New Horizons flyby of dwarf planet Ultima Thule

Dutchy, you must really have a miserable suspicious life.

Are you feeling allright rabinoz ?

I know English isn't my native language but your last set of replies are extremely weird.
It seems you reply to bits and think you read things i most certainly did not write.....

Feck me, you aren't serious are you ?
In other words the top photographs conclude that multiple light sources were used and the type of lightning as seen in the structure of shadow edges is known too !!.
But you mean the lunar conditions are the same as the conditions in a film studio set up and therefor top photographers draw the wrong conclusions ?
Lunar conditions=studio set up with multiple light sources and different types of light bulbs and softboxes.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Right.

So after creating the world most elaborate hoax, including fooling the hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the space program, NASA have been rumbled because they used multiple light sources and soft boxes in the studio?

Why would they use multiple light sources anyway, unless to simulate light reflected from the lunar surface or the earth?

If they had a perfectly controlled environment to stage the landing, why wouldn’t they just light it as expected?

Also who says the people in the video are the world’s top photographers?  Do all “top photographers” agree with this assessment?

Right.

So after creating the world most elaborate hoax, including fooling the hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the space program,

Well it was quite easy to convince millions of Americans to go to war and bomb the hell out of fellow human beings for reasons i still cannot understand this very day.
But somehow the politicians have lured them into this idea that for the sake of humanity and the homeland it was/is a good idea to deforest Vietnam, bomb the hell out of the dessert and create havoc whenever they seemed fit.
The total amount of civilian victims is beyond any form of reason and rationality.
Fooling the masses is very easy with enough power and tools to pull off the deceit.

NASA have been rumbled because they used multiple light sources and soft boxes in the studio?

NASA could not oversee that the modern computing power ensured that any induvidual could research things at a level that was unthinkable in the late sixties.
Some of the remarks in the docu made by top photographers was indeed NASA did a louzy job.
But they were in a hurry in the late sixties to fullfill the prophecy of Kennedy (go to the moon before the decade is over) that had reached a mythical status.

Why would they use multiple light sources anyway, unless to simulate light reflected from the lunar surface or the earth?
If they had a perfectly controlled environment to stage the landing, why wouldn’t they just light it as expected?

Most important in the late sixties was to present high quality pictures to boast the ''yes we can'' in a country suffering from riots and anti government sentiment.
They weren't that dumb to overdue the glossy attempts back then,....so with the public level of awareness back then they did a pretty good job.
Only in hindsight we see what's terribly wrong with it...as confirmed !

Also who says the people in the video are the world’s top photographers?  Do all “top photographers” agree with this assessment?

Do you know top photographers who examined the footage and claim it was truly shot on the moon ?
I do know a ''no no'' lightguy because NASA couldn't find anyone better qualified to support their views.


Do you know 3.000 architects and engineers who claim the  9/11 collapse events followed the laws of nature as we know them to be ?
I know 3.000 who made their careers way more complicated by gathering in the opposite view !

And yet not one person who helped fake either one of those has come forward. How strange.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 05, 2019, 04:39:08 AM

Dutchy, you must really have a miserable suspicious life.

Are you feeling allright rabinoz ?

I know English isn't my native language but your last set of replies are extremely weird.
It seems you reply to bits and think you read things i most certainly did not write.....

I'm not criticising you English in the slightest but you get thoroughly tiresome.
While my spelling is OK my typing is horribly inaccurate and I'm not too proud to admit that I use a spelling/grammar checker but you seem to take pride in your mistakes.

You keep on and ad nauseam about how the lunar missions and yet you only arguments seem to be based on:
     your hatred of USA, NASA and Von Braun,
     your psychological profiling of the astronauts,
     photographic analysis done by people who might be photograph experts but know little lunar conditions and
     incorrect claims about things like the Van Allen Belt radiation.

What you forget is the enormous amount of third party evidence at the time where
     radio telescopes in many countries tracked the spacecraft,
     astronomical telescopes tracked the early parts of Apollo 11 and even observed a few events later,
     amateur radio operators listened in to much of the conversations, including one listening to Armstrong's words,
     these radio telescopes and the amateur radio antenna had to be pointed in exactly the right direction,
     USSR monitored the mission carefully and they would have relished the propaganda value of a failed missions (yes I know you have "answers"),
     whatever you and others claim the "moon rocks" could not come from earth, even from meteorites, and could not have been faked and
     I know that you claim it is all faked but there are now many photographs on the landing sites and not all from NASA.

Then you have to face the question of when how these videos were recorded.
They were NOT originally done on film and there were no video disc or tape systems (or film for that matter) at the time that could record for that duration with no break.
Nor were there any video disc or tape systems that could record slow-motion for long periods.
Just face it,  an enormous amount of research and preparation was done by NASA and others into all aspects of such a mission.
And many have claimed that going to the moon was possible faking it was not possible!

Then, did they make separate versions of the fake video?
    One in higher quality for eastern Australia (our video of Apollo 11 came direct from Parkes),
    a separate version for Western Australia, where they received theirs from the large satellite dish and
    a poorer on for the rest of the world.

And the whole "lunar hoax" hoax was started with a blatant lie by Bill Kaysing where he claimed that clusters of smaller B-1 engines instead of the F1.
But his lie was found out then one F1 engine from the Saturn 5 for Apollo 11 was recovered and the serial number matched NASA's records.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, 1808).

Yes, I know you'll say it's all the great conspiracy started by NASA 2500 years ago to hide the true shape of the earth but that's total hogwash.
This "conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth" would have to cover an enormous number of people and even US presidents fail to hide their little peccadillos.

And then you'll find that many of the lunar hoax "experts" don't doubt other space missions nor even LEO crewed missions such as the ISS. Much of the evidence they use comes from interpretations of lighting etc from the ISS etc.
Yet you use this evidence gained from high altitude (thousands of kilometre) rockets and from the ISS, all of which you deny or ridicule, to prop up your fiction!

No, of course, I haven't seen your new magic killer video so I'll wait with bated breath for what ensues.

But where does denying the lunar missions get you? Nowhere! The earth is still a rotating Globe and that's been proven beyond reasonable doubt!

PS Oops, I forgot the mandatory copy-n-paste. Will I ever be forgiven?

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 05, 2019, 07:35:02 AM

Right.

So after creating the world most elaborate hoax, including fooling the hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the space program,

Well it was quite easy to convince millions of Americans to go to war and bomb the hell out of fellow human beings for reasons i still cannot understand this very day.
But somehow the politicians have lured them into this idea that for the sake of humanity and the homeland it was/is a good idea to deforest Vietnam, bomb the hell out of the dessert and create havoc whenever they seemed fit.
The total amount of civilian victims is beyond any form of reason and rationality.
Fooling the masses is very easy with enough power and tools to pull off the deceit.

Good grief.  That’s completely different and you know it.

I’m talking about the technical details.  For instance, the Saturn V launch vehicle was real.  The whole world saw it lift off.  They had to make it powerful enough for the trip.  With number of people involved in designing, manufacturing and testing it, there’s no way it could be under spec’d without anyone noticing.

Same principle applies to the modules, plus every system and subsystem on them, right down to component level. 

Unless huge numbers of the scientists, engineers and technicians involved were in on it, the only way to fool everyone is to basically build the damned for real and for some reason not use it.  (Or from a flat earth perspective, build something that could do the job according to regular science).

Quote

NASA have been rumbled because they used multiple light sources and soft boxes in the studio?

NASA could not oversee that the modern computing power ensured that any induvidual could research things at a level that was unthinkable in the late sixties.
Some of the remarks in the docu made by top photographers was indeed NASA did a louzy job.
But they were in a hurry in the late sixties to fullfill the prophecy of Kennedy (go to the moon before the decade is over) that had reached a mythical status.

Computing power?  I thought we were talking about “top photographers” looking at the photos?  Where does computing power come into it?

Although since you bring it up, Nvidia had a go at recreating one of the most common examples given by conspiracy theorists and found the official story totally checks out.  Armstrong’s suit would have been sufficiently reflective to match the photo with only one light source.  At least according to their renderings.

https://www.google.de/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjCyO6v39ffAhXB66QKHSh8DBwQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.history.com%2Fnews%2Flighting-simulation-offers-more-proof-of-moon-landing&psig=AOvVaw1VNVIspHOpHRCYZ8RWy7XC&ust=1546815624390865


And as explained above, fooling the hundreds of thousands of people on the engineering side would have taken a ridiculously meticulous operation.

Yet when it came to the footage they could reasonably expect to be iconic and be poured over for decades to come, they just let someone throw up whatever lighting they fancied willy nilly?

Quote

Why would they use multiple light sources anyway, unless to simulate light reflected from the lunar surface or the earth?
If they had a perfectly controlled environment to stage the landing, why wouldn’t they just light it as expected?

Most important in the late sixties was to present high quality pictures to boast the ''yes we can'' in a country suffering from riots and anti government sentiment.
They weren't that dumb to overdue the glossy attempts back then,....so with the public level of awareness back then they did a pretty good job.
Only in hindsight we see what's terribly wrong with it...as confirmed !

No.  Top priority must have been to convince the whole world they really did it and never ever be found out.

Producing pretty pictures for magazines would have been way down the list.

(Incidentally wasn’t there earlier discussion where pictures of Ultima Thule were getting slated for not being very impressive?)

And no.  Not confirmed.  There are some websites, books and TV programs making claims.  That’s very far from confirmed.

Quote

Also who says the people in the video are the world’s top photographers?  Do all “top photographers” agree with this assessment?

Do you know top photographers who examined the footage and claim it was truly shot on the moon ?
I do know a ''no no'' lightguy because NASA couldn't find anyone better qualified to support their views.


Do you know 3.000 architects and engineers who claim the  9/11 collapse events followed the laws of nature as we know them to be ?
I know 3.000 who made their careers way more complicated by gathering in the opposite view !

You’re right, I don’t.  Maybe most people used to taking photos on earth don’t feel they are the best people to say one way or the other?

How many photographers feature in this video anyway?

And can we leave 9/11 out of this?  That’s pretty damned off topic.

I'm not criticising you English in the slightest but you get thoroughly tiresome.
While my spelling is OK my typing is horribly inaccurate and I'm not too proud to admit that I use a spelling/grammar checker but you seem to take pride in your mistakes.

This is a great example of how you mis interpret my replies.
I have never ever thought or even claimed that your writings are below par, because your English grammar is much better than mine.
But you jump to conclusions why i don't use a spell checker.
It's because i am to lazy to use one ... and i don't even know why i take that position.
Maybe because posters like 'wise' do an even more terrible job than me and i hope my posts come accross either way. Granted that's pretty lazy , but pride has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
It's the way you focuss on bits and bites in my replies and willingly try to burry what i try to say.

You keep on and ad nauseam about how the lunar missions and yet you only arguments seem to be based on:
     your hatred of USA, NASA and Von Braun,
     your psychological profiling of the astronauts,
     photographic analysis done by people who might be photograph experts but know little lunar conditions and
     incorrect claims about things like the Van Allen Belt radiation.

Shall we pause here for a moment ?
Could you dig up a post where i specifically mentioned incorrect claims about the VAB's ?
Yes i showed that the astronauts were lying bastards without ever receiving a proper reply.
1 Armstrong claims cislunar space was pitch black and the only way to descern stars from the capsule's window was by using optics to navigate.
2 Edgar Mitchell claimed to see ten times brighter stars and ten times numerous stars from simply looking outside the capsule's window from cislunar space.
Why is it so hard for you to simply respond to this honest observations, which btw were put right in front of Edgar Mitchell at one of the UFO symposia he attended... and he refused to answer this to the journalist.... only telling him to ask Neil Armstrong why he thought he saw what he saw and remained his stand on the 'ten times numerous and ten times brighter stars'.

What you forget is the enormous amount of third party evidence at the time where
     radio telescopes in many countries tracked the spacecraft,
     astronomical telescopes tracked the early parts of Apollo 11 and even observed a few events later,
     amateur radio operators listened in to much of the conversations, including one listening to Armstrong's words,
     these radio telescopes and the amateur radio antenna had to be pointed in exactly the right direction,
     USSR monitored the mission carefully and they would have relished the propaganda value of a failed missions (yes I know you have "answers"),
     whatever you and others claim the "moon rocks" could not come from earth, even from meteorites, and could not have been faked and
     I know that you claim it is all faked but there are now many photographs on the landing sites and not all from NASA.

Then you have to face the question of when how these videos were recorded.
They were NOT originally done on film and there were no video disc or tape systems (or film for that matter) at the time that could record for that duration with no break.
Nor were there any video disc or tape systems that could record slow-motion for long periods.
Just face it,  an enormous amount of research and preparation was done by NASA and others into all aspects of such a mission.
And many have claimed that going to the moon was possible faking it was not possible!

Then, did they make separate versions of the fake video?
    One in higher quality for eastern Australia (our video of Apollo 11 came direct from Parkes),
    a separate version for Western Australia, where they received theirs from the large satellite dish and
    a poorer on for the rest of the world.

And the whole "lunar hoax" hoax was started with a blatant lie by Bill Kaysing where he claimed that clusters of smaller B-1 engines instead of the F1.
But his lie was found out then one F1 engine from the Saturn 5 for Apollo 11 was recovered and the serial number matched NASA's records.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, 1808).

Yes, I know you'll say it's all the great conspiracy started by NASA 2500 years ago to hide the true shape of the earth but that's total hogwash.
This "conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth" would have to cover an enormous number of people and even US presidents fail to hide their little peccadillos.

And then you'll find that many of the lunar hoax "experts" don't doubt other space missions nor even LEO crewed missions such as the ISS. Much of the evidence they use comes from interpretations of lighting etc from the ISS etc.
Yet you use this evidence gained from high altitude (thousands of kilometre) rockets and from the ISS, all of which you deny or ridicule, to prop up your fiction!

No, of course, I haven't seen your new magic killer video so I'll wait with bated breath for what ensues.

But where does denying the lunar missions get you? Nowhere! The earth is still a rotating Globe and that's been proven beyond reasonable doubt!

Sure do your bit to fight the evil that is certainly in the world but you are looking in completely the wrong place and are fighting strawmen of your own making!

PS Oops, I forgot the mandatory copy-n-paste. Will I ever be forgiven?

I forgive you.
But all of the above is a truly desperate attempt to appeal to authority, because you are totally unable to discuss any of your so called 'authority' claims in detail.
Why are you afraid to engage with me and simply reply to what i have to say and instead try to find as much online info to muddy the waters ?
Have you ever tried to form a single unique opinion of your own ?
Is the thought alone about some extremely fake looking space photographs or film so frightening because of the implications that the only reflex you know is to gather as much info from the leading authorities to feel secure ?

The docu i suggested contains old men with all the possible credentials in the film and photographic industry.
They are mostly Europians without an American pride thing in their system and fear of loosing their jobs or related back lashes.
It's extremely refreshing how they dismantle the Apollo footage with expertise in a 3,5 hour lasting docu that will totally blow your mind !

Quote from: rabinoz on January 05, 2019, 02:02:05 PM

I'm not criticising you English in the slightest but you get thoroughly tiresome.
While my spelling is OK my typing is horribly inaccurate and I'm not too proud to admit that I use a spelling/grammar checker but you seem to take pride in your mistakes.

This is a great example of how you mis interpret my replies.
I have never ever thought or even claimed that your writings are below par, because your English grammar is much better than mine.

I was replying to this and never intended to imply any criticism on your part.

I know English isn't my native language but your last set of replies are extremely weird.

But you jump to conclusions why i don't use a spell checker.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Quote from: rabinoz

You keep on and ad nauseam about how the lunar missions and yet you only arguments seem to be based on:
     your hatred of USA, NASA and Von Braun,
     your psychological profiling of the astronauts,
     photographic analysis done by people who might be photograph experts but know little lunar conditions and
     incorrect claims about things like the Van Allen Belt radiation.

Shall we pause here for a moment ?
Could you dig up a post where i specifically mentioned incorrect claims about the VAB's ?

OK, I apologise but I don't remember every detail of every luna-hoaxer's arguments.

Yes i showed that the astronauts were lying bastards without ever receiving a proper reply.
1 Armstrong claims cislunar space was pitch black and the only way to descern stars from the capsule's window was by using optics to navigate.
2 Edgar Mitchell claimed to see ten times brighter stars and ten times numerous stars from simply looking outside the capsule's window from cislunar space.
Why is it so hard for you to simply respond to this honest observations, which btw were put right in front of Edgar Mitchell at one of the UFO symposia he attended... and he refused to answer this to the journalist.... only telling him to ask Neil Armstrong why he thought he saw what he saw and remained his stand on the 'ten times numerous and ten times brighter stars'.

As I said, you base everything on your amazing powers of character reading and ignore the tremendous physical evidence.

Quote from: rabinoz

What you forget is the enormous amount of third party evidence at the time where
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Then, did they make separate versions of the fake video?
    One in higher quality for eastern Australia (our video of Apollo 11 came direct from Parkes),
    a separate version for Western Australia, where they received theirs from the large satellite dish and
    a poorer on for the rest of the world.

And the whole "lunar hoax" hoax was started with a blatant lie by Bill Kaysing where he claimed that clusters of smaller B-1 engines instead of the F1.
But his lie was found out then one F1 engine from the Saturn 5 for Apollo 11 was recovered and the serial number matched NASA's records.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, 1808).

Yes, I know you'll say it's all the great conspiracy started by NASA 2500 years ago to hide the true shape of the earth but that's total hogwash.
This "conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth" would have to cover an enormous number of people and even US presidents fail to hide their little peccadillos.

And then you'll find that many of the lunar hoax "experts" don't doubt other space missions nor even LEO crewed missions such as the ISS. Much of the evidence they use comes from interpretations of lighting etc from the ISS etc.
Yet you use this evidence gained from high altitude (thousands of kilometre) rockets and from the ISS, all of which you deny or ridicule, to prop up your fiction!

No, of course, I haven't seen your new magic killer video so I'll wait with bated breath for what ensues.

But where does denying the lunar missions get you? Nowhere! The earth is still a rotating Globe and that's been proven beyond reasonable doubt!

Sure do your bit to fight the evil that is certainly in the world but you are looking in completely the wrong place and are fighting strawmen of your own making!

PS Oops, I forgot the mandatory copy-n-paste. Will I ever be forgiven?

I forgive you.

How magnanimous but I guess I'll have to wait to see it but that changes nothing about space missions nor the shape of the earth!

You forget that NASA did not "invent the Heliocentric Solar System" they simply went with what every accepted as proven beyond any reasonable doubt over the last few centuries.

If you want to debate that do it by presenting a flat earth alternative but
even if you destroyed NASA it would not make the earth flat and YOU will not face that simple fact that it would make absolutely no difference!

As I try repeatedly to point out you are attacking the wrong target and so are tilting at windmills, , but that's your loss, not mine!

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 04, 2019, 07:55:50 AM

Quote from: dutchy on January 03, 2019, 03:22:13 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 03, 2019, 02:48:29 PM

Knowledge. Aren't you even slightly interested in learning how things work and why things happen?

The next strawman...it's getting tiresome.

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

You appearently don't !
Because i don't want to know in great detail if the current hypothesis of the cosmos is spot on or just a figment of some people who call themselves ''scientists'' does not mean i am not interrested in how things work.
But somehow you present it as if that's the case, because of the way you interpret my views.
Aren't you even slightly interested in learning how things work and why things happen?
Simply because i dismiss modern cosmology doesn't give you the right to create a strawmen about my obvious lack of interrest about how things work in general...

I never presented an argument that says i am not interrested in how things work...i foremost excluded modern cosmology and related space discoveries as claimed by the authorities.

You admit you're not interested in cosmology yet you also say you are interested in how things work in general. What is that supposed to mean?

My point stands. Just because you're not interested in cosmology doesn't mean no one is, or that it isn't important.
 

Quote

Apparently not, since you just made one.

Just because you aren't interested in something doesn't mean no one is. You aren't the final authority on what benefits mankind and what doesn't.

Difference... i do not manipulate the entire educational system with my ideas, others have because they think they have the right to promote their hypothetical ideas of the universe as facts and therefor everyone has to study and learn them at some point in their life at the level of education forced upon the induvidual.

If you mean using schools for religious indoctrination, I fully agree. That is a bad thing.

Do you even realise how many things we had to learn that are simply without debate ?
If a child dismisses the globe he/she receives ridicule, while other children and the teacher cannot explain the spinning globe and it's properties correctly.

It's not a matter of "no debate" as much as the debates are short because there is no coherent explination for things as commonly observed and obvious as sunrises and sunsets if the earth were flat (unless the sun rises and sets everywhere at the same time, but it's easy enough to test that and see that it's incorrect). The earth being a spinning globe explains those  very elegantly, along with many other common and easy to confirm observations (here's the key...) consistently. That's why it's taught in schools; it's the only model that works consistently. If a coherent flat-earth explination emerges that can challenge the globe and heliocentric solar system as an explination for everyday observations and more detailed ones (like geodetic surveys), then the debate may be more compelling. As it is, any flat-earth explination we've seen may explain some phenomenon, but fails completely to explain others.

You should try it yourself and ask what you ask of flatearthers of the average teacher who teaches the basic heliocentric model in highschool.
That was the very thing that brought me here in the first place.(things weren't quite as obvious as everyone claimed)

Like what?

I don't know many things, but the vast majority claiming all sorts of certainties about the spinning globe talk shit when you closely examine their arguements.
The average teacher cannot correctly explain curvature drop, the coriolis effect and refraction...let alone modern cosmology behind the spinning tilted globe.
Maybe of late they have ''upped the ante'' a bit, but a decade ago it was abysmal.

Just because an individual can't explain something clearly doesn't mean that it's wrong.

In essence the vast majority teaches and learns things they can't even explain properly (in that context even Neil deGrasse Tyson admitted the abysmal state of education...the hypocrite)
Never ever put yourself in a position that you cannot explain things to others while demanding they follow your teachings...that's propaganda !!
And those who whine about the current state of education (NdGT & co) were in charge of how the ideas and facts were presented in the same educational system.

I hadn't realized that Neil deGrasse Tyson was "in charge of" the education system. Do you have any actual evidence that shows this to be the case? I doubt it, and, in fact, in the US, "the education system" is highly (and defiantly!) decentralized.

A good example of "the abysmal state of education" is the fact that some apparently still really believe the earth might be flat. It's an interesting concept to postulate and even think about, but it fails in many ways to explain what we actually see.

They urge for more debate during education, but at the same time label many areas as ''been there'' ''done that'' ''know that allready''
Iow we can only debate about the tiny left overs that do not threaten their well established propaganda !

As NdGT said during an interview....if i present facts about reality there is no debate !

Citation needed.

You like to present yourself as mister smart guy, but fully turn a blind eye for the most obvious of things...the ongoing manupilation of the induvidual and what he/she wants to believe or not about things like modern cosmology.

Manipulation of individuals is by no means a modern phenomenon. That's religion's stock in trade, has been for millennia, and still is to a large degree. Getting away from that and replacing faith, ignorance, and superstition with reason is a good thing, even if it can't been done perfectly because humans are imperfect.

How magnanimous but I guess I'll have to wait to see it but that changes nothing about space missions nor the shape of the earth!

How many times do i have to explain to you that i am a flatearther by default !!
To refresh your memory :
1 I dismiss all observations from the ground that ''see'' things go over an imaginary bulge and therefor the earth is a sphere.
2 I dismiss all ancient ''tests'' that conclude a sphere with a circomference of 25.000 miles based on sticks and shadows and the likes...
3 I dismiss all hypothetical musings that formed the foundation of the helicentric model by men of the establishment that were eager to put forward the ''latest and greatest'' new hypothesis. To much testosteron !
4 I dismiss all manned spaceflight that claimed to go far and beyond earth's realm (jury is still out about what real altitude a manned craft has reached)
5 I dismiss all footage from 'space'  that is overly enhanced one way or the other up to CGI/photoshop/cartoons or artists renderings.
6 Piccard claimed the earth to be flat with upward curving edges (concave)...which i don't immidiatly agree with, but seeing many footage from high altitude (not only talking about the go pro barrel distortion) that change from concave-flat-convex in a matter of seconds depending on the camera's angle towards the horizon.
Earth's atmosphere is also heavily involved in how we observe the horizon.
Most NASA propaganda ''footage'' show a curve that is extremely exagerated when comparing to the land masses underneath.
7 I dismiss the moonlandings and the blue marble picture derived from Apollo 17, because there is not even 1% of doubt left that everything was NOT faked.
The latest Massimo Mazzucco docu is the final nail in the coffin.
In a 3.5 hour docu all known and familiar debunker's claims are given every oppertunity to bring forward the official point of view,
The final conclusion leaves zero doubt that all the footage was indeed faked and not shot on the moon but here on earth.
8 I dismiss all pseudo scientific claims about the curve that cannot be shown other than invalid observations.


Finally... i will absolutely change my mind if some real science will be done that proofs the spinning globe., but that's nearly impossible when taking everything into account which i won't go over in detail now.......till then i am convinced it's flat !

You forget that NASA did not "invent the Heliocentric Solar System" they simply went with what every accepted as proven beyond any reasonable doubt over the last few centuries.

Based on observations only that the ''god fathers'' of the heliocentric model did not truly understand (the complications/limitations involving the human eye, atmospheric refraction and much more).

If you want to debate that do it by presenting a flat earth alternative but
even if you destroyed NASA it would not make the earth flat and YOU will not face that simple fact that it would make absolutely no difference!

As I try repeatedly to point out you are attacking the wrong target and so are tilting at windmills,

If mankind did not go to the moon, we didn't go far enough ''up'' for anything but a local view upon earth.
That is not enough by a long shot to conclude either shape of earth by observing what's below and all the conditions caused by the atmosphere and the human eye that simply makes any 100% conclusions based upon observations invalid.

Therefor i believe all ''earth'' marbles and deep space footage in their entirety are fabricated even for the unaided eye, whereas all local shots from high altitude don't suffer from this clearly photoshopped and cartoon like imagery !

Quote from: rabinoz on January 05, 2019, 05:57:40 PM

How magnanimous but I guess I'll have to wait to see it but that changes nothing about space missions nor the shape of the earth!

How many times do i have to explain to you that i am a flatearther by default !!
To refresh your memory:

I don't need to have my memory refreshed that you "dismiss all observations" that show evidence that the earth might be a Globe.

The latest Massimo Mazzucco docu is the final nail in the coffin.
In a 3.5 hour docu all known and familiar debunker's claims are given every oppertunity to bring forward the official point of view,
The final conclusion leaves zero doubt that all the footage was indeed faked and not shot on the moon but here on earth.

What you mean is that in the mind of all those that reject the physical and third-party evidence at the time,
I got that!

8 I dismiss all pseudo scientific claims about the curve that cannot be shown other than invalid observations.

But you also ignore all simple observations that show the curve as well but I won't bother adding more of the unlimited supply.
But what YOU call "pseudoscientific" is anything that goes against your own belief.

Finally... i will absolutely change my mind if some real science will be done that proofs the spinning globe., but that's nearly impossible when taking everything into account which i won't go over in detail now.......till then i am convinced it's flat !

But what you consider "real science" and what others consider "real science" are poles apart so I see in doing more than asking what you would consider to be:
    "some real science will be done that proves the spinning globe" - any suggestions?

Quote from: rabinoz

You forget that NASA did not "invent the Heliocentric Solar System" they simply went with what every accepted as proven beyond any reasonable doubt over the last few centuries.

Based on observations only that the ''god fathers'' of the heliocentric model did not truly understand (the complications/limitations involving the human eye, atmospheric refraction and much more).

I'll ignore all the rest and repeat my request for you to present "a flat earth alternative" that even explains what can easily be seen with the unaided eye.