The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Super Shill on August 07, 2017, 09:08:43 AM

Title: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Super Shill on August 07, 2017, 09:08:43 AM
Argue in the comments below.  8)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 09, 2017, 04:12:57 PM
Argue in the comments below.  8)
Why do politicians rarely speak any truth even about the most simple things of life ?
Why do dictators claim the country is doing great, while the people are feeling miserable ?
Why do commercials claim anything but the truth ?
Why do men lie about the size of their penisses and salery ?
Maybe humans like to lie ?

And when you throw in money and power in the mix, there is no boundary at all.
And the muppets....uhhh scientific community is solely defending it's own position....even the collapse of building 7 and the NIST report conclusions didn't cause a shockwave in that extremely selfish community.

NASA is just an ordinary money maker, with liars, free masons and actors who can't even keep a single story line as i have proved over and over again.
The likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell and Don Pettit are among the most obvious liars of the whole space fantasy industry.....they are so over the top that i can't imagine that people cannot see through their acting attempts.

What people do to defend the lies is reaching ''cosmic levels''....so to speak  :o
NASA and no one has seen the earth to determine the shape of earth,....therefor you have to go really high, something no one has ever done.
The earth is to big  to determine it's shape from moderate heights.

That Apollo show doesn't cut it anymore in 2017 and i am glad the youth is awakening more and more.
Those stubborn old Texan idiots that salute the stars and stripes and want to make America great again are loosing ground rapidly.
No one is interrested in a nostalgic fairytail about brave American men in idiotic suits playing golf on the moon while they traveled 380.000 km in a trashcan in alu and goldfoil bought in the local grocery store. And a flag that either was very special or just an ordinary flag waving in the wind while they moved like in the tv series ''six million dollar man'' in slomo..

Without the 24 astronauts no one went to outerspace. We are still waiting for the firts real video of a rotating ball.
The likes of Rabinoz who worship CGI prefer bad graphics over high defenition photographs, but the is also seeing through the CGI crap more and more.

NASA is to embarrased  to acknowledge they never went to outerspace that they hang onto their science fictional fairy tail for as long as possible.......

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 09, 2017, 04:30:10 PM
Argue in the comments below.  8)
Why do politicians rarely speak any truth even about the most simple things of life ?
Why do dictators claim the country is doing great, while the people are feeling miserable ?
Why do commercials claim anything but the truth ?
Why do men lie about the size of their penisses and salery ?
Maybe humans like to lie ?

And when you throw in money and power in the mix, there is no boundary at all.
And the muppets....uhhh scientific community is solely defending it's own position....even the collapse of building 7 and the NIST report conclusions didn't cause a shockwave in that extremely selfish community.

NASA is just an ordinary money maker, with liars, free masons and actors who can't even keep a single story line as i have proved over and over again.
The likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell and Don Pettit are among the most obvious liars of the whole space fantasy industry.....they are so over the top that i can't imagine that people cannot see through their acting attempts.

What people do to defend the lies is reaching ''cosmic levels''....so to speak  :o
NASA and no one has seen the earth to determine the shape of earth,....therefor you have to go really high, something no one has ever done.
The earth is to big  to determine it's shape from moderate heights.

That Apollo show doesn't cut it anymore in 2017 and i am glad the youth is awakening more and more.
Those stubborn old Texan idiots that salute the stars and stripes and want to make America great again are loosing ground rapidtly.
No one is interrested in a youth fairytail about brave men in idiotic suits played golf on the moon while they traveled 380.000 km in a trashcan in alu and goldfoil bought in the local grocery store. And a flag that either was very special or just an ordinary flag.

Without the 24 astronauts no one went to outerspace. We are still waiting for the firts real video of a rotating ball.
The likes of Rabinoz who worship CGI prefer bad graphics over high defenition photographs, but the is also seeing through the CGI crap more and more.

NASA is to embarrased  to acknowledge they never went to outerspace that they hang onto their science fictional fairy tail for as long as possible.......
You have yet to prove a single lie from NASA.  Your most recent "logic" seems to be, everyone lies so everything NASA says is a lie.
Also over 500 people from many different countries have been to space, not just 24.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 09, 2017, 04:30:46 PM
535 humans have left Earths atmosphere.

There is no conspiracy, only a handful of youtube sheep who'll believe anything if it contradicts "the Man".
They'll repeatedly say that they've shown proof, but in all actuality, have never shown a shred of evidence.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 09, 2017, 04:32:03 PM
You have yet to prove a single lie from NASA.  Your most recent "logic" seems to be, everyone lies so everything NASA says is a lie.
Also over 500 people from many different countries have been to space, not just 24.

I know my grammar sucks , but your reading skills are one of a kind too.
I talked about 24 NASA astronauts in outerspace/deep space not LEO.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 09, 2017, 04:33:57 PM
You have yet to prove a single lie from NASA.  Your most recent "logic" seems to be, everyone lies so everything NASA says is a lie.
Also over 500 people from many different countries have been to space, not just 24.

I know my grammar sucks , but your reading skills are one of a kind too.
I talked about 24 NASA astronauts in outerspace not LEO.

So, you acknowledge humans in low Earth orbit.

Now we're getting somewhere!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 09, 2017, 04:36:31 PM
535 humans have left Earths atmosphere.

There is no conspiracy, only a handful of youtube sheep who'll believe anything if it contradicts "the Man".
They'll repeatedly say that they've shown proof, but in all actuality, have never shown a shred of evidence.
(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......
(http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/apollo-14_lm.jpg)
Some people think this can reach the moon

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 09, 2017, 04:40:26 PM
And what makes you think it didn't?

Some youtube video about beer cans and tinfoil?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 09, 2017, 04:40:59 PM
535 humans have left Earths atmosphere.

There is no conspiracy, only a handful of youtube sheep who'll believe anything if it contradicts "the Man".
They'll repeatedly say that they've shown proof, but in all actuality, have never shown a shred of evidence.
(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......
(http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/apollo-14_lm.jpg)
Some people think this can reach the moon

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Damn, now i want a burger.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 09, 2017, 04:42:43 PM
Watch it...

dutchy is terrified of meat!

(unless it's his Uncle's)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 09, 2017, 04:46:30 PM
And what makes you think it didn't?

Some youtube video about beer cans and tinfoil?
''Nonono Neil, Buzz and Mickey''.....''you go into that homeless shelter and get your asses to the moon'', ''it is perfectly safe,...our scientist just confirmd''

No way in hell that any human being apart from the mentally ill, would try to go to the moon or any place in particular in that ''thing''.

But i understand, the cool hightech is underneath the trashy outside. :o ;D
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 09, 2017, 04:50:28 PM
And what makes you think it didn't?

Some youtube video about beer cans and tinfoil?
''Nonono Neil, Buzz and Mickey''.....''you go into that homeless shelter and get your asses to the moon'', ''it is perfectly safe,...our scientist just confirmd''

No way in hell that any human being apart from the mentally ill, would try to go to the moon or any place in particular in that ''thing''.

But i understand, the cool hightech is underneath the trashy outside. :o ;D

Well, you clearly have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Jugemu no Chosuke on August 09, 2017, 05:10:19 PM
So that they can monopolize all the trade with the mutant penguins on the other side of the ice wall.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on August 10, 2017, 10:25:06 AM
535 humans have left Earths atmosphere.

There is no conspiracy, only a handful of youtube sheep who'll believe anything if it contradicts "the Man".
They'll repeatedly say that they've shown proof, but in all actuality, have never shown a shred of evidence.
(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......
(http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/apollo-14_lm.jpg)
Some people think this can reach the moon

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Damn, now i want a burger.

Lol.

That "Space Craft" looks like a child's collage.

To the OP

To hide God and get paid 52 million a day.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 10, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
535 humans have left Earths atmosphere.

There is no conspiracy, only a handful of youtube sheep who'll believe anything if it contradicts "the Man".
They'll repeatedly say that they've shown proof, but in all actuality, have never shown a shred of evidence.
(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......
(http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/apollo-14_lm.jpg)
Some people think this can reach the moon

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Damn, now i want a burger.

Lol.

That "Space Craft" looks like a child's collage.

To the OP

To hide God and get paid 52 million a day.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 10, 2017, 10:43:42 AM
Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.
Yes, it works all the time !!

I don't understand that a trashcan wrapped in goldfoil and cardboard that looks like a homeless tweaker's shelter can safely land on the moon  ;D
(http://flatearthwiki.com/images/b/bd/Chitj98UkAA-uaH.jpg)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 10, 2017, 10:46:48 AM
Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.
Yes, it works all the time !!

I don't understand that a trascan wrapped in goldfoil and cardboard that looks like a homeless tweaker's shelter can safely land on the moon  ;D
(http://flatearthwiki.com/images/b/bd/Chitj98UkAA-uaH.jpg)
Exactly.  You don't understand it so you misrepresent it and claim it is fake.  You could actually look into how it was constructed, tested, used and learn some actual facts.  But that would go against your belief so you won't do it.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 10, 2017, 10:51:40 AM
To the OP

To hide God...
If that were true, then why would the NASA astronauts read from Genesis on live TV during the Apollo 8 mission?

Why would Buzz Aldrin give communion to Niel Armstrong when they landed on the moon?

Here are a few other examples of religious activity in space:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_space
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Sentinel on August 10, 2017, 10:54:45 AM
blablabla

Why you abandoned the eclipse thread, though? We miss you there...  :-\
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 10, 2017, 11:04:02 AM
blablabla

Why you abandoned the eclipse thread, though? We miss you there...  :-\
What do i have to add ? I am simply not capable to express my thoughts.....i tried, but i am the first to acknowledge that you should stick to those things you can explain at a bare minimum. The jargon involved in the eclips (English for all things) is to much for me to post a coherent post.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 10, 2017, 11:12:51 AM
Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.
Yes, it works all the time !!

I don't understand that a trashcan wrapped in goldfoil and cardboard that looks like a homeless tweaker's shelter can safely land on the moon  ;D
(http://flatearthwiki.com/images/b/bd/Chitj98UkAA-uaH.jpg)

If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.

But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Sentinel on August 10, 2017, 11:13:28 AM
blablabla

Why you abandoned the eclipse thread, though? We miss you there...  :-\
What do i have to add ? I am simply not capable to express my thoughts.....i tried, but i am the first to acknowledge that you should stick to those things you can explain at a bare minimum. The jargon involved in the eclips (English for all things) is to much for me to post a coherent post.

Granted english isn't my first language in the first place and it could get very tricky to resolve all those scientific terms coherently, but you could at least try to do so as i always try to for myself.
And you should know for a fact that abandoning threads in order to obviously jump to other ones and try to ridicule pictures of space craft by NASA isn't at all going to reinforce your credibility around here, in fact it does weaken it quite big time.
Better man up for once and take the blow.  :P
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 10, 2017, 11:24:45 AM
Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.n
Yes, it works all the time !!

I don't understand that a trashcan wrapped in goldfoil and cardboard that looks like a homeless tweaker's shelter can safely land on the moon  ;D
(http://flatearthwiki.com/images/b/bd/Chitj98UkAA-uaH.jpg)

Don't judge a book by its cover.  :P
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: MicroBeta on August 10, 2017, 12:21:04 PM
Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.
Yes, it works all the time !!

I don't understand that a trashcan wrapped in goldfoil and cardboard that looks like a homeless tweaker's shelter can safely land on the moon  ;D
(http://flatearthwiki.com/images/b/bd/Chitj98UkAA-uaH.jpg)
So, what's wrong with it?

Mike
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 10, 2017, 12:29:50 PM

If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.

But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
A boy you're funny  ;D ;D ;D
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil  ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.

This is reality on earth !!!!
(http://)

Are you really such a gullible sheep ??? I think you're just trolling Big Ma....time  ;D, because i can't believe you fall for this cheap propaganda of the late sixties and early seventies.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 10, 2017, 12:33:32 PM
Like I said, your YouTube Shepherd has you locked down.

Must be horrible living such a paranoid life. I bet you think 9/11 was an inside job as well.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 10, 2017, 12:38:29 PM

If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.

But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
A boy you're funny  ;D ;D ;D
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil  ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.
Actually, most of the descent was handled by the LM's flight computer.  Niel did take over about a minute or so before landing when he noticed that the computer was guiding them towards a rather nasty boulder field.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on August 10, 2017, 12:41:24 PM
535 humans have left Earths atmosphere.

There is no conspiracy, only a handful of youtube sheep who'll believe anything if it contradicts "the Man".
They'll repeatedly say that they've shown proof, but in all actuality, have never shown a shred of evidence.
(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......
(http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/apollo-14_lm.jpg)
Some people think this can reach the moon

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Damn, now i want a burger.

Lol.

That "Space Craft" looks like a child's collage.

To the OP

To hide God and get paid 52 million a day.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.

I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.

Lol.


Lol.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 10, 2017, 12:43:51 PM
Like I said, your YouTube Shepherd has you locked down.

Must be horrible living such a paranoid life. I bet you think 9/11 was an inside job as well.
Our best international expert on demolitions agrees !!
(http://)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 10, 2017, 12:45:56 PM
Actually, most of the descent was handled by the LM's flight computer.  Niel did take over about a minute or so before landing when he noticed that the computer was guiding them towards a rather nasty boulder field.
You mean the 24k flight computer ?  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on August 10, 2017, 12:55:14 PM
To the OP

To hide God...
If that were true, then why would the NASA astronauts read from Genesis on live TV during the Apollo 8 mission?

Why would Buzz Aldrin give communion to Niel Armstrong when they landed on the moon?

Here are a few other examples of religious activity in space:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_space

I you familiar with the phrase:

Double bluff.

You must think people are as stupid as you Heliocentrics.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 10, 2017, 01:01:22 PM
I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.

But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 10, 2017, 01:13:41 PM
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.

so, you have THAT going for you.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Sentinel on August 10, 2017, 01:53:08 PM
So poor dutchy outright admitted he is unfit to debate on here in the english language in the first place, yet he can't help himself to continue ridiculing matters he obviously doesn't understand properly.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're done on this board obviously and any of your responses should be considered
in vain and void from now on.  :-\
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 10, 2017, 02:06:55 PM
535 humans have left Earths atmosphere.

There is no conspiracy, only a handful of youtube sheep who'll believe anything if it contradicts "the Man".
They'll repeatedly say that they've shown proof, but in all actuality, have never shown a shred of evidence.
(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......
(http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/apollo-14_lm.jpg)
Some people think this can reach the moon

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Damn, now i want a burger.

Lol.

That "Space Craft" looks like a child's collage.

To the OP

To hide God and get paid 52 million a day.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.

I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.

Lol.


Lol.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Again, all you two are saying is you don't understand it so it can't work. Why don't you look over the details of the lander and point out what you think can't work and why.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 10, 2017, 04:29:24 PM
Again, all you two are saying is you don't understand it so it can't work. Why don't you look over the details of the lander and point out what you think can't work and why.
Perhaps FE'ers should familiarize themselves with the Lunar Module.  This might help.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14-43939523-LM10-LM14-Fam-Manual.pdf
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 10, 2017, 06:23:21 PM
Again, all you two are saying is you don't understand it so it can't work. Why don't you look over the details of the lander and point out what you think can't work and why.
Perhaps FE'ers should familiarize themselves with the Lunar Module.  This might help.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14-43939523-LM10-LM14-Fam-Manual.pdf

Just an incredible feat of engineering!

That is an awesome document, Thanks!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 10, 2017, 10:06:55 PM
I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.
But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.

It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Zammo on August 10, 2017, 11:05:18 PM

(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......


Damn Dutchy! What's wrong with that burger? Nice looking meat patty, a bit of lettuce and tomato. Not dripping in fat with excessive bacon or cheese. You've got your carbs, your protein, a bit of fat and vitamins and minerals. That's a mighty fine looking burger! Sure, not every day, but as part of a balanced diet, go for it!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 10, 2017, 11:33:19 PM

(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......


Damn Dutchy! What's wrong with that burger? Nice looking meat patty, a bit of lettuce and tomato. Not dripping in fat with excessive bacon or cheese. You've got your carbs, your protein, a bit of fat and vitamins and minerals. That's a mighty fine looking burger! Sure, not every day, but as part of a balanced diet, go for it!

I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.

In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Zammo on August 10, 2017, 11:38:34 PM

(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......


Damn Dutchy! What's wrong with that burger? Nice looking meat patty, a bit of lettuce and tomato. Not dripping in fat with excessive bacon or cheese. You've got your carbs, your protein, a bit of fat and vitamins and minerals. That's a mighty fine looking burger! Sure, not every day, but as part of a balanced diet, go for it!

I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.

In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.

No problem with vegetarianism. There are healthy vegan/vegetarian diets and unhealthy vegan/vegetarian diets. There are healthy omnivorous diets and unhealthy omnivorous diets. All about balance.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 11, 2017, 12:31:26 AM

(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......


Damn Dutchy! What's wrong with that burger? Nice looking meat patty, a bit of lettuce and tomato. Not dripping in fat with excessive bacon or cheese. You've got your carbs, your protein, a bit of fat and vitamins and minerals. That's a mighty fine looking burger! Sure, not every day, but as part of a balanced diet, go for it!

I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.

In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.

No problem with vegetarianism. There are healthy vegan/vegetarian diets and unhealthy vegan/vegetarian diets. There are healthy omnivorous diets and unhealthy omnivorous diets. All about balance.

As a vegetarian for 33 years I can't stand preachy in your face ones. It's like sexual preferences - what you choose to put in your mouth I'd nobody's business but your own.

Eat meat. Don't eat meat. Whatever :)

</derail>
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on August 11, 2017, 12:32:08 AM
I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.
But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.

It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".

Me overloaded?

IMPOSSIBLE !

I Understand everything.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on August 11, 2017, 12:36:14 AM

(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......


Damn Dutchy! What's wrong with that burger? Nice looking meat patty, a bit of lettuce and tomato. Not dripping in fat with excessive bacon or cheese. You've got your carbs, your protein, a bit of fat and vitamins and minerals. That's a mighty fine looking burger! Sure, not every day, but as part of a balanced diet, go for it!

I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.

In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.

No problem with vegetarianism. There are healthy vegan/vegetarian diets and unhealthy vegan/vegetarian diets. There are healthy omnivorous diets and unhealthy omnivorous diets. All about balance.

As a vegetarian for 33 years I can't stand preachy in your face ones. It's like sexual preferences - what you choose to put in your mouth I'd nobody's business but your own.

Eat meat. Don't eat meat. Whatever :)

</derail>

Your vegetarianism explains why you are stupid and dosile.

You are like cattle.

Lol.

Lol.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 11, 2017, 12:42:17 AM

(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......


Damn Dutchy! What's wrong with that burger? Nice looking meat patty, a bit of lettuce and tomato. Not dripping in fat with excessive bacon or cheese. You've got your carbs, your protein, a bit of fat and vitamins and minerals. That's a mighty fine looking burger! Sure, not every day, but as part of a balanced diet, go for it!

I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.

In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.

No problem with vegetarianism. There are healthy vegan/vegetarian diets and unhealthy vegan/vegetarian diets. There are healthy omnivorous diets and unhealthy omnivorous diets. All about balance.

As a vegetarian for 33 years I can't stand preachy in your face ones. It's like sexual preferences - what you choose to put in your mouth I'd nobody's business but your own.

Eat meat. Don't eat meat. Whatever :)

</derail>

Your vegetarianism explains why you are stupid and dosile.

You are like cattle.

Lol.

Lol.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

Tell that to dutchy.

Your stupid preconceptions are shite.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Zammo on August 11, 2017, 01:09:57 AM

(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......


Damn Dutchy! What's wrong with that burger? Nice looking meat patty, a bit of lettuce and tomato. Not dripping in fat with excessive bacon or cheese. You've got your carbs, your protein, a bit of fat and vitamins and minerals. That's a mighty fine looking burger! Sure, not every day, but as part of a balanced diet, go for it!

I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.

In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.

No problem with vegetarianism. There are healthy vegan/vegetarian diets and unhealthy vegan/vegetarian diets. There are healthy omnivorous diets and unhealthy omnivorous diets. All about balance.

As a vegetarian for 33 years I can't stand preachy in your face ones. It's like sexual preferences - what you choose to put in your mouth I'd nobody's business but your own.

Eat meat. Don't eat meat. Whatever :)

</derail>

Your vegetarianism explains why you are stupid and dosile.

You are like cattle.

Lol.

Lol.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

You are a constant source of amusement RIF. Uses "stupid" and an incorrect spelling of docile in the same sentence. 😂😂😂
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 11, 2017, 04:04:37 AM
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I do realise:
Quote from: TOM JACOBS, SEP 17, 2015
THE PERSUASIVE POWER OF REPEATED FALSEHOODS
New research finds repeated false statements are more likely to be perceived as truthful,
even when we have enough knowledge to contradict them.
But here we are smart enough to know that your repeating the lie
"Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False."
does not magically make it true, no matter how much faith you place in your neo-Flatearthism Cult.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 11, 2017, 06:14:22 AM
I Understand everything.
Incorrect.

You obviously don't how the lunar module works.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14-43939523-LM10-LM14-Fam-Manual.pdf
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 11, 2017, 07:31:33 AM
I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.
But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.

It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".

Me overloaded?

IMPOSSIBLE !

I Understand everything.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander.  You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.
But please be specific.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: hoppy on August 11, 2017, 07:40:51 AM

If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.

But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
A boy you're funny  ;D ;D ;D
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil  ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.

This is reality on earth !!!!
(http://)

Are you really such a gullible sheep ??? I think you're just trolling Big Ma....time  ;D, because i can't believe you fall for this cheap propaganda of the late sixties and early seventies.
As you well know, that is what successful brainwashing does. I keeps the believer believing the impossible.It is much lke a child believing in the tooth fairy.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 11, 2017, 07:57:48 AM
Actually, most of the descent was handled by the LM's flight computer.  Niel did take over about a minute or so before landing when he noticed that the computer was guiding them towards a rather nasty boulder field.
You mean the 24k flight computer ?  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Err, but why would the contractors not build and design the equipment they were paid to build?

Did they know about the hoax? if so, why? I thought only a few people knew about they hoax.

If they did not know about the hoax, why did they (In your opinion) not build and design what they were meant to do?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 11, 2017, 08:30:01 AM

If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.

But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
A boy you're funny  ;D ;D ;D
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil  ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.

This is reality on earth !!!!
(http://)

Are you really such a gullible sheep ??? I think you're just trolling Big Ma....time  ;D, because i can't believe you fall for this cheap propaganda of the late sixties and early seventies.
so a crash in an prototype craft caused by an unrelated system means the real thing couldn't work a year later? 
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 11, 2017, 08:33:04 AM

If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.

But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
A boy you're funny  ;D ;D ;D
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil  ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.

This is reality on earth !!!!
(http://)

Are you really such a gullible sheep ??? I think you're just trolling Big Ma....time  ;D, because i can't believe you fall for this cheap propaganda of the late sixties and early seventies.
so a crash in an prototype craft caused by an unrelated system means the real thing couldn't work a year later?
It was not a prototype, it was a LM simulator meant to simulating flying and landing. It didn't work that well though, quite a few crashes. Later it was replaced by mechanical computer simulations later.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 11, 2017, 08:37:38 AM

If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.

But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
A boy you're funny  ;D ;D ;D
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil  ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.

This is reality on earth !!!!
(http://)

Are you really such a gullible sheep ??? I think you're just trolling Big Ma....time  ;D, because i can't believe you fall for this cheap propaganda of the late sixties and early seventies.
so a crash in an prototype craft caused by an unrelated system means the real thing couldn't work a year later?
It was not a prototype, it was a LM simulator meant to simulating flying and landing. It didn't work that well though, quite a few crashes. Later it was replaced by mechanical computer simulations later.
It was both actually.  It was a simulator and a prototype of the simulator (he was flying one of the earlier versions).  I didn't mean it was a prototype of the LM.
and while there were a few crashes, there were also hundreds of successful flights and those who flew it said it was a very useful tool.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 11, 2017, 08:42:38 AM

If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.

But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
A boy you're funny  ;D ;D ;D
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil  ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.

This is reality on earth !!!!
(http://)

Are you really such a gullible sheep ??? I think you're just trolling Big Ma....time  ;D, because i can't believe you fall for this cheap propaganda of the late sixties and early seventies.
so a crash in an prototype craft caused by an unrelated system means the real thing couldn't work a year later?
It was not a prototype, it was a LM simulator meant to simulating flying and landing. It didn't work that well though, quite a few crashes. Later it was replaced by mechanical computer simulations later.
It was both actually.  It was a simulator and a prototype of the simulator (he was flying one of the earlier versions).  I didn't mean it was a prototype of the LM.
and while there were a few crashes, there were also hundreds of successful flights and those who flew it said it was a very useful tool.
Yup.
Plenty of hoaxtard videos claim it was suppose to be a LM prototype made a year before Apollo 11.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 11, 2017, 08:44:38 AM

If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.

But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
A boy you're funny  ;D ;D ;D
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil  ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.

This is reality on earth !!!!
(http://)

Are you really such a gullible sheep ??? I think you're just trolling Big Ma....time  ;D, because i can't believe you fall for this cheap propaganda of the late sixties and early seventies.
so a crash in an prototype craft caused by an unrelated system means the real thing couldn't work a year later?
It was not a prototype, it was a LM simulator meant to simulating flying and landing. It didn't work that well though, quite a few crashes. Later it was replaced by mechanical computer simulations later.
It was both actually.  It was a simulator and a prototype of the simulator (he was flying one of the earlier versions).  I didn't mean it was a prototype of the LM.
and while there were a few crashes, there were also hundreds of successful flights and those who flew it said it was a very useful tool.
Yup.
Plenty of hoaxtard videos claim it was suppose to be a LM prototype made a year before Apollo 11.
Heck, plenty of them claim the crash was a WEEK before Apollo 11.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 08:48:09 AM
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.

so, you have THAT going for you.
I thought the little green alien with an addiction for hamburgers was solely here to laugh ?
And now Mrs Grundy won't respond to my posts ever again , boy o boy ::)

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 08:54:36 AM
I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.

In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
I am a vegetarian for only half a year, after consuming lots of beef, chicken and pork  !!!!!!
I did it because i saw what a modern slaughterhouse is really like !

If you wouldn't be such a humorless payed shill that runs a secondary blog about irrelevant space fantasies, then you should have known it was my personal gripe with Mrs Grundy (formerly known as ''here to laugh at you'') that allowed me to tease him with a ''hamburger'' addiction. (for the record ....he hasn't).

So again, don't take this reply to serious, because i deliberately said things you don't like... ::)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 09:03:49 AM
As you well know, that is what successful brainwashing does. I keeps the believer believing the impossible.It is much lke a child believing in the tooth fairy.
Exactly !
On earth they aren't able to succesfully land a prototype that had more stearing oppertunities than the Apollo LM and flew extremely slow by comparison.

Besides that in the ''eclips'' topic we ''learned'' about the huge velocity of the moon.
They went in a trashcan to earth's satelite 380.000 km away, with an onboard computer with 24k of memory, speeding towards the surface with unbelieveable speed, somehow managed to slow down conviniently with a manual throttle single engine, bypassed a large crater before shutting down the engine and standing straight without dust on the LEM's landing pads or visible crater.

Compare that to the video and the brainwashing runs really deep indeed !!!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 11, 2017, 09:13:38 AM
Oh, look.  Here it is not crashing.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on August 11, 2017, 09:21:17 AM
I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.
But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.

It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".

Me overloaded?

IMPOSSIBLE !

I Understand everything.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander.  You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.
But please be specific.

So you want me to use some fabricated documents one of your brethren pulled out of his arse to debunk the lunar lander.

Lol.

Are you for real ?

Any normal person that looks at that thing can see it's a child's collage put together to fool cattle like you.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 11, 2017, 09:25:17 AM
As you well know, that is what successful brainwashing does. I keeps the believer believing the impossible.It is much lke a child believing in the tooth fairy.
Exactly !
On earth they aren't able to succesfully land a prototype that had more stearing oppertunities than the Apollo LM and flew extremely slow by comparison.

Besides that in the ''eclips'' topic we ''learned'' about the huge velocity of the moon.
They went in a trashcan to earth's satelite 380.000 km away, with an onboard computer with 24k of memory, speeding towards the surface with unbelieveable speed, somehow managed to slow down conviniently with a manual throttle single engine, bypassed a large crater before shutting down the engine and standing straight without dust on the LEM's landing pads or visible crater.

Compare that to the video and the brainwashing runs really deep indeed !!!
What is your source for 24k memory?

"Memory: 16-bit wordlength"
"AGC Block II had 32 kilowords of fixed memory and 4 kilowords of erasable memory."
      (PS: kilowords does not have to mean kilobytes)
      (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer#Memory)

The LLRV was not a LM ptototype, it was meant as a training vehicle.

Well, why don't you look up the landing speeds and calculate if it could be done or not.

There is visible disturbtion of soil under the LM, and a small crater. The engine was only on for a second after it landed.

The LM did not sit perfectly straight on the lunar surface, it was off by some degrees. The Apollo 11 landing was the straightest landing out of all landings though.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 11, 2017, 09:26:37 AM
I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.
But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.

It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".

Me overloaded?

IMPOSSIBLE !

I Understand everything.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander.  You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.
But please be specific.

So you want me to use some fabricated documents one of your brethren pulled out of his arse to debunk the lunar lander.

Lol.

Are you for real ?

Any normal person that looks at that thing can see it's a child's collage put together to fool cattle like you.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why would Grumman not build a functional space craft?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 11, 2017, 09:27:36 AM
It's all good...

I really don't expect someone who can't keep a tricycle from falling over, to believe humans can perform such extraordinary tasks.

 It was probably a walk in the park for Neil, given the 1/6 gravity and the 16 rcs thrusters in addition to the descent engine.

Practice, practice, practice.  One day you will move up to  a two wheeler with training wheels.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 11, 2017, 09:28:33 AM
I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.

In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
I am a vegetarian for only half a year, after consuming lots of beef, chicken and pork  !!!!!!
I did it because i saw what a modern slaughterhouse is really like !

If you wouldn't be such a humorless payed shill that runs a secondary blog about irrelevant space fantasies, then you should have known it was my personal gripe with Mrs Grundy (formerly known as ''here to laugh at you'') that allowed me to tease him with a ''hamburger'' addiction. (for the record ....he hasn't).

So again, don't take this reply to serious, because i deliberately said things you don't like... ::)

So, just trolling then. No real point to make other than tired old re-hashes of easily debunked garbage.

Your shill accusations are as boring as they are false, and just another piece of tedious trolling by you.

Grow up.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 11, 2017, 09:35:09 AM
I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.
But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.

It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".

Me overloaded?

IMPOSSIBLE !

I Understand everything.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander.  You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.
But please be specific.

So you want me to use some fabricated documents one of your brethren pulled out of his arse to debunk the lunar lander.

Lol.

Are you for real ?

Any normal person that looks at that thing can see it's a child's collage put together to fool cattle like you.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So that would be a no then.  And we are back to you don't understand it so it must be fake.
And of course, you can't be bothered to actually research the thing you claim is a fake. 
You truly are amazing.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 09:39:11 AM
I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.

In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
I am a vegetarian for only half a year, after consuming lots of beef, chicken and pork  !!!!!!
I did it because i saw what a modern slaughterhouse is really like !

If you wouldn't be such a humorless payed shill that runs a secondary blog about irrelevant space fantasies, then you should have known it was my personal gripe with Mrs Grundy (formerly known as ''here to laugh at you'') that allowed me to tease him with a ''hamburger'' addiction. (for the record ....he hasn't).

So again, don't take this reply to serious, because i deliberately said things you don't like... ::)

So, just trolling then. No real point to make other than tired old re-hashes of easily debunked garbage.

Your shill accusations are as boring as they are false, and just another piece of tedious trolling by you.

Grow up.
Look who starts the trolling !!!

Because i master those skills and you obviously don't, doesn't mean that you shouldn't stick to the facts. Fact is you started about me and tofu or whatever....... ;D

And i have presented you with numerous facts about astronauts claiming that they could only see the moon , sun and earth. No stars !!! But you gave a new defenition to the word 'gullible'.
It is not only falling for cheap rhetoric, but doing everything possible to ignore the facts i so meticulously presented to you !
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 11, 2017, 09:51:11 AM
I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.

In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
I am a vegetarian for only half a year, after consuming lots of beef, chicken and pork  !!!!!!
I did it because i saw what a modern slaughterhouse is really like !

If you wouldn't be such a humorless payed shill that runs a secondary blog about irrelevant space fantasies, then you should have known it was my personal gripe with Mrs Grundy (formerly known as ''here to laugh at you'') that allowed me to tease him with a ''hamburger'' addiction. (for the record ....he hasn't).

So again, don't take this reply to serious, because i deliberately said things you don't like... ::)

So, just trolling then. No real point to make other than tired old re-hashes of easily debunked garbage.

Your shill accusations are as boring as they are false, and just another piece of tedious trolling by you.

Grow up.
Look who starts the trolling !!!

Because i master those skills and you obviously don't, doesn't mean that you shouldn't stick to the facts. Fact is you started about me and tofu or whatever....... ;D

I merely pointed out that you aren't the only vegetarian in the world, and that it does not imbue you with any kind of moral superiority over anyone. Clearly as someone new to the game you are still at the "annoying preachy shitbag" stage. You'll grow out of it.

Quote
And i have presented you with numerous facts about astronauts claiming that they could only see the moon , sun and earth. No stars !!! But you gave a new defenition to the word 'gullible'.

You have done no such thing.

The only thing you have done is misrepresent facts, ignore anything that proves you wrong, fail utterly to account for context and freely admit to posting just to annoy people.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 09:55:39 AM
It's all good...

I really don't expect someone who can't keep a tricycle from falling over, to believe humans can perform such extraordinary tasks.

 It was probably a walk in the park for Neil, given the 1/6 gravity and the 16 rcs thrusters in addition to the descent engine.

Practice, practice, practice.  One day you will move up to  a two wheeler with training wheels.
Just like the chest mounted camera without auto focus. Neil practiced, practiced, practiced in hus garden after dinner in his spare time.
He had to take the photographs, because he set foot on the moon first. Buzz didn't like that at all, so Nixon decided that Buzz should be on the photographs, because Neil was first ! ::)
And Micky got nothing, he didn't recall seeing any stars while orbiting the moon. No heavenly sightings ....... no nothing for Micky..... Poor chap. They should have hired someone else for the script...... this one is obviously aimed towards children.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on August 11, 2017, 09:58:09 AM
I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.
But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.

It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".

Me overloaded?

IMPOSSIBLE !

I Understand everything.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander.  You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.
But please be specific.

So you want me to use some fabricated documents one of your brethren pulled out of his arse to debunk the lunar lander.

Lol.

Are you for real ?

Any normal person that looks at that thing can see it's a child's collage put together to fool cattle like you.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So that would be a no then.  And we are back to you don't understand it so it must be fake.
And of course, you can't be bothered to actually research the thing you claim is a fake. 
You truly are amazing.

Why would I waste my time researching something that looks as ridiculous as that.

If someone told you the ToothFairy was real would you research it.?

I have never come across such a wet sweaty sock such as yourself in all my life.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Zaphod on August 11, 2017, 10:10:44 AM


Why would I waste my time researching something that looks as ridiculous as that.



I know you don't normally let facts and logic get in the way of a whacko opinion, but just in case you have a moment of lucidity there's an excellent documentary about the lunar lander here .......

(http://)


Ps, off to visit USS Hornet right now, (apollo recovery ship). I'll be sure to pass on your regards!

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 11, 2017, 10:16:48 AM
I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.
But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.

It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".

Me overloaded?

IMPOSSIBLE !

I Understand everything.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander.  You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.
But please be specific.

So you want me to use some fabricated documents one of your brethren pulled out of his arse to debunk the lunar lander.

Lol.

Are you for real ?

Any normal person that looks at that thing can see it's a child's collage put together to fool cattle like you.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So that would be a no then.  And we are back to you don't understand it so it must be fake.
And of course, you can't be bothered to actually research the thing you claim is a fake. 
You truly are amazing.

Why would I waste my time researching something that looks as ridiculous as that.

If someone told you the ToothFairy was real would you research it.?

I have never come across such a wet sweaty sock such as yourself in all my life.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why indeed.  You have your opinions there is no reason to let facts get in the way.  And if you actually researched it you might come across facts and facts are bad for your delusion.
I understand perfectly why you would not want to research the subject you claim to be such an expert on.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 11, 2017, 10:34:59 AM
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.

so, you have THAT going for you.

The worst part is that he's a 50 years old child
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on August 11, 2017, 10:38:19 AM
I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.
But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.

It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".

Me overloaded?

IMPOSSIBLE !

I Understand everything.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander.  You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.
But please be specific.

So you want me to use some fabricated documents one of your brethren pulled out of his arse to debunk the lunar lander.

Lol.

Are you for real ?

Any normal person that looks at that thing can see it's a child's collage put together to fool cattle like you.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So that would be a no then.  And we are back to you don't understand it so it must be fake.
And of course, you can't be bothered to actually research the thing you claim is a fake. 
You truly are amazing.

Why would I waste my time researching something that looks as ridiculous as that.

If someone told you the ToothFairy was real would you research it.?

I have never come across such a wet sweaty sock such as yourself in all my life.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why indeed.  You have your opinions there is no reason to let facts get in the way.  And if you actually researched it you might come across facts and facts are bad for your delusion.
I understand perfectly why you would not want to research the subject you claim to be such an expert on.

I have never claimed to be an expert on the Lunar Lander.

Even as a child I could see the Moon landings where fake .

Because of this I have never took any interest it wasted any of my time looking into it.

Why would I waste my time researching something like that when only you and a few other people in the whole world believe in it.

There is no one to debate/argue with about it because everyone knows it's fake.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 10:44:48 AM
I merely pointed out that you aren't the only vegetarian in the world, and that it does not imbue you with any kind of moral superiority over anyone. Clearly as someone new to the game you are still at the "annoying preachy shitbag" stage. You'll grow out of it.
I cook dinner in the evening most of the time and i do include meat 4-5 times a week for those in my family who do want their meat.
Like i said i was not preachy about eating meat, but ''here to laugh at you'' and hamburgers.
Of course you didn't pay attention whatsoever and i don't blame you, the sole purpose for you around here is to endlessly repeat annoying nonsense that your sponsored site is full of. I see you not as a neutral participant, but someone who hopes his ''scientific accurate'' posts are beneficial the moment he can redirect persons to his payed/advertisements (or indeed worse ...think shill money) site/blog.
You are not here, because you think it is extremely important to discover the truth with fellow flatearthers (hence the forum name), but for secondary financial motives and it shows !!!
Quote

The only thing you have done is misrepresent facts, ignore anything that proves you wrong, fail utterly to account for context and freely admit to posting just to annoy people.
I only annoy a schemer like you that clearly participates on the wrong forum you should ask the flatearthers about my contributions.
Their opinion i would validate,.....yours not so much.

You shouldn't talk about facts, when you simply refuse to listen what the astronauts themselves have said.
Still in your denial stage ???
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 11, 2017, 10:47:42 AM
To delude us an mantain shady deals with the people from the "Dark Continent" (the land beyond the ice walls)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 10:55:10 AM
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.

so, you have THAT going for you.

The worst part is that he's a 50 years old child
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-gossip-is-a-plague-that-consumes-weak-gullible-people-and-blinds-them-from-the-truth-david-spade-143-91-76.jpg)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 11, 2017, 10:56:32 AM
Why did Grummann would build a working LM? they were paid to do so by NASA.
Grumman of course did not know about the hoax, why would they know?

It would be retarded for NASA to spill the beans without any reason to do so.

Why would NASA tell Grumman about the hoax? that would make no sense.

You want the hoax to be as small as possible.
By telling Grumman that everything is a hoax for no reason, you enlarge the hoax for no reason.
Which makes no sense.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: MicroBeta on August 11, 2017, 11:01:21 AM


Why would I waste my time researching something that looks as ridiculous as that.

<snip>
So you can that you understand both sides in order to make a well reasoned, cogent argument.

Just saying

Mike
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 11:21:30 AM
Why did Grummann not build a working LM? they were paid to do so by NASA. Grumman of course did not know about the hoax, why would they know? It would be retarded for NASA to spill the beans without any reason to do so.

Why would NASA tell Grumman about the hoax? that would make no sense.

You want the hoax to be as small as possible.
By telling Grumman that everything is a hoax for no reason, you enlarge the hoax for no reason.
Which makes no sense.
You are right, Grumman tried to built a working LM,.....but that's not all ....
Don Pettit clearly said,...we have destroyed the technologies to go back to moon, we don't have them anymore.
Did Don Pettit contact Grunman and other contractors ?
Did all contractors destroy their part in the greatest achievements of mankind too ?

Are there induviduals that understand the WHOLE LM and how it functions ?
Clearly the mars curiousity teamleader can't answer any specific questions that were extremely related to the mission.
A teamleader of the mars mission does not know in what format curiousity sends it's data back to earth and many more questions the guy does not KNOW in the press conference!!!!!
(http://)
Do i have to believe there were induviduals at Grumman who could tell about each and every part and it's functionality of the LM ?
Answer.....no !!!!! Only NASA insiders knew and Grumman did their part ..after delivery of a LM capable of those things required by NASA, NASA took it to the ''next level''.
How the hell could Grumman know it was really capable of going to the moon ?
Did Grumman make the propellant, shielding, computers, spacesuits, air conditioning etc. etc. ?

That is why every TEAM/INDUVIDUAL does their best to make single part(s) functional, but rarely oversees the bigger picture.
Like my ''mars'' example proves is that teamleaders don't know specific details either.
The saturn 5 rocket alone was made by several contractors only responsible for one stage or something else

Of course the rocket could go upwards and the LM could probably do all sorts of things after assembly of all the specific parts made by specific teams/induviduals.
But if the saturn 5 could lift the LM into outerspace whichthen went to the moon 380.000 km away with enough speed, executing a perfect landing is extremely debatable.
I heard some NASA top figure claim that they did a double dip during re-entry to prevent a burning capsule.
An Apollo astronaut claimed they never performed the double dip during re-entry.

There are very few induviduals in the know of every important detail, just like during the Manhattan project. Compartmentalisation at it's most functional.

I have researched the moonlandings for years and did not encounter a single astronaut, spokesman or scientists who could remotely explain what they had achieved during Apollo....all made remarks that showed they did not really know and only knew about stuff related to their very unique and specific part of the Apollo project.
Yes after the nineties till now, the NASA ''repair team'' did a ''good'' job explaining away many inconsistancies, but still the smoking gun is huge....
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 11, 2017, 11:27:26 AM


Why would I waste my time researching something that looks as ridiculous as that.

<snip>
So you can that you understand both sides in order to make a well reasoned, cogent argument.

Just saying

Mike
That's just crazy talk.  When you already know stuff there is no reason to research something because everyone knows it doesn't exist anyway so really there's nothing to research.  Why do hate God?
Or something like that.  I don't know, I can't quite figure this guys reasoning.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 11, 2017, 11:44:03 AM
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.

so, you have THAT going for you.

The worst part is that he's a 50 years old child
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-gossip-is-a-plague-that-consumes-weak-gullible-people-and-blinds-them-from-the-truth-david-spade-143-91-76.jpg)

Shouting "fake! fake!" again and again without a single proof of why you think something it is fake also damages society.

A six year old would learn that already, when will you? (assuming you are not a troll, but that's hard to believe seeing how you crave at the fact of making a fool out of yourself)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 11, 2017, 11:44:58 AM
Why did Grummann not build a working LM? they were paid to do so by NASA. Grumman of course did not know about the hoax, why would they know? It would be retarded for NASA to spill the beans without any reason to do so.

Why would NASA tell Grumman about the hoax? that would make no sense.

You want the hoax to be as small as possible.
By telling Grumman that everything is a hoax for no reason, you enlarge the hoax for no reason.
Which makes no sense.
You are right, Grunman tried to built a working LM,.....but that's not all ....
Don Pettit clearly said,...we have destroyed the technologies to go back to moon, we don't have them anymore.
Did Don Pettit contact Grunman and other contractors ?
Did all contractors destroy their part in the greatest achievements of mankind too ?

Are there induviduals that understand the WHOLE LM and how it functions ?
Clearly the mars curiousity teamleader can't answer any specific questions that were extremely related to the mission.
A teamleader of the mars mission does not know in what format curiousity sends it's data back to earth and many more questions the guy does not KNOW in the press conference!!!!!
(http://)
Do i have to believe there were induviduals at Grumman who could tell about each and every part and it's functionality of the LM ?
Answer.....no !!!!! Only NASA insiders knew and grumman did their part ..after delivery NASA took it to the ''next level''.
That is why every INDUVIDUAL does their best to make a single part functional, but rarely oversees the bigger picture.
Like my ''mars'' example proves is that teamleaders don't know specific details either.
The saturn 5 rocket alone was made by several contractors only responsible for one stage or something else

Of course the rocket could go upwards and the LM could probably do all sorts of things after assembly of all the specific parts made by specific teams/induviduals.
But if the saturn 5 could lift the LM into outerspace whichthen went to the moon 380.000 km away with enough speed, executing a perfect landing is extremely debatable.
I heard some NASA top figure claim that they did a double dip during re-entry to prevent a burning capsule.
An Apollo astronaut claimed they never performed the double dip during re-entry.

There are very few induviduals in the know of every important detail, just like during the Manhattan project. Compartmentalisation at it's most functional.

I have researched the moonlandings for years and did not encounter a single astronaut, spokesman or scientists who could remotely explain what they had achieved during Apollo....all made remarks that showed they did not really know and only knew about stuff related to their very unique and specific part of the Apollo project.
Yes after the nineties till now, the NASA ''repair team'' did a ''good'' job explaining away many inconsistancies, but still the smoking gun is huge....
Correct, at the moment we do not have all of the Apollo hardware needed to launch and land on the moon. Most has been send to museums and has been decommissioned. NASA has been working on a new project to leave low earth orbit. The Orion capsule uses many desing features from the Command Module.

I do not know if Don Pettit asked Grumman and other contractors, how should I know? maybe you should ask him in an email.

Contractors did not intentionally destroy data and equipment. Some might have been lost, when people die for example. But a lot of it is still around, though not everything has been digitized. Last time on an auction I saw some copies of Apollo project blueprints for sale.

Remember,  because something is not online, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Everything inside the LM was tested, as individual components and as a complete unit. So yes, people could oversee the bigger picture. Project managers from Grumman and NASA could request data and documents at any time.

Of course Grumman knew how every part of the LM functioned... they designed and build it.

The LM landing on the lunar surface was not perfect. For starters, the computer overshot the decided landing location.

I do not expect and astronaut to understand the complete inner workings of a space craft. Just like I do not expect an IT specialist to understand how a computer works on component level, or how an airplane pilot knows how the internals of the computer of his aircraft work. They know the gist of it, but don't know how switch A is connected to port A and where.

While the Saturn-V was build by multiple contractors, its construction and fitting was over viewed together. Plans where shared to insure no compatibility issues.

Humans do great things because we can work together. You can not possible ask someone to know everything about Apollo, there is just too much data. But because everyone got along and worked together, we made it work.

Do you have a source for your conflicting double-dib information?

You still have not answered my question, which is: Did Grumman, and any other contractor for that matter, know it was a hoax?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 11, 2017, 11:57:03 AM
Just like the chest mounted camera without auto focus. Neil practiced, practiced, practiced in hus garden after dinner in his spare time.
Yes, exactly.  The astronauts were issued cameras to take home and practice with so that they could learn to estimate focus, exposure and rough framing.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 11, 2017, 12:00:30 PM
Why would I waste my time researching something that looks as ridiculous as that.
Then, pray tell, what do you think that a real lunar lander should look like?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 11, 2017, 12:08:32 PM
Just like the chest mounted camera without auto focus. Neil practiced, practiced, practiced in hus garden after dinner in his spare time.
Yes, exactly.  The astronauts were issued cameras to take home and practice with so that they could learn to estimate focus, exposure and rough framing.
Also the magazines had exposures written on them as here:
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch3/wpimages/wpea85a91f_05_06.jpg)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: MicroBeta on August 11, 2017, 12:19:38 PM
You are right, Grumman tried to built a working LM,.....but that's not all ....
Don Pettit clearly said,...we have destroyed the technologies to go back to moon, we don't have them anymore.
Did Don Pettit contact Grunman and other contractors ?
Did all contractors destroy their part in the greatest achievements of mankind too?
<snip>
I don’t know if you’ve ever worked for the government but over time they disassemble, cannibalize parts, lose track of, and just plain junk nearly everything that sits around or any length of time; this is especially true of the military.  You may think I’m kidding but I'm not.

Additionally, once built and passes all certification testing, everything becomes property of the government and they take possession.  It’s not likely any of the contractors had complete working units sitting around.  It’s expensive and eat into profits.  Prototypes, display/PR units, and spare parts would be about they would have kept. 

Mike
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 11, 2017, 12:27:15 PM
The highly specialized tooling was probably the first to go after the production line shut down.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 12:27:16 PM
Shouting "fake! fake!" again and again without a single proof of why you think something it is fake also damages society.
I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that some astronauts see the stars in cislunarspace ten times as bright by simply looking out of the cabine's window.
others claim at the same position (different journey) not to have seen any stars without the use of optics.

It is you who deny the facts and squirm towards irrelevant damage control.
Quote
A six year old would learn that already, when will you? (assuming you are not a troll, but that's hard to believe seeing how you crave at the fact of making a fool out of yourself)
In psychology this is called ''projection''
Someone who calls himself simba and accuses others that his learning curve barely qualifies for a six year old .
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ee/44/16/ee44167f8f6ec026767a0da93a200108.jpg)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 11, 2017, 12:38:41 PM

I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that some astronauts see the stars in cislunarspace ten times as bright by simply looking out of the cabine's window.
others claim at the same position (different journey) not to have seen any stars without the use of optics.

You have done no such thing. You keep referring to "without the use of optics", which was Armstrong's comment about seeing stars on the lunar surface. Plenty of other astronauts, including Armstrong, report seeing stars in cislunar space and in lunar orbit. All you've actually done is point out what other people have done. You haven't proved anything other than Apollo astronauts were where they claimed to be - in space.

You also keep making the same basic mistake of assuming that one person's experience in one set of circumstances is absolute fact for all people om all circumstances.

I'll point you, again, at this page:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/staquotes.html

where many astronauts from many missions describe the celestial view. You can also look at other pages on there where astronaut photographs of stars and planets during Apollo can be found and shown to be correct.

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 11, 2017, 01:12:42 PM
I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that some astronauts see the stars in cislunarspace ten times as bright by simply looking out of the cabine's window.
others claim at the same position (different journey) not to have seen any stars without the use of optics.

It is you who deny the facts and squirm towards irrelevant damage control.

Said =/= proved

Get it? Saying somenthing is WAAAAAYYY different tan proving somenthing.

Quote
In psychology this is called ''projection''
Someone who calls himself simba and accuses others that his learning curve barely qualifies for a six year old .
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ee/44/16/ee44167f8f6ec026767a0da93a200108.jpg)

- NASA is fake LMAO!
- Hey Douchey, do you have some proof that NASA is liying?
- LOL NO!!
- Then why don't you stop using that argument until you have some proof to back you up?
- AAAYYYY can't do!

People literally explain things to you and you just brush it off, shut your ears and keep digging the same hole of stubbornness, you are the least entittled here to go pointing at people and say they have psychological issues.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 01:13:02 PM

I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that some astronauts see the stars in cislunarspace ten times as bright by simply looking out of the cabine's window.
others claim at the same position (different journey) not to have seen any stars without the use of optics.

You have done no such thing. You keep referring to "without the use of optics", which was Armstrong's comment about seeing stars on the lunar surface. Plenty of other astronauts, including Armstrong, report seeing stars in cislunar space and in lunar orbit. All you've actually done is point out what other people have done. You haven't proved anything other than Apollo astronauts were where they claimed to be - in space.
Ah we finally getting somewhere :
The bolded part vs a very knowledgable astronomer
Neil deGrasse Tyson:
You don't see stars in the daytime on earth, not because they are not there, but because the atmosphere is a glow with scattered light form the sun.
If you take away the atmosphere, the sun will still be there, but the sky goes dark.
That's what the folks get when they go to the edge of the atmosphere, ...and they're calling that the edge of space,
But when you get to the edge of the atmosphere, the atmosphere is no longer between you and the rest of the universe.
AND THE STARS REVEAL THEMSELVES, JUST AS THEY WOULD AT NIGHT.
SINCE THE MOON HAS NO ATMOSPHERE,THEN A DAYTIME PICTURE ...IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D SEE A FULL NIGHT, NIGHT SKY OF STARS EVEN WITH THE SUN IN THE SKY AS WELL.

Why would Neil use optics when he could, according to Neil, simply look at the beautifull stars  on the daylightside of the moon !!!!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 01:16:56 PM
[People literally explain things to you and you just brush it off, shut your ears and keep digging the same hole of stubbornness, you are the least entittled here to go pointing at people and say they have psychological issues.
Calm down boy. I didn't say to some  ''people'' over here that they have psychological issues, i pointed out a certain aspect of behaviour to YOU !!!!

How can you to speak about proof, facts, and study when you post things like this.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on August 11, 2017, 01:43:06 PM
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.

so, you have THAT going for you.

The worst part is that he's a 50 years old child

Why do you REtards feel the need to gang up on people?

Is it because you can't stand on your own two feet ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 11, 2017, 01:45:03 PM
The level of ignorance displayed by dutchy and this resistance is futile sheep is astounding.

YouTube cult indoctrination at its finest.

To say it's a waste of time to research facts about the lunar module, but spend hours a day bleating and babbling about some non-existent conspiracy is the definition of stupidity.

Or a really bad troll
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 11, 2017, 01:52:18 PM
[People literally explain things to you and you just brush it off, shut your ears and keep digging the same hole of stubbornness, you are the least entittled here to go pointing at people and say they have psychological issues.
Calm down boy. I didn't say to some  ''people'' over here that they have psychological issues, i pointed out a certain aspect of behaviour to YOU !!!!

How can you to speak about proof, facts, and study when you post things like this.

What are you even trying to say here? I am a person, therefore part of "some people". You can't even get your point through, can you?

Bottom line: If you don't have proof to back your argument, don't use said argument. You didn't even made mention of this subject wich goes to demonstrate my later point: you shut your ears, brush it off and keep on being sttuborn.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 11, 2017, 02:24:13 PM
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.

so, you have THAT going for you.

The worst part is that he's a 50 years old child

Why do you REtards feel the need to gang up on people?

Is it because you can't stand on your own two feet ?

What does giving some insight have to do with an inhability to stand on two feet?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Sentinel on August 11, 2017, 02:47:00 PM
So poor dutchy outright admitted he is unfit to debate on here in the english language in the first place, yet he can't help himself to continue ridiculing matters he obviously doesn't understand properly.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're done on this board obviously and any of your responses should be considered
in vain and void from now on.  :-\

So I obviously got a warning for this post where I spilled nothing but the truth, dutchy left the eclipse thread stating he was obviously unfit for further debate when his arguements got destroyed, and yet he comes back gushing happily in other threads.
Are you fucking kidding, whoever got me that warning?  ::)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 03:10:20 PM
So poor dutchy outright admitted he is unfit to debate on here in the english language in the first place, yet he can't help himself to continue ridiculing matters he obviously doesn't understand properly.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're done on this board obviously and any of your responses should be considered
in vain and void from now on.  :-\

So I obviously got a warning for this post where I spilled nothing but the truth, dutchy left the eclipse thread stating he was obviously unfit for further debate when his arguements got destroyed, and yet he comes back gushing happily in other threads.
Are you fucking kidding, whoever got me that warning?  ::)
I don't know why most globers have such a hard time to hear what astronauts and flatearthers actually say.....it is absolutely astounding the amount of inaccuracy i wittiness among globers over here when simple words/sentences are interpreted. Let's look at the specific quotes !!
You said :
Why you abandoned the eclipse thread, though? We miss you there...  :-\
I replied
What do i have to add ? I am simply not capable to express my thoughts.....i tried, but i am the first to acknowledge that you should stick to those things you can explain at a bare minimum. The jargon involved in the eclips (English for all things) is to much for me to post a coherent post.

Any objective reader understands i was talking about specific jargon related to the eclips,....because (guess what) that is exactly what i said  yeahhhhh !!!
I did participate with a lenghty post AFTER i acknowledged that the umbra could indeed move west to east.
You obviously have missed that, where i tried to explain why the umbra should be in reversed mode at the very beginning and leaving the surface very fast in it's final stages.

It was to difficult to explain what i meant and how i came to that conclusion after hours of reading, also on NASA sites.
I thought,....okay i have overdone it this time, knowing i couldn't explain it the way i wanted in English
In your stubborn mind, you not only claimed you missed me in that specific topic(which is dubious in hindsight)  you also draw several wrong conclusions that ended in rediculing me for the WRONG reasons as i have pointed out.

To me it becomes more obvious by the minute,...''resistance is futile'' has never showed the kind of invalid reasoning that you and others have expressed.
Deliberate attacks and insults based on the wrong assumption about induvidual posters.
He is head and shoulders above you in that very aspect of human interaction.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 03:26:57 PM
The level of ignorance displayed by dutchy and this resistance is futile sheep is astounding.

YouTube cult indoctrination at its finest.

To say it's a waste of time to research facts about the lunar module, but spend hours a day bleating and babbling about some non-existent conspiracy is the definition of stupidity.

Or a really bad troll
Besides the clear indication that your purpose to ''laugh at flattards'' is becoming a huge failure, your cognitive dissonance is kicking in real hard when it comes to understanding what flatearthers have to say.

I urge you to reconsider your purpose on this forum.
You obviously don't experience the amount of laughter you were after, so either engage in a meaningfull discussion at times, or go to a forum where people admire the moonlandings, the spinning globe, gravity and the big bang.
We flatearthers don't.....because you know why ? It's the flatearth forum where most flatearthers believe they have been lied to by authorities and spiritual evil that controls this world.

If you can't handle that, join the ''Britney Spears fan forum'' or something similar superficial.......
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 04:02:22 PM
[People literally explain things to you and you just brush it off, shut your ears and keep digging the same hole of stubbornness, you are the least entittled here to go pointing at people and say they have psychological issues.
Calm down boy. I didn't say to some  ''people'' over here that they have psychological issues, i pointed out a certain aspect of behaviour to YOU !!!!

How can you to speak about proof, facts, and study when you post things like this.

What are you even trying to say here? I am a person, therefore part of "some people". You can't even get your point through, can you?

Bottom line: If you don't have proof to back your argument, don't use said argument. You didn't even made mention of this subject wich goes to demonstrate my later point: you shut your ears, brush it off and keep on being sttuborn.
If you wouldn't be such an indoctrinated sheep you would try to listen.
I will brake it down real simple.

1 I have researched the moonlandings for i think about 5 years
2 I couldn't believe there were real people dumb enough to doubt the greatest achievement of mankind
3 I read chapters in the books of Bill Kaysing and Ralph Renee that started a process.
4 I watched all Jarrah White's video's about the moonlandings and read the counter arguments at the Clavius forum (pro NASA)
5 I started to look for every interview in papers and online footage made by astronauts and NASA insiders.
6 It became clear there were huge discrepancies in the official storyline
7 I read about how scientists and rocket engeneres envisioned spacetravel in the fifties and how extremely different it was when Apollo became reality.
8 I started to read about an ongoing rehabilitation program for Nazi's in the USA that lasted until the nineties and the heavy involvement from NASA.
9 I learned between the connection of Walt Disney and NASA (Werner Von Braun)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qFqMZ_s54UU/Vr9zQYFoMxI/AAAAAAAAKoI/XfLXKwjRWuo/s1600/Walt%2BDisney%2Band%2BWernher%2BVon%2BBraun.jpg)
10 I started to examine the photographs and original video from the moon
11 I learned about that episode in American history...the Kennedy legacy, the cold war, and riots on home soil.
12 during the nineties NASA has repaired a lot of mistakes of the past concerning the Apollo missions.

After a few years in a fascinating personal journey it became so obvious that it was all a hoax during the Vietnam war and president Nixon in charge.
An heroic story to boast the USA in rough times and fullfill the ''prophecy'' of Kennedy just before the decade was over.
Then the house of cards was coming down real fast.
Each and every evidence of the moonlandings proved the opposite to me.....

I have been very, very cautious for years to dismiss the moonlandings and did take the subject way more serious than many believers and even astronauts who make a mockery of themselves and the tax payer, or are extremely lazy when it comes to the details.

What was it you wanted to discuss about the moonlandings and/or NASA ? Please specify !
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on August 11, 2017, 04:16:29 PM
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.

so, you have THAT going for you.


You should start an ignore list.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 11, 2017, 04:29:56 PM
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.

so, you have THAT going for you.


You should start an ignore list.

Nah... He's the reason I'm here ;^)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 11, 2017, 04:39:45 PM
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.

so, you have THAT going for you.


You should start an ignore list.
Nah... He's the reason I'm here ;^)
Luckily i can debunk your silly posts without any response. Looking forward to the coming year(s).

But remember "you will never address me personally or respond to my bullshit ever again"
::) :o  ;D

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 11, 2017, 07:13:53 PM

I have been very, very cautious for years to dismiss the moonlandings and did take the subject way more serious than many believers and even astronauts who make a mockery of themselves and the tax payer, or are extremely lazy when it comes to the details.

What was it you wanted to discuss about the moonlandings and/or NASA ? Please specify !
And even if you proved this to everyone's satisfaction (you won't, but let's pretend) where has it got you?
Quote
twelve, countries from the list below (USSR, USA, France, Japan, China, UK, India, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Iran and North Korea) and one regional organization (the European Space Agency, ESA) have independently launched satellites on their own indigenously developed launch vehicles.
So you have eleven countries, some of which would never collude with the USA, who have launched their own satellites.
Then Russia (USSR) has sent numerous spacecraft to the moon, some orbiting, others impacting or soft-landing.
As well China and Japan have had some lunar missions.

But, on top of that there are hundreds of geostationary satellites, totally separate from NASA, some sending back regular weather photos.

Are you going to debunk all of those too? You really do have your work cut out trying to defend the indefensible.
Maybe you need a new pair anti-space agency glasses, your anti-NASA filters just don't cover the whole spectrum.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 12, 2017, 01:05:04 AM
If you wouldn't be such an indoctrinated sheep you would try to listen.
I will brake it down real simple.

1 I have researched the moonlandings for i think about 5 years

5 years eh. There are still people around who took part in them. Go ask them questions.

Quote
2 I couldn't believe there were real people dumb enough to doubt the greatest achievement of mankind

Astounding isn't it. Despite all the data available on and offline there are still morons out there that will fall for...

Quote
3 I read chapters in the books of Bill Kaysing and Ralph Renee that started a process.

Liars, idiots and frauds.

Quote
4 I watched all Jarrah White's video's about the moonlandings and read the counter arguments at the Clavius forum (pro NASA)

Jarrah is a liar and a bully who misrepresents reality for youtube hits. You prefer the whiny utterances of an amateur film maker over people who actually do space engineering?

Quote
5 I started to look for every interview in papers and online footage made by astronauts and NASA insiders.
6 It became clear there were huge discrepancies in the official storyline

There are precisely zero discrepancies, just information you have misunderstood, don't know, or where you have fallen for the bullshit promoted by conspiratard charlatans.

Quote
7 I read about how scientists and rocket engeneres envisioned spacetravel in the fifties and how extremely different it was when Apollo became reality.

Many models were proposed for space travel. They eventually settled for one that worked. There were many visions of how life would be in the year 2000. It didn't turn out like that. Did the year 2000 not happen?

Quote
8 I started to read about an ongoing rehabilitation program for Nazi's in the USA that lasted until the nineties and the heavy involvement from NASA.

Loathsome as nazism is, wearing a swastika and goosestepping does not automatically mean that you don't understand science.

Werner von Braun and his team had already proven themselves to be rather good at rockets before the US got to them. If you had read about them properly, you'd know that von Braun was sidelined for quite some time while the US Army and Navy engaged in a battle for the ear of those controlling how the space programme would work. It was only after many high profile fuck-ups that they asked people who knew how to launch rockets to show them how to launch rockets.

Quote
9 I learned between the connection of Walt Disney and NASA (Werner Von Braun)

And? Disney was probably more of a nazi than von Braun.

Quote
10 I started to examine the photographs and original video from the moon

So have many many others. I have also spent many years researching Apollo and examining all the photos and original video - including those in contemporary publications. I have never found any inconsistencies with the 'official' narrative. Quite the opposite - the photographs contain countless clues as to where and when they were taken.

Quote
11 I learned about that episode in American history...the Kennedy legacy, the cold war, and riots on home soil.

The cold war is the important bit.

Quote
12 during the nineties NASA has repaired a lot of mistakes of the past concerning the Apollo missions.

Nope. No photographs or video around now differ from what they were originally.

Quote
After a few years in a fascinating personal journey it became so obvious that it was all a hoax during the Vietnam war and president Nixon in charge.
An heroic story to boast the USA in rough times and fullfill the ''prophecy'' of Kennedy just before the decade was over.
Then the house of cards was coming down real fast.
Each and every evidence of the moonlandings proved the opposite to me.....

I have been very, very cautious for years to dismiss the moonlandings and did take the subject way more serious than many believers and even astronauts who make a mockery of themselves and the tax payer, or are extremely lazy when it comes to the details.

What was it you wanted to discuss about the moonlandings and/or NASA ? Please specify !

I'm sure find your personal journey fascinating, no-one else does,

You don't take the subject seriously at all, if you did you would understand the material you have studied and realise why you are wrong about it being hoaxed. You have decided it was hoaxed and judge everything through those prejudiced blinkers. You make all kinds of claims about inconsistencies and evidence but never present anything that doesn't amount to "it kinda looks funny". You ask other people to specify what they want to discuss but never actually discuss it yourself.

When you come up with something original and actually worth discussing, instead of just poisoning the well or fabricating some strawman or other and then running away saying "Oh I'm not going to talk about this with you, you're just wrong" then you might not be taken as just another troll.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 12, 2017, 02:04:09 AM
Before i reply ( i am going to a party so i cannot comment on your weak attempts now) i will say the following.

The moon has according to Neil deGrasse Tyson no atmosphere (almost zero)
No scattered sunlight, no reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere, no nothing.
Only looking directly into the sun stops you from seeing stars !!!!!

Neil had to adjust and use the optics to clearly see stars.
Without an atmosphere reflecting the scattered sunlight or surface reflections this shouldn't be needed .
This is complete bullseye proof that you simply ignore over and over again.
Ignore the facts, misinterpret them, redirect, say i never have proved anything and start all over again.
 Neil had to adjust to the bright sunlight and had to use optics to get the most of the starlight.
According to Neil deGrasse Tyson and any reasonable mind it is utter nonsense, because the moon has no atmosphere.

Before you ignore this for the zillionth time ......    the moon has no atmosphere, so the scattered sunlight is absend !!!!!!
Look man.......  it's called PROOF of NASA inconsistancies that matter very much. We are not talking about the size of Neil's camera here...   
 
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Sentinel on August 12, 2017, 02:19:03 AM
So poor dutchy outright admitted he is unfit to debate on here in the english language in the first place, yet he can't help himself to continue ridiculing matters he obviously doesn't understand properly.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're done on this board obviously and any of your responses should be considered
in vain and void from now on.  :-\

So I obviously got a warning for this post where I spilled nothing but the truth, dutchy left the eclipse thread stating he was obviously unfit for further debate when his arguements got destroyed, and yet he comes back gushing happily in other threads.
Are you fucking kidding, whoever got me that warning?  ::)
I don't know why most globers have such a hard time to hear what astronauts and flatearthers actually say.....it is absolutely astounding the amount of inaccuracy i wittiness among globers over here when simple words/sentences are interpreted. Let's look at the specific quotes !!
You said :
Why you abandoned the eclipse thread, though? We miss you there...  :-\
I replied
What do i have to add ? I am simply not capable to express my thoughts.....i tried, but i am the first to acknowledge that you should stick to those things you can explain at a bare minimum. The jargon involved in the eclips (English for all things) is to much for me to post a coherent post.

Any objective reader understands i was talking about specific jargon related to the eclips,....because (guess what) that is exactly what i said  yeahhhhh !!!
I did participate with a lenghty post AFTER i acknowledged that the umbra could indeed move west to east.
You obviously have missed that, where i tried to explain why the umbra should be in reversed mode at the very beginning and leaving the surface very fast in it's final stages.

It was to difficult to explain what i meant and how i came to that conclusion after hours of reading, also on NASA sites.
I thought,....okay i have overdone it this time, knowing i couldn't explain it the way i wanted in English
In your stubborn mind, you not only claimed you missed me in that specific topic(which is dubious in hindsight)  you also draw several wrong conclusions that ended in rediculing me for the WRONG reasons as i have pointed out.

Again: I'm not a native english speaker for myself, but other than you I had no problem to follow the arguementation of your claim about the umbra and debunk it quite easily as you never responded after that answer of mine:

Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.

Look at this:
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEanimate/SEanimate2001/SE2012Nov13T.GIF)

and the blue cosinus animation here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Circle_cos_sin.gif)

Now think again.  ::)

And just for the record: Abandoning threads after your claims were debunked and then stating you did so only because you ran out of the proper scientific terms to go on further on the topic when being called out on it in other threads where you continue to gush about NASA pictures is nothing but weak in my book.
You really think we are that dumb to not know why you left in the first place? Man up and take the blow if you were wrong and learn for once how credibility works on any forum.  ::)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 12, 2017, 02:31:26 AM
Before i reply ( i am going to a party so i cannot comment on your weak attempts now) i will say the following.

The moon has according to Neil deGrasse Tyson no atmosphere (almost zero)
No scattered sunlight, no reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere, no nothing.
Only looking directly into the sun stops you from seeing stars !!!!!

Neil had to adjust and use the optics to clearly see stars.
Without an atmosphere reflecting the scattered sunlight or surface reflections this shouldn't be needed .
This is complete bullseye proof that you simply ignore over and over again.
Ignore the facts, misinterpret them, redirect, say i never have proved anything and start all over again.
 Neil had to adjust to the bright sunlight and had to use optics to get the most of the starlight.
According to Neil deGrasse Tyson and any reasonable mind it is utter nonsense, because the moon has no atmosphere.

Before you ignore this for the zillionth time ......    the moon has no atmosphere, so the scattered sunlight is absend !!!!!!
Look man.......  it's called PROOF of NASA inconsistancies that matter very much. We are not talking about the size of Neil's camera here...   
There was lots of glare from the lunar surface. Lots of scattering of light by the lunar surface.

So much in fact that they added flaps to the visor in further missions:
Note the two flaps on the side and on the top of the visor:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0c/f1/8f/0cf18f38f9c3737182711c29cd9d0430--space-suits-nasa-space.jpg)
And without atmosphere, the sun is incredible bright.

Remember that the visor itself is reflective, the suit has multiple  layers between the astronaut eyes and the outside, and finally there is an atmosphere in the inner suit. All of which can cause glare and reflection.

The golden visor reduced glare and brightness.


Also, what makes you think they could not say "I have seen stars" if it all was faked? I do not get your logic.
Does: Saying you have seen stars = you really walked on the moon
Does: Not saying you have seen stars (Which they did say, but lets ignore that for the sake of argument) = you faked it.

Then:
Here I go:

"I, denspressure,  have seen stars while I walked on the moon."

By that logic, it must mean I walked on the moon. If saying you have seen stars is proof for anything. Photos of stars and planets are more proof than just saying you saw them.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 12, 2017, 02:44:47 AM
So poor dutchy outright admitted he is unfit to debate on here in the english language in the first place, yet he can't help himself to continue ridiculing matters he obviously doesn't understand properly.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're done on this board obviously and any of your responses should be considered
in vain and void from now on.  :-\

So I obviously got a warning for this post where I spilled nothing but the truth, dutchy left the eclipse thread stating he was obviously unfit for further debate when his arguements got destroyed, and yet he comes back gushing happily in other threads.
Are you fucking kidding, whoever got me that warning?  ::)
I don't know why most globers have such a hard time to hear what astronauts and flatearthers actually say.....it is absolutely astounding the amount of inaccuracy i wittiness among globers over here when simple words/sentences are interpreted. Let's look at the specific quotes !!
You said :
Why you abandoned the eclipse thread, though? We miss you there...  :-\
I replied
What do i have to add ? I am simply not capable to express my thoughts.....i tried, but i am the first to acknowledge that you should stick to those things you can explain at a bare minimum. The jargon involved in the eclips (English for all things) is to much for me to post a coherent post.

Any objective reader understands i was talking about specific jargon related to the eclips,....because (guess what) that is exactly what i said  yeahhhhh !!!
I did participate with a lenghty post AFTER i acknowledged that the umbra could indeed move west to east.
You obviously have missed that, where i tried to explain why the umbra should be in reversed mode at the very beginning and leaving the surface very fast in it's final stages.

It was to difficult to explain what i meant and how i came to that conclusion after hours of reading, also on NASA sites.
I thought,....okay i have overdone it this time, knowing i couldn't explain it the way i wanted in English
In your stubborn mind, you not only claimed you missed me in that specific topic(which is dubious in hindsight)  you also draw several wrong conclusions that ended in rediculing me for the WRONG reasons as i have pointed out.

Again: I'm not a native english speaker for myself, but other than you I had no problem to follow the arguementation of your claim about the umbra and debunk it quite easily as you never responded after that answer of mine:

Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.

Look at this:
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEanimate/SEanimate2001/SE2012Nov13T.GIF)

and the blue cosinus animation here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Circle_cos_sin.gif)

Now think again.  ::)

And just for the record: Abandoning threads after your claims were debunked and then stating you did so only because you ran out of the proper scientific terms to go on further on the topic when being called out on it in other threads where you continue to gush about NASA pictures is nothing but weak in my book.
You really think we are that dumb to not know why you left in the first place? Man up and take the blow if you were wrong and learn for once how credibility works on any forum.  ::)
You are kidding me, don't tell me you are serious !
I was the exception to acknowledge that i understood how in the heliocentric model a west east umbra could work.
I also said it was still a far strech considering all elements involved.

You and others abused my remarks as if it was a humble confession towards the globe and  to lash out towards 'resistance is futile'
After you posted your silly diagram of bullshit, i decided it wasn't worth my energy, because debunking that silly diagram would need really specific jargon in English.
After i saw what a simple statement about the umbra in your favour did .....   'even dutchy understand now etc. etc.'

I hope you globers aren't married, because i still have to find any confession whatsoever on this forum of a globe posters that acknowledges something is off.
They go to great lenghts to defend everything,...... just everything.
Abd when ordinary people like me make a statement about understanding your model better, it is abused for all sorts of selfish reasons,..... i have to be more carefull next time ....which is a shame actually.
You and globers are always right, about EVERYTHING related to earth and the cosmos.
That is your default position and you talk about credibility boy ?????
That's called scientific dictatorship.
That is the sole reason why you indoctrinated sheep participate over here, your army of drilled lemmings is fucking boring among yourselves. You want to expand your evil empire over here.
Are you addults for real ?
Please go to a place where you can all dwell in your fantastic spinning, tilted, peershaped globe......, but this ain't the place !!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Sentinel on August 12, 2017, 04:22:20 AM
Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.

Look at this:
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEanimate/SEanimate2001/SE2012Nov13T.GIF)

and the blue cosinus animation here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Circle_cos_sin.gif)

Now think again.  ::)
After you posted your silly diagram of bullshit, i decided it wasn't worth my energy, because debunking that silly diagram would need really specific jargon in English.

As if we don't know you didn't even try because your claim about the eclipse shadow moving in counter direction when entering and leaving the Earths sphere has been trashed to bits.
But yeah, whatever. Just go forth with your ramblings about NASA pictures, I wonder when you would come to a point where your english skills "prevent" you from further engagement here and you'd run away like a coward again. As i see it now you're nothing short but a dishonest liar.  ::)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 12, 2017, 04:37:42 AM
Before i reply ( i am going to a party so i cannot comment on your weak attempts now) i will say the following.

The moon has according to Neil deGrasse Tyson no atmosphere (almost zero)
No scattered sunlight, no reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere, no nothing.
Only looking directly into the sun stops you from seeing stars !!!!!
"Reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere" doesn't amount to much, but light still reflects from lunar rocks and surface and re-reflects.

Quote from: dutchy
Neil had to adjust and use the optics to clearly see stars.
Without an atmosphere reflecting the scattered sunlight or surface reflections this shouldn't be needed .
This is complete bullseye proof that you simply ignore over and over again.
Ignore the facts, misinterpret them, redirect, say i never have proved anything and start all over again.
The only difference is the lack of the bright sky. The very bright sunlight still reflects off the lunar surface.
As you have been repeatedly told the eye takes minutes in a dark environment to adapt to the dark.
Possibly if Neil Armstrong were in a shaded area and looked at nothing but the dark sky for 5 minutes or so he might have seen stars.
These facts have been explained but  "you simply ignore over and over again". You just "Ignore the facts" and "misinterpret them".

Yes, Mr dutchy it works both ways. Neither of us have been to the moon, so all we can go by are what we can read and interpret from our experience here.

Quote from: dutchy
Neil had to adjust to the bright sunlight and had to use optics to get the most of the starlight.
According to Neil deGrasse Tyson and any reasonable mind it is utter nonsense, because the moon has no atmosphere.
Obviously "Neil had to adjust to the bright sunlight"! There's no way you can deny that!
Even photographing the moon from here, 
the exposure of a photo I am looking at right now is ISO 160 f6.4 at 1/500 sec, close to that needed on a sunny day.
And that light from the moon has been attenuated by the atmosphere.

Where does Neil deGrasse Tyson say just that?
But it is you simply ignoring the fact that there is much more to it than just the lack of atmosphere.

Quote from: dutchy
Before you ignore this for the zillionth time ......    the moon has no atmosphere, so the scattered sunlight is absend !!!!!!
I have answered that numerous times.

One does get totally sick of your total paranoia about NASA. There's no way anyone can respond to your ravings - it does get utterly tiresome.

Quote from: dutchy
Look man.......  it's called PROOF of NASA inconsistancies that matter very much. We are not talking about the size of Neil's camera here...   
You might call it "PROOF of NASA inconsistencies". I call it you refusal to acknowledge known facts about vision.
So it's simply proof of your own totally illogical hatred of NASA, because you think that they spoilt your pretty little flat earth.

You simply ignore being repeatedly told (for the zillionth time) that NASA had nothing to do with destriking your illusions.
That illusions was destroyed over 2300 years ago and very few scientists, astronomers or even those in the early "church" have suggested otherwise.

It seems to me that flat earthers know so little of science or astronomy that all that impresses them are "pretty pictures".
So you think that you can discredit NASA, maybe people might be convinced that the earth it's flat.

It won't work, Mr dutchy, there is far more evidence that the earth is a rotating Globe than the thousands of photographs from space.
You might choose to ignore it all. That's your right, but luckily most people are prepared to see things as they really are.

By the way you don't seem to say much about the 11 other countries that have launched their own satellites, including numerous (unmanned) lunar missions by Russia and a few by other countries.
Nor much to say about the 60 (if I remember correctly) countries with their own TV, communications and weather satellites.

NASA is the least of your worries it you want to disprove the possibility of space exploration and usage.

But you just keep you NASAphobic protective glasses clamped on tight least you get contaminated by this terrible Heliocentric Globe.

Bye bye, hope you enjoyed your party.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 12, 2017, 04:39:36 AM
Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.

Look at this:
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEanimate/SEanimate2001/SE2012Nov13T.GIF)

and the blue cosinus animation here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Circle_cos_sin.gif)

Now think again.  ::)
After you posted your silly diagram of bullshit, i decided it wasn't worth my energy, because debunking that silly diagram would need really specific jargon in English.

As if we don't know you didn't even try because your claim about the eclipse shadow moving in counter direction when entering and leaving the Earths sphere has been trashed to bits.
But yeah, whatever. Just go forth with your ramblings about NASA pictures, I wonder when you would come to a point where your english skills "prevent" you from further engagement here and you'd run away like a coward again. As i see it now you're nothing short but a dishonest liar.  ::)
Your animation shows a fixed globe.
When you look at the original blue marble it only shows Africa and a bit of Europe.
South America and Australia are crammed into the last visible part of the globe.
Once you start to turn the globe, (the blue marble as reference) South America covers a lot of ground only after turning the globe a bit.
It means that any shadow from the sides cannot match the angular speed of the globe.

Your animation is full of bullshit because it fails to show the most important part,.....  the relative motion of the globe on the sides that are obscured but are there ( blue marble as reference where it seems some continents are on the othe side, but are crammed together at the sides)
The relative motion on the side is greater than the speed of the shadow when moving upward and the shadow is much faster when it is near the end of the eclips.

So either show me an animation from the perspective of someone standing on the side ( boat in the pacific) of the spinning globe at the start of the eclips where i can see why the speed of the umbra is faster than the uphill motion of the earth at that specific position.

'Dishonest liar ?' I really hope you don't have a spouce in life......

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 12, 2017, 05:06:32 AM
"Reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere" doesn't amount to much, but light still reflects from lunar rocks and surface and re-reflects.
When an astronaut on the moon bends his head towards the sky.....

What can interfere between his direct line of sight and the stars ?
There is only the void of space between the direct line of the observer and the stars.
There are no molecules to reflect upon or scatter the sunlight.

So all your claims are false untill you explain the following.

What can interfere in the vacuum between an astronaut looking upwards between his line of sight and the starlight ?


I understand that your masters don't like it you avoid this very simple question again and again........or maybe they command you to avoid an impossible answer......

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Sentinel on August 12, 2017, 05:15:23 AM
Your animation shows a fixed globe.
No, the globe is fixed there in reference of both the Sun and the Moons shadow to show the combined movement. Didn't you notice the terminator line moving constantly?
Quote
When you look at the original blue marble it only shows Africa and a bit of Europe.
South America and Australia are crammed into the last visible part of the globe.
Once you start to turn the globe, (the blue marble as reference) South America covers a lot of ground only after turning the globe a bit.
It means that any shadow from the sides cannot match the angular speed of the globe.
Again: Angular speed is irrelevant here since the transversal trajectory of the Moons shadow is linear, hence you have to look at the projected transversal speed of a point on a revolving Earth. I showed that in my second animation where you can see it as the blue dot shows zero velocity when being perpendicular to reference point straight up.
Quote
Your animation is full of bullshit because it fails to show the most important part,.....  the relative motion of the globe on the sides that are obscured but are there ( blue marble as reference where it seems some continents are on the othe side, but are crammed together at the sides)
The relative motion on the side is greater than the speed of the shadow when moving upward and the shadow is much faster when it is near the end of the eclips.

So either show me an animation from the perspective of someone standing on the side ( boat in the pacific) of the spinning globe at the start of the eclips where i can see why the speed of the umbra is faster than the uphill motion of the earth at that specific position.
See above, both animations disprove your claim about the relative motion on the side of the globe being faster than the Moons shadow, in fact the shadow is much faster as the projected trajectory for a point on the globe is very slow on the sides of the globe. If you can't see that I don't know what else to say tbh.
Quote
'Dishonest liar ?'
Either that, or you're just lacking the intellect to grasp the concept of it all. It's been shown and explained to you now, so what should it be?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 12, 2017, 05:36:03 AM
Your animation shows a fixed globe.
When you look at the original blue marble it only shows Africa and a bit of Europe.
South America and Australia are crammed into the last visible part of the globe.
Once you start to turn the globe, (the blue marble as reference) South America covers a lot of ground only after turning the globe a bit.
It means that any shadow from the sides cannot match the angular speed of the globe.

Your animation is full of bullshit because it fails to show the most important part,.....  the relative motion of the globe on the sides that are obscured but are there ( blue marble as reference where it seems some continents are on the othe side, but are crammed together at the sides)
The relative motion on the side is greater than the speed of the shadow when moving upward and the shadow is much faster when it is near the end of the eclips.

So either show me an animation from the perspective of someone standing on the side ( boat in the pacific) of the spinning globe at the start of the eclips where i can see why the speed of the umbra is faster than the uphill motion of the earth at that specific position.

Nothing ever satisfies you! Go find you own animations - but the Heliocentric Globe works - your flat earth doesn't!
When the shadow velocity of the eclipse is calculated from the moon and earth motion it does come out about right.

And while you are working all that out, you might explain how 50 km diameter sun and moon, both about 5000 km above the earth could possible case an umbral shadow (region of totality) anywhere from zero to around 500 km wide - I can't see how it is possible.

This is not an eclipse, but it shows the "front side" of the moon and shows how poorly the moon reflects, compared to the earth.
Video of the lunar occlusion event as captured by NASA’s Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC): 2015. (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-galleries/2015/lunar_occultation/lunar_occultation_translate_cropped720.mp4)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 12, 2017, 05:46:44 AM
"Reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere" doesn't amount to much, but light still reflects from lunar rocks and surface and re-reflects.
When an astronaut on the moon bends his head towards the sky.....

What can interfere between his direct line of sight and the stars ?
There is only the void of space between the direct line of the observer and the stars.
There are no molecules to reflect upon or scatter the sunlight.

So all your claims are false untill you explain the following.

What can interfere in the vacuum between an astronaut looking upwards between his line of sight and the starlight ?


I understand that your masters don't like it you avoid this very simple question again and again........or maybe they command you to avoid an impossible answer......
All the pics of apollo suits I've seen show it wasn't easy to lean back or look up.  And even if done the large glass visor could still be catching reflected light from the surface making it harder for ones eyes to adjust.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 12, 2017, 06:02:42 AM
"Reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere" doesn't amount to much, but light still reflects from lunar rocks and surface and re-reflects.
When an astronaut on the moon bends his head towards the sky.....

What can interfere between his direct line of sight and the stars ?
There is only the void of space between the direct line of the observer and the stars.
There are no molecules to reflect upon or scatter the sunlight.

So all your claims are false untill you explain the following.

What can interfere in the vacuum between an astronaut looking upwards between his line of sight and the starlight ?


I understand that your masters don't like it you avoid this very simple question again and again........or maybe they command you to avoid an impossible answer......
All the pics of apollo suits I've seen show it wasn't easy to lean back or look up.  And even if done the large glass visor could still be catching reflected light from the surface making it harder for ones eyes to adjust.
Because the suit is back heavy, it was difficult to look up. The astronaut had to curve his entire back back to view the sky.
While the suit had joints on the arms and legs, the back and torso did not have joints.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 12, 2017, 07:22:19 AM
What can interfere in the vacuum between an astronaut looking upwards between his line of sight and the starlight ?


Gee, I wonder what it could be...

(http://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/visor/wpimages/wpd5eb246d_05_06.jpg)

What could possibly be interfering with the astronauts' view of the lunar sky?

Now dutchy you seem to still be having problems here. You have astronauts saying they couldn't see stars from the lunar surface and astronauts saying the could see stars in cislunar space. Which one of those are you saying is telling the truth?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 12, 2017, 07:24:57 AM
Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.

Look at this:
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEanimate/SEanimate2001/SE2012Nov13T.GIF)

and the blue cosinus animation here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Circle_cos_sin.gif)

Now think again.  ::)
After you posted your silly diagram of bullshit, i decided it wasn't worth my energy, because debunking that silly diagram would need really specific jargon in English.

As if we don't know you didn't even try because your claim about the eclipse shadow moving in counter direction when entering and leaving the Earths sphere has been trashed to bits.
But yeah, whatever. Just go forth with your ramblings about NASA pictures, I wonder when you would come to a point where your english skills "prevent" you from further engagement here and you'd run away like a coward again. As i see it now you're nothing short but a dishonest liar.  ::)
Your animation shows a fixed globe.
When you look at the original blue marble it only shows Africa and a bit of Europe.
South America and Australia are crammed into the last visible part of the globe.
Once you start to turn the globe, (the blue marble as reference) South America covers a lot of ground only after turning the globe a bit.
It means that any shadow from the sides cannot match the angular speed of the globe.

Your animation is full of bullshit because it fails to show the most important part,.....  the relative motion of the globe on the sides that are obscured but are there ( blue marble as reference where it seems some continents are on the othe side, but are crammed together at the sides)
The relative motion on the side is greater than the speed of the shadow when moving upward and the shadow is much faster when it is near the end of the eclips.

So either show me an animation from the perspective of someone standing on the side ( boat in the pacific) of the spinning globe at the start of the eclips where i can see why the speed of the umbra is faster than the uphill motion of the earth at that specific position.

'Dishonest liar ?' I really hope you don't have a spouce in life......
Ok, you think you have debunked the globe eclipse.  Explain how it works on a flat earth.  Because until you can do that, you have nothing.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 12, 2017, 09:20:05 AM
I am still waiting for an answer, not secondary info.

The question is really simple :

If a person standing on the moon would look upwards to the sky, is there anything in between the direct line of sight and the incoming starlight that somehow obscures the bright starlight ?
I am not asking if they could lean backwards enough or that they had ground camera's pointed to the skies....
I am asking if in the vacuum of space any reflection or other light scattering could occur and somehow obscure the incoming starlight.

I want a scientific explaination how there could possibly be any interaction between light and the absense of any atmosphere/molecules to reflect upon.
The lightsource (star) should shine it's light in the eye of the observer without anything that could possibly obscure the line of sight, because...again there is no atmosphere, no molecules !!!

Is this correct ? If not explain how the vacuum of space has certain properties  that obscures incoming rays from a direct source of light, so that it can obscure the lightsource
Then we talk about the rest.
First we are going to establish the properties of a vacuum in between an observer and a direct lightsource (star)

Remember we dont look at the rigolet, mountains....we look directly towards the vacuum and stars !
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 12, 2017, 10:14:30 AM
I am still waiting for an answer, not secondary info.

The question is really simple :

If a person standing on the moon would look upwards to the sky, is there anything in between the direct line of sight and the incoming starlight that somehow obscures the bright starlight ?
I am not asking if they could lean backwards enough or that they had ground camera's pointed to the skies....
I am asking if in the vacuum of space any reflection or other light scattering could occur and somehow obscure the incoming starlight.

I want a scientific explaination how there could possibly be any interaction between light and the absense of any atmosphere/molecules to reflect upon.
The lightsource (star) should shine it's light in the eye of the observer without anything that could possibly obscure the line of sight, because...again there is no atmosphere, no molecules !!!

Is this correct ? If not explain how the vacuum of space has certain properties  that obscures incoming rays from a direct source of light, so that it can obscure the lightsource
Then we talk about the rest.
First we are going to establish the properties of a vacuum in between an observer and a direct lightsource (star)

Remember we dont look at the rigolet, mountains....we look directly towards the vacuum and stars !
Since it's obvious that no one ever went to the moon, there is no way to verify the answer.  Wouldn't you agree?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 12, 2017, 10:36:46 AM
I am still waiting for an answer, not secondary info.

The question is really simple :

If a person standing on the moon would look upwards to the sky, is there anything in between the direct line of sight and the incoming starlight that somehow obscures the bright starlight ?
I am not asking if they could lean backwards enough or that they had ground camera's pointed to the skies....
I am asking if in the vacuum of space any reflection or other light scattering could occur and somehow obscure the incoming starlight.

I want a scientific explaination how there could possibly be any interaction between light and the absense of any atmosphere/molecules to reflect upon.
The lightsource (star) should shine it's light in the eye of the observer without anything that could possibly obscure the line of sight, because...again there is no atmosphere, no molecules !!!

Is this correct ? If not explain how the vacuum of space has certain properties  that obscures incoming rays from a direct source of light, so that it can obscure the lightsource
Then we talk about the rest.
First we are going to establish the properties of a vacuum in between an observer and a direct lightsource (star)

Remember we dont look at the rigolet, mountains....we look directly towards the vacuum and stars !
Since it's obvious that no one ever went to the moon, there is no way to verify the answer.  Wouldn't you agree?
No, i don't consider myself that important. ''Because i cannot go to the moon, no one can'' is never an option for me.

When i discover huge amounts of anomalies in the official storyline and a several important motives to fake it all, then it becomes clear that no one has gone to the moon and back in the late sixties and early seventies.

What i find really disturbing is that the discussion is so loaded.
So could you please answer my questions markjo ? You know....about scattered light and reflected light in between the observer, the vacuum and the lightsource ?
Can the vacuum obscure the light coming into your eyes ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 12, 2017, 03:11:20 PM
Of course a vacuum can not obscure light from hitting your eyes.

It is a vacuum... it blocks absolutely nothing.

Now, the eyes of the astronaut will be inside his pressure suit of course, and thus not in a vacuum environment. (Yes the Apollo EVA suit consist of multiple parts, not just one layer.)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 12, 2017, 03:48:03 PM
"Reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere" doesn't amount to much, but light still reflects from lunar rocks and surface and re-reflects.
When an astronaut on the moon bends his head towards the sky.....
Not enough! The astronaut's eyes need minutes to adapt - FACT!
Quote from: dutchy
What can interfere between his direct line of sight and the stars ?
The FACT that the astronaut's eyes need minutes to adapt.
Quote from: dutchy
There is only the void of space between the direct line of the observer and the stars.
There are no molecules to reflect upon or scatter the sunlight.

So all your claims are false untill you explain the following.
Incorrect!
Quote from: dutchy

What can interfere in the vacuum between an astronaut looking upwards between his line of sight and the starlight ?

I have given you the reason a zillion times, but you have totally ignored my explanation a zillion times.
For the zillion and oneth time THE REASON IS that it takes the eye some minutes to adapt to the darkness.

Starlight is unbelievably dim compared to full sunlight. First remove your NASAphobic filters then look at:
Condition
         
Illumination
Sunlight
         
107527 lux
Full Daylight
         
10752 lux
Twilight
         
10.8 lux
Full Moon
         
0.108 lux
Starlight
         
0.0011 lux
Starlight (excluding air-glow)
         
0.0002 lux
What is certain is that the unaided eye can see clearly in bright sunlight and see the stars at night, but considerable time is needed for the eye to adapt to the darkness.
So direct sunlight is over 500 000 000 (yes 500 million) times brighter than starlight!
And the human eye is unbelievably good at adapting between these extremes, but it takes time.
And do you think it likely that any astronaut would spend the minutes necessary avoiding any peripheral light, simply staring at the dark sky for their eyes to adapt?
Unless it's on the schedule, it is simply not going to happen!

Then see
Quote

How long does it take our eyes to fully adapt to darkness?
Human eyes take several hours to fully adapt to darkness and reach their optimal sensitivity to low light conditions. The quickest gains in vision sensitivity are made in the first few minutes after exposure to darkness. For this reason, many people think that after only a few minutes, their eyes have reached their peak sensitivity. But several hours into darkness exposure, the human eyes continue to adapt and make small gains in sensitivity.

More information in: How long does it take our eyes to fully adapt to darkness? (http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/08/09/how-long-does-it-take-our-eyes-to-fully-adapt-to-darkness/)
      (http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/images/darkadaptationcurve.gif)
A rule-of-thumb for ship's lookouts is that around 20 minutes is needed to adapt to dark conditions.
From a previous post TO YOU! Flat Earth General / Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Message by rabinoz on August 06, 2017, 09:51:31 PM »
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71483.msg1938864;topicseen#msg1938864)

There is nothing more that I can do to get the message over.

Quote from: dutchy
I understand that your masters don't like it you avoid this very simple question again and again........or maybe they command you to avoid an impossible answer......
Stop being a total idiot! I have no masters (in that sense) and I have not avoided the question.

Who commands you to ignore the proven reasons that you have been given? I guess it's nothing but you total paranoic NASAphobia.
And even if you did totally discredit NASA you haven't touched the other countries that have sent (unmanned) spacecraft to the moon.

But, no matter how many times I bring up the plain simple fact that discrediting NASA will NOT help your case,
you totally ignore all I say about it!
Talk about having blinkers on!


Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 12, 2017, 05:29:01 PM
Human eyes take several hours to fully adapt to darkness and reach their optimal sensitivity to low light conditions. The quickest gains in vision sensitivity are made in the first few minutes after exposure to darkness. For this reason, many people think that after only a few minutes, their eyes have reached their peak sensitivity. But several hours into darkness exposure, the human eyes continue to adapt and make small gains in sensitivity.
Horse manure,.....i can immidiatly see the stars. i don't have to adapt for hours when going outside to see a full sky of stars. Granted after a while i see even more stars
Contrary to Neil, Buzz and Michael's claims that they could not see any stars on the daylight surface of the moon.

And the rest of your post is more of your irritating attempts to0 muddy the waters.
It doesn't matter how bright the sun is, you gullible puppet.
In the vacuum of space there isn't any atmosphere or molecules to interfere with an astronaut's line of sight in the direction of the stars.
The sun cannot possibly scatter it's brightness in a vacuum,.........no molecules to bounce off.

The only precaution the astronaut has to make is to avoid the direct line of sight with the sun, no matter how bright that sun is.
Ever seen a laserlight ? It becomes visible because it bounces off dust particles, without those particles it wouldn't be visible.
The sun cannot interfere with the starlight, because around the sun there is the largest vacuum imaginable.

Boy you are really stu.....never mind.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 12, 2017, 05:35:50 PM
Of course a vacuum can not obscure light from hitting your eyes.

It is a vacuum... it blocks absolutely nothing.

Now, the eyes of the astronaut will be inside his pressure suit of course, and thus not in a vacuum environment. (Yes the Apollo EVA suit consist of multiple parts, not just one layer.)
Thanks we are getting somewhere !

Does the suit of an astromaut prevents the astronaut from seeing any stars at all from the daylight side of the moon ?
And why does he have to adapt to the circomstances considering he is surrounded by the biggest vacuum imaginable ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 12, 2017, 05:44:05 PM
I am still waiting for an answer, not secondary info.

The question is really simple :

If a person standing on the moon would look upwards to the sky, is there anything in between the direct line of sight and the incoming starlight that somehow obscures the bright starlight ?
I am not asking if they could lean backwards enough or that they had ground camera's pointed to the skies....
I am asking if in the vacuum of space any reflection or other light scattering could occur and somehow obscure the incoming starlight.

I want a scientific explaination how there could possibly be any interaction between light and the absense of any atmosphere/molecules to reflect upon.
The lightsource (star) should shine it's light in the eye of the observer without anything that could possibly obscure the line of sight, because...again there is no atmosphere, no molecules !!!

Is this correct ? If not explain how the vacuum of space has certain properties  that obscures incoming rays from a direct source of light, so that it can obscure the lightsource
Then we talk about the rest.
First we are going to establish the properties of a vacuum in between an observer and a direct lightsource (star)

Remember we dont look at the rigolet, mountains....we look directly towards the vacuum and stars !
Since it's obvious that no one ever went to the moon, there is no way to verify the answer.  Wouldn't you agree?
No, i don't consider myself that important. ''Because i cannot go to the moon, no one can'' is never an option for me.

When i discover huge amounts of anomalies in the official storyline and a several important motives to fake it all, then it becomes clear that no one has gone to the moon and back in the late sixties and early seventies.

What i find really disturbing is that the discussion is so loaded.
So could you please answer my questions markjo ? You know....about scattered light and reflected light in between the observer, the vacuum and the lightsource ?
Can the vacuum obscure the light coming into your eyes ?
But you haven't discovered huge amounts of anomalies.  You have basically found one guy who has never been  saying that under ideal conditions it should be this and guy who has been, not under ideal conditions said I experienced this.
No anomaly at all
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 12, 2017, 06:06:09 PM
Human eyes take several hours to fully adapt to darkness and reach their optimal sensitivity to low light conditions. The quickest gains in vision sensitivity are made in the first few minutes after exposure to darkness. For this reason, many people think that after only a few minutes, their eyes have reached their peak sensitivity. But several hours into darkness exposure, the human eyes continue to adapt and make small gains in sensitivity.
Horse manure,.....i can immidiatly see the stars. i don't have to adapt for hours when going outside to see a full sky of stars. Granted after a while i see even more stars
You have never, ever had to make the transition from full sunlight with its 100,000 lux intensity to starlight with its 0.0002 lux intesity.
On top of that, in the helmet there is simply no way to avoid all stray light
- you check that out for yourself next you are in Neil Armstrong's boots and space-suit.

The biggest transition you might have made is from a lighted indoor illumination of maybe 100 to 400 lux (< 1000 sunlight) to the night sky.

So stop being so pigheaded and accept the facts. So, I repeat:
Who commands you to ignore the proven reasons that you have been given? I guess it's nothing but your total paranoic NASAphobia.
And even if you did totally discredit NASA you haven't touched the other countries that have sent (unmanned) spacecraft to the moon.

But, no matter how many times I bring up the plain simple fact that discrediting NASA will NOT help your case,
you totally ignore all I say about it!
Talk about having blinkers on!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 12, 2017, 06:34:52 PM
Does the suit of an astromaut prevents the astronaut from seeing any stars at all from the daylight side of the moon ?
I don't know! But, I can see plenty of chance for glare to reflect from parts of the helmet and faceplate.
Quote from: dutchy
And why does he have to adapt to the circomstances considering he is surrounded by the biggest vacuum imaginable ?
The vacuum itself has little to do with the case! The environment on the moon is extremely bright, brighter than the noon-day sun.
So the astronaut certainly would have to adapt from the bright lunar surface to the very low intensity starlight,
though I doubt that stray light would allow good adaptation anyway.
But, as I have said many times (twice is always), neither you nor I have been there, nor in any similar situation .

Run off and ask some expert on this matter, though you might ask yourself why night lookouts on ships can be expected to take up to 20 minutes to adapt.

You might read Night-time Lookout Duty: The Role of Ambient Light Levels and Dark Adaptation (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259425341_Night-time_Lookout_Duty_The_Role_of_Ambient_Light_Levels_and_Dark_Adaptation)
Unless you think that they too are part of this dastardly NASA conpiracy all out to hide the truth fro poor, poor dutchy!

But, whatever you prove, the Heliocentric Globe just keeps orbiting good old Sol.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 12, 2017, 10:02:32 PM
Human eyes take several hours to fully adapt to darkness and reach their optimal sensitivity to low light conditions. The quickest gains in vision sensitivity are made in the first few minutes after exposure to darkness. For this reason, many people think that after only a few minutes, their eyes have reached their peak sensitivity. But several hours into darkness exposure, the human eyes continue to adapt and make small gains in sensitivity.
Horse manure,.....i can immidiatly see the stars. i don't have to adapt for hours when going outside to see a full sky of stars. Granted after a while i see even more stars

In the space of two short sentences you contradict yourself. Read what Rabinoz actually posted.

Quote
Contrary to Neil, Buzz and Michael's claims that they could not see any stars on the daylight surface of the moon.

Collins did not go to the lunar surface. Aldrin saw stars through the optics. That means he saw stars on the lunar surface.

Quote
And the rest of your post is more of your irritating attempts to0 muddy the waters.
It doesn't matter how bright the sun is, you gullible puppet.

Yes it does.

Quote
In the vacuum of space there isn't any atmosphere or molecules to interfere with an astronaut's line of sight in the direction of the stars.

And there is also no atmosphere to interfere with light reflecting from the lunar surface, or bouncing off their suit, their helmet, their lunar module.

Quote
The sun cannot possibly scatter it's brightness in a vacuum,.........no molecules to bounce off.

Which means it's very bright light, and bright light is what makes your eyes take time to adjust to seeing stars.

Quote
The only precaution the astronaut has to make is to avoid the direct line of sight with the sun, no matter how bright that sun is.

And the indirect light from the surface. Ever looked at the moon through a telescope? It can hurt your eyes if you don't use a filter.

Quote
Ever seen a laserlight ? It becomes visible because it bounces off dust particles, without those particles it wouldn't be visible.

And it becomes visible when it hits an object, like your eye. Just like ordinary light is visible when it hits an object.

Quote
The sun cannot interfere with the starlight, because around the sun there is the largest vacuum imaginable.

It's also the brightest light source imaginable around here, which means it can interfere with your ability to see starlight. If you can't see stars in the vicinity of the moon from Earth what makes you think it would be easy to spot them when you're on it, or when there is a sun in the sky, when you have a visor on?

Get your head round it: Tyson's theoretical observation that stars would be present in the lunar sky is not the same as every person in every circumstance would be able to see them. Take the big light sources away and it is not so difficult, as recorded by many many astronauts.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Sentinel on August 12, 2017, 11:29:27 PM
Your animation shows a fixed globe.
No, the globe is fixed there in reference of both the Sun and the Moons shadow to show the combined movement. Didn't you notice the terminator line moving constantly?
Quote
When you look at the original blue marble it only shows Africa and a bit of Europe.
South America and Australia are crammed into the last visible part of the globe.
Once you start to turn the globe, (the blue marble as reference) South America covers a lot of ground only after turning the globe a bit.
It means that any shadow from the sides cannot match the angular speed of the globe.
Again: Angular speed is irrelevant here since the transversal trajectory of the Moons shadow is linear, hence you have to look at the projected transversal speed of a point on a revolving Earth. I showed that in my second animation where you can see it as the blue dot shows zero velocity when being perpendicular to reference point straight up.
Quote
Your animation is full of bullshit because it fails to show the most important part,.....  the relative motion of the globe on the sides that are obscured but are there ( blue marble as reference where it seems some continents are on the othe side, but are crammed together at the sides)
The relative motion on the side is greater than the speed of the shadow when moving upward and the shadow is much faster when it is near the end of the eclips.

So either show me an animation from the perspective of someone standing on the side ( boat in the pacific) of the spinning globe at the start of the eclips where i can see why the speed of the umbra is faster than the uphill motion of the earth at that specific position.
See above, both animations disprove your claim about the relative motion on the side of the globe being faster than the Moons shadow, in fact the shadow is much faster as the projected trajectory for a point on the globe is very slow on the sides of the globe. If you can't see that I don't know what else to say tbh.
Quote
'Dishonest liar ?'
Either that, or you're just lacking the intellect to grasp the concept of it all. It's been shown and explained to you now, so what should it be?

Why I'm not even surprised he won't answer?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 02:26:00 AM
I don't know! But, I can see plenty of chance for glare to reflect from parts of the helmet and faceplate.
You don't know, you don't know ??
According to Neil Armstrong they couldn't see the stars on the daylight surface of the moon at any given time without looking through optics.
Not after a minute, not after hours !
They were never ( you understand the word never do you ?) able to see stars on the daylight surface of the moon without using optics.
This was said twice in different interviews after an interviewer specifically asked about GAZING UPWARDS.
So your miracle wonder suit and visor prevents the Apollo liars from seeing any stars in the vaccuum, not even after their eyes could have adjusted to the new situation !!!!!
They were never able to see stars without optics .....NEVER !!!!!
Also Neill deGrasse Tyson claims a person standing on the moon would indeed see the stars without optics just like during the night on earth !!!!!!!!!!
Quote
The vacuum itself has little to do with the case! The environment on the moon is extremely bright, brighter than the noon-day sun.
So the astronaut certainly would have to adapt from the bright lunar surface to the very low intensity starlight,
though I doubt that stray light would allow good adaptation anyway.
But, as I have said many times (twice is always), neither you nor I have been there, nor in any similar situation .

Run off and ask some expert on this matter, though you might ask yourself why night lookouts on ships can be expected to take up to 20 minutes to adapt.

You might read Night-time Lookout Duty: The Role of Ambient Light Levels and Dark Adaptation (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259425341_Night-time_Lookout_Duty_The_Role_of_Ambient_Light_Levels_and_Dark_Adaptation)
Unless you think that they too are part of this dastardly NASA conpiracy all out to hide the truth fro poor, poor dutchy!

But, whatever you prove, the Heliocentric Globe just keeps orbiting good old Sol.
My o my, don't discuss matters when you obviously have no clue whatsoever.
When gazing upwards to the sky on the daylight surface on the moon, no glare, no scattering, no reflection can get in between the line of sight, the vacuum and the lightsource ( star)
Because there are no molecules to bounce off and so the astronaut can freely observe the bright stars.
Unless somehow a miracle suit prevents him and blocks out all the starlight when gazing upwards.
You do know that is the dumbest repair answer ever ?
And Neil de Grasse Tyson surely could have thought about that and say , "despite that you can see the stars clearly from the daylight side of the moon, a magicall suit and bright surface prevents an astronaut from noticing any stars without the use of optics".
Neil deGrasse Tyson however does not !!!

Apollo fanboys are so predictable, they change the very nature of physics when it comes to their precious moon landings.
You really still don't get the properties of your hypothetical vacuum don't you.

You will post another graphic i presume ? ::)
And of course your buddy , the mediocre guitar player will come to your rescue when his boss looks the other way  8)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 13, 2017, 03:16:44 AM
I don't know! But, I can see plenty of chance for glare to reflect from parts of the helmet and faceplate.
You don't know, you don't know ??
According to Neil Armstrong they couldn't see the stars on the daylight surface of the moon at any given time without looking through optics.
Not after a minute, not after hours !
They were never ( you understand the word never do you ?) able to see stars on the daylight surface of the moon without using optics.
This was said twice in different interviews after an interviewer specifically asked about GAZING UPWARDS.
So your miracle wonder suit and visor prevents the Apollo liars from seeing any stars in the vaccuum, not even after their eyes could have adjusted to the new situation !!!!!
They were never able to see stars without optics .....NEVER !!!!!
There is never any suggestion that Neil Armstrong ever took the time for his eyes to adapt, so how could he ever see stars.
The simple fact is that with all the ambient light around, unless special precautions were taken his eyes would never adapt.
You do, I hope understand the significance of never?

So, I see nothing at all wrong with Neil Armstrong''s claiming thst "they couldn't see the stars on the daylight surface of the moon at any given time without looking through optics."
And I imagine the words "Not after a minute, not after hours!" are just your fabrication, because there is no way that those astronauts would waste 20 minutes, let alone hours for that.

And "GAZING UPWARDS"would not help in the slightest, unless he gazed upwards
          in a location where no direct or reflected sunlight could enter his visor
          for long enough for his eyes would take to adapt.
Why would they waste time doing that, just to see the stars that they knew full were there anyway?

But I do realise that you would never be convinced because it would totally destroy the fictional flat earth model you believe in with a religious fervour!

But, why do you keep ignoring all the other nations with space agencies? NASA wasn't the first to launch a satellite, nor the first to "put a man into space", so:
What  about the 11 other countries that have launched their own satellites, including numerous (unmanned) lunar missions by Russia and a few by other countries.
Nor much to say about the 60 (if I remember correctly) countries with their own TV, communications and weather satellites.

NASA is the least of your worries it you want to disprove the possibility of space exploration and usage.

But you just keep you NASAphobic protective glasses clamped on tight least you get contaminated by this terrible Heliocentric Globe.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 03:40:58 AM
I don't know! But, I can see plenty of chance for glare to reflect from parts of the helmet and faceplate.
You don't know, you don't know ??
According to Neil Armstrong they couldn't see the stars on the daylight surface of the moon at any given time without looking through optics.
Not after a minute, not after hours !
They were never ( you understand the word never do you ?) able to see stars on the daylight surface of the moon without using optics.
This was said twice in different interviews after an interviewer specifically asked about GAZING UPWARDS.
So your miracle wonder suit and visor prevents the Apollo liars from seeing any stars in the vaccuum, not even after their eyes could have adjusted to the new situation !!!!!
They were never able to see stars without optics .....NEVER !!!!!
There is never any suggestion that Neil Armstrong ever took the time for his eyes to adapt, so how could he ever see stars.
The simple fact is that with all the ambient light around, unless special precautions were taken his eyes would never adapt.
You do, I hope understand the significance of never?

So, I see nothing at all wrong with Neil Armstrong''s claiming thst "they couldn't see the stars on the daylight surface of the moon at any given time without looking through optics."
And I imagine the words "Not after a minute, not after hours!" are just your fabrication, because there is no way that those astronauts would waste 20 minutes, let alone hours for that.

And "GAZING UPWARDS"would not help in the slightest, unless he gazed upwards
          in a location where no direct or reflected sunlight could enter his visor
          for long enough for his eyes would take to adapt.
Why would they waste time doing that, just to see the stars that they knew full were there anyway?

But I do realise that you would never be convinced because it would totally destroy the fictional flat earth model you believe in with a religious fervour!

But, why do you keep ignoring all the other nations with space agencies? NASA wasn't the first to launch a satellite, nor the first to "put a man into space", so:
What  about the 11 other countries that have launched their own satellites, including numerous (unmanned) lunar missions by Russia and a few by other countries.
Nor much to say about the 60 (if I remember correctly) countries with their own TV, communications and weather satellites.

NASA is the least of your worries it you want to disprove the possibility of space exploration and usage.

But you just keep you NASAphobic protective glasses clamped on tight least you get contaminated by this terrible Heliocentric Globe.
Wow that was a very weak reply by your standards.
The cracks are clearly showing, you cannot explain why they couldn't see stars contrary to Neil de Grasse Tyson' claims.
The only weak explaination is than it would have been a waste of time to look upwards.
Playing golf, taking lots of photographs from a chauvinistic flag, LM and all other time consuming stuff was more important ?
Any real person looks to the skies when he is on the moon, no matter how important the flag, golf and a jolly good rover ride seems to be by comparison.
And that is what astronauts claim......  what struck them the most was seeing earth in the sky. I bed they were drawn like a magnet to that blue marble in the sky. Of course they would have seen the stars without optics.
If only Neil , Buzz  would have thought it through better, before claiming they could never see the stars on the daylight side of the moon without looking through the optics.

I am sure Ed Mitchell has a different point of view, he saw the stars in cislunar space without optics ten times as bright !
Something Neil and the boys were never able to see. They hardly saw any stars, even with the use of optics !

Give it up, every critical thinker understands that Neil and Buzz and the other frauds never went to 'ze moon'.
And when you finally humble yourself to that reality , we can talk about the direct implications for the shape of our earth.
Nothing personal though..... 
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 03:46:49 AM
I don't know! But, I can see plenty of chance for glare to reflect from parts of the helmet and faceplate.
You don't know, you don't know ??
According to Neil Armstrong they couldn't see the stars on the daylight surface of the moon at any given time without looking through optics.
Not after a minute, not after hours !
They were never ( you understand the word never do you ?) able to see stars on the daylight surface of the moon without using optics.
This was said twice in different interviews after an interviewer specifically asked about GAZING UPWARDS.
So your miracle wonder suit and visor prevents the Apollo liars from seeing any stars in the vaccuum, not even after their eyes could have adjusted to the new situation !!!!!
They were never able to see stars without optics .....NEVER !!!!!
There is never any suggestion that Neil Armstrong ever took the time for his eyes to adapt, so how could he ever see stars.
The simple fact is that with all the ambient light around, unless special precautions were taken his eyes would never adapt.
You do, I hope understand the significance of never?

So, I see nothing at all wrong with Neil Armstrong''s claiming thst "they couldn't see the stars on the daylight surface of the moon at any given time without looking through optics."
And I imagine the words "Not after a minute, not after hours!" are just your fabrication, because there is no way that those astronauts would waste 20 minutes, let alone hours for that.

And "GAZING UPWARDS"would not help in the slightest, unless he gazed upwards
          in a location where no direct or reflected sunlight could enter his visor
          for long enough for his eyes would take to adapt.
Why would they waste time doing that, just to see the stars that they knew full were there anyway?

But I do realise that you would never be convinced because it would totally destroy the fictional flat earth model you believe in with a religious fervour!

But, why do you keep ignoring all the other nations with space agencies? NASA wasn't the first to launch a satellite, nor the first to "put a man into space", so:
What  about the 11 other countries that have launched their own satellites, including numerous (unmanned) lunar missions by Russia and a few by other countries.
Nor much to say about the 60 (if I remember correctly) countries with their own TV, communications and weather satellites.

NASA is the least of your worries it you want to disprove the possibility of space exploration and usage.

But you just keep you NASAphobic protective glasses clamped on tight least you get contaminated by this terrible Heliocentric Globe.


WTF are you talking about Geoff?

In all the silly fake Munn landinkz film the sky is black & teh munn a dingy grey colour...

Not much 'ambient light' at all.

You also seem to be claiming that humans are incapable of Lying with your shpayze ajenssys bollocks...

And if you are I suggest you are Lying.

Why are you Lying about Lying, Geoff?

Is it all just second nature to you after so long?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 13, 2017, 04:53:37 AM

Wow that was a very weak reply by your standards.
The cracks are clearly showing, you cannot explain why they couldn't see stars contrary to Neil de Grasse Tyson' claims.
The only weak explaination is than it would have been a waste of time to look upwards.

Nobody said that.

Quote
Playing golf, taking lots of photographs from a chauvinistic flag, LM and all other time consuming stuff was more important ?
Any real person looks to the skies when he is on the moon, no matter how important the flag, golf and a jolly good rover ride seems to be by comparison.
And that is what astronauts claim......  what struck them the most was seeing earth in the sky. I bed they were drawn like a magnet to that blue marble in the sky. Of course they would have seen the stars without optics.

They did look up. If they hadn't they wouldn't have seen Earth. Or photographed it.

Quote
If only Neil , Buzz  would have thought it through better, before claiming they could never see the stars on the daylight side of the moon without looking through the optics.

I am sure Ed Mitchell has a different point of view, he saw the stars in cislunar space without optics ten times as bright !
Something Neil and the boys were never able to see. They hardly saw any stars, even with the use of optics !

From the lunar surface. I guess the ones who said they saw the stars in cislunar space were telling the truth though right? Which would be all of them. All the Apollo astronauts saw stars in cislunar space, including Apollo 11.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 05:29:35 AM
*Mad lies snipped*

Your time would be better spent practicing your appallingly sloppy guitar technique than harassing & lying to strangers on the internet for no reason whatsoever...

Buy a metronome & start with chords, scales & arpeggios.

Dutchy could probably offer you further advice, should you wish it...

Just my two cents.
Very good advise about chords, scales & arpeggios !!  Then try to play rhytm guitar and make sure you learn the aspects of strumming. Learn to move your hand up and down even when you don't hit the strings during a particular groove.
It's called 'ghost note strumming' and it seperates the amature from the pro who can follow the beat no matter what because his strumming skills are dead on.

And never, never join a cover band that tries to cover the greatest rock, country and pop hits when you can't remotely reproduce the guitar solo's.
A common mistake, because some solo's seem easy for the casual ear, but are way more difficult to execute perfectly.
Results ? Just another guy that thinks he can play the guitar, but embarasses himself, the band and the listener.
Simply have 'your fun' in another way in a private setting instead of performing in front of an audience.

I hope they take some advice, but i won't count on it, because the illiterate over here defend a live performance between the guitar hero over at the ISS and band earth+choir.
They feel no shame whatsoever to defend this impossible event, without being hindered by musical skills and knowledge about acoustic phenomena and studio recording.

Someone told them they have to believe they are experts in every thinkable field,.........
I have no other explaination for their willfull display of arrogance in each and every topic ever presented at the flatearth forums.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 13, 2017, 05:29:35 AM
In all the silly fake Munn landinkz film the sky is black & teh munn a dingy grey colour...

Not much 'ambient light' at all.
What would a Haitian Voodoo Priest know? Stick to casting spells and fiddling with chicken's bones.

I might ask just why the exposure needed when taking a photo of the moon is roughly the same as for a sunlit scene on earth.
But a Haitian Voodoo Priest wouldn't know which end of the camera to point at the moon anyway and would break the lens by looking into it.


Quote from: Papa Legba
You also seem to be claiming that humans are incapable of Lying with your shpayze ajenssys bollocks...
I don't know much about lying humans, but I know you Voodoo Priests wouldn't hesitate if it meant another victim.
Papa Legba!
Papa Legba open the gate for me.
Antibon Legba please open the gate.
Legba open the gate for me and I will thank
the lwa when I return.
(https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12464335_f1024.jpg)
Stop infecting this place and run off back to Haiti where you belong!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 13, 2017, 05:35:00 AM
Of course a vacuum can not obscure light from hitting your eyes.

It is a vacuum... it blocks absolutely nothing.

Now, the eyes of the astronaut will be inside his pressure suit of course, and thus not in a vacuum environment. (Yes the Apollo EVA suit consist of multiple parts, not just one layer.)
Thanks we are getting somewhere !

Does the suit of an astromaut prevents the astronaut from seeing any stars at all from the daylight side of the moon ?
And why does he have to adapt to the circomstances considering he is surrounded by the biggest vacuum imaginable ?
it could depending on which visor they brought down.
The golden visor blocks a lot of light, glare and reflections. It was meant so astronauts could see the bright lunar surface without their eyes hurting and becoming tired. They could lift the golden visor but then they would get lots of reflection from the sun and lunar surface.

However long you need to stare straight at the sky to adapt for the stars, they didn't do it in Apollo 11. They were always busy doing something, didn't have the time to wait for stars to show up.

They did look up the the Earth though, and said it was a wonderful sight.

The sky is black, aside from planets, the sun and stars.
The lunar surface and man-made objects are all very bright.
When your eyes adapt to the lunar surface, they are adapted to the bright light.
And of course, there still is the SUN, which is more bright on the Moon because it is not lessened by Earth atmosphere.

I already showed you a photo of all the flaps on later Apollo suits, to show how much shielding they needed to keep glare, reflections and unwanted light at a minimum.

Also, are you saying NASA can't have astronauts say they saw stars, but CAN fake stars in photographs? (Yes those were taken in the Apollo program.)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 05:41:10 AM
The films of the silly fake Munn misshuns show that the surface is not bright at all...

Please stop lying about this.

*Mad lies snipped*

Your time would be better spent practicing your appallingly sloppy guitar technique than harassing & lying to strangers on the internet for no reason whatsoever...

Buy a metronome & start with chords, scales & arpeggios.

Dutchy could probably offer you further advice, should you wish it...

Just my two cents.
Very good advise about chords, scales & arpeggios !!  Then try to play rhytm guitar and make sure you learn the aspects of strumming. Learn to hit the strings up and down even when you don't hit the strings during a particular groove.
It's called a 'ghost note strumming' and it seperates the amature from the pro who can follow the beat no matter what because his strumming skills are dead on.

And never, never join a cover band that tries to cover the greatest rock, country and pop hits when you can't remotely reproduce the guitar solo's.
A common mistake, because some solo's seem easy for the casual ear, but are way more difficult to execute perfectly.
Results ? Just another guy that thinks he can play the guitar, but embarasses himself, the band and the listener.
Simply have 'your fun' in another way in a private setting instead of performing in front of an audience.

I hope they take some advice, but i won't count on it, because the illiterate over here defend a live performance between the guitar hero over at the ISS and band earth+choir.
They feel no shame whatsoever to defend this impossible event, without being hindered by musical skills and knowledge about acoustic phenomena and studio recording.

Someone told them they have to believe they are experst in every thinkable field,.........
I have no other explaination for their willfull display of arrogance in each and every topic ever presented at the flatearth forums.


Yes,  your analysis of the ISS live show was absolutely spot on - good work.

And it's very decent of you to offer Paul White advice on improving his atrocious technique too; he really should learn from your gracious manner.

As you can see, rabinoz is currently going berserk; it's best to ignore him when he gets like this, it's way past his bedtime & he'll be on his 3rd bottle of gin by now...

Nice talking to you anyway!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 13, 2017, 06:00:39 AM
Not bright?

(https://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/collections/full/A19980007000d1.JPG)

Lets see:
The film used on Apollo 11 eva was 160 ASA.
In sun: 1/250, f/11

With asa 160, 1/250, f/11 that is pretty god damn bright. That would be a desert in full sun on Earth.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 06:08:39 AM
The desert would have a blue sky.

Teh Munn allegedly has a black sky.

So why are you comparing them?

Are you mental?

If so, why?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 13, 2017, 06:16:32 AM
I am comparing them because both surfaces are bright.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 06:18:18 AM

Yes,  your analysis of the ISS live show was absolutely spot on - good work.
Thanks ! althaugh it was nothing special, anyone with half a brain understands why they tried to pull of a little marketing scam involving some accoustic science fiction.
Quote
And it's very decent of you to offer Paul White advice on improving his atrocious technique too; he really should learn from your gracious manner.
Nah,.... they even openly doubted if i knew anything at all about music related stuff..... as if i was quickly copy paisting fancy jargon from the www.
I guess it is exactly how they keep up their appearences over here...
Any expert can clearly see that i know what i am talking about, but not over here.
Anything to defend their fake space and other fantasies.
Quote
As you can see, rabinoz is currently going berserk; it's best to ignore him when he gets like this, it's way past his bedtime & he'll be on his 3rd bottle of gin by now...
:D ;D ;D
I never understood why he is participating over here. He says he does it outta love for the scientific truth,....   so that secret readers of this forum engage with the universally known truth that goes back all the way to the ancient Greeks.  ::)
I say he has all the signs of a payed shill, but he doesn't seem to like that particular suggestion.
Quote
Nice talking to you anyway!
Thanks, the feeling is mutual !!
You should participate more, because they seem to fear you which is a good token !
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 11:08:34 AM

Yes,  your analysis of the ISS live show was absolutely spot on - good work.
Thanks ! althaugh it was nothing special, anyone with half a brain understands why they tried to pull of a little marketing scam involving some accoustic science fiction.
Quote
And it's very decent of you to offer Paul White advice on improving his atrocious technique too; he really should learn from your gracious manner.
Nah,.... they even openly doubted if i knew anything at all about music related stuff..... as if i was quickly copy paisting fancy jargon from the www.
I guess it is exactly how they keep up their appearences over here...
Any expert can clearly see that i know what i am talking about, but not over here.
Anything to defend their fake space and other fantasies.
Quote
As you can see, rabinoz is currently going berserk; it's best to ignore him when he gets like this, it's way past his bedtime & he'll be on his 3rd bottle of gin by now...
:D ;D ;D
I never understood why he is participating over here. He says he does it outta love for the scientific truth,....   so that secret readers of this forum engage with the universally known truth that goes back all the way to the ancient Greeks.  ::)e
I say he has all the signs of a payed shill, but he doesn't seem to like that particular suggestion.
Quote
Nice talking to you anyway!
Thanks, the feeling is mutual !!
You should participate more, because they seem to fear you which is a good token !

Check out the 'OK Go upside down & inside out' video on YouTube - you will fucking love it.

Can't post a link cuz I'm on a shitty tablet.

Wait til you see how much better it is than the absolute garbage NASA serve up from their shitty fake ISS...

NASA are such talentless bastards!

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 11:13:21 AM
Of course a vacuum can not obscure light from hitting your eyes.

It is a vacuum... it blocks absolutely nothing.

Now, the eyes of the astronaut will be inside his pressure suit of course, and thus not in a vacuum environment. (Yes the Apollo EVA suit consist of multiple parts, not just one layer.)
Thanks we are getting somewhere !

Does the suit of an astromaut prevents the astronaut from seeing any stars at all from the daylight side of the moon ?
And why does he have to adapt to the circomstances considering he is surrounded by the biggest vacuum imaginable ?
it could depending on which visor they brought down.
The golden visor blocks a lot of light, glare and reflections. It was meant so astronauts could see the bright lunar surface without their eyes hurting and becoming tired. They could lift the golden visor but then they would get lots of reflection from the sun and lunar surface.

However long you need to stare straight at the sky to adapt for the stars, they didn't do it in Apollo 11. They were always busy doing something, didn't have the time to wait for stars to show up.

They did look up the the Earth though, and said it was a wonderful sight.

The sky is black, aside from planets, the sun and stars.
The lunar surface and man-made objects are all very bright.
When your eyes adapt to the lunar surface, they are adapted to the bright light.
And of course, there still is the SUN, which is more bright on the Moon because it is not lessened by Earth atmosphere.

I already showed you a photo of all the flaps on later Apollo suits, to show how much shielding they needed to keep glare, reflections and unwanted light at a minimum.

Also, are you saying NASA can't have astronauts say they saw stars, but CAN fake stars in photographs? (Yes those were taken in the Apollo program.)
No no no
Neil deGrasse Tyson says :
SINCE THE MOON HAS NO ATMOSPHERE, ...IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D SEE A FULL NIGHT, NIGHT SKY OF STARS EVEN WITH THE SUN IN THE SKY AS WELL.

You give all sorts of excuses as to why the quote of Neil is false when men are indeed on the moon.
Do i have to adapt at night to see a full sky of stars ? no
Does earth surface prevent me from seeing the stars at night ? no
Do i need special vizors to see the stars at night ? no
Do i need to adjust to get a glimps of the stars at night ? no

Neil says : IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D SEE A FULL NIGHT, NIGHT SKY OF STARS EVEN WITH THE SUN IN THE SKY AS WELL.

Neil doesn't say  :IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D COULD SEE THE STARS EVENTUALLY, AFTER YOUR EYES ADAPT FOR SOME TIME AND WHEN YOU PUT YOUR GOLDEN VIZORS ON TO BLOCK GLARE , LIGHT AND REFLECTIONS

BECAUSE THAT WOULDN'T BE JUST LIKE ON EARTH DURING THE NIGHT NOW WOULD IT ?


Besides that Neil deGrasse Tyson has given this a lot of thought i presume...as expert and all......
All your excuses are elements that would indeed make Neil deGrasse Tyson's claims stupid, because there would not be any circomstances on the moon similar to a night sky on earth full of stars for the observer.
But sorry for you,....that is exactly what Neil DOES claim, contrary to what you claim.

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 11:27:21 AM
Check out the 'OK Go upside down & inside out' video on YouTube - you will fucking love it.

Can't post a link cuz I'm on a shitty tablet.

Wait til you see how much better it is than the absolute garbage NASA serve up from their shitty fake ISS...

NASA are such talentless bastards!
Thanks, i found it !!
(http://)
That was indeed really funny and a total mockery towards the ISS and there micro gravity environment  ;D ;D ;D ;D

I always have to clean my eyes when Rabinoz presents another cartoon from NASA like ''darkside of the moon crossing earth'', or ''umbra traveling over earth'', because it looks so extremely fake, but they think it is a spot on presentation of reality.Of course they mock me as if i only can say ''it looks kinda fake''
But i am sincerely worried for mankind.
I think it has to do with the overall degeneration of the senses by the modern virtual reality that people prefer over the real world more and more.
The abilities to discern live music and visible reality from studio recordings and CGI seems to become harder and harder for those that are part of the ''matrix''.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 11:31:47 AM
Look at what talented people can do on a zero-g plane:



Compare it to NASA's witless garbage & weep.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: MicroBeta on August 13, 2017, 11:37:26 AM
Look at what talented people can do on a zero-g plane:



Compare it to NASA's witless garbage & weep.
Neat video but it doesn't prove or disprove a thing.

Mike
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 13, 2017, 11:41:30 AM
Of course a vacuum can not obscure light from hitting your eyes.

It is a vacuum... it blocks absolutely nothing.

Now, the eyes of the astronaut will be inside his pressure suit of course, and thus not in a vacuum environment. (Yes the Apollo EVA suit consist of multiple parts, not just one layer.)
Thanks we are getting somewhere !

Does the suit of an astromaut prevents the astronaut from seeing any stars at all from the daylight side of the moon ?
And why does he have to adapt to the circomstances considering he is surrounded by the biggest vacuum imaginable ?
it could depending on which visor they brought down.
The golden visor blocks a lot of light, glare and reflections. It was meant so astronauts could see the bright lunar surface without their eyes hurting and becoming tired. They could lift the golden visor but then they would get lots of reflection from the sun and lunar surface.

However long you need to stare straight at the sky to adapt for the stars, they didn't do it in Apollo 11. They were always busy doing something, didn't have the time to wait for stars to show up.

They did look up the the Earth though, and said it was a wonderful sight.

The sky is black, aside from planets, the sun and stars.
The lunar surface and man-made objects are all very bright.
When your eyes adapt to the lunar surface, they are adapted to the bright light.
And of course, there still is the SUN, which is more bright on the Moon because it is not lessened by Earth atmosphere.

I already showed you a photo of all the flaps on later Apollo suits, to show how much shielding they needed to keep glare, reflections and unwanted light at a minimum.

Also, are you saying NASA can't have astronauts say they saw stars, but CAN fake stars in photographs? (Yes those were taken in the Apollo program.)
No no no
Neil deGrasse Tyson says :
SINCE THE MOON HAS NO ATMOSPHERE, ...IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D SEE A FULL NIGHT, NIGHT SKY OF STARS EVEN WITH THE SUN IN THE SKY AS WELL.

You give all sorts of excuses as to why the quote of Neil is false when men are indeed on the moon.
Do i have to addept at night to see a full sky of stars ? no
Does earth surface prevent me from seeing the stars at night ? no
Do i need special vizors to see the stars at night ? no
Do i need to adjust to get a glimps of the stars at night ? no

Neil says : IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D SEE A FULL NIGHT, NIGHT SKY OF STARS EVEN WITH THE SUN IN THE SKY AS WELL.

Neil doesn't say  :IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D COULD SEE THE STARS EVENTUALLY, AFTER YOUR EYES ADAPT FOR SOME TIME AND WHEN YOU PUT YOUR GOLDEN VIZORS ON TO BLOCK GLARE , LIGHT AND REFLECTIONS

BECAUSE THAT WOULDN'T BE JUST LIKE ON EARTH DURING THE NIGHT NOW WOULD IT ?


Besides that Neil deGrasse Tyson has given this a lot of thought i presume...as expert and all......
All your excuses are elements that would indeed make Neil deGrasse Tyson's claims stupid, because there would not be any circomstances on the moon similar to a night sky on earth full of stars for the observer.
But sorry for you,....that is exactly what Neil DOES claim, contrary to what you claim.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong. He forgets that the lunar surface is bright and the sun can reflect into the visor assembly.

"Do i have to addept at night to see a full sky of stars ? no"
Is the surface of Earth at night as bright as a desert with sun? no, so that is not a good comparison.

Does earth surface prevent me from seeing the stars at night ? no"
I never said the surface of Earth prevents you from seeing stars.
Moon surface =/= Earth surface

"Do i need special vizors to see the stars at night ? no"
Did I ever tell you need a special visors to see stars? no. I said that the golden visors on the suits were used to dim light and lessen reflections and glare. Stars would be easier to see when you pull the golden visor up compared to when it is down. Sorry I didn't make that clear enough, thought I did.

"Do i need to adjust to get a glimps of the stars at night ? no"
Is the surface of Earth at night as bright as a desert under full sun? no. so that is not a good comparison.

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/2128/how-long-do-your-eyes-need-to-adapt-to-darkness-and-reach-full-contrast
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 13, 2017, 11:50:14 AM
And here is how they did that:

http://okgo.net/2016/02/11/upside-down-inside-out-faq/

Notice it took a lot of training by the people who train cosmonauts to go to the ISS to learn their stunts. Notice how it took 45 minutes and some video trickery to get 3 minutes of video, and how many people were involved.

Now if you want to explain how you can get hours of live broadcast from the ISS using endless parabolic flights edited together in a studio then you just go right ahead.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 11:56:42 AM
Check out the 'OK Go upside down & inside out' video on YouTube - you will fucking love it.

Can't post a link cuz I'm on a shitty tablet.

Wait til you see how much better it is than the absolute garbage NASA serve up from their shitty fake ISS...

NASA are such talentless bastards!
Thanks, i found it !!
(http://)
That was indeed really funny and a total mockery towards the ISS and there micro gravity environment  ;D ;D ;D ;D

I always have to clean my eyes when Rabinoz presents another cartoon from NASA like ''darkside of the moon crossing earth'', or ''umbra traveling over earth'', because it looks so extremely fake, but they think it is a spot on presentation of reality.Of course they mock me as if i only can say ''it looks kinda fake''
But i am sincerely worried for mankind.
I think it has to do with the overall degeneration of the senses by the modern virtual reality that people prefer over the real world more and more.
The abilities to discern live music and visible reality from studio recordings and CGI seems to become harder and harder for those that are part of the ''matrix''.

Sorry I didn't see this post...

You are absolutely correct about the inability to discern real from fake being drilled into us by virtual reality...

Take the ' Oberth effect' - this is a pseudoscientific formula that cannot be demonstrated in reality but is easily Incorporated into a game such as Kerbal space program...

Fact is that thermodynamics kills all possibility of 'space travel' stone dead, but nobody really learns thermodynamics any more....

They go straight from Galileo & a bastardised version of Newton to the retard Einstein & ignore all science in-between.

They are fucked, frankly.

Oh, & microbeta is a sockpuppet of Paul White: gutless specimen isn't he?

NASA shills are all cowards, in case you haven't noticed...

And here is how they did that:

http://okgo.net/2016/02/11/upside-down-inside-out-faq/

Notice it took a lot of training by the people who train cosmonauts to go to the ISS to learn their stunts. Notice how it took 45 minutes and some video trickery to get 3 minutes of video, and how many people were involved.

Now if you want to explain how you can get hours of live broadcast from the ISS using endless parabolic flights edited together in a studio then you just go right ahead.

There is no 'hours of live broadcast' from the silly fake ISS you fucking retard.

First thing in the morning I'm emailing your employers & reporting you for cyberbullying & harassment.

Plus Islamophobia you racist motherfucker - how do you think that'll go down?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 13, 2017, 11:57:32 AM
Look at what talented people can do on a zero-g plane:



Compare it to NASA's witless garbage & weep.
Notice how they have to hold something, sit down or fall down every 20 seconds because of the zero-g plane diving.

Does live NASA footage have to do that too ever 20 seconds? no.
Was the video made live? no. Is NASA footage live? yes.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 13, 2017, 12:19:50 PM
Look at what talented people can do on a zero-g plane:



Compare it to NASA's witless garbage & weep.
Notice how they have to hold something, sit down or fall down every 20 seconds because of the zero-g plane diving.

Does live NASA footage have to do that too ever 20 seconds? no.
Was the video made live? no. Is NASA footage live? yes.

Well, the NASA clowns are hanging in harnesses, which helps...

And you have fuck all evidence their footage is live too, so it's pretty much fuck off time for you too, ain't it?

Also, anyone wishing to complain about Paul Whites Islamophobia, cyberbullying & harassment can do so here:

https://www.bradford.gov.uk/compliments-and-complaints/council-services/make-a-comment-complaint-or-compliment-about-bradford-council/

His job title is T-projects officer in the department of regeneration and culture at Jacobs Well.

Don't fuck with Legba, motherfuckers, cuz Legba will Fuck
You Up every fucking time!
They can not always be wearing harnesses, because in plenty of videos they travel through the ISS and change orientation all the time.

Also, if they were faking zero-G with harnesses, you would not get floating items and floating water.

Proof it is life? because in some live broadcasts they answer questions asked by people on Earth. And of course people with HAM radios can talk with the ISS and receive SSTV images.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 12:54:22 PM
Sorry I didn't see this post...

You are absolutely correct about the inability to discern real from fake being drilled into us by virtual reality...
Take the ' Oberth effect' - this is a pseudoscientific formula that cannot be demonstrated in reality but is easily Incorporated into a game such as Kerbal space program...
Fact is that thermodynamics kills all possibility of 'space travel' stone dead, but nobody really learns thermodynamics any more....
They go straight from Galileo & a bastardised version of Newton to the retard Einstein & ignore all science in-between.
They are fucked, frankly.

Oh, & microbeta is a sockpuppet of Paul White: gutless specimen isn't he?
NASA shills are all cowards, in case you haven't noticed...
Thanks i will be cautious of this ''Paul White and his sock puppets'' the guitar hero wannabe  ::), the more i am delving into the dungeons of NASA/NAZI propaganda the more sinister it gets over the years.
These people have no human integrity whatsoever. Of course Neil deGrasse Tyson is just an actor clown and somehow i can even laugh about this clown's burger/mike onemanshow.
But the likes of Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell and Don Pettit would all sell their mothers if needed.....they are the worst of the bunch, absolutely no signs of regret or dignity.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 13, 2017, 01:03:45 PM
Everybody look...

Look at the internet badasses!

Just look at them!


OooooOOOOooo....
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: MicroBeta on August 13, 2017, 01:12:25 PM

Sorry I didn't see this post...

You are absolutely correct about the inability to discern real from fake being drilled into us by virtual reality...

Take the ' Oberth effect' - this is a pseudoscientific formula that cannot be demonstrated in reality but is easily Incorporated into a game such as Kerbal space program...

Fact is that thermodynamics kills all possibility of 'space travel' stone dead, but nobody really learns thermodynamics any more....

They go straight from Galileo & a bastardised version of Newton to the retard Einstein & ignore all science in-between.

They are fucked, frankly.

Oh, & microbeta is a sockpuppet of Paul White: gutless specimen isn't he?

NASA shills are all cowards, in case you haven't noticed...

And here is how they did that:

http://okgo.net/2016/02/11/upside-down-inside-out-faq/

Notice it took a lot of training by the people who train cosmonauts to go to the ISS to learn their stunts. Notice how it took 45 minutes and some video trickery to get 3 minutes of video, and how many people were involved.

Now if you want to explain how you can get hours of live broadcast from the ISS using endless parabolic flights edited together in a studio then you just go right ahead.

There is no 'hours of live broadcast' from the silly fake ISS you fucking retard.

First thing in the morning I'm emailing your employers & reporting you for cyberbullying & harassment.

Plus Islamophobia you racist motherfucker - how do you think that'll go down?
Interesting post.  ;D

One question though...who the heck is Paul White?

Mike
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 01:21:07 PM
Everybody look...

Look at the internet badasses!

Just look at them!


OooooOOOOooo....
This is exactly happening.
Read the comments all around the internet below 9/11 videos, moonlanding videos and flatearth videos.

The numbers are growing fast and most people feel they have been betrayed by the authorities and official storylines about the most important events in recent history.
In time you will turn around and humbly offer your sincere apologies towards all you have deliberately mocked and laughed at over here at the flatearth forums.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 01:49:51 PM
Sorry I didn't see this post...

You are absolutely correct about the inability to discern real from fake being drilled into us by virtual reality...
Take the ' Oberth effect' - this is a pseudoscientific formula that cannot be demonstrated in reality but is easily Incorporated into a game such as Kerbal space program...
Fact is that thermodynamics kills all possibility of 'space travel' stone dead, but nobody really learns thermodynamics any more....
They go straight from Galileo & a bastardised version of Newton to the retard Einstein & ignore all science in-between.
They are fucked, frankly.

Oh, & microbeta is a sockpuppet of Paul White: gutless specimen isn't he?
NASA shills are all cowards, in case you haven't noticed...
Thanks i will be cautious of this ''Paul White and his sock puppets'' the guitar hero wannabe  ::), the more i am delving into the dungeons of NASA/NAZI propaganda the more sinister it gets over the years.
These people have no human integrity whatsoever. Of course Neil deGrasse Tyson is just an actor clown and somehow i can even laugh about this clown's burger/mike onemanshow.
But the likes of Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell and Don Pettit would all sell their mothers if needed.....they are the worst of the bunch, absolutely no signs of regret or dignity.

It's not easy working out exactly who runs this forum.

But there's not more than six of em all told, running a sockpuppet army, and Paul White was sloppy enough to let slip his real name which allowed me to track the bastard down.

I genuinely believe most of them are blackmailed paedophiles & would be happy to see them in court if they disagree.

Here is the paedo calling himself rabinoz/rayzor:



Yes, that's him...

Related to Jarrah White I'm sure, who is controlled opposition to the core...

Look:



You have to realize that we're dealing with a tiny group of weirdos, all related, not exceeding maybe 50 or 60 worldwide, all pulling 16 hour shifts a day thought policing the internet...

That's the facts as far as I've been able to work them out.

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 02:01:09 PM
You have to realize that we're dealing with a tiny group of weirdos, all related, not exceeding maybe 50 or 60 worldwide, all pulling 16 hour shifts a day thought policing the internet...

That's the facts as far as I've been able to work them out.
Wow, i have to let it sink in for a while.......
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 02:20:24 PM
You have to realize that we're dealing with a tiny group of weirdos, all related, not exceeding maybe 50 or 60 worldwide, all pulling 16 hour shifts a day thought policing the internet...

That's the facts as far as I've been able to work them out.
Wow, i have to let it sink in for a while.......

This guy has been tracking them for years:

https://m.youtube.com/user/thebadger7

Try getting in touch with him if you want to learn more.

As far as I'm concerned they made this shit personal long ago & it's total war from here on out...

And total war is a thing I was born & bred to wage, sadly for them!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: sokarul on August 13, 2017, 02:36:19 PM
Science always wins.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 13, 2017, 02:56:13 PM
You have to realize that we're dealing with a tiny group of weirdos, all related, not exceeding maybe 50 or 60 worldwide, all pulling 16 hour shifts a day thought policing the internet...

That's the facts as far as I've been able to work them out.
Wow, i have to let it sink in for a while.......

This guy has been tracking them for years:

https://m.youtube.com/user/thebadger7

Try getting in touch with him if you want to learn more.

As far as I'm concerned they made this shit personal long ago & it's total war from here on out...

And total war is a thing I was born & bred to wage, sadly for them!


Oh boy...

You really take this flat Earth bullshit seriously, don't you?

Did the mean roundies hurt your widdle feewings?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 03:03:31 PM
I'm not a flat Earther.

In fact, the one time I posted evidence of visible curvature all you REtard shills went mental and begged to have me banned...

Which told me all I needed to know about this place.

Now fuck off, retard.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 13, 2017, 03:05:53 PM
I'm not a flat Earther.

In fact, the one time I posted evidence of visible curvature all you REtard shills went mental and begged to have me banned...

Which told me all I needed to know about this place.

Now fuck off, retard.

OooooOOOOooo... Such a badass!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 13, 2017, 03:14:11 PM
Sorry I didn't see this post...

You are absolutely correct about the inability to discern real from fake being drilled into us by virtual reality...
Take the ' Oberth effect' - this is a pseudoscientific formula that cannot be demonstrated in reality but is easily Incorporated into a game such as Kerbal space program...
Fact is that thermodynamics kills all possibility of 'space travel' stone dead, but nobody really learns thermodynamics any more....
They go straight from Galileo & a bastardised version of Newton to the retard Einstein & ignore all science in-between.
They are fucked, frankly.

Oh, & microbeta is a sockpuppet of Paul White: gutless specimen isn't he?
NASA shills are all cowards, in case you haven't noticed...
Thanks i will be cautious of this ''Paul White and his sock puppets'' the guitar hero wannabe  ::), the more i am delving into the dungeons of NASA/NAZI propaganda the more sinister it gets over the years.
These people have no human integrity whatsoever. Of course Neil deGrasse Tyson is just an actor clown and somehow i can even laugh about this clown's burger/mike onemanshow.
But the likes of Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell and Don Pettit would all sell their mothers if needed.....they are the worst of the bunch, absolutely no signs of regret or dignity.
And you listen to someone call himself
Papa Legba!
Papa Legba open the gate for me.
Antibon Legba please open the gate.
Legba open the gate for me and I will thank
the lwa when I return.
(https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12464335_f1024.jpg)

PAPA LEGBA
Ah well, it takes all types, but I thought you of all people
would avoid all contact with VooDoo, still anything to prop up your NASAphobia!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 03:20:53 PM
I didn't choose the name Legba, Geoff...

The name chose me.

That's how voodoo works, you jug-eared paedo.

Now let's look at your lying rat face & laugh at your total bullshit, eh?

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 03:28:37 PM
I didn't choose the name Legba, Geoff...

The name chose me.

That's how voodoo works, you jug-eared paedo.

Now let's look at your lying rat face & laugh at your total bullshit, eh?


Rabinoz can you confirm ??,.......because this would be hilarious if true....i am going to laugh for at least the next 24 hours...

And you would loose the last bit of credibilty in my eyes ....of course.
Please tell me you ain't that dude in the video.....that is simply not healthy for anyone !!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: kennykirklan on August 13, 2017, 03:37:26 PM
Well this has livened things up
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 03:51:41 PM
I am literary speechless.......
Rabinoz and Onebigmonky are indeed some frustrated middleaged men that look so ordinary and mediocre in real life compared to their big mouths and presentation online.

Thanks Papa Legba, for giving me such a feeling of joy....i am dealing with several payed shills that's for sure.
I personally had found out (and told so over here) that Astrobrant 2, frenat, Kris deValle and others are around for years commenting on every video and forum related to Apollo and other space fantasies.
Clearly payed shills and they seem to take their job extremely serious.
And both Rabinoz and Jarrah White are from ''down under''.....mmmmmmm

Thanks again !
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: sokarul on August 13, 2017, 04:02:54 PM
I didn't choose the name Legba, Geoff...

The name chose me.

That's how voodoo works, you jug-eared paedo.

Now let's look at your lying rat face & laugh at your total bullshit, eh?


Rabinoz can you confirm ??,.......because this would be hilarious if true....i am going to laugh for at least the next 24 hours...

And you would loose the last bit of credibilty in my eyes ....of course.
Please tell me you ain't that dude in the video.....that is simply not healthy for anyone !!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Confirm what?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 13, 2017, 04:05:21 PM
I didn't choose the name Legba, Geoff...

The name chose me.


Deep stuff.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 04:08:11 PM
Confirm what?
If that dude in the video without any charisma talking about rockets is Rabinoz posting here.
Rabinoz, the ''i know it all'' poster.

You do understand what's so hilarious about that, don't you ? If true of course......''Rabinoz were art thou'' ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 04:13:22 PM
I am literary speechless.......
Rabinoz and Onebigmonky are indeed some frustrated middleaged men that look so ordinary and mediocre in real life compared to their big mouths and presentation online.

Thanks Papa Legba, for giving me such a feeling of joy....i am dealing with several payed shills that's for sure.
I personally had found out (and told so over here) that Astrobrant 2, frenat, Kris deValle and others are around for years commenting on every video and forum related to Apollo and other space fantasies.
Clearly payed shills and they seem to take their job extremely serious.

Thanks again !

Glad to help.

I'd post a video of onebigshitehawks terrible guitar playing too but the fucker removed them from his channel...

Lol!

Here's his shit channel anyway:

https://m.youtube.com/user/LizardOverlord

Note it's full of mad fake Munn landinkz shit that nobody cares about...

Lulz!!!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 04:22:33 PM
Glad to help.

I'd post a video of onebigshitehawks terrible guitar playing too but the fucker removed them from his channel...

Lol!

Here's his shit channel anyway:

https://m.youtube.com/user/LizardOverlord

Note it's full of mad fake Munn landinkz shit that nobody cares about...

Lulz!!!
I know his channel, he wanted me to look into his stuff....,but i missed the guitar playing  ;D, because it was yet another propaganda site full of crap....and i don't examine those anymore.
After reading Clavius for years i simple can't swallow any repair nonsense of the NASA fanboys and their precious articles and sites/blogs.
To discuss things over here is the limit, but going to some NAZI Apollo propaganda is simply to much now.......

Good job giving some insight with whome we are dealing here........Rabinoz  ;D :o ;D :o ;D

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 13, 2017, 05:44:18 PM
Glad to help.

I'd post a video of onebigshitehawks terrible guitar playing too but the fucker removed them from his channel...

Lol!

Here's his shit channel anyway:

https://m.youtube.com/user/LizardOverlord

Note it's full of mad fake Munn landinkz shit that nobody cares about...

Lulz!!!
I know his channel, he wanted me to look into his stuff....,but i missed the guitar playing  ;D, because it was yet another propaganda site full of crap....and i don't examine those anymore.
After reading Clavius for years i simple can't swallow any repair nonsense of the NASA fanboys and their precious articles and sites/blogs.
To discuss things over here is the limit, but going to some NAZI Apollo propaganda is simply to much now.......

Good job giving some insight with whome we are dealing here........Rabinoz  ;D :o ;D :o ;D
Still no proof of a single NASA lie.  Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 13, 2017, 05:47:25 PM
I didn't choose the name Legba, Geoff...
The name chose me.
. . . . . .
Rockets in a vacuum Ver1 part 1 of 4, Peter Leane (http://)
Rabinoz can you confirm ??,.......because this would be hilarious if true....i am going to laugh for at least the next 24 hours...

And you would loose the last bit of credibilty in my eyes ....of course.
Please tell me you ain't that dude in the video.....that is simply not healthy for anyone !!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Nothing whatever to do with me. But you might learn something from the rest of Peter Leane's videos - bit dry for my taste though.

There have been two Geoffs:
UserName
     
Location
     
Date Registered
     
Last Active
Geoff
     
. . . . . . .
     
February 27, 2007, 10:14:10 AM
     
March 12, 2009, 05:55:56 AM
ausGeoff
     
Victoria, Australia.
     
December 21, 2013, 08:08:44 PM
     
July 30, 2016, 10:39:07 PM
and myself               
rabinoz
     
Queensland, Australia
     
August 20, 2015, 01:08:38 PM
     
Today at 10:46:46 AM
If you check ausGeoff's posts youu might find then far better reasoned than mine, even if somewhat moer "crude".
I'm sure you would :P love  :P his anti-anti-NASA posts - wish I could do as well as he!

Of course the dim-witted Papa Legba thinks that since ausGeoff comes from Victoria, Australia, and I come from Queensland, Australia, about 1600 km away we must be the same persons.

Also I have never posted a YouTube video of any description nor have I have "Alts". I have enough trouble with line drawings.

I've certainly made mistakes in some posts (like last night!) and said some unwise things, but I certainly have no connection with any Geoff, whatever a deluded and admitted VooDoo priest might say!

But, believe who you will!

PS I don't really believe that poor old Papa Legba is really a Voodoo Priest, nor much else that he says.
                             
             
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: The Troll God on August 13, 2017, 09:31:55 PM
Glad to help.

I'd post a video of onebigshitehawks terrible guitar playing too but the fucker removed them from his channel...

Lol!

Here's his shit channel anyway:

https://m.youtube.com/user/LizardOverlord

Note it's full of mad fake Munn landinkz shit that nobody cares about...

Lulz!!!
I know his channel, he wanted me to look into his stuff....,but i missed the guitar playing  ;D, because it was yet another propaganda site full of crap....and i don't examine those anymore.
After reading Clavius for years i simple can't swallow any repair nonsense of the NASA fanboys and their precious articles and sites/blogs.
To discuss things over here is the limit, but going to some NAZI Apollo propaganda is simply to much now.......

Good job giving some insight with whome we are dealing here........Rabinoz  ;D :o ;D :o ;D
Still no proof of a single NASA lie.  Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.

So, you're calling the OP a liar?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 10:19:05 PM
I didn't choose the name Legba, Geoff...
The name chose me.
. . . . . .
Rockets in a vacuum Ver1 part 1 of 4, Peter Leane (http://)
Rabinoz can you confirm ??,.......because this would be hilarious if true....i am going to laugh for at least the next 24 hours...

And you would loose the last bit of credibilty in my eyes ....of course.
Please tell me you ain't that dude in the video.....that is simply not healthy for anyone !!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Nothing whatever to do with me. But you might learn something from the rest of Peter Leane's videos - bit dry for my taste though.

There have been two Geoffs:
UserName
     
Location
     
Date Registered
     
Last Active
Geoff
     
. . . . . . .
     
February 27, 2007, 10:14:10 AM
     
March 12, 2009, 05:55:56 AM
ausGeoff
     
Victoria, Australia.
     
December 21, 2013, 08:08:44 PM
     
July 30, 2016, 10:39:07 PM
and myself               
rabinoz
     
Queensland, Australia
     
August 20, 2015, 01:08:38 PM
     
Today at 10:46:46 AM
If you check ausGeoff's posts youu might find then far better reasoned than mine, even if somewhat moer "crude".
I'm sure you would :P love  :P his anti-anti-NASA posts - wish I could do as well as he!

Of course the dim-witted Papa Legba thinks that since ausGeoff comes from Victoria, Australia, and I come from Queensland, Australia, about 1600 km away we must be the same persons.

Also I have never posted a YouTube video of any description nor have I have "Alts". I have enough trouble with line drawings.

I've certainly made mistakes in some posts (like last night!) and said some unwise things, but I certainly have no connection with any Geoff, whatever a deluded and admitted VooDoo priest might say!

But, believe who you will!

PS I don't really believe that poor old Papa Legba is really a Voodoo Priest, nor much else that he says.
                             
             

You don't actually deny it's you here.

You just say the video is nothing to do with you & you didn't post it.

Which is true cos someone else filmed & posted it.

But Peter Leane is you alright.

Funny name, Peter Leane...

The initials are P L...

Who else has the initials PL..?

Oh, right!

Nice tribute, Geoff!

Now fuck off, loser.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 13, 2017, 11:32:39 PM
But Peter Leane is you alright.
Really? I must have had far reaching plastic surgery since I last looked in the mirror - a couple of hours ago!
And who's going to take notice of an admitted trickster?
Papa Legba!
Papa Legba open the gate for me.
Antibon Legba please open the gate.
Legba open the gate for me and I will thank
the lwa when I return.
(https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12464335_f1024.jpg)

PAPA LEGBA
Bye bye Papa Legba the VooDoo Priest.
Quote
Legba is the promoter of verbal facility, of double talk, the arch deceiver,
not malicious, but a jokester, a prankster--the preeminent trickster god
. . . . .
the trickster who will make a fool of you or scare the hell out of you,
either just for laughs, or to teach you a lesson about life.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 11:41:29 PM
Oh, it's definitely you, ain't it, Geoff...

Just listen to your mad panicking self ffs!

Do you honestly not realise what a pathetic creep you come across as?

Let's look at your paedo self again:



What's that shit on your whiteboard Geoff?

'Cape Conave'?

LMFAO!!!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 13, 2017, 11:53:28 PM
Still no proof of a single NASA lie.  Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.
Yes i do bring up Neil deGrasse Tyson AGAIN !!!

After all of you denied any inconsistancy at all when i first meticulously posted the exact quotes from NASA liars, you all denied any inconsistancy whatsoever.
After my hard work we have reached the point that some of you understand that indeed Neil deGrasse Tyson's idea's about the daylight surface of the moon are  incompatible with what Neil Armstrong claims about the daylight side of the moon and seeing stars.

Now all of a sudden "Neil deGrasse Tyson wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA".

Neil deGrasse Tyson one of the smartest majors in astrophysics , NASA promotor and spokesman.
Yes, yes Neil deGrasse Tyson simply gave it not enough thought and the nono's and amatures around the www understand much better what it is like on the daylight side on the moon.

You 've got your proof of a NASA lie, you may not consider it important enough, that's up to you.
But please don't let your ego get in the way this much to try to suggest it is "really nothing"".
You guys are so extremely stubborn, we could have reached that conclusion about Neil de Grasse Tyson pages ago.
Why do you make discussion so damned difficult ? Is it so important to hold on to the fabrications of men ?

Let us progress from here :
Why does NdGT who gave it a lot of thought ( do to the fact that he knows so much more about all aspects in the heliocentric hypothetical universe compared to the average online poster.) ...... claim we can easily see the stars on the daylight side of the moon ??

We have fully dismissed the option that Neil Grasse Tyson simply babbled about things he doesn't really understand. It his is job and he has all the cridentials possible to know what it's like on the daylight side of the moon from a scientific point of view.

That opens the door to the other possibilty,.......  Neil Armstrong is talking shit.
I personally think that is the truth !
The interviews of Neil Armstrong are from the early seventies. They didn't really define what it is like on the daylight side of the moon without an atmosphere. It is indeed weird to imagine how light, despite being very bright, simply cannot scatter or reflect like it does on earth without an atmosphere.

Neil deGrasse Tyson knows this and his enthousiasm and expertise took the better of him.
Oeps.....   there were those silly interviews from the early seventies by scientifically illiterate astronauts...... again oeps.. they talk about the properties of light as if they were still on earth.....  oeps.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 12:57:00 AM
Oh, it's definitely you, ain't it, Geoff...
Papa, you do me too great an honour! Do you really think that I could make learned videos on topics like:
         Spinal Cord Repair (Part 1) - Yes it could be possible (http://)
          Spinal Cord Repair (Part 2) Placenta (http://)
          Spinal Cord Repair (Part 3) Human Nervous System - Basics (http://)
          Clean Coal - Yes it could be possible - Part A (http://)
          Clean Coal - The Hazelwood Experiment - Part - B (http://)
He does do a few on Flat Earth Topics as well:
          Curve of the Earth Measurement Ver 1(2 X Points of Reference) (http://)
          Curve of the Earth Measurement Ver 2 (3 X Points of Reference) (http://)

So, Papa confuse me with
:D :D Peter Leane if you like :D :D, but he's much smarter than I, and lives on the other side of the Globe.
Apart from those little problems, who know you might even be right - idiot!
In other words, to put it in highly professional terms - your are stark starin' bonkers!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 01:03:35 AM
But can i still call you ""mr rocketman" can i ? Please ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 14, 2017, 01:06:01 AM
Oh, it's definitely you, ain't it, Geoff...
Papa, you do me too great an honour! Do you really think that I could make learned videos on topics like:
         Spinal Cord Repair (Part 1) - Yes it could be possible (http://)
          Spinal Cord Repair (Part 2) Placenta (http://)
          Spinal Cord Repair (Part 3) Human Nervous System - Basics (http://)
          Clean Coal - Yes it could be possible - Part A (http://)
          Clean Coal - The Hazelwood Experiment - Part - B (http://)
He does do a few on Flat Earth Topics as well:
          Curve of the Earth Measurement Ver 1(2 X Points of Reference) (http://)
          Curve of the Earth Measurement Ver 2 (3 X Points of Reference) (http://)

So, Papa confuse me with
:D :D Peter Leane if you like :D :D, but he's much smarter than I, and lives on the other side of the Globe.
Apart from those little problems, who know you might even be right - idiot!
In other words, to put it in highly professional terms - your are stark starin' bonkers!


His videos are shit and any retard could make them...

Even a retard like you.

So stop bigging yourself up, Geoff.

Now let's look at your shitty YouTube trolling/shilling channel and laugh at that too:

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCBeY0OQcepDv_Vg7gscY-CQ

What a total fucking loser you are eh?

Now stop bullying and harassing random strangers on the internet and fuck off.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 01:24:15 AM
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCBeY0OQcepDv_Vg7gscY-CQ

Now stop bullying and harassing random strangers on the internet
So, I subscribed to a few YouTube channels, big deal - and what "random strangers am I harassing"?
Go back to your den on Haiti. Your voodoo doesn't work here.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 01:25:30 AM
Still no proof of a single NASA lie.  Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.
Yes i do bring up Neil deGrasse Tyson AGAIN !!!
Yes, but Neil deGrasse Tyson does not "work for NASA", not that cold hard facts ever bother a NASAphobe like you.
Sure, he has written and spoken about NASA, but he has done the same on: Spirituality, Race and social justice, Animal rights etc.

But, the mere mention of NASA makes poor dutchy foam at the mouth.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 01:27:07 AM
Wow Rabinoz does finacially benefit, despite all claims he does it solely for the benefits of mankind.
What a weird forum this turns out to be, i have to reconsider my approach.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 01:38:11 AM
Still no proof of a single NASA lie.  Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.
Yes i do bring up Neil deGrasse Tyson AGAIN !!!
Yes, but Neil deGrasse Tyson does not "work for NASA", not that cold hard facts ever bother a NASAphobe like you.
Sure, he has written and spoken about NASA, but he has done the same on: Spirituality, Race and social justice, Animal rights etc.

But, the mere mention of NASA makes poor dutchy foam at the mouth.
I busted your little munlanding bubble.....
Neil deGrasse Tyson UNDERSTANDS the behaviour of light in a vacuum and that it can't scatter and reflect like it does on earth !
In his enthousiasm he forgot about those silly illiterate astronauts who gave interviews in the early seventies about the daylight surface of the moon as if light behaves like it does on earth........and you also posted garbage and nonsense about the brightness of the sunlight as if there is an atmosphere on the moon.

Of course Neil de Grasse Tyson knows this is not the case and light behaves entirely different on the daylight side of the moon,.....therefor his professional comments about how sunlight behaves in the vacuum of space on the daylight side of the moon.
Poor Armstrong seems to think he was on earth hearing his nonsense about the sunlight and to bright circomstances to see any stars at all without optics.

Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't even have to work for NASA ( he indirectly does ) to understand the properties and behaviour of light in a vacuum much better than you.....   that is what it's all about
You choose the side of the illiterate, betraying a modern expert of the heliocentric model, the moon, the vacuum of space and the behaviour of light in a vacuum.
Not that i am surprised really, after i keep hearing revealing things about mister shillinoz every other hour.
Neil deGrasse Tyson understands the behaviour of light on the daylight side of the moon and how it could never interfere with the ability to see a sky full of stars just like during the night on earth

You choose the side of the illiterate liars, who lie as they go about a bright surface, reflections , scattering as if they were in the dessert on earth somewhere ;D
The absense of an atmosphere makes a whole lot of difference.
Neil deGrasse Tyson understands this. You deny this, but you simply have to, because it directly means Neil Armstrong talks shit and never went to a moon.
I understand this is going to be very difficult for you, but i've got you cornered completely and there is no way out this time around !!!!
So please avoid any further embarrassment by pretending light behaves 'earthlike' on the daylight side of the moon.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 14, 2017, 01:40:13 AM
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCBeY0OQcepDv_Vg7gscY-CQ

Now stop bullying and harassing random strangers on the internet
So, I subscribed to a few YouTube channels, big deal - and what "random strangers am I harassing"?
Go back to your den on Haiti. Your voodoo doesn't work here.

Well you're harassing dutchy for a start you mad bastard, as well as resistance is futile...

It's all you fucking do here & on YouTube as well you sad old fuck.

But then again abusing things is a way of life for you ain't it?

Alcohol, children, small animals, you name it...

And, like the cowardly amoral sociopath you are, you're now gonna try and pull the victim routine and pretend it's your poor innocent self getting abused aintcha you mad old prick?

Well you can just fuck off with that, psycho - wtf is wrong with you?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 03:30:57 AM
Well you're harassing dutchy for a start you mad bastard, as well as resistance is futile...
Poor, poor dutchy and Ignorance.is.Bliss! They're both old enough and ugly to look after themselves!
They don't the local Voodoo Priest interceding for them, so run off back to your hide-out in Haiti.

You really blew it big-time with Peter Leane who lives in the UK and does medical research.
He couldn't even be ausGeoff, you total loser.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 03:38:37 AM
Still no proof of a single NASA lie.  Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.
Yes i do bring up Neil deGrasse Tyson AGAIN !!!
Yes, but Neil deGrasse Tyson does not "work for NASA", not that cold hard facts ever bother a NASAphobe like you.
Sure, he has written and spoken about NASA, but he has done the same on: Spirituality, Race and social justice, Animal rights etc.

But, the mere mention of NASA makes poor dutchy foam at the mouth.
I understand this is going to be very difficult for you, but i've got you cornered completely and there is no way out this time around !!!!
So please avoid any further embarrassment by pretending light behaves 'earthlike' on the daylight side of the moon.
Rubbish, cornered by a delusional NASAphobic! - not likely, run off and play it you pizza planet.

Facts just don't have the slightest on the totally indoctrinated. You keep raving on about the effect of the vacuum and ignore everything else.

Bye bye - believe what you like, but the Globe still keeps turning sedately around and nothing you have said has the slightest impact on the truth of that.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 14, 2017, 03:44:27 AM
Well you're harassing dutchy for a start you mad bastard, as well as resistance is futile...
Poor, poor dutchy and Ignorance.is.Bliss! They're both old enough and ugly to look after themselves!
They don't the local Voodoo Priest interceding for them, so run off back to your hide-out in Haiti.

You really blew it big-time with Peter Leane who lives in the UK and does medical research.
He couldn't even be ausGeoff, you total loser.

Prove you live in Australia Geoff.

Prove anything you say about yourself is true.

You can't.

And no one will believe you anyway.

You really are a sick and deluded person, Geoff.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 14, 2017, 03:48:37 AM
dooky and baby legba sure are keeping this thread on topic!

I swear, it's like watching a couple toddlers on a play date, when they think no one is looking, they start touching each others pee pee's.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Papa Legba on August 14, 2017, 03:52:12 AM
dooky and baby legba sure are keeping this thread on topic!

I swear, it's like watching a couple toddlers on a play date, when they think no one is looking, they start touching each others pee pee's.

So you like spying on toddlers playing with each other's pee pees do you?

Paedo confirmed.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 14, 2017, 03:54:05 AM
Awww, widdle baby legba need his binky?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Jugemu no Chosuke on August 14, 2017, 04:00:23 AM
It seems clear to me that all the people derailing the thread work for NASA, and are just trying to take our attention off the main subject so that we can't discover their schemes.

They are smart indeed.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: hoppy on August 14, 2017, 04:33:42 AM
dooky and baby legba sure are keeping this thread on topic!

I swear, it's like watching a couple toddlers on a play date, when they think no one is looking, they start touching each others pee pee's.

So you like spying on toddlers playing with each other's pee pees do you?

Paedo confirmed.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 04:34:26 AM
Rubbish, cornered by a delusional NASAphobic! - not likely, run off and play it you pizza planet.

Facts just don't have the slightest on the totally indoctrinated. You keep raving on about the effect of the vacuum and ignore everything else.

Bye bye - believe what you like, but the Globe still keeps turning sedately around and nothing you have said has the slightest impact on the truth of that.
Ha Rab is insecure, he must be feeling there is something very wrong with his precious ''munlundings''.

But i am willing to go over it again :
If you turn your back towards the sun on the daylight side of the moon, the sun cannot reflect off a vacuum.
There are no dust particles or enough molecules in the moon's ''sky'' for the sun to scatter in every direction.
The sky should be black but also full of stars as bright as ever (comparable to earth's nightsky)

The other aspect of the NASA fanclub is that the moon's surface is extremely reflective so that the astronauts can still not make out any star without the use of special optics.
According to the decorated NASA employee Phill Plait the sun is 400.000 times brighter than a full moon. (2.5(-12.7 – (-26.7)) = 2.514 = 400,000.)
Phill says :This would explain why you can look at the Moon easily enough with just your eye, but trying that with the Sun is not – wait for it, wait for it – a bright idea.

It seems the reflected surface of the moon is bright ,but surely not bright enough to interfere with the line of sight between the astronaut and the stars.
The reflection cannot go to the sky,....no molecules to bounce off.
The only problem for an astronaut on the moon is looking directly into the sun or more or less in the direction of the sun and staring to the surface only.
He would immidiatly see a sky full of stars when gazing upwards.

That is what Neil deGrasse Tyson claims and it is an accurate way of presenting the circomstances on the moon in the hypothetical moon landscape.
Problem is, some promoted army fighterjet pilots didn't really understand the hypothetical moon environment.
There testimonies are full of crap as if the influence of the sun and the surface reflection was huge and prevented them from seeing stars at all, at any given moment.

I finally busted your little fantasy about some liars going the ''ze moon'' in 1969, not able to see any stars at all on the daylight surface of the moon.
Luckily the person with a master in astro physics and spokesman of that very organisation has the correct view that is not in conflict with the hypothetical model.
Neil and Buzz made a total mockery of themselves and hypothetical cosmology in particular.

And when you are ready at last, we can talk about the REAL universe, not the hypothetical one.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 04:39:26 AM
It seems clear to me that all the people derailing the thread work for NASA, and are just trying to take our attention off the main subject so that we can't discover their schemes.

They are smart indeed.
Well, you tell just them higher-ups at NAZA that we're getting jack o' workin' for no pay!
Look our kids is starvin' an' all we can feed 'em is wot fish we can flog from them mutant penguins down 'ere an' they fight like the devil his-self!
Meanwhile, we're freezin' to death in these Antarctic conditions, wot, with the failure of this promised global warming!

If we don't get paid soon we're all goin' on strike and then how are they gonna keep this "hollow earth" a secret?

You just get some of that Gadzillion dollas that this Neil the Grasse bloke got Trumpy to give them.
So, we delegate you Mr Jugemu no Chosuke our delhi-gate - just you givem an ulter-matem! So there!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 04:43:38 AM
It seems clear to me that all the people derailing the thread work for NASA, and are just trying to take our attention off the main subject so that we can't discover their schemes.

They are smart indeed.
Well, you tell just them higher-ups at NAZA that we're getting jack o' workin' for no pay!
Look our kids is starvin' an' all we can feed 'em is wot fish we can flog from them mutant penguins down 'ere an' they fight like the devil his-self!
Meanwhile, we're freezin' to death in these Antarctic conditions, wot, with the failure of this promised global warming!

If we don't get paid soon we're all goin' on strike and then how are they gonna keep this "hollow earth" a secret?

You just get some of that Gadzillion dollas that this Neil the Grasse bloke got Trumpy to give them.
So, we delegate you Mr Jugemu no Chosuke our delhi-gate - just you givem an ulter-matem! So there!
Please Rab, get a hold of yourself !! This is not the person you want to be.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Jugemu no Chosuke on August 14, 2017, 04:55:00 AM
It seems clear to me that all the people derailing the thread work for NASA, and are just trying to take our attention off the main subject so that we can't discover their schemes.

They are smart indeed.
Well, you tell just them higher-ups at NAZA that we're getting jack o' workin' for no pay!
Look our kids is starvin' an' all we can feed 'em is wot fish we can flog from them mutant penguins down 'ere an' they fight like the devil his-self!
Meanwhile, we're freezin' to death in these Antarctic conditions, wot, with the failure of this promised global warming!

If we don't get paid soon we're all goin' on strike and then how are they gonna keep this "hollow earth" a secret?

You just get some of that Gadzillion dollas that this Neil the Grasse bloke got Trumpy to give them.
So, we delegate you Mr Jugemu no Chosuke our delhi-gate - just you givem an ulter-matem! So there!

That's terrible. All that work to save humanity from the mutant penguins, and you aren't even well paid.

I blame Trump.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 05:08:46 AM

That's terrible. All that work to save humanity from the mutant penguins, and you aren't even well paid.

I blame Trump.
Yes, I'm afraid our Ace has been Trumped well and truly! So you'll help?
Please, oh please we're desperate, especially as now we're being hounded by a deranged Voodoo Priest!
And we can't have that!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 05:10:46 AM
Rubbish, cornered by a delusional NASAphobic! - not likely, run off and play it you pizza planet.

Facts just don't have the slightest on the totally indoctrinated. You keep raving on about the effect of the vacuum and ignore everything else.

Bye bye - believe what you like, but the Globe still keeps turning sedately around and nothing you have said has the slightest impact on the truth of that.
Ha Rab is insecure, he must be feeling there is something very wrong with his precious ''munlundings''.
Why would I be insecure? The moon-landings don't form any significant part of why I believe that the earth is a rotating Globe.
There is much more to it than that - I don't need pretty pictures. I can see from all the other evidence known for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.

Yes, measurements have changed and been made much more precise, but the Heliocentric Globe model was built up gradually as the evidence accumulated.

So, no dutchy, I am not the slightest bit insecure in my belief, but you must be to continually harp on NASA this and NASA that!

NASA had nothing to do with destroying your flat earth model - it never really was!
Not even the ancient Babylonians had the irrational flat earth model pushed today.
Quote from: dutchy
But i am willing to go over it again :
If you turn your back towards the sun on the daylight side of the moon, the sun cannot reflect off a vacuum.
There are no dust particles or enough molecules in the moon's ''sky'' for the sun to scatter in every direction.
The sky should be black but also full of stars as bright as ever (comparable to earth's nightsky)
<< no need to waste more of your valuable time - we read it the first time! >>
Yes, I agree with
"The sky should be black but also full of stars as bright as ever (comparable to earth's nightsky)"
and probably much more intense than a night sky down here because even on the darkest night here there is a faint "air-glow".

But, said astronaut has to be in dark conditions for 10 to 20 minutes to adapt to the dark conditions.
:D you check it out next time you are there  :D.
Not only that, but the astronaut has to find a direction to look away from the sun (which is UP) and away from the moon's surface (which is DOWN)
and have no stray light getting in the sides of the visor - the later side shields helped that.

I imagine if such time had been allowed in the schedule and a shaded enough location provided
it could have been done - BUT it was not on the schedule, so live with it!

I know it is remiss of them not to have the forethought to realise that realise that poor old dutchy would be so insistent, but such is life!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Jugemu no Chosuke on August 14, 2017, 05:15:28 AM

That's terrible. All that work to save humanity from the mutant penguins, and you aren't even well paid.

I blame Trump.
Yes, I'm afraid our Ace has been Trumped well and truly! So you'll help?
Please, oh please we're desperate, especially as now we're being hounded by a deranged Voodoo Priest!
And we can't have that!

Yeah, I'll send some guys to go and help you out. Just nope NASA doesn't find out and tries to kill me.

Now, excuse me, there's a weird red dot in the middle of my chest, I'll go to the window see what's up with this. 
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 05:40:50 AM
Why would I be insecure? The moon-landings don't form any significant part of why I believe that the earth is a rotating Globe.
There is much more to it than that - I don't need pretty pictures. I can see from all the other evidence known for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.

Yes, measurements have changed and been made much more precise, but the Heliocentric Globe model was built up gradually as the evidence accumulated.

So, no dutchy, I am not the slightest bit insecure in my belief, but you must be to continually harp on NASA this and NASA that!

NASA had nothing to do with destroying your flat earth model - it never really was!
Not even the ancient Babylonians had the irrational flat earth model pushed today.
Well you being so angree and all lately,.....it surely looks like an increasing insecurity thing,....but i will give you the benefit of doubts, only because you say so.
Quote
Yes, I agree with
"The sky should be black but also full of stars as bright as ever (comparable to earth's nightsky)"
and probably much more intense than a night sky down here because even on the darkest night here there is a faint "air-glow".

But, said astronaut has to be in dark conditions for 10 to 20 minutes to adapt to the dark conditions.
:D you check it out next time you are there  :D.
Not only that, but the astronaut has to find a direction to look away from the sun (which is UP) and away from the moon's surface (which is DOWN)
and have no stray light getting in the sides of the visor - the later side shields helped that.

I imagine if such time had been allowed in the schedule and a shaded enough location provided
it could have been done - BUT it was not on the schedule, so live with it!

I know it is remiss of them not to have the forethought to realise that realise that poor old dutchy would be so insistent, but such is life!
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/296636main_1241_full_full.jpg)
Do you see the sun or moon landscape ?
No they were indeed able to gaze upwards to the black skies.
Your excuse of 10-20 adjustment minutes conflicts with the testimony of Neil deGrasse Tyson.
You know why ?
BECAUSE ON EARTH I DON'T NEED TO ADJUST FOR 10-20 MINUTES AND NDGT SAYS THE STARS REVEAL THEMSELVES LIKE ON EARTH.
THAT IS IMMIDIATLY...if not Neil deGrasse Tyson surely would have made a statement about the reflective moon surface, vizors and time to adjust to see any star at all.
He didn't.....you do understand that do you ?

And if you think that the astronauts didn't have ten spare minutes, you are way more gullible than i think you are.
I believe i convinced you that the testimonies of Neil and Buzz are very disturbing.
The more when you take into consideration that Neil also had a hard time to see stars in cislunar space without optics.


A reminder ...Neil Armstrong says :
'The sky is a deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from Cislunar space (the space between the Earth and the Moon).
The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen – although there have been some reports of seeing planets. ‘I myself did not see planets from the surface, but I suspect they may be visible.'
 Cislunar space was described by Edgar Mitchell as the place where the stars were 'ten times brighter than if viewed from the Earth'.


If only the lying bastards repeated and practiced their deceitfull story better  ::)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 05:41:41 AM
Now, excuse me, there's a weird red dot in the middle of my chest, I'll go to the window see what's up with this.
Duck! Sorry (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ozrruswj0mkocp/Ducks.jpeg?dl=1) too late!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 05:56:36 AM
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/296636main_1241_full_full.jpg)
Do you see the sun or moon landscape ?
No they were indeed able to gaze upwards to the black skies.
No, I do not see the sun, but I see it's effect on the flag and the suit, so it is there with the direct light coming in on the left!
I can even see some inside his visor, so it is there!

Quote from: dutchy
Your excuse of 10-20 adjustment minutes conflicts with the testimony of Neil deGrasse Tyson.
It does? Exactly what does he say? Not your interpretation of it!
Quote from: dutchy
You know why?
BECAUSE ON EARTH I DON'T NEED TO ADJUST FOR 10-20 MINUTES AND NDGT SAYS THE STARS REVEAL THEMSELVES LIKE ON EARTH.
YOU have NEVER been in a situation with full lunar sunshine (in excess of 100,000 lux) and moved directly into total darkness!
You have only ever left a lighted room (around 100-400 lux) and moved outside and seen initially only the brighter stars.

Why are ships look-outs given time to adapt? So dutchy knows better than marine authorities now.
It is even in the regulations that the relieved lookout must not leave his post until the relieving lookout's eyes have adequately adapted.

So stop denying self-evident facts with your perpetual NASAphobia.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 14, 2017, 06:01:36 AM
Still no proof of a single NASA lie.  Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.
Yes i do bring up Neil deGrasse Tyson AGAIN !!!

After all of you denied any inconsistancy at all when i first meticulously posted the exact quotes from NASA liars, you all denied any inconsistancy whatsoever.
After my hard work we have reached the point that some of you understand that indeed Neil deGrasse Tyson's idea's about the daylight surface of the moon are  incompatible with what Neil Armstrong claims about the daylight side of the moon and seeing stars.

Now all of a sudden "Neil deGrasse Tyson wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA".

Neil deGrasse Tyson one of the smartest majors in astrophysics , NASA promotor and spokesman.
Yes, yes Neil deGrasse Tyson simply gave it not enough thought and the nono's and amatures around the www understand much better what it is like on the daylight side on the moon.

You 've got your proof of a NASA lie, you may not consider it important enough, that's up to you.
But please don't let your ego get in the way this much to try to suggest it is "really nothing"".
You guys are so extremely stubborn, we could have reached that conclusion about Neil de Grasse Tyson pages ago.
Why do you make discussion so damned difficult ? Is it so important to hold on to the fabrications of men ?

Let us progress from here :
Why does NdGT who gave it a lot of thought ( do to the fact that he knows so much more about all aspects in the heliocentric hypothetical universe compared to the average online poster.) ...... claim we can easily see the stars on the daylight side of the moon ??

We have fully dismissed the option that Neil Grasse Tyson simply babbled about things he doesn't really understand. It his is job and he has all the cridentials possible to know what it's like on the daylight side of the moon from a scientific point of view.

That opens the door to the other possibilty,.......  Neil Armstrong is talking shit.
I personally think that is the truth !
The interviews of Neil Armstrong are from the early seventies. They didn't really define what it is like on the daylight side of the moon without an atmosphere. It is indeed weird to imagine how light, despite being very bright, simply cannot scatter or reflect like it does on earth without an atmosphere.

Neil deGrasse Tyson knows this and his enthousiasm and expertise took the better of him.
Oeps.....   there were those silly interviews from the early seventies by scientifically illiterate astronauts...... again oeps.. they talk about the properties of light as if they were still on earth.....  oeps.
There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA.  You interpret something one way and consider it proof.  It isn't.  You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 06:11:15 AM
Why are ships look-outs given time to adapt? So dutchy knows better than marine authorities now.
It is even in the regulations that the relieved lookout must not leave his post until the relieving lookout's eyes have adequately adapted.

So stop denying self-evident facts with your perpetual NASAphobia.
They didn't see any star at all during their stay on the moon.
No fainted stars, not less bright stars, no nothing....no visible stars during during their 2,5 hours moonwalk.

Yes i know better than you, far better to conclude that this is impossible.
Sure they would need to adapt, i have never denied that.
But your default conclusion is that during their stay on the moon it was reasonable that they could not see stars with their eyes. Not even a few, fainted ones or less bright.
Not even after 2.5 hours ?

You see what this means don't you. It means THEY COULDN'T SEE STARS ON THE MOON
Or would they have seen stars after a week, a month ? Is 2,5 hours not enough to adapt ?
It means that Neil deGrasse Tyson is talking out of his ass or Neil Armstrong.

Neil deGRasse Tyson says you would see the stars just like during the night
Neil Armstrong says you can't see stars even after 2.5 hours no star is visible


So your whole ''time to adapt'' is futile .......no stars vs bright stars....who is right Neil or Neil  ;D

Now stop lying and take your loss as a man that has some dignity left.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 06:17:39 AM
There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA.  You interpret something one way and consider it proof.  It isn't.  You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.
I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''

Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.

I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 14, 2017, 06:21:07 AM
When did they have 2.5 hours of time without sunlight in their view?  Or any time really?  You seem to be claiming that their eyes would adapt during the 2.5 hours but the entire time they are in bright sunlight.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 06:33:34 AM
When did they have 2.5 hours of time without sunlight in their view?  Or any time really?  You seem to be claiming that their eyes would adapt during the 2.5 hours but the entire time they are in bright sunlight.
I am even willing to accept your arguements, but.....in that case Neil deGrasse Tyson talks out of his ass.
One could never see the stars from the daylight surface of the moon just like during a night on earth if your explainations are true.

Your argument is that there is no ''just like a night on earth'' on the daylightside of the moon.
Your astronauts on the moon cannot see the stars because of the influence of the bright sunlight reflecting off the moon surface all the time.

NdGT says because of an absent atmosphere there is no scattered sunlight and the stars would reveal themselves just like on earth during the night.
Rabinoz and you argue that the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon are such that you can't see the stars due to bright reflections.
Astrobrant2 said Neil de Grasse Tyson was wrong on this occasion,....what do you say ?
Because one of them is talking shit, Neil deGrasse Tyson or Neil Armstrong.

But all of you seem to afraid to point a finger,......which i understand because the implications in this topic will be huge, mark my words  ;D
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 14, 2017, 06:41:08 AM
When did they have 2.5 hours of time without sunlight in their view?  Or any time really?  You seem to be claiming that their eyes would adapt during the 2.5 hours but the entire time they are in bright sunlight.
I am even willing to accept your arguements, but.....in that case Neil deGrasse Tyson talks out of his ass.
One could never see the stars from the daylight surface of the moon just like during a night on earth if your explainations are true.

Your argument is that there is no ''just like a night on earth'' on the daylightside of the moon.
Your astronauts on the moon cannot see the stars because of the influence of the bright sunlight.

NdGT says because of an absent atmosphere there is no scattered sunlight and the stars would reveal themselves just like on earth.
Rabinoz and you argue that the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon are such that you can't see the stars due to bright reflections.

Astrobrant2 said Neilde Grasse Tyson was wrond on this occasion,....what do you say ?
Because one of them is talking shit, Neil deGrasse Tyson or Neil Armstrong.

But all of you seem to afraid to point a finger,......which i understand because the implications in thios topic will be huge, mark my words  ;D
Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view.  Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up.  Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt.  Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.

IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 06:55:17 AM
Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view.  Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up.  Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt.  Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.

IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.
That is not ''the stars on the daylight side of the moon reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth''..when standing on the moon's daylight surface.
That is ''in order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.''

So your post is an utter failure, do want to try again frenat ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 14, 2017, 07:00:12 AM
Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view.  Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up.  Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt.  Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.

IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.
That is not ''the stars reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth''
That is ''in order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.''

So your post is an utter failure, do want to try again frenat ?
AGAIN, Tyson was not considering the bright surface still being in view.  The astronaut that did take the time still had to have his eyes adjust like any real person would.  When did I say it was "the stars reveal themselves just like they do during the night on earth"?  I wasn't trying to say that nor was I trying to say his experience was exactly as Tyson described it.  Please read what I wrote and not what you wish I wrote.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 14, 2017, 07:08:01 AM
There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA.  You interpret something one way and consider it proof.  It isn't.  You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.
I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''

Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.

I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm
Ah the inevitable reduction to insults.  I'm sorry you can't get your head around how bright the surface would be or how their optics might affect what they see.  But that does seem to be the case.
Maybe we simply agree to disagree on this one and you continue with your futile search for proof of NASA lies.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 07:14:17 AM
Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view.  Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up.  Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt.  Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.

IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.
That is not ''the stars reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth''
That is ''in order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.''

So your post is an utter failure, do want to try again frenat ?
AGAIN, Tyson was not considering the bright surface still being in view.  The astronaut that did take the time still had to have his eyes adjust like any real person would.  When did I say it was "the stars reveal themselves just like they do during the night on earth"?  I wasn't trying to say that nor was I trying to say his experience was exactly as Tyson described it.  Please read what I wrote and not what you wish I wrote.
I didn't suggest that you said that ....NdGT did ! that is the whole point

Neil de GrasseTyson
SINCE THE MOON HAS NO ATMOSPHERE,...IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D SEE A FULL NIGHT, NIGHT SKY OF STARS EVEN WITH THE SUN IN THE SKY AS WELL.

Frenat
In order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.
And you claimed NdGT was talking about a position of your body where the bright surface is no longer in view

Your opinion on the matter fully demolishes NdGT claims....you can't see a sky full of stars on the daylight side of the moon like on earth during the night if you were there.
You can see some stars on the daylight side of the moon after certain measurements are taken, as described by you.

The whole idea behind NdGT statement is that you see the stars just like during the night, not after some lenghty adjustment and carefull positioning one can detect some stars.

Doesn't this sound different to you ?
I sometimes wonder where i am in this place full of deceit.

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 14, 2017, 07:19:29 AM
Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view.  Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up.  Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt.  Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.

IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.
That is not ''the stars reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth''
That is ''in order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.''

So your post is an utter failure, do want to try again frenat ?
AGAIN, Tyson was not considering the bright surface still being in view.  The astronaut that did take the time still had to have his eyes adjust like any real person would.  When did I say it was "the stars reveal themselves just like they do during the night on earth"?  I wasn't trying to say that nor was I trying to say his experience was exactly as Tyson described it.  Please read what I wrote and not what you wish I wrote.
I didn't suggest that you said that ....NdGT did ! that is the whole point

Neil de GrasseTyson
SINCE THE MOON HAS NO ATMOSPHERE,...IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D SEE A FULL NIGHT, NIGHT SKY OF STARS EVEN WITH THE SUN IN THE SKY AS WELL.

Frenat
In order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.
And NdGT was talking about a position of your body where the bright surface is no longer in view

Your opinion on the matter fully demolishes NdGT claims....you can't see a sky full of stars on the daylight side of the moon like on earth during the night if you were there.
You can see some stars on the daylight side of the moon after certain measurements are taken, as described by you.

The whole idea behind NdGT statement is that you see the stars just like during the night, not after some lenghty adjustment and carefull positioning one can detect some stars.

Doesn't this sound different to you ?
I sometimes wonder where i am in this place full of deceit.
And I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his.  YOU seemed to indicate I was.  In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view.  So no failure.  And no deceit on my part. 

And you are changing what I said.  I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object"  I made no recommendation at all.  I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 07:23:23 AM
There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA.  You interpret something one way and consider it proof.  It isn't.  You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.
I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''

Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.

I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm
Ah the inevitable reduction to insults.  I'm sorry you can't get your head around how bright the surface would be or how their optics might affect what they see.  But that does seem to be the case.
Maybe we simply agree to disagree on this one and you continue with your futile search for proof of NASA lies.
So you fully disagree with Neil deGrasse Tyson then ?
If you would stand on the daylight side of the moon you would see a nightsky full of stars according to NdGT !
According to you this isn't the case,.......the surface is way to reflective.

I can get my head around a bright moon surface,......i cannot get my head around the fact that you cannot explain why NdGT doesn't see this as any sort of problem on the moon when viewing sky full of stars just like on earth during the night.

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 07:29:20 AM
And I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his.  YOU seemed to indicate I was.  In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view.  So no failure.  And no deceit on my part. 

And you are changing what I said.  I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object"  I made no recommendation at all.  I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.
This is what happens all the time.
Never a straight answer....it isn't about those details frenat and you perfectly know that....the question is

What would a person see on the daylight side of the moon when looking to the sky ?

Maybe you want to answer that, so that i can point out the inconsistancies ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 14, 2017, 07:31:13 AM
There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA.  You interpret something one way and consider it proof.  It isn't.  You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.
I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''

Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.

I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm
Ah the inevitable reduction to insults.  I'm sorry you can't get your head around how bright the surface would be or how their optics might affect what they see.  But that does seem to be the case.
Maybe we simply agree to disagree on this one and you continue with your futile search for proof of NASA lies.
So you fully disagree with Neil deGrasse Tyson then ?
If you would stand on the daylight side of the moon you would see a nightsky full of stars according to NdGT !
According to you this isn't the case,.......the surface is way to reflective.

I can get my head around a bright surface,......i cannot get my head around the fact that you cannpot explain why NdGT doesn't see this as any sort of problem to simply see a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night.
What part of "Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view" do you not understand?

Have you asked Tyson to clarify his statements?  Why not?  Why do you think it is sufficient to ask other people what he meant?  Why would you expect anyone else to be able to comment on what Tyson thinks?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 14, 2017, 07:38:06 AM
And I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his.  YOU seemed to indicate I was.  In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view.  So no failure.  And no deceit on my part. 

And you are changing what I said.  I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object"  I made no recommendation at all.  I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.
This is what happens all the time.
You trying to change what other people say?  If you say so.   ;D

Never a straight answer....it isn't about those details frenat and you perfectly know that....the question is

What would a person see on the daylight side of the moon when looking to the sky ?

Maybe you want to answer that, so that i can point out the inconsistancies ?
Since this is the first time I have been asked the question, this is the first time I can give an answer.  Since I have never been there, I don't know.  What I do know is I was only trying to relay another person's experience and YOU are trying to make it about me.  I can imagine that if I were looking at the sky with no sun in view and no part of the surface or anything else reflective in view then I would probably see stars.  I can imagine that the suit would make it difficult to do that.  But I can't say for sure what I would see either way as I haven't been there so the entire line of questioning is simply you trying to win a pissing match.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 14, 2017, 07:47:09 AM
Also the golden visor did dim the light, so the astronauts could see even if the sun was reflecting into their helmet.

Like here:
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/600875main_BeanonApollo12.jpg)

Even if an astronaut was to look up, the sun could still hit their visor.
Standing in the shadow of the LM would be the best way to give your eyes time to adapt.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 14, 2017, 07:51:08 AM
Btw, here is the Apollo 16 helmet with its multiple visors:
(http://scmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Apollo-16-helmet.jpg)

So we all know that the helmet was not just one piece of glass, but made out of multiple parts.

In this series of photos you can see how far they could manipulate the front flaps to suit lightning:

(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2014/as17-134-20476.jpg?itok%5Cx3dNmbYBLM6)
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17jack20472.jpg)
Down almost all the way:
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20453HR.jpg)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 08:03:55 AM
And I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his.  YOU seemed to indicate I was.  In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view.  So no failure.  And no deceit on my part. 

And you are changing what I said.  I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object"  I made no recommendation at all.  I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.
This is what happens all the time.
You trying to change what other people say?  If you say so.   ;D

Never a straight answer....it isn't about those details frenat and you perfectly know that....the question is

What would a person see on the daylight side of the moon when looking to the sky ?

Maybe you want to answer that, so that i can point out the inconsistancies ?
Since this is the first time I have been asked the question, this is the first time I can give an answer.  Since I have never been there, I don't know.  What I do know is I was only trying to relay another person's experience and YOU are trying to make it about me.  I can imagine that if I were looking at the sky with no sun in view and no part of the surface or anything else reflective in view then I would probably see stars.  I can imagine that the suit would make it difficult to do that.  But I can't say for sure what I would see either way as I haven't been there so the entire line of questioning is simply you trying to win a pissing match.
Always the first to come out and talk about what went on during Apollo.
And now frenat is modest....for the very first time, ''because he wasn't on the moon himself''.
All of your 10.000+ posts and comments around the www did not contain that modesty sir.You should have mentioned that you weren't on the moon yourself when adressing all aspect of Apollo. But you always commented in absolutes concerning Apollo !!!

Only this time you show modesty, because like Astrobrant2 one of your little payed online Apollo buddies, you have found out that NdGT statements are extremely conflicting.
Astrobrant2 has acknowledeg that NdGT was talking shit, because Neil was to busy doing other space related things and was therefor wrong about this casual slip of thought.
But that doesn't look good, now does it ?

So you tried the approach just displayed the very last posts.....you all of a sudden don't really know what to expect when looking upwards on the moon.
Kris deValle, Astrobrant2, JayUtah, frenat........are on the www for years and years commenting on each and every youtube video and forums about Apollo, claiming you know everything...absolutely everything about Apollo.

This time there is a huge discrepancy between NdGT and Neil Armstrong like Astrobrant2 acknowledged at the time !!!!
The answer for you payed shill is to suddenly take the road of modesty as if you cannot make a clear cut statement about what they could see on the daylight surface of the moon.
About everything else it always sounds as if you were on the moon as part of the Apollo crew, why change your tactics all of a sudden ?
Because NdGT statements are THE hot potato for you payed Apollo apologists.
Gladly i know the names involved in the Apollo apologist team working around the clock the last decade and understand what is going on here........

And for readers who don't believe me ? Frenat, Kris de Valle, Astrobrant2, JayUtah are covering the www for the last decade, they comment on everything related to Apollo.
They aren't payed or hired by NASA, so  they claim and have changed their avatar names occasionally and admit to use many sock puppets also.
They say (when confronted) they are simply amature astronomers acting out of admiration and love for the USA and NASA and their achievements.

How stupid would one be to believe that, knowing they've spend thousends of hours online to defend NASA whenever possible.
Only a payed shills would do that.........not some amature enthousiast.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 08:08:38 AM
Btw, here is the Apollo 16 helmet with its multiple visors:
(http://scmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Apollo-16-helmet.jpg)

So we all know that the helmet was not just one piece of glass, but made out of multiple parts.

In this series of photos you can see how far they could manipulate the front flaps to suit lightning:

(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2014/as17-134-20476.jpg?itok%5Cx3dNmbYBLM6)
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17jack20472.jpg)
Down almost all the way:
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20453HR.jpg)
Doesn't seem extremely bright does it ? And very, very earthlike.
Seems like they should see a sky full of stars like Neil deGrasse Tyson claimed, instead of their inability to descern any star at all.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 14, 2017, 08:14:05 AM
There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA.  You interpret something one way and consider it proof.  It isn't.  You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.
I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''

Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.

I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm
Ah the inevitable reduction to insults.  I'm sorry you can't get your head around how bright the surface would be or how their optics might affect what they see.  But that does seem to be the case.
Maybe we simply agree to disagree on this one and you continue with your futile search for proof of NASA lies.
So you fully disagree with Neil deGrasse Tyson then ?
If you would stand on the daylight side of the moon you would see a nightsky full of stars according to NdGT !
According to you this isn't the case,.......the surface is way to reflective.

I can get my head around a bright moon surface,......i cannot get my head around the fact that you cannot explain why NdGT doesn't see this as any sort of problem on the moon when viewing sky full of stars just like on earth during the night.
I think it depends on the circumstances and the optics/visor.  I feel no obligation to explain why Tyson didn't take this into account.
Now then, do you have any actual evidence of NASA lies?  You've presented none so far only your interpretation of what someone who does not work for NASA said.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 14, 2017, 08:17:04 AM
Btw, here is the Apollo 16 helmet with its multiple visors:
(http://scmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Apollo-16-helmet.jpg)

So we all know that the helmet was not just one piece of glass, but made out of multiple parts.

In this series of photos you can see how far they could manipulate the front flaps to suit lightning:

(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2014/as17-134-20476.jpg?itok%5Cx3dNmbYBLM6)
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17jack20472.jpg)
Down almost all the way:
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20453HR.jpg)
Doesn't seem extremely bright does it ? And very, very earthlike.
Seems like they should see a sky full of stars like Neil deGrasse Tyson claimed, instead of their inability to descern any star at all.
How bright a photo looks depends on the exposure settings.
For example, you can make daylight look like night, or make night look like daylight.
When you look at the shutterspeeds used, they are for very bright surfaces indeed.

What do you mean with Earthlike? I thought everything was suppose to have been faked in a studio, not outside.

And before the Apollo missions, fine surface details at landing locations were not know, and could not have been faked. The Lunar Orbiter space craft's pictures do not have enough spatial resolution.

For example, rocks on a rim where not known until Apollo 17 went there and took photos of the lunar surface up close.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 14, 2017, 08:20:29 AM
And I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his.  YOU seemed to indicate I was.  In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view.  So no failure.  And no deceit on my part. 

And you are changing what I said.  I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object"  I made no recommendation at all.  I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.
This is what happens all the time.
You trying to change what other people say?  If you say so.   ;D

Never a straight answer....it isn't about those details frenat and you perfectly know that....the question is

What would a person see on the daylight side of the moon when looking to the sky ?

Maybe you want to answer that, so that i can point out the inconsistancies ?
Since this is the first time I have been asked the question, this is the first time I can give an answer.  Since I have never been there, I don't know.  What I do know is I was only trying to relay another person's experience and YOU are trying to make it about me.  I can imagine that if I were looking at the sky with no sun in view and no part of the surface or anything else reflective in view then I would probably see stars.  I can imagine that the suit would make it difficult to do that.  But I can't say for sure what I would see either way as I haven't been there so the entire line of questioning is simply you trying to win a pissing match.
Always the first to come out and talk about what went on during Apollo.
Really? ALWAYS the first?  Bet you can't prove that.

And now frenat is modest....for the very first time, ''because he wasn't on the moon himself''.
As if I ever claimed otherwise.

All of your 10.000+ posts and comments around the www did not contain that modesty sir.You should have mentioned that you weren't on the moon yourself when adressing all aspect of Apollo. But you always commented in absolutes concerning Apollo !!!
Please find any of those 10,000+ posts where I commented on something that is not documented that I would only know if I was there.  Bet you can't

Only this time you show modesty, because like Astrobrant2 one of your little payed online Apollo buddies, you have found out that NdGT statements are extremely conflicting.
Astrobrant2 has acknowledeg that NdGT was talking shit, because Neil was to busy doing other space related things and was therefor wrong about this casual slip of thought.
But that doesn't look good, now does it ?
I don't care what Tyson said or did not say nor how it looks.  That is an invention of yours.  I HAVE specifically said he was not considering everything.  And I bet you can't prove I or anyone else is paid to post.  I know for a fact that I am not.

So you tried the approach just displayed the very last posts.....you all of a sudden don't really know what to expect when looking upwards on the moon.
Kris deValle, Astrobrant2, JayUtah, frenat........are on the www for years and years commenting on each and every youtube video and forums about Apollo, claiming you know everything...absolutely everything about Apollo.
Please show where I have EVER claimed to know "everything ... absolutely everything about Apollo".  I'll bet you can't as I have never said that.  That seems like another invention of yours.  And I rarely comment on youtube videos.  In fact, if you really analysed my posts, you would find that I not only comment far less than others, but that I also have slowed down and have never displayed the arrogance you are associating with me.

This time there is a huge discrepancy between NdGT and Neil Armstrong like Astrobrant2 acknowledged at the time !!!!
The answer for you payed shill is to suddenly take the road of modesty as if you cannot make a clear cut statement about what they could see on the daylight surface of the moon.
About everything else it always sounds as if you were on the moon as part of the Apollo crew, why change your tactics all of a sudden ?
Because NdGT statements are THE hot potato for you payed Apollo apologists.
Gladly i know the names involved in the Apollo apologist team working around the clock the last decade and understand what is going on here........
Please prove I or anyone else is paid to post here or anywhere else.  Please prove my "tactics" have be changed "all of a sudden".


And for readers who don't believe me ? Frenat, Kris de Valle, Astrobrant2, JayUtah are covering the www for the last decade, they comment on everything related to Apollo.
They aren't payed or hired by NASA, so  they claim and have changed their avatar names occasionally and admit to use many sock puppets also.
They say (when confronted) they are simply amature astronomers acting out of admiration and love for the USA and NASA and their achievements.

How stupid would one be to believe that, knowing they've spend thousends of hours online to defend NASA whenever possible.
Only a payed shills would do that.........not some amature enthousiast.
Because it is impossible for someone to read and comment on a subject that is interesting to them, right?  ::) Please prove I've spent thousands of hours specifically to defend NASA or that it is significant when most of my time is simply reading for entertainment.  Thanks for providing that by the way.  I honestly can't think of a time I've spent JUST looking at forums to comment on them.  Usually I'm working on something else and this is in the background or I'm watching TV and this is in the background.  Please show where I've changed my avatar name or admitted to using sockpuppets.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 14, 2017, 08:44:46 AM
If you wouldn't be such an indoctrinated sheep you would try to listen.

Ah yes! Insults! Keep'm comming!

I will brake it down real simple.

1 I have researched the moonlandings for i think about 5 years
2 I couldn't believe there were real people dumb enough to doubt the greatest achievement of mankind
3 I read chapters in the books of Bill Kaysing and Ralph Renee that started a process.
4 I watched all Jarrah White's video's about the moonlandings and read the counter arguments at the Clavius forum (pro NASA)
5 I started to look for every interview in papers and online footage made by astronauts and NASA insiders.
6 It became clear there were huge discrepancies in the official storyline
7 I read about how scientists and rocket engeneres envisioned spacetravel in the fifties and how extremely different it was when Apollo became reality.
8 I started to read about an ongoing rehabilitation program for Nazi's in the USA that lasted until the nineties and the heavy involvement from NASA.
9 I learned between the connection of Walt Disney and NASA (Werner Von Braun)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qFqMZ_s54UU/Vr9zQYFoMxI/AAAAAAAAKoI/XfLXKwjRWuo/s1600/Walt%2BDisney%2Band%2BWernher%2BVon%2BBraun.jpg)
10 I started to examine the photographs and original video from the moon
11 I learned about that episode in American history...the Kennedy legacy, the cold war, and riots on home soil.
12 during the nineties NASA has repaired a lot of mistakes of the past concerning the Apollo missions.

Cool story bro!

You know, i have plenty of knowledge on greek mythology and others, i could talk to you hours and hours about it, but in the end, all that knowledge isn't proof of the existence of Zeus.

All you say is that "i've read this, i've read that, 've learnt about this, i discovered that wich this guy said" but in the end all that isn't a proof of fakery, just you have to demonstrate with proof and logical arguments, not with just "i read this wich implies...".

My argument: "Don't make an argument that you can't prove" comes from the fact that everytime you have been asked to prove something, you fail to, you just say "but this video says..." and that's all. Heck! You have a complete post made specially for you to post all of your proof that demonstrates that NASA lies, and you have yet to do so, i mean, if it is true that you have 5 years into this conspiracy debunkery, where are all these photos that you have examined? I believe you would've found somenthing that prove them fake with a solid explanation as to why by now.

You could say "i belive this is fake, but still don't have a complete explanation for it" and that would be ok (for me at least). But instead, you write in such way ("this is like that, sorry can't prove it. have to go to a party!") that damages your image (that is, if you still want people to take you serious and believe you when you find and explain your defintive proof) (not asking you to be a saint neither, you can have your funny conversations if you still want them)

After a few years in a fascinating personal journey it became so obvious that it was all a hoax during the Vietnam war and president Nixon in charge.
An heroic story to boast the USA in rough times and fullfill the ''prophecy'' of Kennedy just before the decade was over.
Then the house of cards was coming down real fast.
Each and every evidence of the moonlandings proved the opposite to me.....

I have been very, very cautious for years to dismiss the moonlandings and did take the subject way more serious than many believers and even astronauts who make a mockery of themselves and the tax payer, or are extremely lazy when it comes to the details.

What was it you wanted to discuss about the moonlandings and/or NASA ? Please specify !

Oh honey! This is where things get interesting you see, my belief that the Earth is more likely to be round than flat doesn't comes from NASA, but apparently your belief on the FET comes from your distrust on NASA and a very unlikely conspiracy.

I have never asked you about the moonlanding, not once i believe. All i have asked in this site is for people (not just you) to back their claims (at least with a logical argument), not to keep saying the same thing over and over like a broken record, this leads to nowhere.

So dutchy, do you have a moonlanding picture with a logical explanation that demonstrates that NASA faked the moonlanding? If so, post it here (or in the post i mentioned bfore), just one and explain why it demonstrates your point by making a constrast on NASA's data specs and why said specs are wrong and are not represented in the end result (photo)

You have about 5 years into this and have read plenty on this stuff, it should be easy for you to do so by now.

If not, then i believe you already know my answer. Until that, I will be waiting for your proof when you already find it.

And by the way, Simba is Swahili for Leon (Lion in spanish), put it backwars and you got my name  ;)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 14, 2017, 08:59:56 AM
You guys would make PL's poop so much easier to clean up if you didn't reply to it EVERY TIME  >:(

Anyway, I think I've got the worst of his diarrhea cleaned up. If you see something that needs to be removed (such as if it has actual personal information, etc) let me know. You can always send me a message with a link to the problem post, that makes it easier to find since people report lots of posts and many of them aren't even breaking the rules. 
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 14, 2017, 09:32:01 AM
You guys would make PL's poop so much easier to clean up if you didn't reply to it EVERY TIME  >:(

Anyway, I think I've got the worst of his diarrhea cleaned up. If you see something that needs to be removed (such as if it has actual personal information, etc) let me know. You can always send me a message with a link to the problem post, that makes it easier to find since people report lots of posts and many of them aren't even breaking the rules.

Thank you... This was getting out of hand...

...and that's coming from ME, an admitted troll!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 10:09:37 AM
Really? ALWAYS the first?  Bet you can't prove that.
I confronted you with it on numerous occasions. the moment I posted something about the moonlandings,....it took a brief moment for frenat to reply......althaugh i live in the Netherlands and post at very different times. I thought it was a remarkable feat to reply that fast on so many different occasions

Here is a list where your avatar name showed up....there were much more....I knew you were all over the internet defending Apollo, but it is much worse, much worse.
It contains forums, articles etc.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?members/frenat.55123/recent-content

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/84783-moon-landing-was-fake/

https://ronabbass.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/moon-landing-hoax-nasa-unwittingly-reveals-van-allen-radiation-belts-prohibit-human-spaceflight-2min-vid-incl/

https://www.tapatalk.com/topic/40921-apollohoax-net/1147-van-allen-on-space-radiation

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4560&st=60

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/881/moon-landings-fact-fiction?page=37

http://www.big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/randi-JREF-revisionism-pseudo-skeptic-3.html

https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1146343

It took me 20 minutes. Then i started to read and fuck me....it is you frenat,....each and every time

I sadly realise i have to do with a person extremely obsessed with DEFENDING Apollo.
My God you have posted 934 specific posts over at the David Icke forums
You know, the guy who believes the queen of England is a shapeshifting lizard from Niburu.What were you doing there frenat and what are you doing here and at every thinkable forum that contains a specific Apollo/moonlanding topic ?

You are either mentally ill and obsessed with Apollo or a thick payed shill.

My god you do scare me and you make me angree also,....you are  far worse than your space amature avatar outlook.
This place becomes stranger by the minute........
I really have to reconsider my position the coming days and fear for some sort of retaliation coming my way.

You are really sick frenat,.....or a payed shill, i don't know what i fear more.....i believe it is the latter.
I won't go over any details with you about Apollo after you make clear what and who you really are and what your purpose is over here.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: sokarul on August 14, 2017, 10:16:06 AM
When your ideas are so shit you have to claim everyone is a paid shill.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 10:21:36 AM
When your ideas are so shit you have to claim everyone is a paid shill.
Do you think frenat's behaviour as clearly shown is behaviour for a normal functioning human being ?
Have you clicked on the links,....frenat is a madman obsessed about defending Apollo all over the www.
You think that is normal behaviour or simply a hobby ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Jugemu no Chosuke on August 14, 2017, 10:23:11 AM
Half of us work for NASA, so he's right.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 14, 2017, 10:23:38 AM
Its a hobby of mine to post Apollo data online, I have been doing so for a while and I am currently working on two projects that are recovering Apollo live footage.

I am quite active online about Apollo too.

Am I getting paid for all my work? nope! I do it for fun.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 10:27:41 AM
I received an official warning for my post that showed what frenat is doing all over the www.
It is against the rules.....wazzzzzzz

Who is in charge of this place........it is sinister as hell,....that's for sure.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Jugemu no Chosuke on August 14, 2017, 10:29:31 AM
NASA runs this place too, so it's only natural.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 14, 2017, 10:29:42 AM
If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 10:32:37 AM
If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.
Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 14, 2017, 10:38:35 AM
If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.
Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.

Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing.  I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 14, 2017, 10:45:21 AM
I received an official warning for my post that showed what frenat is doing all over the www.
It is against the rules.....wazzzzzzz

Who is in charge of this place........it is sinister as hell,....that's for sure.
Wow, stalking and harassing another member is against the rules.  That is sinister.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 10:51:20 AM
If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.
Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.

Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing.  I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
Okay i will respect the mods.

But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 14, 2017, 10:56:25 AM
Half of us work for NASA, so he's right.

Did you get your check today? Looks like mine got lost on the mail
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 10:59:43 AM
I received an official warning for my post that showed what frenat is doing all over the www.
It is against the rules.....wazzzzzzz

Who is in charge of this place........it is sinister as hell,....that's for sure.
Wow, stalking and harassing another member is against the rules.  That is sinister.
I understand your temporarely feelings of euphoria and your attempt to seek the momentum to hurt me personally after i was indeed in shock about frenat.......
You have been proven wrong so many times that i consider your childish reply as compensation behaviour

''no no still no proof'' you are a broken record and no match for my knowledge about NASA and Apollo.
You can try again of course, but as always i will kick your bud into orbit while you are yelling in LEO ''still no proof''. ;D
This is of course a ''figure of speech'', before you jump to the wrong conclusions again....

Really you should read and study more before joining an international forum.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 14, 2017, 11:04:11 AM
Really? ALWAYS the first?  Bet you can't prove that.
I confronted you with it on numerous occasions. the moment I posted something about the moonlandings,....it took a brief moment for frenat to reply......althaugh i live in the Netherlands and post at very different times. I thought it was a remarkable feat to reply that fast on so many different occasions

Here is a list where your avatar name showed up....there were much more....I knew you were all over the internet defending Apollo, but it is much worse, much worse.
It contains forums, articles etc.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?members/frenat.55123/recent-content

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/84783-moon-landing-was-fake/

https://ronabbass.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/moon-landing-hoax-nasa-unwittingly-reveals-van-allen-radiation-belts-prohibit-human-spaceflight-2min-vid-incl/

https://www.tapatalk.com/topic/40921-apollohoax-net/1147-van-allen-on-space-radiation

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4560&st=60

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/881/moon-landings-fact-fiction?page=37

http://www.big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/randi-JREF-revisionism-pseudo-skeptic-3.html

https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1146343

It took me 20 minutes. Then i started to read and fuck me....it is you frenat,....each and every time
but not ALWAYS the first. On many forums I don't enter the discussion until many pages in, if at all.  You've proven I have an interest in space flight and apollo.  Congratulations.  And I've had that interest for nearly 20 years.  A lot happens in 20 years. I won't apologize for being interested in a subject for a long time.
As for replying soon after you, I happen to be online most of the day, whether at work or at home, while I'm doing other things.  Sue me for using the forum software as intended and knowing how email works.   ::)  If you like, I can wait a certain amount of time after you post before replying so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.   ::)

I sadly realise i have to do with a person extremely obsessed with DEFENDING Apollo.
That is an opinion.  The reality would be I am interested in the topic.

My God you have posted 934 specific posts over at the David Icke forums
You know, the guy who believes the queen of England is a shapeshifting lizard from Niburu.What were you doing there frenat and what are you doing here and at every thinkable forum that contains a specific Apollo/moonlanding topic ?
Same thing as here.  Reading for entertainment.  I don't have to agree with everything on a forum to post on it, do I?  Notice also I haven't posted there in years and when I did I stayed well away from the shapeshifting lizard crap.  Or at least you would notice if your "research" consisted of more than a Google search. 

You are either mentally ill and obsessed with Apollo or a thick payed shill.
None of which you can prove and the reality is I've had an interest for a long time.  Horror of horrors!!

My god you do scare me and you make me angree also,....you are  far worse than your space amature avatar outlook.
This place becomes stranger by the minute........
I really have to reconsider my position the coming days and fear for some sort of retaliation coming my way.
Retaliation?  For exposing that I have an interest in space flight and Apollo?  Paranoid much?

You are really sick frenat,.....or a payed shill, i don't know what i fear more.....i believe it is the latter.
I won't go over any details with you about Apollo after you make clear what and who you really are and what your purpose is over here.
AGAIN, I am not now, nor have I ever been, paid to post here or anywhere else.  Nor am I compensated in any way.  Just because YOU can't comprehend how I might be interested in the topic, doesn't mean it isn't true.  But I am sure I can't convince you of what I say.  After all, I can't reason you into a position you didn't reason yourself into.  But I'll still laugh about it when you bring it up because I KNOW it isn't true.

One would think if I was paid to post that I wouldn't use the same name and email address and make no effort to hide anything.  But that would take logic.  And all you've got now is a shill gambit. (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit)  Have fun with your logical fallacy.

If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.
Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.

Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing.  I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
Okay i will respect the mods.

But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
And you get the same answer I've mentioned before.  I am not now, nor have I ever been, paid or in any way compensated to post here or anywhere else.  But I doubt you'll believe it.  the apparent paranoia looks to run deep.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 11:06:20 AM
Half of us work for NASA, so he's right.

Did you get your check today? Looks like mine got lost on the mail
I know you are not on any paycheck,.......simply not good enough to promote the globular illusion.
Pay more attention to Onebigmonkey and Rabinoz, ....one day you could recieive a certain phonecall that could be financial beneficially.
But for now, pay attention and see the pro's at work from both sides of the hypothetical spectrum considering earth's shape..
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 14, 2017, 11:15:23 AM
I received an official warning for my post that showed what frenat is doing all over the www.
It is against the rules.....wazzzzzzz

Who is in charge of this place........it is sinister as hell,....that's for sure.
Wow, stalking and harassing another member is against the rules.  That is sinister.
I understand your temporarely feelings of euphoria and your attempt to seek the momentum to hurt me personally after i was indeed in shock about frenat.......
You have been proven wrong so many times that i consider your childish reply as compensation behaviour

''no no still no proof'' you are a broken record and no match for my knowledge about NASA and Apollo.
You can try again of course, but as always i will kick your bud into orbit while you are yelling in LEO ''still no proof''. ;D
This is of course a ''figure of speech'', before you jump to the wrong conclusions again....

Really you should read and study more before joining an international forum.
How did I attempt to hurt you personally?
Anyway you have yet to prove me wrong about anything.  You have yet to prove anything you have claimed.
I know you think you have but you refuse to even consider the possibility that maybe Tyson did not take into account how bright the surface would be.  That's you being closed minded and it certainly isn't proof of anything.
As far as I recall, and I could be mixing you up with another poster, if so I apologize, your only other real arguments are; everybody lies so everything NASA says must be a lie.  It doesn't look right to me, and I don't understand it so it must be fake.
Show some actual proof of a NASA lie.  This one about Tyson isn't it for the simple reason that it is more likely that he simply didn't account for the reflection of the surface than NASA is part of some grand conspiracy.
So do you actually have anything else?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 14, 2017, 11:33:34 AM
Half of us work for NASA, so he's right.

Did you get your check today? Looks like mine got lost on the mail
I know you are not on any paycheck,.......simply not good enough to promote the globular illusion.
Pay more attention to Onebigmonkey and Rabinoz, ....one day you could recieive a certain phonecall that could be financial beneficially.
But for now, pay attention and see the pro's at work from both sides of the hypothetical spectrum considering earth's shape..

You don't have to be an expert to be paid to defend an idea, look at Trump supportets for an instance.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 14, 2017, 11:37:52 AM
There sure are a lot of paid flat Earth shills on this forum!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Sentinel on August 14, 2017, 11:39:32 AM
If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.
Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.

Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing.  I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
Okay i will respect the mods.

But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!

Expecting answers when you're known to abandon threads in order not to is quite rich coming from you.
Clean up your own mess first.  ::)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 11:43:29 AM
but not ALWAYS the first. On many forums I don't enter the discussion until many pages in, if at all.  You've proven I have an interest in space flight and apollo.  Congratulations.  And I've had that interest for nearly 20 years.  A lot happens in 20 years. I won't apologize for being interested in a subject for a long time.
As for replying soon after you, I happen to be online most of the day, whether at work or at home, while I'm doing other things.  Sue me for using the forum software as intended and knowing how email works.   ::)  If you like, I can wait a certain amount of time after you post before replying so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.   ::)
But joining the flatearth forums and for all...the David Icke forums to share your vision ??
I can understand you like a certain subject. I participate on 3 international forums about musical instruments. American and German...althaugh i am Dutch.
I narrow it down to forums and sub forums that i can participate in and have a certain knowledge about the subjects.
If you join the David Icke forum and political charged forums to talk about Apollo related stuff, i become very suspicious.
That doesn't look like a hobby, more an obsession or evangelical drive to promote the holy moonlandings.
Don't you think that is a bit bizare frenat ?
Quote
That is an opinion.  The reality would be I am interested in the topic.
An opinion indeed, that has discovered a poster over here also posts at the David Icke forums and political forums and more to promote his take on Apollo.
You think that is absolute normal behaviour from someone who simply likes to talk about Apollo ?
Quote
Same thing as here.  Reading for entertainment.  I don't have to agree with everything on a forum to post on it, do I?  Notice also I haven't posted there in years and when I did I stayed well away from the shapeshifting lizard crap.  Or at least you would notice if your "research" consisted of more than a Google search. 
It is a matter of personal manners, conviction and MORALS.
Would you post on the ''white stormfront'' or whatever rightwing neo nazi forum if it covered the moonlandings ?
You don't believe in flatearth, so you shouldn't post here, you don't beleive in Daviod Icke's ideology, you shouldn't post there at all.
The only reason i can think of is that you are eather a pyed shill or have a psychological obsession with promoting NASA related achievements at any given oppertunity, despite the fact that it goes against your own morality and conviction.
I am willing to give you the benefits of the doubt and withdraw any insinuation of you being payed.
That leaves me with a very disturbing alternative frenat.
It is not normal behaviour to search all over the internet to forums, articles and blogs that gives you the oppertunity to say something about NASA and the moonlandings.
I really hope you understand my deep concerns.

Take care and give my replies some thought, even if i have said some things that were untrue !! Sorry for that.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 11:54:08 AM
Expecting answers when you're known to abandon threads in order not to is quite rich coming from you.
Clean up your own mess first.  ::)
Does the eclips give you some sort of special climax ? Does any new reply about that topic give you a special feeling ?
I read it and ''resistance is futile'' is doing a great job. He has all of you cornered and you cannot seem to express your thoughts in a way that would promote a fruitfull discussion.
Ýour failures to engage with another human being doesn't mean i have to be part of your mess in the eclips topic.
If you are unable to explain ''your eclips truth'' to ''resistance is futile'',.... it says a whole lot more about you than resistance is futile.

Picture this,.....ten teachers in a classroom unable to teach the pupil the principles of geometry...who is to blame ?
You are to blame, because your fucked up model is indeed inexplainable to rational minds.
And resistance is futile is a strong personality in real life, to put up with your continious harassements at a place he should feel safe to express his thoughts is revealing....namely THE FLATEARTH FORUMS. Not the ''we believe in the heliocentric fantasy forums''
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 14, 2017, 12:04:30 PM
Expecting answers when you're known to abandon threads in order not to is quite rich coming from you.
Clean up your own mess first.  ::)
Does the eclips give you some sort of special climax ? Does any new reply about that topic give you a special feeling ?
I read it and ''resistance is futile'' is doing a great job. He has all of you cornered and you cannot seem to express your thoughts in a way that would promote a fruitfull discussion.
Ýour failures to engage with another human being doesn't mean i have to be part of your mess in the eclips topic.
If you are unable to explain ''your eclips truth'' to ''resistance is futile'',.... it says a whole lot more about you than resistance is futile.

Picture this,.....ten teachers in a classroom unable to teach the pupil the principles of geometry...who is to blame ?
You are to blame, because your fucked up model is indeed inexplainable to rational minds.
And resistance is futile is a strong personality in real life, to put up with your continious harassements at a place he should feel safe to express his thoughts is revealing....namely THE FLATEARTH FORUMS. Not the ''we believe in the heliocentric fantasy forums''
Actually if ten teachers can't teach something to a student I would say the student simply cannot grasp the subject.  This a really good analogy.  Multiple people have tried to explain it but you guys are simply not getting it.  Others are so I would suggest the problem isn't the teachers or material but rather the student.  That really is the most logical explaination.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 14, 2017, 12:13:18 PM
I have posted quite some stuff on forums about Apollo.

I guess I am a paid shill now for my hobby?

Its paid, not payed by the way.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 14, 2017, 12:17:18 PM
but not ALWAYS the first. On many forums I don't enter the discussion until many pages in, if at all.  You've proven I have an interest in space flight and apollo.  Congratulations.  And I've had that interest for nearly 20 years.  A lot happens in 20 years. I won't apologize for being interested in a subject for a long time.
As for replying soon after you, I happen to be online most of the day, whether at work or at home, while I'm doing other things.  Sue me for using the forum software as intended and knowing how email works.   ::)  If you like, I can wait a certain amount of time after you post before replying so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.   ::)
But joining the flatearth forums and for all...the David Icke forums to share your vision ??

And read for entertainment.  AGAIN, I don't participate in the shape-shifting lizard part.  As for flat Earth.  I found that interesting too.  So sue me.

I can understand you like a certain subject. I participate on 3 international forums about musical instruments. American and German...althaugh i am Dutch.
I narrow it down to forums and sub forums that i can participate in and have a certain knowledge about the subjects.
If you join the David Icke forum and political charged forums to talk about Apollo related stuff, i become very suspicious.
That doesn't look like a hobby, more an obsession or evangelical drive to promote the holy moonlandings.
Don't you think that is a bit bizare frenat ?
No, i don't.  I think that I have followed my interest to interesting places.  Especially when oftentimes I was asked to follow the discussion over there by others involved. 

Quote
That is an opinion.  The reality would be I am interested in the topic.
An opinion indeed, that has discovered a poster over here also posts at the David Icke forums and political forums and more to promote his take on Apollo.
You think that is absolute normal behaviour from someone who simply likes to talk about Apollo ?
Again, yes.

Quote
Same thing as here.  Reading for entertainment.  I don't have to agree with everything on a forum to post on it, do I?  Notice also I haven't posted there in years and when I did I stayed well away from the shapeshifting lizard crap.  Or at least you would notice if your "research" consisted of more than a Google search. 
It is a matter of personal manners, conviction and MORALS.
Would you post on the ''white stormfront'' or whatever rightwing neo nazi forum if it covered the moonlandings ?
I first would doubt they have a science section to have threads about it at all.  Second, I would doubt I'd find the thread at all as I wouldn't be near the forum to start with.  The David Icke forum you're hung up on has quite a large section of thread that have nothing to do with the namesake.

You don't believe in flatearth, so you shouldn't post here, you don't beleive in Daviod Icke's ideology, you shouldn't post there at all.
So I should just let ignorance and lies stand.  And screw having any other interests or entertainment.  Don't bother to look at the other side if you don't believe any of it, right?  How DARE anybody share any thoughts and ideas with people that don't think the way they do!!   ::)

The only reason i can think of is that you are eather a pyed shill or have a psychological obsession with promoting NASA related achievements at any given oppertunity, despite the fact that it goes against your own morality and conviction.
Again, that is your opinion and one without evidence.

I am willing to give you the benefits of the doubt and withdraw any insinuation of you being payed.
That leaves me with a very disturbing alternative frenat.
Only because you are incapable of imagining any other alternative.  That is your problem, not mine.

It is not normal behaviour to search all over the internet to forums, articles and blogs that gives you the oppertunity to say something about NASA and the moonlandings.
I really hope you understand my deep concerns.
Again, that is an opinion without merit and you seem to be forgetting that it is spread out over 20 years.  And I don't go searching.  Again, I have sometimes been invited to a particular discussion by someone already there.  Sometimes it is more informal where someone mentions an interesting discussion is happening.  If the place looks interesting, I'll stick around.  If not, I won't.  Plus, I don't give a rat's ass about your concerns.  You've clearly let your paranoia take over.  Have fun with that.

Take care and give my replies some thought, even if i have said some things that were untrue !! Sorry for that.
Except I doubt you are.


did I respond too quickly?  I wouldn't want to offend you.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 12:29:16 PM
Plus, I don't give a rat's ass about your concerns.  You've clearly let your paranoia take over.  Have fun with that.
You can thank me in time frenat !!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 14, 2017, 12:33:08 PM
Plus, I don't give a rat's ass about your concerns.  You've clearly let your paranoia take over.  Have fun with that.
You can thank me in time frenat !!
Why would I thank you for your unfounded paranoia?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 02:33:00 PM
Wow look at that NASA propaganda from 1966.
The earth has changed since then, way to fast for me..... ::) ::) ::)
What a crap load of brainwashing shit.

Apologist, time to defend daddy NASA, althaugh it must feel like being tormented at times. ;D
Look at that blue uhhh marble at 2.55 in the video
(http://)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 03:15:50 PM
Why are ships look-outs given time to adapt? So dutchy knows better than marine authorities now.
It is even in the regulations that the relieved lookout must not leave his post until the relieving lookout's eyes have adequately adapted.

So stop denying self-evident facts with your perpetual NASAphobia.
They didn't see any star at all during their stay on the moon.
No fainted stars, not less bright stars, no nothing....no visible stars during their 2,5 hours moonwalk.
The time on the moon or the time of the moonwalk are totally irrelevant.

Quote from: dutchy
Yes i know better than you, far better to conclude that this is impossible.
Sure they would need to adapt, i have never denied that.
But your default conclusion is that during their stay on the moon it was reasonable that they could not see stars with their eyes. Not even a few, fainted ones or less bright.
Not even after 2.5 hours ?

You see what these means don't you. It means THEY COULDN'T SEE STARS ON THE MOON
No, it means that they didn't see stars on the moon
Quote from: dutchy
Or would they have seen stars after a week, a month ? Is 2,5 hours not enough to adapt ?
It means nothing of the sort
You admit that "they would need to adapt, I have never denied that." But there is no chance to adapt unless they specifically take the time to do it.

Of course "2,5 hours not enough to adapt", but they did not have 2.5 hours to adapt.
As I have said before, had there been provision for "looking at the star" (just to please arch-sceptic dutchy) it could have been done, but apparently it wasn't.
Just face the facts!

Quote from: dutchy
It means that Neil deGrasse Tyson is talking out of his ass or Neil Armstrong.
No it does not!

Quote from: dutchy
Neil deGRasse Tyson says you would see the stars just like during the night

Neil Armstrong says you can't see stars even after 2.5 hours no star is visible

And others seem to agree with what I say!
Quote
Why did Neil deGrasse Tyson say that you could see a full sky of stars on the moon during the daytime, but the Apollo astronauts said that they couldn't see any?/size]
Drew Northcott
The human eye works like this. when incoming light is bright the iris closes down to limit the amount of light coming into the eye. On the surface of the moon, you are standing on a daylit surface looking approximately at the horizon, half your vision is full of brightly lit ground, the iris closes down reducing the light coming into the eye. You’re also wearing UV filters and a mirrored visor which helps block the light, so you generally won’t see any but the very brightest stars, so does that mean Neil Degrasse Tyson is wrong? No.

The stars are still there, but you have to make an effort to see them, stand in a large shadow, look up to exclude the bright surface from your field of vision, raise the protective UV filters of your helmet and wait for your eyes to adapt to the darkness, then you will see stars. One of the Apollo Astronauts (Gene Cernan I think) did just that.

Another way to do this would be to look through a tube in order to exclude extraneous light. There were a couple of instruments built into the Apollo craft in order to check navigation and orientation that were used in just this way during the trip.

It’s also worth noting that although stars don’t show up in the photos Venus appeared in a few. It’s bright enough to show up even with other lit objects in frame.

From: Why did Neil deGrasse Tyson say that you could see a full sky of stars . . . . . . ? (https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-say-that-you-could-see-a-full-sky-of-stars-on-the-moon-during-the-daytime-but-the-Apollo-astronauts-said-that-they-couldnt-see-any)

Quote from: dutchy
So your whole ''time to adapt'' is futile
Not at all!
Quote from: dutchy
.......no stars vs bright stars....who is right Neil or Neil  ;D
BOTH
Quote from: dutchy

Now stop lying and take your loss as a man that has some dignity left.
What loss? Your claims mean nothing and I am defending my position as a man that with plenty dignity left.

I am not lying, thank you, Mr dutchy!
Bearing in mind that neither you now I have been into space, I am saying what I believe is correct - so stop this slander thank you!
One of my pet hates is people who accuse explicitly or implicitly hundreds of thousands of quite innocent people of lying and deceit.
That is the main reason I am here, though few of my targets are the members here, even the flat earth supporters.
My main targets are the numerous flat earth YouTube video makers are their hate-filled fans who literally curse and swear at opponents.
Some even accuse any who dare argue against their "evidence" of being satanists (sound familiar) and "paedophile lovers".
Now, I am not in a position to do much on YouTube, though plenty of good people are, but I can at least do what I can here.

My targets are not the members here (apart from 3 or 4) but those just casually looking at this site.
Right now there are 165 Guests and only 12 Users. The most online today so far has been 289.
I assume that many of these guests come from watching Flat Earth YouTube videos many of which have totally biased and incorrect information on all sorts of things from the upcoming eclipse, sunsets and southern hemisphere airline flights.

So there you have, take it how you like!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 14, 2017, 03:37:58 PM
So there you have, take it how you like!
Sorry , but the majority of your posts read like Chinese to me. Of course that is due to my understanding first, but i only experience this when trying to  decifer your posts.

I get it that you are here to post the scientific thruth and hope that illiterate silent readers with false notions of reality understand what true science is all about compared to nonsense like the flatearth and Apollo deniers claim.

What i don't get at all is when you talk in absolute riddles explaining what Neil A.  and Neil dGT meant and how nothing in their claims was possibly contradictory.
Sorry i give up, you can have your little space fantasies, despite the fact that they are contradictory as anything.

Want to comment on my 1966 video full of early NASA propaganda and a uhhhhh grey marble ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 14, 2017, 03:42:24 PM
Why would you expect a black and white image to not be black and white?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 04:07:04 PM
Wow look at that NASA propaganda from 1966.
The earth has changed since then, way to fast for me..... ::) ::) ::)
What a crap load of brainwashing shit.

Apologist, time to defend daddy NASA, althaugh it must feel like being tormented at times. ;D
Look at that blue uhhh marble at 2.55 in the video
Flat Earth - First Picture of Earth (1966) Flat Earth Hub (http://)
Nup, we're not tormented, you are just showing your ignorance and paranoia.

Looks blue to me, what's changed!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/gxvi4ddy1n36pxd/First%20Photograph%20of%20nearly%20full%20planet%20from%20215%2C000%2C000%20miles%20away.jpg?dl=1)
Flat Earth - First Picture of Earth (1966) Flat Earth Hub
             
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp60myxsgo0xmj8/20160727%20-%20Russian%20Satellite%20Photo%20around%20midday%20-%20December%202015.png?dl=1)
From Russian Weather Satellite, similar aspect

No, the earth hasn't changed, but the quality of photographs has! Apollo 17 had much better cameras, like the "70-millimeter Hasselblad Electric Camera"!
(https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/55000/55418/AS17-148-22727.jpg)
So just what is wrong with the 1966 photo? Just what has got up your nose this time?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 04:18:24 PM
So there you have, take it how you like!
Sorry , but the majority of your posts read like Chinese to me. Of course that is due to my understanding first, but i only experience this when trying to  decifer your posts.
Well, I do my best, but really I couldn't care in the slightest what you think!

Quote from: dutchy
I get it that you are here to post the scientific thruth and hope that illiterate silent readers with false notions of reality understand what true science is all about compared to nonsense like the flatearth and Apollo deniers claim.
I definitely would not accuse these "silent readers" of being "illiterate " or being "with false notions of reality". I'll leave those accusations to you.

Quote from: dutchy
What i don't get at all is when you talk in absolute riddles explaining what Neil A.  and Neil dGT meant and how nothing in their claims was possibly contradictory.
I do not see their statements as contradictory, and neither do most people not wearing your anti-NASA filters.

Quote from: dutchy
Sorry i give up, you can have your little space fantasies, despite the fact that they are contradictory as anything.
It is only you that is claiming "that they are contradictory as anything".
Quote from: dutchy

Want to comment on my 1966 video full of early NASA propaganda and a uhhhhh grey marble ?
Done and did - hope you like it!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 14, 2017, 04:55:12 PM
So there you have, take it how you like!
Sorry , but the majority of your posts read like Chinese to me. Of course that is due to my understanding first, but i only experience this when trying to  decifer your posts.

I get it that you are here to post the scientific thruth and hope that illiterate silent readers with false notions of reality understand what true science is all about compared to nonsense like the flatearth and Apollo deniers claim.

What i don't get at all is when you talk in absolute riddles explaining what Neil A.  and Neil dGT meant and how nothing in their claims was possibly contradictory.
Sorry i give up, you can have your little space fantasies, despite the fact that they are contradictory as anything.

Want to comment on my 1966 video full of early NASA propaganda and a uhhhhh grey marble ?
I honestly don't understand how you don't understand this.  It was explained perfectly well to you.  Really, a middle school kid would get from that explaination.
How is it so confusing to you?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: sokarul on August 14, 2017, 06:22:26 PM
When your ideas are so shit you have to claim everyone is a paid shill.
Do you think frenat's behaviour as clearly shown is behaviour for a normal functioning human being ?
Have you clicked on the links,....frenat is a madman obsessed about defending Apollo all over the www.
You think that is normal behaviour or simply a hobby ?
I don't care what he does. You and other flat brainers get monstrously destroyed time and time again yet still come back. That's not normal behavior.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: HeoSkeptic on August 14, 2017, 06:40:57 PM
In order to cover up God? What?
What does the geometry of the Earth have that displays a god of a specific religion?

That is a strange one. I would also wonder what NASA gains from this.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 14, 2017, 10:18:40 PM
In order to cover up God? What?
What does the geometry of the Earth have that displays a god of a specific religion?

That is a strange one. I would also wonder what NASA gains from this.
That's a question I've often asked, maybe dutchy can answer.
You could read these:
Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth is "Stationary" ? What do you mean? « on: Today at 06:17:07 AM »
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71466.msg1942156#msg1942156)
Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth is "Stationary" ? What do you mean? « on: August 14, 2017, 06:13:50 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71466.msg1941758#msg1941758)
And
The plan was and is to make sure that ''God'' is considered a scientific impossibility.
This is considering our biblical roots an extreme abomination
Behind the scenes this carefully executed plan took centuries and has reached it's final episode in the history of men.
The globe is only a part of a much bigger problem.

The bigger problem is that the human race has accepted the supposed non existance of God in every thinkable way .
The many falsehoods within the hypothetical science of our cosmos, roots and morals have done all the brainwashing.

So, it seems that dutchy is the expert here.
But, as far as I am concerned, the "geometry of the Earth" has nothing to with the existence of God or  with any religion.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 14, 2017, 11:21:09 PM
Wow look at that NASA propaganda from 1966.
The earth has changed since then, way to fast for me..... ::) ::) ::)
What a crap load of brainwashing shit.

Apologist, time to defend daddy NASA, althaugh it must feel like being tormented at times. ;D
Look at that blue uhhh marble at 2.55 in the video
(http://)

That image of Earth you dislike was taken lunar orbit, the film developed, scanned and the result transmitted back to Earth. The meteorological features on it (just like the other ones taken by Lunar Orbiter featuring Earth) show an exact match for the satellite record of the time. The image metadata can be used to show what Earth should have looked like when it was taken, and it is exactly correct.

(http://i.imgur.com/vkuKlhV.jpg)

I have original copies of the images in books published at the time.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: hoppy on August 15, 2017, 03:46:53 AM
If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.
Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.

Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing.  I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
Okay i will respect the mods.

But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
Frenat doesn't need to admit to being a shill, you caught him.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 15, 2017, 05:12:29 AM
If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.
Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.

Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing.  I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
Okay i will respect the mods.

But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
Frenat doesn't need to admit to being a shill, you caught him.
But it's against the rules, i received a warning.

I still want to give him the benefit of the doubt, i am way to gullible at times,..... i know.
But his 900+ post over at the David Icke forums are utterly shocking, no matter what angle i try to see it from.
There are indeed few names circling around the www In my research after Apollo it was a small clan ready to jump in all over the net,..... like i showed with frenat's links.

I saw a recorded converstation in a comment section that was deleted afterwards, between Astrobrant2 and Kris de Valle ( 2 diehard Apollo defenders) It was utterly shocking. Not only did they recommend using one of their sock puppets in various ways to attack certain anti Apollo posters, they truly seemed to be taken their online services extremely serious. As if their carere depended on proving Apollo and NASA right.

I know for a fact that Onebigmonkey and frenat were part of the Apollohoax.net and Clavius.
That doesn't make them shills of course, but it was a scary clan of totally obsessed Apollo believers. It was like a cult that immidiatly threw the cosmic wrath upon disbelievers.
I never dared to participate, fearing to be fried by their communication tactics... althaugh i was deeply troubled over the moonlandings.
I am beying accused of being obsessed by NASA....  and yes their fakery has drawn my attention very much, but what those , let's say 10 hardcore insiders have done over the years is mind boggling.
Blogs, sites, video's, clips, reviews, forums etc.

They must have raised the bar for amateurism without it's equall,..... or ???
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 15, 2017, 05:51:57 AM
If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.
Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.

Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing.  I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
Okay i will respect the mods.

But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
Frenat doesn't need to admit to being a shill, you caught him.
But it's against the rules, i received a warning.

I still want to give him the benefit of the doubt, i am way to gullible at times,..... i know.
But his 900+ post over at the David Icke forums are utterly shocking, no matter what angle i try to see it from.
How about the angle where the shapeshifting lizard crap is completely separated from the space section and those posts were not only spread out over about 5 years but also that the account was closed over 5 years ago?  934 posts over 5 years is at best 1 post every 2 days.  It isn't my fault that you can't understand that a forum can talk about many different things.  From what I remember about that forum, very few threw in with Icke's crazy beliefs.  Were all the hundreds (probably thousands) that didn't exactly agree with him shills?

There are indeed few names circling around the www In my research after Apollo it was a small clan ready to jump in all over the net,..... like i showed with frenat's links.

I saw a recorded converstation in a comment section that was deleted afterwards, between Astrobrant2 and Kris de Valle ( 2 diehard Apollo defenders) It was utterly shocking. Not only did they recommend using one of their sock puppets in various ways to attack certain anti Apollo posters, they truly seemed to be taken their online services extremely serious. As if their carere depended on proving Apollo and NASA right.
Any link to this supposed conversation?  How do you know they weren't joking?  Playing around with paranoid posters that already believed they did that stuff anyway?  For that matter, if it was recorded and later deleted, how do you know it was genuine and not created by someone else?
I don't recognize the name Kris de Valle.  Where is he active?
Edit to add:  a search shows him active mostly on youtube and not much more (though I didn't look that hard).  Even from what I can find on Youtube it doesn't look like much.  I seem to be finding more talking ABOUT him than from him and even then not that much.  But most of youtube is restricted on my current network so I can't see much on the site just mostly what I see in searches.  There is far more from Jarrah White or hunchbacked.  They seem to spend a ton of time there.  Are they paid to do so?

Did your "research" basic Google search show all the places I didn't post?  No of course not.  You looked for something specific and found it.  And your results are biased as a result.
so you've shown that some people like to use the same name across multiple forums.  Hardly looks like they're hiding or trying to do something nefarious.

I know for a fact that Onebigmonkey and frenat were part of the Apollohoax.net and Clavius.
Clavius doesn't have a forum.

That doesn't make them shills of course, but it was a scary clan of totally obsessed Apollo believers. It was like a cult that immidiatly threw the cosmic wrath upon disbelievers.
I never dared to participate, fearing to be fried by their communication tactics... althaugh i was deeply troubled over the moonlandings.
People with a shared interest talking about said interest on a forum dedicated to said interest?  And defend that interest against trolls and people that start out calling them liars and shills?  What a shocker!  Next you'll be telling me there are people who believe in a flat Earth that talk about it in some kind of Flat Earth Society forum! 
Apollohoax.net is often civilized and at one point there were quite a few active hoax believers debating there.  People are only banned when breaking the rules and then only after multiple warnings.  You'd probably enjoy it but not if you start out by calling everyone paid shills.  Personally I don't post there much anymore.


Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 15, 2017, 06:36:12 AM
If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.
Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.

Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing.  I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
Okay i will respect the mods.

But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
Frenat doesn't need to admit to being a shill, you caught him.
But it's against the rules, i received a warning.

I still want to give him the benefit of the doubt, i am way to gullible at times,..... i know.
But his 900+ post over at the David Icke forums are utterly shocking, no matter what angle i try to see it from.
There are indeed few names circling around the www In my research after Apollo it was a small clan ready to jump in all over the net,..... like i showed with frenat's links.

I saw a recorded converstation in a comment section that was deleted afterwards, between Astrobrant2 and Kris de Valle ( 2 diehard Apollo defenders) It was utterly shocking. Not only did they recommend using one of their sock puppets in various ways to attack certain anti Apollo posters, they truly seemed to be taken their online services extremely serious. As if their carere depended on proving Apollo and NASA right.

I know for a fact that Onebigmonkey and frenat were part of the Apollohoax.net and Clavius.
That doesn't make them shills of course, but it was a scary clan of totally obsessed Apollo believers. It was like a cult that immidiatly threw the cosmic wrath upon disbelievers.
I never dared to participate, fearing to be fried by their communication tactics... althaugh i was deeply troubled over the moonlandings.
I am beying accused of being obsessed by NASA....  and yes their fakery has drawn my attention very much, but what those , let's say 10 hardcore insiders have done over the years is mind boggling.
Blogs, sites, video's, clips, reviews, forums etc.

They must have raised the bar for amateurism without it's equall,..... or ???
And yet you have still failed to prove even one lie from NASA.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 15, 2017, 06:49:35 AM
If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.
Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.

Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing.  I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
Okay i will respect the mods.

But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
Frenat doesn't need to admit to being a shill, you caught him.
But it's against the rules, i received a warning.

I still want to give him the benefit of the doubt, i am way to gullible at times,..... i know.
But his 900+ post over at the David Icke forums are utterly shocking, no matter what angle i try to see it from.
There are indeed few names circling around the www In my research after Apollo it was a small clan ready to jump in all over the net,..... like i showed with frenat's links.

I saw a recorded converstation in a comment section that was deleted afterwards, between Astrobrant2 and Kris de Valle ( 2 diehard Apollo defenders) It was utterly shocking. Not only did they recommend using one of their sock puppets in various ways to attack certain anti Apollo posters, they truly seemed to be taken their online services extremely serious. As if their carere depended on proving Apollo and NASA right.

I know for a fact that Onebigmonkey and frenat were part of the Apollohoax.net and Clavius.
That doesn't make them shills of course, but it was a scary clan of totally obsessed Apollo believers. It was like a cult that immidiatly threw the cosmic wrath upon disbelievers.
I never dared to participate, fearing to be fried by their communication tactics... althaugh i was deeply troubled over the moonlandings.
I am beying accused of being obsessed by NASA....  and yes their fakery has drawn my attention very much, but what those , let's say 10 hardcore insiders have done over the years is mind boggling.
Blogs, sites, video's, clips, reviews, forums etc.

They must have raised the bar for amateurism without it's equall,..... or ???
And yet you have still failed to prove even one lie from NASA.
According to your beloved science the multiverse is getting more probable every year.
Can you believe you are also partaking in another universe defending the flatearth ??
  ;D ;D
That gives me so much pleasure......
But i do hope you don't sound like a broken record over there like you do here.
That wouldn't do the flatearth cause no good in that other place  ::)

Psst use a bit of variation in your oneliners....
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 15, 2017, 06:51:17 AM
Post 666  :o :o :o
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 15, 2017, 06:52:07 AM
Post 667   ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 15, 2017, 06:54:24 AM
If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.
Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.

Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing.  I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
Okay i will respect the mods.

But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
Frenat doesn't need to admit to being a shill, you caught him.
But it's against the rules, i received a warning.

I still want to give him the benefit of the doubt, i am way to gullible at times,..... i know.
But his 900+ post over at the David Icke forums are utterly shocking, no matter what angle i try to see it from.
There are indeed few names circling around the www In my research after Apollo it was a small clan ready to jump in all over the net,..... like i showed with frenat's links.

I saw a recorded converstation in a comment section that was deleted afterwards, between Astrobrant2 and Kris de Valle ( 2 diehard Apollo defenders) It was utterly shocking. Not only did they recommend using one of their sock puppets in various ways to attack certain anti Apollo posters, they truly seemed to be taken their online services extremely serious. As if their carere depended on proving Apollo and NASA right.

I know for a fact that Onebigmonkey and frenat were part of the Apollohoax.net and Clavius.
That doesn't make them shills of course, but it was a scary clan of totally obsessed Apollo believers. It was like a cult that immidiatly threw the cosmic wrath upon disbelievers.
I never dared to participate, fearing to be fried by their communication tactics... althaugh i was deeply troubled over the moonlandings.
I am beying accused of being obsessed by NASA....  and yes their fakery has drawn my attention very much, but what those , let's say 10 hardcore insiders have done over the years is mind boggling.
Blogs, sites, video's, clips, reviews, forums etc.

They must have raised the bar for amateurism without it's equall,..... or ???
And yet you have still failed to prove even one lie from NASA.
According to your beloved science the multiverse is getting more probable every year.
Can you believe you are also partaking in another universe defending the flatearth ??
  ;D ;D
That gives me so much pleasure......
But i do hope you don't sound like a broken record over there like you do here.
That wouldn't do the flatearth cause no good in that other place  ::)

Psst use a bit of variation in your oneliners....
So personal insults but still no proof.  And you say I sound like a broken record.  Now that's funny.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 15, 2017, 07:58:02 AM
So personal insults but still no proof.  And you say I sound like a broken record.  Now that's funny.
Ooo i am sorry, i am sometimes not aware of insulting people, not intended this time around....i will tone down. ;D ;D ;D ;D

 ::)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 15, 2017, 08:19:35 AM
I know for a fact that Onebigmonkey and frenat were part of the Apollohoax.net and Clavius.

Nobody here has to justify why they post, or where they post it, all they have to do is justify what they post. I see no reason why I should explain my internet activity to you or anyone, but if you have an issue with the information I post then you should do that. Ideally this should be in the form of a logical counter-argument. Crying "shill" and "you believe something I don't and have read books about it so I won't discuss it" are not logical arguments, they are running away from the discussion.

You posted a video that showed images of Earth taken from lunar orbit by unmanned probes. You seem sceptical of them but haven't said why that is - you haven't justified your opinion.

 I've posted you an image as justification for my contention that it is a genuine image. Other people have done similar things:

http://www.moonviews.com/2010/03/nimbus-ii-and-lunar-orbiter-1-imagery-a-new-look-at-earth-in-1966.html

Statements along the lines of "I don't trust the source" are not adequate.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 15, 2017, 09:20:24 AM
So personal insults but still no proof.  And you say I sound like a broken record.  Now that's funny.
Ooo i am sorry, i am sometimes not aware of insulting people, not intended this time around....i will tone down. ;D ;D ;D ;D

 ::)
I accept your apology, but I must note that you still have not produced any evidence of a NASA lie.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 15, 2017, 10:01:25 AM
I accept your apology, but I must note that you still have not produced any evidence of a NASA lie.
Evidence is kryptonite to me.,....why do you hurt me so much ?
On a more serious note......i think i have proven NASA's marketing trick about the ISS guitar hero and bandearth+choir

Why ?

1 The initial small talk between the host and guitarman was clearly a live conversation and performance and nothing was ever said to the contrary
2 The music we hear is a post production, because of audible added effects, audible streamlined vocals eq, visual clicktrack drums and audible perfect eq
Even the most expensive live performance on earth is not capable of a perfect mix in real time as shown between ISS and earth.
3 ''Guitarman'' didn't make any mistake, not a tiny one, althaugh he claimed that he had little time to practice and playing in micro gravity needed lots of practice
Clearly another case of aftermath in the post production.
4 The time delay makes any live performance impossible, but they forgot to mention this, because playing along in the ISS with a pre recorded tape doesn't look as good as a pretentious live show between space and earth.

If you don't consider that proof, i am afraid nothing will in your lifespan.
You may consider it unimportant, granted.......but it is proof of NASA fakery.

If you doubt my skills ?....just read along in the various topics, because a detected yet another desperate guitar hero wannabe over here that needs a little professional guidance. ;D  ;D  ;D

Most globers over here do not only harrass flatearthers in their place, some even annoy the inhabitants of flatearth with their underpar guitar skills...yuk.
Further more,......the vast majority of guitar players are the cause for band conflicts.
With their idiotic amount of crazy effect pedals (chorus, flanger, phazer, delay, fuzz, distortion etc.) , tube stacks, racks crammed with all their ''other'' guitars on a tiny stage, loud volume, bad timing and contact disturbed attitude ....

And it does say something that i allready detected TWO wannabe guitar players among globeearth posters over here. I can not handle more wannabe guitar players.....so be silent about it globers........you don't play the guitar....remember !!
Or was the ISS cosmic guitarshow a form of inspiration to pick up a guitar ????  ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 10:09:18 AM
NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.

Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.

Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.

Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?

They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 15, 2017, 10:13:50 AM
I accept your apology, but I must note that you still have not produced any evidence of a NASA lie.
Evidence is kryptonite to me.,....why do you hurt me so much ?
On a more serious note......i think i have proven NASA's marketing trick about the ISS guitar hero and bandearth+choir

Why ?

1 The initial small talk between the host and guitarman was clearly a live conversation and performance and nothing was ever said to the contrary
2 The music we hear is a post production, because of audible added effects, audible streamlined vocals eq, visual clicktrack drums and audible perfect eq
Even the most expensive live performance on earth is not capable of a perfect mix in real time as shown between ISS and earth.
3 ''Guitarman'' didn't make any mistake, not a tiny one, althaugh he claimed that he had little time to practice and playing in micro gravity needed lots of practice
Clearly another case of aftermath in the post production.
4 The time delay makes any live performance impossible, but they forgot to mention this, because playing along in the ISS with a pre recorded tape doesn't look as good as a pretentious live show between space and earth.

If you don't consider that proof, i am afraid nothing will in your lifespan.
You may consider it unimportant, granted.......but it is proof of NASA fakery.

If you doubt my skills ?....just read along in the various topics, because a detected yet another desperate guitar hero wannabe over here that needs a little professional guidance. ;D  ;D  ;D

Most globers over here do not only harrass flatearthers in their place, some even annoy the inhabitants of flatearth with their underpar guitar skills...yuk.
Further more,......the vast majority of guitar players are the cause for band conflicts.
With their idiotic amount of crazy effect pedals (chorus, flanger, phazer, delay, fuzz, distortion etc.) , tube stacks, racks crammed with all their ''other'' guitars on a tiny stage, loud volume, bad timing and contact disturbed attitude ....

And it does say something that i allready detected TWO wannabe guitar players among globeearth posters over here. I can not handle more wannabe guitar players.....so be silent about it globers........you don't play the guitar....remember !!
Or was the ISS cosmic guitarshow a form of inspiration to pick up a guitar ????  ::) ::) ::)
But we've already agreed at least one of them was prerecorded, it had to be because of the delay.  If anything that's evidence he was actually on the ISS in space.
Secondly, I'm not sure NASA had anything to do with it.  It was a Canadian astronaut on Canadian TV, it was a corporately sponsored event, if I recall.
Sure it was a bit of a publicity stunt, but certainly not evidence of NASA fakery or lies.
Got anything else?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 15, 2017, 10:14:49 AM
NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.

Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.

Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.

Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?

They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.

What is MODN?     Did you mean MOND?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 15, 2017, 10:17:31 AM
t was a Canadian astronaut on Canadian TV, it was a corporately sponsored event, if I recall.

...playing along to a Canadian band whilst on an orbiting craft part paid for by Canada.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 15, 2017, 10:18:09 AM
NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.

Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.

Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.

Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?

They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
Ok, why don't you back some of that up?  As for technology, can you imagine how much more expensive that technology would have been had the private sector developed it?  If it would have been developed at all.  I am in favor of government funding scientific research, it's a good thing.
I still have yet to see you guys produce any proof of NASA faking anything.  It's just people saying they don't understand how it works so it must be fake.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 15, 2017, 10:19:17 AM
NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.

Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.

Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.

Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?

They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.

What is MODN?     Did you mean MOND?
Thanks I forgot to ask about that.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 15, 2017, 10:25:23 AM
NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits,

Are you arguing that NASA is a drug cartel, or just that some NASA employees have been caught spending their salaries on coke? Hardly proof of a flat Earth.

Quote
and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs

In order to get funding they need to quantify what they intend to spend it on. How well has NASA's budget fared over the past few decades would you say?

Quote
they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector.

and by selling the technology they recoup some of the investment of those taxpayers. Why would they give it away to the USA's private health care sector so that the medical profession there can make even more money?

Quote
They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.

Or they are a large research organisation, one of many, that uses the resources it is given to promote and publish that research. That's how research works.

Quote
Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.

Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.

Show us a lie.

Quote

Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?

This is a complete fabrication. No-one at NASA gave anyone a rock and told them it was from the moon. This story is the result of an art project and lazy reporting - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone from NASA, or even from the USA, ever gave a fossil to a former Dutch premier.

Quote
They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.

Up to and including sending rockets into space.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 10:29:24 AM
Yes, I meant MOND. I'm posting from work so I'm typing in a hurry.

NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.

Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.

Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.

Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?

They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
Ok, why don't you back some of that up?  As for technology, can you imagine how much more expensive that technology would have been had the private sector developed it?  If it would have been developed at all.  I am in favor of government funding scientific research, it's a good thing.
I still have yet to see you guys produce any proof of NASA faking anything.  It's just people saying they don't understand how it works so it must be fake.
Diplomat Rock: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
Caught Using Cocaine At NASA: https://www.space.com/11128-nasa-kennedy-space-center-cocaine.html

I'm fine with the government researching and funding engineering efforts. I am not ok with them selling it to private sector to fund their pet projects. The are given the money the people feel they warrant through the processes we put in place to ensure that. The technology belongs to the people, not the scientists at NASA so they can sell it to circumvent their budgeting restrictions.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 15, 2017, 10:38:27 AM
I'm fine with the government researching and funding engineering efforts. I am not ok with them selling it to private sector to fund their pet projects. The are given the money the people feel they warrant through the processes we put in place to ensure that. The technology belongs to the people, not the scientists at NASA so they can sell it to circumvent their budgeting restrictions.
People don't use NASA technology to produce useful products, industry does.

BTW, I would imagine that some of NASA's budget relies on the patent license fees to ease the taxpayer burden.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 15, 2017, 10:40:44 AM
NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.

Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.

Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.

Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?

They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
Good post John !!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 10:43:20 AM
As far as the private sector, it seems to be doing just fine faking their own technology with SpaceX.

NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits,

Are you arguing that NASA is a drug cartel, or just that some NASA employees have been caught spending their salaries on coke? Hardly proof of a flat Earth.
They have been caught using government resources, multiple times, to the ends of their cocaine habits. I never claimed it was proof of a flat earth, though I understand the average globularist may have trouble reading so I will hold my tongue.
Quote
Quote
and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs

In order to get funding they need to quantify what they intend to spend it on. How well has NASA's budget fared over the past few decades would you say?
I would say not very well: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2171

Its a good thing we audited that one.

Quote
Quote
they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector.

and by selling the technology they recoup some of the investment of those taxpayers. Why would they give it away to the USA's private health care sector so that the medical profession there can make even more money?
The technology should be given freely to whomever wants it. The goal of NASA is not to make money to fund their projects, its to take the funding they are given to perform the research the people want.
Quote
Quote
They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.

Or they are a large research organisation, one of many, that uses the resources it is given to promote and publish that research. That's how research works.
Not in an Open and Free society, it isn't.
Quote
Quote
Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.

Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.

Show us a lie.

I am not in a position currently to do your research for you.


I'm fine with the government researching and funding engineering efforts. I am not ok with them selling it to private sector to fund their pet projects. The are given the money the people feel they warrant through the processes we put in place to ensure that. The technology belongs to the people, not the scientists at NASA so they can sell it to circumvent their budgeting restrictions.
People don't use NASA technology to produce useful products, industry does.

BTW, I would imagine that some of NASA's budget relies on the patent license fees to ease the taxpayer burden.
And industry could do this cheaper (and more industries could be built, by yes people) if it was available for free as it should.

It eases the burden of those at NASA who want to research one of many of their ridiculous products. The tax payer pays the same amount to NASA whether or not they choose to embezzle it.

NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.

Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.

Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.

Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?

They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
Good post John !!
Thank you
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 15, 2017, 11:03:59 AM
As far as the private sector, it seems to be doing just fine faking their own technology with SpaceX.

NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits,

Are you arguing that NASA is a drug cartel, or just that some NASA employees have been caught spending their salaries on coke? Hardly proof of a flat Earth.
They have been caught using government resources, multiple times, to the ends of their cocaine habits. I never claimed it was proof of a flat earth, though I understand the average globularist may have trouble reading so I will hold my tongue.
Thanks, call me ignorant....but i didn't know that. What a scumbag organisation NASA is ....a bottomless pit of taxpayer's money and destroyers of specific Apollo data.
I am very interrested in those specific details, so keep them coming.

In the Netherlands where i live, people hardly know about NASA ,so many details are rare to find.
The more i read, the more obvious it gets.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 11:28:18 AM
You can simply shake a stick, and you'll find a hard time not pointing at more NASA nonsense. Does anybody else remember when the NASA love triangle turned into a mad woman driving across the country in a diaper; clearly led to insanity by the debauchery that happens within the hallowed, or is that hollow, halls of NASA.

Or the Challenger disaster board of inquiry - a complete joke.  They stacked the 'independent' board with NASA goons like Armstrong.

Here's an oldy but goldy:

Even the image of earth we all know and love, or here hate, is a carefully stitched together tapestry of lies. From NASA's Mr. Blue Marble himself:
Quote
Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space.

Oh and the lunar lander? It's simply cardboard, curtain rods, roofing paper, and flood lights all held together with the strength and resilience needed for the moon - scotch tape. Oh and throw in a few Golden Rods. We wouldn't want R2-D2 to get lonely in this fantasy world. It looks like they had 'take your kid to work' day at NASA and had the next generation piecemeal together what they might think something that landed on the moon might look like.

Anything to keep or raise their budget of filthy lucre.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Rip Riley on August 15, 2017, 11:40:01 AM
Nasa means "to deceive" in hebrew. The creature that deceived humanity in Genesis was a serpent. So of course they incorporated a serpent's tongue and the ouroboros into the logo:

(http://i.imgur.com/mQEPUBC.jpg)

This page has many more details: http://robschannel.com/nasa-in-hebrew

Which also talks about many references to the occult and gods in their naming schemes and symbolism. Hard to take it all as coincidence.

From the end of the article, when he takes the hebrew letters that form the word (each letter has a basic meaning) and puts it together:

Quote
“The activity of destroying God.”

This seems to be the sole purpose of NASA.


Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 15, 2017, 12:03:28 PM
I'm fine with the government researching and funding engineering efforts. I am not ok with them selling it to private sector to fund their pet projects. The are given the money the people feel they warrant through the processes we put in place to ensure that. The technology belongs to the people, not the scientists at NASA so they can sell it to circumvent their budgeting restrictions.

People don't use NASA technology to produce useful products, industry does.

BTW, I would imagine that some of NASA's budget relies on the patent license fees to ease the taxpayer burden.
And industry could do this cheaper (and more industries could be built, by yes people) if it was available for free as it should.
Why should industry profit from taxpayer funded research?

It eases the burden of those at NASA who want to research one of many of their ridiculous products. The tax payer pays the same amount to NASA whether or not they choose to embezzle it.
If the products are so ridiculous, then why would industry bother licensing the patents?  ???
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 15, 2017, 12:05:54 PM
Yes, I meant MOND. I'm posting from work so I'm typing in a hurry.

NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.

Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.

Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.

Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?

They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
Ok, why don't you back some of that up?  As for technology, can you imagine how much more expensive that technology would have been had the private sector developed it?  If it would have been developed at all.  I am in favor of government funding scientific research, it's a good thing.
I still have yet to see you guys produce any proof of NASA faking anything.  It's just people saying they don't understand how it works so it must be fake.
Diplomat Rock: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
Caught Using Cocaine At NASA: https://www.space.com/11128-nasa-kennedy-space-center-cocaine.html

I'm fine with the government researching and funding engineering efforts. I am not ok with them selling it to private sector to fund their pet projects. The are given the money the people feel they warrant through the processes we put in place to ensure that. The technology belongs to the people, not the scientists at NASA so they can sell it to circumvent their budgeting restrictions.
You were right about the moon rock, I had forgotten about that.  So, some employees use cocaine, at work, and that means the entire organization is guilty of wasting taxpayer money on drugs?
As for technology, what would have them do?  Simply lock it on a shelf somewhere?  Or would you prefer the government go into the mattress manufacturing business?
I really don't understand your objection to this.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 12:13:49 PM
I would prefer for them to give the technology to the people, who rightfully own it, for anybody to use as they will. That is their responsibility.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 15, 2017, 12:17:55 PM
I would prefer for them to give the technology to the people, who rightfully own it, for anybody to use as they will. That is their responsibility.
How does that manifest?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 15, 2017, 12:28:29 PM
I would prefer for them to give the technology to the people, who rightfully own it, for anybody to use as they will. That is their responsibility.
Right, and I bet you believe that the government should give taxpayer funded nuclear bomb technology to the people too.  ::)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 12:35:43 PM
It could manifest as simply as securing the patent and granting rights of use to any and all citizens of America, or alternative the world.

I would prefer for them to give the technology to the people, who rightfully own it, for anybody to use as they will. That is their responsibility.
Right, and I bet you believe that the government should give taxpayer funded nuclear bomb technology to the people too.  ::)
I think medical technology and nuclear bomb technology are a bit different. Wouldn't you agree?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 15, 2017, 12:35:52 PM
No John is right, there are allready remarkable achievements in sharing technologies online.
I heard a company put all their blueprints and data for a 3D printer online and within 24 hours the nerds of this world made it three times faster and 4 times more reliable.
I don't have a link, but it was on the radio recently....
 
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 12:50:21 PM
Ideally, an open and free society would have a separation not only between religion and government  - but also science and government as argued by many including expert on Scientific Method Karl Popper.

However, I'm not talking about ideals. This would be the minimum for them not to be lying and thieving asshats.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 12:51:57 PM
No John is right, there are allready remarkable achievements in sharing technologies online.
I heard a company put all their blueprints and data for a 3D printer online and within 24 hours the nerds of this world made it three times faster and 4 times more reliable.
I don't have a link, but it was on the radio recently....
 
Yes, there is no reason privately funded science and community driven science would not function. Look at almost the entirety of the history of science. The only reason for it not to be this way is to maintain a center of power.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 15, 2017, 12:54:42 PM
It could manifest as simply as securing the patent and granting rights of use to any and all citizens of America, or alternative the world.

I would prefer for them to give the technology to the people, who rightfully own it, for anybody to use as they will. That is their responsibility.
Right, and I bet you believe that the government should give taxpayer funded nuclear bomb technology to the people too.  ::)
I think medical technology and nuclear bomb technology are a bit different. Wouldn't you agree?
Do you honestly think that the medical industry would cut their prices if NASA just gave them the research for free?  Mega-corps like those are legally obligated to maximize profits for their shareholders.

Then again, the whole premise of NASA's research is that the earth is round and space flight is real, so you're pretty much arguing against your own belief in a flat earth, aren't you?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 12:57:45 PM
How so?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 15, 2017, 01:01:58 PM
Yes, I meant MOND. I'm posting from work so I'm typing in a hurry.

NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.

Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.

Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.

Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?

They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
Ok, why don't you back some of that up?  As for technology, can you imagine how much more expensive that technology would have been had the private sector developed it?  If it would have been developed at all.  I am in favor of government funding scientific research, it's a good thing.
I still have yet to see you guys produce any proof of NASA faking anything.  It's just people saying they don't understand how it works so it must be fake.
Diplomat Rock: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
Caught Using Cocaine At NASA: https://www.space.com/11128-nasa-kennedy-space-center-cocaine.html

I'm fine with the government researching and funding engineering efforts. I am not ok with them selling it to private sector to fund their pet projects. The are given the money the people feel they warrant through the processes we put in place to ensure that. The technology belongs to the people, not the scientists at NASA so they can sell it to circumvent their budgeting restrictions.
NASA only gave Moon rocks to the Netherlands two times.
One set were the Apollo 11 goodwill rocks, with a NL flag.
The other time were the Apollo 17 goodwill rocks, also with an NL flag.
I have seen the sample from Apollo 11 and 17.

Location of both is known.

There is no record in the NASA archive of an other Moon rock sample being given to the Netherlands.

There is no record in the NASA archive of a Moon sample that looks even remotely like the 'fake moon rock'

Unlike all other Goodwill rocks, the 'fake moon rock' was not encased in a translucence material.

The 'fake moon rock' is also much heavier and larger than any other goodwill sample given to any other country.


All of this tells me it was not a Goodwill moon rock.


Here are ours by the way:
Apollo 11:
(http://bart.volgers.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Plaque-Apollo-11.jpg)

Apollo 17:
(http://bart.volgers.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Plaque-Apollo-17.jpg)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 15, 2017, 01:04:42 PM
Ideally, an open and free society would have a separation not only between religion and government  - but also science and government as argued by many including expert on Scientific Method Karl Popper.

However, I'm not talking about ideals. This would be the minimum for them not to be lying and thieving asshats.
Well, what piece of NASA technology would you like to know?

The Apollo program has the most documentation online of any program as far as I know. Thought I have not researched many other programs. And the modern ones that are still running may not have their documentation online because they are still classified, or owned by the contractor that designed them.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 15, 2017, 01:08:49 PM
How so?
Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS.  That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 01:14:56 PM
How so?
Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS.  That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.
Not necessarily; you know my views on the non-euclidean earth.

For those who don't hold that, they could be doing medical research for money (now that they have bled the space race and our country dry) under-water or in a simulator such as those they use for training.

Ideally, an open and free society would have a separation not only between religion and government  - but also science and government as argued by many including expert on Scientific Method Karl Popper.

However, I'm not talking about ideals. This would be the minimum for them not to be lying and thieving asshats.
Well, what piece of NASA technology would you like to know?

The Apollo program has the most documentation online of any program as far as I know. Thought I have not researched many other programs. And the modern ones that are still running may not have their documentation online because they are still classified, or owned by the contractor that designed them.
Those that are owned by contractors for one. Secondly, I'd love to sell my own memory foam and upside down pens. Likewise for the rest of the pile of proprietary technology created by NASA in the medical industry.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 01:15:29 PM
To clarify, its not what *I want*, its what the people of America deserve rather than being swindled.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 01:17:07 PM
This is being derailed a bit by my personal philosophy and the response against it. My other evidences showing NASA not only to be liars but morally corrupt still stand without being attacked at all.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 15, 2017, 01:24:20 PM
Most products used by NASA are designed and build by contractors.

I am not sure if there is a government rule that forces contractors to share their invention with the American taxpayers.

If there isn't, and the contractors can put any patent on their product they want to (Paid by taxpayers or not) it is out of NASA's hands.

Design and product is owned by contractor, NASA just uses it.


If so, you should ask Boeing, Lockheed Martin, MiT and the likes for data, not NASA.
Though NASA does have a lot of documents online from their past programs.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 15, 2017, 01:27:02 PM
How so?
Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS.  That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.
Not necessarily; you know my views on the non-euclidean earth.
Yes, it's virtually indistinguishable from a round earth.  How clever. ::)

For those who don't hold that, they could be doing medical research for money (now that they have bled the space race and our country dry) under-water or in a simulator such as those they use for training.
Neutral buoyancy is not the same as zero/micro-gravity.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 15, 2017, 01:27:44 PM
It could manifest as simply as securing the patent and granting rights of use to any and all citizens of America, or alternative the world.

I would prefer for them to give the technology to the people, who rightfully own it, for anybody to use as they will. That is their responsibility.
Right, and I bet you believe that the government should give taxpayer funded nuclear bomb technology to the people too.  ::)
I think medical technology and nuclear bomb technology are a bit different. Wouldn't you agree?
Actually I could get behind that
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 01:29:52 PM
How so?
Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS.  That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.
Not necessarily; you know my views on the non-euclidean earth.
Yes, it's virtually indistinguishable from a round earth.  How clever. ::)
So its my fault now that the round earth is not falsifiable? Oh boy. That's a new one. I guess that's why I'm sometimes known as Globe Killer, as well as the most influential zetetic scientist ever.


For those who don't hold that, they could be doing medical research for money (now that they have bled the space race and our country dry) under-water or in a simulator such as those they use for training.
Neutral buoyancy is not the same as zero/micro-gravity.
[/quote]
In some ways it is. In many more ways, a sustained pseudo-force is supposedly exactly the same as zero/micro-gravity.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 15, 2017, 01:47:24 PM
How so?
Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS.  That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.
Not necessarily; you know my views on the non-euclidean earth.
Yes, it's virtually indistinguishable from a round earth.  How clever. ::)
So its my fault now that the round earth is not falsifiable? Oh boy. That's a new one. I guess that's why I'm sometimes known as Globe Killer, as well as the most influential zetetic scientist ever.


For those who don't hold that, they could be doing medical research for money (now that they have bled the space race and our country dry) under-water or in a simulator such as those they use for training.
Neutral buoyancy is not the same as zero/micro-gravity.
In some ways it is. In many more ways, a sustained pseudo-force is supposedly exactly the same as zero/micro-gravity.
[/quote]
I'm going to ignore the self aggrandizement as it was kind of pathetic.
I'm not that familiar with your model but doesn't all the moon flights, probes, manned, etc refute your model?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 01:54:08 PM
They do not refute my non-euclidean model. They would lay serious concern upon the infinite flat earth, if they were indeed legitimate and correctly interpreted.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 15, 2017, 02:22:30 PM
They do not refute my non-euclidean model. They would lay serious concern upon the infinite flat earth, if they were indeed legitimate and correctly interpreted.
Well the are legit so how does that work with your model?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 15, 2017, 02:55:03 PM
They do not refute my non-euclidean model. They would lay serious concern upon the infinite flat earth, if they were indeed legitimate and correctly interpreted.
Of course "they" do not refute your non-Euclidean model - "they" haven't a clue what a non-Euclidean model is - do you?

You mean your "non-Euclidean model" that is the earth is really flat,
but looks like a Globe, measures like a Globe and behaves like a Globe. Let's just cut to the chase and call is a Globe.

Then I suppose it doesn't really rotate, but it just seems like to rotate, - Mach's principle or something.
And I suppose it doesn't really orbit the sun, but it just seems to orbit the sun, -  :D that sounds Machiavellian to me  :D!
So the earth looks like a Heliocentric Globe, measures like a Heliocentric Globe and behaves like a Heliocentric Globe.
It would seem a lot simpler to simply say that the earth is a Heliocentric Globe.

As for your infinite flat earth, I do believe that it requires something akin to Newtonian Gravitation.
It certainly reads that way in Infinite Flat Earth (https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Infinite+Flat+Earth).

But we are told quite unequivocally in the FAQ:
Quote
What Is Gravity?
Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall.
 . . . . . . . . . . . <<  :P possibly relevant material omitted for brevity  :P >> . . . . . . . .
What is certain is sphere earth gravity is not tenable in any way shape or form.

Any more "flat earth models" in your "little bottom drawer".

It seems that the only common point with these Flat Earth theories is that the earth looks flat - but the non-Euclidean model seems to fail even that.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your theories, so maybe your could explain just how they would explain observations and distances, etc.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 15, 2017, 06:55:26 PM
How so?
Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS.  That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.
Not necessarily; you know my views on the non-euclidean earth.
Yes, it's virtually indistinguishable from a round earth.  How clever. ::)
So its my fault now that the round earth is not falsifiable?
No, it's your fault that your non-euclidean earth is not falsifiable.


Quote
For those who don't hold that, they could be doing medical research for money (now that they have bled the space race and our country dry) under-water or in a simulator such as those they use for training.
Neutral buoyancy is not the same as zero/micro-gravity.
In some ways it is. In many more ways, a sustained pseudo-force is supposedly exactly the same as zero/micro-gravity.
A submarine is neutrally buoyant.  The sailors inside do not experience zero/micro-gravity.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 15, 2017, 06:56:17 PM
I never claimed they did.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 15, 2017, 07:46:25 PM
I never claimed they did.
Then you agree that neutral buoyancy isn't all that much like zero/micro-gravity after all. 

Pretty much all neutral buoyancy is good for is training for space walks.  Even then, the drag imparted by the water makes for a significantly different environment than the vacuum of space.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 17, 2017, 05:20:38 AM
They do not refute my non-euclidean model. They would lay serious concern upon the infinite flat earth, if they were indeed legitimate and correctly interpreted.
Of course "they" do not refute your non-Euclidean model - "they" haven't a clue what a non-Euclidean model is - do you?

You mean your "non-Euclidean model" that is the earth is really flat,
but looks like a Globe, measures like a Globe and behaves like a Globe. Let's just cut to the chase and call is a Globe.

Then I suppose it doesn't really rotate, but it just seems like to rotate, - Mach's principle or something.
And I suppose it doesn't really orbit the sun, but it just seems to orbit the sun, -  :D that sounds Machiavellian to me  :D!
So the earth looks like a Heliocentric Globe, measures like a Heliocentric Globe and behaves like a Heliocentric Globe.
It would seem a lot simpler to simply say that the earth is a Heliocentric Globe.

As for your infinite flat earth, I do believe that it requires something akin to Newtonian Gravitation.
It certainly reads that way in Infinite Flat Earth (https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Infinite+Flat+Earth).

But we are told quite unequivocally in the FAQ:
Quote
What Is Gravity?
Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall.
 . . . . . . . . . . . <<  :P possibly relevant material omitted for brevity  :P >> . . . . . . . .
What is certain is sphere earth gravity is not tenable in any way shape or form.

Any more "flat earth models" in your "little bottom drawer".

It seems that the only common point with these Flat Earth theories is that the earth looks flat - but the non-Euclidean model seems to fail even that.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your theories, so maybe your could explain just how they would explain observations and distances, etc.

So, is this "non-euclidean model" just a fancy way of saying "it looks flat"?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 17, 2017, 10:01:31 AM
Its a fancy way of saying it is flat, and space is curved.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 17, 2017, 10:21:05 AM
Its a fancy way of saying it is flat, and space is curved.

How is space curved? What causes it? How does this curvature manifests besides showing a round earth as seeing from afar?

Note: Don't take these questions as arogant, im actually curious to know your views.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 17, 2017, 10:37:35 AM
How so?
Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS.  That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.
Not necessarily; you know my views on the non-euclidean earth.

For those who don't hold that, they could be doing medical research for money (now that they have bled the space race and our country dry) under-water or in a simulator such as those they use for training.

Ideally, an open and free society would have a separation not only between religion and government  - but also science and government as argued by many including expert on Scientific Method Karl Popper.

However, I'm not talking about ideals. This would be the minimum for them not to be lying and thieving asshats.
Well, what piece of NASA technology would you like to know?

The Apollo program has the most documentation online of any program as far as I know. Thought I have not researched many other programs. And the modern ones that are still running may not have their documentation online because they are still classified, or owned by the contractor that designed them.
Those that are owned by contractors for one. Secondly, I'd love to sell my own memory foam and upside down pens. Likewise for the rest of the pile of proprietary technology created by NASA in the medical industry.
Which part of technology? have you send an Email to a contractor yet?

How has NASA bled your country dry? your army has a larger budget each year than 60 years of combined NASA budget.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Apokalypt on August 17, 2017, 11:11:06 AM
Everyone knows that NASA lies!
As we also all know that vacciness cause autism.
And the climate change is also a hoax/conspiracy.

Peope wake up! Everyone lies to us!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 17, 2017, 12:54:06 PM
Everyone knows that NASA lies!
As we also all know that vacciness make some people very, very rich
And climate change started in America, ...the country which rediculed the ''club of Rome'' in the early seventies, because they were just starting to expand their McDonalds consumers and pollution empire over the world.
Peope wake up! Everyone NASA, Pharmaceuticals, Monsanto, oil companies, the total war industry, lawyers, Wallstreet and every thinkable acquaintance lie to us!
Fixed it for you !!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 17, 2017, 12:58:54 PM
Those that are owned by contractors for one. Secondly, I'd love to sell my own memory foam and upside down pens. Likewise for the rest of the pile of proprietary technology created by NASA in the medical industry.

NASA had nothing to do with the invention of the 'Space pen', it was done independently by Fischer to try and crowbar itself into the market.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-nasa-spen/

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

NASA didn't invent memory foam, another company did that in order to provide more comfortable and crash proof aircraft seats for NASA, as well as cushion astronauts against G forces. The original material never went into space as it wasn't durable enough. Modern memory foam was developed later by other companies.

https://www.space.com/10783-space-spinoff-technology-memory-foam.html

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Username on August 17, 2017, 01:00:11 PM
Point still stands. They sell technology owned by the people to the private sector, causing the people to have to pay twice for its development.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 17, 2017, 01:24:29 PM
Point still stands. They sell technology owned by the people to the private sector, causing the people to have to pay twice for its development.
Do you mean like this:
Quote from: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-makes-dozens-of-patents-available-in-public-domain-to-benefit-us-industry
NASA has released 56 formerly-patented agency technologies into the public domain, making its government-developed technologies freely available for unrestricted commercial use. In addition to the release of these technologies, a searchable database now is available that catalogs thousands of expired NASA patents already in the public domain.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 17, 2017, 01:34:03 PM
Point still stands. They sell technology owned by the people to the private sector, causing the people to have to pay twice for its development.
Technology which might not have existed without NASA.

Also if NASA is fake, why did they spend money to create new technology for their fake hoax? just for the lols?
I thought the point of the hoax was to steal money, not to spend it on things you do not need.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 17, 2017, 01:35:11 PM
Everyone knows that NASA lies!
As we also all know that vacciness cause autism.
And the climate change is also a hoax/conspiracy.

Peope wake up! Everyone lies to us!
Autism VS Polio

Hmm...
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 17, 2017, 01:37:46 PM
Everyone knows that NASA lies!
As we also all know that vacciness cause autism.
And the climate change is also a hoax/conspiracy.

Peope wake up! Everyone lies to us!
Well apparently NASA did not lie, as people received signals from the Moon at the time of Apollo.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 17, 2017, 01:59:23 PM
Everyone knows that NASA lies!
As we also all know that vacciness cause autism.
And the climate change is also a hoax/conspiracy.

Peope wake up! Everyone lies to us!

Everyone??

We??

I suppose you've spoken to a LOT of people?  Billions??
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 17, 2017, 02:05:27 PM
Everyone knows that NASA lies!
As we also all know that vacciness cause autism.
And the climate change is also a hoax/conspiracy.

Peope wake up! Everyone lies to us!

Everyone??

We??

I suppose you've spoken to a LOT of people?  Billions??
Psst little green man...he's on your side !
This is what he posted to tease us.....i know you like it so here it is :
We don`t know how thick it is, but we know for sure it rests on 4 elephants which stand on the back of a giant turtle.

See he is your buddy in this place !!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Apokalypt on August 17, 2017, 02:11:53 PM
Everyone knows that NASA lies!
As we also all know that vacciness cause autism.
And the climate change is also a hoax/conspiracy.

Peope wake up! Everyone lies to us!

Everyone??

We??

I suppose you've spoken to a LOT of people?  Billions??
Psst little green man...he's on your side !
This is what he posted to tease us.....i know you like it so here it is :
We don`t know how thick it is, but we know for sure it rests on 4 elephants which stand on the back of a giant turtle.

See he is your buddy in this place !!

What tease? That is the truth. No FE "evidence" can and does refute the fact that the earth rests on 4 elephants which stand on the back of a giant turtle.

Your strange flat earth without elephants and turtle religion is false!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 17, 2017, 02:18:59 PM
Your strange flat earth without elephants and turtle religion is false!
That was funny !!  ;D ;D ;D

Wow i found a glober with humor.... CONGRATULATIONS you are one of a kind !
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Apokalypt on August 17, 2017, 02:46:23 PM
Your strange flat earth without elephants and turtle religion is false!
That was funny !!  ;D ;D ;D

Wow i found a glober with humor.... CONGRATULATIONS you are one of a kind !

Thank you! I just did what Resistance.Is.Futile constantly is doing. So I was thinking that I can do it too and well, it was successfull! Hope he doesn`t mind that I took the crown from him.  ;D
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on August 17, 2017, 03:01:57 PM
Your strange flat earth without elephants and turtle religion is false!
That was funny !!  ;D ;D ;D

Wow i found a glober with humor.... CONGRATULATIONS you are one of a kind !

Thank you! I just did what Resistance.Is.Futile constantly is doing. So I was thinking that I can do it too and well, it was successfull! Hope he doesn`t mind that I took the crown from him.  ;D

First it was Rab now it is you emulating my style  ;D

I don't mind you Heliocentrics need all the help you can get.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 17, 2017, 03:16:37 PM
First it was Rab now it is you emulating my style  ;D

I don't mind you Heliocentrics need all the help you can get.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Behind all their reducule they do admire you. They are almost obsessed by you, ....classic !!!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 17, 2017, 03:26:53 PM
Everyone knows that NASA lies!
As we also all know that vacciness cause autism.
And the climate change is also a hoax/conspiracy.

Peope wake up! Everyone lies to us!

Everyone??

We??

I suppose you've spoken to a LOT of people?  Billions??
Psst little green man...he's on your side !
This is what he posted to tease us.....i know you like it so here it is :
We don`t know how thick it is, but we know for sure it rests on 4 elephants which stand on the back of a giant turtle.

See he is your buddy in this place !!

What tease? That is the truth. No FE "evidence" can and does refute the fact that the earth rests on 4 elephants which stand on the back of a giant turtle.

Your strange flat earth without elephants and turtle religion is false!
Then it's turtles all the way down.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 17, 2017, 03:28:08 PM
First it was Rab now it is you emulating my style  ;D

I don't mind you Heliocentrics need all the help you can get.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Behind all their reducule they do admire you. They are almost obsessed by you, ....classic !!!
Still waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 17, 2017, 03:40:32 PM
Still waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.
;D ;D

Could you help me please ...i am looking for the real moon, but i cannot solve this puzzle

Moon A The moon where you can see countless stars like a night on earth !
Moon B The moon where you have to use optics to detect some faint stars !
Moon C The moon where you can see stars when you are not part of the reflecting surface and are allowed to gaze upwards, otherwise you can't see any stars.

And i have to be very cautious, because otherwise Rabinoz, frenat and Onebigmonky post nonsense like this :
nnnnnoooo dutchy did not accurately calculate the baseline for autorefraction from the fully lit moon rigolet that bounced off the multi layered anti reflecting vizors so that the invisible stars were visible if you hadn't played golf and your antibodies did not interfere with your line of sight, because the Hasselblad camera they used wasn't calibrated for cosmic observations and prevented them from gazing upwards.

Every scientist around the globe knows this, only stupid, really stupid people like ''dutchy'' still don't understand why they could see the stars, but couldn't if they wanted but didn't !!!


Could you help me to pick the real moon ? A, B or C...or is there another D moon ?
It is so confusing,....i simply want to know which moon is th real moon.....you know the moon moon.

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Crutchwater on August 17, 2017, 03:40:37 PM
First it was Rab now it is you emulating my style  ;D

I don't mind you Heliocentrics need all the help you can get.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Behind all their reducule they do admire you. They are almost obsessed by you, ....classic !!!
Still waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.

He just posted a cool cockpit video of a shuttle launch, thinking it exposes some NASA lie...

I think he didn't like the launch suits!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on August 17, 2017, 03:52:02 PM
First it was Rab now it is you emulating my style  ;D

I don't mind you Heliocentrics need all the help you can get.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Behind all their reducule they do admire you. They are almost obsessed by you, ....classic !!!

Lol.

To be honest thst is not what I'm trying to achieve.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 17, 2017, 03:54:42 PM

To be honest thst is not what I'm trying to achieve.
I know, but it is a side effect !
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 17, 2017, 04:08:20 PM
Still waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.
;D ;D

Could you help me please ...i am looking for the real moon, but i cannot solve this puzzle

Moon A The moon where you can see countless stars like a night on earth !
Moon B The moon where you have to use optics to detect some faint stars !
Moon C The moon where you can see stars when you are not part of the reflecting surface and are allowed to gaze upwards, otherwise you can't see any stars.

And i have to be very cautious, because otherwise Rabinoz, frenat and Onebigmonky post nonsense like this :
nnnnnoooo dutchy did not accurately calculate the baseline for autorefraction from the fully lit moon rigolet that bounced off the multi layered anti reflecting vizors so that the invisible stars were visible if you hadn't played golf and your antibodies did not interfere with your line of sight, because the Hasselblad camera they used wasn't calibrated for cosmic observations and prevented them from gazing upwards.

Every scientist around the globe knows this, only stupid, really stupid people like ''dutchy'' still don't understand why they could see the stars, but couldn't if they wanted but didn't !!!


Could you help me to pick the real moon ? A, B or C...or is there another D moon ?
It is so confusing,....i simply want to know which moon is th real moon.....you know the moon moon.
This has been explained ad nauseam.  If you can't understand it that's not my problem.
But I take it since you keep coming back to this you actually have nothing else.
That can't be true since claim everything from NASA is a lie.  So, do you have anything else?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 17, 2017, 04:09:39 PM
First it was Rab now it is you emulating my style  ;D

I don't mind you Heliocentrics need all the help you can get.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Behind all their reducule they do admire you. They are almost obsessed by you, ....classic !!!
Still waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.

He just posted a cool cockpit video of a shuttle launch, thinking it exposes some NASA lie...

I think he didn't like the launch suits!
I must have missed that one
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 17, 2017, 04:22:39 PM
Still waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.
;D ;D

Could you help me please ...i am looking for the real moon, but i cannot solve this puzzle

Moon A The moon where you can see countless stars like a night on earth !
Moon B The moon where you have to use optics to detect some faint stars !
Moon C The moon where you can see stars when you are not part of the reflecting surface and are allowed to gaze upwards, otherwise you can't see any stars.

And i have to be very cautious, because otherwise Rabinoz, frenat and Onebigmonky post nonsense like this :
nnnnnoooo dutchy did not accurately calculate the baseline for autorefraction from the fully lit moon rigolet that bounced off the multi layered anti reflecting vizors so that the invisible stars were visible if you hadn't played golf and your antibodies did not interfere with your line of sight, because the Hasselblad camera they used wasn't calibrated for cosmic observations and prevented them from gazing upwards.

Every scientist around the globe knows this, only stupid, really stupid people like ''dutchy'' still don't understand why they could see the stars, but couldn't if they wanted but didn't !!!


Could you help me to pick the real moon ? A, B or C...or is there another D moon ?
It is so confusing,....i simply want to know which moon is th real moon.....you know the moon moon.
This has been explained ad nauseam.  If you can't understand it that's not my problem.
But I take it since you keep coming back to this you actually have nothing else.
That can't be true since claim everything from NASA is a lie.  So, do you have anything else?
If you can't explain the circomstances on the daylight side on the moon in one coherant sentence, something is very wrong.

Let me show you

During the day on earth we cannot see stars because the scattered sunlight washes out the starlight completely in earth's atmosphere
During the night we can see stars with the exception of a clouded night that obscures many stars or the presense of bright artificial (city) light

I only ask for a coherent sentence that describes what we see on the daylight side of the moon just like i tried to do for earth !!!
You will do that for me don't you ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 17, 2017, 04:26:25 PM
Still waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.
;D ;D

Could you help me please ...i am looking for the real moon, but i cannot solve this puzzle

Moon A The moon where you can see countless stars like a night on earth !
Moon B The moon where you have to use optics to detect some faint stars !
Moon C The moon where you can see stars when you are not part of the reflecting surface and are allowed to gaze upwards, otherwise you can't see any stars.

And i have to be very cautious, because otherwise Rabinoz, frenat and Onebigmonky post nonsense like this :
nnnnnoooo dutchy did not accurately calculate the baseline for autorefraction from the fully lit moon rigolet that bounced off the multi layered anti reflecting vizors so that the invisible stars were visible if you hadn't played golf and your antibodies did not interfere with your line of sight, because the Hasselblad camera they used wasn't calibrated for cosmic observations and prevented them from gazing upwards.

Every scientist around the globe knows this, only stupid, really stupid people like ''dutchy'' still don't understand why they could see the stars, but couldn't if they wanted but didn't !!!


Could you help me to pick the real moon ? A, B or C...or is there another D moon ?
It is so confusing,....i simply want to know which moon is th real moon.....you know the moon moon.
This has been explained ad nauseam.  If you can't understand it that's not my problem.
But I take it since you keep coming back to this you actually have nothing else.
That can't be true since claim everything from NASA is a lie.  So, do you have anything else?
If you can't explaion the circomstances on the daylight side on the moon in one coherant sentence, something is very wrong.

Let me show you

During the day on earth we cannot see stars because the scattered sunlight washes out the starlight completely in earth's atmosphere
During the night we can see stars with the exception of a clouded night that obscures many stars or the presense of bright artificial (city) light

I only ask for a coherent sentence that describes what we see on the daylight side of the moon just like i tried to do for earth !!!
You will do that for me don't you ?

Again this has been explained.  So you have nothing else?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 17, 2017, 04:45:16 PM
[Again this has been explained.  So you have nothing else?
No it hasn't been explained.... You know that and the fact that you refuse to make any attempt to formulate the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon in one coherant sentence says it all.
It can't be done, because someone's testimony about the visuality of stars on the moon is screwed.
I really don't need your conformation , so don't bother.
It is for my personal understanding and this is one big glaring discrepancy in the moon landings.

I have carefully read every reply and not one remotely answered my question in whatever topic over the last months.
Only attempts with a bombardment of words, vague circomstances, derailing attempts and jargon to hide it cannot be explained without screwing someone's clear testimony.

My question to explain the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon in one coherant sentence (make it as long as you wish) is a test for rationality and reason,....if you can't do it, something is wrong and you know it.....one sentence is all one needs to answer these type of questions correctly up to 95% .
You fanboys need at least 20 sentences to hide inconsistancies....no surprise here.
Thanks anyway, it is comfirmed again that no one set foot on the moon ever ! It was worth all the hours of reading and research online.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 17, 2017, 04:57:40 PM
[Again this has been explained.  So you have nothing else?
No it hasn't been explained.... You know that and the fact that you refuse to make any attempt to formulate the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon in one coherant sentence says it all.
It can't be done, because someone's testimony about the visuality of stars on the moon is screwed.
I really don't need your conformation , so don't bother.
It is for my personal understanding and this is one big glaring discrepancy in the moon landings.

I have carefully read every reply and not one remotely answered my question in whatever topic over the last months.
Only attempts with a bombardment of words, vague circomstances, derailing attempts and jargon to hide it cannot be explained without screwing someone's clear testimony.

My question to explain the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon in one coherant sentence (make it as long as you wish) is a test for rationality and reason,....if you can't do it, something is wrong and you know it.....one sentence is all one needs to answer these type of questions correctly up to 95% .
You fanboys need at least 20 sentences to hide inconsistancies....no surprise here.
Thanks anyway, it is comfirmed again that no one set foot on the moon ever ! It was worth all the hours of reading and research online.
So you have nothing?  Your lack of ability to understand is really no one else's problem.
The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.
Which has been explained to you several times.  I can only assume that you actually do get this but literally can't come up with any proof of any actual lie so you just keep repeating this and pretending like you actually have a point.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 17, 2017, 05:02:59 PM
The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.
Neil de Grasse Tyson says you see the stars just like a nightsky on earth. The stars reveal themselves on the daylight surface of the moon as they would on earth Neil says !!

Do you need time to adjust to see stars when you go outside ?
Not at all, you see them immidiatly and even more after a while.
You claim you have to go to the shade and wait to adjust.......
That is not 'just like on earth during the night'

Can i walk for hours during the night on earth without seeing any star ?
No
Did Neil and Buzz walked on the moon for hours without seeing any star ?
Yes

And you have the guts to claim i have no proof ....... f.... me.
I have provided absolute proof and will consider any attempts to claim otherwise, the behaviour of a sore looser.


Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 17, 2017, 05:41:44 PM
The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.
This is your sentence i presume  ? Comformation please.......

Thanks anyway,.....now that wasn't so difficult now was it ?
And still not a single proof of a lie from NASA.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 17, 2017, 09:31:59 PM
Point still stands. They sell technology owned by the people to the private sector, causing the people to have to pay twice for its development.

Not in the examples you are so fond of citing - the technology was developed by someone else, it wasn't theirs to sell. Your disapproval seems entirely based on common misconceptions that a few seconds' worth of research can resolve.

In cases where NASA does actually invent something and sells it on, the taxpayer gets to recoup their investment. Americans are employed in jobs and pay taxes. What's your problem with gainful employment?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: hoppy on August 18, 2017, 04:21:43 AM
The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.
This is your sentence i presume  ? Comformation please.......

Thanks anyway,.....now that wasn't so difficult now was it ?
And still not a single proof of a lie from NASA.
You are so stupid. Dutch has given multiple proofs, just because you do not comprehend written words doesn't mean he has not fulfilled his end of the bargain. It is more likely you are just a run of the mill shill, rather than just too stupid to comprehend.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 18, 2017, 04:34:28 AM
The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.
This is your sentence i presume  ? Comformation please.......

Thanks anyway,.....now that wasn't so difficult now was it ?
And still not a single proof of a lie from NASA.
You are so stupid. Dutch has given multiple proofs, just because you do not comprehend written words doesn't mean he has not fulfilled his end of the bargain. It is more likely you are just a run of the mill shill, rather than just too stupid to comprehend.
Have you on ignore so it took a minute.  Nope, not even one.  He has beaten the dead horse of seeing stars on the moon for days, ignoring all explainations.  And that's pretty much it.
Ok back to the ignore bin with you as you never have anything to add.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: hoppy on August 18, 2017, 05:53:05 AM
The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.
This is your sentence i presume  ? Comformation please.......

Thanks anyway,.....now that wasn't so difficult now was it ?
And still not a single proof of a lie from NASA.
You are so stupid. Dutch has given multiple proofs, just because you do not comprehend written words doesn't mean he has not fulfilled his end of the bargain. It is more likely you are just a run of the mill shill, rather than just too stupid to comprehend.
Have you on ignore so it took a minute.  Nope, not even one.  He has beaten the dead horse of seeing stars on the moon for days, ignoring all explainations.  And that's pretty much it.
Ok back to the ignore bin with you as you never have anything to add.
Well then, maybe you should take me off of ignore. Your handlers may be timing how long before you shills pop out of the woodwork.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 18, 2017, 05:55:34 AM
Sorry i edited my final proof in a previous post so here it is again , because indon't want to miss Badxtoss reply !!

The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.
Neil de Grasse Tyson says you see the stars just like a nightsky on earth. The stars reveal themselves on the daylight surface of the moon as they would on earth Neil says !!

Do you need time to adjust to see stars when you go outside ?
Not at all, you see them immidiatly and even more after a while.
You claim you have to go to the shade and wait to adjust.......
That is not 'just like on earth during the night'

Can i walk for hours during the night on earth without seeing any star ?
No
Did Neil and Buzz walked on the moon for hours without seeing any star ?
Yes

And you have the guts to claim i have no proof ....... f.... me.
I have provided absolute proof and will consider any attempts to claim otherwise, the behaviour of a sore looser.

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 18, 2017, 06:17:11 AM
Sorry i edited my final proof in a previous post so here it is again , because indon't want to miss Badxtoss reply !!

The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.
Neil de Grasse Tyson says you see the stars just like a nightsky on earth. The stars reveal themselves on the daylight surface of the moon as they would on earth Neil says !!

Do you need time to adjust to see stars when you go outside ?
Not at all, you see them immidiatly and even more after a while.
You claim you have to go to the shade and wait to adjust.......
That is not 'just like on earth during the night'

Can i walk for hours during the night on earth without seeing any star ?
No
Did Neil and Buzz walked on the moon for hours without seeing any star ?
Yes

And you have the guts to claim i have no proof ....... f.... me.
I have provided absolute proof and will consider any attempts to claim otherwise, the behaviour of a sore looser.
Ok so you have nothing else?  This one has been debunked numerous times.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 18, 2017, 09:52:04 AM
Ok so you have nothing else?  This one has been debunked numerous times.
According to you and the Apollo apologists one can't see the stars on the moon without taking precautionary measures (shade and proper eye adjustment)
Even after those specific adjustments the stars on the dailight side of the moon STILL do not reveal themselves just like they would on earth during the night !
No reports of astronauts claiming anything remotely in that direction.....to the contrary !
Neil and Buzz did not see any star during a couple of hours....not very ''like a night on earth''

All have debated me in this topic go against Neil deGrasse Tyson without saying so, which is extremely childish and showing your intend over here.
At least one of the most aggressive Apollo lovers ''Astrobrant2'' acknowledged that IF Neil would have said that, NdGT was WRONG !!!!
As i showed in clips and a meticulously ''word for word'' post, Neil de Grasse Tyson indeed did say those very things !!!

Neil deGrasse tyson is an astrophysicist
I personally do not believe in the hypothetical bullshit universe of Neil deGrasse Tyson & Co, but i surely understand who is talking shit against the hypothetical model and that is Neil Armstrong, Buzz Alldrin and Michael Collins & Co

This is Neil deGrasse Tyson's job !!!!
Astrophysics is a branch of space science that applies the laws of physics and chemistry to explain the birth, life and death of stars, planets, galaxies, nebulae and other objects in the universe. It has two sibling sciences, astronomy and cosmology, and the lines between them blur.

Of course Neil deGrasse Tyson understands how light on the daylight surface of the moon behaves !
If the lunar reflections were such a dominant factor in detecting stars, Neil would have known from the onset !
A smart man as Neil would never ever say that the stars on the daylight surface would reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth.
He would say something along the lines :
 in outerspace you see the stars and you won't have to go to the dark side of earth or any other celestial body, because the sunlight can not scatter through the vacuum of the solar system and apart from directly towards the sun you can see stars everywhere in outerspace.
On the daylight surface of the moon however another phenomena is preventing you to see the stars without optics. It is the extreme reflective nature of the lunar surface that prevents you from seeing stars, therefor they could hardly see any star on the daylight side of the moon.


So the only question anyone with a grain of honesty left should answer.......who is talking shit ?
Neil de Grasse Tyson, or Neil Armstrong and Buzz Alldrin & Co.
For the simple fact that the reflections on the hypothetical moon could not reflect that much to hide all stars (again no atmosphere) i think Neil deGrasse Tyson is understanding the hypothetical model far better than those amatures and bad actors of the late sixties.

Because of your agressive style for decades, you Apollo apologists are not used to some founded resistance.
You can try to do what ever you want, but this subject will return each and every time in the appropriate topics untill you openly say who is right and who isn't about the visuality on the moon, so we can continue to ask ourselves what the moon really is (after you also made the quantum leap in accepting no one landed on a rock in outerspace, because they clearly lied about not being able to see the stars.... a clear exhibit A, more than enough to dismmiss the moonlandings all together) !

Are you ready to roll ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 18, 2017, 10:31:13 AM
Ok so you have nothing else?  This one has been debunked numerous times.
According to you and the Apollo apologists one can't see the stars on the moon without taking precautionary measures (shade and proper eye adjustment)
Even after those specific adjustments the stars on the dailight side of the moon STILL do not reveal themselves just like they would on earth during the night !
No reports of astronauts claiming anything remotely in that direction.....to the contrary !
Neil and Buzz did not see any star during a couple of hours....not very ''like a night on earth''

All have debated me in this topic go against Neil deGrasse Tyson without saying so, which is extremely childish and showing your intend over here.
At least one of the most aggressive Apollo lovers ''Astrobrant2'' acknowledged that IF Neil would have said that, NdGT was WRONG !!!!
As i showed in clips and a meticulously ''word for word'' post, Neil de Grasse Tyson indeed did say those very things !!!

Neil deGrasse tyson is an astrophysicist
I personally do not believe in the hypothetical bullshit universe of Neil deGrasse Tyson & Co, but i surely understand who is talking shit against the hypothetical model and that is Neil Armstrong, Buzz Alldrin and Michael Collins & Co

This is Neil deGrasse Tyson's job !!!!
Astrophysics is a branch of space science that applies the laws of physics and chemistry to explain the birth, life and death of stars, planets, galaxies, nebulae and other objects in the universe. It has two sibling sciences, astronomy and cosmology, and the lines between them blur.

Of course Neil deGrasse Tyson understands how light on the daylight surface of the moon behaves !
If the lunar reflections were such a dominant factor in detecting stars, Neil would have known from the onset !
A smart man as Neil would never ever say that the stars on the daylight surface would reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth.
He would say something along the lines :
 in outerspace you see the stars and you won't have to go to the dark side of earth or any other celestial body, because the sunlight can not scatter through the vacuum of the solar system and apart from directly towards the sun you can see stars everywhere in outerspace.
On the daylight surface of the moon however another phenomena is preventing you to see the stars without optics. It is the extreme reflective nature of the lunar surface that prevents you from seeing stars, therefor they could hardly see any star on the daylight side of the moon.


So the only question anyone with a grain of honesty left should answer.......who is talking shit ?
Neil de Grasse Tyson, or Neil Armstrong and Buzz Alldrin & Co.
For the simple fact that the reflections on the hypothetical moon could not reflect that much to hide all stars (again no atmosphere) i think Neil deGrasse Tyson is understanding the hypothetical model far better than those amatures and bad actors of the late sixties.

Because of your agressive style for decades, you Apollo apologists are not used to some founded resistance.
You can try to do what ever you want, but this subject will return each and every time in the appropriate topics untill you openly say who is right and who isn't about the visuality on the moon, so we can continue to ask ourselves what the moon really is (after you also made the quantum leap in accepting no one landed on a rock in outerspace, because they clearly lied about not being able to see the stars.... a clear exhibit A, more than enough to dismmiss the moonlandings all together) !

Are you ready to roll ?
You really are a one trick pony aren't you?  Let me know when you can prove an actual lie from NASA or faked photo.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 18, 2017, 11:32:21 AM
You really are a one trick pony aren't you?  Let me know when you can prove an actual lie from NASA or faked photo.
Is called a trump card  ;D

Of course you want to talk about photographs ,you want to know why ?
Because NASA has a sort of pseudo scientific answer ready that muddies the waters completely, but give the impression that everything is uhhh ''moon solid''.
Therefor i read for very long to understand how they do it and how they repair mistakes or ignore them all together.
The latter is what you do in this very conversation about the visibilty of stars from the daylight surface of the moon, so i think you know what i mean  ::)..

Therefor, because neither one of us can check outerspace, we have to understand the hypothetical model that cosmologists told us.
The sun is 400.000 times brighter than the moon.
The sun cannot scatter through the vacuum so that an astronaut can see (claimed by Edgar Mitchell)ten times brighter stars althaugh the sun is shining in the vacuum of space.
The reflected sunlight from the moon's surface is only a fraction of the sunlight......
If the bright sun itself is very local and the astronauts like Ed Mitchell claimed to have seen 10 times brighter stars without hiding behind a celestial body's dark side,
do you really think that the surface reflection on the moon, that is relatively weak prevents the astronauts from seeing any star during 2,5-10  hours (as bright as the night on earth )?


Final conclusion
If the reflections of the lunar surface were absent the stars would have been 10 times brighter than earth's nightsky.
Because of the surface bright reflections the stars are only equally bright compared to earth's night sky !

The latter is what Neil deGrasse Tyson claims and he is right
Without a reflecting lunar surface the stars would be ten times as bright.....
With a reflecting lunar surface the stars reveal them equally to what one would see during the night on earth

But not being able to see stars without optics and other excuses is impossible on all accounts

I know the truth hurts at times........but Neil Armstrong & co never went to ''ze moon'' !!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 18, 2017, 12:21:45 PM
You really are a one trick pony aren't you?  Let me know when you can prove an actual lie from NASA or faked photo.
Is called a trump card  ;D

Of course you want to talk about photographs ,you want to know why ?
Because NASA has a sort of pseudo scientific answer ready that muddies the waters completely, but give the impression that everything is uhhh ''moon solid''.
Therefor i read for very long to understand how they do it and how they repair mistakes or ignore them all together.
The latter is what you do in this very conversation about the visibilty of stars from the daylight surface of the moon, so i think you know what i mean  ::)..

Therefor, because neither one of us can check outerspace, we have to understand the hypothetical model that cosmologists told us.
The sun is 400.000 times brighter than the moon.
The sun cannot scatter through the vacuum so that an astronaut can see (claimed by Edgar Mitchell)ten times brighter stars althaugh the sun is shining in the vacuum of space.
The reflected sunlight from the moon's surface is only a fraction of the sunlight......
If the bright sun itself is very local and the astronauts like Ed Mitchell claimed to have seen 10 times brighter stars without hiding behind a celestial body's dark side,
do you really think that the surface reflection on the moon, that is relatively weak prevents the astronauts from seeing any star during 2,5-10  hours (as bright as the night on earth )?


Final conclusion
If the reflections of the lunar surface were absent the stars would have been 10 times brighter than earth's nightsky.
Because of the surface bright reflections the stars are only equally bright compared to earth's night sky !

The latter is what Neil deGrasse Tyson claims and he is right
Without a reflecting lunar surface the stars would be ten times as bright.....
With a reflecting lunar surface the stars reveal them equally to what one would see during the night on earth

But not being able to see stars without optics and other excuses is impossible on all accounts

I know the truth hurts at times........but Neil Armstrong & co never went to ''ze moon'' !!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
In other words, nothing.  No lies, no fake photos, nothing. 
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 18, 2017, 12:22:03 PM
Ok so you have nothing else?  This one has been debunked numerous times.
According to you and the Apollo apologists one can't see the stars on the moon without taking precautionary measures (shade and proper eye adjustment)
Even after those specific adjustments the stars on the dailight side of the moon STILL do not reveal themselves just like they would on earth during the night !
No reports of astronauts claiming anything remotely in that direction.....to the contrary !
Neil and Buzz did not see any star during a couple of hours....not very ''like a night on earth''

All have debated me in this topic go against Neil deGrasse Tyson without saying so, which is extremely childish and showing your intend over here.
At least one of the most aggressive Apollo lovers ''Astrobrant2'' acknowledged that IF Neil would have said that, NdGT was WRONG !!!!
As i showed in clips and a meticulously ''word for word'' post, Neil de Grasse Tyson indeed did say those very things !!!

Neil deGrasse tyson is an astrophysicist
I personally do not believe in the hypothetical bullshit universe of Neil deGrasse Tyson & Co, but i surely understand who is talking shit against the hypothetical model and that is Neil Armstrong, Buzz Alldrin and Michael Collins & Co

This is Neil deGrasse Tyson's job !!!!
Astrophysics is a branch of space science that applies the laws of physics and chemistry to explain the birth, life and death of stars, planets, galaxies, nebulae and other objects in the universe. It has two sibling sciences, astronomy and cosmology, and the lines between them blur.

Of course Neil deGrasse Tyson understands how light on the daylight surface of the moon behaves !
If the lunar reflections were such a dominant factor in detecting stars, Neil would have known from the onset !
A smart man as Neil would never ever say that the stars on the daylight surface would reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth.
He would say something along the lines :
 in outerspace you see the stars and you won't have to go to the dark side of earth or any other celestial body, because the sunlight can not scatter through the vacuum of the solar system and apart from directly towards the sun you can see stars everywhere in outerspace.
On the daylight surface of the moon however another phenomena is preventing you to see the stars without optics. It is the extreme reflective nature of the lunar surface that prevents you from seeing stars, therefor they could hardly see any star on the daylight side of the moon.


So the only question anyone with a grain of honesty left should answer.......who is talking shit ?
Neil de Grasse Tyson, or Neil Armstrong and Buzz Alldrin & Co.
For the simple fact that the reflections on the hypothetical moon could not reflect that much to hide all stars (again no atmosphere) i think Neil deGrasse Tyson is understanding the hypothetical model far better than those amatures and bad actors of the late sixties.

Because of your agressive style for decades, you Apollo apologists are not used to some founded resistance.
You can try to do what ever you want, but this subject will return each and every time in the appropriate topics untill you openly say who is right and who isn't about the visuality on the moon, so we can continue to ask ourselves what the moon really is (after you also made the quantum leap in accepting no one landed on a rock in outerspace, because they clearly lied about not being able to see the stars.... a clear exhibit A, more than enough to dismmiss the moonlandings all together) !

Are you ready to roll ?

This is, by far, the most pathetic argument i have seen in here.

First of all, you should adress Neil DeGrasee Tyson about this and not us. Who the heck ask another about some people's opinion? That's a stupid thing to do. He has a very active twitter account, you should ask him this question and not us.

This is what you are doing right now:
1) A says something
2) B says something that goes against what A said.
3) You see this confusion and approach to C about this
4) C can't answer you
5) You don't ask A or B about this issue.
6) You shit all over the place and think you won an unexistent argument.

....Oh, i see. You don't ask Neil DeGrasse itself because he is sure to wreck your shit in less than 140 characters and also, you won't believe him!So, you come here to gossip about what he said in a pathetic try to debunk him and NASA (?). This is sick

(http://memes.ucoz.com/_nw/13/29922471.jpg)

It doesn't matter what the answer is, because in the end, you've already chosen your answer, making all this skirmish pointless!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 18, 2017, 12:39:47 PM
It doesn't matter what the answer is, because in the end, you've already chosen your answer, making all this skirmish pointless!
It is not about rumours, but if the reflection on the moon surface is strong enough to prevent an astronaut from seeing stars just like we do on earth during the night.
If you would understand that, you also would conclude that the astronauts weren't on the moon.
In your model the moon's surface cannot prevent the astronauts from seeing stars just like we see on earth during the night !!!!

Do you want me to explain it to you again WHY the reflection of the moon's surface isn't strong enough to prevent astronauts from seeing stars like they would on earth during the night ?

Do you not understand how sunlight behaves in the vacuum ?
Do you not understand how bright the moon's reflections are ?
Do you not understand how the vaccuum ''opens'' a sky full of stars for the observer on the moon ?

What exactly do i have to explain to you, so that you understand like Neil deGrasse Tyson and i, that Neil Armstrong should have seen the stars on the daylight surface of the moon like a nightsky on earth !
Without the bright surface reflections the stars would reveal them ''TEN TIMES'' AS BRIGHT just like they do in the vacuum of space!!
With surface reflections the stars are visible just like on earth during the night so ''90%'' of the starlight intensity is indeed obscured by the bright surface reflections !!


Not being able to see stars standing on the reflecting lunar surface is not an option,....it is proof that you have not been to the moon !

I can not present it in a more ''kindergarten'' stylish attempt, because you do not seem to understand the circomstances on the lunar surface in your model very well.

If i am just an absolute idiot then you would have no problem at all setting me straight....but all of you fail miserably till now.......
I really, really would like a good answer though.......
And like the ''eclips'' topic proved, i am humble enough to confess when anything does make sense at any given moment...knowing it makes me look dumb.
A quality that i have not seen with ''Apollophobes'' here.......
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 18, 2017, 12:53:50 PM
10 times as bright is an exaggeration.  The atmosphere dims light by about 15%.  This is something you can test for yourself.  View a star when directly overhead and measure its brightness then view it again when 30 degrees off the horizon and measure its brightness.  For the latter it is going through about twice as much atmosphere as when directly overhead.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 18, 2017, 12:57:09 PM
It doesn't matter what the answer is, because in the end, you've already chosen your answer, making all this skirmish pointless!
It is not about rumours, but if the reflection on the moon surface is strong enough to prevent an astronaut from seeing stars just like we do on earth during the night.
If you would understand that, you also would conclude that the astronauts weren't on the moon.
In your model the moon's surface cannot prevent the astronauts from seeing stars just like we see on earth during the night !!!!

Do you want me to explain it to you again WHY the reflection of the moon's surface isn't strong enough to prevent astronauts from seeing stars like they would on earth during the night ?

Do you not understand how sunlight behaves in the vacuum ?
Do you not understand how bright the moon's reflections are ?
Do you not understand how the vaccuum ''opens'' a sky full of stars for the observer on the moon ?

What exactly do i have to explain to you, so that you understand like Neil deGrasse Tyson and i, that Neil Armstrong should have seen the stars on the daylight surface of the moon like a nightsky on earth !
Without the bright surface reflections the stars would reveal them ''TEN TIMES'' AS BRIGHT !!
With surface reflection the stars are visible just like on earth during the night so ''90%'' is indeed obscured by the bright surface reflections !!


Not being able to see stars standing on the reflecting lunar surface is not an option,....it is proof that you have not been to the moon !

I can not present it in a more ''kindergarten'' stylish attempt, because you do not seem to understand the circomstances on the lunar surface in your model very well.

If i am just an absolute idiot then you would have no problem at all setting me straight....but all of you fail miserably till now.......
I really, really would like a good answer though.......
And like the ''eclips'' topic proved, i am humble enough to confess when anything does make sense at any given moment...knowing it makes me look dumb.
A quality that i have not seen with ''Apollophobes'' here.......
We aren't the ones who failed here dutchy.  You simply stating the surface cannot be bright enough doesn't make it so.  Do you not understand how the human eye works?  Or how tinted visors work?
You have failed to understand the answers, that doesn't make them wrong.  And you have failed come up with anything else.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 18, 2017, 01:14:51 PM
10 times as bright is an exaggeration.  The atmosphere dims light by about 15%.  This is something you can test for yourself.  View a star when directly overhead and measure its brightness then view it again when 30 degrees off the horizon and measure its brightness.  For the latter it is going through about twice as much atmosphere as when directly overhead.
What ? Why would anyone exaggerate by such a huge margin ? (Edgar Mitchell)

I would never ever call a 15% increase ....''ten times brighter''
To support this claim Edgar Mitchell's exact quote was :
''That was awesome.... an overwhelming experience..and we have to realise that in space without the intervening atmosphere, the heavens are ten times as bright and the stars ten times as numerous, because there is no atmosphere to block the light''
''enlightenment'' were the exacty words Edgar Mitchell used to described wath he experienced in cislunar space.

But now to the real question......

Are you going to continue to defend that the reflecting properties of the lunar surface are so strong that the ''unaided eye'' standing on the surface cannot see a sky full of stars contrary to the unaided eye standing on earth during the night ?.

Care to comment on THAT, instaed of something i did not ask ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 18, 2017, 01:18:52 PM
10 times as bright is an exaggeration.  The atmosphere dims light by about 15%.  This is something you can test for yourself.  View a star when directly overhead and measure its brightness then view it again when 30 degrees off the horizon and measure its brightness.  For the latter it is going through about twice as much atmosphere as when directly overhead.
What ? Why would anyone exaggerate by such a huge margin ? (Edgar Mitchell)
Have you asked him?  Why would you expect other people to know why he said it?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 18, 2017, 01:26:32 PM
We aren't the ones who failed here dutchy.  You simply stating the surface cannot be bright enough doesn't make it so.  Do you not understand how the human eye works?  Or how tinted visors work?
You have failed to understand the answers, that doesn't make them wrong.  And you have failed come up with anything else.
Of course i do understand how the human eye works and how tinted vizors work.
And now pauze for a moment.....i do understand this !!!!!!!

That means that you don't see stars like you do on earth during the nigtht.

Neil de Grasse Tyson says that IS the case though...the stars reveal themselves just like they do on earth during the night.
You think that's not possible on the lunar surface.... yes you can see stars, but only after going to the shade and eye adjustments.

I have no problem with your view, but it has extreme lunar reflections that obscure most of the starlight !!!!
And i explained it perfectly and Neil deGrasse Tyson agrees with my take on the visuality of stars on the daylight side of the moon !!
The lunar reflection is there of course, but Neil Armstrong during the hours he was on the moon should have seen the stars just like one would during a night on earth !
But Neil Armstrong couldn't see stars...not once.....

I think they not properly rehearsed things back then.......before going public !
I guess the pressure must have been huge to produce a coherent story that would last for decades.......
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: justaguy on August 18, 2017, 01:29:05 PM
We aren't the ones who failed here dutchy.  You simply stating the surface cannot be bright enough doesn't make it so.  Do you not understand how the human eye works?  Or how tinted visors work?
You have failed to understand the answers, that doesn't make them wrong.  And you have failed come up with anything else.
Of course i do understand how the human eye works and how tinted vizors work.
And now pauze for a moment.....i do understand this !!!!!!!

That means that you don't see stars like you do on earth during the nigtht.

Neil de Grasse Tyson says that IS the case though...the stars reveal themselves just like they do on earth during the night.
You think that's not possible on the lunar surface.... yes you can see stars, but only after going to the shade and eye adjustments.

I have no problem with your view, but it has extreme lunar reflections that obscure most of the starlight !!!!
And i explained it perfectly and Neil deGrasse Tyson agrees with my take on the visuality of stars on the daylight side of the moon !!
The lunar reflection is there of course, but Neil Armstrong during the hours he was on the moon should have seen the stars just like one would during a night on earth !
But Neil Armstrong couldn't see stars...not once.....

I think they not properly rehearsed things back then.......before going public !
I guess the pressure must have been huge to produce a coherent story that would last for decades.......
So there is something that Neil deGrasse Tyson says you agree with?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 18, 2017, 01:37:43 PM
So there is something that Neil deGrasse Tyson says you agree with?
If you want to comment on me then i would appreciate it if you read my posts in this specific topic.

I do not agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson's hypothetical cosmos.

Neil de Grasse Tyson however does not defy the specific laws of this hypothetical universe like Neil Armstrong does.
It is Neil deGrasse' daily job to understand the hypothetical model, so the chances he makes such glaring mistakes about the lunar surface and visuality for the unaided eye are zero.

It is like playing chess.....It has nothing to do with reality, but there are rules in the game of chess that one must obey.
Neil deGrasse Tyson understands the rules, most Apollo astronauts do not !!!
And of course most posters in this topic do not understand the rules in their own game of cosmology !

Btw i was a youth champion chess in South Holland/Netherlands and studied the game of chess for quite some time... i couldn't resist the anology  ;D
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: justaguy on August 18, 2017, 01:41:49 PM
So there is something that Neil deGrasse Tyson says you agree with?
If you want to comment on me then i would appreciate it if you read my posts in this specific topic.

I do not agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson's hypothetical cosmos.

Neil de Grasse Tyson however does not defy the specific laws of this hypothetical universe like Neil Armstrong does.
It is Neil deGrasse' daily job to understand the hypothetical model, so the chances he makes such glaring mistakes about the lunar surface and visuality for the unaided eye are zero.

It is like playing chess.....It has nothing to do with reality, but there are rules in the game of chess that one must obey.
Neil deGrasse Tyson understands the rules, most Apollo astronauts do not !!!
And of course most posters in this topic do not understand the rules in their own game of cosmology !

Btw i was a youth champion chess in South Holland/Netherlands and studied the game of chess for quite some time... i couldn't resist the anology  ;D
When you cherry pick what you decide is ok to believe and not, it is really hard to take you serious. 
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 18, 2017, 02:14:20 PM
It doesn't matter what the answer is, because in the end, you've already chosen your answer, making all this skirmish pointless!
It is not about rumours, but if the reflection on the moon surface is strong enough to prevent an astronaut from seeing stars just like we do on earth during the night.
If you would understand that, you also would conclude that the astronauts weren't on the moon.
In your model the moon's surface cannot prevent the astronauts from seeing stars just like we see on earth during the night !!!!

Do you want me to explain it to you again WHY the reflection of the moon's surface isn't strong enough to prevent astronauts from seeing stars like they would on earth during the night ?

Do you not understand how sunlight behaves in the vacuum ?
Do you not understand how bright the moon's reflections are ?
Do you not understand how the vaccuum ''opens'' a sky full of stars for the observer on the moon ?

What exactly do i have to explain to you, so that you understand like Neil deGrasse Tyson and i, that Neil Armstrong should have seen the stars on the daylight surface of the moon like a nightsky on earth !
Without the bright surface reflections the stars would reveal them ''TEN TIMES'' AS BRIGHT !!
With surface reflection the stars are visible just like on earth during the night so ''90%'' is indeed obscured by the bright surface reflections !!


Not being able to see stars standing on the reflecting lunar surface is not an option,....it is proof that you have not been to the moon !

I can not present it in a more ''kindergarten'' stylish attempt, because you do not seem to understand the circomstances on the lunar surface in your model very well.

If i am just an absolute idiot then you would have no problem at all setting me straight....but all of you fail miserably till now.......
I really, really would like a good answer though.......
And like the ''eclips'' topic proved, i am humble enough to confess when anything does make sense at any given moment...knowing it makes me look dumb.
A quality that i have not seen with ''Apollophobes'' here.......

Asking us is pointless because all you have to back you up that stars are visible on the moon is a sentence from somenone you don't trust (kind of).

You are not an absoute idiot for asking this, you are an absolute idiot for not seeing this paradox in the first place.

But as i said, let's play your game. Let's break this down a little:

1 - You say that moon's reflection shouldn't be strong enough to prevent astronauts to see the stars, but moon's reflected light is strong enough to cast shadows during the night.
2 - They landed during a Waxing Crescent Moon, reaching to First Quarter in order to see where the were landing, they didn't landed in the dark part of the moon, they did near the terminator, with the sun behind them.
3 - Considering they landed on the bright side of the moon, their helmet's visors filters where up to block the unfilterd sun rays.
4 - Astronauts couldn't look up nor side ways because their helmets made that shore imposible (an effect they called Alligator's head), so if an astronaut were to see the stars, that would mean they where looking forward.
5 - If they were looking forward, that would mean moon's reflection would be in their way to see the stars.
6 - Considering the moon has no atmosphere and sun light isn't scattered (unlike here on earth) but hit moon's surface directly, i would say that they would have some pretty troublesome glare on their eyes (thank god for those visors tho)

Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that you would be able to see a "full night sky of stars" during a daytime on the moon, let's asume that by sky he means "see up" and by "you" he meant a person able to look up without interrumption and taking into consideration all of the points made above, wouldn't you say that seeing the stars on the moon would be a little troublesome for the astronauts at the moment?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: zork on August 19, 2017, 04:17:06 AM
Neil deGrasse Tyson understands the rules, most Apollo astronauts do not !!!
And of course most posters in this topic do not understand the rules in their own game of cosmology !

  You are putting out some very serious claims here. Who understands what and who don't. But after skipping through thread I think you don't even know rules yourself. You have never been on the moon, you don't know what are the rules up there and how they differ i ndifferent situations. You just play with sayings taken from different persons without really understanding what they say and what are the circumstances of situation they are talking about.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 19, 2017, 04:32:43 AM
Neil deGrasse Tyson understands the rules, most Apollo astronauts do not !!!
And of course most posters in this topic do not understand the rules in their own game of cosmology !

  You are putting out some very serious claims here. Who understands what and who don't. But after skipping through thread I think you don't even know rules yourself. You have never been on the moon, you don't know what are the rules up there and how they differ i ndifferent situations. You just play with sayings taken from different persons without really understanding what they say and what are the circumstances of situation they are talking about.
Correct !! Only 12 persons in history supposedly walked on the moon ! No one else including me !
And they happened to belong to NASA and the USA who happened to be involved in a dirty war.

I explained perfectly well that a supposed vacuum would reveal the stars on the daylight surface of the moon.
Therefor Apollo astronauts rarely talk about the actual moon surface, but in vague generalisation like 'awesome', 'unique ' and 'one of a kind'.
Neil Armstrong said he couldn't see stars ever while he was on the moon.
Every explaination about reflection, ignoring the skies because of a different agenda...and time to adjust your eyes won't cut it.

If that was true NdGT would not have claimed the stars reveal themselves just like on earth during the night.
No such thing happened during the hours Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Never did he see stars, let alone stars like on earth.

You are running around in circles ..are you.??......it's obvious Neil Armstrong and the other 11 star deniers and star promoters (Ed Michell ) went to no rock in space EVER.


summary
Neil deGrasse was a huge Apollo fan as he confessed in interviews.
He is a well known astrophysicist and promoter of NASA
He claims when you would be on the daylight surface of the moon the stars would reveal them just like on earth during the night. His credentials and interrest in Apollo and NASA in general excludes the possiblity that he is unaware with the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon.

Did the astronauts saw stars just like on earth during the night ?
Nothing of the sorts happened, some never saw stars, some saw few stars, some never said anything about the stars on the daylight surface of the moon.
All where around a considerable amount of time........ no stars or few with the use of optics,
But no one ever saw the stars just like a night on earth.
That did not happen.

I can not proof it of course, but you have to be real stupid to believe Neil Armstrong could not see stars, not a single one during his stay on the moon........ not even one .....unintentionally....... nada .......

I am full of self-assurance, so if i have to explain it another hundred times, i will gladly do so !

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 19, 2017, 05:46:26 AM

Correct !! Only 12 persons in history supposedly walked on the moon ! No one else including me !
And they happened to belong to NASA and the USA who happened to be involved in a dirty war.

I explained perfectly well that a supposed vacuum would reveal the stars on the daylight surface of the moon.
Therefor Apollo astronauts rarely talk about the actual moon surface, but in vague generalisation like 'awesome', 'unique ' and 'one of a kind'.
Neil Armstrong said he couldn't see stars everwhile he was on the moon.
Every explaination about reflection, ignoring the skies because of a different agenda...and time to adjust your eyes won't cut it.
You are simply incapable of facing well proven facts!
You claim that "time to adjust your eyes won't cut it". Well, eyes do need time to adapt, that is a well-proven fact!

Quote from: dutchy
If that was true NdGT would not have claimed the stars reveal themselves just like on earth during the night.
Face facts!
Quote from: dutchy
No such thing happened during the hours Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Never did he see stars, let alone stars like on earth.
Simply because he never took the time in a dark enough location to adapt! That is a fact!

Quote from: dutchy
You are running around in circles ..are you.??......it's obvious Neil Armstrong and the other 11 star deniers and star promoters (Ed Michell ) went to no rock in space EVER.
Who is running around in circles again?
It has been very carefully explained to you, with references and examples of at least one other astronaut who did take the time to adapt and did see stars on the moon.

Quote from: dutchy
summary
Neil deGrasse was a huge Apollo fan as he confessed in interviews.
He is a well known astrophysicist and promotor of NASA
He claims when you would be on the daylight surface of the moon the stars would reveal them just like on earth during the night. His credentials and interrest in Apollo and NASA in general excludes the possiblity that he is unaware with the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon.
You don't need to keep saying the same thin over and over - it does not make it more true!

Quote from: dutchy
Did the astronauts saw stars just like on earth during the night ?
Nothing of the sorts happened, some never saw stars, some saw few stars, some never said anything about the stars on the daylight surface of the moon.
All where around a considerable amount of time........ no stars or few with the use of optics,
It does not matter how long they were on the moon! That is totally irrelevant.
And have you noted the visors used? They were designed to keep glare out, not let faint starlight it.

You simply have no understanding of how little light comes from stars - kust look up any website on photographing stars and learn from yourself.

Quote from: dutchy
But no one ever saw the stars just like a night on earth.
That did not happen.

I can not proof it of course, but you have to be real stupid to believe Neil Armstrong could not see stars, not a single one during his stay on the moon........ not even one .....unintentionally....... nada .......
No YOU cannot prove it! But it is quite reasonable "to believe Neil Armstrong could not see stars, not a single one during his stay on the moon........ not even one .....unintentionally....... nada .......".

Very, very reasinable, in fact! If he did not intentionally confine himself to a sheltered area for long enough to adapt then find a place to look at the sky without either the extremely bright sun (UP) or the bright lunar surface (DOWN and all AROUND) he would not see "........ not even one .....".

I am trying to hammer home that he would not see any stars "........ not even one .....unintentionally....... nada ......."."

Moon hoax: No stars? Astrobrant2 (http://)
Re: Moon hoax: no stars? Astrobrant2 (http://) -  - mainly photography, but same principle.
Why You Can't See Stars on the Moon, Vintage Space (http://) - mainly photography, but same principle.

Quote from: dutchy
I am full of self-assurance, so if i have to explain it another hundred times, i will gladly do so !
I am afraid that being "full of self-assurance" has no connection with being correct, especially when you have proven yourself to ne totally biased and paranoid towards NASA!

And I am afraid that explaining it another hundred times won't help. Being wrong "another hundred times" doesn't make you any less wrong!

This is a bit long but:
Quote from:  Eli Nixon February 1, 2016
10 Absurd Claims Of Modern Flat Earth Conspiracy Theorists
To the Flat Earth Society, NASA is the penultimate baddie. Throw a healthy mix of Freemasons, Illuminati, lizards, and satanic forces into a blender, dust your slurry with magic fairy powder, and let it ferment. In a week, you’ll end up with a fully formed NASA. The only thing worse is the people who control them. But since nobody’s ever taken a picture of those guys, we don’t know who to blame.

However, it might be Nazis.

To tell this tale, we need to travel back to the magical decade known as the 1940s. World War II was in full swing, and a young engineer named Wernher von Braun was building rockets for the Nazis. Von Braun is now famous for designing the V-2 ballistic missile that rained hellfire on London in 1944.

After his surrender to the Allies in 1945, von Braun went to work for the US Army and became one of the pivotal figures in the creation of the fledgling US space program. Von Braun spearheaded the development of the Saturn V rocket that launched the Apollo shuttles. NASA has since called him “the greatest rocket scientist in history.”

From these inauspicious beginnings came some of the greatest technological advances in history and a chance to finally dream of visiting new worlds. At least, depending on the shape of your planet.

In flat Earth theory, NASA’s Nazi origins were just the start. The whole organization is nothing more than a “pack of professional liars, pseudoscientists, charlatans, Freemasons, and Mormons.” After all, “Apollo” is another name for Satan, right? What further proof do you need?

All said and done, it’s that line of thinking that almost makes sense of this whole thing. Everyone needs someone to blame, whether it manifests as benign angst toward the government or vitriolic hate against the satanic Masonic warlocks who keep putting Matt Damon into great movies. If you have to change the literal shape of your world to finger a scapegoat for the unfocused discontent you feel with life, so be it.

From: 10 Absurd Claims Of Modern Flat Earth Conspiracy Theorists (http://listverse.com/2016/02/01/10-absurd-claims-of-modern-flat-earth-conspiracy-theorists/)
Seems I'm not quite alone.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 19, 2017, 06:23:54 AM
To end this stalemate, who is going contact Neil Degrasse Tyson and ask for clarification?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 19, 2017, 07:28:49 AM
To end this stalemate, who is going contact Neil Degrasse Tyson and ask for clarification?
I think he will explain his earlier remarks more in line with Apollo. Why ?
Because he knows how to do damage control.

When a reporter asked Edgar Mitchell why he could see ten times brighter stars in cislunar space and Neil Armstrong couldn't see much in cislunar space other than the moon, earth and the sun ( he called those the only visible objects in cislunar space) ....... Edgar Mitchell became annoyed and replied to the reporter to ask Neil about his specific sightings, but Edgar Mitchell said he sticked with his ! ( ten times brighter stars in cislunar space without the use of optics !!)

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a modern marketing man and knows how to handle a stage.
Of course he will think of something to explain his initial comments so that they are more in line with the AVERAGE idea of the visuality on the lunar surface.

But those who read and heard Edgar Mitchell and compared all of his talk with Neil Armstrong...... then somebody did not go to the moon ;D

Further more the sun is 400.000 times brighter than the moon.
On earth on a very bright and shining day we can still see the moon very clear at times.
On the daylight surface of the moon without an atmosphere we cannot see the stars ?
Because all of a sudden the reflections are so bright they totally block out all starlight for the astronauts ?

Pure nonsense, otherwise we would see the full moon not 400.000 less bright than the sun.
It means the brightness of the moonsurface can't be that influential to prevent them from seeing any star.....

And like simba claimed ..... they could only look forward and not really gaze upwards ,..... this photograph shows they most certainly could bend towards the sky if the chest mounted camera could make this shot !!

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/296636main_1241_full_full.jpg)

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 19, 2017, 07:40:14 AM
summary
Neil deGrasse was a huge Apollo fan as he confessed in interviews.

Confessed? Why do you make this sound like someone had to drag it out of him like a dirty secret?

Quote
He is a well known astrophysicist and promoter of NASA

He's a promoter of space research. NASA happen to some of that.

Quote
He claims when you would be on the daylight surface of the moon the stars would reveal them just like on earth during the night.

You need to wrap your head around what he's saying, because it's clearly causing you some difficulty. On Earth, in the daylight, you can't see stars (generally) because the atmosphere causes scattering of light. On the moon there is no such scattering, but that does not mean there aren't other things that will prevent the stars being visible. Those things include a bright lunar surface, a bright sun, a bright Earth, wearing visors.

Go out at night. See how many stars you can see in the vicinity of the moon.

Quote
His credentials and interrest in Apollo and NASA in general excludes the possiblity that he is unaware with the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon.

Very true, but it doesn't stop him making grandiose and over-simplistic statement that can confuse people who don't have that the same level of understanding.

Quote
Did the astronauts saw stars just like on earth during the night ?
Nothing of the sorts happened, some never saw stars, some saw few stars, some never said anything about the stars on the daylight surface of the moon.

Which is it then? Make your mind up here. Did they see them or not? Are you saying the ones that saw them are telling the truth?

Quote
All where around a considerable amount of time........ no stars or few with the use of optics,
But no one ever saw the stars just like a night on earth.
That did not happen.

And you have great difficulty understanding very simple explanations as to why this is perfectly reasonable. Astronauts walking around in bright sunshine with Earth also casting a light on the surface, the bright surface itself and several layers of visor. Take away those circumstances and you are much more able to see stars - for example through optics in the lunar module.

Quote
I can not proof it of course, but you have to be real stupid to believe Neil Armstrong could not see stars, not a single one during his stay on the moon........ not even one .....unintentionally....... nada .......

And you'd have to be real stupid not to be able to understand the circumstances that make seeing stars on the lunar surface more difficult that you think it is. You'd have to be even more stupid to completely ignore the numerous statements made by many astronauts describing the view of stars when circumstances make viewing much easier - including Neil Armstrong.

Quote
I am full of self-assurance, so if i have to explain it another hundred times, i will gladly do so !

You're full of something...
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: zork on August 19, 2017, 07:47:36 AM
I explained perfectly well that a supposed vacuum would reveal the stars on the daylight surface of the moon.
Therefor Apollo astronauts rarely talk about the actual moon surface, but in vague generalisation like 'awesome', 'unique ' and 'one of a kind'.
Neil Armstrong said he couldn't see stars ever while he was on the moon.
Every explaination about reflection, ignoring the skies because of a different agenda...and time to adjust your eyes won't cut it.

If that was true NdGT would not have claimed the stars reveal themselves just like on earth during the night.
No such thing happened during the hours Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Never did he see stars, let alone stars like on earth.

You are running around in circles ..are you.??......it's obvious Neil Armstrong and the other 11 star deniers and star promoters (Ed Michell ) went to no rock in space EVER.
Let me ask this, if I go out at night and look up do I see stars every time, 100 times out of 100  times? No, it depends on many things. Its totally possible for astronauts not to see stars and NdGT can also be correct. You just are ignoring that astronauts were in one  situation and NdGT refers to another situation. Its like me going out at the day and complaining that I don't see stars and drawing from there conclusion that I can't see stars from earth. Without verifying all other different circumstances. Whatever situation may be, even at clear night.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 19, 2017, 07:48:07 AM
To end this stalemate, who is going contact Neil Degrasse Tyson and ask for clarification?
I think he will explain his earlier remarks more in line with Apollo. Why ?
Because he knows how to do damage control.

When a reporter asked Edgar Mitchell why he could see ten times brighter stars in cislunar space and Neil Armstrong couldn't see much in cislunar space other than the moon, earth and the sun ( he called those the only visible objects in cislunar space) ....... Edgar Mitchell became annoyed and replied to the reporter to ask Neil about his specific sightings, but Edgar Mitchell said he sticked with his ! ( ten times brighter stars in cislunar space without the use of optics !!)

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a modern marketing man and knows how to handle a stage.
Of course he will think of something to explain his initial comments so that they are more in line with the AVERAGE idea of the visuality on the lunar surface.

But those who read and heard Edgar Mitchell and compared all of his talk with Neil Armstrong...... then somebody did not go to the moon ;D

Further more the sun is 400.000 times brighter than the moon.
On earth on a very bright and shining day we can still see the moon very clear at times.
On the daylight surface of the moon without an atmosphere we cannot see the stars ?
Because all of a sudden the reflections are so bright they totally block out all starlight for the astronauts ?

Pure nonsense, otherwise we would see the full moon not 400.000 less bright than the sun.
It means the brightness of the moonsurface can't be that influential to prevent them from seeing any star.....

And like simba claimed ..... they could only look forward and not really gaze upwards ,..... this photograph shows they most certainly could bend towards the sky if the chest mounted camera could make this shot !!

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/296636main_1241_full_full.jpg)

I have seen the live recording of the moment when that photo was taken. Or it could have been 16mm... think live though.
To find it again I would have to look through several days worth of video and photos, not feeling it right now.

Anyways, as to how the photo was taken. It has been a while so I could be wrong, I'll try to find the piece of video later.:

The astronaut that took the picture had to jump, and when he came down he used the momentum of his weight to bend his knees, let his body arch backwards to point the camera up, then press the shutter button. He could only hold the kneeling position for a few seconds, or he would risk falling over. It would not be something they could do for hours.

Do you see the reflection on the upper left portion of the visor? that is the sun. pretty damn bright imo.

Standing in the shadow of the LM would block the most light for your eyes to adjust. But even then it was still pretty bright.

Even if the astronauts were able to arch back and look up slightly, there would still be reflections in the visor with  stray light.

This is why only one dim light photography experiment was done on the lunar surface, all others were done in lunar orbit in the CSM. And that lunar surface experiment was conducted in the shadow of the LM, like I suggested.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 19, 2017, 07:48:44 AM
To end this stalemate, who is going contact Neil Degrasse Tyson and ask for clarification?
I think he will explain his earlier remarks more in line with Apollo. Why ?
Because he knows how to do damage control.

When a reporter asked Edgar Mitchell why he could see ten times brighter stars in cislunar space and Neil Armstrong couldn't see much in cislunar space other than the moon, earth and the sun ( he called those the only visible objects in cislunar space) .......

Absolutely untrue, as has been pointed out to you on many occasions. Armstrong said this in cislunar space:

Quote
Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth.

His comments about the Earth and Sun being the only objects visible are specific to the view from the lunar surface. Listen to what he says.

Quote
Edgar Mitchell became annoyed and replied to the reporter to ask Neil about his specific sightings, but Edgar Mitchell said he sticked with his ! ( ten times brighter stars in cislunar space without the use of optics !!)

Links? Evidence? Proof?

Quote


Further more the sun is 400.000 times brighter than the moon.

Which is why looking at stars with it in view is somewhat difficult.

Quote
On earth on a very bright and shining day we can still see the moon very clear at times.

Would you say the moon looks as bright as it does at night?

Quote
On the daylight surface of the moon without an atmosphere we cannot see the stars ?
Because all of a sudden the reflections are so bright they totally block out all starlight for the astronauts ?

Try looking at the lunar surface through a telescope, see how long it is before you wish youd bought a glare filter.

Quote
Pure nonsense, otherwise we would see the full moon not 400.000 less bright than the sun.
It means the brightness of the moonsurface can't be that influential to prevent them from seeing any star.....

Try counting the number of stars you can see at night next to the moon.

Quote
And like simba claimed ..... they could only look forward and not really gaze upwards ,..... this photograph shows they most certainly could bend towards the sky if the chest mounted camera could make this shot !!

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/296636main_1241_full_full.jpg)

Yes, and the TV footage shows very clearly how much he had to contort to see that bright Earth in the sunlit sky. You can also see the bright lunar surface in that shot as well, and the sun visors.

And of course the Earth there shows weather patterns that only existed on the day it was taken.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 19, 2017, 10:52:58 AM
What are the dark spots on the moon ?
Oceans that consist of basaltic lava, called mare/sea.
Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" landed in the area called The Sea of Tranquility (Lat. Mare Tranquillitatis), calling the landing site The Tranquility Base.
Here are three photo's of that particular Apollo 11 landing spot and how craters look liked and how many shade is visible.

(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startswithabang/files/2016/11/lunar_features-1200x1200.jpg?width=960)

(https://mholloway63.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/neil-moon8dayfrankbarrettanno-sabine-etc1-1024x668.jpg)

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/as11_44_6609.jpg)

Problem is that Neil Armstrong said he never once saw a star, not accidentally, nothing nada

Look at those photographs, are you really going to continue that Neil Armstrong could not see stars because of all the reflections and because he could not see the skies very well ?
The moon is 400.000 times less bright than the sun, the sea of tranquility isn't the brightest place,,,,many shaded places in the craters nearby....
But Neil Armstrong did not see a star...... not once !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while he should have seen a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night !

It is fairytale and you know it !

This was my final conclusion,........the moonlandings featuring Neil Armstrong & co never happened.
They lied to us, about everything....... fast forward.........

flatearth !!!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 19, 2017, 11:05:07 AM
What are the dark spots on the moon ?
Oceans that consist of basaltic lava, called mare/sea.
Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" landed in the area called The Sea of Tranquility (Lat. Mare Tranquillitatis), calling the landing site The Tranquility Base.
Here are three photo's of that particular Apollo 11 landing spot and how craters look liked and how many shade is visible.

(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startswithabang/files/2016/11/lunar_features-1200x1200.jpg?width=960)

(https://mholloway63.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/neil-moon8dayfrankbarrettanno-sabine-etc1-1024x668.jpg)

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/as11_44_6609.jpg)

Problem is that Neil Armstrong said he never once saw a star, not accidentally, nothing nada

Look at those photographs, are you really going to continue that Neil Armstrong could not see stars because of all the reflections and because he could not see the skies very well ?
The moon is 400.000 times less bright than the sun, the sea of tranquility isn't the brightest place,,,,many shaded places in the craters nearby....
But Neil Armstrong did not see a star...... not once !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while he should have seen a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night !

It is fairytale and you know it !

This was my final conclusion,........the moonlandings featuring Neil Armstrong & co never happened.
They lied to us, about everything....... fast forward.........

flatearth !!!
Your inability to understand doesn't make it a fact. 
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 19, 2017, 11:06:44 AM
Your inability to understand doesn't make it a fact.
Your ability to ignore the truth makes it fact.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 19, 2017, 11:09:31 AM
Your inability to understand doesn't make it a fact.
Your ability to ignore the truth makes it fact.
Sorry but you are the one ignoring things.  Everything has been explained multiple times but you are stuck on aspects you can't seem to understand.  You have decided the landings were fake and refuse to accept anything that goes against this belief.
All you have proven is how closed minded you are.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 19, 2017, 11:15:58 AM
Nice pictures taken from Lunar Orbit. But they can not be used to explain the landing site features, your photos do not have sufficient spatial resolution to see the landing site features.

Now lets look at some photos that are a proper representation of the Apollo 11 landing site:

http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO_NAC_Apollo_11_Enhanced_Images.html

http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M102000149RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_gamma0dot6_fft_final_1dot00meters.jpg
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M150368601RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot50meters.tif
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M150361817RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot50meters.tif
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M135039651LE_cropped1_decompanded_2X_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot25meters.tif

And here the deepest Apollo 11 crater, 4 meter deep:
(Source for crater depth: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/landing_site/ )
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5956HR.jpg)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 19, 2017, 11:20:30 AM
Your inability to understand doesn't make it a fact.
Your ability to ignore the truth makes it fact.
Sorry but you are the one ignoring things.  Everything has been explained multiple times but you are stuck on aspects you can't seem to understand.  You have decided the landings were fake and refuse to accept anything that goes against this belief.
All you have proven is how closed minded you are.
you have shown that in order to maintain the moonlanding fairytales alive, the laws of nature and physics can be altered at will and extremely conflicting testimonies can be unified in one clear message to hold on to the impossible.

But i will continue, don't worry.
In time, future generations will look back and will be extremely puzzled about how and why people in such advanced times still believed that they did the impossible in the dawn of their technological era.

Absolute mindboggling stuff for anthropologists who study the very nature and status of the USA of the 20the century and the distribution of national fantasies.
 
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 19, 2017, 11:21:47 AM
Says someone who is trying to pull an orbital photograph off as closeup features of the lunar surface.

And I am not sure if you realize, but one of the photos you just used was taken on Apollo 11.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: frenat on August 19, 2017, 11:22:47 AM

And like simba claimed ..... they could only look forward and not really gaze upwards ,..... this photograph shows they most certainly could bend towards the sky if the chest mounted camera could make this shot !!

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/296636main_1241_full_full.jpg)
so in all your research you never figured out the camera was removable?
and the surface is still in the field of view.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 19, 2017, 11:29:23 AM
Nice pictures taken from Lunar Orbit. But they can not be used to explain the landing site features, your photos do not have sufficient spatial resolution to see the landing site features.

Now lets look at some photos that are a proper representation of the Apollo 11 landing site:

http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO_NAC_Apollo_11_Enhanced_Images.html

http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M102000149RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_gamma0dot6_fft_final_1dot00meters.jpg
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M150368601RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot50meters.tif
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M150361817RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot50meters.tif
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M135039651LE_cropped1_decompanded_2X_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot25meters.tif

And here the deepest Apollo 11 crater, 4 meter deep:
(Source for crater depth: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/landing_site/ )
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5956HR.jpg)
Looks great and shaded, thanks  !!!
Are you personally convinced Neil Armstrong could not see a star, not even accidentally ?

Neil deGrasse Tyson should have said :.

The moon has no atmosphere and the stars reveal themselves just like a night on earth, but because the lunar surface is so reflective they couldn't see a sky full of stars.
And if they were able to see it, which they weren't due to reflections, they would have seen a sky full of stars, but they didn't because they couldn't.

The logic in this whole topic is absolutely absent in every possible way.

But thanks for your gentile replies !!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 19, 2017, 11:33:51 AM
Says someone who is trying to pull an orbital photograph off as closeup features of the lunar surface.

And I am not sure if you realize, but one of the photos you just used was taken on Apollo 11.
Of course i do know the source of the photographs !!!
I don't believe any of it was taken on the moon !
But because that kills the converstation immidiatly i am using the data from the Apollo believers and preferable NASA sites, that's sadly the only way.

I do not believe the moon is a celestial orbiting rock around earth in space either, but that kills the discussion immidiatly...so i stick to your ''facts'' and try to show you what's wrong with the so called facts from Apollo !
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 19, 2017, 11:35:16 AM
 8) 8)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 19, 2017, 11:38:42 AM
so in all your research you never figured out the camera was removable?
and the surface is still in the field of view.
Stupid,...... i don't believe they couldn't see a partial sky , because they could !!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: zork on August 19, 2017, 11:41:04 AM
This was my final conclusion,........the moonlandings featuring Neil Armstrong & co never happened.
They lied to us, about everything....... fast forward.........

flatearth !!!
  I always wonder about this kind of logic. Taking something totally unrelated to earth shape and saying that because of that the earth is flat. It always reminds me some weird logic from South Park episode, S07E04:

whoever they are, if they are receiving messages, they might be sending them too, wait a minute..
candy bars!
candy bars?
you know, candy bars, they usually come on wrapper... just like you wrap a christmas present...
christmas happens when it's cold... cold is in alaska... that's.. that's polar bears. polar bears..
po.. polarity
I can switch the polarity to see what transmission are coming from a location this one is being sent to
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 19, 2017, 11:45:06 AM
Nice pictures taken from Lunar Orbit. But they can not be used to explain the landing site features, your photos do not have sufficient spatial resolution to see the landing site features.

Now lets look at some photos that are a proper representation of the Apollo 11 landing site:

http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO_NAC_Apollo_11_Enhanced_Images.html

http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M102000149RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_gamma0dot6_fft_final_1dot00meters.jpg
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M150368601RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot50meters.tif
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M150361817RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot50meters.tif
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M135039651LE_cropped1_decompanded_2X_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot25meters.tif

And here the deepest Apollo 11 crater, 4 meter deep:
(Source for crater depth: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/landing_site/ )
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5956HR.jpg)
Looks great and shaded, thanks  !!!
Are you personally convinced Neil Armstrong could not see a star, not even accidentally ?

Neil deGrasse Tyson should have said :.

The moon has no atmosphere and the stars reveal themselves just like a night on earth, but because the lunar surface is so reflective they couldn't see a sky full of stars.
And if they were able to see it, which they weren't due to reflections, they would have seen a sky full of stars, but they didn't because they couldn't.

The logic in this whole topic is absolutely absent in every possible way.

But thanks for your gentile replies !!
I still think it is funny that you posted a photo of the lunar landscape to show how the moon looks, when that photo was taken on Apollo 11, a mission you say never happened. Great consistency my friend.

And to finish my research off with an answer to one of your previous questions, here is how the photo with the astronaut, flag and Earth was taken:


The page can take a while to load, its a big website:

http://apollo17.org?t=118:26:28

(You have to manually select the entire link and copy/paste it into your browser)

I do not think Houston would have let Apollo 11 into the crater, the first landing was kind of a tryout still, descending into a crater would be considered dangerous. The astronauts also had plenty of things to say, describe, test, photograph and to setup. There was no time to lay inside a crater and let your eyes adjust, which would have no scientific purpose.

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 19, 2017, 03:25:32 PM
It is fairytale
In your opinion!
Quote from: dutchy
and you know it !
Don't you dare pretend to know what others know!

Quote from: dutchy
This was my final conclusion,........the moonlandings featuring Neil Armstrong & co never happened.
They lied to us, about everything....... fast forward.........
flatearth !!!

OK, you are convinced that the moon landings never happened. Somehow we gathered that very early in the piece.

But, these countries have launched their own satellites using their own launch facilities:
     Country,         Date,             Rocket,      Satellite
 1,  Soviet Union,    4 October 1957,   Sputnik-PS,   Sputnik 1
 2,  United States,   1 February 1958,  Juno I,       Explorer 1
 3,  France,         26 November 1965,  Diamant-A,    Astérix
 4,  Japan,          11 February 1970,  Lambda-4S,    Ōsumi
 5,  China,          24 April 1970,     Long March 1, Dong Fang Hong I
 6,  United Kingdom, 28 October 1971,   Black Arrow,  Prospero
 7,  India,          18 July 1980,      SLV,          Rohini D1
 8,  Israel,         19 September 1988, Shavit,       Ofeq 1
 9,  Ukraine,        13 July 1992,      Tsyklon-3,    Strela
10,  Iran,            2 February 2009,  Safir-1,      Omid
11,  North Korea,    12 December 2012,  Unha-3,       Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2

Then 75 countries have own satellites in orbit, including the following countries:
Algeria, Arab Satellite Communications Organization, Asia Satellite Telecommunications Company (Asiasat),
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Chile, China/Brazil, Czech Republic (Former Czechoslovakia), Ecuador,
Egypt, Estonia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Peru,
Philippines (Republic Of The Philippines), Poland, Regional African Satellite Communications Organization,
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Turkmenistan/Monaco, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam.

Now you will never convince any but the totally indoctrinated "anti-spacer" that ALL of these countries are so subservient the the US of A that they would spend all things time, effort and money simply to please Uncle Sam!

And in closing another bit of light entertainment for you: Jarrah's Star! (Pt 2.) Now for MY stars! Astrobrant2 (http://)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 20, 2017, 12:12:10 AM
What are the dark spots on the moon ?
Oceans that consist of basaltic lava, called mare/sea.
Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" landed in the area called The Sea of Tranquility (Lat. Mare Tranquillitatis), calling the landing site The Tranquility Base.
Here are three photo's of that particular Apollo 11 landing spot and how craters look liked and how many shade is visible.

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/as11_44_6609.jpg)


The last photo there is of the lunar far side crater Daedalus

https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_44_6609.html

You are presenting a photograph taken in lunar orbit of the lunar far side by a human being as proof that no-one went to the moon. Think about that

Quote
Problem is that Neil Armstrong said he never once saw a star, not accidentally, nothing nada

Problem is that this statement is a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Armstrong saw stars in cislunar space.

Quote
Look at those photographs, are you really going to continue that Neil Armstrong could not see stars because of all the reflections and because he could not see the skies very well ?
The moon is 400.000 times less bright than the sun,

Look at it through a telescope. See how bright you think it is. Count the stars you can see next to it.

Quote

the sea of tranquility isn't the brightest place,,,,many shaded places in the craters nearby....
But Neil Armstrong did not see a star...... not once !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while he should have seen a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night !

And even if you look at an actual photograph of Tranquility Base you'll see many bright places.

There may well have been stars in the sky, but there are perfectly good reasons as to why he would not have been able to see them. He could see Earth though, with its unique meteorological fingerprint for that day, with it's terminator just where it should be, with exactly the right configuration of land masses on show.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Eart
Post by: dutchy on August 20, 2017, 01:57:22 AM
What are the dark spots on the moon ?
Oceans that consist of basaltic lava, called mare/sea.
Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" landed in the area called The Sea of Tranquility (Lat. Mare Tranquillitatis), calling the landing site The Tranquility Base.
Here are three photo's of that particular Apollo 11 landing spot and how craters look liked and how many shade is visible.

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/as11_44_6609.jpg)


The last photo there is of the lunar far side crater Daedalus

https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_44_6609.html

You are presenting a photograph taken in lunar orbit of the lunar far side by a human being as proof that no-one went to the moon. Think about that

Quote
Problem is that Neil Armstrong said he never once saw a star, not accidentally, nothing nada

Problem is that this statement is a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Armstrong saw stars in cislunar space.

Quote
Look at those photographs, are you really going to continue that Neil Armstrong could not see stars because of all the reflections and because he could not see the skies very well ?
The moon is 400.000 times less bright than the sun,

Look at it through a telescope. See how bright you think it is. Count the stars you can see next to it.

Quote

the sea of tranquility isn't the brightest place,,,,many shaded places in the craters nearby....
But Neil Armstrong did not see a star...... not once !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while he should have seen a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night !

And even if you look at an actual photograph of Tranquility Base you'll see many bright places.

There may well have been stars in the sky, but there are perfectly good reasons as to why he would not have been able to see them. He could see Earth though, with its unique meteorological fingerprint for that day, with it's terminator just where it should be, with exactly the right configuration of land masses on show.
Can you ever reflect on what i say ?
Neil Armstrong claimed he never saw a star , nada, zero ON THE DAYLIGHT SIDE OF THE MOON. Very childish of you to reply as if my statesments were untrue and talk about Neil's comments about visuality in cislunar space.
Again very childish of you.

What you have proven is that you refuse to see your glaring problems ignoring everything because the brick wall in front of your nose must be preserved.

The Apollo 11 astronauts were on a below average reflective place on the moon
They walked around and encountered even more shaded places
Neil Armstrong still couldn't see any stars at all.
According to the expert Neil deGrasse Tyson he should have seen a sky full of stars just like a night on earth.
Is this Neil deGrasse Tyson the biggest moron spokesman ever seen on television/radio ?

Did Neil deGrasse not know it is impossible to see stars, let alone a sky full of stars like on earth during the night ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that you have to wear a spacesuit on the moon always ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that spacehelmets+suits were limtited and prevented the astronauts from gazing upwards ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know how extremely reflective the lunar surface was ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that the effects of the reflective surface outperformed the benefits of an absent atmosphere for 'star gazers' ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that contrary to earth you have to search for an ideal spot and take the time to be able to see a few stars ?

If Neil deGrasse Tyson was aware about all of the above he would never ever, in this universe or somewhere else, not in the past, present or future claim something as absurd as he did.
Unless of course he made a honest slip of the tongue, because he knows what to expect from standing on the moon.
Contrary to some fighterjet pilots who sold their soul to the devil and claimed the sky was deep black..... nothing to see apart from earth. But that was a place they allready knew and did not have their attention. The flag had...... the STARS and stripes ::) if only that would look good for the public..... America concored the heavens. They were first , they were first and the evil Russians lost hahahaha
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Eart
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 20, 2017, 02:06:41 AM
What are the dark spots on the moon ?
Oceans that consist of basaltic lava, called mare/sea.
Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" landed in the area called The Sea of Tranquility (Lat. Mare Tranquillitatis), calling the landing site The Tranquility Base.
Here are three photo's of that particular Apollo 11 landing spot and how craters look liked and how many shade is visible.

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/as11_44_6609.jpg)


The last photo there is of the lunar far side crater Daedalus

https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_44_6609.html

You are presenting a photograph taken in lunar orbit of the lunar far side by a human being as proof that no-one went to the moon. Think about that

Quote
Problem is that Neil Armstrong said he never once saw a star, not accidentally, nothing nada

Problem is that this statement is a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Armstrong saw stars in cislunar space.

Quote
Look at those photographs, are you really going to continue that Neil Armstrong could not see stars because of all the reflections and because he could not see the skies very well ?
The moon is 400.000 times less bright than the sun,

Look at it through a telescope. See how bright you think it is. Count the stars you can see next to it.

Quote

the sea of tranquility isn't the brightest place,,,,many shaded places in the craters nearby....
But Neil Armstrong did not see a star...... not once !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while he should have seen a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night !

And even if you look at an actual photograph of Tranquility Base you'll see many bright places.

There may well have been stars in the sky, but there are perfectly good reasons as to why he would not have been able to see them. He could see Earth though, with its unique meteorological fingerprint for that day, with it's terminator just where it should be, with exactly the right configuration of land masses on show.
Can you ever reflect on what i say ?
Neil Armstrong claimed he never saw a star , nada, zero ON THE DAYLIGHT SIDE OF THE MOON. Very childish of you to reply as if my statesments were untrue and talk about Neil's comments about visuality in cislunar space.
Again very childish of you.

Can you ever reflect on what I say? Despite very simple explanations as to why Armstrong would not necessarily see stars you ignore it. Despite repeating many times that Armstrong saw stars in cislunar space you ignore it. Despite pointing out many times that Armstrong's comments about the view on the lunar surface did not reference cislunar space you ignore it.

Quote
What you have proven is that you refuse to see your glaring problems ignoring everything because the brick wall in front of your nose must be preserved.

What you have proven is that you refuse to see the glaring problems in your argument, particularly when you use photographs taken in lunar orbit as proof that no-one took a photograph in lunar orbit. Particularly when you use astronauts saying they saw stars to claim they didn't see stars.

Quote
The Apollo 11 astronauts were on a below average reflective place on the moon

Look at the moon through a telescope. Count the stars you can see. Buy a filter to cut out the harsh glare.

Quote
They walked around and encountered even more shaded places

And plenty of bright places, with a sun in the sky, and a bright Earth.

Quote
Neil Armstrong still couldn't see any stars at all.

Because of many simple reasons you don't seem able to grasp.

Quote
According to the expert Neil deGrasse Tyson he should have seen a sky full of stars just like a night on earth.
Is this Neil deGrasse Tyson the biggest moron spokesman ever seen on television/radio ?

Did Neil deGrasse not know it is impossible to see stars, let alone a sky full of stars like on earth during the night ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that you have to wear a spacesuit on the moon always ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that spacehelmets+suits were limtited and prevented the astronauts from gazing upwards ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know how extremely reflective the lunar surface was ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that the effects of the reflective surface outperformed the benefits of an absent atmosphere for 'star gazers' ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that contrary to earth you have to search for an ideal spot and take the time to be able to see a few stars ?

If Neil deGrasse Tyson was aware about all of the above he would never ever, in this universe or somewhere else, not in the past, present or future claim something as absurd as he did.
Unless of course he made a honest slip of the tongue, because he knows what to expect from standing on the moon.
Contrary to some fighterjet pilots who sold their soul to the devil and claimed to sky was deep black.

What colour is the sky at night? Why do you think 'black sky' means 'no stars'?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 20, 2017, 02:19:43 AM
Why do you prefer to lie Onebigmonkey ?
Why do you change my words all the time ?
Why do you deliberately try to derail the essence of my remarks ?

Could you enlighten me why you refuse to honestly answer my observations and the opposite claims between Neil A. and Neil dGT , but instead do everything possible to ignore the essence of my message and talk about....... 'god knows what'.... instead addressing the only thing of importance ..... Neil vs Neil.
I know it is a well known tactic and the last days i have encountered this approach more and more.
Only proof for my personal conviction that not only NASA lied, but their lies have also concored your hearts.
All your replies are meant to derail the essence of my posts ( Neil vs Neil ) and to make them say things they don't.
But really nothing stops you from doing what you do ehh ?

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 20, 2017, 04:28:28 AM
Why do you prefer to lie Onebigmonkey ?

Why have you decided I'm lying? I'm not.

Quote
Why do you change my words all the time ?

I didn't. You are quoted correctly.

Quote
Why do you deliberately try to derail the essence of my remarks ?

I haven't. The essence of your remarks are false. For example, when you claim Armstrong said that he saw no stars in cislunar space when he said no such thing. Like when you post pictures claiming to be of the Apollo 11 landing site when it was, in fact, of a crater that can't be photographed anywhere other than from lunar orbit.

Quote
Could you enlighten me why you refuse to honestly answer my observations and the opposite claims between Neil A. and Neil dGT , but instead do everything possible to ignore the essence of my message and talk about....... 'god knows what'.... instead addressing the only thing of importance ..... Neil vs Neil.

Already done that. Got bored of repeating myslef.

Quote
I know it is a well known tactic and the last days i have encountered this approach more and more.

Maybe because you continue to repeat the same misconceptions and falsehoods despite having your errors pointed out many times to you.

Quote
Only proof for my personal conviction that not only NASA lied, but their lies have also concored your hearts.
All your replies are meant to derail the essence of my posts ( Neil vs Neil ) and to make them say things they don't.

Nope, my replies are to point out that you are wrong, and that no matter how many times you repeat wrong things they will continue to be wrong.

Quote
But really nothing stops you from doing what you do ehh ?

And yet here you are, continuing to misrepresent reality, continuing to repeat falsehoods, continuing to ignore simple explanations. Why shouldn't people point out your mistakes?

Here's something else for you to ponder. Charles Duke said this about the view on the moon:

Though the sun was shining brightly, the lunar sky was pitch black; no stars were visible due to the bright reflection off the lunar surface.

Despite him not seeing any, it didn't stop Venus being photographed in the Apollo 16 sky.

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 20, 2017, 05:33:29 AM
I won't derail my own attempts to fall in your trap of deceit.

The facts :

cislunar space
Edgar Mitchel : unaided eye ten times as bright, ten times as numerous stars....enlightening experience !!!

Neil Armstrong : the sky is deep black when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from cislunar space[/i].....
The earh is the only visible object that can be seen other than the sun !(interview with Patrick Moore)
Since Neil Armstrong went to the same place in cislunar space where Edgar Mitchell saw the 'ten times brighter and ten times numerous stars', then he would surely mention such important sighting in the interview with Patrick Moore.
If Neil further in time claimed he saw stars in cislunar space then it is still incompatable with the ten times as bright and ten times as numerous religious sightings of Edgar Mitchell.

The daylight surface of the moon
Without an atmosphere the 'ten times brighter and ten times numerous stars' would have been visible on the moon.
But the reflective surface obscures some of the light from the 'ten times brighter and ten times numerous stars'
The question is HOW MUCH ?

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Alldrin
Neil couldn't see any star with his eyes, not once ( only through optics)
Buzz says in his book the sky on the moon was black and void of any stars.

Neil deGrasse Tyson
Neil says the stars reveal themselves just like they would during the night on earth.
That is not so bright compared to what can be seen in the vaccuum of space ( ten times brighter and numerous), but still very much visible for the unaided eye.

These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.
You have to cancel out some of the facts to create an artificial reality where all observations are in harmony with other testimonies.
But i won't let your little lies cloud the truth.
Papa Legba, althaugh i certainly do not approve of his use of language was right about you !
The truth is clear cut and transparent and you will do just about everything to ignore it.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 20, 2017, 09:08:43 AM
I won't derail my own attempts to fall in your trap of deceit.

The facts :

cislunar space
Edgar Mitchel : unaided eye ten times as bright, ten times as numerous stars....enlightening experience !!!

Neil Armstrong : the sky is deep black when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from cislunar space[/i].....
The earh is the only visible object that can be seen other than the sun !(interview with Patrick Moore)

Yet again, for the hard of seeing, Armstrong's response there is specific to a question about what can be seen on the surface. If you want to know what Armstrong actually saw in cislunar space you need to refer to the mission transcript where he says this:

"Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars"


You also, yet again, repeat the mistake of assuming black sky = no stars. If I go out on a clear night I will also see a black sky, with many stars in it.

Quote
Since Neil Armstrong went to the same place in cislunar space where Edgar Mitchell saw the 'ten times brighter and ten times numerous stars', then he would surely mention such important sighting in the interview with Patrick Moore.

and if Sir Patrick had asked him about what he could see in cislunar space he would have told him.

Quote
If Neil further in time claimed he saw stars in cislunar space then it is still incompatable with the ten times as bright and ten times as numerous religious sightings of Edgar Mitchell.

He didn't claim it 'further in time', he stated it as a fact at the time.

Quote
The daylight surface of the moon
Without an atmosphere the 'ten times brighter and ten times numerous stars' would have been visible on the moon.
But the reflective surface obscures some of the light from the 'ten times brighter and ten times numerous stars'
The question is HOW MUCH ?

Go on then, give us the answer.

Quote
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Alldrin
Neil couldn't see any star with his eyes, not once ( only through optics)
Buzz says in his book the sky on the moon was black and void of any stars.

And here's what he says in his book about the sky in cislunar space:

"The sun was always shining, yet the sky around us was a constant black blanket dotted with millions of stars."

Buzz did see stars on the surface when he was using them to fix their location.

Quote
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Neil says the stars reveal themselves just like they would during the night on earth.
That is not so bright compared to what can be seen in the vaccuum of space ( ten times brighter and numerous), but still very much visible for the unaided eye.

Stars being present in the lunar sky is not the same as being able to see them.

Quote
These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.

No, you haven't, you have tried to bend them to fit your view of things. It doesn't work.

Quote
You have to cancel out some of the facts to create an artificial reality where all observations are in harmony with other testimonies.
But i won't let your little lies cloud the truth.

I have told no lies. Show me where I have.

Quote
Papa Legba, althaugh i certainly do not approve of his use of language was right about you !

I wouldn't put yourself in the same camp as him, it doesn't reflect well on you.

Quote
The truth is clear cut and transparent and you will do just about everything to ignore it.

You maybe need to read that sentence back at yourself.

It's really, really simple:

In perfect conditions stars are visible. When conditions conspire against the human eye you will not see them, just like you don't see the full panoply of stars on a moonlit night here.

Tyson's observations that the stars will be there in the lunar sky does not automatically equate to them being always visible or photographable. The light from the sun, the lunar surface, the Earth, the mobility restrictions of the suit, even the reflected light of a white suit will combine with the filters of an astronaut helmet's various visors to make stars less easy to see.

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: zork on August 20, 2017, 10:02:59 AM
These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.
You know, even if these are the facts they don't cancel each other out. Both can be true and you clinging to belief that one must be false and this somehow proves something is ridicilous.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 20, 2017, 12:34:56 PM
These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.
You know, even if these are the facts they don't cancel each other out. Both can be true and you clinging to belief that one must be false and this somehow proves something is ridicilous.
If both can be true then show me how.!!!
If you read all Onebigmonkey's replies then he never takes all comments and quotes on face value, likewise the others in this topic.

'Edgar Mitchell was exagerating when he said "ten times as numerous and ten times as bright stars " , because it excedes the moderate observations of Neil Armstrong by a huge phenomenal margin and the difference between unaided eye and or optics remains unclear ( Ed Mitchell did not need optics to see ten times brighter stars)'

Then there is Neil deGrasse Tyson who sort of fantasised about a moon where men could stand on without a spacesuit and not troubled by reflections..... and in this dreamland scenario the stars would reveal themselves like on earth during the night.
[/i]
THIS IS OF COURSE A LOUSY ATTEMPT.

I feel the moral winner by quite some margin.
Of course neither of you will ever acknowledge this.
Scroll through the entire database of this forum and give an examle in which'globers' confess they were wrong about things related to the moonlandings or the shape of earth.

It is simply not in any of the globers'  capabilities to even meet me half way.
But i know many are reading this topic and i hope i have been successfull in showing how different the NASA insiders/astronauts reflect on space, the deep void, the stars and more.
I am glad this didn't end up in the shredder like NASA did with so many things.
The visuality of stars in space/on the moon is reloaded and NASA's old explainations won't cut it anymore.
For you globers it will, everything NASA claims is correct by default.
Think about that......you have manouvred yourself in a position that NASA cannot now, nor in the past, nor in the future lie about space in your perception.
That much power do they have over you. You cannot doubt them about space discoveries ever, because you trust them they never will, because the Russians, amature astronomers and foreign space agencies prevent NASA from lying to the general public.

A cultish way of reasoning and a very scary prospect for the near future !
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: zork on August 20, 2017, 12:38:44 PM
These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.
You know, even if these are the facts they don't cancel each other out. Both can be true and you clinging to belief that one must be false and this somehow proves something is ridicilous.
If both can be true then show me how.!!!
Why? You haven't shown that they cannot be both true.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 20, 2017, 12:42:54 PM
These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.
You know, even if these are the facts they don't cancel each other out. Both can be true and you clinging to belief that one must be false and this somehow proves something is ridicilous.
If both can be true then show me how.!!!
Why? You haven't shown that they cannot be both true.
Of course i have....  at least 20 times.Read the topic..

I am very kind and polite when people are reasonable.
But such replies show you have not read what i wrote.
Is their something wrong with you zork ? Before i shift to another gear......
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 20, 2017, 12:43:15 PM
Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 20, 2017, 12:44:47 PM
Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.
Ehhhh ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 20, 2017, 12:49:23 PM
Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.
Ehhhh ?
Amateur astronomy: Stars and planets seen in Apollo photographs match planetarium software.

Amateur photography: The saturn V was recorded launching, its staging could be seen by the naked eye and was recorded. The third stage was photographed venting its remaining fuel in lunar orbit.

Amateur ham radio: Signals were received from Earth orbit, en-route to moon, and from the Moon.


At the moment I am discussing with an Germany located ground station if their Apollo live Quadruplex video reels can be digitized, and how. At the time of Apollo they received the S-band signal from the Moon with their 20 meter dish and recorded its video and audio signal on video reels. Most likely when an RCA Quad VTR.

They had nothing to do with NASA and were completely independent.


That is just some third party evidence out of my head.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 20, 2017, 01:05:25 PM
Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.
Ehhhh ?
Amateur astronomy: Stars and planets seen in Apollo photographs match digital planetarium software.
They roughly do, but Jarrah White ( a kryptonite name for Onebigmonkey and frenat...... just watch ) has clearly shown that venus was in the wrong place on a photograph .
It was a proper attempt by NASA but still failed the position and given timeframe.
Sorry but i do not have the video that proves that right now, only if it is real important for you i will search for it .
Quote
Amateur photography: The saturn V was recorded launching, its staging could be seen by the naked eye and was recorded. The third stage was photographed venting its remaining fuel in lunar orbit.
Amateur ham radio: Signals were received from Earth orbit, en-route to moon, and from the Moon.

At the moment I am discussing with an Germany located ground station if their Apollo live video tapes can be digitized, and how. At the time of Apollo they received the S-band signal from the Moon and recorded its video and audio signal on video reels.

They had nothing to do with NASA and were completely independent.
I would gladly reply to all of your remarks, but Onebigmonkey and frenat would be extremely happy when the focus would change towards other aspects of the Apollo missions.

Now that i have them in a stranglehold i won't let go.
The testimonies of the astronauts and experts about the visuality of stars in cislunarspace and on the daylight side of the moon are extremely conflicting and defying the laws of cosmology in outerspace one way or the other.

You are wellcome to try and allign all that was said about visuality.
Till now, nobody succeded remotely in explaining how the respective testimonies could differ so greatly.
And we have arrived at a certain point where globers retraid from the facts and claim all observations made by astronauts and experts are in harmony without taking the quotes at face value.

And that is unacceptable for me.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: zork on August 20, 2017, 01:19:00 PM
These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.
You know, even if these are the facts they don't cancel each other out. Both can be true and you clinging to belief that one must be false and this somehow proves something is ridicilous.
If both can be true then show me how.!!!
Why? You haven't shown that they cannot be both true.
Of course i have....  at least 20 times.Read the topic..
No, you haven't. You just say that one says one thing and other another thing but you have not shown in any ways that both cannot be true. And you can't, because to show it you must go to the moon to verify. For now you just assume and speculate.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 20, 2017, 01:45:01 PM
Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.
Ehhhh ?
Amateur astronomy: Stars and planets seen in Apollo photographs match digital planetarium software.
They roughly do, but Jarrah White ( a kryptonite name for Onebigmonkey and frenat...... just watch ) has clearly shown that venus was in the wrong place on a photograph .
It was a proper attempt by NASA but still failed the position and given timeframe.
Sorry but i do not have the video that proves that right now, only if it is real important for you i will search for it .
Quote
Amateur photography: The saturn V was recorded launching, its staging could be seen by the naked eye and was recorded. The third stage was photographed venting its remaining fuel in lunar orbit.
Amateur ham radio: Signals were received from Earth orbit, en-route to moon, and from the Moon.

At the moment I am discussing with an Germany located ground station if their Apollo live video tapes can be digitized, and how. At the time of Apollo they received the S-band signal from the Moon and recorded its video and audio signal on video reels.

They had nothing to do with NASA and were completely independent.
I would gladly reply to all of your remarks, but Onebigmonkey and frenat would be extremely happy when the focus would change towards other aspects of the Apollo missions.

Now that i have them in a stranglehold i won't let go.
The testimonies of the astronauts and experts about the visuality of stars in cislunarspace and on the daylight side of the moon are extremely conflicting and defying the laws of cosmology in outerspace one way or the other.

You are wellcome to try and allign all that was said about visuality.
Till now, nobody succeded remotely in explaining how the respective testimonies could differ so greatly.
And we have arrived at a certain point where globers retraid from the facts and claim all observations made by astronauts and experts are in harmony without taking the quotes at face value.

And that is unacceptable for me.
You've got no one in a strangle hold.  You have only shown you lack the reasoning skills to understand the simple things that have been explained to you numerous times.
Why do you keep bringing up cislunar space?  If you are trying to say Armstrong said there were no stars then you are simply being dishonest.
There is no conflict in the statements you listed.  The problem is only in your lack of reasoning skills.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Denspressure on August 20, 2017, 02:08:15 PM
Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.
Ehhhh ?
Amateur astronomy: Stars and planets seen in Apollo photographs match digital planetarium software.
They roughly do, but Jarrah White ( a kryptonite name for Onebigmonkey and frenat...... just watch ) has clearly shown that venus was in the wrong place on a photograph .
It was a proper attempt by NASA but still failed the position and given timeframe.
Sorry but i do not have the video that proves that right now, only if it is real important for you i will search for it .
Quote
Amateur photography: The saturn V was recorded launching, its staging could be seen by the naked eye and was recorded. The third stage was photographed venting its remaining fuel in lunar orbit.
Amateur ham radio: Signals were received from Earth orbit, en-route to moon, and from the Moon.

At the moment I am discussing with an Germany located ground station if their Apollo live video tapes can be digitized, and how. At the time of Apollo they received the S-band signal from the Moon and recorded its video and audio signal on video reels.

They had nothing to do with NASA and were completely independent.
I would gladly reply to all of your remarks, but Onebigmonkey and frenat would be extremely happy when the focus would change towards other aspects of the Apollo missions.

Now that i have them in a stranglehold i won't let go.
The testimonies of the astronauts and experts about the visuality of stars in cislunarspace and on the daylight side of the moon are extremely conflicting and defying the laws of cosmology in outerspace one way or the other.

You are wellcome to try and allign all that was said about visuality.
Till now, nobody succeded remotely in explaining how the respective testimonies could differ so greatly.
And we have arrived at a certain point where globers retraid from the facts and claim all observations made by astronauts and experts are in harmony without taking the quotes at face value.

And that is unacceptable for me.
I think I have seen the video by Jarrah White, and a debunking video. The problem is, that there is always a percentage of error when overlaying images. It depends on which part you center the images to. Film is not a perfect medium and will have small inconsistencies.

The person that was debunking the video overlaid the images several times, and each time it was some pixels off, because of error. Not because it was faked.


I also find it weird that NASA was able to fake this, which show surface details never seen before Apollo:

CSM Panoramic Camera

    AS15: 1529 images
    AS16: 1587 images
    AS17: 1581 images

1529+1587+1581 = 4697 Negative strips

Each negative strip is divided into 8 tiles.

1 tile = 39793 pixels width x 25447 pixels height
8 * 39793 pixels width = 318344 total pixel length

318344 pixel length * 25447 pixel height = 8.1 Gigapixels total

8.1 Gigapixels * 4697 = 38045 gigapixels of lunar surface from CSM orbit.


Apollo Panoramic Camera backup:

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/camera-panoramic-apollo-back


Source Panoramic Camera images:
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/browse/


But a planet is out of reach for them. And then there are photos with multiple planets.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 20, 2017, 03:04:06 PM
You've got no one in a strangle hold.  You have only shown you lack the reasoning skills to understand the simple things that have been explained to you numerous times.
According to Neil deGrasse Tyson the stars should reveil them on the daylightside of the moon like they do on earth during the night.
Your dispiccable tactics have you look the other way, because no stars were visible for the unaided eye according to Neil Amstrong.
That is quite a difference isn't it ??
Why don't you simply explain this without making Neil deGrasse Tyson look like an utter fool totally unaware of the powerfull lunar reflections !!!
Quote
Why do you keep bringing up cislunar space?  If you are trying to say Armstrong said there were no stars then you are simply being dishonest.
Fuck me.......
I provided the exact quote from Neil Armstrong from his interview in 1970 with Patrick Moore. He himself mentioned the sky is deep black on the moon as it is in cislunar space.
Assume he didn't exclude stars in cislunar space for the unaided eye, then it is totally rediculous when you compare it to the religious experience of Edgar Mitchel. 'Ten times as numerous, ten times as bright' most unique sighting ever !!!
And Neil only says cislunar space is black........ the stars were there somewhat, but irrelevant to mention when Patrick Moore asked him about the skies and Neil Armstrong mentioned cislunar space is black...... period
Did Neil forget that in cislunar space the stars are ten times brighter and ten times more numerous ? was simply mentioning that cislunar space was deep black without immidiatly mentioning what heavenly sighting was going on with ten times brighter stars enough info ?? Neil never saw stars like Edgar Mitchell claimed to have seen them. I huge, huge difference on all accounts.
Quote
There is no conflict in the statements you listed.  The problem is only in your lack of reasoning skills.
You are showing your true colours as i found out in other topics ..... sad i kinda liked you....
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 20, 2017, 04:36:14 PM
As I have said dutchy, you have already chosen you answer rendering all of this discussion pointless.

People have explained to you and given you options to get your answers (ask Neil DeGrasse himself) and you haven't. You won't.

You don't want an answer, you don't want explanations because you already have one inside that close minded head of yours.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 20, 2017, 04:47:30 PM
You've got no one in a strangle hold.  You have only shown you lack the reasoning skills to understand the simple things that have been explained to you numerous times.
According to Neil deGrasse Tyson the stars should reveil them on the daylightside of the moon like they do on earth during the night.
Your dispiccable tactics have you look the other way, because no stars were visible for the unaided eye according to Neil Amstrong.
That is quite a difference isn't it ??
Why don't you simply explain this without making Neil deGrasse Tyson look like an utter fool totally unaware of the powerfull lunar reflections !!!
Quote
Why do you keep bringing up cislunar space?  If you are trying to say Armstrong said there were no stars then you are simply being dishonest.
Fuck me.......
I provided the exact quote from Neil Armstrong from his interview in 1970 with Patrick Moore. He himself mentioned the sky is deep black on the moon as it is in cislunar space.
Assume he didn't exclude stars in cislunar space for the unaided eye, then it is totally rediculous when you compare it to the religious experience of Edgar Mitchel. 'Ten times as numerous, ten times as bright' most unique sighting ever !!!
And Neil only says cislunar space is black........ the stars were there somewhat, but irrelevant to mention when Patrick Moore asked him about the skies and Neil Armstrong mentioned cislunar space is black...... period
Did Neil forget that in cislunar space the stars are ten times brighter and ten times more numerous ? was simply mentioning that cislunar space was deep black without immidiatly mentioning what heavenly sighting was going on with ten times brighter stars enough info ?? Neil never saw stars like Edgar Mitchell claimed to have seen them. I huge, huge difference on all accounts.
Quote
There is no conflict in the statements you listed.  The problem is only in your lack of reasoning skills.
You are showing your true colours as i found out in other topics ..... sad i kinda liked you....
I honestly don't know what to tell.  You seem to be the only one who can't get this.  But you also won't move on to anything else.  It's becoming impossible to have a discussion with you.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Truther on August 20, 2017, 06:22:31 PM
The so called top government, military, and NASA people know the earth is flat and there's a dome. But they can't suddenly admit the truth now after 50-60 years of lying. It looks bad for them. They don't care about the truth or gullible public who believes anything as long as these organizations are funded with the tax money. Stop the money, then they may show their true face.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 20, 2017, 06:57:13 PM
The so called top government, military, and NASA people know the earth is flat and there's a dome. But they can't suddenly admit the truth now after 50-60 years of lying. It looks bad for them. They don't care about the truth or gullible public who believes anything as long as these organizations are funded with the tax money. Stop the money, then they may show their true face.
Prove it! You claim to be "Truther", so first, you have to have to prove that the earth is flat and nobody has yet done that.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: December 7, 1972 on August 20, 2017, 10:24:10 PM
Argue in the comments below.  8)

Answer: They wouldn't.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 20, 2017, 11:03:17 PM
Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.
Ehhhh ?
Amateur astronomy: Stars and planets seen in Apollo photographs match digital planetarium software.
They roughly do, but Jarrah White ( a kryptonite name for Onebigmonkey and frenat...... just watch ) has clearly shown that venus was in the wrong place on a photograph .

It was a proper attempt by NASA but still failed the position and given timeframe.
Sorry but i do not have the video that proves that right now, only if it is real important for you i will search for it .

Oh now all of a sudden we're keen on evidence, once you think you have something that supports you you're happy to refer to it but when it doesn't you refuse to give it your attention.

Shots of Venus in lunar orbit and on the surface (including the ones that I discovered) from Apollo 14 and the ones taken by Apollo 16 show planets exactly where they should be. The photographs showing Venus, Mars and Saturn in cislunar space also show them exactly where they should be, as do the images of Jupiter, Mercury and Venus in lunar orbit.

Quote
Quote
Amateur photography: The saturn V was recorded launching, its staging could be seen by the naked eye and was recorded. The third stage was photographed venting its remaining fuel in lunar orbit.
Amateur ham radio: Signals were received from Earth orbit, en-route to moon, and from the Moon.

At the moment I am discussing with an Germany located ground station if their Apollo live video tapes can be digitized, and how. At the time of Apollo they received the S-band signal from the Moon and recorded its video and audio signal on video reels.

They had nothing to do with NASA and were completely independent.
I would gladly reply to all of your remarks, but Onebigmonkey and frenat would be extremely happy when the focus would change towards other aspects of the Apollo missions.

Couldn't care less which aspect of Apollo you care to discuss.

Quote
Now that i have them in a stranglehold i won't let go.

pmsl

Quote
The testimonies of the astronauts and experts about the visuality of stars in cislunarspace and on the daylight side of the moon are extremely conflicting and defying the laws of cosmology in outerspace one way or the other.

You are wellcome to try and allign all that was said about visuality.
Till now, nobody succeded remotely in explaining how the respective testimonies could differ so greatly.

Apart from everyone who explained it.

Quote
And we have arrived at a certain point where globers retraid from the facts and claim all observations made by astronauts and experts are in harmony without taking the quotes at face value.

And that is unacceptable for me.

What's unacceptable is when people get given perfectly reasonable arguments but choose to ignore them.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 21, 2017, 12:13:43 AM
It finally made sense to me after an almost revelation during the night.
How could i have missed the logic and reason in your arguments.
And i almost feel like crying when i think about what you went through answering me.....

On the daylight surface of the moon you can't see stars with the unaided eye, ulnless you adjust somewhere in the shade, then some stars will reveil themselves. Better is it to use the optics and gaze upwards, but the moonsuit is not really flexible enough to allow for extreme bending.
And if it was and you would stand in the shade inside a really dark crater and took the time to adjust the stars could hypothetically reveil themselves just like on earth during the night in a unique position and setting for the observer. And since the nights on earth differ greatly in how many stars can be seen we have our answer here.

And the stars in cislunar space are ten times as numerous and ten times as bright and more awesome than any sighting ever.
But it is not everbody's  cup of tea, some refur to it as'black' because..... you know stars.....only of you  specifically ask about them , those 'ten times brighter stars' are worth mentioning,...   if not cislunar space is simply black as is the sky on the moon... nothing important enough to mention in an interview.


I can understand that more and more people think about extremely weird conspiracies , because if i didn't know better, half of you is INDEED a payed shill and the other half is on CIA treatment that forces them to comply with absolute nonsense.

That is of course if i didn't know better  ::)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 21, 2017, 06:12:30 AM
So you're finally starting to understand the impact of light pollution on one's ability to observe stars?

It's about time. ::)
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 21, 2017, 06:28:14 AM
So you're finally starting to understand the impact of light pollution on one's ability to observe stars?

It's about time. ::)

He's worse at sarcasm than you are. 

I wonder if he's ever seen stars during the day?   I have a brick that might help him.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: NAZA on August 21, 2017, 07:41:14 AM
So you're finally starting to understand the impact of light pollution on one's ability to observe stars?

It's about time. ::)

And it only took 15 pages and dozens of posts dumbed down to the the first grade level.

I can't wait for a thread on General Relativity or Heisenberg's uncertainty principle!

Anyway, congratulations Dutchy, you're one small step closer to reality.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 21, 2017, 07:54:28 AM
So you're finally starting to understand the impact of light pollution on one's ability to observe stars?

It's about time. ::)

He's worse at sarcasm than you are. 

I wonder if he's ever seen stars during the day?   I have a brick that might help him.
Still not over the parental chastisement i gave you ?

I can't see stars during the day because earth has an atmosphere and the scattered sunlight washes out the starlight !
Therefor Neil DeGrasse Tyson says despite the fact that we are on the daylight side of the moon, the absense of an atmosphere makes the sunlight very local and the stars reveil themselves just as they would during the NIGHT on earth.

Neil de Grasse Tyson didn't find it usefull to mention the reflectiveness of the lunar surface, because he knew that without the reflective moon surface the stars would be ''ten times as bright'' as the darkest night on earth,...but with reflections still as bright as during a dark night on earth.
Only few have wittinessed this heavenly sighting of supreme brightness and it was a sort of religious experience for persona like Edgar Mitchell who saw this in cislunar space.
If the moon's surface wasn't reflective we could see those ''ten times brighter and ten times numerous stars'' on the daulight surface of the moon.
But because the lunar surface is reflective we can only see the stars like a night on earth, not the elite catagory of ''ten times brighter'', but still very visible.

Some astronauts appearently suffered from a cosmic disease,...they forgot about the heavenly sighting in cislunar space and only remembered a black void when asked for.
Some didn't see stars on the lunar surface either, because they could not gaze upwards, or were busy with a fluttering flag or cleaning the LM pads so that it would look nice in the pictures......but they did not see a star......not once.....

Because NASA thought they did a lousy job, they were ordered to add some stars in further interviews.......not that black void talk, but claiming the stars were there and optics blahblahblah
And in the nineties a large team of NASA specialist began to clean the mess and inconcistancies so that future generations would still believe in the moonlandings.
The most horny Apollo apologists received money and others a daily dosis of alpha waves so they really believed they went to the moon in 1969.

They are working  around the clock to search for Apollo relevant stuff.
Political forums, David Icke forums, flatearth forums, conspiracy forums, old right forums, total nutjob forums........as long as the word NASA appeared somewhere these payed or brainwashed servants played their broken record of NASA successes.
The mind control ran so deep that instead of claiming once in a while that certain things do seem odd, they are not programmed to commit such thing....not even the tiniest mistake.
Everything is 100% true, NASA never lied, Russians are trustworthy in everything related to the moonlandings (for the rest they are lying communist scumbags) amature astronomer are leading experts and despite we destroyed all technologies everything is precisely archived and nothing was lost.


I will shut up if the CIA contacts me and offers me 100.000 dollar. I am sure a few of you can send my message to your bosses, after i receive the full amount i will leave this forum and yes......the moon...Apollo ......it allready makes more sense than ever before.... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
I can do a ''Joe Rogan'' also......and he received his own show.......i only ask for 100.000 dollar.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: zork on August 21, 2017, 08:31:48 AM
Still speculating and assuming. When you are going to moon to verify your claims?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 21, 2017, 08:41:42 AM
So, are you gonna ask Neil degGrasse or a you just gonna keep on asuming what he meant? I think you gonna go for the second, since, you know, unverified claims are what works for you and this theory. Now i know why you have 5 years into this and "everything seems to fit".

This is nonsense, is definitely not going anywhere.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 21, 2017, 10:43:42 AM
So, are you gonna ask Neil degGrasse or a you just gonna keep on asuming what he meant? I think you gonna go for the second, since, you know, unverified claims are what works for you and this theory. Now i know why you have 5 years into this and "everything seems to fit".

This is nonsense, is definitely not going anywhere.
Ummm,it is true that the statements of NdGT are indeed strange ( as if NdGT is totally unaware of any of the obstacles an astronaut on the moon is facing)
One would conclude that NdGT is a talkshow host or actor , but not an astrophysicist at all......

The real surprise is that you think this is in line with what the Apollo astronauts claim.
I am beating a supposed dead horse , because this is the first time i personally faced party (NASA) indoctrination that forbids any acknowledgement of errors.
I have spoken to a JW for years and despite all the proof i gave about Rutherford's wordily lifestyle and false prophecies he wasn't able to acknowledge  that even the tiniest thing was wrong.
Nothing was ever wrong and nobody lied or did anything wrong.

I am facing the same phenomena in this very topic and it is absolutely fascinating, i will use this info for further study.

The other thing is the two astronauts went to cislunar space, one mentions the most awesome sighting of stars ( ten times as bright, ten times as numerous) and the other refurs to this same place as deep black ( nothing more to say )

Nobody is willing to say that both examples are odd.
Even the use of the word 'odd' is like cursing in a JW kingdom hall.
No no no dutchy is not willing to accept the well known and universally accepted facts about Apollo and all who have explained it to him over and over again.

Again this is absolutely mindblowing stuff.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Badxtoss on August 21, 2017, 11:22:54 AM
Dutchy why do you keep bringing up the cislunar space argument when Armstrong said that from surface of the moon you could see no stars.  He never said you couldn't see them from cislunar space.
This seems dishonest on your part, or, more likely, as you said you simply refuse the see the truth because it goes against your belief.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: zork on August 21, 2017, 11:25:49 AM
They may be odd but you still haven't gone to the moon and shown that they are wrong. Where is your evidence that any of them is wrong when you haven't a clue whats up there?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: markjo on August 21, 2017, 11:29:31 AM
So you're finally starting to understand the impact of light pollution on one's ability to observe stars?

It's about time. ::)

He's worse at sarcasm than you are. 

I wonder if he's ever seen stars during the day?   I have a brick that might help him.
Still not over the parental chastisement i gave you ?

I can't see stars during the day because earth has an atmosphere and the scattered sunlight washes out the starlight !
Therefor Neil DeGrasse Tyson says despite the fact that we are on the daylight side of the moon, the absense of an atmosphere makes the sunlight very local and the stars reveil themselves just as they would during the NIGHT on earth.
So you don't think that light pollution applies to outer space or the moon?  ???
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 21, 2017, 11:43:08 AM
So, are you gonna ask Neil degGrasse or a you just gonna keep on asuming what he meant? I think you gonna go for the second, since, you know, unverified claims are what works for you and this theory. Now i know why you have 5 years into this and "everything seems to fit".

This is nonsense, is definitely not going anywhere.
Ummm,it is true that the statements of NdGT are indeed strange ( as if NdGT is totally unaware of any of the obstacles an astronaut on the moon is facing)
One would conclude that NdGT is a talkshow host or actor , but not an astrophysicist at all......

The real surprise is that you think this is in line with what the Apollo astronauts claim.
I am beating a supposed dead horse , because this is the first time i personally faced party (NASA) indoctrination that forbids any acknowledgement of errors.
I have spoken to a JW for years and despite all the proof i gave about Rutherford's wordily lifestyle and false prophecies he wasn't able to acknowledge  that even the tiniest thing was wrong.
Nothing was ever wrong and nobody lied or did anything wrong.

I am facing the same phenomena in this very topic and it is absolutely fascinating, i will use this info for further study.

The other thing is the two astronauts went to cislunar space, one mentions the most awesome sighting of stars ( ten times as bright, ten times as numerous) and the other refurs to this same place as deep black ( nothing more to say )

Nobody is willing to say that both examples are odd.
Even the use of the word 'odd' is like cursing in a JW kingdom hall.
No no no dutchy is not willing to accept the well known and universally accepted facts about Apollo and all who have explained it to him over and over again.

Again this is absolutely mindblowing stuff.

So you won't ask Neil deGrasse and will keep on assuming what he said, got it.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 21, 2017, 12:11:10 PM
So, are you gonna ask Neil degGrasse or a you just gonna keep on asuming what he meant? I think you gonna go for the second, since, you know, unverified claims are what works for you and this theory. Now i know why you have 5 years into this and "everything seems to fit".

This is nonsense, is definitely not going anywhere.
Ummm,it is true that the statements of NdGT are indeed strange ( as if NdGT is totally unaware of any of the obstacles an astronaut on the moon is facing)
One would conclude that NdGT is a talkshow host or actor , but not an astrophysicist at all......

The real surprise is that you think this is in line with what the Apollo astronauts claim.
I am beating a supposed dead horse , because this is the first time i personally faced party (NASA) indoctrination that forbids any acknowledgement of errors.
I have spoken to a JW for years and despite all the proof i gave about Rutherford's wordily lifestyle and false prophecies he wasn't able to acknowledge  that even the tiniest thing was wrong.
Nothing was ever wrong and nobody lied or did anything wrong.

I am facing the same phenomena in this very topic and it is absolutely fascinating, i will use this info for further study.

The other thing is the two astronauts went to cislunar space, one mentions the most awesome sighting of stars ( ten times as bright, ten times as numerous) and the other refurs to this same place as deep black ( nothing more to say )

Nobody is willing to say that both examples are odd.
Even the use of the word 'odd' is like cursing in a JW kingdom hall.
No no no dutchy is not willing to accept the well known and universally accepted facts about Apollo and all who have explained it to him over and over again.

Again this is absolutely mindblowing stuff.

So you won't ask Neil deGrasse and will keep on assuming what he said, got it.
Of course not, because you people allready gave an answer,..... that of course will be the answer of NdGT when asked for. It is the 'party line' that no one can alter.
A well thought and well reasoned answer to cover the horse manure.
The majority of the people feel intimidated.
"Neil wasn't talking about the stars but the fluctuations  between the solar corona and the vacuum of space , so that the lunar reflections in combination with the limited optics made Neil's comments about a black void resonable althaugh he of course saw stars.
This is explained numerous times and it was exactly what the reporter asked in the first place  ::)  ::)

Wow......ah thanks, sounds plausible....i didn't know that...... thanks again

Someone has to explain the truth, but it is not for you but for the thousends who have read this topic.
All who answer me have not read a thing i wrote and markjo is taking it to a whole new level of desinterrest with his latest remarks.

But i like this topic and i am going to stay here.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: zork on August 21, 2017, 12:50:33 PM
So you won't ask Neil deGrasse and will keep on assuming what he said, got it.
Of course not, because you people allready gave an answer,..... that of course will be the answer of NdGT when asked for. It is the 'party line' that no one can alter.

 And again, just assuming to cover his own... I don't know what. Just ask. Otherwise you are still only assuming and speculating as you have for now. And bringing up only excuses why you don't do anything.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 21, 2017, 01:05:31 PM
So, are you gonna ask Neil degGrasse or a you just gonna keep on asuming what he meant? I think you gonna go for the second, since, you know, unverified claims are what works for you and this theory. Now i know why you have 5 years into this and "everything seems to fit".

This is nonsense, is definitely not going anywhere.
Ummm,it is true that the statements of NdGT are indeed strange ( as if NdGT is totally unaware of any of the obstacles an astronaut on the moon is facing)
One would conclude that NdGT is a talkshow host or actor , but not an astrophysicist at all......

The real surprise is that you think this is in line with what the Apollo astronauts claim.
I am beating a supposed dead horse , because this is the first time i personally faced party (NASA) indoctrination that forbids any acknowledgement of errors.
I have spoken to a JW for years and despite all the proof i gave about Rutherford's wordily lifestyle and false prophecies he wasn't able to acknowledge  that even the tiniest thing was wrong.
Nothing was ever wrong and nobody lied or did anything wrong.

I am facing the same phenomena in this very topic and it is absolutely fascinating, i will use this info for further study.

The other thing is the two astronauts went to cislunar space, one mentions the most awesome sighting of stars ( ten times as bright, ten times as numerous) and the other refurs to this same place as deep black ( nothing more to say )

Nobody is willing to say that both examples are odd.
Even the use of the word 'odd' is like cursing in a JW kingdom hall.
No no no dutchy is not willing to accept the well known and universally accepted facts about Apollo and all who have explained it to him over and over again.

Again this is absolutely mindblowing stuff.

So you won't ask Neil deGrasse and will keep on assuming what he said, got it.
Of course not, because you people allready gave an answer,..... that of course will be the answer of NdGT when asked for. It is the 'party line' that no one can alter.
A well thought and well reasoned answer to cover the horse manure.
The majority of the people feel intimidated.
"Neil wasn't talking about the stars but the fluctuations  between the solar corona and the vacuum of space , so that the lunar reflections in combination with the limited optics made Neil's comments about a black void resonable althaugh he of course saw stars.
This is explained numerous times and it was exactly what the reporter asked in the first place  ::)  ::)

Wow......ah thanks, sounds plausible....i didn't know that...... thanks again

Someone has to explain the truth, but it is not for you but for the thousends who have read this topic.
All who answer me have not read a thing i wrote and markjo is taking it to a whole new level of desinterrest with his latest remarks.

But i like this topic and i am going to stay here.

This just shows that you are unwhilling to "find the truth". Are you gonna tell me that you are satisfied with what's been said here? For the first time in all the time you have here? Yeah...Wait, is it because this makes you falsely right on a topic that has nothing to do with anyone here? Me thinks so.

You don't have to make up excuses, you either ask him or not, is that simple.

This "truth seeking pilgimage" of yours is so fake that it makes Kim Kardashian looks like a human being for the first time.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 21, 2017, 01:37:15 PM
This just shows that you are unwhilling to "find the truth". Are you gonna tell me that you are satisfied with what's been said here? For the first time in all the time you have here? Yeah...Wait, is it because this makes you falsely right on a topic that has nothing to do with anyone here? Me thinks so.
Are you drunk or something ?
I have revealed all the conflicts about the ''star visuality in cislunar space and on the daylight side of the moon'' in the most accurate way.
I have copied and written down all that was said by the persons involved.
The testimonies were extremely conflicting.
What did i receive as replies ?
Many, but not a single one that replies to my remarks,....on top of that a shameless exageration as if each and every of my accurate observations were addressed.
Quote
You don't have to make up excuses, you either ask him or not, is that simple.
I don't want to ask him, i have explained to you how NASA party indoctrination works. Same applies to politics......''i did not have sex with that woman''
People like Neil deGrasse Tyson will of course lie or he remains silent about his spontanious revelations about the visuality on the daylight side of the moon !
How do i know that ?
Because Edgar Mitchell refused to answer why he saw ten times brighter stars in cislunar space with the unaided eye and a religious experience and Neil Armstrong did not experience anything remotely the same.....more a ''deep black void'' experience.
Ed got angry and didn't want to answer.
That is how they are at NASA and how you have been ignoring all of my posts.
Quote
This "truth seeking pilgimage" of yours is so fake that it makes Kim Kardashian looks like a human being for the first time.
That is your problem.....Kim Kardashian is a marketing concept she never acts like a real human being....that's the whole idea.
Since my answer over at the flatearth forums somehow upgrade the marketing concept Kim K. into a ''human being'' for the first time, shows that you are

1 vulnerable for secondary input that has nothing to do with  the ''marketing concept'' Kim Kardashian , but has great influence on how you perceive Kim Kardeshian.
My answers in a NASA subject somehow changed your mind about Kim Kardeshian.
2 that means you are a weak character that changes his mind about a ''person'' not because that ''person'' has changed, but because secondary input that has nothing to do with Kim, influences your weak mind in how you percieve Kim Kardeshian all of a sudden.
3 that means of course that you are an easy target for those in power and you are willing to believe just about anything, because you don't realise what your own criterea for truth seeking are.
My remarks should never have any bearing on how you perceive Kim Kardeshian.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: zork on August 21, 2017, 01:47:20 PM
I have revealed all the conflicts about the ''star visuality in cislunar space and on the daylight side of the moon'' in the most accurate way.

 I just can't emphasize it enough - there are no conflicts. Just different views just like you going out at night and not seeing exact same view all the time. Yuo really are a dense.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 21, 2017, 02:06:26 PM
I have revealed all the conflicts about the ''star visuality in cislunar space and on the daylight side of the moon'' in the most accurate way.

 I just can't emphasize it enough - there are no conflicts. Just different views just like you going out at night and not seeing exact same view all the time. Yuo really are a dense.
simple......
 Neil Armstrong,.......not being able to see a single star without optics on the lunar surface
 Neil deGrasse Tyson.......being able to see stars just like a night on earth, because no atmosphere on the daylight surface

 Edgar Mitchell.........stars ten times as bright and numerous in cislunar space..religious experience
 Neil Armstrong........sky is deep black on the moon as it is in cislunar space,    ....stars not worthy of mentioning

Of course in your mind controled NASA environment this is perfectly explainable, but for normal people it is not.

Try to present this info to people not clouded by NASA ....not positively or negatively and ask them how they understand this !
Do not influence them with yuor ''repair'' nonsense just show them what was said about the lunar surface and cislunar space and the stars.
Of course no one can even remotely phantom this nonsense without NASA repair trash that somehow explains this.........

Don't believe me ? Most if not all initial reactions are siding with me,....not you.....and please try it out in your own surroundings as i have.
Very little people know about this and only presenting the recorded words causes disbelief as if i couldn't possibly present the correct info....
You know why ? because it is so obvious that those comments are extremely conflicting...only after intense NASA ''massage'' it seems not so strange as before.

Could you ever doubt NASA ?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: zork on August 21, 2017, 02:52:06 PM
Could you ever doubt NASA ?
Sure I can. I am not even interested in NASA, only times I see this usually is when flat earthers mention it. Or maybe some local newspaper sometimes. Problem with your claims is that you are ignoring that there may be different circumstances. In one you can see and in other you can't. If Armstrong didn't see that does not mean that you can't see in different circumstances. And NdGT didn't see stars on moon, he just deducts logically that you shóuld see stars on the moon. There is no conflict in these statements. And as you are so fixed to this then its more probable that you are mind controlled and brainwashed because if sufficient evidence is presented I can change my views. But you are making it perfectly clear that you don't, whatever the case is and whatever facts are presented to you. And that is clearly a mark of mind control/brainwashing.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 22, 2017, 08:58:52 AM
This just shows that you are unwhilling to "find the truth". Are you gonna tell me that you are satisfied with what's been said here? For the first time in all the time you have here? Yeah...Wait, is it because this makes you falsely right on a topic that has nothing to do with anyone here? Me thinks so.
Are you drunk or something ?
I have revealed all the conflicts about the ''star visuality in cislunar space and on the daylight side of the moon'' in the most accurate way.
I have copied and written down all that was said by the persons involved.
The testimonies were extremely conflicting.
What did i receive as replies ?
Many, but not a single one that replies to my remarks,....on top of that a shameless exageration as if each and every of my accurate observations were addressed.
Quote
You don't have to make up excuses, you either ask him or not, is that simple.
I don't want to ask him, i have explained to you how NASA party indoctrination works. Same applies to politics......''i did not have sex with that woman''
People like Neil deGrasse Tyson will of course lie or he remains silent about his spontanious revelations about the visuality on the daylight side of the moon !
How do i know that ?
Because Edgar Mitchell refused to answer why he saw ten times brighter stars in cislunar space with the unaided eye and a religious experience and Neil Armstrong did not experience anything remotely the same.....more a ''deep black void'' experience.
Ed got angry and didn't want to answer.
That is how they are at NASA and how you have been ignoring all of my posts.
Quote
This "truth seeking pilgimage" of yours is so fake that it makes Kim Kardashian looks like a human being for the first time.
That is your problem.....Kim Kardashian is a marketing concept she never acts like a real human being....that's the whole idea.
Since my answer over at the flatearth forums somehow upgrade the marketing concept Kim K. into a ''human being'' for the first time, shows that you are

1 vulnerable for secondary input that has nothing to do with  the ''marketing concept'' Kim Kardashian , but has great influence on how you perceive Kim Kardeshian.
My answers in a NASA subject somehow changed your mind about Kim Kardeshian.
2 that means you are a weak character that changes his mind about a ''person'' not because that ''person'' has changed, but because secondary input that has nothing to do with Kim, influences your weak mind in how you percieve Kim Kardeshian all of a sudden.
3 that means of course that you are an easy target for those in power and you are willing to believe just about anything, because you don't realise what your own criterea for truth seeking are.
My remarks should never have any bearing on how you perceive Kim Kardeshian.

You see why i said all this discussion was pointless? You don't trust anyone that goes against what you believe.

Now, if this was something to wich "YOU DIDN'T WANT TO UNDERSTAND BUT KNOW OUR ANSWER" then what the heck are you complaining about our answers if they go in accord to what is said, known and extrapolated with expereinces on Earth?

You haven't explained why all of the reasons we gave you are impossible, you just say "Meh, this is imposible", "but this guy said this and that guy said that". Remember: Repeating a remark from what someone's said is not an explanation and surely not a proof.

Have you explained why moon's reflection isn't strong enough to block the stars even tho moon's reflected light make pretty sharp shadows during the night here on Earth? No, you just say that what Neil says goes against what Neil said.

Havve you ever considere that the light on the Moon is around 37% more intense than here on Earth? No, you just say that what Neil says goes against what Neil said.

But then again, you have demonstrated that you trust no one in here, leaving no room for conversation, so all of this keeps on being pointless.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 22, 2017, 09:34:41 PM
I have revealed all the conflicts about the ''star visuality in cislunar space and on the daylight side of the moon'' in the most accurate way.

 I just can't emphasize it enough - there are no conflicts. Just different views just like you going out at night and not seeing exact same view all the time. Yuo really are a dense.
simple......
 Neil Armstrong,.......not being able to see a single star without optics on the lunar surface

While walking around in bright sunlight in a white suit on a reflective lunar surface with a bright Earth in the lunar sky and looking through visors.

Quote
Neil deGrasse Tyson.......being able to see stars just like a night on earth, because no atmosphere on the daylight surface

a theoretical possibility not taking account of local circumstances such as those astronauts actually experienced.

Quote
Edgar Mitchell.........stars ten times as bright and numerous in cislunar space..religious experience
 Neil Armstrong........sky is deep black on the moon as it is in cislunar space,    ....stars not worthy of mentioning

Yet again: Armstrong saw stars in cislunar space. His answer that you keep referring to discusses the view from the surface.

Still waiting for a source for your claims about Mitchell getting angry there.

Quote
Of course in your mind controled NASA environment this is perfectly explainable, but for normal people it is not.

Try to present this info to people not clouded by NASA ....not positively or negatively and ask them how they understand this !
Do not influence them with yuor ''repair'' nonsense just show them what was said about the lunar surface and cislunar space and the stars.
Of course no one can even remotely phantom this nonsense without NASA repair trash that somehow explains this.........

Don't believe me ? Most if not all initial reactions are siding with me,....not you.....and please try it out in your own surroundings as i have.

oh rly?  ::)

Quote
Very little people know about this and only presenting the recorded words causes disbelief as if i couldn't possibly present the correct info....
You know why ? because it is so obvious that those comments are extremely conflicting...only after intense NASA ''massage'' it seems not so strange as before.

Could you ever doubt NASA ?

I for one don't care about NASA, despite you assuming that I do. I have no interest in it, I don't support it, I don't defend it. NASA is an organisation involved in space research. Others are available. What is of interest is the result of the research it does and the programmes in which it engages, and whether or not people report those results accurately or whether they deliberately misrepresent them to try and prove some bogus point.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 22, 2017, 10:46:02 PM
Could you ever doubt NASA ?
If simply cannot understand your paranoic hatred of NASA.
As far as I can see the only reason that you have this hatred is in the silly, mistaken belief that space travel destroyed your totally false view of the earth.
Most reasonable people do not need to see pretty pictures for proof that we live on a globe,
we know the earth is a rotating Globe from all the other evidence.
In any case NASA were not the "first into space" and they are not by any means the only ones.
Russia launched Sputnik I before the US launched a satellite. Russia put a man into space before the US did.

Not only that,  but many countries have launched their own satellites.
Quote from: Wikipedia
Satellite
Twelve, countries . . . .  (USSR, USA, France, Japan, China, UK, India, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Iran and North Korea) and one regional organization (the European Space Agency, ESA) have independently launched satellites on their own indigenously developed launch vehicles.

From: Wikipedia, Satellite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite)
Not only that but about 80 countries, of various religious faiths,  have launched or have had launched satellites for communication, TV or weather surveillance.

Are all these countries lying just to hide what you claim is the true shape of the esrth - that's a really big ask!

So, Mr Dutchy, you are wasting all your time and energy flogging NASA when space exploration and satellites are well proven.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 23, 2017, 12:04:21 PM
Could you ever doubt NASA ?
If simply cannot understand your paranoic hatred of NASA.
As far as I can see the only reason that you have this hatred is in the silly, mistaken belief that space travel destroyed your totally false view of the earth.
Hatred is a very destructive emotion. I don't feel it towards anyone in particular.
However NASA is a satanical organisation worshipping demons and idols, and are not shy to show it off through ongoing occult symbolism.
The sooner they are destroyed as an organisation the better !!
That is never intedended towards induviduals, but the format that creates evil induviduals like the Apollo astronauts who sold their soul to the devil....so to speak.
Quote
Most reasonable people do not need to see pretty pictures for proof that we live on a globe,
Most reasonable people couldn't make a case for the globe if you gave them the spotlights for 15 minutes to make a solid claim for the globe.
And if you don't believe me, go to Melbourne, Perth ,Canberra or Sydney and try it out yourself on the streets with a microphone.
You will be astonished how your globe will be ''defended'' by your avarage countrymen.
A flatearth guy in Great Brittain is doing that in video's and even university students have a hard time !!!
Quote
we know the earth is a rotating Globe from all the other evidence.
The scientists that took part in the docu the  ''priciple'' have another opinion based on hardcore data that proves earth is the centre of our universe !!!
Quote
In any case NASA were not the "first into space" and they are not by any means the only ones.
Russia launched Sputnik I before the US launched a satellite. Russia put a man into space before the US did.
Sputnik was a radio in a trashcan....so much for the capabilities of amature astronomers and professionals to understand what is going on when the distance increases.
Quote
Not only that,  but many countries have launched their own satellites.
Twelve, countries . . . .  (USSR, USA, France, Japan, China, UK, India, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Iran and North Korea) and one regional organization (the European Space Agency, ESA) have independently launched satellites on their own indigenously developed launch vehicles.

From: Wikipedia, Satellite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite)
Not only that but about 80 countries, of various religious faiths,  have launched or have had launched satellites for communication, TV or weather surveillance.
And yet no induvidual can give an overall and detailed presentation about satelites and how they work in great detail.
A roundup about the Hubble telescope proved that induviduals are in charge of segments, or specialists carrying out very specific tasks.
The leader of the mars rover expedition and the Hubble telescope failed to grasp the totallity of their specific projects.
So instead of presenting lists of countries, you should present induviduals who can tell everything about how satelites work and when they are needed instead of cables, ground based towers and bouncing signals from the ionosphere.
Could you please give a link to a professional who explains all of the above in detail....not some youtube amature or forum member. A field expert who is able to give all the details. They must be somewhere and they must have been recorded somewhere ?
Quote
Are all these countries lying just to hide what you claim is the true shape of the esrth - that's a really big ask!
''All these countries'' is a misnomer, because we are talking about specialists and not some random nations.
Quote
So, Mr Dutchy, you are wasting all your time and energy flogging NASA when space exploration and satellites are well proven.
again give me a link of a spokesman that is capable enough to explain it.
The other day Neil deGrasse Tyson siad the sun is 300 times futher away than the moon twice....he had to be corrected that the right number was 400.
See ? there you go.....spokesmen and ''countries'' are not good enough.
I want specialist taking the stage and explaining everything you claimed are well known facts.

This time i applaud you for providing links !!!!
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: zork on August 23, 2017, 12:49:38 PM
Most reasonable people couldn't make a case for the globe if you gave them the spotlights for 15 minutes to make a solid claim for the globe.
I doubt there is anyone who can make a case for anything which he/she doesn't really think about and is not researhcing every day. There isn't also anyone who can make a solid claim for flat earth in 15 minutes(claiming that you can't see curvature isn't solid case). You can make the case for round earth if you are given time but you can't make a case for flat earth even if you are given time. If you are claiming that you can make a case for flat earth them please, go and answer my questions about sunset - https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71666.msg1943889#msg1943889 . I bet that your flat earth sunset explanations is limited to only - "it just sets" or "perspective".
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 23, 2017, 03:27:41 PM
Could you ever doubt NASA ?
If simply cannot understand your paranoic hatred of NASA.
As far as I can see the only reason that you have this hatred is in the silly, mistaken belief that space travel destroyed your totally false view of the earth.
Hatred is a very destructive emotion. I don't feel it towards anyone in particular.
However NASA is a satanical organisation worshipping demons and idols, and are not shy to show it off through ongoing occult symbolism.
The sooner they are destroyed as an organisation the better !!
That is never intedended towards induviduals, but the format that creates evil induviduals like the Apollo astronauts who sold their soul to the devil....so to speak.
An organisation is composed of individuals and you are accusing those individuals.

And a statement like "creates evil individuals like the Apollo astronauts who sold their soul to the devil" is very personal.
Whatever you claim, you are directly accusing

The organisation cannot "be satanical", nor can an organisation "worship demons and idols" and all these stupid accusation of "not shy to show it off through ongoing occult symbolism" is nothing but the workings of a totally delusional mind.

Quote from: dutchy
The scientists that took part in the docu the  ''priciple'' have another opinion based on hardcore data that proves earth is the centre of our universe !!!
References please! We have seen how your thinking clouds how you interpret information.
And the "earth is the centre of our universe" is a far cry from being flat and stationary.
Quote from: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Principle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Principle is a 2014 American indie documentary film produced by Rick Delano and Robert Sungenis that rejects the Copernican principle and supports the pseudoscientific notion that the Earth is center of the universe in accordance with their religious beliefs. The film is narrated by Kate Mulgrew and features scientists such as Lawrence M. Krauss and Michio Kaku. Mulgrew and scientists who were interviewed in the film have repudiated the ideas advocated in the film and stated that their involvement was the result of being misled by the filmmaker.
Try again! More later!

Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 23, 2017, 03:34:31 PM
Most reasonable people couldn't make a case for the globe if you gave them the spotlights for 15 minutes to make a solid claim for the globe.
I doubt there is anyone who can make a case for anything which he/she doesn't really think about and is not researhcing every day. There isn't also anyone who can make a solid claim for flat earth in 15 minutes(claiming that you can't see curvature isn't solid case). You can make the case for round earth if you are given time but you can't make a case for flat earth even if you are given time. If you are claiming that you can make a case for flat earth them please, go and answer my questions about sunset - https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71666.msg1943889#msg1943889 . I bet that your flat earth sunset explanations is limited to only - "it just sets" or "perspective".
I agree with the former parts of your post.....

Rabinoz likes to mention :
''The Greeks knew the earth to be a globe''
''The Russians would have gone public if America faked the moonlandings''
''Most reasonable people do not need to see pretty pictures for proof that we live on a globe''

I don't like that sort of generalisations, because they seem to have some substance, but the moment you zoom in, such claims are wafer-thin.
And that of course also accounts for any flatearth claim based on vague generalisations.

But give me a microphone and i can tell in 15 minutes why i belief the earth is flat !!
That doesn't mean i have to explain everything, because i can't. The most problematic aspect of the current cosmology is that they search for plausible answers for every observed phenomena.
In my flatearth conviction that is not needed. This is seen as a weakness, but i see the search for plausible answers to match every observation as a weakness.
That makes any discussion very difficult with people who want to know all the secrets of the cosmos and more.
The moment i tell them that some things don't need to be answered is where the confusion starts.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: dutchy on August 23, 2017, 03:58:22 PM
An organisation is composed of individuals and you are accusing those individuals.

And a statement like "creates evil individuals like the Apollo astronauts who sold their soul to the devil" is very personal.
Whatever you claim, you are directly accusing

The organisation cannot "be satanical", nor can an organisation "worship demons and idols" and all these stupid accusation of "not shy to show it off through ongoing occult symbolism" is nothing but the workings of a totally delusional mind.
A country with it's roots in christianity (ahem) would never approve of a pyramid with an all seeing eye on the dollar bill.
Apollo is an idol and so is the serpent tongue.   and many other symbols.
Apollo is a powerful God which has inspired several “demonic” or Abyssic Gods. Known as Helios by Nero Caesar, Phoebus or “Shining,” Apollo is the twin brother of Artemis (Diana). His center of worship was at was at Delphi and was renowned throughout the ancient world for its oracular advice delivered by a priestess called the Pythia the Chthonic serpent/dragon.

Nero Caesar and Domitian actually considered himself a manifestation of Apollo as he is the God of Illumination, Light, Music, Medicine and more. His arrows send plague and death which earned him the Biblical name of Apollyon or Abaddon, the King of the Bottomless Pit/ Lucifer.
“Apollo” is another name for Satan or Lucifer.

Anyone with a grain of historical awareness should understand the moral conflict.

Don't you think they understood the implications among Christians ? Of course they did, but because they like to show off their true colors, the moral obligation was destroyed
Quote
References please! We have seen how your thinking clouds how you interpret information.
And the "earth is the centre of our universe" is a far cry from being flat and stationary.
Quote from: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Principle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Principle is a 2014 American indie documentary film produced by Rick Delano and Robert Sungenis that rejects the Copernican principle and supports the pseudoscientific notion that the Earth is center of the universe in accordance with their religious beliefs. The film is narrated by Kate Mulgrew and features scientists such as Lawrence M. Krauss and Michio Kaku. Mulgrew and scientists who were interviewed in the film have repudiated the ideas advocated in the film and stated that their involvement was the result of being misled by the filmmaker.
Try again! More later!
No silly, you are so brainwashed that you have only one flavour. The priciple isn't about a flatearth, it is proof what kind of evil church the current cosmology has become.
A hypothetical graveyard and everything, from redshift to cosmic background radiation must fit into this pile of horse manure...althaugh they do not fit at times (like ''the principle'' shows)

Proof,....god knows what that means in modern cosmology, is only validated when it serves the wetdream of some.......others are dismissed (like the principle) on extremely arbitrary grounds.
I laugh at your pseudo trash that favors one trashcan over the other......in fact it is so rediculous i don't have words for it.
Neil de Grasse Tyson claimed the sun was 300 times further away than the moon........hahahaha
This bullshit universe of your NASA friends is going to end soon.

Your wiki comments are so besides the truth, you are not so smart as you like to present yourself.....the only reasonable conclusion....that wiki link about the priciple was really dumb Rabinoz.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: rabinoz on August 23, 2017, 05:39:12 PM
Anyone with a grain of historical awareness should understand the moral conflict.

Don't you think they understood the implications among Christians ? Of course they did, but because they like to show off their true colors, the moral obligation was destroyed
Of course I understand the moral conflict.
But it has not the slightest connection with the shape of the earth.

Quote from: dutchy
Quote from: rabinoz
References please! We have seen how your thinking clouds how you interpret information.
And the "earth is the centre of our universe" is a far cry from being flat and stationary.
Quote from: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Principle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Principle is a 2014 American indie documentary film produced by Rick Delano and Robert Sungenis that rejects the Copernican principle and supports the pseudoscientific notion that the Earth is center of the universe in accordance with their religious beliefs. The film is narrated by Kate Mulgrew and features scientists such as Lawrence M. Krauss and Michio Kaku. Mulgrew and scientists who were interviewed in the film have repudiated the ideas advocated in the film and stated that their involvement was the result of being misled by the filmmaker.
Try again! More later!
No silly, you are so brainwashed that you have only one flavour. The priciple isn't about a flatearth, it is proof what kind of evil church the current cosmology has become.
Sure, I know ;D ;D everybody is brainwashed, except you few "in the know" ;D ;D. In other words you are no more than another sect of a religion.
But, you admit that "The principle isn't about a flat earth" - that is exactly what I have been claiming all along!
Quote from: dutchy
A hypothetical graveyard and everything, from redshift to cosmic background radiation must fit into this pile of horse manure...althaugh they do not fit at times (like ''the principle'' shows)

Proof,....god knows what that means in modern cosmology, is only validated when it serves the wetdream of some.......others are dismissed (like the principle) on extremely arbitrary grounds.
Whatever you think of "modern cosmology" it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, nor even the basic heliocentric system.
The earth was considered a globe for almost 2000 years before it was accepted even that the sun was the centre of the solar system.
As far as I can gather there was little dispute that the Globe was the true shape in the first millennium:
          If the early Islamic astronomers did not believe that the earth was a Globe why would Al Biruni in around 1,000 AD make measurements of the circumference of the earth using Eratosthenes' method and the radius using the "dip angle to the horizon". Al Biruni did this careful measurement to assist the Muslims of the time in their Qiblah.
And if the early Church thought the earth was flat:
          If the early monks did not believe the earth a Globe why would we find this:
Quote
One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    “We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”

Looks like this Globe idea started before the time of the Venerable Bede (673–735) and note that he was very specific about the shape "represent the figure of a perfect globe".
And even the Heliocentric Globe was accepted, without serious question, for centuries before there was any thought of what you call "modern cosmology".

Quote from: dutchy
I laugh at your pseudo trash that favors one trashcan over the other......in fact it is so rediculous i don't have words for it.
Laugh all you like, after all the favourite of flat earthers is the old argumentum ad absurdum followed by  argumentum ad nauseum.
But maybe you can explain how these radio amateurs and many others received these signals around the world arriving on-time and fading on-time.
Were you there, listening to them? I was!

But you still just try to brush off the facts!
        Apart from USA at least 10 other countries have launched their own satellites with their own launch facilities
and  over 60 countries have satellites in orbit launched by others.

Do you really expect us to believe that NASA is paying off the expenses of all these countries, just to cover up the shape of the earth, that was settled millennia ago!

Quote from: dutchy
Neil de Grasse Tyson claimed the sun was 300 times further away than the moon........hahahaha
If you make a claim like that you must quote you source! He might have said it by mistake or his words might have been taken out-of-context as deceitful people tend to do (what with pear-shaped and all that).
Or someone might have heard him say "the sun was three hundred and sixty times further away than the moon" and mistakenly took it as three hundred and sixty times.
I don't know - you show me where he actually said it.

Quote from: dutchy
This bullshit universe of your NASA friends is going to end soon.
What total balderdash. But, I have no NASA friends.
Laugh all you like,  I would not count of the Globe ending any time soon (before THE END).

You had better hope the Globe does not end!
Your mob couldn't run a chook-raffle, let alone all the earth's communication and transport systems, which rely on the Globe shape for maps and distances.
The simply is no flat earth map with anything like correct distances - end of story!
There can't ever be - that is a fact.

Quote from: dutchy
Your wiki comments are so besides the truth, you are not so smart as you like to present yourself.....the only reasonable conclusion....that wiki link about the priciple was really dumb Rabinoz.
Sure, and that is your  :P ::) :P totally unbiased opinion!  ::) :P ::).

When you a prepared for a discussion on the shape of the earth, just let me know by carrier pigeon.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: hoppy on August 23, 2017, 08:18:17 PM
Dutchy is hitting them hard. Onebigmarkjo says he doesn't care about NASA :o ::) :o. Rab doesn't have any friends at NASA :o ::) :o
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: Cartog on August 23, 2017, 08:47:02 PM
Neil Armstrong did not see a star because the landing site on the moon was the side bathed in sunlight - on the moon, without atmosphere, that sunlight is extremely bright (as shown in a subsequent moon landing when a TV camera was burned out when it momentarily was pointed toward the sun) so much that it could have damaged human eyes - so the astronaut helmets' window was effectively tinted and darkened like sunglasses. 

NASA was established in 1958 and staffed with a lot of scientists - people who presumably are motivated to revealing facts - it's a little tough to imagine that Congress was willing to set up an agency for the express purpose of paying people to lie about the shape of this and other planets, or that so many scientists would lie, even for money.  Or that, if that were possible, then other scientists and teachers, not hired by NASA, would tell similar lies without being paid.  Really, there's not that much money to go around!  No scientist has come forward to endorse the flat earth even though, if it were true, the first scientist to do so would become famous and wealthy ... and maybe even get laid.
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: zork on August 24, 2017, 02:33:33 AM
But give me a microphone and i can tell in 15 minutes why i belief the earth is flat !!
That doesn't mean i have to explain everything, because i can't. The most problematic aspect of the current cosmology is that they search for plausible answers for every observed phenomena.
In my flatearth conviction that is not needed. This is seen as a weakness, but i see the search for plausible answers to match every observation as a weakness.
Do I see hypocrisy here? I am sure that if you are given microphone then you are going to nitpick some round earth aspects which you don't understand and can't explain. But in the same time you don't apply same standards on your flat earth model and say that every thing does not need to be explained. And still, if you are given some time then you can explain practically all things you observe for round earth, but for flat earth you can't. You can try of course, but in the end it goes down to conspiracy and magic. If there would be put down conditions that you can't use conspiracy theme, that governments and scientific institutions all lie to us, all data is faked and our technological advancment is also lie and you can't use any devised up magic to explain phenomenons then ... How to you explain things using math and physics for flat earth?

That makes any discussion very difficult with people who want to know all the secrets of the cosmos and more.
The moment i tell them that some things don't need to be answered is where the confusion starts.
I don't want to know al lthe secrets of the cosmos and more. I just want to know how sun sets. And then maybe what makes bottom of the things disappear when they are far away. And maybe usable map which can be used for traveling. And then maybe physical and working flat earth model. And there is more actually. But let the last things be and start with the sunset. You can't really say to me that it does not need to be answered and explained. Or you do?
Title: Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
Post by: simba on August 24, 2017, 05:05:55 AM
An organisation is composed of individuals and you are accusing those individuals.

And a statement like "creates evil individuals like the Apollo astronauts who sold their soul to the devil" is very personal.
Whatever you claim, you are directly accusing

The organisation cannot "be satanical", nor can an organisation "worship demons and idols" and all these stupid accusation of "not shy to show it off through ongoing occult symbolism" is nothing but the workings of a totally delusional mind.
A country with it's roots in christianity (ahem) would never approve of a pyramid with an all seeing eye on the dollar bill.
Apollo is an idol and so is the serpent tongue.   and many other symbols.
Apollo is a powerful God which has inspired several “demonic” or Abyssic Gods. Known as Helios by Nero Caesar, Phoebus or “Shining,” Apollo is the twin brother of Artemis (Diana). His center of worship was at was at Delphi and was renowned throughout the ancient world for its oracular advice delivered by a priestess called the Pythia the Chthonic serpent/dragon.

Nero Caesar and Domitian actually considered himself a manifestation of Apollo as he is the God of Illumination, Light, Music, Medicine and more. His arrows send plague and death which earned him the Biblical name of Apollyon or Abaddon, the King of the Bottomless Pit/ Lucifer.
“Apollo” is another name for Satan or Lucifer.

Anyone with a grain of historical awareness should understand the moral conflict.

Don't you think they understood the implications among Christians ? Of course they did, but because they like to show off their true colors, the moral obligation was destroyed
Quote
References please! We have seen how your thinking clouds how you interpret information.
And the "earth is the centre of our universe" is a far cry from being flat and stationary.
Quote from: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Principle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Principle is a 2014 American indie documentary film produced by Rick Delano and Robert Sungenis that rejects the Copernican principle and supports the pseudoscientific notion that the Earth is center of the universe in accordance with their religious beliefs. The film is narrated by Kate Mulgrew and features scientists such as Lawrence M. Krauss and Michio Kaku. Mulgrew and scientists who were interviewed in the film have repudiated the ideas advocated in the film and stated that their involvement was the result of being misled by the filmmaker.
Try again! More later!
No silly, you are so brainwashed that you have only one flavour. The priciple isn't about a flatearth, it is proof what kind of evil church the current cosmology has become.
A hypothetical graveyard and everything, from redshift to cosmic background radiation must fit into this pile of horse manure...althaugh they do not fit at times (like ''the principle'' shows)

Proof,....god knows what that means in modern cosmology, is only validated when it serves the wetdream of some.......others are dismissed (like the principle) on extremely arbitrary grounds.
I laugh at your pseudo trash that favors one trashcan over the other......in fact it is so rediculous i don't have words for it.
Neil de Grasse Tyson claimed the sun was 300 times further away than the moon........hahahaha
This bullshit universe of your NASA friends is going to end soon.

Your wiki comments are so besides the truth, you are not so smart as you like to present yourself.....the only reasonable conclusion....that wiki link about the priciple was really dumb Rabinoz.


Aaaannd....he jumped the shark