Youtube comments of Yazzam X (@yazzamx6380).
-
86
-
84
-
72
-
67
-
66
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
hmm - You said "Even half a century later (in the past 20 years), America kept failing to launch dozens of rockets off the ground, let alone into space"
That is an exceptionally unintelligent comment from you.
The Apollo Saturn V rocket wasn't launched from a secret location that the public had no access to, instead the largest and the most powerful rocket in history ever to launch into space was done 13 times from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, hence in front of countless people and a huge number of TV stations from around the world who went there to record the launches, often LIVE.
So the Saturn V rocket, the largest and most powerful rocket in the world, was watched by countless people on location and live on TV launch into space, proving the world's largest and most powerful rocket WORKS!
Therefore you didn't even think before you typed that nonsense, and the rest of your reply is laughable nonsense too (just the fact that you think the USSR were decades ahead of the USA in space proves my point).
So if you want to think the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion, but don't present arguments here that a) You haven't thought through, and b) You clearly don't understand.
If you want to claim a hoax, do better than to just parrot hoax claims about subjects that you know nothing about please :-)
31
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
24
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@jkuang - I'll copy and paste the same reply here;
Jin, your entire reply is just a series of arguments from incredulity, false assumptions and the parroting of conspiracy theorist claims that you blindly believed without question and without doing ANY research yourself.
Just the fact that you said "The whole moon landing behavior is fundamentally against any technological progress in human history" highlights my point perfectly.
According to you, the following unmanned missions should have been impossible too and hence fundamentally against any technological progress in human history.
In 1970, 1972 and 1976, the USSR landed sample return craft (that stood around 12 feet high and weighed about 6 tons) on the moon, called Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24. Each craft collected a tiny sample of moon dust and then returned that sample back to Earth for analysis.
So how was that possible given your claims about the technology back then?
Also, the USSR landed two remotely controlled car-size rovers on the moon in 1970 and 1973 called Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 (look it up please).
Both rovers had TV cameras and radio antennas, and hence that allowed Lunokhod 2 to be driven 37 km across the lunar surface over a period of 4 months under remote control (thanks to the TV broadcast);
(Links are blocked here, so replace the DOT with . and SLASH with /)
tinyDOTccSLASHfsykuz
How was that possible given your claims about the technology back then?
And when you say "A operation that simply works the first time", have you ever wondered why the first landing mission was called Apollo ELEVEN? :-)
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@tylynlesane9885 - You said " but to believe what you saw on tv and just say yeah they DEFINITELY went to the moon isn’t enough proof."
And that's the problem, because while you claim to be 'woke' and can think for yourself, you actually think that proof of the moon landings comes from what was seen on TV 🙄
Proof of men landing on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972 has NOTHING to do with what any government or the media or TV says and shows!
Instead, in the 50 years since the first moon landing, top scientists worldwide from fields such as physics (and astrophysics), rocket science, geology (and astrogeology), computing, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, electronics, and much more, have examined and verified ALL Apollo evidence, including scientists who dislike the USA and nations who would have given anything to prove it was a hoax (where their scientists would have been national heroes if they proved a hoax with verifiable evidence).
No scientist from ANY nation has ever announced finding fake Apollo evidence within his/her field of expertise, and no scientist from ANY nation has EVER said the missions were impossible (or even improbable) based upon evidence within his/her field of expertise .
In other words, if the Apollo evidence is more than good enough for the world's best scientists and the world's best engineers in the relevant fields of science and engineering that they're EXPERTS in for 50 years, then it's more than good enough for me.
And since you would probably reject any evidence that comes from NASA, how about 3rd party evidence of the moon landings?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
And don't reject that because it's Wikipedia, since the original sources for all that information can be found in the Citations and References sections at the bottom of the page.
So yes, the evidence proves men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972, hence it is not all about what people saw on TV.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@davidbaez3756 - Landing people on the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history, where rocket engine technology has barely changed since the 60s, hence we're still using the SAME basic rocket engine technology today.
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massive (and expensive) Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program but are still a long way off from building their own Saturn V size rocket.
Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful and is on the launch pad right now for tests.
On it's debut launch very soon, the record breaking SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024 or 2025.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
That's just a list of unsubstantiated nonsense my friend, where you're blindly believing everything other flat Earth believers tell you without question :-)
For example, you said "Earth is either flat or a 4th dimensional shape..."
Er no, Earth is a GLOBE and there's a relatively simple way to prove it.
Can you find an accurate flat map of your town/city where we can measure the distance between ANY two locations or measure the distance along ANY route on your map and use that to calculate the correct distance in miles in the real world?
The answer to that question is yes, we can ALL find such maps for our towns and cities.
So where's the accurate flat map of the Earth for which we can do the same?
If the Earth was flat then creating such a map should have been child's play, and yet it doesn't exist :-)
In contrast, take an accurate globe of the Earth (a decent globe doesn't cost too much), measure the distance between ANY two locations or along ANY route on that globe and we can work out the correct distance in miles in the real world!
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 or route 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.
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
And were all the grains of dust suspended on cables too? :-)
In the Apollo footage, the astronauts could not move their feet without their boots kicking dust up and around, and yet the dust ALWAYS fell at the rate of the moon's gravity with zero air resistance.
Therefore the idea that 1/6th gravity was achieved using cables is debunked by the dust.
And if you want to claim they used slow motion, then to restore the falling moon dust to the rate of Earth's gravity, then the footage would need to be sped up by 2.46 times (the square root of 6). Not by 1.5 times, not by 2 times, but by 2.46 times to match Earth's gravity.
However, when Apollo footage is fed up by 2.46 times to make the dust match Earth's gravity, the movements of the astronauts are ridiculously fast, making them appear more like the Key Stone cops in those old black and white silent movies.
Therefore neither slow motion nor cables would work, that's why in all these decades since the moon landings, not even the world's best special effects experts with the highest budgets available to them have ever recreated perfect 1/6th gravity in a studio for sci-fi films or TV series.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Nope. The lunar dust is crushed rock and silicon, where the particles are extremely fine, sharp, and it compacts easily.
So like a huge pile of cement powder, it feels solid to walk on and is compressed further when walked upon, but the dust on the surface is loose.
Regarding the blast crater claim...
Just like the sand in deserts here on Earth, the dust on the moon is many meters deep in places (deeper in some locations compared to others).
On Earth, grains of sand/dust blasted up by a helicopter would become trapped by the surrounding air to create large swirling dust clouds around the helicopter, where the thrust would remove the top several inches of loose sand;
For example: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKlrvf3lUxk
In the vacuum of the moon, there is no air to trap the dust particles blasted by the LM's rocket engine, hence they fly away in straight lines at great speed, eventually landing a long distance away. Again, the thrust would remove the top several inches of loose dust;
For example: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFuP-ZUNz_8&t=154
So for both the helicopter and the LM, the several inches of loose sand/dust blown away over a wide area doesn't show up as a crater, instead it's barely noticeable.
Here's a close up of the surface directly below the LM, where we can see the top inches of loose dust have been blown away to reveal the more tightly packed dust underneath with cracks in the surface.
If you look carefully you can even see the radial lines created as the dust was blown away;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/AS11-40-5921.jpg
I could be wrong, but there also appears to be a slight brownish discoloration of the surface too.
Therefore the idea that there should be a noticeable blast crater under the LM is as wrong.
7
-
@Erymanthios_Kafros - Also, 50% speed as you claim is invalid.
The dust in hour after hour after hour of Apollo footage falls at the rate of the moon's gravity, which falls 2.46 times slower than on Earth, hence the square root of 6.
Therefore if Apollo footage was faked on Earth and then slow motion applied, then that means it was slowed down by 2.46 times to make the dust fall at the correct speed for the moon's gravity. Consequently, that means to restore the footage back to 'normal' requires speeding up the footage by 2.46 times.
However, when we speed the footage up by 2.46 times as required, the astronaut's movements are clearly WRONG, they are way too fast, just like those old black and white Keystone Cops movies.
For example, watch the video on my CHL;
2.46x Astronauts falling on the Moon, NASA Apollo Mission Landed on the Lunar Surface
That debunks your slow motion claim.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Fact - If you have to lie to make your case, then you have no case :-)
The Hebrew word meaning deceive is actually NASHA, pronounced as "Na-shaw".
NASA in Hebrew, pronounced as "Na-Sar" or "Naw-Saw", means to lift, bear up, carry, or take, for example;
(External links are blocked, so replace 😮 with . and 🖍️ with /)
is😮gd🖍️Dyy9sN
Quote: "The Hebrew word of the week is nasa ("to lift up, take up, carry")"
Here's a few more links;
is😮gd🖍️gDYJJB
is😮gd🖍️0q3abY
is😮gd🖍️CtWTNt
Therefore the idea that NASHA is the SAME as NASA despite the added fourth letter is just a pile shiRt :-)
7
-
7
-
7
-
@TayonR - Apollo 10 can be seen as a test run, where they flew the Lunar Lander down to just 8 miles above the surface and then activated the Abort procedure so that the Ascent Module (the top half) launched from the Descent Module (the bottom half) and returned the astronauts back up to the orbiting Command and Service Module (apparently the Lander was deliberately under fuelled to prevent the astronauts from being tempted to land :-)).
So that test paved the way for Apollo 11, because at any point during the landing attempt Neil could have activated the Abort procedure if he thought they were about to crash. Hence when mission control said they were about to turn blue during the final moments, it wasn't because they thought Apollo 11 would crash, it was because they thought they may need to abort the mission so close to achieving their goal.
Apollo 9 was a full manned test of the Command and Service Module and Lunar Lander in low Earth orbit, including manoeuvring and docking procedures, hence paved the way for Apollo 10,
Apollo 8 was the first manned mission to the moon, where they orbited the moon several times before returning to Earth, hence paved the way for all the future missions. And so on.
Therefore it was never the case of just putting everything together in 1969 to send men to the moon and succeeding first time, Apollo 11 was the end result of a series of MANY steps that EVENTUALLY got men to the moon, where the Mercury and Gemini space programs before Apollo are part of those important steps too, since they made Apollo possible.
I hope that information helped :-)
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@evgeniam685 - There's nothing wrong with the term conspiracy theory, except to conspiracy believers who try to turn that term into a conspiracy (typical :-D).
It's FAR more respectful (and honest) than the stupid derogatory names being thrown around by some, like "Flearthers" or "Flatties" or "Flattards" or "Hoaxers" or "Truthers/Troofers" etc.
Conspiracy - Definition: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful
Apollo hoax believers claim the NASA used billions of dollars of tax payer's money to fake the moon landings and hence it has been covered up by government(s) ever since.
How is that not a conspiracy?
Flat Earth believers claim governments and authorities have hidden the truth about the Earth being flat and hence forced the lie of a Globe Earth upon us for centuries.
How is that not a conspiracy?
Therefore anyone who comes up with theories about such a claimed conspiracy is a conspiracy theorist! Those who believe the claims made by those conspiracy theorists are conspiracy believers!
It's as simple as that, and therefore objections to the term "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiracy believer" is unfounded.
Hence I don't say "Flattard", I say flat Earth believer or conspiracy believer/theorist. I don't say "Hoaxer", I say Apollo hoax believer or conspiracy believer/theorist. Likewise, rocket hoax believer, Mars rover hoax believer, ET alien/UFO believer, and so on.
It doesn't make any difference whether the conspiracy is true or not, if something is claimed to be a conspiracy then the theories are conspiracy theories and the believers are conspiracy believers :-)
6
-
6
-
6
-
@JuSt_Apricot - Then stop lying about the Bible you claim to go by.
The Bible is not a science book, but if we focus on faith, can you find verses in the Bible that explicitly say the Earth is stationary?
Yes, verses like Psalm 93:1 (KJV) "The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved"
Now can you find verses in the Bible that explicitly says the Earth is flat?
No, there are no such verses!
Instead, all you have are Bible verses that at best may imply a flat Earth according to those who want to interpret them that way (i.e. interpretations by charlatans that you obviously blindly believed).
There are many things that the Bible explicitly states, but no-where in the Bible does it explicitly state the SHAPE of the Earth. Fact!
If you disagree, then present the verses here please, and remember, I'm asking for the verses that EXPLCITLY say the Earth is flat, so no implicit interpretations please.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@oraoraoramudamudamuda8259 - You said "Why when nasa was asked about why they don’t go back to the moon, they said "we don’t have the technology it was destroyed"?"
Stop listening to conspiracy theorists :-)
Destroying the technology is about not having the craft still in service TODAY, it's not about destroying the hardware or the plans or the knowledge! So nothing is being covered up.
Hence Concorde is destroyed technology, it will never go into service again. The Space Shuttle is destroyed technology, it will never go into service again. Likewise the Apollo Saturn V rocket is destroyed technology, it will never go into service again. And so on.
Btw, you can find ALL those craft and more in aeronautical and science museums.
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence NASA will soon have the SLS rocket in service, which is as large and slightly more powerful than the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and they have the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces.
On its debut launch this year, the MASSIVE SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth for its second test in space. And assuming all goes well, then in 2024 the SLS rocket will again take Orion to the moon but this time with astronauts inside.
Those are examples of the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost, i.e. taken out of service, and hence in 2024 people will return to the moon.
So what will your claims be then? That the SLS and Orion are hoaxes too, right?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@jkuang - You said "Let me answer you concisely: any claimed accomplishment that could not be repeated as is, is hoax. Do you give me the excuse of losing design, no funding etc."
No designs are lost, so stop regurgitating such nonsense :-)
The USA sent men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972, with 6 of those missions landing on the moon. So how many times did they need to go before it would have been enough for you?
During the 60s BOTH the USSR and USA were able to keep people alive in low Earth orbit for days/weeks, and BOTH landed several unmanned spacecraft on the surface of the moon and even broadcast the images back to Earth.
But unmanned spacecraft don't require air to breath, or food to eat, or water to drink, or space to move etc, and hence manned spacecraft are significantly larger and heavier to keep people alive, and therefore require bigger and more powerful rockets.
So landing people on the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program but are still a long way off from building their own Saturn V size rocket.
Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful, where it is now complete and due to launch this February, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@michaeljamesreed9054 - So you are yet another flat Earth believer who refuses to state the version of a flat Earth you believe for some reason. Why is that when it should be really easy for you? :-|
Here's a fact that ANY mathematician could tell you, "8 inches per mile squared" is the equation for a PARABOLA, not a circle! So clearly mathematics was never your strong point.
The equation "8 inches per mile squared" was highlighted by flat earth theorists who are clueless about mathematics, such as the 1865 flat Earth book "Zetetic Astronomy" by Samuel Birley Rowbotham ( a book that I own btw );
Quote "If the Earth is a globe, and 25,000 miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity-every part must be an area of a circle, curvating from the summit at the rate of 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. That this may be sufficiently understood, the following quotation is given from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, art. "Levelling."
"If a line which crosses the plumb-line at right angles be continued for any considerable length it will rise above the Earth's surface (the Earth being globular) ; and this rising will be as the square of the distance to which the said right line is produced ; that is to say, it is raised eight inches very nearly above the Earth's surface at one mile's distance ; four times as much, or 32 inches, at the distance of two miles ; nine times as much, or 72 inches, at the distance of three miles. This is owing to the globular figure of the Earth, and this rising is the difference between the true and apparent levels ; the curve of the Earth being the true level, and the tangent to it the apparent level. So soon does the difference between the true and apparent levels become perceptible that it is necessary to make an allowance for it if the distance betwixt the two stations exceeds two chains."
In other words, for his 1865 book Samuel got "8 inches per miles squared" from the section within the Encyclopaedia Britannica about LEVELING, which is a branch of SURVEYING and hence was a useful 'rule of thumb' tool for surveying way back in the 19th century. It was NEVER used by scientists or mathematicians to represent the shape of the earth back then and neither is it used to represent the shape of the earth today!
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
You said "A total farce so easily seen. Stanley Kubrick did all the brilliant stage work. The largest studio in the world is owned by the Air Force. So, with that being said, what else is staged."
Incorrect on many levels.
To this day, no-one has EVER recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
Therefore if someone today successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity, not appearance) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to create the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to create the footage.
But here we are around 50 years later and that still hasn't happened, i.e. no-one has demonstrated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio because it is impossible, therefore proving the Apollo footage was filmed in the 1/6 gravity of the moon :-)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Lee, here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@jessebryant9233 - You're rather vague and evasive to direct questions about your beliefs, why is that? :-|
You posted on this video about flat Earth to talk off topic about "3 core doctrines", where you've said what you see as wrong but haven't said what you see as right, hence you're only presenting half the argument here, so I'd like to know what you believe rather than what you don't believe.
1) You said "BIG BANG cosmology: There is no science to support such a silly notion"
So please state how you believe our universe (or whatever you may choose to call it) came into existence.
2) You said "ABIOGENESIS: Well, here we have the law of biogenesis that gets in the way.."
So please state how you believe life of any form first came into existence here on Earth.
3) You said "DARWIN's view of the common ancestry of all living things: There is no empirically verifiable scientific evidence..."
So please state how you believe all life exists as we know it today.
I believe those are fair questions to ask.
It's no different than when I ask flat Earth believers to state which version of a flat Earth they believe (eg. dome or no dome, edge or no edge, gravity or no gravity, etc), because it's not enough to just say the Earth is flat.
If you're not willing to say what you believe is right, then you're in no position to tell others they're wrong :-|
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
And you are making the mistake of lumping completely different things together, which is equally disingenuous (even if not intentional :-|).
Ever since the first unmanned spacecraft were landed on the moon by the USA and USSR during the 60s, they used a combination of one main rocket engine on the craft and several thrusters spread around the craft for direction control and stability.
The Lunar Module used that SAME design principle, with ONE main rocket engine and 16 thrusters around the craft for direction control and stability.
The advantage is that such craft are easier to design and easier to control and manage, BUT... thrusters are a different technology to the main rocket engine(s) and so requires a separate fuel supply. Also, if a thruster fails then the craft could become unstable if the other thrusters cannot compensate.
Space X tries the significantly more difficult approach of using gimbaled rocket engines to perform direction control and balance/stability. In other words, Space X rockets don't use thrusters for direction and balance, instead that task is done by gimbaled rocket engines (i.e. engines that can swivel), and so it requires computer power that was not available in the 60s and 70s.
The advantage with such a design is that it uses less fuel, it's a simpler design overall and it doesn't required the addition of thrusters with their own fuel tanks.
Therefore Space X landing re-useable rockets is in no way comparable to unmanned spacecraft landing on the moon over the decades, much less comparable to the Apollo LMs landing on the moon :-|
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
-
@robstan1834 - Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
Any questions?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Here's a quote I'd like you to find using the technology at your fingertips;
"In fact the maps are detailed enough that Chinese scientists were able to detect traces of the Apollo landers, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China’s lunar exploration project."
So please explain why China would |ie for the USA :-)
Please explain how the USA tricked the USSR into believing they sent men to the moon during Apollo 8, Apollo 10, Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and finally Apollo 17.
I can understanding fooling the USSR once, when it was the first time and if the USSR were not ready or expecting it.
But NINE times in a row? No way :-)
So the excuses you're making for people believing the Earth is flat is effectively null and void.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Actually, men went to the moon and back 9 times from 1968 to 1972, landing on the moon during 6 of those missions!
How did they do it? By building the largest and the most powerful rocket ever launched into space, called the Saturn V.
After the Saturn V rocket retired in the 70s (due to the massive cost of the Apollo program), no other rocket in the world since comes close to matching the size and power of the Saturn V, until now...
...Look up the SLS rocket, the new massive rocket by NASA which is now complete and ready to launch, a rocket that is slightly more powerful than the Saturn V that took men to the moon.
In February next year (4 months from now), the SLS rocket will launch taking the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
Assuming all goes well then in 2023/2024 the SLS rocket will again take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth, but this time with a crew of astronauts on board :-)
I hope that information helps (but again, look up the SLS rocket which is nearly ready to go to the moon).
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
-
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
-
Besides, did the USA also keep the USSR quiet?
Because the USSR back then had an advance space program with many firsts in space, such as the first spacecraft to the moon, the first satellite, the first man in space etc, with technology capable of tracking spacecraft to the moon and beyond...
....and yet the USA would have needed to trick the USSR into believing they sent men to the moon during Apollo 8, and then Apollo 10, and then Apollo 11, and Apollo 12, and Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and finally Apollo 17.
Can you explain how the USA achieved that? :-)
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
-
@asifhashimov3202 - You said "You want facts? OK, just explain what they used to cool their suits, and, how they did it."
The temperature range in space at our distance from the sun is the same whether you are in low Earth orbit, or half way between the Earth and the moon, or standing on the moon's surface!
That's because space is a vacuum, there's no air and hence no temperature, therefore they quote the minimum and maximum temperature that objects may reach when in space (depending on what they're made of).
Hence an object in the sun in may gradually heat up to 250 F when in the sun for long enough, and may gradually cool down to -250 F when in the shade for long enough!
So Google Search: Space Suits Temperature, and READ the links you find.
Notice that (for the reasons I provided above) those links tell you that astronauts face the SAME -250 F to 250 F when out on spacewalks in low Earth orbit as astronauts walking on the surface of the moon.
The point is, if you're going to claim that temperature range is impossible for spacesuits on the moon, then that SAME temperature range must also be impossible for spacesuits in low Earth orbit, and so you would be claiming that's a hoax too!
If you accept the fact that spacesuits work in low Earth orbit for spacewalks lasting up to 9 hours in that temperature range, then spacesuits will work on the moon too.
Any questions?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@oraoraoramudamudamuda8259 - So you need to go to the North Pole yourself to know people have been there? :-)
Anyway, proof of men landing on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972 has NOTHING to do with what any government or the media says!
Instead, in the 50+ years since the first moon landing, top scientists worldwide from fields such as physics (and astrophysics), rocket science, geology (and astrogeology), computing, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, electronics, and much more, have examined and verified ALL Apollo evidence, including scientists who dislike the USA and nations who would have given anything to prove it was a hoax (where their scientists would have been national heroes if they proved a hoax with verifiable evidence).
No scientist from ANY nation has ever announced finding fake Apollo evidence within his/her field of expertise, and no scientist from ANY nation has EVER said the missions were impossible (or even improbable) based upon evidence within his/her field of expertise.
In other words, if the Apollo evidence is more than good enough for the world's best scientists and the world's best engineers in all the relevant fields of science and engineering that they're EXPERTS in for over 50 years, then it's more than good enough for me.
And since you would probably reject any evidence that comes from NASA, how about 3rd party evidence of the moon landings?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landing
And don't reject that because it's Wikipedia, since the original sources for all that information can be found in the Citations and References sections at the bottom of the page.
So facts matter my friend, they really do :-)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"No blast crater" is a hoax claim that you got from hoax theorists without investigating it yourself :-|
Just like the sand in deserts here on Earth, the dust on the moon is many meters deep in places (much deeper in some locations compared to others).
On Earth, grains of sand/dust blasted up by a helicopter would become trapped by the surrounding air to create large swirling dust clouds around the helicopter, where the thrust would remove the top several inches of loose sand;
[Replies with links are block here, but I'm sure you can work out all the disguised links below :-)]
tiny PERIOD cc FORWARDSLASH 7ejytz
In the vacuum of the moon, there is no air to trap the dust particles blasted by the LM's rocket engine, hence they fly away in straight lines at great speed, eventually landing a long distance away. Again, the thrust would remove the top several inches of loose dust;
tiny PERIOD cc FORWARDSLASH 8ejytz
So for both the helicopter and the LM, the several inches of loose sand/dust blown away over a wide area doesn't show up as a crater, instead it's barely noticeable.
Here's a close up of the surface directly below the LM, where we can see the top inches of loose dust have been blown away to reveal the more tightly packed dust underneath with cracks in the surface.
If you look carefully you can even see the radial lines created as the dust was blown away;
tiny PERIOD cc FORWARDSLASH aejytz
I could be wrong, but there also appears to be a slight brownish discoloration of the surface too.
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
-
Jin, your entire reply is just a series of arguments from incredulity, false assumptions and the parroting of conspiracy theorist claims that you blindly believed without question and without doing ANY research yourself.
Just the fact that you said "The whole moon landing behavior is fundamentally against any technological progress in human history" highlights my point perfectly.
According to you, the following unmanned missions should have been impossible too and hence fundamentally against any technological progress in human history.
In 1970, 1972 and 1976, the USSR landed sample return craft (that stood around 12 feet high and weighed about 6 tons) on the moon, called Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24. Each craft collected a tiny sample of moon dust and then returned that sample back to Earth for analysis.
So how was that possible given your claims about the technology back then?
Also, the USSR landed two remotely controlled car-size rovers on the moon in 1970 and 1973 called Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 (look it up please).
Both rovers had TV cameras and radio antennas, and hence that allowed Lunokhod 2 to be driven 37 km across the lunar surface over a period of 4 months under remote control (thanks to the TV broadcast);
(Links are blocked here, so replace the DOT with . and SLASH with /)
tinyDOTccSLASHfsykuz
How was that possible given your claims about the technology back then?
And when you say "A operation that simply works the first time", have you ever wondered why the first landing mission was called Apollo ELEVEN? :-)
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
-
And should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to the theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Complete nonsense, where you've bought into the simplistic claims of conspiracy theorists :-)
For example, where's your research into the behaviour of those same astronauts in previous press conferences? That's right, you haven't done any. If you had, then you would notice that their manner is much the same as during the Apollo 11 press conference, where they were there to give a presentation and answer questions from an informed audience, they were not up on stage to entertain a crowd.
Also, that Apollo press conference took place 3 weeks after the astronauts returned from the moon (they spent those 3 weeks in quarantine!).
Many today who watch that press conference assume it was a celebration of the astronauts returning from the moon, where they believe it occurred hours or days after they returned, which is why some think the astronauts don't appear as happy or as relaxed as they should, and so they assume something is wrong (i.e. that they're scared or lying).
But look at Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts just ONE WEEK after returning during quarantine on his birthday;
youtube😮com🔧watch?v=j6P1wBNHqnU
They couldn't look happier, especially Neil.
And look at Neil Armstrong in front of the troops in Vietnam, where again he couldn't look happier if he tried and is clearly relishing the moment;
youtube😮com🔧watch?v=LH_skCsC1JQ&t=385s
Therefore the idea that there is something wrong with the astronauts during the press conference is based upon false assumptions.
As for the myth of Neil being a recluse and never leaving his house, search YouTube for: Neil Armstrong Interview Speech.
4
-
@tommy2pieceya734 - Really? :-)
Go onto ANY conspiracy theory related topic and you will find people on both sides arguing/debating the topic, where the percentage on each side depends on many factors, which can (and does) change over time.
I enjoy debating Apollo conspiracy claims, I enjoy debunking them and have done so for years (and the reasons are not what you assume), but I also debunk fl_t 🌎 theory too.
But according to you, if this video was about fl_t 🌎 theory and if you believed (right or wrong) that 95% of the people here say the Earth is a globe, then that somehow makes it suspicious and therefore suggests the Earth is probably fl_t and that all those 'Globe people' are here to cover it up, right? ;-)
So stop trying to make 2+2=5 please, stop trying to see what isn't there and focus on the actual FACTS.
Therefore if you believe the moon landings were faked, then please state what you consider to be the strongest evidence of the fake. Not speculation or guesses, but actual hard evidence that can be examined (one or two would be fine).
4
-
4
-
@tommy2pieceya734 - You said "How often do you see people debating, that Antarctica exists?"
EVERY DAY! :-) Flat Earth theory says Antarctica is not a continent, that it doesn't exist as shown, but instead is just a wall of ice that surrounds the flat Earth! And I haven't even started on hollow/concave Earth believers.
You said "You have to know, there's nothing that can be said, to someone who believes we went to the moon, that will change their mind and vice versa."
And I NEVER post to change the minds of those whose minds are made up already, I post to debunk the claims I know to be false by presenting the facts. That way, OTHER PEOPLE seeing the thread can READ the conspiracy arguments, can READ my arguments, and hence can make up there OWN minds based upon the evidence presented by BOTH SIDES.
Is that really a problem for you?
The only way BOTH SIDES of the argument can be presented if is people from BOTH SIDES present and debate the points in the comments section. Why would that be a problem for you?
You said "once you find out how unbelievably crooked our government is, along with NASA, excetera"
And that's the point, because proof of men landing on the moon has NOTHING to do with what any government or media says.
Therefore demonising governments and government agencies like NASA doesn't change the fact that men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972.
To this day, no Apollo fake claim holds up to scrutiny, instead they all fall apart upon close inspection, without exception.
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
-
Because that's the way it should be with all due respect :-)
Google/YouTube changed the search algorithm to prevent conspiracy videos from completely dominating search lists as they were for several years.
In other words, if early last year I searched Google/YouTube for "Apollo moon landings" for example, then instead of a list mostly about the Apollo moon landings, that list would be completely dominated by Apollo HOAX videos.
Following the changes, such a search is now dominated by links/videos about the Apollo moon landings, as requested.
So now if you want to find conspiracy videos (moon landings, flat Earth, ISS hoax, etc) then you have to be more specific in your search, which is not difficult.
Again, that's how it should be and hence Google/YouTube have simply redressed the balance.
Oh and, the Earth is a globe. But before your '1 minute of explanation', please state which version of a flat Earth you believe in, since there are many to choose from, i.e. Dome or no dome? Edge or no edge? Pillars or no pillars? Globe sun/moon or flat sun/moon? Gravity or no gravity? etc.
4
-
@valherustinger7848 - To prove me wrong, flat Earth believers like yourself need to;
(a) Present two locations on Earth for which the distance measured on a globe of the Earth is different to the distance measured in the real world, where the margin of error doesn't explain the discrepancy, or
(b) Present a flat map of the whole Earth which is to scale and has no distortion, meaning we can work out any distance on Earth just by measuring it on the flat map and then multiply that measurement by the scale (just like our flat town/city maps).
I'd accept either (a) or (b), but both would be even better.
After all, I'm sure you accept it is impossible to wrap an accurate map of your town or city around a globe without distorting it, and therefore it is impossible to represent your town or city accurately with a globe, since distances measured on that globe will be wrong.
If the entire Earth was flat, then the same would be true, where it would be impossible to wrap a map of that Earth around a globe without distorting it, and therefore distances measured on that globe will be wrong.
Only if the Earth is a globe can all the distances measured be correct, and that's what we have with globes of the Earth that any of us can own :-)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@switchedon6530 - You said "No other countries have been there, 'why..because of the van Allen belt."
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? ;-)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jamiek911 - Again, hearsay my friend.
The point being, anyone can claim they saw this and saw that or heard this or heard that, but that's not solid evidence, even if they were in a position to have seen/heard what they claim.
He is human after all, hence capable of lying, delusions, exaggeration, distorted memories, mistakes, false assumptions, etc :-)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@samheim253 - Flat Earth believers think gravity works one way, i.e. the Earth attracts objects to it. But gravity is about ALL matter attracting ALL other matter!
Lets say you weigh 200 pounds for example, caused by the pull of gravity between the Earth and the mass of your body.
If you starve yourself for a long period of time and you lose half the mass of your body, then the pull of gravity between the Earth and you would be HALF of what it is now, meaning you will weigh only 100 pounds.
If in contrast you stuffed yourself with food and doubled your mass over a period of time, then the pull of gravity between the Earth and you would be DOUBLE what it is now, and so you will weigh 400 pounds.
The mass of your body may be around 9 million times greater than a gnat, which means the pull of gravity between the Earth and a gnat is 9 million times LESS than the pull of gravity between the Earth and you, so is it really surprising that a gnat could take off and fly?
The water in a lake may have 5 million times more mass than you, meaning the pull of gravity between the Earth and that lake is 5 million times greater than it is between the Earth and you.
Do you understand how gravity works now?
Remember, you don't have to believe something to understand it :-|
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
-
@ShieldStun - You said "yeah, no, stop trying that hard, everyone knows it was faked"
Sure, like all the flat Earth believers I'm replying to right now who claim "everyone knows the Earth is flat".
So less of the projection please, you are not everyone, you are only part of a very tiny minority who think it's cool to be ignorant :-)
For example, you claim "recent Nasa claims about not being able to go to the moon again because not having adequate space suits,"
Except NASA have NEVER said that has anything to do with Apollo, so instead you got that from a hoax believer without checking out what NASA actually said yourself and hence the CONTEXT of what NASA was saying.
So go ahead and quote NASA's EXACT words please about how this relates to Apollo, or provide the source to your claim (but remember, posting external links here will cause your reply to be hidden, so either disguise the link or give enough info for others to find it).
You said "I mean it's obvious you will never change your mind..."
Why are you trying to change my mind?
I don't waste time trying to change the mind of hoax believers whose minds are made up already. I simply challenge their claims with the facts and let OTHERS decide for THEMSELVES when THEY read the arguments on BOTH sides.
Why can't you do the same?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jkuang - Those are all arguments from incredulity, where you are saying here "I can't understand it therefore it can't be done!", which is both arrogant and ignorant.
And before you object, consider the following about the USSR;
To believe it was fake you must also believe the USSR with their brilliant scientists and engineers who had their own advanced space program together with tracking technology (the USSR landed several unmanned craft on the moon in the 60s and they landed a spacecraft on Venus in 1970 using the same primitive tech you speak of) were ALL too stupid and ALL too blind to spot a blatant fake by the USA.
More so, the USSR were too dumb to spot exactly the SAME FAKE of sending men to the moon NINE TIMES IN A ROW from 1968 to 1972, with six of those missions landing on the moon.
It's either that or you believe the USSR were in on a conspiracy against themselves :-)
To highlight my point further, the USSR landed two remotely controlled car-size rovers on the moon in 1970 and 1973 called Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 (look it up please).
Both rovers had TV cameras and radio antennas (again, more of that 'primitive' tech, right?), and hence that allowed Lunokhod 2 to be driven 37 km across the lunar surface over a period of 4 months under remote control (thanks to the TV broadcast);
(External links are blocked, so change DOT to . and SLASH to /)
bitDOTlySLASH3tJ8Jfv
So if the USSR had even the slightest suspicion of a fake landing, no matter how small, then they could have landed a Lunokhod rover at ANY of the Apollo landing sites at ANY time and explored it themselves to be sure, broadcasting the TV images back to Earth, and there would have been nothing that anyone could have done to stop them.
But they never did that because the USSR knew 100% that the USA had successfully landed men on the moon.
Think about that please :-)
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
-
@jccgregorio - Well here's the problem my friend, because belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, as I will explain.
Christian churches/denominations for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE (that is a fact!). None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. In other words, the ONLY thing they had in common with flat Earth theory is the idea that the Earth is stationary and at the center of everything.
Even Creationists, yes those who take the Bible LITERALLY, say the Earth is a GLOBE! Go to a Creationist website and search for 'Flat Earth' for example, however you may not like what you find there. In fact, some Creationists go as far as claiming the flat Earth is an atheist conspiracy to discredit Christians and Christianity .
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1633 for daring to say the GLOBE Earth orbited the sun, when at the time all the Christian churches 'knew' that the sun and the rest of the universe revolved around the GLOBE stationary Earth!
So who should I listen to when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible? Nearly 2000 YEARS of Christian churches who say the Earth is a GLOBE? All the biblical scholars from those churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts to produce ALL the Bibles you've ever read who say the Earth is a GLOBE? The Creationists who take the Bible literally who say the Earth is a GLOBE? Over 2 BILLION Christians worldwide who say the Earth is a GLOBE?
Or should I listen to a few people on the internet who claim the Bible says the Earth is flat? Well, I prefer to listen to the billions of Bible reading Christians who say the Earth is a globe :-)
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches.
Think about it.
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
-
Which technology has improved 10000 times? Certainly not rocket engines which have barely changed since the 60s!
Sending people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.*
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program and are working towards building their own Saturn V class rocket for their future manned moon landings.
Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful, which is now complete and due to launch this year, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024 or 2025.
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
-
Complete nonsense from start to finish :-)
For example you said "The united nations symbol is the flat earth map"
Nope, it's a silhouette version of the Azimuthal Equidistant 2D projection map (or AE map), also known to FE believers as the Gleason map, which is just one of MANY 2D projection maps of the globe Earth.
Flat Earth believers adopted than map because it happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside of the map and hence you claim that to be the wall of ice. That's the ONLY reason!
However, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted as a 2D projection of a GLOBE Earth via the lines of latitude and longitude, but it completely falls apart when interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth (just look at Australia for example, which is twice as wide as it should be and shaped like a sausage :-)).
To this day, despite over 150 years of flat Earth books, there is no ACCURATE map of a flat Earth in existence.
Seriously, present a link to an accurate flat map of your flat Earth where all the countries are the correct shape, the correct size and where all the distances are correct.
You said "We live under a firmament"
Great, then state the height of your claimed firmament dome, because no flat Earth theorist in history has ever stated that figure despite claiming to know the size and the altitude of the sun and the moon :-)
Eric Dubay is a charlatan where EVERY one of his 200 proofs have been debunked.
Anyway, you believe in God but you're clearly not a Christian, so what are you exactly?
4
-
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
-
@q-m-q1362 - You said "How's that going to add to your life?"
Likewise, since you are the person who started this thread, not me, remember?
You said "He exercised his freewill to decline the invitation. But never gave any real reason why."
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims (including the conspiracy theories that you don't believe yourself) then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists.
But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
3
-
@amirankalandadze3230 - You said "So, Neil is incorrect and Nasa photoshoped balls are real?"
Pretending to be stupid doesn't make your point, it only supports my point (but hey, if you're not pretending... ;-)).
If you created a perfect model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high (300 cm, or about 10 feet), then it will bulge out slightly at the equator by 1 cm, and hence would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide.
That is an oblate spheroid, but to the naked eye and in photographs and video your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Also, due to the distribution of lands and seas, the Earth actually bulges out a fraction more in the South compared to the North (by about 1 mm on your 300 cm model), hence the pear shape comparison that is too small to be seen with the naked eye, so again your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Next? :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pgomez2383 - You said "Dubay is the face of flat earth why not smash him and stop more from joining..."
Should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to the theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
In many languages, including English, words can have multiple meanings, ranging from subtle differences to complete differences.
A ball looks like a circle from any angle, therefore a circle doesn't automatically mean flat.
Here is Isaiah 40:22 from various Bibles that is being referred to here;
King James Bible (1611); "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
Douay-Rheims Bible (1582); "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth..."
New American Standard 1977 Bible; "It is He who sits above the vault of the earth..."
Peshitta Holy Bible Translated (1st or 2nd Century AD); "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
New American Bible; "The one who is enthroned above the vault of the earth..."
Catholic Public Domain Version; "He is the One who sits upon the globe of the earth..."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English; "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
Matthew's Bible (1537); "That he sitteth upon the circle of the world..."
That's because the Hebrew word 'chug' being translated by those Bibles means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).
So circle, globe, sphere and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various Bibles.
Again, no Christian church in history has ever said the earth is flat, only a globe.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@LC - Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@aliali-xx9ru - What you (and all other flat Earth believers) fail to understand is that a vacuum, from our point of view, is an absence of air!
Most people know our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude, i.e. there's less air as we climb. I'm sure you know that too, hence I'm sure you are also aware of the difficulty in breathing for mountain climbers or anyone at high altitudes.
But lets go even higher...
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with any vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, that's a medium vacuum.
At 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's also a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up, there is a 1,000,000 times less air, that's a high vacuum.
Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Therefore there isn't a sharp line where we suddenly go from our pressurized atmosphere to the vacuum of space, instead it is a gradual process, where with increasing altitude there's decreasing air, resulting in gradually increasing vacuum conditions as I've shown above (normal pressure -> low vacuum -> medium vacuum -> high vacuum -> ultra high vacuum and so on).
The decreasing air pressure and hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept.
So given the explanation of how we encounter increasing vacuum conditions with altitude as there's less and less air, you should now understand how we go from the pressure of our atmosphere here on the surface of the Earth to the vacuum of space without a barrier in between.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ROBERTPUNU - You said "that website is wrong. there are over 200 bible verses that support the flat earth model."
No my friend, the Bible doesn't explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you would ever find are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all implicit !
Secondly, Christian churches for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE. None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. Why? Because you can find verses in the Bible that explicitly says the Earth is stationary.
In other words, for most of its history the ONLY thing Christian churches had in common with flat Earth 'theory' was the idea that the Earth is stationary and at the center of everything.
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches.
Those who tell you the Bible says the Earth is flat are attempting to corrupt your faith, where apparently they are succeeding :-|
3
-
@ROBERTPUNU - For example, you highlighted Isaiah 40:22.
In many languages, including English, words can have multiple meanings, ranging from subtle differences to complete differences.
A ball looks like a circle from any angle, therefore a circle doesn't mean flat.
Here is Isaiah 40:22 from various Bibles that is being referred to here;
King James Bible (1611); "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
Douay-Rheims Bible (1582); "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth..."
New American Standard 1977 Bible; "It is He who sits above the vault of the earth..."
Peshitta Holy Bible Translated (1st or 2nd Century AD); "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
New American Bible; "The one who is enthroned above the vault of the earth..."
Catholic Public Domain Version; "He is the One who sits upon the globe of the earth..."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English; "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
Matthew's Bible (1537); "That he sitteth upon the circle of the world..."
That's because the Hebrew word 'chug' being translated by those bibles means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).
So circle, globe, sphere and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various bibles.
Again, no Christian church in history has ever said the earth is flat, only a globe.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ColeBeeRyan - You do know that you can see satellites yourself, right? :-)
Anyway, I can prove it, but first we need to establish a baseline that we can both agree on.
So before discussing the globe itself, consider an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as your town or city.
EVERYONE can find an accurate map of their own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our map and measure it to easily 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 fact, the accuracy of the map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can use it to accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the map alone!
So do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@David-xy2ly - Before and during the Apollo missions, the USSR sent lifeforms with various tolerances to radiation to the moon and back in their Zond probes and ALL survived the radiation (the only deaths were due to craft failures).
They used lifeforms easy to contain and manage, where Zond 5 and 7 had tortoises/turtles, wine flies, meal worms, bacteria, plants, algae and seeds, and Zond 8 had tortoises, flies, onions, wheat, barley and microbes.
For each they compared the radiation effects/damage during the trip to radiation damage observed in experiments on earth! All were found to be well within safe limits, also proven by the radiation detectors on board.
Here's one of the USSR reports discussing the results from their Zond probes;
http://cds.cern.ch/record/864491/files/p484.pdf
Conclusion from that early 70s USSR report, quote: "should no solar flare occurs, seven-day flights along the trajectories of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view"
Therefore the USSR proved to their satisfaction that radiation was 'safe' for short manned missions like Apollo.
Only an earthbound 'solar storm' (categorized as solar flares back then before the differences was understood by astronomers) would have been potentially fatal to a manned mission to the moon.
The facts speak for themselves my friend, where the USSR (Russia) proved radiation is not a problem for a mission to the moon and back :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You said "I am not advocating any theory. Neither that the earth is flat nor that it is round. Unfortunately, I have no way to be sure."
And that's the problem, because the Earth being a globe is not an opinion or a theory or a guess, it's a proven fact.
Your imaginary flat Earth idea highlights the key problem with flat Earth 'theory', because there are many different 'theories' that contradict each other and yet flat Earth believers never have debates to agree upon a flat Earth model.
In other words, some flat Earth believers say there's a solid firmament dome, some say there's no dome, some say they don't know. Some believe the Earth ends at the wall of ice (finite), some believe there are more lands and seas beyond the wall of ice that ends elsewhere (finite), some like yourself claim an infinite plane, some say they don't know. Some claim Rahu is responsible for solar eclipses, others accept it's the moon. Some say moon is flat, some say it's a globe, some say the moon is just a luminary (light), or even plasma. And so on.
So until flat Earth believers can decide upon a definitive model of a flat Earth that they can all get behind, then they are in no position to criticize others for getting their flat Earth model wrong.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That's because like the vast majority of people who watch YouTube videos instead of doing their own research, you assume that Apollo 11 press conference took place hours or a day after they returned from the moon :-)
The reality is, the Apollo 11 astronauts went straight into quarantine for THREE WEEKS when they returned from the moon, and hence that press conference (which most astronauts hated doing btw) took place THREE WEEKS after their return!
Also, those astronauts were ex-test pilots used to risking their lives EVERY TIME they flew experimental aircraft, and hence were able to keep their emotions under control and remain professional throughout. THAT is what we see at the press conference.
And as we would expect, the astronauts were most comfortable and most at ease when answering questions within their fields of expertise, such as flying the spacecraft and operation equipment, hence they all jumped to answer those questions, but when thrown tricky questions from scientists for example, you can just detect the "Oh sh!t, I hoped you wasn't going to ask that question" expression on their faces, which is natural :-)
So that press conference is EXACTLY what we would expect from professional ex-test pilots discussing their mission to the moon.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You are essentially lying, even if it's just to yourself, and hence you need to do your own research instead of just parroting what others have told you :-|
Take eclipses for example...
...adding to MrSirhcsellor's excellent reply;
The Saros cycle was created by people over generations who observed eclipses and found PATTERNS in how and when those eclipses repeated.
By understanding those repeating patterns they were able to predict when certain types of eclipses would occur in future, to a good accuracy (a solar eclipse happens during a new moon, a lunar eclipse during a full moon of course)!
However, the Saros cycle does NOT give us the accuracy almost to the second of when an eclipse will start and end, nor does it provide us with the EXACT path of a total solar eclipse across the earth's surface, making it possible for people to prepare years in advance to be exactly where they'd need to be to observe the eclipse.
So the Saros cycle is not good enough for today's astronomy except for listing and categorizing eclipses.
For the precise details of an eclipse, including the start time and the end time and the exact path across the earth's surface, we need to use mathematics based upon the globe model.
Therefore please go ahead and present your evidence of a flat Earth model that predicts when an eclipse will start and end AND provides us with the EXACT path of a total solar eclipse across the earth's surface.
Without that evidence, your argument is proven to be null and void, but nice try :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
List all the science shows and science channels that Eris SAYS he approached for a debate on flat Earth and yet they refused him. That's right, he hasn't, he hides behind the safety of his and other conspiracy channels and conspiracy shows.
So by your logic, Eric is a coward :-)
Besides, Neil is 100% right to ignore him. After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
None of NASA's moon rocks have 'mysteriously' disappeared my friend.
A relatively small amount of the great many samples given out to scientific teams worldwide for analysis have yet to be returned, but that's it.
The main stories you may be listening too are the gifts of moon rocks that NASA gave out to nations worldwide, where NASA took a moon rock, broke it into hundreds of tiny pieces, enclosed some of the pieces into lucite resin, mounted it onto wooden boards and presented those boards as gifts to over a hundred nations.
What each nation did with their moon rock gifts was then up to them! Some kept it in museums (either in storage or on display), some were kept in government buildings, some went to poiliticians, some ended up in private collections, some were stolen, and so on.
The point is, those were gifts and therefore it was up to each nation to look after them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Because science is based upon knowledge that is testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable my friend, it doesn't go by hearsay or gut feeling.
After all, do you apply that same argument to those who believe in ghosts/spirits, paranormal powers, out of body experiences, alien abductions, etc? :-|
So in the context of this video, someone believing the Earth is flat is not expressing an open mind, just the opposite with a denial of the facts.
Btw, I don't recall Neil rejecting the idea of alien life elsewhere in the universe, only the idea of alien life visiting the Earth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@a-k9161 - Wrong, instead you've proven my point perfectly and hence you've demonstrated why people like yourself are so easily taken in my charlatans :-|
Here's an example of where the pear shape reference came from my lazy friend;
[Disguised link which I'm sure you can work out]
tiny😮cc🖍️03eiuz
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
So, is there any part of "practically a perfect sphere" that you don't understand? :-)
Therefore Neil did NOT say the Earth is literally shaped like a pear, instead he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
THAT my friend is how you do research.
3
-
3
-
You said "If my info is correct you agreed to do it."
Show me where Eric agreed to do it please.
In fact, show me Eric requesting to debate ANY scientist or debating ANY of the flat Earth theorists who he accuses of being government shills just because they have a slightly different idea of the flat Earth to his own (i.e. those he sees as rivals :-)).
In fact, show me ANY debate among the leading flat Earth theorists to arrive at a consensus about their flat Earth, such as whether there is a firmament dome or not, or the height of the dome if it exists, or whether the flat Earth has an edge or not, or whether gravity does or doesn't exist, or why there isn't an accurate flat map of a flat Earth (with plans to create one), or whether the sun and moon are flat or globes, etc.
So if flat Earth theorists don't even debate each other over their conflicting versions of a flat Earth, then why should scientists take them seriously enough to debate them over claims that they can't even decide themselves?
3
-
@ellefleming5113 - Again, that Apollo press conference took place 3 weeks after the astronauts returned from the moon (they spent those 3 weeks in quarantine), where that press conference was work for the astronauts, who provided a presentation which was then followed up by a question and answer session with experts.
Many today (like yourself) who watch that press conference assume it was a celebration of the astronauts returning from the moon, where you also assume it occurred hours or at most days after they returned, which is why you think the astronauts don't appear as happy or as relaxed as they should, and so you assume something is wrong (i.e. that they're not excited, or scared, or depressed etc).
But look at Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts just ONE WEEK EARLIER during quarantine on his birthday - how depressed do they look to you here?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6P1wBNHqnU
They couldn't look happier, especially Neil.
And look at Neil Armstrong in front of the troops in Vietnam, where again he couldn't look happier if he tried and is clearly relishing the moment;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSKCaxx58Bg&t=385s
Is that really an astronaut who is depressed to you? Be honest now :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So how do unmanned spacecraft get through those same radiation belts without problems? And also, heat and temperature are not the same thing.
Anyway, here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006);
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
Did you understand that? :-) It would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation.
That is why low Earth orbit spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year!).
In other words, if the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would be dead after about a week or so.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
Did you understand that too? Dr Van Allen confirms that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Arielelian - You said "Contrast that "normal" behavior with the press conference and it's quite a night and day difference. They're closed, nervous, fidgety, etc."
Now go ahead and present those same astronauts in previous press conferences to show that their behavior is any different when effectively in a debriefing, because to this day no-one has done that.
Also, they are astronauts, not geologists or astronomers or physicists etc, where we can see they are more comfortable and relaxed when answering questions within their fields of expertise (eg. spacecraft control), but naturally less comfortable answering questions within fields they learned through training such as astronomy and geology (hence Neil said "sonar corola" instead of "solar corona" in his reply to the astronomer Patrick Moore).
It's rather naive to expect the astronauts to be as relaxed and as confident in answering questions related to astronomy and geology etc to experts in those fields as they are when answering questions about flight and controls.
And I fail to see any loss of composure by any of the astronauts during the conference (i.e. where it matters), so that comment from you is unfounded.
Besides, this is over 50 years ago and yet I'm still waiting for just ONE established and hence credible body language expert from any nation to come to the same conclusions as certain self-confessed body language 'experts' on forums ;-)
After all, what are you seeing that the world's top body language experts are ALL somehow missing?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You said "For example if the earth is spinning at around 1000 miles a hour and gravity holds everything in place with all the centrifugal force being created by spinning at such a speed we could not even lift up a leg from the pressure being exerted by these forces"
And that's the problem my friend, because that is NOT common sense, that's only an assumption that you came to based upon gut feeling without doing any calculations to see if your claim is true.
Simply put, it isn't.
Concorde for example flew at 1330 mph, and yet why do you think no-one inside that plane felt that speed? In fact, if you blocked out the windows then people inside couldn't tell the difference if they were inside a simulator going nowhere!
And science is only a religion to those who don't understand science.
People like Eric Dubay are |iars who know how to manipulate others, making claims that may sound logical to the uninformed but are all just nonsense, and so while you're saying you don't know if Eric is right, you are falling for many of the flat Earth claims that they make, claims that are intended to fool you, and apparently succeeding :-|
3
-
3
-
3
-
@SubMasters - You also said "By the way where's all the telemetry data from NASA?"
Where's it's always been, since nothing has been lost.
Telemetry data was always printed out into documents so that the tapes could be reused (the whole point of magnetic tapes!).
After each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the telemetry data was analyzed and presented as charts and graphs and tables
.
So here's the mission report for Apollo 11 (for example) 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 want to believe the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion, but why should that mean you MUST blindly believe ALL the hoax claims without question?
And read this too;
www.firstmenonthemoon.com/about.html
Quote: "We have compiled hours of content available from public domain sources and various NASA websites. Thamtech staff and volunteers generously devoted their time to transcribe hours of speech to text. By using simultaneous space and land based audio and video, transcripts, images, spacecraft telemetry, and biomedical data — this synchronized presentation reveals the Moon Shot as experienced by the astronauts and flight controllers."
Hence that's the same telemetry data that conspiracy theorists claim was lost.
The point is, as I said before, once the telemetry data was printed out for a hard copy the magnetic tapes were reused.
So we don't have all the tapes (just as we don't have all the tapes for most space missions of the 60s/70s), but we have all the telemetry data that were ON those tapes .
3
-
Stop listening to conspiracy theorists :-)
Destroying the technology is about not having the craft in service TODAY, it's not about destroying the hardware or the plans or the knowledge! So nothing is being covered up.
Hence Concorde is destroyed technology, it will never go into service again. The Space Shuttle is destroyed technology, it will never go into service again. Likewise the Apollo Saturn V rocket is destroyed technology, it will never go into service again. And so on.
You can find ALL those craft and more in aeronautical and science museums, as 'Ding-Dong Dingus' correctly said.
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence NASA will soon have the SLS rocket in service, which is as large and slightly more powerful than the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and they have the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces. Therefore the SLS is the new 'Saturn V', and Orion is the new 'Apollo Command Module'.
On its debut launch this year, the MASSIVE SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and later back to Earth for its second test in space. And assuming all goes well, then in 2024 the SLS rocket will again take Orion to the moon but this time with astronauts inside.
Those are examples of the USA rebuilding the technology that was destroyed, i.e. technology that was taken out of service, and hence in 2024 people will return to the moon.
3
-
@mngchrmn - To add to Jan's excellent reply, here are Dr Van Allen's exact words;
Quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as NASA's Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MagicRoosterBluesBand - You completely failed to grasp my point that and I quote "The conspiracy claim says the astronaut in shadow should be completely BLACK, because the only light source is the sun and the astronaut is not standing in the sun"
READ it carefully please.
The hoax claim isn't saying the astronaut would be lit in the photo just not that much as we see, the hoax claim says the astronauts shouldn't be lit AT ALL, he should appear BLACK!
That is what MythBusters are debunking.
By your OWN argument here you proved you understand the principle of reflected light, so why can't you understand that the hoax claim assumes there is ZERO reflected light!
Therefore MythBusters doesn't have to match the Apollo photo exactly, especially since they a) Didn't take into account the light reflected from the WHITE spacesuit of Neil Armstrong who took the photo, or b) Take into account additional light from the Earth (40 times brighter than the moon), or c) Use film in the camera, preferably of the same specification as the film used for the Apollo photo.
Again, none of that matters because the astronaut would be illuminated by reflected light off the lunar surface, hence myth busted :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
None of that matters my friend, because the hoax claim says that because the sun is the only light source, then the astronaut in the shadow of the LM should be completely black, hence he should be a silhouette where absolutely no detail can be seen.
However, in EVERY recreation of that scene using models or outdoor areas at night (with a spotlight) or with computer simulations, the result is that the astronaut is ALWAYS seen due to light reflected from the surrounding surfaces, eg. sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface.
No-one has recreated that scene and shown the astronaut to be complete black, instead the astronaut is ALWAYS illuminated by reflected light.
In other words, the illuminated surrounding surfaces ALSO acts as a light source.
Therefore to debunk the hoax claim all anyone has to do is to show that the astronaut would be illuminated by reflected light, and that is exactly what MythBusters have done here, and hence that's another myth busted :-)
3
-
3
-
@oknevals - You said "You can start by watching "Dark side of the Moon""
I saved that comment for another reply because it's so amusing :-)
Dark Side of the Moon is a MOCKUMENTARY.
Hence watch the following video and READ the video description, using a translator.
youtu.be/JJoNK4uICTY
^^^ Take note of the end credits at 49:00 that reveals to its audience that it's just a mockumentary;
The maker William Karel made it on the premise that people tend to believe whatever they're told if it's presented as a serious documentary, and you've proven that point :-)
In fact, many of the names used in that mockumentary comes from fictional characters, as you can read about here;
(External links are blocked, so just change DOT to . and SLASH to /)
tinyDOTccSLASHrkhmuz
Quote: "He used footage of staff of President Richard Nixon, including Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Lawrence Eagleburger and CIA director Richard Helms, recycled from his earlier documentary Les hommes de la Maison Blanche [7] and edited in order to twist their words"
See how easy it is to be fooled if you fail to do your own research from credible sources? :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Space is a vacuum, hence they quote the minimum and maximum surface temperature instead. For low Earth orbit, that temperature range is -250 F to 250 F, about the same as the surface of the moon in the vacuum of space.
So when the temperature in the vacuum of space on the surface of the moon is the same as it is for astronauts out on spacewalks in low Earth orbit, why would the that temperature be a problem on the moon when it's not for astronauts out on spacewalks with cameras for up to 9 hours?
And the film WAS effected by radiation, where it is mostly noticeable in the contrast. Hence look at raw scans of the Apollo photos and you'll see that instead of deep blacks for space, they are often grey (which can be corrected somewhat by adjusting the contrast/brightness levels). So radiation was enough to effect the film, not destroy it, just as it effects film used in low Earth orbit but doesn't destroy it.
In fact, the first USSR craft to send images of the moon back to Earth used film cameras, where the film was actually developed inside the craft and scanned by a TV camera to broadcast the images back to Earth. Hence subject to the SAME temperatures and radiation as cameras on the moon.
Satellites in geostationary orbit around 22,000 miles up are able to broadcast a MASSIVE number of TV channels back to Earth in a signal with a total power of 40 W, and yet all millions of people need to receive those TV channels are small satellite dishes. The moon is about 11 TIMES further away, therefore all that is need to receive those signals is a significantly larger radio dish, just like those used during the Apollo missions.
And the technology 'lost' is a massive Saturn V class rocket, which we will have again soon with the SLS rocket due to launch late next year (or 2020). In 2023, the SLS rocket will take a crew of astronauts on an 8 to 21 day mission around the moon inside the Orion capsule.
Therefore all you are offering here are arguments from incredulity John, and so the fact remains that men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mikeysweetfolksfiv3ohthr332 - You said "Okay then why isn't his description of an Oblate Spheroid shown in NASA official(but CGI) photos of the Earth ....."
Except it is my friend, but many flat Earth believers didn't listen to what Neil said but only to what they wanted to believe he said (btw, can you explain how you PERSONALLY determined if a photo of the Earth is real or CGI. Can you take me through YOUR methods please. You don't have to answer that, but please think about where that CGI claim comes from... ;-)).
For example;
Here's an example of where the pear shape reference came from;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoCKapivHGM
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
Therefore Neil did NOT say the Earth literally looks like a pear, he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
Therefore the Earth will also look like a perfect sphere in photographs taken in space.
The point is, if you want to believe the Earth is flat, then fine that's your right, but you effectively lose the argument when you distort what is actually being said by scientists and others about the Earth being a globe :-|
3
-
3
-
3
-
@koolkrapsandracetracks4068 - The first flat Earth books were published over 150 YEARS ago, it didn't start with Eric Dubay in 2014, hence all of those examples are from real flat Earth believers I've debated over the years from a belief that started long before Eric made it popular, so it is not up to you to decide which are genuine and which are not my friend.
Anyway, thanks for stating what you believe, but here are some of the issues I have with your claims;
1. Firmament dome, but how high? Why don't any FE theorists know the height of the dome when they claim to know the height of the sun and moon? Shouldn't they be able to determine the height by measuring the distance to the North Star?
2. Srch the net for "Antarctica Tours" and "South Pole Trips" and notice all the tours and trips YOU can book onto to visit Antarctica and the South Pole in Antarctica yourself, if you can afford it, which is well passed 60° South!
3. For thousands of years ALL eclipses of the sun have been seen to happen at EXACTLY the same time as the time of the New Moon, where the moon is at it's closest point to the sun in the sky.
Flat Earth believers seem to be unaware of that fact, since how can it be a coincidence that total and partial and annular eclipses of the sun ALL just so happen to occur at EXACTLY the SAME time predicted for the New Moon for thousands of years, predicted based upon the movement of the moon relative to the sun :-)
Think about that please.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You said "real science is about what can be measured"
Great, so lets do some real science with a large pool of water, say an Olympic swimming pool.
An Olympic swimming pool is 50 meters long, so to calculate the effect of curvature we need to work out the drop for 25 meters (the middle of the pool to the edge).
Whether you use the equation for the curvature of the Earth or the limited approximation stated by flat Earth believers of 8 inches per mile squared we arrive at the same result;
Using 8 inches per mile squared to make it easier, where 25 meters is 0.0155343 miles, then we get a drop of;
0.00193051581 inches, which is about 0.05 millimeters.
That's the width of a human hair.
Think about that. Over the length of 50 meters, or 164 FEET, the rise in the water due to the curvature of the Earth would only be the width of a human hair.
And so to our eyes and even to the measuring capabilities of most people, the surface water of those Olympic swimming pools will appear perfectly flat, even thought it's not.
Therefore your assertion of perfectly flat water is false :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@fenrisunchained1926 - I've shown that a 40W signal from a geostationary satellite 22,000 miles away is easily picked up by a very small satellite dish, hence that same signal from 240,000 miles away would require a larger dish. If we wanted to receive it with the same small satellite dish, THEN we would need a significantly more powerful signal from the moon.
The moon is in view from horizon to horizon for about 8 hours, therefore doesn't require transfer from place to place, hence Nixon's call to mission control was linked to the communications system connected via one of the dishes (they wouldn't have chosen a time when they would need to switch from one radio dish to another).
Also, radio signals travel at the speed of light, therefore they take 1.3 seconds to reach the moon and 1.3 seconds to return.
Hence unedited communication audio from the moon shows mission control responding immediately to something an astronauts says (since it's recorded here on Earth), but the astronauts take a minimum of 2.6 seconds to respond to something mission control says because of the 1.3+1.3 second delay.
The same would be true for unedited footage of Nixon's phone call with the astronauts (no delay when Nixon speaks, delay when astronaut respond directly to something Nixon says), but documentaries and films may edit out the delays because it's makes for better viewing.
I hope that helps.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@AM87422S - Just making it up as you go along is not helping your case.
The problem is, because of TV and the media, people like yourself today have been conditioned to expect certain behaviours. Therefore because the astronauts didn't enter that press conference with massive grins on their faces, 'high-fiving' everyone on the front row and then took to their seats chanting "U-S-A" while whooping and wailing every 5 seconds, you think something must be wrong ;-)
The fact is, most astronauts back then were ex-test pilots, men who used to risk their lives every week testing out new experimental aircraft, in a career that saw the death of one test pilot per week (did you know that?). Hence such men preferred to just get on with their job and leave the PR to others. Therefore the vast majority of astronauts back then absolutely HATED doing press conferences! Most hated having to sit there answering question after question. Most hated the PR that went with the job (and it often showed).
Today, astronauts are expected to be as good at PR as they are for the technical aspects of their job. Without those PR skills, they wouldn't make it. Hence someone like Neil Armstrong wouldn't be chosen as an astronaut today, regardless of his skills as a pilot.
The astronauts had no choice but to do the press conferences of course because it was part of their job (we see that same dislike of press conferences today from some top sports men and women, whether they win or lose).
Therefore all I'm seeing in that Apollo 11 press conference are the astronauts behaving exactly how professions were expected to behave back then in a televised press conference, especially THREE WEEKS after returning from the moon, with Michael Collins possibly the most relaxed and comfortable out of the three.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jkuang - You said "Let me answer you concisely: any claimed accomplishment that could not be repeated as is, is hoax. Do you give me the excuse of losing design, no funding etc."
[I'll just copy and paste my same reply to your copy and pasted rely here :-)]
No designs are lost, so stop regurgitating such nonsense :-)
The USA sent men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972, with 6 of those missions landing on the moon. So how many times did they need to go before it would have been enough for you?
During the 60s BOTH the USSR and USA were able to keep people alive in low Earth orbit for days/weeks, and BOTH landed several unmanned spacecraft on the surface of the moon and even broadcast the images back to Earth.
But unmanned spacecraft don't require air to breath, or food to eat, or water to drink, or space to move etc, and hence manned spacecraft are significantly larger and heavier to keep people alive, and therefore require bigger and more powerful rockets.
So landing people on the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program but are still a long way off from building their own Saturn V size rocket.
Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful, where it is now complete and due to launch this February, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024.
3
-
3
-
3
-
You said "So please tell us why haven't a second visit to the moon been undertaken?"
Eh? The USA sent men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972, landing on the moon during 6 of those missions (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17).
You said "Naturally and logically NASA would have done so had first attempt been so relatively easy!"
Who said it was easy? :-)
Sending people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program and are working towards building their own Saturn V class rocket for their future manned moon landings.
Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful, where it is now complete and due to launch this March, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024.
So rather than attacking the USA and claiming it's all lies and corruption, try looking for the facts yourself instead of listening to conspiracy theorists :-)
3
-
@malceum - Parroting ignorant conspiracy claims doesn't make your case :-)
Look up the USA's total military/defence budget for 2021, then look up NASA's budget for 2021, and then tell me which is higher and by how much. NASA can only spend what the government gives it to spend, they don't have a blank cheque from government.
Regarding losing the technology, you have to be rather ignorant to not understand what that means (sorry if that's a bit harsh, but it's true).
Losing or destroying the technology is about not having the craft in service TODAY, it's not about losing or destroying the hardware or the plans or the knowledge!
Hence Concorde is destroyed technology, it will never go into service again. The Space Shuttle is destroyed technology, it will never go into service again. Likewise the Apollo Saturn V rocket is destroyed technology, it will never go into service again. And so on.
If we want that 'lost' technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence NASA will soon have the SLS rocket in service (as I've mentioned already), which is as large and slightly more powerful than the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and they have the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces. Therefore the SLS is the new 'Saturn V', and Orion is the new 'Apollo Command Module'.
On its debut launch this March, the massive SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth. If all goes well, then in 2024 the SLS rocket will again take Orion to the moon but this time with a crew of astronauts.
Those are examples of the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost, i.e. taken out of service, and hence in 2024 people will return to the moon.
3
-
@malceum - You said "Can't get past the van allen belts"
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So all anyone needs to do to prove me wrong is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a globe is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world.
That's all. It should be very easy if the Earth is not a globe.
After all, if a map of a city (with a bar scale) was wrong, then it would be easy to find two locations where the distance measured on the map is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world, where margins of error or changes to the city doesn't explain the discrepancy. Same with the globe of the Earth.
I've asked flat Earth believers for those two locations on Earth for many years and yet I'm still waiting, proving they cannot find any error in the map of the Earth in the form of a globe, proving the globe is the correct shape of the Earth :-)
I prefer that proof because it's easy, there's no science required, all you need is a globe of the Earth, preferably a good quality up-to-date globe, a measuring tape and some paper and pen (or a calculator), and you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations you find on that globe of the Earth no matter where they are or how far apart they are.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@h2w25 - You said " There's a reason he wouldn't entertain a discord with him, and his fanboys like you make it so he'd never have to."
So should Neil also debate those who claim the Earth is hollow/concave, that the Universe is electric, that the moon is a spaceship, that the Space Shuttle was a hoax, that the ISS is a hoax, that Nibiru (Planet X) is on it's way to destroy the Earth, that Mars rovers are a hoax, that extra-terrestrials are visiting Earth in UFOs, that crop circles are made by aliens, that alien civilizations have been found on Mars and the moon, and so on?
What makes you think flat Earth believers are a special case?
Btw, Rob Skiba's ideas were laughably poor, especially his claim that NASA and government documents confirm a flat Earth :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@testaccount3891 - You said "you should be able to duplicate the gravitational properties of Earth on a small scale in a lab...how do you isolate gravity?"
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
youtu.be/Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is - It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Those questions have been asked and answered for decades my friend :-)
The astronauts had Hasselblad FILM cameras, which they were trained to use by a professional photographer and they were even given Hasselblads for personal use to practice with for months.
Those film photographs were not seen until the astronauts returned to Earth and the photos developed.
They also had a 16mm film camera which could be set to frame rates of 1 fps to 24 fps, and hence some of the Apollo footage was film using that camera, but again the footage wasn't seen until they returned to Earth.
Most of the surface imagery we see is from the live TV cameras, where the footage captured was broadcast back to Earth and recorded here.
Also, from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17 nearly 15,000 photographs were taken by the astronauts, several thousand on the surface alone, where they certainly were not all perfect.
In fact, some of the most well known Apollo photos have been altered by those publishing the photos to make them appear 'nicer' (rotation, cropping, adjusting the brightness and contrast, etc), hence may look perfect even though they are not.
Scans of all the original unaltered photos are available online in archive sites, hence Google Search; Apollo Archive Photos
I hope that helps :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@realeyesnolies6424 - Yes, the Earth is oblate as Neil said, but why do you assume YOU must be able to see that in a photo?
If you built a perfect scale model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high, or 300 cm, just under 10 FEET, then it would look like a perfect sphere.
However, although your model is 300 cm high, it would be 301 cm wide at the equator!
That's an oblate spheroid, the shape of the Earth to scale, hence there's NO WAY you can make out that tiny difference in the shape with the naked eye, instead it will look like a perfect sphere to your eyes and will look like a perfect circle in photos!
That's the point you're missing my friend.
So Neil is not lying, he is correct.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So all you need to do to prove me wrong is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a globe is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world.
That's all. It should be very easy if the Earth is not a globe.
After all, if a map of a city (with a bar scale) was wrong, then it would be easy to find two locations where the distance measured on the map is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world, where margins of error or changes to the city doesn't explain the discrepancy. Same with the globe of the Earth.
I've asked flat Earth believers for those two locations on Earth for many years and yet I'm still waiting, proving they cannot find any error in the map of the Earth in the form of a globe, proving the globe is the correct shape of the Earth :-)
I prefer that proof because it's easy, there's no science required, all you need is a globe of the Earth, preferably a good quality up-to-date globe, a measuring tape and some paper and pen (or a calculator), and you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations you find on that globe of the Earth no matter where they are or how far apart they are.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You said "it is not a real picture. It's a computer generated rendering of what the data shows. Colored and textured by CGI artists working at NASA. THIS IS A FACT."
That is not a fact my friend, that's a distortion of the facts used by others to claim those photos are fake :-|
ALL digital photography can be labelled fake and composite and hence "not a real picture" because of the way digital photography works.
For example, the photosensor within the camera in your photo doesn't detect color! Most people don't realize that.
So to create color with just one photosensor there are two main approaches, each with advantages and disadvantages;
1. We can take 3 separate photos of the same scene but through 3 filters, typically red, green and blue, and then combine all 3 images into one photo (the same method used to achieve the first color film photographs a century ago).
2. Place a filter with a mosaic pattern of red, green and blue across the photosensor so that some pixels are filtered red, some green and some blue, and then use a complex mathematical algorithm to reconstruct the color across the entire photograph (look up Bayer Filter as an example).
For photos and videos taken via phones and digital cameras method 2 is used, because only one image per frame is captured and the color worked out mathematically. To our eyes everything looks fine, but the color is not 100% correct across all pixels.
For science however, color is important data and therefore method 2 is unacceptable because the data is being altered. So method 1 is used instead, where 3 separate photos are taken in quick succession (of a planet for example) through different filters and then those separate filtered images are combined to produce the final image, where for a color image the color information is correct across all the pixels.
So by the same logic, every photograph that we've ever taken with any phone or digital camera is not a real picture, it is computer generated :-)
And yet we know all our photographs taken with our devices are real despite how the color is reconstructed, just as photographs taken in space are real despite how the color is reconstructed.
I hope that information helped.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@unminuto8026 - And you are demonstrating a rather low IQ here, since you don't seem to understand what research and facts mean and hence you go by what conspiracy theorists told you :-|
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
Facts matter my friend, they really do :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lcx1876 - You said "you attacked me from the very beginning"
You seem to forget we have email notifications, but just the same, it's amusing that you once again focus on the people and make accusations and demands instead of contributing to the arguments being put forward, and hence you add practically nothing to the debate itself, as you've shown here.
Also, unlike you with terms like 'globers', I never use derogatory names to describe flat Earth believers, hence I never call them flerfs, or flatties, or even flat earthers, only flat Earth believers. FACT.
Likewise I refer to others as moon landing hoax believers or Apollo hoax believers, alien UFO believers, alien crop circle believers, ghost believers, etc.
You can't say the same.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@edwardcopeland5069 - You said "I don't know why dubay have turned down debates in the pass, but I know he wouldn't turned down one with Neil..."
You cannot know that when Eric has never had such a debate, not even with the flat Earth theorists that he publicly accused of being fake and working for the government (eg. Mark Sargent).
You said "...he and NASA wouldn't dare give Eric the Chance to hit back"
Again you're seeing what you want to see instead of looking for the facts :-|
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case.
Therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ojaiallen8004 - You said "My bad. To answer your question the Press Conference was about a month after the supposed return from the moon...July 1969. Peace out!"
No problem. But the reality is, it was 3 weeks, where the astronauts spent those 3 weeks in quarantine.
The point is, people like 'light in the dark
' have listen to conspiracy theorists who claim the astronauts don't look happy in that press conference on the basis that they only JUST got back from the moon, perhaps hours earlier or at most a day or so ago.
Hence all their body language assumptions are nonsense, especially since the astronauts behaved the same way in previous press conferences.
Unfortunately, for today's audience used to a diet of false and exaggerated TV emotions, then because the astronauts didn't enter the press conference with massive grins on their faces, high-fiving the people in the front row, while whooping and wailing throughout the press conference to show their excitement to the world, they assume something must be wrong and therefore it was all a hoax :-D
3
-
@ojaiallen8004 - Not a representative, just someone who thinks that the truth and facts are important, where the moment we sit back and allow charlatans to distort the truth/facts to suit themselves, then we would be heading for trouble as a society.
For example, Bill Clinton did NOT doubt the moon landings, that's a claim made by conspiracy theorists who quote mined a paragraph from his book to distort what he meant, as well as ignoring other references to the moon landings in Bill's SAME book that shows he knew they landed on the moon!
If you look up the SLS rocket due to launch next year, you will see it is as large and as powerful as the Apollo Saturn V rocket. Hence in 2023/2024, the SLS rocket will take astronauts back to the moon.
As for the time period, so what my friend? :-) Men first reach the South Pole in 1911/1912 but didn't return until 1956, 44 YEARS later. Men first reach the lowest point in Earth's ocean called the Marina Trench in 1960, but didn't return until 2012, 52 YEARS later.
So again, for me the truth matters, the facts matter, they really do.
All the best :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Taco_Lgando - Thanks for the reply.
Landing people on the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program but are still a long way off from building their own Saturn V size rocket.
Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful and is due to launch in February, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024.
The spacesuits is a non-issue, because the original plan was to send people into orbit around the moon in 2024 and land years later (abut 2027/2028).
Trump pushed for the landing to be brought forward to 2024, which now meant rushing the lander and spacesuits. However with Trump gone, it is clear that NASA are gradually shifting back to their original (and more sensible) plan :-)
I hope that information helped.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@spaceisfake2816 - EVERY photo taken by your phone was data captured by light falling onto the cmos sensor, which was turned into the final image.
Not only that, but your cmos sensor doesn't actually 'see' color, only light intensity (think grey scale), and therefore color has to be reconstructed via filters and mathematical algorithms.
By the logic of conspiracy theorists, that means ALL the digital photos that you've ever taken by phone or camera are fakes! :-)
And gravity is what makes it possible for gas atmospheres around a planet in the vacuum of space (a vacuum is NOT suction btw).
I kept the explanations above short because it's interesting that, like so many, you only question the established facts.
So for balance, given that you say no-one knows, can you name a few of the flat Earth claims that you personally question (and explain why), claims that makes you doubt the 'theory' that the Earth is flat?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Stop listening to conspiracy theorists :-)
Losing the technology is about not having the craft in service TODAY, it's not about losing the hardware or the plans or the knowledge! So nothing is being covered up.
Hence Concorde is lost technology, it will never go into service again. The Space Shuttle is lost technology, it will never go into service again. Likewise the Apollo Saturn V rocket is lost technology, it will never go into service again. And so on.
Btw, you can find ALL those craft and more in aeronautical and science museums.
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence NASA will soon have the SLS rocket in service, which is as large and slightly more powerful than the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and they have the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces.
On its debut launch this year, the MASSIVE SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth for its second test in space. And assuming all goes well, then in 2024 the SLS rocket will again take Orion to the moon but this time with astronauts inside.
Those are examples of the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost, i.e. taken out of service, and hence in 2024 people will return to the moon.
I hope that information helps.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The temperature range in the vacuum of the moon = -250 F to 250 F
The temperature range in the vacuum of low Earth orbit = -250 F to 250 F
Film cameras worked perfectly for astronauts out on spacewalks in low Earth orbit under those conditions (Google Image Search: Ed White Spacewalk Camera), so why would it be a problem when on the moon?
And the radiation that effected film inside the cameras was typically secondary radiation in the form of x-rays created when cosmic rays collided with the case of the camera.
Cosmic rays reach astronauts in low Earth orbit and hence effects film inside cameras (i.e. fogging, often noticed as poor contrast levels).
Therefore the assumption that, radiation damage = destroyed film, is wrong.
But how much fogging occurs depends on exposure level, therefore the longer the film is in space, the more fogging there is.
Cosmic ray levels when on the way to the moon are about 3 times higher than low Earth orbit, and when on the surface of the moon they are slightly higher than low Earth orbit.
So during a mission, higher cosmic ray levels cause film to fog a little quicker than when in low Earth orbit.
Therefore if you look at the raw high resolution scans of original Apollo photographs, you will notice that instead of the deep blacks that the Hasselblad cameras are capable of, the blacks are "grey-ish" instead. That is fogging, i.e. radiation damage, for example;
(Remove the square brackets from the link below)
flickr[.co]m/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157657350941603
Books and magazines and documentaries usually improve the photos by adjusting the contrast and brightness levels to reduce the obvious fogging.
So contrary to your claim, radiation DID effect the pictures :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@trojax44 - You said "You wana see 100 miles of 100ft high ice wall, the Arctic circle???"
Sure, go ahead and present your claim that DOESN'T come from a flat Earth believer, you know, what you avoided admitting to believing at the start of this thread :-)
You said "Are you saying the first ever blue marble shot is not a composite CGI image and is an actual image of our earth?"
Yes kid, because the original Blue Marble photo(s) was taken during the Apollo missions with a FILM camera.
Now read the other part that you didn't know because you only listen to flat Earth theorists...
In 2002, because no spacecraft was far enough to take whole photos of the Earth at the time, NASA's Robert Simmon headed a project to gather 4 months worth of satellite photos and stitch them together using Photoshop to produce IMAGES, not PHOTOGRAPHS, of the whole Earth, and hence he called that Photoshop based project Blue Marble 2.
In other words, they used thousands of satellite photographs pieced together to try to recreate the images seen in PHOTOGRAPHS of the entire Earth taken from the Apollo spacecraft.
You said "you know that would be bat shit crazy right after seeing all the copy pasted clouds and sex written in the clouds"
Sure, go ahead and show me those clouds from the Photoshopped "Blue Marble 2" images of the Earth created by manually stitching together thousands of photographs, including editing the clouds to try to make them appear natural. Gee, anyone you would think we could find signs that they were created manually rather than being actual photographs :-)
Seriously, go ahead and show me all your evidence from the Blue Marble 2 images (not photographs) of the Earth that for some 'strange' reason we can find evidence that they were put together manually.
So what's your next claim, my flat Earth friend who tried to hide it :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The USA sent men to the moon for political reasons, that's how the extra funding was justified, it wasn't for science and it didn't need to be sustainable. Once Congress were fully satisfied that the USSR were beaten, the extra funding was withdrawn, ending the Apollo program.
No nation other than the USA, USSR/Russia and now China have built rockets capable of taking people into space, therefore that limits the choice to just 3 nations who could send people to the moon.
Such a mission requires building the largest and most powerful rockets in history to get a craft capable of supporting human lives to the moon and back.
The USA achieved that with the Saturn V rocket, sending men to the moon nine times from 1968 to 1972, and landing on the moon during 6 of those missions.
The USA now have the SLS to send people to the moon (inside the Orion capsule) and eventually Space X rockets will be able to replace the SLS.
The USSR built the massive N1-L3 rocket back in the 60s to get their cosmonauts to the moon, but unfortunately their rocket blew up during every test launch and so their manned moon program was effectively grounded, forcing them to eventually abandon that rocket and end their moon program.
Both Russia and China are currently designing rockets large enough to send people to the moon.
I hope that helps :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Antarctica is twice the size of Australia, therefore if someone goes exploring on their own without informing others and is then declared missing days/weeks later, who is suppose to spend the money and the resources and risk lives searching for that irresponsible person lost in Antarctica?
Antarctica is the last unspoiled continent on Earth and it is RICH with untapped resources (oil, coal, gold, diamonds, rare Earth minerals, etc), hence the treaty protects Antarctica from any nation claiming it as their own. The treaty protects Antarctica from nations fighting over its resources (i.e. wars) and prevents private companies from exploiting it for oil and gems and minerals and other natural resources, ruining the environment in the process. The treaty protects Antarctica from being used for military purposes.
The treaty doesn't stop anyone from visiting or exploring Antarctica responsibly.
Regardless, all of us can book onto trips to Antarctica and even book onto trips to the South Pole (the place flat Earth theorists claim doesn't exist) any time we want... assuming we can afford it that is :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hamptonsudduth621 - You said "HA! See a chained mind gets rattled and gets so angry! "
Nice try, but you'll need to do better than that :-)
You said "Atoms are scientific theory not fact."
Which proves a) You don't know what a scientific theory is, and b) You didn't know that not only have individual atoms been photographed, but for decades atoms have been arranged on surfaces via scanning tunnelling microscopes to create shapes and even words with individual atoms.
Hence that's an example of your ignorance of science, which led you to make that statement.
You said "And I've been sick before so I can safely assume viruses do exist but not all of them."
We are not talking about assumptions here, we are talking about facts. You only know about viruses because you accepted what you were told, not through research that you did yourself.
You said "Or why Evey picture ever taken of earth is a rendition or computer generated image."
A lie that you got from flat Earth theorists. Go ahead and tell me how YOU PERSONALLY proved that an image of the Earth was CGI. That's right, you never have.
Go ahead and give me an example of a stated photograph (not an image) of the Earth that is actually CGI (and hence a lie), together with the evidence of that lie.
Therefore you claiming others merely believe what they're told while you blindly parrot false claims told to you by flat Earth theorists (i.e. you believed what you were told) is the very definition of hypocrisy :-)
You said "But if getting mad and thinking you are better and smarter then me..."
Again nice try :-) But as I said, I can prove the Earth is a globe, therefore I find it interesting that not once have you shown any interest in the evidence of a globe Earth as mentioned :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lyndenhall6754 - You said "if apollo was travelling at 45000 kilometers per hour..they should have arrived there in less than 10 hours,"
Correct IF that was the case, but it wasn't the case, it isn't the case for any spacecraft.
To leave Earth's orbit the spacecraft had to accelerate to 25,000 mph, where the rocket engine was switched off and the spacecraft, i.e. the Command and Service Module (CSM) and the Lunar Module (LM), coasted to the moon.
But here's the important point - throughout that journey Earth's gravity was slowing the spacecraft down, dropping it down to 24,000 mph, then 23,000 mph, then 22,000 mph and so on.
Also, on their way to the moon, Earth's gravitational pull was getting weaker as the moon's gravitational pull grew stronger.
Once the Apollo spacecraft reached the point where the pull of the moon's gravity was the same as the Earth, it was travelling at just 2000 mph, where after passing that point the moon's gravitational pull was now stronger than the Earth and hence caused the spacecraft to accelerate.
By time they approached the moon they were travelling at around 5000 mph, where they spun the spacecraft 180 degrees and fired it's rocket engine to slow it down to 3700 mph to enter lunar orbit, 60 miles up.
So in total, the journey took around 3 days.
That's why it's important not to jump to conclusions. The facts are there, but you have to want to see them :-|
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jkuang - You said "Again, clearly understand what I said, "life supporting module" That is the exactly why I said it."
Nonsense, you said and I quote "There is no way US has the technology in 1960s, in the form module of that landing module, with those bulky vacuum tubes and mechanical switches, to land on the moon, performed the most amazing REAL TIME SIGNAL PROCESSING for a video conference with the circling moon orbit, and sending back to earth."
That has NOTHING to do with people being inside the craft, that is about the technology that you claim to not exist.
You were claiming the TECHNOLOGY was beyond what was available back then and I've proven you are wrong, so get over it :-)
If this was purely about people being in the craft, then your claims would have been about the technology relating to PEOPLE, not the technology relating to the process of going to the moon, landing on the moon and then returning.
3
-
@jkuang - You said " if there is not much difference sending out a human to land on the moon and sending back up, why didn't Russia did it?"
Because (and read carefully please), sending people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program and are working towards building their own Saturn V class rocket for their future manned moon landings.
Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful, which is now complete and due to launch this March, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@JohnHankins-n6p - You said "What I was saying is that these "experts". Should not be using words that can be used in different ways at different times."
Firstly, it's not up to experts to spoon feed flat Earth believers as if they're children, because as ignorant as they are the majority of them are adults.
Secondly, ALL flat Earth believers object to the idea of the Earth being a globe, therefore NONE of them are confused by anyone using the word ROUND to describe the shape of the Earth.
They all know the context of round in that case, they all know the Earth is being said to be a globe, a sphere.
Thirdly, your opening sentence was wrong when you said "It is neither flat nor round", because the Earth is round, that's what the word means.
Hence you'll find references to all of the following; "a round ball", "a round coin", "a round hoop", "a round can", "a round rod" etc.
I think we can all agree that a ball, coin, hoop, can, rod etc are not all the same shape, but as long as an object appears to be circular from a certain viewpoint, then we can refer to that object as round... the Earth included.
I've debated flat Earth believers for around 8 years, and none of them have been confused by the word "round" to describe the Earth.
Yes some have been deliberately pedantic by referring to their "round" flat Earth, but context matters, and so flat Earth believers are not confused by others saying the Earth is round :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's not an excuse, it's the right thing to do.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I listed above)? :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@1USAUSA - An extremely ignorant reply.
Firstly, Neil is an astrophysicist, get over it :-)
Secondly, Neil didn't say the Earth is literally shaped like a pear and hence the fact that you believe he did really says a lot.
Here's an example of where the pear shape reference came from;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoCKapivHGM
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
So which part of "practically a perfect sphere" do you not understand?
Therefore Neil did not say the Earth literally looks like a pear, he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jonathannelson9765 - Hi, firstly your reply is shadow banned, probably because of the link you added that YT doesn't accept anymore.
You can check by visiting this thread with another browser without signing in to see what others can see.
I can see your reply in the notifier window only, where it vanishes when I look at the entire thread.
Secondly, I think you meant to post that to someone else, because I know for a fact that men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972, and hence I look forward to the SLS launch in about a month where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to earth, a mission lasting for up to a month.
In all goes well then the SLS will again take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back in 2024 or 2025, but this time with astronauts on board.
You can guarantee that certain people will claim the SLS missions are fake too, since nothing will ever change their minds, much less facts :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tedjoseve - So let me address this comment from you before, quote "How do you know the pictures are actually from the moon or some (Kubrick) studio in hollywood?"
Read my reply to Xernive about photos, and read the following about film and video please.
To this day, no-one has EVER recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to advance CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity, not appearance) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
Until then it remains a fact that the footage was filmed in an environment with no air and 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was the moon :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Why ask for what flat Earth believers never provide themselves? :-) After all, where's your 24/7 camera looking at the edge of the Earth?
In fact, where's a single photograph or video of your claimed edge of the Earth with the ice wall up against your firmament dome?
You said "Why 500 years ago every one knew the Earth was flat!!"
Completely false. The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was a globe around 2500 YEARS ago, where the Greek astronomer and philosopher Eratosthenes was the first to measure the size of the GLOBE Earth with good accuracy in around 240 BC!
Aristotle's 400 BC model of the universe placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center.
And for nearly 2000 YEARS, ALL Christian churches have said the Earth is a GLOBE, where they accepted as doctrine Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe that also placed a GLOBE stationary Earth in the center of the universe.
Flat Earth theorists made you believe knowledge of a globe Earth happened 500 years ago, but that's a lie. Copernicus was not famous for saying the Earth is a globe, they already knew that, he is famous for suggesting that the GLOBE Earth was not at the center of the universe, but instead he theorized that the sun was at the center and the GLOBE Earth and all the planets and stars orbited the sun, and the moon orbited the 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
-
@mtebaldi1 - Again you're being dishonest, which is disappointing, where you actually think that in the middle of the financial crisis that Obama could give NASA a massive 6 BILLION extra in their budget from nowhere in 2008 (btw, besides Apollo, show me where any administration has increased NASA's budget in the following year by anywhere close to 6 billion please).
NASA's budget is worked out as a PERCENTAGE of the FEDERAL BUDGET, not as fixed cash amount, hence THAT is the figure that matters (come on, are you really that uninformed?).
Go ahead and Google Search: Budget of NASA Wikipedia and click on the wiki link with that title.
As you can CLEARLY see on that page, NASA's budget reached its peak in 1966 due to the Apollo missions and then slowly declined year on year until it increase a little in the late 80s and early 90s for the construction of the ISS.
But from 1991 onwards, NASA's budget slowly decreased year on year. FACT!
That trend of a slow decline in NASA's percentage of the Federal budget merely continued throughout the Obama administration (like many previous administrations) AND STILL CONTINUES TODAY UNDER TRUMP, where the lowest percentage during the Obama years was 49% of the Federal budget compared to 47% under Trump (the lowest that it has EVER been), not because Trump has cut NASA's budget but because the trend in the slow decline in NASA's percentage CONTINUES.
So again, LOOK at the percentages. If you project that graph into the future then it suggests NASA's budget will level out at around 46 to 47 percent (baring a major space mission like sending people to Mars), and therefore the ACTUAL CASH FIGURE that NASA receives will depend on the total Federal budget.
Therefore as the figures clearly show, your claims about NASA under Obama are null and void.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@taylorbrad111 - Your video comes from "What Happened on the Moon" where every claim there had been debunked YEARS ago, so you're late to the party.
If you think the video clip you're hiding behind is absolute proof of a hoax, then choose ONE of the claims from that clip as the BEST example of a hoax and I'll show you how's it wrong.
You said "where you go, nothin to say now, huh? Lmao twat!"
Grow up kid, some of us have lives and hence we don't spend 24/7 on internet forums, therefore people reply when they can, which could be minutes, hours, days, weeks or even months later.
Anyway, I look forward to you saying which hoax claim from your clip is the BEST one for further discussion :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@taylorbrad111 - So you STILL refuse to address my debunking of your wires claim (hence proving my points) and so you desperately shift to offering nothing but arguments from incredulity and ignorance instead :-)
For example, you cried "25000 mph is like 7 miles per second!! So you want to believe apol0 in 1972 could travel through ohio in a half a sec?"
And yet you also said "the International Space Station—which orbits at an average height of 240 miles—would not be in space if we defined “space” as the absence of an atmosphere"
Firstly, space is defined as 100 km above Earth's surface (62 miles), it is not defined as the absence of an atmosphere, so there is no "if we this or that" and hence that comment from you is pointless :-)
Secondly, at 240 miles up the massive ISS orbits at a velocity of 17,200 mph, the speed needed for ANY craft to maintain orbit at that altitude.
So according to you, 17,200 mph is perfectly fine for the world's largest space station, but the largest rocket in history accelerating the Apollo craft to 25,000 mph is suddenly impossible? R i g h t :-)
In that case, please state the maximum speed beyond 17,200 mph for a spacecraft, since 25,000 mph is impossible according to you.
Thirdly, from before Apollo to today, ALL spacecraft sent to the moon and planets and comets and asteroids etc ALL needed rockets to accelerate them to around 25,000 mph to escape the Earth at the start of their journeys, so by your logic ALL those unmanned spacecraft are fake, right? :-)
3
-
@taylorbrad111 - You said "dude, theyre wires! You can clearly see them lmao are you blind"
Son, those are not wires, as the video I posted pointed out, hence only the most naive and ignorant would claim sunlight reflecting off the antenna and lens flares are wires.
And hence it's amusing that you conveniently ignore the dust falling at 1/6 gravity, so clearly you think each dust grain is on wires too :-)
You said "you didnt "debunk" anything by the way, you just showed someones OPINION!"
Wrong, the video I provided clearly debunks your little claim, where you STILL cannot name a single sci-fi movie in history that has recreated perfect 1/6 gravity for its moon scenes.
If it was possible using wires and/or slow motion back in 1969 to 1972,then COUNTLESS sci-fi movies and series would have created 1/6 gravity in a studio to the SAME quality or better than Apollo, so where are they? I'm waiting :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@taylorbrad111 - You said "The blue screen stuff is used in the so-called space station... There you can also clearly see screw ups in editing... Its almost to the point where they dont care"
As I expected, you've now you prove you were effectively lying about the ISS before, where you spoke about it as fact (eg. quote "Technically, the International Space Station—which orbits at an average height of 240 miles..."), but NOW you refer to it as the so-called ISS and show that you've fallen for the laughable fake footage lies from conspiracy theorists, lies that no established special effects expect from ANY nation has EVER agreed with :-)
And you do know that even YOU (and EVERYONE READING THIS) can see the ISS passing overhead YOURSELF, right? You do know that YOU can use a telescope to see the space station together with its solar panels for YOURSELF right? You do know that even YOU can photograph the ISS during the rare occasions when it passes in front of the moon or the sun in your location, right? All thanks to websites and apps that tell you EXACTLY when the ISS is due to pass over your area in the world.
So given that your swallowed ALL the nonsense about fake footage, please go ahead and explain exactly what that ISS size and shaped object travelling at over 17,000 mph is please, an object which is seen all over the world at the EXACT times predicted, where amateur footage even showed the Space Shuttle docking with that ISS shaped object back in the day :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
@taylorbrad111 - You said "i told you they were playing around on little silly wires! You proved nothing lmao!! You sent me a video of someones elses OPINION!! opinions are far from facts"
Except you posted videos of someone else's opinion, where you think some charlatan claiming something means it's true, so you've proven nothing :-)
There have been countless film makers from a huge number of nations in the decades since the moon landings, who would have arrived at the same conclusions if what was claimed was true, including film making forums and websites.
So present your SUPPORTING evidence. That is, present ONE of your wires claim and then show me just ONE OTHER established and hence credible expert in the field (eg. a film maker, special effects expert etc) who agrees with the 'analysis' and perhaps adds more to the claim being made.
That is, show me the credible film makers who support what David Percy claims in your video clip, the same claims that David Percy makes in his book "Dark Moon" where he and his co-author Mary Bennet also connected the moon landing 'hoax' with pyramids on Mars, Wigwams, Stonehenge, Atlantis, the Sphinx, Neanderthals & Crop Circles.
Still, anything David says is fine by you, right? :-)
I look forward to the established film makers and/or established special effects experts who agree with the wires claims you swallowed from David Percy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@conradlamoureux4557 - So now you reveal yourself to be yet another flat earth believer who trolls topics like this without actually revealing the REAL reason behind your beliefs? How interesting :-)
So cut out the hypocrisy about technology please, this is about your flat Earth beliefs, where flat Earth theorists easily make suckers out of people like you because regardless of your IQ, you are intellectually lazy as well as gullible and naive.
The rocket hitting the dome claim is a perfect example of how FE theorists fool people like yourself.
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 cry out "It hit the dome, it hit the 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. 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!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni7S8yyYrAw&t=94
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).
For a more detailed explanation of Yo-Yo despin, watch the following video please;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zJXRjG7DK0
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nelprana5861 - On the contrary, today we have a great many villiage idiots online who think they're Einstein just because they watched some YT videos :-)
So lets focus on the footage that you still think can be faked in a studio.
To this day, no-one has EVER recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (remember, no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to advance CGI, which again wasn't available back in the 60s/70s.
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity, not appearance) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
Until then it remains a fact that the footage was filmed in an environment with no air and 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was the moon :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@donaldcooper5534 - Please show me the debate between Eric Dubay and the flat Earth theorists who he claims are shills working for the government, such as Mark Sargent, because I must have missed it :-) Anyway... ]
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@koba2322 - You said "But that isn’t relevant whether it did or didn’t happen, don’t you think the most loved scientist going against the leader of flat earth would gain traction to the point the whole world would notice?"
A very naïve comment from you :-|
So should Neil also debate Concave Earth theorists, and Hollow Earth theorists, and crop circle theorists, and ISS hoax theorists, and paranormal theorists, and alien abduction theorists, and Electric Universe theorists, etc.
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other ridiculous conspiracy 'theories', then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people like Eric Dubay.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@stephenireland3816 - You said "So you believe lack of funds is the logical explanation for not going back."
You miss the point :-)
The USA didn't send men to the moon because it was easy, they didn't send men to the moon for science or for the joy of human exploration, they sent men to the moon for political reasons, i.e. to overtake the USSR in space.
This was a move to prove the USA were superior following the embarrassment of years of so many USSR firsts in space (first satellite, first man in space, first spacecraft to the moon, etc), leading to a fear that the USSR could go on to dominate space and hence dominate the USA.
So to achieve their goal Congress increased NASA's budget to a peak of 9 TIMES normal to make it happen (a cost that wasn't sustainable!), and NASA made it happen, but once Congress were satisfied that the political goals has been met they withdrew all the extra funding for NASA and so Apollo 18 to 20 was cancelled and the Apollo program ended.
Now look at the recent Artemis 1 where the SLS rocket (more powerful than the Apollo Saturn V) took the Orion space capsule (more advanced than the Apollo Command Module) to the moon and back.
Late next year Artemis 2 will take a crew of 4 astronauts to the moon and back, but again the SLS rocket isn't a sustainable option, and hence the future will see the SLS replaced with reusable rockets like those by Space X, hence the importance of Starship.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@aleksandarmilenkovic2058 - Hi Alex, I'll go through one at a time.
"where are all the plans of all spaceships, modules, rockets"
All with the companies that made them.
For example, just like the ISS where different modules were made by different nation companies to an overall design specification, the Saturn V rocket alone consisted of the following;
First stage built by Boeing, powered by 5 F-1 rocket engines built by Rocketdyne.
Second stage built by North American Aviation, powered by 5 J-2 rocket engines by Rocketdyne.
Third stage built by Douglas Aircraft, powered by one J-2 rocket engine by Rocketdyne.
Add to that the Comand and Service Module which was built by North American Aviation, the Lunar Module was designed and built by Grumman and the Lunar Rover built by Boeing, and you can see that it's not as straightforward as conspiracy theorists claim.
Therefore the conspiracy theorists who claim the plans for Apollo spacecraft are destroyed or missing are effectively lying :-)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aquavideoman - And now, my proof, including what you need to do to debunk it;
The map of the Earth in the form of a globe is accurate, where we can easily work out the scale of the globe by dividing 24,900 (miles) by the measured length of the equator.
For example, on a 12 inch globe it works out to be 26 miles per millimeter.
You can now use the globe to accurately measure the distance between ANY two locations on Earth and it will be accurate. So on that 12 inch globe for example, a measurement of 23 millimeters will be 600 miles, and therefore for every two locations on Earth that are proven to be 600 miles apart, they will be 23 millimeters (2.3 centimeters) apart on that globe.
That would be impossible if the shape of the Earth was wrong.
We can do the same for maps of our cities because they are small enough to be relatively flat, and therefore we can all find maps of our cities with bar scales that indicates distances on that map.
There are no flat maps of a flat Earth for which we can do the same, because ALL flat maps of the Earth are distorted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robertbaughner2760 - Don Petit? Come on, really? You can't work that out for yourself but instead swallow what conspiracy theorist tell you without question? :-)
Here's a reply from YouTuber Scott Wallace who summed it up perfectly,
Quote: "The crux here is that "technology" can mean (at least) two rather different things: the knowledge of how to make something, or the actual thing that's made. When Don Petit said we've "destroyed the technology", he meant it in the second sense: the actual rockets which were used up, the assembly lines that were dismantled, the tooling that was abandoned, and so forth, as a result of funding being drastically cut after the Moon missions. He probably did not imagine that Moon landing deniers would quote him as meaning that all the knowledge (and blueprints, schematics, etc) were destroyed, which of course was not the case.
"
Now look up the SLS rocket due to launch next year, which is as large and as powerful as the Saturn V rocket that took men to the moon.
That's an example of the USA rebuilding the technology that was 'destroyed' (i.e. SLS = New Saturn V).
Look up the Orion space capsule that the SLS rocket on its debut launch will take to the moon and back to Earth, which is larger and more advanced than the Apollo space capsule (Command Module) that took astronauts to the moon.
That's an example of the USA rebuilding the technology that was 'destroyed'. (i.e. Orion = New Command Module).
Look up the Artemis program which will send astronauts to the moon in 2024 using the SLS rocket and the Orion space capsule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robertbaughner2760 - You said "Alan Bean said that "a lunar module that is in the sun and doesn't have climate control, will slowly but surely heat up to 250 degrees."
How slow is slowly? That's right, you don't know!
And Alan is talking about a LM under normal circumstances sitting on the surface of the moon, not slowly rotating in space with most of the non essential electrical devices switched off, where that level of heat would only occur outside the craft btw.
The Lunar Module was covered in mylar+kapton foil (the gold looking foil) including inside the hull walls and mylar panels which also acted as micrometeorite shields, to reflect away heat from the sun, just like on all these satellites and rovers;
tinyurl.com/yaagp73h
So there's not much required for temperature control under normal circumstances, where much of the heat inside the LM comes from the electrical powered equipment, and hence it will heat up inside due to the heat generated by the electrical components.
If power is cut and hence without climate control either, no heat is generated inside and there's no heat from the sun getting inside the craft, so it will SLOWLY cool down inside the LM travelling in space.
So go ahead and present your evidence that the temperature inside the LM dropped or rose to fatal levels.
2
-
@robertbaughner2760 - You cried "Because the technology to go to the moon has been destroyed, the best source are the astronauts"
Name the Apollo craft that can't be found in an aeronautical or science museum today.
That's right, they are ALL available. The Saturn V rocket, the Apollo Command Module, the Apollo Service Module, the Apollo Lunar Module, etc, together with plans/designs for all.
ALL still available, just like so many other retired craft.
So right there you fall upon your own sword :-)
You said "Comparing satellites to the Lunar Module is a false equivalency because satellites are not made to house humans"
Satellites are not designed to operate at 250 F and hence you have to be really dumb to think they do. So again, how do satellites with so little power keep temperatures down? They use materials like kapton+mylar to reflect away the heat from the sun, just like the LM.
You said " I will believe him before you."
I missed the part where he spoke about the LM slowly rotating in space. Provide that quote please :-)
2
-
2
-
@robertbaughner2760 - You said "According to NASA, the "barbecue roll" began seven and a half hours after the accident and was eventually aborted"
WRONG. And do not paraphrase what you don't understand please. If you want to make such claims then present exact references/links and exact quotes to support your point. Don't give me throw away claims/lies on the basis that I have to look it up myself.
And again you are clueless by your own words :-), because the barbeque roll doesn't effect the temperature on the INSIDE in the crew cabin, it's about the temperature on the OUTSIDE of the craft, where the roll prevents the Command and Service Module outer surface and external sensors etc from getting too hot from being in the sun for too long, or too cold from being in the shade for too long, i.e. prevents damage to the craft.
The LM used mylar panels and mylar+kapton foil to solve that problem due to being designed to be on the moon's surface in the sun for several days.
And it just so happened that Alan Bean was the next Commander of Skylab AFTER it was repaired with that simple and thin mylar sheet to reflect away the heat from the sun, i.e. a simple 'space blanket', the same material used to protect the LM from the sun.
So no doubt Alan was thinking of what happened to Skylab when talking about the LM, without recalling that the solution added to Skylab was BUILT INTO the LM's design :-)
That's all for now, in the meantime I wish you a very Merry Christmas and the best of health to you, your family and your friends :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robertbaughner2760 - You said "Your case can only be proven by NASA sending a human being past the Van Allen radiation belts"
Which will be done with the SLS rocket due to be launched next year, hence sending people to the moon in 2024.
But as usual, people like you will only claim that mission is a hoax too, therefore proving the hypocrisy of conspiracy believers.
Hence today there are people like you claiming EVERY space mission, unmanned and manned, were hoaxes in the past and claiming they are hoaxes today.
An example of the hypocrisy is found in your comment "If they could the moon would be colonized by now."
So where are the colonies in low Earth orbit? We have an international space station with a several astronauts on board (claimed by some to be a hoax) but ZERO colonies in space despite men first going into space in 1961!
Therefore why would the moon 240,000 miles away be colonized when we haven't even colonized 250 miles up in low Earth orbit? So pure hypocrisy on your part, where you set expectations that aren't even met by what you DO believe!
So no anger, I just find your ignorance amusing, same for flat Earth believers, ISS hoax believers, Space Shuttle hoax believers, etc :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cast390 - Wrong, and no top scientists say it was a hoax.
And speaking of the Van Allen belts, here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anthonyontv - You thinking it's doesn't look real is irrelevant, since that's just you're personal opinion. But consider the following...
To this day, no-one has EVER recreated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even the most modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
When the popular hoax theorists claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
(Replies with links are blocked here, so just change 😮 to . and 🖍️ to /)
tiny😮cc🖍️e9jjuz
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion and wires, right? ;-)
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut fake footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
Until then it remains a fact that the footage was filmed in an environment with no air and 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was the moon :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Riptions - Putting aside the fact that your reply is shadow banned, which is happening to all of us at times, you said;
"Sorry, but you have presented no proof of the globe."
Sorry, but denial isn't an answer, that's only you running away :-)
If someone tried to project the map of the Earth around a cube then it would be distorted, and hence it would take you no time to find two locations on that cube where the distance measured DOESN'T match the real world distance, proving the Earth is not a cube.
If someone tried to project the map of the Earth around a pyramid then it would be distorted, and hence it would take you no time to find two locations on that pyramid where the distance measured DOESN'T match the real world distance, proving the Earth is not a pyramid.
If someone tried to project the map of the Earth around a cylinder then it would be distorted, and hence it would take you no time to find two locations on that cylinder where the distance measured DOESN'T match the real world distance, proving the Earth is not a cylinder.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brettwerner1413 - I am calm my friend, however I suggest you take your own advice :-)
Anyway I'll address the rather pompous assumptions from you, where you said and I quote;
"Obviously ur mind is not open to the idea of questioning your beliefs. That’s ashame. We should always strive to learn more and understand better. Do u know how the geocentric model even works? Maybe research what you believe in exactly all the way thru."
Here's all the flat Earth books that I OWN and have READ;
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
So besides Eric Dubay's free eBook, if you own and have read any of the books above and therefore would like to discuss the contents of one of those books in detail, then go ahead and name the book and present your argument from that book please.
I READ all those books (where most are very poorly written, hence it was a chore) because I wanted to get the information from the original sources, rather than secondhand from YT videos.
My original goal was to see if I could find an accurate flat map of a flat Earth where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all distances measured on that map are accurate and to scale.
No such map exists, hence further proving the Earth is not flat.
Simply put: No accurate flat map of a flat Earth = No flat Earth.
Therefore I've done my research and done so FULLY, going to the original sources behind today's flat Earth 'theories'.
What have you done in comparison? :-)
Anyway, are you finally ready for my evidence for a globe Earth?
2
-
@brettwerner1413 - You said "all I said was knowing heliocentric model and how that All works and the same thing for geocentric model. They both work. There’s loads of evidence for both sides.!
That's the problem my friend, there is no flat Earth model that works, they ALL fall apart upon the simplest of tests, and I know being a practicing amateur astronomer for over 30 years with a degree in mathematics :-)
Hence there's no flat Earth model that predicts the position of the planets for any given date, or comets, or sunrise and sunset times for any part of the Earth, or total eclipses of the sun including the path of totality across the Earth's surface, or even lunar eclipses (and no, don't mention the Saros Series :-)), and countless other astronomical events that are ALL predicted accurately with the heliocentric model.
That should be a red flag to those claiming there's any validity with the claimed flat Earth model, since flat Earth predicts nothing, zero, zilch :-)
And again, I am calm, but my writing style is direct and to the point.
2
-
@brettwerner1413 - You said "and I am ready for all globe proof."
Great, but my goal isn't to change your mind, it's only to present the facts.
Anyway, simply put, if you find a good 12 inch globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances measured will be correct!
For a 9 inch globe of the Earth the scale works out as 34.7 miles per millimetre, so 35 miles is a good enough approximation. And for a 15 inch globe of the Earth it's around 20.8 miles per millimetre, so 21 miles is a good enough approximation on that globe.
It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre.
So please test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first person in history to find a distance flaw in the modern map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE ;-)
Therefore the fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is 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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dazzadazza5255 - You said "why over vast distances of water can we see buildings/ land marks that mathematically and scientifically we shouldn't be able to see."
Because it has nothing to do with mathematics or science and everything to do with their lack of understanding, as I will explain and I will give you the opportunity to prove me wrong :-)
Firstly, in practically EVERY flat Earth distance claim, they say the curvature of the Earth is 8 inches per mile squared. WRONG. That's an approximation which is good enough for distances visible by eye, but it's not the equation for a circle!
Secondly, notice how in EVERY buildings/landmark claim we never see it all the way down to the ground, only the top part of the building/landmark is seen. Why do you think that is if there's no curvature? Shouldn't we see it ALL on a flat Earth?
Thirdly, they NEVER take into account the height of the observer, where if you're at sea level you'll see to a specific distance, at 10 feet above sea level you'll see further, at 100 feet above sea level you'll see even further, and so on.
To prove my point, please give me THREE flat Earth distance claims to buildings/landmarks or whatever, and I'll show you how they're wrong.
In the meantime, have a look at this GIF file debunking the Toronto flat Earth distance claim;
http://stupidconspiracies.org/misc/toronto.gif
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tylerwatson8423 - You said "All maps are a projection of a flat plane."
Nope, all maps used for navigation are projections from a globe, which is why the globe is the SAME but ALL projection maps are different.
You said "The more localized the map the more accurate to the specific area you are trying to navigate."
If an area is flat, then it doesn't matter if it's 1 mile by 1 mile, or 10 mile by 10 miles, or 1000 miles by 1000 miles or 100,000 miles by 100,000 miles, it would be possible to create accurate undistorted maps of that area.
Likewise, if the Earth was flat then it would be possible to create an accurate undistorted flat map of the Earth. So where is it?
Besides, isn't the Azimuthal Equidistant map, known to most flat Earth believers as the Gleason map, the map claimed to be THE flat map of a flat Earth?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lorichet - Just notice my reply was shadow banned, so I'll try again.
Let me remind you of your cherry picked quote from that magazine;
"The discovery is of course troubling to astronauts; somehow the human body will have to be shielded from this radiation, EVEN ON A RAPID TRANSIT THROUGH THE REGION..."
Here's part of his conclusion at the end, the part you missed because you probably haven't actually read the entire report, you're only going by what others have said?
Quote "Unless some practical way can be found to shield space travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30,000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding"
So there you have it.
As I told you before and I quote "they were still learning about the particles and their energy levels with no knowledge of the penetrating power of those particles, i.e. how well they can penetrate the hull of spacecraft to reach the astronaut inside."
Dr Van Allen confirmed that fact at the end of his report, saying they are now PLANNING to test different types of shielding to see how much radiation gets through.
So zero contradictions, since his comments in that magazine were based upon the astronauts being exposed to that level of radiation without shielding, where even then he says it's not a show stopper because they could have taken an alternative route if required!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Instead of just parroting hoax claims, try doing some research please :-)
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006);
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year!).
Therefore if the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would be dead or dying after about a week or so.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirms that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@onepalproductions - That's a straw man argument and hence completely irrelevant.
Here's how I know men landed on the moon.
In the 50 years since the first moon landing, top scientists worldwide from fields such as physics (and astrophysics), rocket science, geology (and astrogeology), computing, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, electronics, and much more, have examined and verified ALL Apollo evidence, including scientists who dislike the USA and nations who would have given anything to prove it was a hoax (where their scientists would have been national heroes if they proved a hoax with verifiable evidence).
No scientist from ANY nation has ever announced finding fake Apollo evidence within his/her field of expertise, and no scientist from ANY nation has EVER said the missions were impossible (or even improbable) based upon evidence within his/her field of expertise .
In other words, if the Apollo evidence is more than good enough for the world's best scientists and the world's best engineers in the relevant fields of science and engineering that they're EXPERTS in for 50 years, then it's more than good enough for me.
And since you would probably reject any evidence that comes from NASA, how about 3rd party evidence of the moon landings?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
And don't reject that because it's Wikipedia, since the original sources for all that information can be found in the Citations and References sections at the bottom of the page.
So in what way has that got anything to do with 9/11?
2
-
2
-
@onepalproductions - So, back to the moon landings, you said "I studied 3 semesters of astronomy at university in the 90s. My personal belief is it is most likely we went to the moon, but doubtful they would share the actual footage with us."
Here's the problem with your argument...
To this day, not even the highest budget sci-fi movies or sci-fi TV series have ever recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour upon hour of Apollo footage, where even the dust and objects fall down at the rate of the moon's gravity. Even CGI today doesn't look quite right (CGI often looks a bit 'off', especially when modelling people).
When the popular hoax believer's claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6BXaGEuqxo&t=247
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion, right? ;-)
So the problem is, until someone can demonstrate perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence prove it can be done, then any claims that the Apollo footage was faked in a studio will remain unfounded.
That proves the Apollo footage was filmed in an environment with 1/6 gravity and no air, and the only location that fits that description is the moon, hence proving the footage shows astronauts on the moon.
If someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates their own uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that person/team has PROVEN it IS possible to fake the Apollo footage.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were fake, but it would mean it is possible to fake the footage seen. But that has never happened.
And btw, I've been an amateur astronomer for over 30 years, so I'm not new to this subject either.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@FILMAGEMEVENTUS - Sou astrônomo amador há mais de 30 ANOS, então sei o que podemos ou não podemos ver através de um telescópio.
Não importa o tamanho do seu telescópio, alguém com um telescópio maior apontado para a MESMA área da lua para a qual você está olhando será capaz de ver muito mais crateras (menores) do que você!
Portanto, você não pode afirmar que sabe o tamanho que um telescópio precisa ter para ver a espaçonave Apollo na lua, mas os astrônomos profissionais sabem, por exemplo, pelo site de um dos maiores telescópios do mundo (traduzido para o seu idioma);
www.eso.org/public/about-eso/faq/faq-vlt-paranal/#18
"P: O VLT poderia tirar uma foto dos locais de pouso na Lua?
R: Sim, mas as imagens não seriam detalhadas o suficiente para mostrar o equipamento deixado pelos astronautas. Usando seu sistema de óptica adaptável, o VLT já obteve uma das imagens mais nítidas da superfície lunar vista da Terra: http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso0222/. No entanto, os menores detalhes visíveis nesta imagem ainda estão a cerca de cem metros na superfície da Lua, enquanto as partes dos módulos lunares que sobraram na Lua têm menos de 10 metros de tamanho. Um telescópio de 200 metros de diâmetro seria necessário para mostrá-los. Embora o VLT, quando usado como interferômetro (VLTI), atinja a mesma resolução equivalente, ele não pode ser usado para observar a lua. Você pode estar se perguntando se o Telescópio Espacial Hubble teria melhor sorte. Na verdade, embora um telescópio espacial não seja afetado pela atmosfera da Terra, ele não está substancialmente mais próximo da Lua. Além disso, o Hubble é menor que o VLT, por isso não é capaz de obter imagens que mostram a superfície da Lua com maior resolução. As imagens mais nítidas das sondas lunares foram obtidas pelo Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: Apollo Landing Sites Revisited."
Então você tem um telescópio de 200 metros? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jetman78 - Flat Earth believers think gravity works one way, i.e. the Earth attracts objects to it. But gravity is about ALL matter attracting ALL other matter!
Lets say you weigh 200 pounds for example, caused by the pull of gravity between the Earth and the mass of your body.
If you starve yourself for a long period of time and you lose half the mass of your body, then the pull of gravity between the Earth and you would be HALF of what it is now, meaning you will weigh only 100 pounds.
If in contrast you stuffed yourself with food and doubled your mass over a period of time, then the pull of gravity between the Earth and you would be DOUBLE what it is now, and so you will weigh 400 pounds.
The mass of your body may be around 5 million times greater than a butterfly, which means the pull of gravity between the Earth and that butterfly is 5 million times LESS than the pull of gravity between the Earth and you, so is it really surprising that your butterfly could take off and fly?
The water in a lake may have 5 million times more mass than you, meaning the pull of gravity between the Earth and that lake is 5 million times greater than it is between the Earth and you.
Do you understand how gravity works now?
Remember, you don't have to believe something to understand it :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jetman78 - So lets make it simple and take an area of the Earth that is small enough to be considered flat overall, such as our cities.
We can all find accurate and undistorted flat maps of our cities, where they have a bar scale to tell us the distance everywhere on that map (eg. 1 cm = 2 miles).
A flat map is just a 2D representation of an area, and so for the flat map to be accurate the size of the area doesn't matter if it's generally flat throughout.
Therefore the area mapped could be 10 meters by 10 meters, or 10 miles by 10 miles, or 100 miles by 100 miles, or a 1000 miles by 1000 miles, or 10000 miles by 10000 miles, and so on, the size doesn't matter. If it's generally flat then we can represent that entire flat area accurately and without distortion with a flat map.
So the question is - Where is the accurate and undistorted flat map of a flat Earth? A flat map of the Earth where we can take any two locations on the map and measure the distance and it will always be correct, matching the distance measured in the real world just like our town and city maps.
There's no excuse if the Earth really was flat.
So where's the map please? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pascalxavier3367 - And hence you prove how gullible and naive hoax believers like yourself are, where you blindly believe nobodies who post nonsense on websites instead of the scientists and engineers who ACTUALLY design, build and send craft into space, unlike the idiot who wrote your link :-)
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within a week.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirms that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
Any questions kid? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 -
So how do I know men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972?
In the ~50 years since the first moon landing, top scientists worldwide from fields such as astrophysics, rocket science, (astro)geology, computing, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, electronics, and much more, have examined and verified all Apollo evidence, including scientists who dislike the USA and nations who would have given anything to prove it was a hoax (and their scientists would have been national heroes if they proved a hoax with verifiable evidence).
No scientist from ANY nation has ever announced finding fake Apollo evidence within his/her field of expertise. No scientist from ANY nation has EVER said the missions were impossible (or improbable) based upon evidence within his/her field of expertise!
In other words, if the Apollo evidence is more than good enough for the world's best scientists and the world's best engineers in the relevant fields of science and engineering for almost 50 years, then it's more than good enough for me.
Therefore I see no reason to accept the uninformed hoax claims made by photographers, inventors, technical writers, cab drivers and other non-scientific conspiracy theorists, who are motivated by money and fame with their Apollo hoax books, films, videos and talks :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Not_A_Tourist - You said "what's the point in retiring a rocket or technology when there's nothing in place to replace it?"
Because my friend, the Saturn V rocket was not built for space exploration or for scientific research, it was all about politics.
The USA needed such a rocket to get men on the moon before the USSR for the massive propaganda coup of capitalism vs communism.
Hence Congress gave NASA a massive increase in funding to make it happen, and once they were satisfied that the USSR can't match them (i.e. mission accomplished), Congress then withdrew all the extra funding for NASA, meaning no more Saturn V rockets could be built and so the planned Apollo missions 18 to 20 were cancelled.
You can see it clearly in NASA's budget over the years;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
It costs as much today to develop such a massive rocket as it did back then, hence the SLS development costs has been spread over 10 years, where it uses booster rockets and updated versions of the Space Shuttle engines (proven reliability and saving cost).
Simply put, the Apollo program was not sustainable financially, it was never meant to be, instead it was part of the Cold War for which NASA used the opportunity to get as much research and science out of it as they could while it lasted :-|
The USA's return to the moon should be more sustainable this time, and even more so when the private rocket industry takes over with SLS size rockets of their own (and larger) for less cost in future, eg. Space X.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kingbenjamin8655 - You said "Hey bud, Eric has reached out to this con artist Neil many times"
No he hasn't, his name has been mentioned but it wasn't Eric who initiated anything.
You said "Thats what science is supposed to be about...serious debate and challenging preconceived notions"
Yes, over actual science, not over pseudo-science like flat Earth, concave/hollow Earth, Electric Universe and so on.
You said "every person who worked on the theory that we are a ball from isaac newton forward are all masons"
People (the ancient greeks) first knew the Earth was a globe around 2500 YEARS ago, where Erathosthenes measured the size of the Earth to a good accuracy in 240 BC. So what has the masons got to do with anything? :-)
All Christian denominations throughout history say the Earth is a GLOBE, not flat. So are they all masons now?
You said "Science used to be amazing until all the people stopped questioning"
Wrong, science is still amazing but too many people are incredibly gullible and hence blindly believe charlatans who are only interested in building their base and making money out of conspiracy theories, rather than seeking and spreading the truth.
2
-
2
-
[Yawn]
The girl asked Buzz and I quote "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?". Notice the words "in such a long time". THAT was the context of the question and hence the context of Buzz Aldrin's reply to the girl.
Buzz said we haven't gone back because we haven't (a flippant answer). He said it's his question because for YEARS he has been asking exactly the SAME question as that girl, where HE ALSO wants to know why we stopped going to the moon and HE WANTS TO KNOW why we're not going back to the moon!
That was the point Buzz was making, and you can see him trying to answer without getting angry because it was a girl who asked him the question, but as usual conspiracy theorists deliberately twisted his words because that's what they always do and you fell for it hook, line and sinker :-)
Lets put it down in words;
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time ?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money...
...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
A rather convoluted answer? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No!
So why the distortion all the time from conspiracy believers like yourself? If truth really is on your side, then why do you and so many hoax believers think it's justified to lie and distort the facts to make your case? :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SlobosReality - 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 screen, then the greater the curvature of the Earth. But the lower the horizon is below the center of the screen, then the more the Earth appears concave!
For example, go to timestamp 20:25 in the video I provided and watch it for about 30 seconds.
Look how the horizon goes from being a convex curve (round) to a flat horizon and then to a concave horizon (bowl) and so on.
And notice that there's a 'sweet spot' near the center of the screen where the earth appears to be flat.
This change in the shape of the Earth depending on where the horizon is in relation to the center of the screen 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.
Many videos like to choose a time when the camera is stable and the horizon appears curved or flat, and so then they say "Look at this, proof the shape of the Earth is X", but again, without taking the distortion into account they are not proving anything.
I hope that helps.
2
-
2
-
@Joshua-bu4mv - Why? Because it's a problem for two key reasons.
Firstly, the Bible doesn't explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! Fact.
The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you have are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all implicit!
Secondly, Christian churches/denominations for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE (that is also a fact!). None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. In other words, the ONLY thing they had in common with flat Earth theory is the idea that the Earth is stationary and at the center of everything.
Even Creationists, yes those who take the Bible LITERALLY, say the Earth is a GLOBE! Go to a Creationist website and search for 'Flat Earth' for example, although you may not like what you find there. In fact, some Creationists go as far as claiming the flat Earth is an atheist conspiracy to discredit Christians and Christianity.
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1633 for daring to say the GLOBE Earth orbited the sun, when at the time all the Christian churches 'knew' that the sun and the rest of the universe revolved around the GLOBE stationary Earth!
So who should I listen to when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible? Nearly 2000 YEARS of Christian churches/denominations who say the Earth is a GLOBE? All the biblical scholars from those churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts to produce ALL the Bibles you've ever read who say the Earth is a GLOBE? The Creationists who take the Bible literally who say the Earth is a GLOBE? Over 2 BILLION Christians worldwide who say the Earth is a GLOBE?
Or should I listen to a few people on the internet who claim the Bible says the Earth is flat?
Well, I prefer to listen to the billions of Bible reading Christians who say the Earth is a globe :-)
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches.
If you believe I'm wrong, then please name just ONE established Christian denomination throughout history that explicitly says the Earth is flat, together with evidence of course.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
They went to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972, landed on the moon during 6 of those missions, thanks to the USA building the largest and the most powerful rocket in history, the massive and incredibly expensive Saturn V.
Such a massive and expensive rocket is not sustainable for long, it cost WAY too much, therefore once Congress were satisfied that the USA had won the space race to the moon, they withdrew all the extra funding they gave to NASA for the moon landings, which brought the Apollo missions to an end (Apollo missions 18 to 20 were already planned and had to be cancelled!).
Rocket engine technology has barely changed since then, it's still the same basic types of engines with the same types of fuel and hence it is as expensive today as it was back then, therefore no manned missions can happen until someone is willing to pay for it.
Today NASA have almost finished the equally massive and expensive SLS rocket, which will launch later this year (taking the Orion space capsule into orbit around the moon and then Orion with return to Earth), and hence that's the rocket and space capsule that will return people to the moon and back in 2024.
But the SLS isn't sustainable for decades, which is why the US government and NASA have supported and helped private companies like Space X, because they can take more risks with new ideas and innovation to do space travel better and cheaper than government agencies, where re-useable rockets will eventually make it SIGNIFICATNLY cheaper to send people into space in low Earth orbit and then to the moon and then beyond.
So the SLS rocket will probably be the last of its kind from NASA, where the future of the USA sending people into space will be achieved using rockets by private space companies like Space X and Blue Origin and others via contracts with NASA.
I hope that information helps :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hi, getting people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket, thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal for that purpose.
The world's most powerful rocket worked like a dream and so they were able to use the Saturn V to get their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
Now look up NASA's recent Artemis 1 mission, with its SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful, where it recently took the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth on a 25 day mission to test all the systems, and it was a complete success.
Late next year the same SLS rocket and Orion space capsule will take a crew of astronauts to the moon and back (Artemis 2), and some missions after that will include a lander to take people to the surface.
Simply put, the SLS rocket is the new Saturn V and the Orion space capsule is the new Apollo Command Module, and so the USA have the technology today to send people to the moon.
I hope that helps :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
What's so special about flat Earth theorists over all the other conspiracy theorists?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JohnMarkss - You said "“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility."
Apology accepted, no problem my friend (responding to many replies on different threads can often set the tone for our next reply without realizing).
That Von Braun quote (from his book that I own btw :-)) was correct, but the meaning is missed if you don't understand the type of rocket he's referring to.
Von Braun was referring to a SINGLE STAGE rocket capable of lifting off from Earth, then flies to the moon, then lifts off from the moon, then flies back to Earth and then LANDS here on Earth ready for the next mission.
That's the classic silver 'space rockets' we see in 1950s sci-fi B-movies, where Von Braun was making the point that such a rocket is IMPOSSIBLE because it would need to be the size of the Empire State Building just to carry all the fuel needed.
Therefore they had two options, either A) Build/assemble rockets in low Earth orbit which could be fueled up and manned whenever then wanted to go to the moon and therefore could be reused over and over again (Von Braun's preferred option because it was sustainable), or B) they could choose the faster option and build a massive multi-stage rocket which could only be used once to get astronauts to the moon and back, where the only part left upon return would be the command module, but this method is not sustainable.
The USA went for option B because it was their best chance of beating the USSR to the moon, since option A would have taken them twice as long.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)?
And out of all the flat Earth theorists available, why should Neil choose Eric Dubay who says he doesn't even know if his flat Earth has a dome or if his flat Earth has an edge? (Did you know that about Eric? :-))
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@neatoburrito1 - You said "That's easy, the Gleason's map. It's not a projection of the globe, that's a lie"
So you actually think Australia on the Gleason map is the correct shape despite the proportions being wrong? Really? :-)
Here's Gleason's OWN WORDS from his patent on the following link;
Links are blocked, so replace DOT and FSLASH as required;
isDOTgdFSLASHjI2gM5
Feel free to download the PDF too.
Quote; "The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles".
Hence Gleason confirms the map was created from the GLOBE of the Earth and he confirms the existence of TWO poles (i.e. North and South), something that flat Earth believers deny.
Gleason also says and I quote "I claim as my invention - The combination with a time chart of a circular time dial encompassing the circular map, a disk or dial graduated and divided to indicate longitude and sun time on any meridian line or intervening lines..."
In other words, Gleason CONFIRMS the map itself is not his invention, since it's just a standard AE projection map, instead what he added around the map is his invention. and hence THAT is his patent.
Therefore the real irony is, like ALL 2D projection maps, the Gleason map you mention is only accurate when projected BACK onto the globe that it came from and hence is only accurate when it's in the shape of a globe :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@justinalexander3594 - Link: tinyurl.com/yaofv7u3
Book: "The Atlantean Conspiracy (Final Edition)"
by Eric Dubay
Quote: "They say "the winner's write history," and it is absolutely true: the most egregious example in modern times has to be the mainstream (mis)understanding of Adolf Hitler and pre-WWII Gremany. Adolf Hitler was actually a vegetarian, animal-lover, an author, an artist, a political activist, economic reformer and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. He enacted the world's first anti-animal cruelty, anti-pollution and anti-smoking laws. Unlike the demonic portrait that history has painted of him, Hitler was beloved by his people and wanted nothing but peace."
Hmmm, so it's poor little Hitler, a peaceful man who has been so cruelly misrepresented by the mainstream, according to your hero Eric.
Go ahead and browse through some of the rest of those pages from Eric's book in the link above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's not the point Pat. It is correct that lasers can be, and have been, used to measure the distance of the moon since before the Apollo missions, however that's only half the story.
When laser light from earth reaches the moon, it is spread out over several kilometers. As a result, photons of light reflected back could come from anywhere within that region, from the top of a hill/mountain to the bottom of a crater, hence the distance measured is only accurate to within kilometers.
By placing a retro-reflector on the moon, laser light aimed at the moon will hit the reflector and produce a significantly brighter reflection than the surrounding area (just like a reflector on a cyclist caught in the headlights of a car). Because the light from the reflectors comes from a known fixed point on the moon's surface, the accuracy went from kilometers to centimeters, and today it's now down to less than a millimeter (hence we now know the moon is spiraling away from earth at the rate of 3.8 centimeters per year).
Hence significantly greater accuracy in distance measurement is the reason why three Apollo missions placed retro-reflectors on the lunar surface, and why the USSR placed retro-reflectors on their two lunar rovers landed on the moon in 1971 and 1973 (Lunokhod 1 and 2).
So as you may deduce, retro-reflectors alone don't prove men were on the moon, but they do add to the evidence because it is impossible to send spacecraft to the moon in secret, and yet the Apollo reflectors were used within days of being placed on the moon by the Apollo astronauts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jonsmith3945 - You said "First, understand it wasn't ALL faked - only the walking on the Moon part."
But THAT is the fundamental problem with your argument :-)
Because to this day, no-one has EVER recreated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even the most modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
When the popular hoax theorists claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
www.dailymotion.com/video/x6foqzi?start=250
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion, right? ;-)
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut fake footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it's possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
But here we are around 50 years later and that still hasn't happened, i.e. no-one has demonstrated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio because it is impossible, therefore proving the Apollo footage was filmed in the 1/6 gravity of the moon :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@raffisekzenian2746 - You said "My point is that surely there must be blueprints today’s scientists can use to rebuild rockets better than ever."
That's not how it works and hence your point is irrelevant.
Apollo technology, Concorde technology, Space Shuttle technology, etc will never go into service again, therefore they are all lost technology.
Such technology is lost for numerous reasons, often financial or political or both.
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using modern technology and modern techniques.
Hence the next supersonic passenger plane would not be the result of people taking the old Concorde blueprints and using them to rebuild
a new supersonic passenger plane. It will be an all new design, which may or may not take what was learned from Concorde.
To get people to the moon required building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history, which they did back then with the Saturn V.
The recent Artemis 1 mission featured the record breaking SLS rocket and the Orion space capsule (designed to carry FOUR astronauts), both more powerful and more advance than their old Apollo counterparts.
That's the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost with modern technology and modern techniques, and hence didn't require then to dust off the old Saturn V and Apollo Command Module blueprints as you suggest :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You said "Go resesrch what Von Braun himself stated as to a rocket aller than the Empire State Building was required."
Nope, Von Braun was taking about the kind of rockets seen in sci-fi movies at the time.
You know, the reusable shiny silver rocket that takes off from Earth, flies all the way to the moon, then lands on the moon, followed by aliens capturing the astronauts who conveniently destroys their civilization upon escaping ;-), then takes off from the moon, flies all the way back to Earth, and then LANDS on Earth (like Space X rockets) ready to be refueled for the next mission.
THAT is the rocket Von Braun said is impossible, because to carry the massive amount of fuel needed would require a rocket that was taller than the Empire State Building.
In contrast, after the Saturn V rocket launched to the moon, the ONLY part that returned to Earth was the conically shaped Command Module that drifted down on parachutes to land in the sea! Everything else was gone!
But as usual, conspiracy theorists are never interested in the facts, they are only interested in twisting information to fit their beliefs :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shaneennis9314 - Firstly, Gleason's own patent states that the map is a projection from a GLOBE Earth and he refers to TWO POLES! So how can it be an accurate flat Earth map? :-|
Secondly, here's the 'Gleason' map showing distances between various plane routes;
https://ibb.co/bud1Xf
Notice the distances MEASURED DIRECTLY from the map on the assumption that it's an accurate map of a flat Earth (diameter of 24,900 miles), and compare that to the distances MEASURED DIRECTLY on a GLOBE of the Earth.
The distances measured on a GLOBE of the Earth matches the real world distances confirmed by those plane routes (and even by vehicles for those routes over land only), and yet the Gleason map distances are WAY off, proving that map is not accurate.
But come on, look at the map my friend, look at Australia in the Gleason map where it is stretched to twice it's size and hence resembles a large 'twinkie' or sausage :-)
Surely you can admit that Australia is distorted on that map, as are other countries of the world (less so the closer they are to the centre).
Therefore it is not an accurate flat map of a flat Earth, it is a projection of a globe Earth onto a 2D surface (i.e. a 2D projection map of the globe 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
-
Why do you keep starting new threads to post your replies?
Anyway you said "Like the Manhattan project ..... APOLLO was significantly compartmentalized, separated and segmented such that many of them may not have known what it was exactly that they were working on..."
The claim of compartmentalization is really a cop out unless you can expand upon the degree of your compartmentalization. That is, break it down into who knew what and how many knew. Was it just one person that knew about the so-called hoax, or a dozen, or a few hundred, or a few thousand etc?
After all, take the claim of faking all the footage and photos for example. People had to build and setup ALL the sets, both the lunar surface and the backgrounds and the vehicles (Lunar Module, rover) and the scientific equipment etc. People had to light all the sets, people had to act as the astronauts, people had to create and implement all the effects, people had to film it using TV cameras and film, people had to take the thousands of photographs (can't rely on actors on a set), people had to edit all the footage and audio, people had to ensure everything faked coincided with the documentation on the location and environment (position of sun and earth, phase of earth), people had to develop all the film and photos, people had to check all the footage and photos, and so on.
And remember, all of the above would have been done 6 times (plus Apollo 13) over a period covering 3 years, and some had to be involved in the faking of the other manned moon missions too, which were Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 (so make that 9 manned missions over 4 years in total).
Given the large number who would have had to be involved in the production of so many hours of 'fake' video and film and many thousands of fake photos, how exactly would compartmentalization help to ensure that very few of them would know that they were faking Apollo film, video and photos?
I would expect that everyone involved in such an activity would have been fully aware of what they were doing, and upon broadcast and publication, what they had done. And that's just for the video, film and photos, what about ALL the other technology for Apollo which required science and engineering and expertise from a great many fields?
So just throwing in the word compartmentalization doesn't explain anything. To date, no-one has provided a solid argument to describe exactly how compartmentalization could have made it possible to fake the Apollo moon landings just once, much less make it possible to fake it six times where only a few would know about the hoax :-)
2
-
You said "Scientific method is designed to let the evidence speak for itself. So, let's have the data, and let's make this an open, independent and truly scientific search"
I showed you that no data was lost (read my reply in the appropriate thread), where the ONLY thing that was lost from the missing tapes was the BACKUP video of the Apollo 11 moonwalk, recorded by NASA just in case the live TV broadcast failed and hence redundant when the live TV broadcast was successful!
Again, nothing else was lost from Apollo 11, and absolutely nothing was lost from Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 or Apollo 17.
So why do you keep asking for data that NASA presented to the world around 50 years ago? :-|
You said "For NASA to deny it open study is a shame and a travesty."
Give an example of that happening. Be specific please.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Savin Bullets - You said "Neil backed out. What a fckin Coward..."
So should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nezkeys79 - So I'll end by quoting from 'Encyclopædia Britannica'
"Nicolaus Copernicus (born February 19, 1473, Toruń, Royal Prussia, Poland—died May 24, 1543, Frauenburg, East Prussia [now Frombork, Poland]) Polish astronomer who proposed that the planets have the Sun as the fixed point to which their motions are to be referred; that Earth is a planet which, besides orbiting the Sun annually, also turns once daily on its own axis; and that very slow long-term changes in the direction of this axis account for the precession of the equinoxes.
This representation of the heavens is usually called the heliocentric, or “Sun-centred,” system—derived from the Greek helios, meaning “Sun.” Copernicus’s theory had important consequences for later thinkers of the Scientific Revolution, including such major figures as Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, and Newton.
Copernicus probably hit upon his main idea sometime between 1508 and 1514, and during those years he wrote a manuscript usually called the Commentariolus (“Little Commentary”).
However, the book that contains the final version of his theory, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri vi (“Six Books Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs”), did not appear in print until 1543, the year of his death."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@erniefasbender4939 - You said "The lander is not put together well, at all, especially as it was supposedly 250k miles from Earth and had to protect them from extremes of heat and cold."
WRONG my friend. Have a look at the LM's crew cabin framework, and remember there's the rest of the craft to be built around this;
airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/images/stories/LTAInspect.jpg
www.americanspacecraft.com/images/lunarmod/kcsc/engmod/IMG_2308.jpg
Does that really look poorly constructed to you? Be honest now.
Lets add a little more;
www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Image-of-LM-under-construction.jpg
www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/image-of-LM-descent-stage.jpg
And many more to be found here: goo.gl/e9xT8G
The point is, the LM was a very solid and well constructed craft, where like so many spacecraft needed additional protection on the outside, such as from the sun and micrometeorites.
Hence it wasn't about how it looks, it was all about what it DOES. The gold foil (mylar + kapton film) reflected away all the heat from the sun, as did the panels of mylar which also acted as micrometeorite shields.
They were not interested in making the LM look great, they were only interested in making sure it WORKED.
If they wanted to fake it, then with YEARS to prepare and a MASSIVE budget, don't you think they would have made the sleekest, most elegant looking, beautifully finished Lunar lander you could imagine, where it would have met all the expectations of an audience used to watching sci-fi films?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Should Neil and Bill also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil and Bill make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
What's so special about flat Earth theorists over all the other conspiracy theorists?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joshdibble9357 - You said "Gravity is still a theory why? By now it should be fact don’t you think."
Which proves you don't understand what a theory means in science, because gravity is a scientific fact.
Keep in mind the following definition of gravity please: The universal force of attraction acting between all matter
So here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the weights and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
Any questions? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nunyabusiness5819 - You said "The horizon only appears to drop if..."
Your claims are irrelevant, since YOU claimed "We say the drop doesn't match the globe. Not that there would be no drop at all."
I quoted Eric Dubay saying there would be no drop at all, proving you don't even understand the flat Earth claim you're defending.
Here's another few quotes from him;
The Flat-Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, 2014
"Whether at sea level, the top of Mount Everest, or flying a hundred thousand feet in the air, the always horizontal horizon line always rises up to meet the eye-level of the observer and remains perfectly flat."
"If the Earth were actually a big ball, however, the horizon should sink as you ascend, not rise to your eye-level, and it would dip at each end of your periphery, not remain flat all around"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You said "...you take a high-powered camera and zoom in on that boat and it pops back into view ? It's called perspective"
No it's called DISTANCE. When a boat is very far away it can soon become too small to be seen with the naked eye, therefore there is NO WAY for you to know if that boat has gone over the curvature of the Earth or not because it's too far for you to see it.
If you then use a telescope or binoculars of a camera and zoom in and you see the boat, then that means it hasn't traveled far enough to vanish over the horizon yet, but keep looking and the boat is moving away then it eventually will, and no amount of extra magnification will ever bring it back.
You said "you can do the same thing with the sun setting"
No you can not. For years I have asked flat Earth believers to present just ONE video showing the sun or moon setting, where at the moment the sun or moon vanishes below the horizon they then ZOOM IN further and bring the sun or moon back into view.
I'm still waiting for that video, which proves no such video exists because it can't be done. Once an object vanishes below the horizon it is out of view, and therefore it doesn't matter if you have 10x, 100x , 1000x or 1 million times magnification, it will not bring that object back.
You don't need to be a genius to understand that my friend :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kevinmkraft - You said "And what good are calculations when they are not based on reality?"
Because only certain levels of accuracy are required within a certain time frame to model reality.
For example, if you wanted to calculate where a cue ball would land when you throw it at a certain speed and angle, then a simple equation would probably be good enough.
But another model that also calculates the effect upon the ball of air pressure, temperature, smoothness/defects of the ball surface, wind speed and direction, grip of fingers, spin on the ball, dust and particles and water vapour in the air, curvature of the Earth, rotation of the Earth and so on, is probably overkill :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Stop blindly believing what conspiracy theorists tell you and try doing your own research for a change (i.e. the homework you say others should do :-|), where Apollo technology is as 'lost' as the Space Shuttle and Concorde.
During the 60s BOTH the USSR and USA were able to keep people alive in low Earth orbit for days/weeks, and BOTH landed several unmanned spacecraft on the surface of the moon and even broadcast the images back to Earth.
But unmanned spacecraft don't require air to breath, or food to eat, or water to drink, or space to move etc, and hence manned spacecraft are significantly larger and heavier to keep people alive, and therefore require bigger and more powerful rockets.
So landing people on the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program but are still a long way off from building their own Saturn V size rocket.
Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful and is now complete and ready to launch later this February, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jdg2921 - You said "my point is every time I look up at the night sky here in Australia, I always see the Orion constellation, no matter what season. It shouldn’t be that way"
Incorrect, you simply don't understand scale or perspective yet (you need to look into it).
Your logic is like someone on a train asking why a distant mountain appears the same every time they look out the window and yet all the trees they see next to the track are flashing by quickly, hence are just a blur.
You are effectively here saying the mountains should behave just like the trees, because you can't quite grasp the effect that distance has upon apparent movement and changes :-|
I'm trying to explain that the mountains are far away, significantly further than the trees, hence the movement/change is significantly less.
Now imagine a mountain a million times further away, how much slower would that move/change in comparison?
So I can't hold your hand and take you through it, you have to work it out for yourself, but the following may help you;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXypyrutq_M
Ok, joking aside :-), David has done a great job answering your questions, so please look into what he's saying.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@oknevals - You said "Like I said, if you believe it, it must be true."
Which is not why I believe it's true, instead I know it's true because of the facts, whereas you are resorting to incredulity.
Take your comment "2500 pictures per mission. How was that done?"
The Apollo 11 mission was the first and shortest at 8 days, the last mission Apollo 17 was the longest at 12.5 days in space, so lets just estimate an average of 10 days for all the missions.
If we assume the astronauts slept for 8 hours, then they have 16 hours a day to take photographs, but of course they have other activities to do, so lets say they have 10 hours available each day to take photographs.
So on average they would have a total of 100 hours to take those 2500 photographs.
That's an average of 25 photographs per hour.
And given that there were 3 astronauts on each mission to take photographs (and 2 astronauts when on the surface), then that's 25 photographs per hour between 3 astronauts, so lets just say about 8 photographs each per hour.
You could easily take 8 photographs in 1 minute and then nothing for the rest of the hour and the average would be the same!
So is taking an average of 8 to 9 photographs per hour REALLY such an impossible achievement to you?
So yes the numbers are numbers, where the numbers say that taking 8-9 photographs per hour is clearly not impossible for missions lasting 8-12 days. Even if you insist that only 2 astronauts were taking photographs, then that's an average of 12 or 13 photographs each per hour!
Think about it, because believing in a hoax doesn't mean you are obliged to believe EVERY hoax claim without question :-|
It is possible (for someone honest) to say "I believe it was a hoax, but yes, I agree that this specific hoax claim is wrong", and yet that rarely ever happens among conspiracy believers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bamainatlanta
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time ?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money... ...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
A rather convoluted answer? Yes! A slightly flippant answer at the start? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No!
So why the quote mining all the time from conspiracy believers?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So there's no reason for Neil to make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate.
And Eric Dubay has never had an open debate with anyone who disagrees with his views. He doesn't even debate the flat Earth theorists that he publicly accused of working for the gvt to discredit flat Earth, such as Mark Sargent :-|
Eric doesn't even attend flat Earth conferences to put himself in a position to be questioned.
So by your own logic, Eric must be scared of debates, right? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikeysweetfolksfiv3ohthr332 - The point is, it's not an excuse, it's the right thing to do.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to the theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
2
-
2
-
@mikeysweetfolksfiv3ohthr332 - You said "Btw Conspiracy theorists is a CIA term created to discredit critical thinkers"
No, that's a claim made up by conspiracy believers (which in itself is rather ironic :-)), where there's nothing wrong with the term conspiracy theorist, except to those who try to turn that term into a conspiracy.
It is FAR more respectful, accurate and honest than the derogatory names used by some, like "Flearthers" or "Flatties" or "Flattards" or "Hoaxers" or "Truthers/Troofers" etc.
Hence I don't say nonsense like "Flattard", I say flat Earth believer or conspiracy believer/theorist.
I don't say "Hoaxer", I say Apollo hoax believer or conspiracy believer/theorist.
Likewise, rocket hoax believer, Mars rover hoax believer, ET alien/UFO believer, Space Shuttle hoax believer, and so on.
So it doesn't make any difference whether the conspiracy is true or not, if something is claimed to be a conspiracy (eg. governments lying about the shape of the Earth WOULD be a conspiracy) then the theories are conspiracy theories presented by conspiracy theorists, and those who believe them are conspiracy believers.
So don't deny the term, own it :-)
2
-
2
-
@mikeysweetfolksfiv3ohthr332 - Unfortunately you're only showing how easy it is for conspiracy theorists to manipulate you :-|
For example, you said "The stars remain the same for thousands of years meaning we aren't spinning"
Stars are incredibly distant and hence appear to move incredibly slowly relative to us, so that has nothing to do with the Earth rotating.
You said "They're hiding god ...Astronauts gone wild documentary...Im no bible thumper but these guys refused to swear on it"
A documentary made by Bart Sibrel who says the Earth is a globe, says space is real, and says spacecraft are real, Bart only claims the moon landings specifically were a hoax. So you are supporting the claims of someone who says your flat Earth beliefs are wrong! :-)
Besides globe Earth believing Bart is being as dishonest as someone going up to clean athletes, accusing them of being drugs cheats and then demanding they swear on the Bible to prove they're clean. Why would you assume athlete are drugs cheat for refusing to prove themselves to a stranger who insulted them? Likewise for the astronauts.
Also, watch that documentary again and notice THREE of the astronauts DID swear on the Bible and yet Bart still called them liars, AND notice how Bart tells EVERY astronaut that he spoke to 6 other astronauts and they all refused to swear on the Bible, which is impossible and hence a deliberate lie :-)
Btw, would I be correct to assume you're not a Christian then?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@appletongallery - Sending people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program and are working towards building their own Saturn V class rocket for their future manned moon landings.
Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful, where it is now complete and due to launch this February, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024 (lunar orbit, like Apollo 8).
When the lunar lander is eventually ready, then they will land on the moon sometime after 2024 (the original plan was around 2028 before Trump tried to bring it forward to 2024).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shaunb2110 - You said "Again, you told me to grow a backbone also."
Yes, based upon your behaviour.
And said "I'm not the one hiding behind a keyboard with some phony youtube name."
Then why not go the whole distance by posting your full address and telephone number here as proof of how 'brave' you are. Wouldn't that be a stupid thing to do? If you agree, then there's nothing 'brave' or 'courageous' about using your real name online. That's merely a CHOICE, and hence nothing to do with having a backbone.
So you are hiding as much as the rest of us, because as you know, it is far easier to have these kind of 'discussions' throwing attacks and insults online than it is to do so face to face! Right? :-) Don't pretend otherwise.
You said "As for the shape of the earth, what you think it is, degrasse, or your tag team partner has no bearing on my life or my happiness."
Firstly, no-one said it would affect you, secondly, if you really didn't care then you wouldn't be here, much less ingratiating yourself to your fellow flat Earth believers. It's as simple as that.
And I hope you feel you've made a difference by pointing out myself and F&BM to flat Earth believers to let them know who and what you think we are ;-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jessebryant9233 - [C&P] You're rather vague and evasive to direct questions about your beliefs, why is that? :-|
You posted on this video about flat Earth to talk off topic about "3 core doctrines", where you've said what you see as wrong but haven't said what you see as right, hence you're only presenting half the argument here, so I'd like to know what you believe rather than what you don't believe.
1) You said "BIG BANG cosmology: There is no science to support such a silly notion"
So please state how you believe our universe (or whatever you may choose to call it) came into existence.
2) You said "ABIOGENESIS: Well, here we have the law of biogenesis that gets in the way.."
So please state how you believe life of any form first came into existence here on Earth.
3) You said "DARWIN's view of the common ancestry of all living things: There is no empirically verifiable scientific evidence..."
So please state how you believe all life exists as we know it today.
I believe those are fair questions to ask.
It's no different than when I ask flat Earth believers to state which version of a flat Earth they believe (eg. dome or no dome, edge or no edge, gravity or no gravity, etc), because it's not enough to just say the Earth is flat.
If you're not willing to say what you believe is right, then you're in no position to tell others they're wrong :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fenrisunchained1926 - You said "where did the lunar orbiter or lunar lander get the power to send a signal hundreds of thousands of miles?"
Think about this please...
Today, we have a HUGE number of geostationary satellites broadcasting live TV channels FROM SPACE to millions upon millions of people. Those satellites are over 22,000 MILES away, broadcasting TV channels via a weak 40W radio signal, and yet all we need to pick up those channels are very SMALL satellite dishes.
The moon is about 11 times further away, therefore to receive the signal to the same strength would require a bigger dish, just like the massive radio dishes/telescopes used during the Apollo missions, like the Parkes Radio Telescope
Google Image Search: Parkes Radio Telescope
So it's exactly the same principle. Your satellite dish (if you have one) works because it is pointed directly at the satellite, where despite being over 22,000 miles away you can receive the TV channels perfectly if your dish is aligned correctly.
Now move that SAME satellite to the distance of the moon and the signal would be too weak for your small satellite dish, but if you have the massive Parkes Radio Telescope mentioned above, then you'll receive the TV channels without any problems, and you'll also be able to receive and send radio signals significant further than the moon.
Although I'm sure you would agree that such a large radio dish is not practical to attach to your home ;-)
And because the Earth rotates, then for distant spacecraft you will need to use at least THREE massive radio dishes spread around the world to ensure that at least one of them is in direct line of sight of the spacecraft at any given time.
So it's not a mystery my friend, it's just science and engineering.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Putting aside the fact that the oceans are not flat, your next two claims are not only wrong, but YOU could prove them wrong if you actually tried.
Firstly the north star (Polaris) is not exactly on true north, it's about 0.75 degrees off true north, hence in time lapse photography (preferably zoomed in) it creates a star trail for a circle about 1.5 degrees wide, which is about the width of 3 full moons.
In other words, the north star 'moves'.
Secondly, the horizon drops with altitude.
For example; youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI
Clearly showing the horizon DROPS with altitude.
You can do that yourself with a half filled bottle of water, hence search online for;
"Bottled Water: A Simple Device for Observing the Dip of the Horizon"
Again clearly showing the horizon DROPS with altitude.
The water bottle test is something that you and every flat Earth believer can do the next time you're in an airplane, and yet you will not find a single example of any flat Earth believers carrying out that test and showing the horizon has risen to eye level, because ALL who have carried out that test have found the horizon DROPS with altitude.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wildboar7473 - Please tell me that was a joke :-)
Today, we have a HUGE number of geostationary satellites broadcasting live TV channels FROM SPACE to millions upon millions of people. Those satellites are over 22,000 MILES away, broadcasting TV channels via a weak 40W radio signal, and yet all we need to pick up those channels are very SMALL satellite dishes like this;
www.protv.co.uk/uploads/Sky%20dish%20installation%20in%20Bletchley.JPG
The moon is about 11 times further away, therefore to receive the signal to the same strength would require a bigger dish, just like the massive radio dishes/telescopes used during the Apollo missions, like this;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg/800px-Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg
So it's exactly the same principle. Your satellite dish (if you have one) works because it is pointed directly at the satellite, where despite being over 22,000 miles away you can receive the TV channels perfectly if your dish is aligned correctly.
Now move that SAME satellite to the distance of the moon and the signal would be too weak for your small satellite dish, but if you have the massive Parkes Radio Telescope in the link above, then you'll receive the TV channels without any problems, and you'll also be able to receive and send radio signals significant further than the moon.
Although I'm sure you would agree that such a large radio dish is not practical to attach to your home ;-)
And because the Earth rotates, then for distant spacecraft you will need to use at least THREE massive radio dishes spread around the world to ensure that one of them is in direct line of sight of the spacecraft at any given time.
So it's not a mystery my friend, it's just science and engineering.
Why couldn't you work that out for yourself? Oh yes, I nearly forgot, you're a flat Earth believer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jeffreylogan74 - Wrong, you simply haven't done the research, nor have you tried to understand the environment or the conditions involved.
If you find the photo AS11-40-5921, taken under the LM, you will see that all the loose dust has been blown away to reveal the cracked and more densely packed surface underneath, and you can even see the radial lines moving outward from thrust of the engine.
So the claim of no dust disturbance is based upon false assumptions.
And there's no crater either, just as helicopters don't carve out craters on beaches or deserts. Some inches of dust has been removed under the craft, but it's over such a wide area that we don't see the difference in photos or video or film for either helicopters or the LMs.
And in the photo mentioned above, the ground directly beneath the LM appears to be slightly discolored, but it's hard to tell.
Unfortunately, many people get all their information filtered through conspiracy theorists and hence go no further than that :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
Why do you think conspiracy theorist never ever state the above? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@isntthatshameful1267 - You said "every flight manual teaches pilots earth is a flat plane."
Congratulations on proving you have a poor understanding of mathematics, much less mathematical models, where you clearly don't know what an assumption means with regards to models :-)
The same mathematical assumptions in a model that says the earth is a flat plane also includes some of the following assumptions; Air pressure is the same at all altitudes, Airplanes are perfectly rigid structures that never flex, Fuel levels don't go down and hence the airplane's weight is fix, There's no air currents and hence no winds, There's no air resistance, Temperature is the same everywhere, and so on.
The purpose of such assumptions is to simplify the mathematics, especially where certain factors wouldn't result in much difference to the accuracy given the scale involved.
So by your logic, those assumptions means airplanes are rigid structures with infinite fuel flying through air of a fix temperature without resistance in a world where wind doesn't exist :-)
Funny how flat Earth believers ONLY ever notice the flat plane assumption while conveniently ignoring all the other mathematical assumptions :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Joe suggested it on one of his shows by putting Neil on the spot, but it was never actually arranged, so your claim is false.
Besides, Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
Also, Eric Dubay has never had an open debate with anyone who disagrees with his views. He doesn't even debate the flat Earth theorists that he publicly accused of working for the gvt to discredit flat Earth, such as Mark Sargent :-|
Eric doesn't even attend flat Earth conferences to put himself in a position to be questioned, which says a lot :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
When using mathematics to model something in the real world, it is impossible to account for absolutely EVERYTHING, as it's often not needed, therefore assumptions are made depending on the accuracy needed, usually to simplify the calculations.
Hence the simplification of the calculations is easy to spot in mathematics because they're almost always identified as "ASSUMPTIONS".
For example at 8:20 in Rob's video it says and I quote "The two dimensional model for aircraft motion..."
A two dimensional model . A 2D model! 2D! We live in a 3D world, hence right from the start that's a simplified model. that represents the world in TWO dimensions ONLY.
So lets go through the list of assumptions;
a) The earth is flat and non-rotating, since the Earth's surface being curved or straight or moving doesn't effect the accuracy aimed for in this 2D model.
b) The acceleration of gravity is constant, which is not the case in the real world since it changes with altitude and density of the surface we're over, but the difference too small to matter in this 2D model.
c) Air density is constant. Again, not the case in the real world where air density (hence pressure) decreases with altitude.
d) The airframe is a rigid body. All aircraft bend and flex due to the forces upon them, but again this simplified 2D model assumes it doesn't.
e) The aircraft is constrained to motion in the vertical plane, due to only 2 dimensions in the model, as oppose to the 3 dimensions of the real world.
f) The aircraft has a symmetry plane (the x-z plane). Again due to 2 dimensions
g) The mass of the aircraft is constant, but in the real world the mass of an aircraft reduces as the fuel is used up.
So if YOU think that model is proof they're saying the Earth is flat, then that same model says the world is 2D, that gravity is constant everywhere, that air pressure is constant everywhere, that aircraft are rigid structures that don't bend, that aircraft never reduce in weight as fuel is burned, and so on.
Therefore to single out assumptions in a 2D model that just so happens to fit your beliefs as if those assumptions are statements of fact is laughable :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BlackPrimeMinister - You said "I could have flown supersonic, and also you. This example stands as proof of my point. "
Wrong, it proves the opposite, since by your own argument Concorde was significantly easier and cheaper compared to sending people to the moon and hence was accessible to ordinary people who could afford it at the time.
It didn't require 4% of the budget of the UK and France to get Concorde into the air, much less to keep it flying for decades.
If Concorde required that level of expense then it would have had a small number of flights and then ended, since neither the UK or France could have sustained it.
You said "What really killed Concorde was the internet".
Wrong.
Concorde's last flight was in 2003, long before the internet became what it is today. YouTube for example began in 2005, 2 years after Concorde retired.
I was working in a major university during the 90s when the world wide web was invented, where at first it was being used mostly by students and lecturers back then (Netscape was the first browser I use).
By 2003 we were starting to see more and more businesses creating their own websites and gradually more and more business was done across the world wide web, where it was still only growing slowly in peoples homes until technology like ADSL became more widespread (replacing my 56k modem!).
The point being, despite its speed Concorde's old 60s design and out of date electronics was already reaching the end of its naturally life, where even without the crash back in 2000 the cost and difficulty of such a service meant no successor was built by any airline to keep the dream of supersonic passenger flights going.
So it's amusing that you're using the technology of today to claim it had an affect upon the technology of the past :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BlackPrimeMinister - You said "My good man! I am truly enjoying this exchange! It is brilliant. I am suggesting that Concorde's primary customers were the business class doing in-person meetings between financial centres....
Thanks you, me too :-)
And this is the key point, you're correct that Concorde served a niche in the market, but niches are usually sensitive to time and trends and therefore they come and go.
Apollo served a political niche for the USA to overtake the USSR in space, where landing men on the moon met that requirement, only made possible from the increased funding which was unsustainable.
Once Congress were happy that the political goals were met, and in the knowledge that the USSR couldn't get men to the moon due to the failure of their 'moon rocket', they withdrew all the extra funding for Apollo, meaning no more Saturn V rockets or Apollo spacecraft could be built and therefore no more men could be sent to the moon.
Had the USSR's N1-L3 rocket worked and they became the second nation to land men on the moon, then it's highly likely that Apollo would have continued with a race to establish the first manned base on the moon.
But again, it would have been short lived due to the funding required, and therefore (in a parallel universe) we would have been having this same discussion about the USA and USSR moon landings and why neither have been back for over 50 years :-)
2
-
Artemis is a perfect example of sustainability for long term goals instead of the unsustainable short-sighted goals of Apollo.
The big part of the Artemis program that many overlook is called Gateway, which is a sapce station that will be in orbit around the moon.
Therefore instead of a rocket to take the spacecraft with astronauts into orbit around the moon, then to the surface, then back into lunar orbit and finally back to Earth, the Artemis program will use the SLS rocket to send astronauts inside the Orion capsule to the Gateway space station orbiting the moon.
Space X Starship rockets will bring supplies and even a lunar lander (via the Human Landing System, or HLS) to Gateway.
Therefore astronauts can remain inside Gateway until it's time to return, or if a lunar lander arrives can use it to go to the moon's surface and then return to Gateway.
Before Gateway, early Artemis missions will see astronauts go to the moon (orbit) and then return back to Earth inside Orion, and then in following missions Orion will dock with the HLS sent to the moon via Starship to take the astronauts to the surface of the moon and then back into orbit. Once Gateway is assembled then Orion and the HLS can dock with that space station.
The SLS rocket is very expensive and therefore not sustainable in the long term, but the development cost was spread over a decade and helped further by its first stage using updated versions of the reliable Space Shuttle rocket engines (and solid fuel rockets for extra launch power just like the Shuttle), and the later stages of the SLS uses updated versions of the reliable J2 rocket engines used in the later stages of Saturn V.
The Orion space capsule actually began development in the early 2000s where it was selected for the cancelled Constellation program, and so instead of being scrapped it was adapted for the Artemis program instead, reducing the cost of designing a new space capsule from scratch.
The key being, the SLS will eventually be replaced by the re-useable Space X rockets, cutting the cost of launches significantly and therefore making a manned service to the moon sustainable.
So Artemis is about spreading the cost to put all the pieces in place to achieve a sustainable manned service to the moon.
In contrast, Apollo was about getting men to the moon as quickly as possible to beat the USSR regardless of the cost, and therefore was unsustainable.
I hope that helps :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Tj21415 - Thanks for being honest about your views, much appreciated.
But it's important to realize that confusion comes from trusting the word of those who are not qualified in the areas they're talking about. Because such people make all kinds of claims (eg. the horizon is always at eye level, boats over the horizon can be brought back with zoom, space footage is fake with wires or filmed in water tanks, people thought the Earth was flat 500 years ago etc) with the primary purpose of convincing their audience.
They don't care if their claims are true or not, they only care about people believing their claims, whatever those claims may be.
After all, what are Eric Dubay's qualifications for example? What has he personally sent up to high altitudes to view the Earth? What journey's around the world has he gone on to see it for himself? Why doesn't he try to raise the cash to visit places like the South Pole that he claims to not exist, or to Antarctica that he claims we are kept away from?
See my point? And here's how you know when conspiracy theorists are not being honest with you - They almost always set out create a single enemy for people to rage against, in this case NASA.
Think about it, there are 72 (yes SEVENTY TWO) government space agencies around the world, there are many private space agencies/companies around the world, a great many satellite companies around the world, but who do flat Earth theorists focus on almost exclusively? That's right, they focus on NASA as if it's the only one!
Can you not see the problem with their focus on NASA only, completely ignoring all the other space agencies? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You said "Von Ryan's radiation belt"
Sarcasm? :-)
Assuming you're being serious here, and assuming you understand that different types and intensities of radiation requires different levels/types of shielding, and that the key is not stopping ALL radiation but instead to reduce radiation exposure to safe levels, then please read on...
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within a week.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
2
-
Frank, Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidsandall - You said "The total lack of proof that there is gravity..."
Incorrect. Keep in mind the following definition of gravity please: The universal force of attraction acting between all matter
So here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidsandall - And lets address this again, quote "We do know what causes magnetism- electrons, neutrons, and protons"
I asked you how you know electrons, neutrons and protons exist (i.e. your trusted source), and I'm still waiting.
Also, EVERYTHING in your room right now, including YOU, consists of electrons, neutrons and protons, and so are YOU magnetic? So is the paper and the cloth and the aluminum and the plastic and the air and the water etc all around you magnetic?
Of course not, despite consisting of electrons + neutrons + protons, so you haven't explained magnetism, hence proving my point perfectly :-)
And READ the following;
www.livescience.com/32633-how-do-magnets-work.html
Quote: "Physicists have some understanding of how magnets function. However, some phenomena that underlie magnetism continue to elude scientific explanation."
Quote: ""We just observe that when you make a charged particle move, it creates a magnetic field and two poles. We don't really know why. It's just a feature of the universe, and the mathematical explanations are just attempts of getting through the 'homework assignment' of nature and getting the answers," Walker said."
Next? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnqpublic6228 - Firstly it's not for others to disprove claims of those who haven't provided evidence to support their claims.
Secondly, what we can see through telescopic lens is subject to Dawes Limit and the Rayleigh Limit (Google search those terms please), and hence it's the laws of physics that stops us seeing the Apollo craft on the moon from Earth (or from craft in orbit around the Earth)..
Therefore please read what the makers of one of the world's largest telescopes says about the size of mirror/lens required to see Apollo craft from 240,000 miles away;
www.eso.org/public/about-eso/faq/faq-vlt-paranal/#18
Quote: "A telescope 200 metres in diameter would be needed to show them".
So, do you think we have spy satellites with that size mirror/lens in orbit around the Earth? For scale, Hubble's mirror is only 2.4 metres in diameter :-)
There's no getting around the laws of physics, and therefore that's why I say the arguments need to be based upon known facts.
And before claiming this is all about the USA hiding anything, remember that China publicly stated that they saw traces of the Apollo craft in their photographs of the lunar surface taken from their Chang'e 2 orbiter (but unlike the USA haven't made their data public), and the USSR could have directly exposed a moon landing hoax any time they wanted (ask yourself how that may be possible) but they did not because the USSR knew for a fact that the USA had succeeded.
Also, I'm not American, and hence your assumption that I am says a lot :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
cowardlyyoungman - As anyone can see in this thread, you simply couldn't support ANY of the claims you made about the earth not being round and the earth being flat. Whenever confronted, all you could do is offer insults and racism.
So, now that you've effectively agreed that there's no accurate map of a flat earth and hence helped to prove the earth isn't flat, care to tackle the remaining 4 questions? Here they are again, just for you :-)
1) Exactly how high is the firmament dome?
2) Where is the accurate map of a flat earth? A map that doesn't have
Australia distorted to twice it's actual size and shaped like a sausage!
[Already done: Where we've established that no accurate map a flat earth exists]
3) Where is the mathematical model of a flat earth that would make it
possible to predict/calculate astronomical events?
4) Where is the equation to calculate how far across the earth's surface
we can expect to see for a given altitude on a flat earth?
5) How thick is your flat earth? If we compare it to a pizza, is it a
thin crust pizza, or a deep pan pizza, or is it bread all the way down
forever? :)
You also said "u think ur african-american.".
Nope. First you assume I'm white and now you assume I'm American. Such arrogance, such a lack of intelligence, where you fail to appreciate there's a world outside of America, which is rather ironic given that you call yourself African.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's a classic conspiracy theorist myth with all due respect.
Simply go to the search here in YouTube and search for: Neil Armstrong Interview, and Neil Armstrong Speech, for example and see how many interviews and speeches you can find from your claimed recluse who refused to give interviews :-)
Neil was an introvert and he NEVER saw himself as a hero, and hence he was always uncomfortable with being referred to or seen as a hero.
In contrast, Buzz Aldrin is more of an extrovert, you can't shut him up about the moon landings and hence he's practically everywhere talking about it. Same mission remember! :-)
As far as Neil was concerned, he had a job to do and he did it to the best of his ability. But he knew others could have done his job too and been the first man to walk on the moon.
In other words, Neil was a very humble man and it shows.
And my videos showed that the astronauts were NOT miserable before, during or after that press conference. They were there to answer serious questions from an informed audience of professionals, including scientists and astronomers, and therefore took their role seriously and professionally as they gave the best answers they could.
They were not there to entertain a crowd, it was work and they behaved like men at work, where you and many other conspiracy believers confuse that serious professionalism with misery or fear or shame 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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Come on my friend. Really? You really think they should swear on the bible? (Btw, a few of them did!).
You are referring to Bart Sibrel's "Astronauts Gone Wild" documentary, but consider the following please...
Take say 6 CLEAN top athletes, those who have never done drugs in their lives, never cheated to perform better, hence the best examples of athletes you can find.
Now find a way to get an interview with them, or if you can't get an interview then approach them at locations for events you know they'll be attending.
In the middle of each interview, you say to the athlete "Btw, I happen to know you're a drugs cheat, so swear on this bible to prove you're not".
Do you really think those athletes would just smile at you and say "Sure my friend, give me the bible", or do you think that maybe, just maybe, those clean athletes would be furious at you accusing them of being drugs cheats and furious that you tricked them into giving you an interview just for you to accuse them of being liars and cheats?
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, those athletes would be furious if you approached them at random during an event they had just finished or just about to attend, and you call them liars and cheats for taking drugs and demand they swear on you bible to prove they're innocent?
Do you really believe that if an athlete refuses to swear on the bible under those circumstances then that means he's a drugs cheat?
Or imagine you're out with a group of your friends and some strange guy with a camera approaches you and says "I've found out you're a pedophile, swear on this bible to prove you're not!". Again, would you just smile and do as the stranger demands, or would you be angry at such an accusation. How do you think your friends would react? Wouldn't they be angry too?
Hence in ALL the examples above, the reaction would range from ignoring the guy and saying nothing more, walking away (before doing/saying something that will be regretted later), verbally attacking the guy or even physically attacking the guy.
Only a small minority would suppress their anger enough to do as demanded and swear on the bible, as Alan Bean did in Bart Sibrel's "Astronauts Gone Wild" and yet Bart STILL said he didn't believe him after he swore on the bible, which means swearing on the bible means absolutely nothing (and the astronauts who didn't swear knew that and hence they didn't fall for that trap).
Again, think about it, Bart asks them to swear on the bible as proof, but then says he still doesn't believe them even when they swear on the bible!
Can't you see how wrong Bart's behavior is? Can't you see how unjustified and dishonest it is? :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@unminuto8026 - Again, enough with your toilet obsession, an easy to solve problem that you think wasn't solved until the 80s with the Space Shuttle :-)
And to post what I said to you in that other thread;
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
Facts matter my friend, they really do :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@drseanpatrick696 - On the contrary, it only proves you assume scientists should waste their time debating conspiracy theorists.
After all, should Neil also debate those who claim the Earth is hollow/concave, that the Universe is electric, that the moon is a spaceship, that the Space Shuttle was a hoax, that the ISS is a hoax, that Mars rovers are a hoax, that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth in UFOs, that crop circles are made by aliens, that alien civilizations have been found on Mars and the moon, and so on?
What makes you think flat Earth theorists are a special case? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the TOTAL RADIATION to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Zlics - You said "Neil says the earth is pear shaped, why haven't we seen an official image then of this pear shaped earth?"
Just because you don't believe something it doesn't justify being ignorant about it.
If you created a perfect model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high (300 cm, or about 10 feet), then it will bulge out slightly at the equator by 1 cm, and hence would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide.
That is an oblate spheroid, but to the naked eye and in photographs and video your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Also, due to the distribution of lands and seas, the Earth actually bulges out a fraction more in the South compared to the North (by about 1 mm on your 300 cm model), hence the pear shape comparison that is too small to be seen with the naked eye, so again your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
How can you think Neil meant the Earth literally looks like a pear shape?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BCStudios16 - You said "he was not put on the spot he brought it up."
He brought it up in this discussion with zero notes to fall back upon, that's the point I'm making, and therefore your argument is unfounded.
You said "He was advertising a book he just wrote and says he talks about this in his book..."
And have you read his book? Do you have it to hand for reference and hence you KNOW that he explicitly referred to them as K1 and K2? If you haven't, then your argument here is unfounded.
You claim "The point is he’s not speaking facts that he claims to know and then blanketing anyone in disagreement as not knowing facts. That’s being close minded, deterministic, and dismissive, three attributes that are in direct conflict with the idea of science."
And I completely disagree, since Neil being wrong in fields for which he is not an expert is something that can happen to anyone, and hence this would only be an issue if Neil was completely wrong in details within HIS field of expertise, which is astrophysics.
Finally you said "lastly I did not say he ‘should’ debate a flat earthen, quite opposite, in fact, I said I wouldn’t want him to. Someone with actual facts and data..."
And there again I disagree, because that person (eg a scientist) would be giving the flat Earth theorist the exposure and hence the credibility that he/she seeks.
After all, why should Neil or any scientist who don't debate other conspiracy theorists make it a special case to debate a flat Earth theorist?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 - Are you voting up your own replies? :-)
Anyway.... again it has all been debunked girl.
You said "the creators of the docu found the original radio transmissions from moon to earth. the time lapsed between question and response was ONE SECOND."
Such ignorance and such a lie :-)
ALL the original Apollo video and audio has been publicly available for around 50 years, where none of it has been altered.
In contrast, documentaries and films will often edit out the gaps in the audio to make it easier for the listener (pauses don't make good TV), which is so EASY that practically anyone can do it!
Therefore claiming NASA actually added extra seconds to the audio is laughable poor and doesn't make sense.
Also, it takes 1.3 seconds for the radio signal to travel from the Earth to the moon, hence that's 2.6 seconds there and back (radio signals travel at the speed of light).
Because the audio is recorded here on Earth, mission control can (and do) respond immediately to the astronauts, hence we hear no delay!
It's only when mission control says something to the astronauts that there will be a delay, because what mission control says will take 1.3 seconds to reach the moon and the astronaut's reply will take 1.3 seconds to return, so a total delay of 2.6 seconds minimum.
Therefore if you listen to original Apollo communication (not from documentaries because again they sometimes edit out the delays), you will notice no delay when mission control responds directly to something the astronauts say, but there's at least a 2.6 second delay when the astronauts respond directly to something mission control says.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Some Guy - Hi, I would like to start here, because it is important;
Quote "I believe Flat Earthers should get together and fund a trip to Antarctica. A lot of people say we would get stopped by the authorities. If we do, then good. It means we've proved our point that they are guarding a secret, and you're not allowed to know about it. That would arouse suspicion, and more people would come to our side."
G👀gle; Antarctica Holidays and tell me what you find please :-)
EVERYONE is free to explore where ever they want in Antarctica, there's no military there to stop you!
The problem is, no-one owns Antarctica (that's the point of the Antarctica treaty), so who is going to spend the cash and risk their lives to rescue you if something goes wrong after you wandered off without making any arrangements in advance for a rescue plan?
So no-one is restricted from exploring Antarctica, that's why EVERY YEAR there are expeditions for which NO-ONE in history has EVER reported being prevented from going.
For example, G👀gle; List of Antarctic expeditions
Again, the issue for explorers is that if they get into trouble then there will be no-one out there to rescue them UNLESS they'd made sufficient arrangements and preparations in advance, and hence they HAVE to follow a pre-planned route.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Some Guy - You said "the Earth isn't a near perfect sphere. It's an "oblate spheroid" that's also slightly "pear shaped" according to Neil deGrasse Tyson...why in all photos show the Earth to be perfectly spherical?"
If you created a perfect model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high (300 cm, or about 10 feet), then it will bulge out slightly at the equator by 1 cm, and hence would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide.
That is an oblate spheroid, but to the naked eye and in photographs and video your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Also, due to the distribution of lands and seas, the Earth actually bulges out a fraction more in the South compared to the North (by about 1 mm on your 300 cm model), hence the pear shape comparison that is too small to be seen with the naked eye, so again your 'pear shape' oblate spheroid model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
That is, your Earth filling a 1080p screen would be 1080 pixels high and 1084 pixels wide (a difference of about 1.3 mm on a 32 inch screen), hence would look like a perfect circle to your eyes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alexmipego - I know you said you believe they went, hence that's great I'm not questioning that. My point is that anyone claiming the footage could have been faked MUST prove it could have been faked, and to this day no-one has ever done that.
It is impossible to achieve 1/6th gravity in the way you suggested for two main reasons;
1) Earth gravity approaches 1/6th of it's strength at an altitude of 5800 miles, which is within the inner Van Allen belt (the most dangerous region of the belts).
2) Spacecraft have to be in orbit around the Earth, resulting in weightless conditions.
Another reason is that it's impossible to recreate an environment of the size seen in the Apollo footage inside a spacecraft. Some of the Apollo scenes has astronauts walking great distances away from the camera in the uncut footage, some even vanishing below the features of the landscape! So it can't be faked in Earth orbit.
And no, I'm saying Hollywood has NEVER successfully faked perfect 1/6th gravity, which is why there are ZERO Apollo hoax videos showing clips from movies that they claim to be proof that it could have been faked on Earth. Instead they resort to vague claims about wires (but can never say how many or where exactly they are attached) or slow motion, but can't explain why speeding the film up to make the dust match Earth's gravity causes the astronauts to move too fast.
The Apollo footage even has scientific papers analyzing the footage, such as analysis of the dust thrown up by the lunar rover wheels.
So the bottom line is - Until someone can present footage filmed here on Earth that matches the perfect 1/6th gravity seen in Apollo footage as I stated earlier, then claims that the footage was faked remains unfounded.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@GameDevNerd - You said " whoa, no, my friend, absolutely not ... and I work with a lot of video editing, image manipulation and CGI (but I'm mainly a graphics and physics programmer)"
Firstly, less of the solid blocks of text please, even if you split them into a few massive paragraphs it doesn't make them easily readable.
Secondly, your claimed expertise has no relevance to the claim that the footage could have been faked in a studio, that's just you being a little pompous with all due respect (I could also state my expertise and claim they give me an insight beyond what they offer :-)).
I provided a video by film maker S G Collins who explained why it was impossible to fake the footage back then, hence I'd like you to address those arguments, in particular point out where S G Collins is wrong and offer your evidence to support your disagreement.
For example, you said " I've seen dust on Earth behave in countless different ways depending on its composition", and previously said "mixing up different compositions of my "moon dust" with fluffy, light powders to get the right mixture, using classic suspension cable rigs (very old and common film and live stage technique) to make things appear to "float" a bit more like they're at 1/6 gravity."
That is based upon your ignorance, since you appear to be unaware that in hour after hour after hour of kicked up dust in Apollo footage, the grains follow parabolic arcs with ZERO signs of air resistance and hence move EXACTLY as expected in a vacuum in 1/6 gravity, including in published scientific papers that have analysed the dust movement in the footage.
Google Search: Tracking Lunar Dust - Analysis of Apollo Footage, and read the paper on ResearchGate please. Are you really claiming that those scientists are wrong because of your expertise as a "graphics and physics programmer"? :-|
Such movement of dust is impossible in ANY studio because of the presence of air (putting aside 1/6 gravity for now), where your solution would result in dust clouds, obvious signs of air resistance, and even the occasional brightly lit particles of dust floating close enough to the camera to be picked up in the footage! Air resistance alone would cause dust particles to fall at different rates due to their size, weight and shape!
FACT: All the dust in Apollo footage falls at the rate of 1/6 gravity and ALL at the SAME rate, hence in 1/6 gravity takes 2.46 times slower to fall compared to dust here on Earth (say in a vacuum chamber).
Therefore to replicate that using slow motion requires slowing the footage down by 2.46 times, which means you should be able to restore the footage back to normal merely by speeding it up by 2.46 times.
Have a look at the videos on my channel for examples of such sped up Apollo footage :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Another example is where you ask "How would astronauts take these perfect pictures with cameras fixed on their chests on the outside of their vests."
Firstly, nearly 15,000 photographs were taken by the astronauts from Apollo 11 to 17, with several thousand of those on the lunar surface, so to claim photographs that you haven't seen are all perfect is nonsense, because they are not.
The reality is, books and magazines and documentaries and films etc, are going to use the BEST of the Apollo photos, not the worse photos. That's just common sense. Therefore you're making a claim based upon seeing the best photos, and/or from listening to other conspiracy believers.
Secondly, taking good photos with a camera at your chest is EASY. Go ahead and try it if you have a digital camera, or setup your phone so that you can do it, and then go around your location taking photos from chest level.
It's EASY to point your camera using judgement alone to get decent results, even a child could do it! :-)
When you look at your photos you will notice that it isn't as difficult as claimed, and remember, not only did the astronauts have months to practice with Hasselblad cameras GIVEN TO THEM for that purpose, but there was a mount on the chest of their spacesuits for the camera, where the astronauts could lift the camera off the mount whenever they wanted, hence they took photos in whichever way felt easiest at the time (i.e. with the camera mounted or unmounted).
Facts matter my friend, they really do, but facts don't matter to conspiracy theorists, since all they want is to grow a base of blind followers who will accept any claim they make. Don't allow yourself to be a blind follower :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You said "they managed to take, on average. 1 photo every minute, over all the missions."
Take zero photos for 9 minutes and then take 10 photos in the next minute. That's 10 minutes, with an average of 1 photo every minute and hence it's not a problem.
If you look at the full archive of Apollo photos, you will see numerous examples of photos taken in quick succession, either as backup (in case the photo didn't come out right) or for panoramic shots or for multiple shots of the current location.
So there are no discrepancies and hence it's rather pointless to base a claim on an average rather than on the actual usage.
You said "No view finder on the camera. They had some skills lmao."
The astronauts were given the same Hasselblad cameras to take home and practice months before their missions, where they were encouraged to take photographs at every opportunity they could. Therefore for every Apollo mission, the astronauts knew how to get the most out of the cameras, where through practice they learned how to get decent photos without a viewfinder.
Try it yourself - Hold a digital camera or phone near your chest and go around your environment taking photos by using your judgement to point the camera without looking at the screen.
You will find that it's pretty easy to take very good photos :-)
You said "Oh yeah, where was the car stashed?"
Search YouTube for: Lunar Rover Deployment, and watch the videos showing deployment of the rover on the moon (hence showing you where the rover was stored) as well as testing rover deployment here on Earth and even animations that show you the process involved.
So instead of believing all the conspiracy claims and attacking anyone who "believe this", try researching the claims made objectively.
If you want to believe the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion, but it doesn't mean you are obliged to believe every moon landing hoax claim without question :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rocketspushoffair - You said "We no for a fact there is a dome."
The most popular flat Earth theorist Eric Dubay says he doesn't know if there is a dome!
So since you know more than Eric Dubay, please state the exact height of the claimed dome.
You said "We know for a fact there is an ice wall edge."
But Eric Dubay says he doesn't know if there's an edge, an ice wall yes, but not sure of an edge according to him!
Hence some FE believers claim the Earth ends at the wall of ice, some claim the land goes beyond the wall of ice to a finite distance, some claim it's an infinite plane.
Why are you right (i.e. it's a fact) and the others wrong?
:-)
You said "Pillars, we have to take on faith. Sun, moon, again, we must speculate, but they could be spherical. We know for a fact they are close."
So please state exactly how far away the moon is please.
Do you agree with the popular FE claim that the sun and moon are 30-32 miles wide and circle the Earth 3000 miles up?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Concorde first flew in 1969, so where's the supersonic passenger plane that we can all book a flight on 52 years later? So was Concorde a fake that people must open their eyes to see?
To get people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history, which NASA achieved in the 60s with the Saturn V rocket thanks to Congress increasing their budget to a peak of 9 times normal to make it happen.
Once Congress felt it was "mission accomplished", they withdrew all the extra funding for NASA and so no more Saturn V rockets could be built, resulting in the end of the Apollo program (the planned missions Apollo 18 to 20 had to be cancelled!).
But now look up the SLS rocket being built by NASA/Boeing and due to launch THIS year (after many delays).
The SLS is as large and as powerful as the 60s Saturn V rocket, and hence that's the massive rocket that will return people back to the moon in 2024.
The original plan was to send people into orbit around the moon in 2024 and then land on the moon 3 or 4 years later.
However, the Trump administration pushed for a moon landing as early as 2024 instead of 2027/2028, which was an unnecessary risk (probably more about Trump hoping to take the credit if he was still president in 2024).
But now that Trump has lost and the USA has Biden for president, don't be surprised if they return to the original plan of lunar orbit missions from 2024 and THEN a mission to land in 2027/2028.
So what will your comments be when people return to the moon in 2024/2025?
Let me guess, you'll cry out "fake" to that too, right? ;-)
[Edit: Changed next to THIS]
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hamzahussain1933 - Again, you haven't explained the USSR.
My point is, you ARE effectively saying that the scientific and engineering geniuses at the USSR who had their own advance space program together with tracking technology that could follow any spacecraft, were ALL too stupid and ALL too blind to spot a blatant hoax not only once, but too dumb to spot exactly the SAME hoax of sending men to the moon NINE TIMES IN A ROW from 1968 to 1972 (with six of those landing on the moon)!
To highlight my point, the USSR landed two remotely controlled car-size rovers on the moon in 1970 and 1973 called Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 (look it up please).
Both rovers had TV cameras and radio antennas, and hence that allowed Lunokhod 2 to be driven 37 km across the lunar surface over a period of 4 months under remote control (thanks to the TV broadcast);
www.robotsvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Lunokhod-2_art.jpg
So if the USSR had even the slightest suspicion of a hoax, no matter how small, then they could have landed a Lunokhod rover at ANY of the Apollo landing sites at ANY time and explored it themselves to be sure, broadcasting the TV images back to Earth, and there would have been nothing that anyone could have done to stop them.
But they never did that because the USSR knew 100% that the USA had successfully landed men on the moon.
Think about that please :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here's a reply to such a question in the FAQ on the website of one of the world's BEST telescopes, ESO's VLT (Very Large Telescope);
www.eso.org/public/about-eso/faq/faq-vlt-paranal/#18
Question "Could the VLT take a picture of the Moon-landing sites?".
Answer: "Yes, but the images would not be detailed enough to show the equipment left behind by the astronauts. Using its adaptive optics system, the VLT has already taken one of the sharpest ever images of the lunar surface as seen from Earth: http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso0222/. However, the smallest details visible in this image are still about one hundred metres on the surface of the Moon, while the parts of the lunar modules which are left on the Moon are less than 10 metres in size. A telescope 200 metres in diameter would be needed to show them. Although the VLT, when used as an interferometer (VLTI), reaches the same equivalent resolution, it cannot be used to observe the Moon. You may be wondering whether the Hubble Space Telescope would have better luck. In fact, while a space telescope is not affected by the atmosphere of the Earth, it is not substantially closer to the Moon. Also, the Hubble is smaller than the VLT, so it isn’t able to obtain images that show the surface of the Moon with higher resolution. The sharpest images of the lunar landers have been taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: Apollo Landing Sites Revisited."
I hope that helps :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mike588 - Exactly :-)
It's a problem common among the vast majority of conspiracy believers, where once someone decides a certain conspiracy theory is true, then for some reason he/she feels obligated to support EVERY claim made in support of that conspiracy, no matter how ridiculous the claim is.
It is very rare for me to find someone who says something like "Yes, you're right, that specific claim is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that the conspiracy is true". Instead, it's all or nothing for most conspiracy believers.
Therefore when told they "lost the technology" for example, very few Apollo hoax believers are willing to see it without bias, and so it's incredibly rare for one of them to have the courage to say "Look guys, you know me, you know I always say men never landed on the moon, but I also know what they meant when they said they lost the technology, and it isn't what you guys claim".
It doesn't happen because the vast majority of conspiracy believers are afraid to challenge their fellow conspiracy believers, and so either they keep quiet over claims they disagree with, or they just go along with the crowd.
Shame :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jankopandza1072 - Anyone can make empty claims about what they would or wouldn't do, but why are you pretending that ALL clean athletes would swear on the Bible after being called drugs cheats?
The REALITY you're ignoring here is that some athletes would swear on the Bible and some athletes would not, depending on many reasons ranging from their religious beliefs, the situation/event, their character, even the mood they happen to be in at the time (happy, sad, angry, bored, worried, etc).
So swearing on the Bible is NOT proof of innocence or guilt, and hence it's dishonest to pretend that it is :-|
Exactly the same applies to the astronauts, where in the documentary you're referring to, THREE of the astronauts actually DID swear on the Bible and yet the film maker still said he didn't believe them, proving the other three astronauts who didn't swear on the Bible were RIGHT because it didn't matter to the film maker!
2
-
@jankopandza1072 - Stop pretending you don't understand the point I'm making.
If you go up to an innocent group of people, all Christians, and accuse them of being liars and cheats and then demand they swear on the Bible to prove their innocence, then SOME of them will swear and SOME of them will not swear, hence it has nothing to do with being innocent or guilty.
What you're saying here is that merely owning a Bible gives someone authority over Christians, which is a stupid assumption.
The guy who approached the astronauts was Bart Sibrel, a taxi driver turned film maker. Bart Sibrel is not a church leader, he is not a policemen, he is not a judge, so on what basis do you say the astronauts MUST do as Bart demands just because he holds the Bible in his hand? Bart could be an atheist for all we know.
So explain exactly what authority Bart has to demand that the astronauts swear on the Bible he's holding.
By your argument, you can accuse ANY Christian of ANYTHING you like, and if he/she refuses to answer your accusation then you can demand he/she swears on the Bible otherwise that would be their admission of guilt.
How can you possible believe that sort of behaviour and assumption is justified, on any level?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, he raised doubts for political reasons, which means he's effectively saying the USSR despite all their firsts in space during the 60s and their advanced space program that was capable of tracking spacecraft to the moon, were unbelievably stupid for allowing the USA to fool them with manned missions to the moon during Apollo 8, Apollo 10, Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and finally Apollo 17 :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mysticnomad3577 - You said "you're irrelevant."
Put your nails away please, it's rude to scratch.
Anyway, I've spent enough time here for the moment and have discussions in other threads that I need to attend to, so I'll return here later.
In the mean time, here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations btw) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
Bye for now, back later :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mysticnomad3577 - So I probably know far more about flat Earth theory than you do. For example, where EXACTLY do you think "8 inches per mile squared" originated from? I know because I read it in one of the flat Earth books that I listed, whereas 99.99999% of flat Earth believer have no idea where it came from.
Now, if we take Eric Dubay's "200 proofs Earth is Not a spinning Ball", EVERY ONE of those so-called proofs have been debunked.
Yes, ALL of them, ALL debunked (and some are so stupid that even a child could debunk it... which explains why you couldn't ;-)).
Regarding Mark Knight, I'm still waiting for you to present just ONE example of his 'work' to prove he has something more to offer than the completely debunked Eric Dubay.
So go ahead and state what YOU consider to be the BEST evidence from Mark. The ONE flat Earth claim that YOU believe is his strongest and hence his BEST proof of a flat Earth and present it here, present a link.
If it's in a long video featuring multiple flat Earth claims, then present the link AND time stamp together with a brief description of the 'proof'.
Therefore your assumption that I'm a newbie to flat Earth theory is wrong. If anything, you are the newbie in comparison :-)
I look forward to your BEST Mark Knight evidence. Just one claim please, the BEST one, the strongest one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@valherustinger7848 - Technically, Eric's research into WW2 is an example of how poor his research is, where you appear to be supporting Eric's views on the basis that it's what others have said before him.
The same therefore applies to flat Earth, since Eric refers to flat Earth books written over the last 150+ years, such as those by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
Regarding not going out into space, do you really need to see your entire town or city from altitude before you can accept that a map of your town or city is accurate? :-)
If not, then why would you expect that to be required for the entire Earth?
My proof in this thread of the Earth being a globe also applies to accurate maps of our towns and cities, since they are so small compared to the size of the Earth that curvature makes no difference to the maps, where the natural rise and fall of the landscape is likely to be greater than any curvature across the map.
In other words, if you get hold of an accurate flat map of your town or city (one which provides a bar scale for distance, eg. 1cm = 1 mile), then ALL the distances measured on that map would be on the scale shown, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the map or how far apart they are!
That proves the flat map is an accurate representation of your town or city - likewise that proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is an accurate representation of the Earth :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rocketspushoffair - For example, Isaiah 40:22.
In many languages, including English, words can have multiple meanings, ranging from subtle differences to complete differences.
A ball looks like a circle from any angle, therefore a circle doesn't automatically mean flat.
So here is Isaiah 40:22 from various Bibles that is being referred to here;
King James Bible (1611); "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
Douay-Rheims Bible (1582); "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth..."
New American Standard 1977 Bible; "It is He who sits above the vault of the earth..."
Peshitta Holy Bible Translated (1st or 2nd Century AD); "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
New American Bible; "The one who is enthroned above the vault of the earth..."
Catholic Public Domain Version; "He is the One who sits upon the globe of the earth..."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English; "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
Matthew's Bible (1537); "That he sitteth upon the circle of the world..."
That's because the Hebrew word 'chug' being translated by those Bibles means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).
So circle, globe, sphere and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various Bibles.
And notice how I didn't use the flat Earth believer tactic to claim the Bible explicitly says the Earth is a globe/sphere by cherry picking certain Bible versions, but instead I made it clear that the word being translated has multiple meanings :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@M4L4S1A_G4M3R - No problem :-)
I haven't seen "Silent Sea" but remember that science fiction in movies and TV is also about creating imagery for their audience, hence it doesn't have to be scientifically accurate.
For example, in most space based movies we clearly see stars ALL the time, and yet when you look at all photographs and film of astronauts and the Space Shuttle and the ISS in space, space itself is just black with no stars!
The stars are all there, but they are too faint to show up in the camera settings used to clearly capture the brightly lit astronauts and spacecraft.
But for movies, seeing spaceships flying around against a black background with no stars just wouldn't look right, it just wouldn't work, it wouldn't look believable and so stars are always added.
Same with sound, which doesn't travel in the vacuum of space, and yet we hear lasers and explosions and even hear the spacecraft as they travel from one side of the screen to the next, adding to the effect even though it's scientifically inaccurate.
Hence they do know better, but film makers also know that it has to look good and has to look and sound right for their audience :-)
So going back to the moon, look at the visors on helmets the astronauts had to wear to protect their eyes from the glare. That's how bright it is.
I hope that helps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cefkungfupipewelder1568 - Thanks for the reasoned reply this time, I really appreciate that 👍
However, I have to address the points made, for example "maybe the deep seated need for the US to outdo the USSR, Stanley Kubrick was developing a movie 2001, a space odyssey around the same time and had to sign a NDA"
I addressed the Stanley Kubrick claim in my previous reply, pointing out that 1/6 gravity is impossible in a studio. Hence even in "2001", Kubrick merely got the actors to walk on the moon slowly as if they had weights in their boots, no effort was ever made to recreate 1/6 gravity.
You said "Neil Armstrong, a devout Christian man when being asked if he would put his hand on the Bible and swear that the moon landing was real would not do it."
A question put to him by the conman Bart Sibrel, who harassed the astronauts and tricked some into giving him interviews only for him to call them liars and cheats halfway through.
In his hoax documentary "Astronauts Gone Wild" Bart demands each astronaut that he meets to swear on the Bible to say they were on the moon, telling each that all others refused despite the fact that THREE of the astronauts did swear on the Bible and yet he still called them liars afterwards!
Clearly those who didn't swear knew it would make no difference, and were not going to 'dance to his tune' (seriously, why should they?).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Hired_Management - Hi, lets address some of your key points, objectively :-)
You said "Theory is not “science” and is conspiracy.
Examples: Gravity, Vacuum of space, evolution."
The problem is, that's a misunderstanding of what a theory means in science.
https://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html
"A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena."
Hence (staying on the topic of space) gravity is a proven scientific fact. The vacuum of space is a proven scientific fact.
Scientific theories are models that explain those facts, allowing us to understand our observations of natural phenomena and to make accurate predictions based upon that understanding.
I can provide proof of both gravity and the vacuum of space IF you want (hence will post in two separate replies if asked for :-)).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@FDupp-og1mi - So just for you and your fellow flat Earth friends who may be reading this thread, I'll address this classic claim from you;
Quote "You believe this force is also a physical container that prevents our pressurized atmosphere, which lay adjacent to a near perfect vacuum, from being sucked into space."
Putting aside the fact that a vacuum is NOT suction (didn't you learn anything at school?), did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude and hence the higher we are the lower the air pressure?
Yes? Then good, lets continue...
At 10 miles up there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with a cheap vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept.
In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions with altitude, with no barrier in between and no closed container required.
Any questions? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@khirywashington371 - Yet again you prove you don't know how science works.
Google search: Peer review, and READ the links.
Then Google search: Peer review in science, and READ the links.
Come back once you've understood it please :-)
After all, are you really saying that you have NO EXPERTISE in anything yourself? Nothing from your hobbies/passions to your talents, to sports, to your career, to your qualifications, to gaming, to driving, to art to music, etc, nothing that you would consider yourself highly skilled or knowledgeable?
Now THINK about your best area of expertise and tell me who are the best people to judge you and correct you. Is it the people who are as skilled and as knowledgeable (or more) as you in a particular area, or other people who are clueless in that area?
2
-
@khirywashington371 - I'll repost what I edited into my last reply:
After all, are you really saying that you have NO EXPERTISE in anything yourself? Nothing from your hobbies/passions to your talents, to sports, to your career, to your qualifications, to gaming, to driving, to art to music, etc, nothing that you would consider yourself highly skilled or knowledgeable?
Now THINK about your best area of expertise and tell me who are the best people to judge you and correct you. Is it the people who are as skilled and as knowledgeable (or more) as you in a particular area, or other people who are clueless in that area?
So if you understand peer review, then go ahead and explain how scientists are not challenging other scientists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@justinmadrid8712 - I asked you for specific video evidence, I'm still waiting.
The fact that you're now claiming wires are used proves my point, so thanks for that.
You see, you claim in the jump salute footage they would 'apply about 35% slow motion'.
Here's the problem with your claim. 1/6 gravity means objects fall 2.45 times slower than they do on Earth, the square root of 6, therefore to make all dust fall at the rate of the moon's gravity the footage must be slowed by 2.45 times. Nothing more and nothing less.
You can't claim air resistance since that would produce floating dust clouds, which we never see, therefore there is no air in the footage.
So if the footage is already slowed down 2.45 times to make all dust and objects fall at the rate of 1/6 gravity, then adding wires to a person would make that person appear to fall SLOWER than the rate of 1/6 gravity.
In other words, you cannot use both slow motion and wires at the same time to attempt the appearance of 1/6 gravity for dust, objects and people. FACT! :-)
Prove me wrong by naming the movie that has done it in a studio without CGI, since there's no excuse for it not to be done in the 50 years since the last moon landing.
I'm waiting :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nicholasjameson3953 - Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims (including the conspiracy theories that you don't believe yourself) then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists.
But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
So again, flat Earth believers are not a special case, therefore there's no reason to give them special treatment.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidvalensi8616 - You said " one of their engineers Kelly Smith admitted it by accident while discussing something else. (Orion)."
And right there you proved my point perfectly!
The electrons of the Van Allen belt radiation are a problem for modern electronics, which packs a massive amount of incredibly tiny structures into its microprocessors. This makes them significantly more sensitive to the radiation compared to the crude electronics of the 70s and older, which didn't have that problem.
The NASA Orion video with Kelly Smith that conspiracy theorists distorted only ever mentions the issue of radiation upon the electronics, it says NOTHING about the effect of radiation on people.
The point being made was that people's lives will depend on the electronics WORKING, therefore they would not risk putting people into space inside Orion UNTIL they've tested it in space first.
Here are the exact words from NASA's Kelly Smith in that video;
Quote 1; "Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems, and there's only one way to know if we got it right, fly it in space. For Orion's first flight, no astronauts would be on board, the spacecraft is loaded with sensors to record and measure all aspects of the flight in every detail"
Hence Kelly made it very clear that the focus is to test Orion in space FIRST to check all the systems before they put astronauts inside.
Quote 2; "We will pass through the Van Allen Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, on-board computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back..."
Notice that he's talking about the harm to ELECTRONICS only.
Quote 2 continued; "...But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space"
Again, Kelly makes it clear that they are testing the electronics. If the test proves the design has solved those radiation challenges, i.e. the electronics would not fail, THEN they will know Orion is safe to put astronauts inside on their way to the moon.
And yet on December 5th 2014, just months after that NASA Orion video, Orion was sent through the region of the belts with the highest radiation TWICE and it aced that test. Therefore they are now confident in sending people through the belts inside Orion in the knowledge that the electronics will not fail.
Interesting how NONE the hoax videos featuring that NASA video EVER mentioned the fact that Orion was tested in space inside the Van Allen belts SUCCESSFULLY just months later.
Why do you think they never mentioned it? ;-)
2
-
@davidvalensi8616 - And here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
And should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Firstly he's an astrophysicist whether you like it or not :-)
Secondly, Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or Crop Circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims (including the conspiracy theories that you don't believe yourself) then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists.
But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HerbAsh - The 'mad' speeds are nothing compared to the even madder distances. That's the point :-)
Here's an example to give you an idea of the scale involved.
Our nearest star is Alpha Centauri, which is 4.367 light years away. In comparison, our sun is only 499 light seconds away.
Now imagine your head is the sun and you stretch out your arms to both sides and clench your fists to represent the Earth on both sides of the sun (i.e. 6 months apart during its orbit).
So lets say that's 5 feet to represent Earth's orbit - on that scale, the nearest star will be 261 miles away, and both our sun and the nearest star will be moving generally in the same direction at the speed of around 4.2 mm per hour!
And that's to the nearest star. Polaris is about 433 light years ago, about 99 times further away, hence on the same scale discussed above, that's about 25,900 miles away (a little further away than geostationary satellites).
Therefore, is it really any wonder why the star's positions barely during our lifetimes?
They do change over time, but it typically takes centuries for us to notice any slight changes that can be seen with the naked eye :-)
I hope that helps :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TTHH - You said "The stars depicted in these ancient charts are exactly as we observe the stars in the sky today."
Incorrect, that's your assumption with zero analysis carried out.
The individual stars we see in our night sky are in our own galaxy and they are all moving, it's just that the distances are so massive that we can't easily see the changes in our relatively tiny lifespans.
The first person to notice this was Edmond Halley (famous for the comet) in the early 18th century, where he noticed some stars were in different positions in ancient star 'charts'. When comparing the same stars to charts made in the 17th century, he was able to confirm how fast they were moving.
For example, he noted that our brightest real star Sirius had shifted about the width of the moon seen in the sky over a period of 1800 years,
So yes the Dunhuang is the oldest star CHART, with well over 1000 stars, but it's not a 100% match to star positions today, there are deviations in the positions, and it's not the only ancient reference to star positions.
And the planets aside, the fastest moving ordinary star relative to others in our sky is called Barnard's star, which shouldn't exist according to FE theorists :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Gmayor8888 - You said "not thea pear shape one that neil told us about and nasa showing us photos with the perfect ball"
A very ignorant comment from you (just because you don't believe something that doesn't excuse being ignorant about it :-|).
If you created a perfect model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high (300 cm, or about 10 feet), then it will bulge out slightly at the equator by 1 cm, and hence would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide.
That is an oblate spheroid, but to the naked eye and in photographs and video your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Also, due to the distribution of lands and seas, the Earth actually bulges out a fraction more in the South compared to the North (by about 1 mm on your 300 cm model), hence the pear shape comparison that is too small to be seen with the naked eye, so again your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Any questions? :-)
2
-
2
-
@Gmayor8888 - And just to add;
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity;
youtu.be/Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MrZeissOne - You said "Sorry. Wrong. NASA claims it is ALL gone or missing as their excuse for not extending beyond near earth orbit. Too costly, they claim, go have to duplicate in order to repeat. Nice try. "
Wrong. I asked you to state the data that was lost. The fact that you can't state it proves you have NO idea, and hence proves you are just regurgitating what you read from other hoax believers without doing your own research and without thinking for yourself.
Let me address a few of your questions which you got from hoax believers;
Quote "Radiation in the Van Allen belts and cosmic radiation on the moon would literally fry a biological organism, which we are."
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within a week.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
2
-
2
-
@MrZeissOne - You said "Live streaming of communication from the moon 250k miles away in 1969? I was there, and we did not have that sort of technology."
I was also there. So your point is? :-)
Today, we have a HUGE number of geostationary satellites broadcasting live TV channels FROM SPACE to millions upon millions of people. Those satellites are over 22,000 MILES away, broadcasting TV channels via a weak 40W radio signal, and yet all we need to pick up those channels are very SMALL satellite dishes like this;
(Remove the square brackets from the link)
tin[yurl.]com/y3q78epu
The moon is about 11 times further away, therefore to receive the signal to the same strength would require a bigger dish, just like the massive radio dishes/telescopes used during the Apollo missions, like this;
(Again, remove the square brackets from the link)
tin[yurl.]com/y56brglj
So it's exactly the same principle. Your satellite dish (if you have one) works because it is pointed directly at the satellite, where despite being over 22,000 miles away you can receive the TV channels perfectly if your dish is aligned correctly.
Now move that SAME satellite to the distance of the moon and the signal would be too weak for your small satellite dish, but if you have the massive Parkes Radio Telescope in the link above, then you'll receive the TV channels without any problems, and you'll also be able to receive and send radio signals significant further than the moon.
Although I'm sure you would agree that such a large radio dish is not practical to attach to your home ;-)
And because the Earth rotates, then for distant spacecraft you will need to use at least THREE massive radio dishes spread around the world to ensure that at least one of them is in direct line of sight of the spacecraft at any given time.
So it's not a mystery my friend, it's just science and engineering and hence we did have the technology.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Flat Earth became popular because of Eric Dubay with his eBook and channel in 2015 and it really took off the year after. So where's your evidence of any connection between Eric Dubay and NASA please?
Flat Earth grew because it went unchecked and unchallenged by social media sites, which allowed anyone to claim anything they wanted without pushback.
But 5-6 years ago there was a clamp down here, and that's when the main changes were made (some for the better, some definitely for the worse), so I don't know were you got the idea that it was the early 2000s, much less to the extent you claim, since no videos have been removed or doctored here, instead YT simply made certain videos more difficult to find.
The fact that you try to link Eric Dubay's success with Flat Earth to NASA, which spread thanks to social media not NASA, and linked it to the moon landings highlights exactly why conspiracy believers are willing to believe practically anything that fits their narrative, without the need for any evidence :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Please show me the debate between Eric Dubay and the flat Earth theorists who he claims are shills working for the government, such as Mark Sargent, because I must have missed it :-)
Anyway... Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@glenndejong6817 - WRONG my friend. NASA have NEVER said that about ANY photographs of the Earth.
Back in 2002, NASA's Robert Simmon created a series of images (not photographs) called "Blue Marble 2", where they were put together using something like 4 months worth of satellite photos taken in earth orbit. Therefore those satellite photos were stitched together using Photoshop to create full composite images of the Earth.
That's where the composite/Photoshop hoax claim originated from!
As Robert himself said, one of the most difficult parts of the project were the clouds, because over a period of 4 months the cloud cover all over the world changes, therefore it was a lot of work to make the cloud cover appear natural in his Photoshop images.
In other words, the "Blue Marble 2" images are NOT claimed to be actual photographs of the Earth, instead Robert and NASA explained at the beginning that they were images of the Earth that THEY had put together using 4 months worth of satellite photos, i.e. they are composites!
Robert Simmon ALSO said that the Apollo missions were different because they were sufficiently far from the Earth to be able to fit the entire planet within EACH photograph taken, and therefore that was what he was trying to recreate using satellite images (i.e. to recreate the original 'Blue Marble' photograph taken during Apollo 17).
Facts do matter my friend, except to conspiracy theorists and conspiracy believers :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@saltysergeant4284 - You said "sure. What experiment shows the motion, rotation, and/or spherical shape of the Earth?"
Great, so lets take it in a few short steps.
Before discussing the globe itself, consider an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as your town or city (if a map of a city 25 miles by 18 miles filled an A4 sheet of paper, then the middle of the map would need to rise just 0.23 mm to account for Earth's curvature!).
EVERY one of us can find an accurate map of our own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our map and measure it to easily 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 fact, the accuracy of the map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the map alone!
Do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The problem with many conspiracy believers is that your bias causes you to put aside common sense, logic and fairness :-|
For example, go and accuse a clean athlete of being a drugs cheat and a liar and a coward, and demand he swears on the Bible to prove he's innocent of taking performance enhancing drugs... and then tell us which hospital you're in so that we can visit you :-)
According to you, it doesn't matter which athlete you approach to make that accusation, if the athlete is innocent then he would never EVER become angry much less punch you, no matter how much you harass him, which is complete nonsense.
So if you put your bias aside then it doesn't matter whether you believe men landed on the moon or not, it doesn't matter whether you believe Buzz was lying or not, Bart Sibrel was harassing Buzz Aldrin even as Buzz was trying to walk away from him and he eventually snapped upon being called a lair and a coward, and therefore Bart got what he deserved.
It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Just the fact you fell for the dishonest twisting of Buzz Aldrin's reply to that little girl says it all.
If like other hoax believers you feel that 'truth' is on your side, then why the need to lie and/or to spread lies? How is it justified to lie?
For example, the claim that NASA means to decieve in Hebrew is also a lie, and yet here you are spreading that lie without question.
Btw, please state which version of a flat Earth you believe in please since there are many, i.e. dome or no dome, edge or no edge, flat sun and moon or globe sun and moon, pillars or no pillars, gravity or no gravity, etc. :-)
2
-
2
-
@elisereneekouloukas301 - And just to highlight my point further;
Transcript:
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there [in such a long time] and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money
...
...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
A rather convoluted answer? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No!
Now tell me which version of a flat Earth that you believe in please :-)
2
-
@elisereneekouloukas301 - No, my friend, my bracketed insert is the CONTEXT of his reply.
The question was not "Why has nobody been to the moon?" for which you can claim Buzz was saying "cause we didn't, go there [to the moon]"
The question was "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?" for which Buzz's was saying "cause we didn't, go there [to the moon in such a long time]".
And just seconds later he said "in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past"
You can't keep doing something you've never done, you can't stop doing something unless you're already doing it.
He went on to say a few more seconds later "so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world"
In other words, having achieved the mission of landing on the moon.
So you cannot pretend the context of a question doesn't relate to the answer given, otherwise you are resorting to quote mining and cherry picking, which as I said before is a dishonest tactic of conspiracy believers.
2
-
2
-
@elisereneekouloukas301 - Again, that is not my context, it is THE context set by the question asked. Hence no reporter or journalist WORLDWIDE took that to mean Buzz was admitting we've never been to the moon, because reporters and journalists have high levels of 'linguistic intelligence', something that many conspiracy believers appear to lack :-)
And don't resort to playing the childish "victim" act please. YOU posted that comment on this PUBLIC forum claiming the Earth is flat and hence ALL space missions are a lie. No-one made you do it, no-one forced you, and therefore you MUST expect others to question and challenge your claims.
If you're not prepared to defend the beliefs you state, then don't post your beliefs online. It's as simple as that.
And it doesn't matter if millions of people claim "2+2=5", that doesn't stop the answer being "4", so don't point to what others say as if that makes you right please, especially when the majority of those same people you highlighted are NOT flat Earth believers! :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You said "First thing, what original footage? Wasn't it supposed to be accidentally destroyed or lost?"
For goodness sake my friend, really? That's how you start? :-)
The issue there was ALL about NASA's backup footage of the Apollo 11 moonwalk which was stored on telemetry magnetic tapes (the best for that purpose) just in case the live TV broadcast didn't work.
Again, BACKUP footage.
Had the TV broadcast failed, then NASA would have process those tapes and made the footage available to TV studios worldwide. But the broadcast was a success and so the BACKUP was redundant. THAT is how and why it was lost.
Because it was stored on telemetry tapes, some thought telemetry data was lost, but it wasn't (and what telemetry data was of great importance when the LM was stationary?).
Here's NASA own official report on the lost tapes, notice that it's about the Apollo 11 moonwalk broadcast stored on telemetry tapes
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Apollo_11_TV_Tapes_Report.pdf
And here's a few quotes from that report;
"...engineers at three tracking stations would tape the original signals onto one-inch telemetry tapes for backup and then also convert the raw feed into a conventional format compatible with American broadcast standards."
"...The engineers boxed the one-inch telemetry tapes wound onto 14-inch canister reels--which served no other purpose than to provide backup if the live relay failed--and shipped them to the Goddard Space Flight Center."
"...The engineers never saw the back up telemetry tapes again."
So all that was lost was NASA's backup copy of the SAME 2.5 hour Apollo 11 moonwalk video that we've ALL seen already (except NASA's backup would have been clearer).
No other Apollo 11 TV broadcast was lost, no photographs or film or data was lost, and nothing was lost from Apollo 12, or 13 (the failed mission) or 14 or 15 or 16 or Apollo 17 .
Hence conspiracy theorists took that story about the lost telemetry tapes containing the backup video of the Apollo 11 moonwalk broadcast and exaggerated it into a false claim that all the tapes and all data was lost, and you appear to have bought into that conspiracy claim.
Given the information above, can you now see how your comment of "what original footage? Wasn't it supposed to be accidentally destroyed or lost" is based upon wrong information and false conspiracy claims?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@angelduran3323 - This is not the first time Eddie has expressed his flat Earth beliefs, this is not the first time he has expressed his doubts about the Earth being a globe or space being fake.
In fact, Eddie was on Joe's show, the SAME show, 2 years earlier talking about flat Earth and fake space where he was very vocal and loud about his views, and therefore surely it would have been Eddie's responsibility this time around to be more prepared, wouldn't you think? :-)
And given that they had this debate with Eddie before then they certainly knew what to expect, therefore the only panic in the room is in your head, where you're seeing what you want to see :-|
So I'm not going by this video only. And being open minded is not an excuse to ignore common sense, ignore reason and ignore facts.
I did my flat Earth research by acquiring and reading all the main flat Earth books published over the last 150+ years, where I identified common ideas and themes among them as well as many contradictions, together with poor reasoning and false assumptions within all those books.
My research was initially focussed around finding an accurate undistorted flat map of a flat Earth in just ONE flat Earth book.
It was no surprise to me that none of them provided such a map.
So tell me about your flat Earth research please.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@trojax44 - That has to be the worst logic I've seen for a long time, so well done for that, all based upon the fact that you seem to think that the sun has to be SEEN in the sky for the moon to be illuminated by the sun. That is what you're saying here which proves you have no idea of the structure of the solar system :-)
So if you think the moon is creating its own light, then go ahead and post a link to an alternative light source that casts shadows upon itself please. Just one example.
You know, just like the shadows CLEARLY visible on the surface of the moon cast by the craters and mountains, shadows that change depending on the direction of the sun, for example;
[I had to disguise the links below to get this reply through, but I'm sure you can work it out :-)]
tiny😮cc🖍️gtn9uz
If the moon was its own light source, then there would be no shadows, there would be no phases of the moon, just like this moon lamp;
tiny😮cc🖍️jtn9uz
I look forward to your example of a light source casting shadows upon itself :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@magneto4704 - And in your shadow banned reply you said "Man cannot breach the van allen radiation belt..."
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@East_TN_Explorer - You said "By constantly talking about it, you give it life...If you ignore it, it [g]oes off."
That may work for some conspiracy theories, but others like flat Earth grow when ignored (like a disease :-|), with flat Earth followers taking that as proof it can't be debunked and therefore say flat Earth must be true.
Before 2015, when I was debating Apollo hoax believers online, people took being called a flat Earth believer as an insult. But after 2015 a growing number of people were happy to call themselves flat Earth believers, where they would troll EVERY space related video they could find to spread the word while claiming all science is a lie.
My point is, ignoring flat Earth believers allowed their numbers to grow rapidly thanks to flat Earth theorists like Eric Dubay (who originally believed in hollow/concave Earth btw :-)), until there were so many of them trolling space related videos that they could no longer be ignored, hence I began debating them when I couldn't get away from them any more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, it's the right thing to do.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they so desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
2
-
@joejosa8985 - You said "You said " most of those things fall into the same category of supernatural"
Alien/UFO based conspiracy claims are not about the supernatural (neither is the Electric Universe Theory), where I added the others for variety but could have included many more space related conspiracy theories, from Space Shuttle deaths hoax, to Mars rover hoax, ISS hoax, GPS hoax, and so on.
Many of those have been popular conspiracy theories LONG BEFORE the resurgence of flat Earth theory, therefore you have offered no reason for anyone to consider flat Earth any more important that the other conspiracy theories I listed, and others.
And in what way do any ET/alien conspiracies relate to flat Earth when flat Earth theory is based upon Earth being the only location for life and hence it claims planets are just lights (luminaries) in the sky and therefore are not even solid!
In other words, flat Earth theory explicitly says creatures from other worlds cannot exist!
Also, knowledge of the Earth being a globe has been around for 2500 years, which from my calculations (😉) suggests that people have known about the Earth being a globe long before the USA existed as a nation :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@theonemorpheous6992 - As an amateur astronomer for around 30 years, I am naturally drawn towards space related conspiracy theories, like Apollo hoax claims, flat Earth, ISS hoax, and so on.
Hence I've been discussing and debunking Apollo hoax claims for over 10 years online, where I own and have read almost all the leading Apollo hoax books, watched all the English language Apollo hoax documentaries, and watched countless Apollo hoax videos here on YT.
As a result, I know for a fact that there isn't a single Apollo hoax claim that holds up to close scrutiny. Instead they ALL fall apart upon close examination without exception.
So yes my friend, I have listened to all the arguments claiming a hoax and they are all proven to be wrong :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@narajuna - The LM was a two part spacecraft, with the Ascent stage stacked on top of the Descent stage, each with their own rocket engine and fuel tank(s), for a GOOD reason as follows...
If anything went wrong and it was certain the LM was going to crash, then the abort procedure could be activated immediately to turn the Ascent stage into an escape capsule, where it would detach and fire it's rocket engine to return the astronauts to the orbiting CSM spacecraft.
That was the point of Apollo 10, where the astronauts flew the LM down to around 8 miles above the lunar surface and then activated the abort procedure, returning the Ascent stage back to the CSM in orbit, leaving the Descent stage to fall until it crashed onto the moon, i.e. they tested the abort procedure before going for a landing in the next mission.
So during Apollo 11, mission control were not "about to turn blue" because they thought the astronauts were moments away from being killed due to low fuel in the Descent stage, they held their breath because they knew they were just seconds away from Neil activating the abort procedure instead of landing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikebennett146 - The ISS has been spotted everyday for over 20 years WORLDWIDE.
There are apps you can download on your phone today that will tell you the exact location of the ISS and will tell you exactly when you would be able to see it pass overhead in your location, hence the date and time and position in the sky.
You can also find apps and sites that will tell you when the ISS will be seen to pass in front of the moon and the sun in your location, called a transit, again providing you with the exact date and time.
Hence I have seen the ISS pass overhead a number of times, as have countess people around the world, where it looks like a VERY bright star moving across the sky with the unaided eye!
Many people have even videoed and photographed the ISS 'satellite' as it passed in front of the moon and sun as predicted, and posted their results on YT.
For example (using the flat Earth believers favorite camera):
Srch YT for; Nikon P900 Captures ISS Lunar Transit
Watch that video and the others found with that srch.
Srch YT for; ISS Solar Transit 24th November 2018 - P900 with a Baader Solar Filter
Watch that video and the others found with that srch.
So the fact that the ISS has been up there for over 20 years and can be seen ALL OVER THE WORLD at the location it's predicted to be and at the exact date and time stated means something IS up there whether you like it or not and confirmed to be travelling at over 17,000 mph.
So denial that something man-made is up there is NOT an answer, neither is any claim that NASA is faking it in a studio or projecting holograms :-)
If you really had the IQ that you claim, then you would have either known the above, or at the very least had the mental capacity to find that information for yourself :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The film is NOT lost, we have ALL the film! Hence you are falling for the classic conspiracy theorist trick where they twist information into something it's not.
Because Apollo 11 was the first mission NASA couldn't guarantee that the live TV broadcast to the world would work, so they recorded their own BACKUP of the moonwalk broadcast just in case.
If the world couldn't watch the moon landing live, then NASA would have processed their BACKUP copy and send the footage out to TV studios worldwide for them to broadcast to their audiences.
But the live TV broadcast DID work, it was successful, where millions of people watched Neil and Buzz on the moon live, and so NASA's BACKUP copy wasn't needed.
That is why NASA's backup was lost, because as far as NASA were concerned TV studios around the world already had the footage and so the tapes with their backup could be reused (as magnetic tapes often were).
It's only decades later when some realized that NASA's backup copy would have been a clearer version of the moonwalk that they realized they should have kept it, but by then it was too late.
So all that was lost is a clearer BACKUP copy of the SAME Apollo 11 moonwalk footage that we've ALL seen.
Nothing else was lost, and nothing was lost from Apollo 12, or Apollo 13 (failed mission), or Apollo 14 or Apollo 15 or Apollo 16 or Apollo 17.
Simply search YouTube for "Apollo EVA" and you'll find hour after hour after hour of footage recorded on the moon during the Apollo missions.
Therefore your claim that "the film has been lost and their is no proof of its existence" is completely wrong, where you got it wrong because you believed the conspiracy theorists who twisted the facts :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bradleysmall2230 - Except you are proving yourself to be a member of the conspiracy CULT.
For example, you parroted the long debunked claim of " they had probs with shuttle when they went to high w radiation.. shuittle was a low earth orbit vehicle"
WRONG, but typical of people like you who blindly believe conspiracy theorists without question.
Space is full of cosmic rays, and when those cosmic rays pass through our eyes then cause flashes to appear, where some astronauts were more sensitive to the flashes than others.
The FIRST astronauts to report seeing those flashes were Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin during Apollo 11, and hence you will find scientific papers published from 1970 onwards about the flashes seen by Apollo astronauts!
The point is, it has nothing to do with the Van Allen belts, it's all about cosmic rays, where the further you are from the surface of the Earth the higher the rate of cosmic rays, until you reach the peak when beyond Earth's magnetic field.
The Space Shuttle's higher orbit during that mission meant the rate of cosmic rays was higher and therefore more noticeable for some of the astronauts, but it's not painful or dangerous, but long term exposure can cause cataracts in later years, hence Google Search: Apollo Astronauts Cataracts, and READ what you find please.
Facts matter my friend, they really do, except to conspiracy theorists and their followers :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stillperfectgenerations5852 - You said "Just watch this!"
Don't take the cowards way out by hiding behind a 1 hour video.
I've proven that your claims are laughable nonsense, because if you think Operation Fishbowl is an attempt to get through the mythical firmament dome as other flat Earth believers claim (using nuclear warheads), then with a rocket taking a nuclear warhead up to 250 miles altitude means;
a) The claimed firmament dome must only be about 250 miles high north of the equator and hence it is WELL BELOW the sun and the moon which are claimed to be circling the Earth 3000 miles up at that SAME location at certain times of the year.
ALL flat Earth models place the dome ABOVE the sun and the moon, none of them place the sun and moon more than 10 TIMES higher than the dome! And...
b) It must be possible to send craft up to 250 miles despite flat Earth theorists claiming it's impossible because space is a hoax.
If space is a hoax and hence nothing can go 62 miles or higher, then how was it possible for Starfish Prime to reach an altitude of 250 miles during Operation Fishbowl? And...
c) If the firmament dome is above the sun and moon as claimed, then if it's possible for a rocket to reach the dome then that means it's possible for a rocket to reach the moon and the sun.
So which ever way you look at if, Operation Fishbowl contradicts EVERY flat Earth model out there, and therefore you should be here saying Operation Fishbowl is a hoax.
Instead, by claiming Operation Fishbowl was real, then you are saying the flat Earth models are wrong (and I still don't know why you even mentioned Operation Dominic with its maximum altitude of just under 15,000 feet).
So make up you mind kid, either Operation Fishbowl is true or your flat Earth is true, it can't be both :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@notallowed337 - Think of it in this way.
When scientists talk about the shape of the universe/space, they are talking about how space could be distorted (curved) or not distorted (flat). It's confusing because they are not talking about a surface when they say flat, only about distortion of space.
For example, if you take a piece of paper (flat surface) and drew two parallel lines on that paper, then the lines would never meet, no matter how large the sheet of paper.
If you take a ball (curved surface), draw a line for the equator and then drew lines that are parallel at the equator, then those lines will meet at the poles.
The angles of a triangle on a flat sheet of paper adds up to 180 degrees.
The angles of a triangle on a ball adds up to more than 180 degrees.
We know this works on the small scale, but does it work on the scale of the universe?
If space is flat, then parallel lines on a flat sheet of paper would still be parallel even if that paper was the size of the universe, and the angles of a triangle drawn on that same flat sheet of paper would add up to 180 degrees even if the triangle filled that universe size sheet of paper.
So far, scientists haven't found any evidence of distortion in space that would cause infinitely long parallel lines to meet (or move apart) or for the angles of an infinitely large triangle to add up to more or less than 180 degrees, and therefore they conclude that space is flat.
Like I said, it's a bit confusing, but when you hear or read "space is flat" translate that to "space is not distorted" and it may start to make sense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@toddpeachey6427 - You said "So I've got no doubt that you've got some globe complication that can be easily figured out.
I do take a look at proofs for the globe if they make some sense."
Great, then please look at my very simple proof below, because I've presented it to many flat Earth believers over the years and none of them have found it to be "easily figured out".
Simply put, if you get hold of a reasonably good 12 inch wide globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the globe or how far apart they are!
For a 9 inch globe of the Earth the scale works out as 34.7 miles per millimetre, so 35 miles is a good enough approximation. And for a 15 inch globe of the Earth it's around 20.8 miles per millimetre, so 21 miles is a good enough approximation on that globe.
It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre.
So please test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first flat Earth believer in history to find a distance flaw in the map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE :-)
The fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is 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
-
@stillmagic5969 - Another unintelligent reply from you (again, I'm sorry but it's true :-|).
ANYONE who has done some acting can be credited as an actor, even if they only made a brief cameo.
Hence numerous sports stars, politicians, musicians, artists, designers, scientists etc, have done some acting and hence are credited as actors, including Stephen Hawking.
What you're saying here is that no matter what someone's career is, the moment they do ANY acting that means they are ONLY actors and not professionals within their usual careers 🙄🙄🙄
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CarlosSanchez-uc4cd - No they didn't my friend, and you're exaggerating a hoax claim :-)
Hoax believers refers to Von Braun's 1953 book "Conquest of the moon" (which I own) where he does indeed talk about a rocket the size of the Empire State Building to get people to the moon and back.
* BUT* Von Braun was talking about single stage rockets only!
That's the popular type of rocket seen in 1950s sci-fi B movies and comic books, where that ONE rocket launches from earth, flies to the moon, lands on the moon, the astronauts have their little 'adventure', the survivors return to the rocket (after conveniently destroying the alien's world), launches from the moon, flies back to Earth, and then lands on Earth in the SAME rocket they started with, ready to be refueled for the next mission.
Von Braun was making the point that such a rocket would not be possible due to the massive size and weight needed to carry the fuel required to make it to the moon and back, therefore OTHER methods are required.
Hence Apollo used MULTI-STAGE rockets, where once a stage burns through all of its fuel, it is then discarded to save WEIGHT. As a result, there is less and less of the rocket/craft remaining throughout the mission, until the only part that is left is the Command Module that lands in the sea with the astronauts on board.
2
-
@CarlosSanchez-uc4cd - The Saturn V rocket and the Space Shuttle and Concorde will never go into service again, that technology is destroyed (i.e. the infrastructure and the services that built, maintained, launched/flew them are all gone!).
That is what was meant by destroying the technology.
Hence just like the Space Shuttle and Concorde, we can find the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Module, the Command Module, Lunar Rovers etc, in space and aeronautical museums.
The Space Shuttle will never fly again, therefore Apollo technology is as "destroyed" as the Space Shuttle and Concorde.
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence NASA's SLS rocket which is due to launch this year, where it is as large and as powerful as the Saturn V rocket it replaces, where it will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth as a test (second test in space for Orion).
In 2024, the SLS rocket will send astronauts on a mission around the moon inside Orion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cameronkrantzman3357 - Instead of being patronising over a subject that you clearly know little about, try focussing on the facts please :-)
For example, regarding rovers on the moon, the USSR landed TWO car-size rovers on the moon in 1970 and 1973 called Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2.
BOTH rovers had a retro-reflector on top, and both had multiple TV cameras to broadcast the footage back to Earth, allowing the USSR's mission control to drive the rovers across the lunar surface, where Lunokhod 2 held the record for decades for the furthest a vehicle had travelled on another world, covering 37 km in 4 months.
So my point is, to those who claim Apollo was a hoax, the USSR had the means to send rovers to the moon AT ANY TIME THEY WANTED, hence could have landed a rover near to ANY of the Apollo landing sites and broadcast the footage back to Earth.
Therefore if the USSR (who had EVERYTHING TO GAIN from exposing a hoax) had even a 0.01% suspicion that the moon landings were a hoax, then they would have sent a rover to one of the landing sites to investigate, and there would have been nothing the USA could do to stop them.
The fact that the USSR never did this because they knew from their OWN knowledge and expertise and tracking of the missions that the USA has beaten them to the moon, says it all.
So what next? The USSR were so stupid that they were fooled by the USA faking sending men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972 (landing during 6 of those missions), or the USSR were in on a conspiracy against themselves? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrisd6976 - You said "yes you’re right that was my bad during the copernican revolution there weren’t any persecuted by church for a globe earth belief. Got me on that one, but that’s it. Even if the globus cruciger did in fact represent our globe, it still wasn’t around until the 5th century like you said"
Thanks, but my point here was only the fact that the Earth being a globe in Christianity goes back significantly further than many suggest, and therefore the popular narrative that Christian churches believed the Earth was flat until about 4-5 centuries ago is wrong.
As you'll notice in my initial reply here, I wasn't attacking you or laughing at you, I was only pointing out the errors.
Since the claim is that Christian churches used to believe the Earth is flat, the emphasis surely must be to present evidence of at least one Christian church stating the Earth is flat back then, and yet I've never found such evidence nor been presented with such evidence during debates.
Yes a large proportion of ordinary Christians may have held that belief at the time, but they are not the Churches.
And just to clarify, here's a quote of what I've often said to those who claim the Bible says the Earth is flat;
"the Bible doesn't explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tomfoley5975 - You still haven't explained why the USSR didn't spot any hoax when they had the technology in place to do so.
That is the only possibility, since the USSR would NEVER sit back and allow the USA to win a massive propaganda coup against communism in front of the entire world over a LIE. Not for ANY reason at ANY time, much less back then!
If the USSR were in on a hoax, then they would have only stopped after performing the same hoax themselves.
Therefore you haven't actually answered my question.
And I've already mentioned their ability to track the spacecraft, but the USSR were able to go one step further.
The USSR landed two remotely controlled car-size rovers on the moon in 1970 and 1973 called Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 (look it up please).
Both rovers had TV cameras and radio antennas, and hence that allowed Lunokhod 2 to be driven 37 km across the lunar surface over a period of 4 months under remote control (thanks to the TV broadcast);
www.robotsvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Lunokhod-2_art.jpg
So if the USSR had even the slightest suspicion of a hoax, no matter how small, then they could have landed a Lunokhod rover at ANY of the Apollo landing sites at ANY time and explored it themselves to be sure, broadcasting the TV images back to Earth, and there would have been nothing that anyone could have done to stop them.
But they never did that because the USSR knew 100% that the USA had successfully landed men on the moon.
You can deny that too, but the fact remains that you've offered nothing to support your arguments, just your unfounded opinions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tomfoley5975 - I have debunked it (even though I'm still wondering why you actually think a non-existent PhD candidate on a conspiracy website equals a credible source).
I provided you with a video that shows the distance in the photos denied by that article when you wear 3D glasses, which was the whole purpose of taking those photos as stereo pairs.
I pointed out the major flaw in that report that lacked any mathemactics to back its claims (just one equation and THAT's it, and yes, I have a degree in mathematics), where to work out the distance you need to know the distance between the stereo pair photos!
If you take a photo, then move 1mm to the side and take another photo, then there would be practically no visible 3D effect when you combine them.
Now repeat that but move the camera 6 or 7cm to the side, about the seperation of our eyes, and you'll get a 3D effect like our own eyes, but that's fine for a room but not good for large distances.
Now repeat that but this time move the camera 2 feet to the side, and you'll get a great 3D efect for distant objects, but it's probably too much for close objects because the seperation may be too much for them.
The point is, if ALL the above examples photographed the same scene, then the 3D effect will be different in EACH, and therefore to work out distances from the photos you would need to know how much the camera shifted between shots!
Oleg's paper NEVER takes that into account, making his so-called analysis worthless, and the lack of mathematics which would be vital for proving his case shows that it was written by someone who clearly doesn't have the PhD.c claimed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 - You said "lso clips of contradictory astronaut testimonials of visibility of stars."
Nope: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnLHEpwQjM&t=277
Feel free to watch that video from the beginning.
You said "Pettis also says he'd go the moon in a nanosecond but the problem is we destroyed the technology and its a painful process to build it back again. What a joke"
Don Pettit saying he would go back to the moon in a nanosecond but we've lost/destroyed that technology, means we no longer have a Saturn V rocket in SERVICE TODAY to get us there, because the Saturn V rocket is retired.
The USA were not able to send people up to the ISS from 2011 to late 2020 because they lost/destroyed that technology, i.e. they no longer had a Space Shuttle to get them there, the Space Shuttle is retired. Finally they have that technology back with Space X rockets.
The world hasn't been able to send 100 people across the Atlantic at supersonic speed since 2003 because we have lost/destroyed that technology, i.e. we no longer have a supersonic passenger plane, Concorde is retired.
Understand it now? Destroyed or lost doesn't mean EVERYTHING is destroyed/lost, it means we don't have it in SERVICE TODAY, i.e. it's gone, lost, destroyed, never to come back.
The Saturn V rocket and the Space Shuttle and Concorde will never go into service again, that technology is lost/destroyed (i.e. the infrastructure and services that built, maintained, launched/flew them are all gone).
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence we will soon have the SLS rocket, due to launch this year, which is as large and slightly more powerful than the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces.
On its debut launch this year, the MASSIVE SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth for its second test in space. And assuming all goes well, then in 2024 the SLS rocket will again take Orion to the moon but this time with astronauts inside.
Those are examples of the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost/destroyed, i.e. taken out of service, and hence in 2024 people will return to the moon.
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 - Your video actually supports my point, since there's a simplistic idea among the makers of such videos that stars should either be visible in space or they shouldn't, where they fail to understand that it's not a black and white issue.
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" -
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 bl@ck 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...".
In the shadow of the Earth during his 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 bl@ck 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 (including your video) ever since people first went into space.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 - So let me complete the job and address your remaining claims from that block of text.
Quote: "The onboard computer was way less powerful than our phones."
Before the Apollo missions, BOTH the USA and USSR landed several craft on the surface of the moon using even less computing power than that available to the Apollo missions.
In 1970, 1972 and 1976, the USSR landed sample return craft (that stood around 12 feet high and weighed about 6 tons) on the moon, called Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24. Each craft collected a tiny sample of moon dust and then returned that sample back to Earth for analysis.
Therefore the calculations required to travel to the moon, then land on the moon and then return to Earth doesn't change just because we stuff people inside the craft, the calculations are exactly the same!
So if it was possible for unmanned craft to land on the moon (and some returned) with less computing power than Apollo, then it was more than possible for men to land on the moon using the superior computing power available to the Apollo missions.
But of course, as a flat Earth believer, you think none of that happened for manned or unmanned spacecraft.
2
-
@bronneberg315 - You said "NASA openly admits they need to figure out how to safely get through the van Allen belts before they can go beyond low earth orbit. But they weren't a problem in the 60's. Weird."
For exposures lasting a few hours, the electrons in Van Allen belt radiation is a problem to electronics, not to people.
The electronics used during the Apollo missions consisted of circuits and wires big enough to be seen with the naked eye, hence they were not effected by the electrons in Van Allen belt radiation.
In contrast, today's electronics consists of circuits that are so tiny that we need very powerful microscopes to see them.
The smaller the circuits/components then the more sensitive they are to radiation, and hence as microprocessors got more powerful over the years by packing more and smaller components into each chip, they became more and more sensitive to radiation in space, especially the Van Allen belts, and so modern electronics need to be radiation hardened and/or properly shielded to protect them.
Simply put, take an early 70s electronic calculator into the Van Allen belts and it would work without problems, whereas your smartphone would crash within seconds.
So the radiation was not a problem for the Apollo spacecraft, but it is a problem for modern spacecraft with their modern electronics, and therefore modern manned spacecraft must be tested in space FIRST to make sure the electronics has been properly protected against the radiation before they risk putting people inside (since their lives will DEPEND upon the electronics working).
Any questions?
2
-
@bronneberg315 - You said "Have you seen the lunar lander? It looks like something to crackheads made in one night with duct tape and gold foil."
The LM was a very strong and sturdy spacecraft, and so to judge it by outside appearance alone is a shortsighted view often seen from those who know nothing about engineering.
Here's a photo of the LM's crew cabin framework during construction, and remember there's the rest of the craft to be built around this;
airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/images/stories/LTAInspect.jpg
Here it is today: www.americanspacecraft.com/images/lunarmod/kcsc/engmod/IMG_2308.jpg
So how is that a tin can or tin foil? That cabin alone is very solid and well constructed.
Now lets add a little more;
airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lunar-module-test-article-lta-1a11d
And lets add even more with many more photos to be found here: goo.gl/e9xT8G
The point is, the LM was a very solid and well constructed craft, where like so many spacecraft it needed additional protection on the outside, such as from the sun and micrometeorites.
Hence it wasn't about how it looks, it was all about what it DOES. The gold foil (mylar + kapton film) reflected away all the heat from the sun, as did the panels of mylar which also acted as micrometeorite shields, where they didn't need to be airtight or aerodynamic because the LM was designed for the vacuum of space, not the dense atmosphere of Earth.
They were not interested in making the LM look great, they were only interested in making sure it WORKED.
If they wanted to fake it, then with YEARS to prepare and a MASSIVE budget, don't you think they would have made the sleekest, most elegant looking, beautifully finished Lunar lander you could imagine, where it would have met all the expectations of an audience used to watching sci-fi films? :-)
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=so3QJLfwRgw
tinyurl.com/qgfw8xy6
tinyurl.com/yutcpl4i
So, all talking about people not being able to see stars at night in airplanes, with the SAME explanations I've given regarding space, where in airplanes there's no light source as bright as the sun to cope with at night and yet many people still have problems.
But search around and you'll find people who, due to conditions in the plane and/or carrying out some of the suggestions mentioned in the links above, were able to see stars during a night flight.
Well gee, so many contradictions, right? :-|
After all, shouldn't EVERYONE be able to see stars on a clear night in an airplane ALL THE TIME?
Why should the lighting inside the airplane (cabin lights), lighting outside the airplane (moon) and other factors effect when we can and cannot see the stars. That shouldn't happen in your opinion, right?
So if we read one person saying he could see stars at night on his flight from Paris to New York, and another person saying he couldn't see stars at night on his flight from Paris to New York, then that's a contradiction that means one or both of them are lying and so they probably never went on that flight. Right? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 - No contradiction, you're just taking descriptive statements with no context, i.e. where on the ISS (which windows), in the sun during the 90 minutes or in the shadow of Earth for 90 minutes, looking towards the sun or away from the sun, ISS light on or off, hands up against the ISS windows or not, etc.
Nothing is known other than brief general descriptions without details, just your bias and ignorant assumptions.
Hence for ALL those people who couldn't see stars on an airplane, by cupping their hands into a cylinder and using that to block out surrounding light, then as long as the moon wasn't in there eyes then they would see stars.
If you want to point out contradictions, then give me two astronauts who describe the same viewing conditions and positions in the ISS (including the location of the sun) but what they saw is different.
If you can't do that, then you have no argument kid.
You said "And I CAN poke holes in a theory without being required to come up with a replacement theory"
No, you claim the Earth is flat, so that's your stated your theory, that's your stated belief, so if you can't explain your theory then that means it is null and void and therefore you're in no position to claim any others are wrong.
So again, present hard evidence of the ISS being a hoax, not your weak "he said she said they said" nonsense, since that is not evidence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lunarisingdotcodotuk - You said "Also, why won't he debate a 'flat earther'?"
For the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people like Eric Dubay.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
[Sigh] :-)
Here's an excellent reply from YouTuber Scott Wallace who addressed that;
Quote: "The crux here is that "technology" can mean (at least) two rather different things: the knowledge of how to make something, or the actual thing that's made. When Don Petit said we've "destroyed the technology", he meant it in the second sense: the actual rockets which were used up, the assembly lines that were dismantled, the tooling that was abandoned, and so forth, as a result of funding being drastically cut after the Moon missions. He probably did not imagine that Moon landing deniers would quote him as meaning that all the knowledge (and blueprints, schematics, etc) were destroyed, which of course was not the case.
"
Hence conspiracy theorists are distorting what Don is saying and hence they are being typically dishonest :-|
The SLS is the 'new' Saturn V. The Orion space capsule is the new 'Command Module', so that 'destroyed technology' is being brought back as NEW technology.
Think about it please :-)
2
-
2
-
@ssrmy1782 - That's a rather simplistic assumption on your part.
Prior to Kennedy's announcement in 1961 for sending men to the moon (which caught the USSR by surprise), scientists in both the USA and USSR expected to be able to send people to the moon in about 20 YEARS.
In other words, on their current budgets, they expected a slow development that would result in a SUSTAINABLE manned moon program.
Instead, Kennedy's race to do it in less than 10 years (despite its success) resulted in an UNSUSTAINABLE manned moon program.
The USSR were forced to compete with the USA in a race that they didn't want, especially the military who saw it as a complete waste of time and money. They wanted rocket engines developed for use in missiles, and so their "moon rocket" was built using smaller rocket engines as a compromise to the military, resulting in the over complicated N1-L3 rocket that never worked.
So with the failure of the N1 the USSR has two choices, either start AGAIN by developing massive rocket engines like the Saturn 5 F-1 engines to build a rocket capable of taking cosmonauts to the moon, which would mean a Soviet moon landing nearer the end of the 70s, or change direction and focus on space stations for the long term and more reliable but smaller rocket engines.
The USSR sensibly choose the latter, since there was nothing to be gained by being second to land on the moon 10 years after the USA with a manned moon program that was not sustainable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chazmax-np4xe - You said "he fact of the matter is that MIT, NASA, Army Research Laboratory and many others assume a "flat non-rotating earth" in their calculations. "
A complete distortion of the facts, where people like the late Rob Skiba made you believe otherwise because like yourself he doesn't understand mathematics :-|
When using mathematics to model something in the real world it is impossible to account for absolutely EVERYTHING, as it's often not needed, therefore assumptions are made depending on the accuracy required, usually to simplify the calculations.
The simplification of the model/calculations is easy to spot in mathematics because they are typically referred to as "ASSUMPTIONS".
For example, Skiba talking about NASA document at 8:10 here; youtu.be/BI1fn4ETGXY?t=490
Right from the start at 8:20 it says and I quote "The two dimensional model for aircraft motion..."
A two dimensional model . A 2D model! 2D! We live in a 3D world, hence right from the start that's a simplified model that represents the world in TWO dimensions ONLY.
So lets go through the list of assumptions;
a. The earth is flat and non-rotating, since the Earth's surface being curved or straight or moving doesn't effect the accuracy aimed for in this 2D model.
b. The acceleration of gravity is constant, which is not the case in the real world (changes with altitude and density of the surface we're over) but the difference is too small to matter in this 2D model.
c. Air density is constant. Again, not the case in the real world where air density (hence pressure) decreases with altitude.
d. The airframe is a rigid body. All aircraft bend and flex due to the forces upon them, but again this simplified 2D model assumes it doesn't.
e. The aircraft is constrained to motion in the vertical plane, due to only 2 dimensions in the model, as oppose to the 3 dimensions of the real world.
f. The aircraft has a symmetry plane (the x-z plane). Again due to 2 dimensions
g. The mass of the aircraft is constant, but in the real world the mass of an aircraft reduces as the fuel is burned.
So if you think that model is proof of NASA saying the Earth is flat, then that same model means NASA is saying the world is 2D, that gravity is constant everywhere, that air pressure is constant everywhere, that aircraft are rigid structures that NEVER bend and flex, that aircraft never reduce in weight as fuel is burned, and so on.
Clearly that's not the world we live in, instead that's a simplified version for the mathematics.
Now do you understand what assumptions are in mathematical models? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@neftu9131 - You said "And can you even prove that this was indeed recorded on film, and wasn't a secret live camera?"
Yes, because ALL the best Apollo footage was shot on film (the 16mm FILM camera capable of 1fps up to 24 fps), where film achieved significantly better QUALITY than ANY of the TV footage broadcast back to Earth.
The Apollo TV footage displays all the classic distortions and defects that we expect from Analog TV broadcast, and the Apollo TV camera used a spinning wheel with red, green and blue filters to create the color image, hence while the overall framerate was 30fps, the color framerate was 10fps.
Hence look at any quick movements in Apollo color TV footage and you will see the red, green and blue images separate on the edged.
Such distortions and defects are not seen in film footage, and hence are not seen in the Apollo rover footage, but are seen in ALL the Apollo TV broadcast footage.
In other words, there are SEVERAL features that highlights the difference between the Apollo film footage and the Apollo video footage, and therefore the fact that you didn't know that is another example of you proving my points perfectly. So thanks again :-)
In future, I suggest you stick to discussing topics that you actually understand.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pantheraleoromanus6241 - Sure, now can you find a source to Eric Dubay actually saying he was preparing to debate Neil, because I can't find that, I can only find third hand claims to that.
Flat Earth conferences have nothing to do with the Flat Earth society, where they are attended by numerous flat Earth believers without controversy, including Eric Dubay followers, and yet never Eric Dubay himself.
The point is, Eric Dubay appears to see other flat Earth theorists as his rivals, people who are taking business away from him, and so he accuses them of being government shills and liars just for stating flat Earth claims that are different to his own (even when HE says he doesn't know).
So when Eric says he doesn't know if the flat Earth has an edge but other flat Earth theorists says there is an edge, then why don't they EVER get together to decide once and for all with debates and investigations?
When Eric says he doesn't know if the flat Earth has a dome and yet other flat Earth theorists says there is a dome, then why don't they EVER get together to decided once and for all with debates and investigations?
Why are ZERO flat Earth theorists willing to have such debates and investigations into clearing up flat Earth discrepancies among them?
See my point? Flat Earth theorists NEVER EVER have those debates among themselves to establish the 'truth' behind the flat Earth they say they believe, so why should any scientist debate any of them when they don't even engage in debates among themselves?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Firstly, what's so special about flat Earth that Neil should debate flat Earth theorists ahead of the conspiracy theorists for SO MANY conspiracy theories which are far bigger and far more popular than flat Earth, such as ET UFOs, alien abductions, moon landings hoax, Chemtrails, etc.
Secondly, the fact that you think you should see the difference in the shape of the Earth from being a perfect sphere in photos says it all.
If you created a perfect model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high (300 cm, or about 10 feet), then it will bulge out slightly at the equator by 1 cm, and hence would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide.
That is an oblate spheroid, but to the naked eye and in photographs and video your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Also, due to the distribution of lands and seas, the Earth actually bulges out a fraction more in the South compared to the North (by about 1 mm on your 300 cm model), hence the pear shape comparison that is too small to be seen with the naked eye, so again your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're believing in lies my friend, since Obama did no such thing. :-)
Firstly, look at NASA's budget over the decades and point out where they were gutted by Obama please;
[Remove the 4 spaces from the link below]
upload . wikimedia . org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
Secondly, in 2004-2005 George Bush announced the cancellation of the Space Shuttle and a new "Constellation program" to take astronauts to the moon and Mars, requiring the development of rockets and space capsules.
The Space Shuttle was scheduled to retire in 2010, and a new rocket from the Constellation program was suppose to be ready for test launches in 2008 and in place to take astronauts to the ISS when the Shuttle retired.
That was the plan and it was widely accepted, including by Obama.
But when Obama came into power, the dismantlement of the Shuttle program was on track, but the rocket to replace it was no where near completion, meaning the USA will need to rely upon Russia to get astronauts to the ISS.
The Augustine Committee in 2009 found that the Constellation program was over budget and well behind schedule, where it could not continue without a MASSIVE increase in funding! And that was at a time of the financial crisis that hit the world!
So it required a change of plan (well duh! :-)).
Hence Obama cancelled the Constellation program, kept the good 'stuff' (such as the Orion space capsule), gave the Shuttle an extra year, and announced a new financially viable program to the moon and Mars, where NASA will focus on deep space missions with a new SLS rocket (due to launch next year), and low Earth orbit would be handed over to PRIVATE companies who through innovation could do it better and cheaper, hence the acceleration in companies like Space X and Blue Origin to develop their rockets and space capsules for the contracts being offered to them by NASA.
As a result, Space X have not only successfully sent supplies to the ISS, but this year the sent two astronauts to the ISS and returned them back to Earth safely, and therefore achieved the plan Obama set out when he came into power.
2
-
@mtebaldi1 - Cut out the rather cowardly denial please (sure, 'cowardly' is perhaps rather too strong, but you're not far from it).
I've shown you NASA's budget over the years, so give me the FIGURES of where NASA's budget had been GUTTED as YOU claim by Obama, i.e. either put up or shut up :-)
Lying to yourself doesn't make your point, it only achieves the opposite and reveals your bias.
And there was no replacement for the Shuttle being build other than a low Earth oribt rocket, which was part of massively expensive Constellation program which proposed a rocket which wasn't going to be ready until YEARS after the Shuttle's due (and original) retirement date of 2010!
So in the month before Obama came into power(i.e. a time when you can't blame him), go ahead and NAME the 'Shuttle replacement' in development and when it was expected to be to launch AT THAT TIME (I'll give you a clue, it was LONG after 2010!).
Therefore to blame Obama for that situation, especially at the time when we had the worldwide financial crisis, is dishonest at worse and ignorant at best.
Instead, thanks to Obama shifting the balance to the private sector, we now have rockets from Space X that recently took astronauts to the ISS and we'll see rockets from other private companies too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DBBMed - But remember, he started off at the planetarium as a tour guide 5 years after qualifying as an astrophysicist. Clearly he was looking for something new and more interesting in his life than just research.
Neil shows a common pattern of many famous and successful people, where they spend much of their lives looking for something beyond the ordinary, often craving fame and fortune, and hence ego and arrogance often comes with that drive :-)
So yes, I know he was wrong about the mountains, but all I'm saying here is that being wrong and making mistakes doesn't make someone an idiot, even if you don't like that person :-)
We probably agree on more things than we disagree, so lets end this discussion and agree to disagree over certain points.
Agreed?
I'll leave the last word to you... so In the meantime, all the best to yourself, your family and your friends in these difficult times.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Also, should Neil (for example) also debate those who claim the Earth is hollow/concave, that the Universe is electric, that the moon is a spaceship, that the Space Shuttle was a hoax, that the ISS is a hoax, that Mars rovers are a hoax, that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth in UFOs, that crop circles are made by aliens, that alien civilizations have been found on Mars and the moon, and so on?
What makes you think flat Earth believers are a special case? :-)
And what has being well spoken got to do with what is actually said?
2
-
@justadudehello4198 - Link: tinyurl.com/yaofv7u3
Book: "The Atlantean Conspiracy (Final Edition)" by Eric Dubay
Quote: "They say "the winner's write history," and it is absolutely true: the most egregious example in modern times has to be the mainstream (mis)understanding of Adolf Hitler and pre-WWII Gremany. Adolf Hitler was actually a vegetarian, animal-lover, an author, an artist, a political activist, economic reformer and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. He enacted the world's first anti-animal cruelty, anti-pollution and anti-smoking laws. Unlike the demonic portrait that history has painted of him, Hitler was beloved by his people and wanted nothing but peace."
Hmmm, so it's poor little Hitler, a peaceful man who has been so cruelly misrepresented by the mainstream, according to Eric.
Go ahead and browse through some of the rest of those pages from Eric's book in the link above.
And how about this: https://www.facebook.com/ericdubaz/posts/eric-dubay-flat-earther-holocaust-denier-httpswwwyoutubecomwatchvqnvqussuqh4-eri/299595257178507/
He's a foul piece of work my friend, regardless of whether you believe his flat Earth claims or not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thomashall9182 - As correctly stated, that rock was given to William Drees by the US ambassador to commemorate the astronaut's visit to the Netherlands;
media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg
That's a photo of the unprotected rock and the description that came with it. So where does it say that rock is from the moon?
ALL the moon rocks given out by NASA as gifts to nations were encased in resin (Lucite) to preserve them, where they were also catalogued and mounted on a plaque. NASA NEVER gave out valuable moon rocks unprotected where they would be exposed to air, water, sweat, coffee spills, micro-organisms, etc.
The museum were warned in 2006 that the rock was highly unlikely to be from the moon because it was given to William Drees just 3 months after Apollo 11 (NASA gave out moon rocks as gifts 1 YEAR after Apollo 11), but they ignored the warning and displayed it as a moon rock.
3 years later that warning was proven to be correct when a visiting geologist saw the rock and IMMEDIATELY knew it can't be from the moon and informed the museum.
The moon rocks given to the Dutch are actually in the Boerhaave museum (in storage), as reported here before the petrified rock story broke in 2009;
youtube.com/watch?v=xNMnPkQZNjk
And remember, that was 2009, 11 YEARS ago, so if NASA were giving out fake rocks then wouldn't you expect more 'fake' moon rocks to have been discovered by now? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tedklampett1737 - You said "if they could do it 50 years ago with no tech like today , mobile phones, internet, they should be able to do it today."
Yes but only IF they build the largest and most powerful rockets in history.
The USA did that back in the 60s with the Saturn V rocket, and have done so again with the even more powerful SLS rocket that recently took the Orion space capsule (designed to carry FOUR astronauts) to the moon and back to Earth, i.e. the Artemis 1 mission.
So the USA have the technology again.
After all, the first supersonic passenger plane Concorde first flew in 1969, a plane capable of taking 100 people across the Atlantic at TWICE the speed of sound, and yet where are the supersonic passenger planes in service today.
If they could do it 50 years ago with no tech like today , mobile phones, internet, they should be able to do it today, right ;-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@taylorbrad111 - So the answer is yes.
Firstly, lets start with the claim of faking the 1/6 gravity.
To this day, no-one has EVER recreated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972). FACT.
Even the most modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
When the popular hoax theorists claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like the nonsense in your video clip where the actor had to move his arms INWARDS to rotate and not once did they simulate 1/6 gravity :-)
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut fake footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it's possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
But here we are around 50 years later and that still hasn't happened, i.e. no-one has demonstrated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio because it is impossible, therefore proving the Apollo footage was filmed in the 1/6 gravity of the moon.
If you think you know of a movie that has achieved it, then name the movie here, with clips to prove your claim :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
...
"Now, nothing seems plainer to me than that the facts are opposed to the theories hence the theories must be wrong, and, if wrong, Zeteticism and the Bible is most likely right; if right, school children should no longer be compelled to believe that which astronomers have long known they cannot prove— a supposition to be a fact."
"We do find some, sorry to say, that cling to the popular error, at the sacrifice of the unpopular truth. While some are declaring that they have nothing to do with the matter, yet we still hear them preaching the Earth a Globe, and are teaching it from their high schools and colleges"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mynamemylastname7179 - Anyway, I have to address this claim from you;
"Mathews B' i,'b, 'l'e 1537 SAYS Flat Earth... 2Smauels 11 11"
No, that verse refers to flat earth meaning flat ground, i.e. earth as in soil, not Earth as in the world we live on.
Here it is in the King James Bible;
"And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing."
So what next? A gardener says he "dug up the earth" and you think he's claiming to have dug up the entire world?
What about grabbing a handful of earth? ;-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nas0ng - You said "Just don’t tolerate stupidity, and assumptions based on “he attacked my hero...derp...duh...if he don’t believe NdGs lies he must believe the earth is flat!”"
Which is an example of the stupidity and assumptions that you claim to not tolerate, so less of the hypocrisy please.
This has nothing to do with hero worship, this is about trying to find out who posted the comment and why.
Sure I didn't read your comment as fully as I should, that's my fault for skimming, but whenever I encounter someone new I like to know where they're coming from, and one way is to check their channel, for which I found you were subscribed to "FLAT EARTH BROTHERS".
Now 99.99% of the time such a channel name would indicate a flat Earth channel, and hence a subscription would indicate a flat Earth believer, hence my question, for which all you had to do was say no and (if you wanted) explain why.
As for Neil, I see nothing wrong. Sure he makes mistakes, especially when relying upon analogies to get a point across to a wide audience on a broad range of subjects, but at least he tries.
If many more scientists were doing what Neil is doing then there will be far more for accessible scientists for the average person to listen to, making the errors of one scientist less of an issue, and perhaps we would then have less gullible people blindly believing everything they see and hear in conspiracy videos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Flat earth expert? Eric Dubay? The guy who says he doesn't know if a flat Earth has an edge and doesn't know if a flat Earth has a dome? R i g h t :-)
Also, Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DSC_Racing - You said "Kubrick shot 2001: Space Odyssey a year before which led him to be selected."
If NASA wanted to fake Apollo footage, why would they choose the director of "2001" to do it instead of the special effects expert for "2001" who made those effects possible, i.e. Douglas Trumbull? You know, the special effects expert for "2001" that NONE of the Kubrick hoax believers ever mentions :-)
Think about that please :-)
Also, Watch the following two part video (10 minutes each) that lists ALL the problems with the "2001" moon scenes;
YouTube Title: Kubrick, 2001, and Apollo (pt 1)
YouTube Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNbeN_V_NNw
YouTube Title: Kubrick, 2001, and Apollo (pt 2)
YouTube Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK3Jnl6Zyhk
In the scenes shown in part 2 in particular, notice that no attempt is ever made to simulate 1/6 gravity for 'astronauts' on the lunar surface.
Instead, the actors are made to walk slowly with precise steps, with ZERO signs of 1/6th gravity throughout.
So yeah, the perfect 'cv' for faking Apollo footage 🙄
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Your reply shows why people like yourself are SO EASILY fooled by conspiracy theorists.
The size of objects in photos depends on many factors, such as the field of view of the lens and magnification, hence the moon ranges from a tiny dot to filling the picture, for example;
Google Image Search: Full Moon Photography
The same applies to the Earth in photos taken from the moon, where its size will depend on the camera settings and lens used.
Hence look at the size of the full moon in this photo, and notice how much bigger it appears in the camera shown due to its settings!
Google Image Search: adambutlerphotography IMG_6813sm.jpg
Click on the first image found showing a camera and the moon near the horizon.
Look at the moon in that photo again and remember that the Earth is 3.7 times wider, so if that same camera was on the moon taking a photo of the Earth then the Earth would be 3.7 times wider than the tiny moon seen in that photo!
That's far from looking enormous, and far from looking any different to Earth in numerous Apollo surface photos like this one;
Google Image Search: as17-134-20387.jpg
Wouldn't you agree? :-)
So if you want to believe the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion, but why should that mean you must blindly believe Apollo hoax claims without question, no matter how wrong or how ridiculous they are?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@conradlamoureux4557 - In the same way that the record breaking supersonic passenger plane Concorde (which flew at TWICE the speed of sound) couldn't just fly up into low Earth orbit, because it wasn't designed with that capability!
To send a spacecraft to the moon requires a powerful rocket to break away from Earth's gravity (reaching speeds of around 25,000 mph).
The heavier the spacecraft then the larger and more powerful the rocket required.
Unmanned spacecraft don't require life support systems, or food, or spaces large enough for people to live in, and hence are small and light enough for today's rockets to get them to the moon and beyond.
The spacecraft needed to get people to the moon and back alive are MASSIVE compared to unmanned spacecraft and therefore require a MASSIVE rocket to accelerate to 25,000 mph to break free from Earth's gravity.
The only working rocket in history that was large and powerful enough to do that was the Saturn V, which was designed and built for that task thanks to the huge increase in NASA's budget back then, as you can see here;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
Now look up the SLS rocket due to launch at the end of this year.
That rocket is as large and as powerful as the Saturn V rocket that got men to the moon, and so assuming all goes well with the SLS launch, then THAT is the rocket that will return people to the moon in 2024.
I hope that information helps :-)
Would you like me to show you absolute proof that the flag waving has nothing to do with wind?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mysticnomad3577 - You cried "do you think you are on a spinning pear globe as Neil told you".
Thank you for proving you can't think for yourself so perfectly :-)
Here's an example of where the pear shape reference came from;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OeWTrEA5fE
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere"
So which part of "practically a perfect sphere" do you not understand son?
Therefore Neil did NOT say the Earth literally looks like a pear, he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
Next?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Smoking gun?
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? ;-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@universalchiro - Thank you for proving my point, including the fact that you still don't know what "trolling" means (look it up and return once you've understood it).
You said "The etymology of the word science means to know, knowledge of something"
So go ahead and present a link to the etymology of the words 'Bible' or 'Religion' or 'Christianity' etc, and find one that means and I quote: "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information".
Hence you cherry picking definitions of science while conveniently offering no comparable links for religion doesn't make your case, it only proves mine.
Lets take the definition of religion from that SAME website for example;
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=religion
Please quote where it states anything that can be compared to science.
Hence your claim that "Science means to know. The Bible teaches us to know God, how things began, how life began, how the atmosphere formed, how to treat life, and so much more" is laughable, since the Bible is based upon FAITH, it is not based upon facts.
In other words, as I said from the start "Religion is not science. Science is not religion".
So if you really need to convince yourself that the Bible is science, then such desperation shows your faith is very weak indeed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here's a few quotes from Nikola Tesla that YOU can find yourself, where he confirms the Earth is a globe;
"I may state, that even waves only one or two millimeters long, which I produced thirty-three years ago, provided that they carry sufficient energy, can be transmitted around the globe"
"Invariably it was found that these waves, just as those in the air, follow the curvature of the Earth and bend around obstacles"
" At 3600 m.p.h the plane travels about 19,500 miles. Earth's rotation adds 5500 to the total"
"Each of them will be preferably located near some important center of civilization and the news it receives through any channel will be flashed to all points of the globe"
"to utilize the heat contained in the earth, the water, or the air for driving an engine. It is a well-known fact that the interior portions of the globe are very hot"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cactine No problem my friend :-)
I'll copy and paste part of a reply I posted to someone else recently;
"Getting people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.*
Back then, the American's built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the Soviets built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the Soviets didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program and are working towards building their own Saturn V class rocket for their future manned moon landings."
Today America has that capability again with the SLS rocket, where it will take the Orion to the moon and back in a few months to test both the rocket and space capsule.
If that mission is successful, then the SLS will take people back to the moon by 2025. However if that mission is a failure, then depending on the issue they will be unlikely to return until years after 2025.
Lets see what happens this year :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@messagesfrmthestars - No problem, but remember, evidence isn't all about debunking conspiracy claims :-)
Anyway, if we take the classic conspiracy claim of the 'flag waving in the wind', people only think that's happening because conspiracy theorists told them. But here are the facts:
To hold the flag upright, a crossbar went through a hem at the top of the crumpled nylon flag and was attached to the flagpole.
You can see the crossbar in this Apollo photo, including a stopper at the end to prevent the flag from slipping off;
https://pixy.org/src/36/369031.jpg
The flag only 'waves' because the astronauts move the flagpole that the nylon flag is attached to.
As demonstrated by MythBusters here;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhab86KoVjU
I hope that helps :-)
The point is, if conspiracy theorists were really interested in the truth, then THEY would have known the above, it wouldn't require someone like myself to explain it.
So if conspiracy theorists can be so wrong about a little thing like the flag, then imagine how wrong they are about other things? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@koba2322 - You said "That’s it, clearly you don’t want to have the rest of our generation be helped because you clearly don’t care about them so that’s on you"
Oh sure kid, because the countless replies I've posted over the years debunking flat Earth claims in so many flat Earth videos is a perfect example of me not caring right? :-)
So get over yourself p[lease, because the fact that you fell for Eric's 'mad' act (like someone pretending to be disappointed about the cancellation of something they didn't want to do in the first place) is a perfect example of how people like Eric manipulated others into believing the Earth is flat.
Scientists and ordinary people like myself and "Frankie and Benjy Mouse" and many other 'debunkers' can only put the information out there for people like yourself to read, but we cannot force it down your throats to make you understand, you must WANT to read it and understand it yourself, you must WANT to listen and to learn.
In other words, it is not the responsibility of scientists to find a cure for 'stupid', but they can (and they do) provide the means for people to cure themselves of stupidity :-)
(Btw, I'm not calling you stupid my friend, in case my last paragraph comes across that way)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aarongerisch9618 - Lets ask the experts on the bible shall we? :-)
As I said, believing the Earth is flat is non-Christian (I used to say it's anti-Christian, but I feel that's too harsh a term to use upon reflection). As I will now explain...
...Christian churches for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE (that is a fact!). None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe.
Even Creationists, i.e. those who take the Bible LITERALLY, say the Earth is a GLOBE! Go to a Creationist website and search for 'Flat Earth' for example, but you may not like what you find there. In fact, some Creationists go as far as claiming the flat Earth is an atheist conspiracy to discredit Christians and Christianity.
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1633 for daring to say the GLOBE Earth orbited the sun, when at the time all the Christian churches 'knew' that the sun and the rest of the universe revolved around the GLOBE stationary Earth!
So who should I believe when it comes to the Bible? Nearly 2000 YEARS of Christian churches who say the Earth is a GLOBE? All the biblical scholars from those churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts to produce ALL the Bibles you've ever read who say the Earth is a GLOBE? The Creationists who take the Bible literally who say the Earth is a GLOBE? Over 2 BILLION Christians worldwide who say the Earth is a GLOBE? Or some random people on the internet who claim the Bible says the Earth is flat? :-)
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, it has never been and never will be. Therefore if you believe ALL the Christians above are wrong or lying about the shape of the Earth and hence you insist the Bible says it's flat against all Christian beliefs, then you are not a true Christian my friend. Sorry, but it's true :-|
2
-
@pascalthe8th66 - That's irrelevant, is Neil suppose to go out there and directly debate every prominent space related conspiracy theorist out there? From flat Earth, to ISS hoax, to moon landing hoax, to Mars mission/rover hoax, to Space Shuttle hoax, to hollow/concave Earth, etc?
So it's up to Eric Dubay to contact the shows and make the necessary arrangements, it's not for others to go chasing after him.
You said "I would guess they wouldn’t want him on because he would probably make them look silly."
On the contrary. If you read through his "200 proofs Earth is not a spinning ball" then not only will you find multiple contradictions in his claims, but you will also find claims that are SO EASY to debunked because they are either lies or are so idiotic that Eric will be the person made to look like a fool :-)
Seriously, you really can't see any flaws in Eric's "200 proofs" eBook?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@themarlawnpodcastnetwork - A ball is not specifically a perfect sphere, a ball CAN be a perfect sphere but a ball can ALSO be distorted, just like golf balls, rugby balls, American footballs, tennis balls, cricket balls, soccer balls, baseballs, beach balls, etc.
They are not perfect spheres, no-one says they have to be perfect spheres, but they are all balls, where except for the rugby and American footballs then can all be described as spheres or globes.
And go ahead and do a quick image search for "round pear" and then explain to me how you think a cube is closer to a ball than those round pears.
For example, there's the 'Olympic Asian Pear'.
I look forward to your explanation :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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 it's the right thing to do.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I listed above)? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@steely1neverwane - The video you provided is an opinion piece which is skewed towards certain sciences (mostly medicine and environment) and uses the selected examples to infer that this devalues science (hence the crises) and this somehow applies to all science, which is nonsense.
The whole point being missed is that science is self correcting, hence if an erroneous paper is published, then at some point it will be called out by other scientists spotting flaws in the methodology, and/or analysis, and/or conclusions. Something that doesn't happen with conspiracy theories.
So again, I go by the results, where the results are all around us, including everything that makes this communication possible.
After all, this topic video is about the shape of the Earth, so please point out where a published scientific paper is lying about the Earth being a globe, and that the scientists involved were paid to lie :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To add to Josh's excellent reply, Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims (including the conspiracy theories that you don't believe yourself) then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists.
But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@200_3.6VVT - You said " Even the first photos from the Mars Rover came back as fakes taken in Alaska, and had a red filter put over it."
Nope, which is why despite nearly 50 years of Mars photos, resulting in thousands upon thousands of images, no-one has ever matched the landscape to an exact location here on Earth (i.e. photo taken on Earth showing EXACTLY the same hills and mountains as an image from Mars).
You said "But WAY to much evidence has come back showing it was all faked"
EXACTLY the same argument made by flat Earth believers about the Globe being a fake, a lie, a conspiracy.
It's the same pattern with ALL conspiracy believers, where you ALL claim there's way too much evidence proving your conspiracy belief is true. ALL of you say that :-)
You said "I really truly wish we have walked on the moon"
No you don't, because if that was true then you would look for the FACTS even if they contradict your conspiracy beliefs.
In other words, if what you claim was true, then you would be able to say (at the very least) "I think the moon landings were a hoax, but I KNOW this specific hoax claim is wrong and I KNOW that specific hoax claim is wrong".
But none of you ever do that, instead you parrot EVERY hoax claim as if it's fact and you refuse to see it any other way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dubvtrainman1869 - You said "oh yes I have my friend. However contrary to popular belief I do believe we went to the moon."
I'm pleased about the latter, but I must address the former :-)
I made that comment because photographs and videos are not the same to fake because there's a huge difference between still photos and video/film.
Hence there isn't a single photographed event in history (Apollo included) for which we cannot recreate the photos of that event in a studio, but... to this day, no-one has EVER recreated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity, not appearance) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it's possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Until then, it is a proven fact that it is impossible to fake the Apollo footage in a studio, unless that studio is on the moon :-)
In other words, being able to fake the Apollo photographs is irrelevant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deemann894 - No problem and thank you specifying the Bible you read, however my point still remains for Isaiah 40:22, because there's a good reason why some Bibles say circle, some say sphere, some say globe etc.
The Hebrew word being translated by all those Bibles is the word 'chug' which means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).
So circle, globe, sphere and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various bibles.
Simply put, 'chug' does not mean a flat circle.
Also, Job 22:14 uses the same Hebrew word 'chug', for example from the KJV Bible "...and he walketh in the circuit of heaven", where other Bibles say "vaulted heavens", "circuit of heaven", "vault of the sky" etc.
So multiple meanings for the same word, where it comes down to the translation and interpretation.
Btw, which church produced the King James 1611 Bible?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theluckycharms81592 - You said "to settle this once and for all?"
NOTHING would be settled my friend! :-)
Even if you took Eric Dubay into space and he SEES the globe Earth with his own eyes and returns saying "Yeah, I was wrong guys, Earth really is a globe", do you really think flat Earth believers would just say "Well gee, I guess that's it then, Earth is a globe after all!".
Nope, they will cry out "Liar!", "Shill!", "How much did they pay you Eric?", "How much did they threaten you Eric?", "Traitor!" etc.
That's the mindset of conspiracy believers :-)
1
-
@theluckycharms81592 - So Neil not debating them is the right thing to do.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to the theorists for other conspiracy claims out there, some of which I've listed above, where some are FAR more widespread and FAR more popular for longer than the comparatively recent flat Earth 'fad' :-)
1
-
@theluckycharms81592 - You said " but doing so will prove he's a fraud causing him to lose his followers, which is where he gets all his power."
Again it would make no difference to the flat Earth followers, because they would only see him as a fraud AFTER he changed his mind, not flat Earth as a fraud, and hence would simply continue with their FE beliefs and just listen to other flat Earth theorists (which they currently do anyway).
You said "You act as if we're all delusional or idiotic..."
Wait, lets stop there please... "WE"? Who are "WE" please? Flat Earth believers? :-)
You said "I'm just critical of eveything, even more so when one side (the educated side, round earth) seem to run away and hide from debates from the other. (Supposedly the idiots, flat earths)"
That's completely false, where that assumption comes from a less than objective outlook my friend.
In what way are you critical of flat Earth please? Can you give me an example?
The key point here is; You still haven't offered any reason why Neil should treat flat Earth theorists as a special case for debate, ahead of theorists of other claimed 'conspiracies' that are significantly more widespread and significantly more popular than flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertbaughner2760 - You NOW claim "NASA has paid the Russian space agency billions of dollars to ferry astronauts to the space station. With today's technology, NASA cannot duplicate the power of the Saturn V"
Now look at NASA's budget over the years and tell me that you can't see what made it possible for NASA to build massive rockets like the Saturn V and what caused that to stop, hence ending the missions;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
To get people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history, which NASA achieved in the 60s with the Saturn V rocket thanks to Congress increasing their budget to a peak of 9 times normal to make it happen. (as YOU CAN SEE in the graph above).
Once Congress felt it was "mission accomplished", they withdrew all the extra funding for NASA and so no more Saturn V rockets could be built, resulting in the end of the Apollo program (the planned missions Apollo 18 to 20 had to be cancelled!).
But now look up the SLS rocket being built by NASA/Boeing and due to launch next year (after many delays)
The SLS is as large and as powerful as the 60s Saturn V rocket, and hence that's the massive rocket that will return people back to the moon in 2024.
The original plan was to send people into orbit around the moon in 2024 and then land on the moon 3 or 4 years later.
However, the Trump administration have pushed for a moon landing as early as 2024, instead of 2027/2028, which is an unnecessary risk (what's the rush?).
But now that Trump has lost and the USA has Biden for president, don't be surprised if they return to the original plan of lunar orbit missions from 2024 and THEN a mission to land in 2027/2028.
So onto your next gish-gallop...
1
-
@robertbaughner2760 - You said "They can't solve the problem of space radiation today yet they supposedly solved it over fifty years ago?"
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space during the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertbaughner2760 - [Sigh] You know, I left you with the last word because you said "We will see if...", and yet you still came back 12 hours later to add more? 🙄 :-)
The fact is, to this day, no-one has EVER recreated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even the most modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which again wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
However, if some person or team successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates their own uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because they would have PROVEN it is possible to fake the Apollo footage.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were fake, it would only mean it is possible to fake the footage seen.
But here we are around 50 years later and that hasn't happened, i.e. no-one has demonstrated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio because it is impossible, therefore proving that the Apollo footage was filmed in the 1/6 gravity of the moon :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FutureCivilWarHero - So here's the key point that you're missing...
...Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
Neil has made the point several times before that such debates only gives conspiracy theorists the publicity they seek, it has nothing to do with science.
Now if Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists like Eric Dubay, but that's not the case.
Therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xMidan - I've been a practicing amateur astronomer (well, on and off) since the mid 70s, and so I know the moon is a globe orbiting the globe Earth that orbits the globe sun along with the other planets (with and without moons of their own) based upon astronomical facts and observations.
Those astronomical facts have nothing to do with any political world views.
That's my area of knowledge (together with my mathematics degree), and so that's the position I argue from on topics like this. Nothing more and nothing less.
I don't pretend to be an expert in chemistry, geology, biology, meteorology, botany, etc, and so lumping it all together into 'science' and then attacking others on that basis is misguided and hence wrong :-|
If you read my arguments in this thread then you'll see it's all about the facts, it is not about political views.
So the only 'gotcha' you've achieved here is with yourself :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@malceum - NONE are deleted by YouTube for no reason, they are deleted for the reasons I mentioned (including someone breaking YouTube rules and hence having their channel taken down).
You said "However, youtube/google hides the skeptic videos from the search engine."
Nothing is hidden, they simply doesn't have the inflated prominence that they once had.
A few years ago, YouTube changed the algorithm to prevent conspiracy videos from completely dominating search lists as they were for several years!
In other words, if a few years ago I searched YT for "Apollo missions", then instead of a list mostly about men landing on the moon, that list would be completely dominated by 'Apollo is fake' videos, which is unacceptable!
Since the changes however, such a search is now dominated by videos about the Apollo missions, as requested!
So now if you want to find conspiracy videos (moon landings, FE, ISS fake, etc) then you have to be more specific in your search, which is not that difficult.
That's closer to how it should be and hence YT have simply redressed the balance, i.e. you have to wade through pages of debunking videos today just as I had to wade through pages of conspiracy videos back then.
Whether it's gone too far depends on your conspiracy point of view of course, where an argument can be made that further adjustments need to be made to the search algorithm, but the conspiracy videos and links are all still there, we just have to work harder and smarter to find them compared to a few years ago.
Therefore it's not the censorship you claim, since nothing has been deleted, it's just not as easy for you to find as it was before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Only those who do no research themselves would think that, but here are the facts that you couldn't be bothered to find out for yourself;
The pear-shape analogy came from the following;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OeWTrEA5fE
I'll break it down for you;
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
So Neil didn't say the Earth literally looks like a pear (which was just an analogy off the top of his head), he said the Earth is an oblate spheroid that is a fraction wider below the equator than above the equator (hence the pear reference), but the difference is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
But as always, conspiracy theorists quote mine and cherry pick and hence distort what Neil was saying, and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonyontv - You said " you say “all” but the only claims you look into are ridiculous ones that everyone agrees is false, like the two suns theory."
No, I've been a practicing amateur astronomer for over 30 years and I've been debating and debunking Apollo fake claims online for over 10 years, where there isn't a single claim that I haven't discussed at some time over those years.
So I'll put to you the same challenge I put to other conspiracy believers;
To prove a conspiracy theory you only need to find ONE piece of evidence that holds up to scrutiny to prove there's something behind the conspiracy claims.
So go ahead and state what you consider to be the BEST evidence that the moon landings were faked and lets discuss it here. Just ONE claim please, the BEST one, the STRONGEST evidence in your opinion that is indisputable proof of the claim that men didn't land on the moon.
If choosing just ONE claim is too difficult for you, then fair enough, instead please select your top three BEST evidence, the BEST three conspiracy claims, and no more than that, and lets see if your best claim(s) holds up to close scrutiny.
I look forward to your selection :-)
1
-
@anthonyontv - You said " the best claim I would have is they went on record saying they destroyed all the technology/information of how they got to the moon back then"
Because they never said that, instead only conspiracy theorists claim that by distorting what NASA said (so come on, really :-|).
Lets start with the destroyed technology claim.
Losing/destroying the technology is about not having the craft in service TODAY, it's not about losing or destroying the hardware or the plans or the knowledge!
Hence Concorde is lost technology, it will never go into service again. The Space Shuttle is lost technology, it will never go into service again. Likewise the Apollo Saturn V rocket is lost technology, it will never go into service again. And so on.
All the above can be said to be lost/destroyed, they will never go into service again, and yet we can find ALL those craft and more in aeronautical and science museums.
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence NASA will soon have the SLS rocket in service, which is as large and slightly more powerful than the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and they have the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces. Therefore the SLS is the new 'Saturn V', and Orion is the new 'Apollo Command Module'.
On its debut launch this year, or early next year the MASSIVE SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth (for Orion's second test in space). And assuming all goes well, then in 2024 the SLS rocket will again take Orion to the moon but this time with astronauts inside.
Those are examples of the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost or destroyed, i.e. taken out of service, and hence in 2024 people will return to the moon.
1
-
@anthonyontv - None of the information is lost or destroyed, where the Apollo moon landings are some of the most documented space missions in history with ALL the information made public (hence all that information is available online),
Regarding comparing the processing technology to modern PCs...
Before the Apollo missions, BOTH the USA and USSR landed several craft on the surface of the moon using even less computing power than that available to the Apollo missions.
In 1970, 1972 and 1976, the USSR landed sample return craft (that stood around 12 feet high and weighed about 6 tons) on the moon, called Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24. Each craft collected a tiny sample of moon dust and then returned that sample back to Earth for analysis.
Therefore the calculations required to travel to the moon, then land on the moon and then return to Earth doesn't change just because we stuff people inside the craft, the calculations are exactly the same :-)
So if it was possible for so many unmanned craft to land on the moon (and some returned) with less computing power than Apollo, then it was more than possible for men to land on the moon using the comparatively superior computing power available to the Apollo missions.
1
-
@anthonyontv - You said "That video is now extremely hard to find because of YouTube started censoring videos like that back around in 2017-2018"
There is no censorship my friend.
YT changed the algorithm in 2017/2018 to prevent conspiracy videos from completely dominating search lists as they were for several years!
In other words, if in 2016 I searched YT for "Apollo missions", then instead of a list mostly about men landing on the moon, that list would be completely dominated by 'Apollo is fake' videos, which is not acceptable!
After the changes however, such a search is now dominated by videos about the Apollo missions, as requested!
But those changes also meant if you want to find conspiracy videos (moon landings, FE, ISS fake, etc) then you have to be more specific in your search, i.e. you have to work harder.
That's closer to how it should be and hence YT have simply redressed the balance, i.e. you have to wade through pages of debunking videos today just as I had to wade through pages of conspiracy videos back then.
Whether it's gone too far depends on your conspiracy point of view of course, where an argument can be made that further adjustments need to be made to the search algorithm, but the conspiracy videos and links are all still there, you just have to work harder and smarter to find them compared to a few years ago.
Therefore again it's not censorship since nothing has been deleted, it's just not as easy for you as it was before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@youcanfoolmeonce - REPOSTED:
I forgot this video doesn't allow links
All you've provided here are arguments from incredulity and ignorance, where's your evidence?
For example, you said "There were six perfect landings on the moon according to the fake story, with vehicles that weren't successfully tested here on Earth!"
In what way were they not tested? Oh wait, you're one of those who naively thinks that ONE crash of a test vehicle means it was never flown successfully, right? That means nothing was tested to you, right? :-)
So lets look at the Lunar Module, i.e. the LM.
When training to fly the Apollo Lunar Module, the vehicles used by the astronauts on Earth were the Lunar Lander Training Vehicles (LLTV) and prior to that, the Lunar Lander Research Vehicles (LLRV). And before flying those vehicles, the astronauts had to know/learn how to fly helicopters.
Like ALL flying vehicles, something can go wrong causing a crash. It happened to Neil Armstrong just ONCE and yet moon hoax believers like yourself use that ONE incident to claim they didn't work, saying Neil's flight was the one and only attempt and it failed! Does that really sound logical to you?
Here's the video of Neil's crash where he ejected from the LLTV;
Apollo 11: Neil Armstrong Lunar Landing Test Vehicle (LLTV) Crash (May 6, 1968):
Search YouTube for: tUJDbj9Vp5w
(Neil Armstrong ejects from lunar trainer, seconds before it crashes)
The reality was, hundreds of flights were carried out in those vehicles by Apollo astronauts during training, that's how they learned to fly the LM!
There are many videos showing the LLRV and LLTV flying, including taking off and landing during training, eg look at the following take-off and landing footage;
Search YouTube for: 1D4GIM2bEbg
(Lunar Lander Research Vehicle)
It even featured in the TV series "I Dream of Jeannie" with the late Larry Hagman;
Search YouTube for: lzMB6nmPg9g
(I Dream of flying bedstead)
There are many more examples if you search YouTube for: "LLRV LLTV"
The real Lunar Module was designed to work in space, not on Earth, where it was fully tested in low earth orbit during Apollo 9 and around the moon during Apollo 10 where it was piloted down to about 8-10 miles above the lunar surface.
So the claim that those vehicles never flew successfully on earth and the claim that the LM (and other Apollo craft) was never tested is completely false my friend.
1
-
@youcanfoolmeonce - So as I've shown, the vehicles WERE tested and they even had a trial run with Apollo 10 where they did EVERYTHING except land, where at around 8 miles above the lunar surface they tested the ABORT procedure to return to the orbiting Command and Service Module, hence EVERYTHING was tested and ready for the first full attempt with Apollo 11.
And I'm not sure why you would say "once on the moon, what could they find 10 miles from the landing spot that they couldn't get a hundred feet from the LEM?"
The LM is the landing spot, and during Apollo 17 for example they reached a maximum distance of 4.7 miles from the LM in the rover (they purposely stayed close enough to the LM to make it back on foot should the rover fail).
Just like on Earth, the larger the area surveyed, then the more that can be found. The assumption that everything that could be discovered should be within 100 feet is incredibly naive and hence far from the 'logic' that you spoke of. For example: 35:46
Hence by covering a large area with the rover, they found rocks and dust/soil that were different to those found at the LMs (well duh), and by recording what was found and where it was found allowed geologists to build up a better 'picture' of the moon's surface.
So as I said, no evidence from you, no logic, no education, only arguments from incredulity and ignorance.
Facts matter my friend, they really do, therefore try seeking the facts yourself instead of listening to conspiracy theorists and blindly believing everything they tell you :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dennisking4589 - You said " I do not think one would exist unless someone endeavored to do so"
An exceptionally weak argument even by your standards, where you have just admitted that no such flat map of a flat Earth exists!
A flat map is a 2D representation of a specific area, and so for the flat map to be accurate the size of the area doesn't matter if it's generally flat throughout.
Therefore the area mapped could be just 10 meters by 10 meters, or 10 miles by 10 miles, or 100 miles by 100 miles, or a 1000 miles by 1000 miles, or 10000 miles by 10000 miles, and so on.
If it's flat, then we can represent that entire flat area accurately with a flat map because the shape is essentially the same, i.e. flat.
Our entire Earth has been mapped, therefore if the Earth was flat then the map of the entire Earth would be flat and ACCURATE without distortion.
A map of a flat Earth should ONLY be distorted if wrapped around a different shape, such as a globe, and yet a globe is the ONLY shape where the map of the Earth is not distorted (as my proof shows)!
You said "..in fact...YOU could with a simple software program"
WRONG, since it is mathematically impossible to wrap a flat surface around a globe without distortion or to flatten the surface of a globe without distortion, hence computers can't get around that fact.
1
-
@dennisking4589 - You said "YOU must provide evidence it is a globe....and a map made to represent mathematical equations is not proof, it is a representation of math by image."
Again a very weak argument from you based upon wilful ignorance and denial (sorry but it's true :-)).
Everything you've said there applies to accurate flat maps of our cities, and yet even someone with a low IQ can understand that no mathematical equations are required to accurately work out distances on that flat map, since it's just the city layout on a smaller scale.
If ALL distances measured on that flat city map are correct and hence no-one can find any errors, then that proves the flat map is accurate and undistorted, therefore the entire map is correct.
Can anyone wrap that city map around a globe without distorting it? NO! Just doing that will bring north and south and east and west closer together and therefore the map will be distorted and therefore distances measured will be wrong.
The accuracy of globes of the Earth would be IMPOSSIBLE is the Earth was flat, because it is mathematically impossible to wrap a flat surface all around a globe without distortion.
The map of the Earth around a globe is not distorted, it is correct, therefore that proves the Earth is a globe whether you like it or not. Get over it, or around it if you prefer ;-)
When you can present a flat map of the entire Earth that is accurate and undistorted, only THEN can you argue that the Earth is flat.
Come back if you ever find such a map :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sara75-p3v - Thank you, but it seems you're basically taking little bits and pieces from various flat Earth theories and then making up the rest of it as you go along :-|
For example, you said and I quote "At the same time, the entire earth is also in an inclined motion, with seasonal changes of spring, summer, fall, and winter."
EVERY flat Earth theory claims the flat Earth is stationary, it doesn't move in any way at all, so where did you get the idea of a flat Earth in motion?
The only exception I can recall is from the Flat Earth Society where they claimed gravity is the result of the flat Earth accelerating upwards, but that's all.
So which flat Earth theorist says the Earth is in an inclined motion please?
As for "one bowl sky , one bowl earth", where did you get that idea from?
Which flat Earth theorist has ever said 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
-
@danielburger1775 - Wrong, NASA's achievements are proven facts, hence they are historically and scientically accepted as facts, therefore if you dispute those established facts then the burden of proof is upon YOU.
For example, if someone comes here claiming 2+2=5 or says the Earth is flat, then the burden of proof is on that person, it is not for me to prove 2+2=4 or prove the Earth is a globe, since those are established facts, whether you accept those facts or not.
See how it works yet? :-)
But regardless, let me take you up on your demand, where you asked "Can you prove that ANYTHING NASA has ever done is real?"
Yes I can, lets take the now retired Space Shuttle and the current ISS as examples, where both can be proven.
But first, please give me your reasons why you deny the Space Shuttle and the ISS and I'll present the evidence that proves you wrong :-)
Surely that fair?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@codetech5598 - 1) Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielswish41 - You said "so please, I am curious to know: what is the difference between the definition of the word theory, and the word theory, when it comes to science. Are you serious hahah"
Come on, really? After a 10 second search on the internet;
Quote "Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing."
Quote "Does theory mean something different in science?
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts."
Quote "The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid."
Seriously, why couldn't you find that yourself instead of just laughing?
1
-
1
-
@papalegba6796 - ..if I copy and paste one of my olde replies....
Data on magnetic tape that needed to be kept, such as telemetry data, was always printed out as a hard copy (a standard procedure worldwide for decades for permanently storing data held on magnetic tapes) and the tapes often reused, which was the purpose of those magnetic tapes.
So after each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the extracted telemetry data was analyzed and presented as charts and graphs and tables.
For example, 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);
Replies with external links are blocked on YT, so just change DOT and FSLASH as required in the links below;
tinyDOTccFSLASHc1wjuz
And in case you're wondering, here's the mission reports for the other Apollo missions, feel free to search for "telemetry" within the following mission reports (you know, the data that conspiracy theorists claim doesn't exist);
Apollo 12; tinyDOTccFSLASHg1wjuz
Apollo 13; tinyDOTccFSLASHi1wjuz
Apollo 14; tinyDOTccFSLASHk1wjuz
Apollo 15; tinyDOTccFSLASHm1wjuz
Apollo 16; tinyDOTccFSLASHo1wjuz
Apollo 17; tinyDOTccFSLASHq1wjuz
So how could those reports even exist without the telemetry data that is claimed to be lost?
Theefore if you still believe I'm wrong despite all the evidence, then please state which telemetry data you believe was lost :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fawqman2764 - Regarding a vacuum, you don't clearly don't understand what a vacuum is my friend :-)
A vacuum is an absence of matter, and hence from our point of view here, is the absence of air!
Our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude, i.e. less air. I'm sure you know that, hence I'm sure you are also aware of the difficulty in breathing for mountain climbers and balloonists or anyone at high altitudes.
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with any vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 TIMES less air compared to sea level, that's a medium vacuum.
At 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's also a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up, there is a MILLION times less air, that's a high vacuum.
Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Therefore there isn't a sharp line where we suddenly go from our pressurized atmosphere to the vacuum of space, instead it is a gradual process, where with increasing altitude there's decreasing air, resulting in gradually increasing vacuum conditions as I've shown above (normal pressure -> low vacuum -> medium vacuum -> high vacuum -> ultra high vacuum and so on).
So with it clearly explained and demonstrated that we encounter increasing vacuum conditions with altitude as there's less and less air, you should finally understand how we go from the pressure of our atmosphere here on the surface of the Earth to the vacuum of space without a barrier in between.
1
-
1
-
@fawqman2764 - Don't be deliberately stupid please (but hey, if it's not deliberate.. ;-)). According to flat Earth theorists, space is FAKE!!! Flat Earth believers claim ALL satellites are fake, that ALL spacecraft are fake and so on, and say that because they claim space is fake, a hoax etc.
So how can a photo of the Earth be taken through a round window in low Earth orbit when flat Earth theorists EXPLICITLY claim that low Earth orbit is impossible because space is a lie, a hoax, fake, etc!
Therefore if you stand by your claim that the photo I provided was taken from low Earth orbit, then you are saying space is real and hence you are going against your own flat Earth theories.
So please try again son, but this time THINK before you reply :-)
Here's my question again: Present your evidence to prove this 1969 FILM photograph of the Earth is CGI (no excuses please);
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/36/5344.jpg
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fawqman2764 - Regarding Polaris, which is actually a fraction off true north btw, hence it circles true north in a circle which is about the width of 3 full moon's (i.e. in a small circle 1.5° in diameter), the stars circling true north is exactly what we expect on a globe Earth.
You would claim it is also explained by stars circling the north pole in your flat Earth. Ok fine, lets hold that image in our heads.
Now here's the problem, at the south pole (that people like Eric Dubay claims to not exist despite the fact YOU can book YOURSELF onto a tour of the south pole if you can afford it) the stars are seen to circle around a point directly overhead called true south, whereas at the north pole the stars also circle around a point directly overhead called true north, but in the OPPOSITE direction to stars at the south pole.
That is also explain perfectly by a globe Earth, but it is not explained at all by your flat Earth, because your FE model only has ONE point where stars are suppose to circle around, and that's around the north pole.
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
stephen burridge - No problem my friend.
Conditions in space are as different to conditions on the surface of the Earth (in air) as they are to conditions at the bottom of our oceans. This needs to be considered when thinking about temperature, pressure, heat transfer, etc.
The key point to know is that space is a vacuum, i.e. there is no air, therefore with no air to carry heat the temperature range quoted in space is for the minimum and maximum temperature that an object can potentially reach, which is -250 F to 250 F, on the moon and in low Earth orbit.
In other words, a sheet of metal on the moon (or in low Earth orbit) directly exposed to the sun may eventually reach 250 F, and that same sheet of metal in the shade may eventually cool to -250 F. But a sheet of cloth isn't as good at holding temperature as metal and therefore wouldn't get anywhere near that temperature in space (same as cloth vs metal here on Earth).
Therefore as long as the components of the batteries are not directly exposed to sunlight when on the moon or in low Earth orbit, then they will not heat up because of sunlight. Instead, the batteries would heat up as they provided electricity, which will be within their operating limits.
Hence cordless power tools have been used by astronauts in the sun during spacewalks for decades without problems for the batteries in the -250 F to 250 F temperature range of low Earth orbit.
I hope that helps :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reginaldmcnab3265 - I have answered the question, since my very first reply to you here, therefore I'm not here to play silly little games as well :-)
We can highlight several 'space races', such as the race to put a man made object into space (i.e. the first to space), the race to put an artificial satellite into orbit, the race to send a man into space, the race to send a man to the moon, the race to land a man on the moon and so on.
So the 'space race' was not ONLY about being the first to reach space, it was about other milestones in space too.
Therefore I wasn't here disputing Germany's achievements in space or downplaying them, my point was that the "space race" related to this topic video was to land a man on the moon, it was a race to the moon, and the USA won that particular race, regardless of the individuals involved and their nationalities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gabrielliee07 - Simply put, you didn't understand the point I made Gabrielle.
Astronauts are experts in the FLIGHT, CONTROL and OPERATION of spacecraft, aircraft and related equipment, there's no-one better qualified at the press conference to answer such questions than the astronauts, and so for questions in those areas the astronauts are fine and comfortable and hence it's obvious in their replies.
But they are NOT experts in astronomy, chemistry, geology, photography and numerous other fields, only competent enough through training to carry out their roles as astronauts in such areas, hence they were less confident and more nervous when answering questions in those fields, resulting in the astronauts being more focused on getting the details correct.
So when, for example, the late astronomer Patrick Moore asked the astronauts a couple of questions, including if they could see stars despite the glare of the sun in their eyes, they needed to focus to answer the questions of someone who is an EXPERT in astronomy, unlike themselves. We even notice Neil Armstrong (who is not an astronomy) incorrectly say "Sonar Corola" instead of "Solar Corona", the kind of error he would never make about the Apollo spacecraft that he knows inside out.
So come on, are you really saying that you think the astronauts should be experts in every field of science and engineering related to space travel? That they shouldn't be fluttered or nervous or even make a few errors answering technical questions from experts in fields of science and engineering that they are not experts in themselves?
Think about it :-)
1
-
@gabrielliee07 - The original footage was not destroyed Gabrielle, hence you can find hour after hour of original Apollo footage here on YouTube (eg. Search for: Apollo EVA).
What was lost was NASA's backup copy of the first moonwalk for Apollo 11, which NASA only made in case the live TV broadcast to the world failed.
But because the live TV broadcast worked and hence the whole world saw the moonwalk, NASA's backup was redundant, it wasn't needed, and hence it was lost (probably the tapes reused). In other words, all that was lost was a backup of the SAME TV broadcast that we've all seen for over 50 years.
None of the other Apollo 11 footage was lost, and nothing was lost from Apollo 12, 13 (failed mission), 14, 15, 16 or 17.
Conspiracy theorists took the news of NASA losing their backup footage of the Apollo 11 moonwalk and twisted that into a claim that ALL the original footage was lost.
That's the problem with conspiracy theories, where they put sensationalism and exaggeration ahead of truth every time :-(
I hope that information helps to show that it's not what conspiracy theorists claim, but yes, lets agree to disagree.
Thanks for the discussion :-)
1
-
@Michael Jackson - I find it amusing when ignorant people like yourself refer me to a video by Eric Dubay talking about Apollo!
Eric Dubay, the flat Earth theorist who recommends Bart Sibrel's Apollo hoax documentary and calls it "excellent" and "well researched".... despite the fact that the SAME documentary that Eric applauds shows the Earth to be a GLOBE, says space is real, says satellites are real, says spacecraft are real, says rockets in space are real, says men in low Earth orbit are real, etc... ALL CONTRADICTING the flat Earth claims of Eric Dubay and his gullible followers :-)
In other words, Eric promotes and praises a so-called "excellent" and "well researched" documentary that says his OWN flat Earth theory is WRONG, a lie, nonsense!
And yet that's the same Eric Dubay that you expect me to take seriously :-)
You need to learn how to think for yourself child.
1
-
@MattGalter - In other words you have no counter arguments, only pointless one liners.
For example, you posted "Haha if u think u know truth, then you're lying to yourself"
Precisely the same pompous nonsense said to me by flat Earth believers, ISS hoax believers, concave/hollow Earth believers, hollow moon believers, chemtrail believers, alien UFO believers, paranormal believers, ghosts/spirit believers, etc.
It's the same classic egotistical attitude that I see from so many conspiracy/alternative believers who imagine themselves to be the intelligent enlightened ones while everyone else are idiots, asleep, sheep, indoctrinated, etc.
🙄
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@narajuna - And from later in the SAME book by Bill Clinton;
"Oleg wasn’t the only friendly Russian I encountered. President Nixon’s policy of detente was having noticeable results. A few months earlier, Russian television had shown the Americans walking on the moon. People were still excited about it and seemed to be fascinated by all things American. They envied our freedom and assumed we were all rich. I guess, compared with most of them, we were."
"On my last night in the now-barren Oval Office, I thought of the glass case I had kept on the coffee table between the two couches, just a few feet away. It contained a rock Neil Armstrong had taken off the moon in 1969. Whenever arguments in the Oval Office heated up beyond reason, I would interrupt and say, "You see that rock? It’s 3.6 billion years old. We're all just passing through. Let's calm down and go back to work."
That moon rock gave me a whole different perspective on history and the proverbial "long run." Our job is to live as well and as long as we can, and to help others to do the same. What happens after that and how we are viewed by others is beyond our control. The river of time carries us all away. All we have is the moment. Whether I had made the most of mine was for others to judge."
"I also flew to the Johnson Space Center in Houston to discuss our newest shuttle mission to conduct twenty-six experiments on the impact of space on the human body, including how the brain adapts and what happens to the inner ear and the human balance system. One of the crew was in the audience, seventy-seven-year-old senator John Glenn. After flying 149 combat missions in World War II and Korea, John had been one of America’s first astronauts more than thirty-five years earlier. He was retiring from the Senate and was itching to go into space once more. NASA's director, Dan Goldin, and I were strongly in favor of Glenn’s participation because our space agency wanted to study the effects of space on aging. I had always been a strong supporter of the space program, including the International Space Station and the upcoming mission to Mars; John Glenn’s last hurrah gave us a chance to show the practical benefits of space exploration."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@john wayne - You said "Ow that's so cute you believe people who even a child can tell are lying"
Says the believers of practically every conspiracy theory out there, and so by your logic every conspiracy theory must be correct despite contradicting each other :-)
You couldn't say how you know people have been into low Earth orbit, so lets take another approach, the Soviet Union, i.e. the USSR.
To believe it was fake you must also believe the USSR with their brilliant scientists and engineers who had their own advanced space program together with tracking technology (the USSR landed several unmanned craft on the moon in the 60s and they landed a spacecraft on Venus in 1970) were ALL too dumb and ALL too blind to spot a blatant fake by the USA.
More so, the USSR were too dumb to spot exactly the SAME FAKE of sending men to the moon NINE TIMES IN A ROW from 1968 to 1972, with six of those missions landing on the moon.
It's either that or the USSR were in on a conspiracy against themselves, which makes no sense :-)
To highlight my point further, the USSR landed two remotely controlled car-size rovers on the moon in 1970 and 1973 called Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2.
Both rovers had TV cameras and radio antennas, and hence that allowed Lunokhod 2 to be driven 37 km across the lunar surface over a period of 4 months under remote control (thanks to the TV broadcast);
(External links are blocked, so change DOT to . and SLASH to /)
bitDOTlySLASH3tJ8Jfv
So if the USSR had even the slightest suspicion of a fake landing, no matter how small, then they could have landed a Lunokhod rover at ANY of the Apollo landing sites at ANY time and explored it themselves to be sure, broadcasting the TV images back to Earth, and there would have been nothing that anyone could have done to stop them.
But they never did that because the USSR knew 100% that the USA had successfully landed men on the moon.
So which is it John? Were the USSR collectively too dumb to spot 9 fakes in a row, or they were in on a conspiracy against themselves... or maybe, just maybe, the USSR knew the USA had won the manned space race 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
-
@satyamatanasov5679 - Here's a video featuring the claimed hammering sounds, but rather than just a few seconds, several minutes are available here to avoid the cherry picking we see in hoax videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JVtzVN3ncg
The hammering starts at 2:07 and ends at 2:56, but notice the complete lack of any so-called hammering sounds for most of the times he hits the core sampler!
At 2:08 we do hear two 'knocking' sounds, but we also hear EXACTLY the same two 'knocking' sounds at 5:04 (as revealed on the two links below);
https://youtu.be/5JVtzVN3ncg?t=128
https://youtu.be/5JVtzVN3ncg?t=304
At 2:21, we hear the 3 'knocking' sounds that the hoax claim focuses on and one sound at 2:27, but again, the rest is completely silent, therefore just like the sounds at 2:08 and 5:04 it has nothing to do with the hammer hitting the core sampler.
If we really were hearing the sound of the astronaut hammering the core sampler into the lunar surface, then we should hear a knocking sound for every hit, not silence for most of the 49 seconds of hammering!
Watch and listen to that FULL clip from 2:00 to 3:00 and notice that the few 'knocking' sounds heard are out of sync with the hammer, and there's no sound at all for most of the hammering. And again, notice that the same double knocking sound heard at 2:08 is also heard at 5:04 :-)
The point is, throughout Apollo footage we hear all kinds of random noises from time to time, especially clicks and pops, sometimes sounds from the astronauts breathing out heavily when they've done something strenuous, where for 99.99% of the time no-one cares or even notices all those sounds.
But the moment such a noise happens to coincide with something seen on screen (which MUST happen by the law of averages) conspiracy theorists pounce to claim we're hearing noise travel through the vacuum of space.
I hope that answers your question :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Now try thinking for yourself please.
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time ?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something STOPPED in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money... ...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
A rather convoluted answer? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No!
So why the quote mining all the time from conspiracy believers? If truth really is on your side, then why do you and so many hx believers think it's justified to lie and distort the facts to make your case?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 -
Finally I'll address your "2001" claim.
Watch the following two part video (10 minutes each) that lists ALL the problems with the "2001" moon scenes;
Kubrick, 2001, and Apollo (pt 1)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNbeN_V_NNw
Kubrick, 2001, and Apollo (pt 2)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK3Jnl6Zyhk
In the scenes shown in part 2 in particular, notice that no attempt is ever made to simulate 1/6 gravity for 'astronauts' on the lunar surface. Instead, they are made to walk slowly with precise steps, with ZERO signs of 1/6th gravity throughout.
To this day, no science fiction film or any sci-fi series worldwide has recreated the perfect 1/6th gravity seen in hour upon hour of uncut Apollo footage (where even the kicked up dust falls at 1/6 gravity). Not even the world's best special effects experts have been able to recreate perfect 1/6th gravity without CGI (which they didn't have during Apollo), and even today, CGI still doesn't look quite right.
Moon hoax believers typically claim slow motion and/or wires was used to fake the Apollo footage in 1969-1972. But if that was the case, then the best special effects experts would have matched and then surpassed the 1/6th gravity seen in Apollo within a few years of the moon landings using slow motion and wires!
So the reason it hasn't been matched is because it's impossible to create perfect 1/6th gravity in a studio here on Earth, therefore the footage was filmed in 1/6th gravity, which means the Apollo footage was filmed on the moon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yahushuajahweh1418 - And yet you can't state the verses I asked for, proving my point.
And that's my problem with your little belief - Believing the Earth is flat is actually non-Christian (I used to say it's anti-Christian, but that's too harsh upon reflection). As I will explain;
Christian churches for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE (that is a fact!). None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe.
Even Creationists, yes those who take the Bible LITERALLY, say the Earth is a GLOBE! Go to a Creationist website and search for 'Flat Earth' for example, but you may not like what you find there. In fact, some Creationists go as far as claiming the flat Earth is an atheist conspiracy to discredit Christians and Christianity.
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1633 for daring to say the GLOBE Earth orbited the sun, when at the time all the Christian churches 'knew' that the sun and the rest of the universe revolved around the GLOBE stationary Earth!
So who should I believe when it comes to the Bible? Nearly 2000 YEARS of Christian churches who say the Earth is a GLOBE? All the biblical scholars from those churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts to produce ALL the Bibles you've ever read who say the Earth is a GLOBE? The Creationists who take the Bible literally who say the Earth is a GLOBE? Over 2 BILLION Christians worldwide who say the Earth is a GLOBE?
Or should I believe some quacks on the internet who claim the Bible says the Earth is flat and people like you who blindly believe those charlatans? :-)
Nah, I choose to believe the billions of Bible reading Christians who say the Earth is a globe :-)
So if you choose to believe ALL the Christians above are wrong or lying about the shape of the Earth and hence you insist the Earth is flat, then you are not a true Christian my friend. Sorry, but it's true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Some Guy - I'll address this comment from you first, quote "Tell me, when are we going back to the Moon?"
Sending people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then in the 60s, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program and are working towards building their own Saturn V class rocket for their future manned moon landings.
Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful, where it is now complete and due to launch this March, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonfriend143 - (Again) Come on my friend, really? :-)
If you created a perfect model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high (300 cm, or about 10 feet), then it will bulge out slightly at the equator by ONLY 1 cm, and hence would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide.
That is an oblate spheroid, but to the naked eye and in photographs and video your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Also, due to the distribution of lands and seas, the Earth actually bulges out a fraction more in the South compared to the North (by about 1 mm on your 300 cm model), hence the pear shape comparison that is too small to be seen with the naked eye, so again your oblate spheroid model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonfriend143 - There is no dirty history from NASA, only false claims made by conspiracy theorists (hence again you can't give me any examples of NASA saying their images from space are CGI).
You also seem to forget that NASA isn't the only government space agency, there are over 70 government space agencies around the world, a great many private space agencies/companies around the world, a great many satellite companies around the world, and so on.
The fact that you think this is all about NASA proves how easy it is for conspiracy theorists to manipulate you.
I'm not going to wade through my post history going back years just to find the threads on Eric and Dave's videos where I had discussions with them, especially when it serves no purpose. But feel free to search yourself :-)
And since you appear to have ignored my previous point... In proof number 123 in that eBook, Eric claims the sun is 30 miles wide and 3000 miles away (flat earth books, including his own, say 3000 miles up), and yet in proof number 125, Eric claims the sun is just above the clouds, showing a photo of clouds which any meteorologist would tell you are just a few miles up.
So according to Eric, the sun is a few miles up and 3000 miles up at the same time! :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LionBenJudah44 - "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,.... Or, "the globe (z)" of it; for the earth is spherical or globular: not a flat plain, but round, hung as a ball in the air; here Jehovah sits as the Lord and Sovereign; being the Maker of it, he is above it, orders and directs its motion, and governs all things in it"
Do I agree with that entirely? No, because those who wrote the original text would not have known the shape of the Earth, all they 'knew' was that we are here on the ground and above up is the firmament and God is above it all.
That's why nowhere in the original text do they explicitly state the shape of the Earth, regardless of what shape they personally believed the Earth to be.
As I told you before, the Bible doesn't explicitly state the shape of the Earth, instead it is all implied (the Bible is full of poetry and metaphors) and therefore it comes down to personal interpretation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You said "It was the distancing language and glib replies that struck me the most. These men come across as ashamed."
That press conference occurred 3 WEEKS after they returned to Earth, where they spent those 3 WEEKS in quarantine (just to put it in context).
It was also work for the astronauts, not play, where they gave a presentation and answered serious questions from an audience that included expert scientists and engineers, i.e. those more knowledgeable in their respective fields.
So they were not ashamed, they were being professional and hence taking that press conference seriously. They were also chosen for their skills as astronauts, not for their presentation skills.
Also, 'A picture is worth a thousand words' and therefore the astronauts often didn't describe in detail what everyone there could see for themselves in the photos and video/film shown throughout that presentation that isn't captured in the press conference footage, but someone recreated it here;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz6nzutr7RU
Anyway, here's the same three Apollo 11 astronauts in quarantine BEFORE that press conference;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6P1wBNHqnU
Neil, Buzz and Michael couldn't look happier if they tried (especially Neil as it was his birthday).
And here's Neil Armstrong in front of the troops in Vietnam, where again he couldn't look happier if he tried and is clearly relishing the moment;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSKCaxx58Bg&t=385s
In what way does Neil look ashamed of so-called crimes?
So if you want to claim the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion and your right, but the body language argument is not evidence and it doesn't hold up my friend :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You said "I based my opinion on the clear evidence of evasive and distancing language and in particular, Neil's reaction of surprise to Collins' statement about not seeing the stars".
Now watch the following video that shows you that context actually matters, contrary to what conspiracy believers seem to think;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnLHEpwQjM&t=276
So again, not evidence on your part, just unfounded opinions.
You added "As for your point about the poor quality filmed off a TV, how is a poor quality visual good evidence anyway?"
Because it's not the only evidence (there were 6 moon landings remember), and even then, the footage still demonstrates perfect 1/6 gravity which is impossible to achieve in a studio to this day!
And just to add to that, many people don't realise that the Apollo 11 moonwalk was actually filmed by TWO cameras, the TV camera footage that we're all familiar with and a 16mm COLOR film camera from inside the lander, set at a good frame rate for Neil's first steps, but then set to capture a frame approximately every second after that (making the reel last about 90 minutes).
You 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 onward;
Part 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL_SrBMBRCc
Part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVAGjO2dtUA (The film runs out at the end of this video)
Part 3: www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0L12WjQ4co
NASA don't make a big deal out of that film footage, but the fact that it is CLEARLY taken at the same time as the poor quality TV footage (which has since been digitally remastered btw) means that any suggestion that the poor quality footage is hiding something or it's fake is effectively debunked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You said "You have skipped over the evidence of distancing language and Collins' comment..."
Because again that isn't evidence, that's just your personal opinion. Why are you still unable to understand that? I'm asking you for hard evidence, not personal opinion.
Besides, you are the person who thought Una Ronald was an honest witness despite her ridiculous story about seeing a coke bottle. A woman that no-one has heard of since, and 20+ YEARS later there's STILL no sign of ANYONE else seeing her mythical coke bottle or finding copies of the West Australian newspaper with the letters about a coke bottle she claimed she read a week to 10 days later!
Now if she'd stuck to claiming she saw a coke bottle then I would have put that down to either an active imagination or a blatant lie, but the fact that she THEN claimed to have read letters in that newspaper from others who saw her coke bottle means she is lying, because after 20+ years someone would have found those letters in archive copies of that newspaper by now. So those letters clearly don't exist!
So the fact that you took everything Una said on face value, saying "she comes across as frank and truthful" and hence you trusted her 100% without question, means your judgement based upon the body language and words of others is highly questionable (and that's being generous), and therefore any arguments you put forward about the body language and the words spoken by the astronauts is equally questionable and therefore lacks credibility, and hence they are irrelevant.
Therefore once again I ask you for solid hard evidence of a hoax, not your flawed and questionable opinions based upon body language and spoken language, both of which your judgement has been proven to be poor.
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - And in case you think I'm being hard on Una Ronald and yourself for believing her without question (and hence without spotting the fact that she is LYING), watch and listen to her again her from "What Happened On The Moon";
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvxw_OKQWDg&t=2960
So did you get that? She says she stayed up to watch the live telecast, hence clearly a reference to the Apollo 11 moon landing occurring at night.
She goes on to say (skipping over the waffle about the TV transmission);
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvxw_OKQWDg&t=3050
She says she saw a coke bottle kicked across the screen and she acclaimed aloud "It's a fake, it's a set up, they're not on the moon at all...".
Followed by "...they were going to broadcast the same film again in the morning and I phoned several of my friends... but they were going to watch in the morning...".
So it is CLEAR that in Australia, she says she stayed up late (i.e. night) to watch the live Apollo 11 broadcast, saw one of the astronauts kick a coke bottle across the screen, phoned several friends who said they'll watch the second telecast (i.e. the repeat) in the morning, and she watched the repeat in the morning but there was no coke bottle, and so she concludes that it was edited out.
Here's the problem: www.csiro.au/en/Research/Astronomy/Spacecraft-tracking/Apollo-11-Moon-landing
Apollo 11 landed on the moon at 6:17 am Australian time, i.e. in the morning! The astronauts did the checks they needed to do, ate and got some rest in the LM, and then over 6 HOURS LATER they had their 'moonwalk', where Neil stepped onto the moon at 12:56 pm.
As you can also see in the following, that moonwalk was the middle of the Australian day (hence many school kids in Australia watched it live in their classrooms);
www.smh.com.au/national/moon-landing-how-a-small-step-changed-sydney-siders-lives-forever-20190719-p528yv.html
Therefore Una Ronald, the "frank and truthful" person who you "assessed her as being honest" is a proven liar.
So what happened to your boast that the "Ability to discern who's lying and who's telling the truth is something innate, something most of us are born with; it's most powerful in childhood as children need to know who to trust in order to survive"? :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - This discussion is effectively at an end, now that you've proven just how poor your judgement is.
You claimed to have an innate ability to tell if someone is lying, and yet despite your claimed ability you COMPLETELY failed to see that Una Ronald was lying, instead you believed her without question, calling her "frank" and "truthful" and "honest".
I've shown that Una Ronald's claim is a lie because;
a) No-one could have identified a coke bottle in the Apollo 11 TV footage.
b) No-one other than Una has ever reported seeing a coke bottle in the 20+ years since her claim was first published in David Percy's book "Dark Moon", then repeated in his hoax documentary.
c) 20+ years later, no letters from readers reporting seeing a coke bottle has been found in the West Australian newspapers as she claimed.
d) The time she specifies for the moon landing is completely WRONG for Australia! But that time matches the UK (Neil stepped onto the moon at 3:56 am UK time), which is no coincidence given that the author and documentary maker David Percy is British (along with his co-writer Mary Bennett). So clearly they didn't do their research before making up that story!
So you were completely taken in by her lies, therefore your claim and I quote "Ability to discern who's lying and who's telling the truth is something innate, something most of us are born with", is clearly something you lack, and therefore your opinions here about the astronauts are null and void.
Thanks for the discussion just the same :-)
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - Your focus on the press conference is in the context of body language and your claimed innate ability to spot liars. And I know exactly what you meant because you proceeded it with "There are "established experts" in a variety of disciplines, such as medicine, who've been spouting utter rubbish for years. A bunch of "established experts" not agreeing with me about this press conference doesn't make me conclude that I'm wrong".
In other words, you're saying "I don't care if none of the experts worldwide agree with me, I don't care how good they are, I know better!".
You then completely failed to spot that Una Ronald was blatantly lying, and therefore proving that your innate ability to spot liars is itself a lie, or to be generous, a delusion. Or to be more generous still, proving that if you can't even spot an obvious lie, then you are in no position to claim you can spot a subtle lie.
You prove my point further with your comment "I had already said that I wouldn't rule out she was mistaken", where you STILL can't bring yourself to admit the obvious, i.e. that Una was not mistaken, she was deliberately lying.
As I stated before, if Una had merely said she thought she saw a coke bottle during the Apollo 11 moonwalk, then YES we can say she was mistaken (she may have been half asleep, fatigued, effected by medication, saw a TV reception glitch that led to a false interpretation, and so on).
But her story is that she stayed up LATE to watched the moonwalk LIVE at NIGHT in Australia, when in fact it was the middle of the DAY in Australia (it was night in the UK).
You cannot mistake day for night, you cannot mistake watching something in the middle of the day and thinking you saw it in the middle of the night! Hence that was a lie.
She THEN claimed to have READ letters in the West Australian newspaper (7 to 10 days later as quoted in "Dark Moon") from people who wrote in to say they also saw a coke bottle kicked across the screen.
You cannot mistake reading letters in a newspaper that were never there, so that too is a lie, as I explained before.
Therefore you can look into it as much as you like, but how much investigation do you really need to hear Una say she watched it live at night and watched the repeat in the MORNING, when the link I provided proves that it was in the middle of the day in Australia?
You said "Do you swallow everything you're told just because "the experts" have told you and therefore it must be TRUE"
No, I look into the evidence presented myself WHILE being respectful to the knowledge and the experience of the experts who presented it. You should try it. What I don't do is decide that ALL the experts are wrong simply because it makes me feel superior.
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - Sure, and if you're become extremely sick tomorrow then you will avoid medical expert advice, right?
So once again all you can present is your unfounded personal opinion about the press conference, using the same attention to detail that you applied to Una Ronald and yet completely missed the fact that she was lying, where she is the ONLY proven liar here (yes, PROVEN).
Claiming "distancing language" is all in your head, so there's nothing to explain.
You've also regurgitated the same nonsense about seeing stars when the question was NOT if the astronauts could see stars, the question put to the astronauts from the late Patrick Moore was if they could see stars in the solar corona (the atmosphere of the sun) in spite of the glare!
That's a VERY specific question, and yet YOU decide Patrick Moore is asking them "Can you see stars".
So right there you prove that you are seeing and hearing what you WANT to see and hear, where you completely ignored the CONTEXT of the question because you WANT to believe in a conspiracy.
You didn't even appreciate the fact that Collins remained orbiting the moon while it was Neil and Buzz who descended to the surface and landed, hence Collins' perspective is a little different to theirs.
So before going any further, explain why you STILL don't understand that context matters, despite me providing this video for you earlier in this thread;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnLHEpwQjM&t=276
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - What a sorry list of excuses from you, where even by your standards it's poor and desperate.
If anyone else made up such a story as evidence to support men landing on the moon, then you would have had none of it.
It would have been unacceptable to you. Fact!
Maybe this, maybe that, could be this, could be that, with absolutely ZERO evidence to support any of your claims and speculation regarding Una, much less to explain why no-one else except Una would report seeing a coke bottle after over 50 years!
So cut the (I'm sorry to say, rather cowardly) defence please and face up to the facts. Una Ronald was lying, where anyone with 'flaming common sense' can see that for themselves based upon the complete lack of ANY evidence AT ALL at ANY LEVEL to support her claims, which would have been impossible had her claims been true, and the fact that NOTHING in her story holds up is further validation for calling her a liar (sweet little old ladies can lie you know :-)).
And there's nothing to explain about Collins or the other astronauts, because by your own admission you said and I quote "It looks to me as if", in other words, this is merely YOUR opinion, not evidence.
As I asked before, present evidence, not opinion, because I'm not interested in discussing claims based upon speculation, assumptions and guesses.
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You continue to prove my points perfectly, so thanks for that, where for some reason you seem to think it's not for Una Ronald and David Percy to prove the hoax claim made!
So Una could have said she saw dancing girls doing the can-can behind the lunar module if she wanted to, and yet you would think that's acceptable as evidence despite the fact that no-one other than Una reports seeing the dancing girls, the time of day she claimed for the live broadcast was wrong, no letters about dancing girls have ever emerged from the newspaper she claimed to have read, but other than that it's not a lie, right? 🙄
You ask me to discuss your irrelevant personal opinion, which I'm not interested in, since it's worthless and therefore pointless.
As I told you already, I'm here to discuss hard evidence, not personal opinion, so questions and observations like "So why did he say this?", "So why did he say that?", "Just look at the way he frowned at that question!", "Look at the way he shifted his weight from his left butt cheek to his right cheek, it's obvious he's lying!", etc, is of no interest to me because it's of no importance other than to the person whose opinion it is.
If you think you have real hard evidence to discuss, then fire away, but if all you've got to offer is your opinion, then I wish you all the best.
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - And the following further proves my point, where you said "Consider it in the light of what one of the witnesses says in later years regarding removing "one of truth's protective layers"".
Where you conveniently fail to quote ALL of what Neil Armstrong said nor state who he was addressing and why, hence that's dishonest cherry picking and quote mining (a popular conspiracy believer tactic)..
And you said "Consider it also in the light of what another of these witnesses (Aldrin) says in later years, when asked why we hadn't been back to the moon: "Because we didn't go there". No doubt you have some spin about context to explain this away.""
There's no spin required to address yet another example of dishonest cherry picking and quote mining.
A little girl asked Buzz and I quote "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?". Notice the words "in such a long time". THAT was the context of the question and hence the context of Buzz Aldrin's reply to the girl, and therefore to claim the question was "why we hadn't been back to the moon" is to distort the question and answer and hence to lie.
Buzz said we haven't gone back because we haven't [gone back] (a flippant answer). He said it's his question because for YEARS he has been asking exactly the SAME question as that girl, where he also wants to know why we stopped going to the moon and he wants to know why we're not going back to the moon!
That was the point Buzz was making, but as usual conspiracy theorists deliberately twisted his words because that's what they always do, and you are happy to go along with their distortion of the facts because you're not interested in the truth.
Here's the full interview, where Buzz makes it clear that he and other men landed on the moon throughout, and you can see and hear the context of his replies to the girl, rather than the quote mining from conspiracy theorists;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4yrzYAJ58Y
That's why I say I'm not interested in that kind of discussion with you, because in EVERY conspiracy theory and alternative belief system I discuss it is packed full of hypocrites who claim they are only looking for the truth and will go and go about how governments are evil and lying etc, and yet they are more than happy to lie and spread lies themselves when those lies happen to support their own beliefs.
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - And just to highlight my point further;
Transcript:
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there [in such a long time] and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money
... is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
A rather convoluted answer? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No!
So why the quote mining all the time? If truth really is on your side, then why do you and so many hoax believers think it's justified to lie and distort the facts to make your case?
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - You said "Again you make assumptions. Did I say I was a moon hoax believer? I don't think so. I said I was a moon landing sceptic. "
Ah yes, the classic fallback of "I'm just a sceptic" where the scepticism is totally one sided, where anything from government or authorities is assumed to be a lie unless proven to be true, while everything said by conspiracy theorists are assumed to be the truth unless proven to be lies.
Real scepticism applies to all, not to one side, therefore you are not a sceptic, you are a denier and a contrarian.
Buzz Aldrin did not say we didn't go to the moon, he said we did not go to the moon in the time period specified by that little girl, i.e. in such a long time, the question he was answering. So you automatically siding with conspiracy theorists who twisted his words proves my point.
And I ignored Neil Armstrong's "'one of truth's protective layers" because that is down to personal interpretation ONLY, which I told you already I'm not interested in, where no-one other than conspiracy believers see it as being suspicious or as an admission or some nonsense like that.
If you want to know more about it, then read the following and discuss it with them;
www.quora.com/What-did-Neil-Armstrong-mean-by-%E2%80%9Ctruth%E2%80%99s-protective-layers%E2%80%9D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ReverendRichardSeeland568209 - Oh sure, he won the debate so convincingly (according to you) that I can't find any references to his success here on YouTube or on the internet, and you can't provide any links.
So again, where is it? If what you said was true then Eric and his disciples would have been shouting it out for the world to hear, and yet it's no where to be found!
It seems you have a different definition of the word "won" to everyone else ;-)
And while you here, perhaps you can say which version of a flat Earth you believe in? Because there are a number of versions out there and yet none of you seem to be able to make up your minds (including Eric).
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?
To this day, all that flat Earth theorists have ever provided is the AE/Gleason projection map, where they only 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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - All your points have been debunked countless times, but you simply deny the evidence presented.
Alan Bean did know about the Van Allen belts, but YOU are referring to Bart Sibrel's "Astronauts Gone Wild" where he edits the footage to make it appear that Alan was talking about Apollo 12, when in fact Alan was talking about not being sure if they went through the belts in SkyLab 3 (he was the commander).
Also, the Van Allen belts are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (it would take a WEEK inside the worse parts of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation) and so it was of no importance to the Apollo astronauts. They were only informed about the belts during training for background information, not because it was relevant to their mission.
So, would you like me to address the first 3 points you mentioned before Alan? :-)
Also, the people who built the wonders of the world had all kinds of weird and ridiculous ideas about the human body and how it worked, and yet I doubt you refer to their 'knowledge' when you or someone you love is ill. After all, how can they be wrong, right? :-)
Besides, we've known the Earth is a globe for around 2500 years, so don't they count as wise ancients too?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - You said " No it comes from NASA ie: Naša = to deceive."
Nope, but that does show how easy it is for conspiracy theorists to manipulate and control you.
NASA does NOT mean deceive in Hebrew, that's a lie from those who distort the bible. (you know, the kind of people you believe without question).
The Hebrew word meaning deceive is Nasha, pronounced as "Na-shar" (you can HEAR it on the following link);
www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h5377
NASA in Hebrew, pronounce as "Na-Sar", means to lift, bear up, carry, or take;
www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Word_of_the_Week/Archived/Nasa/nasa.html
So apparently conspiracy theorists think words are the same even if you add an extra letter, which is a load of shiRt :-)
Anyway, to highlight my point further;
https://hebrewwordlessons.com/2019/01/20/nasa-lift-carry-and-bear-the-weight/
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H5375/nasa.htm
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/nasa.html
https://bibleapps.com/hebrew/5375.htm
https://www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-hebrew-H5375-nasa-page-2.html
https://studybible.info/strongs/H5375
1
-
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - You said "So if we can believe Nasa then there’s your number, and triangulation of sun’s rays also point to about 3000 miles or so give or take a few."
EXACTLY the same claim is made about the distance of the moon, where flat Earth believers claim the moon and sun are the same size and circle the Earth at the same 3000 mile distance.
But here's the problem...
We can measure the moon's distance DIRECTLY using radio waves without any reference to the structure of the solar system, hence it doesn't require complex mathematics based upon an assumed model of the solar system.
In other words, it doesn't matter if you think the Earth is a globe, or the Earth is flat, or the Earth is hollow/concave or whatever, the measurement of the moon's distance using radio waves will always produce the SAME result, a result which is INDEPENDENT of your beliefs.
Radio enthusiasts since the 1950s have sent signals to the moon and timed how long it takes to echo back. The time measured for the return signal is always consistent with the moon being around 240,000 miles away, not 3000 miles up :-)
For example:
rsgb.org/main/technical/space-satellites/moonbounce/
searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/moonbounce
www.discoverthebluedot.com/news/moonbounce:-record-your-message-to-be-bounced-off-the-moon
We know the measurements are accurate because the timing of the echo of radio signals is how radar works, where they use that time to determine the distance of the object(s) being tracked.
If the moon was only 3000 miles up, then the echo would take a fraction of the time to return compared to bouncing radio signals off an object 240,000 miles away.
This is an important observation which has yet to be explained by any flat Earth theorist, but it is explained by the moon being 240,000 miles away.
And therefore if the size and distance of the moon in the flat Earth model is wrong, then the sun is also the wrong size and the wrong distance in that model.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - And just to pick up on this claim "I’d give you one but your freemasons keep us from exploring those parts of the earth."
A classic flat Earth theorist lie that you fell for :-)
EVERYONE is free to explore where ever they want in Antarctica, there's no military there to stop you!
The problem is, no-one owns Antarctica (that's the point of the Antarctica treaty), so who is going to spend the cash and risk their lives to rescue YOU if something goes wrong after you wandered off without making any arrangements FIRST for a rescue plan?
So no-one is restricted from exploring Antarctica, that's why EVERY YEAR there are expeditions for which NO-ONE in history has EVER reported being prevented from going.
For example, look at this list of expeditions (go to the top of that page too);
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions#21st_century
Again, the issue for explorers is that if they get into trouble then there will be no-one out there to rescue them UNLESS they'd made sufficient arrangements and preparations in advance, and hence they HAVE to follow a pre-planned route (show me a route that has been banned).
Therefore you can't just wander off where ever you like in Antarctica and then expect a massive search operation if you go missing, a search which has to be paid for.
So what exactly is stopping a flat Earth believer from getting onto an expedition to Antarctica when no-one can know if you're a flat Earth believer?
Antarctica is the last unspoiled continent on Earth!
Hence the Antarctica treaty protects Antarctica from any nation claiming part of it as their own. It protects Antarctica from nations and private companies exploiting it for oil and gems and minerals and other resources, ruining the environment in the process. It protects Antarctica from being used for military purposes.
But as always, conspiracy theorists like to distort the facts, where in this case it is flat Earth theorists who twisted that treaty into a lie that people are prevented from exploring Antarctica :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - The videos on my channel are for evidence during my discussions in threads, not for having discussions there (most started as either unlisted or private videos, hence there are significantly more that I've uploaded).
The video you refer to is not mine, hence I provided the link to the original video in the video description, so that you or anyone else can go to the original video and discuss it there, with the maker of that video.
And yes, it proves Bart is lying, and if you had even a 1% understanding of the subject you're denying, then you would have realised why Bart's claim was impossible.
The fact that you claim a 'sound studio' is amusing because Bart says the astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, which YOU deny as a flat Earth believer and hence your studio claim, but why would they need to fake being in low Earth orbit just to fake using an insert in a window to fake being half way to the moon? :-)
And here's NASA's budget over the years, explain to me why you think their budget today is the same as their budget back in the 60s;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
1
-
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - It's a shame that I have to ask people like you the following: If truth is on your side, then why do you need to lie and/or spread lies?
Neil did not say the Earth is literally shaped like a pear, and yet you're happy to parrot that claim without doing ANY research yourself. Why is that?
Here's where the pear shape reference originally came from (a simple analogy by Neil to make a point);
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OeWTrEA5fE
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
So which part of "practically a perfect sphere" do you not understand?
Therefore again, Neil did NOT say the Earth literally looks like a pear, he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
In other words the oblateness of the Earth and the south bulging a fraction more than the north is too small to see in photographs, where to our eyes it looks like a perfect sphere, but measurements shows the Earth is not a perfect sphere.
So again, why do you need to lie to make your case?
1
-
@REMIGIOPEREIRA - You said "I’ve seen all your earth pics and they admit to being photoshopped... so there’s that."
Two lies in one, well done :-)
Back in 2002, NASA's Robert Simmon created a series of images of the Earth (not photographs) called "Blue Marble 2", where they were put together using something like 4 months worth of satellite photos taken in earth orbit. Therefore those photos were stitched together using Photoshop to create full composite images of the Earth.
As Robert himself said, one of the most difficult parts of the project were the clouds, because over a period of 4 months the cloud cover all over the world changes, therefore it was a lot of work to make the cloud cover appear natural in the Photoshop images.
In other words, the "Blue Marble 2" images are NOT claimed to be actual photographs of the Earth, instead Robert and NASA explained at the beginning that they were images of the Earth that THEY had put together using 4 months worth of satellite photos, i.e. they are composites of hundreds, if not thousands, of photos!
Robert Simmon ALSO said that the Apollo missions were different because they were sufficiently far from the Earth to be able to fit the entire planet within single photographs, and therefore that was what he was trying to recreate using satellite images (i.e. to recreate the original 'Blue Marble' photograph taken during Apollo 17).
But as expected, conspiracy theorists took that ONE project to recreate images of thefull Earth in 2002 using satellite photos and twisted it into a claim that NASA admits to faking photographs of the Earth using Photoshop, which is as dishonest and it is ignorant, and yet you fell for it hook line and sinker :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
kylemylo3776 - And finally I'll address these little comments;
You said "You don't get to decide that a country cannot go to the moon unless they put a man in space first. This is a rule you made."
Wrong, it's not my rule it's simply common sense.
Getting people into space is incredibly difficult, getting people to the moon is even more difficult, and therefore you cannot seriously believe that any nation that has never put a person into space would magically build a rocket capable of sending people to the moon without ever putting people into space first!
That's not how it works, that's not how technology is developed, instead it's always one step at a time. How can you not know that?
For example, a nation builds rockets capable of launching satellites and spacecraft, then builds larger rockets capable of getting people into space, then if they can afford it builds even larger rockets capable of getting people to the moon.
They can't go from zero to the moon in one step! Why would you think they could?
You're using the argument that a nation that has never built their own passenger plane could one day magically build a supersonic passenger plane like Concorde as their first ever plane.
It doesn't work like that.
You said "How come US was able to put a man in space AND on the moon 50 years ago but no other country can?"
The USSR were the FIRST to put a man in space in 1961, the USA followed 3 weeks later. The USSR were the FIRST to put a woman in space. The USSR were the FIRST to launch a space station.
ALL of that happened back in the 1960s! That's what the USA were competing against.
If the USSR's N1-L3 rocket worked and the USA's Saturn V rocket was a failure, then it would have been the USSR and NOT the USA who would have landed men on the moon, and you would be here today making the same claims about the USSR's moon landings with "how come" arguments :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "Neil the shill tell us where's the telemetry data for Apollo 11. NASA lost it?"
Where's it's always been, since nothing has been lost.
Telemetry data was always printed out into documents so that the tapes could be reused (the whole point of magnetic tapes!).
After each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the telemetry data was analyzed and presented as charts and graphs and tables .
So here's the mission report for Apollo 11 (for example) 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 want to believe the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion, but why should that mean you MUST blindly believe ALL the hoax claims without question?
And read this too;
www.firstmenonthemoon.com/about.html
Quote: "We have compiled hours of content available from public domain sources and various NASA websites. Thamtech staff and volunteers generously devoted their time to transcribe hours of speech to text. By using simultaneous space and land based audio and video, transcripts, images, spacecraft telemetry, and biomedical data — this synchronized presentation reveals the Moon Shot as experienced by the astronauts and flight controllers."
Hence that's the same telemetry data that conspiracy theorists claim was lost.
The point is, as I said before, once the telemetry data was printed out for a hard copy the magnetic tapes were reused.
So we don't have all the tapes (just as we don't have all the tapes for most space missions of the 60s/70s), but we have all the telemetry data that were ON those tapes .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@diszruptiveent3634 - Regarding Admiral Byrd, you are repeating the twisting of his words, where Byrd was making the point that because Antarctica is so much larger than the entire USA and yet mostly unexplored on foot, then for any route taken from the edge of Antarctica to get to the South pole, there will be a huge amount of unexplored land in front of the explorers (who would typically return along the SAME route they came!).
For example, if you're driving and you arrive at a specific city for the very first time and you drove to the centre of that city, have you explored the entire city? Of course not, there would still be just as much of the city in front and to the sides of you unexplored by you! Most of that city would be unexplored by you, except for the route you drove.
THAT is what Admiral Byrd was saying, but as usual flat Earth theorist twisted it into something else, which is amusing given all the photos Admiral Byrd took during his expeditions and yet no photos of the land claimed by those same flat Earth theorists :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kitkit170 - You said "even if gravity is not perfect they managed it with the speed of camera."
You can't just make it up and stop there, you need to support you claim with evidence (come on my friend :-)).
To this day, not even the highest budget sci-fi movies or sci-fi TV series have ever recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the dust and objects fall down at the rate of the moon's gravity. Even CGI today doesn't look quite right (CGI often looks a bit 'off', especially when modelling people).
When slow motion and/or wires are used, the results are NEVER perfect like Apollo.
Today, with our digital cameras/phones and software, slow motion is one of the EASIEST effects to apply, and so if that was all it took to fake 1/6 gravity, then YouTube would be FULL of videos from hoax believers who recreated 1/6 gravity themselves to PROVE slow motion was used.
Instead, no-one has been able to do it, not even the makers of Apollo hoax documentaries and videos :-)
So the problem is, until someone can actually demonstrate perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio/set and hence prove it can be faked, then any claims that the Apollo footage was faked in a studio will remain unfounded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dodgybodger3124 - Hi, I can help you there :-)
Srch YT for the video "Zoey interviews Buzz Aldrin"
At 7:10 in that video;
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time ?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money... ...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
A rather convoluted answer? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't go to the moon? No! Buzz saying we haven't been to the moon in such a long time? Yes!
Watch the whole video if you have the time, where it's clear that Buzz says we (i.e. himself and other astronauts) did go to the moon :-)
1
-
@dodgybodger3124 - People accused of being part of a conspiracy are always claimed to be scared, or nervous, or |ying, or acting etc. It's standard for any conspiracy theory ;-)
So alarm bell number 1 can be switched off.
The only people who claim the Van Allen belts are impossible to go through and survive are conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves.
I can quote Dr Van Allen's exact words about going through belts, where he says we'd need to remain inside the region of the belts with the highest radiation for ONE WEEK before it could kill us. So passing through in 2 hours is not a problem.
So alarm bell number 2 can be switched off.
And didn't NASA just build and launch the most powerful rocket in history, the SLS, which took the Orion spacecraft to the moon, a spacecraft designed to carry 4 astronauts, where after a 25 day mission to test everything the Orion spacecraft landed in the sea, just like the Apollo missions. That mission was called Artemis 1.
So alarm bell number 3 can be switched off too ;-)
But yes, thanks for polite response and hence making this a good discussion :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robotube7361 - Again, the astronaut would not be completely black as claimed, which is why every recreation of that scene with actual models, sets, computer simulations, night time locations, with sunlight and artificial light, etc, have ALL proven that the astronaut would be illuminated by reflected light.
Therefore please direct everyone here to your source of that scene being recreated and yet the astronaut appears black, given that you appear to claim it's been done, so you have no excuses :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leontassone5201 - You said "If all the so called experts can't prove otherwise I'd be confident in saying you got no hope but im listening"
Ok, but first I need to establish that you have a basic understanding of maps (sorry if that sounds a bit patronizing, but it's important to establish a baseline that we can both agree on).
Consider an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as your town or city.
ALL of us can find an accurate flat map of our own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the bar scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our flat map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
In fact, the accuracy of the flat map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the flat map alone!
Do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JohnMarkss - You said " I mean he's talking about multiple spacecraft the size of the empire state building! Correct me if I'm wrong but the thing that went to the moon was considerably smaller regardless of it being a multiple stage rocket."
Because you still don't understand the difference :-|
For a single stage rocket the COMPLETE rocket must go to the moon and the COMPETE rocket must land on the moon, and the COMPLETE rocket must launch from the moon to return to Earth and then have enough fuel to land on the Earth, ready to be reused!
For a multi-stage rocket, each stage has fuel and rocket engine(s) which are then DISGUARDED once their work is done, making the remaining rocket smaller and significantly lighter, where all that returns to Earth's surface in the end is the Command Module that float down into the sea on parachutes.
So the first method is reusable but impossibly massive, the second method is smaller because it reduces size and weight throughout the journey, but can only be used once.
Surely you can see the difference now? :-)
How do you think the USSR were able to send unmanned spacecraft to the moon, collect a tiny amount of samples, and return those samples back to Earth in 1970, 1972 and 1976?
The USSR used the same basic method as the Apollo missions, where in the end the only part that return to the surface of the Earth was the capsule with the samples that floating down on parachutes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WilsonFox123 - You said "Right I have watched it, all of them videos were just optical."
Optical:
Definition
1. of, relating to, producing, or involving light
2. of or relating to the eye or to the sense of sight; optic
So what exactly do you mean by optical?
Isn't that just your way to dismiss EVERY video, film and photograph in existence that YOU choose to dismiss on the meaningless basis that it's "just optical"? :-)
So if you want to claim more than that (eg. claiming an optical illusion) then you would need to prove your claim, not merely say it.
Therefore as it stands, all the videos I provided shows curvature of the sea.
You said "If you and I went to an indoor swimming pool and filled it up with water and waited until it stop moving. Would the surface of the water be level when it's still?"
Define level, because level doesn't only mean flat.
Besides, if I fill a glass with water, doesn't the surface water against the glass curve upwards?
If I place a drop of water on a glass surface, doesn't the droplet curve?
When water is taken into weightless conditions (i.e. 'zero gravity') it tries to pull itself into a ball, it NEVER flattens out!
For example, here's a 'zero gravity' experiment that you can do yourself;
(Some replies with links are blocked, so just change 😮 to . and 🖍️ to /)
youtu😮be🖍️kDmb-AVTM6k
So your point about the indoor swimming pool is what exactly? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WilsonFox123 - You said "Thanks also I never said maths doesn't exist lol and I never said that maths doesn't work."
And I never said you claimed that, you effectively claimed maths cannot be trusted because maths can be used to 'prove' anything we want even if it's wrong, and hence you said and I quote "The numbers 0123456789 is just a language that humans have made up and It's just secondary/attachment""
My point is that you cannot dismiss mathematics on that basis since mathematics works, and so instead you would need to prove the mathematics wrong or prove the mathematics has been incorrectly applied, and therefore you need to offer actual counter arguments to reveal any flaw in the mathematics mentioned. You haven't done that.
You kept saying still water in a swimming pool is level, meaning level as in perfectly flat, and yet that's just your opinion with ZERO evidence to support it! I explained why the curvature of the swimming pool water would be to impossible for anyone to see by eye.
Hence saying something looks flat to your eyes is not evidence, that's opinion, where it's like claiming a surface is perfectly clean just because you can't see any bacteria when you look at it 🙄
Proof requires more than hearsay and opinion, proof requires the presentation of evidence, preferably evidence in the form of experiments that can be repeated by others with the same results obtained.
I did that with the globe of the Earth that anyone reading this thread can do themselves, whereas you haven't done that for any of the claims you've made here :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shadowsun33 - And now you're going further and further off track :-)
Firstly, you can point out the bad in almost ANYTHING, that doesn't negate the good.
Secondly, I don't care what you believe, but given we're here on a public forum, then we're both free to express our opinions, including challenging those we disagree with.
Thirdly, if you're saying (which appears to be the case) that you don't know the shape of the Earth because its too complex, then you're in no position to claim that others are wrong when they say the Earth is a globe for example.
I know the Earth is a globe because of the FACTS (in numerous fields) which are indisputable, but if you choose to believe otherwise and see yourself as being one of the 'enlightened' people who knows what the future will bring (cue weird and spooky music), then be my guest :-)
1
-
@shadowsun33 - You said " Indisputable evidence that the Earth is a globe??? Have you ever been to space yourself? Have you seen our Earth from space?"
Why would I need to see the Earth from space myself? Just use intelligence and common sense (we have that for a reason, you should try it ;-)).
The MAP of the Earth is just ONE example.
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 distance and work out the distance in miles 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, much less a flat circle, like the AE/Gleason map.
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 :-)).
For example, look at these distances between cities on the AE/Gleason map interpreted as a flat Earth, where the distance could not be any more wrong (the Globe Earth distances are ALL confirmed 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 across a globe is accurate, it works, and therefore the globe is the correct shape of the Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pablosdog2808 - FE theorists are people and therefore can make mistakes, they can be wrong, therefore ALL the conflicting claims made by various FE theorists can't all be correct (eg. some say there's a dome, some say no dome, some say they don't know, some say there's an edge, some say no edge, some say they don't know, etc).
So perhaps you can demonstrate how you think for yourself by giving me a few examples of the common FE claims that you question, or better yet disagree with, and explain why they are wrong?
After all you did say "If you can't question it....its not science..." :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
@brainstorm3446 - Don't just make it up please, I have a degree in mathematics (well, a combined "Mathematics, Statistics and Computing" degree where I loved the 'Computing' but hated the 'Statistics' part) and so it's clear your level of mathematics is rather low (nothing wrong with that btw, just don't pretend to know more than your level (see what I did there? ;-)).
An example of using cycles for prediction would be the ancient Saros series/cycle, which made it possible to predict solar eclipses centuries into the future, but it can only say what will happen (total eclipse on this day, partial eclipse on that day), it cannot give any more detail than that.
The mathematical model of the solar system featuring moons orbiting planets orbiting the sun, can work out the path of the moon between the Earth and the sun with such accuracy that the exact path of the shadow across the Earth's surface can be calculated to the nearest second, meaning for the next 50 years of total solar eclipses anyone can view a map of the shadow across the Earth and know where they will need to be to see the total eclipse and know the time the eclipse will start and when it will end.
That's the difference!
So where's the mathematical model of a flat Earth that can do the same? That's right, it doesn't exist :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nf8084 - Nope, and you ARE effectively saying they were stupid, because the American's sent men to the moon during Apollo 8 in 1968, then Apollo 10, then Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and finally Apollo 17 in 1972, landing during SIX of those missions, and yet you're claiming the Russians were tricked EACH time :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raffisekzenian2746 - You said "haha.. that old Concorde chestnut. That was purely a commercial venture for the rich and famous."
Ah yes, the old "I can understand it but only when I choose to" chestnut :-)
I always find it amusing when people like yourself can understand why Concorde came to an end, but you pretend to not understand why funding for the world's largest and most powerful rocket for the world's most expensive space program to land men on the moon was not sustainable.
Just READ your OWN words here, quote "They are funded by government Space Agencies that are funded by the people."
You said it YOURSELF, it is ALL funded by the people and therefore govts have to justify the money they spend on behalf of the people, it is not a bottomless pit where govts can spend whatever they want on whatever they want, which is your assumption here.
Did NASA want to continue sending men to the moon? OF COURSE THEY DID, they even had plans for at least a decade beyond the Apollo missions, but Congress ended it as I explained.
Concorde is not funded by the people, Space X rockets are not funded by the people, the SLS rocket is funded by the people, hence the SLS rocket is not sustainable BUT will be replaced eventually by commercial Space X rockets that are sustainable.
Btw, claiming we've gone backwards in technology applies equally to supersonic passenger planes. But nice try :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Graymenn - Kubrick used front projection for "2001" which we'll discuss soon.
In any undulating landscape, we can almost ALWAYS point out an imaginary line where the foreground appears to meet the background, because for such a landscape there are regions in the foreground where the surface falls away from us, hence dividing the scene.
For example, here on Earth;
http://m1.biz.itc.cn/pic/new/n/12/32/Img6563212_n.jpg
https://getoutside.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/assets/uploads/Full_Width_Inline_the_walkers_rules.png
We can clearly see the dividing line, so obviously those are artificial backgrounds, right? ;-)
Going back to front projection, please watch the following video that shows the limitations of Kubrick's front projection in "2001" and hence explains why it couldn't be used for Apollo footage;
[Warning: The narrator is attempting to get into the Guinness Book of Records for the world's most boring voice :-)]
https://vimeo.com/93519262
As a bonus, if you have blue/red or green/red 3D glasses then you will be able to see a number of Apollo photos in 3 dimensions in the second half of this video, i.e. from 8:20 onwards.
Some images work better than others because the stereo pairs were created by the astronauts by taking two photos of the same scene, but where they work well the depth is CLEARLY seen, including the photos claimed to have the dividing line you speak of :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mithrandir
You said "sounds like you have been reading too much flat earth society controlled opposition. it's a cliff not a wall, a wall has two sides."
From Mark Sargent's "Flat Earth Clues"
Quote "If you look at the AE or Flat Earth overhead map, you see the problem. To even determine the scope of the outer wall, you have to circle it. It would have taken months, if not years."
From Eric Dubay's "The Flat-Earth Conspiracy"
Quote "if you set a bearing due South from anywhere on Earth, inevitably at or before 78 degrees Southern latitude, you will find yourself face-to-face with an enormous ice-wall towering 100-200 feet in the air extending to the East and West the entire circumference of the world!"
From Edward Hendrie's "The Greatest Lie on Earth"
Quote "Antarctica is the rim of the flat earth. Upon reaching Antarctica, explorers are first met with a massive ice wall that is between 1,000 and 2,000 feet thick, with 100 to 200 feet of that thickness rising above the water"
Rob Skiba asks "WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THEY DRILLED INTO AN ICE WALL NEAR THE FIRMAMENT IN THE 60s?"
youtu.be/_bebl31yOO0
I can post several more, where you are effectively claiming ALL the above and more are controlled opposition, which is very amusing :-)
So the term "ice wall" or "wall of ice" or "wall" or similar has been used as the description by MANY flat Earth theorists, it's THEIR description, and therefore if you have a problem with that description then YOU need to take it up with them.
YOU go and tell ALL those flat Earth theorists that it's a cliff and not a wall. Is that clear? :-)
Until then, the common description used by flat Earth theorists to describe that structure is a wall, not a cliff, and therefore a wall is what it is according to flat Earth theory.
1
-
@Mithrandir - You said "btw which version of the ball earth do you believe in? a breif summuary in your own words woild suffice."
Well putting aside the fact you think 99% of flat Earth theorists are wrong about a wall, there's only one 'version' of a globe Earth, hence the fact that you think there are many versions says it all :-)
So lets step it up with my proof of the Earth being a globe (and yes, my proof in my own words), which I have presented to countless flat Earth believers over the years and yet none of you can find fault with it.
Simply put, if you get hold of a reasonably good 12 inch wide globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the globe or how far apart they are!
It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre.
So please test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first globe denier in history to find a distance flaw in the map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE :-)
The fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is a globe.
I look forward to your example of two locations on Earth for which the distances measured on a globe are wrong.
1
-
@Mithrandir - I just realized my reply is not showing up for others, so I'll repost it;
You said "you showed me quotes of other people describing it as a wall, i however do not describe it as a wall, it's a cliff, a cliff shoreline."
I proved leading flat Earth theorists refer to it as a wall, which is why I said you should take it up with them if you have a problem. It is said by them to be an ice wall, a wall of ice, even the side of a cliff is often referred to as a wall (i.e. "cliff wall"). So case closed in the respect.
You said "what your'e doing is arguing semantics, it's pointless"
Yes it's pointless, and yet YOU are the person who started it, not me :-)
I presented my proof of the Earth being a globe in this thread, you'll even find it in the 'ABOUT' section on my channel, where I'm waiting to see if you can be the first flat Earth believer to debunk it, since none have so far (because none of you can).
Proving the movement of the Earth is secondary, where I've never heard of 'Stationary Earth Theory' only 'Flat Earth Theory' and so the shape of the Earth is what we're here to discuss FIRST.
Any questions before you try to debunk my proof of the Earth being a globe that you keep avoiding :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cowcrazy8268 - You said "There is plenty information out there that it is a hoax instead of news, real video and real proof"
And yet those are EXACTLY the same words said to me by flat Earth believers, so what makes you think your argument is any different to theirs? :-)
Just because you fell for the claims of conspiracy theorists in their books, websites, DVDs, YT channels, videos etc, it doesn't make their claims true.
Btw, I'm not assuming you're a flat Earth believer (but it wouldn't surprise me if you were), I'm just pointing out that you're using the same arguments as believers of countless other conspiracy theorists out there.
You said "They have been saying for years they are going and something always comes up or blows up"
Except in all the years after Apollo that you speak of they NEVER had the massive rocket required fully assembled and ready to launch (when tests are complete), whereas today that is the case the SLS with the Orion Space capsule TODAY.
So what will your argument be when it does happen again? Let me guess... "Fake", "Hoax", "Lies" etc :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Consider this please. Today, we have a HUGE number of geostationary satellites broadcasting live TV channels FROM SPACE to millions upon millions of people. Those satellites are over 22,000 MILES away, broadcasting TV channels via a weak 40W radio signal, and yet all we need to pick up those channels are very SMALL satellite dishes like this;
www.protv.co.uk/uploads/Sky%20dish%20installation%20in%20Bletchley.JPG
The moon is about 11 times further away, therefore to receive the signal to the same strength would require a bigger dish, just like the massive radio dishes/telescopes used during the Apollo missions, like this;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg/800px-Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg
So it's exactly the same principle. Your satellite dish (if you have one) works because it is pointed directly at the satellite, where despite being over 22,000 miles away you can receive the TV channels perfectly if your dish is aligned correctly.
Now move that SAME satellite to the distance of the moon and the signal would be too weak for your small satellite dish, but if you have the massive Parkes Radio Telescope in the link above, then you'll receive the TV channels without any problems, and you'll also be able to receive and send radio signals significant further than the moon.
Although I'm sure you would agree that such a large radio dish is not practical to attach to your home ;-)
And because the Earth rotates, then for distant spacecraft we will need to use at least THREE massive radio dishes spread around the world to ensure that one of them is in direct line of sight of the spacecraft at any given time.
So it's not a mystery my friend, it's just science and engineering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The two experiments in my last reply demonstrates gravity.
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shaneennis9314 - You said "He won't debate because he knows he'll end up looking stupid af. And he can't afford that."
You take that view because like so many conspiracy believers you see your conspiracy as being something special, different, important, when it's not.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc?
The list goes on and on, many of which are more popular and widespread than flat Earth.
The point is, why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for all other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I listed above)?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shaneennis9314 - You said "Helio-centrism is pseudoscience, a fantastical scenario based on a fantasy believed in by you."
The mathematical model for "Helio-centrism" calculates with incredible accuracy countless astronomical events many years and even many DECADES in advance, and hence for centuries has allowed astronomers to prepare well in advance for astronomical events, from lunar/solar eclipses (including the path of totality across Earth's surface), sunrise/sunset times for any location on Earth at any time of year, planet positions as the move across our skies, return of comets, the position of satellites orbiting planets, and so much more.
That PROVES the mathematical model works, it is accurate because it represents reality., i.e. the Earth is a globe orbiting the sun.
In contrast, the flat Earth 'model' calculates absolutely nothing, it predicts absolutely nothing, well except the prediction that people like Eric Dubay will continue to grow richer from gullible flat Earth believers ;-)
You can't even present an accurate flat map of your claimed flat Earth, a flat map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all the distances are correct. That should have been FIRST thing provided and yet it doesn't exist despite over 150 years of flat Earth books. Fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pjq420 - But that is effectively what you're saying, for example;
The Soviets had an advance space program where they could track their spacecraft all the way to the moon and beyond (such as during their mission to Venus in 1970), so here's the problem;
America got men to the moon during 9 missions, which was Apollo 8 in 1968, then Apollo 10, Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and finally Apollo 17 in 1972, landing on the moon during 6 of those missions.
Do you really think the Soviets would have fallen for the same trick over and over again?
Think about it please, because either the Soviets were THAT stupid, or they were in on a conspiracy against themselves... or they knew the Americans had landed men on 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
-
Really? Then perhaps you can say which flat Earth you believe in, because there are a number of versions claimed :-)
- 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?
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?
To this day, all that flat Earth theorists have ever provided is the AE/Gleason projection map, where they only 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 :-)).
I look forward to your version of a flat Earth and (if possible) an accurate map of that same flat Earth :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Terrence, a total eclipse of the sun occurs when the moon passes in front of the sun.
This has always been agreed, even among flat Earth theorists, hence to quote from the famous 1865 flat Earth book "Zetetic Astronomy" 2nd edition;
"An Eclipse of the Sun is caused simply by the Moon passing before it, or between it and the observer on the Earth. Of this no question has been raised."
Then we had the total eclipse of the sun across the USA in 2017, where out of nowhere (probably because of the 70 mile width of the shadow) certain flat Earth theorists started to claim that it's not the moon but some other object passing in front of the sun, with many claiming it's Rahu from Hindu mythology :-|
The problem is, a total eclipse of the sun only ever occurs at exactly the same time as a New Moon, the time when the sun and moon are aligned at the same location in our sky.
So ask yourself the following; When a total eclipse of the sun only ever happens at exactly the same time as the New Moon, going back to the oldest reports of eclipses from ancient people, and we see the sun being covered by an object exactly the same size and shape as the moon, then isn't it more likely that the object is.... the moon, rather than some mysterious object that no-one has ever seen? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shaman3069 - Then just reject science and all the 'evil' that science has created and live a simpler life without science... starting by rejecting the very same technology that you're using right now to send your replies ;-)
A knife is a great tool, a vital tool, where as a species we wouldn't be where we are today without it, but a knife is also a weapon, one which has killed countless people throughout history.
Hence weapons are power, and there isn't a single example of power that isn't abused in by certain people, whether that power comes in the form of weapons, money, science, religion, government, laws, status, resources etc, it's easier for people to just demonise power than it is to focus on the actual abusers of that power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nerfunkal - Irrelevant my friend :-)
Gravity is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is. Just as magnetism is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is. Just as light is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is. Just as electricity is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is.
Hence to explain how gravity works, we have theories of gravity. To explain how magnetism works, we have theories of magnetism. To explain how light works, we have theories of light. To explain how electricity works, we have theories of electricity.
The problem is, when scientists say they don't know what 'X' is, some people take that to mean the scientists are saying 'X' doesn't exist.
But that's not the case, the scientists know "X" exist and they have theories that explains and predicts how "X" works, it's just that they don't know what it really is (Replace 'X' with 'Gravity' or 'Magnetism' or 'Light' or 'Electricity' etc).
I hope that explanation helps :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@erniefasbender4939 - You said "Do you dispute the daytime temperature of the Moon is not around 120 then?"
No, I dispute your understanding of heat and temperature and a vacuum!
On earth during weather forecasts, temperature is given as AIR temperature 1-2m off the ground in the shade. There's no air in space so they give the minimum and maximum SURFACE temp instead.
The minimum and maximum temperature in low earth orbit is -250°F to 250°F (120°C), about the same as the moon (I'll come to that later)!
In other words, objects exposed to the sun can EVENTUALLY reach 250°F, and objects in the shade could EVENTUALLY cool to -250°F, depending on the material.
Therefore the astronauts were not blasted by 250°F when exposed to the sun nor -250°F when in the shade, that's how it would be in air (such as when you open an oven door), but it doesn't work that way in a vacuum since there is no air.
So as stated, the temperature in low earth orbit is -250°F to 250°F, and yet even before the Apollo missions astronauts have been out on spacewalks under those conditions without problems.
Think of it in another way... In some countries, the temperature of the surface you're standing on can become hot enough to fry an egg, eg;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnZQgp6srF4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sU-8bi8n3g
But that same surface, hot as it is, has no affect upon YOU (if you have good footwear) or any objects you happen to be holding.
That is, you are not 'blasted' by the temperature of the surface frying that egg!
The same is true on the moon's surface and when in low earth orbit, where an object slowly heats up when in the sun and slowly cools down when in the shade. Hence the moon's surface has no more affect on the temperature of the astronauts than the earth's surface on those people standing on that sidewalk hot enough to fry an egg.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenboyd4934 - Yes I can prove it (and I will in this reply), but first I would say the moon landings are a scientific and a historic FACT, whether you like it or not and whether you believe it or not.
Therefore claiming it was a hoax makes YOU the claimant, and hence the burden of proof is on the claimant.
Remember, for ANY conspiracy theory, you only need to present ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE of a conspiracy that holds up to close scrutiny to prove it (or at the very least, to prove the conspiracy is highly likely).
So please present what you consider to be the BEST evidence of a hoax and lets discuss it. Just ONE please, the BEST one (if choosing just one hoax claim is too difficult, then select your top three).
Besides, any evidence from NASA would be automatically dismissed by you, therefore here's some third party evidence (where ALL the sources for this information can be found in the reference section at the bottom of the page);
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And to others who may be reading this thread in future, here's some info that would clearly go over Sophies head.
To get people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history, which NASA achieved with the Saturn V thanks to increased funding for that purpose.
The key point is - the Saturn V rocket was not built for space exploration or for scientific research, it was all about politics!
The USA needed such a rocket to get men on the moon before the USSR for the massive propaganda coup of capitalism vs communism.
Hence Congress gave NASA a massive increase in funding to make it happen, and once they were satisfied that the USSR can't match them (i.e. mission accomplished), Congress then withdrew all the extra funding for NASA, meaning no more Saturn V rockets could be built and so the planned Apollo missions 18 to 20 were cancelled.
You can see it clearly in NASA's budget over the years;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
It costs as much today to develop such a massive rocket as it did back then, hence NASA's new and more powerful SLS rocket (due to launch this year) has development costs spread over 10 years, where it uses booster rockets and updated versions of the Space Shuttle engines (proven reliability and saving cost).
Simply put, the Apollo program was not sustainable financially, it was never meant to be, instead it was part of the Cold War for which NASA used the opportunity to get as much research and science out of it as they could while it lasted :-|
The USA's return to the moon should be more sustainable this time, and even more so when the private rocket industry takes over with SLS size rockets of their own (and larger) for less cost in future, eg. Space X.
1
-
1
-
@rickstark1917 - You said "Sure. An accurate map is a good representation."
Great. The key point is, you can give that accurate map of your home town/city to someone visiting for the first time, where he/she can not only navigate your entire home town/city thanks to the map, but can also work out the distances for any journey accurately too. All from ONE accurate map.
The other key point is, that same map helps to prove the shape of the Earth.
Why? Because a map is a 2D representation of an area, and so for the map to be accurate the size of the area doesn't matter if it's flat.
Hence the area mapped could be 10 meters by 10 meters, or 10 miles by 10 miles, or 100 miles by 100 miles, or 10000 miles by 10000 miles, and so on. If it's flat, then we can represent that ENTIRE flat area accurately with just ONE flat map.
So the question is, where is the accurate flat map of a flat Earth where we can take any two locations on the map and measure it to work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct (just like our town/city map), proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of a flat Earth?
No such flat map exists! :-|
1
-
@rickstark1917 - You said "No such map exists for globe earth either."
And that takes us to the CORE of the evidence and hence the proof of the Earth being a globe, because what you've said is incorrect.
Get yourself a decent globe of the Earth, then select two locations on that globe, for example Tokyo in Japan and New York in the USA, and measure the distance between them in millimetres (i.e. as a direct line across the globe of the Earth).
Now measure the circumference of your globe around the equator in millimetres.
The equator will give you the scale of your globe, where you can work out how many miles to the millimetre by using a calculator to divide 24900 by the circumference of your globe in millimetres. Lets call the answer to that calculation 'X', and therefore 'X' is the scale of your globe.
So now you can check the distance between New York and Tokyo by taking the distance you measured on your globe in millimetres and then multiply that number by 'X' to get the distance in miles. It will match the real world distance (well, give or take natural errors in your measurement).
You can now check ANY two locations on Earth using that same method, i.e. measure it in millimetres on your globe and multiply that number by 'X', and it will match the real world distance.
The larger and the better your globe, the more accurate your results will be (but even a cheap globe would be pretty good).
So try it please. Get yourself a globe that you can hold and touch, work out 'X' as I described, and now you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations on Earth in miles directly from your globe!
That would be impossible if the map of the Earth around the globe was wrong. That would be impossible is the Earth was not a globe.
That alone proves the Earth is a globe, since there is no flat map of the Earth in existence for which you can do the same :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaimealfaro200 - You said "No atmosphere, no Van Allen radiation belts protecting you. Low orbit temperature swings are also big, though, not so big as between shadows and sunlight in the moon"
There's no atmosphere to protect astronauts in low Earth orbit (LEO) and the Van Allen belts offers NO protection either. Instead the Van Allen belts are particles from the sun trapped within Earth's magnetic field, where it is Earth's magnetic field (magnetosphere) that offers us some protection from cosmic rays (deflects about 1/3 from LEO) and offers some protection from the rare solar storms, but ZERO protection from the electromagnetic radiation from the sun.
So the main radiation of concern are cosmic rays, when in LEO the body of the Earth itself blocks out about 1/3 of the cosmic rays, and so cosmic ray radiation in LEO is about 1/3 the level of deep space.
On the moon's surface, the surface of the moon itself blocks out about 1/2 the cosmic rays, and so cosmic ray radiation on the moon's surface is a fraction higher than LEO.
So overall, radiation levels on the moon's surface are only a little higher than radiation levels in LEO (i.e. mostly cosmic rays), and therefore your made up claim that "Radiation in low orbit is also way lower than at lunar surface" is completely false.
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
@jaimealfaro200 - You said "if you look in the oposite direction from the sun, you would see more stars than you can see here on Earth. You should stick to the subjects you understand."
As a practicing amateur astronomer for around 30 years with a huge interest in all space related topics, including space travel, I do know what I'm taking about son, whereas you don't (look up 'Dunning-Kruger' that you're a good example of).
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 his 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 ever since people first went into space.
Which part of what Michael Collins says about seeing stars do you still not understand?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mr.miller3432 - Hi, I know the scene you're speaking of my friend :-)
From that scene, conspiracy theorists carefully selected what to show their audience and hence they mislead the viewers, where it's easy to be caught out if you don't check the claims yourself.
Hence try looking at the following objectively to see if you come to the same conclusion as before:
Here's the part of the footage that hoax believers don't show you, where we see the astronaut fall, and then calls out for help and the other astronaut goes back to help him up;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocsV9hxMndk&t=130
To recap, we hear the astronaut on the ground say at 2:14 "Give me help!", then see the other astronaut run towards him to help, where he positions himself so that the astronaut on the ground uses his left hand to grab onto the right hand/arm of the astronaut standing up.
Watch that clip several times to see what's happening, and listen to their exchanges which appear to be as follows;
"There you go"
"'kay just push... start pushing on my hand"
"Give me your hand"
"Ok, here we go"
And so with help from the astronaut who went BACK to help him, he gets up in the 1/6 gravity of the moon (i.e. 1/6 his weight on Earth).
Be honest now, after watching the full scene with the original audio several times and without the editing and comments from conspiracy theorists, can you now see that it's not what the conspiracy theorists claimed? :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joshdibble9357 - You said "a Christian is one who follows. And the Bible describes a flat motionless plane".
100% wrong my friend. The Bible does not explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you have are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles which certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their interpretation. In other words, it's all implicit !
Christian churches for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE (that is a fact!). None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe.
Even Creationists, yes those who take the Bible LITERALLY, say the Earth is a GLOBE! Go to a Creationist website and search for 'Flat Earth' for example, however you may not like what you find there. In fact, some Creationists go as far as claiming the flat Earth is an atheist conspiracy to discredit Christians and Christianity .
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1633 for daring to say the GLOBE Earth orbited the sun, when at the time all the Christian churches 'knew' that the sun and the rest of the universe revolved around the GLOBE stationary Earth!
So who should I listen to when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible? Nearly 2000 YEARS of Christian churches who say the Earth is a GLOBE? All the biblical scholars from those churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts to produce ALL the Bibles you've ever read who say the Earth is a GLOBE? The Creationists who take the Bible literally who say the Earth is a GLOBE? Over 2 BILLION Christians worldwide who say the Earth is a GLOBE?
Or should I listen to some quacks on the internet who claim the Bible says the Earth is flat and people like yourself who blindly believe those charlatans? :-)
Well, I choose to believe the billions of Bible reading Christians who say the Earth is a GLOBE.
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches. So if you choose to believe ALL the Christians above are wrong or lying about the shape of the Earth and hence you insist the Earth is flat, then perhaps you're not the Christian that you think you are my friend. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@suppaduppa - I know exactly what Eric says, and what you claim about the South Pole is completely FALSE.
EVERYONE is free to explore where ever they want in Antarctica, there's no military there to stop you!
The problem is, no-one owns Antarctica (that's the point of the treaty), so who is going to spend the cash and risk their lives to rescue YOU if something goes wrong after you wandered off without making any arrangements FIRST for a rescue plan?
So no-one is restricted from exploring Antarctica, that's why EVERY YEAR there are expeditions for which NO-ONE in history has EVERY reported being prevented.
For example, look at this list of expeditions (go to the top of that page too);
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions#21st_century
Again, the issue for explorers is that if they get into trouble then there will be no-one out there to rescue them UNLESS they'd made sufficient arrangements and preparations in advance, and hence they HAVE to follow a pre-planned route (show me a route that has been banned).
Therefore you can't just wander off where ever you like in Antarctica and then expect a massive search operation if you go missing, a search which has to be paid for.
So what exactly is stopping a flat Earth believer from getting onto an expedition to Antarctica when no-one can know if you're a flat Earth believer?
Antarctica is the last unspoiled continent on Earth!
Hence the treaty protects Antarctica from any nation claiming part of it as their own. It protects Antarctica from nations and private companies exploiting it for oil and gems and minerals and other resources, ruining the environment in the process. It protects Antarctica from being used for military purposes.
THAT is the point of the treaty. It doesn't stop anyone from visiting or exploring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lov4570 - Which proves my point, thank you.
None of the flat Earth videos have been deleted, unless by the user or through the channel being deleted (by the user or for breaking the rules).
Any deleted videos would appear as blanks in every playlist that it was added, and yet where is the outcry from FE believers who say all the FE videos have vanished from their playlists?
So instead of listening to those distorting what is being said, here are the facts...
Google/YouTube changed the search algorithm to prevent conspiracy videos from completely dominating search lists as they were for several years!
In other words, if a few years ago I searched Google/YouTube for "Apollo moon landings", then instead of a list mostly about the Apollo moon landings, that list would be completely dominated by Apollo HOAX videos, which is unacceptable!
Following the changes however, such a search is now dominated by links/videos about the Apollo moon landings, as requested.
That's how it should be!
So now if you want to find conspiracy videos (moon landings, flat Earth, ISS hoax, etc) then you have to be more specific in your search, which is not difficult (you don't need their exact URL, you just need to be smarter in your search).
That's also how it should be and hence Google/YouTube have simply redressed the balance.
Whether it's gone too far depends on your conspiracy point of view, but the videos and links are still there, you just have to work harder and smarter to find them :-)
1
-
@lov4570 - You said "There's no globe model that can be used to travel."
😂 What are you talking about?
ALL navigation maps are 2D projection maps, where ALL are 2D projections of a GLOBE Earth onto a 2D surface. Hence all location references (co-ordinates) are via the latitude and longitude taken from the GLOBE Earth.
Eg: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections
In the link above, scroll down until you find the Azimuthal equidistant map.
Even that map, the 'Gleason map' that flat Earth believers like to falsely claim as their own, is stated by Gleason HIMSELF to be a projection from a GLOBE in his patent! Yes, Gleason himself says the map is created from a GLOBE of the Earth.
2D projection maps are used because they are easy to carry around, where they can either represent the entire Earth or 'zoom' into regions of the Earth to provide greater accuracy and more detail. Orders of magnitude more convenient and easier and more accurate than carrying a GLOBE of the Earth around!
ALL 2D projection maps are distorted, including the AE/Gleason map, whereas GLOBES of the Earth are not distorted.
If the Earth was flat, then a flat map would exist where there is no distortion and it would be impossible to wrap that map around a globe without distorting it.
Likewise, if the Earth is a globe, then the map around the globe will have no distortion and it would be impossible to flatten that map without distorting it.
In other words, the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe with zero distortion proves the Earth is a Globe.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lov4570 - Nope, conspiracy theorists (who have never sent anything into space themselves!) make that claim by distorting what scientists who have sent craft into space actually say.
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know about the radiation belts named after him, right? ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markisokawa2067 - Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity;
youtu.be/Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is - it doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MagicRoosterBluesBand - Firstly, why do you keep adopting the rather childish behaviour of voting up every reply you post? Are you really that insecure?
Secondly, you said "You mean that famous pic of Buzz in a spotlight? You can plainly see the fall-off on the top and lower left and even in the visor"
Wrong, you can barely see the claimed fall off in the original photo, where instead the effect is greatly exaggerated when you adjust the brightness and contrast of the original, hence proving my point.
So by your own admission those photographers were shown the modified version of that photo.
You said "The sun doesn't produce fall-off; only a spotlight close by does."
Ah yes, the magical spotlights that NEVER EVER produce a second shadow in ANY Apollo photographs :-)
Hence that's such an ignorant comment from you :-) Please show me your analysis of the lunar surface dust and how it is effected by light please. You know, a massive area covered with jagged grains of rock and silicon where you've observed and recorded how it is illuminated depending on the altitude of the sun and your angle relative to the sun.
You said "there is another shot of Neil in complete shadow of the LEM taking Buzz's shot that has the same clarity"
Eh? Neil is in none of the Apollo surface photos, only Buzz, and how can we see both astronauts as you described? So either post the photo here or name the catalogue number. For example, the photograph of Buzz described above is AS11-40-5903.
No excuses please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MagicRoosterBluesBand - You said " you mean the edited photo on the cover of Life and National Geographic, countless documentaries we've seen for the last 50 years?"
Yes because as I stated they make the photos look better (for obvious reasons) compared to the RAW originals (eg. where radiation effects causes fogging that results in low contrast).
For example, here's a high res scan of the original photo of Buzz taken by Neil;
(Replies with links are blocked here, so just change 😮 to . and 🖍️ to /)
tiny😮cc🖍️357kuz
You'll notice Neil was pointing the camera too low, cutting off the top of Buzz's spacesuit backpack and showing too much of the ground.
Here's an enhanced version (i.e. doctored) to improve the colour, brightness and contrast, but now giving the false impression of a so-called hot spot;
tiny😮cc🖍️657kuz
So to make that photo look EVEN better, magazines and books will often add extra black on top and crop the photo to place Buzz more in the middle of the photo.
For example, look at this version of the same photo;
tiny😮cc🖍️b57kuz
Notice the extra black added on top and the areas around Buzz that's been cut out (cropped), and notice how the photo has been rotated to make the horizon level, placing Buzz more in the middle of the photo.
Also notice how the colour, brightness and contrast of that photograph has been adjusted compared to the wash-out original in the first link above.
This is what happens to many Apollo photos seen in magazines, books and documentaries, i.e. the originals have been doctored by someone for publication to make them look 'nicer'.
So are you still going to deny that Apollo photos seen in various publications have been altered to look better than the original RAW photographs? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MagicRoosterBluesBand - Hence I always say to conspiracy believers - if you believe the moon landings were faked then fine that's your opinion, and you have every right to your opinion, but why should your opinion mean you must believe without question all the conspiracy claims made?
Surely conspiracy theorists are only human and therefore they can make mistakes like all humans, they can sometimes get things wrong, and therefore everything they say shouldn't be taken as gospel, no matter how credible they may seem.
In other words, it would make a change if just once a moon landing conspiracy believer could say something like "I know the moon landings were faked, I know men never walked on the moon, and so yes I agree that specific hoax claim is wrong, but that doesn't mean the other hoax claims are wrong too, quite the contrary" :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TonOfHam - Now read the following that I posted to someone else here an hour ago:
It is correct that lasers can be, and have been, used to measure the distance of the moon since before the Apollo missions, however that's only half the story.
When laser light from earth reaches the moon, it is spread out over several kilometers. As a result, photons of light reflected back could come from anywhere within that region, from the top of a hill/mountain to the bottom of a crater, hence the distance measured is only accurate to within kilometers.
By placing a retro-reflector on the moon, laser light aimed at the moon will hit the reflector and produce a significantly brighter reflection than the surrounding area (just like a reflector on a cyclist caught in the headlights of a car). Because the light from the reflectors comes from a known fixed point on the moon's surface, the accuracy went from kilometers to centimeters, and today it's now down to less than a millimeter (hence we now know the moon is spiraling away from earth at the rate of 3.8 centimeters per year).
Hence significantly greater accuracy in distance measurement is the reason why three Apollo missions placed retro-reflectors on the lunar surface, and why the USSR placed retro-reflectors on their two lunar rovers landed on the moon in 1971 and 1973 (Lunokhod 1 and 2).
So as you may deduce, retro-reflectors alone don't prove men were on the moon, but they do add to the evidence because it is impossible to send spacecraft to the moon in secret, and yet the Apollo reflectors were used within days of being placed on the moon by the Apollo astronauts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TonOfHam - Actually I've already dealt with it, only I forgot this topic video blocks links and so you couldn't see it, so I'll repost a modified version of my previous reply (without the links);
--------------------------
Regurgitating easily debunked hoax claims doesn't make your point my friend :-)
The petrified wood in 2009 was an error made by a Dutch Art museum who claimed a rock donated to them was from the moon, despite being warned in 2006 that it probably wasn't from the moon for the following reasons;
1) That rock was given to the Dutch Prime Minister by the US ambassador in commemoration of the Apollo 11 astronaut's visit. The documentation didn't say it was from the moon.
Link: Search Google for: Fake dutch moon rock causes embarrassment for museum Dailymail , and click on the first link found.
2) It was given to the Dutch Prime Minister just 3 MONTHS after Apollo 11. The moon rocks as gifts to nations were given out by NASA a full ONE YEAR after Apollo 11.
3) The Dutch Prime Minister's rock was completely unprotected. Whereas ALL the gifts of moon rocks given out by NASA to other nations were encased in a sphere of Lucite resin for protection and mounted on a plaque, stating where it came from.
Link: Search Google Images for: Apollo Moon Rocks Plaque
4) The Dutch Prime Minister's rock was big. The moon rocks given out as gifts to nations/states were tiny samples inside Lucite resin.
So everything pointed to that rock NOT coming from the moon, the museum was warned it's unlikely to come from the moon, but they ignored the warning and displayed it as a moon rock just the same.
Three years later, that museum had to face the embarrassment of finding out that the warning was correct! They even laughed about it afterwards.
For more information, including the Dutch museum that the moon rocks from NASA went to, watch the following YouTube video;
Link: Search YouTube for: xNMnPkQZNjk , and click on Dutch Moon Rock Story Dead! FOUND!
Therefore the moon rocks given to the Netherlands by NASA are still where they've always been.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
NASA send 3 men to the moon during Apollo 8, Apollo 10, Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and Apollo 17.
That's NINE missions, hence 27 men!
From Apollo 11 onwards they aimed to land on the moon, where 6 succeed, hence 12 men have walked on the moon.
Why didn't you know 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spikenomoon - And to add to my point, here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves or to just make it up as you go along, right? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oknevals - You cried "You are obviously a blind believer of official narrative with no technical background and a lot of time on your hands"
Says the kid who actually thought "Dark Side of the moon" was a documentary :-D
So said "With 85% success mission, the Apollo program must be the most succesful engineering feat in history"
So you've never heard of the Space Shuttle? :-)
The Space Shuttle mounted on the external fuel tank with two booster rockets never had an unmanned test launch. And yet just 9 years after the last Apollo mission, that first ever Space Shuttle launch in 1981 was with two astronauts on board!
That was done despite the Space Shuttle being called and I quote "The most complex machine ever built", where it was a spacecraft like no other, hence nothing like it had been seen before.
There were many firsts during that debut launch, such as being the first time the complete system lifted off and the first time the Space Shuttle had entered Earth orbit! The re-entry was the first time the heat shield tiles were put to the test for real, where a failure would have meant death (as seen with Columbia). Numerous firsts during that debut Space Shuttle launch in 1981, and yet it was a manned mission.
The Space Shuttle (again, the most complex machine ever built) had 24 successful launches over the first 4.5 years, until disaster struck on the 25th mission.
So how was that any less 'impossible' than 9 manned missions to the moon in 4 years, with 6 successful landings and one mission perilously close to the death of 3 astronauts?
Equally, there were 135 Space Shuttle missions in total and only two failures. So work out the success percentage for all the Shuttle missions and tell me why you think Apollo was impossible on that basis :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Luke.Skywodka - And right there you highlight the problem perfectly, because your argument comes from a lack of understanding of space and listening to too many conspiracy theorists :-|
The key point to know is that space is a vacuum, i.e. there is no air, therefore with no air to carry heat the temperature range quoted in space is for the minimum and maximum temperature that an object can potentially reach, which is -250 F to 250 F, on the moon and in low Earth orbit.
In other words, a sheet of metal on the moon (or in low Earth orbit) directly exposed to the sun may eventually reach 250 F, and that same sheet of metal in the shade may eventually cool to -250 F given enough time.
When exiting the Lunar Module (LM) the film inside a camera would be at the same temperature it was when inside the LM, but with no heat from the sun reaching the film it will not heat up, instead it will gradually get colder as heat is radiated away, but it's a slow process, and therefore the astronauts were never out long enough for the film to cool down to a temperature that would affect the film.
The argument you've made only applies to air temperature here on Earth that can affect photographic film.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomwilkinson2883 - REPOSTED:
I forgot this video doesn't allow links!
Where are the craters under the unmanned landers that deployed rovers on the moon?
Like the sand in deserts on Earth, the dust on the moon is many meters deep in places (much deeper in some locations compared to others).
On Earth, grains of sand/dust blasted up by a helicopter would become trapped by the surrounding air to create large swirling dust clouds around the helicopter, where the thrust would remove the top several inches of loose sand;
For example:
Search YouTube for: *RKlrvf3lUxk
*
(HD footage of an IDF Helicopter landing and taking off in the desert)
In the vacuum of the moon, there's no air to trap the dust particles blasted by the LM's rocket engine, hence they fly away in straight lines at great speed, eventually landing a long distance away. Again, the thrust would remove the top several inches of loose dust;
For example:
Search YouTube for: gFuP-ZUNz_8
(Apollo 16 Lunar Landing (realigned))
Go to 2:34 in the video above.
So for both the helicopter and the LM, the several inches of loose sand/dust blown away over a wide area doesn't show up as a crater, instead it's barely noticeable (have you EVER seen a crater under a helicopter that landed or took off from desert sands?).
Here's a close up of the surface directly below the LM, where we can see the top inches of loose dust have been blown away to reveal the more tightly packed dust underneath with cracks in the surface.
If you look carefully you can even see the radial lines created as the dust was blown away;
Google Image Search: *AS11-40-5921.jpg
*
Click on the first image found (with AS11-40-5921 in the title).
I could be wrong, but there also appears to be a slight brownish discoloration of the surface too.
Therefore the assumption that there should be a noticeable crater under the LM is as wrong as expecting a crater under a helicopter in a desert.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HenryDurth - Since when do you go by the RELIGIONS and/or the religious text of the Egyptians, Nordic people, Hindus, Mayans, Incas, or Navajos? So cut out your nonsense please :-)
With regards to the religious text of the Bible and what it means, what makes you think anyone should take the personal opinion of a guy on the internet over the opinions of all the Christian churches and Bible scholars throughout history who produced all the Bibles we've discussed here and more, who say the Earth is a globe?
What makes you think anyone should take the personal opinion of a guy on the internet over the opinions of Creationists who take the Bible more literally that anyone else who say the Earth is a globe?
What makes you think anyone should take the personal opinion of a guy on the internet over the opinions of billions of Christians who say the Earth is a globe?
You can offer no sizeable credible authority/group on the books of the Bible who say the Earth is flat in the Bible, therefore while you have a right to your personal opinion, that's all it is, and hence the rest of the world says you're wrong.
Still, thanks for the discussion :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jpmuro - Wrong, NASA are not the science of Astronomy and hence had NOTHING to do with calculating the gravity of the moon or the planets or the moons of those planets.
Thanks to Newton's theory of gravity, the gravity of the moon and the planets had been calculated based upon their measured distance and estimated mass centuries ago!
And last time I checked, other nations besides the USA since the 60s have sent spacecraft to the moon, including the USSR (Russia), Japan, India, China, Europe, etc, which can only be achieved by taking the effects of the moon's gravity into account.
So use some common sense please and asked yourself how a spacecraft can orbit the moon (for example) if the moon had no gravity! :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sure, the same Eric who says he doesn't know if his claimed flat Earth has an edge or if it has a dome :-)
Besides, should Neil also debate those who claim the Earth is hollow/concave, that the Universe is electric, that the moon is a spaceship, that the Space Shuttle was a hoax, that the ISS is a hoax, that Mars rovers are a hoax, that extra-terrestrials are visiting Earth in UFOs, that crop circles are made by aliens, that alien civilizations have been found on Mars and the moon, and so on?
What makes you think flat Earth believers are a special case? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@averagejoe8564 - I find it amusing when people like yourself make it so personal from the start. No discussion, no debate, just straight in there with your insults. Shame :-)
Anyway, don't ask for what you can't present yourself. If you want something you can see with your eyes as proof the Earth is round, then I could provide photos of the Earth, but you will only claim they are fake (like all flat Earth believers).
The problem is, FE believers ask for 'real' pictures of the entire globe Earth when none of you can provide 'real' pictures of th whole of your flat Earth, not even ONE. You can't even provide ONE picture of your claimed wall of ice up against your claimed firmament dome.
So yes, I can provide what I consider to be the best evidence that the Earth is a globe, evidence that no flat Earth believer has been able to debunk. And yes, it is something you can see (perhaps not in the way you think) but it is visual.
Are you sitting comfortably? Ready?...
1
-
1
-
@averagejoe8564 - Anyway, I'll get to the point... my proof centers around the map of the Earth, which is just ONE piece of evidence that proves the Earth is a globe.
So take a globe of the Earth (the bigger it is and the higher the quality the better), and then select ANY two locations on that globe, measure the distance and work out what that distance would be in miles, 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 happen to choose to measure.
NO OTHER SHAPE offers that result, much less a flat circle like the AE/Gleason map.
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 :-)).
For example, look at these distances between cities on the AE/Gleason map interpreted as a flat Earth, where the distance 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.
1
-
@averagejoe8564 - Yes, yes, yes, I have have provided you with proof, which you can see with your eyes and even measure yourself.
But like ALL flat Earth believers you cannot debunk it, and so you run away from it instead. So thank you for proving my point so perfectly :-)
You said "An image, a video. 240p, 480p" - And I told you not to ask for evidence that you can't provide yourself, especially when you would just cry "fake" without any proof of it being fake.
Where's your image or video showing the whole of your flat Earth? That's right, it doesn't exist.
Where's your image or video showing your wall of ice up against your firmament dome? That's right, it doesn't exist.
So again, don't be a hypocrite by asking for the kind of evidence you can't provide yourself and evidence that you only dismiss as fake without proof.
Now address my proof that you ran away from.
1
-
@averagejoe8564 - You said "I will not address your proof."
Of course not, because like ALL flat Earth believers, you can't debunk it, so thanks again for proving my point :-)
You said "Haha! 25 years and your still an amateur."
What an incredibly ignorant comment, even by your low standards.
All over the world there are a HUGE number of people who take photography seriously, where it's one of their main hobbies/pastimes and therefore they are referred to as amateur photographers. In other words, they do it for the love of photography, NOT as a career.
Likewise, all over the world there are a HUGE number of people who take astronomy seriously, where it's one of their main hobbies/pastimes and therefore they are referred to as amateur astronomers. Again, they do it for the love of astronomy, NOT as a career.
I can list several more amateur 'professions' (eg. amateur dramatics, amateur football, amateur basketball, amateur radio, etc...).
The fact that you didn't understand that suggests you are either very unintelligent, or you're very young and hence haven't grown up as yet (because it would be embarrassing for a grown adult not to know that).
So stay ignorant son, when you grow up and gain life experiences, perhaps you'll be in a better position to learn.
And finally you said "Follow Christ everyone!"
Flat Earth is a non-Christian belief, therefore if you believe the Earth is flat, then you are not a Christian.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christianpulido8360 - So again, to prove me wrong then ALL you have to do is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a globe is different to the distance measured in the real world.
You cannot find a single example, proving the globe is accurate and undistorted.
In contrast, here's some of the distances in miles measured directly from the Gleason map;
Sydney to Santiago = 15,950
Sydney to Johannesburg = 14,600
Sydney to Perth = 5,100
Auckland to Buenos Aires = 15,700
Cape Town to Durban = 1,800
Dakar to Mogadishu = 5850
Here's the actual distances in miles in the real world (as confirmed on any globe);
Sydney to Santiago = 7,046
Sydney to Johannesburg = 6,856
Sydney to Perth = 2,044
Auckland to Buenos Aires = 6,430
Cape Town to Durban = 790
Dakar to Mogadishu = 4,359
Explain the huge discrepancy with the distances measured on the Gleason map please :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aceventura5398 - Again, Polaris is incredibly far away, therefore I'm not here to hold your hand to make you understand distances, but I will address the Polaris never moves claim.
The only reason we call that star Polaris is because it happens to be the closest naked eye star to true north.
True north is the exact point in the sky that all the stars revolve around, where it does change over time very slowly.
Polaris is currently about 0.75 degree off from true north, and so if you pointed a camera at Polaris and zoomed in to create a time lapse video for several hours, then you will notice that Polaris creates an arc for a circle about the width of 3 full moons.
So like all the other stars seen when we're north of the equator, Polaris ALSO revolves around TRUE NORTH, and therefore Polaris does move, just not as much as the stars around it.
Now ask yourself why all flat Earth theorists incorrectly claim Polaris never moves, which is why you believed it never moves too :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rossreynolds4835 - You said "NASA is controlled by the government" and "USA schools were forced to teach the round earth theory".
So what?
Are we to believe that ALL flat Earth believers lack the intelligence to get careers working for NASA, or working for the 70+ other space agencies worldwide, or the many private space agencies worldwide, or the many satellite companies worldwide, etc? What exactly is stopping them from getting those jobs?
Last time I checked, there wasn't a test that can identify flat Earth believers (like the test for Replicants in Blade Runner). No-one can know you're a flat Earth believer unless YOU tell them, so why hasn't a SINGLE flat Earth believer ever got into a position to expose the claimed flat Earth from the inside?
Consider ALL the people that flat Earth believers claim are hiding the secret of a flat Earth, such as space agencies and companies, the military forces claimed to be keeping us away from the wall of ice, members of governments, and so on.
And what about all the people claimed to be making sets and putting astronauts in harnesses to fake weightlessness, or faking such space footage in water tanks? What about all the people behind the cameras and sound and props? What about all the computer graphics experts creating the countless thousands of claimed CGI photographs and CGI video effects?
The list goes on and on and on, and yet somehow not a SINGLE flat Earth believer has manage to get a job in ANY of those careers to expose the flat Earth conspiracy based upon their firsthand experience.
So can't you see just how stupid it is to believe that out of the MASSIVE number of people who would have to be involved in hiding a flat Earth for all these centuries, that not even ONE person would have exposed it and revealed their role in the claimed 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bongofury361 - You said " You can check out videos on YouTube that allegedly show a 24 sun in the "south pole", but they're all edited!"
Wrong. Show me a video of 24 hour sun in the North Pole for which we can't find the equivalent for the South Pole.
Remember, if you're going to claim the South Pole footage is edited, then YOU must prove editing in the South Pole videos that we don't see in the North Pole videos.
So go ahead and present the perfect North Pole 24 hour sun video please, a video that is different to all those filmed at the South Pole.
You said "Tell me, why is there an Antarctica treaty of 60 countries plus"
Because it's the last unspoiled continent on Earth that isn't owned by ANY nation! The treaty protects Antarctica from any nation claiming part of it as their own. It protects Antarctica from nations and private companies exploiting it for oil and gems and minerals and other resources, ruining the environment in the process. It protects Antarctica from being used for military purposes.
THAT is the point of the treaty. It doesn't stop anyone from visiting.
If you think something is being hidden, then please list some of the groups of people (jobs/careers, positions) who are actively involved and therefore they know the 'truth'.
As for your link. So what? They feature silhouettes of the well known Azimuthal Equidistant map centered around the North Pole, the same map Gleason used, where in his patent Gleason himself refers to the map as being a projection from the GLOBE of the Earth.
In other words, that map existed long before the modern flat Earth movement hijacked it for themselves, all because it's a 2D projection map of the GLOBE Earth that just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside that you claim to be the wall of ice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markemery6104 - You said "Gravity has never been and can not be proven it’s the necessary mystery ingredient needed to facilitate he globe illusion."
Nope, that's what flat Earth theorists have told you, but they are lying to you for their own motives.
So here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity;
[Disguised link to get through YT filter]
tiny😮cc🖍️z4eiuz
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeremiahwoods7077 - You said "You need to do your research youngman"
Young man? I watched the moon landings live back in 1969-1972 son, but nice try :-)
I mentioned Concorde because common sense alone would tell you that it's not just about technology, it's also about cost, a massive cost in this case, and it's about will/purpose.
And the 60s wasn't the stone-age, we were not all living in caves back then!
The 60s gave us the first people in space! The 60s gave us the Saturn V rocket, STILL by FAR the largest and most powerful rocket EVER launched into space! The 60s gave us Concorde, the fastest passenger plane in history! The 60s gave us the X-15, the fastest manned rocket plane in history. The 60s gave us the SR-71, the fastest manned jet powered plane in history! And so on....
During the 60s, BOTH the USSR and USA landed several unmanned craft onto the surface of the moon, kept people alive in space as they orbited the Earth and both sent out spacecraft beyond the moon to the planet Venus.
So if they had the technology to send people into space and keep them alive in space for up to 2 weeks (Gemini 7) and had the technology to send spacecraft to the surface of the moon, and had the largest and the most powerful rocket in history (the Saturn V), then please name the technology that they didn't have that was needed to send men to the moon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jessebryant9233 - You said "I'm a coward for answering directly and clearly"
No, you're just a coward :-) who refused to admit he's a theist, a Creationist given your channel, and therefore you believe the answer to the questions I asked is God, which you could have said straight after my FIRST reply to you, but you refused.
Hence you're no different to those I encounter once every few months who parrot flat Earth claims and yet refuse to admit to being flat Earth believers, and even when pressed to say what shape they believe the Earth to be - they would say something like "It doesn't matter what I believe, all we know is that Earth is not a spinning ball".
So they try to argue on the basis of what they don't believe only, refusing to state their beliefs to avoid questions about their beliefs. That's a coward's position to take, with the goal of putting ALL the focus upon their 'opponents' side of a debate without addressing their own.
I'm an atheist, i.e. I don't believe in any god of any religion, but I don't attack others for believing in god or attack them for following a religion and neither do I attack religions, which is why I asked you for your beliefs so that the discussion can happen on BOTH sides of the argument,
You did all you could here to avoid that happening, as everyone reading this thread can see for themselves (including your fellow theists) and therefore you are as ignorant and dishonest and as cowardly as they come, hence nothing like the religious beliefs you follow (so yes, you're a hypocrite too :-)).
Shame.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fenrisunchained1926 - You said "I don't bother with flat earth or globe earth"
Then I suggest you do bother before claiming to know anything related to the topic.
Here's something YOU can do to prove the Earth is a globe and of the size specified.
Get yourself a decent globe of the Earth, then find two locations on that globe, for example Tokyo in Japan and New York in the USA, and measure the distance between them in millimetres (i.e. as a direct line across the globe of the Earth).
Now measure the circumference of your globe around the equator in millimetres.
The equator will give you the scale of your globe, where you can work out how many miles to the millimetre by dividing 24900 by the circumference of your globe in millimetres. Lets call the answer to that calculation X, and therefore X is the scale of your globe.
So now you can check the distance between New York and Tokyo by taking the distance you measured on your globe in millimetres and then multiply that number by X to get the distance in miles. It will match the real world distance (well, give or take natural errors in your measurement).
You can now check ANY two locations on Earth using that same method, i.e. measure it in millimetres on your globe and multiply that number by X, and again it will match the real world distance.
The larger and the better your globe, the more accurate your results will be (but even a cheap globe would be pretty good).
That alone proves the Earth is a globe and it proves the distance of 24,900 miles around the equator (7926 miles diameter) is correct.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flint20001 - I'm fully aware of ALL those verses, so here's the problem with your claim...
...Firstly, the Bible doesn't explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you would ever find are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all implicit!
Secondly, Christian churches/denominations for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE. Fact. None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. Why? Because we can find verses in the Bible that explicitly says the Earth is stationary.
In other words, the ONLY thing they had in common with flat Earth 'theory' was the idea that the Earth is stationary and at the center of everything.
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches.
So all those who tell you the Bible says the Earth is flat are attempting to corrupt your faith, where apparently they are succeeding :-|
1
-
@flint20001 - Nope, everything I've said is correct, you simply cannot handle facts son :-)
Btw, your reply is shadow banned, no-one else can read it!
And I see no reason to tell you how to get around the ban given the rudeness of your reply to me. Anyway...
Your reply is just ignorance from start to finish, but I must pick up on you referring to Isaiah 40:22
In many languages, including English, words can have multiple meanings, ranging from subtle differences to complete differences.
A ball looks like a circle from any angle, therefore a circle doesn't mean flat.
Here is Isaiah 40:22 from various bibles;
King James: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
Douay-Rheims: "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth..."
New American Standard 1977 Bible: "It is He who sits above the vault of the earth..."
That's because the Hebrew word being translated by those bibles means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" - Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.
Therefore circle, globe and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various bibles.
So as I said, there are no verses that EXPLCITLY say the Earth is flat, it is only implied by people like you who distort the Bible.
Stop being a traitor to your faith!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "You can fool all of the people, some of the time. You can fool some of the people, all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time..."
And that's why conspiracy theorists find it extremely easy to fool people like yourself. From Moon landing hoax to ISS hoax to Mars rovers hoax to flat Earth (i.e. Globe Earth hoax) to Space Shuttle hoax etc, it's all the same, where conspiracy theorists know how to manipulate the gullible and the naive.
Listen to yourself please, because you are not merely saying that NASA fooled you, you are claiming NASA has fooled the entire world, including the other 70+ government space agencies around the world (including the USSR at the time), all the private space companies and even satellite companies around the world, and of course all the world's best scientists and rocket/spacecraft engineers over the last 50+ years, and much more.
Btw, 1961? John F Kennedy's "We choose to go to the Moon" speech was in 1962, so what happened in 1961? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidmintun - I''ll ignore your first remark too :-), anyway (after realising this topic doesn't allow links)...
...you said "i'll ignore it, and give you one more shot. Ridding the spacecraft of waste heat in the vacuum of space."
The temperature range in the vacuum of space at our distance from the sun is -250 F to 250 F.
In other words, objects in the sun will SLOWLY heat up to potentially reach 250 F (depending on the matter), and objects in the shade will SLOWLY cool down to potentially -250 F.
Hence on the moon the temperature range for the SURFACE is -250 F to 250 F.
When midway between the Earth and the moon the temperature range for OBJECTS is -250 F to 250 F.
When in low Earth orbit, the temperature range for OBJECTS is -250 F to 250 F.
See how it works yet? And yet 99.9999% of hoax believers (like yourself) think temperature in space is like the temperature of air (250 F in an oven, -XXX F in a freezer), hence your question.
Space itself is a vacuum, therefore it has no temperature to speak of.
So the question is, in the vacuum of space where there's no temperature of the space itself, please explain why temperature control is any different in low Earth orbit compared to the moon.
The point is, if you're claiming that it was impossible for Apollo spacecraft to cope with the temperature range of the moon (-250 F to 250 F surface), then you are also saying it is impossible for manned spacecraft to cope with the temperature range of low Earth orbit (-250 F to 250 F), and therefore you are effectively saying ALL manned space missions are a hoax.
So is THAT what you believe, or can you now understand that 250 F in a vacuum is NOT the same as 250 F in air (i.e. an oven)?
All a spacecraft needs to protect against the heat from the sun is cheap materials that reflects away the heat radiated from the sun, hence mylar and kapton (as seen on the LM) are STILL used for spacecraft and satellites today;
Google Image Search: Satellite Gold Foil, for many example.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Q-physics - You continue to prove my points :-)
Go ahead and present your proof that websites and videos about a moon landing hoax are being suppressed and even removed by Google and YouTube and the mainstream media etc, despite the fact that my email notification history shows that the vast majority of ALL the conspiracy videos I've commented on over the years ARE STILL THERE!
I look forward to your evidence (be specific please :-)).
And lets address some of your other nonsense, for example, you said "there's a private sector initiative to send a micro drone to the supposed landing site that will go one step further than the chinese did, it will actually photograph any equipment left behind ..the Chinese were unable to do this"
www.universetoday.com/93375/china-unveils-high-resolution-global-moon-map/
Quote: "In fact the maps are detailed enough that Chinese scientists were able to detect traces of the Apollo landers, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China’s lunar exploration project."
Sure it's from orbit, but the Chinese confirmed the presence of large craft at the Apollo landing sites just the same. Why didn't you know that given your claimed 35 years of research? :-)
Also, the Apollo moon landings were a MASSIVE propaganda coup for the USA, where the race to the moon was seen by the world back then as a battle between capitalism and communism.
It would have been impossible to fake a moon landing without the USSR uncovering the hoax, and the USSR had the technology to DIRECTLY exposed a moon landing hoax ANY TIME they wanted, and yet they never did.
And there's no way the USSR would just sit back and allow the USA to achieve such a propaganda coup against communism with a lie.
So much for your claimed research, much less your so-called expertise in physics :-)
1
-
@Q-physics - And let me repost what I said before, since it appears to have gone over your head :-)
Quote: "What has changed is that YouTube recently changed the search algorithm to prevent conspiracy videos from completely dominating search lists as they were for the last several years.
In other words, if last year I searched YouTube for "Apollo moon landings", then instead of a list mostly about the Apollo moon landings, that list would be dominated by Apollo HOAX videos.
Now if you want to find conspiracy videos (moon landings, flat Earth, etc) then you have to be more specific in your search, which is not difficult.
That's how it should be and hence YouTube have simply redressed the balance"
Anything there you still don't understand?
So again, the videos have not been deleted, they are still there, but they don't bubble up to the top of searches now unless you're more specific.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@enanoh8971 - And sadly you proved my point perfectly, where you've allowed others to quote mine and hence tell YOU what to think instead of you thinking for YOURSELF :-|
For example, regarding destroying the technology, where you think Don's words are to be taken literally.
Losing/destroying the technology is about not having the craft in service TODAY, it's not about losing the hardware or the plans or the knowledge!
Hence Concorde is lost/destroyed technology, it will never go into service again.
The Space Shuttle is lost/destroyed technology, it will never go into service again.
Likewise the Apollo Saturn V rocket is lost/destroyed technology, it will never go into service again. And so on.
Do you understand it now?
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence NASA will soon have the SLS rocket in service, which is as large and slightly more powerful than the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and they have the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces. Therefore the SLS is the new 'Saturn V', and Orion is the new 'Apollo Command Module'.
On its debut launch this year, the MASSIVE SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth (for its second test in space). And assuming all goes well, then in 2024 the SLS rocket will again take Orion to the moon but this time with astronauts inside.
Those are examples of the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost, i.e. taken out of service, and hence in 2024 people will return to the moon.
The point is, conspiracy theorists play upon the ignorance and naivety of people like yourself knowing that they will ALWAYS find believers no matter what they claim, as you have proven here :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Juan - So are you telling me that you don't KNOW that the earth is flat, you only believe it MAY be flat? If your beliefs are strong enough, then you KNOW, you don't merely believe.
Therefore I think you're making excuses not to discuss the moon landings (which is fair enough if you don't want to discuss it, but just say so if that's the case :-)).
You said "There's this documentary called 'A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" Go watch it and learn."
I've watch EVERY moon landing hoax documentary and discussed almost every moon landings hoax claim (just as I've read ALL the major flat earth books released over the last 150 years!), so I know that documentary inside out.
Please watch and learn how the makers of that documentaries lied to you to make his case;
YouTube video: Addendum: A Funny Thing Happened...
goo.gl/sm2mN3
It's only 4.5 minutes long, but shows you how the film maker Bart Sibrel deliberately lied :-)
The lesson is, don't always assume that those who tell you what you want to hear are being honest, don't assume they would never lie, don't assume they can't ever be wrong, don't assume they are interested in spreading the 'truth'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Juan - Sorry, I got no notification of your reply otherwise I would have answered 2 hours ago :-)
Anyway, look at this photo taken on earth - goo.gl/a9apNT
According to you and certain hoax believers, that photo on earth is fake, must be nearly light source rather than the sun, right? So tell me, in what way are the shadows in that photo any different to the Apollo photo you provided?
Here's another example, this time of distant vehicles and nearby rocks;
goo.gl/6qSNYB
Except the sun being on the other side, we can clearly see shadows directions just like your Apollo photo, which again means you must believe that photo taken here on earth has a nearby light source instead of the sun, right? :-)
Let's go further and flip that photo, change it to black and white and draw the same yellow lines as your Apollo photo;
goo.gl/qqJKwp
So how is that any different to the Apollo photo you provided.
I could go even further on your Apollo photo, but surely the above is enough for you to see that the hoax claim is wrong.
If not, then explain why we can see exactly the same shadows cast by the sun here on earth if it was impossible as claimed.
1
-
Juan - I don't think anyone looking at the photos I provided would say they are reaching my friend when they demonstrate EXACTLY THE SAME shadows that you claimed to be impossible, and saying you can't believe the footage is really an argument from incredulity ;-)
You said "Also how all the tech to go to the moon was supposedly destroyed"
Not correct, as I will explain, so please read on my friend because this is important...
It is destroyed in the SAME WAY that supersonic passenger airplane tech was 'destroyed' with the lost of Concorde, which first flew in 1969, hence we passengers today can no longer cross the Atlantic at supersonic speeds! It is destroyed in the SAME WAY that the 'space truck' tech was 'destroyed' with the lost of the Space Shuttle, where today we can't carry out many of the tasks made possible by the Space Shuttle, and the USA currently can't even put a person into space.
The point is, NONE of that tech is destroyed, it's simply old and retired. If a company wants to send people across the Atlantic at supersonic speeds, then it will build a brand NEW plane, not recycle the old Concorde tech. If a nation wants the capabilities offered by the Space Shuttle, then it will build a brand NEW Shuttle, not recycle the old Space Shuttle tech.
Likewise, sending people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history. The Saturn V was such a rocket and STILL holds the record by FAR. We don't have such a rocket today but we will soon, hence no-one is going to recycle old Apollo tech to send people to the moon, they will build brand NEW tech. Look up the 'Falcon Heavy' and future rockets from Space X, and look up the soon to be launched "SLS Rocket" from NASA/Boeing.
You said "all Apollo files were lost like that's ultimate confirmation it was all BS"
Not correct, as I will explain - NASA recorded a backup of the Apollo 11 moonwalk TV broadcast onto telemetry (magnetic) tapes just in case the live broadcast worldwide didn't work. If the live TV broadcast failed, then NASA would have processed their backup and send it out to TV studios worldwide. But the broadcast DID work, the whole world saw it live, so NASA's backup wasn't needed any more, and THAT is what they lost (i.e. their BACKUP).
NONE of the photos from Apollo 11 was lost, none of the color TV footage on the way to the moon and back was lost, nor was any of the film lost. Absolutely nothing was lost from Apollo 12, or Apollo 13 (the failed mission) or Apollo 14 or Apollo 15 or Apollo 16 or Apollo 17.
So how is losing the BACKUP of the SAME Apollo 11 moonwalk that we've ALL seen already and losing nothing else an example of NASA losing ALL THE APOLLO FILES?
Can't you see that you've been caught out by conspiracy theorists who twisted what actually happened?
Hence I'll end by saying if you choose to believe the moon landings were a hoax, then fine your entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't mean you MUST believe ALL the hoax claims WITHOUT QUESTION. A true skeptic is suspicious of ALL info coming from ALL sides, not just the info from one. Therefore you should apply equal skepticism towards conspiracy claims too if you want to find the 'truth'.
Anyway, you take care too and thanks for an enjoyable discussion :-)
1
-
Come on Juan, really? :-) You actually think the SAME people who claim ALL photos of the earth from space are fake, that ALL video of the earth from space are fake, that ALL live video of the earth from the International Space Station are fake, that ALL photos of the earth from satellites are fake and so on, are going to accept the footage you demand?
And since when is it ALL up to NASA to produce the footage you ask for btw? There are over TWENTY space agencies worldwide, agencies who have sent their own spacecraft to the moon, to the planets, to asteroids and to comets (and even landed on a comet), so why don't you conspiracy believers ever ask them?
In other words, please explain your obsession with NASA when over twenty space agencies can do what you guys often ask NASA to do :-)
So no Juan, it would NOT shut you up or shut up any of the conspiracy believers, because even if NASA did as you asked, then along will come your conspiracy theorists who will upload videos claiming it's fake, that it's all CGI, and people like YOU will agree with them, as you've shown already in the conspiracy claims you believed without checking the evidence for yourself.
The fact that you blindly parrot the 'composites' claim without even knowing what composites are effectively proves my point, i.e. that you and your fellow conspiracy believers will FIND reasons and excuses to claim that ANY footage is fake.
You will NOT look at the footage you requested and say to yourself, "Gee, I guess I was wrong then", so don't pretend otherwise, because on the SAME DAY you will start to seeing videos claiming it's fake and you will WANT to believe them and therefore you will believe them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just stating a fact because I've seen it happen time and time and time again over the years, with goal posts constantly being moved by conspiracy theorists :-)
1
-
Juan - Only a tiny MINORITY of people think it's a hoax, therefore only a minority wouldn't believe it because they WANT to believe it's a hoax. For example, look on YouTube for videos of those who claim airplanes are holograms and then tell me what footage you can provide that will convince them otherwise :-)
You said "I think you need to look at all the footage again with a different mindset", with all due respect my friend, I do look at the footage and ALL the claims objectively, which is something most conspiracy believers can't say themselves :-)
That is, as an amateur astronomer for over 20 years I didn't automatically dismiss the Apollo hoax belief as nonsense, instead I acquired and READ ALL the major Apollo hoax books, watched ALL the published Apollo hoax documentaries and have watched countless hoax videos on YouTube, therefore there's barely a hoax claim that I haven't discussed in detail.
Why? To find out a) What the conspiracy beliefs are and what claims are being made, and b) To find just ONE CLAIM that holds up to scrutiny and hence supports the conspiracy.
The same for the flat earth claims, where I acquired and READ ALL the major flat earth books released over the last 150 YEARS and I'm waiting for that ONE definitive proof of a conspiracy.
Remember, to prove a hoax or that the earth is flat, you only need to prove that ONE of the conspiracy claims are true with evidence that can't be disputed. That's all! And yet I'm still waiting to find that ONE claim for either the moon landings or flat earth that is correct after all these years.
1
-
Juan - You asked "If you don't mind me asking, what prove did you manage to find for the globe earth?"
I don't mind at all, but I could spend and hour or more listing all the proof for a round earth, but lets keep it VERY simple and practical, lets focus on the MAP of the earth itself as proof.
Take a globe of the earth today that you can buy from many shops in YOUR country and look at ANY country/nation on that globe. It's size and shape will correspond to any 2D map of that one particular country/nation.
Because maps are trying to represent a 3D globe earth onto a 2D surface, there's a certain amount of distortion as a result, where the larger the area the greater the distortion. But generally, what you see in a 2D map of one specific country is the same as what you would see of that country on the globe earth.
However, if the earth was flat, then the arrangements of land masses on that flat earth would be 2D and therefore it should be possible to represent the ENTIRE flat earth as a 2D map without any distortion, and yet no such map exists!
Flat Earth believers latch onto the AE/Gleason 2D projection map because it stretches Antarctica around the outside, but it is clear to any person that the further south you look in that map, the more the countries are distorted. Hence Australia for example is stretched to TWICE its actually size and is shaped like a sausage.
In contrast, Australia on a globe of the earth is perfect and matches exactly what we see in maps.
Also, we can take ANY two cities in different parts of the earth and measure their distance PHYSICALLY with a piece of string on a globe of the earth with reasonable accuracy (just need to convert the length to miles). But for the flat earth, there's no 2D map in existence that will allow you to do that accurately!
Again, if the earth was flat, you should be able to work out the distance of ANY two locations on earth with a piece of string and/or a ruler with reasonable accuracy, and yet that PHYSICAL activity that the average everyday person can do themselves with a GLOBE of the earth cannot be done with ANY 2D map of the entire earth!
So until flat earth believers can provide a map of the claimed flat earth where the distances between ANY two locations on earth can be measured accurately, then the claim that the earth is flat will remain unfounded :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
Juan - No-one said there's only one map, there are a GREAT many 2D projection maps where each have advantages and disadvantages, but what they ALL share are distorted countries around the earth!
What they also ALL share is the fact that they are 2D projections of the SAME GLOBE EARTH you are denying. In other words, the GLOBE EARTH is flattened out to create the SAME maps you speak of and all other 2D projection maps (hence the term 2D 'projection').
And you can try to trivialize the distortion all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you cannot provide a flat earth map where ALL the countries on that map are their true non-distorted shapes, but on a globe they are their true shapes and sizes, i.e. not distorted.
As I said, the arrangement of land masses on a flat earth is 2 dimensional, therefore a 2D map of a flat earth should be PERFECT, and yet no accurate map exists because such a map is impossible.
Flat Earth map = Incorrectly shaped and incorrectly proportioned countries
Earth Globe = Correctly shaped and correctly proportioned countries
Therefore since the globe is the only shape able to represent ALL countries on Earth correctly, then the shape of the Earth is a Globe, whether you like it or not.
But hey, provide the accurate flat earth map that I've been asking for and everything could change :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Juan - You said "There's even an intro to explain the curvature somewhat. Watch it and learn what the world looks like without those fishy eye lenses."
Again Juan, that's an example of people seeing what they want to see, hence it's nothing but ignorance that you're being taken in by (sorry but it's true). You do know there are even people who use such videos as proof that the earth is concave/hollow, right?
Flat earth theorists claim that not only is no curvature ever seen, but they claim the horizon is ALWAYS at eye level, it never drops lower with altitude in the way we would expect on a globe earth.
Well, lets take a moment in your footage where the balloon is settled and horizontal, such at 4:14 onwards. Pause the video at say 4:15 and put something on your screen to mark the height of the middle of the horizon and notice that it remains at that level as the camera rotates.
Now see what happens at 4:33 where we can presume the balloon is even higher, the horizon is LOWER than it was at 4:14, which is something flat earth theorists claims to never happen because they know it would happen on a globe earth.
It would be interesting to know the altitude of the balloon and 4:15 and at 4:33, but whatever it is, according to your flat earth theorists, the horizon should have been at the same level, not lower as the balloon rose higher :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jdg2921 - Because that the right thing to do.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to theorists for other conspiracy claims out there, including those that contradict flat Earth claims? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
@ROBERTPUNU - No my friend, firstly the Bible doesn't explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you would ever find are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all implicit!
Secondly, Christian churches for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE. None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. Why? Because you can find verses in the Bible that explicitly says the Earth is stationary.
In other words, for most of its history the ONLY thing Christian churches had in common with flat Earth 'theory' was the idea that the Earth is stationary and at the center of everything.
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches.
Those who tell you the Bible says the Earth is flat are attempting to corrupt your faith, where apparently they are succeeding :-|
1
-
@ROBERTPUNU - For example, you referred to Isaiah 40:22.
In many languages, including English, words can have multiple meanings, ranging from subtle differences to complete differences.
A ball looks like a circle from any angle, therefore a circle doesn't mean flat.
Here is Isaiah 40:22 from various Bibles that is being referred to here;
King James Bible (1611); "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
Douay-Rheims Bible (1582); "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth..."
New American Standard 1977 Bible; "It is He who sits above the vault of the earth..."
Peshitta Holy Bible Translated (1st or 2nd Century AD); "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
New American Bible; "The one who is enthroned above the vault of the earth..."
Catholic Public Domain Version; "He is the One who sits upon the globe of the earth..."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English; "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
Matthew's Bible (1537); "That he sitteth upon the circle of the world..."
That's because the Hebrew word 'chug' being translated by those bibles means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).
So circle, globe, sphere and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various bibles.
Again, no Christian church in history has ever said the earth is flat, only a globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ROBERTPUNU - I understand exactly what you're saying, and you're wrong.
Have you actually read the original Hebrew and Aramaic text that the churches translated?
No, you haven't!
Therefore all you've EVER read are the TRANSLATIONS of the original text, and hence you have ONLY ever read the interpretations by the TRANSLATORS of that text to produce the Bible's you've read.
So when ALL the Bible translators say the Earth is globe, including those who produced the King James Bible, then the Earth is a globe according to them.
Your opinion is irrelevant, but you're entitled to it of course.
That is, if someone wants to claim the Bible says the Earth is concave or hollow, then that's their right, but it doesn't make them correct.
So again, I'll take the word of those who produced the Bibles you've read :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beawarenow8287 - Hi, a retro-reflector reflects light back in the direction it came from.
For example, Google Search: Retroreflector - Wikipedia
, and click on the link with that title.
Why is this important on the moon you ask? It's all about accurate measurements of the moon's distance.
As you so correctly said, a laser beam fired from Earth would grow in size as it heads towards the moon, where it would be several MILES wide by time it reached the surface of the moon.
Hence when they used lasers to measure the moon's distance back in the 50s, they could only be accurate to the nearest mile or so, because the light reflected back could come from anywhere over several miles, such as from the top of a mountain or the bottom of a crater.
So by placing retro-reflectors on the moon, then any laser light hitting those reflectors would result in a very bright reflection from the SAME spot on the moon each time, hence they know EXACTLY where on the moon the reflection is coming from.
Therefore because of the 3 retro-reflectors placed on the moon during the Apollo missions and the 2 placed there on top of USSR's lunar rovers, we can now measure the moon's distance to an accuracy of less than a millimeter!
This is why today we know the moon is spiraling away from the Earth at the rate of 3.8 cm per year.
I hope that information helps :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AM87422S - Incorrect my friend, since what you're claiming is impossible.
To this day, not even the highest budget sci-fi movies or sci-fi TV series have ever recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour upon hour of Apollo footage, where even the dust and objects fall down at the rate of the moon's gravity. Even CGI today doesn't look quite right (CGI often looks a bit 'off', especially when modelling people).
When the popular hoax believer's claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
www.dailymotion.com/video/x6foqzi?start=250
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion, right? ;-)
So the problem is, until someone can actually demonstrate perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence prove it can be done, then any claims that the Apollo footage was faked in a studio will remain unfounded.
In other words, the Apollo footage could only be faked if the studio was located on 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
-
@leesog3203 - Continued... So lets expand that fact about maps of our towns/cities to the entire world.
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 the 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 referred to by flat Earth theorists.
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 :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@icflatndatsdat5615 - You said "This shows the difference between atmosphere and vacuum. Since physics require a solid barrier between the two , because the two cannot exist side-by-side"
No, that's just your ignorance of what a vacuum is, which you parroted from other flat Earth believers (i.e. zero critical thinking on your part :-)).
A vacuum, from our point of view, is an absence of air!
Most people know our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude, i.e. there's less air as we climb. I'm sure you know that too, hence I'm sure you are also aware of the difficulty in breathing for mountain climbers and balloonists or anyone at high altitudes.
So lets go higher...
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
YOU can easily recreate those same conditions with ANY vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 TIMES less air compared to sea level, that's a medium vacuum.
At 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's also a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up, there is a MILLION times less air, that's a high vacuum.
Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Therefore there isn't a sharp line where we suddenly go from our pressurized atmosphere to the vacuum of space, instead it is a gradual process, where with increasing altitude there's decreasing air, resulting in gradually increasing vacuum conditions as I've shown above (normal pressure -> low vacuum -> medium vacuum -> high vacuum -> ultra high vacuum and so on).
The decreasing air pressure and hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theories would allow (but can NEVER specify for some reason :-)).
So given the explanation of how we encounter increasing vacuum conditions with altitude as there's less and less air, you should now understand how we go from the pressure of our atmosphere here on the surface of the Earth to the vacuum of space without a barrier in between.
Next?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@servo6620 - I'll answer your point in two ways.
1) Men first reached the south pole in 1911/1912, but didn't return until 1956, 44 years later. Men first reached the lowest point in earth's ocean, the Mariana trench, in 1960, but didn't return until 2012, 52 years later. So why would 48 years to return to the moon seem so remarkable? :-)
2) To get people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in HISTORY, where they achieved that with the massively expensive Saturn V rocket.
But to make it possible, Congress increased NASA's budget by several times what they receive today to allow them to build, maintain and launch rockets/craft like the Saturn V;
Look at NASA's budget over the years and you'll see what made it possible and why it ended;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
Once Congress knew the USSR couldn't get their 'moon rocket' to work and therefore couldn't send their cosmonauts to the moon, Congress withdrew ALL THE EXTRA FUNDING, and so NASA couldn't afford to build any more Saturn V rockets and Apollo missions 18 to 20 had to be cancelled, as were NASA's other plans, such as a moon base!
Now look up NASA/Boeing's SLS rocket due to launch next year. By building upon existing technology and spreading the costs over many years, they have created a rocket that has the size and power of the Saturn V rocket, and hence the SLS rocket will take the Orion capsule around the moon and back to Earth on its debut launch.
In 2023/2024, the SLS is again scheduled to take Orion around the moon and back to Earth, but this time with a crew of astronauts on board for a mission lasting 8 to 21 days.
NASA originally planned to build a lander to take astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon in 2028, but the Trump administration are trying to bring that forward to 2024, but I feel it's more like to happen closer to NASA's original date unless there's competition from elsewhere.
So the rocket is the KEY to getting people to the moon, and the USA will have that technology again once the SLS rocket launches next year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@harambey - You said "Also the head of NASA moon landing was a nazi, he used to hang the slowest employees in front of everyone to make them work harder
That’s the man who started all this lol, a fooookin NAZI"
With no evidence that he supported Nazi views or carried out any atrocities (so your hanging comment is a lie that you believed!).
Now listen to flat Earth theorist and 'hero' Eric Dubay from his book "The Atlantean Conspiracy (Final Edition)";
tinyurl.com/yaofv7u3]
Quote: "They say "the winner's write history," and it is absolutely true: the most egregious example in modern times has to be the mainstream (mis)understanding of Adolf Hitler and pre-WWII Gremany. Adolf Hitler was actually a vegetarian, animal-lover, an author, an artist, a political activist, economic reformer and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. He enacted the world's first anti-animal cruelty, anti-pollution and anti-smoking laws. Unlike the demonic portrait that history has painted of him, Hitler was beloved by his people and wanted nothing but peace."
Hmmm, so it's poor little Hitler, a peaceful man who has been so cruelly misrepresented by the mainstream, according to Eric.
So who's the real Nazi?
Go ahead and browse through some of the rest of those pages from flat Earth theorist Eric Dubay's book in the link above, the guy who helped the resurgence of flat Earth belief, a guy who is a Nazi sympathizer and a holocaust denier!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@duncanvantongeren4646 - As I expected, you typed a lot just to demonstrate that you have no basis to claim distances are wrong or even questionable :-)
Hence it was amusing to read the following from you about distances in flat Earth claims, quote "but this is not THAT BIG of a problem, since we are dealing with relatively short distances, that would therefore also be more easily checked by other means".
So here's some flat Earth distance videos;
Flat Earth: Chicago Skyline Proves The Earth Is Flat | A Must Watch!
(Uploaded by tayekenzy earth)
Flat Earth Proof: Oahu seen from Kauai more than 90 miles away
(Uploaded by Terry Robinson)
Does This Photograph Prove That The Earth Is Flat?
(Uploaded by okreylos)
And to quote Eric Dubay; "In fact, the record-breaking longest distance zoom photograph ever taken recently showed Pic Gaspard from Pic de Finestrelles a whopping 275 miles away, at a height of under 10,000 feet, where, based on correct curvature calculations, the entire mountain should be invisible behind several miles of curved Earth"
So above are distances of 60 miles, 90 miles, 197 km and 275 miles, ALL stated by many flat Earth theorists and believers to be FACT.
All those distances can be found and measured directly on a globe and they will be correct on that scale.
Now go ahead and name a flat map of a flat Earth where those distances are all correct on that map to scale :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
felix mendez - As usual, you just make it up as you go along. Why don't you tell Amber that you support a guy (Kareem?) who claims all rockets are hoaxes, where he claims they are just tanks filled with helium to make them rise :-)
Stars CAN be seen during the day through telescopes, professional and amateur astronomers (like me) know that from experience, hence we CAN do daytime astronomy, albeit less effective than night.
Star light gets to Earth's surface just as effectively during the day as during the night, BUT, the brightness of our sky (due to scattered sunlight) makes it's very difficult to separate the faint light from the stars from the scattered light of the sun. In other words, scattered sunlight creates 'noise'.
However, the more powerful your telescope, the most powerful it's light collecting abilities, and hence when focused correctly can gather enough like from a star to make it stand out against the blue of our sky.
The astronauts say they can see stars under certain circumstances and they can't see stars under other circumstances, but as usual people like yourself need to distort the facts.
For example, this was how astronauts on the moon's surface viewed their surroundings for 99.99% of the time;
cdni0.trtworld.com/w960/h540/q75/59508_AP_19190543756508_1563576759853.jpg
Kind of difficult to see stars through that visor, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
felix mendez d) Completely untrue. Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006);
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year!).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirms that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hangar.18 - Like I said, the Lunar Module was fully tested in space and hence landing was not a problem, especially when the astronauts could abort at any time should things go wrong.
When the Space Shuttle, said to be the most complex machine ever made by man, had its debut launch in 1981, that was the FIRST TIME the Shuttle had been mounted on the fuel tank with two booster rockets and launched into space, the FIRST TIME the Space Shuttle had ever been into space, the FIRST TIME the Space Shuttle orbited the Earth, the FIRST TIME the Space Shuttle's heat shield was tested in our atmosphere as it returned from space and finally landed.
That first Space Shuttle mission with all those FIRSTS occurred with TWO astronauts on board. So do you conclude the Space Shuttle was a hoax because it had never been tested in space? ;-)
And the LM was designed to fly in space, not to fly on Earth, hence your logic is like expecting helicopters to work at the bottom of our oceans :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnyblandofoz952 - No problem my friend, but all I'm really saying here is be careful not to jump to conclusions.
For example, just like today's spacesuits the Apollo spacesuit consisted of many layers, that's why it looked so bulky.
The first layer was their underwear, followed by a liquid-cooling layer, and then a reinforced pressure 'bladder' layer containing the air that kept them alive. That was the inner suit.
All the layers on top of that inner suit (including the white teflon outer layer) was there to protect the 'inner suit' and hence protect the astronaut from radiation, heat, micro-meteoroids, rips, punctures etc.
Therefore the astronauts didn't need to worry, because even if you tried to stab them with a sharp knife it would need to cut through multiple layers of different materials of the outer suit before it even reached the pressure layer of the inner suit.
I hope that information helps :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MGTOW Gamer - Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
1
-
1
-
@lorichet - Incorrect my friend.
Back in early 1959 they only had GIEGER COUNTER readings of the radiation around the Earth, since the purpose of the rocket launches was to measure cosmic ray radiation, not some unknown radiation.
Geiger counters only tells us how many particles hit a detector, they do not tell us what the particles are, and therefore they had no confirmation on what the radiation was, only speculation.
For example, if you heard an object hit the outside of the wall of the room you're in, then you'll have no idea of what it was or how dangerous it was until you identified the object, all you can say is that something hit the wall. But if upon investigation you discover it was a small pebble thrown by someone, then it's not a problem, but if it was a bullet fired from a gun, then wouldn't that be significantly more dangerous?
So back then, they knew that depending on the TYPE and ENERGY of the particles of that radiation, then it could range from being completely harmless to being fatal to astronauts passing through the belts.
Further rocket launches identified the type and intensity of the radiation, alpha and beta particle, as they continued to mapped the structure of the belts.
So by 1960/1961 we started to see peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals that confirmed the radiation wouldn't be a problem for astronauts inside spacecraft passing through on deep space missions, such as to the moon.
I would happily provide an example of such a scientific paper published at the time if you like :-|
1
-
1
-
You said "Why no other human being has ever tried to go to moon after Apollos landing? Any logical reasons.Although tech is more than 90% advance and smarter today compared to 70's?"
In what way is rocket technology 90% more advance? :-) We still have to get to space (and hence the moon) using the SAME basic rocket engine technology that we were using back in the 50s, all because there has been ZERO propulsion breakthroughs for getting us into space!
Had rocket engine technology gone through a revolution like when the jet engine was invented and hence it replaced propellers, THEN things would have been very different. But that hasn't happened, and so to get people to the moon STILL requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then, the USA built the massively expensive Saturn V rocket for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the USSR built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program but are still a long way off from building their own Saturn V size rocket.
But look up NASA/Boeing's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful and is due to launch later this year, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Daequan12387 - You said "You didn’t even respond to the incident that happened when Neil Armstrong gave the prime minister a fake moon rock."
Because it was on a long list of gish gallop from you, again a dishonest approach to ANY debate.
So I'll address it - NASA never said it was a moon rock and it wasn't given out by the astronauts, so read on please...
ALL the moon rocks given out by NASA as gifts to nations were encased in resin (Lucite) to preserve them, where they were also catalogued and mounted on a plaque. NASA NEVER gave out valuable moon rocks unprotected where they would be exposed to air, water, sweat, coffee spills, micro-organisms, etc.
The claim that the unprotected single lump of petrified wood was from the moon was an error made by the Rijksmuseum (an ART museum), where they incorrectly assumed that the unprotected and uncatalogued rock donated to them was from the moon.
That rock was donated to the museum by the family of the former Dutch Prime Minister, William Drees, after he died in 1988. It was given to William Drees by the US ambassador to commemorate the astronaut's visit to the Netherlands;
media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg
The museum were warned in 2006 that the rock was highly unlikely to be from the moon because it was given to William Drees less than 3 months after Apollo 11 returned (NASA gave out moon rocks as gifts 1 YEAR after Apollo 11), but they ignored the warning and displayed it as a moon rock.
3 years later that warning was proven to be correct when a visiting geologist saw the rock and IMMEDIATELY knew it can't be from the moon and informed the museum... and the rest is history.
The moon rocks given to the Dutch are actually in the Boerhaave museum (in storage), as reported here before the petrified rock story broke in 2009;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcVW_yfd-pM
And remember, that was 2009, 12 YEARS ago, so if NASA were giving out fake rocks then wouldn't you expect more 'fake' moon rocks to have been discovered by now?
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardturpin3665 - So to address your claim in more detail, the girl asked Buzz and I quote "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?". Notice the words "in such a long time". THAT was the context of the question and hence that was the context of Buzz Aldrin's reply to the girl.
Buzz said we haven't gone back because we haven't (a flippant answer). He said it's his question because for YEARS he has been asking exactly the SAME question as that girl, where HE ALSO wants to know why we stopped going to the moon and HE WANTS TO KNOW why we're not going back to the moon!
Here are the exact words spoken...
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time ?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money... ...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
Is that a rather convoluted answer? Yes! Is that Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No! Is that Buzz saying we haven't been to the moon in such a long time? Yes!
So again, why all the untruths from conspiracy believers?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robmitch4unconditionallove - You said "no I can't debunk it.... "
Well, at least you're being honest :-)
The point is, EVERY DISTANCE WORKS on a globe of the Earth, which would be impossible if the Earth wasn't a globe.
That would be like wrapping a map of your city all the way around a globe without distorting it, which would be impossible, because your city is not a globe and so it could never work.
You said "But what I can do.... Is ask for a pic of our globe"
There are countless pics my friend, but FE believers automatically dismiss them as CGI, including pics taken on FILM during the Apollo missions.
My argument is that people should ask for the type of evidence they have themselves, and hence until FE believers can present pics of their claimed ice wall up against the claimed firmament dome, then they shouldn't be asking for pics of the Earth, pics that they would just dismiss as fake :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whistfull Westerner - You said "oh I have a car that proves you wrong, when it is moving I feel it."
Thank you for proving your ignorance so perfectly :-)
If your car (with windows closed) was travelling on a perfectly smooth road with no dips or rises, then you wouldn't feel it (vibration of the engine aside). Whether you're at 20 mph, 50 mph or 100 mph etc, you couldn't tell without the feedback of what your eyes and ears are telling you.
Travel in a bullet train at 200 mph and you wouldn't feel it. Travel in a passenger plane cruising at 500+ mph and you wouldn't feel it. Travel in Concorde (back in the day) at 1330 mph and you wouldn't feel it.
What you feel are any changes in speed, hence acceleration/deceleration of the craft such as take off and landing, pressing the accelerator or hitting the brakes etc, and changes in speed away from the general direction of the craft, such as bumps and dips and rises on a road, turbulence in the air, etc.
How can you not know that?
You said "so when you are in a car travelling 60 you feel nothing, only the acceleration to say 70 and then nothing."
Acceleration means an INCREASE in speed, deceleration means a DECREASE in speed. Every time you change the speed of your car you feel it, where the faster you change the speed the more you feel it (accelerate quickly and you're pushed back into your seat, brake suddenly and you're thrown forward in your seat).
How can you not know that while claiming to have an Engineering degree (I have a Mathematics and Computing degree btw).
I shouldn't be here explaining that to you, YOU should be here explaining that to others given your claimed qualifications.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whistfull Westerner - You cried "Yes they do, you just lost, GAME OVER, if planes fly over a curve they have to account for it"
No kid, I just explain to you how flaps are used to obtain level flight regardless of the shape of the Earth.
You said "if a bridge is big enough it has to account for it"
No it doesn't. A very long bridge isn't made in ONE WHOLE PIECE and then air lifted into place, instead it is made to follow the LANDSCAPE that it goes over, and therefore will be designed for the NATURAL rise and fall of the LANDSCAPE itself, from valleys to hills/mountains (including going through them).
The fact that in the long term the average rise and fall is on a flat Earth or globe Earth or concave/hollow Earth is irrelevant.
Likewise roads and train tracks follow the natural LANDSCAPE that they go over, where bridges and tunnels are among the methods they would use to overcome certain obstacles.
Therefore by following the LANDSCAPE itself, then bridges and train tracks and roads of almost ANY length can be made, and hence the construction methods would work regardless of whether the Earth is flat, or a globe or concave/hollow. It's the SAME for each.
So again, how can you not understand that simple fact given your claimed qualifications? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phildavenport4150 - And that's what saddens me about conspiracy believers in general, where they are ALWAYS whinging and whining about being victims, hence complain that "They" are doing this to "us" and "They" are doing that to "us" and hence the world is so unfair and evil.
Until a few years ago, if I searched YouTube for "Apollo Moon Landings" for example, the search results were always dominated by hoax videos, and so I had to wade through those hoax videos to find the information I wanted. Unacceptable, but I had no choice and so I worked around it.
Finally however, Google/YouTube changed their search algorithm to redress the imbalance, flagging conspiracy videos and giving them less priority, so now such a search produces the results I wanted.
But immediately following that change, conspiracy believers accused YouTube of deleting all the conspiracy videos, that it's censorship, that the evil authorities strikes again, despite the fact that they can still find those videos in their playlists and through searches!
So now they have to work smarter to find the conspiracy videos they're looking for, but I guess it's easier to just pretend that it's another 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tj21415 - You said "i just stumbled upon this eric guy and I like how he explains things and gives data and truths to back it up."
Which proves my point! (Sorry, but it's true).
For example, Eric Dubay claims the South Pole doesn't exist and yet you can book yourself onto a tour of the South Pole NOW if you have the cash, and hence take the same tour that hundreds of people take every year, for example;
https://goo.gl/yciTTa
Eric claims no-one has seen the mid-night sun in Antarctica because we are prevented from going there at that time (claim number 57 in his "200 proofs...").
And yet click on 'Discover more' on the link above and you'll find they list "Experience the 24-hour daylight of the Polar summer", which is exactly what Eric claims is a lie.
Hence EVERY claim that Eric Dubay makes has been debunked, because they are either based upon ignorance or (like the example above) based upon lies, which you blindly believed without question.
If you didn't blindly follow Eric, then you would have checked some of the claims he makes for yourself and discover they're false by yourself :-)
Also, you are clearly not a Christian, so what do you consider yourself to be in terms of religion?
1
-
@Tj21415 - You posted: https://youtu.be/X-huF7fRlnA
Thanks for the video, because it's exactly what I meant my friend.
When stunt people do similar somersaults, they have a cable attached to each side of their waists to allow them to rotate.
However, because of the cable, they need to make sure they pull their legs and arms inwards to avoid hitting the cables as they rotate.
You can see this in action on the following link;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlebgX5Uj8g&t=54
As you can see, if their legs or arms aren't kept out of the way of the cables, then they would catch the cable and stop rotating.
Now watch your video again (but mute the sound to avoid distraction) and imagine there's a cable on either side of that astronaut's waist.
Notice how during his somersault he doesn't move his arms in to avoid any cables, instead his arms would have to pass through the claimed cables, possibly twice!
And not only that, notice that the microphone he's holding has a long wire attached, so if he is suspended by a cable, how did the microphone wire pass straight through that cable as he rotated?
Finally, look again at the astronaut in the USMC t-shirt. Notice that he reaches out to grab the astronaut to steady him, but because he's not looking at him directly he almost misses, where he catches the pocket of the astronaut with his little finger and pulls (look carefully).
Hence the video maker completely misinterprets what we're seeing in that footage, where he sees what he wants to see and therefore makes things up without checking if what he's saying is true :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ivanos_95 - You said "Keep in mind that 70's technology was so primitive..."
Sure, because we were still living in caves back in the 70s, right? :-)
The 60s tech should be even more primitive, correct? And yet 60s tech built the world's fastest passenger plane, called Concorde (you may have heard of it?) which first flew in 1969 and could take 100 people across the Atlantic at twice the speed of sound. Today's passenger planes don't even reach the speed of sound.
60s tech gave us the world's fastest jet based plane, the SR-71, and the world's fastest rocket plane, the X-15, where their records are unbeaten today!
60s tech gave us by far the largest and the most powerful rocket EVER launched into space, called the Saturn V, where each rocket was launched in public, not hidden away in private, and therefore were impossible to fake in front of the entire world watching, with each Saturn V capable of taking men to the moon, and so they did.
60s tech first put men into space, first kept people alive in space for weeks, first landed spacecraft on the moon, first sent spacecraft to Venus and to Mars, and so on.
So given all those achievements during the 60s alone, why would it not be possible to send men to the moon back then after building the largest and the most powerful rocket in history?
1
-
1
-
@ivanos_95 - You said "I didn't said that 60's technology was terrible in general, but rather that it was primitive in comparison to today's technology"
Of course, it's called progress, and hence the technology of today overall is superior to the technology of yesterday, but my point is, it's rather arrogant to assume YOU personally know what the technology of yesterday was or wasn't capable of regardless of the input from experts in all the relevant fields :-|
You said "we should have colonized the moon at this point, if it was possible for humans to get there in the first place"
I must have missed it, but in what way have we colonized low Earth orbit? By your logic, we should have hotels up there and should all be able to take vacations in low Earth orbit and interact with those who were born and lived their whole lives in low Earth orbit, right? :-)
To get people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history, which the USA achieve in the 60s thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES NORMAL to make it happen (imagine what NASA could do if their budget this year and next was $225 Billion instead of around $25 Billion!).
Once that goal was achieved to the satisfaction of Congress, they withdrew all the extra funding, hence no more Saturn V rockets could be built and hence no more moon landings (Apollo 18 to 20 had to be cancelled).
It's as simple as that. Seriously, if spacecraft required being covered completely in diamonds to keep out radiation to make it safe (in an alternative universe), then no-one would have difficulty understand why COST is the main issue here, not just technology :-|
1
-
@ivanos_95 - You said "There's clearly no point in colonization of the low earth-orbit"
Wrong, that's merely your way of avoiding the facts :-) where men first went into space in 1961 and yet we haven't colonized low Earth orbit, despite decades of sci-fi writers and films BEFORE Apollo depicting people living and working in huge space stations orbiting the Earth, often circular and rotating to simulate gravity.
That hasn't happened because it's not as easy and straightforward and as cheap as you clearly believe, where we would need to be able to do that FIRST in Earth orbit BEFORE we can even begin to think of colonizing the moon and beyond.
As I stated, the key to any moon landing is having a rocket large enough and powerful enough to get people to the moon, and the USA achieved that in the 60s with a cost that was impossible to sustain.
The USA has built such a rocket today with the soon to be launched SLS, but again that's not the ideal option because it's another massively expensive use ONCE rocket, which will work but at a cost.
What we need are re-useable rockets to bring the price down significantly, where companies like Space X are working on such rockets and having great success so far.
With such rockets reducing the price of launches by up to a factor of 10 TIMES, THEN goals of colonizing low Earth orbit and the moon would become practical, but those rockets are not here yet.
1
-
@ivanos_95 - You said " the low earth-orbit have been reasonably colonized with the satellites and research-stations, if those actually exist."
Unmanned spacecraft is not colonization (how can you even think it is?) and the ISS is a manned research center in space, which again is not colonized 🙄
And please explain exactly why you question the existence of such spacecraft and people in low Earth orbit.
You said "Again, the finances are not a problem"
An incredibly naïve comment, since finances ARE a problem, that's why over 60 YEARS since men first went into space only 3 nations have EVER built spacecraft capable of sending people into space, those nations being the USA, the USSR(Russia) and more recently China.
What do you think connects all those nations (give yourself 30 seconds, if needed ;-)).
If finance was not a problem then numerous countries over the last 60+ years would have built and launched their own rockets/spacecraft to get their citizens into space, but NONE of them have due to the massive cost/investment involved.
So when only the world's largest, richest and most powerful nations have built craft capable of taking people into space, and only one of them has successful built a rocket large enough to get people to the moon, then the idea that we should have colonized the moon by now is just nonsense :-|
You clearly know very little about this subject, and yet you seem to believe you know it all :-)
1
-
1
-
@ivanos_95 - You said for some strange reason "Since no other country or investors were capable, or rather claimed to have successfully sent people to the moon in those last fifty years except NASA, this fact should make any intelligent and honest person..."
Any intelligent and honest person would realize that you can't expect any country to have sent people to the moon until that country has succeeded in sending people into space FIRST.
So come on, really? Ever heard of the saying "You must learn to walk before you can run"?
Your argument would only have some merit if we had dozens of nations today who have all sent people into space in the rockets they've built, but that is NOT the case, and you know it.
As I clearly stated, only the 3 largest nations, the USA, USSR and China has put people into space over the last 60s years, therefore they are the ONLY nations right now who could consider sending people to the moon.
The USA achieved it because they built the Saturn V rocket and it worked perfectly. They will achieve it again if the soon to be launched SLS rocket is a success.
The USSR didn't achieve it because back then they built the N1-L3 rocket (look it up!) which was as large and as powerful as the Saturn V, but it blew up during EVERY test launch, and so their moon landing program was effectively grounded and eventually abandoned.
Had the N1-L3 rocket worked, then the USSR would have landed men on the moon, possibly before the USA!
China first succeeded in sending people into space in 2003, just 19 years ago, so they are still some way behind, but currently working on a rocket that can take people to the moon.
Those are the facts, why pretend otherwise? :-)
1
-
@ivanos_95 - Again, just poor arguments based upon a lack of research and a lack of understanding from you.
Lets take unmanned spacecraft for example.
During the 60s, with interest in the moon at its peak, BOTH the USA and USSR landed several unmanned spacecraft on the surface of the moon.
The USSR even landed two car size rovers with TV cameras on the moon in 1970 and 1973 (Lunokhod 1 & 2), where Lunokhod 2 was driven a total of 37 km across the moon via remote control.
The USSR also returned tiny amounts of moon dust from the surface back to Earth 3 times, with the last being Luna 24 in 1976.
Then NOTHING on the lunar surface by the USA and USSR/Russia for decades.
In fact, no-one landed anything on the moon's surface until China with their rover in 2013, that's 37 YEARS after USSR's rover, 41 YEARS after Apollo 17.
The USA and Russia have yet to return to the moon's surface since then!
So if no-one was interested in going back to the moon for around 40 years with unmanned spacecraft which are SO much easier and cheaper, choosing instead to FLY PAST the moon to Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and to the other planets and to asteroids and comets during all those years, then please explain why you think they should have been interested in sending men to the same moon that they keep passing by?
If there was the interest in the moon after Apollo as you believe, then the unmanned space programs to the surface would have continued without a break, they wouldn't have stopped, and many other nations would have joined in over those years, but that NEVER happened.
So again, your argument here is a poor one based upon nothing more than "Well, this is what I think, so there" rather than based upon the facts, *because by your SAME logic here, all those unmanned space missions to the moon's surface during the 60s and 70s MUST have been a scam too!" :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ivanos_95 - You said "I gave you some serious reasons (issues) why I consider the moon-landings to be a scam, or why I don't take the other space-programs seriously, and I never claimed to have anything to do with the flat-earthers"
And I never said you were a flat Earth believer, I said you demonstrate EXACTLY the same kind of logic and arguments that I get from flat Earth believers and believers of numerous other conspiracy theories, where you ALL think your gut feelings and personal opinions are more important than the actual FACTS, and therefore you make judgements based upon what you feel rather than what you know.
So don't hide behind vagueness please, be specific, give me an example of an unmanned space mission that you believe to be a hoax and explain why.
Better still, give me an example of an unmanned space mission that you believe to be REAL and explain why, because surely you can't be here claiming ALL unmanned spacecraft are a hoax? You must have ideas of SOME that are real, right? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ivanos_95 - You said "however I will neither deny that the balloons are being used for the same purpose as the satellites,"
And so this discussion is at an end with you having no evidence to support your claims, where you seem to think that whatever you can imagine is the same as fact, no proof required.
Your balloon claim is no different than someone claiming satellites are just holograms, or illusions/magic, or comets, or whatever they choose to believe.
I prefer to discuss facts, where I can support those facts with evidence (just as I did with satellites) and therefore if you find evidence of balloons being used in place of satellites, balloons that can stay up there for YEARS, then present it here and this discussion can continue.
Until then, all the best. Bye :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jayinquisitive6055 - What you think of Bob Hope is irrelevant (and sorry, but that's a child's argument from you btw), the fact remains that your uninformed and uneducated assumptions about the astronauts during the press conference is irrelevant, where as I stated you cannot present a SINGLE established body language expert from ANY nation over the last 50+ YEARS who agree with you.
NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, etc, hence proving my point :-)
If you think you are the first Apollo hoax believer in history to have found such a body language expert, hence someone who should be taken seriously on the subject, then present that person here together with the source for that information.
So either put up or...
You said "As Time Goes by The Lies are a lot Easier Live with... blah blah blah"
The same nonsense told to me by flat Earth believers, but that doesn't make them any more correct than yourself :-)
1
-
@jayinquisitive6055 - You said "You Trust The America Government 100% Huh?"
The classic straw man argument of accusing others of trusting authorities 100%, as used by believers of so many conspiracy theories, including flat Earth :-)
So before asking others to do research that you haven't done or understood, here's my position on this matter;
Proof of men landing on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972 has NOTHING to do with what any government or the media says!
Instead, in the 50+ years since the first moon landing, top scientists worldwide from fields such as physics (and astrophysics), rocket science, geology (and astrogeology), computing, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, electronics, and much more, have examined and verified ALL Apollo evidence, including scientists who dislike the USA and nations who would have given anything to prove it was a hoax (where their scientists would have been national heroes if they proved a hoax with verifiable evidence).
No scientist from ANY nation has ever announced finding fake Apollo evidence within his/her field of expertise, and no scientist from ANY nation has EVER said the missions were impossible (or even improbable) based upon evidence within his/her field of expertise .
In other words, if for over 50 years the Apollo evidence is more than good enough for the world's best scientists and the world's best engineers in all the relevant fields of science and engineering that they're EXPERTS in, then it's more than good enough for me.
Think about it please.
1
-
1
-
@jayinquisitive6055 - Sure, lets agree to disagree :-)
But I stand by my position that I only take seriously the opinions about surgery from surgeons, the opinions about law from lawyers, the opinions about physics from physicists, the opinions about engines from engineers, and hence the opinions about body language from body language experts, etc.
That is, I take seriously the opinions of experts in the fields for which they have proven expertise, whereas the opinions of non-experts are just interesting viewpoints for which I may or may not agree.
Yes we are all entitled to our opinions, but we can't just decide our opinions are fact unless those opinions are ALSO shared by experts in the relevant fields.
Surely that's not unreasonable?
Therefore you believe there was something wrong with the astronauts during the press conference, fine that's your opinion and you're entitled to your opinion, but you can't claim it to be a fact, only an opinion, and hence others are entitled to disagree with your opinion.
So yes, and again, lets agree to disagree :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So all you need to do to prove me wrong is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a globe is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world.
That's all. It should be very easy if the Earth is not a globe.
After all, if a map of a city (with a bar scale) was wrong, then it would be easy to find two locations where the distance measured on the map is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world, where margins of error or changes to the city doesn't explain the discrepancy. Same with the globe of the Earth.
I've asked flat Earth believers for those two locations on Earth for many years and yet I'm still waiting, proving they cannot find any error in the map of the Earth in the form of a globe, proving the globe is the correct shape of the Earth :-)
I prefer that proof because it's easy, there's no science required, all you need is a globe of the Earth, preferably a good quality up-to-date globe, a measuring tape and some paper and pen (or a calculator), and you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations you find on that globe of the Earth no matter where they are or how far apart they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JH-qy7zw - You said "I don't think you're understanding my position, I'm not supporting either side of dogma. I'm saying only that people are more skeptical nowadays because of intentional and/or unintentional bad information. Science is science, but humans are flawed."
Thanks for clarifying your position my friend :-)
However, where we differ is that I see that as being mostly due to the widespread availability of such information and the widespread availability of misinformation, where just like the discussion we're currently having, has been made possible due to the world wide web.
When I was young, most I my access to information came from books, newspapers, TV and radio, where in most cases great efforts were made to filter that information to ensure it was correct, or at least, as correct as it could be.
On the internet however, there is no equivalent filter, and therefore people can say almost anything they like knowing that it could be picked up and spread around as a fact, often because others may WANT to believe it's true and hence will repeat it without checking.
1
-
@JH-qy7zw - Hence the subject of this video, the flat Earth, is nothing new. The first flat Earth book was published over 150 years ago and numerous flat Earth books followed. Most people had never read those books much less heard about them since there was no world wide web back then, and so that's the way it remained for a century and a half for the modern flat Earth movement.
So throughout most of those years the flat Earth was something most people laughed at, even using it as an insult to call others stupid. But today we have people who are happy to call themselves flat Earth believers, all because it has gained traction and a level of acceptability thanks to the world wide web and those who successfully exploited it for that purpose.
My point is, nothing has really changed in terms of governments or science or other authorities, what has changed is the widespread access to information today, good and bad, right and wrong, thanks to the world wide web, which has given a public voice to ideas and beliefs that were once inaccessible to most.
You said "Unfortunately people like absolutes and not to move from those positions. That happens on either side of the spectrum."
Agreed :-)
1
-
1
-
@davidsandall - You said "We do know what causes magnetism- electrons, neutrons, and protons. We can make light"
Again we do not know what magnetism is, therefore we have theories to explain it. We do not know what light is, therefore we have theories to explain it. We do not know what gravity is, therefore we have theories to explain it.
I presented you with two experiments that proves the existence of gravity.
I'm STILL waiting for you to explain the measureable and predictable force of attraction seen :-)
So on a related note, how do YOU know electrons, neutrons, and protons exist?
Did you carry out tests yourself that revealed the atom and its structure?
If not, then name your trusted source for the existence of those atomic particles please, a source that has verified those particles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mynamemylastname7179 - Thank you for proving my point so perfectly.
You can't just make up your own info when there are actual example flights to choose from. So pick one.
Your assumption that multiple stop flights covers the same distance as a direct flight is just laughable. Multiple stop journeys are not direct, and therefore the total distance is greater!
So for example there's a 21 hr 5 min journey on Jul 21.
1. Anchorage to Seattle, 3 hr 30 min, 1435 miles.
2. 1 hr 30 min layover
3. Seattle to Incheon International Airport S Korea, 11 hr 40 min, 5217 miles.
4. 2 hr layover
5. Incheon International Airport to Beijing, 2 hr 25 min, 561 miles.
That's a total distance of 7213 miles, a total of 17 hr 35 min actual flight time, with a total layover of 3 hr 30 min.
So go ahead and explain the above, because it all fits PERFECTLY for a globe Earth as I stated :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@svestore1 - As for your video twisting what Don said... Please explain how the Apollo craft are any more "destroyed" than the Space Shuttle which will also never launch into space again (where ALL can be found in museums).
Explain how the SLS rocket due to launch this year, which is as large and as powerful as the Saturn V rocket that got men to the moon, is not an example of rebuilding the lost technology that Don spoke of.
Explain how the Orion space capsule successfully tested in the Van Allen belts in 2014 and to be taken to the moon and back on the debut launch of the SLS, a capsule larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module, is not an example of rebuilding the lost technology that Don spoke of.
Can you really not understand that Don was referring to technology that we no longer have, where the infrastructure and services that built, maintained, launched/flew that technology is all gone, and therefore that technology is lost, destroyed (Saturn V, Concorde, Space Shuttle, etc)?
So come on, just because you believe the moon landings were a hoax, it doesn't mean you're contractually obliged to believe EVERY hoax claim from EVERY conspiracy theorist out there. It IS possible to think for yourself and say a specific hoax claim is wrong while still believing the moon landings were a hoax :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel - I would be more than happy to enlighten you IF I knew you were willing to listen and hence know that my time isn't wasted.
For example, I have a two volume book (about 600 pages) called African Americans in Science by Charles W Carey Jr.
It's an inspirational reference book that I open at random every so often to read about the achievements of black people in science throughout history (I hope to find a similar book for the rest of the world).
That way I can find out more instead of waiting for black people to become well known just because someone wrote a book that became a Hollywood movie, hence I can find out about the people who are often missing from history books and documentaries and films.
Brilliant men and women like the astrophysicist Dr George R Curruthers, better known for his work during the Apollo missions (which by definition you claim to be a hoax, but please continue...), for example (selected because he can be found on YT);
Commemorating George Carruthers and Apollo 16
goo.gl/ezQgAH
As a side note, here's a photo of the crew cabin for the Apollo Lunar Lander being built (early stage);
goo.gl/gh5qjn
Interesting? Yes? But who cares, right?
So that's where I'm coming from Daniel, but feel free to assume I'm who you prefer me to be, but I prefer to seek out and learn what black people have done and achieved throughout history that most people don't know about, instead of putting down white people (especially in racist ways) and hence achieving nothing.
Regarding the Earth, people have known it's a globe for well over 2200 YEARS (Eratosthenes was the first person to measure the size of the globe earth to a good accuracy a few centuries BC), and for almost 2000 years, ALL Christian churches and ALL churches based upon the bible had said the earth is a globe.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg, so to claim proof of the earth being a globe comes from NASA (formed only 59 years ago) is nonsense.
You said "U just have ur religion of science."
Hence I assume you're not religious :)
1
-
Daniel - I got a fraction of your reply in my notifier window, but it does not show up in the thread (perhaps you added links? Or edited it too many times? Either way, you have caused it to be flagged as spam and hence no-one can see it.
Fortunately I have the notification email.
However, you automatically dismissing a book that you haven't read (on racist grounds) that list the achievements of a great many black American scientists, many who have NEVER EVER been given the recognition and credit they deserve, is shameful! Especially coming from a black guy who has done nothing in his life that comes close to the achievements of such individuals (with all due respect :)).
And don't refer to yourself as "we" again please, it's extremely pretentious.
You're not interested in history, you are only interested in your own preferred version of history, which is something completely different.
Now lets get back to the heart of this subject, where you ignorantly said "In the history of cosmology you should understand the shape the earth never was proven"
Wrong, the shape of the earth has been proven to be a globe, for a few thousand years in fact, hence the fact that you couldn't tackle the 5 basic FE questions I put to you proves your ignorance.
Still, I smiled at your pompous and egotistical comment of "You cannot hold a candle up to me".
I prefer to let my posts do the talking son.
So either put up or shut up over those flat earth questions. I shot down your naive comment about the map and yet you have yet to offer a counter argument. So where is it given that you believe yourself to be so informed and so clever? Where is the non-distorted flat earth map that I asked you for?
Again, if the earth is flat then a 2D map will be a representation of a 2D arrangement of land masses (i.e. the earth), which means there should be ZERO distortion in a 2D map of a flat earth.
So go find me that accurate non-distorted flat earth map. No more excuses please, since no accurate non-distorted flat earth map means the earth is not flat. Fact :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@artyinn1215 - Thanks, and no problem, we'll agree to disagree, but... don't you see the problem with Bart Sibrel lying?
Here's some of my thoughts off the top of my head, so forgive the length please :-)
After years of debating conspiracy theories, there is one IMPORTANT thing that most conspiracy believers choose to ignore... the need to separate the 'chaff' claims from the 'wheat' claims.
In other words, it is impossible for ALL the claims in support of a conspiracy theory to be right, since some are always errors and mistakes and misunderstandings and some blatant lies and fantasies, but for some reason conspiracy believers seem to feel compelled to support and defend EVERY ONE of the claims being made.
My view is that conspiracy believers are the people who should be pouring over the conspiracy claims and flagging up all those that are clearly wrong.
That way, if the conspiracy is true, then the truth would be far easier to get too because the remaining claims would be strong evidence, where that evidence isn't buried and hence almost lost under a mountain of false information.
To this day, I have yet to see a moon landing hoax believer (for example) make a video along the lines of "The Top 10 Hoax claims that we Hoax believers should Avoid", where he/she lists the most common false claims like "No stars", "Flag blowing in the wind", "Fatal Van Allen belts" and so on.
The fact that this has never happened proves conspiracy believers overall are not as interested in the truth as they claim to be, instead they WANT to believe the conspiracy so much that they accept any claimed evidence provided, right or wrong :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So only a white shirt would reflect light, not the dust covered surface? ;-)
Remember, the hoax claim they are debunking says the astronaut should be completely BLACK because ZERO light should reach him inside the shadow of the LM, so all Mythbusters had to do was prove that SOME light would illuminate the astronaut inside the shadow, and they succeeded.
Also, all those who have recreated that scene with objects, or with computer simulations, or in the desert with a spotlight etc, have all arrived at the same result, i.e. the astronaut or object in shadow is illuminated by light reflected from the surface.
In other words, myth busted :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@suekennedy8917 - Another typically ignorant reply from you Sue:-)
The astronauts were clear when they could see stars and when they couldn't. For example, from Michael Collins 1974 book "Carrying The Fire" (you do know who Michael Collins is, right?);
[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 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 then.
Next?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@k9slife - You said "why do they dig through mountains and flatten all hills in front of them,"
Well duh! ;-) Because mountains represent a huge RISE in the land, and so if they can't find a safe and manageable route around the mountain for the train to travel (as some have), then they will blast through PARTS of the mountain instead of trying to go over it, hence carve out a path around the side or dig a tunnel through, or both.
So again, your argument is false.
Consider this. Take an A4 size map of an area with hills and mountains and valleys that you want to lay a train track. Imagine if the longest side of that A4 map represent 25 miles. If you lay that map on a perfectly flat table, then the curvature of the Earth would be the equivalent of raising the middle of your map by just 0.25 millimetres!
If you made a model of that same area based upon the A4 map, then a 1 mile high mountain on your map would be 12 millimetres high on your model!
Think about that please.
The mountain you have to deal with rises up 12 millimetres (1.2 cm) in a small section of your model, whereas the curvature of the Earth only raises your model up to a maximum of 0.25 millimetres at the centre!
So as I stated, when laying down railway tracks, the engineers are only concerned about the rise and fall of the landscape itself, not the curvature of the Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Quote mining is dishonest and cowardly (hence right up your street :-|)
Here's more of the text so that everyone can know the context, and hence know who it was written about;
"Development of mission techniques was achieved by assigning to an individual in the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office the responsibility of coordinating the activities of the various groups working on those things so that when they were finished, there was some assurance they would all be compatible, complete, and universally understood.
Of course, the way we got this job done was with meetings --big meetings, little meetings, hundreds of meetings! The thing we always tried to do in these meetings was to encourage everyone, no matter how shy, to speak out, hopefully (but not always) without being subjected to ridicule. We wanted to make sure we had not overlooked any legitimate input."
So why pretend what was written about the development of mission techniques was about the entire Apollo program instead?
Why the dishonesty? :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@5jjt - With all due respect, nothing is being thrown at Christians, and I think it's rather insulting to act as if Christians are weak little sheep cowering from the evil wolves :-)
The Bible doesn't explicitly mention the shape of the Earth. Hence although the Hebrew word for "ball" can be found in the Bible, it is never used to describe the shape of the Earth.
Likewise the Hebrew word for "flat" can also be found in the Bible, but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Hence Christians arrived at the shape of the Earth through other means, eg. science and astronomy and mathematics, and therefore nothing was thrown at them or forced upon them.
So can you not see the problem with those who claim the Bible says the Earth is of a specific shape when it's never explicitly stated in the Bible?
Therefore those who are doing the deception you speak of, are those claiming the Bible says the Earth is flat. Because they are CHOOSING to interpret certain verses within certain Bibles that way, where at best they can only claim it IMPLIES a flat Earth, but in no way does it explicitly say the Earth is flat.
Simply put, if any person thinks the Earth is flat then that person cannot call himself (or herself) a Christian :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whataworld369 - You said "And many skeptics like myself..."
Skeptics apply that mindset equally, not to just one side only.
Therefore you are a flat Earth believer, a globe denier, not a skeptic :-)
And what's so important about flat Earth that Neil should make it a special case?
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists.
But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@realeyesnolies6424 - Also, what better person to listen to about the Van Allen belts than Dr Van Allen himself...
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year!).
Therefore if the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirms that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
I hope that information helps :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Some Guy - You said "What say you, Yazzam? Do you think someone like Mark Sargent would be up for going on a crowd-funded space trip via Virgin Galactic to prove once and for all the shape of the Earth?"
The problem is, conspiracy believers never allow others to change their minds and therefore will turn on anyone who tries to do that, including those they used to follow.
For example, lets say Mark Sargent or Eric Dubay took a trip upon Virgin Galactic, or Blue Origin, or a Space X rocket, and returned saying "OMG, I was wrong, I can't believe it, the Earth really is a globe, I saw it with my own eyes!".
Then (as you've said) their followers will claim Mark or Eric have been threatened by governments to say Earth is a globe, or bought by governments to say that, or were drugged or hypnotised into believing they saw a globe Earth, or were tricked, and so on.
And hence their followers will just reject anything Mark or Eric says, calling them traitors, and simply move onto other flat Earth theorists, especially those who explain why Mark/Eric can't be trusted anymore :-)
1
-
1
-
@Some Guy - You said "Also, how could we have went to the Moon when the van allen radiation belt prevents astronauts from going any farther than low Earth orbit in the present day."
Because the only people who claim that about the radiation belts are those who have never sent anything into space themselves. Think about it :-|
That's like listening to and believing people who make wild claims about surgery despite those people not being surgeons themselves. Why take them seriously? Why take their word over that of experienced surgeons?
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006 :-)) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
I hope that helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Some Guy - Unfortunately your second reply isn't showing up in this thread, but the part I can read in the notifier windows says "Obviously the cube would move if debris was hitting against it."
THAT'S the point!
You acknowledge the cube would move due to the explosion (hit by debris AND gas molecules in a vacuum), hence proving it is possible to create thrust inside a vacuum.
The experiment I presented would work even if your vacuum chamber was the size of a town, or the size of the Earth or the size of the universe :-)
So imagine instead that the bomb was actually inside the cube, with hundreds of other bombs inside that cube, where it was released through a small hatch in the side of the cube, and then the hatch closed and the bomb detonated. Right there the cube would be accelerated a little in the vacuum.
But then another small bomb is released through the hatch and detonates next to the cube, accelerating it a little more. And then another bomb, and then another bomb, and then another, and so on, accelerating the cube with each detonation.
Isn't that thrust in a vacuum? :-|
1
-
1
-
@Some Guy - You asked "What made you buy all those Flat Earth books that you own? What made you want to read them? Was it because you were trying to debunk them, or was it just curiosity?"
Numerous forums and comments sections for science based topics (here on YouTube and elsewhere) are often visited by individuals challenging the science, where several years ago pseudo-science beliefs like "The Electric Universe Theory" grew in popularity online.
However, in about 2015/2016 I noticed that the popularity of theories like The Electric Universe were declining with the rise of flat Earth 'theory' belief, where they grew to dominate the anti-science comments, and so I wanted to find out more since I like to understand the 'theories' that I'm challenging.
It occurred to me very quickly that if the Earth really was flat then there should exist an accurate flat map of the entire Earth, a map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all distances measured on that map is accurate.
Therefore I decided to go to the originals sources in search for such a map, the same sources that many of the flat Earth theorists referred to, and hence those sources were the flat Earth books published over the last 150+ years.
The result showed me that no such map exists, instead the only map to be found is the Azimuthal Equidistant map (or AE map) known to many flat Earth believers as the Gleason map, a map that Gleason himself in his patent said was created from a projection of a globe Earth with two poles.
Since I owned the books it made sense to read them all to find out what different flat Earth theorists were claiming, but there was a lot I skimmed over to get to the main details because many of those books are so poorly written, where they would be a chore to read even for the most dedicated and hardcore flat Earth believer :-)
I hope that helps to explain what motivated me to get those books and why I took the time to read them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Some Guy - You said "Try it yourself. I promise you, once it disappears it will come back into view if you zoom in..."
Again that's the problem, where you are making an assumption and you're not even realizing you're doing it.
Imagine you're in a huge open flat plain with a friend, and then your friend says he'll be back in a few hours and begins to walk away from you.
As he walks away he will appear smaller and smaller and smaller, until he reaches a point where you can't see him any more.
So has your friend vanished over the horizon, or is he merely too far away and hence too small for you to see him with the naked eye?
Now take out your binoculars or camera and zoom in on the area you last saw him and voila, there he is again, still walking away.
Again, did you bring him back after he disappeared over the horizon, or did you bring him back because you magnified the scene in front of you?
Likewise, when a boat reaches a point where it's too far away and hence too small for you to see it with the naked eye, on what basis do you claim to know that the boat you can't see has travelled far enough to have disappeared over the horizon?
Think about that question please, because it's important.
1
-
@Some Guy - You said " Because I know for a fact the footage IS faked."
Personal opinion, nothing more and nothing less, where for some reason you appear to believe you are seeing something that the world's best special effects experts worldwide for over 50 years have ALL missed and yet you have spotted ;-)
You said "I've watched that footage when sped up, and they appear to just be walking at a normal pace"
Except it's not. Gravity on the moon is 1/6 that of Earth, meaning objects fall 2.45 (the square root of 6) times slower on the moon compared to Earth.
Therefore if slow motion is used, i.e. slowing down the footage by 2.45 times to make everything fall at the 'correct' speed for the moon, then speeding up the Apollo footage by 2.45 times should bring it back to normal Earth speed.
However when we do that the dust is correct for dust on Earth in a vacuum, but the astronaut's movements are ridiculous, way to fast to be normal, as you can see in this example of sped up Apollo footage on my channel;
youtu.be/qyGD2_XiSPE
So it cannot be slow motion, and consider this, if all we needed to do to fake Apollo footage is to slow down the footage, one of the EASIEST special effects to apply today, then YT would be FULL of videos from people recreating the gravity in Apollo footage using slow motion to prove that's how it was done, and countless movies would have matched the gravity seen in Apollo footage using slow motion.
Therefore the slow motion claim is debunked.
1
-
@Some Guy - You said "There's also footage from subsequent missions where it looks like guys are being held up by wires. Do you know what footage I'm talking about?"
I do know the scene you're speaking of my friend :-)
From that scene, conspiracy theorists carefully selected what to show their audience and hence they mislead the viewers, where it's easy to be caught out if you don't check the claims yourself.
Hence try looking at the following objectively to see if you come to the same conclusion as before:
Here's the part of the footage that hoax believers don't show you, where we see the astronaut fall, and then calls out for help and the other astronaut goes back to help him up;
youtu.be/ocsV9hxMndk&t=130
To recap, we hear the astronaut on the ground say at 2:14 "Give me help!", then see the other astronaut run towards him to help, where he positions himself so that the astronaut on the ground uses his left hand to grab onto the right hand/arm of the astronaut standing up.
Watch that clip several times to see what's happening, and listen to their exchanges which appear to be as follows;
"There you go"
"'kay just push... start pushing on my hand"
"Give me your hand"
"Ok, here we go"
And so with help from the astronaut who went BACK to help him, he gets up in the 1/6 gravity of the moon (i.e. 1/6 his weight on Earth).
Be honest now, after watching the full scene with the original audio several times and without the editing and comments from conspiracy theorists, can you now see that it's not what the conspiracy theorists claimed? :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Some Guy - You said "What about the rock with the letter 'c' on it that was airbrushed out?" and "...It conclusively proves that the Moon landing footage was taken in a studio, and that rock was merely a prop".
Again, don't allow conspiracy theorists to manipulate you :-|
Apollo photos in books, magazines, documentaries etc, are often copies of a copy of a copy etc.
It was not digital back then! Hence at some point when someone made a copy of that photograph, a hair or a piece of lint or something else got on the image.
Here's the original high resolution version of that SAME photo, notice there's no "C" on the rock;
(Replace DOT with . and SLASH with /)
tinyurlDOTcomSLASHcdrstly
Better still, that photo was first shown on the cover of a journal published just two weeks after Apollo 16 returned.
Here's the cover of that journal, again notice there's no "C" on the rock;
tinyurlDOTcomSLASHbzhe4qp
All the above is covered in the following video (and read the video description too)
youtu.be/cEygpL7r6Pk
So to conclude:
a) The best versions of that photograph shows no "C" and the oldest published version shows no "C", and
b) No-one on a studio set EVER labels rocks with letters of the alphabet (what happens after "Z"?), it doesn't make sense, especially when they would never be returning to that same location in the rover, and
c) How and why would they label the following rocks in this panoramic view consisting of several Apollo 17 photos;
(Replace DOT with . and SLASH with /)
tinyDOTccSLASHlr3ouz
Therefore the "C" rock hoax claim is clearly false, where it doesn't make sense on multiple levels :-)
1
-
@Some Guy - finally, you asked "And what about the "Moon rock" that was actually just a piece of petrified wood? How do you explain that?"
NASA never said it was a moon rock and it wasn't given out by the astronauts, so read on please...
ALL the moon rocks given out by NASA as gifts to nations were encased in resin (Lucite) to preserve them, where they were also catalogued and mounted on a plaque. NASA NEVER gave out valuable moon rocks unprotected where they would be exposed to air, water, sweat, coffee spills, micro-organisms, etc.
The claim that the unprotected single lump of petrified wood was from the moon was an error made by the Rijksmuseum (an ART museum), where they incorrectly assumed that the unprotected and uncatalogued rock donated to them was from the moon.
That rock was donated to the museum by the family of the former Dutch Prime Minister, William Drees, after he died in 1988. It was given to William Drees by the US ambassador to commemorate the astronaut's visit to the Netherlands;
(Replace DOT with . and SLASH with /)
tinyDOTccSLASH8s3ouz
The museum were warned in 2006 that the rock was highly unlikely to be from the moon because it was given to William Drees less than 3 months after Apollo 11 returned (NASA gave out moon rocks as gifts 1 YEAR after Apollo 11), but they ignored the warning and displayed it as a moon rock.
3 years later that warning was proven to be correct when a visiting geologist saw the rock and IMMEDIATELY knew it can't be from the moon and informed the museum... and the rest is history.
The moon rocks given to the Dutch are actually in the Boerhaave museum (in storage), as reported here before the petrified rock story broke in 2009;
youtu.be/pcVW_yfd-pM
And remember, that was 2009, 13 YEARS ago, so if NASA were giving out fake rocks then wouldn't you expect more 'fake' moon rocks to have been discovered by now? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Some Guy - You said "I didn't have time to read your replies last night, so I've just finished reading them now. You've made some extremely well-written, informative responses, so thanks for that..."
And thanks very much for that my friend, really appreciated, because it helped to lift my spirits after wading through (and replying to) so many attacking replies in my notifier window from those who choose to reject everything I say on principle alone.
My goal is never to change someone's mind about the conspiracy theories they believe (although it's great if that happens), because we are entitled to our beliefs and hence I respect that. So instead ...
... I try to show others that conspiracy theorists should never be given the level of trust that so many give them (even if the conspiracy is true!), because from my experience over the years I've seen that conspiracy theorists typically set out to manipulate their followers, that's their primary goal, where the facts and truth are secondary despite their claims to the contrary, and hence that is what I try to get others to see.
Therefore my message to anyone who believes in a specific conspiracy theory is - Try to be just as skeptical of the claims of conspiracy theorists as you are of the facts that the conspiracy theorists question, take everything they say with an equal pinch of salt and remember they are human and hence they can lie and/or make mistakes, that way you are more likely to find the truth on your own terms rather than through the manipulation of others :-)
Thanks again.
1
-
@Some Guy - Sorry about that, I had no notification of your replies here 4 days ago (thanks YT :-|), but got a notification for your most recent reply and hence I'm here.
Thanks, you made some good points, and I'm pleased to have helped in some way.
Although I realize now that I didn't quite explain my reaction to negative, attacking replies accurately. It's not that they get me down, it's that I always try to respond in full to all replies, often providing evidence that others reading the thread can see for themselves, where the negative/attacking replies will often require (by far) the most work, compared to positive replies where a brief 'thank you' is usually sufficient :-)
Hence when there's a long list of negative/attacking messages to wade through, I just sigh, make a cup of coffee, roll up my sleeves and get to work... And when I encounter a positive kind message among them, then that's a welcome boost to the spirits that makes it all feel worthwhile :-D
Thanks again.
1
-
@Some Guy - You said "Strange, my last comment isn't showing up. I asked you about UFOs. and whether you think they're top secret, black project, man-made aircraft/spacecraft, or aliens?"
I can see part of your reply in my notifier window, but fortunately the full reply is in my email notification.
I cannot see why it was deleted or shadow banned, which is what really annoys me with YT, because sometimes it's just one WORD that triggers their filter to block the reply, and yet there's no feedback to a) Let us know our replies will be banned, and b) To tell us WHY our replies have been banned/deleted so that we can repost them with changes made.
And it's not just YT. In the comments section of a newspaper website a few years back, there was a science topic about black holes, where a flat Earth believer posted several comments and so I decided to respond.
After spending nearly an hour trying to get my reply posted without success, I finally found out what was causing the problem - merely using the word 'black' in my reply was causing it to be blocked, despite the topic being about BLACK HOLES! For some reason 'black hole' was been identified as racist :-) So I had to disguise it by typing 'bl@ck' instead.
Anyway, I'll respond to your last reply soon, because I've had several discussions about that press conference over the years and hence it's easier if I just copy and paste one of my recent replies.
1
-
@Some Guy - You said "So, what's your view on the Apollo 11 press conference? Why are they acting so strange, as if somebody just died?"
Sorry, I didn't get any notifications for your last few replies (good old YT :-/). But anyway :-) ...
... many conspiracy theory claims are based upon looking at something, taking it on face value and drawing conclusions from it, but we should always dig deeper to find the context and circumstances first.
For example, the behaviour and mannerisms of each of the astronauts are much the same in previous press conferences as they were during the Apollo 11 press conference, where they were there to give a presentation and answer questions from a very informed audience, they were not up on stage to entertain a crowd or open up emotionally (which is expected today, not back then).
Also, and this is important, that Apollo press conference took place 3 weeks after the astronauts returned from the moon, where they spent those 3 weeks in quarantine!
Many today who watch that press conference assume it was a celebration of the astronauts returning from the moon, where they believe it occurred hours or at most days after they returned, which is why some think the astronauts don't appear as happy or as relaxed as they should be, and so they assume something is wrong (i.e. that the astronauts are scared or lying).
But look at Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts just ONE WEEK after returning, while in quarantine on his birthday;
youtu.be/j6P1wBNHqnU
They couldn't look happier, especially Neil.
And look at Neil Armstrong in front of the troops in Vietnam, where again he couldn't look happier if he tried and is clearly relishing the moment;
youtu.be/LH_skCsC1JQ (<-- Go straight to 6:24 in this video)
Therefore the idea that during the press conference there was something wrong with three ex test pilots - who were chosen because they the among the best at controlling their emotions and staying focussed even when their lives were in danger (not because they were the best at PR) - is based upon false assumptions.
I hope that helped :-)
1
-
@Some Guy - Hi, you said "I suppose my last question for you is an obvious one: why haven't we even tried to go back to the Moon?"
I think your question is at the heart of why many incorrectly think it was a hoax, because many appear to believe it was NASA who decided to send men to the moon for science, but it was in fact the US government who decided to do that PURELY for political reasons.
Simply put, Congress said to NASA "We must land men on the moon before the USSR and before the end of this decade, so here's a blank cheque NASA to make it happen, GET ON WITH IT!"
So NASA said "Thanks very much, consider it done" and they got to work.
As a result, Congress increased NASA's budget to a peak of 9 times normal (the equivalent of getting $207 billion in 2021 instead of just $23 billion), and hence they had the finance to make it happen.
Part of that was an order for Saturn V rockets in the mid-60s, where the initial production run resulted in 15 rockets (and an extra 3 for ground testing), where 12 were used for Apollo.
Thanks to the Saturn V, the USA send men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972, landing on the moon during 6 of those missions.
Unfortunately, although NASA wanted a second production run of Saturn V rockets, it never happened because Congress were satisfied that Apollo had met all their political objectives (proving the 'superiority' of capitalism over communism in space) and so the extra funding for NASA was withdrawn, resulting in Apollo 18-20 being canceled and the remaining Saturn V rockets being put to other uses (eg. Skylab and a few placed in museums).
NASA knew the score and so they tried to get as much science out of Apollo as they could while it lasted.
So if it were up to NASA, then the Saturn V rocket would have never been scrapped until they had a superior rocket to replace it.
But it wasn't up to NASA, it was ALL up to the US government, it was all about politics. It always has been :-|
I hope that helped to answer your question.
1
-
@Some Guy - Lets take it one step at a time, starting with your first paragraph.
You said "So are you telling me that, since the Saturn V rocket was scrapped, NASA essentially no longer have the capability to go to the Moon? Surely they can build a new, superior rocket?"
Again, to be able to design, build and manufacture Saturn V rockets, Congress increased NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES NORMAL to give them the funding to do it.
So how can we expect NASA to continue building Saturn V rockets when they no longer had the massive extra funding from Congress?
If someone gives you a massive sum of money to be able to do a certain project, and you use the money given to you for that purpose and it's a success, but years later that same person decides to move onto other projects and withdraws your funding, then how are you suppose to repeat the SAME project without the finance?
The answer is - you can't unless someone else gives you the funding needed.
You said "Surely they can build a new, superior rocket?"
They have my friend, it's called the SLS rocket and it's due to launch within a few months, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back (if successful, then that's the same rocket and space capsule that will return people to the moon in 2024!).
NASA were given the go ahead for such a rocket but without extra funding, so the budget for the SLS had to be spread out over MANY years, and hence the SLS has been in development since 2011, that's 11 YEARS.
Had the US government wanted people to return to the moon as quickly as possible and Congress agreed to the funding, then the SLS would have been ready several years ago.
Surely you can see that?
1
-
@Some Guy - You said "It's been 50 years since the last Moon mission, you would think by now we would have bases on the Moon."
It's been 61 years since men first went into space, but besides the orbiting International Space Station (which needed multiple nations to spread the cost to make it viable) low Earth orbit isn't exactly packed with manned bases, and in those 60+ years only THREE nations have built rockets capable of taking people into space, the USA, USSR/Russia and most recently China.
So what do all those nations have in common? :-)
Simply put, if after 60+ years of putting people in space only 3 nations have ever manage to build craft capable of sending people into space, then it's a bit much to expect bases on the moon when most nations haven't mastered manned space flight and when we haven't really mastered low Earth orbit as yet :-|
What has held us back is the lack of new propulsion technology, where today we still rely upon the same basic rocket engine technology that we used in the 50s/60s.
Had there been a revolutionary breakthrough in rocket propulsion technology, like the invention of the jet engine that replaced propellers in aircraft and hence created the modern aircraft industry we have today, then manned space missions could have been something we all take for granted too, with bases in low Earth orbit, on the moon and beyond.
Re-useable rockets is a great step towards big changes in manned space flight, potentially reducing the cost substantially, but ultimately what we really need is the invention of a new propulsion technology, but who knows when that would happen, it could be a years, decades or even over a century away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JamesHoots - Everything you're saying here is irrelevant to the fact that gravity EXISTS, so whether you accept it to be a force or weight or magic it doesn't change the fact that gravity EXISTS.
Weight according to Einstein is MASS times the acceleration due to GRAVITY, hence the equation W=mg
Science is about understanding the natural world and therefore science creates models to describe the natural world, models that can be represented mathematically.
No model is perfect, and so if a new model better explains a natural phenomena, then science shifts to the new model.
Newton described gravity as a force that pulls between any two objects in the universe, where the mathematics works very well in general but it breaks down when it comes to modelling extreme velocities and extreme gravity.
Einstein described gravity as the curvature of spacetime caused by the mass of objects (that's not weight), where not only does it succeed mathematically where Newton's model failed, but it also allowed us to better understand the universe, however it breaks down when if comes to explaining the extremely small and so we have quantum mechanics for that.
So gravity is real, get over 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
-
@tonyornelas9374 - You said "out of curiosity how do get from me saying the Bible is the truth as I'm not a Christian?"
Because flat Earth is NOT a Christian belief, so those claiming the Bible says the Earth is flat are deceivers.
For example, the Bible doesn't explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you would ever find are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all implicit !
Also, Christian churches/denominations for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE. None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. Why? Because you can find verses in the Bible that explicitly says the Earth is stationary.
In other words, the ONLY thing they had in common with flat Earth 'theory' was the idea that the Earth is stationary and at the center of everything.
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches.
Those who tell you the Bible says the Earth is flat are attempting to corrupt your faith, where apparently they are succeeding :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tabascoraremaster1 - While I wait for your quote, you also said "...and Neil Disgrace refuses to go in debate."
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wsxcde21 - With regards to Neil, he doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims (including the conspiracy theories that you don't believe yourself) then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists.
But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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's a few quotes from Nikola Tesla that you can find yourself, where he confirms the Earth is a globe;
"I may state, that even waves only one or two millimeters long, which I produced thirty-three years ago, provided that they carry sufficient energy, can be transmitted around the globe"
"Invariably it was found that these waves, just as those in the air, follow the curvature of the Earth and bend around obstacles"
"At 3600 m.p.h the plane travels about 19,500 miles. Earth's rotation adds 5500 to the total"
"Each of them will be preferably located near some important center of civilization and the news it receives through any channel will be flashed to all points of the globe"
"to utilize the heat contained in the earth, the water, or the air for driving an engine. It is a well-known fact that the interior portions of the globe are very hot"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi Jimmy, the key point that many people miss is that we didn't go to the moon because NASA said "Hey guys, lets go to the moon!", instead they went because the US government said "We need to get Americans to the moon BEFORE the Russians, here's ALL THE MONEY YOU NEED NASA to make it happen. Get on with it!" :-)
We can see this in the massive leap in NASA's budget at the time to make it happen;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
So NASA "made it happen" and used the opportunity to get as much science out of it as they could while the going was good.
But, not surprisingly, once Congress knew the USSR couldn't get men to the moon because their 'moon rocket' didn't work (look up the N1-L3 rocket), they effectively said "Thanks NASA, mission accomplished, goodbye!" and withdrew all that extra funding.
As a result, Apollo missions 18 to 20 had to be cancelled and no new Saturn V rockets could be built, resulting in the end of the Apollo program.
However, this time is different, the USA are going to the moon to stay this time, with the world's largest rocket due to launch this year (the massive SLS) and a small space station to be put into orbit around the moon in a few years, called the Lunar Gateway (or just Gateway).
Assuming all does well with the debut launch of the SLS this year (where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back), the SLS will again take the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024, but this time with a crew of astronauts where they will dock with the Lunar Gateway space station.
Later missions will bring a Lunar Lander, where they will use the lander to go from Gateway to the surface and then back up to Gateway.
Again, unlike Apollo, everything is being done in a way that is sustainable this time, and hence the USA will be back to the moon to stay.
I hope that information helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thegoodshepherd7777 - There is curvature, but we can come to that later.
Let me put the following to you with regards to Eric's "200 proofs".
Download Eric Dubay's "200 proofs" free eBook (a quick search on Google will find it).
Here's just one example of the ignorance of Eric Dubay;
In proof number 123 in that eBook, Eric claims the sun is 30 miles wide and 3000 miles away (flat earth books, including his own, say 3000 miles up), and yet in proof number 125, Eric claims the sun is just above the clouds, showing a photo of clouds which any meteorologist would tell you are just a few miles up.
So according to Eric, the sun is a few miles up and 3000 miles up at the same time!
Seriously, can you not see the major flaw in his argument? :-)
Just look at these examples of sun rays (crepuscular rays, or God rays) through trees (replace [SLASH] with /);
goo.gl[SLASH]XNnweq
See how many photos of trees you can find there showing the sun's rays passing through the trees in EXACTLY the same way we see the sun's ray's passing through clouds in Eric's photo.
Therefore if you apply the SAME logic as Eric, then those rays through the trees proves the sun is not 93 million miles away, nor is it 3000 miles up, but instead the sun is just above the trees! Right? :-)
So come on, can you really not see the MAJOR flaw in proof number 125?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thegoodshepherd7777 - So while I wait for you to explain Eric's sun distance claim from that photograph (no more cowardly excuses please :-)), I'll address this comment from you.
Quote "You can’t prove gravity dude, they even admit this."
Wrong, gravity is a proven fact.
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonsmith3945 - You said in your shadow banned reply "You're making my point."
Nope, you just don't understand the point.
And said "Prior to being given rocks they were assured were lunar, scientists had no way of identifying a rock as having a lunar origin. But after being given samples from NASA, confirmation bias kicks in."
Which shows your complete lack of understanding of how science works :-)
From the time the Apollo missions returned samples from the moon, there are hundreds, probably thousands of published scientific papers from the best geologists worldwide following their analysis of the rocks and dust samples.
Not only that, but there are a large number of published scientific papers by geologists who studied the Soviet moon samples, which share the same unique features as the Apollo samples.
So not only did the Soviet samples verify the Apollo samples, but no Earth rocks have EVER been found that contain those unique features.
So are you saying the Soviets were in on a moon landing conspiracy? Because they must be according to you, and that doesn't make any sense.
And are you saying NASA managed to fake moon rocks with pristine surfaces with ZERO meteorite features and yet packed with features unique to the moon that would trick even the world's best geologists indefinitely, including those in nations that would want to prove fake landings?
That's what you're saying here? :-)
1
-
@jonsmith3945 - THIS REPLY IS SHADOW BANNED, BUT PLEASE READ IT.
I've told you a number of times that some of your replies are shadow banned.
You can check yourself by using another browser to look at this thread without signing in, where you'll see what everyone else can see.
YT's AI moderation shadow bans or deletes replies with links, insults, attacks, controversial words or phrases, too long, and so on, but the machine learning isn't perfect and so it triggers false positives and hence often shadow bans replies where nothing wrong was said or done.
Therefore you'll need to delete the original reply, rewrite it and try again, avoiding words and phrases that may be causing the problem, Splitting a long reply into several shorter replies can also help.
But don't try more than 5 or 6 times in a row if your reply is still shadow banned, since YT will identify your account as spam and block all your replies for several hours or days.
Therefore this is the last time I will reply to you if your reply is shadow banned, since no-one can read the reply I'm responding to.
It's up to you to check your reply is visible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - You said "Eddie is like me in the sense of not believing everything they are told, he always questions the truth."
And 99.999% of people who claim that are lying to themselves :-) Because they (you) don't question everything you're told, you ONLY question everything that official authorities say (governments, scientists, teachers, doctors, etc).
In other words, you only question ONE-SIDE, which is not being open minded as you claim, but is in fact the complete opposite.
So if you question everything, please list 3 claims that you question from those who say the Earth is not a globe please, and explain why.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - Men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972, those are the fact my friend.
But we can't just make up our own versions of space and expect it to be taken seriously.
For example, you said "I believe that the earth is round, yes, and that man can only be in orbit, and cannot go beyond van allen belt, and that most theories of various universes, nebulae, space travel, aliens are all fantasies"
So please say who you trust for the information that you believe please (trusted sources), making sure those sources have actual experience.
For example, how do you know the Van Allen belts even exist? Who told you?
Remember, the Van Allen radiation belts are COMPLETELY INVISIBLE and hence can't be seen or detected from Earth's surface, which is why they were not discovered until 1958 when rockets with radiation detectors flew into them.
Therefore the ONLY people we can fully trust about the Van Allen belts are those who have built rockets/spacecraft that have flown into the belts to measure the radiation.
So if you trust those sources when they say there are INVISIBLE belts of radiation around the Earth, then you must also trust those sources when they say the radiation is not a problem for people to pass through in just a few hours.
But if you're saying the radiation in the belts is fatal no matter what and so we can't pass through them, then those same sources must be lying about the radiation and therefore we can't trust them about there being any radiation belts at all!
So which is it? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - You said " you have every right to believe, but at least don't block comments, because you have videos that don't make sense like the shadows one, what do you mean with that video?"
Because I'm not trying to grow my channel by attracting people there just to get clicks/views, I simply upload videos for use in discussions, like the one we're having here :-)
There are far more videos uploaded than the ones you're seeing, where I make some public when it makes sense.
As for the video with the shadows, that was to debunk a claim within the SAME DOCUMENTARY that your wires video comes from, called "What Happened on the Moon", where David Percy was making claims that shadows seen in certain Apollo footage was impossible in the sun and therefore proves they used artificial lights.
My shadows video matches the angle and shadow lengths seen in the Apollo video, proving we see the same changes in shadow size here on Earth in the sun as we saw in the Apollo footage, proving the SUN cast those shadows and not an artificial light.
So yes, it doesn't make sense on it's own (I intended to use it in a video that debunks that hoax claim) but never go around to it.
But again, that's because I'm not trying to grow my channel, I'm only using it to hold information for debates :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - You said "can u see the wires? =P"
That's a rather silly argument which is not comparable.
Have a look further into the effects of "2001" since YOU brought it up.
Watch the following two part video (10 minutes each) that lists ALL the problems with the "2001" moon scenes;
YouTube Title: Kubrick, 2001, and Apollo (pt 1)
YouTube Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNbeN_V_NNw
YouTube Title: Kubrick, 2001, and Apollo (pt 2)
YouTube Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK3Jnl6Zyhk
In the scenes shown in part 2 in particular, notice that no attempt is ever made to simulate 1/6 gravity for 'astronauts' on the lunar surface. Instead, they are made to walk slowly with precise steps, with ZERO signs of 1/6th gravity throughout.
To this day, no science fiction film or any sci-fi series worldwide has recreated the perfect 1/6th gravity seen in hour upon hour of uncut Apollo footage (where even the kicked up dust falls at 1/6 gravity). Not even the world's best special effects experts have been able to recreate perfect 1/6th gravity without CGI (which they didn't have during Apollo), and even today, CGI still doesn't look quite right.
Moon hoax believers typically claim slow motion and/or wires was used to fake the Apollo footage in 1969-1972. But if that was the case, then the best special effects experts would have matched and then surpassed the 1/6th gravity seen in Apollo within a few years of the moon landings using slow motion and wires!
So the reason it hasn't been matched is because it's impossible to create perfect 1/6th gravity in a studio here on Earth.
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - You said "but again, I don't want to argue with anyone, let alone an American patriot"
Except I'm not American, so nice try but you missed the target :-)
There's no evidence of NASA lying, but countless examples of conspiracy theorists lying.
You said "...and you may have noticed that I'm using the translator to explain what I mean, and I can't always do it in a better way"
Well done :-)
You said " Therefore, we stop here, you believe but I do not, and we are all well, because I am no longer unhappy or happy believing what I believe. this subject adds nothing to my life."
That's fine, I wish you well.
But I would say that although it adds nothing to your life, I always believe that facts are worth defending and truth is worth defending, whether it matters to some people or not :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - Firstly, addressing the POINTS that people make on a public forum is not trolling.
Secondly, on a serious note, please try to be one of the rare flat Earth believers who actually TRIES to understand gravity (I don't mean that sarcastically, instead I genuinely mean that).
You don't have to believe it, but that shouldn't stop you trying to understand it.
Your question of "If gravity is so powerful, why are there clouds in the sky?" is a perfect example of you not understanding gravity, where a) You think it's ALL about the Earth attracting objects to the surface, and b) You forget that all matter on Earth has weight, including air.
So are you willing to TRY to understand how gravity works even if you don't believe it exists? If so, then I'll be happy to continue :-)
1
-
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - None of your videos addresses my proof of gravity, instead they're just examples of videos you blindly believe and hence you've allowed him to do your thinking for you (with all due respect :-)).
So tell me what YOU think Tony! That is, tell me which version of a flat Earth you believe in, because there are a number of versions claimed :-)
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?
To this day, all that flat Earth theorists have ever provided is the AE/Gleason projection map, where they only 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 :-)).
I look forward to finding out your version of a flat Earth and (if possible) an accurate map of that flat Earth :-)
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - Nope, my gravity experiments were 100% proof of gravity that you couldn't debunk.
When you attempted to do so, you presented a video from an Electric Universe believer, where you clearly didn't understand that the EU theory says the FORCE that science calls gravity DOES exist, but they say science is wrong to say it's a DIFFERENT force called gravity, but instead they say that gravity is actually explained by the electrical nature of matter.
That is, according to the EU theory of the video YOU provided, everything we see from gravity happens, hence they say the laws of gravity are correct, but they say it's electricity not a different force.
In other words, your own video proves the results I provided, it only disagrees with the force that causes it. And also, the EU theory says the universe structure and movement is EXACTLY as science reports it to be (globe Earth orbiting the sun), except they say electricity instead of gravity is responsible.
So I suggest you do a little bit of research first before posting videos that you found on YouTube after a search, videos that says the Earth is a globe, NOT flat :-)
1
-
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - Wrong, because you don't understand what a vacuum is.
A vacuum, from our point of view, is an absence of air!
Most people know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude, i.e. there's less air as we climb. I'm sure you know that too, hence I'm sure you are also aware of the difficulty in breathing for mountain climbers and balloonists or anyone at high altitudes.
So lets go higher...
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with any vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 TIMES less air compared to sea level, that's a medium vacuum.
At 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's also a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up, there is a MILLION times less air, that's a high vacuum.
Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Therefore there isn't a sharp line where we suddenly go from our pressurized atmosphere to the vacuum of space, instead it is a gradual process, where with increasing altitude there's decreasing air, resulting in gradually increasing vacuum conditions as I've shown above (normal pressure -> low vacuum -> medium vacuum -> high vacuum -> ultra high vacuum and so on).
So given that explanation of how we encounter increasing vacuum conditions with altitude as there's less and less air, you should now understand how we go from the pressure of our atmosphere here on the surface of the Earth to the vacuum of space without a barrier in between.
Next? :-)
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - That's called willful ignorance, something you should have grown out of by now. I don't need to test it myself (when and how did you test that atoms exist?), countless people have tested and measured our atmosphere LONG before NASA ever existed, hence it's amusing to see the obsession that flat Earth believers have with NASA, where you seem to think everything began with NASA.
As I said, you didn't even know what a vacuum is, and in addition to that, you clearly don't even know that air (like all gases) has mass and hence here on Earth it has weight.
You said "I used to think like u a believer in globular earth anything flung at me"
And then you watched YouTube videos and became no different to all those who claim the Earth is hollow, the Earth is concave, the Earth is convex, the moon is hollow, the moon is a spaceship, the moon is a hologram etc, where they all insist they are 100% right and everyone else needs to wake up :-)
You said "Who is it that pulls ur strings?" and "I’m sure ur just trying to protect ur livelihood".
Sure, the classic conspiracy believer's attack of "You are being paid...", the discussion equivalent of "In case of Emergency - Break Glass!" :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - Ok, you still haven't answered my questions, but you've put forward some other FE claims which we can look at.
You said "Water, it always finds its level anyone can try and test simple experiments on ur own to prove that water is flat,level and not curved."
Nope, water 'finds its level' thanks to gravity. Place water into weightless conditions (i.e. negate the effects of gravity) and water pulls itself into a ball, it never flattens out. Just look at numerous water experiments on board the ISS for example.
You said "Sea level is level and there is still no proof of curvature".
Curvature is clearly seen here;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9mRkNNwHjo
And here;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKF7D7XsyTA
And here;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hROaZ9cyTO4
You said "I could go on for hours trying to educate u on all sorts of topics but u get paid for this and I don’t"
If I was being paid, then I would make numerous fake FE believer accounts to post ignorant comments that make FE believers appear stupid, but fortunately there are people like you doing that already (see, it's easy to throw around insults ;-)).
You said "Critical thinking is taken away at an early age" as you've demonstrated here by showing how much flat Earth theorists have brainwashed you into believing the Earth is flat (see, it's easy to throw around insults ;-)).
So lets both try a little less insults and focus instead on the details and the facts. Yes?
While you try to address the points I made above, would you like me to state one example (of many) that proves the Earth is a globe?
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - Denial isn't a counter argument. The videos I provided ALL demonstrate clear curvature of the sea, something you claimed didn't exist.
Lake Pontchartrain is 100% proof, so no more words needed. And if you think the Mile markers should appear to be leaning forward, then state exactly how much and how you would measure it in that footage. In other words, either put up or shut up :-)
The Cargo ship video is a perfect example which shouldn't exist if the Earth was flat. Show me a video for example where someone arranges objects on a perfectly FLAT table, then lowers the camera and the objects closest to us appear on the table but the object at the back appear partially below the table.
The 3rd video can be created by ANYONE who goes there, therefore you saying it looks fake is irrelevant. Where are the videos from flat Earth believers who have gone there to film it for themselves and shown a different result? That's right, they don't exist because the results would be the same :-)
Therefore curvature has been proven, where your only argument here is denial, and hence only prove my point.
Interesting that you had nothing to say about the fact that water is only level when influenced by gravity, where taking away the effects of gravity results in water pulling itself into a ball.
1
-
@tonyrafferty5977 - Nope, you even presented a video from an Electric Universe believer who proved gravity exists, but as an EU believer he said the force under discussion is not called gravity, instead it is based around electricity (ergo, the Electric Universe). In other words, the force exists, he confirms that, he only questions WHAT that force is!
And it's been proven that without gravity water is not level, it will instead pull itself into a sphere.
So far you have failed to debunk the videos I provided, and better still, you provided a video that confirms the FORCE that science calls gravity, where your video only disputes WHAT that force is (so nice own goal there :-)).
And earlier I asked you if you wanted to see MY evidence of the Earth being a globe, and yet you appear to be afraid to say yes :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HuWhiteNat - Your last reply doesn't show up in my notifier window, but anyway...
You said "no, I’ve observed the high level debates. Your side gets obliterated over and over."
No, that's a weak argument where you're effectively admitting you have no counter arguments to the points I made earlier :-)
So again, when an object like a ship or boat is too far away for you to see it with the naked eye, then you have no basis to claim it has travelled far enough to have vanished below the horizon, and therefore ALL those flat Earth boat claims are proven to be wrong.
You said "Also, the Bible suggests flat earth."
No it doesn't, which is why ALL Christian churches in history say the Earth is a globe (a stationary GLOBE at first), where none of them have EVER said the Earth is flat. Fact!
You said "The globe model is relatively recent...."
No, people have known the Earth is a globe for around 2500 years, and Christian churches have known the Earth is a globe throughout the entire history of Christian churches.
Flat Earth is not a Christian belief, only a globe Earth is :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MGTOWwithGOD - Quotes from Chapter 11 from Ron Wyatt's book "Discovered: Noah's Ark"
"...approached by an intense heat source covering one side of the planet. It is then set in motion and begins to rotate against this heat source not unlike a beef on a barbeque spit. This records the initiation of the "earth day"-- one rotation equals one day."
"The creation week was just approximately six thousand years ago... The mass of the sun was there, prior to the creation week, but as yet unlighted. When it was lighted, as recorded in Genesis 1:14-19, its light reflected off the planets and their moons, thus our sun, moon and stars became visible for the first time on the fourth day of creation week."
"Vegitation is noted on the third day, fishes and fowls on the fifth and the introduction of animals and human life on the sixth. God rests during the seventh rotation of the planet, having ended the thawing out, beautification and introduction of various life forms upon planet earth."
"This produced a planet whose vapor screen was held aloft by the combined buoyancy produced by a carefully calculated rotational velocity and the warm air lift produced by the sun's heat."
"This produced the second, and last, ice-age, the first being the period between the creation of the solar system and the creation week described in Genesis- an undisclosed period of time."
Throughout the entire book Ron refers to the Earth as a planet, where as you can read above that the Earth is rotating, and he even mentions the solar system with the sun the other "planets and their moons" :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem is you are falling for the classic false claims without thinking them through :-|
For example you said "The main problem is that we literally cannot go to the Moon and back in 2021 and lack the technology and know-how ... so how the hell was it done in 1969?"
Because your reasons are based upon false assumptions.
Landing people on the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
Once Congress realised the USSR's manned moon program was in trouble they decided it was mission accomplished (i.e. beating the USSR to the moon) and withdrew all the extra funding for NASA, resulting in the cancellation of Apollo missions 18 to 20 and hence no more moon landings were possible;
Google Image Search: NASA budget as percentage of federal budget
So from those graphs in the search above can you see what made the Apollo missions possible and what brought those missions to an end?
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program but are still a long way off from building their own Saturn V size rocket.
Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful and is due to launch later this year, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon in 2024, where the addition of a space station to be put in orbit around the moon (called Gateway) will mean it will be sustainable this time, unlike Apollo.
1
-
You also said "Lol cmon ... there's nothing impressive or difficult to fabricate in the videos, it's very low quality black & white footage of dirt and people in space suits. And anyone experienced with image manipulation knows that lowering the quality makes it harder to detect errors or manipulation "
Firstly, only Apollo 11 had a black and white TV camera at 10 fps and 320 scan lines. The TV cameras for the Apollo missions that followed were colour and 30 fps and hence significantly better, therefore the 'poor quality' argument doesn't hold up (not even for the Apollo 11 footage for other reasons I could add here).
Secondly, to this day, no-one has EVER recreated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even the most modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which again wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
However, if some person or team successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates their own uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because they would have PROVEN it is possible to fake the Apollo footage.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were fake, it would only mean it is possible to fake the footage seen.
But here we are around 50 years later and that hasn't happened, i.e. no-one has demonstrated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio because it is impossible, therefore proving that the Apollo footage was filmed in the 1/6 gravity of the moon :-)
1
-
@GameDevNerd - You said "If someone was going to make a studio production to fake a moon landing and astronauts hopping around on the surface, they would have scientists present and advising them on how to make it appear convincing and fall in line with scientific expectations of moon physics."
So lets focus on that footage for now and deal with your other claims later.
Your argument is based upon your lack of film making knowledge, where you think it only requires a scientist to say what it needs to look like to make it possible, ignoring the fact that if that was the case then COUNTLESS movies and sci-fi series would have achieved perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio themselves since all it requires is a scientist to advise them, right? :-)
So present your examples please, because from your OWN argument there is no excuse for even the highest budget sci-fi movies from failing to recreate low gravity in a studio (for Mars, the moon, etc) over the last 50 decades, since many such movies DO have scientists advising them.
Also, if what you claimed was true then we would have several established and respected film makers worldwide who would have said that themselves, explaining to everyone exactly how they believe the Apollo footage was faked, hence describing the techniques used and highlighting clues of those techniques in the footage. So where are they?
Instead, when we do hear from film makers, we get arguments just like the following;
Search YouTube for: Moon Landings Faked? Filmmaker Says Not!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bojanivanovic6850 - You said "and also every nasa video is curved cause of fish eye lense and then you have amateur baloon and no fucking curve."
That's completely false, and is actually a demonstration of ignorance and lies on BOTH sides.
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! (see link below).
And notice that there's a 'sweat spot' near the center of the video where the earth appears to be flat.
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 (bowl) in seconds here;
youtube.com/watch?v=sWUZDOQm_HE&t=1226
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.
So the need for honesty and correct experiments applies to BOTH sides.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry, been ill for a few days but fine now :-)
Anyway, your clip proves my point, because I asked for perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio which is not what your clip provides.
I'll break it down for you;
1) Astronauts falling over.
At the 1 h 56 m 16 s mark, the film maker shows several clips of the astronauts falling over.
Stop to think of how to replicate that in a studio. You will need MORE that one wire, preferably either side of your waist, right? Like the following;
youtu.be/VlebgX5Uj8g&t=54
And yet look at ALL the examples shown in a studio, such as at 1 h 57 m 23 s, they only have ONE WIRE and it's connected to the backpack above the astronaut's head.
If would be IMPOSSIBLE for those actors to fall over as if in 1/6 gravity with ONE WIRE attached on the backpack as seen!
2) NO DUST in the studio!
If you look at Apollo footage, the astronauts cannot move their feet without disturbing and throwing up dust, for example;
youtu.be/kJiv23TX_kw&t=12s
And yet where's the dust in the studio settings shown?
That's right, it's not there because when using wires to slow the rate of fall of the actors, dust would fall and move as on Earth effected by air currents! So there's no way to make dust on Earth move like dust on the moon in a studio!
Therefore they choose to have no dust so that they can digitally add the dust LATER and digitally remove any wires showing, technology which didn't exist in the 60s/70s!
3) The film maker effectively lies at 1 hr 58 m and 12 s onwards regarding the wires catching the light, can you work out how? Try to be objective and you may spot it.
Therefore as I said, they are not replicating perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daspecialist1220 - Again, you are only saying what you don't believe, which is not the same as saying what you do believe, as I've asked you to state.
So stop being a coward please :-) and just answer my question, since your reply also applies to hollow Earth belief and concave Earth belief and to any other 'theories' about the shape of the Earth.
As for starting with "we are not on a ball", fine, then debunk the following since no flat Earth believer/theorist has managed so far;
Simply put, if you get hold of a reasonably good 12 inch wide globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the globe or how far apart they are!
It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre.
So test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first globe denier in history to find a distance flaw in the map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE :-)
The fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is a globe.
Any questions?
1
-
@daspecialist1220 - I do understand my friend, where I'm saying your claim is not true, instead you are believing what you're told without evidence.
For example, present a link to a qualified pilot who says the Earth is flat AND proves he/she is a pilot, such as by uploading videos he/she recorded from the cockpit during a flight.
Someone merely saying "I'm a pilot" or "I'm a surveyor" or "I'm an engineer" is not enough.
You said "As far as how far it goes out or what model i subscribe to that is irrelevant."
Wrong, it is relevant, since you are claiming the Earth is flat.
When I have discussions with those who say the Earth is concave or hollow, I ask them which version of a concave Earth or hollow Earth they believe, since any further discussions will be in context of their claimed shape/structure of the Earth.
If you don't know yourself, then you are in no real position to say others are wrong, i.e. your position is weak at best :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dansealy8304 - Thanks, but here's my problem.
EVERY TIME a video like the one we're posting these comments on shows a flat Earth flowing in space, the comments are full of flat Earth believers saying it's a |ie, saying no flat Earth believer thinks it's a disc floating in space, and yet that's precisely what your chosen video shows :-)
Not only that, your video without presenting any evidence at all, refers to cosmic radiation, cosmic energy, tesla coils, black sun, and so on.
It's meaningless made up nonsense, which is why you couldn't summarize the flat Earth claimed in your own words, you can only direct others there and say "I can't explain it but I believe whatever they say" ;-)
Still, thanks for answering my question, much appreciated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In many languages, including English, words can have multiple meanings, ranging from subtle differences to complete differences.
A ball looks like a circle from any angle, therefore a circle doesn't automatically mean flat.
Here is Isaiah 40:22 from various Bibles;
King James Bible (1611); "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
Douay-Rheims Bible (1582); "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth..."
New American Standard 1977 Bible; "It is He who sits above the vault of the earth..."
Peshitta Holy Bible Translated (1st or 2nd Century AD); "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
New American Bible; "The one who is enthroned above the vault of the earth..."
Catholic Public Domain Version; "He is the One who sits upon the globe of the earth..."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English; "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
Matthew's Bible (1537); "That he sitteth upon the circle of the world..."
That's because the Hebrew word 'chug' being translated by those bibles means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).
So circle, globe, sphere and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various bibles.
Again, no Christian church in history has ever said the earth is flat, only a globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@toniywaya7696 - The "telephone" change was funny, but that aside, you are 100% CORRECT.
Flat Earth believers go on and on and on about what they claim is wrong with the globe Earth, such as claims we shouldn't see location X from location Y, but they NEVER say what we SHOULD be able to see at a distance on their claimed flat Earth!
No equations for how far we can see for any given altitude, no rules of thumb estimates equivalent to "8 inches per mile squared", just nothing at all.
Some FE believers use the excuse that there's a limit to how far we can see, but even if we took that into account, those same FE believers claim the sun and moon circle the Earth 3000 miles up, which means we can see objects at least 3000 miles away.
So the question is, where are their photographs/videos taken from one location on Earth that shows landmark features that are 3000 miles away? Much less 2000 miles away or even 1000 miles away? :-)
All of that should be possible on a flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Susan, Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So there's no reason for Neil to make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate.
And Eric Dubay has never had an open debate with anyone who disagrees with his views. He doesn't even debate the flat Earth theorists that he publicly accused of working for the gvt to discredit flat Earth, such as Mark Sargent :-|
Eric doesn't even attend flat Earth conferences to put himself in a position to be questioned.
So by all means believe the Earth is flat if you want, but I don't get why so many flat Earth believers are putting Eric up on a high 'debating' pedestal that he hasn't earned :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kese_ - 12 men walked on the moon, where Neil and Buzz were the first for Apollo 11, then there was two astronauts for Apollo 12, Apollo 13 had problems (so no landing), then Apollo 14, then Apollo 15, then Apollo 16 and finally Apollo 17. All were protected on the moon by the spacesuits they wore.
Besides, putting aside the fact that none of the details from NASA are lies, sometimes even your mom lied to you, all moms and dads sometimes lies to their kids, but does that mean we can't trust anything that our parents say? :-)
Men landed on the moon after the USA built the largest and the most powerful rocket in HISTORY (the Saturn V) to get them there, which was so MASSIVELY expensive that they couldn't afford to do it forever, and so after the first landing in 1969, the last landing happened in 1972, where Gene was the last man on the moon, and the Saturn V rocket was retired a few years later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidworsley1941 - 2 weeks for that? With all due respect you only succeeded in proving my points, so thanks.
Let me address them one by one.
1) Apollo 13;
That's your uneducated personal opinion where you've offered nothing but an argument from incredulity (look it up) hence it's not evidence, therefore that's a laughably poor claim from you, one which is no different to someone claiming that atoms don't exist or that the Earth is flat.
2) Size of Earth in photos;
Any decent photographer would laugh at that claim (sorry but it's true), because
the size of objects in photos depends on many factors, such as the field of view of the lens and magnification
For example, Google Image Search: Full Moon Photography
So tell me, which is the correct size of the moon in those photos ranging from a tiny dot to filling the entire photo?
The answer is, they are ALL the correct size, because again it depends on the camera, lens and settings used!
The same applies to the Earth in photos, where its size will depend on the camera settings and the lens used.
Btw, the Earth is 3.7 times wider than the moon, so take one of those photos of the moon as a small white dot and imagine it to be 3.7 times wider, THAT would be the size of the Earth when taken from the moon under the same camera and settings!
So even if you believe in a hoax you should have been able to figure that out for yourself, but you couldn't. Why is that?
1
-
@davidworsley1941 - 3) Seeing stars.
Incorrect. From the very first astronauts in space during the early 60s to the present day, they talk about seeing stars under certain conditions and not seeing stars under certain conditions.
It's not the simplistic black or white, on or off, true or false nonsense that conspiracy believers like yourself always fall for. Instead, like so many things, there are shades of grey (and no, not just 50 shades ;-)).
So speaking of Michael Collins, here's a few quotes about when we can and cannot see stars from Michael's 1974 book called "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 his 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 ever since people first went into space.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simon-di7xt - To this day, no-one has EVER recreated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even the most modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which again wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
When the popular hoax theorists claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
www.dailymotion.com/video/x6foqzi?start=250
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion, right? ;-)
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut fake footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it's possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it's possible to fake the footage.
But here we are around 50 years later and that still hasn't happened, i.e. no-one has demonstrated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio because it is impossible, therefore proving the Apollo footage was filmed in the 1/6 gravity of the moon :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JEvrist - You said "because I’m also a sociologist and religion is manmade dogma."
Then don't presume to have all the answers by referring to manmade religious books born out of the very same dogma you refer to, eg. the Bible, the Quran etc.
I never said you were Roman Catholic, and yet you focused on that. Instead there are many denominations of Christianity, hence read about them here please;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination
In reality you are a contrarian Jessica, preferring to pick and choose whatever fits in with your world view at any given time, including your interpretation of the Bible.
You said and I quote "Genesis 1 says earth is dirt and it has no shape".
The Bible NEVER says the Earth is flat or a ball. The Hebrew word for "flat" is used in the Bible but NEVER to describe the shape of the Earth. Likewise the Hebrew word for "ball" is used in the Bible but NEVER to describe the shape of the Earth.
As a result, Christian denominations for nearly 2000 years believed the Earth to be a stationary GLOBE.
Even Creationists, well known for taking the Bible LITERALLY, say the Earth is a GLOBE, where some Creationists even claim that flat Earth is an atheist conspiracy to make Christians appear out of touch with reality (i.e. stupid).
So if you want to claim that the Earth is stationary based upon the Bible, then yes you will find that stated explicitly in the Bible. But if you want to claim the Earth is flat based upon the Bible, then you will NOT find that stated explicitly in the Bible, and therefore you cannot use the Bible as evidence to support that claim. Just as someone else can't use the Bible as evidence to support a globe Earth.
As for me. I don't believe in God, I believe in people, hence I believe in doing all I can to help those around me and being as good a person as I can to everyone (we ALL know what is good and bad, mental issues aside).
However, I NEVER attack others for believing in God or for following their religions, because that's their choice and their right, and so I respect their rights. However, if they use their religious beliefs to attack science, then I see nothing wrong in challenging such claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JEvrist - Thank you for proving my points so perfectly :-)
You have rambled on and on, but in all that text you have YET to present what I asked you for, where I said and I quote:
"There are verses in the Bible that explicitly states the Earth is stationary. So give me the equivalent that explicitly states the Earth is flat."
I'm still waiting. Why is that?
The answer is, as I stated, there are no such versus in the Bible. No where in the Bible does it explicitly say the Earth is flat. Fact.
So if you want to use the Bible to claim the Earth is stationary, then fine that's your right because it IS stated in the Bible (but then again, so is a talking Donkey and a talking Serpent and a fish that a man can survive inside for days), but the Bible does NOT explicitly say the Earth is flat, and therefore you can't make that claim based upon the Bible.
Therefore if you choose to believe the Earth is flat, then go ahead it's your right, but it does NOT come from the Bible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So all you need to do to prove me wrong is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a model globe is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world.
That's all. It should be very easy if the Earth is not a globe.
After all, if a map of a city (with a bar scale) was wrong, then it would be easy to find two locations where the distance measured on the map is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world, where margins of error or changes to the city doesn't explain the discrepancy. Same with the globe of the Earth.
I've asked flat Earth believers for those two locations on Earth for many years and yet I'm still waiting, proving they cannot find any error in the map of the Earth in the form of a globe, proving the globe is the correct shape of the Earth :-)
I prefer that proof because it's easy, there's no science required, all you need is a globe of the Earth, preferably a good quality up-to-date globe, a measuring tape and some paper and pen (or a calculator), and you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations you find on that globe of the Earth no matter where they are or how far apart they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nope, flat Earth theorists told you that by distorting the facts, knowing that certain people would fall for their claims without question.
They use the logic that if for example you bit into an apple and discovered it was fake apple, then that means all apples are fake, regardless of the reasons for the fake apple, such as being made for a centerpiece, for a movie prop, for decoration, a work of art, etc.
Besides, are you saying you believe the Earth is flat? :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So all you need to do to prove me wrong is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a globe is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world.
That's all. It should be very easy if the Earth is not a globe.
After all, if a map of a city (with a bar scale) was wrong, then it would be easy to find two locations where the distance measured on the map is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world, where margins of error or changes to the city doesn't explain the discrepancy. Same with the globe of the Earth.
I've asked flat Earth believers for those two locations on Earth for many years and yet I'm still waiting, proving they cannot find any error in the map of the Earth in the form of a globe, proving the globe is the correct shape of the Earth :-)
I prefer that proof because it's easy, there's no science required, all you need is a globe of the Earth, preferably a good quality up-to-date globe, a measuring tape and some paper and pen (or a calculator), and you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations you find on that globe of the Earth no matter where they are or how far apart they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davel7791 - You said "...(and telemetry data)".
100% incorrect!
For permanent storage, telemetry data was always printed out into documents so that the tapes could be reused (the whole point of magnetic tapes!).
After each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the telemetry data was analyzed and presented as charts and graphs and tables .
So here's the mission report for Apollo 11 (for example) 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 want to believe the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion, but why should that mean you MUST blindly believe ALL the hoax claims without question?
And read this too;
www.firstmenonthemoon.com/about.html
Quote: "We have compiled hours of content available from public domain sources and various NASA websites. Thamtech staff and volunteers generously devoted their time to transcribe hours of speech to text. By using simultaneous space and land based audio and video, transcripts, images, spacecraft telemetry, and biomedical data --this synchronized presentation reveals the Moon Shot as experienced by the astronauts and flight controllers."
Hence that's the same telemetry data that conspiracy theorists claim was lost !
The point is, as I said before, once the telemetry data was printed out for a hard copy, the magnetic tapes were reused.
So we don't have all the tapes (just as we don't have all the tapes for most space missions of the 60s/70s), but we have all the telemetry data that were ON those tapes .
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's a few quotes from reports and articles written by Nikola Tesla that YOU can find yourself, where he clearly says the Earth is a globe;
"I may state, that even waves only one or two millimeters long, which I produced thirty-three years ago, provided that they carry sufficient energy, can be transmitted around the globe"
"Invariably it was found that these waves, just as those in the air, follow the curvature of the Earth and bend around obstacles"
"At 3600 m.p.h the plane travels about 19,500 miles. Earth's rotation adds 5500 to the total"
"Each of them will be preferably located near some important center of civilization and the news it receives through any channel will be flashed to all points of the globe"
"to utilize the heat contained in the earth, the water, or the air for driving an engine. It is a well-known fact that the interior portions of the globe are very hot"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jankopandza1072 - You said "they are all Christians that is why ...? is that good enough reason ?..."
A very unintelligent reply from you.
What you're saying is that you can go up to every Christian man you find on the street, accuse him of being a paedophile and demand he swears on the Bible you're holding to prove his innocence, and according to you they will ALL swear on the Bible to prove their innocence after such an insulting accusation from you.
According to you, NONE of them would get angry and attack you either verbally or physically or both, NONE of them will just walk away, instead they will ALL swear on your Bible if they are innocent and if they don't swear then you will take that as an admission of guilt, right?
WRONG. The reaction you'd get would have NOTHING to do with whether someone is innocent or guilty, same with the athletes, same with the astronauts, and the fact that half the astronauts asked DID swear on the Bible must mean they proved they went to the moon according to you and those who didn't swear did not go, right? :-)
Therefore if you can't see the problem with strangers asking other people to swear on the Bible, then you are either very naive, or very dishonest, or very unintelligent, or clueless about human behaviour, or even, all four mentioned :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevejohnson6053 - You said "There is too many assumptions needed to make this make sense. such as the "fact" that when the dust was disturbed, since there is no atmosphere all the dust particles fell straight down,"
Eh? Seriously, how can someone with your claimed understanding of physics come to such a naive conclusion?
Just like the sand in deserts here on Earth, the dust on the moon is many meters deep in places (much deeper in some locations compared to others).
On Earth, grains of sand/dust blasted up by a helicopter would become trapped by the surrounding air to create large swirling dust clouds around the helicopter, where the thrust would remove the top several inches of loose sand;
For example: tiny😮cc🖍️g0yhuz
In the vacuum of the moon, there is no air to trap the dust particles blasted by the LM's rocket engine, hence they fly away in straight lines at great speed, eventually landing a long distance away. Again, the thrust would remove the top several inches of loose dust;
For example: tiny😮cc🖍️k0yhuz
So for both the helicopter and the LM, the several inches of loose sand/dust blown away over a wide area doesn't show up as a crater, instead it's barely noticeable.
And here's a close up of the surface directly below the LM, where we can see the top inches of loose dust have been blown away to reveal the more tightly packed dust underneath with cracks in the surface.
If you look carefully you can even see the radial lines created as the dust was blown away;
tiny😮cc🖍️o0yhuz
I could be wrong, but (on my monitor) there also appears to be a slight brownish discoloration of the surface too.
So I've given you a practical explanation of why no obvious blast crater would be seen and I've given you a link with the figures that shows the force upon the surface would not be sufficient 'dig' out a blast crater.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gregoryrogalsky6937 - Actually I have done my own research, but nice try ;-) When I first started looking into flat Earth claims a few years ago, it occurred to me that creating a flat map of a flat world would be orders of magnitude easier than trying to create a flat map of a globe world. So I searched for that map by going back to the main sources, which were the flat Earth books published over the last 150+ years.
Therefore I own and have read ALL the following flat Earth books;
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
I also wanted to carry out that research because I didn't want to make statements about the flat Earth that weren't true, such as saying no accurate flat map of a flat Earth exists only for someone to say "Wrong, read the book XYZ, you will find the accurate map you're looking for there!".
As it is, the only map that is EVER presented by flat Earth theorists is the Azimuthal Equidistant map, or AE map, otherwise known to flat Earth believers as the Gleason map, which is NOT accurate as a flat map of a flat Earth, it's just one of many 2D projection maps of a globe that only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the globe Earth.
So the question is, why? If the Earth really was flat, then why isn't there an accurate flat map of a flat Earth? The answer is, no such map can be created because the Earth is not flat.
THAT my friend is doing the research you claimed I hadn't done :-) I know that the claim that the Earth is flat is wrong, but I still gave the theory its due respect by READING the source material from the oldest to the present day, and I watched numerous videos, to ensure that my conclusions were based upon research, not opinion :-)
1
-
1
-
@gregoryrogalsky6937 - Nope. It's hilarious that you deny the need for a map as proof. I don't know which country you live in, but if I told you that all the accurate maps of your country are a lie and claimed it was shaped like a perfect equilateral triangle, then I should be able to provide you with an accurate map of your country that was shaped like an equilateral triangle as proof!
You and your fellow countrymen can then check my map for accuracy, comparing my map with real journeys to see if they match. If you start to find large errors in my map, then clearly my map is wrong and therefore your country is not shaped like an equilateral triangle as claimed.
People in EVERY country on Earth can find accurate maps of their countries and use those maps to navigate their own countries by land and air and in some cases by sea. This proves their maps are accurate. NOW, we can take ALL those accurate maps of each country and arrange them onto a sphere to produce an accurate GLOBE map of the world, which is what we've had for centuries.
In contrast, no amount of effort will allow you to arrange all those accurate maps of every country into an accurate flat map of the Earth. The point is, since it works perfectly for a globe but doesn't work for a flat surface, then that proves the Earth is not flat, it proves the Earth is a GLOBE.
Therefore there are no excuses for the lack of an accurate flat map of a flat Earth.
Simply put: No accurate flat map of a flat Earth = No flat Earth :-)
1
-
1
-
@gregoryrogalsky6937 - No Gregory, the brainwashed accusation is used by believers of almost EVERY conspiracy theory out there, where they label anyone who doesn't buy into their conspiracy claims as being brainwashed, sheep, shills, etc, where you ALL seem to think you're superior and special for your beliefs, when in fact you are no different to the 'brainwashed' people you speak about, you simply exchanged one authority for another!
I'm an amateur astronomer for over 20 years, where I carry out my OWN observations and experiments over those years, so it's not a matter of just believing what I'm told. But a perfect example of you believing what you're told is your comment "Look up and see the north star..That never moves in relation to flat unmoving earth". Wrong.
The north star, or Polaris, is not perfectly centered upon true north, it's about 0.75 degrees off. Hence over a period of 24 hours it makes a small circle about 1.5 degrees wide, that's about 3 times the width of the full moon in the sky!
Polaris is a naked eye star that just so happens to be very close to true north, THAT'S WHY we call it the north star! You thought that star didn't move because you listen only to flat Earth theorists, you never listen to science and hence you restrict your knowledge.
You also said "Do you feel it spinning". We don't feel speed, we only feel acceleration and deceleration, hence you no move feel the Earth moving than airplane passengers would feel they're flying at 550+ mph or passengers on Concorde would have felt they were flying at 1300+ mph.
And you said "Does water lay flat or not". Yes, thanks to gravity. Remove the effects of gravity by placing water in weightless conditions and it tries to pull itself into a ball! Water never flattens out in weightless conditions.
And you said "Wake up", the same chant used by believers of EVERY conspiracy theory in existence :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marius2090 - You said "well. i am Christian and I believe in God Creation.."
Well here's the problem my friend.
Firstly, the Bible doesn't explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you have are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all implicit!
Secondly, Christian churches/denominations for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE (that is a fact!). None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. In other words, the ONLY thing they had in common with flat Earth theory is the idea that the Earth is stationary and at the center of everything.
Even Creationists, yes those who take the Bible LITERALLY, say the Earth is a GLOBE! Go to a Creationist website and search for 'Flat Earth' for example, but you may not like what you find there. In fact, some Creationists go as far as claiming the flat Earth is an atheist conspiracy to discredit Christians and Christianity.
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1633 for daring to say the GLOBE Earth orbited the sun, when at the time all the Christian churches 'knew' that the sun and the rest of the universe revolved around the GLOBE stationary Earth!
So who should I listen to when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible? Nearly 2000 YEARS of Christian churches/denominations who say the Earth is a GLOBE? All the biblical scholars from those churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts to produce ALL the Bibles you've ever read who say the Earth is a GLOBE? The Creationists who take the Bible literally who say the Earth is a GLOBE? Over 2 BILLION Christians worldwide who say the Earth is a GLOBE?
Or should I listen to a few people on the internet who claim the Bible says the Earth is flat? Well, I prefer to listen to the billions of Bible reading Christians who say the Earth is a globe :-)
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tumarbongrox6074 - And to illustrate that fact further, here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donalddunston7964 - And for others reading this thread (since I expect this will go over your head too);
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donalddunston7964 - Great, so others reading this thread can see the stupidity of someone who accepts that magnetism, light and gravity are real, but thinks theories of magnetism, light and gravity are just guesses.
As stated multiple times already, theories in science are not guesses, they are not about what something is in the natural world (although some may), theories are about explaining what we observe in the natural world, explaining the observed facts, hence allowing us to understand what we observe and even predict how a specific phenomena will behave under certain circumstances.
Hence using theories of gravity to accurately predict the path of a spacecraft travelling in space and accurately calculating how that spacecraft will be effected by the gravitational pull of the planets and their moons are NOT guesses. The theories work and hence the theories are proven.
You said "You've never been to space".
Which is ignorant beyond belief, since going into space doesn't suddenly make someone an expert on space, just as seeing light doesn't make someone an expert on light, just as owning a magnet doesn't make someone an expert on magnetism.
So go ahead, be loud and proud of your ignorance son, but it doesn't impress anyone except yourself.
End of story and discussion :-)
1
-
1
-
@federalinvestigation9962 - Yet again you repeat conspiracy lies without doing ANY research yourself.
Go ahead and list EXACTLY what you believe what they got rid of please :-)
And so regarding "we destroyed that technology to go to the moon", you are listening to the conspiracy theorists twisting of Don Pettit's words.
Losing or destroying the technology is about not having the craft in service TODAY, it's not about losing or destroying the hardware or the plans or the knowledge!
Hence Concorde is destroyed technology, it will never go into service again. The Space Shuttle is destroyed technology, it will never go into service again. Likewise the Apollo Saturn V rocket is destroyed technology, it will never go into service again. And so on.
ALL that "destroyed" technology can be found intact today in science and aeronautical museums.
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence NASA will soon have the SLS rocket in service, which is as large and slightly more powerful than the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and they have the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces. Therefore the SLS is the new 'Saturn V', and Orion is the new 'Apollo Command Module'.
On its debut launch this February, the massive SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth. If all goes well, then in 2024 the SLS rocket will again take Orion to the moon but this time with a crew of astronauts.
Those are examples of the USA rebuilding the technology that was "destroyed", i.e. taken out of service, and hence in 2024 people will return to the moon.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lumturiesaraci7195 - Your overly long rambling last three replies were flagged by YT, hence no notifications were sent out, so I've only now seen them.
So lets take it from a direction that should be much easier for you to grasp, the footage!
To this day no-one has EVER recreated in a studio with actors the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (remember, no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to advanced CGI, which again wasn't available back in the 60s/70s.
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way in terms of gravity, THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
Until then it remains a fact that the footage was filmed in an environment with no air and 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was the moon :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@troydanielson4766 - You said "Eric Dubay got his account closed for talking about flat earth."
No, Eric Dubay got his account closed because of his OTHER beliefs.
For example, from his book "The Atlantean Conspiracy" ;
tinyurl.com/yaofv7u3
Quote: "They say "the winner's write history," and it is absolutely true: the most egregious example in modern times has to be the mainstream (mis)understanding of Adolf Hitler and pre-WWII Germany. Adolf Hitler was actually a vegetarian, animal-lover, an author, an artist, a political activist, economic reformer and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. He enacted the world's first anti-animal cruelty, anti-pollution and anti-smoking laws. Unlike the demonic portrait that history has painted of him, Hitler was beloved by his people and wanted nothing but peace."
Hmmm, so according to Eric it's poor little Hitler, a peaceful man who has been so cruelly misrepresented by the mainstream.
And how about this: https://www.facebook.com/ericdubaz/posts/eric-dubay-flat-earther-holocaust-denier-httpswwwyoutubecomwatchvqnvqussuqh4-eri/299595257178507/
So his account wasn't closed because of his flat Earth beliefs, it was close because Eric a Nazi sympathizer who claims the Holocaust was a hoax!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrtruth-id3nr - My friend, whenever you find a claim on the internet, you should always try to trace it back to the original source, in particular any specific original source mentioned, in this case Harvard University.
Google search: "Researchers at Harvard University announced today that they have found what appears to be a message from God written inside the human genome"
You'll find numerous websites repeating that claim verbatim, especially forums and videos, but NO WHERE can you find an official report of that incredible 'news' on any official news or science website, not even on Harvard University's website;
For example: news.harvard.edu/gazette/tag/dna/
So I dug a little further and found the following (may be slow to load btw);
http://www.religioustolerance.org/message-from-god-in-human-dna.htm
I found it easier to read the archived copy on WayBackMachine on the following link;
https://web.archive.org/web/20160708121911/http://www.religioustolerance.org/message-from-god-in-human-dna.htm
In fact, simply do a Google search for: Charles Watson Harvard, and see if you can find any reference to a real person named Charles Watson at Harvard, other than that DNA article that spread over the internet :-)
Hence it's a made up claim, something we see a lot of on the internet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mysticnomad3577 - You said "NASA Avation Document 1207 page 6 in summary clearly states the earth is relatively flat and stationary. So is NASA lying?"
Once again you prove my point perfectly :-)
Let me direct you to someone that flat Earth disciples have often referred me to on that little subject, which is Rob Skiba.
Here's one of his videos of that subject: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI1fn4ETGXY
So let me take you through what neither you nor Rob understands, but I do given my degree in mathematics.
When using mathematics to model something in the real world, it is impossible to account for absolutely EVERYTHING, as it's often not needed, therefore assumptions are made depending on the accuracy required, usually to simplify the calculations.
The simplification of the calculations is easy to spot in mathematics because they're almost always identified as "ASSUMPTIONS"
For example, at 8:20 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI1fn4ETGXY&t=490
Right from the start it says and I quote "The two dimensional model for aircraft motion..."
A two dimensional model . A 2D model! 2D! We live in a 3D world hence right from the start that's a simplified model that represents the world in TWO dimensions ONLY.
So lets go through the list of assumptions;
a) The earth is flat and non-rotating, since the Earth's surface being curved or straight or moving doesn't effect the accuracy aimed for in this 2D model.
b) The acceleration of gravity is constant, which is not the case in the real world (changes with altitude and density of the surface we're over) but the difference too small to matter in this 2D model.
c) Air density is constant. Again, not the case in the real world where air density (hence pressure) decreases with altitude.
d) The airframe is a rigid body. All aircraft bend and flex due to the forces upon them, but again this simplified 2D model assumes it doesn't.
e) The aircraft is constrained to motion in the vertical plane, due to only 2 dimensions in the model, as oppose to the 3 dimensions of the real world.
f) The aircraft has a symmetry plane (the x-z plane). Again due to 2 dimensions
g) The mass of the aircraft is constant, but in the real world the mass of an aircraft reduces as the fuel is used up.
So if YOU think that model is proof they're saying the Earth is flat, then that same model says the world is 2D, that gravity is constant everywhere, that air pressure is constant everywhere, that aircraft are rigid structures that don't bend, that aircraft never reduce in weight as fuel is burned, and so on.
Therefore to single out assumptions in a 2D model that just so happens to fit your beliefs as if those assumptions are statements of fact is dishonest, or at best, extremely ignorant.
Now go ahead and list all the assumptions stated for "NASA Aviation Document 1207" please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryublueblanka - So how do I KNOW?
Well, in the 50+ years since the first moon landing, top scientists worldwide from fields such as physics (and astrophysics), rocket science, geology (and astrogeology), computing, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, electronics, and much more, have examined and verified ALL Apollo evidence, including scientists who dislike the USA and nations who would have given anything to prove it was a hoax (where their scientists would have been national heroes if they proved a hoax with verifiable evidence).
No scientist from ANY nation has ever announced finding fake Apollo evidence within his/her field of expertise, and no scientist from ANY nation has EVER said the missions were impossible (or even improbable) based upon evidence within his/her field of expertise .
In other words, if for over 50 years the Apollo evidence is more than good enough for the world's best scientists and the world's best engineers in all the relevant fields of science and engineering, then it's more than good enough for me.
And for those who would reject any evidence that comes from NASA, how about 3rd party evidence of the moon landings?
(Replies with external links are deleted, so replace DOT and FSLASH as required)
isDOTgdFSLASH7XXCkd
And don't reject it because of the website, since the original sources for all that information can be found in the sections at the bottom of the page :-)
Third party evidence my friend!
1
-
@ryublueblanka - Finally, the Apollo footage.
To this day, no-one has EVER recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
When the popular hoax theorists claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
Again, replies with links are blocked so just change DOT and FSLASH as required;
tinyDOTccFSLASHe9jjuz
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion and wires, right? ;-)
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity, not appearance) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
Until then it remains a FACT that the footage was filmed in an environment with no air and 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was the moon :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryublueblanka - This reply WILL BE SHADOW BANNED, but I'll post it just the same -
While I wait for your chosen best claim, I'll address Bill's book that you obviously never read, because he was making the point that we shouldn't automatically believe something JUST because we saw it on TV.
So from the SAME book by Bill Clinton;
"Oleg wasn't the only friendly Russian I encountered. President Nixon s policy of detente was having noticeable results. A few months earlier, Russian television had shown the Americans walking on the moon. People were still excited about it and seemed to be fascinated by all things American. They envied our freedom and assumed we were all rich. I guess, compared with most of them, we were."
"On my last night in the now-barren Oval Office, I thought of the glass case I had kept on the coffee table between the two couches, just a few feet away. It contained a rock Neil Armstrong had taken off the moon in 1969. Whenever arguments in the Oval Office heated up beyond reason, I would interrupt and say, 'You see that rock? It s 3.6 billion years old. We're all just passing through. Let's calm down and go back to work.'
That moon rock gave me a whole different perspective on history and the proverbial "long run." Our job is to live as well and as long as we can, and to help others to do the same. What happens after that and how we are viewed by others is beyond our control. The river of time carries us all away. All we have is the moment. Whether I had made the most of mine was for others to judge."
So clearly Bill KNOWS and SAYS men landed on the moon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thirtythree5311 - My pleasure - 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 between those locations and work out the distance in miles (based upon the size/scale of the globe) and it will match the 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 hijacked by flat Earth theorists.
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 .
Likewise, to prove the Earth is not a globe, all you need to do is find two locations where the measurement of the distance between them on the globe is DIFFERENT to the distance measured in the real world.
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.
Now answer the flat Earth questions I put to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thirtythree5311 - You cannot be that uninformed, you just cannot be :-)
Hearsay is not literally about the SAY in the word hearSAY, it's about information received from other people, not the spoken word specifically .
Lies and distortions and misinformation can be spread by the spoken word, by the written word, by pictures, by video/film etc, hence the fact that you think ignoring the sound in a video stops a video from being the hearsay that you speak of is just laughable, it really is.
I find it incredible that people like you, flat Earth believers, go on and on claiming EVERY photograph of the Earth from space is a lie, that EVERY photograph from ANY spacecraft is a lie, so tell me what sound is there to be found in those photographs!
You go on and on about how ALL video/film taken in space is a lie, and yet are really going to claim that as long as we ignore the sound in such video then that changes everything?
So again, hearsay is about receiving ANY type of information from other people that cannot be substantiated, which includes VISUAL information.
Still, thanks for the laugh :-D
Therefore it's time for you to drop the hearsay nonsense and start engage in a discussion about the EVIDENCE itself.
Do you think you can manage that for once in your life?
1
-
@thirtythree5311 - You said "But all the amatuer video is true you are seeing what you are seeing. That is why I go with amateur video. They don't have the skill or equipment to do CGI. What you see is what is real."
Again, what PROOF do you have that ANY of the people you refer to are amateurs?
That's right, you have NONE, just your assumptions, and hence THAT is the point I'm making.
If you're going to cling to your extremely dumb "hearsay" nonsense, then you cannot make ANY claim about the credentials of the people who posted any videos because YOU DON'T KNOW THEM PERSONALLY, and even if you did knew someone that doesn't guarantee that person is being truthful.
And therefore you are left with yourself ONLY, and hence to eliminate 'hearsay' completely YOU must gather and present ALL the evidence YOURSELF, which is what you're asking others to do!
So at some level you have to use common sense and take the evidence presented and make your case based upon that evidence only, not look for underhand ways to reject the evidence from others out of hand.
In other words, let the evidence speak for itself and go from there .
Again, do you think you can manage that for once in your life?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thirtythree5311 - For ANY conspiracy I NEVER EVER claim that debunking ONE claim means the whole conspiracy is wrong. So if anyone tells you that by debunking just one flat Earth claim they've proven the Earth is a globe, then that person is not being honest, because that's not the way it works.
The point is, debunking ONE claim only means that ONE specific claim is wrong, nothing more and nothing less. Hence my point about taking the evidence ONE AT A TIME and discussing it to a conclusion.
You appear to now concede that the clouds behind the sun claim is wrong, and if you do then that's great, that's progress. It doesn't mean I'm saying you should change your mind about the Earth being flat, it only means you reject that claim for the invalid evidence that it is.
Think about it, by repeating evidence that is wrong, you only succeed in weakening your own position. Therefore your aim should be to find the flat Earth evidence that you believe holds up to scrutiny, and reject the evidence that falls apart (and don't be afraid to tell other flat Earth believers that a specific piece of evidence is wrong).
Agreed?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thirtythree5311 - That's not evidence, that's just your personal opinion which has nothing to do with common sense. You're offering nothing more that arguments from incredulity.
At the time of the ancient Egyptians about 3000 BC, Thuban was the North Star, not Polaris.
But the real point here is that stars are not fixed, they move!
This movement was first discovered by Edwin Hubble (recognize the name?) who noticed that certain well known stars were in slightly different positions in ancient star charts compared to his present day star charts, meaning those stars had moved.
Since then, the movement of countless stars have been measured, where today the fastest moving star in our skies is Barnard's star.
You'd need a telescope to see it, but if you photograph it over a period of time (as many have, both professional and amateur astronomers) then you can see its movement, for example;
www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Barnard2005.gif
According to flat Earth theorists, that should be impossible, right? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As Jon correctly points out, it is NOT the job of scientists to convince the ignorant. Scientists do their jobs and present their findings by following scientific principles and methodologies. Hence their information is available, their data is available, and hence the facts are available,
After all, here are just some of the conspiracy theories I've discussed over the last year alone - Flat Earth, Concave Earth, Hollow Earth, Hollow moon, the moon is a spaceship, ISS is fake, the Space Shuttle was a hoax, all Mars rovers are hoaxes, Earth visited by aliens in UFO, NASA covering up evidence of alien civilizations on the moon and Mars, we went to the moon in minutes and Mars in hours using alien technology held in Area 51, crop-circles are messages from aliens, alien abductions, the Universe is Electric, rockets can't work in a vacuum so ALL space missions are hoaxes, and many many more.
So are scientists REALLY suppose to waste their time debating ALL those claims and more? Are YOU going to decide which claims are worthy of debate with scientists and which ones are not? :-)
Or could you understand the idea that if ANY of those conspiracy believers wanted to have their claims taken seriously by scientists, then they have to follow scientific principles and present solid evidence and hypothesis that are measureable, observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable?
1
-
1
-
- You said "scientists have to be able to defend their theories outside of a lab, this is the most important part science."
Which is EXACTLY what they do through the scientific methodologies they follow. Therefore if people want to claim it's wrong, then they should be able to do so via those SAME methodologies.
"I think this" and "I think that" and "I believe this" and "I believe that", is not science.
You said "Anyone can create an experiment in a lab to prove whatever they want"
Wrong and rather naive my friend, because that is not proof in science.
Yes a scientist can falsify evidence and hence make claims that are essentially lies. But as stated, science is about being measurable, observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable, and therefore his/her results will NOT be accepted by other scientists until THEY carry out the SAME experiments and arrive at the SAME results.
Hence if YOU published a scientific paper of your 'experiments' to prove your 'theory' and hence your work got through the initial peer review process, then other scientists worldwide reading your paper will try to tear it apart, especially those with theories that compete with your own and so it's in their interest to prove you wrong!
Therefore they will not read your paper and take everything you say as gospel truth, instead they will look for errors, look for flaws, look for anything that can prove you're wrong, including carrying out your experiments to see if the results are correct.
If they find out you're wrong, then they will shout it out from the rooftops. THAT is how science works, and hence that is how science has been so successful for centuries, because it is self correcting and self managing, causing the truth and the facts to rise to the surface.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@captainsalty5688 - You said "Plus the radiation is way too intense past low orbit. Throw in the power of the sun and the radiation being thrown off that. It's impossible with humans."
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@valherustinger7848 - You said "So I gave up on that and started looking at curvature and thats what solidified it for me that the earth is not a globe. We cant even prove curvature using math. There is actually no proof the earth is a globe unless you accept images from space and believe what Nasa tells us is 100 percent accurate..."
Unfortunately, like many people, you are very easily manipulated by conspiracy theorists, and hence you fall for every trick in the book that they use and you repeat every trick they present to you, as you've shown in your replies here :-|
So since you claim to have spent years searching for proof of the Earth being a globe, try the following please;
Simply put, if you get hold of a reasonably good 12 inch wide globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the globe or how far apart they are!
It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre.
So please test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first globe denier in history to find a distance flaw in the map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE :-)
The fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is a globe.
1
-
1
-
@valherustinger7848 - So to you and other flat Earth believers reading this thread, I say the following;
The mathematics of our solar system and globe Earth allows us to accurately calculate sunrise/sunset times for ANY location on Earth for any date (past/present/future), the positions of all the planets and their moons for any date/time, the positions of asteroids, lunar and solar eclipses including the path of totality across the Earth's surface, high/low tide for any coastal region worldwide for any date, phases of the moon and Mercury and Venus, transits of Mercury and Venus, the path and location of comets, and so much more...
There are even books that make the mathematics and equations available for ALL to use, including books that make it accessible to the average person, such as "Practical Astronomy with your Calculator or Spreadsheet", where even YOU can calculate sunrise/sunset times and solar eclipses and planet positions etc.
In other words, the globe Earth is proven mathematically and the mathematics WORKS perfectly.
In contrast, flat Earth 'theory' calculates absolutely NOTHING, zero, zilch, which makes it useless.
In other words, the flat Earth predicts nothing except that the bank accounts of people like Eric Dubay will continue to increase thanks to the gullible who swallow everything he and other flat Earth charlatans say :-|
Sorry, but it's true my friend. But hey, that's fine by me too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rockmih - You said "I didn't focused on anything, you mention flat earth because its an easy way for you to dismiss Eddy."
I mentioned flat Earth because it accounts for over 95% of the discussion of this 1 hour video with the title "Eddie Bravo Goes DEEP on Flat Earth".
So why are you purposely ignoring that fact?
You said "The carbon dating is limited to nothing"
Wrong, carbon dating is limited to the carbon-14 found in organic remains, since all lifeforms on Earth are carbon based, and hence the radioactive decay of carbon atoms within the remains of lifeforms limits the accuracy to 50,000 to 60,000 years, where after that period the radioactivity left the carbon atoms is so low that the results cannot be trusted.
One guy was making the point that we can estimate the age of certain dinosaur bones by the rock layers that they were found in the Earth (as Joe said "The stratas") and yet Eddie responded saying "Well if you're talking about Carbon dating", which they were NOT.
Therefore carbon dating that EDDIE brought up has nothing to do with the dinosaurs that EDDIE was talking about.
So again, the accuracy of carbon dating has nothing to do with dinosaurs, as I explained to you before, so Eddie is wrong.
Learn to understand what you hear and read before replying :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For the adults reading this thread;
Proof of men landing on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972 has NOTHING to do with what any government or the media says!
Instead, in the 50+ years since the first moon landing, top scientists worldwide from fields such as physics (and astrophysics), rocket science, geology (and astrogeology), computing, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, electronics, and much more, have examined and verified ALL Apollo evidence, including scientists who dislike the USA and nations who would have given anything to prove it was a hoax (where their scientists would have been national heroes if they proved a hoax with verifiable evidence).
No scientist from ANY nation has ever announced finding fake Apollo evidence within his/her field of expertise, and no scientist from ANY nation has EVER said the missions were impossible (or even improbable) based upon evidence within his/her field of expertise .
In other words, if for over 50 years the Apollo evidence is more than good enough for the world's best scientists and the world's best engineers in all the relevant fields of science and engineering that they're EXPERTS in, then it's more than good enough for me.
And for those who would reject any evidence that comes from NASA, how about 3rd party evidence of the moon landings?
(Again, external links are blocked so replace DOT with . and SLASH with /)
isDOTgdSLASH7XXCkd
And don't reject it because of the website, since the original sources for all that information can be found in the sections at the bottom of the page :-)
Therefore again, it has nothing to do with what ANY government says, and so proof of men landing on the moon has nothing to do with believing governments.
1
-
1
-
@cefkungfupipewelder1568 - As I explained in my earlier reply, we know men landed on the moon due to the evidence not due to what any government says, but here's a key point that I'd like you to consider because it is very important and yet often overlooked, where you said "the deep seated need for the US to outdo the USSR".
Here's the problem - To believe it was fake you must also believe the USSR with their brilliant scientists and engineers who had their own advanced space program together with tracking technology (the USSR landed several unmanned craft on the moon in the 60s and they landed a spacecraft on Venus in 1970) were ALL too dumb and ALL too blind to spot a blatant fake by the USA.
More so, the USSR were too dumb to spot exactly the SAME FAKE of sending men to the moon NINE TIMES IN A ROW from 1968 to 1972, with six of those missions landing on the moon.
It's either that or the USSR were in on a conspiracy against themselves, which makes no sense :-)
To highlight my point further, the USSR landed two remotely controlled car-size rovers on the moon in 1970 and 1973 called Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2.
Both rovers had TV cameras and radio antennas, and hence that allowed Lunokhod 2 to be driven 37 km across the lunar surface over a period of 4 months under remote control (thanks to the TV broadcast);
(External links are blocked, so change DOT to . and SLASH to /)
bitDOTlySLASH3tJ8Jfv
So if the USSR had even the slightest suspicion of a fake landing, no matter how small, then they could have landed a Lunokhod rover at ANY of the Apollo landing sites at ANY time and explored it themselves to be sure, broadcasting the TV images back to Earth, and there would have been nothing that anyone could have done to stop them.
But they never did that because the USSR knew 100% that the USA had successfully landed men on the moon.
That for me yet another strong layer of evidence that proves men landed on 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
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ty-Leo - Let me just pick up on one point of yours, which was "It doesn't matter what Eric Dubay is, it is what he is saying and proving as science is based on observable and provable experimental evidence."
Your same Eric Dubay claims the South Pole doesn't exist, and yet Google Search: South Pole Tours, and tell me what you find please. Also Google Search: Antarctica Tours and tell me what you find please.
That's right, lots of South Pole and Antarctica tours, where if you can afford it then YOU can book yourself onto a tour to the South Pole, like so many other people have done every year for DECADES!
Not only that, but you can carry out experiments that PROVES you're at the South Pole, such as;
a) At night, set up a camera pointed up at 90 degrees to capture the paths of the stars using time lapse.
You will notice that the stars circle clockwise around a point in the sky called true south. Exactly OPPOSITE to the North pole where the stars will be seen to circle COUNTER CLOCKWISE around a point in the sky called true north.
b) At the right time of year, you will be able to observe 24 hour daylight (i.e. the midnight sun that Eric claims to not exist in the south) where the sun moves across the sky from right to left without dipping below the horizon.
Exactly OPPOSITE to the North pole 6 months later where the midnight sun results in the sun moving across the sky from left to right while staying above the horizon for over 24 hours.
In other words, the same "observable and provable experimental evidence" at the South Pole that you speak of proves the South Pole exists!
1
-
1
-
@Ty-Leo - You said "I've tried 5 times to link a video to you on here"
Unfortunately links are blocked on some videos, and therefore replies with links are automatically deleted.
So you'll need to disguise the link (eg. replace . with 😮or the word 'PERIOD' and replace / with 🖍️ or the word 'FORWARDSLASH', etc).
It's a hassle, but you'll get there in the end :-)
That said, I never post links to long videos expecting others to watch them, neither do I watch such videos sent to me.
Instead, within a debate, I expect others to EXPLAIN in their own WORDS the points they're making, where a short video (3-4 minutes max) or a long videos (with a timestamp to the relevant part) may be used to support the points they're making.
In other words, if you're posting a video to do all the talking for you then I'm not interested, but if you're using a video to support the points you're making in the way I've described above, then go ahead :-)
1
-
@Ty-Leo - You said "Show me any proof of gravity as one of the first things I stated is still to be a theory."
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity;;
[Disguised link to get through YT filter]
tiny😮cc🖍️z4eiuz
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertbaughner2760 - You said "No human has ever gone beyond lower earth orbit and no human ever will without receiving a lethal dose of radiation."
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So, you were saying?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertbaughner2760 - You said "Actually you have proven my point. The Apollo lie causes NASA to issue contradictory information."
Wrong. Every conspiracy theory that involves science has ignorant people like you talking about information you don't understand, and then you claim "contradiction" when presented with other information that you also don't understand. Classic Dunning-Kruger.
You said "The fake moon missions occurred during the time of solar maximum which if true, would have further endangered the lives of the astronauts".
Irrelevant. Being in an area during the peak of the hurricane season doesn't mean you were in a hurricane, it only increases your changes. Likewise the main danger from the sun for Apollo astronauts was a solar storm during the mission, but none occurred during any Apollo mission.
You said " The document from NASA is clear, three things determine the amount of radiation a person would receive. I stand by the article as it says."
Then you prove your ignorance, because you are saying that if a nuclear power station accident spreads high levels of radiation into the area that you're living, then you might as well stay home because you've been exposed to the radiation already and therefore you will die, right?
According to you, the longer you remain at home will make absolutely no difference to the amount of radiation you receive, because once you're exposed to the radiation then that's it, game over. Right? No need to evacuate the area, correct?
So if it's not "right" in the nuclear accident example I gave above, then why are you applying that same dumb logic to radiation in space?
1
-
@robertbaughner2760 - You said "If it were possible to at least go beyond the radiation belts, the Soviets would have done it."
Actually, the Soviets did prove it with OTHER lifeforms during the late 60s and early 70s!
Hence before and during the Apollo missions, the USSR sent lifeforms with various tolerances to radiation to the moon and back in their Zond probes and ALL survived the radiation (the only deaths were due to craft failures).
They used lifeforms easy to contain and manage, where Zond 5 and 7 had tortoises/turtles, wine flies, meal worms, bacteria, plants, algae and seeds, and Zond 8 had tortoises, flies, onions, wheat, barley and microbes.
For each they compared the radiation effects/damage during the trip to radiation damage observed in experiments on earth! All were found to be well within safe limits, also proven by the radiation detectors on board.
Here's one of the USSR reports discussing the results from their Zond probes;
http://cds.cern.ch/record/864491/files/p484.pdf
Conclusion from that early 70s USSR report, quote: "should no solar flare occurs, seven-day flights along the trajectories of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view"
Therefore the USSR proved to their satisfaction that radiation was 'safe' for short manned missions like Apollo.
Only an earthbound 'solar storm' (categorized as solar flares back then before the differences was understood by astronomers) would have been potentially fatal to a manned mission to the moon.
The facts speak for themselves my friend :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NinjaGaiden-z7t - And finally for a bit of fun, ask chatGPT the last paragraph of your answer.
That is, I entered the following into chatGPT;
"Therefore, even on a perfectly flat plane and in the absence of any other visual effect such as occlusion, parts of an object that are at different heights relative to the observer's plane of vision would disappear at different times."
Here's the answer it provided;
"In a scenario where you have a perfectly flat plane and there are no other visual effects like occlusion or atmospheric distortion, the disappearance of parts of an object at different heights would not occur. On a truly flat surface, an object moving away from an observer would maintain its visibility uniformly across its height.
The phenomenon where parts of an object disappear at different times is primarily due to the curvature of the Earth. On a flat surface, the entire object would recede into the distance without one part disappearing before another, assuming no other factors influencing visibility are present.
In everyday scenarios, the Earth's curvature is a significant factor, and it's why we observe objects, especially those at a distance, appearing to sink or disappear bottom first as they move away from us."
cough ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NinjaGaiden-z7t - Here's another video by the same flat Earth believer, where he is now demonstrating his dominoes experiment to someone;
Flat Earth Perspective: Using dominoes on a flat table to show how the horizon works. (Part 2)
This time it's longer and to the end of the table, and the effect is the same, no drop all the way down to the end.
Perspective only makes the dominoes appear smaller and closer together with distance, it doesn't cause the bottom of the dominoes to vanish.
That's what we can see and that's what the guy sees and hence he says "...it looks like it's getting smaller to a point, so [if] this table is longer, all the way back would be like a very central point, from ground level"
Even when he zooms in at the end we can see nothing was brought back from below the plane of the table, and then when he moves the camera up a fraction to 'see everything coming back into perspective', zooming in made them appear larger.
THAT is what he says happens on a flat Earth, proven in his opinion by his table experiment, which we can see for ourselves debunks your perspective claim.
So again, case closed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@khirywashington371 - You said "show the evidence lmao"
Fine, but this is not specifically for you, this is for anyone reading this thread now and in future.
I will take you through it in a few steps.:
So before discussing the globe itself, lets take an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as a town or a city.
EVERYONE can find an accurate map of their own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance using our map.
Therefore we can take any two locations on our map and measure it to easily 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.
So do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
(In other words, if the scale of your map was 1 mile per cm and you measured a route from A to B across the streets of your town/city map that was 3 cm in total, then that would be 3 miles in the real world. And if the direct distance (eg. via a drone) from A to B was 1.5 cm on your map, then the direct distance would be 1.5 miles in the real world.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexthurman6808 - Your video is a classic example of how flat Earth 'theorists' lie to you and even to themselves :-|
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 (like the one you provided) 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! (see link below).
And notice that there's a 'sweet spot' near the center of the video where the earth appears to be flat.
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 (bowl) in seconds here;
youtube.com/watch?v=sWUZDOQm_HE&t=1226
Many videos like to choose a time when the camera is stable and hence the horizon appears curved or the horizon appears flat, and so they say "Behold, proof that the shape of the Earth is X", but again, without taking the distortion into account they are not proving anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexthurman6808 - You said "Well yeah that would be the case. Thats how models work. You could form a made up model to fit the given measurements. Say the earth is flat for arguments sake. Take the measurements and form it into a sphere. Its as simple as that."
Wrong my friend, hence you didn't get the importance of the proof I provided.
We can take the world's most hardcore flat Earth believer and lock him in a room with a globe, a measuring tape and a calculator and give him 100 locations pairs around the Earth at random and ask him to work out the distances.
Assuming he made no mistakes then his 100 measurements would be correct!
Likewise, take an area on the globe small enough for the curvature to have negligible affect on a map, such as a flat map of your city, and you can lock him in a room with that flat city map (which will have a bar scale to tell us how long a mile/km is on that map), a measuring tape and a calculator and give him 100 locations pairs around your city at random and ask him to work out the distances.
Assuming he made no mistakes then his 100 measurements would be correct!
There are NO flat maps of the entire Earth for which he can do the same, since ALL flat maps of the Earth used for navigation are projections from a globe Earth, and therefore all such maps are distorted by definition, including the AE/Gleason map.
The size of a flat area doesn't affect the accuracy of a flat map of that area, and therefore if the Earth really was flat then we would have accurate flat maps of a flat Earth that are undistorted and therefore we can work out distances on that map in exactly the same way as a city map.
Simply put: No accurate undistorted flat map of a flat Earth = No 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
-
@bssorg4689 - Nope. The Hebrew word meaning deceive is actually NASHA, pronounced as "Na-shaw".
NASA in Hebrew, pronounced as "Na-Sar" or "Naw-Saw", means to lift, bear up, carry, or take, for example;
External links are blocked, so replace DOT and FWSLASH as required in the links below;
isDOTgdFWSLASHDyy9sN
Quote: "The Hebrew word of the week is nasa ("to lift up, take up, carry")"
Here's a few more links;
isDOTgdFWSLASHgDYJJB
isDOTgdFWSLASH0q3abY
isDOTgdFWSLASHCtWTNt
So just because something fits in with your views it doesn't mean you must believe it without question and without thinking for yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@devilla800 - Here's a link to Eric Dubay's "200 proofs" free eBook;
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html
Here's just one example of the stupidity of Eric Dubay;
In proof number 123 in that eBook, Eric claims the sun is 30 miles wide and 3000 miles away (flat earth books, including his own, say 3000 miles up), and yet in proof number 125, Eric claims the sun is just above the clouds, showing a photo of clouds which any meteorologist would tell you are just a few miles up.
So according to Eric, the sun is a few miles up and 3000 miles up at the same time!
Seriously, can you not see the major flaw in his argument? :-)
Just look at these examples of sun rays (crepuscular rays, or God rays) through trees;
https://goo.gl/XNnweq
See how many photos of trees you can find there showing the sun's rays passing through the trees in EXACTLY the same way we see the sun's ray's passing through clouds in Eric's photo.
If you apply the SAME logic as Eric, then those rays through the trees proves the sun is not 93 million miles away, nor is it 3000 miles away, but is in fact just above the trees! :-)
And what about these photos taken underwater at sea;
http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/images/Gentle%20Giant%204%20new.jpg
http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/images/Articles/chelonia_mydas_milisen.jpg
Clearly the sun is not 3000 miles up, it's just above the surface of the sea, right?
So come on, can you really not see the MAJOR flaw in proof number 125?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Chriscrumley1972 - The Bible does not EXPLICITLY say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you would ever find are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all IMPLICIT!
Can you find verses in the Bible that EXPLICITLY says the Earth is stationary? Yes you can!
For example, Psalm 93:1;
"The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."
And Psalm 96:10
"Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved; He will judge the peoples with equity."
So those are EXPLICIT statements saying the Earth is stationary and hence it doesn't move. They are not implied, they are not open to interpretation, they are direct statements.
Because of that, until a few centuries ago all Christian denominations believed a GLOBE stationary Earth was at the center of the universe. No official Christian church or denomination in history has ever said the Earth is flat.
Can you find similar verses in the Bible that EXPLICITLY states the shape of the Earth, much less EXPLICITLY says the Earth is flat?
No my friend, there are no such verses, and therefore flat Earth is not a Christian belief, flat Earth has nothing to do with the Bible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxsmith695 - You continue to prove my point :-)
Neil is a trained astrophysicist who has published scientific papers in scientific journals.
ANYONE can be labelled an actor if they did just ONE acting role, including YOU kid.
Hence professional athletes, professional basketball players, professional football players, doctors, nurses, policemen, judges, pilots, teachers, musicians, soldiers, and so many more, have ALL been labelled actors because they acted in a role at least once, even if it was just a cameo.
But according to you, all the above and much more are no longer professionals in their fields the split second they did some acting, instead they are all just actors from now on :-D
1
-
1
-
Here's a quote I'd like you to find using the technology at your fingertips;
"In fact the maps are detailed enough that Chinese scientists were able to detect traces of the Apollo landers, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China’s lunar exploration project."
So please explain why China would |ie for the USA :-)
Please explain how the USA tricked the USSR into believing they sent men to the moon during Apollo 8, Apollo 10, Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and finally Apollo 17.
I can understanding fooling the USSR once, when it was the first time and if the USSR were not ready or expecting it.
But NINE times in a row? No way :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielstewart4128 -You said "Conspiracy Theorist is just a term created by the CIA to put down anyone looking fot the truth"
No my friend, there's nothing wrong with the term conspiracy theorist, except to those who try to turn that term into a conspiracy :-)
It is FAR more respectful, accurate and honest than the derogatory names used by some, like "Flearthers" or "Flatties" or "Flattards" or "Hoaxers" or "Truthers/Troofers" etc.
Conspiracy - Definition: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful
Apollo hoax believers claim the NASA used billions of dollars of tax payer's money to fake the moon landings and hence it has been covered up by government(s) ever since.
How is that not a conspiracy?
Flat Earth believers claim governments and authorities have hidden the truth about the Earth being flat and hence forced the lie of a Globe Earth upon us for centuries/millennia.
How is that not a conspiracy?
Therefore anyone who comes up with theories about such a claimed conspiracy is a conspiracy theorist! Those who believe the claims made by those conspiracy theorists are conspiracy believers!
It's as simple as that, and therefore objections to the term "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiracy believer" is unfounded.
Hence I don't say "Flattard", I say flat Earth believer or conspiracy believer/theorist. I don't say "Hoaxer", I say Apollo hoax believer or conspiracy believer/theorist. Likewise, rocket hoax believer, Mars rover hoax believer, ET alien/UFO believer, Space Shuttle hoax believer, and so on.
So it doesn't make any difference whether the conspiracy is true or not, if something is claimed to be a conspiracy then the theories are conspiracy theories created by conspiracy theorists, and those who believe them are conspiracy believers :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
[Yawn]
The girl asked Buzz and I quote "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?". Notice the words "in such a long time". THAT was the context of the question and hence the context of Buzz Aldrin's reply to the girl.
Buzz said we haven't gone back because we haven't (a flippant answer). He said it's his question because for YEARS he has been asking exactly the SAME question as that girl, where HE ALSO wants to know why we stopped going to the moon and HE WANTS TO KNOW why we're not going back to the moon!
That was the point Buzz was making, and you can see him trying to answer without getting angry because it was a girl who asked him the question, but as usual conspiracy theorists deliberately twisted his words because that's what they always do and you fell for it hook, line and sinker :-)
Lets put it down in words;
Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time ?"
Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money...
...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...."
A rather convoluted answer? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No!
So why the distortion all the time from conspiracy believers like yourself? If truth really is on your side, then why do you and so many hoax believers think it's justified to lie and distort the facts to make your case? :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@devilisahomo - Try using your intelligence and stop pretending to be stupid. A bird's eye view means from above straight down throughout the entire area, not from a fixed altitude above ONE location where perspective becomes an issue.
I doubt there's a single person reading this who doesn't understand the concept of representing a 2D layout of an area on a piece of paper, except you for some reason.
Hence it doesn't matter if that area is the ground floor of your home+garden, or the plans of a large housing estate, or a map of farm houses and the surrounding fields, or the map of an entire town/city.
EVERYONE understands that the 2D layout of such an area, including an entire city, can be accurately represented on a 2D surface, such as a piece of paper, i.e. a map (either physical or virtual).
The heights of building and the altitude of the terrain etc is irrelevant, unless specifically needed and therefore such information can be represented in another form, such as a contour map (does that confuse you too?).
So please explain why you find it so difficult to understand the simple concept of a map, something that even a child could understand :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good, we're getting there, i.e. to the key point :-)
We can map any size 2D layout on a single sheet of paper, changing the overall scale as required.
Hence on that sheet of paper, we can accurately map the layout of your home+garden, or the layout of a housing estate, or the layout of your town/city.
So where's the accurate 2D map of the entire flat Earth? It doesn't exist! Even the AE/Gleason map is NOT an accurate 2D map of a flat Earth (some flat Earth believers are reluctantly beginning to accept that now).
Remember the test I mentioned with your city map, where you can measure the distance between ANY two locations in your city and work out the distance in the real world?
There's no 2D map of a flat Earth which will allow you to do that.
To prove the map of your city is not accurate, all someone has to do is find two locations on that map where the distance is NOT the same as it is in the real world.
Take any map claimed to be a flat Earth map, and we can find countless examples where the distances between them on the map is NOT the same as in the real world.
Surely if the Earth was flat then an accurate map should exist by now, it should be easy to create given all the maps of town and cities and countries, especially after over 150 years of published flat Earth books. But no such map can be found.
However, there is an accurate map of the Earth....
1
-
Now take a physical 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 between those locations and work out the distance in miles (based upon the size/scale of the globe) and it will match the 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 on your globe. (just like the accurate map of your town/city).
NO OTHER SHAPE offers that result, much less a flat circle like the AE/Gleason map hijacked by flat Earth theorists.
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 .
Likewise, to prove the Earth is not a globe, all you need to do is find two locations where the measurement of the distance between them on the physical globe is DIFFERENT to the distance measured in the real world.
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.
1
-
@devilisahomo - Lets stay focused on the shape of the Earth for now, where we can look at some of your other claims later :-)
And yes, I can provide other solid proof that the Earth is a globe, but I shall bring the map discussion to a close as follows:
Approach a well educated flat Earth believer with a high IQ and asked him to bring the best flat Earth map he can find. Then approach a Globe Earth believer with only an average education and an average IQ and ask him to bring the best Globe of the Earth he can find.
Now you set them a challenge. You will give them both the exact (confirmed) distance between two locations on Earth which they can each find on their Globe/map.
From that, they will both be able to tell you how many miles are represented by 1 millimeter on their Globe/map by measuring it.
You will now give them two completely different locations on Earth for which they must tell you the distance in the real world ONLY by measuring it on their Globe/map to work out the miles from the number of millimeters.
You repeat this for 9 more pairs of different locations on Earth, where you're asking for an accuracy of say plus or minus 5% of the real world distance (quite generous).
At the end of the test you check their results:
The distances from the clever flat Earth believer using his map will be mostly, if not all, completely wrong. In contrast, all the distances from the average Globe Earth believer using his globe will be correct!
You can give them both 100 or 1000 more pairs of locations (as diverse as possible) on Earth to measure and the result would be the same, where distances measured from the flat Earth map will be mostly wrong (some of them WAY out), but all the distances measured from the map of the Earth on a GLOBE will be correct!
That can only work if the Earth is a globe, and therefore that is solid proof that the Earth is a globe :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@devilisahomo - 1) Lying to yourself doesn't make your point, it only makes mine. Antarctica on a globe of the Earth is larger than the USA, so on what basis do you claim it's tiny.
Just the fact that you claimed Antarctica is tiny on a globe proves a) You do no research yourself, and b) You allow your bias to get in the way of facts.
2) Australia is the correct size, shape and distance from others land masses on a globe of the Earth, but completely wrong on all claimed flat Earth maps. FACT.
Here for example is a comparison of confirmed distances between locations on Earth, and note the rounded distances measured on a physical globe of the Earth compared to the claimed flat Earth map (AE/Gleason);
https://ibb.co/bud1Xf
Just look at Australia on that map, where it is stretched to twice as long as it is in the real world.
Just look at how far out some of the distances are. The globe Earth map distances are correct. The flat Earth map distances are wrong.
Look at the direct flight path of Buenos Aires (Argentina) to Auckland (New Zealand), which takes around 12 hours on the Globe map distance (6440 miles), meaning the plane travels an average of 536 mph.
On the Flat Earth map distance (15,700 miles), the plane would need to travel an average of 1308 mph. That the maximum speed of CONCORDE for 12 HOURS.
So go ahead and tell me why you still believe Buenos Aires is 15,700 miles from Auckland on your flat Earth map :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the TOTAL RADIATION to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA lost the ability to send people into space after the Space Shuttle was retired, but that doesn't mean the Shuttle was a hoax or previous US rockets were a hoax.
Concorde first flew in 1969 and yet since 2003 we haven't had a passenger plane capable of travelling faster than the speed of sound, much less twice the speed of sound like Concorde.
And Don Pettit was talking about rebuilding OLD retired technology, which never happens for the reasons he gave, and therefore we create NEW craft if we want those capabilities back (like the SLS and Orion).
ALL the 'destroyed' Apollo technology can be found intact in numerous science and aeronautical museums.
Anyway with the world's most powerful rocket, NASA's SLS, due to launch next year, and rockets from Space X and other private US companies, and manned space capsules like Orion and those from private US companies, the USA will very soon have all that technology back again and more.
As for their actions being questionable and odd, in what way exactly?
People make assumptions about this press conference without a) Realizing it actually took place 3 WEEKS after the astronauts returned to Earth, where they spent those 3 WEEKS in quarantine, and b) The astronauts behaved no different in this press conference than they did in previous press conferences.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Humancompassion1234 - Sorry, I got no notification of your response and YT made it difficult for me to see your reply.
Anyway, here's a very important piece of information...
...The moon's distance can be (and has been) measured using radio waves.
This is a direct measurement that doesn't require any knowledge about the structure of the universe, therefore it doesn't matter if you think the Earth is a globe, flat, hollow, concave etc, the measurement of the moon's distance using radio waves will always produce the same result that is independent of any beliefs.
Amateur and professional radio enthusiasts since the 1950s have sent radio signals to the moon and measured how long it takes to reflect back. The time measured for the return signal is always consistent with the moon being around 240,000 miles away, not 3000 miles away.
For example, srch the net (without quotes) for...
Moonbounce 2.6 seconds
...and read all the links referring to bouncing radio signals off the moon.
We know the measurements are accurate because the timing of the echo of radio signals is how RADAR works, where they use that time to determine the distance of the object(s) being tracked.
If the moon was only 3000 miles away then the echo would take a fraction of the time to return compared to bouncing radio signals off an object 240,000 miles away.
This is an important observation which has yet to be explained by globe Earth deniers, but it is explained by the moon being 240,000 miles away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidrizzutojr4937 - You said "But as I'm sure your aware, some arent interested in truth only in hiding it!"
Yes, they're called conspiracy theorists ;-)
But seriously, don't you see the pattern of ALL conspiracy theorists who ALL claim to have the absolutely 'truth', and that their 'truth' exposes everything else as a lie?
Don't you see they all use the same tactic of identifying a group to hate and distrust, eg. scientists, governments, agencies, authorities etc, and hence use that tactic to say don't listen to them, listen to us instead?
That's why conspiracy theorists NEVER debate or even challenge each other, because there's nothing to be gained by doing so.
But grow a base of followers by convincing them that those 'evil' groups have lied to us and therefore we must fight back, with the conspiracy theorists leading the way, is very appealing to many and also very lucrative for the theorists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OthoWilliamsJr - "Wake up" is the lazy rallying cry of the least informed believers of EVERY conspiracy theory out there, so I have to laugh at anyone who uses it :-)
You said "They're all "lying" then, if that explains anything about "Space & Beyond!""
And who are 'THEY' exactly that you and anyone else can't be part of? What exactly is stopping people like you from joining any of those space agencies and space companies and hence seeing the so-called lies for yourself and therefore being in a position to expose them (growing famous and rich in the process). That's right, there is NOTHING stopping you, so your claims are unfounded.
You said "No I am NOT a Flat Earther, the Earth also to Me is neither "Round!""
That's just as bad, if not worse, since you're making ignorance a virtue since Earth being a globe is a proven fact.
You also said "Now I am NOT sure if YOU KNOW this, the Electronical Devices we are using is NOT "Science."
The technology we use is the product of multiple fields of science and scientific research, where without that scientific research our technology couldn't exist. For you to think technology is somehow independent of science is just laughable.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/page/scienceandtech/science-and-technology
"Science encompasses the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, and technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes"
So go ahead and give a brief explanation on how you think microprocessors (for example) were invented and then constantly updated and improved without science.
The rest of your reply is just rambling nonsense which proves you don't understand what science is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@opxchaos5757 - I don't automatically bash conspiracy theories, if I choose to debate them then I prefer to research them first so that I know exactly what the conspiracy believers are talking about.
Hence for the flat Earth, I went in search for an accurate (and hence undistorted) flat map of a flat Earth, and therefore I acquired and read ALL the following flat Earth books (instead of just watching FE videos);
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
To cut a long story short, no such accurate map exists, for which there's NO excuse if the Earth really is flat.
There are also multiple versions of a flat Earth across those books (and in videos and websites), hence I like to ask flat Earth believers which version they believe, for example dome or no dome, edge or no edge or infinite plane, gravity or no gravity, globe sun/moon or flat sun/moon?... etc
I hope that explains where I'm coming from on this topic :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jordanclark1700 - Thanks for your reply and your honesty here, much appreciated.
Please note that my replies below are not meant to sound as harsh as they may appear, they are just my direct responses to your arguments which I've said to others before.
You said "What I believe is there’s more than enough reasons to question what we’re told..."
I understand what you're saying, but those who tell me that rarely ever question the 'theorists' they listen to, instead they view those theorists like angels who can never be wrong and can never lie, which is to ignore human nature :-|
You said "God created the heavens and the earth with a firmament (dome) a closed system over a round flat ish surface surrounded by an Ice wall that serves as all the waters container."
The problem is, the Bible doesn't state the shape of the Earth, it neither explicitly says the Earth is flat or a globe, therefore claims of a Biblical origin for a flat Earth are unfounded.
After all, every Bible you refer to was produced by Christian churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts, and yet all Christian churches throughout history say the Earth is a globe (albeit a stationary globe for most of that history), none have ever said the Earth is flat.
You said "That everything works as it was designed by a creator...."
And that's where I have a problem with that argument my friend, because the Creator is said to be all knowing and all powerful and yet for some reason creating a universe with gravity that resulted in a globe Earth is beyond the Creator's power? Think about 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
-
1
-
1
-
@paulmbanjwa6743 - Thanks, but that's the problem with your flat Earth claim.
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 :-)).
For example, look at these distances between cities on the AE/Gleason map interpreted as a flat Earth, where the distance could not be any more wrong (the Globe Earth distances are ALL confirmed by actual journey's over sea and land);
https://ibb.co/bud1Xf
And don't take my word for it, even your fellow flat Earth believers are beginning to realize this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r51aPK-MtWQ
According to the video maker Richard Kallberg, he is working on an accurate version of the flat Earth map. Problem is, he said that about 8 months ago and there's still no sign of it :-)
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?
Simply put: No ACCURATE flat map of a flat Earth = No flat Earth
1
-
@paulmbanjwa6743 - Not correct at all my friend.
The International Space Station (ISS) is by far the largest artificial satellite up there, and hence that's a perfect example for us to focus on.
The ISS can be spotted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year for 20 years WORLDWIDE.
There are apps you can download on your phone right now that will tell you the EXACT location of the ISS and will tell you EXACTLY when YOU would be able to see it pass overhead in your location (date and time and position in the sky).
You can also find apps and websites that will tell you when the ISS will be seen to pass in front of the moon and the sun in YOUR location (a transit), again providing you with the exact date and time.
Hence I have seen the ISS pass overhead a number of times, as have countess people around the world, where it looks like a VERY bright star moving across the sky with the naked eye.
Many people have even videoed and photographed the ISS satellite as it passed in front of the moon and sun as predicted, and posted their results on YouTube (there's nothing stopping YOU from doing the same).
For example (using the flat Earth believers favorite camera):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDIPZFqfGGo
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD3yuFVQSyo
So the fact that the ISS has been up there for 20 years and can be seen ALL OVER THE WORLD at the location it's predicted to be and at the exact date and time stated means something IS up there whether you like it or not.
So denial that something man made is up there is NOT an answer, neither is any claim that NASA is somehow beaming CGI into the cameras of everyone worldwide or projecting holograms :-)
Therefore the question is, if that's not a space station up there as seen and recorded by countless people all over the world 24/7 for 20 YEARS, then what is that ISS shaped object that we can ALL see for ourselves?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Instead of throwing insults, why don't you tell us which version of a flat Earth you believe in? Because there are a number of versions out there and yet none of you seem to be able to make up your minds.
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?
*
To this day, all that flat Earth theorists have ever provided is the AE/Gleason projection map, where they only 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 :-)).
I look forward to finding out your version of a flat Earth and (if possible) an accurate map of that 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grant5392 - You said "planets are all CGI generated"
So NOW you are trying to claim that composite photos are CGI, which is not what you said before you posted your link, and hence that addition to your CGI claim is pure ignorance (and desperation :-)).
Photographs taken in space and broadcast back to Earth are DIGITAL, and ALL digital photographs are manipulated, INCLUDING EVERY DIGITAL PHOTO you've taken with your camera/phone! So are all YOUR digital photographs fake too? They must be by your logic!
The sensor in your camera only detects light intensity NOT colour.
I repeat, the sensor in your camera only detects light intensity NOT colour.
To produce colour, a special filter grid is used, where a software algorithm is run to calculate the colour of EACH pixel based upon a complex calculation from the surrounding pixels, resulting in the final colour image (Google Search: BAYER FILTER for example).
The problem with the above method is that some colour information is lost, making it useless for science which requires precise values.
So spacecraft use multiple filters instead to combine the images into one.
For example, a colour photograph of the Earth would consists of a photo taken with a red filter, then with a blue filter and finally with a green filter, where the 3 photos are then combined to produce the final colour image.
THAT is manipulation. It can't be avoided because CMOS sensors are not colour, therefore colour must be created by using filters, either as a matrix/grid for single photos, or as separate photos through different filters combined into one image.
*In other words, photographs from space are as fake, CGI, photoshopped as ALL the photographs you've taken with your phone or digital camera.
*
Fact matter, they really do :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So there's no reason for Neil to make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate.
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
Also, someone like Neil debating a flat Earth theorist would only give that theorist the publicity that he craves but doesn't deserve.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roybutler9323 - Did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude? Of course you did!
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with any vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum. At 50 miles up, there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept. In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions.
After all, what's separating the crushing pressures of the ocean floor miles down from the low pressure of water at the surface of our oceans? The pressure is higher the lower we go down into the ocean, due to the weight of the sea above.
Likewise the pressure of our atmosphere is higher the lower we go towards the surface of the Earth, due to the weight of the air above.
So weight creates the pressure at lower levels, and that weight is caused by gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DannyCastillo-mg8ij - You said "The word Planet comes from Latin not greek. means Planeta plane plano, thats where it came"
Here are some quotes you can look for yourself;
QUOTE "Planet goes back to ancient Greek planēt- (literally, "wanderer"), which is derived from planasthai, a Greek verb which means "to wander.""
QUOTE from a Latin Dictionary "planēta, ae (-tes, is), or planēs, ētis, m., = πλανήτης, πλάνης, a wandering star, planet (late Lat. for the class. stellae errantes, erraticae, errones)."
Provide just ONE quote from a non-flat Earth site that says planeta in Latin means plane.
Just one please :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelhaggerty2766 - That's a link to THIS same topic video! Try again please :-)
Anyway, have you ever heard of the word "analogy"?
Definition: A comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification
Here's where the pear shape reference originally came from (a simple analogy by Neil to make a point);
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OeWTrEA5fE
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
So which part of "practically a perfect sphere" do you not understand? :-)
Therefore Neil did NOT say the Earth literally looks like a pear, he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
1
-
1
-
@michaelhaggerty2766 - Firstly, this was about your claim that Neil said the Earth was shaped like a pear. I've proven it was an analogy by Neil, not a literal statement, therefore you were wrong.
Secondly, $10000 is nothing :-) James Randi was offering that to anyone who can prove paranormal powers way back in the 60s! It ended up rising to $100,000 and then to $1 million.
So let them raise it to say $250,000+ and THEN we can talk :-)
Thirdly, if you want to talk about the flat Earth in general, then fine, I'm more than happy to present ONE solid evidence that the Earth is a globe, if you're happy to present ONE solid piece of evidence that the Earth is flat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobbyc3076 - Firstly, due to a recent issue on YT your last reply is shadow banned. You can check this yourself by going to this thread via another browser without signing in.
Secondly, there are no contradictions from N@S@, only ignorance from those who don't understand science or engineering and yet consider themselves to be geniuses, i.e. classic Dunning Kruger :-)
Thirdly, there are over 70 gov space agencies worldwide, a large number of private space companies and a large number of satellite companies worldwide, and of course there's astronomy and astrophysics and more, so people like yourself are ignorant for believing N@S@ has some kind of monopoly in space where you think they can |ie without being caught :-)
Fourthly, if you were not a FE believer then you would have said so. Instead you are making excuses to avoid the subject, which shows a lack of backbone from you sadly :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gazpsychodrilla3278 - Again, no-one mentioned the Van Allen belt, only YOU brought it up.
Putting aside the fact that Van Allen belt radiation doesn't affect film, here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iamnoone483 - Planet is derived from the Ancient Greek word "planḗtēs" meaning wanderer, i.e. a name given to 'stars' that wandered across the skies, which at the time were the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. In other words, they were known as the wandering stars.
Sea level and ground level is with respect to ALTITUDE (i.e. height), not flatness! If someone said he raised his hand until it was level with his nose, you would understand that to mean his hand is at the same height as his nose!
A vacuum does not suck, that's not what a vacuum is. A vacuum is simply a lack of matter.
Gravity is a proven fact with experiments that can't be explained by the naive claims about buoyancy or density.
There is no accurate flat map of a flat Earth. Flat Earth believers like to bring up the AE/Gleason map, but it doesn't work as a flat map of the Earth, the distances are wrong (just look at the shape of Australia for example!).
Even some flat Earth believers are beginning to realize this now: www.youtube.com/watch?v=r51aPK-MtWQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JiboiaJin - You said "well the Bible says the earth is fixed and unmovable. It also speaks of the 4 corners of the earth. This is the Bible, so can you explain that?"
I already did when I said and I quote "their message was that the Earth is a globe (again, a stationary globe for most of Christian history)."
That's because, putting aside the fact that the Bible is not a science book, you can find verses agreed across all Bibles that explicitly says the Earth doesn't move, but there are ZERO verses across all Bibles that explicitly states the SHAPE of the Earth.
All the Bibles you've read are translations of the original Hebrew and Arabic texts, where ALL those who translated the texts say the Earth is a globe, i.e. the Christian churches who produced those Bibles.
4 corners of the Earth simply means everywhere, i.e. as far north, south, east and west as we can go, it does not literally mean 4 corners.
After all, ALL depictions of a flat Earth show it to be circular in shape, none of them show the surface of the Earth to be square, and the last time I checked there are no corners on a circle either :-)
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments demonstrates gravity.
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 - In contrast, here's something you can do yourself.
Get yourself a decent globe of the Earth, then select two locations on that globe, for example Tokyo in Japan and New York in the USA, and measure the distance between them in millimetres (i.e. as a direct line across the globe of the Earth).
Now measure the circumference of your globe around the equator in millimetres.
The equator will give you the scale of your globe, where you can work out how many miles there are to the millimetre by dividing 24900 by the circumference of your globe in millimetres. Lets call the answer to that calculation X, and therefore X is the scale of your globe.
So now you can check the distance between New York and Tokyo by taking the distance you measured on your globe in millimetres and then multiply that number by X to get the distance in miles. It will match the real world distance (well, give or take natural errors in your measurement).
You can now check ANY two locations on Earth using that same method, i.e. measure the distance in millimetres on your globe and multiply that number by X, and it will match the real world distance.
The larger and the better the quality of your globe, the more accurate your results will be (but even a cheap globe would be pretty good).
In other words, you can accurately measure ALL distances and routes on a physical GLOBE of the Earth in the same way that you can accurately measure ALL distances and routes on a physical flat map of your town/city.
That alone proves the Earth is a globe, where there is no flat map of the Earth in existence for which you can do the same :-)
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 - You said " .....thank you for your input. "A dollar store globe proves the globe, everybody!" Try using northern hemisphere math to navigate the southern hemisphere. One side of a sphere is as good at charting the other half as any other, right?"
Not sure why you would think the northern hemisphere is the same as the southern hemisphere, anyway :-)
I explained how we can ALL use a physical globe of the Earth to work out the distance between any two locations on Earth.
Therefore name any two locations on Earth for which you trust the distance given (hence it could be across land, or in the middle of the ocean, or both), the further the distance between the locations the better.
Now work out the distance using a physical globe of the Earth as I described earlier, and compare it to the actual distance. It will be the SAME, give or take the expected margin of error.
In fact, there isn't a SINGLE two locations on Earth for which the measured distance between them on the physical globe of the Earth is found to be wrong! I've even asked flat Earth believers to give me an example over the last few years and I'm still waiting for just ONE.
That should be impossible if the Earth was flat, where flat Earth theorists/believers would have listed COUNTLESS distance discrepancies on a physical globe of the Earth if those distances were wrong.
How is that possible if the Earth is not a globe? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charlesforeman9438 - Not quite what I asked for, but it will do, and so I will choose the 'best' claim from the video you provided, and so lets start with "NASA busted hanging on wires/harnesses" uploaded by 'Panto Math'.
Watch the claim at 1:55 onwards;
^youtube.com/watch?v=5kv4dqIUJoM&t=115
Now look at the full 'version' of that hoax claim here;
^youtube.com/watch?v=X-huF7fRlnA
When stunt people do similar somersaults, they have a cable attached to each side of their waists to allow them to rotate.
However, because of the cables they need to make sure they pull their legs and arms inwards to avoid hitting the cables as they rotate.
You can see this in action on the following link;
^youtube.com/watch?v=VlebgX5Uj8g&t=54
As you can see, if their legs or arms aren't kept out of the way of the cables, then they would catch the cable and stop rotating.
Now watch the video above again (but mute the sound to avoid distraction) and imagine there's a cable on either side of that astronaut's waist.
Notice how during his somersault he doesn't move his arms in to avoid any cables, instead his arms would have to pass through the claimed cables, possibly twice!
And not only that, notice that the microphone he's holding has a long wire attached, so if he is suspended by a cable, how did the microphone wire pass straight through that cable as he rotated?
Finally, look again at the astronaut in the USMC t-shirt. Notice that he reaches out to grab the astronaut to steady him, but because he's not looking at him directly he almost misses, where he catches the pocket of the astronaut with his little finger and pulls (look carefully).
Hence the video maker completely misinterprets what we're seeing in that footage, where he sees what he wants to see and therefore makes things up without checking if what he's saying is true :-)
Therefore the cables and VR claims are make up nonsense by conspiracy theorists who don't care about the truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jasonflatearther - I explained how Google Earth works, so besides satellites which part of "from airplanes, balloons, helicopters, drones, etc" did you miss? :-|
Anyway, before going any further, can you say which version of a flat Earth you believe please? A brief summary in your own words would suffice.
I ask because there are many versions to choose from, i.e. dome or no dome? Edge (finite plane) or no edge (infinite plane)? More land and seas beyond the ice wall? Pillars or no pillars? Gravity or no gravity? Globe sun and moon or flat sun and moon? Rahu and Ketu, or just the moon? etc.
Once you say which flat Earth you mean, then your comments here will be in context of your flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jasonflatearther - You said "You coming to me and saying some douchebag told you something is no different than me coming to you and saying that I read it in the Bible"
When that 'douchebag' is one of the founders of Google Earth, then his words on how Google Earth works matters more than your uninformed claims about Google Earth.
Mark Aubin, co-founder of the product that was renamed Google Earth;
"Most people are surprised to learn that we have more than one source for our imagery. We collect it via airplane and satellite, but also just about any way you can imagine getting a camera above the Earth's surface: hot air balloons, model airplanes – even kites. The traditional aerial survey involves mounting a special gyroscopic, stabilized camera in the belly of an airplane and flying it at an elevation of between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet, depending on the resolution of imagery you're interested in. As the plane takes a predefined route over the desired area, it forms a series of parallel lines with about 40 percent overlap between lines and 60 percent overlap in the direction of flight. This overlap of images is what provides us with enough detail to remove distortions caused by the varying shape of the Earth's surface.
The next step is processing the imagery. We scan the film using scanners capable of over 1800 DPI (dots per inch) or 14 microns. Then we take the digital imagery through a series of stages such as color balancing and warping to produce the final mosaic for the entire area.
We update the imagery as quickly as we can collect and process it, then add layers of information – things like country and state borders and the names of roads, schools, and parks - to make it more useful. This information comes from multiple sources: commercial providers, local government agencies, public domain collections, private individuals, national and even international governments. Right now, Google Earth has hundreds of terabytes of geographic data, and it's growing larger every day."
But hey, what would he know, right? :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thegodpill9696 - That's a child's logic, where you show how people like yourself are too wrapped up in playing the victim and/or playing the hero against the 'evil' authorities (boo... boo!). It's always 'them and us' instead of the facts :-)
Proof of men landing on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972 has NOTHING to do with what any government or the media says!
Instead, in the 50+ years since the first moon landing, top scientists worldwide from fields such as physics (and astrophysics), rocket science, geology (and astrogeology), computing, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, electronics, and much more, have examined and verified ALL Apollo evidence, including scientists who dislike the USA and nations who would have given anything to prove it was a hoax (where their scientists would have been national heroes if they proved a hoax with verifiable evidence).
No scientist from ANY nation has ever announced finding fake Apollo evidence within his/her field of expertise, and no scientist from ANY nation has EVER said the missions were impossible (or even improbable) based upon evidence within his/her field of expertise.
In other words, if the Apollo evidence is more than good enough for the world's best scientists and the world's best engineers in the relevant fields of science and engineering that they're EXPERTS in for 50+ years, then it's more than good enough for me.
Claims made by those who have never sent anything into space themselves, where they are more interested in growing a base of followers than stating the truth, are irrelevant :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elisereneekouloukas301 - "Didn't go there" in the time specified by the question, i.e. in such a long time, i.e. since 1972, i.e. didn't go there since 1972.
So again it's not my opinion, it's a fact. If Buzz said what you claim then it would have been picked up by at least ONE reporter or journalist worldwide in the 2 YEARS since (they don't miss a trick or an opportunity for fame).
So go ahead and prove me wrong by presenting a link to just ONE article from a credible reporter/journalist who says that was Buzz admitting they never landed on the moon.
Just ONE. Failure to do that proves my point (and I've been asking that from people like you for nearly 2 YEARS and I'm still waiting for just ONE example :-)).
I find it amusing that you actually think that every reporter and every journalist on EARTH would somehow miss Buzz publicly saying the moon landings were a hoax, and yet it's only you and your group of 'special' woken people who have spotted what the rest of the world has missed :-D
Arch Angel X simply ripped that moment from the original video, something that even YOU could do, so that point of yours is irrelevant.
In every poll carried out worldwide about the moon landings, only a small MINORITY think it was a hoax! So by your logic, I must be right because the majority of people agree with me and therefore the minuscule number who visited this video is irrelevant.
But unlike you I don't subscribe to such simplistic thinking, I go by the facts, and the facts says Buzz did not claim we haven't gone to the moon, and the facts says men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972, and the facts says the Earth is a globe (but you're afraid to discuss 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
-
1
-
1
-
@JonathanHooper-z6q - The problem is you're jumping to your own conclusions without checking first.
I enjoy debates over topics I'm interested in. YT videos are a great place to engage in such debates with people who you would never have the opportunity to debate face to face.
Too many threads are started by 'drive-by posters' who never return to the threads they started, so I spread my replies wide to ensure that at least some of them will respond.
Debating people with opposing ideas and opposing beliefs is a great way to challenge your own ideas and beliefs, instead of just assuming everything you know is right.
Debating people with opposing ideas and opposing beliefs is a great way to learn about various topics, since it often requires research and understanding to debunk the claims being made, hence I've learned a massive amount about spacecraft and space travel over the years from debating moon landing conspiracy believers. Likewise I've learned a LOT about the Earth and maps and history and navigation etc by debating and debunking flat Earth believers, including topics that I would have never taken any interest in before.
I enjoy debates over topics I'm interested in.... oh wait, I've said that already :-)
Hence it's not about changing people's minds, it's not about making them look stupid, it's none of those things, therefore claiming what I'm doing is a waste of time is based upon your own assumptions, where all you had to do was ask me why I'm here :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trojax44 - You said "what... not at all, you've already proven my point by saying my evidence could not come from a flat earth believer"
You really are not the sharpest tool in the box :-) I said "go ahead and present your claim that DOESN'T come from a flat Earth believer" to prove that you're not a flat Earth believer, and yet you've just provided a video from a channel with the name "Flat Earth Sun, Moon & Zodiac Clock app", so you ARE a flat Earth believer and hence it IS relevant.
So putting aside the fact that EVERYTHING in the video you provided has been debunked countless times (go ahead and select a timestamp to ONE claim in that video that you think can't be debunked and I'll debunk it :-)) the fact that you are flat Earth believer means YOU should state which version of a flat Earth you believe, since there are MANY to choose from.
So dome or no dome? Edge or no edge (i.e. finite plane or infinite plane)? Pillars or no pillars? Gravity or no gravity? Globe sun/moon or flat sun/moon? Rahu and Ketu, or just the moon? etc.
If you can't describe the flat Earth model you claim to believe, then your claims are null and void.
Btw, the book of Enoch states the moon gets it's light from the sun, i.e. a clear reference to reflected light, since if the moon is it's own light source then it should be independent of the sun not dependant on it.
Also, I assume you're NOT a Christian then, correct?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trojax44 - You said "eerm we have a working model, flat earth app.."
Lol! That is not a model. Go ahead and present a link to your claimed model here. Present a flat Earth model that actually calculates and hence predicts astronomical events. Give me just one example (and no, not eclipses taken from the Saros series).
You said "yous do not"
Wrong, the 'globe model' predicts with incredible accuracy COUNTLESS astronomical events YEARS and even DECADES in advance!
In other words, the mathematics of our solar system and globe Earth allows us to accurately calculate sunrise/sunset times for ANY location on Earth for any date (past/present/future), the positions of all the planets and their moons for any date/time, the positions of asteroids, lunar and solar eclipses including the path of totality across the Earth's surface, high/low tide for any coastal region worldwide for any date, phases of the moon and Mercury and Venus, transits of Mercury and Venus, the path and location of comets, and so much more...
There are even books that make the mathematics and equations available for ALL of us to use, including books that make it accessible to the average person, such as "Practical Astronomy with your Calculator or Spreadsheet", where even YOU can calculate sunrise/sunset times and solar eclipses and planet positions etc.
In other words, the globe Earth is proven mathematically and the mathematics WORKS perfectly.
In contrast, the flat Earth 'theory' calculates absolutely NOTHING, zero, zilch, which makes it useless.
In other words, the flat Earth predicts nothing except that the bank accounts of people like Eric Dubay will continue to increase thanks to the gullible :-/
Sorry, but it's true my friend.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trojax44 - You cried "send me a link to the working globe one please???"
Fine, here's a starter for people like you to understand;
Go to Amazon and find the book "Practical Astronomy with your Calculator or Spreadsheet" by Peter Duffett-Smith.
This series of books began in 1988, explaining the structure of the solar system and providing the equations/mathematics to go with it and hence allowing YOU, ME and EVERYONE to calculate many astronomical events OURSELVES, from sunrise/sunset at any part of the Earth and any date, to the position of the planets, to solar and lunar eclipses, to the position of the sun and moon, to moon phases, and so on.
It's ALL in there, with all the equations and calculations needed for YOU to do it ALL YOURSELF. Proving the model and the mathematics WORKS and hence proving the model is correct :-)
In contrast, the flat Earth offers nothing.
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZEUSILLZAU - It's amusing how you tried to pre-empt what I'm about to say ;-) Anyway...
Did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude? Of course you did!
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with a cheap vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up, there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept. In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions, with no barrier in between and no closed container required.
Any questions? :-)
After all, what is separating the incredibly crushing pressures of the ocean floor miles down from the low pressure of water at the surface of our oceans? The pressure is higher the lower we go down into the ocean, due to the weight of the sea above. Again, no barrier in between and no closed container.
Likewise the pressure of our atmosphere is lower the higher up we go, and higher the lower down we go towards the surface of the Earth, due to the weight of the air above. Again, no barrier in between and no closed container required.
So no container or barrier is needed. Weight creates the pressure at lower levels, and that weight is caused by gravity.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LunchBox_SB322 - You said "and NASA says that the curvature has a 8" inch per mile drop."
Ok, thanks for your flat Earth description, but lets focus on your claim regarding NASA, because that's a problem.
Firstly, it's 8 inches per mile squared, and secondly NASA doesn't say that for curvature.
8 inches per mile squared is the equation for a parabola and was a useful 'rule of thumb' for curvature during surveying in the 19th century because it was easy to work out (it could be done in your head), and it was rather good for naked eye distances.
The equation for curvature based upon a circle/sphere is far more complicated however and therefore can't be done in your head (unless you're very talented in that respect).
Only flat Earth theorists/believers are obsessed with the "8 inches" equation, where for curvature it's not used by NASA, it's not used by mathematicians, it's not used in any field today and yet you didn't know that.
So here's my problem - I thought commercial pilots required a good understanding of mathematics, physics and geography, so how could you think curvature drop is 'officially' measured as "8 inches per mile squared", and even worse, get it wrong by saying "8 inches per mile"?
Something doesn't add up with your credentials my friend ;-)
1
-
1
-
You're incorrect because you haven't thought it through Matthew :-)
Firstly, the hoax claim says the sun is the only light source and so the astronaut in shadow should be completely black. Whereas everyone who has recreated that scene with people, or with models or even using computers shows that the astronaut in shadow is illuminated by light reflected from the surrounding surfaces, hence myth busted :-)
Secondly, there isn't a single photographed event in history (Apollo included) for which we cannot recreate the photos of that event in a studio, but... to this day, no-one has EVER recreated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
In other words, there's a big difference between photographs and footage.
Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity, not appearance) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it's possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth. :-)
1
-
@matthewmcarthur8748 - And yet you haven't offered any real counter arguments to my debunking of your shadows claim, only your uniformed opinion.
Any child worth half their salt would know that shadows cast from the sun are only guaranteed to appear parallel if we view them from a sufficient height while looking down 90 degrees upon the landscape where those shadows are cast.
From any other angle, the shadows will appear to converge and diverge due to the angle, perspective, distance, slope, shape etc.
For example, there's only one light source here, the sun, and yet the shadows don't appear parallel;
(In the links below, replace DOT with . and SLASH with /)
tinyurlDOTcomSLASHysre7t8u
tinyurlDOTcomSLASHstuybtrd
tinyurlDOTcomSLASHjwcjwvh
tinyurlDOTcomSLASHbffn6aj
tinyurlDOTcomSLASHzhxzepf4
According to you, ALL those photographs are fake because the shadows don't appear parallel :-)
Simply put, there isn't a single Apollo photograph or video featuring shadow angles that we can't find here on Earth in photographs in the sun (i.e. ONE light source). Fact!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthewmcarthur8748 - In other words you admit to being a flat Earth believer who chose to hide that fact when you started this thread, hence proving my points :-)
1) I'm fully aware of Dr. Samuel Rowbatham, since here's the list of flat Earth books that I own and have read;
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
That's why I asked which version you believe, since there are several to choose from.
So can you present me with just ONE example of you debating or challenging other flat Earth believers over the version of a flat Earth they believe? I expect you never have!
2) Many claim to know there is a dome, that's my point, therefore it's up to flat Earth believers to debate the differences to come to a consensus, and yet none of you do that.
3) Some claim there's no edge.
4) Again, many disagree with you.
5) Completely wrong, where gravity is a proven fact (and easily proven, just like the Earth being a globe).
6) and 7) Both cop out answers to be honest.
Thanks for answering what you believe with regards to the flat Earth belief that you hid, but I do find it interesting that flat Earth believers like yourself challenge and debate and attack ALL those who correctly say the Earth is a globe, and yet NONE of you challenge and debate and attack your fellow flat Earth believers spreading different versions of a 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
-
@ericbeins7254 - You cried "apparently it is to hard for you to follow a link and watch a video but I know you like to be spoon fed information"
You haven't provided any links, so I don't need to be spoon fed son, I was waiting for YOU to present an example to represent your argument. But clearly that request went over your head.
You said "Microwave dishes can only work in line of sight. If the Earth was a sphere or 🍐 shape their usable distance would not be more than 50 miles."
Which proves just how IGNORANT you are, it really does, because for some reason you don't appear to realize that ALTITUDE is important too. Yes, ALTITUDE son.
Read the following link;
https://blog.aviatnetworks.com/from-the-field/the-worlds-longest-all-ip-microwave-link/
That's a microwave link over a distance of 193 km, or 120 miles.
As pointed out in that link, the altitudes of the two sites connected by that microwave link are 1600 meters (5250 feet) and 250 meters (820 feet).
So here's a curvature calculator that takes into account the HEIGHT of the observer above the surface;
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=120&h0=5250&unit=imperial
The height of 5250 feet and the distance of 120 miles has been entered, where you'll notice that 652 feet is hidden below the curvature of the Earth, meaning that the remote location at 820 feet is 168 ABOVE the horizon and hence DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT.
And don't just take my word for it, since on the link I provided it present a graph showing exactly that, with the words "Figure 1. Microwave Path Profile showing antenna elevations and path clearance over effective earth curvature ."
So go ahead and present your 235 km example and you'll find that the altitudes of the two locations results in direct line of sight communication!!!
So much for all your insults, where you clearly should have been looking in the mirror when you made them.
Have a nice day and thanks for the laugh :-)
1
-
@ericbeins7254 - You cried "I just have personal question for you, why is it that you don't use your given name?"
You cannot be that stupid with all due respect. So you actually think that by using a name that can pass for a real name then that automatically makes it that person's name?
So if instead of "Yazzam X" I called myself something like "Simon Johnson" or "Mark Sheldon" then you would assume that's my real name? No evidence required, no proof needed, just blind acceptance of my name?
There's absolutely ZERO evidence that your name is 'Eric Beins', just as there would be ZERO evidence that my name is "Mark Sheldon", so to claim you're a 'real man' and not 'scared' to use your real name for which there is no proof is just laughable, and hence something I would expect from a kid.
So go ahead and show how 'brave' you are by telling us your telephone number and your home address and give us links to personal documents (say a scan of your passport) to prove you really are 'Eric Beins'. But that would be even more stupid, right?
So cut out the childish nonsense. The whole point of profiles online is the ability to be anonymous, for which the VAST MAJORITY of people here ARE anonymous, even if they use names that can pass for REAL names, and yet those names are not their actual names!
1
-
1
-
@ericbeins7254 - Finally, I only mentioned my credentials because of your patronizing and condescending remarks and assumptions, such as and I quote;
"You should learn how to use your own brain first before you start mimicking so-called professors."
And "Do some research in technology yourself and you will see you been lied to. You don't need a degree for that."
And you've continued that way throughout this thread.
So I'm more than happy to discuss astronomy in detail with you for example, and from a practical perspective.
And when it comes to research, I didn't 'research' flat Earth claims by watching YT videos, instead I decided to get hold of as many flat Earth books released over the last 150+ years as I could and I READ them all (and most are very badly written), to get the information from the original SOURCES.
Here's a list of my flat Earth books;
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
So besides Eric Dubay's free eBook, if you own any of the books above then I would be more than happy to discuss the contents with you.
My initial goal was to see if any of those books claimed to have an accurate non-distorted flat map of a flat Earth, but no such map exists!
Therefore I've seen the arguments from both sides, and hence I know for a fact that the Earth is a globe, where NONE of the flat Earth claims holds up to close scrutiny.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericbeins7254 - So in all your ignorant uneducated waffle, you STILL cannot present any web links or specific details of the 200+ km microwave link that you claimed was impossible on a globe Earth, therefore you are lying.
Therefore you are a proven liar and a coward, and so I have to ask, if you REALLY believe truth is on your side, then why did you feel the need to lie to make your case?
You don't even have the courage to say "Ok, I was wrong about the microwave link, but I still don't think the Earth is a globe because....".
No, instead you want to avoid that to jump onto other laughable claims (sun rays? really? lol), despite the fact that I provided you with a 193 km microwave link that was CLEARLY made possible thanks to the altitudes of both sides of the link.
So either put up or shut up. Give me details of your claimed impossible microwave link and I'd be more than happy to present you with the same test and hence proof of a globe Earth that I've provided for MANY others on YouTube, where none of you can offer an explanation.
I'm waiting, so present the microwave link that YOU claimed was impossible or just admit you made it up or admit you made a mistake. In other words, act like the man you claim to be, since right now I appear to be talking to a boy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tiloraber627 - You said "First.The bible is not written by "Jesus"."
Nobody said it was, so stick to the actual points made please.
You said "Its gods/satans word and its written by his followers..."
Irrelevant. The Bible doesn't state the shape of the Earth, that's a fact, therefore don't hide behind the Bible to claim the Earth is flat, since that effectively makes you a traitor of your own faith imo (sorry but that's the way I see it).
You said "But I had a problem with Genesis 1: 6-10. The water above
the fortress called the sky. The space full of water?"
So you choose to take the Bible literally when it suits you? Well isn't that what Creationists do? Hence they claim the Earth is around 6000 years old based upon the Bible, and that Adam and Eve and Noah's Arc and other stories in the Bible are historical facts, do they not?
And yet even Creationists, yes those who take the Bible literally, say the Earth is a GLOBE!
Go to a Creationist website and search for 'Flat Earth' for example, and read what they say (but you may not like what you find there).
In fact, some Creationists go as far as claiming that flat Earth is an atheist conspiracy to discredit Christians and Christianity. Oh but of course, you have a problem with such terms, right? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tiloraber627 - Putting aside your attempts at distraction :-) it's very telling that you haven't presented a verse from the Bible that explicitly states the shape of the Earth, much less one that explicitly states the Earth is flat.
Had you known of just ONE such verse from the Bible, you would have stated it already. Therefore you effectively proved my point.
You said " And here lies your mistake you are only looking at the two-dimensional"
Poor logic on your part, where I explained why the horizon is exactly as we would expect on a globe Earth and you simply cannot grasp it.
You said "Because a sphere is round on every circumference. If the earth were a ball everyone would see the curvature!"
Hence proving my previous point, since you are incorrectly claiming that horizontal curvature should be easily seen with our eyes no matter how large the Earth is, which is like claiming that a thin 10 foot line with a curvature offset of just 1 millimetre should be easily seen to curve, when the reality is such a line would look perfectly straight line to our eyes.
Our ability to see horizontal curvature improves with altitude, where as the horizon drops with increased altitude the circle of the horizon is lower and further away, making the curvature along the horizon increasingly easier to see with our eyes.
You said "Why should anything change in the result if I make a third hole?"
Clearly mathematics is not your strong point :-) With two wells the shadow angles will point towards the sun if plotted on a diagram of a flat Earth or a globe Earth.
But add a third well and the angles measured will not all line up on a diagram of a flat Earth, but they would on a diagram of a globe Earth.
You said "You can leave one there. No i am not interested"
Well of course you wouldn't be interested, no flat Earth believer wants to risk his/her beliefs being challenged, much less debunked :-)
1
-
@tiloraber627 - [Sorry, didn't get a notification]
Regarding the shadow angles for 3 wells, you said "Please show me, a video if you want."
Simple mathematics is all you need, but I acknowledge that mathematics is not for everyone, hence I'll try to keep it simple.
A perfect time to carry out a test is during the equinox, when the sun is directly over the equator.
On those two days of the year, for people in the north the angle of the sun at it's highest point in degrees (around noon) will be 90 minus their latitude on a GLOBE Earth (because latitude is measured from the equator), and for people in the south it will be 90 plus their latitude, hence it aligned with the latitude of everyone on a GLOBE Earth.
In other words it lines up perfectly on a GLOBE Earth.
So look up the co-ordinates of your location (latitude and longitude), where in March (about March 21) and in September (about September 23) the highest angle of the sun in the sky will be 90 plus or minus the latitude of your location, depending on whether you live north or south of the equator.
Draw those angles on a circle representing the Earth and they all point in parallel towards a distance sun. Draw those angles on a flat line to represent a flat Earth and they point to different distances for the sun.
The following video covers that point well;
youtube.com/watch?v=7nzEhDX-xzg
1
-
@tiloraber627 - You said "There is no verse from the Bible known to me that describes a unique shape of the earth. And yes, if there was one I could bring it. Would you acknowledge this?"
Yes of course, I would acknowledge it, but I know for a fact that there are no verses in the Bible that explicitly state the shape of the Earth, where any claims about the shape of the Earth from the Bible are implied.
What I can also acknowledge is that there are verses in the Bible that explicitly says the Earth is stationary, hence for many centuries after the first Christian churches appeared they all believed in a stationary globe Earth, none of those churches throughout history have ever preached a flat Earth, not even implied.
You said "Could you acknowledge that it is entirely possible that there is knowledge that is withheld from you?"
Of course, and the same applies to yourself, but the shape of the Earth is easy to prove with evidence that you, myself and everyone here can directly check ourselves, therefore the Earth being a globe is not a belief, it's a fact.
1
-
1
-
@tiloraber627 - And consider the following please;
It doesn't matter whether you think the Earth is hollow, flat or a globe, our towns and cities are so much smaller than the Earth that the shape of the Earth would have negligible effect upon the accuracy of flat maps of our towns and cities.
As a result, every one of us can find an accurate flat map of our own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the bar scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our flat map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
In fact, the accuracy of the flat map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the map alone!
Do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@prolinelectricful - Your beliefs (which you still haven't answered about space and space travel btw) are irrelevant to the facts, but still, thank you for proving your ignorance so perfectly with your comment "don't tell me you believe they landed on the moon in that foil covered bird cage."
The mere fact that you believe the foil and mylar panels on the outside of a craft to protect it from the heat of the sun and micrometeorites tells us anything about the integrity and structure of the craft UNDERNEATH all that protection says it all, it really does :-)
According to you, if we cover a car with crumpled up foil to reflect away the heat from the sun, then that car must be nothing more than a foil covered bird cage, a piece of sh1t, all because of how that car now looks with the foil covering it 🙄
If you can't understand just how stupid that assumption is, then again you've only succeeded in proving my points.
So I'll ask you yet again, quote: "state your beliefs about space and space travel"
Don't tell me what you DON'T believe, tell me what you DO believe about space and space travel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GhulamMustafa-cm1jd - Your reply has been shadow banned by YT (an annoying problem affecting all of us here), but I'll add to my point.
The Soviets had an advance space program where they could track their spacecraft all the way to the moon and beyond (such as during their mission to Venus in 1970), so here's the problem;
America got men to the moon during 9 missions, which was Apollo 8 in 1968, then Apollo 10, Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and finally Apollo 17 in 1972, landing on the moon during 6 of those missions.
Do you really think the Soviets would have fallen for the same trick over and over again?
Think about it please :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AndrewMansonNoperapon - You said " "of Neil Armstrong himself standing in the sun" - its not enough for a such brightening."
Your gut feeling and your opinion is completely irrelevant, hence it is highly hypocritical of you to criticise MBs for flaws in their experiment when here you are making unfounded claims over something that you haven't seen tested anywhere except in nVidia's simulation, and hence haven't tested yourself.
In other words, your opinion here is 100% based upon your assumption, not upon facts :-|
You said "I am an electronics engineer by training, I know a little about formal logic, probability theory, photography, computer technology"
And? :-) I can boast about my degree in mathematics and statistics, and my computing career of several decades (wrote my first program in BASIC with punched cards in the 70s) and being a practicing amateur astronomer for over 30 years, but that doesn't make me an expert, only knowledgeable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blake - YOU say that, but I have had discussions with SO MANY flat earth believers who claim no curvature at all can be seen at ANY altitude.
I make the point that if the earth was the flat circle they claim it to be, then the horizon should appear to curve at altitude, just not as much as you would expect from a globe earth. They typically deny that.
Eric Dubay, the author well known to the flat earth 'community', is one of those who insists in the very first claim in his free eBook "200 proofs..." and I quote - "The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos."
Hmmmm :-)
And that's just one of many inconsistencies in the FE hypothesis (since it's not a theory).
For example, many claim the flat earth is covered by a firmament dome and yet some don't believe there's a dome. Some claim the flat earth is a circle surrounded by a wall of ice (up against the firmament dome), others claim it goes beyond that point to an unknown distance with land kept hidden from us. Some claim the flat earth is square. Some claim there's no such thing as gravity, others claim the flat earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2 creating what we perceive as gravity. And so on.
There are some very basic questions that should have been answered if the earth really was flat, and yet they have never been answered.
Hence the earth clearly is not flat :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hermanschweizer9717 - You said "It was a dark chapter in American history and Stanley Kubrick did a outstanding job directing the big lye."
To this day, no pre-CGI science fiction film or TV series has ever recreated the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour upon hour of Apollo footage where even the dust and objects falls down at the rate of the moon's gravity. Even CGI today doesn't look quite right (CGI often looks a bit 'off', especially when modelling people).
The Stanley Kubrick claim is nonsense on a number of levels, where the only reason some mention Stanley Kubrick is because of "2001: A Space Odyssey", and yet the moon scenes in that movie are packed full of errors, including schoolboy errors, that we never EVER see in Apollo footage, for example;
(Links are blocked, so replace DOT with . and SLASH with /)
Part 1
tinyDOTccSLASH3iykuz
Part 3
tinyDOTccSLASH5iykuz
As you can see in part 2, "2001" never attempts to recreate 1/6 gravity for 'astronauts' on the surface, instead they just got their actors to walk carefully and precisely, as if they had lead in their boots :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hermanschweizer9717 - And going back to the footage;
Even the most modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
When the popular hoax theorists claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
(Replies with links are blocked here, so just change DOT to . and SLASH to /)
tinyDOTccSLASHe9jjuz
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion and wires, right? ;-)
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut fake footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity, not appearance) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
Until then it remains a fact that the footage was filmed in an environment with no air and 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was the moon :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - Why do you need me to teach you? Do you have official news TV channels and/or official news TV programmes in your country? Do you have official news programmes on the main radio stations? Do you have official national newspapers in your country? I'm sure the answer is yes.
If you have, then those are credible media outlets for news. They are official. Whether they lean to the left, or lean to the right or centre, whether you agree with their politics or not, whether they're not always correct, whether you see them as totally bias, isn't the point, they are official and hence credible news outlets in terms of journalism where what ever they say is taken seriously. Yes?
So upon seeing Buzz being interviewed by that little girl, I'm waiting for your examples of such news outlets who came to the conclusion that Buzz admitted the moon landings were a hoax and hence they reported it as such and had no doubts about their conclusions.
People who set up their own news channels on YT or a journalist's blog or opinion piece etc is not the same, since they are not official and therefore not credible.
You mentioned the Washington Post, so go ahead and post your link to the Washington Post reporting as fact that Buzz admitted the moon landings were a hoax. No doubts, no questions, not a mischievous piece to amuse their readers, but a statement of fact based upon what Buzz said in that interview (i.e. they took it seriously).
Btw, I just found the following while I'm waiting for your link: www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/
1
-
@jovitamoore6660 - Thank you for finally providing what I asked you for, but as you've conceded (and I've checked by translating that link into English), it does not come to the conclusion that Buzz said the moon landings never happened, instead it's more along the lines of being a "mischievous piece" that I referred to, where as you said it looks at both sides, for example;
Quote: "What if Buzz Aldrin had never been to the Moon? This is the question raised by a new video which recently emerged on the internet in which we hear the astronaut admit that he had never been on the lunar surface.
At least, this is one of the interpretations that can be made of his words when he answers a question asked by a little girl."
My objection here was to your comment and I quote "Buzz admitted to a child that we haven't gone back in such a long time because we didn't go there." where you stated that as a certainty without giving Buzz the benefit of the doubt of not explaining his point as clearly as he could have.
The article you found makes it clear that there are multiple interpretations, and therefore it doesn't come to the conclusion that you came to, it leaves it open for the reader.
You said "Just to make my position clear. I'm not interested in the moon landings per se; I'm interested in truth and lies and understanding what our mainstream media is."
Ok, but it doesn't really help if you're quick to refer to those who say the official line is correct as being shills :-) Definition: A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
You said "Did you notice in the context of the full interview that Buzz leaves out walking on the moon altogether?"
Buzz has described what it's like to walk on the moon many many times, where in fact his description is sometimes quite long because during Apollo 11 he spent a lot of time experimenting with different ways to move around (we can see it in the footage), hence I doubt he wants to go through that whole explanation every time someone asks him.
You said "If people just understand what our mainstream media is and how it operates that's a big step to being able to make money in the stock market."
The point is, proof of men landing on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972 has nothing to do with what any government or media says (a very important point that many people miss).
Thank you for the discussion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@webzhh - The Apollo TV camera was one of the world's smallest TV cameras at that time, back when TV cameras were HUGE machines used in TV studios, so no headcams possible back then :-)
Anyway, here's CBS back in 1969 explaining to their audience how the TV camera will be deployed on the moon, just before switching over to the live TV footage from the moon 40 seconds later;
[ Links disguised to get passed filter. Change the emojis 😮 and 🖍️ to . and / ]
tiny😮cc🖍️spsiuz
At 1:46, the CBS studio simulation shows the astronaut releasing the camera, and then 40 seconds later they switch over to the live broadcast from the moon.
Here's the Apollo 11 astronaut moving the TV camera into position, with footage showing the film from the LM and from the TV camera at the same time;
tiny😮cc🖍️upsiuz
So as you can see, the TV cameras were deployed/setup by the astronauts.
Btw, I'm not trying to change your mind here, if you choose to believe the moon landings were faked then that's fine, but just because you don't believe it that doesn't mean EVERYTHING is wrong and EVERYTHING is impossible :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxsmith695 - You continue to prove my point :-)
Neil is a trained astrophysicist who has published scientific papers in scientific journals.
ANYONE can be labelled an actor if they did just ONE acting role, including YOU kid.
Hence professional athletes, professional basketball players, professional football players, doctors, nurses, policemen, judges, pilots, teachers, musicians, soldiers, and so many more, have ALL been labelled actors because they acted in a role at least once, even if it was just a cameo.
But according to you, all the above and much more are no longer professionals in their fields the split second they did some acting, instead they are all just actors from now on :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nemesisxxprime - You said "how can I link you to a REFERENCE VIDEO used in the scientific community as the reference and raw unedited tapes?"
Nice try, but I HAVE ALL THE SPACECRAFT FILMS APOLLO DVD BOXSETS that you speak of, up to APOLLO 17! (Do the capital letters help btw? :-)).
I bought them long ago, over a period of about a year second hand on eBay, hence got the entire series for a fraction of the cost (buying only a few direct from Spacecraft Films to complete the set).
Much of the Apollo footage uploaded to YT were ripped directly from those Spacecraft Film DVDs, so I would know immediately if any of the footage has been tampered in any way.
You gave a claimed example of less than a 2 second response, so STATE your exact source if it wasn't YouTube.
If YOU own the appropriate Spacecraft Films DVD boxset and hence that is what you're referring to (since that is what you're implying here), then name the boxset and name the disk number and chapter title.
So yes my friend, I own and have watched ALL the raw unedited footage/audio in ALL of the Spacecraft Films Apollo DVDs, therefore there can be no more excuses from you, so please state your exact source and details here as I've requested (but hey, nice try :-)).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@luizotavio5241 - You said "Who said they foolled the Soviet Space Agency? You? I'm impressed"
So you are actually saying the USSR knew it was a hoax and said nothing? Really? :-)
The USSR had the means to DIRECTLY expose a moon landing hoax to the whole world at ANY TIME they wanted during the Apollo years and beyond, and yet they never did that, not after Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 or 17!
If the USSR knew it was a hoax as you're suggesting (i.e. they were not fooled), then you are saying the Soviets were happy to allow the USA to win the massive propaganda coup of capitalism vs communism over a LIE.
No my friend, there was absolutely no way the USSR would have EVER allowed the USA to achieve such a massive PR win for capitalism around the world if they knew it was a hoax. Instead, the USSR would have done everything they could to expose the hoax and hence swing the PR win in their favour, and they would have succeeded if it really was a hoax!
The fact that this never happened proves the USSR knew 100% that the USA had successfully landed men on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972 :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A wise man wouldn't blindly believe the claims of conspiracy theorists who say the US government lost proof and footage of the single most important event in history, much less over look the fact that there were SIX manned moon landings in total.
The ONLY footage that was lost was NASA's BACKUP copy of the Apollo 11 moonwalk, since that was the first time they would attempt a TV broadcast from the moon and so they made a BACKUP copy just in case people worldwide couldn't see it live on their TVs.
But the whole world did see it live and so NASA's backup copy of the SAME footage that we've all seen already wasn't needed, and so it was eventually lost.
All the other Apollo 11 footage is still available, and nothing was lost from Apollo 12 (except Alan Bean damaged the TV camera), or Apollo 13 (failed mission), or Apollo 14, or Apollo 15, or Apollo 16 or Apollo 17.
With a quick search you can find all the hour upon hour upon hour of Apollo footage here on YT, and on websites you can find scans of all the original Apollo photos, where from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17 the astronauts took nearly 15,000 photographs, ALL available for YOU to see.
So remind me, which proof or footage is missing again? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisbliss7 - On the contrary, you're referring to yourself there.
Conspiracy theorist and conspiracy believer is a respectful description of someone, a description which is FAR more respectful, accurate and honest than the derogatory names used by some like "flearthers" or "flatties" or "flattards" or "hoaxers" or "hoaxtards" or "truthers/troofers" etc.
Hence I don't say nonsense like "flattard", I say flat Earth believer or conspiracy believer/theorist.
I don't say hoaxtard, I say Apollo hoax believer or conspiracy believer/theorist.
Likewise, rocket hoax believer, alien/UFO believer, Space Shuttle hoax believer, ISS hoax believer and so on.
So it doesn't make any difference whether the conspiracy is true or not, if something is claimed to be a conspiracy then the theories are conspiracy theories presented by conspiracy theorists, and those who believe them are conspiracy believers.
So don't deny the term, own 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
-
@SonOfKong33 - My point is, to this day no-one has EVER recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (remember, no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to advanced CGI, which again wasn't available back in the 60s/70s.
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way in terms of gravity, THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
Until then it remains a fact that the footage was filmed in an environment with no air and 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was the moon :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
1
-
1
-
@stevenw4549 - You also said "On the highest altitude shuttle mission, they started seeing the effects of the radiation both in readings and some physical effects such as light flashes in their vision. They had to lower their altitude because of this."
Wrong again, seeing flashes (or shooting stars) has nothing to do with the Van Allen belts, those flashes are caused by COSMIC RAYS passing through the astronaut's eyes, as FIRST reported by the Apollo 11 astronauts, with scientific papers published in 1970 about it.
For example, search online for;
‘Seeing’ Cosmic Rays in Space
Read the articles and reports you find please.
The further we are from Earth, the less cosmic ray protection we receive from the body of the Earth shielding us and from Earth's magnetic field deflecting them, and so the rate increases. In other words, cosmic ray levels when we're beyond Earth's magnetic field are about 3 times higher than in low Earth orbit.
Therefore the higher the altitude of a spacecraft, the more likely it is that astronauts will see flashes, even with their eyes closed, as cosmic rays pass through their eyes.
Because of this, the occurrence of cataracts among astronauts is significantly higher than average;
Search online for; Apollo Astronauts Cataracts
Read the articles and reports you find please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JavedKhan26872 - You said "Allen Radiation belt dude. Wake up"
Oh sure, the Van Allen radiation belts that ONLY conspiracy theorists claim to be an impassable barrier knowing that gullible people like you would believe them without question :-)
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ryebread1001 - Actually, the Bible doesn't explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth.
Therefore all you would ever find are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all implicit!
Because of that, Christian churches/denominations for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE. None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. Why? Because you can find verses in the Bible that explicitly says the Earth is stationary.
In other words, the ONLY thing they had in common with flat Earth 'theory' was the idea that the Earth is stationary and at the center of everything.
Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches.
So overall, Christianity agrees that the Earth is a globe :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stillperfectgenerations5852 - Again, we can return to this discussion next year AFTER the SLS rocket launches and Orion goes to the moon and back (where you will claim it's a hoax, right? :-)).
As for technology, the last time I checked we no longer have a passenger plane capable of taking 100 people across the Atlantic at TWICE the speed of sound. In fact, today's passenger planes can't even reach the speed of sound.
And yet 'we' were able to do that with Concorde for decades, a passenger plane that first in 1969 (recognize the year?) :-)
Aircraft technology hasn't gone backwards, there simply wasn't a need for another plane like Concorde until it could be done easier, more efficiently and hence more economically.
Likewise rocket technology hasn't gone backwards, there simply wasn't a need for a rocket like the Saturn V to get people to the moon until it could be done easier, more efficiently and hence more economically, and that's what we'll get with the SLS.
If Space X continue to successfully develop its reusable rockets, then that technology with eventually replace the still expensive mostly use-once SLS technology, making it easier and more economical to send craft into low Earth orbit and to the moon and beyond, including manned craft.
Next? :-)
[Back later...]
1
-
1
-
@stillperfectgenerations5852 - You said "So, will Orion be manned? The NASA exec already said 2024 was never going to happen son!"
Orion is a space capsule son, not a lunar lander.
Provide your link to NASA admitting not sending people to the moon in 2024 (and no, I'm not talking about Trump's push for them to land in 2024).
In other words, either put up or shut up.
Again, when the SLS launches next year with the Orion space capsule, then assuming the mission is a success, then they would have proven they have the technology to send people to the moon and back to Earth, just as they did during Apollo 8 and Apollo 10.
Landing on the moon is just the next step with a lander, which again Trump is trying to push into 2024.
Regarding cognitive dissonance, don't use terms you don't understand please, it only makes you appear more ignorant than you've already shown :-)
1
-
1
-
@stillperfectgenerations5852 - Thank you for providing a link that confirms what I said, where the NASA manager casts doubt about LANDING on the moon in 2024, nothing about doubting their ability to send people to the moon in 2023/2024 as originally planned.
So to repeat what I said before and I quote "That was the plan BEFORE Trump, where the next step was for a mission to the SURFACE of the moon in 2028.
Trump has been pushing to bring the 2028 mission forward to 2024 for his own motives, which I've argued numerous times is unnecessarily risky and hence unlikely."
So try READING and UNDERSTANDING the links you post next time, otherwise you'll only make a fool of yourself yet again. Is that clear? :-)
As for that out of context YouTube video that I've seen already, lol, show me the whole interview/program please.
Remember, you are a flat Earth believer, so why are you even mentioning the Van Allen belts? They are completely invisible, we can't see them or detect them from the surface of the Earth and hence they were not detected until spacecraft with Geiger counters entered them in 1958.
So my question is, who is the source that YOU trust over the existence of the VABs?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stillperfectgenerations5852 - You cried "Op Fishbowl proves the Firmament, over a Flat Earth."
No son, it proves you're a coward who can't accept the fact that you've been proven wrong :-)
Operation Fishbowl doesn't fit in with ANY flat Earth model, which is why you can't explain how it does, where it contradicts FE claims that nothing man made can reach such altitudes.
So before asking for the same evidence you've been given before, you still have to explain how Operation Fishbowl fits in with any flat Earth model.
Simply put, if a rocket can reach the dome as you claim, then you are also saying a rocket can reach the moon and the sun.
flatearthmodels.com/collections
miro.medium.com/max/1425/0*KtxLDkMWeQMH7xBb.jpg
You said "V.B. was a nazi atheist", which is amusing given that one of the most popular FE theorists around today, Eric Dubay, is a holocaust denier and Nazi sympathizer who claims Hitler was a man of piece :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MissMillyHerself-kt6yx - Firstly, your solid block of text is not visible in this thread, probably too long and/or includes comments that triggered the YT AI to act, a problem that we all face (btw, ever heard of paragraphs? :-)).
Anyway, I can see your full reply in my email notification only, where you started with "And the basis of this statement is?..."
The basis of my statement is your reply to worldisfilledb9334, where you played the "I have a degree" card to dismiss him laughing at Eddie with regards to math, where no-one with a degree in mathematics would fail to see the flaws and lies in the mathematics presented by flat Earth theorists.
And what really caught my attention was the "them and us" comment from you where you said and I quote "Don't be misdirected. ..Just because your "internets" and other external forces are telling/convincing you that this theory is all of rubbish and all evidence and research has been blocked, pushed down, made restricted or in all ways extremely difficult to access on this matter, does NOT mean there's isn't an entire raft of us who believe we can either prove otherwise, or add some serious credence to the conversation. Our platform has just been pulled beneath our feet. Don't sell yourself short because you "think" you know something."
So any 'group' can make any claim they want no matter how ridiculous and make any accusations against others that they want, and yet deserve to be taken seriously on that basis? No need for them to present evidence that actually holds up to scrutiny?
Would you apply the same to a growing group who claim mathematics is all lies and evil as they proceed to present some of the most laughable arguments you've ever heard? :-|
So in what way does a belief in a flat Earth warrant being taken seriously when it presents no evidence to support it that holds up to scrutiny, not even one.
You said "Do I agree that he is (along with many others. More than people want to believe) are on to something? Or that the earth may be flat....well yes, yes I do."
And that's the problem, hence THAT is the basis of my reply, because someone with a degree is mathematics (which I assume you were saying) should be able to quickly see through any flat Earth claims based upon mathematics, so I have to question your comments and motives here when you fail to see how flat Earth mathematic claims are wrong, especially given your 13 day old account.
I doubt this is your first YT account, so what was your main account before please? Or is that a secret? :-|
1
-
1
-
@MissMillyHerself-kt6yx - I'm going to try to focus on your comments that are directly relevant to this discussion and ignore your side tracking remarks.
Anyway, you said "Its a little alarming that you say anyone with a "ridiculous" theory or notion or idea does not DESERVE to be taken seriously....Seriously? I in no way think you are ridiculous I do however think (as far as the fundamental basis of this theory and being able to prove or put a full stop to which argument is right or wrong) that you are certainly "punching above your weight) and more over not willing to admit that possibility."
Whenever I choose to look into a conspiray theory, I take the time to do my research.
As a practicing amateur astronomer (on and off :-)) since the 70s who started to see more and more flat Earth believers trolling the science videos I was participating in, where they set out to spoil discussions with cries of "fake", "lies", "hoax" etc, I decided to look into flat Earth theory so that I know what I'm talking about and hence would avoid misunderstanding and misrepresenting their claims.
Rather than watch videos on YT like most flat Earth believers, I decided to go to the original sources and hence find and read as many of the flat Earth books I could find published over the last 150 years or so.
Here's the flat Earth books that I've acquired and READ;
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
So I'm certainly not punching above my weight, and I've done my research, but nice try with your assumption :-)
My initial goal for acquiring all those books was to see if just one of them featured an accurate undistorted flat map of a flat Earth.
None of them do, as I expected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beetlejuice4357 - [Edit: This reply is shadow banned btw, so only you can read it in your notifier window if you expand the reply and NOT the thread]
If someone tried to project the map of the Earth around a cube then it would be distorted, and hence it would take you no time to find two locations on that cube where the distance measured DOESN'T match the real world distance, proving the Earth is not a cube.
If someone tried to project the map of the Earth around a pyramid then it would be distorted, and hence it would take you no time to find two locations on that pyramid where the distance measured DOESN'T match the real world distance, proving the Earth is not a pyramid.
If someone tried to project the map of the Earth around a cylinder then it would be distorted, and hence it would take you no time to find two locations on that cylinder where the distance measured DOESN'T match the real world distance, proving the Earth is not a cylinder.
The point is, I've presented my proof to flat Earth believers like you for YEARS and yet not one of you has ever found even ONE example of a distance on a globe that doesn't match the real world distance, hence proving the globe is the only shape where the map of the Earth is not distorted, and therefore proving the Earth is a globe :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "then show you the NASA photos on their website of the Lunar module made of wafer thin Aluminium, kitchen foil stuffed into holes, missing rivets, and held together with duct tape."
And right there I would stop you, because if I covered a car in wafer thin aluminium foil and held it all in place with duct tape, would you come to the conclusion that the car is MADE out of wafer thin aluminium foil?
Of course not, and yet THAT is the logic you're presenting here :-)
Another perfect example of flawed logic is "Also guided by a computer 1 millionth of the power of your mobile phone."
During the 60s the USA and USSR landed several unmanned spacecraft on the moon with even LESS computing power, and in 1970 and 1972 and 1976 the USSR landed spacecraft that collected a tiny amount of moon dust and then returned that dust back to Earth for analysis, again with LESS computing power.
The calculations needed to send a spacecraft to the moon, and then land and take-off and return to Earth, doesn't change just because we stuff people inside, the calculations are exactly the same.
So if there was enough computing power to send all those unmanned spacecraft to the moon and back with LESS computing power than the Apollo missions, then clearly there was more than enough computer power available for the Apollo missions.
Therefore I wouldn't say you were crazy, just ignorant and uninformed ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tygajones4509 - In contrast...
The MAP of the Earth around a globe is just ONE piece of evidence that proves the Earth is a globe.
Take a physical 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 between those locations and work out the distance in miles (based upon the size/scale of the globe) and it will match the 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 on your globe.
NO OTHER SHAPE offers that result, much less a flat circle like the AE/Gleason map hijacked by flat Earth theorists.
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 .
Likewise, to prove the Earth is not a globe, all you need to do is find two locations where the measurement of the distance between them on the physical globe is DIFFERENT to the distance measured in the real world.
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. :-)
1
-
@tygajones4509 - Come on, really? If the dome is suppose to be solid and a rocket is travelling at GREAT speed, then how can a rocket hit the solid dome without damage, much less without exploding?
Hence your video is a classic example of how charlatans take information and TWIST it because they know it will fool some people.
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 cry out "It hit the dome, it hit the dome!!!".
But now here are the REAL 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 (I've set it to the right timestamp);
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni7S8yyYrAw&t=92
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. 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 in your video!
Again, in some other videos (like yours) the camera is placed BELOW the yoyo despin device and 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 lying to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tygajones4509 - You said "The dome is curved so naturally the distance to reach it would be much shorter at various points on the map"
Shorter at the SIDES of the claimed dome above the claimed wall of ice that it's supposed to be up against! It cannot be below 3000 miles at the locations the rockets were launched from, and those rockets certainly didn't cover a distance of 3000 miles from launch to when the yoyo despin was deployed.
The fact is, the model of a flat Earth with a firmament dome makes it IMPOSSIBLE for any rocket to reach the dome from the locations they were launch from in less than 3000 miles.
Rockets did not scrape or bounce off the dome, that's simply you and the video maker not understanding what you're seeing and so you make something up to fit in with your beliefs.
So the only person who is ignorant here is yourself, where you don't even know the flat Earth that you say you believe.
Here's another simple fact. If there is footage of rockets hitting or bouncing off a dome, then that means you can WORK OUT the height of the dome from that footage. And yet to this day, no flat Earth theorist/believer knows the height of the claimed firmament dome, they ALL say they don't know!
If you can see it, if you can touch it, then you can measure it. And yet no-one has, therefore your claim is false.
And claiming people who disagree with you are only doing so because they are probably being paid by governments or agencies is a rather spineless accusation my friend (sorry but it's true :-)), one that is used by believers of almost every conspiracy theory out there!
Such an accusation is more about you imagining yourself to be a hero fighting against evil government agents, instead of just accept you're having a debate with an ordinary guy who knows you're wrong.
But hey, NASA only hire the BEST in any given field, so I'll take that as a backhanded compliment ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@federalinvestigation9962 - So let me explain how I know the Apollo missions are fact, where people like yourself often don't get it because you're too wrapped up in playing the victim and/or playing the 'hero' against the 'evil' authorities. It's always 'them and us' rather than the facts with you.
Anyway (and again), proof of men landing on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972 has NOTHING to do with what any government or the media says!
Instead, in the 50+ years since the first moon landing, top scientists worldwide from fields such as physics (and astrophysics), rocket science, geology (and astrogeology), computing, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, electronics, and much more, have examined and verified ALL Apollo evidence, including scientists who dislike the USA and nations who would have given anything to prove it was a hoax (where their scientists would have been national heroes if they proved a hoax with verifiable evidence).
No scientist from ANY nation has ever announced finding fake Apollo evidence within his/her field of expertise, and no scientist from ANY nation has EVER said the missions were impossible (or even improbable) based upon evidence within his/her field of expertise .
In other words, if for over 50 years the Apollo evidence is more than good enough for the world's best scientists and the world's best engineers in all the relevant fields of science and engineering that they're EXPERTS in, then it's more than good enough for me.
And since you would probably reject any evidence that comes from NASA, how about 3rd party evidence of the moon landings?
(External links are blocked, so just replace DOT with . and SLASH with / in the link below)
tinyDOTccSLASHaxoluz
And don't reject it because it's Wikipedia, since the original sources for all that information can be found in the Citations and References sections at the bottom of the page :-)
Facts matter my friend, they always have and they always will.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Irrelevant my friend :-)
Gravity is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is. Just as magnetism is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is. Just as light is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is.
Hence to explain how gravity works, we have theories of gravity. To explain how magnetism works, we have theories of magnetism. To explain how light works, we have theories of light.
The problem is, when scientists say they don't know what 'X' is, some people take that to mean the scientists are saying 'X' doesn't exist.
But that's not the case, the scientists know "X" exist and they have theories that explains and predicts how "X" works, it's just that they don't know what it really is (replace 'X' with 'Gravity' or 'Magnetism' or 'Light' etc).
I hope that explanation helps :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@buddyfeno5224 - Thanks for replying, I'll focus on the main points.
You said "I believe we're under some kind of solid Dome / electromagnetic torus field, its rotation creates the electromagnetic field Tesla discovered"
I didn't ask you to make up a version of a dome :-) If you believe there's a solid dome then fine, but don't claim to know any more than that.
Btw, why do so many flat Earth believers refer to Tesla?
You said "i dont believe its a plane that goes on forever, many things are unknown due to the taking over of pseudo science..."
Don't blame others for flat Earth believer's lack of research and unwillingness to explore please. That's a flat Earth believer problem, it has nothing to do with others.
For example, ALL flat Earth theorists claim the South Pole doesn't exist, and yet not ONE flat Earth theorist has ever booked onto a tour of the South Pole to prove those tours are fake. Tours that ANYONE can go on if they can afford it :-)
You said "the earth is motionless and proven by science"
Either you trust science or you don't. You can't cherry pick and distort the science when it suits you. If science can't be trusted then don't refer to science as evidence.
You said "the Biblical creation is the closest ive seen and supported by real science"
Again this has nothing to do with science that you don't trust, and neither has it got anything to do with the Bible.
There are ZERO verses in the Bible that explicitly states the shape of the Earth, flat or a ball, and throughout most of Christian history the producers of every Bible you've read, i.e. Christian churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts, have said the Earth is a globe (albeit a stationary globe until recently). No Christian church or denomination in history has ever preached a flat Earth, only a globe Earth.
After we've discussed the points above, I would be happy to present my proof of the Earth being a globe that you (yes YOU) can directly check yourself, proof that has nothing to do with science :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kipthecourtjester - This is about my proof of a globe Earth, so lets stay focussed on that please, since you did agree to listen. Remember? :-)
You said "It’s a ‘flat’ map."
Correct. That's the point! Remember, I said and I quote "lets take an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as a town or a city."
Hence on the scale of a town or city, the natural rise and fall of the landscape will typically be more than the effect of the curvature of the Earth, therefore we can ignore curvature just as we usually ignore hills and valleys for general maps of our towns/cities.
Hence I'm trying to establish something that we can both agree on here as a starting point, and I think we can both agree (?) that if we could fly a craft up high enough with a camera to photograph a town directly below, then we can create an accurate photograph (flat) of the entire town, even if we took multiple photos and 'stitched' them together, instead of capturing the town all in one shot.
Then if we 'traced' over that flat photograph of the town to graphically capture all the streets and buildings and landmarks etc, then we would have created an accurate flat map of our town.
After all, if the map of the town/city was wrong, then people using that map would find out VERY quickly that the map is wrong and therefore will stop using it because they found out through experience that they can't trust it. Right?
Do you agree with the above? If not, then please explain why not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But before leaving you to your own ignorance, I must address this perfect example (that caught my eye) of your ignorance and your gullibility and your lack of research when you parroted without thinking;
Quote: "NASA means deception in Hebrew."
NASA does NOT mean deception or deceive in Hebrew, that's a lie from those who distort the Bible. The Hebrew word meaning deceive is NASHA, pronounced as "Na-shar" (you can HEAR it here);
www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h5377
NASA in Hebrew, pronounced as "Na-Sar" or "Naw-Saw", means to lift, bear up, carry, or take.
www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Word_of_the_Week/Archived/Nasa/nasa.html
Quote: "The Hebrew word of the week is nasa ("to lift up, take up, carry")"
Here's a few more links;
bibleapps.com/hebrew/5375.htm
www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H5375/nasa.htm
www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/nasa.html
messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-hebrew-H5375-nasa-page-2.html
studybible.info/strongs/H5375
hebrewwordlessons.com/2019/01/20/nasa-lift-carry-and-bear-the-weight
Therefore the fact that you believed the flat Earth theorist claim about what NASA means in Hebrew proves just how easy it is for flat Earth theorists to manipulate you, hence proving the ignorance of your comments in this thread.
Simply put: If after reading the above you still think NAShA is the same as NASA, then your opinion on this subject is clearly a load of SHIrT ;-)
Bye :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bronneberg315 - You said "Censorship is very real. You can't even search for exact title of some of the popular videos without scrolling through pages and pages of debunking videos"
Which means the "shoe is on the other foot" now, as I will explain :-)
Not long ago, Google/YouTube changed the search algorithm to prevent conspiracy links/videos from completely dominating search lists as they were for several years!
In other words, if a few years ago I searched Google/YouTube for "Apollo moon landings", then instead of a list mostly about the Apollo moon landings, that list would be completely dominated by Apollo HOAX videos, which is unacceptable!
Following the changes however, such a search is now dominated by links/videos about the Apollo moon landings, as requested.
That's how it should be!
So now if you want to find conspiracy videos (moon landings, flat Earth, ISS hoax, etc) then you have to be more specific in your search, which is not that difficult (you just need to be smarter in your search).
That's also how it should be and hence Google/YouTube have simply redressed the balance. (i.e. you have to wade through pages of debunking videos now as I had to wade through pages of conspiracy videos back then).
Therefore it's not censorship since nothing has been deleted, it's just not as easy for you as it was before.
Whether it's gone too far depends on your conspiracy point of view of course, but the videos and links are all still there, but you just have to work harder and smarter to find them compared to a few years ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bronneberg315 - If it makes no sense to you, then that's how it will remain, since I've explained it already.
I've also been an amateur astronomer for over 30 years, that's just one of my passions, and hence over those years it's the space related conspiracy theories that have caught my attention and interest.
As for hitting an easy target, how can they be 'easy' if they're suppose to be right and I'm suppose to be wrong? :-)
I could also ask - why are you spending so much time day after day having debates with people you don't know online like myself? So were you bullied at school and now need to take it out on strangers online? Is this your job now? ;-)
Of course I'm not being serious in my last paragraph above but you can't pretend that if you told all your family and friends about this thread and the discussions you've had with me (a stranger) over the last 4 days that they would all be impressed. You can't pretend that none of them would see your presence here in a negative light (even if they don't say it to your face).
Still, whatever you reply next, I think I prefer to end this here. Despite the insults that crept in (you really can't help yourself it seems :-)), I actually enjoyed the discussion we've had over the last several replies and so I prefer to leave on that 'relatively' more positive note.
(Btw, there is a partial solution that conspiracy believers can use on YouTube for getting around the low priority in searches, which still surprises me that no-one has thought of it as yet... but that's a discussion for another time).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@partypooper8198 - You miss my point my friend.
EVERYONE can think of the reasons why Concorde had to end, and yet for some reason people don't appear to be able to think of reasons why the largest and the most powerful and the most expensive rocket in history (the Saturn V) wasn't sustainable and therefore had to end.
Think about that please :-) Why the difference?
And now the USA have finally built an equally large, expensive and slightly more powerful rocket called the SLS, which recently took the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth on a 25 day mission that was completely successful, a mission called Artemis 1.
So they can build such rockets just as they can build supersonic passenger planes, but they're never going to be common place until certain problems are solved, such as noise and cost for supersonic passenger planes and cost for 'moon rockets', where Space X are on the right path to bringing the costs down significantly via reusability.
Until then, the SLS based Artemis 2 mission in a few years will be a manned mission to lunar orbit, hence similar to Apollo 8.
Once a lunar lander is ready, then future missions will see people on the surface of the moon once again, but eventually unsustainable rockets like the SLS will be replaced with reusable rockets from private companies like Space X.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johngeraghty1142 - Incorrect, since neither Neil nor Eric agreed to such a debate, therefore there was nothing for either of them to back out from.
Besides, should Neil also debate those who claim the Earth is hollow/concave, that the Universe is electric, that the moon is a spaceship, that the Space Shuttle was a hoax, that the ISS is a hoax, that Nibiru (Planet X) is on it's way to destroy the Earth, that Mars rovers are a hoax, that extra-terrestrials are visiting Earth in UFOs, that crop circles are made by aliens, that alien civilizations have been found on Mars and the moon, and so on?
What makes you think flat Earth theorists are a special case for debate? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@silver.gambit9107 - You said "ok while I don’t agree with him on that I also know you were trying to be condescending which is disrespectful."
And yet you're the person who said to me and I quote "what you don’t know what round is buddy? It’s like a circle but three dimensional :)", so less of the hypocrisy please :-)
Regarding organized religion, Adriel said "I'm not part of any organized deceptive ..."ists", neither do i trust any of it."
How is that respectful?
And said "Not really intrested what organized religion say, but what the Bible say. I got saved 6 years ago, and I will never rely on organized religion to teach me ANYTHING."
How is that respectful?
And said "Many claiming to be Christians and teachers, are not, but are deceivers as warned by Jesus."
How is that respectful? And how is he any different given that after being 'saved' only 6 years ago thinks the Bible teaches us the Earth is flat?
And finally, I didn't say you shouldn't reply to him as you did, I even said you were not to know, but I don't see why you would have a problem with me pointing out his disrespectful attitude towards organized religion and the Bible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ - Sorry but I'm still not clear what you're saying, so I'll explain my position...
At the start of the 60s the USSR were ahead of the USA in space, with many firsts such as the first spacecraft to the moon, the first artificial satellite, the first man in space, and so on, where their advance space problem could track spacecraft to the moon and beyond.
Fearful of USSR's dominance the USA decided to send men to the moon to provide the investment needed to challenge the USSR and it paid off, because by the mid-60s the USA had caught up and then surpassed the USSR in space, allowing them to successful land men on the moon by the end of the decade.
So those questioning the moon landings will need to explain how the USA tricked the USSR into believing they sent men to the moon during Apollo 8, Apollo 10, Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and finally Apollo 17, landing during 6 of those missions.
I can understand the USA tricking them the first time with Apollo 8 if it was launched in secret (and yet it wasn't), but to trick them 9 times?
Impossible :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@truthsauce - You said "But how can we know for SURE that he really WASN'T told to be quiet?"
How can we know for sure Joe isn't a trained assassin? :-)
Any of us can make accusations about others, but without evidence our accusations will be unfounded.
I understand that your problem is with Joe switching from being a moon landing denier to a moon landing supporter, but why should it ONLY be suspicious in one direction?
That is, no-one finds it suspicious when someone becomes a moon landing denier, a flat Earth believer, a vaccine denier, a covid denier, or a believer of other conspiracies.
But whenever a well known conspiracy believer changes his mind and stops believing the conspiracy, then others are quick to claim that the 'authorities' got to him to keep quiet, often with claims that there were threats to him or his family.
It appears to be based upon the assumption that once you go wack you never go back ;-) (Well, I thought that was funny...I hope you didn't take offense).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@levelmeans-flat734 - [Sorry, I didn't receive a notification of your reply]
You said "There is distortion on your globe which you claim (converging, and diverging longitude lines with distances the same?? duhhhhhhhh."
WRONG, and easily demonstrated with the proof of the Earth being a globe that I've given to many flat Earth believers over the years and yet NONE of you can debunk it, so lets see if you can be the first :-)
Simply put, if you get hold of a reasonably good 12 inch wide globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the globe or how far apart they are!
It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre.
So please test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first flat Earth believer in history to find a distance flaw in the map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE :-)
Given your claim about the globe being distorted, it should be VERY EASY for you to find several examples of incorrect distances across the globe, much less just ONE example as I've requested.
So the fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is a globe.
I look forward to your two locations for which the distance measured is wrong on the globe that YOU claimed to be distorted :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sigmasd10 - Look in the mirror first before calling others ignorant, otherwise you'll only succeed in embarrassing yourself again and again, as you've done here.
For example, here's a quote from the ESO website about the capabilities of their VLT telescope, the very same telescope that you mentioned here;
Google Search: Could the VLT take a picture of the Moon-landing sites?
And click on the link to the ESO website (i.e. FAQ VLT/Paranal | ESO United Kingdom)
"Q: Could the VLT take a picture of the Moon-landing sites?
A: Yes, but the images would not be detailed enough to show the equipment left behind by the astronauts. Using its adaptive optics system, the VLT has already taken one of the sharpest ever images of the lunar surface as seen from Earth: However, the smallest details visible in this image are still about one hundred metres on the surface of the Moon, while the parts of the lunar modules which are left on the Moon are less than 10 metres in size. A telescope 200 metres in diameter would be needed to show them. Although the VLT, when used as an interferometer (VLTI), reaches the same equivalent resolution, it cannot be used to observe the Moon. You may be wondering whether the Hubble Space Telescope would have better luck. In fact, while a space telescope is not affected by the atmosphere of the Earth, it is not substantially closer to the Moon. Also, the Hubble is smaller than the VLT, so it isn’t able to obtain images that show the surface of the Moon with higher resolution. The sharpest images of the lunar landers have been taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: Apollo Landing Sites Revisited."
I included the full quote for reference, but it's the point at the end that I'm highlighting here, where they expose the nonsense of your claim that "The cameras on the LRO do not have sufficient resolution to resolve something as small as an Apollo artefact on the Moon".
They are the experts on what can or cannot be captured by cameras/telescopes at various distances from an object, not you!
Simply put, the VLT views the moon from 240,000 miles away, whereas the LRO is in orbit around the moon and hence significantly CLOSER (dropping to as low as 12 miles).
Therefore for you to claim the LRO couldn't photograph the Apollo artefacts on the moon and then compare it to telescopes here on Earth, all without even considering the difference that the distant from the lunar surface makes, really says it all :-)
In fact, your reply here suggests you assumed the LRO was a satellite orbiting the Earth! And hence that says it all too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anyway, getting back to Neil...
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SiK2712 - Believers of every conspiracy theory think they are right because of so-called anomalies my friend, but that doesn't make their conspiracy beliefs correct :-)
As for questioning things, I prefer researching answers over making assumptions, hence I own and have read all the following flat Earth books (which is why I wanted to know which version you believe);
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
In other words, I'm not dismissing something that I haven't researched, I've done my homework.
So you take care too and remember, questioning things is fine (that's how science works), everyone should do it, but making up your own answers to such questions is not fine (that's how conspiracy theories work), otherwise you will be walking blindly into the daylight while assuming it's night ;-)
1
-
@SiK2712 - Nope, since you still haven't explained what's so special about flat Earth.
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to the theorists for other conspiracy claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
And which flat Earth theorists? The theorists who think there's a dome? The theorists who think there's no dome? The theorists who think there's an edge? The theorists who think there's no edge? And so on.
Until there's a definitive model of a flat Earth that is agreed among flat Earth theorists through debate and 'research', then there's no reason for ANY scientist to take flat Earth theorists seriously, hence no reason to debate those who don't engage in debate themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gmain1977 - You said "flesh could not go past radiation belts as it would kill humans."
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arizonarafa - If you look at my replies, you'll see that no matter how long they are, I make them readable with paragraphs. I never present a solid block of text. So could you at least TRY to make your replies more readable please? Thanks in advance.
So I'm not going to go through your whole reply (sorry, I do want to read it, but I can't accept solid blocks of text my friend), but I did skim it to see what sticks out, and the following caught my attention;
"There is an interview.. of Buzz Aldrin I think.. any way an astronaut of the Apollo missions...and he is asked... ". How did you manage going through the Van Allen belts... ". And his answer was. ". Huummm. I don't know , huuumm. We never saw that as an issue , I guess we just went through them. ". Honestly... Don't you find that answer unscientific ?? "
I believe you may be thinking of Alan Bean rather than Buzz Aldrin.
The point here is that Van Allen belts are harmless to pass through quickly, hence the astronauts would have only known about the belts during training, but they were irrelevant to the mission itself and so there was nothing for them to report. As I will explain in my next reply...
1
-
@arizonarafa -
To continue from my last reply...
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006);
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That's why low Earth orbit spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will be on board for weeks and some for many months.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirms that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the belts in around 2 hours, hence it wasn't a problem.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours.
Hence there's no inconsistency, just a lack of understanding.
You only thought the belts were a problem because conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves told you so... and that's the problem with many conspiracy theories :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tunisianyoyoer2603 - I'll answer in two replies.
Firstly, regarding going to the moon and back, this is not unique to the USA.
In 1970, 1972, and 1976, USSR's unmanned spacecraft called Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24 travelled to the moon's surface, collected samples, and returned back to Earth 101g, 55g and 170g of lunar samples collected respectively (326g in total).
Those were large unmanned craft, weighing about 6 tons and standing about 12ft high upon landing.
The significantly larger and more powerful manned Apollo program return 382kg of rocks/samples, that's well over 1000 times more than the USSR (that's the difference between men and machines).
The point is, BOTH nations achieved sending spacecraft to the moon's surface and back to Earth in the early 70s, where the USA's craft were manned and the USSR's craft were unmanned.
1
-
@tunisianyoyoer2603 - Secondly,
During the 60s BOTH the USSR and USA were able to keep people alive in low Earth orbit for days/weeks, and BOTH landed several unmanned spacecraft on the surface of the moon and even broadcast the images back to Earth.
But unmanned spacecraft don't require air to breath, or food to eat, or water to drink, or space to move etc, and hence manned spacecraft are significantly larger and heavier to keep people alive, and therefore require bigger and more powerful rockets.
So sending people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket (thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal) for that purpose and it worked like a dream, hence they were able to use it to send their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
In contrast, the USSR/Russia built the massively expensive N1-L3 rocket, but unfortunately it was a nightmare, it blew up during every test launch and so the USSR didn't have a rocket to send their cosmonauts to the moon. Therefore they eventually had to cancel their manned moon landing program.
China became only the third nation to build rockets capable of sending people into space in 2003, thanks to help from Russia, hence they're getting there with their space program and are working towards building their own Saturn V class rocket for their future manned moon landings.
Now look up NASA's massive SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful, which is now complete and due to launch this March, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The same SLS rocket is scheduled to take a crew of astronauts inside the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth in 2024.
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not double talk John, you simply have to stop taking everything literally. For example, if I drew a square 300 cm by 300 cm, then you would have no problem recognizing it as a square. But if I made an error and it was 301 cm by 300 cm, then technically that's not a square, that's a rectangle, but to the naked eye the difference is so tiny that it would look like a square.
Likewise, make a model of the Earth that stands 300 cm high and the width would be 301 cm, which is not a perfect sphere, that's an oblate spheroid. But also the Earth bulges a fraction more in the south compared to the north, where on that model the difference is about 1 mm (hence the pear-shape) which again is too small to be seen with the naked eye. In other words, that model Earth would look like a perfect sphere to the naked eye.
And yes, men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972. To this day, not a single Apollo hoax claim holds up to close scrutiny. Fact :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see you posted that same claim as a new comment, so I'll post my reply here too (it would be interested to see if you post your video from that Electric Universe believer who says the Earth is a globe, as proof that gravity doesn't exist on your flat Earth :-D).
Here are just two experiments that demonstrates gravity;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone.
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same.
So how does the flat Earth claims about density and buoyancy explain the attraction demonstrated? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
So how does the flat Earth claims about density and buoyancy explain the increase in weight demonstrated? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over and the same results observed for centuries.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of gravity :-)
The ONLY reason flat Earth theorists deny gravity is because it supports a globe earth, hence you deny it on principle rather than on the facts :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gregoryrogalsky6937 - You said "Gwabbity :) . The force with no opposite or equal. What a joke. Uh huh.. you say, It's real, cause you say it is?"
No, I said Gravity is a FACT proven by experiments (which even YOU can carry out with a little effort).
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone.
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same.
So how does density and buoyancy explain the attraction demonstrated?
The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
So how does density and buoyancy explain the increase in weight demonstrated?
The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over and the same results observed for centuries.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of gravity :-)
I hope that information helps.
The ONLY reason flat Earth theorists deny gravity is because it supports a globe Earth, hence you deny it on principle rather than facts :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wildboar7473 - Typical lies from you (if truth is on your side, then why do you always need to lie?) :-)
Thomas, ALL the moon rocks given out by NASA as gifts to nations were encased in resin (Lucite) to preserve them, where they were also catalogued and mounted on a plaque. NASA NEVER gave out valuable moon rocks unprotected where they would be exposed to air, water, sweat, coffee spills, micro-organisms, etc.
The claim that the unprotected single lump of petrified wood was from the moon was an error made by the Rijksmuseum (an ART museum), where they incorrectly assumed that the unprotected and uncatalogued rock they inherited was from the moon.
That rock was donated to the museum by the family of the former Dutch Prime Minister, William Drees after he died. It was given to William Drees by the US ambassador to commemorate the astronaut's visit to the Netherlands;
media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg
The museum were warned in 2006 that the rock was highly unlikely to be from the moon because it was given to William Drees just 3 months after Apollo 11 (NASA gave out moon rocks as gifts 1 YEAR after Apollo 11), but they ignored the warning and displayed it as a moon rock.
3 years later that warning was proven to be correct when a visiting geologist saw the rock and IMMEDIATELY knew it can't be from the moon and informed the museum.
The moon rocks given to the Dutch are actually in the Boerhaave museum (in storage), as reported here before the petrified rock story broke in 2009;
youtube.com/watch?v=xNMnPkQZNjk
And remember, that was 2009, 11 YEARS ago, hence if NASA were giving out fake rocks then wouldn't you expect more 'fake' moon rocks to have been discovered by now? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterhodgson2247 - Does a helicopter land with the blades at maximum rotation producing maximum thrust? Nope! Did the Harrier Jump Jet land with the jets at full thrust? Nope! Do Space X rockets land with the engines at full thrust? Nope! So why do you assume the Lunar Module (LM) would land at full thrust?
To make any flying vehicle hover the downward thrust must match the WEIGHT of that vehicle. If the thrust is greater than its weight then the vehicle will rise, and if the thrust is less than its weight then the vehicle will drop.
An Apache Helicopter light on fuel weighs around 11,000 pounds, which means it needs to produce 11,000 pounds of downward thrust just to hover above a surface.
In the 1/6 gravity of the moon, the LM upon landing weighed about 2600 pounds, hence the rocket engine needed to produce a thrust of around 2600 pounds to hover above the surface, and less than 2600 pounds to actually land.
So given that an Apache helicopter produces over 4 TIMES the downward thrust of the LM upon landing, then why would you expect a crater on the moon when that helicopter doesn't carve out a crater when landing in the desert? :-)
Instead, helicopters on Earth and the LM on the moon may blow away the top few inches of loose surface sand/dust over a WIDE area, which is too shallow to call a crater and hence it wouldn't show up on film!
For example, please point out any craters you can see carved out of the sand by the following helicopters;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpNuUa-13DQ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMe5xP99678
So no crater my friend :-)
1
-
1
-
Serge Rambert - No problem :-)
You said "Then, the very hot gases exhausted from the reactor of the LEM should produce significant calcination marks on the hard ground (Actually I did myself this kind of experiment at the time of the Apollo missions with small rockets)."
Er, but did you do your experiment in a vacuum chamber, given that the moon is a vacuum? Did you carry out that same experiment using dust of similar type and properties to moon dust?
Hence you can't just rely upon assumptions my friend :-)
For example, look at this high resolution photo of the area directly below the Apollo 11 LM;
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5921HR.jpg
Correct me if I'm wrong, but dosn't the ground directly beneath the engine appear slightly discolored (a brownish tint)? And I'm clearly seeing radial lines in the dust moving outwards, revealing the more tightly packed and cracked dust surface that is under the loose surface dust.
Also, on Earth, dust is slowed and trapped by the dense surrounding air to create dust clouds. There's no air on the moon to trap the dust, hence any dust 'blasted' by the engine exhaust will travel away at great speed to land quite some distance away from the LM, hence no deposits on the craft itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Serge Rambert - You can't make assumptions about how much the ground should or shouldn't be discolored, and that photograph is the closest to seeing directly underneath, no other photo is closer. Besides, don't you think it's a little arrogant to assume that for 50 years the BEST experts on rocket and spacecraft design worldwide have ALL somehow missed what you're claiming? :-)
And present your calculations for the push you speak of. After all, I presented you with a link that calculated the force upon the surface. Can you explain why you believe it was wrong? (Here's the link again);
www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crater
Quote: "Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly..."
The neighborhood WAS effected, but again you are making assumptions about of how you think the dust should behave and deciding that anything else is wrong. Apollo 12 for example was deliberately landed close to the Surveyor probe (160 m) and highlights how the dust behaved;
www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/experiments/surveyor/
Quote: "Many of these craters were on the side of the Surveyor facing the Lunar Module. It is likely that these are the result of a sand-blasting effect from dust that was blown away from the Apollo landing site by rocket exhaust."
And NASA recommends that spacecraft visiting the moon near to the Apollo 11 and 17 sites land at least 2 km away. Hence read section "A2-3 TOUCHDOWN TARGETING" on the following report;
www.nasa.gov/pdf/617743main_NASA-USG_LUNAR_HISTORIC_SITES_RevA-508.pdf
So again go by the facts please, not assumptions, speculation and guesses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Serge Rambert - And you think one solid block of text makes your point because....?
Ever heard of paragraphs? They are very useful, you should try them.
Hence I'm not going to wade through your block of text that you made no effort to make it more readable, just a quick skim would suffice, where YET AGAIN I see you have nothing to offer besides your own personal opinion.
It's time for you to present actual solid EVIDENCE to support your claim, not your opinions, your assumptions and your guesses.
You said "the burden of the proof lies on the NASA, that did little to sustain her case."
Wrong, NASA has done everything possible to prove the moon landings, with more information on those space missions that any other from that period, manned or unmanned. Hence they are a scientific and a historical fact.
So lets be more general (since you can't offer actual evidence).
In the (nearly) 50 years since the first moon landing, top scientists worldwide from fields such as astrophysics, rocket science, (astro)geology, computing, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, electronics, and much more, have examined and verified all Apollo evidence, including scientists who dislike the USA and nations who would have given anything to prove it was a hoax (and their scientists would have been national heroes if they proved a hoax with verifiable evidence).
And yet no scientist from ANY nation has ever announced finding fake Apollo evidence within his/her field of expertise. No scientist from ANY nation has EVER said the missions were impossible (or improbable) based upon evidence within his/her field of expertise.
None!
So if the Apollo evidence is more than good enough for the world's best scientists and the world's best engineers in the relevant fields of science and engineering for almost 50 years, then it's more than good enough for me.
Therefore I see no reason to accept the uninformed hoax claims made by photographers, inventors, technical writers, cab drivers and other non-scientific conspiracy theorists, who are motivated by money and fame with their Apollo hoax books, films, videos and talks :-)
And besides, are you really saying you believe the USSR were in on a hoax that was a massive propaganda coup for the USA and capitalism? Because that would have to be the case for the USSR to not expose a hoax.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "mist of the crap was filmed in Area 51, Nevada"
Wrong my friend.
To this day no-one has EVER recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (remember, no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to advanced CGI, which again wasn't available back in the 60s/70s.
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way in terms of gravity, THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
Until then it remains a fact that the footage was filmed in an environment with no air and 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was the moon :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@senseijuan3230 - Besides, aren't you a Christian? If so, then do you apply the same to Christian beliefs, including the existence of God? Or is that a special case? :-)
Anyway, assuming you're a Christian, please explain why every Christian denomination in history says the Earth is a globe (albeit a stationary globe for most of their history).
No Christian denomination/church has ever said the Earth is flat, only a globe, so in what way are they all wrong to say the Earth is a globe?
Even most Creationists, i.e. those who take the Bible LITERALLY, say the Earth is a GLOBE! In fact, some Creationists go as far as claiming that flat Earth is an atheist conspiracy to discredit Christians and Christianity.
So in what way are they all wrong to say the Earth is a globe?
Do you challenge them on the basis that "no one has ever proven their view of reality exist outside of their own mind"?
If so, then can you point me to where you have done that to Christians?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@briangriffin6224 - You said "I said your right, I agree with you "governments do not lie to the people", you are 100% correct."
And hence you continue to prove my point perfectly even in your sarcasm :-) since men landing on the moon has nothing to do with what any government (or media) says, and therefore governments lying has nothing to do with the fact that men landed on the moon. All you proved here was that you don't understand science or engineering.
In the 50+ years since the first moon landing, top scientists worldwide from fields such as physics (and astrophysics), rocket science, geology (and astrogeology), computing, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, electronics, and much more, have examined and verified ALL Apollo evidence, including scientists who dislike the USA and nations who would have given anything to prove it was a hoax (where their scientists would have been national heroes if they proved a hoax with verifiable evidence).
No scientist from ANY nation has ever announced finding fake Apollo evidence within his/her field of expertise, and no scientist from ANY nation has EVER said the missions were impossible (or even improbable) based upon evidence within his/her field of expertise .
In other words, if for over 50 years the Apollo evidence is more than good enough for the world's best scientists and the world's best engineers in all the relevant fields of science and engineering that they're EXPERTS in, then it's more than good enough for me.
So again, nothing to do with what any government says.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xpez9694 - You said "yes tell me all about if you have the time.. i would like to hear what people say to debunk that."
Here's the video featuring the claimed hammering sounds, but rather than just a few cherry picked seconds, several minutes are available here to avoid the cherry picking we see in conspiracy videos.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JVtzVN3ncg
The hammering starts at 2:07 and ends at 2:56, but notice the complete lack of any so-called hammering sounds for most of the times he hits the core sampler!
At 2:08 we do hear two 'knocking' sounds, but we also hear EXACTLY the same two 'knocking' sounds at 5:04 (as revealed on the two links below);
youtu.be/5JVtzVN3ncg?t=128
youtu.be/5JVtzVN3ncg?t=304
At 2:21, we hear the 3 'knocking' sounds that the hoax claim focuses on and one sound at 2:27, but again, the rest is completely silent, therefore just like the sounds at 2:08 and 5:04 it has nothing to do with sound traveling through air as claimed.
If we really were hearing the sound of the astronaut hammering the core sampler into the lunar surface, then we should hear a knocking sound for EVERY hit, not silence for most of the 49 seconds of hammering!
Watch and listen to that FULL clip from 2:00 to 3:00 and notice that the few 'knocking' sounds heard are out of sync with the hammer, and there's no sound at all for most of the hammering. And again, notice that the same double knocking sound heard at 2:08 is also heard at 5:04 :-)
The point is, throughout Apollo footage we hear all kinds of random noises from time to time, especially clicks and pops, and sometimes sounds from the astronauts breathing out heavily when they're doing something strenuous (like hammering), where hammer strikes can also travel through the suit and sometimes be picked up by the mic, but for 99.99% of the time no-one cares or even notices all those sounds in Apollo footage.
However, the moment such a noise happens to coincide with something we see on screen (which must happen by the law of averages) then conspiracy theorists immediately pounce upon it to claim we're hearing sound traveling through air.
The Apollo hammer hoax claim is a perfect example of that.
I hope that helped :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thatguythatdoesstuff7448 - Great, but first I need to establish that you have a basic understanding of maps (sorry if that sounds a bit patronizing, but it's important to establish a baseline that we can both agree on).
So before discussing the globe itself, consider an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as your town or city.
EVERY one of us can find an accurate flat map of our own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our flat map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
In fact, the accuracy of the flat map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the map alone!
Do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
1
-
@thatguythatdoesstuff7448 - Excellent, so we agree that flat maps of towns and cities are accurate, where there are no videos or books or documentaries or websites or groups etc claiming that maps of our towns and cities are a lie.
So in this reply I shall explain how that's a problem for the claim that the Earth is flat, and in my next reply I will explain how it's not a problem for the map of our Earth wrapped around a globe.
A flat map is a 2D representation of a specific area, and so for the flat map to be accurate the size of the area doesn't matter if it's generally flat throughout.
Hence the area mapped could be just 10 meters by 10 meters, or 10 miles by 10 miles, or 100 miles by 100 miles, or a 1000 miles by 1000 miles, or 10000 miles by 10000 miles, and so on. If it's flat, then we can represent that entire flat area accurately with a flat map because the shape is essentially the same (i.e. flat).
So the question is, where is the accurate flat map of a flat Earth where we can take any two locations on the map and measure it to work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct (just like our town/city flat map), proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of a flat Earth?
The answer? No such flat map of the whole Earth exists! :-|
1
-
@thatguythatdoesstuff7448 - So how does this prove the Earth is a globe??
Well, get yourself a decent globe of the Earth (the higher the quality and the larger it is the better), then measure the circumference of your globe around the equator in millimetres.
The equator will give you the scale of your globe, where you can work out how many miles there are to the millimetre by dividing 24900 by the circumference of the globe you measured in millimetres.
For example, if your globe is 300mm wide, then the circumference (measured or calculated) will be 300*pi, which is 300*3.1415926, which is 942.47778mm.
Therefore the scale of your globe is 24900/942.47778, which is 26.42 miles per mm.
That is, if you measure a distance on your globe that was 3mm apart, then the distance in the real world will be 3*26.42, which is 79.26 miles!
All calculated yourself from your globe.
So now you can check the distance between ANY two locations on EARTH by measuring the distance on your globe in millimetres and then multiplying that number by the scale (eg. 26.42) to get the distance in miles, and it will match the real world distance (give or take natural errors in your measurement).
Overall, the larger and the better the quality of your globe, the more accurate your results will be (but even a cheap globe would be pretty good).
In other words, you can accurately measure ALL distances and routes on a physical GLOBE of the Earth in the same way you can accurately measure ALL distances and routes on a physical flat map of your town/city.
This would have been impossible if the Earth was not a globe, and yet for years I have asked flat Earth believers to prove the globe is wrong by finding two locations where the distance measured on a globe is different to the distance measured in the real world. I'm still waiting ;-)
That alone proves the Earth is a globe, where there is no flat map of the Earth in existence for which we can do the same.
1
-
@thatguythatdoesstuff7448 - Admittedly that was a rather long reply from me, where I put all the information needed for yourself and others, but it comes down to the following;
Give a group of people a flat map of a city and ask them to work out the distances between any locations and routes in that city, and they will be able to do so accurately and consistently.
Give a group of people (including flat Earth believers) a globe of the Earth and ask them to work out the distances between any locations and routes on Earth, and they will be able to do so accurately and consistently.
So to prove me wrong, flat Earth believers only need to;
(a) Present a flat map of the whole Earth which is to scale and has no distortion, meaning we can accurately work out any distance on Earth just by measuring it on the flat map (multiply that measurement by the scale just like our flat town/city maps), or
(b) Present two locations on Earth for which the distance measured on a globe of the Earth is different to the distance measured in the real world, where the margin of error doesn't explain the huge discrepancy.
I'd accept either (a) or (b) as proof, where both would be even better, but so far no-one has achieved either (a) or (b) :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abrahamspies7611 - We don't feel speed, we only feel CHANGES in speed, a simple concept that flat Earth believers still don't understand for some reason :-)
For example;
If you woke up blindfolded in a passenger plane, or woke up blindfolded in an aircraft simulator, you wouldn't know what speed you were travelling at, and yet inside the passenger plane you may be cruising at 550 mph, whereas inside the simulator you are not travelling anywhere, your speed is effectively zero!
So you wouldn't know the difference until you took your blindfold off!
Hence we don't feel speed, we only feel changes in speed, i.e. acceleration and deceleration, and last time I checked the Earth is not accelerating or decelerating at a rate that the human body could detect :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mark, in 2019 we have better computing technology, but which rocket do we have to match the mighty Saturn V? The Saturn V is still by FAR the largest and the most powerful rocket EVER launched into space.
Unmanned craft don't require life support system and space, so they can be small enough for you to hold in your hand and therefore small rockets can get them to the moon.
Manned craft however need to be big enough to give people space to live, with air to breathe and water and food to keep them alive, and be solid enough to protect them from the hazards of space and hence such craft are huge and heavy in comparison.
For example, the total weight of the craft that took men to the moon was 45 TONS, which is why it required the world's largest and most powerful rocket to get them there.
The reason they will be able to send people back to the moon in 2023/2024 is because NASA have built a new rocket that is as large and as powerful as the Saturn V, called the SLS, which is scheduled to launch next year, where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth (which will be Orion's second test in space).
I hope that information and explanation helps :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flatearth5821 - You said "Eric has produced lots of new videos which debunk the 'debunkers'."
Except he hasn't, since his so-called debunks are as ignorant as his original claims :-)
For example, from his free eBook "200 proofs earth is not a spinning ball";
In proof number 123 in that eBook, Eric claims the sun is 30 miles wide and 3000 miles away (flat earth books, including his own, say 3000 miles up), and yet in proof number 125, Eric claims the sun is just above the clouds, showing a photo of clouds which any meteorologist would tell you are just a few miles up.
So according to Eric, the sun is a few miles up and 3000 miles up at the same time!
Here's Eric's photo from his eBook;
(As you know, change DOT to . and SLASH to /)
tinyDOTccSLASHvntwtz
Be honest now, does that photo tell you the sun is 3000 miles up?
Any meteorologist looking at that photo will tell you the base of the cloud types seen are about 1-2 miles up (the type of clouds we see airplanes flying in to and out of when leaving or arriving at an airport), so how can the sun be just above the clouds as Eric says?
Seriously, can you not see the major flaw in his argument? :-)
Just look at these examples of sun rays (crepuscular rays, or God rays) through trees;
tinyDOTccSLASH8yzpuz
See how many photos of trees you can find there showing the sun's rays passing through the trees in EXACTLY the same way we see the sun's ray's passing through clouds in Eric's photo.
If you apply the SAME logic as Eric, then those rays through the trees proves the sun is not 93 million miles away, nor is it 3000 miles away, but is in fact just above the trees! :-)
So come on, can you really not see the MAJOR flaw in Eric's proof number 125?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The1Mustache3 - WRONG. Gravity is a proven FACT.
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
@The1Mustache3 - You said "A fact is a fact. A theory is NOT a fact"
Which proves you don't understand the difference between "theory" in science and "theory" in common language use.
Again, gravity is a fact, proven by experiments. What exactly gravity is however is theory. Same with magnetism. Same with light.
Scientists don't know what magnetism is, but we know magnetism exists from the evidence, and therefore they created theories of magnetism to explain and PREDICT how magnetism interacts with matter.
Scientists don't know what light is, but we know light exists from the evidence, and therefore they created theories of light that explains and predicts how light interacts with matter.
Likewise, scientists don't know what gravity is, but we know gravity exists from the evidence, and therefore they created theories of gravity that explains and predicts how gravity interacts with matter.
I provided you with two experiments that proves the existence of gravity, address them please :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The1Mustache3 - You said "It could have been suicide, thank you for proving my point, that a fact is a absolute truth."
Which is why I said and I quote " It would be fair to assume it was 'probably' murder. Right?"
Which part of the word probably' did you not understand?
Suicide would be one of many theories, hence again proving my point.
And don't copy and paste what you don't understand. please;
https://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html
Quote: "A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them."
Which part of the above do you STILL not understand? :-)
1
-
@The1Mustache3 - You said "If Venus is in a goldie locks gravitational zone, why then does mercury exist? If the heliocentric model is correct and gravity is as you stated it to be. It should be pulled into to sun."
Firstly, the goldilocks zone is the distance from a star (in our case the sun) for which the conditions are considered to be ideal for life, or more specifically, the right temperature and conditions for liquid water to exist.
It has nothing to do with gravity, so why do you keep saying "goldie locks gravitational zone"?
Secondly, Venus and Mercury and all the other planets would be pulled into the sun due to gravity if they were not ORBITING the sun.
For example, if you were to attach an elastic string to an object and swing it around in circles over your head, why doesn't it just fly away? Because the tension of the string holds it in place (like gravity). Why isn't it pulled into your body? Because you put the object into motion and so it goes around you in circles. Stop that motion and it will rest against your body. But cut the string, or if the string breaks, then that object will fly away from you. FACT.
Therefore for you to claim that Mercury and Venus should be pulled into the sun despite being in ORBIT around the sun only proves you don't understand the science that you're talking 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In many languages, including English, words can have multiple meanings, ranging from subtle differences to complete differences.
A ball looks like a circle from any angle, therefore a circle doesn't automatically mean flat.
Here is Isaiah 40:22 from various Bibles;
King James Bible (1611); "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
Douay-Rheims Bible (1582); "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth..."
New American Standard 1977 Bible; "It is He who sits above the vault of the earth..."
Peshitta Holy Bible Translated (1st or 2nd Century AD); "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
New American Bible; "The one who is enthroned above the vault of the earth..."
Catholic Public Domain Version; "He is the One who sits upon the globe of the earth..."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English; "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth..."
Matthew's Bible (1537); "That he sitteth upon the circle of the world..."
That's because the Hebrew word 'chug' being translated by those Bibles means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).
So circle, globe, sphere and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various Bibles, meaning the actual word used comes down to those who did the translation.
Because of that, then despite several Bibles explicitly saying the Earth is a globe/sphere in that verse, the word being translated is not an explicit description of the shape of the Earth since 'chug' has multiple meanings.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
@LionBenJudah44 - So it's just like the English word "round", where people may say a ball is round, a coin is round, a ring is round, a hoop is round, a cylinder is round, a disc is round, and so on.
We typically refer to objects as round if there's an angle where those objects appear circular in shape, but I think you would agree that a ball, coin, ring, hoop, cylinder etc are all different shapes.
So if someone was translating from English to another language where round was used to described some fictional object, then the translator may assume the author meant a ball, or a flat disc, or a hoop, or a ring etc.
Therefore translations can never be assumed to be perfect, we can only hope they are as close to the original as possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LionBenJudah44 - Simply put, we can find verses in the KJV that uses the word "flat", but never to describe the shape of the Earth, eg. Leviticus 21:18, Numbers 22:31, Joshua 6:5, Joshua 6:20.
Likewise we can find verses in the KJV that uses the word ball, but again never to describe the shape of the Earth, eg. Isaiah 22:18.
So as I said before, the Bible doesn't explicitly state the shape of the Earth, but if you want to cherry pick Bibles and verses, then the only shape of the Earth explicitly stated in Bibles is a globe/sphere.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fcarter3863 - And now lets address your claim in more detail, i.e. the East to West distance calculation.
If we take cities in the USA at similar latitudes of say Philadelphia at 75 deg and Enreka in California, at 124 deg, then that's 49 deg difference, which according to you makes the distance of 2940 miles.
The actual distance is 2540 miles.
That's not good enough.
Now try, close to the equator in South America, such as Quito at 79 deg and Natal at 35 deg, a 44 deg difference, which according to you is 2640 miles.
The actual distance is 3010 miles.
That's quite some error.
60 miles to the degree (latitude, i.e. north to south) is the definition of NAUTICAL MILES, that's what's on the ruler if you read it properly and understood it :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YouMustQuestionEverything - I presented my list of flat Earth books to show that I've done the research by aquiring them and reading them, something that most flat Eartth believers have not done, they only go by what flat Earth theorists have told them.
You said "Gleason’s patent in NO WAY mentions that his map is based on a globe model. He merely mentions the Meridian lines that the globe model depends on too."
Incorrect. The map, which is not his patent, is an Azimuthal Projection map, where just like EVERY MAP USED FOR NAVIGATION is created by projecting a 3D globe Earth onto a 2D surface, where each map uses it's own projection methodology that offers advantages and disadvantages.
Gleason's description regarding the map in his patent is EXACTLY the method used to create the Azimuthal Equidistant map, and therefore that is what he's saying, otherwise the map would be different to the AE map.
You said "Of course there are two poles; North and South, but NOT your fantasy Antarctica. Nothing more to it! Show me the quote if you disagree."
ALL fllat Earth theories says there's only one pole, therefore Gleason states the Azimuthal projection method resulting in the map, where the South Pole is stretched around the circumference.
Go ahead and present differences between the Azimuthal Equidistant map and the Gleason map please since you appear to be claiming they are not the same :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sikhwidit9758 - Actually Frankie is correct, Eric Dubay proudly says he a Holocaust denier on his Facebook page.
And in his book "The Atlantean Conspiracy" Eric Dubay writes and I quote;
"Adolf Hitler was actually a vegetarian, animal-lover, an author, an artist, a political activist, economic reformer and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. He enacted the world's first anti-animal cruelty, anti-pollution and anti-smoking laws. Unlike the demonic portrait that history has painted of him, Hitler was beloved by his people and wanted nothing but peace."
So, do you agree with Eric, such as his claim that Hitler was a misunderstood man of peace?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most conspiracy believers are not interested in the truth, they are only interested in their preferred version of the 'truth' and hence will only listen to those who say what they want to hear while dismissing anything that contradicts their beliefs as a lie, claiming those spreading the 'lies' are part of the conspiracy, eg. shills, government agents, CIA, bots, sheep, indoctrinated...
Hence Flat Earth theory hasn't been suppressed, instead it is free speech and 'debate' online without fact checking that has encouraged it, where popularity and appeal counts for more than boring official facts for some people, and so that has allowed FE to grow over the years. Same with chemtrails, anti-vaccination, etc :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@devangilmer8639 - You cannot compare the two as if they're the same!
Today, we have a HUGE number of geostationary satellites broadcasting live TV channels FROM SPACE to millions upon millions of people. Those satellites are over 22,000 MILES away, broadcasting TV channels via a weak 40W radio signal, and yet all we need to pick up those channels are very SMALL satellite dishes like this;
(External links are blocked, so replace DOT with . and SLASH with /).
isDOTgdSLASHS3rDtz
The moon is about 11 times further away, therefore to receive the signal to the same strength would require a bigger dish, just like the massive radio dishes/telescopes used during the Apollo missions, like this;
isDOTgdSLASHRshxon
So it's exactly the same principle. Your satellite dish (if you have one) works because it is pointed directly at the satellite, where despite being over 22,000 miles away you can receive the TV channels perfectly if your dish is aligned correctly.
Now move that SAME satellite to the distance of the moon and the signal would be too weak for your small satellite dish, but if you have the massive Parkes Radio Telescope in the link above, then you'll receive the TV channels without any problems, and you'll also be able to receive and send radio signals significant further than the moon.
Although I'm sure you would agree that such a large radio dish is not practical to attach to your home ;-)
And because the Earth rotates, then for TV broadcasts from the moon we would need to use at least THREE massive radio dishes spread around the world to ensure that at least one of them is in direct line of sight of the moon at any given time.
So it's not a mystery my friend, it's just science and engineering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@solodreamytraveller6648 - Your reply has been shadow banned and hence I expect this reply from me will be shadow banned too (edit: It is :-)), but you can read it in the notifier window provided you don't expand the thread, or you can read it in the email notification.
Anyway, they don't shadow ban videos my friend. There isn't a single moon hoax video that is shadow banned, otherwise we wouldn't be able to find them no matter how hard we searched.
Before YT changed their algorithm several years back, if I searched for "Apollo Moon Landings" then instead of getting a list of videos just about the Apollo missions, i.e. what I wanted, I would get a list completely dominated by Apollo hoax videos!
Then flat Earth emerged and began dominating similar searches, and therefore something had to be done about it.
How can anyone justify conspiracy theories dominating the searches of those who have ZERO interest in conspiracy theories? Isn't imposing alternative viewpoints upon others just as wrong as denying alternative viewpoints?
So again, something had to be done about it and therefore YT made the change that dropped the priority of conspiracy theories within its searches, helping to redress the balance.
YES some may argue that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, but that's something to be adjusted in future, but right now it is what it is and is preferable to what we had before.
After all, do you believe ALL conspiracy theories out there from flat Earth to Space Shuttle disaster astronauts still being alive? Why should the conspiracy theories you believe be treated any different to the conspiracy theories you don't believe? :-|
1
-
@solodreamytraveller6648 - You said "we should question everything, we should always question the authority"
But THAT is the problem summed up perfectly by you, because when someone chooses to believe a conspiracy theory then the conspiracy theorists are NOW the authority, and therefore their followers should apply the SAME standards of questioning everything the conspiracy theorists claim... but that rarely ever happens.
So when you say "People are getting dumber because they just immediately believe what they see on social media..."
Yes, which is why we have so many people today believing the Earth is flat!
Hence the vast majority of believers of ANY conspiracy theory are hypocrites, because they only apply those standards of "questioning everything" to ONE side only.
If anyone wants to be free from being manipulated by gov authorities or by conspiracy theorists or by other authorities, then questioning everything must mean EVERYTHING.
So when an Apollo conspiracy theorist says we should see stars in Apollo photos and videos for example, followers should think for themselves and question it, listening to photographers who will explain why that assumption is wrong. Same with the claim that the flag was blowing in the wind and the claim this video debunked and many more.
Only once or twice a year do I 'meet' someone online who says something like "I believe the moon landings were a hoax, but yes, I know for a fact that specific hoax claim is wrong because....", for which THOSE are the only conspiracy believers I can relate to, because they don't just blindly believe EVERYTHING they are told by conspiracy theorists :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Robert, you said in a hidden reply "are you seriously trying to compare a rocket coming down to a helicopter?"
How can you ever learn if you don't even bother to try? :-|
If a craft weighs 10 tons for example and you want to make it hover, then the downward force must be 10 tons of thrust. Lower that force a little and the craft slowly drops. Increase that force a little and the craft slowly rises.
So it doesn't matter if that force comes from air via spinning blades or gases from a rocket engine, it's the same power of thrust required and so it will be the same force against dust particles on the surface (with heat being the main difference).
If that craft is here on Earth, then the 14.7 pounds of atmospheric pressure at the surface would 'squeeze' the exhaust from a rocket engine into a tighter more focused column of flame, which would focus the 10 tons of thrust into a far smaller space than the air from helicopter blades, causing more disruption to the surface.
However, as we can see with rockets during launches, as they rise and the air pressure reduces the rocket flame spreads out wider and wider with altitude.
So if that craft is above the moon's surface in the vacuum of space, then the 10 tons of thrust from the rocket exhaust would be spread out just as wide as the the thrust of air from helicopter blades, and therefore it's no more likely to produce a crater on the moon than a helicopter is likely to produce a crater here on 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
-
@kateransom8500 - The other point you're missing is that Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or paranormal theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With all due respect you're making incorrect assumptions my friend, hence all you're offering here are arguments from incredulity.
When looking into the past,science gathers all the evidence available and works backwards from there, reaching conclusions/theories for which further evidence can either strengthen the leading theories or it can weaken them.
It's like a crime scene, where the detective didn't witness the murder of some guy, but they gather as much evidence as they can, allowing them to identify the victim, to say how and when he was killed, to work out his last moments and the events in his life that led up to that moment (where he was, who he met, significant events, possible suspects etc).
Eventually they may have enough evidence to bring a suspect to court to face a jury, who will weigh up the evidence and decide if the suspect is innocence or guilty.
Again, none of them witnessed the crime (except the murderer) and so they go by the evidence, for which in most cases the right person is convicted.
Science of the past is like that, where just as the wrong person can be convicted of a crime, so can the latest scientific theory be wrong, but we only find that out after NEW evidence proves the theory wrong or better understanding of the current evidence comes to light (say through new technology or flaws found in the previous analysis etc).
As it stands, the big bang best explains the universe we see today, and evolution best explains the diversity of life on Earth we see today, all thanks to the evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rick Martin - You said "If you can't tell if a photo is fake, CGI and/or photoshopped.. then well, no offense, but you're an imbecile."
That's a child's response with all due respect, I expect you to answer the question like an adult.
So go ahead and specify how you would determine a fake or real photo.
Merely saying "It looks fake to me" is not an answer, hence that is not evidence, it's opinion and therefore it is irrelevant.
You said "What is even more pathetic is that NASA openly admits all of it's 'imagery' of 'space' are 100% fake, cartoons and manipulated"
A classic lie.
Photographs taken in space and broadcast back to Earth are DIGITAL, and ALL digital photographs are manipulated, INCLUDING EVERY DIGITAL PHOTO you've taken with your camera! So are all YOUR digital photographs fake too?
The sensor in your camera only detects light intensity NOT colour.
To produce colour, a special filter grid is used, where a software algorithm is run to calculate the colour of EACH pixel based upon a complex calculation from the surrounding pixels, resulting in the final colour image (Google Search: BAYER FILTER for example).
The problem with the above method is that some colour information is lost, making it useless for science which requires precise values.
So spacecraft use multiple filters instead to combine the images into one.
For example, a colour photograph of the Earth would consists of a photo taken with a red filter, then with a blue filter and finally with a green filter, where the 3 photos are then combined to produce the final colour image.
THAT is manipulation. It can't be avoided because CMOS sensors are not colour, therefore colour must be created by using filters, either as a matrix/grid for single photos, or as seperate photos through different filters combined into one image.
In other words, photographs from space are as fake, CGI, photoshopped as ALL the photographs you've taken with your phone or digital camera.
Facts matter my friend, they really do :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rick Martin - Lol! So now you resort to the classic "They're ALL in on it" response that ALL conspiracy believers resort to when their arguments fall apart.
Other favourites in that category are the Illuminati, Freemasons and Satanism :-)
You said " if you could land on the moon or even get there, there would be so many ridiculously different conditions just based off what we're told alone, Goofball."
Then either put up or shut up and describe the differences between the moon and low Earth orbit that would effect PHOTOGRAPHS.
If you had the answer then you would have stated it by now, hence thank you for proving your ignorance about the environment and conditions of space :-)
Seriously, you must have been a third rate photographer, if even that, to not understand how the difference in light levels/intensity between the tiny specks of light for stars and large sunlit objects makes it impossible to photograph both clearly at the same time, regardless of WHERE you are.
You cried " you can't tell the difference between a digital photograph and a 100% artificially made image"
Says the person who cannot provide a single example of a fake photograph with your OWN analysis to prove it's fake.
Hence proving you have no evidence, only childish words.
You cried "NASA Admits We Cant Go Beyond Low Earth Orbit"
A long debunked video where even YOU should be able to work out claims in that video that have been distorted and hence are not true, and yet you can't even do that :-)
How old are you? 12? :-)
1
-
Rick Martin - So stick to what you claim to have expertise in and provide me with a link (the title would do) to a credible and established photographer (who isn't selling hoax books, DVDs, video btw) over the last 50+ years from ANY nation worldwide, who staes that we should see stars in the Apollo photographs and explains why (with evidence).
That's right, you can't (am I wrong? ;-)), so despite your claimed photographic expertise you will also throw insults instead, but until you can prove that stars should show up in the Apollo photographs, then your argument is null and void.
Btw, Venus (the brightest planet in our skies) was later discovered to have been captured in a few Apollo photographs, where it was in EXACTLY the position it was expected to be for that date and time and location :-)
Oh and, Apollo 16 top a telescopic camera to the moon to photograph the stars and Earth in the UV spectrum of light (at wavelengths blocked by Earth's atmosphere), and those FILM photographs proves they were taken on the moon.
I look forward to your evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JudaismIslamUnited - You clearly are not the sharpest tool in the box, but at least you're still a tool :-)
Did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude? Of course you did, you can't be that stupid!
Anyway at 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with a cheap vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up, there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept.
In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions with altitude, with no barrier in between and no closed container required.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
@JudaismIslamUnited - You haven't addressed the proven FACT (that even flat Earth theorists can't deny) that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude, hence increasing vacuum conditions with altitude, and therefore there isn't pressurized gas next to the vacuum of space.
Also, look up the equation for buoyancy and notice it contains gravity :-) So if you're going to claim buoyancy, then present a buoyancy equation without gravity please.
Also, gas pressure is the same EVERYWHERE inside a closed container, unless an external force acts upon the gas molecules inside.
If the Earth was covered by your dome (a closed container) and gravity didn't exist, then air pressure should be the same no matter how high we went, i.e. it should be the same everywhere regardless of altitude.
The fact that it's not, i.e. air pressure reduces with altitude with the result of increasing vacuum conditions, proves there's no dome and hence debunks that flat Earth claim.
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@logankent2633 - 8 inches per mile squared is the equation for a parabola, which was created in the 19th century as a quick calculation for the curvature of the Earth at sea level because it's easy to do in our heads compared to the equation for a circle.
Anyway... the problem is, such a calculation is accurate enough if you go up to the sea on a beach and lie down so that your eyes are level with the sea!
If does NOT take into account the HEIGHT of the observer, i.e. the height of your eyes above sea level.
Here's a curvature calculator that DOES take height into account;
dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc
So lets take your Catalina Island example.
At sea level (i.e. a height of 0), that calculator says 1067 feet would be below the horizon at 40 miles away.
But the highest point on Catalina Island is Mount Orizaba at 2097 feet.
That means if your eyes are at sea level 40 miles away, then you can see the top (2097-1067) 1030 feet of Mount Orizaba!
If you're just say 100 feet above sea level, then 514 feet would be below the horizon 40 miles away, hence you can see the top (2097-514) 1583 feet of Mount Orizaba, and hence see any land/features on Catalina that is 514 feet above sea level!
THAT'S the important fact missed by so many flat Earth theorists and believers, where a) You don't take into account the altitude of the observer, and b) You don't take into account the height of the features of the remote location.
Hence as I've shown above, we CAN see features on Catalina Island even from 40 miles away at sea level, and even more of the island the higher we are.
I hope that information helps. If it does, then apply it to other flat Earth distance claims and notice the errors they made too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neilparry7116 - I'm pleased you asked, but first we need to establish a baseline that we can both agree on.
So before discussing the globe itself, consider an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as your town or city.
ALL of us can find an accurate flat map of our own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the bar scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our flat map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
In fact, the accuracy of the flat map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the flat map alone!
Do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
1
-
@neilparry7116 - Hi, sorry I meant to get back to you sooner.
I'm pleased you agree because that's the heart of my proof that the Earth is a globe.
You see, if there was something wrong with a flat map of your city then people would spot it very quickly, noticing routes and distances that are wrong. If people using the map cannot find anything wrong then we know the flat map is accurate.
So here's the problem... a flat map is a 2D representation of a specific area, and so for the flat map to be accurate the size of the area mapped doesn't matter on a flat Earth.
Hence the area mapped could be just 10 meters by 10 meters, or 10 miles by 10 miles, or 100 miles by 100 miles, or a 1000 miles by 1000 miles, or 10000 miles by 10000 miles, and so on. If it's flat, then we can represent that entire flat area accurately with a flat map because the shape is essentially the same, i.e. flat.
So the question is, where is the accurate flat map of a flat Earth where we can take any two locations on the map and measure it to work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct (just like our town/city map), proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of a flat Earth?
The answer? No such flat map of the whole Earth exists! :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "Was it when don petit said he'd go back to the moon in a heartbeat, but they 'lost' that 60 yr old technology, and cant get it back!?"
Oh come on, really? Are you really going to claim that you don't understand what Don meant by that? His words were really that difficult? :-)
You said "Or when the Italian astronaut's helmet filled up w water- in space?"
You do know that spacesuits are liquid cooled, right? What liquid do you think they use?
You said "Or was it the somersaults in the spacestation where fellow astronauts are pulling on their wires?"
Oh yes, the one where we can see the fellow astronaut catch the other's pocket with his finger, and where the claimed wires would by passing through the astronaut and through the microphone cable as if by magic. In other words, there are no wires!
Hence all you're proving here is that you blindly believe conspiracy claims without question.
So can you state your beliefs please? That is, do you think only certain space missions are a hoax, or all of them because you believe space is fake?
And if you believe space is fake, is that because you're a flat Earth believer? Or something else?
1
-
@blackhawklue - You said "Why dont you tell me what petit meant if its so obvious?"
It really isn't rocket science :-)
Don Pettit saying he would go back to the moon in a nanosecond but we've lost/destroyed that technology, means we no longer have a Saturn V rocket in SERVICE TODAY to get us there, because the Saturn V rocket is retired.
The USA were not able to send people up to the ISS from 2011 to late 2020 because they lost/destroyed that technology, i.e. they no longer had a Space Shuttle to get them there, the Space Shuttle is retired. Finally they have that technology back with Space X rockets.
The world hasn't been able to send 100 people across the Atlantic at supersonic speed since 2003 because we have lost/destroyed that technology, i.e. we no longer have a supersonic passenger plane, Concorde is retired.
Understand it now? Destroyed or lost doesn't mean EVERYTHING is destroyed/lost, it means we don't have it in SERVICE TODAY, i.e. it's gone, lost, destroyed, never to come back.
The Saturn V rocket and the Space Shuttle and Concorde will never go into service again, that technology is lost/destroyed (i.e. the infrastructure and services that built, maintained, launched/flew them are all gone).
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence we will soon have the SLS rocket, due to launch this year, which is as large and slightly more powerful than the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces.
On its debut launch this year, the MASSIVE SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth for its second test in space. And assuming all goes well, then in 2024 the SLS rocket will again take Orion to the moon but this time with astronauts inside.
Those are examples of the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost/destroyed, i.e. taken out of service, and hence in 2024 people will return to the moon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blackhawklue - We're talking about the wires claim right now. Where it goes after that is open for discussion, it's not for you to present a list of demands, especially when you haven't responded to my last replies about lost technology :-)
Anyway...
Lets take one of the moments you speak of, where this hoax video covers it;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-huF7fRlnA
So here's the problem with that claim - When stunt people do similar somersaults, they have a wire attached to each side of their waists to allow them to rotate.
However, because of the wires, they need to make sure they pull their legs and arms inwards to avoid hitting/catching the wires as they rotate.
You can see this in action on the following link;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlebgX5Uj8g&t=54
As you saw, if their legs or arms aren't kept out of the way of the wires, then they would catch the wires and stop rotating, so they need to bring their limbs inside the wires as they rotate.
Now watch the hoax claim again (but mute the sound to avoid distraction) and imagine there's a wire on either side of that astronaut's waist (the one in the blue t-shirt rotating);
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-huF7fRlnA&t=14
Notice how during his somersault he doesn't move his arms in to avoid any so-called wires, instead his arms would have to pass through the claimed wires like magic, possibly twice!
And not only that, notice that the microphone he's holding has a long black cable attached, so if he is suspended by wires, how did the microphone cable pass straight through that wire as he rotated?
:-)
Finally, look again at the astronaut in the USMC t-shirt. Notice that he reaches out to grab the astronaut to steady him, but because he's not looking at him directly he almost misses, where he catches the pocket of the astronaut with his little finger and pulls (look carefully).
Hence the video maker, like many conspiracy believers, completely misinterprets what we're seeing in that footage, where he sees what he wants to see and therefore makes things up without checking if what he's saying is true, knowing that certain others would just accept the claims he's making :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jeffreylogan74 - You said "There are many photos of shadow that are distinctly intersecting"
Well duh, because as I said and I quote "Notice all the intersecting shadows cast by the sun here on Earth due to perspective, distance, slope of the surface, shape of the objects, etc."
If you think I'm wrong, then please go ahead and name ONE Apollo photo where you believe the 'intersecting shadows" are wrong.
You said "Of course you would act like creating a rebuttal based on just that one singular photo"
Now READ what I said, i.e. "there are NO examples of shadow directions seen in Apollo PHOTOS that we do not see in photos taken here on Earth in the sun."
PHOTOS. Plural, not singular. Hence you are the person making assumptions here. I wonder why ;-)
So again, present the name if the Apollo photo (or a few photoS) that I asked you for.
We can't post links anymore on YT, so the name will have to do, eg. AS11-40-5902.
And stop the gish gallop please :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sweetness71775 - Thanks for the update on your beliefs.
However, here's one example that debunks the idea of the Earth being hollow... the measured distance to the moon.
We can measure the moon's distance DIRECTLY using radio waves without any reference to the structure of the solar system, hence it doesn't require complex mathematics based upon an assumed model of the Earth and solar system.
In other words, it doesn't matter if you think the Earth is a globe, or the Earth is flat, or the Earth is hollow/concave or whatever, the measurement of the moon's distance using radio waves will always produce the same result, a result which is independent of any person's beliefs.
Radio enthusiasts since the 1950s have sent signals to the moon and timed how long it takes to echo back. The time measured for the return signal is always consistent with the moon being around 240,000 miles away.
For example:
rsgb.org/main/technical/space-satellites/moonbounce/
searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/moonbounce
www.discoverthebluedot.com/news/moonbounce:-record-your-message-to-be-bounced-off-the-moon
We know the measurements are accurate because the timing of the echo of radio signals is how RADAR works, where they use that time to accurately determine the distance of the object(s) being tracked.
If the moon was inside a hollow Earth, then the echo would take a fraction of the time to return compared to bouncing radio signals off an object a confirmed 240,000 miles away.
This is an important observation which has yet to be explained by any flat Earth theorist of hollow Earth theorist, but it is explained by the moon being 240,000 miles away from the globe Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sweetness71775 - Hi, here's something you can do to prove the Earth is a globe and of the size specified.
Get yourself a decent globe of the Earth, then find two locations on that globe, for example Tokyo in Japan and New York in the USA, and measure the distance between them in millimetres (i.e. as a direct line across the globe of the Earth).
Now measure the circumference of your globe around the equator in millimetres.
The equator will give you the scale of your globe, where you can work out how many miles to the millimetre by dividing 24900 by the circumference of your globe in millimetres. Lets call the answer to that calculation X, and therefore X is the scale of your globe.
So now you can check the distance between New York and Tokyo by taking the distance you measured on your globe in millimetres and then multiply that number by X to get the distance in miles. It will match the real world distance (well, give or take natural errors in your measurement).
You can now check ANY two locations on Earth using that same method, i.e. measure it in millimetres on your globe and multiply that number by X, and again it will match the real world distance.
The larger and the better your globe, the more accurate your results will be (but even a cheap globe would be pretty good).
That alone proves the Earth is a globe and it proves the distance of 24,900 miles around the equator (7926 miles diameter) is correct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sweetness71775 - You said "Distance between land masses is a whole different story, however."
No my friend, because as I stated, you can take ANY two locations on Earth and confirm the distance by land, sea and air, where to this day no-one has ever found an incorrect distance.
You can't pretend that a direct flight from one city to another city, including city to city on different continents, isn't proof that the distances are correct, especially when (albeit outside of a pandemic) there are around 100,000 flights that take off and land around the world every day!
That's 100,000 flights confirming the distances every day with no errors found.
The South Pole is in Antarctica, therefore go can't go South of the South Pole in Antarctica. The idea of more land south of Antarctica comes DIRECTLY from flat Earth theory, which claims Antarctica is not a continent but is instead a wall of ice that surrounds the Earth, and therefore some claim there's more land beyond the wall of ice.
There's no place for such extra land if you accept the Earth is a globe and the South Pole is in Antarctica, regardless of its size.
The important point here is: When the facts fit, then you should accept the facts.
So saying "By a general rule-of-thumb, I do not trust any major corporation or government" is all good and well if you're taking about politics and politically motivated incidents, but the shape and structure of the Earth we all live on is not about governments, it's not about religion, it's not about belief, it's not about the media or corporations, it's about the facts as established by many centuries of traveling and exploring and navigating the Earth by countless ordinary people from all walks of life from all over the world :-)
1
-
1
-
@Sweetness71775 - You said " I can't because I haven't measured the entire globe. Ultimately, the argument on the size and shape of the Earth comes down to faith"
Nope, I provided you will a simple method to work out distances on a globe of the Earth and compare those distances with the same distances measured for real. Neither you nor anyone can show any errors between the globe of the Earth and reality, hence making your claims null and void.
When you board a plane that is going to travel a certain distance in a certain direction to land at your desired destination, that journey is NOT based upon faith, it's based upon FACT... as are 100,000 other flights that day!
So silly excuses and denial doesn't make your case my friend, it only supports mine.
As for your comment "provided you personally haven't hopped on a rocket, left the atmosphere, and did a full orbit of the planet where you saw literally everything..."
I haven't been to China, have you? Nor can I prove 100% that someone who says they've been to China has actually been there. But that shouldn't be a requirement for me to know that China exists as shown.
Have you been to the North Pole yourself? If not, then why would you personally need to go to the North Pole to know it exists as shown? Aren't you trusting the word of those who have gone there, including those who've gone to government maintained research stations around the North pole?
Have you been to the top of Mount Everest? Have you been to every town and city in your country?
The point is, the idea that you need to personally see or experience something yourself before you can accept it is a poor argument and a false one, since the vast majority of everything you know comes from OTHERS, hence comes from your trust in certain figures and agencies.
After all, go ahead and prove that the person you're talking to right now online (myself) is real, all while using the achievements of science that made this discussion possible in the first place :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mysticnomad3577 - Thank you for highlighting my point so perfectly, where like all flat Earth believers, you're not sure of the structure of the flat world that you believe in :-)
You see, if you were as educated as you claim, then you should know those answers already, especially given the fact that you've made up your mind already.
I'm an amateur astronomer for over 20 years, where (given my IT career) I have written programs to calculate the positions of the sun and moon and planets for any date, sunrise and sunset times for any location on Earth on any date, and calculate lunar and solar eclipses etc, ALL using the mathematics of the heliocentric model you mentioned (oh and, did I say I have a degree in mathematics?).
No such mathematics exists for a flat Earth, because there's no mathematical flat Earth model.
For the flat Earth, I did my research fully, and hence I own and have READ all the following flat Earth books;
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
So if you own any of the book above, then I'd be happy to discuss the contents with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@universalchiro - Firstly, don't hide behind the rather cowardly "troll" accusation please. If you make a claim on a forum then you should have the balls to accept the fact that others will challenge your claim.
Secondly, once again you prove you don't understand what science means.
Point out one example of 'knowledge' in the Bible that was obtained from it being "observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable".
Explain exactly how that particularly piece of 'knowledge' found in the Bible is still observable, testable and repeatable today and hence experiments are STILL being carried out to confirm/reject it.
The point you fail to understand is that (unlike religion) science is not fixed, it is CONSTANTLY being updated as new information comes through (go ahead and name the religion that does that).
Hence people are ALWAYS looking to prove that the current scientific 'knowledge/facts' are wrong or inaccurate, where they set out to prove it through experiments that are observable, testable and repeatable and hence falsifiable (i.e. the scientific method).
If there results are confirmed by others, then the scientific knowledge/facts are updated. That's how science works! That is NOT how religion works!
If you still disagree, then give me an example of where that happens to 'knowledge' in the Bible. Demonstrate how the Bible (whichever version you prefer) is constantly being updated please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Bible is not a science book, but yes you can find verses explicitly saying the Earth is stationary, but ZERO verses explicitly saying the Earth is flat!
In fact, nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state the shape of the Earth!
Regarding your drone question. If you're on an airplane cruising at around 500 mph, then what would happen if you flew a tiny drone inside the airplane? would it hit the back of the plane at 500 mph :-)
Everything inside that 500 mph airplane is moving WITH the plane. Likewise, our atmosphere and sea rotates WITH the Earth, where air currents moving faster or slower than the surface beneath is felt as wind.
In other words, if in your part of the world today there's barely any wind, then that means the air around you is moving in the same direction and at the same speed as the surface you're standing on. If the air moves 30 mph faster than the surface, then you will feel that as a 30 mph wind. If the air moves 30 mph slower than the surface, then you will feel that as a 30 mph wind in the opposite direction.
1
-
1
-
@thomashall9182 - Come on, really? Here's the documentary that we're talking about here (Bart Sibrel's "Astronauts gone wild");
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhTqrSX5N4M
At 23:10 Alan Bean swears on the Bible and yet Bart still claims he's lying, which means swearing on the Bible meant nothing.
At 32:46 Eugene Cernan swears on the Bible and yet Bart doesn't seem satisfied.
At 46:41 Ed Mitchell swears on the Bible and yet Bart still claims he's a liar, which means swearing on the Bible meant nothing.
So that's 3 astronauts who swore on the Bible, the others (rightfully) didn't because they knew it would be pointless.
NONE of them changed their minds as you claimed (where did you get that idea from?).
So the only proven liar is Bart himself. Not only does he claim to the astronauts who swore on his Bible that he asked 6 other astronauts and none of them swore on the Bible, but in his hoax film called "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon", the same film he showed clips from to the astronauts, his earth in a window hoax claim is a proven lie, as the following video shows perfectly;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jghYBAI3i6o&t=59
Bart ended up in court years later, charged with vandalism for jumping up and down on the hood of a woman's car over a parking dispute (says a lot about the guy, doesn't it? :-)).
So, what was that you were saying about facts? :-)
1
-
1
-
@thomashall9182 - You said "Present the non-refutable facts, starting with the noise generated on the moon, in a vacuum, by hammering"
I'll have a go... Here's the video featuring the claimed hammering sounds, but rather than just a few cherry picked seconds, several minutes are available here to avoid the cherry picking we see in hoax videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JVtzVN3ncg
The hammering starts at 2:07 and ends at 2:56, but notice the complete lack of any so-called hammering sounds for most of the times he hits the core sampler!
At 2:08 we do hear two 'knocking' sounds, but we also hear EXACTLY the same two 'knocking' sounds at 5:04 (as revealed on the two links below);
https://youtu.be/5JVtzVN3ncg?t=128
https://youtu.be/5JVtzVN3ncg?t=304
At 2:21, we hear the 3 'knocking' sounds that the hoax claim focuses on and one sound at 2:27, but again, the rest is completely silent, therefore just like the sounds at 2:08 and 5:04 it has nothing to do with the hammer hitting the core sampler.
If we really were hearing the sound of the astronaut hammering the core sampler into the lunar surface, then we should hear a knocking sound for every hit, not silence for most of the 49 seconds of hammering!
Watch and listen to that FULL clip from 2:00 to 3:00 and notice that the few 'knocking' sounds heard are out of sync with the hammer, and there's no sound at all for most of the hammering. And again, notice that the same double knocking sound heard at 2:08 is also heard at 5:04 :-)
The point is, throughout Apollo footage we hear all kinds of random noises from time to time, especially clicks and pops, and sometimes sounds from the astronauts breathing out heavily when they're doing something strenuous (like hammering?), where for 99.99% of the time no-one cares or even notices all those sounds.
But the moment such a noise happens to coincide with something seen on screen (which MUST happen by the law of averages) conspiracy theorists pounce to claim we're hearing noise travel through the vacuum of space.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raymond3803 - You said " I see no contradiction. I see no false statement."
And I see the contradiction from someone who feels the need to lie to make his case, which is typical of conspiracy believers (sadly) , hence the hypocrisy of conspiracy believers calling so many others liars while somehow believing your own lies are justified :-|
As you said and I quote "Judge didn't rule that earth was flat" which means flat Earth was not proven in court.
So here's the proof I spoke of, I expect you to address it given your claimed expertise and experience on the subject (so no excuses please);
Simply put, if you get hold of a reasonably good 12 inch wide globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the globe or how far apart they are!
For a 9 inch globe of the Earth the scale works out as 34.7 miles per millimetre, so 35 miles is a good enough approximation. And for a 15 inch globe of the Earth it's around 20.8 miles per millimetre, so 21 miles is a good enough approximation on that globe.
It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre.
So please test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first flat Earth believer in history to find a distance flaw in the map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE :-)
The fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is a globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raymond3803 - You said "Screw you. I didn't stick my head in the sand. I didn't get any bell notification to your 2nd most recent comment to me."
Fair enough, but I read on to notice you haven't offered an explanation, only dismissal (but to be fair you said you will test it), so lets examine it further.
For example you said "I have NO CLUE what you expect from a self- scaled globe. Most maps provide a scale. Globes don't."
INCORRECT. Only maps of areas of land/sea of sufficiently small size for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect upon the accuracy of the map have a scale.
That is, we can ALL find an accurate flat map of our own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the bar scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our flat map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
In fact, the accuracy of the flat map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the map alone!
You clearly agree with the above for flat maps, so lets look again at the globe.
1
-
1
-
@raymond3803 - You said "Globes don't. My globe is 15" dia. You want me to check if all distances are accurate? Using your scale?"
It is NOT my scale, it is THE scale for the globe, since the globe is effectively a scaled model of the Earth (I guess mathematics wasn't your strong point? ;-)).
So for your 15" globe, I told you that the scale is 20.8 miles per millimeter, and so 21 miles per millimeter is a good enough approximation.
You said "Against mileage charts? Who's charts? Road Atlas? What Airlines provide? Internet mileage charts? Always using the "great ball" string method on my 15" dia. globe?"
I don't think I need to tell you HOW to measure distances across the surface of a globe :-/
Anyway, I ALWAYS ask flat Earth believers to select the locations themselves, where THEY are satisfied with the distance stated, whether it's over land or sea or both. That way you are measuring distances that you trust.
If I gave you locations to measure, then that opens it up to manipulation on my part, which defeats the purpose. Therefore you need to select the locations to measure.
I recommend to some as a starting point the locations specified in flat Earth distance claims, where it is claimed that some distant object shouldn't be seen over the curvature if the Earth was a globe.
ALL the years that I've debated such claims, the distance has ALWAYS been stated as FACT by flat Earth believers. Not once has any flat Earth believer suggested that the object can be seen because the distance may be wrong.
So in the same way all distances measured on a flat map of our town being correct proves the flat map is an accurate representation of our town, then all distances measured on a globe of the Earth being correct proves the globe is an accurate representation of our 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
-
@johnnytremain7438 - You said "Read my other posts in this thread... then do some research. The ORIGINAL data is "lost". "
WRONG, that's your assumption because your starting point is to believe conspiracy theorists 100% :-|
Data on magnetic tape that needed to be kept, such as telemetry data, was always printed out as a hard copy (a standard procedure worldwide for decades for permanently storing data held on magnetic tapes) and the tapes often reused, which was the purpose of those magnetic tapes.
So after each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the extracted telemetry data was analyzed and presented as charts and graphs and tables.
For example, 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);
Replies with links are blocked here, so just change 😮 and 🖍️ as required;
tiny😮cc🖍️c1wjuz
And in case you're wondering, here's the mission reports for a few other Apollo missions, feel free to search for "telemetry" within the following mission reports (you know, the data that conspiracy theorists claim doesn't exist);
Apollo 15: tiny😮cc🖍️m1wjuz
Apollo 17: tiny😮cc🖍️q1wjuz
How could those reports even exist without the telemetry data that is claimed to be lost?
So if you still believe I'm wrong despite all the evidence, then please state which telemetry data you believe was lost :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ECHONWC - In other words son, you cannot provide the accurate map I asked you for :-) The map on a GLOBE of the Earth is accurate, where every country is the correct size and correct shape and all the distances are correct.
In contrast, no such map exists for a flat Earth, so simply put: No accurate flat map of a flat Earth = No flat Earth
As for Eric 'Charlatan' Dubay, that's the guy who claims the South Pole doesn't exist, and yet YOU, Me and EVERYONE HERE can book onto a South Pole tour and experience it for ourselves (where it's EASY to prove you really are at the South Pole). That's if you can afford it of course :-)
https://www.discover-the-world.com/destinations/south-pole-holidays/
Also look at Eric's laughable "200 Proofs Earth is not a Spinning Ball", and notice that in proof #123 he claims the sun is 3000 miles away (the official FE claim is 3000 miles up) and yet in proof #125 Eric claims the sun is just above the clouds!!! (hence according to the photo, the sun must be 1-2 miles up :-)).
So while Dubay can easily own incredibly ignorant, gullible and naive people like you, he would be torn apart by scientists like Neil, which is why we never see Dubay appear on any non-conspiracy science shows to have a straight debate, even though he must have been invited :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ECHONWC - The only person using ignorant strawman arguments is you son :-)
Explain why you think the speed of the Earth has anything to do with its shape. The fact is, it doesn't, therefore you referring to its speed is irrelevant to its shape (perhaps you should look up the meaning of strawman argument before making a fool of yourself again).
For almost 2000 years the Christian churches have all said the Earth is a globe, however they initially accepted Ptolemy's 140 AD model that placed a Globe STATIONARY Earth at the center of the Universe, and then in 1633 Galileo was charged with heresy for daring to suggest that the Globe Earth orbited the sun, i.,e. for suggesting the Earth was not at the center AND it moves.
Flat Earth theorists can offer no accurate map, they don't know if there's a firmament dome or not, they don't know if the land ends at the claimed ice wall, they don't know if the Earth rests upon pillars or not. In other words, the foundation of the claim is not observable, not measurable, not testable and not repeatable, which you helped to prove by your failure to answer those simple flat Earth questions.
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
@ECHONWC - Actually, as a practicing amateur astronomer with a degree in Mathematics, I've been directly using the mathematical models of the solar system for years to carry out calculations/predictions of astronomical events, from sun and moon and planet positions, to sunrise/sunset times worldwide, to solar and lunar eclipses, to transits, and so on.
All thanks to various books and sources out there, with mathematics which proves the globe moon orbiting the globe Earth orbiting the globe Sun along with other globe planets is correct, because the models WORK, the mathematics WORK, and therefore the model is proven.
In contract, there's no mathematical model of a flat Earth, and hence the flat Earth predicts absolutely nothing, zero, zilch. Oh wait, a slight correction there, the flat Earth does make one prediction - It predicts that people like Eric Dubay will continue to grow richer thanks to gullible people like yourself ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So all you need to do to prove me wrong is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a globe is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world.
That's all. It should be very easy if the Earth is not a globe.
After all, if a map of a city (with a bar scale) was wrong, then it would be easy to find two locations where the distance measured on the map is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world, where margins of error or changes to the city doesn't explain the discrepancy. Same with the globe of the Earth.
I've asked flat Earth believers for those two locations on Earth for many years and yet I'm still waiting, proving they cannot find any error in the map of the Earth in the form of a globe, proving the globe is the correct shape of the Earth :-)
I prefer that proof because it's easy, there's no science required, all you need is a globe of the Earth, preferably a good quality up-to-date globe, a measuring tape and some paper and pen (or a calculator), and you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations you find on that globe of the Earth no matter where they are or how far apart they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have two such friends.
One is described perfectly by tubecated_development, where she claims she's not saying the Earth is definitely flat but somehow she 'knows' for a fact that 'THEY' are not telling us the truth about the Earth being a globe. And don't get me started on her beliefs about "Chemtrails", the moon landings and covid :-)
As for my other friend, I made a joke comparing certain people with those who believe the Earth is flat expecting him to laugh along with me, and he replied "So how do you know the Earth is a globe?". I laughed again saying something like "Exactly, right?" thinking he was being sarcastic, but as I looked across at his serious and now reddening face, he asked me more slowly "No, I'm asking YOU how YOU know the Earth is a globe, other than what YOU'VE been told?".
Well, lets just say that conversation didn't end well :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CarsSlavik-mt2rt - The two experiments in my last reply demonstrates gravity :-)
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthewpohlman - You said "I posted a response over an hour ago but it was removed. Gee, I wonder why. Going to try again."
Because following recent changes on YT the AI algorithm is now to quick to shadow ban replies even when there's nothing wrong with them.
THAT'S the reason for my multiple replies, BECAUSE they were being shadow banned, so I had to keep deleting the original reply and trying again - changing the wording, reducing the text AND splitting them up to identify the part causing the shadow ban.
If the AI flags your reply as containing insults, links, too long, banned words etc, then it will be deleted or shadow banned.
You said "You continue to post several comments all at once."
As explained above.
You said "I would like to speak with you personally. Are you willing to speak over the phone?"
Come on, really? :-)
Lets just focus on my globe proof for now. Can you really not understand the significance that you can give me ANY two locations on Earth, no matter how far apart, were we can ALL work out the distance ourselves with just a globe and a measuring tape as I described?
1
-
1
-
Please show me the debate between Eric Dubay and the flat Earth theorists who he claims are shills working for the government, such as Mark Sargent, because I must have missed it :-) Anyway...
Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, etc.
So why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate?
If Neil had a history of debating leading theorists of many other conspiracy claims, then sure you could argue he should do the same for flat Earth theorists. But that's not the case, therefore there's no reason for Neil to waste his time debating people who have their own view of reality and their own agendas, where their 'theories' has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with the scientific method :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richbrewer8121 - Thank you for proving your complete ignorance son :-)
Here's a simple question for you: If you held up a ball, can you see half of it? Yes or no?
If you can see half of the ball, then that means if you place a tiny camera in ANY location on the surface of the ball that you can see, then that camera can also see and film YOU.
Therefore a camera on the extreme LEFT of the ball and a camera on the extreme RIGHT of the ball are on OPPOSITE sides of the ball.
Here's a simple diagram to illustrate that simple point;
https://ibb.co/H4pkmhy
I'm sure even a child can understand that points A and B are on opposite sides of the ball, and points C and D are on opposite sides of the ball.
Therefore because YOU can see points A, B, C and D on that ball, then YOU can be filmed by a camera on points A, B, C and D.
So if that ball was the Earth and you were the moon, then people living at points A, B, C, D on the Earth, i.e. on opposite sides of the Earth, can see the moon at the same time.
For the parts of the ball that you can't see (i.e. the other side of the ball), any camera on that side will not be able to see you.
So again, if the ball was the Earth and you were the moon, then people living of the side of the Earth that can't by seen from the moon at that time, will not be able to see the moon.
Simple. Yes?
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@miramira4all - Great, so lets take it in a few steps.
Before discussing the globe itself, lets take an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as a town or a city.
EVERYONE can find an accurate map of their own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Therefore we can take any two locations on our map and measure it to easily 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.
So do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
(In other words, if the scale of your map was 1 mile per cm and you measured a route from A to B across the streets of your town/city map that was 3 cm in total, then that would be 3 miles in the real world. And if the direct distance (eg. via a drone) from A to B was 1.5 cm on your map, then the direct distance would be 1.5 miles in the real world.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@labrawnjaimsrealityoverthe2494 - 3) "My mistake I did mean feet. So they only way to determine the curve is based on CGI riddled evidence from NASA."
I thought so :-)
Anyway, here's the problem. 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 often 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 'sweet spot' near the center of the video where the earth appears to be flat.
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 flat to concave in seconds here;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWUZDOQm_HE&t=1226
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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fredrikhamar4374 - That doesn't address the point I made.
To this day, not even the highest budget sci-fi movies or sci-fi TV series have ever recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour upon hour of Apollo footage, where even the dust and objects fall down at the rate of the moon's gravity. Even CGI today doesn't look quite right (CGI often looks a bit 'off', especially when modelling people).
When the popular hoax believer's claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6BXaGEuqxo&t=247
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion, right? ;-)
So the problem is, until someone can demonstrate perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence prove it can be done, then any claims that the Apollo footage was faked in a studio will remain unfounded.
That proves the Apollo footage was filmed in an environment with 1/6 gravity and no air, and the only location that fits that description is the moon, hence proving the footage shows astronauts on the moon.
If someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates their own uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that person/team has PROVEN it IS possible to fake the Apollo footage.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were fake, but it would mean it is possible to fake the footage seen. But that has never happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JEvrist - If you really do have a BA in Studio Art then you should be ashamed at making such a schoolgirl error, because photos in books, magazines, documentaries, websites etc, are often EDITED to make them look better, including those on SCIENCE websites.
So go ahead and present a link to the photo you took from NASA's website, and then find the same photo in this archive of high resolution scans of the original RAW Apollo photographs;
www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
Or from this older archive here (high res version to most but not all the photos);
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/
And THEN point out where you see cut and paste in the ORIGINAL photographs!
The fact is, many of those old Apollo photographs have problems, from radiation damage (fogging that makes blacks appear more bluish or greenish grey) to noise resulting in dots and marks all over the photographs.
So for example, a great photograph of the Earth may be surrounded by dots of various sizes and colors, which are not stars, and therefore someone may edit that photo (such as copying blocks of black around the Earth) to hide all the flaws, leaving just the Earth in the image.
People like you would THEN see the edits in that photo and cry out "FAKE" without EVER bothering to look for the original photos to see if you can find the same alterations!
So again, for someone with your claimed education you should be embarrassed to have made such an uninformed claim about photographs on NASA's website.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "Every flat earth video that brings the globe theory to its knees is gone from the internet"
Untrue my friend, and hence that explains why you're so easily taken in by conspiracy theorists :-|
None of the flat Earth videos have been deleted, unless by the user or through the channel being deleted (by the user or for breaking the rules).
Any deleted videos would appear as blanks in every playlist that it was added, and yet where's the outcry from FE believers who say all the FE videos have vanished from their playlists?
Here are the facts ...
Google/YouTube changed the search algorithm to prevent conspiracy videos from completely dominating search lists as they were for several years!
In other words, if a few years ago I searched Google/YouTube for "Apollo moon landings", then instead of a list mostly about the Apollo moon landings, that list would be completely dominated by Apollo HOAX videos, which is unacceptable!
Following the changes however, such a search is now dominated by links/videos about the Apollo moon landings, as requested.
That's how it should be!
So now if you want to find conspiracy videos (moon landings, flat Earth, ISS hoax, etc) then you have to be more specific in your search, which is not difficult (you just need to be smarter in your search).
That's also how it should be and hence Google/YouTube have simply redressed the balance.
Whether it's gone too far depends on your conspiracy point of view, but the videos and links are still there, you just have to work harder and smarter to find them :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@koba2322 - You said "no you’re arguing for ignorance. 34% of our generation believes it..."
Where Neil addresses that in numerous videos as he debunks flat Earth and other conspiracy claims, why isn't that enough? So how is that me arguing for ignorance?
Ever heard of "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink"? People like Neil can make the water available (as he does) but he cannot make the horses drink it!
As for your video (the one I expected), oh sure, because we really must trust the claims of Eric Dubay who has never EVER debated any flat Earth theorist or any scientist anywhere at any time over flat Earth, and yet you fell for his act :-)
Now if Eric had a history of debating flat Earth theorists instead of attacking them, or debating scientists instead of attacking them, THEN perhaps you could argue he really did want to do it, but Eric NEVER HAS, so why should we believe he is 'mad' this time to not debate for the FIRST time EVER with a scientist? Why hasn't Eric had that debate with any scientist SINCE to show he's still up for a debate with Neil?
And again, show me where Eric and Neil BOTH agreed to have that debate (i.e. it was all set and ready to go), because I'm missing it in the video you provided!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dog_doge - Did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude? Of course you did!
Anyway at 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with a cheap vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum.
At 50 miles up, there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept.
In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions with altitude, with no barrier in between and no closed container required.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stainz_4208 - So to prove me wrong, all anyone has to do is find two locations on Earth where the distance measured on a globe is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world.
That's all. It should be very easy if the Earth is not a globe.
After all, if a map of a city (with a bar scale) was wrong, then it would be easy to find two locations where the distance measured on the map is wrong compared to the distance measured in the real world, where margins of error or changes to the city doesn't explain the discrepancy. Same with the globe of the Earth.
I've asked flat Earth believers for those two locations on Earth for many years and yet I'm still waiting, proving they cannot find any error in the map of the Earth in the form of a globe, proving the globe is the correct shape of the Earth :-)
I prefer that proof because there's no science required, all you need is a globe of the Earth, preferably a good quality up-to-date globe, a measuring tape and some paper and pen (or a calculator), and you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations you find on that globe of the Earth no matter where they are or how far apart they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinewert4037 - You said "go have a chat with conspiracy theorist. Your refutations only strengthen their position, because it plays into the idea that they are the only ones who can see through the illusion."
As I know after debating Apollo hoax believers and ISS hoax believers and Electric Universe believers online for over 10 years, and more recently debating flat Earth believers for several years.
So I'm not disagreeing with your general points, I'm only saying that from experience I know it's not quite as straight forward as you're making out.
It's always tempting to assume things are black and white, eg. some people believe the Earth is flat others know the Earth is a globe, but the reality is there are many people who are easily confused and manipulated when confronted with conspiracy claims, and hence they will hover in between for quite some time before finally settling upon the side which (in their opinion) provided the most convincing evidence.
Therefore if people never hear the arguments for the truth, never see the truth being defended, never see the counter arguments to the conspiracy claims made, then they will be more likely to gravitate towards the lies.
So it's not about trying to change the minds of those whose minds are made up already, it's about putting the truth out there for people to hear and see as loudly and as vividly as the conspiracy claims and lies that they're noticing.
Not promoting the truth to counter apparently 'harmless' conspiracies, eg. flat Earth, opens the door for more dangerous conspiracies to thrive, eg. QAnon.
Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Daggz90 - But that's the problem right there my friend, because nothing you've mentioned here is about dishonesty or deceit from NASA, it's about people not understanding the technology and hence jumping to conclusions and twisting it into something it's not :-|
To this day, all the digital sensors in all our phones and cameras and satellites and space probes etc only record in BLACK AND WHITE, and so color has to be reconstructed using various methods.
Your phone will use a filter with a grid of colors (eg Bayer filter) over the black and white digital sensor, where a mathematical algorithm will then convert the pattern of colors to work out the most likely color of each pixel. The resulting photos and videos are not 100% color perfect but to our eyes it looks perfect.
For science the images represents data and so it has to be 100% color perfect, so for photos that are pleasing to our eyes spacecraft will take multiple photos with different filters (eg, red then green then blue) and combine those photos to get the final image.
However, the levels of red and green and blue are open to interpretation, and so may be adjusted until they 'feel right' to those looking at the photos.
For science the black and white photo taken through the red filter contains important accurate information, same for the photos through the green filter and the blue filter, but for images close to what our eyes would have seen they combine the 3 photos to create a color photo.
So when they did that for the Mars photos the scientists thought it looked off, that it wasn't red enough because the sky looked more blue than red, so they assumed the color balance wasn't right and adjusted it so that the sky appeared more red as expected.
Can you understand how and why conspiracy theorists jumped to false conclusions and turned that into a claim that NASA were purposely |ying? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pureblood6607 - Bro are you for real ? Are you lazy ? Lmao
But seriously, it's not rocket science if you make the effort to understand what is being said :-)
If you created a perfect model of the Earth that stood 3 meters high (300 cm, or about 10 feet), then it will bulge out slightly at the equator by 1 cm, and hence would be 300 cm high and 301 cm wide.
That is an oblate spheroid, but to the naked eye and in photographs and videos your model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Also, due to the distribution of lands and seas, the Earth actually bulges out a fraction more in the South compared to the North (by about 1 mm on your 300 cm model), hence the pear shape comparison that is too small to be seen with the naked eye, so again your 'pear shape' oblate spheroid model Earth will look like a perfect sphere, just like photographs of the Earth from space.
Hence Neil is making the point that the Earth is not a perfect sphere and describes how it differs from being a perfect sphere, even though it looks like a perfect sphere to our eyes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@afrayedknott1701 - [Sigh] :-|
Try attempting to understand what you're watching instead of jumping to false conclusions like so many conspiracy believers. :-|
Orion is a new craft, and so like ALL craft designed to carry people whether on land, in the sea, in the air or in space, it needs to be tested first to make sure it's safe! Why would you assume space is the exception to the rule?
Kelly Smith speaks about the problem of Van Allen belt radiation to MODERN ELECTRONICS only, he says NOTHING about the effect of radiation on human health, hence right at the start at 0:44 he says and I quote "Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems, and there's only one way to know if we got it right, fly it in space. For Orion's first flight, no astronauts would be on board, the spacecraft is loaded with sensors to record and measure all aspects of the flight in every detail."
On December 5th 2014, Orion was sent into space for the test that Kelly Smith mentioned, where it was sent through the region of the Van Allen belts with the highest radiation TWICE and Orion aced that test inside the belts, the electronics worked perfectly, proving that it is safe to send astronauts to the moon inside Orion without the worry of the electronics failing (since their lives would depend upon the electronics working).
This wasn't a problem for the Apollo craft because the crude electronics of the late 60s and early 70s isn't effected by Van Allen belt radiation.
In other words, take an early 70s calculator and YOUR phone into the Van Allen belts and the 70s calculator will work perfectly but your modern phone will CRASH, hence your phone would need radiation hardened electronics and shielding to protect it from the radiation, something that that 70s calculator wouldn't need.
Do you get it now? :-)
1
-
1
-
@afrayedknott1701 - You also cried "I refuse to continue to argue with you about this obvious fraud."
Well, before you slip away to the safety of your retreat, I will address this point from you for others to read "Evidently you are unaware of the science of parallax.... proves all still photography as well as video footage supposedly taken on the moon, to be falsified."
Clearly you are uneducated :-|
To this day, no-one has EVER recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even the most modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
When the popular hoax theorists claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
(Replies with links are blocked here, so just change 😮 to . and 🖍️ to /)
tiny😮cc🖍️e9jjuz
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion and wires, right? ;-)
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut fake footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth.
Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
Until then it remains a fact that the footage was filmed in an environment with no air and 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was 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
-
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "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."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
Ask yourself which conspiracy theorist who talks about the Van Allen belts has ever had spacecraft that he/she helped to design sent out into space into those same belts :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "If Gravity, then wouldn't the forces of gravity required to hold the oceans/depths in place crush any life form on the planet."
That's a typical misunderstanding of gravity, which is why so many flat Earth believers can't (or won't) understand it :-)
I don't have time right now but will come back later, but in the meantime, see if you can work it out from the fact that gravity is NOT just about the Earth attracting matter towards it, gravity is about ALL matter attracting other matter.
In other words, the gravity of the Earth attracts you, your gravity attracts the Earth, hence the Earth and you attract each other. The gravity of the Earth attracts the oceans, the gravity of the oceans attract the Earth, hence the Earth and oceans attract each other...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hagogs - Neil doesn't debate them because it's the right thing to do!
After all, should Neil also debate concave/hollow Earth theorists, alien UFO theorists, alien abduction theorists, spaceship moon theorists, ghost/spirit theorists, witchcraft theorists, paranormal theorists, electric universe theorists, alien crop circle theorists, etc, and hence give them the publicity and credence that they desperately seek?
Why should Neil make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate compared to the theorists for other conspiracy and alternative reality claims out there (some of which I've listed above)? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulmorris1819 - You said " They use a flat Earth model because it is what works."
Wrong, they ASSUME a flat Earth to simplify the equations for those specific models, as Frankie explained.
For example and I quote "flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating earth"
Since when are ANY aircraft rigid? According to you, they are saying airplanes can never bend or flex but instead are completely rigid like solid blocks of rock!
Since when is our atmosphere stationary? According to you, they are saying there's no such thing as wind!
Not only that, but in most cases the flat Earth assumption in those models refers to a perfectly flat plane, i.e. no hills no valleys no height difference anywhere, just a perfectly flat surface, which is NOT the definition of your claimed flat Earth! :-)
THAT is the point of model simplifications through assumptions, where EVERY assumption is stating "Although this is not true in the real world, please ASSUME it is true for the sake of simplifying our model".
So again, NOTHING you have posted here says the Earth is flat or aircraft are rigid or our atmosphere is stationary or aircraft are a point masses (i.e. infinitely small) and so on.
Because if you're claiming they say the Earth is flat, then you are ALSO claiming they are saying ALL the other assumptions above are true too!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@commonsense7407 - The fact that you actually took Neil's point about the shape of the Earth so LITERALLY says it all.
So if your friend said he's so hungry he could eat a horse, would you then check your phone to see if they sell horse meat in your area? Your answer must be yes given your comment that shows you don't understand what an analogy is :-)
If you did understand that your friend didn't literally mean a horse, then why are you unable to understand that Neil didn't literally mean a pear?
From the video "Neil deGrasse Tyson explains how the earth became pear-shaped";
Neil; "...But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer; "A little chubbier"
Neil; "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
Some audience laughter
Neil; "... it turns out, the pear shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size
Neil; "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
So despite the 'pear shape' analogy Neil clearly says the Earth is "practically a perfect sphere".
Therefore it's dishonest to claim he said the Earth literally looks pear shape, and yet so many flat Earth believers do. Why is that?
To summarise;
Neil was making the point that the Earth is not a perfect sphere, that it's flattened slightly at the poles and hence it's an oblate spheroid... but... even that oblate spheroid is distorted a little because the Earth bulges out a fraction more in the south compared to the north, like a pear, where he made the point that the distortion overall is so small that and I quote "cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere".
It really is that simple!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude? Of course you did!
At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil!
You can easily recreate those same conditions with any vacuum chamber!
At 20 miles up, there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum. At 50 miles up, there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on.
Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept. In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions.
After all, what's separating the crushing pressures of the ocean floor miles down from the low pressure of water at the surface of our oceans? The pressure is higher the lower we go down into the ocean, due to the weight of the sea above.
Likewise the pressure of our atmosphere is higher the lower we go towards the surface of the Earth, due to the weight of the air above.
So weight creates the pressure at lower levels, and that weight is caused by gravity.
The law of entropy that you mentioned only applies to a gas when no external force is applied to the molecules. Gravity is the external force acting upon the gas molecules of our atmosphere.
1
-
1
-
@FlatzoidsPerspective - A vacuum chamber is containment because it is inside pressurized air, hence the SAME as being underwater surrounded by pressurized liquid.
You said "Second problem when you add gas inside a vacuum chamber its no longer a vacuum! "
WRONG. There's no such thing as a perfect vacuum, therefore even the best vacuum chambers you can access will still have gas molecules floating around.
Because of that, vacuums are categorized as I pointed out (low vacuum, medium vacuum, high vacuum, etc), for example;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Measurement
Hence a vacuum cleaner is not called that because it creates a perfect vacuum, it has that name because it creates lower pressure inside (a low vacuum) which causes the higher pressure air surrounding it to rush in, taking dust with it.
Not sure what point you think you're making about gravity, since it's effect would be irrelevant to the amount of gas in a vacuum chamber.
Either way, you have proven here that you don't understand what a vacuum is :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Firstly it's Dubay not Dubai, and Eric Dubay has never made such a request, you are referring to Joe Rogan who tried to make that happen.
Secondly, Neil doesn't debate flat Earth theorists for the same reason he doesn't waste his time debating Concave Earth theorists, or Hollow Earth theorists, or crop circle theorists, or ISS hoax theorists, or alien abduction theorists, or Electric Universe theorists, or UFO theorists, etc.
So there's no reason for Neil to make flat Earth theorists a special case for debate.
And Eric Dubay has never had an open debate with anyone who disagrees with his views. He doesn't even debate the flat Earth theorists that he publicly accused of working for the gvt to discredit flat Earth, such as Mark Sargent :-|
Eric doesn't even attend flat Earth conferences to put himself in a position to be questioned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jkuang - You said ""It makes NO HUMAN SENSE!" It is a statement, not a discussion."
Oh, you mean exactly what you've been offering here! Such hypocrisy :-)
So lets go into DETAIL, where you said and I quote "But the technologies of landing a man on moon, returning him safely (hint massive life supporting equipment) back up to the moon orbit automatically, just simply not possible EVEN TODAY."
Explain why please.
During the 60s BOTH the USSR and US were able to keep people alive in low Earth orbit for weeks, were able to send several unmanned spacecraft to the surface of the moon and beyond, and the USSR were even able to return samples from the moon in 1970, 1972 and 1976.
So when a nation builds the largest and the most powerful rocket in history capable of taking over 45 tons to the moon, then explain exactly what technology was MISSING to get people to the moon, you know, the technology that the world's space experts have all missed but you have somehow spotted :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1