1

Flat Earth General / Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System

« on: October 07, 2019, 04:33:34 AM »

So far all we have for this is your baseless claim.
Where is the footage of the rover bounding around while the rover's dish is being used for transmitting video?
Where is a measure of the quality of the signal?

Also, do you mean alignment or focus, the 2 are quite different.

Starting at 25.39 .....12 frames per second transmitted through the lunar rover mobile communications relay unit

See the bouncing and impossible continious allignment with earth ?

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Difficult to Grasp.

« on: October 07, 2019, 04:19:52 AM »

Pray tell, what is the problem with the current model?

99% hypothetical and sold as 100% real ?

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Difficult to Grasp.

« on: October 07, 2019, 03:03:37 AM »

Yet that magic seems to give accurate results predicting movement of said bodies. And stuff.

FE only needs something similar for people to compare models.

EDIT: It seems many of the FE fear big numbers, they use them as if they are laughable. Not sure of the reason why everything needs to be compact, neat and tidy in their universe. I guess it is the lack of ability to grasp something can be so vast, cold, and indifferent.

Vast ? Cold ?
But it started as a very ‘hot’ tiny subatomic pea.... didn’t it ?
And time as we understand it literally did not exist before the universe started to expand. Rather, the arrow of time shrinks infinitely as the universe becomes smaller and smaller, never reaching a clear starting point.
So there was no ‘before’  the big bang, no ‘ nothing becomes something’.....only a state of ‘no boundary’ that humans can’t really grasp.
Mister Spock would put it this way : ‘time as we know it began with the big bang’

Contrary to most arguments about flatearthers and their ability to grasp modern science , i am understanding the current cosmological model enough to smell horse manure.....

Btw everytime something goes against the model (redshift irregularities) it is glossed over, because the current fantasy must prevail at all costs.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System

« on: October 07, 2019, 01:30:02 AM »

This isn't a slam dunk by a long shot. It is yet again a collection of baseless claims.
In order for it to be slam dunk you would need to provide evidence to back up the claims.
Do you have any?
The only time one can just assert a claim is when it is from a daily occurrence, like a sunset, or grass appearing green.

You would also need to avoid nonsense like asserting there was no noise or disturbances even for a nanosecond.
Do you know just how short a nanosecond is, especially compared to the Apollo footage?
The Apollo footage as 10 frames per second, and 320 lines per frame.
That means each line took roughly 312.5 microseconds.
A nanosecond is thus only one 312 thousandth of a line. You are not going to see that.

Hmmm at first i thought that rab=Jack was nonsense.
Now i am truly in doubt.
Not only do you have exchanged replies between the two of you that were a clear sign something was going on.....
But you possess  exactly the same non existant ability to descern humor and a figure of speech.
Are you seriously going to lecture me about a nanosecond ?
There is only one person who would react the way you did and that is rabinoz.

A satelite truck  has to be stabilized in order to have the best transmission.
The lunar rover is bouncing around and no disturbance is present in the signal while it is clear that the minimal required focus towards earth is not met during the jolly good ride on the rover. How do we know that ? Because there is a visor + cross that show exactly when our transmission towards earth misses it’s target (earth)
In the footage it becomes clear the earth is out of focus many times looking at the dish without loosing any signal quality.


Of course you want to go into the dungeons of mathematical obscurity to gloss over the obvious.
The rover mobile camera transmissions through a bouncing dish could not have been anything but full blown noise in the imagery for the tv viewer on earth.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System

« on: October 07, 2019, 12:14:53 AM »

Am I reading this right, dutchy? You aren't satisfied the Apollo program ever put a human on the moon between 1969 and 1972, but are more than satisfied mankind will land on the moon in the next five years? Huh? There's some gaps in logic taking place there, ol boy.

Give me one (1) 100 percent piece of proof mankind never landed on the moon from the Apollo program. Just one. Not 99.9 percent sure, 100 percent. Your best argument - hit us with it.

Contrary to all of you ( so it seems) i am perfectly aware that i have been no where near outerspace.
I have not been to Australia either, but multitudes ( incl. close relatives) have..... so the odds of Australia being a figment of imagnation equals zero.
The handfull of American astronauts that claimed to have been on the moon is 12 to be precise.
And those 12 astronauts have made many contradictory statements about their experiences as i have tried to point out over the years.
Of course i understand that you don’t want any of it......
But a Doctor astronaut who has repeatedly claimed at symposia worldwide that his close friends in the military confirmed Roswell, shadow governments, free energy and more outlandish nonsense (Apollo had some stuff derived from Roswell UFO technology)...
and the rest of my meticulously efforts to show what bizare claims the astronauts have made.....cannot be trusted about any of their ‘moon’ claims.

Since no one other than ‘lying astronauts’ have claimed to go to the moon, we have to settle for a debate and not 100% proof
Even if i went into a moon rocket + lander today (hopefully more sturdy machinery) it is not considered 100% proof.

When various countries put men on the moon and the first billionair civilians tell their moontrip stories it will be very, very hard to deny.
But that is a far cry into the distant future isn’t it ?
Of course all of you fall for the ‘return to the moon’ bone thrown at you for over at least 20 years.
Who was it again ....Bush ? Who claimed we would return to the moon before 2018 ?
And now most of you swallowing the placebo promises of Musk & co for the next decade...
And so it goes around in circles....

No one can give 100% proof of anything.... your question is absurd.

But a common theme is present.
Before any moon mission was planned the scientific ideas were contrary to what was claimed during Apollo.

The VAB’s were far more dangerous , only to practically vaporise during Apollo
The cosmic particles could penetrade solid steal, only to be fully absent during the hours astronauts walked on the moon (the amount of cosmic particles hitting a cm3 in an hour does not equal zero)
A crater was portraited underneath the LEM in NASA propaganda to be fully absent in the pictures.
Stars would clearly reveal themselves from the lunar surface, but Neil Armstrong doesn’t recall to have spotted as much as a single star from the moon.
Photographs on the moon would be very difficult because items are either fully lid or in total darkness ( all in official NASA documents prior to Apollo )but the Hasselblad pictures show what one expects from a nice studio set up with proper tools and lots of lightening variables we know from photography on earth.

But for the sake of conversation i will play along...
An argument i personally like very much is....
The lunar rover dish had to be aimed towards earth precisely with an extremely small bandwidth of error.
They used some visor with a cross to make sure earth is in the exact frame of reference.
But we see transmitions while the rover is driving and bouncing around while the camera is running and the public has the view from to rover on tv.
As the docu ‘American Moon’ shows the focus of the rover dish towards earth while driving around is all over the place considering the bandwidth needed.
But we see no noise or disturbences in the footage whatsoever... not even for a nano second.

A slamdunk yet again.....

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System

« on: October 06, 2019, 03:33:05 PM »

And what? Then going again next year, then the next then the next and so on?

Uhhh China wants to do it for the first time and surely it would be monumental for the country....
With a 100+ petaflop national computer their simulation capabilities put everything the Apollo ‘drawingboard’ could muster to infinite amaturism by comparison.
They also have the resources and above all 100% national pride and support to go for it and plant that red flag on the moon in front of 1.4 billion applauding citizens on earth.
But it seems they still have no real clue how to safely put men on the moon do they ?
And the Americans still have to solve many problems before bringing men to the moon ?
The Russians ? I think they have long accepted that a manned moon mission is impossble.

Then people will complain about why we are wasting so much money repeatedly going to the moon.

No silly,....we are not going every day, but you know.... a 1969 follow up.
Besides that ...a moonbase ( promised before the year 2000 ) and a future prospect for lunar visitation is extremely appealing to ‘ze people’ .....

Just because you can take a flight around the world (with some stops along the way) does that mean you do so each week? No.

‘Because some Yanks went to the moon 50 years ago means no one wants to return... humanity has been there, done that....nothing left to see or discover’
Wow never knew how bad your arguments are occasionally.

A sane person would expect you to do something just because you can.
Why should we go to the moon NOW?

What is more insane with that line of "reasoning" is that you appeal to a highly advanced error, but want us to cling to the technology of the past.

Because Apollo showed it was perfectly doable in a backwards timeframe with Neanderthaler computer technologies and it should be commercially very interresting to visit the moon now with the amount of worldwide billioners skyrocketing.
The problem is ... currently no one in the space business dares to cram humans into a moon machine on their way to the moon.... no one is that imbecile in 2019.

No. Forget the names.
Don't try to appeal to the authority of some photographer, as that seems to be all deniers can do. Just repeatedly appeal to some guy who claims it is fake, without being able to provide any justification.
Actually provide an argument to indicate they are fake.

Everyone at the flatearth forums relies on the expertise and authority from others.
Or do you know astronaut forum members or NASA outlets over here ?
My point that have presented many TOP photographers and filmmakers who show the fakery in the Apollo footage (from Percy to Toscani) while i still have to hear a worldwide expert claiming he/she examined all the Apollo footage and concluded that it was clearly shot on the moon..... all of it.

THOSE TOP PHOTOGRAPHIC EXPERTS THAT SUPPORT THE WHOLE APOLLO PORT FOLIO DO NOT EXIST.

Doesn’t it get through your skull that i am not interrested in what enthousiastic amatures have to say about the photographs ?
Or Jay Windley and his groupies ?

So please, please give my an expert name that has examined the Apollo photographs and concluded the lunar authenticity in every single photograph .. just as NASA claims.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System

« on: October 06, 2019, 02:52:06 PM »

So dutchy will fall back and appeal to the authority of a few film makers who are simply out to make a buck off the conspiracy crowd. (With only their opinion, btw).

I think I'll stick with the achievements of tens of thousands of highly intelligent people who have dedicated their lives to their field.

You know, the tens of thousands of people that dutchy has labeled "liars"!

No ....not again this avatar thief mister clutchwater.....

The top photographers are loaded they don’t need anything from online admirers.
They simply cannot believe the simpletons who think the Apollo footage was shot on the moon while countless of familiar film and studio atributes are present in the Apollo photographs.
They have worked with all the same equipment as famous world renowned photographic experts.
Surely their arguments hold some water mister crutch ?

I have never called the NASA labour force liars.
They are mostly hardworking people trying to provide their families while working on some very small and detailed fragment of the whole Apollo program.
I called Neil Armstrong ( the star denier), Buzz Alldrin ( the drunk punchy type), Alan Bean ( the VAB ignorant), Edgar Mitchell ( the Roswell alien technologies, secret government , free energy, ten times brighter star believer) and Don Pettit (the moon technology destroyer) LIARS.

False accusations mister crutch....If only my friend ‘here to laugh at you’ was present to teach you some proper forum manners.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System

« on: October 06, 2019, 01:13:21 PM »

‘All arguments brought forward by propagandists related to moon photography’ are the works of enthousiastic amatures with some background in photograpy from a personal hobby or interrest.
Compare that to the following names including some of the best world renowned film and photography experts in the docu ‘American moon’ :
Olivier Toscani,Toni Thorimbert, Paolo Attivissimo, Aldo Fallai, Peter Lindbergh, Danilo Pasqua, Nicola Pecorini who switly point out the appearent studio set up artifacts in many Apollo footage.
They know the equipment used in 1969, techniques of the days, studio tools, camera’s, film and much more...
And when those expert show that many Apollo photographs are 100% shot in a studio environment who are your photographic experts to claim the authenticity of ALL Apollo photographs ?

It seems the enthousiastic Apollo bandwagon has only the arguments of amatures...
The best they ever brought forward was SG Collins who claimed to be an expert of 1969 film special effects.
‘Even if they wanted to, they could not have faked it in 1969’ was his core argument.
He turned out to be an insignificant ‘lightguy’ with hardily any credentials about the level of 1969 equipment in the film industry.

So please mister ‘sane’ who is your expert(s) on photography who supports ALL Apollo footage as moon authentic !
The experts i heard claim for 100% that some/several Apollo photographs are undeniable the work of 1969 studio trickery.

I found a pretty good/comprehensive write-up on the 'photographers':

"They’re famous photographers, but they’ve always worked on Earth. They have no experience of photography in space, where lighting and lunar soil reflectivity are very different from Earth. Moreover, they were asked to judge digitally altered versions of the photographs instead of the original scans, which show none of the alleged inconsistencies. In one case they were even shown a fake (a montage) instead of a real Apollo photo...
In other words, Massimo Mazzucco asked the photographers whether the lunar photographs are false by giving them a false photo to examine. Their answer is not surprising."

A lot more info here:

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2014/07/532-how-come-famous-photographers-claim.html

So a person writes a blog and claims that the best photographic experts don’t understand ‘space photography’ because they have not experienced photography in outerspace ?
Is this person an astronaut ?
If not he/she is not an expert on space photography because he/she has no clue whatsoever about photography in space and has no clue whatsoever him/herself.

Secondly (again i strongly advise you to buy this docu American Moon), Massimo Mazzucco has obtained the very film copies and photographic copies strongly ADVISED by NASA and other experts  to make sure the ‘bad copy’ argument is off the table.
All in the docu American Moon including what specific copies were obtained.

Next....those experts actually KNOW the specific Hasselblad camera, film, studio tools, artificcial lightening, backdrop technologies , scale model technologies, reflectors used in the specific Apollo era.
Don’t you see ? They are able (as they rightfully claim) to SEE in a few seconds what’s going on in many Apollo photographs ....they are totally familiar with the tools, lightening, artifacts and more ..present in the photographs.
Of course the argument that ONE photograph is actually not from NASA ..and everyone knows is moot.
It reminds me of the Michael Collins Gemini photograph in ‘space’ that was a flipped photograph from a practice session on earth with a black out background.
When Ralph Rene ( only one at the time)  found out about this fakery , the NASA repair team made up a story about a glossy/magazin publisher who thought it was a great idea to take a practice photograph of Michael Collins, flip the image and black out the background and sell it as a Gemini spacewalk..... surely no authority would object ?
You can’t really make this stuff up, because the excuses are so extremely lame.....
Whenever NASA is caught red handed it is not theirs.....

Finally ... it’s in the docu (American Moon) .....how the NASA light experts of those days ( not some wannabe blog writer) claim that it will be extremely hard to capture any proper image with detail on the moon..... either something is in full sunlight or full darkness with nothing in between.
The offcial written details about the lunar lightening conditions prior to Apollo are in the docu.
But the Apollo pictures show great detail between sunlid and shadow area’s contrary to all previous claims about the behaviour of light and photography on the moon.

I am baffled when reading a so called self promoted expert claiming that the TOP experts in the docu American Moon have it all wrong.....and unknowingly about the NASA lunar light experts prior to Apollo.
... stunning the least......

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System

« on: October 06, 2019, 09:39:26 AM »

There's more than enough evidence of the moon landings for any sane person to believe they indeed happened.

Any sane person would sincerely doubt why we simply do not replicate the technological achievements of 1969-1972 in our highly advanced era by going to the moon NOW.
And ‘they’ want to go back in a nano second.... and new world powers with vastly superiour resources and technology have a manned moontrip on top of their wishlist also.

Any sane person would never fall for the weakest of excuses ever invented..... ‘pesky congressmen are not willing to give the money’ and ‘it’s painfull to built back technologies like an assembly line for moon machinery’ ... and ‘The Chinese simply don’t have the required cutting edge understanding of manned moon missions like the ‘Texas Rangers’  of 1969’...
What utter fool would fall for such cheap excuses ?

All arguments brought forward by moon hoaxers have been thoroughly refuted, but nothing is going to keep some people from believing  this sort of things. Deniers are gonna deny.
In the mean time space programs continue their course and nobody cares what a bunch conspiracy nutjobs, tin foil hat wearers and other crackpots say.

‘All arguments brought forward by propagandists related to moon photography’ are the works of enthousiastic amatures with some background in photograpy from a personal hobby or interrest.
Compare that to the following names including some of the best world renowned film and photography experts in the docu ‘American moon’ :
Olivier Toscani,Toni Thorimbert, Paolo Attivissimo, Aldo Fallai, Peter Lindbergh, Danilo Pasqua, Nicola Pecorini who switly point out the appearent studio set up artifacts in many Apollo footage.
They know the equipment used in 1969, techniques of the days, studio tools, camera’s, film and much more...
And when those expert show that many Apollo photographs are 100% shot in a studio environment who are your photographic experts to claim the authenticity of ALL Apollo photographs ?

It seems the enthousiastic Apollo bandwagon has only the arguments of amatures...
The best they ever brought forward was SG Collins who claimed to be an expert of 1969 film special effects.
‘Even if they wanted to, they could not have faked it in 1969’ was his core argument.
He turned out to be an insignificant ‘lightguy’ with hardily any credentials about the level of 1969 equipment in the film industry.

So please mister ‘sane’ who is your expert(s) on photography who supports ALL Apollo footage as moon authentic !
The experts i heard claim for 100% that some/several Apollo photographs are undeniable the work of 1969 studio trickery.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System

« on: October 06, 2019, 03:36:24 AM »

Add to that the ‘highschool project’ appearence of ‘space machines’ because it doesn’t have to look good only functional

Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.

Really ?
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions.... without even braking or bending one of it’s little legs.
Noooo , it landed perfectly straight , dustfree and without any structural inconveniences for the American public and rest of this world to marvel at.

It somehow did the trick in 1969-1972 , but i hardly believe an intelligent person in 2019 can be so self delusional and convince him/herselves that the LEM with human tissue onboard actually landed on the moon as described by NASA and the accompagnying footage at display.

Correct, it did the trick. Why so vehemently opposed that it happened? What's the core belief behind the fact that it didn't happen? What's the threat if it did?

Nothing...if it happened then...

1 humans are able to briefly fly to the moon to collect rocks and pictures.
2 humanity has benefitted from some specific inventions we don’t know would be aquired without the space industry.
3 humans are capable of doing the unthinkable ...a positive motivation for future generations ?

I really cannot think of anything else positive,... now the negatives.

1 The space industry was not about ‘who goes where first’, but a military based urge to concore space and the moon to control atomic weapon system and future laser systems from outside earth’s atmosphere ..... who controls the heavens controls it all !
2 The space industry needed NAZI war criminals because of their knowledge about rockets and therefor everything that international LAW is all about was flushed down the drain.
Giving a very clear lecture..... the international community has certain laws we all underline, unless we decide it’s beneficial to ignore those laws.
3 We lost, destroyed, forgot how to go back to the moon and it’s painfull to built back the assembly lines, vehicles and more..... showing that at least 90% of the total budget was waisted in hindsight.
Some pretty expensive pictures i would say.....

This is considering it DID happen which i obvious do not believe...

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Looking Out of the Window and Seeing What You Think You See

« on: October 06, 2019, 02:39:06 AM »

The arrogance in this topic is once again baffling.
‘You could easily see the curve from an airplane’s window’ was the most common phrase to silence any flatearth argument for decades.

But since globers finally realised that one has to go to space to spot even the tiniest of curves ( demonstrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson and a beachball) they simply reason away the facts of history.
Pretending there was hardly such an ‘airplane window curvature’ argument...
Only ignorant globers raised that argument in the past...
And their cowardness to take full responsability for the fake arguments made in the past by the globeearth community as a whole is telling...

But even looking from the ISS down to earth shows a tiny curve in the current hypothetical model and nothing like the huge curvature in ISS/earth footage on display.

So please stop your belittling tone .... you enthousiastic amature curvature spotters 

Have you been on the ISS to know what kind of curvature one sees?

And another question which as a fellow Dutch guy I'm sure you've seen yourself;
Can you explain how I can see ships disappearing while standing on the beach in Zandvoort?

I have been born (Leiden) and raised near the coast for my entire childhood .
I never saw a ship go ‘bottom first’ over an imaginary curve using my eyes.
Of course i tried countless of times at the Scheveningen-Katwijk beach but never succeeded once.
Most large ships seem to float on the horizon in the distance and at some point the angular resolution prevented me from discerning a distand ship properly.

I did however see much further from Noordwijk to the 2e Maasvlakte than what supposedly is possible according to the curvature calculator.
I even saw the windmillpark ‘luchterduinen’ near Zandvoort from the Kijkduinen beach.
It was all over the news because due to the atmosphere one could normally not really see ‘luchterduinen’ from Zandvoort beach.... let alone from Kijkduinen.
I immidiatly called my friend, because i didn’t bring a camera, but he was at work...

You should try to look from Zandvoort beach towards de tweede Maasvlakte and see what you can discern on a very good day in the coming winter when the air is dry and the light on a sunny winters day will increase your visual distance considerably.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System

« on: October 06, 2019, 02:24:12 AM »

Add to that the ‘highschool project’ appearence of ‘space machines’ because it doesn’t have to look good only functional

Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.

Really ?
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions.... without even braking or bending one of it’s little legs.
Noooo , it landed perfectly straight , dustfree and without any structural inconveniences for the American public and rest of this world to marvel at.

It somehow did the trick in 1969-1972 , but i hardly believe an intelligent person in 2019 can be so self delusional and convince him/herselves that the LEM with human tissue onboard actually landed on the moon as described by NASA and the accompagnying footage at display.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Looking Out of the Window and Seeing What You Think You See

« on: October 05, 2019, 07:12:40 AM »

The arrogance in this topic is once again baffling.
‘You could easily see the curve from an airplane’s window’ was the most common phrase to silence any flatearth argument for decades.

But since globers finally realised that one has to go to space to spot even the tiniest of curves ( demonstrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson and a beachball) they simply reason away the facts of history.
Pretending there was hardly such an ‘airplane window curvature’ argument...
Only ignorant globers raised that argument in the past...
And their cowardness to take full responsability for the fake arguments made in the past by the globeearth community as a whole is telling...

But even looking from the ISS down to earth shows a tiny curve in the current hypothetical model and nothing like the huge curvature in ISS/earth footage on display.

So please stop your belittling tone .... you enthousiastic amature curvature spotters 

14

Flat Earth General / Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System

« on: October 05, 2019, 03:12:09 AM »

Show me how you would insulate a spacecraft then, dipshit?

The LM had some very fancy and expensive technology, the most impressive one has to be the AGC. Which I guess they just made for the lols?

Multiple light sources would create multiple shadows, not something we see in the Apollo photos you moron.

Boehoehoe.... namecalling because i rightfully point out the scandalous fake Apollo moon propaganda and other crincheworthy forms of space fakery ?

And there are indeed multiple lightsources in the Apollo footage as the TOP photographers of worldrenowned fame and expertise so easily show in the docu ‘American Moon’ .... you can buy it on Amazon ( i did)..... or you believe the enthousiastic amatures around the www (Clavius for instance) who reason away the discrepancies in the Apollo footage in a way one expects from enthousiastic amatures.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System

« on: October 05, 2019, 02:56:12 AM »

I think NASA & co could drastically lower their ‘outerspace footage’ budget cap even more..
You know .... just like Elon Musk did with his car in orbit... and got away with it in broad daylight.
Two people max could do the parttime job of creating space related imagery and a lot of money will be saved.

Do you have anything at all to indicate it is fake?
So far deniers haven't been able to come up with a single thing which withstands scrutiny.
Instead they can only spout nonsense based upon wilful ignorance or outright lies/deception.

Let me elaborate rab,....

You have been near space as much as me or 99,99999999% of humanity.
How would anyone know how things look out there other than hearsay and footage that even a child should discern as fake.

But the ‘outerspace jargon’ ‘topping’  promotes cartoons to real footage because of intoxicating supposed properties of space that reason away the total fake appereance.
And those properties cry fake for anyone with a pair of human eyes !! Never remotely an outer wordily exciting new dimension was presented that we could marvel about.

Instead......film slomo studio set + back drop and multiple studio lightsources is how Apollo footage on the moon looks like coincidentally.
Instead......a cartoon about a car in orbit looks fake because of the behaviour of light in a vacuum .... therefor it looks more fake than Musk’ own company’s CGI. (caugh)
Instead..... the most expensive machinery that has  all the fancy technology hidden beneath a trashy ( but shiny ) outer layer looks like mere wannabee tech.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System

« on: October 05, 2019, 12:20:11 AM »

I think NASA & co could drastically lower their ‘outerspace footage’ budget cap even more..
You know .... just like Elon Musk did with his car in orbit... and got away with it in broad daylight.
Two people max could do the parttime job of creating space related imagery and a lot of money will be saved.

Why ?
Because it doesn’t matter HOW anything looks,.... it doesn’t matter because it only needs an ‘outerspace’ stamp that will convince the fanbase.
Add to that the strange behaviour of light in a vacuum that ‘explains’ the cartoonish character of the footage at display..
Add to that the fact that deniers don’t know about ‘outerspace’ and ‘moonish’ conditions.
Add to that the ‘highschool project’ appearence of ‘space machines’ because it doesn’t have to look good only functional

And...... you have reached your goal.
Give some 18 year old intern dude the latest photoshop rendering and let him/her use their
creativity.
A friendly advise towards NASA & co to lower their budget cap.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: How can Earth hold Atmosphere?

« on: October 03, 2019, 03:33:38 AM »

Fe’ers Really struggle with concept that a vacuum is not a force.

A vaccum cleaner sucks.
The vacuum of space is a state of nothingness.

Ahhh please elaborate how this ‘nothingness’ gets bend/warped/wrinkled/curved by the mass of large celestial bodies.
Either your ‘nothing’ premise is false , or it is something that can be bend and i like to know what part or properties of the ‘nothing’ is being bend because of  earth’s ( or any celestial body’s) mass.

Thays advanced physicd and theyre still trying to figure that out.
But for all intents and purposes, beyond primitive tools, we measure it as nothingness.
But try to dance around that and red herring some more.
Your argument is weak and not applicable.
Another dutchydontunderstand.
Dont try to pull a johnD or a tomB.

Iow...you don’t have a f’ing clue, sell it as a placebo reality based on mathematical musings and shun those who dare  to raise an eyebrow and throw the ‘ignorance’ card at them.

You confused person  ... you claim the vacuum is ’nothing’ while there is no such thing beyond the Kármán line that has the properties of ‘nothing’.

You are confusing spacetime with matter. They are not the same thing.

Uhhh no certainly not.
I am simply pointing out that earth’s or any celestial body’s mass curves ‘something’ instead of nothing at all.
‘Nothing’ cannot be bend or influenced by anything.... only ‘something’ will be influenced by earth’s or any celestial body’s mass.... you know ‘something’ that would not be bend if earth was not ‘bending’ ‘it’ by it’s mere presence in space.

Now you have to specificcally name the properties of that ‘something’.
I don’t care if you play semantics as long as you or anyone else tell me what the properties are of the huge ‘something’ that is influenced (warped, bend, curved) by a huge celestial body which would not occur without the presence of a large celestial body.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: How can Earth hold Atmosphere?

« on: October 02, 2019, 11:53:24 PM »

Fe’ers Really struggle with concept that a vacuum is not a force.

A vaccum cleaner sucks.
The vacuum of space is a state of nothingness.

Ahhh please elaborate how this ‘nothingness’ gets bend/warped/wrinkled/curved by the mass of large celestial bodies.
Either your ‘nothing’ premise is false , or it is something that can be bend and i like to know what part or properties of the ‘nothing’ is being bend because of  earth’s ( or any celestial body’s) mass.

Thays advanced physicd and theyre still trying to figure that out.
But for all intents and purposes, beyond primitive tools, we measure it as nothingness.
But try to dance around that and red herring some more.
Your argument is weak and not applicable.
Another dutchydontunderstand.
Dont try to pull a johnD or a tomB.

Iow...you don’t have a f’ing clue, sell it as a placebo reality based on mathematical musings and shun those who dare  to raise an eyebrow and throw the ‘ignorance’ card at them.

You confused person  ... you claim the vacuum is ’nothing’ while there is no such thing beyond the Kármán line that has the properties of ‘nothing’.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: How can Earth hold Atmosphere?

« on: October 01, 2019, 11:51:31 PM »

Fe’ers Really struggle with concept that a vacuum is not a force.

A vaccum cleaner sucks.
The vacuum of space is a state of nothingness.

Ahhh please elaborate how this ‘nothingness’ gets bend/warped/wrinkled/curved by the mass of large celestial bodies.
Either your ‘nothing’ premise is false , or it is something that can be bend and i like to know what part or properties of the ‘nothing’ is being bend because of  earth’s ( or any celestial body’s) mass.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: Why are round earth maps so perfectly accurate?

« on: September 23, 2019, 12:54:30 PM »

Are you serious?

I've driven cars, flown planes (both as passenger and as student pilot), traveled all over the world. At no time did my map deviate. I can plot a trip from my door to, for example, Starbucks in Cologne, and arrive at the projected time, with every update on my position visible in real time. That's literally a trip halfway around the world.

So maps are in fact perfectly accurate.

Now you: either you disagree with the fact that maps are accurate and you provide proof, or you explain how maps of the round world fit with your flat earth belief.

Are you serious ?
No one in the world with some ethics , some intelligence plots a trip to Starbucks Cologne not even hypothetical.... the Cathedral , Rheinboulevard or a special German bear from the locals in Cologne that's where you go.

The fact you mention a hypothetical trip from the other end of this world to f'ing Starbucks in Cologne tells me you are a bit superficial like most globeearth believers and their ongoing tendency to support everything 'mainstream' and marvel about the commercialised 'highlights' in our modern society.....

21

Flat Earth General / Re: Why are round earth maps so perfectly accurate?

« on: September 20, 2019, 12:43:05 PM »

I see Australia three times.

More or less .... more or less , but even a three your old can spot countless of differences.
Which one is the most 'accurate' presentation of Australia the perfect round earth country ?

Not more or less. The same
Continent.

If I take three pictures of you under three different lighting conditions and from three angles, I can still see it is you.

Why do you think every satellite image must look exactly identical?

Whatever makes you happy.
If you think the only differences between the three 'Australia' renderings is different angle and lightening conditions..... fine.... but i guess i've nothing more to say.

22

Flat Earth General / Re: Why are round earth maps so perfectly accurate?

« on: September 20, 2019, 12:23:38 PM »

I see Australia three times.

More or less .... more or less , but even a three your old can spot countless of differences.
Which one is the most 'accurate' presentation of Australia the perfect round earth country ?

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Why are round earth maps so perfectly accurate?

« on: September 20, 2019, 12:08:44 PM »

Even a blind albino mole facing the bright sunlight on the lunar surface spots immidiatly that
We are drealing with three different continents taking into account all excuses like angle and objective....

So what is the o so perfectly shaped country known as Australia derived from the o so perfectly accurate globe ?
Everytime they fuck up the size and shape from countries.
I am glad that maps were among my childhood hobbies and it's hilarious how many different 'shapes' are on display..... even on satelite imagery.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Why are round earth maps so perfectly accurate?

« on: September 20, 2019, 11:43:53 AM »

That’s kinda cool!

Yeah it's cool. I just told my wife during the evening news that i don't understand why they still use the Mercator projection during news items with ordinary people in mind.
They should prevent at all times that idiotic Northern Hemisphere exageration.... before you know it Tru..uh. people want to buy Greenland... the biggest country in the North.

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Why are round earth maps so perfectly accurate?

« on: September 20, 2019, 11:34:28 AM »

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Why is it so obvious NASA is faking the ISS and Space?

« on: September 16, 2019, 09:10:01 AM »

I have noticed yes ...i have noticed......but i’ll remember the good moments i had with ‘here to laugh at you’ and even some really rewarding exchanges in the latter parts of ‘here to laugh at you’ at these forums.

Were these exchanges largely comprised of him laughing at you?

I cannot deny a certain colorfull exchange of words accompagnied with certain roars of laughter.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Why is it so obvious NASA is faking the ISS and Space?

« on: September 15, 2019, 11:34:34 PM »

It took me forever to get on the NASA shill program, but once I did, the checks are great, and ALWAYS on time!!

I don’t believe you ! A person who steels the avatar that belongs to my friend ‘here to laugh at you’ cannot be trusted.
You can never fill his boots mister crinchewater....’here to laugh at you’ was funny, supportive of the American McKitchen and a good ‘12 golden bars’ guitar player who made the locals go mad at saterdays.
And he has tracked the ISS all accross the country with a very sofisticated app.

So hush ...

But Crutchwater is Here to laugh at YOU!

I have noticed yes ...i have noticed......but i’ll remember the good moments i had with ‘here to laugh at you’ and even some really rewarding exchanges in the latter parts of ‘here to laugh at you’ at these forums.

You don’t expect me to undergo this crushwater ’s laughter without resistance ... do you ?
For now he is just a thief and a ‘here to laugh at you’ wannabe
I’ll try to ignore him as much as possible.

28

Flat Earth General / Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

« on: September 15, 2019, 11:21:25 PM »

I am puzzled why there is so little discussion about the Apollo scam and people concentrate on what is between brackets and secondairy ( rockets can’t fly in a vacuum).
It’s about time we bring this topic back on track and talk about the 50 years ongoing Apollo scam that is a total disgrace for the human species.

Human tissue can’t make it into deepspace unless we ‘denigrate’ ourselves with AI and robotic implementations.
Maybe then these hybrid humans can go beyond a certain modest altitude.

Apollo and the outragious claims about a shortcut ‘calculated’ by the ignorant 1969 radiation experts ....the bathing suits, alufoil moonmachines, the absent cosmic particles piercing through the suits and moon machines ...... laughable.

Of course no ordinary human will ever go beyond the VAB. They know it for 50 years , but NASA pees upon ordinary people giving them a slapstick SF movie with funny, singing, playing astronots and still maintain the position we actually went to the moon with humans onboard.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

« on: September 15, 2019, 01:57:35 PM »

Just keep it FE vs RE, please.

Or, better yet, have yourself checked in before you cause more harm to people who, for god knows what reason, still might have the strength to stay close to you.

Don’t go there please.... i know many people who are till this very date convinced that slaughtering up to 1 million Iraqies is the current collateral damage of the right call at the time.
The Bushes, Blairs and their advisors are still free aren’t they ?

Someone who believes the bigger picture involves lots of evildoers and conspiracies is way less harm full than those actually pulling the trigger to kill the innocent far far away from the western civilisation.

Especially when there is more than enough hard evidence that the bigger picture factually involves lots of evildoers and conspiracies!!!

After  you  thought  you  heard  everything,  Reed  notes  a  conversation  between Joseph Stalin and Roosevelt at the end of WWII:

“Then President Roosevelt, in the manner of a man who is a member of an exclusive club and is sure his host must also belong, ‘said he was  a  Zionist  and  asked  if  Marshal  Stalin  was  one.’  Stalin  replied  that  ‘he  was  one  in  principle  but  he  recognized  the  difficulty.’” 

No  accusations  of  hearsay  can  dismiss  Roosevelt’s  boast   since   Reed   informs   us   it   comes   from   “the   official   publication,  ‘The  Conferences  at  Malta  and  Yalta,  1945’  issued  by   the   American   State   Department   on   March   16,   1955.”   Although  the  Montreal  Star  broke  the  next  morning  with  the  headline:  “World  Capitals  Dismayed,  Shocked  over  Disclosures  of Yalta Secrets,” but at this late stage of the game Reed resigns his  commentary  to  saying  “This  was  nonsense;  by  1955  the  masses were apathetic about such things, having been brought by control  of  the  press  to  the  condition  of  impotent  confusion  foretold in the Protocols of 1905.”

Reed  tells  us  of  similar  incidents.  “In  1941  the  Japanese  attack  on Pearl Harbor ‘on a day that will live in infamy’...but the later disclosures showed that the government in Washington had long been  warned  of  the  impending  attack  and  had  not  alerted  the  Pearl  Harbor  defenders....Twelve  days  earlier  Mr.  Henry  L.  Stimson,  the  Secretary  of  War,  after  a  cabinet  meeting    on  November  25,  1941,  had  noted  in  his  diary:  ‘The  question  was  how we should maneuver them’ (the Japanese) ‘into the position of  firing  the  first  shot  without  allowing  too  much  danger  to  ourselves; it was a difficult proposition.’”

The  Zionist  use  and  abuse  of  Churchill  mirrored  that  of  the  US  Presidents.  According  to  Reed’s  accounting,  Woodrow  Wilson was  little  more  than  a  puppet  of  the  Zionist  machine.  Wilson  allowed  the  creation  of  the  Federal  Reserve  in  1913,  which  was  basically  a  Jewish  banking  cartel  devised,  at  the  behest  of  Lord  Rothschild,  at  Jekyll  Island  off  the  Carolinas  by  seven  of  the  world’s richest men. Wilson also introduced the Federal income tax to pay back, with usury, the money created out of thin air by the  Federal  Reserve,  two  deeds  that  it  is  said  Wilson  later  regretted  with  the  words  “I  am  a  most  unhappy  man.  I  have  unwittingly ruined my country,” and later “We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated,  governments  in  the  civilized  world—no  longer  a  government   by   free   opinion,   no   longer   a   government   by   conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men....Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and   manufacture,   are   afraid   of   somebody,   are   afraid   of   something.  They  know  that  there  is  a  power  somewhere  so  organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

I believe many things you have presented with of course a few exceptions.
I personally don’t like generalisations about ‘Jews’, ‘Zionists’, ‘Muslims’ etc. etc.
There are 34.000 different tranches of christianity and i have never met two Jews who agreed about their faith 100%. My sister lives in Israël for over 35 years and it’s absolutely mind boggling how colorfull and absurd the Jewish faith can be..... totally depends who you ask....

Of course i believe the wicked bankers constructed a system over the centuries that no sane person would ever invent.
But i’ll pass when people are claiming the Royal shape shifting lizard bloodlines from the days of Niburu have collaberated with the Zionists to screw humanity . ( i do not know if you believe any of that.... )

It gives those defending this current evil world a good reason to laugh everything away.
While researching the origans of our financial system, currencies, debts etc. is evil all the way.
Humans don’t have to be Jews/Zionists, Lizards, aliens or whatever to behave like humans do most of the time when placed in a position of full power and control.
Then they often start to behave like monsters who have sold their human conscious to the dark side.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Why is it so obvious NASA is faking the ISS and Space?

« on: September 15, 2019, 10:04:18 AM »

It took me forever to get on the NASA shill program, but once I did, the checks are great, and ALWAYS on time!!

I don’t believe you ! A person who steels the avatar that belongs to my friend ‘here to laugh at you’ cannot be trusted.
You can never fill his boots mister crinchewater....’here to laugh at you’ was funny, supportive of the American McKitchen and a good ‘12 golden bars’ guitar player who made the locals go mad at saterdays.
And he has tracked the ISS all accross the country with a very sofisticated app.

So hush ...