Some reasons I believe FET (prev. "check my FET")

The problem with the sheeple versus the open-minded sceptic wars, is that the former generally aren’t.

in my case I do not trust politicians or the mega rich or those that they employ, but, you have to temper that mistrust with actual reason or you end up like Mikey here.
 
The latter seemed to have had a sudden revelatory experience, an epiphany of realisation rather than a dawning understanding of the world and this has blown their minds, from that point forward everything that comes from “the man” is not just suspect, it is diametrically opposite to the truth, all of it. To the extent that wretches like Alex Jones are believed with the blind dedication that the “enquirer” attributes to the others (us), and the further away you get from reason the less you need to be convinced, so we pass through the “I heard it said” and “they have found” stages and finally end up hanging on the next Qanon mishmash of random bollocks word salad that can be interpreted any way you want.

You might want to think about that a bit more. The space program is a very significant part of the RE proof. If it is admitted that NASA is faking things it's a very significant blow.

One can accept Round Earth evidence AND question the official Apollo narrative at the same time.

I, personally, find the majority of NASA's scientific work valuable and inspiring. There are some major problems with the Apollo narrative, however — it is not self-consistent or credible. Giving blanket trust to NASA just because they are NASA is not a good idea. Dismissing all NASA work simply because of some sketchy claims made in one area is not a good idea either. One does not need to accept that artificial dichotomy.

Don't simplistically lump all NASA activities together. That is a trap. Think about it: NASA is the only source of Apollo information. RE is demonstrated a zillion ways; some are from NASA, but most are independent of NASA.

Care to provide more effort than just linking 2, long conspiracy videos?
Such as providing an actual argument yourself, preferably backed up by evidence from NASA rather than from a conspiracy video?

How is it we have mysteriously "lost the technology" to go to the moon? Why has no human left low earth orbit in 50 years? Maybe it is because it never happened the first time around. Maybe it is a well maintained fiction. Given the pace of technology, we should have bases on the moon and have visited Mars by now.

Some problems with the Apollo narrative:
1. The Saturn V rockets did not have sufficient lifting power to do what is claimed that they did. (Covered in Part 3 of that video series.)
2. The capsules used did not have sufficient shielding to protect astronauts from the known radiation. (Part 2) Capsules with sufficient shielding would have been too heavy to launch.
3. The photographs NASA presents of the Apollo missions are filled with internal inconsistencies. (Part 1)
— Shadows of two objects in the same photo go in two different directions (showing stage lighting) even though there was only one light source available (the sun).
— Backlit photos (i.e, photos shot into the sun) show foreground detail that would be impossible to see in a legitimate photo (things in shadow would be grossly underexposed in a legitimate shot). "Fill lighting", like in a studio shot, absolutely must have been used in order to record those images. Indeed, reflections of supplementary light sources can be seen in some official photos. The astronauts brought no additional light sources with them.
— Footprints and rover tracks are not consistent in supposedly sequential photos. (They get 'rubbed away' between shots. How?)
— Some photos were taken from points of view higher than an astronaut is tall. How? (The cameras were strapped to their chests.)
— The American flag has two different fold patterns (it's fluffed out differently) in two images of the same scene taken simultaneously (allegedly) from two angles. How?
— The backgrounds in the Apollo shots are not consistent; the mountains shift around and are reused in different locations — just as one would see if using movable stage backgrounds.
4. The photo techniques one would need to produce the bogus Apollo shots were well established at the time. Many are on display in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was filmed during the Apollo years.

... preferably backed up by evidence from NASA ...rather than from a conspiracy video?

Well, presenting the evidence that NASA offers and critially examining it is exactly the approach used in the documentary. You have what you need in front of you. Watch it ... don't watch it ... your choice.

First thing  - can i ever see earths curvature from the ground and how.

Go the shore of a large body of water on a clear, quiet day.  Observe a well-defined horizon a few miles away.

There you go.  That close horizon could not exist if the earth were flat. Easy. An observation you can do all by yourself.

First thing  - can i ever see earths curvature from the ground and how.

Yup.  Go to Long Beach, California.  Watch out for tarballs.  Turn west and look at Catalina Island.  Avalon is a port on the east side of the island, facing Long Beach.  Tell me if you see it.  If you can, the Earth is definitely flat.  If you can't, guess what?  You are looking at the curvature of the planet obscure your line of sight.  If you want to take it a step further, head over to Balboa Island and hop on the Catalina Flyer.  It runs daily and you can sit on the bow and watch Avalon come into view as you approach it.  It is literally coming over the curve of the planet.

It curves away from you.
Thats how.

Think about it: NASA is the only source of Apollo information.

That may be due to them being the company behind the program? It's not like the Russian space agency could ever be another source. Although if one thinks NASA are lying bastards you could always look at the Russian space program - and they demonstrated far more accomplishments and superiority first before America did



We can always ask China too now they have a capable space program as they have a radio controlled car toy on Mars. Dozens of other countries have a space program. Who gives a shit about Apollo anymore? Old News

Given the hellhole that is Venus, I am more impressed we landed something on there than our own Moon. Ruskis beat the Yanks to the punch in landing something on Mars too. Again, way more impressive than landing on our own Moon. Was landing on the Moon cool? Sure. Taking off from the moon to rendezvous with the ship to fly home was even more impressive.

The only problem I have with yanks lauding themselves as 'winners' is it undermines the accomplishments of Russia (I suppose that's propaganda at work) - who despite what you think of them are deserving of praise.

So if you dont want to take your information from America, no problem. Take it from Russia

Quote from: faded mike on October 06, 2021, 07:43:27 PM

First thing  - can i ever see earths curvature from the ground and how.

Yes, you can. You can go to the Bedford Canal and watch someone in a kayak paddle away over the horizon. If you cannot make it personally, then you could watch the video of such an event made by the UK Flat Earth Group.

Or, you could watch any boat travel over the horizon on any large body of water that may be convenient to you.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=89043.0



The people who made that video drew a conclusion (flat earth) that was exactly opposite to what their own video showed (earth curvature). It is easy to get around their flawed commentary, though, by using your own brain to analyze what they present.

"Here's an experiment that has been conducted many times and has always concluded a flat earth, but I'm going to baselessly say it concludes a round earth."

I wouldn't put much weight into the trolls that come here each day, day in and day out to try to attack the flat earth ideology. They clearly have no life and an unnatural and unhealthy obsession with others beliefs. They wouldn't admit the flat earth if it hit them on the head.

aren't all the gov't in cahoots?
it's a "global" conspiracy, no?

Quote from: Thunderwolf on October 06, 2021, 08:05:36 PM

... You can go to the Bedford Canal and watch someone in a kayak paddle away over the horizon. If you cannot make it personally, then you could watch the video of such an event made by the UK Flat Earth Group.
...
The people who made that video drew a conclusion (flat earth) that was exactly opposite to what their own video showed (earth curvature). It is easy to get around their flawed commentary, though, by using your own brain to analyze what they present.

"Here's an experiment that has been conducted many times and has always concluded a flat earth, but I'm going to baselessly say it concludes a round earth."

I described what is shown in that video: a kayak was lost to sight over the horizon (at 6:26, and following). That proves the Earth's curvature. Is John Davis watching a different video?

As described in the earlier thread, the physical setup of the canal (cool water, warm air, high banks that keep the air layers stable) creates ideal conditions for atmospheric refraction to occur. The observations should be very repeatable, and are.

So, yes, I believe the Bedford experiment was repeated many times, and many times the boat was seen at 6 miles. They were images created by mirage, though. The observations are correct. The interpretation is not. It never has been. On the one windy day that they tried it and filmed it, the inversion layer was not stable, and they could NOT reliably see the distant boat. The jig is up: FET does not depend on whether it is windy or not; refraction does. Ergo, refraction is the mechanism making the distant sightings possible. That is what the video posted by faded mike actually (and inadvertently) shows, despite what he thought it showed and despite the (bogus, counterfactual) interpretation of his own data made by the videographer.

Are thinking skills and reasoning ability our friends, friends, or our enemy? One wonders.

I wouldn't put much weight into the trolls that come here each day, day in and day out to try to attack the flat earth ideology. They clearly have no life and an unnatural and unhealthy obsession with others beliefs. They wouldn't admit the flat earth if it hit them on the head.

Well I wouldn't put much weight to someone supporting disinformation, and who wouldn't admit the earth is not flat even though they can see it with their own eyes.

Perhaps you, being the "most prolific scientist" can address the problem I posed above: If the earth were flat, why would the view over open water on a clear quiet day show an obvious, well defined horizon just a few miles away?

maybe faded can stop with the pleading and answer simple questions

when the cars go over the peak of the bridge, does the viewer at ground level see a distinct edge?
are the cars disappearing bottom-top or top-bottom or just getting smaller?
why are the cars disappearing?
can you see the curvature of the bridge from this angle?

pause at 1:04 and once again pause at 1:13

maybe faded can stop with the pleading and answer simple questions

when the cars go over the peak of the bridge, does the viewer at ground level see a distinct edge?

Read: Earth, Not A Globe.

are the cars disappearing bottom-top or top-bottom or just getting smaller?

Read: Earth, Not A Globe.

why are the cars disappearing?

Read: Earth, Not A Globe.

can you see the curvature of the bridge from this angle?

Read: Earth, Not A Globe.

pause at 1:04 and once again pause at 1:13

Read: Earth, Not A Globe.

Quote from: Thunderwolf on October 07, 2021, 04:56:20 AM

Think about it: NASA is the only source of Apollo information.

That may be due to them being the company behind the program?

Well, yes, exactly. The point is there can be no independent verification that Apollo ever happened short of landing there to look for discarded equipment. And who is going to do that independently of NASA? -- the NASA fly-by photos of the Apollo sites are a joke — they show nothing!

We only have NASA's word for it that Apollo happened as advertised. We can look at the internal evidence, though. Therein, we find self-consistency problems (photographic record), and impossibilities (getting a human through the Van Allen belt intact).

The most popular counterargument to what I just posted is that there is a prism up there that they left behind. We use it to bounce laser beams to confirm Earth-Moon distances. This is a bogus argument: the albedo of Moon's surface is sufficient to account for the return beam without a prism being present. (It was already being done BEFORE Apollo 'left' a prism there.) And, there are other ways to get a prism up there, anyway, that do not include crewed spacecraft.

Another popular counterargument is that "too many people would have had to be involved - you can't keep that big a secret." Actually, not true. All ground control ever has done is respond to the flight telemetry appearing on their terminals. NASA had already developed and used telemetry simulations for training that were indistinguishable from genuine missions. All you needed is one guy to cue up a bogus tape that was already made, a couple of astronauts making a trip to low earth orbit who were playing along, and Stanley Kubrick's film crew to forge the photographic record in advance. Easy-peasy.

So if you dont want to take your information from America, no problem. Take it from Russia

Doesn't really work. Both sides were lying about their accomplishments during the 'Space Race' in the 1950s & 1960s. Both sides know the other was lying. It was all propaganda. One side cannot expose the other's lies without leaving themselves open to exposure, too. It's mutually assured boloney.

We can look at the internal evidence — wherein we find self-consistency problems (photographic record), and impossibilities (getting a human through the Van Allen belt intact).

lol, their brief time in the belt is not a problem for a human
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv)[c] per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[35]

You can get a bigger dose of radiation from a CT scan. It's not like they were hanging out in the belt. They flew straight through it

The amount of radiation a cancer patient receives to kill cancer is many times higher than a trip through the belt and back.

Also, it's not like the astronauts stepped outside naked to get a sun tan.... The spacecraft was shielded and it only takes a few mm of thickness. And the belt is absent above the poles too

https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/

When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. Apropos the energies: electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls.

Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.

I dont know what you have been reading or who told you it was 'impossible to get a human through the belt' but that info is full of shit. What do you think would happen to a human that ventured through it (as fast as a rocket goes)? That they would melt or something?

... we find self-consistency problems (photographic record), and impossibilities (getting a human through the Van Allen belt intact).

lol, their brief time in the belt is not a problem for a human ...

... I dont know what you have been reading or who told you it was 'impossible to get a human through the belt' but that info is full of shit ...

Whatever. My info comes from the video I posted earlier. Thier presentation is well documented, in my opinion. You might give it a chance. You might not.

Presents reader with documented facts on the subject....

Whatever. My info comes from the video I posted earlier. Thier presentation is well documented, in my opinion. You might give it a chance. You might not.

Yeah OK. Some conspiracy theory video just turned every bit of data we gathered over the decades and our understanding on how things work right on its head.

Time for you to broaden your research. This page should help
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=apollo+moon+landing&btnG=

Yeah OK. Some conspiracy theory video just turned every bit of data we gathered over the decades and our understanding on how things work right on its head.

It is actually a well-researched documentary, no matter what names you like to call it.

Watch it ... don't watch it ... whatever. But, how about not condemning something you haven't seen? Wouldn't that be polite?

Here is a counter-argument to your VanAllen analysis:
https://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm

Whatever. Here is a counter-argument to the analysis you presented:
https://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm

That page rivals Heiwas level of BS conspiracy theories and falsehoods. You really shouldn't pay attention to some nobody over thousands of scientists who dedicate their careers to the very subject

But hey, it's your mind.


And check this out
https://www.aulis.com/about.htm

To the question 'Who are We'

We are a close-knit team of researchers, editors and authors primarily working together to study the Apollo record and analyse all aspects of the Apollo Moon landings.

What? No names? No credentials? Yeah, I'd really trust that


And another thing to laugh at

Aulis publishes works that 'fly in the face' of orthodoxy and established thought. The intention is to present alternative ideas and discuss new ways of viewing the future of mankind.

So in other words, take an established and well known fact, and just wordplay some bullshit to say something opposite. 'Different Thinking' is their tagline LOL

Read: Earth, Not A Globe.

(x4)
Yes...  That is a book which doesn't exactly lend this whole flat Earth thing a huge amount of credibility from what I have read.  A book written by the mid-19th century equivalent of Screaming Lord Sutch.

The zetec method of enag and the hill/ bridge experiment show that an object on a plane curving away matches effect observed of boats and mountains sailing away and therefore can reasonably conclude the earth is round, be it cylinder or spherical.


What is Zetetic Method
1.A system of scientific inquiry that bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is not be proved or disproved.

Quote from: Shifter on October 07, 2021, 10:31:59 AM

Yeah OK. Some conspiracy theory video just turned every bit of data we gathered over the decades and our understanding on how things work right on its head.

It is actually a well-researched documentary, no matter what names you like to call it.

Watch it ... don't watch it ... whatever. But, how about not condemning something you haven't seen? Wouldn't that be polite?

Here is a counter-argument to your VanAllen analysis:
https://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm

I read the article. I couldn't really find any real "analysis". There's a lot of complaining about the language used in some reports and for some reason the author goes on about quoting Arthur C Clarke. Maybe when you present these things, like a long paper/article or a 2 hour video, you could tease out specifically what caught your interest. This, "here's a counter-argument..." followed by a lengthy whatever one has to wade through isn't helpful to your argument.

I asked for arguments, not a bunch of wild claims. Do you understand the difference?
I'll only bother responding to the questions and things actually resembling arguments, rather than baseless claims.

How is it we have mysteriously "lost the technology" to go to the moon?

There is nothing mysterious about it.
Why have we "lost the technology" to build the pyramids?
Why have we "lost the technology" to do so many things?

The equipment required to go to the moon was highly specialised, with none of the infrastructure to build it, and the people involved moved on.

Why has no human left low earth orbit in 50 years?

Why should they?
What is the purpose of putting humans above low Earth orbit?
What can humans achieve by going out, which can't be achieved (often better) by machines, with the risk of loss of human life?

Given the pace of technology, we should have bases on the moon and have visited Mars by now.

No, we shouldn't.

3. The photographs NASA presents of the Apollo missions are filled with internal inconsistencies. (Part 1)
— Shadows of two objects in the same photo go in two different directions (showing stage lighting) even though there was only one light source available (the sun).

You mean shadows along different surfaces, i.e. surfaces with different elevations, appear to go in different directions, due to the different terrain.

Backlit photos (i.e, photos shot into the sun) show foreground detail that would be impossible to see in a legitimate photo

There is nothing impossible about it.
The ground scatters light. This allows objects to be seen, even when lit from behind.
This is done all the time on Earth. And while Earth does have an atmosphere, most comes from the ground and objects nearby.

Well, presenting the evidence that NASA offers and critially examining it is exactly the approach used in the documentary.

Yet you don't provide anything from NASA.
I want it from NASA, not from some conspiracy nut who could happily manipulate it to pretend there are problems.

I have seen this before on youtube, where to try to claim that the ISS is filmed on a set they showed an astronaut fading out as they go through a doorway. What they didn't tell you is that in looping the video they used a fade effect, and the video was looped as the astronaut left, making them appear to fade out as well.
The entire argument was based upon the editing the conspiracy nut did.

Likewise, on this forum, one poster was great at producing fake photos by combining different photos, to pretend there is a problem.

So people "presenting the evidence NASA offers and critically examining it" is indistinguishable from "fabricating evidence to pretend there is a problem and blatantly lying about it" without the actual evidence from NASA from a reliable source.
If they were honest, they would provide links to the actual source, to easily allow others to go and look at the original themselves.

Your source is not reliable, so anything they present is not reliable. Them claiming it is from NASA doesn't mean it is. Provide the actual evidence from NASA.
And then provide the actual argument yourself, not just linking to some crappy video.

And instead of just spamming a bunch of claims, pick one, and actually justify it.

"Here's an experiment that has been conducted many times and has always concluded a flat earth, but I'm going to baselessly say it concludes a round earth."

You mean which has rarely concluded a flat Earth, and only when refraction was a massive problem, and when done in a more controlled manner (such as a higher elevation) shows a round Earth.

Read: Earth, Not A Globe.

Why?
To see a bunch of circular reasoning, with contradicts other aspects they have promoted, and which gets quite basic facts wrong?

It basically goes:
"Hey you know this thing that proves Earth isn't flat? Well, we know Earth is flat, so that must mean this happens on a FE, so it isn't a problem for a FE"

Sorry Timeisup if your still here on this forum - it was really late at night and i wasn't thinking.

I really feel at a loss as to what to say to aosome of this not wanting to type too much. i guess we will see what we can discuss constructively. Back in a bit

Oh I'll give an example of sicentific supression just to show it happens. Virginia Steen Macentyre lost her job and the findings supressed of her archaelogical discovery at Huaetlaco Mexico. See the movie "Mans Mysterious Origins" with Charelton Heston. She found artifacts which the newest dating procedures ofmthhe time stated to be over 100 thousand yrs old, although the mainstreasm timeline says people were not in that region more then i think 15 yrs ago... i dont know the truth of it all but I am personally open to the young earth creationist view point as well as the idea their are traces of civilizations older than the human race is thought to be.

That and cold fusion as I have brought up before - I really belive their are people who have repeated it although I aknowledge it is possibly more complicated then Pons and Fleischman (discoverers) published and perhaps no one really understands it. I also think it is easier to crack than hot fusion but their are politics involved.

After reaading some of this i have lost sight of my original intention, so i will repond to more of these comments in a bit - i am a bit slow at this.

maybe faded can stop with the pleading and answer simple questions

when the cars go over the peak of the bridge, does the viewer at ground level see a distinct edge?
are the cars disappearing bottom-top or top-bottom or just getting smaller?
why are the cars disappearing?
can you see the curvature of the bridge from this angle?

pause at 1:04 and once again pause at 1:13

Lets have faded take a swing?

Light bending of path of apparent sun could be like a rainbow, i heard tesla say the size of the earth is two times the wavelength of water molecule not sure just rememeber wavelength 2 times water. i know that is ambiguous but it might be useful info for the right person to hear.

I can not remember the other points I wanted to introduce right now.

I think the depalma experiment of course would be some suppressed info.