The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: sokarul on August 27, 2008, 07:07:46 PM
-
I didn't catch it all but they were busting myths dealing with NASA faking the moon landings.
Every single myth they did was busted.
I caught it late. The ones I saw:
A myth dealing with the flag.
Faking moon walking.
Also they did shine a laser at the moon to see if reflectors had been planted.
I think they also did the shadows being wrong.
As said, all myths were busted.
What happens now? They were wrong?
-
How were the myths busted? We need details damnit!!
-
I know. I was so disappointed!
Who would have thought Mythbusters was affiliated with the Conspiracy? It was obvious propaganda, and I for one now question every myth they've ever "confirmed" or "busted"!
-
How were the myths busted? We need details damnit!!
For one myth they tried to fake low gravity "walking" and they couldn't get it to look like old video. Then they went to Zero G and were able to fake moon "walking" in actual 1/6th gravity.
-
All those explanations to explain away the moon anomalies are pretty much "it's an illusion!!" with no further evidence to corroborate that assertion. Mythbusters, Bad Astronomy, et all. will need to actually prove that it's all an illusion. Anyone can yell "it's an illusion" at anything. The claim of an illusion along with some vague explanation concerning optics or physics isn't proof that the explanation is true. It isn't proof of anything.
-
How were the myths busted? We need details damnit!!
For one myth they tried to fake low gravity "walking" and they couldn't get it to look like old video. Then they went to Zero G and were able to fake moon "walking" in actual 1/6th gravity.
Maybe they didn't try hard enough.
-
All those explanations to explain away the moon anomalies are pretty much "it's an illusion!!" with no further evidence to corroborate that assertion. Mythbusters, Bad Astronomy, et all. will need to actually prove that it's all an illusion. Anyone can yell "it's an illusion" at anything. The claim of an illusion along with some vague explanation concerning optics or physics isn't proof that the explanation is true.
So is it your opinion that man has walked on the moon, or that the skeptics have done a poor job of disproving the moon landings?
-
All those explanations to explain away the moon anomalies are pretty much "it's an illusion!!" with no further evidence to corroborate that assertion. Mythbusters, Bad Astronomy, et all. will need to actually prove that it's all an illusion. Anyone can yell "it's an illusion" at anything. The claim of an illusion along with some vague explanation concerning optics or physics isn't proof that the explanation is true.
What?
Watch the show. They proved it wasn't illusions.
-
All those explanations to explain away the moon anomalies are pretty much "it's an illusion!!" with no further evidence to corroborate that assertion. Mythbusters, Bad Astronomy, et all. will need to actually prove that it's all an illusion. Anyone can yell "it's an illusion" at anything. The claim of an illusion along with some vague explanation concerning optics or physics isn't proof that the explanation is true.
So is it your opinion that man has walked on the moon, or that the skeptics have done a poor job of disproving the moon landings?
I would say the latter, unfortunately, although the Mythbusters really just picked a lot of the most obvious points to disprove, and ones that you would expect NASA to want to get right in the first place. They ignored a lot of other points (obviously they couldn't get to everything in an hour-long show). By busting some of the skeptics' theories they didn't really prove that the moon landings weren't a hoax, merely that what they presented was inadequate evidence of a hoax.
-
So is it your opinion that man has walked on the moon, or that the skeptics have done a poor job of disproving the moon landings?
Skeptics have done a fine job of disproving the moon landing. There are actually some good anomalies pointed out which cannot be explained by optical illusions and effects no matter how imaginative the debunker is. There are also other facts concerning the Apollo missions which cannot be explained at all - mysterious suicides of NASA safety inspectors just before the were scheduled to publish their congressional report, the fact that NASA's 6 billion dollar proposal for the lunar lander was only 110 pages long (in contrast to 8,000 page long proposals for similar sized government projects), the fact that the New York Times has articles describing how scientists complain that NASA tries to silence them. The list goes on and on. No optical illusion can explain that.
The thing is that Mythbusters and those two-bit Fox specials have an agenda and pick and choose for the easiest of the phenomenas to combat. I mean, really, waving flag? That one has been around since the early 70's, pointed out by the public as a curiosity on the first day the videos were aired. A lot of these are just stupid nitpicks from joe average.
-
I think the skeptics mostly "dig" for things to criticize, with no actual proof that the thing in question was fake. Meanwhile, the believers, etc, fail at refuting them because 1) they can't simulate moon conditions perfectly, and 2) they just don't try hard enough.
-
They proved that there is man-made equipment from Apollo 15 on the moon today.
I'd say that's pretty solid evidence.
-
They proved that there is man-made equipment from Apollo 15 on the moon today.
I'd say that's pretty solid evidence.
How did they "prove" this?
-
They proved that there is man-made equipment from Apollo 15 on the moon today.
I'd say that's pretty solid evidence.
How did they "prove" this?
Shot a laser at the moon.
-
They proved that there is man-made equipment from Apollo 15 on the moon today.
I'd say that's pretty solid evidence.
How did they "prove" this?
Shot a laser at the moon.
Pfffffffffffffft! Sorry, but that's the lamest "evidence" I've ever heard...
The moon landing hoax theory still stands.
-
::)
We have videos of them landing.
-
::)
We have videos of them landing.
We also have videos of Harry Potter learning magic at Hogwarts. What is your point?
-
::)
We have videos of them landing.
We also have videos of Harry Potter learning magic at Hogwarts. What is your point?
They landed on the moon in 1969, way before they could even dream of making a false landing at Hollywood.
-
They landed on the moon in 1969, way before they could even dream of making a false landing at Hollywood.
So they can send astronauts thousands of kilometres out into space but they can't film a couple of guys walking around in spacesuits for a few minutes?
-
They proved that there is man-made equipment from Apollo 15 on the moon today.
I'd say that's pretty solid evidence.
How did they "prove" this?
Shot a laser at the moon.
Pfffffffffffffft! Sorry, but that's the lamest "evidence" I've ever heard...
The moon landing hoax theory still stands.
All this yapping about they didn't land... you guys have yet to state any of you proof that they didn't.
-
They proved that there is man-made equipment from Apollo 15 on the moon today.
I'd say that's pretty solid evidence.
How did they "prove" this?
Apparently one of the Apollo missions (I think they said it was 5) left some sort of reflector, a very large one, so that we would be able to fire a laser at it and get the reflected beam back, and that therein showed that we had been to the moon, according to them.
-
All this yapping about they didn't land... you guys have yet to state any of you proof that they didn't.
You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?
It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.
The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.
-
All this yapping about they didn't land... you guys have yet to state any of you proof that they didn't.
You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?
It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.
The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.
They did prove it. Did you watch it yet?
-
All this yapping about they didn't land... you guys have yet to state any of you proof that they didn't.
You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?
It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.
The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.
Actually, we have supplied you with plenty of evidence (videos, photos, laser reflectors, etc.) that man has been to the moon. The fact that you reject the evidence out of hand does not mean that we haven't met our burden of proof.
-
They landed on the moon in 1969, way before they could even dream of making a false landing at Hollywood.
So they can send astronauts thousands of kilometres out into space but they can't film a couple of guys walking around in spacesuits for a few minutes?
They DID film it. ::)
-
They landed on the moon in 1969, way before they could even dream of making a false landing at Hollywood.
So they can send astronauts thousands of kilometres out into space but they can't film a couple of guys walking around in spacesuits for a few minutes?
They DID film it. ::)
hahaha and Steve thinks he's going to be a scientist.
-
They landed on the moon in 1969, way before they could even dream of making a false landing at Hollywood.
So they can send astronauts thousands of kilometres out into space but they can't film a couple of guys walking around in spacesuits for a few minutes?
They DID film it. ::)
hahaha and Steve thinks he's going to be a scientist.
Atleast he knows the Earth is round. BTW do you think it's possible to find some videos of it on YouTube or something?
-
They landed on the moon in 1969, way before they could even dream of making a false landing at Hollywood.
So they can send astronauts thousands of kilometres out into space but they can't film a couple of guys walking around in spacesuits for a few minutes?
They DID film it. ::)
hahaha and Steve thinks he's going to be a scientist.
Atleast he knows the Earth is round. BTW do you think it's possible to find some videos of it on YouTube or something?
The mythbusters or the original moon landing? It looks like the mythbusters are on youtube.
-
They landed on the moon in 1969, way before they could even dream of making a false landing at Hollywood.
So they can send astronauts thousands of kilometres out into space but they can't film a couple of guys walking around in spacesuits for a few minutes?
They DID film it. ::)
hahaha and Steve thinks he's going to be a scientist.
Atleast he knows the Earth is round. BTW do you think it's possible to find some videos of it on YouTube or something?
The mythbusters or the original moon landing? It looks like the mythbusters are on youtube.
The original moon landing. It could be out there somewhere.
-
They landed on the moon in 1969, way before they could even dream of making a false landing at Hollywood.
So they can send astronauts thousands of kilometres out into space but they can't film a couple of guys walking around in spacesuits for a few minutes?
They DID film it. ::)
hahaha and Steve thinks he's going to be a scientist.
Atleast he knows the Earth is round. BTW do you think it's possible to find some videos of it on YouTube or something?
The mythbusters or the original moon landing? It looks like the mythbusters are on youtube.
The original moon landing. It could be out there somewhere.
Looks like it is also on youtube.
-
You simulate going yourself.
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/
Just find the Apollo mod.
Its hard but I finally landed on about my 7th attempt without crashing or running out of fuel.
-
They landed on the moon in 1969, way before they could even dream of making a false landing at Hollywood.
So they can send astronauts thousands of kilometres out into space but they can't film a couple of guys walking around in spacesuits for a few minutes?
They DID film it. ::)
hahaha and Steve thinks he's going to be a scientist.
Atleast he knows the Earth is round. BTW do you think it's possible to find some videos of it on YouTube or something?
The mythbusters or the original moon landing? It looks like the mythbusters are on youtube.
The original moon landing. It could be out there somewhere.
Looks like it is also on youtube.
Yes, you're right.
(http://)
-
All this yapping about they didn't land... you guys have yet to state any of you proof that they didn't.
You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?
It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.
The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.
The burden of proof is also partially on your part, as you're going in against the belief of the majority. I have noticed that the Flat-earthers have been using that as an excuse not to have to prove several matters.
Though, there is one issue that I do wonder about. Where was it filmed from, assuming it is real?
-
All this yapping about they didn't land... you guys have yet to state any of you proof that they didn't.
You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?
It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.
The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.
The burden of proof is also partially on your part, as you're going in against the belief of the majority. I have noticed that the Flat-earthers have been using that as an excuse not to have to prove several matters.
Though, there is one issue that I do wonder about. Where was it filmed from, assuming it is real?
Holy crap I'd sig that first part if I could.
Anyways, the burden is actually all on the FErs, because RErs know it's round.
As for the last question, wouldn't it be...the moon?
-
All this yapping about they didn't land... you guys have yet to state any of you proof that they didn't.
You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?
It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.
The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.
The burden of proof is also partially on your part, as you're going in against the belief of the majority. I have noticed that the Flat-earthers have been using that as an excuse not to have to prove several matters.
Though, there is one issue that I do wonder about. Where was it filmed from, assuming it is real?
Holy crap I'd sig that first part if I could.
Anyways, the burden is actually all on the FErs, because RErs know it's round.
As for the last question, wouldn't it be...the moon?
The problem is, how did they film Armstong getting out?
-
I've been wondering that too. They might have dropped the camera on the moon before they landed. I don't know. It might say on Wikipedia or something.
-
There was a camera mounted on a swing arm on the outside of the LM. They show this in From the Earth to the Moon.
-
There was a camera mounted on a swing arm on the outside of the LM. They show this in From the Earth to the Moon.
I see. Thanks!
-
Actually, we have supplied you with plenty of evidence (videos, photos, laser reflectors, etc.) that man has been to the moon. The fact that you reject the evidence out of hand does not mean that we haven't met our burden of proof.
Yeah right. "The space man said so" is proof. ::)
-
What specific fact about the lunar land are you denying?
-
All of it. Space travel is not possible in FET. Hence we can't go to the moon.
-
Actually, we have supplied you with plenty of evidence (videos, photos, laser reflectors, etc.) that man has been to the moon. The fact that you reject the evidence out of hand does not mean that we haven't met our burden of proof.
Yeah right. "The space man said so" is proof. ::)
Yes, yes it is. Thanks for confirming Earth's roundness.
-
..."it's an illusion!!" with no further evidence to corroborate that assertion. ...
Sounds like every denial of RE theory FE'rs use.
"I can see the horizon." No you can't it an illusion.
"The ship is below the horizon." No it isn't, it's an illusion.
Pot black and all that don't you think?
-
I love that 2 special effects artists are "proving" that NASA went to the moon in a garage.
You RE'ers will buy into anything that appears to support your position. Did they happen to prove the graviton using magnets and baking soda while they were at it?
-
All of it. Space travel is not possible in FET. Hence we can't go to the moon.
So, there are no satellites orbiting earth?
All the space rocket launches are unreal, since space travel is impossible, then were do the rockets go? How come they dont fall back down after they have been launched?
Please explain the space shuttle to me. What happens to it after it takes off? It just flies around right? Defying all laws of physics?
-
Does Criss Angel support these proofs?
-
I love that 2 special effects artists are "proving" that NASA went to the moon in a garage.
You RE'ers will buy into anything that appears to support your position. Did they happen to prove the graviton using magnets and baking soda while they were at it?
::) you FErs are getting more and more pathetic. RErs know that we went to space, see 2 posts before this for more info.
-
I love that 2 special effects artists are "proving" that NASA went to the moon in a garage.
You RE'ers will buy into anything that appears to support your position. Did they happen to prove the graviton using magnets and baking soda while they were at it?
Im not buying into anything, I was skeptical to say the least of the lunar landing. But all the proof I needed was the shooting of the laser from earth and hitting the "manmade" prisms left on the moon, and that light reflecting back to earth and being recorded.
-
That laser experiment is a joke.
Fact:
The experiment results in the capturing of 0 - 2 photons.
If you shoot the laser at ANY part of the moon, you're bound to get 0-2 photons back.
-
That laser experiment is a joke.
Fact:
The experiment results in the capturing of 0 - 2 photons.
If you shoot the laser at ANY part of the moon, you're bound to get 0-2 photons back.
And your proof is where?
-
Which part?
-
That laser experiment is a joke.
Fact:
The experiment results in the capturing of 0 - 2 photons.
If you shoot the laser at ANY part of the moon, you're bound to get 0-2 photons back.
They shot the laser at a part of the moon that "humans" have not been to, and light was reflected, in fact the material that is on the moon has a reflection rate of 8% which wound not allow enough light from a laser to bounce back to be detected.
-
That laser experiment is a joke.
Fact:
The experiment results in the capturing of 0 - 2 photons.
If you shoot the laser at ANY part of the moon, you're bound to get 0-2 photons back.
Please list proof and sources for this claim.
-
The bottom line, which I think a lot of people seem to be missing even though it's clearly what this thread is all about, is that the Mythbusters did not prove that the moon landing was not a hoax.
-
0-2 photons are, apparently, enough to detect according to RET. That is all that is recorded by the "reflecting devices".
Interesting as that is about what you'd get back shooting a laser at an object 3000 miles away when the object reflect 8% of it's light back and accounting for light refraction in the atmosphere.
To me, that experiment proves FET, not RET.
-
Please list proof and sources for this claim.
University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who has been "pinging" these moon mirrors since they were "placed" on the moon.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm)
That's right boys and girls, just one solitary photon is enough to prove the mirrors exist. No wonder they don't mention the number of photons they directed at the moon...
-
You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?
It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.
The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.
The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.
Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?
I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.
-
Read my above posts that show the laser experiment to be "lame"
-
0-2 photons are, apparently, enough to detect according to RET. That is all that is recorded by the "reflecting devices".
Interesting as that is about what you'd get back shooting a laser at an object 3000 miles away when the object reflect 8% of it's light back and accounting for light refraction in the atmosphere.
To me, that experiment proves FET, not RET.
OK, the riddle me this. Why were prisms left on the moon instead of a mirror?
If the Earth was flat, couldn't we simply have shot a laser perpendicular to the spot that the mirrors were left?
The reason a prism was left on the moon was because with the earth being round, we can shoot at an angle and still get a return.
-
You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?
It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.
The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.
The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.
Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?
I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.
Now this just isn't fair. Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place. The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything! ::))
But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies". This is not our position at all. We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age. It's not lies; it's simply misguided.
-
Please list proof and sources for this claim.
University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who has been "pinging" these moon mirrors since they were "placed" on the moon.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm)
That's right boys and girls, just one solitary photon is enough to prove the mirrors exist. No wonder they don't mention the number of photons they directed at the moon...
At the Moon's surface, the beam is only about 6.5 kilometers (four miles) wide and scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime 3 kilometers (two miles) away. The reflected light is too weak to be seen with the human eye, but under good conditions, one photon will be received every few seconds (they can be identified as originating from the laser because the laser is highly monochromatic)
-
OK, the riddle me this. Why were prisms left on the moon instead of a mirror?
If the Earth was flat, couldn't we simply have shot a laser perpendicular to the spot that the mirrors were left?
The reason a prism was left on the moon was because with the earth being round, we can shoot at an angle and still get a return.
Um, I'm asserting something much simpler. Nothing was left on the moon.
In FET, shooting a laser at the moon will scatter most of the light in the atmosphere, a bunch will be absorbed by the moon, then most of it will scatter, a very small amount will return back to earth, and only about 1 photon will make it back to the origin.
In RET, shooting a laser at a highly reflective retroreflector array will avoid all the loss caused by the moons light absorption and scattering. This means the only factor is atmospheric refraction. There should be phenomenally more light returning than a single photon.
The fact that shooting a laser at the moon will result in 1 photon returning is PROOF of FET, not of RET. Why are you RE'ers even bringing this nonsense up, you are only embarrassing yourselves.
-
I have to agree with Narcberry here.
-
You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?
It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.
The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.
The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.
Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?
I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.
Now this just isn't fair. Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place. The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything! ::))
But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies". This is not our position at all. We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age. It's not lies; it's simply misguided.
Sure, I'll agree with you 100% that the technology needed to "fake" the lunar landing existing now...but the technology didnt exist to create those effects back in 1969.
Show me proof of 1 movie filmed in Hollywood in 1969 that replicates the lunar landing, and I'll believe you.
aside from the lunar landing itself,m since its validity is being questioned.
-
better yet show me one movie in 1977 that shows a moon landing environment like what was shown in 1969
-
You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?
It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.
The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.
The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.
Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?
I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.
Now this just isn't fair. Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place. The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything! ::))
But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies". This is not our position at all. We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age. It's not lies; it's simply misguided.
Sure, I'll agree with you 100% that the technology needed to "fake" the lunar landing existing now...but the technology didnt exist to create those effects back in 1969.
That we know of, but it would be naive to think that we know of all the technology NASA had access to in the 60s.
-
You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?
It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.
The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.
The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.
Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?
I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.
Now this just isn't fair. Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place. The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything! ::))
But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies". This is not our position at all. We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age. It's not lies; it's simply misguided.
Sure, I'll agree with you 100% that the technology needed to "fake" the lunar landing existing now...but the technology didnt exist to create those effects back in 1969.
That we know of, but it would be naive to think that we know of all the technology NASA had access to in the 60s.
so nasa is more that 40 years ahead of the private sector
-
Better yet, learn that the government is decades ahead of the private sector in terms of technology.
50 years for the private sector to get into space after the government.
So the technology hollywood will have in 2019 is what the government had when they faked the apollo missions.
-
Please list proof and sources for this claim.
University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who has been "pinging" these moon mirrors since they were "placed" on the moon.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm)
That's right boys and girls, just one solitary photon is enough to prove the mirrors exist. No wonder they don't mention the number of photons they directed at the moon...
Cool. Thanks Narc. it was a very interesting article which brought up a lot of points, probably enough to need its own thread. But yes, 1 photon is correct, for the sake of this thread.
-
You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?
It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.
The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.
The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.
Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?
I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.
Now this just isn't fair. Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place. The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything! ::))
But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies". This is not our position at all. We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age. It's not lies; it's simply misguided.
Sure, I'll agree with you 100% that the technology needed to "fake" the lunar landing existing now...but the technology didnt exist to create those effects back in 1969.
That we know of, but it would be naive to think that we know of all the technology NASA had access to in the 60s.
so nasa is more that 40 years ahead of the private sector
I never said that. Possibly more like 10-15 years. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091993/)
But Narc does have a point, of course.
-
Better yet, learn that the government is decades ahead of the private sector in terms of technology.
50 years for the private sector to get into space after the government.
So the technology hollywood will have in 2019 is what the government had when they faked the apollo missions.
BS.....Nasa had still camera's and movies camera's that where crap compared to Hollywood at the time.
Your forgetting how the government works...everything goes to the lowest bidder.
-
The government has been creating animated pictures longer than any producer on earth. Their knowledge in this field will be as prime as any other field. I stand by 50 years.
-
In FET, shooting a laser at the moon will scatter most of the light in the atmosphere, a bunch will be absorbed by the moon, then most of it will scatter, a very small amount will return back to earth, and only about 1 photon will make it back to the origin.
In RET, shooting a laser at a highly reflective retroreflector array will avoid all the loss caused by the moons light absorption and scattering. This means the only factor is atmospheric refraction. There should be phenomenally more light returning than a single photon.
The fact that shooting a laser at the moon will result in 1 photon returning is PROOF of FET, not of RET. Why are you RE'ers even bringing this nonsense up, you are only embarrassing yourselves.
Please explain precisely how you know how many photons would make it back to earth on both scenarios. How did you arrive at 1 photon making it back to origin point in FET. How many photons more than 1 is "phenomenally more"? Its not a very precise number.
-
The government has been creating animated pictures longer than any producer on earth. Their knowledge in this field will be as prime as any other field. I stand by 50 years.
Where is your proof of this, aside your obvious answer of "the lunar landing"
-
I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.
-
I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.
seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake. When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar. When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.
Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.
I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit. Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.
-
I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.
seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake. When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar. When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.
Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.
I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit. Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.
I'm sigging that bottom part if I have enough space.
Anways I agree with you 100%.
-
I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.
seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake. When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar. When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.
Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.
I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit. Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.
How could you possibly make that argument? We're the ones who prefer to trust our own senses over the word of what other people tell us. Really, I think if it were proven that the moon landings were fake, you REers would still try to prove it was real.
-
I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.
seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake. When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar. When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.
Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.
I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit. Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.
How could you possibly make that argument? We're the ones who prefer to trust our own senses over the word of what other people tell us. Really, I think if it were proven that the moon landings were fake, you REers would still try to prove it was real.
I'm sorry, it can't be proven though, because they did go to the moon. FErs opinions don't change that fact.
-
I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.
seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake. When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar. When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.
Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.
I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit. Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.
How could you possibly make that argument? We're the ones who prefer to trust our own senses over the word of what other people tell us. Really, I think if it were proven that the moon landings were fake, you REers would still try to prove it was real.
I'm sorry, it can't be proven though, because they did go to the moon. FErs opinions don't change that fact.
See? This is exactly what I was talking about.
-
You would think with all the advanced telescopes that we have today, somebody would just point one at the moon, with a high magnification and resolution, and take a picture of the original landing site. The flag is still there right? I'm sure NASA would provide the coordinates of the landing. That would pretty much prove or disprove whether or not it was a hoax or not. So lets do it!
Before somebody says it, I'm not talking about the home telescopes that the average Joe can set up on the roof of his house, I'm referring to something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Binocular_Telescope
-
People have talked about doing something like this for 40 years.
Interesting we don't have any pictures from the private sector of any of the landing sites.
-
It might be a good idea to request pictures of the site to be taken through such a telescope. That could end discussion once and for all.
-
I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.
seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake. When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar. When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.
Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.
I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit. Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.
How could you possibly make that argument? We're the ones who prefer to trust our own senses over the word of what other people tell us. Really, I think if it were proven that the moon landings were fake, you REers would still try to prove it was real.
This is exactly the crap im talking about...your full of fecal matter. Pleas show us, its all were asking. I showed you mine, now show me yours!
Stir up the pot.
The problem is you have NOTHING! ZILCH! NADA!
yet you make fantastic arguments out of thin air!
-
My guess to why its never been done is because most people accept that the moon landing was not faked and see no reason to prove that it wasn't faked. The photos showing the moon walk is enough proof for most of the population. Therefore they do not feel they need to prove it with further evidence. The small population that believes it was faked, such as some of the people on this site, obviously are not convinced by the evidence given.
-
I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.
seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake. When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar. When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.
Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.
I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit. Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.
How could you possibly make that argument? We're the ones who prefer to trust our own senses over the word of what other people tell us. Really, I think if it were proven that the moon landings were fake, you REers would still try to prove it was real.
This is exactly the crap im talking about...your full of fecal matter. Pleas show us, its all were asking. I showed you mine, now show me yours!
Stir up the pot.
The problem is you have NOTHING! ZILCH! NADA!
yet you make fantastic arguments out of thin air!
Show you what? ???
-
Another suggestion: forensic technology today is far more advanced than it was 40 years ago. Has anybody considered having the photo of the earth from space analyzed to see if it has either been altered, or if the picture is merely of another picture of an artists rendition of the earth from space.
You'd be surprised what they could find out.
Please forgive me if this has been done before, if it has I am unaware.
-
They could examine the ink to see if it ever expanded in the presence of a vacuum. That could prove the pictures hadn't even been to space.
-
Another suggestion: forensic technology today is far more advanced than it was 40 years ago. Has anybody considered having the photo of the earth from space analyzed to see if it has either been altered, or if the picture is merely of another picture of an artists rendition of the earth from space.
For the non-digital tools available at the time, photo realistic artistry was pretty advanced 40 years ago. Photo realistic artistry was also pretty advanced 400 years ago.
http://www.area51zone.com/gallery/big/236.shtml#
Can you tell that the image above is a painting?
http://www.hemmy.net/2007/05/26/photorealistic-painting/
What about that one? Can you tell that the finished photo is a painting?
-
If the picture was taken from space, it doesn't necessarily mean the film was in a vacuum. Also I don't think film uses ink, though I'm not an expert.
In order to analyze you would probably need the negative, maybe it's at the national archives. Also you would need a forensic scientist, possibly a grad student in the field of forensic science specializing in photography. It shouldn't be too hard to find, money talks too.
Personally I prefer the telescope method. The link I gave to that telescope is a joint project involving the University of Arizona, why don't you give their astronomy department a call?
-
That is the best part. The originals were "lost".
-
Another suggestion: forensic technology today is far more advanced than it was 40 years ago. Has anybody considered having the photo of the earth from space analyzed to see if it has either been altered, or if the picture is merely of another picture of an artists rendition of the earth from space.
For the tools available at the time, photo realistic artistry was pretty advanced 40 years ago. Photo realistic artistry was also pretty advanced 400 years ago.
http://www.area51zone.com/gallery/big/236.shtml#
Can you tell that the image above is a painting?
http://www.hemmy.net/2007/05/26/photorealistic-painting/
What about that one? Can you tell that the finished photo at the bottom is a painting?
That does look like an artists rendition, and not an optical picture. That is just by naked and untrained eye. Forensics can prove it much more definitively I'm sure. The question is, has the actual negative ever been analyzed by an expert in the field?
-
The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.
Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?
I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.
Now this just isn't fair. Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place. The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything! ::))
But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies". This is not our position at all. We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age. It's not lies; it's simply misguided.
But their are grown men with no government ties out there that will tell you that they've been to anartica. They've flown around the world. They've sailed all the seas. They've seen they world. You would either have to say they're lying or they "misunderstood what they saw". That would be like me going to a store that you've never been to and me buying a blue pen. I get back with it and you tell me that they don't sell blue pens there and what I've got isn't even a blue pen.
But even if it's misguided knowledge, if it's based on a lie instead of study, then how can anything that comes from it be considered anything but garbage?
And I'd still like to know what type of proof would be accepted. I'm not demanding or anything if it comes off that way--just curious.
-
The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.
Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?
I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.
Now this just isn't fair. Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place. The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything! ::))
But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies". This is not our position at all. We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age. It's not lies; it's simply misguided.
But their are grown men with no government ties out there that will tell you that they've been to anartica. They've flown around the world. They've sailed all the seas. They've seen they world. You would either have to say they're lying or they "misunderstood what they saw".
Let's stop right there because everything after is irrelevant, since I've never disputed that people have been to Antarctica, flown around the world, sailed the seas, or seen the world.
-
Check this out, online records of the Apollo 8 mission. The original pictures and video can be found at the National Archives. You can even hire an independent researcher.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/eyewitness/flash.php?section=25
-
They could examine the ink to see if it ever expanded in the presence of a vacuum. That could prove the pictures hadn't even been to space.
I think if they could fake the entire thing, then creating a vacuum to take pictures in would be easy. So I don't see that as convincing any FE'rs.
-
Why do you think the pictures would have evidence of being in a vacuum?
-
Just do it yourself. Its pretty neat.
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/
Look for the Apollo mod.
-
Your forgetting how the government works...everything goes to the lowest bidder.
You are truly naive if you think this is always the case. Every GS14 or above is practically an expert at writing sole source justifications and the like for buying things without competition or bidding and for paying higher than the lowest bid.
You don't get SR71's, stealth fighters and things like that by buying on the cheap.
-
You don't get SR71's, stealth fighters and things like that by buying on the cheap.
Yeah you do. The machines aren't built by the government, they are built by companies who contract for the government, and since the companies want to have the government's money, they will try to outdue each other. It may only be by mere cents per part, but it still adds up.
That's how all forms of contracting work.
-
They could examine the ink to see if it ever expanded in the presence of a vacuum. That could prove the pictures hadn't even been to space.
Just when I was starting to respect you more. This is just silly. There is no ink on a photographic negative.
-
Another suggestion: forensic technology today is far more advanced than it was 40 years ago. Has anybody considered having the photo of the earth from space analyzed to see if it has either been altered, or if the picture is merely of another picture of an artists rendition of the earth from space.
For the non-digital tools available at the time, photo realistic artistry was pretty advanced 40 years ago. Photo realistic artistry was also pretty advanced 400 years ago.
http://www.area51zone.com/gallery/big/236.shtml#
Can you tell that the image above is a painting?
http://www.hemmy.net/2007/05/26/photorealistic-painting/
What about that one? Can you tell that the finished photo is a painting?
the first one is an obvious painting while in the second one if you scrool down just a little but you see this quote:
"Here’s how he did it. You take a photo, and in photoshop, you take the erase tool and go over the image. Then you post the “working” images in a ‘work-in-progress’ gallery, then you pose the ‘finished portrait’ by some airbrush paints and an airbrush, with your home-boys looking on. Then you post it on a blog site such as Hemmy.
Oh, by-the-way… the girl was photoshoped onto the canvas after the photo of the 3 guys were taken"
-
You don't get SR71's, stealth fighters and things like that by buying on the cheap.
Yeah you do. The machines aren't built by the government, they are built by companies who contract for the government, and since the companies want to have the government's money, they will try to outdue each other. It may only be by mere cents per part, but it still adds up.
That's how all forms of contracting work.
I believe the Abrams tank is an exception for this. The new tank was supposed to be a diesel so everyone made a diesel prototype. Well Chrysler Defense made a turbine powered prototype and won the contract.
-
the first one is an obvious painting
Maybe the airplane is. But the background earth in the image looks exactly like the things NASA shows us.
while in the second one if you scrool down just a little but you see this quote:
"Here’s how he did it. You take a photo, and in photoshop, you take the erase tool and go over the image. Then you post the “working” images in a ‘work-in-progress’ gallery, then you pose the ‘finished portrait’ by some airbrush paints and an airbrush, with your home-boys looking on. Then you post it on a blog site such as Hemmy.
Oh, by-the-way… the girl was photoshoped onto the canvas after the photo of the 3 guys were taken"
Nope. The second one was featured on the cover of Air Magazine.
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/tica.asp
-
the first one is an obvious painting
Maybe the airplane is. But the background earth in the image looks exactly like the things NASA shows us.
while in the second one if you scrool down just a little but you see this quote:
"Here’s how he did it. You take a photo, and in photoshop, you take the erase tool and go over the image. Then you post the “working” images in a ‘work-in-progress’ gallery, then you pose the ‘finished portrait’ by some airbrush paints and an airbrush, with your home-boys looking on. Then you post it on a blog site such as Hemmy.
Oh, by-the-way… the girl was photoshoped onto the canvas after the photo of the 3 guys were taken"
Nope. The second one was featured on the cover of Air Magazine.
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/tica.asp
Well the picture looks exactly like something I would put out with photoshop and I find it funny that he does not have any pictures of himself painting it.
-
Well the picture looks exactly like something I would put out with photoshop and I find it funny that he does not have any pictures of himself painting it.
Does the artist photoshop the air brushing workshops he teaches too?
-
You don't get SR71's, stealth fighters and things like that by buying on the cheap.
Yeah you do. The machines aren't built by the government, they are built by companies who contract for the government, and since the companies want to have the government's money, they will try to outdue each other. It may only be by mere cents per part, but it still adds up.
That's how all forms of contracting work.
No, it's not how ALL forms of contracting work. Some contracting works that way, but there are many ways for the government to procure things.
If the govt wants something expensive, they generally find a way to justify it. And yes the govt is often pushing the technology development ahead of private industry.
-
Well the picture looks exactly like something I would put out with photoshop and I find it funny that he does not have any pictures of himself painting it.
Does the artist photoshop the air brushing workshops he teaches too?
I am sure he does not, if you look at the other work he has done you will notice that none of them look anything close to the "painting" of the girl. His other works are good but they are still obvious paintings
-
For the non-digital tools available at the time, photo realistic artistry was pretty advanced 40 years ago. Photo realistic artistry was also pretty advanced 400 years ago.
http://www.area51zone.com/gallery/big/236.shtml#
That doesn't look like a 400 year old image to me.
-
I am sure he does not, if you look at the other work he has done you will notice that none of them look anything close to the "painting" of the girl. His other works are good but they are still obvious paintings
I don't know what you're talking about. Most of his other paintings look pretty photo-realistic
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/comersus_listCategoriesAndProducts.asp?idCategory=55
More trickery?
That doesn't look like a 400 year old image to me.
What tipped you off?
-
Just like when China added extra fireworks for the broadcast of their opening ceremony, and just like when Iran digitally added extra missiles to the picture of their missile testing, these fakes were exposed very quickly, mostly by experts hired by the media. If they can prove it for those situations, how come they cannot prove it for the lunar missions?
-
Sorry, that last post was assuming that experts have examined those photos and videos. I should be asking, have they? If not, then what are you waiting for?
-
Just like when China added extra fireworks for the broadcast of their opening ceremony, and just like when Iran digitally added extra missiles to the picture of their missile testing, these fakes were exposed very quickly, mostly by experts hired by the media. If they can prove it for those situations, how come they cannot prove it for the lunar missions?
Because they are funded by the conspiracy. Why would you want to expose something that leaves you well off?
-
I am sure he does not, if you look at the other work he has done you will notice that none of them look anything close to the "painting" of the girl. His other works are good but they are still obvious paintings
Most of his other paintings looks pretty photo-realistic
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/comersus_listCategoriesAndProducts.asp?idCategory=55
More trickery?
That doesn't look like a 400 year old image to me.
What tipped you off?
but they are still obvious paintings, very well done paintings but still paintings I did not look at one of his other paintings and then say to myself "wow that looks just like a photograph"
-
Just like when China added extra fireworks for the broadcast of their opening ceremony, and just like when Iran digitally added extra missiles to the picture of their missile testing, these fakes were exposed very quickly, mostly by experts hired by the media. If they can prove it for those situations, how come they cannot prove it for the lunar missions?
Because they are funded by the conspiracy. Why would you want to expose something that leaves you well off?
I'm sorry but I can't take that response seriously at all.
-
Just like when China added extra fireworks for the broadcast of their opening ceremony, and just like when Iran digitally added extra missiles to the picture of their missile testing, these fakes were exposed very quickly, mostly by experts hired by the media. If they can prove it for those situations, how come they cannot prove it for the lunar missions?
Because they are funded by the conspiracy. Why would you want to expose something that leaves you well off?
I'm sorry but I can't take that response seriously at all.
So you'd rather bite the hand that feeds. I see.
-
Just like when China added extra fireworks for the broadcast of their opening ceremony, and just like when Iran digitally added extra missiles to the picture of their missile testing, these fakes were exposed very quickly, mostly by experts hired by the media. If they can prove it for those situations, how come they cannot prove it for the lunar missions?
Because they are funded by the conspiracy. Why would you want to expose something that leaves you well off?
I'm sorry but I can't take that response seriously at all.
So you'd rather bite the hand that feeds. I see.
I cannot disprove a conspiracy, therefore it is pointless for me to try, however what I can say for certain is the notion of a conspiracy is pure speculation, that is why I cannot take your response seriously. What I am trying to do is merely make a point that if people want to find out about a faked moon landing, there are realistic ways of doing so. Personally, I do not think there is anything stopping you from pointing a telescope to the moon to see if the landing site exists.
-
the first one is an obvious painting
Maybe the airplane is. But the background earth in the image looks exactly like the things NASA shows us.
what, green and blue?
-
I cannot disprove a conspiracy, therefore it is pointless for me to try, however what I can say for certain is the notion of a conspiracy is pure speculation, that is why I cannot take your response seriously. What I am trying to do is merely make a point that if people want to find out about a faked moon landing, there are realistic ways of doing so. Personally, I do not think there is anything stopping you from pointing a telescope to the moon to see if the landing site exists.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/
http://www.spaceref.com/telescopes/Can-you-see-objects-left-behind-on-the-Moon.html
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134
-
That doesn't look like a 400 year old image to me.
What tipped you off?
Uh, that there's a 40 year old airplane there?
Your post indicated that photo-realistic artistry existed 400 years ago (forgiving the term "photo" in reference to that kind of time frame). You offered proof of this by posting a link to what shuold have been an image of a 400 year old hyper-realistic artisitc rendition...but sadly, it wasn't to be.
Can you offer evidence that hyper-realistic artistry was in an advanced state 400 years ago?
-
They landed on the moon in 1969, way before they could even dream of making a false landing at Hollywood.
So they can send astronauts thousands of kilometres out into space but they can't film a couple of guys walking around in spacesuits for a few minutes?
They DID film it. ::)
Yes, on Earth.
-
Can you offer evidence that hyper-realistic artistry was in an advanced state 400 years ago?
Have you never taken an art history class and seen all of the hyper realistic paintings from the renaissance era?
but they are still obvious paintings, very well done paintings but still paintings I did not look at one of his other paintings and then say to myself "wow that looks just like a photograph"
The author also has a photo realistic self portrait here:
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=345
"This painting won the 1988 Airbrush Excellence Award and was featured on the cover of Airbrush Action Magazine. This was an early attempt at trompe le oiel illusionism where everything, including the bulletin board and push pins, is painted."
There's also a globe earth depicted in the painting, by the way.
Here's another one he did: http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/workshops/images/vanessacrop.jpg
Here's a similarly impressive piece from a different artist who says she painted it after attending one of Dru Blair's $500 per person classes (click on the larger version link for more detail): http://www.marissa-art.com/HOMEPAGE_E/show/showpage_09_A_E.htm
-
They landed on the moon in 1969, way before they could even dream of making a false landing at Hollywood.
So they can send astronauts thousands of kilometres out into space but they can't film a couple of guys walking around in spacesuits for a few minutes?
They DID film it. ::)
Yes, on Earth.
You need to back up that statement
-
For the non-digital tools available at the time, photo realistic artistry was pretty advanced 40 years ago. Photo realistic artistry was also pretty advanced 400 years ago.
Can I see an example of one of these 400 year old masterpieces? In all of my trips to art museums, I have seen one that I said "hmm, is that a painting or a photograph?"
What about that one? Can you tell that the finished photo is a painting?
So it took him 80 hours to do one picture. That is two work weeks. One NASA mission would result in thousands of pictures. So if we assume that there are only one thousand pictures, that is 80,000 man hours, or 2080 man years (assuming no vacations, a 40 hour work week, and weekends off). That is only one mission.
It took Disney y years to produce the animations for the film Sleeping Beauty. This is a company that exists to turn the work of artists into motion pictures. NASA was, supposedly, able to make numerous films, using photo-realistic art, and make them faster than a company that was doing this for profit?
Granted, at its height Disney "only" employed 500 animators, so this could account for the time difference. But doesn't increasing your workforce to create the "fake" movies open you up to leaks?
-
You need to back up that statement
I have seen cameras functioning on Earth. I have not seen them functioning on the moon. What is more likely, that NASA managed to send three men out into space and film them walking on a piece of rock hundreds of thousands of kilometres away, something that I cannot directly observe, or that they simply filmed what was supposed to be the moon landing on Earth, using technology with which I am reasonably familiar?
-
What is more likely, that NASA managed to send three men out into space and film them walking on a piece of rock hundreds of thousands of kilometres away, something that I cannot directly observe, or that they simply filmed what was supposed to be the moon landing on Earth, using technology with which I am reasonably familiar?
Yet you did not directly observe the three men in a studio either.
-
Yet you did not directly observe the three men in a studio either.
But I have directly observed the footage. Therefore, I know it must have come from somewhere. The simplest explanation is that it was filmed on Earth.
-
But you didn't directly observe it being filmed in a studio, so how can you say with finality that it was?
-
But you didn't directly observe it being filmed in a studio, so how can you say with finality that it was?
Because it is the most likely possibility.
-
Occam's Razor be damned. A lot of FE'ers ask RE'ers to be open minded. Why not try it yourself? Not to insult you, but just because it's a possibility, doesn't diminish the arguments that we DID go to the moon.
Sorry if i sound snippy...sleep deprevation.
-
You need to back up that statement
I have seen cameras functioning on Earth. I have not seen them functioning on the moon. What is more likely, that NASA managed to send three men out into space and film them walking on a piece of rock hundreds of thousands of kilometres away, something that I cannot directly observe, or that they simply filmed what was supposed to be the moon landing on Earth, using technology with which I am reasonably familiar?
Should I believe that hundreds of people were part of a multi-governmental conspiracy to falsify moon landings with graphical technologies that weren't invented, or believe that the coverage, pictures and film is true?
I will go with the one that doesn't require hundreds of people to maintain a secret for decades.
-
Occam's Razor be damned. A lot of FE'ers ask RE'ers to be open minded. Why not try it yourself? Not to insult you, but just because it's a possibility, doesn't diminish the arguments that we DID go to the moon.
Of course it's possible. I just don't think it likely.
-
Should I believe that hundreds of people were part of a multi-governmental conspiracy to falsify moon landings with graphical technologies that weren't invented, or believe that the coverage, pictures and film is true?
I will go with the one that doesn't require hundreds of people to maintain a secret for decades.
I don't see why more than ten people would need to be in on it.
-
I don't see why more than ten people would need to be in on it.
Well, ten people wouldn't be enough to fake all of the images necessary for publication, and provide all of the fake graphics necessary for display to Mission Control. (see the above post that calculates the number at over 1000)
Then you have the three astronauts themselves.
There is the recovery of the astronauts and the initial capsule, plus recovery at the end of the mission.
You have to have people responsible for creating the capsule that has experienced reentry.
There are the people that are responsible for setting up the communication links to remote monitoring stations (Australia, etc) that monitor carrier signals from the spacecraft.
I haven't even touched on senior management that would need to be informed.
-
Should I believe that hundreds of people were part of a multi-governmental conspiracy to falsify moon landings with graphical technologies that weren't invented, or believe that the coverage, pictures and film is true?
I will go with the one that doesn't require hundreds of people to maintain a secret for decades.
NASA Mission control had more than 10 people manning it...not to mention all the workers at Cape Canaveral.
I don't see why more than ten people would need to be in on it.
-
Occam's Razor be damned. A lot of FE'ers ask RE'ers to be open minded. Why not try it yourself? Not to insult you, but just because it's a possibility, doesn't diminish the arguments that we DID go to the moon.
Of course it's possible. I just don't think it likely.
You know, If it was just Apollo 11 that we are talking about here...I MIGHT buy it. But to do it again and again(well 13 got jacked up) and again and again and again and again Each having its own specific mission and Apollo 15 leaving the refractors on the surface. I just don't see how you can call that more likely.
-
All of the personnel on the Aircraft carrier had to be bought off as well...
-
My father is employed by the NSA...and their take on Conspiracy Theorist are just that. Its a theory, not based on actual fact, but by belief of those who believe in it.
Moon Hoax believers have made it their mission in life to deny the veritable tsunami of evidence that the landings were real. That includes all the pictures taken by the astronauts themselves.
Once you stick your fingers in your ears and start saying "LALALALALA I can’t hear you" all bets are off, and no amount of evidence will help.
These type of people are ignorant, but would rather believe and put their false hope into a stupid theory, which can't explain everything about the Universe and how things work. I don;t have to disprove their theory, why?
Because if they were right in believing the earth is flat, well then by all scientific means, we would not really exist, we couldn't exist, as a flat Earth would not be able to sustain life as we know it.
So to all you non-believers, and naysayers, go ahead, keep believing what you want, as far as I am concerned, your no smarter than an infant.
-
Can you offer evidence that hyper-realistic artistry was in an advanced state 400 years ago?
Have you never taken an art history class and seen all of the hyper realistic paintings from the renaissance era?
I have, but that soft of course was college freshman stuff and long forgotten. No, I don't recall any renaissance era hyper-realistic paintings, nor have I seen any in museums. Can you post a link to some please?
But I have directly observed the footage. Therefore, I know it must have come from somewhere. The simplest explanation is that it was filmed on Earth.
I agree with you. I didn't witness the Indian Tsunami or its aftermath either. Likely it was just a ratings stunt done by the tv networks and the Red Cross.
-
Nope. The second one was featured on the cover of Air Magazine.
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/tica.asp
Tom Bishop is still not learning to look at his own cited material! Dru Blair says he is capable of painting a woman so perfectly it looks like a photo, and the proof is... Dru Blair saying he is featured in a magazine called Air Magazine!
Look at the url of Tom's "proof": www.drublair.com
I do not care to argue for or against someone's capability to make a perfect painting. But when people say this is done with an airbrush, their ignorance or attempt to deceive is evident. Everyone that has bought a Playboy and looked at the centerfold pictures knows that the airbrush is good for the exact opposite that Dru Blair is arguing: to eliminate the small imperfections of a real photograph, giving the appearance of porcelain skin.
Either Tom has never seen an airbrush or he thinks we all are ignorant.
By the way, has somebody seen this magazine in a bookstore, or read a copy, or seen a reference of the magazine someplace other than Dru Blair's page?
-
I've been studying Graphic Design for years now, completed my degree 3 years ago so I know a hell of allot in this field - and there is absolutely no way they (NASA) would (could) fake thousands of images in such a short space of time. It's complete rubbish, sorry.
-
I've been studying Graphic Design for years now, completed my degree 3 years ago so I know a hell of allot in this field - and there is absolutely no way they (NASA) would (could) fake thousands of images in such a short space of time. It's complete rubbish, sorry.
Your avatar shows it.
-
thought you might find these interesting:
(http://z.about.com/d/space/1/0/n/e/gpn-2000-001588.jpg)
(http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_Luna03_26.jpg)
-
I've been studying Graphic Design for years now, completed my degree 3 years ago so I know a hell of allot in this field - and there is absolutely no way they (NASA) would (could) fake thousands of images in such a short space of time. It's complete rubbish, sorry.
Your avatar shows it.
nice one, have a biscuit.
-
I've been studying Graphic Design for years now, completed my degree 3 years ago so I know a hell of allot in this field - and there is absolutely no way they (NASA) would (could) fake thousands of images in such a short space of time. It's complete rubbish, sorry.
Your avatar shows it.
nice one, have a biscuit.
Only if it's as delicious as this thread.
-
thought you might find these interesting:
What are these images supposed to demonstrate?
-
that you are wrong
-
I dont see how they support that position.
-
They look worse than the photorealistic paintings.
I don't buy it.
-
They look worse than the photorealistic paintings.
I don't buy it.
that's the point, these photos are real!
-
They look worse than the photorealistic paintings.
I don't buy it.
that's the point, these photos are real!
Prove it.
-
a typical FE response. stop being so paranoid, it's annoying.
-
Mccain,
Since you are in the field, do you know of anybody who can forensically analyze the photos? They are available at National Archives. Please educate us on the subject if you know the process.
-
forensically analyze
read: spread the lies of the conspiracy
-
forensically analyze
read: spread the lies of the conspiracy
exactly. there is no possible way I could convince anyone that the photos are real in this forum, so I can't be arsed.
anyways, I'm off to get some beer - have a good Friday night guys :)
-
I am sure he does not, if you look at the other work he has done you will notice that none of them look anything close to the "painting" of the girl. His other works are good but they are still obvious paintings
I don't know what you're talking about. Most of his other paintings look pretty photo-realistic
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/comersus_listCategoriesAndProducts.asp?idCategory=55
More trickery?
That doesn't look like a 400 year old image to me.
What tipped you off?
I swear to the lord of FE and of RE and all things holy that I had the poster labeled "Last Hot Flight" on my wall as a youth. I had 3 of the Blackbird and I swear that was one of them.
-
a typical FE response. stop being so paranoid, it's annoying.
Stop being so ignorant and naive, it's annoying.
-
a typical FE response. stop being so paranoid, it's annoying.
Stop being so ignorant and naive, it's annoying.
ignorant?? what, believing in modern science???
fool.
-
ignorant?? what, believing in modern science???
fool.
Putting your blind faith into something you've never seen or tested for yourself is ignorance, yes. Any demonstration of blind faith is ignorance.
-
You need to back up that statement
I have seen cameras functioning on Earth. I have not seen them functioning on the moon. What is more likely, that NASA managed to send three men out into space and film them walking on a piece of rock hundreds of thousands of kilometres away, something that I cannot directly observe, or that they simply filmed what was supposed to be the moon landing on Earth, using technology with which I am reasonably familiar?
The world does not revolve around you.
-
The world does not revolve around you.
I never said it did.
-
this thread rules. lol
on a sidenote - anyone notice the irony of being a "global" moderator on a flatearth site?
nice.
for those of you so strongly doubting the mythbusters episode, it would work strongly in your favor if you at least watched the show before you so staunchly disprove it. one could make the argument that you fet'ers are indeed the naive and stubborn ones instead of the ret'ers by not doing so.
-
for those of you so strongly doubting the mythbusters episode, it would work strongly in your favor if you at least watched the show before you so staunchly disprove it. one could make the argument that you fet'ers are indeed the naive and stubborn ones instead of the ret'ers by not doing so.
I saw it. It was stupid. It's available here (http://www.surfthechannel.com/info/television/Mythbusters/108597/S6E10.html) online.
"debunking the conspirator's claim that footsteps are impossible to make in a vacuum and flags can't wave when shaken"
I mean, really? No one with education beyond Middle School claims that. ::)
-
for those of you so strongly doubting the mythbusters episode, it would work strongly in your favor if you at least watched the show before you so staunchly disprove it. one could make the argument that you fet'ers are indeed the naive and stubborn ones instead of the ret'ers by not doing so.
I saw it. It was stupid. It's available here (http://www.surfthechannel.com/info/television/Mythbusters/108597/S6E10.html) online.
"debunking the conspirator's claim that can't footsteps are impossible to make in a vacuum and flags can't wave"
I mean, really? No one with education beyond Middle School claims that. ::)
I had never heard the footprint one but I have heard the flag waving theory many, many times.
-
I had never heard the footprint one but I have heard the flag waving theory many, many times.
Leave it to Mythbusters to pick and choose the dumbest claims from the arsenal of evidence against Apollo.
Maybe they should actually try to explain some of the serious discrepancies such as why NASA submitted a ridiculously short 110 page proposal for a 6 billion dollar government project (other government proposals of that scale are more than 8,000 pages long according to various interviews with government contractors).
Mythbusters can also try to explain why shortly before publishing his 500 page report outing the Apollo program, former NASA safety inspector Thomas Baron and his immediate family decided to commit group suicide together by parking their sedan on a train track (his report later went missing).
If NASA is so honest and genuine, why are scientists complaining to newspapers that NASA is trying to silence them?
Watch this video (http://) closely and fast forward to the 1:40 mark. Why is the weight distribution of the astronauts in some of the Apollo footage so funky? The astronaut in the scene seemingly dangles above the moon and jumps up slightly without his feet being in contact with the moon's surface.
-
I had never heard the footprint one but I have heard the flag waving theory many, many times.
Leave it to Mythbusters to pick and choose the dumbest claims from the arsenal of evidence against Apollo.
Maybe they should actually try to explain some of the serious discrepancies such as why NASA submitted a 110 page proposal for a 6 billion dollar government project (other government proposals of that scale are more than 8,000 pages long according to various interviews with government contractors).
Really good writers that are concise and get to the point? That doesn't really seem like something you can test to see if it is true or not true.
Mythbusters can also try to explain why shortly before publishing his 500 page report outing the Apollo program, former NASA safety inspector Thomas Baron and his immediate family decided to commit group suicide together by parking their sedan on a train track (his report later went missing).
Well, his initial report (56 pages) is available and was publicly discussed. What makes you think that the report based on his initial report would have been much different. His initial report has about safety violations and procedural violations. He testified before congress in open session and the records of that testimony is available. He had a chance to make his case, and some of his points were taken seriously and led to reforms.
-
Now I am guessing that you are aware that gravity on the moon is only 1/6th of the earths gravity so they only weighed about 60 pounds, so why wouldn't they seem much lighter on their feet.
-
Officially Thomas Baron's death is ruled a suicide. Had he been murdered, it would have made more sense to do that before he testified and before he delivered a lengthy report to Congress. Baron had already been known to the press as a sort of whistle-blower and a critic of North American since early 1967 at the latest. To try to "silence" him three months later, after his testimony, is useless.
NASA had nothing to gain by Baron's death. North American would have had something to gain had it occurred before his testimony and report. As it happens, North American was not seriously implicated by Baron's testimony. NAA was able to substantiate that it had acted on the valid points of Baron's first report with due diligence, and was doing so when the Apollo 1 tragedy occurred.
-
If we dig a big deeper, we find that Thomas Baron was merely a pawn in a much larger political game. Sen. Walter Mondale (D-MN), an avowed opponent of NASA and space exploration, used the Apollo 1 hearings to reopen the question of whether Apollo was a prudent use of the nation's resources, and arranged for Baron's testimony precisely because he thought it would illustrate the waste and mismanagement at NASA and its contractors. We doubt whether Sen. Mondale was aware of how poor a witness Baron would turn out to be.
By his own admission, Baron had been treated earlier for an unspecified nervous condition. It is likely he was not in a good state of mental health during this period.
-
Now I am guessing that you are aware that gravity on the moon is only 1/6th of the earths gravity so they only weighed about 60 pounds, so why wouldn't they seem much lighter on their feet.
1/6th gravity wouldn't cause an astronaut to dangle above the surface of the moon or seem to jump without his feet touching the surface.
Officially Thomas Baron's death is ruled a suicide. Had he been murdered, it would have made more sense to do that before he testified and before he delivered a lengthy report to Congress. Baron had already been known to the press as a sort of whistle-blower and a critic of North American since early 1967 at the latest. To try to "silence" him three months later, after his testimony, is useless.
NASA had nothing to gain by Baron's death. North American would have had something to gain had it occurred before his testimony and report. As it happens, North American was not seriously implicated by Baron's testimony. NAA was able to substantiate that it had acted on the valid points of Baron's first report with due diligence, and was doing so when the Apollo 1 tragedy occurred.
If we dig a big deeper, we find that Thomas Baron was merely a pawn in a much larger political game. Sen. Walter Mondale (D-MN), an avowed opponent of NASA and space exploration, used the Apollo 1 hearings to reopen the question of whether Apollo was a prudent use of the nation's resources, and arranged for Baron's testimony precisely because he thought it would illustrate the waste and mismanagement at NASA and its contractors. We doubt whether Sen. Mondale was aware of how poor a witness Baron would turn out to be.
By his own admission, Baron had been treated earlier for an unspecified nervous condition. It is likely he was not in a good state of mental health during this period.
Please stop plagiarizing from Clavius.
http://www.clavius.org/baron.html
The entire website reads like NASA apologist wish wash. "Blame everyone but NASA," indeed.
-
Now I am guessing that you are aware that gravity on the moon is only 1/6th of the earths gravity so they only weighed about 60 pounds, so why wouldn't they seem much lighter on their feet.
1/6th gravity wouldn't cause an astronaut to dangle above the surface of the moon or seem to jump without his feet touching the surface.
Officially Thomas Baron's death is ruled a suicide. Had he been murdered, it would have made more sense to do that before he testified and before he delivered a lengthy report to Congress. Baron had already been known to the press as a sort of whistle-blower and a critic of North American since early 1967 at the latest. To try to "silence" him three months later, after his testimony, is useless.
NASA had nothing to gain by Baron's death. North American would have had something to gain had it occurred before his testimony and report. As it happens, North American was not seriously implicated by Baron's testimony. NAA was able to substantiate that it had acted on the valid points of Baron's first report with due diligence, and was doing so when the Apollo 1 tragedy occurred.
Please stop plagiarizing from Clavius.
http://www.clavius.org/baron.html
The entire website reads like NASA apologist wish wash.
At least it's attributable. All we have is your word that it Didn't happen. I'll go with publication anytime.
About your video at the 1:40 mark...fail...try full screen, you will see his feet touch the ground. True it's on his toes, but at 1/6th g, he only weighs about 65 pounds or so. Muhammed Ali weighed 225 at 1 g, and was bouncing on his toes during boxing matches...or jumping rope in training.
-
Please stop plagiarizing from Clavius.
http://www.clavius.org/baron.html
The entire website reads like NASA apologist wish wash. "Blame everyone but NASA," indeed.
Wow, a site that agrees with my analysis. Thank you for posting that. I had gotten my information from the NASA site and wikipedia. That is a much better site.
He even makes a point that I didn't. It would have made more sense for "the conspiracy" to have killed him before he could testify.
-
At least it's attributable. All we have is your word that it Didn't happen. I'll go with publication anytime.
If you look at the "about us" section the website admits that it's authored by people who work for the government. It's not too surprising that they would be mumbling "NASA is innocent" over and over.
He even makes a point that I didn't. It would have made more sense for "the conspiracy" to have killed him before he could testify.
Baron was able to testify and submit a short 50 page report before the NASA was able to notice, but unfortunately his life was cut prematurely before he was able to publish his 500 page report which went into detail about the going ons at NASA and give another testimony directly to Congress.
But I'm sure the stress from typing up his report on his keyboard drove him to kill himself and murder his family. ::)
About your video at the 1:40 mark...fail...try full screen, you will see his feet touch the ground. True it's on his toes, but at 1/6th g, he only weighs about 65 pounds or so. Muhammed Ali weighed 225 at 1 g, and was bouncing on his toes during boxing matches...or jumping rope in training.
I didn't see the astronaut jump on his toes. I've watched the video over and over now and the astronaut's weight is clearly being taken off of him a moment too soon.
-
Baron was able to testify and submit a short 50 page report before the NASA was able to notice, but unfortunately his life was cut prematurely before he was able to publish his 500 page report which went into detail about the going ons at NASA.
And nowhere in his testimony, 50 pages of evidence, and numerous press interviews did he drop a hint that there was something other than safety and procedural violations happening. Not even something that in hindsight can be interpreted that way. Here he is trying to convince congress and the public that NASA and North American are involved in all of these activities that he doesn't like, and he doesn't mention it at all?
-
And nowhere in his testimony, 50 pages of evidence, and numerous press interviews did he drop a hint that there was something other than safety and procedural violations happening. Not even something that in hindsight can be interpreted that way. Here he is trying to convince congress and the public that NASA and North American are involved in all of these activities that he doesn't like, and he doesn't mention it at all?
Baron was appointed by Congress to oversee construction of the landers, rockets, and capsules. Obviously if NASA never intended to invest into building the equipment aerospace quality as advertised and instead threw them together as props the trained safety inspector Baron would have been tipped off and seen the construction and testing process as outrageous safety violations.
-
I was looking at the Apollo 16 snippet where he turns around on his toes. You were looking at the loop of Apollo 17...You still fail...he doesn't dangle in the air. Yes he leans forward akwardly as he hands a tool off to the other guy. Have you ever gone backpacking in the mountains, where packs can weigh 30-40 pounds? you have a tendency to lean forward when you are extending forward. His legs are braced properly, and the reason it looks weird is that his pack is connected to the suit.
You pick on me for using plagarizing the clavius site, and that's cool. But to hang all of your beliefs on that piece of video isn't much better.
-
Just out of curiosity...why would he write a report on safety violations on a program that doesn't exist? If he wanted to expose the conspiracy, why didn't he just say "the Apollo Program is a complete fraud."?
-
Baron was appointed by Congress to oversee construction of the landers, rockets, and capsules. Obviously if NASA never intended to invest into building the equipment aerospace quality as advertised and instead threw them together as props the trained safety inspector Baron would have been tipped off and seen the construction and testing process as outrageous safety violations.
You would think that he would have reported them as non-functioning frauds if that was the case. He was pretty specific in his accusations.
-
Putting your blind faith into something you've never seen or tested for yourself is ignorance, yes. Any demonstration of blind faith is ignorance.
Watch this video (http://) closely and fast forward to the 1:40 mark. Why is the weight distribution of the astronauts in some of the Apollo footage so funky? The astronaut in the scene seemingly dangles above the moon and jumps up slightly without his feet being in contact with the moon's surface.
Tom, you still don't see your own hypocrisy. You repeatedly tell us that books, pictures and videos are not trustworthy. Any material that might provide evidence against your own beliefs is considered fake or conspiracy material. But any book, picture or video that supports your belief is acceptable evidence to you. If the video in question here looks strange and could possibly be interpreted as the astronaut being supported by wires, then it points to a moon hoax. If a video of the earth from space clearly demonstrates a round earth, astronauts on the moon, or anything else you don't want to believe, it is rejected.
I've seen you and others on this forum do this over and over again. If you want to make a good case for your beliefs then you should not be so self-contradictory.
I'll wait here while several of you think of quick, sarcastic, or insulting comments with which to reply.
-
The world does not revolve around you.
I never said it did.
Yes you did. You said because you don't know something it doesn't exist.
-
Watch this video (http://) closely and fast forward to the 1:40 mark. Why is the weight distribution of the astronauts in some of the Apollo footage so funky? The astronaut in the scene seemingly dangles above the moon and jumps up slightly without his feet being in contact with the moon's surface.
Speaking of middle schoolers. I'm pretty sure that made that video.
-
Yes you did. You said because you don't know something it doesn't exist.
No, I said that because something isn't likely to exist, it doesn't exist.
-
I have seen cameras functioning on Earth. I have not seen them functioning on the moon. What is more likely, that NASA managed to send three men out into space and film them walking on a piece of rock hundreds of thousands of kilometres away, something that I cannot directly observe, or that they simply filmed what was supposed to be the moon landing on Earth, using technology with which I am reasonably familiar?
-
Do you believe that there are little green men on Mars?
-
Do you believe that there are little green men on Mars?
Do you try to draw the argument away from you?
-
Do you believe that there are little green men on Mars?
Do you try to draw the argument away from you?
No, I am actually going somewhere with this. You may not be familiar with an argument that goes somewhere, so this will make a valuable learning experience for you. Please answer the question.
-
Do you believe that there are little green men on Mars?
Do you try to draw the argument away from you?
No, I am actually going somewhere with this. You may not be familiar with an argument that goes somewhere, so this will make a valuable learning experience for you. Please answer the question.
No, I do not believe there are little green men on mars.
-
No, I do not believe there are little green men on mars.
And why don't you believe in such men?
-
No, I do not believe there are little green men on mars.
And why don't you believe in such men?
No one has ever seen them or seen evidence for them.
-
No one has ever seen them or seen evidence for them.
So basically, you don't believe in them because you have never seen evidence that makes their existence seem, to you, more likely than their non-existence?
-
No one has ever seen them or seen evidence for them.
So basically, you don't believe in them because you have never seen evidence that makes their existence seem, to you, more likely than their non-existence?
Yes because I and no one else has seen evidence either.
But on the topic of moon landing, you have never seen evidence but that doesn't mean everyone has never seen evidence. Nice try though.
-
Depends on what type of evidence.
-
Yes because I and no one else has seen evidence either.
But on the topic of moon landing, you have never seen evidence but that doesn't mean everyone has never seen evidence. Nice try though.
And what if somebody claimed to have looked through their telescope and seen little green men on Mars? Would you believe in them then?
-
Yes because I and no one else has seen evidence either.
But on the topic of moon landing, you have never seen evidence but that doesn't mean everyone has never seen evidence. Nice try though.
And what if somebody claimed to have looked through their telescope and seen little green men on Mars? Would you believe in them then?
No, because no who is sober has ever done that.
-
And what if somebody claimed to have looked through their telescope and seen little green men on Mars? Would you believe in them then?
Well, if it was a reputable source (one of the major observatories) and other reputable sources verified their findings, I would. I would also look forward to reading their explanation as to why it hadn't been observed before, and what, if any, evidence there was disputing it.
-
No, because no who is sober has ever done that.
I rest my case. At least Rig Navigator answered my question rationally.
-
No, because no who is sober has ever done that.
I rest my case. At least Rig Navigator answered my question rationally.
You compared NASA to a guy claiming he saw little green men on Mars.
I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through.
You said you never saw people on the moon so they have never been there. You lose.
-
I rest my case. At least Rig Navigator answered my question rationally.
So based on that...
Because NASA says that space flight is possible, which I consider a reputable source along with a significant portion of the world's people, and that other reputable sources (Russian Space Agency, European Space Agency, Chinese Space Agency, Indian Space Agency, the Australian military, Fox News, CNN, Reuters, etc) say that it is possible and men have walked on the Moon; I accept that as valid evidence that it is true.
-
So based on that...
Because NASA says that space flight is possible, which I consider a reputable source along with a significant portion of the world's people, and that other reputable sources (Russian Space Agency, European Space Agency, Chinese Space Agency, Indian Space Agency, the Australian military, Fox News, CNN, Reuters, etc) say that it is possible and men have walked on the Moon; I accept that as valid evidence that it is true.
I guess our definitions of reputable sources differ, then.
-
I guess our definitions of reputable sources differ, then.
Hmm, did I miss one? I tried to list as many as I could without becoming too repetitious.
Can you suggest one that I missed?
-
you can go in circles all day with these guys and never get anywhere because that is their only intention.
i think its funny that this website exists with the full purpose of just arguing their point.
its not like they actually believe what they spew (ill admit some of the more gullible members have actually been brainwashed by the members that argue the best), they just have a good time trying to get people to sway in their own position on the shape of the earth - just for arguments sake. these guys should be lawyers instead of spending time on this site. itd pay a lot more money. :)
-
You would think that he would have reported them as non-functioning frauds if that was the case. He was pretty specific in his accusations.
Non-functioning and barely-functioning equipment are both safety violations.
-
Maybe they should actually try to explain some of the serious discrepancies such as why NASA submitted a ridiculously short 110 page proposal for a 6 billion dollar government project (other government proposals of that scale are more than 8,000 pages long according to various interviews with government contractors).
Are now or were in the mid 60's? Can you list some other proposals that might require more than 8000 pages from the same era? Out of curiosity, what was the original Manhattan Project Proposal? I can't find it, but it was a $2 billion project in the 1940's and involved over 100,000 employees...certainly comparable.
Watch this video (http://) closely and fast forward to the 1:40 mark. Why is the weight distribution of the astronauts in some of the Apollo footage so funky? The astronaut in the scene seemingly dangles above the moon and jumps up slightly without his feet being in contact with the moon's surface.
Sorry, can't see what you're talking about. What exact time index? At 1:40 I see 2 actor-nauts kicking up some dust and dirt but nobody on their toes. I do also note that throughout that video whenever the actor-nauts kick up dust and dirt that it behaves as though it were in a significantly lower than 1g gravitational field. Are there any good explanations for this odd behavior?
-
You would think that he would have reported them as non-functioning frauds if that was the case. He was pretty specific in his accusations.
Non-functioning and barely-functioning equipment are both safety violations.
But Tom...as I asked in an earlier post, why call it a safety violation on what you claim to be a conspritorial program? If he wanted to expose fraud, why didn't he claim such? If he was trying to draw attention to the conspiracy, why not go all the way, instead of half assing it?
-
But Tom...as I asked in an earlier post, why call it a safety violation on what you claim to be a conspritorial program? If he wanted to expose fraud, why didn't he claim such?
Baron's job as a Safety Inspector was to report safety violations. That's all he was there for. If he sees that the Saturn V was being made out of balsa wood and aluminum sheeting he'd put that in his report as a safety violation. If he sees that the equipment is not being put into rigorous testing he'd put that into his report as a safety violation. His job is to watch NASA build its equipment and report to congress whether they were taking the necessary steps to build their craft to aerospace standards.
If he was trying to draw attention to the conspiracy, why not go all the way, instead of half assing it?
Baron was clearly trying to reveal NASA for who they really were. But unfortunately NASA got to him before he could do irreversible damage to their integrity.
-
Are now or were in the mid 60's? Can you list some other proposals that might require more than 8000 pages from the same era? Out of curiosity, what was the original Manhattan Project Proposal? I can't find it, but it was a $2 billion project in the 1940's and involved over 100,000 employees...certainly comparable.
All of the facilities to enrich the uranium, and laboratories built for the Manhattan Project likely had a big lengthy government proposals attached.
At 1:40 I see 2 actor-nauts kicking up some dust and dirt but nobody on their toes.
The weight distribution at the 1:40 mark is clearly wonky. The astronaut in the foreground seems to jump without his feet touching the lunar surface.
-
They proved that there is man-made equipment from Apollo 15 on the moon today.
I'd say that's pretty solid evidence.
How did they "prove" this?
Shot a laser at the moon.
Pfffffffffffffft! Sorry, but that's the lamest "evidence" I've ever heard...
The moon landing hoax theory still stands.
Even if they did a live television broadcast, took you up with them, and savagely beat you with the flag you would still deny it because you sir are a refutest penguin of the highest degree, the kind of asshole that would deny the holocaust occurred.
We landed on the moon. Accept that fact and move the fuck on.
(USER BANNED FOR THIS POST)
-
you can has ban now.
-
The weight distribution at the 1:40 mark is clearly wonky. The astronaut in the foreground seems to jump without his feet touching the lunar surface.
I don't see it and the narator didn't see it. Youa re just seeing what you want to see.
-
You totally ignored Adolfs remark...
Bunch of biased RE'ers.
-
(http://www.jocoberry.com/fileboard/index.php?download=33)
-
(http://www.jocoberry.com/fileboard/index.php?download=33)
That's horrible.
Seriously dude, I'm a jackass but that's just....
-
What scientific body do RE's classify as reputable and trustworthy?
Can you name any or is the entire planet in on it?
It seems the more you refute the more people aren't just ignorant, but in on the conspiracy. Basically every physicist, news reporter, member of government, military, airline, sealiners, freight company, technology company etc have to be in on it to varying degrees.
How do you still see it as plausible?
Let me ask another question.
Do you FEs feel special that you alone know the "truth"? I suspect as much. This sounds like a personal attack and I guess it can't be classed as anything else.
Do any of you have real jobs?
University education?
Religious beliefs?(this just helps me understand your mindset)
Mental problems?
Family members with mental problems?
Trying not to offend too much here.
-
What scientific body do RE's classify as reputable and trustworthy?
Can you name any or is the entire planet in on it?
It seems the more you refute the more people aren't just ignorant, but in on the conspiracy. Basically every physicist, news reporter, member of government, military, airline, sealiners, freight company, technology company etc have to be in on it to varying degrees.
How do you still see it as plausible?
Let me ask another question.
Do you FEs feel special that you alone know the "truth"? I suspect as much. This sounds like a personal attack and I guess it can't be classed as anything else.
Do any of you have real jobs?
University education?
Religious beliefs?(this just helps me understand your mindset)
Mental problems?
Family members with mental problems?
Trying not to offend too much here.
The only ones they trust are members of their organization and some fucktard dead guy.
-
Outright hostility won't help you generate meaningful responses and they are hard enough to find already.
-
dyno is right. Do you have anything new or interesting or meaningful to say, or are you just here to troll?
-
dyno is right. Do you have anything new or interesting or meaningful to say, or are you just here to troll?
hes trawlin.
-
But Tom...as I asked in an earlier post, why call it a safety violation on what you claim to be a conspritorial program? If he wanted to expose fraud, why didn't he claim such?
Baron's job as a Safety Inspector was to report safety violations. That's all he was there for. If he sees that the Saturn V was being made out of balsa wood and aluminum sheeting he'd put that in his report as a safety violation. If he sees that the equipment is not being put into rigorous testing he'd put that into his report as a safety violation. His job is to watch NASA build its equipment and report to congress whether they were taking the necessary steps to build their craft to aerospace standards.
NASA could not do a good enough job of convincing the congressional Safety Inspector that they were genuine and so they "took care of him" before he could publish his 500 page report detailing exactly what was going on at NASA.
If he was trying to draw attention to the conspiracy, why not go all the way, instead of half assing it?
Baron was clearly trying to reveal NASA for who they really were. But unfortunately NASA got to him before he could do irreversible damage to their integrity.
Why wasn't he done away with before his Congressional appearance?
-
Why wasn't he done away with before his Congressional appearance?
NASA either didn't take notice of him before his Congressional appearance or underestimated him to be much of a threat. Here's Baron's testimony to Congress:
http://www.clavius.org/baron-test.html
I could only find his testimony digitized on Clavius' website (which is government run) so I'm not sure how legit or unedited it is. However, at face value reading through the Congressional testimony it's clear that Mr. Baron was being interrogated by the officials and the conversation was deliberately steered to be as vague as possible. In a number of instances during the testimony Baron is only able to say that he has hundreds of complaints against NASA and contractor practices before he is cut off and the subject is diverted by something lame like "oh, but you misspelled this here in one of your papers.. why should we take your word as a safety inspector with any value?"
R. E. Reyes, an engineer in KSC's Preflight Operations Branch, said Baron filed so many negative charges that, had KSC heeded them all, NASA would not have had a man on the moon until the year 2069.
Here's a picture of our Thomas Baron:
(http://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/images/moon_0180.jpg)
Baron testified before congress that the Apollo program was such disarray the United States would never make it to the moon. His claim and his opinions made him the target.
"Thomas was a real fear that the program could be stopped in its tracks" - Julian Scheer, Former NASA Spokesman
Then exactly one week after he testified Baron's car was stocked by a train. Baron, his wife and his step daughter were killed instantly. Baron's 500 page paper detailing the specific deficiencies of the Apollo program was never found.
-
Got it...at least we use the same source. It would be nice if there were more sites that were less biased about his plight.
-
Or it was never written
-
So I presume that the smaller report was just an outline?
-
Are now or were in the mid 60's? Can you list some other proposals that might require more than 8000 pages from the same era? Out of curiosity, what was the original Manhattan Project Proposal? I can't find it, but it was a $2 billion project in the 1940's and involved over 100,000 employees...certainly comparable.
All of the facilities to enrich the uranium, and laboratories built for the Manhattan Project likely had a big lengthy government proposals attached.
Likely. So as I asked before...
Can you list some other proposals that might require more than 8000 pages from the same era?
At 1:40 I see 2 actor-nauts kicking up some dust and dirt but nobody on their toes.
The weight distribution at the 1:40 mark is clearly wonky. The astronaut in the foreground seems to jump without his feet touching the lunar surface.
[/quote]
Sorry, but I think we're looking at different videos. I see neither wonky balance nor weight distribution problems here and certainly no odd jumps. Perhaps one of us is only seeing something they want to see.
-
Baron's job as a Safety Inspector was to report safety violations. That's all he was there for. If he sees that the Saturn V was being made out of balsa wood and aluminum sheeting he'd put that in his report as a safety violation. If he sees that the equipment is not being put into rigorous testing he'd put that into his report as a safety violation. His job is to watch NASA build its equipment and report to congress whether they were taking the necessary steps to build their craft to aerospace standards.
Seems to me that he would have pointed the "balsa wood and aluminum sheeting as a part of his report. It would have been one hell of a safety violation putting two materials that are so flammable into the construction of the rocket. Instead he told congress...
Mr. WYDLER: I am really giving you a chance to tell us what you think. This is what I am offering to you. You can take the question the way you want. I am not trying to limit you in any particular way.
Mr. BARON: Very well. It is quite varied as to our problems are. As most people have said and realized, it is so extensive and covers so many areas it is difficult to believe that some of them even existed. I would say basically that we have had problems, extensive problems in safety, in cleaning materials, in items getting in the spacecraft that weren't supposed to be there, the morale of the people, the pressures put on the people by management are the things that really indicate that we don't have the proper management that we should have in this program.
Why talk about cleaning materials and morale when you have this big cover-up to expose? Mr. Wydler practically begged him to expose something significant.
Baron was clearly trying to reveal NASA for who they really were. But unfortunately NASA got to him before he could do irreversible damage to their integrity.
He had his chance and didn't take it? When asked to give a specific example of one of the problems with NASA he chose a fuel handling problem. It seems to me that he didn't have any information about a cover-up of the fact that the rockets really didn't fly or were in any other way non-functioning. It looks like all of his testimony is about things that were legitimately safety related.
-
He had his chance and didn't take it? When asked to give a specific example of one of the problems with NASA he chose a fuel handling problem. It seems to me that he didn't have any information about a cover-up of the fact that the rockets really didn't fly or were in any other way non-functioning. It looks like all of his testimony is about things that were legitimately safety related.
At the time of the congressional hearing Apollo had yet to reach orbit. The program was still in the development stages. It didn't fly, and with the many hundreds safety discrepancies Baron alleged and pointed out in his reports it never would. Baron listed safety violations above any other violations.
Here's his quote again:
Mr. BARON: Very well. It is quite varied as to our problems are. As most people have said and realized, it is so extensive and covers so many areas it is difficult to believe that some of them even existed. I would say basically that we have had problems, extensive problems in safety, in cleaning materials, in items getting in the spacecraft that weren't supposed to be there, the morale of the people, the pressures put on the people by management are the things that really indicate that we don't have the proper management that we should have in this program.
Baron is saying that everything is wrong with NASA's practices, from outrageous safety violations to the pressures put on the underlings by management. Baron is expressing his amazement that NASA's state was in such shambles that there was not one good thing he could say about it.
At the very start of the hearing Thomas Baron complained of a lack of communication. NASA deliberately kept their facilities sectionalized and put up numerous barriers for sections to communicate with each other. In this way no one group could know what gizmo or gadget the other group had been instructed to build or test. Only the top management could fit the puzzle pieces together. By keeping their employees in a thick shroud of ignorance it prevented anyone from gaining a clear understanding to the true purpose of the machines they were contributing to build.
Once Baron started asking too many questions and piecing too many of the puzzle pieces together NASA fired him.
Why talk about cleaning materials and morale when you have this big cover-up to expose?
NASA doesn't tell everyone who works for them that the program was a "cover up". Only relatively few at the top knew the true purpose and aims of the organization. Baron, and others like him were tasked with building or testing small parts of the craft to be submitted for review and constructed into their final design at a future date by parties unknown. The entire organization was so uncommunicative with each other and kept in the dark that morale was at a dangerous state. Baron complained of employees being forced to work in isolation, only being instructed by their immediate superior and never seeing their work go through the integration and testing steps.
From what Baron tells us, the conditions were akin to being put into a white room and being told to build widgets to certain blueprints every day and then to place the completed product into a bin when you were done. That's as far as your participation or knowledge went. A low or mid-level employee had no knowledge of what his work was going to be used for, and no knowledge of its true purpose. There was no communication, and little to no face to face interaction. Even a hamburger flipper at McDonalds interfaced with more people and saw the results of his work with far better clarity than someone working at NASA did.
That's precisely why Baron felt that NASA was an organization which would never reach the moon - its structure was built around keeping everyone as out of the loop as humanly possible. This was the biggest safety violation in Baron's opinion and is why he mentions it first and foremost in the Congressional hearing.
It's unfortunate that we'll never get to see Baron's 500 page report which described NASA's violations in exact detail since he and his family experienced a desire to commit suicide together by parking their car on train tracks exactly one week after his public decry of NASA.
-
NASA doesn't tell everyone who works for them that the program was a "cover up". Only relatively few at the top knew the true purpose and aims of the organization. Baron, and others like him were tasked with building or testing small parts of the craft to be submitted for review and constructed into their final design at a future date by parties unknown. The entire organization was so uncommunicative with each other and kept in the dark that morale was at a dangerous state. Baron complained of employees being forced to work in isolation, only being instructed by their immediate superior and never seeing their work go through the integration and testing steps.
So where in there is the evidence that the cover-up was not being able to go to the Moon because sustained rocket flight is impossible? If he was too low to collect data about the entire organization, that blows the theory that he was about to "out" the impossibility of spaceflight.
From what Baron tells us, the conditions were akin to being put into a white room and being told to build widgets to certain blueprints every day and then to place the completed product into a bin when you were done. That's as far as your participation or knowledge went. A low or mid-level employee had no knowledge of what his work was going to be used for, and no knowledge of its true purpose. There was no communication, and little to no face to face interaction. Even a hamburger flipper at McDonalds interfaced with more people and saw the results of their work with far better clarity than someone working at NASA did.
Many companies have this problem, not just NASA. This doesn't explain what leads you to believe that he was killed because of what he specifically knew. He only had one week to collect new information and if he had known more, the nature of his testimony is such that he would have said it.
That's precisely why Baron felt that NASA was an organization which would never reach the moon - its structure was built around keeping everyone as out of the loop as humanly possible. This was the biggest safety violation in Baron's opinion and is why he mentions it first and foremost in the Congressional hearing.
That is the one of the big problems that NASA addressed in the wake of the Apollo 1 disaster. They made communication better between the people designing the systems and the people tasked to test and assemble it.
It's unfortunate that we'll never get to see Baron's 500 page report which described NASA's violations in exact detail since he and his family experienced a desire to commit suicide together by parking their car on train tracks exactly one week after his public decry of NASA.
It is, but not because he would have exposed that NASA was embezzling billions of tax dollars by building false equipment.
-
I don't rule out the government faking the moon landing, but not because "space travel is impossible". I think if they did fake the landing, it was more to "make good" on their commitment to get into space before 1970, as well as before the Russians. For NASA to have faked every single mission they've ever run would be impossible. They would have to not only fake the missions (launch, landing, etc) but also all the photographs and data obtained from the missions. It would take hundreds or maybe thousands of people to fake that much information, and would be impossible to keep contained to that group. I mean, every single picture we get back from the Mars rovers would take a team of people at least a week or 2 to fake, per picture.
-
I don't rule out the government faking the moon landing, but not because "space travel is impossible". I think if they did fake the landing, it was more to "make good" on their commitment to get into space before 1970, as well as before the Russians. For NASA to have faked every single mission they've ever run would be impossible. They would have to not only fake the missions (launch, landing, etc) but also all the photographs and data obtained from the missions. It would take hundreds or maybe thousands of people to fake that much information, and would be impossible to keep contained to that group. I mean, every single picture we get back from the Mars rovers would take a team of people at least a week or 2 to fake, per picture.
What photographs? Apollo 11 only brought back 20 images from its mission.
-
Which would be do-able for a forgery, but you don't just think Apollo 11 was fake. For NASA to have faked EVERY SINGLE image and video from EVERY SINGLE mission, manned and unmanned would be impossible.
-
What photographs? Apollo 11 only brought back 20 images from its mission.
Well, I have done a cursory search, but quickly came up with more than 20...
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html (http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html)
I am not sure where you got the number of twenty from. Can you provide a link to that source?
-
Touchdown was on July 20th at 20:17 UTC...they collected 22kg of samples...they had about 25 sec of fuel remaining in Eagle at touchdown...in one of the pre-landing orbits the combined lunar/command module passed within 20km of the landing site at the Sea of Tranquility...lots of 20 or 20-ish numbers to choose from.
-
Touchdown was on July 20th at 20:17 UTC...they collected 22kg of samples...they had about 25 sec of fuel remaining in Eagle at touchdown...in one of the pre-landing orbits the combined lunar/command module passed within 20km of the landing site at the Sea of Tranquility...lots of 20 or 20-ish numbers to choose from.
Hmm, maybe that is it. He confused the amount of fuel left in the tank with the number of pictures taken. WTF??!?
-
"Durring the mission, all nine of the 70-millimeter and all 13 of the 16-millimeter film magazines carried on board the spacecraft were exposed"
This comes straight from the Appolo 11 - Mission Report (1971)
-
"Durring the mission, all nine of the 70-millimeter and all 13 of the 16-millimeter film magazines carried on board the spacecraft were exposed"
This comes straight from the Appolo 11 - Mission Report (1971)
Well, we are getting closer. 22 magazines of film.
-
"Durring the mission, all nine of the 70-millimeter and all 13 of the 16-millimeter film magazines carried on board the spacecraft were exposed"
This comes straight from the Appolo 11 - Mission Report (1971)
Hmm. If all of the film magazines were exposed, maybe 20 pictures were all that survived.
-
I know. I was so disappointed!
Who would have thought Mythbusters was affiliated with the Conspiracy? It was obvious propaganda, and I for one now question every myth they've ever "confirmed" or "busted"!
Mythbusters are not affiliated with the conspiracy for one reason and one reason alone. There is no conspiracy.
-
I know. I was so disappointed!
Who would have thought Mythbusters was affiliated with the Conspiracy? It was obvious propaganda, and I for one now question every myth they've ever "confirmed" or "busted"!
Mythbusters are not affiliated with the conspiracy for one reason and one reason alone. There is no conspiracy.
Your post is a fail.
The earth is flat. The Government says that the earth is round. Therefore a conspiracy must exist to cover up the true shape of the earth.
My logic is undeniable.
-
I know. I was so disappointed!
Who would have thought Mythbusters was affiliated with the Conspiracy? It was obvious propaganda, and I for one now question every myth they've ever "confirmed" or "busted"!
Mythbusters are not affiliated with the conspiracy for one reason and one reason alone. There is no conspiracy.
Your post is a fail.
The earth is flat. The Government says that the earth is round. Therefore a conspiracy must exist to cover up the true shape of the earth.
My logic is undeniable.
It sure is. Another victory for FE. Woohoo.
-
Still no answer from Tom about where he got the number of 20 for the total number of images returned from Apollo 11. People have been trying to help you, but they just haven't been able to find a reference.
-
Still no answer from Tom about where he got the number of 20 for the total number of images returned from Apollo 11. People have been trying to help you, but they just haven't been able to find a reference.
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/search/search.cgi?searchpage=true&selections=AS11&browsepage=Go&hitsperpage=5&hitsperpage2=500&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=submit
Just count the number of pictures taken from the Lunar Surface (not the simulations or the inflight images). There are only 20.
-
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/search/search.cgi?searchpage=true&selections=AS11&browsepage=Go&hitsperpage=5&hitsperpage2=500&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=submit
Just count the number of pictures taken from the Lunar Surface (not the simulations or the inflight images). There are only 20.
Well, I am not sure about how NASA puts serial numbers on their photos, but they probably number pictures sequentially. If that is the case, if you look at the pictures with the tag AS11-40-xxxx, you see that there are numbers 5863 through 5964, that makes for at least 101 pictures.
-
If that is the case, if you look at the pictures with the tag AS11-40-xxxx, you see that there are numbers 5863 through 5964, that makes for at least 101 pictures.
Yet there are only 20.
-
If that is the case, if you look at the pictures with the tag AS11-40-xxxx, you see that there are numbers 5863 through 5964, that makes for at least 101 pictures.
Yet there are only 20.
Probably only 20 worth posting. Regardless of the number of pictures from that mission, there have been numerous other missions since then, yielding hundreds of high resolution pictures, movies, and scientific data. It couldn't all have been forged.
-
Nasa has a image database called the "NASA Image eXchange"...you will find more pictures here:
http://nix.larc.nasa.gov/search;jsessionid=fsb9bnbgsap2q?p=1
Here is some more from the Appolo 11 - Mission Report (1971) ; regarding the Photography.
"Approximately 90 percent of the photographic objectives were accomplished, including approximately 85 percent of the requested lunar photography and approximately 46 percent of the target-of-opportunity photography.
Photographic objectives.- The lunar surface photographic objective were as follows:
1. Long-distance coverage from the command module
2. Lunar mapping photography from orbit
3. Photography of the landed lunar module location
4. Sequence photographs during descent, lunar stage, and ascent.
5. Still photographs through the lunar module window.
6. Still photographs on the lunar surface.
7. Close stereoscopic photography.
"
...
few more paragraphs down...
...
"The closeup stereoscopic photography provides good-quality imagery of 17 areas, each 3 by 3 inches. These areas included various rocks, some ground surface cracks, and rocks which appear to have been partically melted or splattered with molten glass."
-
Nasa has a image database called the "NASA Image eXchange"...you will find more pictures here:
http://nix.larc.nasa.gov/search;jsessionid=fsb9bnbgsap2q?p=1
I still only see 20 Apollo 11 pictures taken from the moon.
Probably only 20 worth posting. Regardless of the number of pictures from that mission, there have been numerous other missions since then, yielding hundreds of high resolution pictures, movies, and scientific data. It couldn't all have been forged.
You'd think that with 35 billion taxpayer dollars they could manage to bring back more than 20 pictures from the moon's surface.
-
Nasa has a image database called the "NASA Image eXchange"...you will find more pictures here:
http://nix.larc.nasa.gov/search;jsessionid=fsb9bnbgsap2q?p=1
I still only see 20 Apollo 11 pictures taken from the moon.
Probably only 20 worth posting. Regardless of the number of pictures from that mission, there have been numerous other missions since then, yielding hundreds of high resolution pictures, movies, and scientific data. It couldn't all have been forged.
You'd think that with 35 billion taxpayer dollars they could manage to bring back more than 20 pictures from the moon's surface.
Tom, when you take pictures on vacation, do you put every one of those pictures into your photo album?
-
Nasa has a image database called the "NASA Image eXchange"...you will find more pictures here:
http://nix.larc.nasa.gov/search;jsessionid=fsb9bnbgsap2q?p=1
I still only see 20 Apollo 11 pictures taken from the moon.
Probably only 20 worth posting. Regardless of the number of pictures from that mission, there have been numerous other missions since then, yielding hundreds of high resolution pictures, movies, and scientific data. It couldn't all have been forged.
You'd think that with 35 billion taxpayer dollars they could manage to bring back more than 20 pictures from the moon's surface.
You sure do dodge the hell out of the "missions since then" part of that comment. They would almost have to be faking the images real time with the Mars rovers etc.
-
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
Click on Apollo 11....then scroll down to "Apollo 11 Mission Photographs". From their on down you will see the rest in numerical order..
-
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
Click on Apollo 11....then scroll down to "Apollo 11 Mission Photographs". From their on down you will see the rest in numerical order..
Better yet, click the link that says "Full Hasselblad Magazines".
-
Nasa has a image database called the "NASA Image eXchange"...you will find more pictures here:
http://nix.larc.nasa.gov/search;jsessionid=fsb9bnbgsap2q?p=1
I still only see 20 Apollo 11 pictures taken from the moon.
Probably only 20 worth posting. Regardless of the number of pictures from that mission, there have been numerous other missions since then, yielding hundreds of high resolution pictures, movies, and scientific data. It couldn't all have been forged.
You'd think that with 35 billion taxpayer dollars they could manage to bring back more than 20 pictures from the moon's surface.
You sure do dodge the hell out of the "missions since then" part of that comment. They would almost have to be faking the images real time with the Mars rovers etc.
I think the "missions since then" part of the comment is irrelevant to what Tom is saying. And why would they be having to fake images in real time "with the Mars rovers etc"? They obviously make the images ahead of time.
-
Nasa has a image database called the "NASA Image eXchange"...you will find more pictures here:
http://nix.larc.nasa.gov/search;jsessionid=fsb9bnbgsap2q?p=1
I still only see 20 Apollo 11 pictures taken from the moon.
Probably only 20 worth posting. Regardless of the number of pictures from that mission, there have been numerous other missions since then, yielding hundreds of high resolution pictures, movies, and scientific data. It couldn't all have been forged.
You'd think that with 35 billion taxpayer dollars they could manage to bring back more than 20 pictures from the moon's surface.
You sure do dodge the hell out of the "missions since then" part of that comment. They would almost have to be faking the images real time with the Mars rovers etc.
I think the "missions since then" part of the comment is irrelevant to what Tom is saying. And why would they be having to fake images in real time "with the Mars rovers etc"? They obviously make the images ahead of time.
I think it has a lot to do with it. I said that I don't rule out the possibility of a faked moon landing, I just don't think it would have had anything to do with a flat earth. Obviously they aren't faking the images is actual real time, but the amount of SUPER high resolution images they're sending back from those rovers would be almost impossible to fake. At least not with the 3 or 4 people MAX they would be able to have faking the images, due to the fact that even with that few people it would be a hard secret to keep.
Not to mention the scientific data they're getting back.
-
Obviously they aren't faking the images is actual real time, but the amount of SUPER high resolution images they're sending back from those rovers would be almost impossible to fake. At least not with the 3 or 4 people MAX they would be able to have faking the images, due to the fact that even with that few people it would be a hard secret to keep.
Why? We can't produce super high resolution images here on earth? ???
-
Obviously they aren't faking the images is actual real time, but the amount of SUPER high resolution images they're sending back from those rovers would be almost impossible to fake. At least not with the 3 or 4 people MAX they would be able to have faking the images, due to the fact that even with that few people it would be a hard secret to keep.
Why? We can't produce super high resolution images here on earth? ???
Not in those volumes. You miss the point, for everything to have been faked would be un-realistic if not impossible.
-
Not in those volumes. You miss the point, for everything to have been faked would be un-realistic if not impossible.
Evidence? With today's rendering technology it's possible to make a whole 3D model of the mars surface for getting images from. With enough fuzziness and enough random distortion making a believable images from the martian surface is trivial.
Before NASA's Mars Missions No one knew what the martian surface was supposed to look like anyway.
-
Not in those volumes. You miss the point, for everything to have been faked would be un-realistic if not impossible.
Evidence? With today's rendering technology it's possible to make a whole 3D model of the mars surface for getting images from. With enough fuzziness and enough random distortion making a believable images from the martian surface is trivial.
Before NASA's Mars Missions No one knew what the martian surface was supposed to look like anyway.
Where's your "Evidence" to support the fact that they were created on earth? Have you run some analysis on the images that we don't know about? I mean there are ways you can check images to see if they've been doctored, you'd think at least one flat earth zealot would have done this to at least one photo from at least one mission. Last I checked however, every time you have doubts you seem to just "look out your window", instead of doing anything to prove/support your cause.
-
Before NASA's Mars Missions No one knew what the martian surface was supposed to look like anyway.
While the first successful flyby was in 1964 (Mariner4 - USA)...the first successful ground pictures from a lander was in 1971 (Mars3 - Russia).
-
While the first successful flyby was in 1964 (Mariner4 - USA)...the first successful ground pictures from a lander was in 1971 (Mars3 - Russia).
Well apparently the Soviets had highly sophisticated computer technology that they were utilizing for their highly successful movie production that they decided to not use for their military applications.
-
Hi, all, first time post here.
I can't figure out how the RE people keep allowing themselves to be distracted - the point here is simple, and impossible to refute.
You FE'ers do acknowledge the speed of light, correct? I have personally verified it through repeatable experimentation in physics lab in college, so this is not subject to your direct observation nonsense. I assume at least one of you has done this, and can accept the speed of light?
OK, so the reflectors... it has been argued that they represent proof we were there - this is a distraction. Who cares, with relation to the FE/RE debate (I still chuckle every time I put those acronyms and words together!)? The point is this - you can bounce light off of the moon. By using nearly monochromatic lasers, you can identify those specific photons returning. It has been argued that the reflected light could be bouncing off of the moon's surface - again, who cares? I have done this, and the time it takes the light to return quite conclusively shows the surface of the moon to be 385,000 km away, give or take a few (literally, 3-6) centimeters.
Now, I, as well as hundreds of other non-conspirators, have personally experienced this at Apache Point.
Let me cut off a few flatworlders at the pass:
The technology used was completely familiar to me. I have built lasers myself, and tested them, and the equipment being used was most definitely a laser.
It has been argued that it would be quite difficult to aim a laser that precisely. This is both nonsense and irrelevent. At the distances involved, aiming a laser at a specific point on the moon is, by huge orders of magnitude easier than centering a star in the field of view, and I think we can all agree that we are able to point telescopes at stars with accuracy. Also, as stated earlier, who cares, for the sake of this argument, whether the light is being reflected off of the retroreflectors or the surface of the moon itself? That has no impact on the amount of time it takes for light to travel from a to b to a.
I have seen the 'through a medium' argument. There is no compound known to man that can slow light to the extent that would be necessary. Your argument is that somehow, light could be slowed so much that it would take it as long as it should take to travel 770,000 km to travel only 6000 miles.
-
I have seen the 'through a medium' argument. There is no compound known to man that can slow light to the extent that would be necessary. Your argument is that somehow, light could be slowed so much that it would take it as long as it should take to travel 770,000 km to travel only 6000 miles.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
-
I have seen the 'through a medium' argument. There is no compound known to man that can slow light to the extent that would be necessary. Your argument is that somehow, light could be slowed so much that it would take it as long as it should take to travel 770,000 km to travel only 6000 miles.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
So the atmosphere above a certain level (somewhere below 3000 miles) becomes a solid? To quote the article that you posted...
When atoms become packed super-closely together at super-low temperatures and super-high vacuum,
That is a solid.
-
That is a solid.
Actually, I think what it is describing is a Bose-Einstein Condensate, and I think by "super low temperatures" it means around 3 K or so.
-
Actually, I think what it is describing is a Bose-Einstein Condensate, and I think by "super low temperatures" it means around 3 K or so.
and here is the description of that condensate...
According to their theory, atoms crowded close enough in ultra-low temperatures would lock together to form what Hau calls "a single glob of solid matter which can produce waves that behave like radio waves."
-
I have seen the 'through a medium' argument. There is no compound known to man that can slow light to the extent that would be necessary. Your argument is that somehow, light could be slowed so much that it would take it as long as it should take to travel 770,000 km to travel only 6000 miles.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
I don't feel that your article is valid evidence anyway. How can we trust those results? They are sponsored by NASA after all.
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3218/haulabyd8.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
-
Temperatures must be lowered to within a few billionths of a degree of absolute zero (minus 459.7 degrees F), where atoms have the least possible energy and all but cease to move around.
-
According to Wikipedia, the first BEC was created at a temperature of 1.7 * 10-7 K. If you can find a source stating that the atmoplane gets to that sort of temperature, I'd love to read it.
-
According to Wikipedia, the first BEC was created at a temperature of 1.7 * 10-7 K. If you can find a source stating that the atmoplane gets to that sort of temperature, I'd love to read it.
That probably rules it out as a mechanism for the extreme changes of the speed of light in the atmosphere as suggested by Tom then.
-
That probably rules it out as a mechanism for the extreme changes of the speed of light in the atmosphere as suggested by Tom then.
I didn't say that the atmosphere was composed of the exotic medium described in the article. I just pointed out that it was possible for light to be slowed on that order.
The medium between the earth's atmosphere and the sun could be some other form of exotic medium or aether for all we know.
-
Are you saying that the laser that is being reflected off of the moon is being slowed down?
-
According to Wikipedia, the first BEC was created at a temperature of 1.7 * 10-7 K. If you can find a source stating that the atmoplane gets to that sort of temperature, I'd love to read it.
That probably rules it out as a mechanism for the extreme changes of the speed of light in the atmosphere as suggested by Tom then.
I'd say so, but then, I'd also say that the easily verifiable distance between South America and Australia proves quite simply, easily, and irrefutably the round nature of our planet.
I have to say, I'm agitated by this site. I've spent hours here now, searched, read hundreds of pages, and can't for the life of me figure it out. I'm impressed either way. If they are not genuine, than I am impressed with how far they take the statement. If they are genuine, then I am impressed by their ability to keep themselves alive, and financially solvent enough to maintain a consistent source of internet access and computer technology.
Either way, they are phenomenally stupid - they are either wasting their time trying to make a statement that has been made many times, better, and for better reasons, or they actually believe that the planet is flat. Hmm... I think I just cured myself of my two-and-a-half day obsession with this message board.
-
I'd say so, but then, I'd also say that the easily verifiable distance between South America and Australia proves quite simply, easily, and irrefutably the round nature of our planet.
I have to say, I'm agitated by this site. I've spent hours here now, searched, read hundreds of pages, and can't for the life of me figure it out. I'm impressed either way. If they are not genuine, than I am impressed with how far they take the statement. If they are genuine, then I am impressed by their ability to keep themselves alive, and financially solvent enough to maintain a consistent source of internet access and computer technology.
Either way, they are phenomenally stupid - they are either wasting their time trying to make a statement that has been made many times, better, and for better reasons, or they actually believe that the planet is flat. Hmm... I think I just cured myself of my two-and-a-half day obsession with this message board.
Then go away. If you want to stick around and all you want to do is rant, go to Angry Ranting.
-
Your original post was good, don't get distracted. I'd hate to see you get banned because you have a good point, and being a person who actually works with the equipment and does this stuff for a living.
-
The medium between the earth's atmosphere and the sun could be some other form of exotic medium or aether for all we know.
Well, there are good observations of the atmosphere and have yet to discover this "exotic medium."
-
Sokarul was watching a kids TV show, and nobody mocked him for it? Shame on you all, especially you, Sokarul, you're either a mental retard or sexually attracted to one of the people, which, Wikipedia says, makes you either a paedo or just really weird.
-
The medium between the earth's atmosphere and the sun could be some other form of exotic medium or aether for all we know.
Well, there are good observations of the atmosphere and have yet to discover this "exotic medium."
You're assuming that aether exists within the visible spectrum.
-
You're assuming that aether exists within the visible spectrum.
Actually, I assume the aether doesn't exist at all.
You are assuming that there is some "medium" that can't be measured or observed, but still has a significant effect on visible light.
-
Actually, I assume the aether doesn't exist at all.
That's not what Einstein says.
Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
-
Actually, I assume the aether doesn't exist at all.
That's not what Einstein says.
Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
Actually, Tom, Einstein has been dead for some time. He doesn't say anything.
And are you really trying to compare the tripe you presented here about aether to Einstein's concept thereof?
The Ego...
-
Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
No, I am saying that you are saying nothing that Einstein did. Nowhere does he mention a "aether" or "medium" that will make light behave the way that you are saying that it will.
-
Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
Everyday.
-
Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
No, I am saying that you are saying nothing that Einstein did. Nowhere does he mention a "aether" or "medium" that will make light behave the way that you are saying that it will.
And you have a transcript of everything Einstein ever thought or said?
-
Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
No, I am saying that you are saying nothing that Einstein did. Nowhere does he mention a "aether" or "medium" that will make light behave the way that you are saying that it will.
-
Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
No, I am saying that you are saying nothing that Einstein did. Nowhere does he mention a "aether" or "medium" that will make light behave the way that you are saying that it will.
Nowhere in that video does Einstein define any kind of specific properties for the aether.
-
Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
No, I am saying that you are saying nothing that Einstein did. Nowhere does he mention a "aether" or "medium" that will make light behave the way that you are saying that it will.
Tom,
I believe the "aether" Einstein was talking about is actually the fabric of spacetime, which is a million miles away from conditions of matter and energy needed to slow light in the laboritary.
"Aethists" wrongly cling to this well-aired quote as proof that Einstein believed in the original idea of an physical interstellar medium
-
I believe the "aether" Einstein was talking about is actually the fabric of spacetime. I have no proof, of course, but I shall still insinuate your stupidity for not sharing my unfounded blind faith on this subject.
That's what you really meant, and you know it.
-
I believe the "aether" Einstein was talking about is actually the fabric of spacetime. I have no proof, of course, but I shall still insinuate your stupidity for not sharing my unfounded blind faith on this subject.
That's what you really meant, and you know it.
No, I meant what I originally said. Please read the following Wiki article on Einstein-aether theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-aether_theory).
Please *think* before reacting next time. It doesn't look good.
-
Is it the opinion of FE that light from a laser is slowed down on its way to and from the moon, to make it appear that the moon is much further away than it actually is?
-
Is it the opinion of FE that light from a laser is slowed down on its way to and from the moon, to make it appear that the moon is much further away than it actually is?
I did a similar thead last year on "moon bounce" (bounce radio waves off the moon) (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18217.0).
The "Dark Energy Field" (DEF) was given as the cause of this slowing.
-
Actually I do believe that was the answer, then an RE'er responded with this:
I think that was the whole point.
He asked a question knowing that the answer would be the same as in RE?
If you read his response it's pretty obvious. Asking a question to prove a point is not that outlandish of an idea. It happens sometimes.
Anyway, since that was all discussed a while back in this thread already... how about...
Back on topic. What kind of data would you like? (I'm talking to Tom or any other FE ers that would seriously like some raw data)
I'm a HAM operator. Haven't had a chance to work the bands in a while and thought I'd get out my old 2 meter rig and see who I could call up out there. Seems to be working pretty good still.
I've not been to a competition in probably 10 years or more, but here is the 2006 EME results page, and the article although brief, at least outlines the frequencies and some equipment used for such things. I'm sure I can chew the fat with some of the guys (and hey... 2 different YL contacts [women] ... more and more women every year in HAM radio. Nice.) and find about any reference materials, data, personal data, etc. you might want.
Just ask. Let me know what the specifics are that you are wanting, and I'll be glad to provide! :D
Anyone?
Link fixes / updates:
ARRL EME Contest results www.arrl.org/contests/results/2006/eme.pdf (http://www.arrl.org/contests/results/2006/eme.pdf)
ARRL EME Contest Rules http://www.arrl.org/contests/rules/2006/eme.html (http://www.arrl.org/contests/rules/2006/eme.html)
[/quote]
No response after that. Too bad it was an interesting topic. I am just looking for a yes or no to my question, from an FE'er not RE.
-
No answer?
-
No answer?
I wouldn't expect one. It involves non-governmental proof of the distance to the Moon.
Of course, there was a thread that tried to use the extreme retardation of the speed of light as an explanation.
-
You'd need a telescope 2.5 times as large as the largest one in existence to see the Apollo landing site, which is about 400 000km away from Earth. Can you imagine how big a telescope you'd need to see a LITTLE Green Man 200 000 000km away?
Thank you for supporting my point.
-
You'd need a telescope 2.5 times as large as the largest one in existence to see the Apollo landing site, which is about 400 000km away from Earth. Can you imagine how big a telescope you'd need to see a LITTLE Green Man 200 000 000km away?
I think that the plan was to look for the shadow cast by the lower section of the lunar lander. That section is 10 meters in diameter, and if the light was from low on the lunar horizon, it would cast a shadow that could be 50 or 60 meters long.
I can't see evidence that they even tried to make the observations or if that was just a suggestion from while they were still building the telescope.
-
All those explanations to explain away the moon anomalies are pretty much "it's an illusion!!" with no further evidence to corroborate that assertion. Mythbusters, Bad Astronomy, et all. will need to actually prove that it's all an illusion. Anyone can yell "it's an illusion" at anything. The claim of an illusion along with some vague explanation concerning optics or physics isn't proof that the explanation is true. It isn't proof of anything.
Except when it's explaining FE theory of course. (Check your FAQ)
gg
-
They proved that we've been to the moon:
(http://)
-
No they didn't
-
Yes they did. Take a look at the video.
-
There's plenty of evidence that we've been to the Moon. It's just that it's all dismissed as it disagrees with your hypothesis.
-
Yes they did. Take a look at the video.
A laser bounced back from the moon?
1. No proof it hit the moon
2. No proof man was on the moon
3. Even if it hit the moon the only proof is that the moon is reflective enough in that particular spot to bounce a laser back.
-
Yes they did. Take a look at the video.
A laser bounced back from the moon?
1. No proof it hit the moon
2. No proof man was on the moon
3. Even if it hit the moon the only proof is that the moon is reflective enough in that particular spot to bounce a laser back.
No, they know exactly where to point the beam to get that reflection back. If the beam was to point to another place on the
moons surface, only 8% of the light will be reflected back.
You watch that video again.
-
Thats not proof we were on the moon.
-
Then who put the reflectors on the moon Mr. Johannes Kepler? ;)
-
There are no retroreflectors on the moon.
-
There are no retroreflectors on the moon.
Did you see the video? They pointed the beam at the retroreflectors on the moon.
-
There are no retroreflectors on the moon.
Did you see the video? They pointed the beam at the retroreflectors on the moon.
Did you see the retroreflectors on the moon firsthand?
-
There are no retroreflectors on the moon.
Did you see the video? They pointed the beam at the retroreflectors on the moon.
Did you see the retroreflectors on the moon firsthand?
Yes, now prove I didnt
-
Thats impossible.
-
Why is the flag still on the moon?? It hasnt moved.
-
There are no retroreflectors on the moon.
Did you see the video? They pointed the beam at the retroreflectors on the moon.
Did you see the retroreflectors on the moon firsthand?
Have you seen an atom firsthand?
-
Have you seen an atom firsthand?
I haven't. That's why I always consider the alternatives.
http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflectors
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/secular.html
-
You can't prove there's Retro-reflectors on the Moon. It's impossible to absolutely prove anything beyond mathematical concepts. You can only provide evidence that such things are true.
We've provided plenty of evidence that there's such things on the Moon, and all this evidence is dismissed simply because it disagrees with your hypothesis. How can you expect anyone to provide evidence against your model if you automatically assume anything that disagrees with it is wrong?
-
We've provided plenty of evidence that there's such things on the Moon, and all this evidence is dismissed simply because it disagrees with your hypothesis. How can you expect anyone to provide evidence against your model if you automatically assume anything that disagrees with it is wrong?
Well the whole purpose of the retroreflectors was to help prove to the world that they had really been to the moon. NASA wouldn't have claimed to put retroreflectors on the moon if they hadn't already had their bases covered.
-
We've provided plenty of evidence that there's such things on the Moon, and all this evidence is dismissed simply because it disagrees with your hypothesis. How can you expect anyone to provide evidence against your model if you automatically assume anything that disagrees with it is wrong?
Well the whole purpose of the retroreflectors was to help prove to the world that they had really been to the moon. NASA wouldn't have claimed to put retroreflectors on the moon if they hadn't already had their bases covered.
Tom Should have wrote : Well the whole purpose of the retroreflectors was to accurately measure the distance to the moon and it is still being done today by non government entities where we found that the moon is indeed moving away from the earth at about 2cm a year
-
We've provided plenty of evidence that there's such things on the Moon, and all this evidence is dismissed simply because it disagrees with your hypothesis. How can you expect anyone to provide evidence against your model if you automatically assume anything that disagrees with it is wrong?
Well the whole purpose of the retroreflectors was to help prove to the world that they had really been to the moon. NASA wouldn't have claimed to put retroreflectors on the moon if they hadn't already had their bases covered.
Tom Should have wrote : Well the whole purpose of the retroreflectors was to accurately measure the distance to the moon and it is still being done today by non government entities where we found that the moon is indeed moving away from the earth at about 2cm a year
3,8 cm to be precise! :D
-
Well the whole purpose of the retroreflectors was to help prove to the world that they had really been to the moon. NASA wouldn't have claimed to put retroreflectors on the moon if they hadn't already had their bases covered.
As people have said, they were not placed there for no reason beyond proof that men landed on the Moon. Besides, what does it matter why they were place there in the first place? The only reason you dismiss them as evidence is because it disagrees with your hypothesis.
-
ignorant?? what, believing in modern science???
fool.
Putting your blind faith into something you've never seen or tested for yourself is ignorance, yes. Any demonstration of blind faith is ignorance.
Can I ask you Tom have you seen or tested these theories proposed of a flat Earth, or is it just ignorant blind faith?
-
We've provided plenty of evidence that there's such things on the Moon, and all this evidence is dismissed simply because it disagrees with your hypothesis. How can you expect anyone to provide evidence against your model if you automatically assume anything that disagrees with it is wrong?
Well the whole purpose of the retroreflectors was to help prove to the world that they had really been to the moon. NASA wouldn't have claimed to put retroreflectors on the moon if they hadn't already had their bases covered.
Well then how do they do it if there are no Retro-reflectors?
-
I have yet to see compelling proof that there are retroreflectors on the moon.
-
I have yet to see compelling proof that there are retroreflectors on the moon.
You are stupid! I mean, it has been proven over and over again! The whole point of this thread is that the Mythbusters proved there are Retroreflectors on the Moon!
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment)
-
Wheres the proof lasers actually hit the moon. Where is the proof the instrumentation was legit? All evidence must be examined...
-
Wheres the proof lasers actually hit the moon. Where is the proof the instrumentation was legit? All evidence must be examined...
Precisely. The foundations of the experiment currently rest on faith.
-
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t41/babygirllove4584/103985main_moon2.jpg)
-
Wow a picture. That could be taken from anywhere.
-
I can post fake pictures too..
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/halofanon/images/7/76/Alien_planet.jpg)
-
That could be said with anything online. Anything said, anyones pictures, anything and anyone. True that it doesnt mean it is true, but it is true that it doesnt mean it is fake.
How do you expect someone to prove this?? We dont have a spaceship in our backyard.
-
How do you expect someone to prove this?? We dont have a spaceship in our backyard.
Then stop making outlandish claims.
-
(http://)
You could visit the place in texas and talk with them and see things there.
Has anyone questioned the spaceshuttles taking off on tv and in person. Were did they go if they didnt go out into space?
-
Has anyone questioned the spaceshuttles taking off on tv and in person. Were did they go if they didnt go out into space?
1) They are destroyed at a certain altitude.
or
2) ANYWHERE ELSE.
-
How do you expect someone to prove this?? We dont have a spaceship in our backyard.
Then stop making outlandish claims.
You really cannot read can you? Alright, I petition all REers to shun this penguin. She is not worth our time. Talking to her is a waste of life force.
If you do not have anything constructive to add, don't post.
Your own words
-
Has anyone questioned the spaceshuttles taking off on tv and in person. Were did they go if they didnt go out into space?
1) They are destroyed at a certain altitude.
or
2) ANYWHERE ELSE.
Wait, werent there people on these shuttles?? Wow, I hope they had good parachutes
-
Wait, werent there people on these shuttles??
Possibly.
-
Exactly
-
Exactly
???
-
Exactly
There could very well be people inside in either of the theories... :-\
1) If it landed elsewhere on earth in secret, it would need pilots.
2) If it was destroyed before landing, they could very well evacuate or, if not, it would only confirm that NASA does not view the lives of its pawns worthy of preservation past the point of usefulness (which should come as no surprise to anyone).
-
Exactly
There could very well be people inside in either of the theories... :-\
1) If it landed elsewhere on earth in secret, it would need pilots.
2) If it was destroyed before landing, they could very well evacuate or, if not, it would only confirm that NASA does not view the lives of its pawns worthy of preservation past the point of usefulness (which should come as no surprise to anyone).
To the first one : they must of been in a really really secret spot for something that big to land with no one seeing it LOL
To the second one : are you serious??
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
WOW
-
Nice rebuttal...
-
Why TY. I will never believe what your saying without proof though. I can at least find pictures and info. Wheres yours?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
-
Why TY. I will never believe what your saying without proof though. I can at least find pictures and info. Wheres yours?
No offense, but I couldn't care less what you believe. The Flat Earth Society is a group that holds an obvious perspective.
When people flood the site trying to prove us wrong and change our minds, they should be expected to back up their claims. I have made no claims in an attempt to change your mind. At most, some recent posts by Tom Bishop have been extended (even though we have no obligation) in hopes of trying to make you question your blind faith in NASA. If we were to seek RE'ers out and try to convince them that they are wrong, then we would be expected to carry the Burden of Proof. You came here telling us that we are wrong, and thus you should validate your claim.
-
Actually your wrong on that. This is a flat earth sight, so when people who dont believe in flat earth come along, they are definitly going to question things.
Im not spamming by the way. And if I am then so is she. Correct??
Im simply answering with my responses.
Learn to go scroll up the pages to see that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
this applies to you as well you no
-
Actually you're wrong on that. This is a flat earth site, so when people who don't believe in flat earth come along, they are definitely going to question things.
The fact that it is expected and typical behavior is irrelevant.
I'm not spamming by the way. And if I am then so is she. Correct??
I'm simply answering with my responses.
Learn to go scroll up the pages to see that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming)
I did not accuse you of spamming. At most, I mentioned that RE'ers "flood the site" which makes reference to the imbalanced ratio of FE'ers and RE'ers. There are far more RE'ers that came to FES.
-
Actually you're wrong on that. This is a flat earth site, so when people who don't believe in flat earth come along, they are definitely going to question things.
The fact that it is expected and typical behavior is irrelevant.
I'm not spamming by the way. And if I am then so is she. Correct??
I'm simply answering with my responses.
Learn to go scroll up the pages to see that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming)
I do not see how it is irrelevant.
I do not no wat the ratio if between RE and FEer's on this sight, but the topic is Mythbusters did the moon landing. I was going with the conversation here, and now that it has ended up to be completely off subject I am now done talking about this issue you are having there
I did not accuse you of spamming. At most, I mentioned that RE'ers "flood the site" which makes reference to the imbalanced ratio of FE'ers and RE'ers. There are far more RE'ers that came to FES.
-
Quote fail
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/auciker/internet_serious_business3.jpg)
-
I do not see how it is irrelevant.
Why should rules of burden of proof be dependent on what you want, rather than rules of debate?
Let me put it this way...
RE'ers make the claim and therefore they should support it. Yet, you cite the fact that RE'ers are likely to behave this, as if it should change these basic rules.
I do not no what the ratio if between RE and FEer's on this sight, but the topic is Mythbusters did the moon landing. I was going with the conversation here, and now that it has ended up to be completely off subject I am now done talking about this issue you are having there.
The thread went off on a tangent, but it is still relevant to discuss as long as you persist in your claims that the burden of proof is ours.
-
I do not see how it is irrelevant.
Why should rules of burden of proof be dependent on what you want, rather than rules of debate?
Let me put it this way...
RE'ers make the claim and therefore they should support it. Yet, you cite the fact that RE'ers are likely to behave this, as if it should change these basic rules.
I do not no what the ratio if between RE and FEer's on this sight, but the topic is Mythbusters did the moon landing. I was going with the conversation here, and now that it has ended up to be completely off subject I am now done talking about this issue you are having there.
The thread went off on a tangent, but it is still relevant to discuss as long as you persist in your claims that the burden of proof is ours.
Dude, what rules are you talking about?? I see no rules saying anything about not posting about RE beliefs. If they are there please direct me to them.
I do not speak for all RE ppl. But you can expect ppl to post on these forums talking about the SUBJECT on the TOP that was originally posted to begin with. What if your problem??
Do you always get like this when a REer posts somehthing on a POST that is relevant 2 the TOPIC of this thread??
Anyway.... Have a nice day
-
I am simply talking about the general rules of debate:
Whoever makes the claim should be expected to provide the proof supporting their claim.
I only wish to clear up the fact that FE'ers have no responsibility to post proof, as long as it is RE'ers telling us that our society is wrong.
Anyway.... Have a nice day
Thanks. You too.
-
I am simply talking about the general rules of debate:
Whoever makes the claim should be expected to provide the proof supporting their claim.
I only wish to clear up the fact that FE'ers have no responsibility to post proof, as long as it is RE'ers telling us that our society is wrong.
Anyway.... Have a nice day
Thanks. You too.
The ones who stated the claim is the ones who created this sight. And the ones who joined in on this sight that are FEers are also making there claims. Isnt this correct though that the ones who created this sight is the ones who made the claims?
The REers are coming here questioning the CLAIMS that the earth is flat. So that would mean that the FEers should give them proof if your statement is correct.
And TY, it is a beautiful day
-
The ones who stated the claim is the ones who created this sight. And the ones who joined in on this sight that are FEers are also making there claims. Isnt this correct though that the ones who created this sight is the ones who made the claims?
The REers are coming here questioning the CLAIMS that the earth is flat. So that would mean that the FEers should give them proof if your statement is correct.
And TY, it is a beautiful day
Except that FES is not looking to convince anybody of anything. We are a society holding a certain perspective. We have not approached RE'ers making a claim. They came to us, to tell us that we are wrong. If you go as far as to interpret the site itself as our claim, then that claim is merely that "we believe in FE", which is unprovable and meaningless.
As an example: If you approach a man of a different religion, and tell him he is wrong, why should he be expected to take the time and energy to convince you that he is right? ...If both sides are looking to debate and convince the other side of their view, then you would be correct.
The debate section of this site arose just to make a place for all the arguments that RE brings.
-
The ones who stated the claim is the ones who created this sight. And the ones who joined in on this sight that are FEers are also making there claims. Isnt this correct though that the ones who created this sight is the ones who made the claims?
The REers are coming here questioning the CLAIMS that the earth is flat. So that would mean that the FEers should give them proof if your statement is correct.
And TY, it is a beautiful day
Except that FES is not looking to convince anybody of anything. We are a society holding a certain perspective. We have not approached RE'ers making a claim. They came to us, to tell us that we are wrong. If you go as far as to interpret the site itself as our claim, then that claim is merely that "we believe in FE", which is unprovable and meaningless.
As an example: If you approach a man of a different religion, and tell him he is wrong, why should he be expected to take the time and energy to convince you that he is right? ...If both sides are looking to debate and convince the other side of their view, then you would be correct.
The debate section of this site arose just to make a place for all the arguments that RE brings.
The FES may not be looking to convince anybody of anything, but the point is that this sight is all about FE. You say Unprovable and meaningless? Does this mean that there is no proof to your claims of FE?
If both sides decide to go into a debate over FE vs RE, then there is a discussion. If a person chooses not to get into the debate, then they keep there lips sealed, or they become angry because they feel one is trying to change anothers mind. Which honestly in most debates this is true. One is trying to change ones mind to what another believes. With that saying, I believe in RE and the person I was talking with believes in FE. We both got into a discussion on it and then you popped up. LOL. Which is fine cause you can actually talk to me like a human rather then the way i have talked to allot of others here that result in complete nonsense. So TY for knowing how to talk with someone.
I like your example, since i have been in many debates on religion. Though I have never started the debate on religion, I just agreed to speak about my believes with someone who doesnt believe what I do.
When I came here, i could not understand the beliefs that are on this sight. Just the same as a FEer can not believe what a REer believes.
-
You say Unprovable and meaningless? Does this mean that there is no proof to your claims of FE?
I only intend to convey that the claim "I believe in FE" is unprovable and meaningless (meaningless relative to the rest of the debates here). And I cannot prove that I believe in something. At most I could take a lie detector test, but in the end, do you really care that I believe it, or do you care about the belief itself?
If both sides decide to go into a debate over FE vs RE, then there is a discussion. If a person chooses not to get into the debate, then they keep there lips sealed, or they become angry because they feel one is trying to change anothers mind. Which honestly in most debates this is true. One is trying to change ones mind to what another believes. With that saying, I believe in RE and the person I was talking with believes in FE. We both got into a discussion on it and then you popped up. LOL.
The person you approach may dedicate some of their time to the discussion without planning on convincing you. I noticed several lines of Socratic questioning. Actually, I myself don't plan on convincing you, and I find it likely that Cheryl is on the same page based on her post history.
In the end, I only wanted to clarify this point:
I will never believe what your saying without proof though. I can at least find pictures and info. Wheres yours?
I had no intention of diluting the thread or your discussion. :-\
Which is fine cause you can actually talk to me like a human rather then the way i have talked to allot of others here that result in complete nonsense. So TY for knowing how to talk with someone.
Well, I too appreciated the few people who took the time to speak to me intelligibly and respectfully when I was relatively new to the site.
-
Your not the first person to tell me I use the Socratic Method.
And i wont deny it. LOL. Usually depends on what the subject is that Im talking about with someone.
And what there answers are
-
Well, I can't blame anyone for using it. I consider the Socratic method to be a very superior form of discussion because it forces the other person to make the connections. When you flat out explain something to somebody, there is always a large possibility for misunderstanding. I used to use it a ton, until I got lazy and preoccupied with work, and school.
-
Well, I can't blame anyone for using it. I consider the Socratic method to be a very superior form of discussion because it forces the other person to make the connections. When you flat out explain something to somebody, there is always a large possibility for misunderstanding. I used to use it a ton, until I got lazy and preoccupied with work, and school.
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t41/babygirllove4584/smile_roll.gif)
Work and School is very time consuming. And in the end very successful
-
Exactly
There could very well be people inside in either of the theories... :-\
1) If it landed elsewhere on earth in secret, it would need pilots.
2) If it was destroyed before landing, they could very well evacuate or, if not, it would only confirm that NASA does not view the lives of its pawns worthy of preservation past the point of usefulness (which should come as no surprise to anyone).
Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity. If there is even a chance that they are killed, wouldn't they never be seen again?
-
Exactly
There could very well be people inside in either of the theories... :-\
1) If it landed elsewhere on earth in secret, it would need pilots.
2) If it was destroyed before landing, they could very well evacuate or, if not, it would only confirm that NASA does not view the lives of its pawns worthy of preservation past the point of usefulness (which should come as no surprise to anyone).
Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity. If there is even a chance that they are killed, wouldn't they never be seen again?
TY
-
Exactly
There could very well be people inside in either of the theories... :-\
1) If it landed elsewhere on earth in secret, it would need pilots.
2) If it was destroyed before landing, they could very well evacuate or, if not, it would only confirm that NASA does not view the lives of its pawns worthy of preservation past the point of usefulness (which should come as no surprise to anyone).
Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity. If there is even a chance that they are killed, wouldn't they never be seen again?
Presumably. How is that a problem?
-
Exactly
There could very well be people inside in either of the theories... :-\
1) If it landed elsewhere on earth in secret, it would need pilots.
2) If it was destroyed before landing, they could very well evacuate or, if not, it would only confirm that NASA does not view the lives of its pawns worthy of preservation past the point of usefulness (which should come as no surprise to anyone).
Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity. If there is even a chance that they are killed, wouldn't they never be seen again?
Presumably. How is that a problem?
You make it sound like its not a problem. Is it?
-
No, why would it be? Do you think we have some bullshit theory about androids or something?
-
They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
-
Don't be dumb and stop bumping old threads.
-
Don't be dumb and stop bumping old threads.
Don't tell me how to be so good at what I do
-
They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Please provide your calculations showing the expectation of 1-4 photons.
-
They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Please provide your calculations showing the expectation of 1-4 photons.
Read the links in my sig, I explain it fully.
-
They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Please provide your calculations showing the expectation of 1-4 photons.
Read the links in my sig, I explain it fully.
And there you go lying again.
You are completely unable to justify your claim, so you just deflect.
-
Anyone can replicate this through study in math. I don't desire to handhold you in every thread.
-
They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Why all the exclamation marks? One not enough? Plus your statment is false.
-
They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Why all the exclamation marks? One not enough? Plus your statment is false.
Tradition!!! There are always 3 exclamation points.
-
They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Why all the exclamation marks? One not enough? Plus your statment is false.
Tradition!!! There are always 3 exclamation points.
Is there? Possibly in your own mind, but that’s missing the main point regarding the false statment you made. What you said is just not true, and I’m afraid that’s a fact.
-
They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Why all the exclamation marks? One not enough? Plus your statment is false.
Tradition!!! There are always 3 exclamation points.
Is there? Possibly in your own mind, but that’s missing the main point regarding the false statment you made. What you said is just not true, and I’m afraid that’s a fact.
Please demonstrate that, or you're just making stuff up.
-
Anyone can replicate this through study in math. I don't desire to handhold you in every thread.
Really? And what math do you use to come to your number?
-
Anyone can replicate this through study in math. I don't desire to handhold you in every thread.
Really? And what math do you use to come to your number?
Check my sig for links to all my studies and proofs.
-
Anyone can replicate this through study in math. I don't desire to handhold you in every thread.
Really? And what math do you use to come to your number?
Check my sig for links to all my studies and proofs.
I have checked. Your sig links to mountains of crap.
There are no studies to determine the shape of Earth and no proofs.
Nowhere in it do I see any link to any claim about the number of photons you would expect if shone a laser at the moon.
Now provide it here or shut up.
-
Anyone can replicate this through study in math. I don't desire to handhold you in every thread.
Really? And what math do you use to come to your number?
Check my sig for links to all my studies and proofs.
I have checked. Your sig links to mountains of crap.
There are no studies to determine the shape of Earth and no proofs.
Nowhere in it do I see any link to any claim about the number of photons you would expect if shone a laser at the moon.
Now provide it here or shut up.
You didn't look very hard, you can easily measure the shape of the earth with a level and a laser sight.
-
You didn't look very hard, you can easily measure the shape of the earth with a level and a laser sight.
And what the hell does that have to do with the topic at hand?
Here, let me remind you what you need to back up:
They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Do you have any proof this is the "EXACT AMOUNT" you would measure under FET?
-
You didn't look very hard, you can easily measure the shape of the earth with a level and a laser sight.
And what the hell does that have to do with the topic at hand?
Here, let me remind you what you need to back up:
They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Do you have any proof this is the "EXACT AMOUNT" you would measure under FET?
I do - it is what is measured.
-
Do you have any proof this is the "EXACT AMOUNT" you would measure under FET?
I do - it is what is measured.
So that is a no, you have no proof, even though when asked for calculations you claimed you explain it fully in your sig:
They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Please provide your calculations showing the expectation of 1-4 photons.
Read the links in my sig, I explain it fully.
So there you go lying yet again.
-
Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.
-
Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.
That isn't the question. The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.
In other words you are saying there's some sort of predictive device, calculation that you would use before the experiment to give you such an expectation.
What is that device?
-
Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.
That isn't the question. The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.
Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.
-
Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.
That isn't the question. The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.
Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.
So what is the calculation you used?
What would be expected if the moon was farther away?
Numbers please.
-
Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.
That isn't the question. The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.
Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.
What would be expected if the moon was farther away?
Fewer returning photons. The amount would of course vary with how far away.
-
Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.
That isn't the question. The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.
Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.
What would be expected if the moon was farther away?
Fewer returning photons. The amount would of course vary with how far away.
Why is that?
-
Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.
That isn't the question. The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.
Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.
What would be expected if the moon was farther away?
Fewer returning photons. The amount would of course vary with how far away.
So you have present nothing to support your statement that the number returning is what would be expected on a flat earth.
Just another troll. Too bad really.
-
Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.
That is not the issue.
The issue is your claim that it is the exact amount you would expect in FET with a close moon.
Can you show that this is the case, and it is not in fact the amount you would expect in RET with a distant moon?
Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.
So you would expect more than 4 returning.
You claimed 4 was the exact amount you would expect under FET. PROVE IT or admit you were lying.
-
Excuse me?
-
Excuse me?
It has been several years and that is all you have managed to come up with in response?
I take it that means you still don't have the math to back up your claims.
-
No maths required.
The moon landings is a mater of historical fact doubted only by conspiracy nuts, though the exact history of the conspiracy is actually quite interesting. Lots of people, even amatures with some expert assistance have pinged lasers of the discs left on the moon. It's no big deal.
There are also images that show tracks in the lunar dust.
Just wait till 2024 when it will be a real slam dunk. I wonder what all the conspiracy people will say then? Watch this space....
-
Epic thread necro
Anyway that moon landing episode was kinda dumb. I could run a script on my computer that pretends to fire a laser and detect one back when I press the enter key.
Also you don't need someone to land on the moon to install reflectors. You could just dump them there on a fly by
Also, the moon is naturally reflective, hence its shine.
-
This guy is a real film director who explains how 1969 technology to fake the moon landing:
-
Epic thread necro
Anyway that moon landing episode was kinda dumb. I could run a script on my computer that pretends to fire a laser and detect one back when I press the enter key.
Logical fallacy.
Also you don't need someone to land on the moon to install reflectors. You could just dump them there on a fly by
And?
Also, the moon is naturally reflective, hence its shine.
The reflectors are retroreflectors. Look it up.
-
Myth busters usually do a pretty good job. Everyone can see the myth busted
Tell me, how are the viewers at home (especially the sceptics) supposed to be at all convinced about that laser segment? It was really just a 'just trust it' rather than a hands down, slam dunk, proof for all to see the laser going and coming
The point of the episode was about the moon landing. You know.... Man stepping foot on the moon? It's not only 'flat earthers' who believe it didn't happen. Plenty of people who believe in space and space probes and all the pretty pictures do not believe someone stepped foot on the moon on 1969. Just ask Heiwa ;) So yeah, the fact there are retro reflectors on the moon does not in any way mean some guy landed on the moon, put them there and took off again
A reflective surface can shine the laser back to the source if the angle is right. It's much harder and needs a precise angle, sure. I know what a retro reflector does thanks and my statement still stands
I don't disagree with any of their previous debunking myths about the moon landing. The laser one was not convincing to the argument of 'man landed on the moon' and unlike their other points which could get a sceptic to think, this one would not have convinced a single sceptic
Get over it. Some bitch pushing a key on a keyboard and some screen showing some result does not in any way convince to a sceptic that man landed on the moon, installed retro reflectors and came back again. Sure, show the piece, but Adam Savage 'oh yeah that's totally proves it' was just cringe
-
Myth busters usually do a pretty good job. Everyone can see the myth busted
Tell me, how are the viewers at home (especially the sceptics) supposed to be at all convinced about that laser segment? It was really just a 'just trust it' rather than a hands down, slam dunk, proof for all to see the laser going and coming
The point of the episode was about the moon landing. You know.... Man stepping foot on the moon? It's not only 'flat earthers' who believe it didn't happen. Plenty of people who believe in space and space probes and all the pretty pictures do not believe someone stepped foot on the moon on 1969. Just ask Heiwa ;) So yeah, the fact there are retro reflectors on the moon does not in any way mean some guy landed on the moon, put them there and took off again
A reflective surface can shine the laser back to the source if the angle is right. It's much harder and needs a precise angle, sure. I know what a retro reflector does thanks and my statement still stands
I don't disagree with any of their previous debunking myths about the moon landing. The laser one was not convincing to the argument of 'man landed on the moon' and unlike their other points which could get a sceptic to think, this one would not have convinced a single sceptic
Get over it. Some bitch pushing a key on a keyboard and some screen showing some result does not in any way convince to a sceptic that man landed on the moon, installed retro reflectors and came back again. Sure, show the piece, but Adam Savage 'oh yeah that's totally proves it' was just cringe
Think again!
For a laser to be pointed at the moon and for some of the photons to reflected back to the very point they originated from demands precise alignment plus a target that will bounce some of the photons back from whence they came. The bare lunar surface could not perform such an action!
Why do you imagine they put targets there in the first place….Duh!
-
Myth busters usually do a pretty good job. Everyone can see the myth busted
Tell me, how are the viewers at home (especially the sceptics) supposed to be at all convinced about that laser segment? It was really just a 'just trust it' rather than a hands down, slam dunk, proof for all to see the laser going and coming
The point of the episode was about the moon landing. You know.... Man stepping foot on the moon? It's not only 'flat earthers' who believe it didn't happen. Plenty of people who believe in space and space probes and all the pretty pictures do not believe someone stepped foot on the moon on 1969. Just ask Heiwa ;) So yeah, the fact there are retro reflectors on the moon does not in any way mean some guy landed on the moon, put them there and took off again
A reflective surface can shine the laser back to the source if the angle is right. It's much harder and needs a precise angle, sure. I know what a retro reflector does thanks and my statement still stands
I don't disagree with any of their previous debunking myths about the moon landing. The laser one was not convincing to the argument of 'man landed on the moon' and unlike their other points which could get a sceptic to think, this one would not have convinced a single sceptic
Get over it. Some bitch pushing a key on a keyboard and some screen showing some result does not in any way convince to a sceptic that man landed on the moon, installed retro reflectors and came back again. Sure, show the piece, but Adam Savage 'oh yeah that's totally proves it' was just cringe
Think again!
For a laser to be pointed at the moon and for some of the photons to reflected back to the very point they originated from demands precise alignment plus a target that will bounce some of the photons back from whence they came. The bare lunar surface could not perform such an action!
Why do you imagine they put targets there in the first place….Duh!
It's not impossible and I never questioned the validity of the retro reflectors on the moon surface or what job they do
Myth Busters is a show for sceptics. All the segments they did before the laser were good, researched and hard for a sceptic to deny
The last segment well, what can you say... Do you honestly think a sceptic is going to be convinced by that? Some woman employee pushes a button and a screen returns a 'result'. Really? Hands down, slam dunk 'evidence' for the TV viewer?
You believe there is nothing nefarious and you're more than likely right. However this is a show for sceptics. For people like you it just confirms your bias
I just look at the episode objectively and think that laser segment did not 'prove' anything.
To the TV home viewer. No proof a laser was fired and no proof a laser got returned. And again, the show was about 'did man land on the noon' and you could probably get away with dumping the reflectors on there without needing a man
Lots of moon landing sceptics are fine with the concept of space, space probes, Mars rovers or even think landing on the moon could be done. They just think that it wasn't done in 1969 and the few years that followed the program for whatever reasons
-
Myth busters usually do a pretty good job. Everyone can see the myth busted
Tell me, how are the viewers at home (especially the sceptics) supposed to be at all convinced about that laser segment? It was really just a 'just trust it' rather than a hands down, slam dunk, proof for all to see the laser going and coming
The point of the episode was about the moon landing. You know.... Man stepping foot on the moon? It's not only 'flat earthers' who believe it didn't happen. Plenty of people who believe in space and space probes and all the pretty pictures do not believe someone stepped foot on the moon on 1969. Just ask Heiwa ;) So yeah, the fact there are retro reflectors on the moon does not in any way mean some guy landed on the moon, put them there and took off again
A reflective surface can shine the laser back to the source if the angle is right. It's much harder and needs a precise angle, sure. I know what a retro reflector does thanks and my statement still stands
I don't disagree with any of their previous debunking myths about the moon landing. The laser one was not convincing to the argument of 'man landed on the moon' and unlike their other points which could get a sceptic to think, this one would not have convinced a single sceptic
Get over it. Some bitch pushing a key on a keyboard and some screen showing some result does not in any way convince to a sceptic that man landed on the moon, installed retro reflectors and came back again. Sure, show the piece, but Adam Savage 'oh yeah that's totally proves it' was just cringe
Think again!
For a laser to be pointed at the moon and for some of the photons to reflected back to the very point they originated from demands precise alignment plus a target that will bounce some of the photons back from whence they came. The bare lunar surface could not perform such an action!
Why do you imagine they put targets there in the first place….Duh!
It's not impossible and I never questioned the validity of the retro reflectors on the moon surface or what job they do
Myth Busters is a show for sceptics. All the segments they did before the laser were good, researched and hard for a sceptic to deny
The last segment well, what can you say... Do you honestly think a sceptic is going to be convinced by that? Some woman employee pushes a button and a screen returns a 'result'. Really? Hands down, slam dunk 'evidence' for the TV viewer?
You believe there is nothing nefarious and you're more than likely right. However this is a show for sceptics. For people like you it just confirms your bias
I just look at the episode objectively and think that laser segment did not 'prove' anything.
To the TV home viewer. No proof a laser was fired and no proof a laser got returned. And again, the show was about 'did man land on the noon' and you could probably get away with dumping the reflectors on there without needing a man
Lots of moon landing sceptics are fine with the concept of space, space probes, Mars rovers or even think landing on the moon could be done. They just think that it wasn't done in 1969 and the few years that followed the program for whatever reasons
Im afraid that is the problem with stupid people. They will choose to believe other idiots like themselves instead of experts. Most of the time, no harm done but when stupid people listen to other stupid people over things like the efficacy of vaccines then problems do result. All those people at deaths door who were vaccine sceptics and those who have already gone through wishing they had listened. Too late pal thats what you get for being stupid.
What can you do...lead a horse to water etc. etc....
-
It is not just lasers. Go to youtube and search "ham radio moonbounce". Govt, university, and amateurs all over the world have done this and gotten the same answer, so radio waves with no reflector get the same results. Time/speed/distance matches, the delay in the return signal is just what RE predicts.
-
Edit: Wrong guy. Ignore everything I said.
-
It is not just lasers. Go to youtube and search "ham radio moonbounce". Govt, university, and amateurs all over the world have done this and gotten the same answer, so radio waves with no reflector get the same results. Time/speed/distance matches, the delay in the return signal is just what RE predicts.
When you start looking for it, it really is staggering how much round earthers rely on cheap manipulation and fallacies in place of any actual argument. It reminds me of those life hack channels on youtube, able to dress something up pretty and avoiding giving any explanation, getting a huge amount of followers and making bank while spreading outright lies and even dangerous ideas.
'This small thing you can do at home will change how you see the world! Trust us!'
-
It is not just lasers. Go to youtube and search "ham radio moonbounce". Govt, university, and amateurs all over the world have done this and gotten the same answer, so radio waves with no reflector get the same results. Time/speed/distance matches, the delay in the return signal is just what RE predicts.
When you start looking for it, it really is staggering how much round earthers rely on cheap manipulation and fallacies in place of any actual argument. It reminds me of those life hack channels on youtube, able to dress something up pretty and avoiding giving any explanation, getting a huge amount of followers and making bank while spreading outright lies and even dangerous ideas.
'This small thing you can do at home will change how you see the world! Trust us!'
Isn't that the whole argument of FE idiots? They didn't do it themselves so they won't believe it. The depths of the FE cult brainwashing astound me. No matter what you try to educate them, they just can't get past the conspiracy laden FE programming that the cult leaders tell them.
-
It is not just lasers. Go to youtube and search "ham radio moonbounce". Govt, university, and amateurs all over the world have done this and gotten the same answer, so radio waves with no reflector get the same results. Time/speed/distance matches, the delay in the return signal is just what RE predicts.
When you start looking for it, it really is staggering how much round earthers rely on cheap manipulation and fallacies in place of any actual argument. It reminds me of those life hack channels on youtube, able to dress something up pretty and avoiding giving any explanation, getting a huge amount of followers and making bank while spreading outright lies and even dangerous ideas.
'This small thing you can do at home will change how you see the world! Trust us!'
Isn't that the whole argument of FE idiots? They didn't do it themselves so they won't believe it. The depths of the FE cult brainwashing astound me. No matter what you try to educate them, they just can't get past the conspiracy laden FE programming that the cult leaders tell them.
You really have no self awareness do you?
FET doesn't have cult leaders. I think you're thinking of your side there. That's the one led by specific, named individuals that almost everyone can name, and who repeat things that they say you don't understand, but to take their word for it...
Meanwhile FET has a few big names, but FEers don't follow all of them blindly - rather, we make up our minds based on our own understanding and research.
Tell me, which of those sounds like a cult to you?
Why is it every time I point out an issue with your thinking, an REer always decides to use the childish 'Actually you're guilty of that thing you said we were doing! Ka-ching! Victory!'
-
FET doesn't have cult leaders.
Cult Leader: Samuel Rowbotham
Bible: Earth Not A Globe
Religion: Universal Zetetic Society
I mean, you have people who are members of "The Zetetic Council" and the number of times that book and his experiment are brought up and portrayed as absolute truth is pretty common. It's all over several flat earth wikis.
You have a few leaders that a large number of flat earthers follow on YouTube and podcasts. How about Mark Sargent?
Daniel Shenton? :)
-
It is not just lasers. Go to youtube and search "ham radio moonbounce". Govt, university, and amateurs all over the world have done this and gotten the same answer, so radio waves with no reflector get the same results. Time/speed/distance matches, the delay in the return signal is just what RE predicts.
When you start looking for it, it really is staggering how much round earthers rely on cheap manipulation and fallacies in place of any actual argument. It reminds me of those life hack channels on youtube, able to dress something up pretty and avoiding giving any explanation, getting a huge amount of followers and making bank while spreading outright lies and even dangerous ideas.
'This small thing you can do at home will change how you see the world! Trust us!'
Isn't that the whole argument of FE idiots? They didn't do it themselves so they won't believe it. The depths of the FE cult brainwashing astound me. No matter what you try to educate them, they just can't get past the conspiracy laden FE programming that the cult leaders tell them.
You really have no self awareness do you?
FET doesn't have cult leaders. I think you're thinking of your side there. That's the one led by specific, named individuals that almost everyone can name, and who repeat things that they say you don't understand, but to take their word for it...
Meanwhile FET has a few big names, but FEers don't follow all of them blindly - rather, we make up our minds based on our own understanding and research.
Tell me, which of those sounds like a cult to you?
Why is it every time I point out an issue with your thinking, an REer always decides to use the childish 'Actually you're guilty of that thing you said we were doing! Ka-ching! Victory!'
Really? I am not the one complaining that I cant get proof then refusing to do experiments, then complaining that I am told easier ways of getting the proof. Refusal to even entertain opposing evidence is rather brainwashed behavior. Believing whatever someone tells you only because it fits with your brainwashed ideas specifically because it makes you feel like some underground hero fighting against perceived authority sounds pretty cult like.
But hey, you have proven you wont accept anything that challenges you, as evidenced by your recent fussing about being given things you can do yourself that would challenge them. It's ok FE sheep, just keep following your little herd, do what your told, never open your mind to being wrong.
-
FET doesn't have cult leaders.
Cult Leader: Samuel Rowbotham
Bible: Earth Not A Globe
Religion: Universal Zetetic Society
I mean, you have people who are members of "The Zetetic Council" and the number of times that book and his experiment are brought up and portrayed as absolute truth is pretty common. It's all over several flat earth wikis.
You have a few leaders that a large number of flat earthers follow on YouTube and podcasts. How about Mark Sargent?
Daniel Shenton? :)
I see that book brought up far more by round earthers than flat earthers. And leaders? They are sources, but most don't follow them blindly. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or genuinely so mindless that you can't see the difference. Are you really that unfamiliar with the in-fighting?
When Neil Degrasse Tyson says something, you believe him because he said it. When a prominent flat earther says something, first, we should actually question what prominent even means - a few people try to make money off of FET, and they are dogged by controversy like you wouldn't believe. They are shouted down, called out, publicly disagreed with all over the place. Most of the major flat earthers more often cultivate an audience of round earthers and make money off the controversy: take a look at Mark Sargent's channel, he has Family Feud clips, COVID clickbait, titles clearly geared towards round earthers (who do you think 'Flat Earth Clues!' is aimed at, people that already think the world is flat, or people who disagree and want to debunk supposed clues?). You're holding him up as an equivalent? Sure.
Among actual flat earthers, some are seen as a useful resource, and some are seen as sell-outs and embarrassments. When a prominent flat earther says something, the response is massively divided - yes, you can have the hobbyists who use it more for community than science, but they are a minority as opposed to the entire audience.
Round Earthers say "You won't understand, but believe it anyway." Flat Earthers say "Here is the evidence."
Really? I am not the one complaining that I cant get proof then refusing to do experiments, then complaining that I am told easier ways of getting the proof. Refusal to even entertain opposing evidence is rather brainwashed behavior. Believing whatever someone tells you only because it fits with your brainwashed ideas specifically because it makes you feel like some underground hero fighting against perceived authority sounds pretty cult like.
But hey, you have proven you wont accept anything that challenges you, as evidenced by your recent fussing about being given things you can do yourself that would challenge them. It's ok FE sheep, just keep following your little herd, do what your told, never open your mind to being wrong.
Well given I'm not the one saying that either, I don't know what world you're living in. Maybe the planet you're on actually is round, who knows? Here in the real world, we follow evidence and draw conclusions and don't blindly follow the leader.
"being given things you can do yourself that would challenge them." I notice you cut out the context conveniently. Learn about the life hacks trend, I recommend it, you'll find a lot of similarities. For example, people claim to be able to find out if cheese is synthetic or natural by holding a flame to it - either it melts, or catches fire. If it melts, it's natural, if it doesn't, it's synthetic and processed. That's the claim, though of course it doesn't work out - all it tests is fat content. High fat, melts. Low fat, burns.
You don't offer ways to challenge or test, you offer narrow little hacks with intentionally concealed subjects. And, as with your posts, utter garbage you've wholesale made up but you get to feign superiority to someone, so so be it, you can lie all you want.
-
I would also remind you of the post I was responding to.
Is that what you would call actual, fleshed out, supported evidence? Three disparate words, no explanation, no understanding of the principles, no actual evidence.
It's foolishness, and it characterizes the general lack of self-awareness your side possesses. By all means, do your usual tack of huddling together to defend him, when you would call out any flat earther who did something even remotely similar.
-
Round Earthers say "You won't understand, but believe it anyway." Flat Earthers say "Here is the evidence."
What evidence? I've never seen a single piece of evidence that shows the earth to be flat. Give me your BEST proof that the Earth is flat. I'm curious what you think that is.
You have no working map. No pictures of the flat earth disk, nobody's been to the edge. No pictures of the dome. Nobody drilled a core sample of the dome. What's it's temperature?
I've personally performed many measurements and experiments to confirm the earth is round. Measuring the shadow of a stick is trivial with the internet letting you get a group of friends around the world to do it. You should try it.
How many flat earth experiments and observations have you made? What are they?
-
When you start looking for it, it really is staggering how much round earthers rely on cheap manipulation and fallacies in place of any actual argument.
You mean FEers.
FET doesn't have cult leaders.
Sure they do.
Row Boat.
Eric Dubay
Daniel Shenton.
They even have martyrs like Mike Hughes.
Tell me, which of those sounds like a cult to you?
FE. Due to the wilful rejection of evidence that shows they are wrong, and the complete inability to defend their claims; especially with how they love their deflection.
You can even see this with you.
Notice how this thread was meant to be about the moon landing.
Yet instead of even attempt to discuss that, you just try to attack the RE as a cult.
You shouldn't even be asking which seems more like a cult.
Instead you should be asking which seems more like a rational, evidence based position?
When Neil Degrasse Tyson says something, you believe him because he said it.
No, we don't.
If he said the moon was made of cheese, we wouldn't accept it.
At least not most of us.
Instead we evaluate the claim based upon our current understanding of the world, including the available evidence.
who do you think 'Flat Earth Clues!' is aimed at, people that already think the world is flat, or people who disagree and want to debunk supposed clues?
Both, especially to allow those FEers to pretend their position is justified.
When a prominent flat earther says something, the response is massively divided
Almost as if FE is pure nonsense, and the division comes from all the contradictions needed to try to pretend the FE matches reality.
The same applies with loads of religions.
Go and ask Christians what they think of homosexuality or slavery or what a woman's place should be.
Some will try to use the Bible to justify outdated, archiac views, that homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death, that slavery is fine and a woman belongs to her husband and should obey her.
Others will try to use the Bible to claim that it is wrong to oppose homosexuality in any way, and to try claiming that slavery is evil and should not be permitted and that women should be treated as equals to men.
That is a big problem with cults. They are not based upon truth, so when they get large enough, they fracture and you end up with a bunch of different groups all with contradictory claims.
The same applies to the FE.
It is now large enough to have people in one FE group go directly against those in another FE group.
Round Earthers say "You won't understand, but believe it anyway." Flat Earthers say "Here is the evidence."
Again, it is far more often the other way around.
REers provide evidence and explanations, while the FEers just dodge any request to do so, instead claiming that the REers are brainwashed fools that wouldn't understand.
These fora are a wonderful example of that.
That's the claim, though of course it doesn't work out - all it tests is fat content. High fat, melts. Low fat, burns.
And notice how when it is false you can provide a counter argument, one which can actually make sense.
But not so for the FE.
The vast majority of evidence presented by REers is met with dismissal or is completely ignored.
Conversely, the evidence presented by FEers is shown to be faulty.
So which side matches your "life hacks" more?
e.g. Earth must be flat, just go look out your window and it is clearly flat.
Or take a look at this tiny body of water, see how the surface of water is flat? Earth must be flat.
Pure nonsense that is trivial to expose as nonsense.
-
Really? I am not the one complaining that I cant get proof then refusing to do experiments, then complaining that I am told easier ways of getting the proof. Refusal to even entertain opposing evidence is rather brainwashed behavior. Believing whatever someone tells you only because it fits with your brainwashed ideas specifically because it makes you feel like some underground hero fighting against perceived authority sounds pretty cult like.
But hey, you have proven you wont accept anything that challenges you, as evidenced by your recent fussing about being given things you can do yourself that would challenge them. It's ok FE sheep, just keep following your little herd, do what your told, never open your mind to being wrong.
Well given I'm not the one saying that either, I don't know what world you're living in. Maybe the planet you're on actually is round, who knows? Here in the real world, we follow evidence and draw conclusions and don't blindly follow the leader.
"being given things you can do yourself that would challenge them." I notice you cut out the context conveniently. Learn about the life hacks trend, I recommend it, you'll find a lot of similarities. For example, people claim to be able to find out if cheese is synthetic or natural by holding a flame to it - either it melts, or catches fire. If it melts, it's natural, if it doesn't, it's synthetic and processed. That's the claim, though of course it doesn't work out - all it tests is fat content. High fat, melts. Low fat, burns.
You don't offer ways to challenge or test, you offer narrow little hacks with intentionally concealed subjects. And, as with your posts, utter garbage you've wholesale made up but you get to feign superiority to someone, so so be it, you can lie all you want.
I cut out no context. Lovely strawman, now you are talking about lifehacks which has zero to do with what I said. You were given a set of experiments that could be done by most people, yet you complain about them instead of trying them or explaining why you think they wouldn't work. No you just don't want others to try things for themselves, because when they do, if they do them honestly, they will join reality and laugh at the brainwashed cult members like you. It is amazing how you just dodge the points. Notice how you only complain, never offering anything other than conspiracy talk and idiotic strawman fallacies. Argue against what was said, not your inaccurate life hack nonsense, most of those are jokes, but I wouldn't expect you would understand the joke. What is intentionally concealed? You are given ideas of experiments to set up and analyse your own data. FE cultist ALWAYS fall back on the "you didn't do it yourself", and yes you have most definitely done that yourself. But now you want to complain about us giving you things to do yourself, you won't do yourself, we know it, you have to continue the lies.
Amazing demonstration of brainwashed madness, please continue.
-
When a prominent flat earther says something,--
Prominent flat earther? There's no such thing. There is no flat earther that your average person on the street would even have heard of.
-
When you start looking for it, it really is staggering how much round earthers rely on cheap manipulation and fallacies in place of any actual argument. It reminds me of those life hack channels on youtube, able to dress something up pretty and avoiding giving any explanation, getting a huge amount of followers and making bank while spreading outright lies and even dangerous ideas.
'This small thing you can do at home will change how you see the world! Trust us!'
What fallacy do you see being invoked here? What's manipulative about HAM radios and moon bounce experiments?
I see that book brought up far more by round earthers than flat earthers. And leaders? They are sources, but most don't follow them blindly. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or genuinely so mindless that you can't see the difference. Are you really that unfamiliar with the in-fighting?
Actually, the in-fighting is something that gets mentioned often. FE has no cohesion, no collective idea. Is it an infinite plane? Is there a firmament? Is it heliocentric? Is it universal acceleration? So many ideas and nothing other than the basic shape that unifies them. No map. No reproducible experiments. No formulas that account for 'ether'. No explanations outside blind refutations of more commonly accepted theories. Even among your contemporaries here, snomial, you have no consensus.
When Neil Degrasse Tyson says something, you believe him because he said it.
When a person with recognized credentials, in this case, a BA from Harvard in Physics, a MA in Astronomy from the University of Texas Austin, and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from Columbia University talks about something from their field, that would be an expert discussing their subject. I don't believe everything he says because sometimes he talks about stuff that isn't in his wheelhouse. However, when he talks about physics, astronomy, or astrophysics, I have no reason to not believe him. He's been reliably correct, has provided a number of contributions to the scientific community, and has done a lot to bring astronomy back into the public view.
Round Earthers say "You won't understand, but believe it anyway." Flat Earthers say "Here is the evidence."
Did you actually say this? With a straight face? After the whole rain isn't droplets of water but rather lines debacle? Are you trying to be funny or is this a serious attempt at being ironic?
Do you want to discuss the moon landing or are you going to rant off topic as normal?
-
It would be impossible to fake especially in 1969
-
It is not just lasers. Go to youtube and search "ham radio moonbounce". Govt, university, and amateurs all over the world have done this and gotten the same answer, so radio waves with no reflector get the same results. Time/speed/distance matches, the delay in the return signal is just what RE predicts.
When you start looking for it, it really is staggering how much round earthers rely on cheap manipulation and fallacies in place of any actual argument. It reminds me of those life hack channels on youtube, able to dress something up pretty and avoiding giving any explanation, getting a huge amount of followers and making bank while spreading outright lies and even dangerous ideas.
'This small thing you can do at home will change how you see the world! Trust us!'
Isn't that the whole argument of FE idiots? They didn't do it themselves so they won't believe it. The depths of the FE cult brainwashing astound me. No matter what you try to educate them, they just can't get past the conspiracy laden FE programming that the cult leaders tell them.
You really have no self awareness do you?
FET doesn't have cult leaders. I think you're thinking of your side there. That's the one led by specific, named individuals that almost everyone can name, and who repeat things that they say you don't understand, but to take their word for it...
Meanwhile FET has a few big names, but FEers don't follow all of them blindly - rather, we make up our minds based on our own understanding and research.
Tell me, which of those sounds like a cult to you?
Why is it every time I point out an issue with your thinking, an REer always decides to use the childish 'Actually you're guilty of that thing you said we were doing! Ka-ching! Victory!'
You do research? Thats interesting. What was the scope and nature of your research? Where have you published it. What were your controls and protocols? Have you had it peer reviewed?