General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Yazzam X
JRE Clips
comments

Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Joe Rogan | There is No Evidence the Earth is Flat" video.

The Earth rotates once a day, that's half the speed of the hour hand of an analog clock. Referring to 1000 mph is a classic dishonest flat Earth believer tactic that you got from flat Earth theorists :-) And water 'sticks' to the Earth because of the proven force of gravity. The gravitation pull of a little ball is not enough to hold water. And I see curvature here; www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9mRkNNwHjo And here; www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKF7D7XsyTA And here; www.youtube.com/watch?v=hROaZ9cyTO4
2
@jack-n3p5j - Anyway... I think we've both made our points now and I think we both agree that more could be done to take more accurate footage from high altitude, so lets end this discussion here. Thanks for the debate, I did enjoy it (no insults, no attacks, just both of us making our points :-)). All the best to you.
2
Nope, flat Earth is the result of a lack of knowledge of science :-) For example, please state your BEST example you have of a "bizzare explanation" to make a globe Earth "work".
2
Everything you've said is pure nonsense. Where shall we start? What about your comment "If a fish eye lens causes a false curvature at 110,000 ft whats causing the flat horizon at 110,000 ft?"? :-)
2
You said "I buy the flat earth model" Which flat Earth model would that be exactly? Because there are several! For example; - Does your flat Earth have a firmament dome? If yes, then how high is it? If no, then why do some claim there's a dome enclosing the Earth? - Does your flat Earth end at the wall of ice? If no, then how far does the land go beyond the wall? Why do some say it ends at the wall? - Does your flat Earth rest upon pillars? If yes, then how many pillars are there and where are they positioned? - Is the sun and moon in your flat Earth shaped like discs or balls? - How far away is the sun and the moon in your flat Earth? Also, can you provide an accurate flat map of your flat Earth? A map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all the distances are correct as they are on the actual globe of the Earth?
2
@nagualchris2 - You said "Look up in all your Holy books, and ask any of your cult leaders for your absolute best scientific proof of Heliocentrism". Well, I can offer proof of the Earth being a globe, which is a start :-) And talking about "Holy books", Creationists are well known to most for taking the Bible literally, and yet even THEY say the Earth is flat. Why is that? Some Creationists even go as far as claiming the flat Earth is actually an aethiest/darwinist conspiracy to make Christians appear out of touch with reality and hence created to discredit them (eg. claiming that Christians used to say the Earth was flat). So out of interest, are Creationists (with certain beliefs that even some flat Earth theorists have adopted) in on your conspiracy too? Are Creationists also too stupid? :-)
1
@nagualchris2 - And you've allowed charlatans like Eric Dubay to do your thinking for you, where you're demonstrating a lack of critical thinking yourself. See, it's very easy to make such comments about others ;-) Anyway... Before I present proof of a globe, the following is an important point to consider. first: ALL OF US can find an accurate flat map of our town/city, a size where curvature of the Earth would be negligible. That map will feature a small bar or line indicating the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km etc. In other words, it tells us the scale of our map. Because of that, we can take any two locations or any route on our map and measure it to work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the map is an accurate representation of our town/city. In other words, we can take as many locations and routes on our map as we want, making that observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence that conforms to the scientific method. Do you agree with the above?
1
@nagualchris2 - You said "So, you think that things working out on a map is "proof" of something? Haha. Come on, man!" Then you should have nothing to fear by answering my simple question :-) So again: Do you agree that if EVERY distance measured is correct on a map of our town/city as I described, then that proves it is an accurate map of our town/city. Yes or no please?
1
@nagualchris2 - You do fear my question, which is why you STILL haven't answered it :-) If it was irrelevant as you claim, then you would have no objections in answering a simple "Yes" or "No". Simply put, if we have a map where distances measured on that map are wrong (i.e. they don't match the real world measurements), then that map is proven to be inaccurate. If on the other hand every distance and route measured on that map matches what we find in the real world, then that map is proven to be accurate. So surely your answer to my question must be "Yes". If not, then explain why not :-)
1
@nagualchris2 - You cried "The land maps are relatively correct. The missing area is in the oceans." It's not for you to second guess the point I'm making and hence dismiss it out of hand, so cut out the rambling nonsense and stay focused. You have NOW conceded that land maps are relatively correct (we'll come back to that again later), but overall that means your answer to my question is YES. So why couldn't you just come out and say YES to begin with?
1
@nagualchris2 - So now that we've established that you agree we have accurate flat maps of our towns/cities, then lets expand from that, i.e. for the entire Earth. The MAP of the Earth is just ONE piece of evidence that proves the Earth is a globe. Take a globe of the Earth (the bigger it is and the higher the quality the better), then select ANY two locations on that globe, measure the length and work out the distance in miles (based upon the size/scale of the globe) and it will match that distance measured for real for that same journey on Earth, either by land or sea or air. That works for ABSOLUTELY ANY TWO LOCATIONS on Earth. No errors, no discrepancies, just accurate distances no matter which two locations you choose to measure. Hence just like the accurate flat map of your town/city, the map of the Earth on a GLOBE offers the same kind of accuracy. NO OTHER SHAPE offers that result, much less a flat circle like the AE/Gleason map.
1
@nagualchris2 - Flat Earth theorists latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice. However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart. Just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie, far from your comment that and I quote "The land maps are relatively correct". For example, look at these distances between cities on the AE/Gleason map interpreted as a flat Earth, where the distances could not be any more wrong (the Globe Earth distances are ALL confirmed to be correct by actual journey's over sea and land); https://ibb.co/bud1Xf If the Earth really was flat, then producing an accurate flat (2D) map of a flat Earth would be orders of magnitude easier than creating a 2D map of a Globe Earth. So after over 150 YEARS of published flat Earth books, where is the map? So to claim the Earth is not shaped like a globe, you need to provide another shape for which the map of the Earth offers accurate distances for ANY two locations chosen. Until then, that evidence alone is enough to prove the map of the Earth arranged around a globe is accurate, it works, it has worked for centuries, and therefore the globe is the correct shape of the Earth. And not only that, it is observable, measurable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable, exactly what science method is based upon :-)
1
@nagualchris2 - You said "Wow, I cannot believe you are STILL going on about this nonsense. You LOST this debate. Give it up." Declaring "I win" or "you lose" is childish, so grow up and engage in a debate like an adult please. It will be up to others reading this thread to decide who is right or who is wrong. So the fact remains that for an accurate flat map of any town or city, we can take ANY two locations or ANY route on that map and work out the CORRECT distance, which will match the distance in the real world. That proves the map is an accurate representation of that town/city. Likewise for a GLOBE of the Earth, where we can take ANY two locations or ANY route across the Earth and work out the CORRECT distance, which will match the distance in the real world. That proves the map arranged on a GLOBE is an accurate representation of the Earth. Therefore there's absolutely no excuse for the LACK of an accurate flat map of the Earth where we can take ANY two locations or ANY route and work out the CORRECT distance as we can for maps of our towns/cities and for the GLOBE of the Earth. So what's your excuse now Chris? :-)
1
EVERY popular conspiracy theory fad has people talking about it and people debunking it until the next fad comes along :-)
1
Actually they do work. Eg: Google Search; Garmin GPS used on South Pole trek
1
Nah, flat Earth theorists simply capitalize on people's lack of understanding in various areas, and hence like many conspiracy theories will present arguments that may leave some people scratching their heads but will be seen for the nonsense that it is for those who have expertise/knowledge in the areas under discussion :-)
1
The Earth being a globe and rotating and gravity are ALL proven facts. The facts don't change just because you deny them :-)
1
Actually there is.
1
There's a massive amount of evidence, you simply deny it all:-) In contrast, I would ask you for just ONE piece of evidence to prove the Earth is flat: Present an accurate flat map of your claimed flat Earth! A map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where ALL distances between locations are correct. If the Earth was flat, then creating such a map would be child's play compared to a globe. So where is it? :-)
1
@shanepeterman6054 - The burden of proof is on the claimant, which is you. The Earth being a globe is an established scientific FACT. Just because YOU personally disagree doesn't change that FACT. Also, why the ignorant obsession with NASA with flat Earth believers? NASA was formed in 1958, whereas knowledge and proof of the Earth being a globe goes back over 2000 YEARS! Hence you don't need their budget. EVERYONE OF US, including YOU, can find an accurate flat map of our towns/cities, so why can't you put all the world's maps together to create your flat map of a flat Earth? That should be easy if the Earth really was flat :-)
1
@shanepeterman6054 - You said "LOL wow, there is no accurate globe map and you think I have one of FE?!?" Wrong son, as I will demonstrate. The MAP of the Earth is just ONE piece of evidence that proves the Earth is a globe. Take a globe of the Earth (the bigger it is and the higher the quality the better), then select ANY two locations on that globe, measure the length and work out the distance in miles (based upon the size of the globe) and it will match that distance measured for real for that same journey on Earth, either by land or sea or air. That works for ABSOLUTELY ANY TWO LOCATIONS on Earth. No errors, no discrepancies, just accurate distances no matter which two locations you choose to measure . NO OTHER SHAPE offers that result, much less a flat circle like the AE/Gleason map. So to claim the Earth is not shaped like a globe, you need to provide another shape for which the map of the Earth offers accurate distances for ANY two locations chosen. Until then, that evidence alone is enough to prove the map of the Earth arranged around a globe is accurate, it works, it has worked for centuries, and therefore the globe is the correct shape of the Earth. Next?
1
@shanepeterman6054 - While I wait for you to address the accuracy of the map of the Earth arranged around a globe, I've got to pick up on this comment from you, Quote "But yeah, we spin around on a pear shaped ball flying through an endless vacuum (which actually would be breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics)" Wrong, no laws are broken. But if you disagree, then please expand upon your little claim please :-)
1
They don't send up cameras with fish eye lens, they send up cameras with lens that have a wide enough field of view to capture the scene (which naturally causes distortion). And who are "they" exactly my friend? :-) Don't flat Earth believers send up their own cameras on balloons too? And for those that do, have they ever mentioned using camera lenses that are different to all others? (and I don't mean IR) :-)
1
@jack-n3p5j - We CAN see curvature at 100,000 feet, but most people (on BOTH sides of the argument) interpret the footage incorrectly to fit in with their views, as I will explain. The problem is, videos at altitude claiming to show curvature or flatness are invalid tests unless people take into account the distortion caused by the field of view of the lens, and I've never seen anyone do that on either side of the argument. For example, look carefully at videos making such claims and you'll notice that the higher the horizon is above the center of the video, then the greater the curvature of the Earth. But the lower the horizon is below the center of the video, then the more the Earth appears concave! And notice that there's a 'sweat spot' near the center of the video where the earth appears to be flat.
1
@jack-n3p5j - This change in the shape of the Earth depending on where the horizon is in relation to the center of the video is due to the distortion caused by the lens used. Not fish eye, often just a normal wide angle to capture a decent view of the Earth. For example, look how the horizon goes from being a convex curve (round) to a flat horizon and then to a concave horizon in seconds here; tinyurl.com/y4mqfu6a Many videos like to choose a time when the camera is stable and hence the horizon appears to show a globe or the horizon appears to be flat, and hence they say "Behold, proof that the Earth is flat/globe", but again, without taking the distortion into account they are not proving anything. I hope you understand the point I'm making here :-)
1
@jack-n3p5j - No my friend, a fisheye lens is a wide angle lens where the field of view is 180 degrees (i.e. from your extreme left to your extreme right). Hence the wider the field of view, the greater the distortion seen. The following should make for interesting reading; expertphotography.com/wide-angle-lens/
1
@jack-n3p5j - Which part of the link I provided did you not understand?
1
@jack-n3p5j - Read the following link about the GoPro's field of view (fov); projectgo.pro/gopro-field-of-view/ As you notice, there's a range available. Now here's the point. You can get an idea of the fov used at the START of high altitude videos when the camera is still on the ground and then when it begins to rise. Superview is the nearest to fisheye at 170 degrees, so again that would be EASY to see when the camera is on and near the ground. So don't claim fisheye lens for such footage unless you have proof please. As I said, wide angle produces that distortion, where the wider the angle then the greater the distortion. And hence the lens setting used will vary from video to video, even when using the SAME camera.
1
@jack-n3p5j - There was nothing for me to admit, I made the point from the start that the distortion seen is CAUSED by wide angle lens (which you insisted was fisheye), and hence I said that people on BOTH SIDES can't claim to know how much curvature or flatness there is unless they take that distortion into account. So re-read this thread please.
1
@jack-n3p5j - That's an idea, but it doesn't require NASA, we can all do it ourselves, for example; alioth.io/high-altitude-balloons Hence we see amateurs attaching cameras to balloons and sending them to such altitudes and then uploading their video to YouTube. So the question is, given that flat Earth believers are the ones claiming the curvature of the Earth is a lie, why haven't they made more of an effort to do it themselves, especially those making money out of it like Eric Dubay?
1
So how can GPS work in the middle of a desert for example with no civilization and hence no electricity for hundreds of miles in all directions?
1
And yet you ignore the better quality video in the Apollo missions that followed up to 1972. Why is that? And since when did high quality CGI exist back then (let me guess, NASA sent the computers and software back in time?). In 1969 to 1972 we went to the moon thanks to the largest and the most powerful rocket EVER launched into space, called the Saturn V. Name the rocket capable of getting people to the moon after the Saturn V went out of service. Now lookup the rocket of the same size and power as the Saturn V due to launch by June next year, called the SLS, which will take astronauts around the moon in 2023.
1
@kostasz7z - You said "When i say they CGIed the Apollo 11 video im talking about the restored version which was done relatively recently you clown." And yet here we are years later and NO-ONE has identified anything in the restored version that we don't see in the original untouched TV footage. You said "Secondly the Apollo 11 mission had high definition cameras mounted to it and NASA supposedly recorded everything but they claim to have lost the tapes." No, NASA made a BACKUP copy of the SAME footage discussed above, just in case the live TV broadcast to the world failed. Hence if the world couldn't see it live, then NASA would have processed their backup (stored on telemetry magnetic tapes) and send the footage out to TV studios worldwide. But the TV broadcast DID work, the world watched it live, and so NASA's BACKUP was redundant and hence the tapes lost (probably reused). You can read all about here in NASA's own report; www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Apollo_11_TV_Tapes_Report.pdf
1
@kostasz7z - Hence what you may be thinking of is the OTHER backup that NASA made on FILM, just in case the TV broadcast to Earth failed. So in fact, the Apollo 11 'moonwalk' was actually filmed by TWO cameras, the TV camera that broadcast the footage we all know and a 16mm film camera (DAC) from inside the lander. Except for the first steps at the beginning, the camera was set to capture one frame per second (making the reel last about 90 minutes). We can watch both footage side by side in the following videos, take note of the TV camera with stand being moved into position by the astronaut in the first video at 34:00 onwards; www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL_SrBMBRCc www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVAGjO2dtUA (Film runs out at the end of this video) www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0L12WjQ4co That alone debunks the claim that NASA had anything to hide by losing their backup version of the TV broadcast :-)
1
@kostasz7z - Thank you for proving my point with your ignorance son :-) Here's the spec of the Apollo 11 TV camera used for the moonwalk that you thought was HD; https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat5.pdf "10 frames per second and 320 lines of resolution" So how is that high definition? It was much LOWER than the standard 30 frames per second and 525 lines television standard of the time! So not only was the frame rate and resolution lower, but the process used to convert that footage to 525 lines and 30 fps in real time caused the image quality to be WORSE, but no-one realized at the time. Decades later, they realized if they could find the TELEMETRY MAGNETIC TAPES used to store the 320 line 10 fps BACKUP Apollo 11 footage, then they can extract a better quality version of that footage because it would be the original non-converted version. But those tapes are gone, leaving us with the converted version of the SAME footage, which has since been digitally restored to achieve a quality close to the original.
1
@kostasz7z - And no telemetry data was lost! That story comes from the lost telemetry magnetic tapes with NASA's BACKUP of the Apollo 11 moonwalk, which some ASSUMED to mean telemetry data was on those tapes. Telemetry data was always printed out for a hoard copy, since it offers permanent storage and can be easily shared and analyzed. Hence after each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the telemetry data was analyzed and presented as charts, graphs. and tables. So here's the mission report for Apollo 11 published in November 1969. It even includes the astronaut's heart rate telemetry data as they descended to the moon's surface, their heart rate during their time on the moon and their heart rate when they left the moon's surface (hence proving none of the telemetry data was lost); www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionReport.pdf So if you insist all telemetry data was lost, then how can telemetry data be in that report? And if you believe telemetry data is missing, then state which telemetry data should be in that report but isn't (with supporting evidence please).
1
The key location in Antarctica is the South Pole, which flat Earth theorists claim doesn't exist, and yet you can book yourself onto a holiday/vacation to the South Pole; www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-20192020 www.discover-the-world.com/destinations/south-pole-holidays/ So what do you think they're hiding there that relates to the shape of the Earth?
1
Yes. Next? :-)
1
@b3njys235 - Lets start with a simple point which will lead onto one example of evidence; ALL OF US can find an accurate map of our town/city, where that map will feature a small bar or line indicating the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km etc. In other words, it tells us the scale of our map. Because of that, we can take any two locations or any route on our map and measure it to work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the map is an accurate representation of our town/city. Do you agree with the above?
1
@b3njys235 - Possibly? Think about it further please :-) If you had an accurate map of your town/city in front of you right now, you can; a) Find your current location on that map b) Select a new location somewhere in your town/city c) Measure the distance along the route you would travel to get there. d) Work out the distance in miles or kilometers. All done using your accurate map. Hence travel that route for real as you did on your map and the distance would be the same (walking, driving, riding, flying etc). That's what accurate maps are great for. Can you see that now?
1
To get men to the moon required building the largest and the most powerful rocket EVER launched into space, called the Saturn V. Once the record breaking Saturn V retired, name the rocket capable of taking people to the moon.
1
The Bible also mentions the four corners of the Earth, and yet the vast majority of the flat Earth theorists and believers refer to a circular flat Earth, i.e. no corners! So please explain why over 2 BILLION Christians today and why all official Christian churches for almost 2000 years say the Earth is a globe. Do they not believe in the SAME Bible as you? :-)
1
Why doesn't Dubay contact shows and channels to have a debate with scientists instead of hiding behind the safety of conspiracy channels/shows? :-) Eric Dubay's claim are nonsense that can easily be debunked, hence Eric doesn't appear on such shows because he knows he would be shown up to be a charlatan.
1
Really? And yet flat Earth believers keep bringing up the shape of the Earth ALL the time, including trolling science and astronomy topics to spread there claims. So by your logic, they are all trying to convince themselves that the Earth isn't a globe :-)
1
Flat yes, but distorted! If the Earth really was flat, then we should have an accurate flat map of the Earth that not distorted in ANY way. No such map exists, no such map is possible, and therefore the Earth cannot be flat :-)
1
Nope, the Earth is a globe and it's actually rather easy to prove it's a globe with evidence that even you can check for yourself :-)
1
@JD43232 - As I said, it's easy to prove the Earth is a globe and hence not flat, but before discussing such evidence, can you say which version of a flat Earth you believe in please? Because there are many to choose from, i.e. dome or no dome? Edge or no edge? Infinite plane? Pillars or no pillars? Gravity or no gravity? Globe sun/moon or flat sun/moon? etc.
1
@JD43232 - It's interesting that a) You don't appear to be able to state the version of a flat Earth that you believe in as I requested, and b) You don't appear to have any interest in proof that the Earth is a globe. Why is that?
1
Really? Then provide an accurate flat map of your flat Earth please. A map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all the distances are correct as they are on the actual globe of the Earth.
1
@rubbishopinions6468 - That's one of the worse arguments I've read in a long time :-) Maps used for navigation are 2D PROJECTIONS of the GLOBE Earth, for example; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections Because it's impossible to represent a 3D surface on a 2D flat surface without distortion, there are numerous maps to choose from, where people can choose the map that's best for them depending on where they are and where they're going. If the Earth was flat, then you should be able to present a flat map of the Earth where there's NO distortion anywhere. So where is it? :-)
1
@rubbishopinions6468 - Well, anyone can play games of parody and sarcasm, but you clearly don't understand flat Earth believers if you think you've said anything here that I haven't heard before from genuine flat Earth believers. Good day to you too :-)
1
What exactly has stopped Eric Dubay from accepting invites to science channels/shows to debate his flat Earth beliefs? What exactly has stopped Eric Dubay from contacting science channels/shows HIMSELF to ask for a debate on his flat Earth beliefs? If Eric had contacted such shows and they refused, then he would have shouted it out from the rooftops as proof they were afraid. And yet that hasn't happened, proving he hasn't tried :-) Instead, Eric only accepts invites to speak/appear on conspiracy channels/shows because he feels safe there, knowing that no-one would challenge him there. So yes, Eric Dubay IS running from a debate :-)
1
@annesophiem - Firstly, cut out the childish and immature descriptions and grow up. Act your age (assuming you're over 12 years old). Secondly, since when does Eric need a YouTube channel to participate in a debate on a science show or channel? There are MANY ways for people to participate, from skype to phone, to discussions on radio or TV. Thirdly, Eric loosing his channel is a relatively recent event, so what was his excuses in all the YEARS before. So cut the excuses please. Eric avoids appearing on any show/channel where he would face scientists who would show him up to be the charlatan that he is. Therefore stop being a coward Anne and address the points I've made and answer my question: Why hasn't Eric approached science shows and channels HIMSELF to debate his flat Earth claims with scientists?
1
Says those who think it's attractive to regurgitate what some conspiracy theorists tells them in YT videos :-) But seriously, you really think the Earth is flat?
1
What a convenient generalization :-) So do you believe ALL the popular conspiracy theories around then?
1
Our senses are not accurate enough and they are easily fooled :-)
1
Ever heard of analogies and comparisons? Neil says the Earth is practically a perfect sphere, where he and others THEN describe what makes Earth less than a perfect sphere (oblate spheroid, pear shape etc). In other words, to the naked eye the Earth looks like a perfect sphere, but in reality it's not. THAT'S the point Neil and others are making.
1
@DaviDamir - Yes. If you made a perfect model of the Earth that was 3 meters high (just under 10 feet), then it would be 1 cm wider at the equator! In other words, your model of the Earth would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide (an oblate spheroid). That's too small a difference to see with the naked eye. And also, the bottom half of your perfect model Earth would bulge out by a few millimeters compared to the top half, which again is too small to be seen with the naked eye (hence the pear shape reference). To anyone seeing your model of the Earth and in any photo taken of your model Earth, it will look like a perfect sphere.
1
@DaviDamir - Which part of "If you made a perfect model of the Earth" did you not understand David? :-)
1
@DaviDamir - So not only do you fail to understand what an analogy is, but you're now saying you don't understand what a hypothetical example is?
1
@DaviDamir - Gee, and there I was thinking people are innocent until proven guilty. I guess the law doesn't matter to you :-)
1
@DaviDamir - Again, innocent until proven guilty. That is important, no matter what excuses you make. Anyway.... State what you would like me to show you from/in space and explain how you would personally determine whether it's CGI or not please.
1
@DaviDamir - In other words, you can't offer any explanation, therefore in future don't take the cowards option of asking for something that you would automatically dismiss. Is that clear? If so, then good :-)
1
@DaviDamir - You said "keep in mind that low earth orbit isnt space" Wrong (as usual). Space officially starts from 62 miles up (look it up). If you disagree with the science, then state the distance from Earth that you believe space begins and present a link to support your claim. No excuses please :-)
1
@DaviDamir - To get PEOPLE past low Earth orbit requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history, which they did with the Saturn V in the 60s. Name a rocket in service since then that was as large and as powerful as the Saturn V. Since 2011, the USA haven't been able to send people into space at all, so do you conclude that the Space Shuttle was a hoax and that many US rocket were a hoax? Since 2003, we can't send 100 passengers across the Atlantic at twice the speed of sound. In fact, today's passenger planes can't even reach the speed of sound much less TWICE that speed. So do you conclude that Concorde was a hoax? And regarding Orion, which was tested in space in December 2014 by being sent into the region of the Van Allen belts with the highest radiation TWICE and it aced that test, proving it's ready to take people through the belts without the delicate modern electronics failing, watch the following video and try to learn something for once; www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7ph-tfiRMg Next?
1
@DaviDamir - You said "let nasa know because they dont consider low eath orbit space..." Low earth orbit is inside the Thermosphere, so Google search "Space Station Thermosphere" and tell me what you find son.
1
@DaviDamir - Except none of the claimed mistakes or contradictions are valid, they are just BS made up by conspiracy theorists that you choose to believe. Von Braun said a SINGLE STAGE rocket that could take off from Earth, fly to the moon and land, then take off from the moon and fly back to Earth and land (to be refueled for the next mission), is impossible. THAT'S the impossible rocket from sci-fi movies that would need to be the size of the Empire State Building just to carry enough fuel. THAT'S the point Von Braun was making. And see how the maker of "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" lied to you and yet you fell for it :-) www.dailymotion.com/video/x2zt9g6
1
@DaviDamir - You said "are you talking about wernhers disney movie propaganda" No, I'm talking about the Empire State Building comment on page 14 of Von Braun's 1953 book "Conquest of the Moon" that I own and read! Unlike yourself :-) You said "the apollo 11 footage could have been filmed in a studio anytime before they flew that rocket into the ocean." No sci-fi movie in history has successfully faked perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio, much less for uncut scenes lasting several minutes. And if the rocket was flown into the ocean, why do so many hoax believers claim the astronauts were in low Earth orbit throughout the mission? It can't be both! And the body language nonsense is used by numerous believers of various conspiracy theories, hence that's meaningless speculation, guesses and assumptions :-)
1
@DaviDamir - You said "its examples like this that make me question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qy6xn2NZ4s" And that's what makes me so disappointed in people like yourself, where a) You only question ONE side, and b) You don't carry out any research yourself. Take the VERY FIRST CLIP in your video above for example, where it was taken from a viral spoof video made by the late Adam Stewart of the Viral Factory (an advertising agency based in Shoreditch, UK). So here's Adam's viral video called MoonTruth (also read the video description); Moontruth www.youtube.com/watch?v=960vBSKT-Pw Here's some footage during rehearsals; Moontruth Practice www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nZXOQdA1Cs Moontruth Cigarette www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugHRLWf46Ck Hence the fact that your video began with a lie tells you about the rest of the video and hence about the honesty of that video, and yet you didn't doubt it for even one second David!
1
FACE GALLON - 😂
1
@DaviDamir - Firstly, it's interesting how you just gloss over (i.e. ignore) the fact that I proved the beginning of your video was a lie. Why is that? Secondly, the reason people claim slow motion is because the MOON DUST in hour after hour of Apollo footage falls at the correct speed for the moon's gravity. So unless you suspend every grain of dust by a wire then the only other option would be slow motion, and THAT'S the problem. To make dust on Earth appear to fall at the rate of the moon's gravity, the footage must be slowed down by 2.46 times, the square root of 6. Therefore to restore your claimed Apollo footage back to 'normal', then it must be sped up by 2.46 times to ensure the moon dust falls at the rate of the Earth's gravity, and yet when we do that the astronaut's movements are clearly WRONG, they are too fast, like those old black and white Keystone Cops movies. For example; www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyGD2_XiSPE www.youtube.com/watch?v=axEFTsXlsfA www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTgRnnHu590 www.youtube.com/watch?v=806QKgk2ANg Therefore that debunks the slow motion claim (and common sense would tell you that if all it took was slow motion then YT would be full of videos from people recreating 1/6th gravity THEMSELVES with slow motion as proof).
1
@DaviDamir - Regarding Earth through a window, you appear to be referring to the claim made by Bart Sibrel which was proven to be a lie by Bart himself; www.dailymotion.com/video/x2zt9g6 The claim that the astronauts were not in the Saturn V and that the rocket crashed in the ocean was first made by Bill Kaysing in his 1976 Apollo hoax book "We Never Went to the Moon", and yet in a hoax documentary in 2000, the SAME Bill Kaysing claimed the astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, taken there by the SAME rockets he claimed were ditched in the ocean. So why did he change his mind? Probably because of the Apollo footage showing perfect zero gravity in scenes lasting over a minute, much longer than the mere 20-30 seconds possible with a 'vomit comet' airplane. And again, don't give me body language and quote mining, which is a classic and dishonest conspiracy believer tactic. Present solid evidence, not speculation, guesses and assumptions :-)
1
@DaviDamir - You said "whats your opinion on wernhers tombstone quote" That our relatives and families can put whatever they like on our tombstones after we're dead :-) You said "then explain away the links i posted in public comments with the anomalies ie ...nasa fails." I've already done that, but don't expect me to go through EVERY SINGLE claim made. After all, if I posted a link to a video (or video series) debunking dozens of flat Earth claims, then why should I expect YOU to offer counter arguments to ALL of them? So lets simplify it. State what YOU consider to be the BEST evidence that the Earth is flat and the BEST evidence that the moon landings were a hoax. Just ONE claim for each, not multiple claims, and lets discuss your two BEST claims :-)
1
@DaviDamir - While I wait for your best evidence, I'll address this question "also can we see stars in space?" Astronauts state when we can see stars and when we can't, it all depends on the circumstances. Here's a few quotes about when we can and cannot see stars, from Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins' 1974 book "Carry the Fire: An Astronaut's Journey" - [When in orbit around the earth], quote: "...Out from behind the shadow of the earth, we are into the constant sunlight...Towards the sun, nothing can be seen but its blinding disk, whereas down-sun there is simply a black void. The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts, and the light from the stars is too dim to compete with the reflected sunlight, as both enter the eye through the tiny aperture formed by the contracted pupil. No, to see the stars, the pupil must be allowed to relax, to open wide enough to let the starlight form a visible image on the retina, and that can be done only by blocking out the sunlight...". [When in the shadow of the Earth during a Gemini mission], quote: "My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different; this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human has ever had... My only complaint is that the protective coatings of my visor do not allow an even more spectacular look at the stars." [When entering the shadow of the moon], quote: "...To add to the dramatic effect, we find we can see the stars again. We are in the shadow of the moon now, in darkness for the first time in three days, and the elusive stars have reappeared as if called especially for this occasion...". [With Neil and Buzz on the surface and whilst in the shadow of the moon], quote: "...Outside my window I can see stars - and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars". That is consistent with everything we've heard from Neil and Buzz and other astronauts since people first went into space.
1
@DaviDamir - Nah, the "truth" and "facts" are what I take seriously, where I think the truth and facts are important and hence they matter :-) Besides, it's not for me to convince you my friend, that's not why I'm here. I just put the information/facts out there for OTHERS to read, and hence OTHERS can make up their minds :-) Regarding edits, I write better than I type, and so my replies tend to be full of typos which need correcting later (I don't allow the errors to slow me down as I type).
1
@DaviDamir - And yet you parrot flat Earth claims and yet not once do you show any doubt in the claims they're making. And for some reason, like flat Earth believers, you act as if NASA are the only space agency on Earth, hence you completely ignore the 71 other government space agencies worldwide and private space agencies worldwide and satellite companies worldwide and so on :-) So don't give me any more claims that you blindly believe without question and without doing any research (as you've just done again), instead present what you consider to be the BEST evidence. If you're not claiming the Earth is flat, then present your best evidence that the Earth is not a globe (one claim). And present your best evidence that the moon landings were a hoax (one claim). If you can't choose one, then present your top three for each.
1
@DaviDamir - You said "i also like the convex / concave amateur videos of reaching "space".amateur rockets flying straight up coming to a complete stop also." Which are perfect examples of the ignorant talking about what they don't understand, and people like you believing them :-) So lets start with the flat Earth believers rocket claim, where they say it's an example of a rocket hitting the firmament dome. Here's what typically happens; 1) We see an amateur rocket with an on board camera launch. 2) The rocket begins to spin faster and faster. 3) We hear a sound and the rocket suddenly stops spinning. 4) The rocket stage separates. 5) Flat Earth believers jump up and down crying "It hit the firmament dome!!!". For example: "Rocket hitting the flat earth dome" www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAcp3BFBYw4 And now here are the FACTS behind such footage; a) Those rockets are designed with tail fins to make them spin through the air to give them stability (like when a dart or arrow or bullet spins through the air). b) The rocket cannot deploy the payload safely while it's spinning, so a method is used to stop the rotation called *yoyo despin. * c) At the desired altitude, yoyo despin is deployed, which consists of weights at the end of cables which fly outwards (look up how and why it works). d) In the footage we can see and/or hear the yoyo despin being deployed and so the rocket stops spinning. e) The payload is then deployed and that rocket stage falls back to earth. We don't see the yoyo despin device in some videos because the camera was mounted BELOW the device, and hence it's behind the camera. For a clear example of yoyo despin where the camera is mounted ABOVE the device so that we can see and hear it, watch the following YouTube video please; "Dizzying Up And Down Rocket Flight Captured By On-Board Cam | Video" www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni7S8yyYrAw At 1:35 in that video, we can actually see the cables of the yoyo despin device being deployed and then the rocket stage separates moments afterwards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni7S8yyYrAw&t=93 Notice the rocket stops spinning in the SAME way and we hear the SAME sound that was claimed to be the rocket hitting the dome! Again, in some other videos the camera is placed BELOW the yoyo despin device, so we don't see it, we can only hear it. So when you look again at flat Earth videos claiming rockets are hitting the dome you should have a greater understanding of what is really happening, and therefore you will know those videos are wrong (to the point of lying).
1
@DaviDamir - So please explain why you we so quick to believe those videos were showing you amateur rockets "flying straight up coming to a complete stop". Why didn't you question their rocket claims? Why didn't you do any research yourself? Why are you so easily fooled by such claims?
1
@DaviDamir - In other words, you are ignorant and you are proud of your ignorance :-) Just listen to yourself " i hear water when the rocket stops suddenly.im just guessing its hexafluoride". What has hexafluoride gas got to do with anything? Present evidence to support your little claim please :-) I provided you with a flat Earth video claiming a rocket hits the dome (without breaking or exploding). I then provided you with a video of a similar type of rocket with the camera mounted in a different position that reveals the device used to stop the rocket rotating, hence debunking that flat Earth video. So why the denial? It's rather cowardly for you to blatantly deny information when it's presented so clearly and obviously. So again, why the denial? And why support the claim of a dome when you also claim you're not saying the Earth is flat? So you appear to be lying here too :-)
1
@DaviDamir - You said " i guess im so easily fooled" Correct ;-) And said "dude youre just failing to impress me with your "evidence"" 'Dude', I'm not here to impress you and I never waste time trying to change the minds of those whose minds are made up already, so get over yourself please, you're not important :-) I simply present the FACTS and let OTHERS reading threads like this to decide for themselves. You said "is it a coincidence a scramjet has the same speed as the iss" And what relevance do you think a theoretical scramjet has to this discussion? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet#Vehicle_performance Quote "Theoretical projections place the top speed of a scramjet between Mach 12 (14,000 km/h; 8,400 mph) and Mach 24 (25,000 km/h; 16,000 mph).[41] For comparison, the orbital speed at 200 kilometres (120 mi) low earth orbit is 7.79 kilometres per second (28,000 km/h; 17,400 mph)." Orbital speed of the ISS = 17,100 mph Next?
1
@DaviDamir - Theoretical predictions are what they say they are, i.e. theoretical predictions. Hence you're in no position to claim otherwise. And learn to understand what you read son, on that page it says and I quote "For comparison, the orbital speed at 200 kilometres (120 mi) low earth orbit is 7.79 kilometres per second (28,000 km/h; 17,400 mph).[42]" That's the speed to maintain low Earth orbit at 120 miles up, NOTHING to do with a scramjet. The ISS is higher and hence requires a slight slower 17,100 mph. So where does it say a scramjet travels at 7.79 km/s? Instead it says for a scramjet and I quote "Theoretical projections place the top speed of a scramjet between Mach 12 (14,000 km/h; 8,400 mph) and Mach 24 (25,000 km/h; 16,000 mph)". So stick to discussing the Scramjet, don't give me details about your personal Scamjet :-)
1
@DaviDamir - So instead of admitting you were wrong like an adult, you prefer to play childish games instead. It figures :-)
1
@DaviDamir - Keep on proving my point David :-)
1
There are relatively simple ways to prove the Earth is a globe that anyone here do themselves :-) Are you interested?
1
FACE GALLON - No problem my friend. I'm having that same discussion in the other thread here that we're both in, the one started by "nagualchris2". Should be interesting to see how that one works out (i.e. will he accept the evidence, or will he deny it :-)).
1
Actually there is, hence the Earth being a globe is a fact :-)
1
@thisyoureadwrong - And effectively you prove that you just cheery pick whatever you like and couldn't care less about consistency :-) The claim that the land extends beyond the wall of ice is based upon the assumption that there is no dome to get in the way, i.e. where the wall of ice is suppose to be up against the firmament dome. What do you mean by the Earth being hollow in the middle btw? And the moon is a projection? Who/what is projecting it? And your map is just the Gleason map, which is a standard azimuthal equidistant projection map (or AE map), and hence is not an accurate map of a flat Earth (distance are wrong, eg. Australia is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie). As for the Jesus Christ reference, flat Earth belief has nothing to do with Christianity, which says the earth is a GLOBE.
1
@thisyoureadwrong - You don't know that about the moon landings, you choose to believe that, which is a big difference. Just as you've chosen to believe the Earth is flat. And why are you trying to bring other 'conspiracies' into this? Stay on topic please, which is your claimed flat Earth :-)
1
@thisyoureadwrong - So much ignorance from you in just one solid block of text, well done :-) Btw, ever heard of paragraphs? They're very useful for making text more readable! Try using them. For EVERY conspiracy theory in existence you can use Google to find so-called evidence, so don't use that as an argument. You said "There is not a single picture of the entirety of the planet as a "Globe"" A classic flat Earth believer lie, where you tell yourselves it's all CGI and Photoshop with ZERO evidence to support your claim. For example, from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17, Earth was captured in nearly 800 FILM photographs (no CGI or Photoshop back then), with many showing the entire Earth. So if I present of one of those Apollo photos here, explain the process YOU would personally go through to determine if that photo is real or fake. Your little "indoctrinated" comment is a classic conspiracy believe attack that you ALL use against others who don't share your beliefs. So tell me, do you believe atoms are a hoax? If not, then by definition you are indoctrinated. You said "The UN logo is the flat earth itself" No son, the UN logo is a silhouette of the Azimuthal Equidistant map that flat Earth believers claim to be a flat Earth, despite the fact that even flat Earth believers are beginning to see the flaw in that claim: www.youtube.com/watch?v=r51aPK-MtWQ And then after more uneducated and rambling nonsense from you, you arrive as the conclusion that "It all ties to Satan.". Lol, really? So given that over 2 billion Christians today say the Earth is a globe and Christian churches for nearly 2000 years have said the Earth is a globe, then in what way do you think this has anything to do with Satan? :-)
1
[Edit: Comment withdrawn]
1
@sincityquinn - Actually I commented on the right comment, I just read it wrong :-) I saw "believe space is real" rather than "believe space isn't real". So my bad, my apologies, and hence I'll remove that reply. Sorry about that :-)
1