in close proximity to the location of the windows.
What one actually witnesses in the video are not cutouts or templates passing between the earth and the TV camera, it is the communications headset wiring, arms and body of astronaut Michael Collins as he reaches over to remove the shade blocking one of the spacecraft windows. As soon as the shade is removed, the video shows the cabin immediately illuminating with glaring reflected sunlight. We also see that Collins is the one opening the window shade and that another member of the crew is obviously handling the camera from the vicinity of the foot area of the crew couches. Sibrel expressed the impression that the hand-held Westinghouse TV camera was hard-mounted to the face of the cabin window, which was totally false.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Why are there NASA documents in which they're doing tests on a flat and motionless plane?"
You think Reference Publication 1207 is saying that the earth is flat and non rotating, when it doesn't say that at all. It’s a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more quickly, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect. Such as the curve and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, so that everyone was on the same page. The equations that have been derived in the report are based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass,” which doesn't happen in reality, as aircraft burn fuel while they fly and change mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations in the report are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth.
"Why'd Buzz Aldrin say they never went to the moon? "
He never said that. Notice the question Zoey asks: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?" Long time means from the last time since going to the moon. Buzz answers appropriately, "We didn't go there" during the long time since the last time going to the moon. Please pay close attention to what he said immediately after, as it's very telling as to why no one has gone back to the moon since the last time going to the moon. It's not that hard to understand. Also, if you watch the first part of the interview he talks about going to the moon. And at the end of the interview, he talks about going to the moon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Brian-di2yd Since you want to talk about the sun now, it's more proof of a rotating globe earth. Notice how it maintains the same size at sunrise, still the same size at mid day overhead, and still the same size at sunset, as it appears to, rather abruptly, slide down below the horizon. This would be impossible on a flat earth, can only happen if the earth was a rotating globe.
I know your flat earth model, where you think the sun moves around the flat earth in a circle. If that was true, your view of the sun would start out in the morning as a tiny little dot, that gradually gets bigger and bigger as it moves closer to you, reaching its maximum size at mid day overhead, then gradually getting smaller and smaller in the evening, shrinking even more until just a tiny dot as it moves away from you. A tiny dot that would always be visible with magnification, never actually set, as it circles back around again. Yet, in reality, none of this happens, proof that we are not on a flat earth.
1
-
The earth makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. I'd hardly call that spinning. The hour hand on an analog clock moves twice as fast as the earth rotates. If you were on the moon, looking back at the earth, you would might not think it was moving at all, though it is. Also, realize that if the earth was the size of a basketball, the vast deep oceans would be less than a quarter of a millimeter in thickness. Now, a millimeter isn't much, so imagine only a quarter of a millimeter of water on a basketball sized earth. In that comparison, it doesn't seem like gravity would have to work that hard to keep the water to the earth. The biggest problem you and most flat earthers have, is that you can't conceptualize how huge the earth really is. With the earth so large, the curvature is miniscule and water looks flat, though it's not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jdl1276 "A prize possession in the Dutch national museum is not what the curators thought. In 1969, three Apollo 11 astronauts visited the Netherlands. And the U.S. ambassador gave the Dutch prime minister what he said was a moon rock. When an expert saw the rock in the museum, he didn't think it was real. Geologists have identified the moon rock as petrified wood."
That's a big so what? It didn't come from NASA or any astronaut. The ambassador, Middendorf said he got it from the State Department, but couldn't remember the details. My guess is that it was a real moon rock given to the prime Minister Drees, and then sometime during his possession it was stolen and replaced with the petrified wood, hoping no one would notice. Anyway, it's an interesting story, but it doesn't mean anything in regards to the Apollo missions.
Since you are a flat earther, isn't it silly for you to comment on minutia regarding Apollo? All space travel has to be fake, right? All the Mercury missions fake. All the Gemini missions fake. All the Apollo missions fake. All the other non human missions by the US, fake. All the Russian missions fake. Chinese missions fake. All the Indian missions fake. That's lot of fakery going on. How is all that pulled off? And for what reason, just to make the people of the world, think the world is not flat? Wouldn't it be a lot easier, to quit misinterpreting the Bible like you have, and realize that God made the earth a globe? A globe earth would fit so perfectly with the rest of the globe based universe, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timparziale8762 That's a lousy analogy. Protecting the Manhattan Project was about keeping Hitler from getting the bomb, and thus save the whole world. Protecting a moon landing hoax, would be about protecting a big lie. Keeping a lie secret for 50 years, and for what? Really? Or, are you saying that the Manhattan Project was a hoax as well?
Anyway, basically what you are saying it that all the people at the top, maybe a couple dozen, a hundred perhaps, agreed together that it would be a good idea to fake it all? Even then, how do you get such complete, loyal compliance to fake something so large? You really think that would be easy? What do they really have to gain, and everything to lose? Are they the ones doing the faking too? Convincing real astronauts that now they are actors and faking would be good, organizing all the audio and video fakery themselves as I'm sure they must know all about that kind of stuff, somehow coming up with fake moon rocks to pass off as real moon rocks, convince the Navy that the splashdown is all going to be fake, etc., etc. And you don't think this would require a huge conspiracy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ltetobago #7. There are many pictures of the earth from space. Here is a partial list. They are neither CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. They were shot on celluloid film. There is no dome, obviously.
AS08-13-2369 to 88, that's 19 photos.
AS08-14-2507 to 80, that's 73 photos.
AS14-64-9189 to 97, that’s 9 photos.
AS08-16-2619 to 58, that's 39 photos.
AS08-16-2587 to 609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-40-5923 to 24, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-162-24047 and 48, that's two photos.
AS17-162-24066 to 73, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22669 to 71, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22679 to 86, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22699 to 702, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22717 to 51, that's 34 photos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here is a partial list of photos of the earth from space. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS08-13-2369 to 88, that's 19 photos.
AS08-14-2507 to 80, that's 73 photos.
AS08-16-2619 to 58, that's 39 photos.
AS08-16-2587 to 609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-40-5923 to 24, that’s 2 photos.
AS14-64-9189 to 97, that’s 9 photos.
AS17-134-20383 to 84, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-134-20387, that’s 1 photo.
AS17-137-20910-11, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-162-24047 and 48, that's two photos.
AS17-162-24066 to 73, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22669 to 71, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22679 to 86, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22699 to 702, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22717 to 51, that's 34 photos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ELZI_the_Light "people that believe the sun goes up and down.. you guys are tripping"
If your flat earth was true, then the sun would have to get smaller and smaller and smaller, until it was eventually a tiny pinpoint of light. Yet, that isn't what we see in reality, is it? In reality, we see that the sun maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, before rather abruptly going over the horizon. You should try watching a sunset someday, on a clear day over the ocean.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chinering23 Are you really that ignorant, or just dumb? Maybe you should watch the whole 17 minute interview with little girl Zoey, instead of the edited conspiracy theory version. Notice the question Zoey asks: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?" Long time means from the last time since going to the moon. Buzz answers appropriately, "We didn't go there" during the long time since the last time going to the moon. Please pay close attention to what he said immediately after, as it's very telling as to why no one has gone back to the moon since the last time going to the moon. It's not that hard to understand. Also, if you watch the first part of the interview he talks about going to the moon. And at the end of the interview, he still talks about going to the moon. With all that talk about going to the moon, he went to the moon.
Apollo astronauts that went to the moon, Alan Bean, Eugene Cernan, and Edgar Mitchell, did swear on the Bible. That means they went to the moon.
1
-
1