Fireworks on the Moon

According to FE theory, the Moon emits the light reflected from the Earth. .

i thought FE-bollox said the moon was like a torch or something?

When the ESA lands on it I will believe that the ESA did it.  That is what we are talking about.

But how is that any different from what NASA has claimed to have already done, why does the ESA elicit more respect.  When/if the ESA does land there what is there to stop you from saying, this never happened?  There must be some solid difference between the two, I fail to understand what makes one a liar and the other pure truth without any clear and concise reasoning behind it.

THANK YOU THATS MY POINT

TheEngineer,

I made a big deal about this becasue it is big.  Next to the Deep Impact probe from a few years ago, this is one of the few space event visible from earth.

Speaking of visible from earth, your bio says your from Arizona.  Well the ISS is passing over Arozona tonight just after sunset.  This is the best time for you to actually see as object on orbit.

Tonight, at 8:23:30 your time, look towards the NW, about 33 degrees up from the horizon.  This sighting only lasts for about a minute, so you will have to be exactlly on on time.  Here is an official clock for you to use.  

http://www.time.gov

The ISS will be traveling in an arc from the west to east.  If your on time, you can't miss it.  It should outshine most of the stars in the sky.

Use the method I explained in my thread on satelite spotting to calculate it's altitude.  Then come back and tell me if you still have doubts about the space program.



For those of you in the New York area, you haven't been left out.  The station will be passing over you as well.  At 8:18:45 look due west about 50 degrees above the horizon.  This sighting lasts longer than the one in Arizona, almost a full 3 minutes.  Again use the trig meathod that I described to calculate its altitude, and tell me if you still don't belive in the space program.

If you don't want to do the math, go outside and watch for the ISS anyway, it's a wonderfull sight. . .

I fail to understand what makes one a liar and the other pure truth without any clear and concise reasoning behind it.

When did I call anyone a liar?

"i thought FE-bollox said the moon was like a torch or something?"

Dear Ezkerraldean,

This is from the "Flat Earth FAQ *READ BEFORE POSTING*":

"The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth."

Quote from: "philospher"

I fail to understand what makes one a liar and the other pure truth without any clear and concise reasoning behind it.

When did I call anyone a liar?

Well it is quite appearent that you do not believe Nasa has landed there, which, would by the very basis of the defination mean you think that they lied when they said they did, which of course would make them liars.  Please get to the question this time though TheEngineer, because it is appearent that you are directly avoiding answering it thus far

Um, TheEngineer acts as a Devil's Advocate, he doesn't literally believe the world is flat or that NASA is a hoax.

Um, TheEngineer acts as a Devil's Advocate, he doesn't literally believe the world is flat or that NASA is a hoax.

That is quite obvious, but a good devils advocate is able to defend his statements, if TheEngineer is not able to defend his statements then he is doing a very poor job as acting as a Devil's Advocate.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

Um, TheEngineer acts as a Devil's Advocate, he doesn't literally believe the world is flat or that NASA is a hoax.

That is quite obvious, but a good devils advocate is able to defend his statements, if TheEngineer is not able to defend his statements then he is doing a very poor job as acting as a Devil's Advocate.

Since I never said anyone was lying, I don't have to defend having said it.

Perhaps you forgot the question TheEngineer, here it is for you again

The Engineer, I am curious as to how they could prove to you that they have successfully landed there when/if they do.  Is there anything that could be done that would prove to you without a doubt that they have landed there?

Perhaps you forgot the question TheEngineer, here it is for you again

Quote from: "philospher"

The Engineer, I am curious as to how they could prove to you that they have successfully landed there when/if they do.  Is there anything that could be done that would prove to you without a doubt that they have landed there?

I will consider the evidence they present when the ESA actually lands on the moon.

I will consider the evidence they present when the ESA actually lands on the moon.

you cannot land using the xenon ion engine that SMART-1 used. do you have any idea how they work?

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

I will consider the evidence they present when the ESA actually lands on the moon.

you cannot land using the xenon ion engine that SMART-1 used. do you have any idea how they work?

Yes, I do.  

Like I said, when the ESA can land on the moon, I will be impressed.

Quote from: "Ezkerraldean"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

I will consider the evidence they present when the ESA actually lands on the moon.

you cannot land using the xenon ion engine that SMART-1 used. do you have any idea how they work?

Yes, I do.  

Like I said, when the ESA can land on the moon, I will be impressed.

It's impressive when the ESA does it but not NASA? How is the ESA any less part of the conspiracy?

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "Ezkerraldean"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

I will consider the evidence they present when the ESA actually lands on the moon.

you cannot land using the xenon ion engine that SMART-1 used. do you have any idea how they work?

Yes, I do.  

Like I said, when the ESA can land on the moon, I will be impressed.

It's impressive when the ESA does it but not NASA? How is the ESA any less part of the conspiracy?

I hope you'll have better luck with that question then I did, Dysfunction, TheEngineer doesn't seem to like to back up his statements.

thank you cause i tried the same question

It's impressive when the ESA does it but not NASA?

When did I say that?  

The thread starter made a big deal about the ESA CRASHING INTO THE MOON.  That does not impress me.  When they land on it, I will be impressed with the ESA.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

It's impressive when the ESA does it but not NASA?

When did I say that?  

The thread starter made a big deal about the ESA CRASHING INTO THE MOON.  That does not impress me.  When they land on it, I will be impressed with the ESA.

So you do believe that NASA has landed on the moon then?

When did I say anything about NASA?

Just because ESA and NASA represent different governments, does not mean that they are not part of the same conspiracy. If you read the FAQ, it clearly states that world governments only give the impression of being disorganized, but in fact are quite organized. And if ESA can now - some 27 years after the alleged manned landings on the moon - only get as far as crashing an unmanned probe into the moon, the evidence is strongly in favor of supporting the fact that the manned landings were bogus.

Sure, they could've shot some rocket up, but taking people to the moon?  Ha!  For one thing, they would be fried in the Van Allen radiation belts. For another thing, look at all the shots and footage from the landings. They are typical, staged studio shots. Look at the sky in those pictures - pitch black. I guess you either don't see stars from the moon or they didn't even bother painting them onto the set walls. And the low gravity effects, the stiff american flag, such low budget bullshit. And the masses bought it and ate it up, and got brainwashed.

It was good publicity at the time, with the "Cold War" and all... got people to pay more taxes to fund bogus programs such as NASA and nuclear weapons, who knows where the billions and trillions of dollars really went. And suddenly Americans and Russians are all friendly... and we never saw any evidence of the thousands of megaton nuclear warheads that we spent all the money on except in propaganda bogus videos. Where did all the money go?

I think they killed Kennedy because he was too honest and he would've exposed the government conspiracy. He had to go.

And now they're trying to bullshit us with this 9-11 so they can control air travel even more than before, and global warming threats to keep people from finding out about the ice wall and learning the truth about the universe.

Oh, and by the way, I was looking for the ISS at the precise time and the correct part of the sky where I was told it should've been to prove that there is a space program, and surprise surprise - I saw nothing. Just because you say I will see it there are that time doesn't automatically make it exist, and some of us actually go out there and look for these things.  Unlike others who just take your word for it. I guess ISS stands for the Invisible Space Station.

Graphix72,

Not that you will listen, but your arguments about the legitamacy of the moon landings (The Van Allen belts, The lack of stars, the low gravity, the stiff flag) are all adressed here:

http://www.clavius.org/

This is the most thourough debunking of the moon hoax argument I have ever found.  I urge anyone who doubts the appolo program to take a careful look at this website.

Now as for the ISS, I can't explain why you couldn't see it.  What I can do is offer much more reasonable explination then "The ISS does not exist."  Mabey you didn't look in the right place, or at the right time.  That has happened to me before, and I spot satelites all the time.

Remember that if NASA wanted to fool the world, anouncing the times of major sightings would be a very unwise thing to do.  After all, if every sighting proved negative, that would be more evidence of a conspiracy then anything.  It would have been simpler for them to say that satelites can not be seen from the surface of the Earth.

Please try again, and please go to http://www.clavius.org before posting about the Moon Hoax again.

The Engineer is a fake, always answers a question with a question. Bring back Dogplatter, he was a fake but at least he was funny!

Also, getting back to the topic of SMART-1, here is a sequence of images taken under higher magnification from the CFH Telescope in Hawaii.

http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Smart1/animdust_small.gif

What is remarkable about these images is that they actaully show the lunar dust being kicked up from the impact.  That means scientists can use this video to learn things about the behavior and makeup of lunar dust.

Of course, if you think this video is faked. . .

Well, nevermind.  You all know what I have to say to that. . .

That means scientists can use this video to learn things about the behavior and makeup of lunar dust.

Shouldn't they already know the makeup of lunar dust?  You know, since we've been there...

All I see in the "impact video" is a bunch of static with a quick flash of light and more static, and something that is supposed to be lunar dust??? I can't even tell that's the moon.  I could make a video like that videotaping my TV on a blank channel.  I wouldn't even need any specialized graphics software for that.

If that piece of static is supposed to convince me that there is a space program, I'd sooner believe that there is a "land down under".

What if I told you that the bright flash you saw and the "lunar dust" that followed was actually a fire dragon sneezing, and smoke coming out of his nostrils.  Would you believe that?  Why not - the video shows it quite clearly.

I didn't mean to submit this video as evidence, graphix72, I just thought it was an interesting addition to the topic.  I know video like that could be easily faked, but remember, the burden of proof is on you to provide me with evidence that this film is faked, not the other way around.

You see, I have evidence that this film is legitimate.  It came from a reputable scientific installation that has made valuable contributions to the scientific community.  Also, other independent observatories as well as amateur astronomers witnessed and recorded this event.  If you want to call the CFH telescope and everyone else who recorded the SMART-1 crash part of the conspiracy, that's fine.  But you must have evidence to make that accusation plausible.

And TheEngineer, your right about us knowing the composition of lunar dust, but only from the samples we brought back.  Who knows if the moon is as homogeneous as it looks?  Maybe there are places where the soil composition is different.  Maybe the soil has greater silicone concentrations in some places?  Who knows?  Every little bit of data counts when we are dealing with a place that is only .01% explored.

Actually, since you submitted the video, the burden of proof falls to you to provide evidence that it's not faked.  But, even if it's genuine, it still shows nothing of value that could be looked at to prove that the earth is round.  Even if they did shoot something at the moon, and hit it, it still doesn't make the earth round.

The way the RE community works is through mass propaganda.  Saturating the media with images and videos that don't show anything and don't prove anything, and telling us what they "really" are eventually brainwashes the masses into believing whatever they wish.  If the earth really is round, then why do you think they make CDs and DVDs like that, in the image of the earth?  Shouldn't they look like a ball instead?  But it would be silly sticking a ball into your CD player now, wouldn't it?  A CD fits there much more nicely.  That's because it's been designed in the image of nature and nature is efficient.

So next time you look at an LP, a CD or a DVD, remember:  The earth is FLAT!

http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Smart1/animdust_small.gif

It looks much like a cloud of smoke after an explosion.

OK, I guess I was wrong about where the burden of proof lay on that particular video.  You will notice however that I did supply evidence of it authenticity in my previous post.

Now the argument about CD's is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard on this forum (and that's saying a lot) but I feel obligated to respond.

Let me see if I understand this.  CD's were designed to efficient, thus they were modeled against nature (and the Earth), ergo the earth is shaped like a CD?

Why not carry your argument a little further?  Our brain is a much more efficient at data storage then a DVD is.  Isn't our brain a product of natue?

But anyway, that whole topic is rediculous and we won't get anywhere if we try to debate it.  Let's stick to the main point.

What is you evidence that the video of SMART-1 crshing was faked?

Furthermore, what is your evidence that the RE community brainwashes the masses through propaganda?