The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 09:20:26 AM

Title: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 09:20:26 AM
Houston has a great number of problems that prove there is no Heliocentric System. This first post is just one.
-----

There is a dome and rockets coming into contact with it creates a visual effect for all to see.

As you view the following video, consider it with these questions.

What would be the visual effects of a malfunctioning rocket hitting a water like (structure) Dome?

What are the visual effects of something entering water vertically?

What are the visual effects of a boat skimming the water?

Think about it all with common sense.
-----

Now you really know why a rocket has to curve soon after liftoff.

7 Rockets Reach & Hit The Firmament! Better Known As Dome

Title: Re: Houston, we have made contact with the Dome
Post by: Crutchwater on October 01, 2019, 09:31:48 AM
What "done"??
Title: Re: Houston, we have made contact with the Dome
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 09:48:31 AM
Do we, Flat Earthers, know why Globies have to act dumb when confronted with something they can't explain with logic?
Title: Re: Houston, we have made contact with the Dome
Post by: mak3m on October 01, 2019, 09:51:06 AM
Basic principles of rocket flight, its called a gravity turn. Low attack angle means the majority of thrust, and therefore fuel, can be used for acceleration and not turning manoeuvre. You don't fly straight up and turn left at desired orbit.

I assume these are not faked CGI videos from NASA force?

If not nice shot of the globe in there ta
Title: Re: Houston, we have made contact with the Dome
Post by: Crutchwater on October 01, 2019, 11:11:20 AM
Do we, Flat Earthers, know why Globies have to act dumb when confronted with something they can't explain with logic?

Tell me why RE should bother explaining anything to you?

Every single "issue" you have presented has been quickly and thoroughly explained. Yet you completely ignore that, and simply move on to the next yootoob video or your latest meme.


Anyway, I watched up to #5.

I saw a couple amateure rockets deploy a de-spin system, and a couple major launches staging and following an orbital insertion trajectory.

Nothing hit any dome.
Title: Re: Houston, we have made contact with the Dome
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on October 01, 2019, 11:12:06 AM
So have you determined the height of the dome? One part of the video claims one rocket hits it 73 miles up. Doesn't that seem relatively low to you? Do you claim the dome is made of unsupported water? What holds it up? How much water? What happened to the rockets afterward? If they came down, why? What allows them to 'fall' out of the 'firmament' without pulling down the 'firmament' as well? If the Sun, Moon and Stars are above the Firmament, how can we still see them with such clarity?

How's the fishing up there?
Title: Re: Houston, we have made contact with the Dome
Post by: Stash on October 01, 2019, 01:17:08 PM
Do we, Flat Earthers, know why Globies have to act dumb when confronted with something they can't explain with logic?

No, you, a particular Flat Earther, is yet again suffering from what's known as "YouTube Search Results Cognitive Dissonance Syndrome".

Logic Explained:

Rocket #1: mak3m explained.

Rocket #2: I have no idea what that is supposed be trying to show, but it is showing nothing.

Rocket #3 in your video. It's moving at 2000 m/s. If it hit something at that speed, anything, be it a hard or magically suspended water dome, it would disintegrate on impact. It doesn't. In the video, the original footage at mark 2:01, it says "YoYo Despin". Through the wonders of modern rocketry and Yo-Yo physics, the despin mechanism, outstretched cables with weights attached, are deployed counteracting the spin of the rocket, hence YoYo Despin. Look it up.

Same for rocket #4 in the video. This same footage was used by an FEr where he too thought it hit a dome. He realized it didn't. Here's his follow-up to his original video he made explaining that he was wrong. As are you:



Rocket #5: More nonsense. See #1

Rocket #6: Goodness, the nonsense keeps piling on, see #5 & #1.

Rocket 7#: Looks like a failed launch.

A little more about rocketry:

(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/rocket-trajectory.jpg)





Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. We've made contact with the Dome
Post by: frenat on October 01, 2019, 01:32:30 PM
Yet another fail from Plat Terra. On to the next gish gallop!
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 02:45:13 PM
What are the visual effects of a malfunctioning rocket hitting the Dome?

What are the visual effects of something entering water vertically?

What are the visual effects of a boat skimming the water?

Think about it all with common sense.
-----

Now you really know why a rocket has to curve soon after liftoff.

7 Rockets Reach & Hit The Firmament! Better Known As Dome



Are there any more in the Globe Community here, who would also like to ignore other key points in my first post and in relation the video?

I don't care if you think there is no Dome. The visual effects are there.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on October 01, 2019, 02:54:58 PM
I don't know what amuses me more: That you changed the title of your thread, or that it has absolutely nothing in common with your first post now.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System (Because Reasons)
Post by: mak3m on October 01, 2019, 03:05:58 PM
I don't know what amuses me more: That you changed the title of your thread, or that it has absolutely nothing in common with your first post now.

LOL WTF

Can I suggest a further change "Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System (Because Reasons)"
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 01, 2019, 03:19:46 PM
What are the visual effects of a malfunctioning rocket hitting the Dome?

What are the visual effects of something entering water vertically?

What are the visual effects of a boat skimming the water?

Think about it all with common sense.
-----

Now you really know why a rocket has to curve soon after liftoff.

7 Rockets Reach & Hit The Firmament! Better Known As Dome



Are there any more in the Globe Community here, who would also like to ignore other key points in my first post and in relation the video?

I don't care if you think there is no Dome. The visual effects are there.

You haven't made any key points for the Globe Community to address or ignore. But your video has been overwhelmingly refuted.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on October 01, 2019, 03:41:32 PM
Think about it all with common sense.
-----

On the subject of common sense:

What would keep a dome of water in place?

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: markjo on October 01, 2019, 03:51:41 PM
Now you really know why a rocket has to curve soon after liftoff.
Not all rockets curve after liftoff.  Sounding rockets pretty much go straight up and come straight down. 
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 04:13:35 PM
What are the visual effects of a malfunctioning rocket hitting the Dome?

What are the visual effects of something entering water vertically?

What are the visual effects of a boat skimming the water?

Think about it all with common sense.
-----

Now you really know why a rocket has to curve soon after liftoff.

7 Rockets Reach & Hit The Firmament! Better Known As Dome



Are there any more in the Globe Community here, who would also like to ignore other key points in my first post and in relation the video?

I don't care if you think there is no Dome. The visual effects are there.

You haven't made any key points for the Globe Community to address or ignore. But your video has been overwhelmingly refuted.

We all see what you overwhelmingly ignore, and you refuted nothing.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 04:25:47 PM
The trails of Haley’s Comet make much more sense now.
(https://i.imgur.com/GfCXxuj.jpg)


Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on October 01, 2019, 05:14:49 PM
More sense than what?

You think that the possibility of it careening through a dome of water at 70km per second leaving a wake rather than collapsing under the effects of its own cavitation makes more sense than it leaving a trail of vapor and particulates due to its proximity to the Sun?


Edit: By the way, where does Halley's Comet come from/go between visits?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 05:20:27 PM
More sense than what?

You think that the possibility of it careening through a dome of water at 70km per second leaving a wake rather than collapsing under the effects of its own cavitation makes more sense than it leaving a trail of vapor and particulates due to its proximity to the Sun?


Edit: By the way, where does Halley's Comet come from/go between visits?

No one said it was going into the dome. The boat is built to skimming the water. It's not falling apart.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 01, 2019, 05:20:45 PM
What are the visual effects of a malfunctioning rocket hitting the Dome?

What are the visual effects of something entering water vertically?

What are the visual effects of a boat skimming the water?

Think about it all with common sense.
-----

Now you really know why a rocket has to curve soon after liftoff.

7 Rockets Reach & Hit The Firmament! Better Known As Dome



Are there any more in the Globe Community here, who would also like to ignore other key points in my first post and in relation the video?

I don't care if you think there is no Dome. The visual effects are there.

You haven't made any key points for the Globe Community to address or ignore. But your video has been overwhelmingly refuted.

We all see what you overwhelmingly ignore, and you refuted nothing.

Actually we did refute everything, you must have missed it. Here it is again:

Rocket #1: mak3m explained.

Rocket #2: I have no idea what that is supposed be trying to show, but it is showing nothing.

Rocket #3 in your video. It's moving at 2000 m/s. If it hit something at that speed, anything, be it a hard or magically suspended water dome, it would disintegrate on impact. It doesn't. In the video, the original footage at mark 2:01, it says "YoYo Despin". Through the wonders of modern rocketry and Yo-Yo physics, the despin mechanism, outstretched cables with weights attached, are deployed counteracting the spin of the rocket, hence YoYo Despin. Look it up.

Same for rocket #4 in the video. This same footage was used by an FEr where he too thought it hit a dome. He realized it didn't. Here's his follow-up to his original video he made explaining that he was wrong. As are you:



Rocket #5: More nonsense. See #1

Rocket #6: Goodness, the nonsense keeps piling on, see #5 & #1.

Rocket 7#: Looks like a failed launch.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 01, 2019, 05:24:13 PM
The trails of Haley’s Comet make much more sense now.
(https://i.imgur.com/GfCXxuj.jpg)

Now this is just silly.  Seriously, speedboats and some globule to represent Venus?

You can look for yourself at venus through a telescope. It looks like this:

(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kaPwBjHiUKax8syodHNPmF-1024-80.jpg)
Caption: The bizarre and hellish atmosphere of Venus wafts around the planet's surface in this false-color image from the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency's Akatsuki spacecraft. Citizen scientist Kevin Gill processed the image using infrared and ultraviolet views captured by Akatsuki on Nov. 20, 2016. (Image: © Kevil Gill/JAXA/ISAS/DARTS/Flickr)
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on October 01, 2019, 05:28:28 PM
More sense than what?

You think that the possibility of it careening through a dome of water at 70km per second leaving a wake rather than collapsing under the effects of its own cavitation makes more sense than it leaving a trail of vapor and particulates due to its proximity to the Sun?


Edit: By the way, where does Halley's Comet come from/go between visits?

No one said it was going into the dome. The boat is built to skimming the water. It's not falling apart.
The boat isn't going Mach 200.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 05:37:10 PM
More sense than what?

You think that the possibility of it careening through a dome of water at 70km per second leaving a wake rather than collapsing under the effects of its own cavitation makes more sense than it leaving a trail of vapor and particulates due to its proximity to the Sun?


Edit: By the way, where does Halley's Comet come from/go between visits?

No one said it was going into the dome. The boat is built to skimming the water. It's not falling apart.
The boat isn't going Mach 200.

The Comet is not made of boat materials nor is it going that fast above the real Earth. Scale it down.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on October 01, 2019, 05:44:38 PM
More sense than what?

You think that the possibility of it careening through a dome of water at 70km per second leaving a wake rather than collapsing under the effects of its own cavitation makes more sense than it leaving a trail of vapor and particulates due to its proximity to the Sun?


Edit: By the way, where does Halley's Comet come from/go between visits?

No one said it was going into the dome. The boat is built to skimming the water. It's not falling apart.
The boat isn't going Mach 200.

The Comet is not made of boat materials nor is it going that fast above the real Earth. Scale it down.
It's made of ice and why? It's speed is well known and easy to extrapolate. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt: Since the return date of Halley's comet has been predictable since 1705, Its current position and speed must be as well known to Flat Earth astronomers as to Round Earth astronomers. So if you know of a different speed for Halley's Comet, now's the time to share it with the rest of the class.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 06:01:04 PM
More sense than what?

You think that the possibility of it careening through a dome of water at 70km per second leaving a wake rather than collapsing under the effects of its own cavitation makes more sense than it leaving a trail of vapor and particulates due to its proximity to the Sun?


Edit: By the way, where does Halley's Comet come from/go between visits?

No one said it was going into the dome. The boat is built to skimming the water. It's not falling apart.
The boat isn't going Mach 200.

The Comet is not made of boat materials nor is it going that fast above the real Earth. Scale it down.
It's made of ice and why? It's speed is well known and easy to extrapolate. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt: Since the return date of Halley's comet has been predictable since 1705, Its current position and speed must be as well known to Flat Earth astronomers as to Round Earth astronomers. So if you know of a different speed for Halley's Comet, now's the time to share it with the rest of the class.

Why don't you share with the rest of the class what caused the ripples in the atmosphere? You know, in the video I posted about a rocket hitting a dome and then ripples are seen.

While you're at it, prove the comet is ICE and can remain ice with the sun shinning on it.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on October 01, 2019, 06:07:22 PM
More sense than what?

You think that the possibility of it careening through a dome of water at 70km per second leaving a wake rather than collapsing under the effects of its own cavitation makes more sense than it leaving a trail of vapor and particulates due to its proximity to the Sun?


Edit: By the way, where does Halley's Comet come from/go between visits?

No one said it was going into the dome. The boat is built to skimming the water. It's not falling apart.
The boat isn't going Mach 200.

The Comet is not made of boat materials nor is it going that fast above the real Earth. Scale it down.
It's made of ice and why? It's speed is well known and easy to extrapolate. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt: Since the return date of Halley's comet has been predictable since 1705, Its current position and speed must be as well known to Flat Earth astronomers as to Round Earth astronomers. So if you know of a different speed for Halley's Comet, now's the time to share it with the rest of the class.

Why don't you share with the rest of the class what caused the ripples in the atmosphere? You know, in the video I posted about a rocket hitting a dome and then ripples are seen.

While you're at it, prove the comet is ICE and can remain ice with the sun shinning on it.

The rocket didn't hit a dome and therefore, caused no ripples. Your video is too grainy to know for sure, but if I had to guess, I would say there was an outgassing from damage to the rocket.

As far as the composition of Halley's comet, there were two probe missions that passed very close to Halley's Comet during its last trip through the inner solar system. Its composition is primarily ice and volatile hydrocarbons. Look up the Giotto and Vega probes for more information.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on October 01, 2019, 06:17:14 PM
Since I have answered your questions despite you not answering mine, I think it's only fair that I add one more question:

Why does Halley's Comet's tail always point away from the Sun?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2019, 06:49:56 PM
Since I have answered your questions despite you not answering mine, I think it's only fair that I add one more question:

Why does Halley's Comet's tail always point away from the Sun?

What do you mean? If the tail always pointed away from the Sun it would crash into it.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on October 01, 2019, 06:52:32 PM
Since I have answered your questions despite you not answering mine, I think it's only fair that I add one more question:

Why does Halley's Comet's tail always point away from the Sun?

What do you mean? If the tail always pointed away from the Sun it would crash into it.

Nevertheless, even when the comet is moving away from the Sun, the tail remains pointing away from the Sun.

Why do you suppose that is?

(https://blog.nms.ac.uk/app/uploads/2014/10/comet-orbit.jpg)
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: sokarul on October 01, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
Since I have answered your questions despite you not answering mine, I think it's only fair that I add one more question:

Why does Halley's Comet's tail always point away from the Sun?

What do you mean? If the tail always pointed away from the Sun it would crash into it.
Two objects can’t have the same velocity?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 07:16:08 PM
Since I have answered your questions despite you not answering mine, I think it's only fair that I add one more question:

Why does Halley's Comet's tail always point away from the Sun?

What do you mean? If the tail always pointed away from the Sun it would crash into it.

Nevertheless, even when the comet is moving away from the Sun, the tail remains pointing away from the Sun.

Why do you suppose that is?

(https://blog.nms.ac.uk/app/uploads/2014/10/comet-orbit.jpg)

Do you mean an Ice Comet that doesn't melt even being that close to the sun?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 07:17:19 PM
OPPS, Houston has another problem.

If Earth were a ball, spinning and hurling through space we would sense the motion because of constant rotation and constant direction working together. Someone caught up in constant direction by its self could not sense motion, but when a constant rotation is added to the equation it’s measurable and noticeable. Checkmate again RE’S.

The following video explains this in detail.
 
(https://i.imgur.com/EjUo1uF.jpg)




Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on October 01, 2019, 07:20:03 PM
Since I have answered your questions despite you not answering mine, I think it's only fair that I add one more question:

Why does Halley's Comet's tail always point away from the Sun?

What do you mean? If the tail always pointed away from the Sun it would crash into it.

Nevertheless, even when the comet is moving away from the Sun, the tail remains pointing away from the Sun.

Why do you suppose that is?

(https://blog.nms.ac.uk/app/uploads/2014/10/comet-orbit.jpg)

Do you mean an Ice Comet that doesn't melt even being that close to the sun?

Oh, Halley's Comet is worse than melting. It's sublimating directly to gas. Fortunately, it only spends a few years at a time in the danger zone. But with every pass, a little more of it vaporizes. It only has a maximum of a couple hundred passes left before it's gone.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: frenat on October 01, 2019, 07:31:52 PM
OPPS, Houston has another problem.

If Earth were a ball, spinning and hurling through space we would sense the motion because of constant rotation and constant direction working together. Someone caught up in constant rotation by its self could not sense motion, but when a constant direction is added to the equation it’s measurable and noticeable . Checkmate again RE’S.

The following video explains this in detail.
 
(https://i.imgur.com/EjUo1uF.jpg)


moving on with the gish gallop already?

The video is full of ignorance. the Earth as it travels around the Sun, is in orbit around the Sun. Anyone on the Earth is also in orbit around the Sun. Those on the ISS are in orbit around the Earth as it orbits the Sun. The Moon is in orbit around the Earth and the Sun. All in free fall. You don't feel acceleration in free fall. The video is wrong and so are you. Again. Time for you next gish gallop.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 07:41:59 PM
OPPS, Houston has another problem.

If Earth were a ball, spinning and hurling through space we would sense the motion because of constant rotation and constant direction working together. Someone caught up in constant rotation by its self could not sense motion, but when a constant direction is added to the equation it’s measurable and noticeable . Checkmate again RE’S.

The following video explains this in detail.
 
(https://i.imgur.com/EjUo1uF.jpg)


moving on with the gish gallop already?

The video is full of ignorance. the Earth as it travels around the Sun, is in orbit around the Sun. Anyone on the Earth is also in orbit around the Sun. Those on the ISS are in orbit around the Earth as it orbits the Sun. The Moon is in orbit around the Earth and the Sun. All in free fall. You don't feel acceleration in free fall. The video is wrong and so are you. Again. Time for you next gish gallop.

You are so wrong again! The Globe theory is full of ignorance. Remeber, it was allegly created in and through ignorance with no intelligent design what so ever?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: frenat on October 01, 2019, 07:51:20 PM
OPPS, Houston has another problem.

If Earth were a ball, spinning and hurling through space we would sense the motion because of constant rotation and constant direction working together. Someone caught up in constant rotation by its self could not sense motion, but when a constant direction is added to the equation it’s measurable and noticeable . Checkmate again RE’S.

The following video explains this in detail.
 
(https://i.imgur.com/EjUo1uF.jpg)


moving on with the gish gallop already?

The video is full of ignorance. the Earth as it travels around the Sun, is in orbit around the Sun. Anyone on the Earth is also in orbit around the Sun. Those on the ISS are in orbit around the Earth as it orbits the Sun. The Moon is in orbit around the Earth and the Sun. All in free fall. You don't feel acceleration in free fall. The video is wrong and so are you. Again. Time for you next gish gallop.

You are so wrong again! The Globe theory is full of ignorance. Remeber, it was allegly created in and through ignorance with no intelligent design what so ever?
Only according to some. I believe in a creator smart enough to guide his creation through billions of years and smart enough to create a globe Earth that fits all observations. I'm sorry yours is so limited. There are also plenty of flat Earthers that are atheists. Didn't your research uncover that?

But couldn't you actually address what was said instead of immediately going on a tangent? How disappointing, but expected. Yet another fail from Plat Terra.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 07:57:56 PM
OPPS, Houston has another problem.

If Earth were a ball, spinning and hurling through space we would sense the motion because of constant rotation and constant direction working together. Someone caught up in constant rotation by its self could not sense motion, but when a constant direction is added to the equation it’s measurable and noticeable . Checkmate again RE’S.

The following video explains this in detail.
 
(https://i.imgur.com/EjUo1uF.jpg)


moving on with the gish gallop already?

The video is full of ignorance. the Earth as it travels around the Sun, is in orbit around the Sun. Anyone on the Earth is also in orbit around the Sun. Those on the ISS are in orbit around the Earth as it orbits the Sun. The Moon is in orbit around the Earth and the Sun. All in free fall. You don't feel acceleration in free fall. The video is wrong and so are you. Again. Time for you next gish gallop.

You are so wrong again! The Globe theory is full of ignorance. Remeber, it was allegly created in and through ignorance with no intelligent design what so ever?
Only according to some. I believe in a creator smart enough to guide his creation through billions of years and smart enough to create a globe Earth that fits all observations. I'm sorry yours is so limited. There are also plenty of flat Earthers that are atheists. Didn't your research uncover that?

But couldn't you actually address what was said instead of immediately going on a tangent? How disappointing, but expected. Yet another fail from Plat Terra.

Your welcome to deny that there wouldn't be constant acceleration and deceleration. The math is there. But we know why you have to deny. That’s OK. Have a nice night!
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: frenat on October 01, 2019, 08:02:29 PM
OPPS, Houston has another problem.

If Earth were a ball, spinning and hurling through space we would sense the motion because of constant rotation and constant direction working together. Someone caught up in constant rotation by its self could not sense motion, but when a constant direction is added to the equation it’s measurable and noticeable . Checkmate again RE’S.

The following video explains this in detail.
 
(https://i.imgur.com/EjUo1uF.jpg)


moving on with the gish gallop already?

The video is full of ignorance. the Earth as it travels around the Sun, is in orbit around the Sun. Anyone on the Earth is also in orbit around the Sun. Those on the ISS are in orbit around the Earth as it orbits the Sun. The Moon is in orbit around the Earth and the Sun. All in free fall. You don't feel acceleration in free fall. The video is wrong and so are you. Again. Time for you next gish gallop.

You are so wrong again! The Globe theory is full of ignorance. Remeber, it was allegly created in and through ignorance with no intelligent design what so ever?
Only according to some. I believe in a creator smart enough to guide his creation through billions of years and smart enough to create a globe Earth that fits all observations. I'm sorry yours is so limited. There are also plenty of flat Earthers that are atheists. Didn't your research uncover that?

But couldn't you actually address what was said instead of immediately going on a tangent? How disappointing, but expected. Yet another fail from Plat Terra.

Your welcome to deny that there wouldn't be constant acceleration and deceleration. The math is there. But we know why you have to deny. That’s OK. Have a nice night!
So you can't address that anything in orbit is in free fall and you don't feel forces while in free fall. I don't deny that there is acceleration and deceleration. I clearly said that you don't feel it because you and the Earth you are standing on are in free fall. I'm not surprised that you didn't bother to actually read what was written. We DO feel the rotation of the Earth but that is at most about 1/2 of 1% of that of gravity. Measurable but not something you'd notice. Yet another fail from Plat Terra.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 08:05:34 PM
OPPS, Houston has another problem.

If Earth were a ball, spinning and hurling through space we would sense the motion because of constant rotation and constant direction working together. Someone caught up in constant rotation by its self could not sense motion, but when a constant direction is added to the equation it’s measurable and noticeable . Checkmate again RE’S.

The following video explains this in detail.
 
(https://i.imgur.com/EjUo1uF.jpg)


moving on with the gish gallop already?

The video is full of ignorance. the Earth as it travels around the Sun, is in orbit around the Sun. Anyone on the Earth is also in orbit around the Sun. Those on the ISS are in orbit around the Earth as it orbits the Sun. The Moon is in orbit around the Earth and the Sun. All in free fall. You don't feel acceleration in free fall. The video is wrong and so are you. Again. Time for you next gish gallop.

You are so wrong again! The Globe theory is full of ignorance. Remeber, it was allegly created in and through ignorance with no intelligent design what so ever?
Only according to some. I believe in a creator smart enough to guide his creation through billions of years and smart enough to create a globe Earth that fits all observations. I'm sorry yours is so limited. There are also plenty of flat Earthers that are atheists. Didn't your research uncover that?

But couldn't you actually address what was said instead of immediately going on a tangent? How disappointing, but expected. Yet another fail from Plat Terra.

Your welcome to deny that there wouldn't be constant acceleration and deceleration. The math is there. But we know why you have to deny. That’s OK. Have a nice night!
So you can't address that anything in orbit is in free fall and you don't feel forces while in free fall. Yet another fail from Plat Terra. How surprising that this is yet another subject that you don't understand.  ::)

It won't change the math.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: markjo on October 01, 2019, 08:08:10 PM
Since I have answered your questions despite you not answering mine, I think it's only fair that I add one more question:

Why does Halley's Comet's tail always point away from the Sun?

What do you mean? If the tail always pointed away from the Sun it would crash into it.
???  Tom, are you under the impression that the tail has anything to do with the direction in which the comet is traveling?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: frenat on October 01, 2019, 08:10:30 PM
OPPS, Houston has another problem.

If Earth were a ball, spinning and hurling through space we would sense the motion because of constant rotation and constant direction working together. Someone caught up in constant rotation by its self could not sense motion, but when a constant direction is added to the equation it’s measurable and noticeable . Checkmate again RE’S.

The following video explains this in detail.
 
(https://i.imgur.com/EjUo1uF.jpg)


moving on with the gish gallop already?

The video is full of ignorance. the Earth as it travels around the Sun, is in orbit around the Sun. Anyone on the Earth is also in orbit around the Sun. Those on the ISS are in orbit around the Earth as it orbits the Sun. The Moon is in orbit around the Earth and the Sun. All in free fall. You don't feel acceleration in free fall. The video is wrong and so are you. Again. Time for you next gish gallop.

You are so wrong again! The Globe theory is full of ignorance. Remeber, it was allegly created in and through ignorance with no intelligent design what so ever?
Only according to some. I believe in a creator smart enough to guide his creation through billions of years and smart enough to create a globe Earth that fits all observations. I'm sorry yours is so limited. There are also plenty of flat Earthers that are atheists. Didn't your research uncover that?

But couldn't you actually address what was said instead of immediately going on a tangent? How disappointing, but expected. Yet another fail from Plat Terra.

Your welcome to deny that there wouldn't be constant acceleration and deceleration. The math is there. But we know why you have to deny. That’s OK. Have a nice night!
So you can't address that anything in orbit is in free fall and you don't feel forces while in free fall. Yet another fail from Plat Terra. How surprising that this is yet another subject that you don't understand.  ::)

It won't change the math.
You're still unable to read. If the acceleration and deceleration is from being in orbit and the objects accelerating are in free fall, they won't feel it. It doesn't matter what the math says is how much they are accelerating. It is YOUR misunderstanding. Still another fail from Plat Terra. Thanks for the humor!
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 01, 2019, 08:21:13 PM
OPPS, Houston has another problem.

If Earth were a ball, spinning and hurling through space we would sense the motion because of constant rotation and constant direction working together. Someone caught up in constant rotation by its self could not sense motion, but when a constant direction is added to the equation it’s measurable and noticeable . Checkmate again RE’S.

The following video explains this in detail.
 
(https://i.imgur.com/EjUo1uF.jpg)


moving on with the gish gallop already?

The video is full of ignorance. the Earth as it travels around the Sun, is in orbit around the Sun. Anyone on the Earth is also in orbit around the Sun. Those on the ISS are in orbit around the Earth as it orbits the Sun. The Moon is in orbit around the Earth and the Sun. All in free fall. You don't feel acceleration in free fall. The video is wrong and so are you. Again. Time for you next gish gallop.

You are so wrong again! The Globe theory is full of ignorance. Remeber, it was allegly created in and through ignorance with no intelligent design what so ever?
Only according to some. I believe in a creator smart enough to guide his creation through billions of years and smart enough to create a globe Earth that fits all observations. I'm sorry yours is so limited. There are also plenty of flat Earthers that are atheists. Didn't your research uncover that?

But couldn't you actually address what was said instead of immediately going on a tangent? How disappointing, but expected. Yet another fail from Plat Terra.

Your welcome to deny that there wouldn't be constant acceleration and deceleration. The math is there. But we know why you have to deny. That’s OK. Have a nice night!
So you can't address that anything in orbit is in free fall and you don't feel forces while in free fall. Yet another fail from Plat Terra. How surprising that this is yet another subject that you don't understand.  ::)

It won't change the math.
You're still unable to read. If the acceleration and deceleration is from being in orbit and the objects accelerating are in free fall, they won't feel it. It doesn't matter what the math says is how much they are accelerating. It is YOUR misunderstanding. Still another fail from Plat Terra. Thanks for the humor!

 You still fail to understand it would be measurable and noticeable and especially here on Earth where there is nothing in a free fall.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 01, 2019, 08:21:39 PM
OPPS, Houston has another problem.

If Earth were a ball, spinning and hurling through space we would sense the motion because of constant rotation and constant direction working together. Someone caught up in constant rotation by its self could not sense motion, but when a constant direction is added to the equation it’s measurable and noticeable . Checkmate again RE’S.

The following video explains this in detail.
 
(https://i.imgur.com/EjUo1uF.jpg)


moving on with the gish gallop already?

The video is full of ignorance. the Earth as it travels around the Sun, is in orbit around the Sun. Anyone on the Earth is also in orbit around the Sun. Those on the ISS are in orbit around the Earth as it orbits the Sun. The Moon is in orbit around the Earth and the Sun. All in free fall. You don't feel acceleration in free fall. The video is wrong and so are you. Again. Time for you next gish gallop.

You are so wrong again! The Globe theory is full of ignorance. Remeber, it was allegly created in and through ignorance with no intelligent design what so ever?
Only according to some. I believe in a creator smart enough to guide his creation through billions of years and smart enough to create a globe Earth that fits all observations. I'm sorry yours is so limited. There are also plenty of flat Earthers that are atheists. Didn't your research uncover that?

But couldn't you actually address what was said instead of immediately going on a tangent? How disappointing, but expected. Yet another fail from Plat Terra.

Your welcome to deny that there wouldn't be constant acceleration and deceleration. The math is there. But we know why you have to deny. That’s OK. Have a nice night!
So you can't address that anything in orbit is in free fall and you don't feel forces while in free fall. Yet another fail from Plat Terra. How surprising that this is yet another subject that you don't understand.  ::)

It won't change the math.

Wow, that's a whole lotta 30 minutes of video no one should ever pay attention to. Let's just dispense with this one right quick so we can move on to the next one in your queue. So far there are like 30 Plat Terra dead bodies of failures behind you. Let's push for 31.

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: frenat on October 01, 2019, 08:22:52 PM
OPPS, Houston has another problem.

If Earth were a ball, spinning and hurling through space we would sense the motion because of constant rotation and constant direction working together. Someone caught up in constant rotation by its self could not sense motion, but when a constant direction is added to the equation it’s measurable and noticeable . Checkmate again RE’S.

The following video explains this in detail.
 
(https://i.imgur.com/EjUo1uF.jpg)


moving on with the gish gallop already?

The video is full of ignorance. the Earth as it travels around the Sun, is in orbit around the Sun. Anyone on the Earth is also in orbit around the Sun. Those on the ISS are in orbit around the Earth as it orbits the Sun. The Moon is in orbit around the Earth and the Sun. All in free fall. You don't feel acceleration in free fall. The video is wrong and so are you. Again. Time for you next gish gallop.

You are so wrong again! The Globe theory is full of ignorance. Remeber, it was allegly created in and through ignorance with no intelligent design what so ever?
Only according to some. I believe in a creator smart enough to guide his creation through billions of years and smart enough to create a globe Earth that fits all observations. I'm sorry yours is so limited. There are also plenty of flat Earthers that are atheists. Didn't your research uncover that?

But couldn't you actually address what was said instead of immediately going on a tangent? How disappointing, but expected. Yet another fail from Plat Terra.

Your welcome to deny that there wouldn't be constant acceleration and deceleration. The math is there. But we know why you have to deny. That’s OK. Have a nice night!
So you can't address that anything in orbit is in free fall and you don't feel forces while in free fall. Yet another fail from Plat Terra. How surprising that this is yet another subject that you don't understand.  ::)

It won't change the math.
You're still unable to read. If the acceleration and deceleration is from being in orbit and the objects accelerating are in free fall, they won't feel it. It doesn't matter what the math says is how much they are accelerating. It is YOUR misunderstanding. Still another fail from Plat Terra. Thanks for the humor!

 You still fail to understand it would be measurable and noticeable and especially here on Earth where there is nothing in a free fall.
Nope. You and the Earth are in free fall around the Sun.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 01, 2019, 08:32:14 PM
It won't change the math.

What math? You have offered only words and unsubstantiated claims.
 
How big are these accelerations and decelerations? How do they compare with the acceleration of gravity? Show your work. If you can't explain your claims why should anyone believe that you understand what you're talking about?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Smoke machine police on October 01, 2019, 10:39:50 PM
Plat tera, shouldn't you be hard at work on your flat earth conference costume and diorama, instead of trying to prove the earth is flat? It would be nice to see you win at something! The Boston conference is only 6 weeks away.

The way you don't feel the earth's rotation and orbit around the sun, is like the way you don't feel debate failure. But both are very real.

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: markjo on October 02, 2019, 07:19:13 AM
It won't change the math.

What math? You have offered only words and unsubstantiated claims.
 
How big are these accelerations and decelerations? How do they compare with the acceleration of gravity? Show your work. If you can't explain your claims why should anyone believe that you understand what you're talking about?
Once the guy in the video got around to doing the math, he came up with a difference of about .02 m/s2.  That's a about .2% from the standard 9.8 m/s2.  There are greater gravitational changes attributed to oblateness of the earth than that.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: hoppy on October 02, 2019, 09:12:11 AM
Excellent work PlatTerra👍. Just more FE proof.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Unconvinced on October 02, 2019, 09:27:25 AM
Excellent work PlatTerra👍. Just more FE proof.

Which one?

The video which didn’t question what “yo-yo de-spin” meant when it flashed up just as the rocket “hit the dome”?

Or the guy who can’t differentiate between acceleration on a train or fairground ride and an object in free fall?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 02, 2019, 09:43:17 AM
Excellent work PlatTerra👍. Just more FE proof.

Which one?

The video which didn’t question what “yo-yo de-spin” meant when it flashed up just as the rocket “hit the dome”?

Or the guy who can’t differentiate between acceleration on a train or fairground ride and an object in free fall?

Which one are you in the pictures? Or are you one of the sent ones? I bet you are both!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2207947#msg2207947
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Unconvinced on October 02, 2019, 10:02:09 AM
Excellent work PlatTerra👍. Just more FE proof.

Which one?

The video which didn’t question what “yo-yo de-spin” meant when it flashed up just as the rocket “hit the dome”?

Or the guy who can’t differentiate between acceleration on a train or fairground ride and an object in free fall?

Which one are you in the pictures? Or are you one of the sent ones? I bet you are both!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2207947#msg2207947

I’m just a regular guy wondering if flat earthers can really do this whole  “do your own research thing” they bang on about.

You see if were me, I’d probably be curious about what the words “yo-yo de-spin” might mean as they flash up on screen just as the rocket stops spinning.

Maybe worth looking up before declaring to the world that the rocket hit the dome.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: markjo on October 02, 2019, 10:14:12 AM
You see if were me, I’d probably be curious about what the words “yo-yo de-spin” might mean as they flash up on screen just as the rocket stops spinning.
Or ask yourself why the camera keeps going up after it "hits the dome".
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 02, 2019, 11:02:58 AM
Houston has another problem.  Faking Outer Space.

But first, people had to be condition to believe in outer space. The conditioning first came through Disney entertainment. It was like a long-term joint investment that began long before NASA was founded.

The wonders of such an idea turned into profits and the fantasy was taken to a new level of space exploration.  The amount of profits was staggering. So NASA and others continued the ideas through media, but soon learned they had no choice but to fake it to keep the money flowing. 

Have a look at these interesting videos.

History of Fake Space | Outer Space Does Not Exist


Disney Presents: NASA on Thin Ice | Buzz Aldrin and the Masonic Moon


Follow the money.

(https://i.imgur.com/7xbhdjL.jpg)
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Unconvinced on October 02, 2019, 11:41:38 AM
Houston has another problem.  Faking Outer Space.

But first, people had to be condition to believe in outer space. The conditioning first came through Disney entertainment. It was like a long-term joint investment that began long before NASA was founded.

The wonders of such an idea turned into profits and the fantasy was taken to a new level of space exploration.  The amount of profits was staggering. So NASA and others continued the ideas through media, but soon learned they had no choice but to fake it to keep the money flowing. 

Have a look at these interesting videos.

History of Fake Space | Outer Space Does Not Exist


Disney Presents: NASA on Thin Ice | Buzz Aldrin and the Masonic Moon


Follow the money.

(https://i.imgur.com/7xbhdjL.jpg)

Disney, my arse. 

2001 was an MGM production.  Kubrick never worked with Disney in his life. 

In the 60s Disney was all about Princess fairytales and talking animals.  They didn’t attempt any space stuff until “The Black Hole”, which was a blatant attempt to cash in on Star Wars success.  Although it did weirdly depict hell at the end in a pretty ballsy change of direction that totally shit me up as a child. 

Dump on science and logic all you like, but when you start messing with my cherished nerd films, you cross the line my friend.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 02, 2019, 12:04:59 PM
Houston has another problem.  Faking Outer Space.

But first, people had to be condition to believe in outer space. The conditioning first came through Disney entertainment. It was like a long-term joint investment that began long before NASA was founded.

The wonders of such an idea turned into profits and the fantasy was taken to a new level of space exploration.  The amount of profits was staggering. So NASA and others continued the ideas through media, but soon learned they had no choice but to fake it to keep the money flowing. 

Have a look at these interesting videos.

History of Fake Space | Outer Space Does Not Exist


Disney Presents: NASA on Thin Ice | Buzz Aldrin and the Masonic Moon


Follow the money.

(https://i.imgur.com/7xbhdjL.jpg)

Disney, my arse. 

2001 was an MGM production.  Kubrick never worked with Disney in his life. 

In the 60s Disney was all about Princess fairytales and talking animals.  They didn’t attempt any space stuff until “The Black Hole”, which was a blatant attempt to cash in on Star Wars success.  Although it did weirdly depict hell at the end in a pretty ballsy change of direction that totally shit me up as a child. 

Dump on science and logic all you like, but when you start messing with my cherished nerd films, you cross the line my friend.

Who said 2001 was a MGM production and Kubrick worked with Disney?

Quote and video time stamp please or we see you also use other lame arse tactics which have nothing to do with the videos in question.

You guys are always on the ropes not knowing how to respond. bleeeblabbabwbaw, arse. WOW!!
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: SomeDutchGuy on October 02, 2019, 12:10:44 PM
Houston has another problem.  Faking Outer Space.

But first, people had to be condition to believe in outer space. The conditioning first came through Disney entertainment. It was like a long-term joint investment that began long before NASA was founded.

The wonders of such an idea turned into profits and the fantasy was taken to a new level of space exploration.  The amount of profits was staggering. So NASA and others continued the ideas through media, but soon learned they had no choice but to fake it to keep the money flowing. 

Have a look at these interesting videos.

History of Fake Space | Outer Space Does Not Exist


Disney Presents: NASA on Thin Ice | Buzz Aldrin and the Masonic Moon


Follow the money.

(https://i.imgur.com/7xbhdjL.jpg)

So, Russia and China and North Korea etc are also all working with Disney? I don't think they have Disney in North Korea. By the way, I'm just curious but why do you keep changing the subject after you have been proven wrong?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 02, 2019, 12:17:49 PM
Houston has another problem.  Faking Outer Space.

But first, people had to be condition to believe in outer space. The conditioning first came through Disney entertainment. It was like a long-term joint investment that began long before NASA was founded.

The wonders of such an idea turned into profits and the fantasy was taken to a new level of space exploration.  The amount of profits was staggering. So NASA and others continued the ideas through media, but soon learned they had no choice but to fake it to keep the money flowing. 

Have a look at these interesting videos.

History of Fake Space | Outer Space Does Not Exist


Disney Presents: NASA on Thin Ice | Buzz Aldrin and the Masonic Moon


Follow the money.

(https://i.imgur.com/7xbhdjL.jpg)

So, Russia and China and North Korea etc are also all working with Disney? I don't think they have Disney in North Korea. By the way, I'm just curious but why do you keep changing the subject after you have been proven wrong?

Oh, look at you, you're on the ropes again by not answering to your lame arse tatics. WOW!!
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: kopfverderber on October 02, 2019, 12:36:20 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/7xbhdjL.jpg)

"1969 Apollo 11 lands on the Moon" looks correct to me , I can agree with that.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: markjo on October 02, 2019, 12:41:37 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/7xbhdjL.jpg)
Is this timeline supposed to have any significance whatsoever?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 02, 2019, 12:51:13 PM
Houston has another problem.  Faking Outer Space.

But first, people had to be condition to believe in outer space. The conditioning first came through Disney entertainment. It was like a long-term joint investment that began long before NASA was founded.

The wonders of such an idea turned into profits and the fantasy was taken to a new level of space exploration.  The amount of profits was staggering. So NASA and others continued the ideas through media, but soon learned they had no choice but to fake it to keep the money flowing. 

Have a look at these interesting videos.

History of Fake Space | Outer Space Does Not Exist


Disney Presents: NASA on Thin Ice | Buzz Aldrin and the Masonic Moon


Follow the money.

(https://i.imgur.com/7xbhdjL.jpg)

So, Russia and China and North Korea etc are also all working with Disney? I don't think they have Disney in North Korea. By the way, I'm just curious but why do you keep changing the subject after you have been proven wrong?

Oh, look at you, you're on the ropes again by not answering to your lame arse tatics. WOW!!

Seriously, you're hanging your FE belief on a "Disney/NASA" conspiracy? Disney? This is just downright silly and pretty much the lamest, weakest FE argument I've ever seen. But ok, if this is your best argument, great. So duly noted, Disney is at the root of all this planetary shape cover-up business. Well done. The cat is out of the bag. Now what? What would you like us to do with this astounding revelation?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Unconvinced on October 02, 2019, 12:56:58 PM

Who said 2001 was a MGM production and Kubrick worked with Disney?

Quote and video time stamp please or we see you also use other lame arse tactics which have nothing to do with the videos in question.

You guys are always on the ropes not knowing how to respond. bleeeblabbabwbaw, arse. WOW!!

Erm, you posted a timeline with stuff like when Disney was founded, when 2001 was shot, and when the moon landings happened.

Sorry if I gave you too much credit by assuming that was all supposed to mean something. 

Fine, so your point was “some stuff happened”?  Great.  I agree, some stuff happened.  Who cares?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: SomeDutchGuy on October 02, 2019, 12:58:54 PM
Houston has another problem.  Faking Outer Space.

But first, people had to be condition to believe in outer space. The conditioning first came through Disney entertainment. It was like a long-term joint investment that began long before NASA was founded.

The wonders of such an idea turned into profits and the fantasy was taken to a new level of space exploration.  The amount of profits was staggering. So NASA and others continued the ideas through media, but soon learned they had no choice but to fake it to keep the money flowing. 

Have a look at these interesting videos.

History of Fake Space | Outer Space Does Not Exist


Disney Presents: NASA on Thin Ice | Buzz Aldrin and the Masonic Moon


Follow the money.

(https://i.imgur.com/7xbhdjL.jpg)

So, Russia and China and North Korea etc are also all working with Disney? I don't think they have Disney in North Korea. By the way, I'm just curious but why do you keep changing the subject after you have been proven wrong?

Oh, look at you, you're on the ropes again by not answering to your lame arse tatics. WOW!!

Please tell me where I am not answering (like you) and I will gladly answer your questions.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Unconvinced on October 02, 2019, 01:07:43 PM
Disney bought Star Wars and the MCU.

So, erm... conspiracy!

It can’t be anything as mundane as profits, surely.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 03, 2019, 09:05:24 AM
Houston we have another problem. The Sun is not 93 million miles away.

People are learning they have been deceived about the true size and distance of celestial bodies. The tool used is “Scale Invariance”. Have a look at the following video and see how easy it is to make up a Helios religion and deceive the masses with lies.

Is Our Solar System Reality? Scaling Invariance Says No!


Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on October 03, 2019, 09:31:24 AM
I'm not going to watch the videos. I hope nobody else is watching the videos. It makes people money.

Why don't YOU explain how you know the Sun is not 93 million miles away. Start by telling us how far you think the Sun really is and then we can explore any complications that might arise with the notion.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 03, 2019, 09:41:13 AM
I'm not going to watch the videos. I hope nobody else is watching the videos. It makes people money.

Why don't YOU explain how you know the Sun is not 93 million miles away. Start by telling us how far you think the Sun really is and then we can explore any complications that might arise with the notion.

Skip the AD (paying) if there is one.

Lalalalala (fingers in ears)
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: frenat on October 03, 2019, 10:11:09 AM
I'm not going to watch the videos. I hope nobody else is watching the videos. It makes people money.

Why don't YOU explain how you know the Sun is not 93 million miles away. Start by telling us how far you think the Sun really is and then we can explore any complications that might arise with the notion.

Looked like it was Jeran claiming trigonometry was the only way we knew the distance to the Sun (because he didn't bother to research) and then misapplying trigonometry by claiming everything could be closer and smaller. He makes the claim that the "entire model of the solar system is based on angular size" which is of course false and only proof he didn't actually look it up. He doesn't realize that the angles wouldn't be the same and of course he never bothered to find out that RADAR is used in the process as well. So, just as ignorant as Plat Terra.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: kopfverderber on October 03, 2019, 10:32:10 AM
I'm not going to watch the videos. I hope nobody else is watching the videos. It makes people money.

Why don't YOU explain how you know the Sun is not 93 million miles away. Start by telling us how far you think the Sun really is and then we can explore any complications that might arise with the notion.

Skip the AD (paying) if there is one.

Lalalalala (fingers in ears)

Can you now tell us how flatearthers calculate the distance to the sun?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Themightykabool on October 03, 2019, 10:33:28 AM
I'm not going to watch the videos. I hope nobody else is watching the videos. It makes people money.

Why don't YOU explain how you know the Sun is not 93 million miles away. Start by telling us how far you think the Sun really is and then we can explore any complications that might arise with the notion.

Looked like it was Jeran claiming trigonometry was the only way we knew the distance to the Sun (because he didn't bother to research) and then misapplying trigonometry by claiming everything could be closer and smaller. He makes the claim that the "entire model of the solar system is based on angular size" which is of course false and only proof he didn't actually look it up. He doesn't realize that the angles wouldn't be the same and of course he never bothered to find out that RADAR is used in the process as well. So, just as ignorant as Plat Terra.

Its amazing "how simple" they think it all is.
Its so simple that no one else can figure it out.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Yes on October 03, 2019, 11:02:31 AM
Is Our Solar System Reality? Scaling Invariance Says No!

Plat Trolla, please tell me what you think scale invariance is.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 03, 2019, 01:41:20 PM
I made a Meme for those who don't know about the skip AD button on Youtube.

HOUSTON, WE HAVE ANOTHER PROBLEM. Both the ISS and Globe theory is fake.

(https://i.imgur.com/djkuAwK.jpg)
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: sokarul on October 03, 2019, 01:44:25 PM
Nope
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 03, 2019, 02:01:11 PM
Nope


Yes and you think a pink Cadillac driving by at 70 mph, 3 miles away means Elvis is onboard. 

Math proves the ISS and the Globe theory fake. Hi tech visual tricks of NASA doesn't prove a damn thing. Your video does not prove astronauts are on board 250 miles up moving 17,000 MPH.

 Get real!

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: frenat on October 03, 2019, 02:34:10 PM
Nope


Yes and you think a pink Cadillac driving by at 70 mph, 3 miles away means Elvis is onboard. 

Math proves the ISS and the Globe theory fake. Hi tech visual tricks of NASA doesn't prove a damn thing. Your video does not prove astronauts are on board 250 miles up moving 17,000 MPH.

 Get real!
You still haven't proven they should feel that. Again, the ISS is in freefall around the Earth as the Earth is in freefall around the Sun.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 03, 2019, 04:55:25 PM
 Houston, the ISS has successfully docked with the CGI SODA CAN.

I was hoping for root beer, but got a l e m o n a d e.

Have a close look at 2:30


Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 03, 2019, 05:08:38 PM
Houston, the ISS has successfully docked with the CGI SODA CAN.

I was hoping for root beer, but got a l e m o n a d e.

Have a close look at 2:30



I did. What's the issue? The argument here is that it looks like a 'coke can'? Not very compelling.

The HTV system has been used for years, 2013:

(https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Z83.jpg)

(https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/A59.jpg)

(https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2015-08-19-021016.jpg)
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Gumwars on October 03, 2019, 06:04:06 PM
Houston, the ISS has successfully docked with the CGI SODA CAN.

I was hoping for root beer, but got a l e m o n a d e.

Have a close look at 2:30



Seriously.  What's wrong with you?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: SpaceCadet on October 04, 2019, 02:03:16 AM
Houston, the ISS has successfully docked with the CGI SODA CAN.

I was hoping for root beer, but got a l e m o n a d e.

Have a close look at 2:30



Seriously.  What's wrong with you?

That's what happens when one spends all day in mum's basement watchong only flaer videos with no ability to understand. In the words of Phuket, being stuck on M T Stupid
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Yes on October 04, 2019, 04:44:55 AM
Is Our Solar System Reality? Scaling Invariance Says No!

Plat Trolla, please tell me what you think scale invariance is.

"The whole model of the solar system is based off angular size."

Plat Trolla, do you believe this statement from your video is true?


Do you think anybody believes this is true? or do you think videos like this are just to prey on the vulnerable and mentally disheveled?

Finally: what do you think scale invariance is?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Crutchwater on October 04, 2019, 05:44:55 AM
Because a cylindrical object can be nothing other than a soda can!


I suppose the Earth must be flat!
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: markjo on October 04, 2019, 07:17:11 AM
Houston, the ISS has successfully docked with the CGI SODA CAN.

I was hoping for root beer, but got a l e m o n a d e.

Have a close look at 2:30


If the "soda can" looks so fake, then what do you think a real cargo transfer vehicle should look like?  You do realize that cylinders like soda cans are very efficient shapes for maximizing cargo capacity, don't you?

Also, that video does not show the HTV docking with the ISS.  It shows the robotic arm capturing the HTV.  If you can't understand the difference, then I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

BTW, not that you would really care, but since it's the ISS robotic arm joins the HVT with the ISS, it's referred to as berthing.  Docking is when the vehicle joins with the ISS by itself.  Sure, it's subtle difference, but it just goes to show how little research FE'ers do.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Unconvinced on October 04, 2019, 08:05:25 AM
Spaceship looks shit, capturing it is slow and tedious.

What does that that tell us?

If it’s fake, they could fake it to look like anything they wanted.  So the only argument flat earthers have with this kind of thing is that doesn’t look like what they would expect.

Too bad.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: markjo on October 04, 2019, 08:46:40 AM
It seems to me that if it was fake then they would make the capsule look better and make the capture and berthing happen a lot faster.  Apparently FE'ers don't realize that form follows function and aesthetics don't matter all that much in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Unconvinced on October 04, 2019, 05:21:25 PM
Not that it really matters.

People who want to see it as fake will justify that to themselves whatever it looks like.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 04, 2019, 05:56:04 PM
Houston we have another problem.

We need more duct tape to fix things and better magic tricks to deceive the public. 

We also need more micro gravity to keep microphones from falling and to keep the astronauts from sitting back on the harnesses.

Houston, do you copy?

Houston, we need better trained astronauts that can fake gravity better and not fall and make a mess in a live interview. Also give us more distractions when they screw up again. The baseball didn’t work.

Houston, do you copy?


Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 04, 2019, 06:26:19 PM
Houston we have another problem.

We need more duct tape to fix things and better magic tricks to deceive the public. 

We also need more micro gravity to keep microphones from falling and to keep the astronauts from sitting back on the harnesses.

Houston, do you copy?

Houston, we need better trained astronauts that can fake gravity better and not fall and make a mess in a live interview. Also give us more distractions when they screw up again. The baseball didn’t work.

Houston, do you copy?



Diamagnetism? That's where you folks are going now?

Show me the wires. This guy is really on the insane side. Veracity=zero.

Try harder.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: MouseWalker on October 04, 2019, 07:49:58 PM
Houston we have another problem.

We need more duct tape to fix things and better magic tricks to deceive the public. 

We also need more micro gravity to keep microphones from falling and to keep the astronauts from sitting back on the harnesses.

Houston, do you copy?

Houston, we need better trained astronauts that can fake gravity better and not fall and make a mess in a live interview. Also give us more distractions when they screw up again. The baseball didn’t work.

Houston, do you copy?



Diamagnetism? That's where you folks are going now?

Show me the wires. This guy is really on the insane side. Veracity=zero.

Try harder.
if it is sow simple to do, let's see your version.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: JackBlack on October 04, 2019, 07:56:31 PM
Houston has a great number of problems that prove there is no Heliocentric System.
Are you sure it isn't just your problems?
So far that is all I have seen you provide, no actual problems with the RE reality or the HC solar system.


There is a dome and rockets coming into contact with it creates a visual effect for all to see.
You mean something like this:

Where the rocket is obliterated by smashing into a dome?
Or perhaps something showing the dome being shattered by the impact of a rocket?

Or do you mean the fairly standard false claims of FEers where a rocket utilises a yo-yo despin mechanism to stop it spinning while it continues to gain altitude and clearly doesn't hit a dome?

I see it is mainly the latter, with your video even keeping in the label.

Another part was a rocket not going straight up, which isn't surprising at all considering if you want to go into orbit, you need to gain a lot of sideways velocity. It makes no sense to go up and then turn right and speed up when you get to orbital altitude.

Just where in that footage do you think a rocket hits a dome?

The trails of Haley’s Comet make much more sense now.
No, they don't.
The tails of comets don't trail behind the comet like you would need them to. Instead they point away from the sun.
Also, the boat you are comparing it to has an engine that keeps it moving. What do comets have?
If that was a wake then comets should slow to a stop quite quickly.
Also, why doesn't the sun and moon and other stars and planets make wakes as well?

What do you mean? If the tail always pointed away from the Sun it would crash into it.
Why?
If you stick your arm away from a wall and move does that mean you will crash into the wall?
There is no connection between the 2 at all.

OPPS, Houston has another problem.
If Earth were a ball, spinning and hurling through space we would sense the motion because of constant rotation and constant direction working together. Someone caught up in constant direction by its self could not sense motion, but when a constant rotation is added to the equation it’s measurable and noticeable. Checkmate again RE’S.
No, pretty sure it is just another problem for you.

Firstly, gravity acting on an object to keep it in orbit wont be able to be felt by the object as no force is transmitted across it. Instead, only the tiny tidal force would, which is far too small for humans to perceive.

The only thing you would potentially feel is the effect of Earth's rotation, but the way that would be felt is the acceleration due to gravity being slightly different.
The change is far too small for humans to perceive. A mere 0.3% if I recall correctly. However that variation of gravity over Earth is measured.

So this isn't a problem for those who accept the reality of a RE.

If you wish to claim there should be an acceleration that we feel, clearly explain what we should feel, in your own words.

Houston has another problem.  Faking Outer Space.
That is again a problem for you. No one has ever been able to show that NASA has faked anything they indicated was real (yes, people have been able to show images released as a composite image is a composite image, which some may refer to as fake). They have repeatedly asserted that NASA is faking space with empty claims, but they have never been able to substantiate it.

Houston we have another problem. The Sun is not 93 million miles away.
And just another baseless claim from you.
How about instead of linking to a bunch of spam you try explaining the claim in your own words.
What leads you to conclude that the sun isn't that far away.

I made a Meme
Yes, you made a meme, and like most memes, it is full of factually incorrect information.

Try doing the math to determine what direction the acceleration is actually in.

You also seem to forget that the acceleration acts constantly, and is by gravity acting on the ISS and the astronauts together.
They don't just fire rockets every 45 minutes.

Math proves the ISS and the Globe theory fake.
Then you should easily be able to provide this math, right here for everyone to see, not as a meme, not as a video, just the math.

As for your picture of venus, trying get one that is in focus.

And again, stop spamming heaps of different issues to try and bury your opponents in bovine excrement. It shows you know you have no case.

Pick a single topic and stick with it.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: dutchy on October 05, 2019, 12:20:11 AM
I think NASA & co could drastically lower their ‘outerspace footage’ budget cap even more..
You know .... just like Elon Musk did with his car in orbit... and got away with it in broad daylight.
Two people max could do the parttime job of creating space related imagery and a lot of money will be saved.

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

And...... you have reached your goal.
Give some 18 year old intern dude the latest photoshop rendering and let him/her use their
creativity.
A friendly advise towards NASA & co to lower their budget cap.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 05, 2019, 12:47:31 AM
I think NASA & co could drastically lower their ‘outerspace footage’ budget cap even more..
You know .... just like Elon Musk did with his car in orbit... and got away with it in broad daylight.
Two people max could do the parttime job of creating space related imagery and a lot of money will be saved.

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

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

As a paid shill, I've taken your recommendations and passed them along to the space agencies around the world. So far, NASA has declined, but I'm waiting to hear back from the rest of these folks here - I'll keep you posted:
(https://i.imgur.com/RkuC7f2.png?1)
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: JackBlack on October 05, 2019, 01:00:08 AM
I think NASA & co could drastically lower their ‘outerspace footage’ budget cap even more..
You know .... just like Elon Musk did with his car in orbit... and got away with it in broad daylight.
Two people max could do the parttime job of creating space related imagery and a lot of money will be saved.
Do you have anything at all to indicate it is fake?
So far deniers haven't been able to come up with a single thing which withstands scrutiny.
Instead they can only spout nonsense based upon wilful ignorance or outright lies/deception.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: dutchy on October 05, 2019, 02:56:12 AM
I think NASA & co could drastically lower their ‘outerspace footage’ budget cap even more..
You know .... just like Elon Musk did with his car in orbit... and got away with it in broad daylight.
Two people max could do the parttime job of creating space related imagery and a lot of money will be saved.
Do you have anything at all to indicate it is fake?
So far deniers haven't been able to come up with a single thing which withstands scrutiny.
Instead they can only spout nonsense based upon wilful ignorance or outright lies/deception.
Let me elaborate rab,....

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

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

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

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Denspressure on October 05, 2019, 03:02:31 AM
Show me how you would insulate a spacecraft then, dipshit?

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

Multiple light sources would create multiple shadows, not something we see in the Apollo photos nor video feed you moron.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: dutchy on October 05, 2019, 03:12:09 AM
Show me how you would insulate a spacecraft then, dipshit?

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

Multiple light sources would create multiple shadows, not something we see in the Apollo photos you moron.
Boehoehoe.... namecalling because i rightfully point out the scandalous fake Apollo moon propaganda and other crincheworthy forms of space fakery ?

And there are indeed multiple lightsources in the Apollo footage as the TOP photographers of worldrenowned fame and expertise so easily show in the docu ‘American Moon’ .... you can buy it on Amazon ( i did)..... or you believe the enthousiastic amatures around the www (Clavius for instance) who reason away the discrepancies in the Apollo footage in a way one expects from enthousiastic amatures.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 05, 2019, 03:21:27 AM
Instead......film slomo studio set + back drop and multiple studio lightsources is how Apollo footage on the moon looks like coincidentally.

More appropriately, it looks like Apollo footage of people on the moon. Your argument amounts to, "Anything that can be replicated by movie techniques is fake." I don't think that's what you mean. Otherwise, all things are fake.

Instead......a cartoon about a car in orbit looks fake because of the behaviour of light in a vacuum .... therefor it looks more fake than Musk’ own company’s CGI. (caugh)

How does light work in a vacuum?

Instead..... the most expensive machinery that has  all the fancy technology hidden beneath a trashy ( but shiny ::)) outer layer looks like mere wannabee tech.

This wannabee tech you speak of, what would you propose? Something less 'trashy'? Money doesn't buy class, not functionality, form follows function. So your argument is that considering the money spent, all space paraphernalia should look like a Bughatti?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: sceptimatic on October 05, 2019, 03:32:14 AM
I think NASA & co could drastically lower their ‘outerspace footage’ budget cap even more..
You know .... just like Elon Musk did with his car in orbit... and got away with it in broad daylight.
Two people max could do the parttime job of creating space related imagery and a lot of money will be saved.
Do you have anything at all to indicate it is fake?
So far deniers haven't been able to come up with a single thing which withstands scrutiny.
Instead they can only spout nonsense based upon wilful ignorance or outright lies/deception.
Let me elaborate rab,....

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

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

Instead......film slomo studio set + back drop and multiple studio lightsources is how Apollo footage on the moon looks like coincidentally.
Instead......a cartoon about a car in orbit looks fake because of the behaviour of light in a vacuum .... therefor it looks more fake than Musk’ own company’s CGI. (caugh)
Instead..... the most expensive machinery that has  all the fancy technology hidden beneath a trashy ( but shiny ::)) outer layer looks like mere wannabee tech.
The more silly they make things the more some people believe them because they argue " why would they make things look silly if they were fake."
This implies that although they agree they do look silly they think this is an argument for realism.

It beggars belief.
The people who rig this garbage up at the expense of the wider public must be crying with laughing at how easily it is swallowed up by the majority.

Mind you it's getting to the stage where a lot of people are actually waking up to it. The issue will be, they will be pacified once again because something will be brought to the fore to convince people it's all real...and back to square one it goes.

Human beings being smart?.......Hmmmmmmm.
I'd say, on the whole we're good at parroting/mimicking, which means we can be sold whatever stories are on offer, told as fact for fiction or fiction for fact....or a little bit in between.

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 05, 2019, 04:10:36 AM
I think NASA & co could drastically lower their ‘outerspace footage’ budget cap even more..
You know .... just like Elon Musk did with his car in orbit... and got away with it in broad daylight.
Two people max could do the parttime job of creating space related imagery and a lot of money will be saved.
Do you have anything at all to indicate it is fake?
So far deniers haven't been able to come up with a single thing which withstands scrutiny.
Instead they can only spout nonsense based upon wilful ignorance or outright lies/deception.
Let me elaborate rab,....

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

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

Instead......film slomo studio set + back drop and multiple studio lightsources is how Apollo footage on the moon looks like coincidentally.
Instead......a cartoon about a car in orbit looks fake because of the behaviour of light in a vacuum .... therefor it looks more fake than Musk’ own company’s CGI. (caugh)
Instead..... the most expensive machinery that has  all the fancy technology hidden beneath a trashy ( but shiny ::)) outer layer looks like mere wannabee tech.
The more silly they make things the more some people believe them because they argue " why would they make things look silly if they were fake."
This implies that although they agree they do look silly they think this is an argument for realism.

How is your statement any different than the inverse:
"The more silly serious they make things the more some people believe disbelieve them because they argue 'why would they make things look silly serious if they were real.' This implies that although they agree they do look silly serious they think this is an argument for realism."

It's rather confounding how your sentiment really carries no water and is really just a circular statement, not leading to any higher ground.

It beggars belief.

Perhaps it's more of a beggars banquet.

The people who rig this garbage up at the expense of the wider public must be crying with laughing at how easily it is swallowed up by the majority.

Who are the people that rig? Specifically.

Mind you it's getting to the stage where a lot of people are actually waking up to it. The issue will be, they will be pacified once again because something will be brought to the fore to convince people it's all real...and back to square one it goes.

What's waking up and being brought to the fore? And what might that fore be to convince people what is all real?

Human beings being smart?.......Hmmmmmmm.
I'd say, on the whole we're good at parroting/mimicking, which means we can be sold whatever stories are on offer, told as fact for fiction or fiction for fact....or a little bit in between.

Ain't that the truth.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: JackBlack on October 05, 2019, 04:56:40 AM
Let me elaborate rab,....
I'm not rab.

How would anyone know how things look out there other than hearsay and footage that even a child should discern as fake.
You could start by actually trying to understand how things look and why.
For example, understanding the role of the atmosphere and exposure times.

Saying it looks fake does not explain why it looks fake.
Likewise, the ability to fake the footage also doesn't actually mean it is fake.

Again, you assert that the footage should discerned as fake, but provide absolutely no basis for it.

Why should one think it is fake?
Can you provide any justification, or just insults and deflection?

Try to actually elaborate on why you think it is fake.

you can buy it on Amazon
I have no interest in buying a crappy mockumentary from a conman.
If you think there is proof that there were multiple light sources on the moon, then provide this proof.

I'd say, on the whole we're good at parroting/mimicking,
Yes, you are quite good at parroting/mimicking, but not coming up with any rational arguments to justify your claims.
Lots of those who claim NASA fakes things are quite like that, parroting the same baseless claims without any rational basis.
How about instead of just insulting people you try to justify your claims.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Unconvinced on October 05, 2019, 06:30:39 AM

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


Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on October 05, 2019, 06:38:48 AM
You see if were me, I’d probably be curious about what the words “yo-yo de-spin” might mean as they flash up on screen just as the rocket stops spinning.
Or ask yourself why the camera keeps going up after it "hits the dome".

I'm sure that FE'rs have an explanation, like the dome swallowed it after impact.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: dutchy on October 06, 2019, 02:24:12 AM

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


Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.
Really ?
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions.... without even braking or bending one of it’s little legs.
Noooo , it landed perfectly straight , dustfree and without any structural inconveniences for the American public and rest of this world to marvel at.

It somehow did the trick in 1969-1972 , but i hardly believe an intelligent person in 2019 can be so self delusional and convince him/herselves that the LEM with human tissue onboard actually landed on the moon as described by NASA and the accompagnying footage at display.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 06, 2019, 03:03:55 AM

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


Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.
Really ?
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions.... without even braking or bending one of it’s little legs.
Noooo , it landed perfectly straight , dustfree and without any structural inconveniences for the American public and rest of this world to marvel at.

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

Correct, it did the trick. Why so vehemently opposed that it happened? What's the core belief behind the fact that it didn't happen? What's the threat if it did?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: dutchy on October 06, 2019, 03:36:24 AM

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


Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.
Really ?
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions.... without even braking or bending one of it’s little legs.
Noooo , it landed perfectly straight , dustfree and without any structural inconveniences for the American public and rest of this world to marvel at.

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

Correct, it did the trick. Why so vehemently opposed that it happened? What's the core belief behind the fact that it didn't happen? What's the threat if it did?
Nothing...if it happened then...

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: kopfverderber on October 06, 2019, 04:24:55 AM
There's more than enough evidence of the moon landings for any sane person to believe they indeed happened. All arguments brought forward by moon hoaxers have been thoroughly refuted, but nothing is going to keep some people from believing  this sort of things. Deniers are gonna deny.

In the mean time space programs continue their course and nobody cares what a bunch conspiracy nutjobs, tin foil hat wearers and other crackpots say.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: JackBlack on October 06, 2019, 04:37:30 AM
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions
So you are upset that they were able to make it work?
Just what do you think the issue is?
It was tested on Earth.
It isn't like they just decided, screw it, lets send up a bunch of astronauts to the moon to test it there first and who cares if they die.

It somehow did the trick in 1969-1972 , but i hardly believe an intelligent person in 2019 can be so self delusional and convince him/herselves that the LEM with human tissue onboard actually landed on the moon as described by NASA and the accompagnying footage at display.
They don't need to be delusional or try to convince themselves as those intelligent people are already convinced that we did land on the moon.

3 We lost, destroyed, forgot how to go back to the moon and it’s painfull to built back the assembly lines, vehicles and more..... showing that at least 90% of the total budget was waisted in hindsight.
No, the US won, they were the first to land on the moon.

We also didn't just forget everything. We still put probes in orbit/on the moon. We still have the scientific data.
All that was lost was the production facilities which were not being used and would have wasted loads of money if they just kept them and the employees for it around just in case we decided to make another lunar mission decades in the future with what would then be quite old technology.

Again, do you have an actual problem, or are you just capable of repeatedly insulting those who accept the lunar landings were real?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 06, 2019, 09:19:32 AM
Houston, we still have the same problem.

The Zero G Plane is maintaining the same altitude over the ocean with exact horizontal flight.  We do not have to dip the nose or descend to keep from gaining altitude over the Earth. We can’t find any curvature to fly over and around.

Houston, do you copy?

This is Houston, we copy.

Get me that Dumb Assed Professor on the line.


(https://i.imgur.com/U6rgHd9.jpg)
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: markjo on October 06, 2019, 09:29:32 AM

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


Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.
Really ?
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions.... without even braking or bending one of it’s little legs.
Noooo , it landed perfectly straight , dustfree and without any structural inconveniences for the American public and rest of this world to marvel at.
Actually, NASA did have some practice with landing on the moon with the Surveyor program where 5 of 7 successful landings.  They also practiced quite a bit with the LLRV, which Neil Armstrong claimed gave him the confidence to take manual control of the LM at the last minute.  BTW, you do know that the lunar landing was intended to be completely controlled by the LM guidance computer, don't you?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: dutchy on October 06, 2019, 09:39:26 AM
There's more than enough evidence of the moon landings for any sane person to believe they indeed happened.
Any sane person would sincerely doubt why we simply do not replicate the technological achievements of 1969-1972 in our highly advanced era by going to the moon NOW.
And ‘they’ want to go back in a nano second.... and new world powers with vastly superiour resources and technology have a manned moontrip on top of their wishlist also.

Any sane person would never fall for the weakest of excuses ever invented..... ‘pesky congressmen are not willing to give the money’ and ‘it’s painfull to built back technologies like an assembly line for moon machinery’ ... and ‘The Chinese simply don’t have the required cutting edge understanding of manned moon missions like the ‘Texas Rangers’  of 1969’... ;D ;D ;D
What utter fool would fall for such cheap excuses ?
Quote
All arguments brought forward by moon hoaxers have been thoroughly refuted, but nothing is going to keep some people from believing  this sort of things. Deniers are gonna deny.
In the mean time space programs continue their course and nobody cares what a bunch conspiracy nutjobs, tin foil hat wearers and other crackpots say.
‘All arguments brought forward by propagandists related to moon photography’ are the works of enthousiastic amatures with some background in photograpy from a personal hobby or interrest.
Compare that to the following names including some of the best world renowned film and photography experts in the docu ‘American moon’ :
Olivier Toscani,Toni Thorimbert, Paolo Attivissimo, Aldo Fallai, Peter Lindbergh, Danilo Pasqua, Nicola Pecorini who switly point out the appearent studio set up artifacts in many Apollo footage.
They know the equipment used in 1969, techniques of the days, studio tools, camera’s, film and much more...
And when those expert show that many Apollo photographs are 100% shot in a studio environment who are your photographic experts to claim the authenticity of ALL Apollo photographs ?

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

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


Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: markjo on October 06, 2019, 09:41:29 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/U6rgHd9.jpg)
How far away is the vanishing point that sun is passing?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Unconvinced on October 06, 2019, 10:01:48 AM

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


Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.
Really ?
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions.... without even braking or bending one of it’s little legs.
Noooo , it landed perfectly straight , dustfree and without any structural inconveniences for the American public and rest of this world to marvel at.

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

Hang on.  You were the one rolling your virtual eyes at the idea that spacecraft should look practical.  I was just saying that they should look like they should do the job.

The landing gear looks entirely sensible to me.  It had trusses for strength and stability, and collapsible honeycomb structures inside the primary and secondary struts for shock absorbance in vertical and horizontal directions.

I found some technical details for you here:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM_Landing%20Gear1973010151.pdf

Apparently the hardest landing was about 2m/s vertically, which is about a brisk walking pace.  Most other landings were more like 1m/s.  Horizontal velocity was around 0.5-1m/s.  The angle was as close to horizontal as the pilots could manage, because doing anything else would be stupid.

Not sure why you think landing on a alien surface is relevant?  The engineers knew the expected speed and mass of the spacecraft to calculate the forces it had to withstand.  That’s their job. No need for guesswork.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Smoke machine police on October 06, 2019, 11:06:37 AM
Houston, we still have the same problem.

The Zero G Plane is maintaining the same altitude over the ocean with exact horizontal flight.  We do not have to dip the nose or descend to keep from gaining altitude over the Earth. We can’t find any curvature to fly over and around.

Houston, do you copy?

This is Houston, we copy.

Get me that Dumb Assed Professor on the line.


(https://i.imgur.com/U6rgHd9.jpg)

Plat tera, the astronauts aboard the ISS find curvature to fly around, every single second of every single day.  ;D

On your plane earth, the setting sun would be high above the horizon, shrinking into a tiny dot as it heads north west. It would never touch down at, or ever go down behind, the horizon. On your plane earth, the sun would behave like a high flying, well, plane.

Is God the pilot of your sun plane, plat tera, with Jesus his co-pilot?  ::)

Shut the gate! I can't believe you're latest meme is serious. Are you making a new mockumentary with Logan Paul?  ;)
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Themightykabool on October 06, 2019, 11:44:21 AM
Platas concept of reflection are also questionable.
I love how ater manages to geab the light rays and transmit them along the surface.

Anorher interestng point is scale.
The persons feet to the persons head means this dude is taller than a mountain, coming up on 250k ft.
And yes
That is what we see on mountains.
Shadow at the base.
Lit up at the top.

Keep failing plata.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 06, 2019, 11:56:03 AM
Houston, we still have the same problem.

The Zero G Plane is maintaining the same altitude over the ocean with exact horizontal flight.  We do not have to dip the nose or descend to keep from gaining altitude over the Earth. We can’t find any curvature to fly over and around.

Houston, do you copy?

This is Houston, we copy.

Get me that Dumb Assed Professor on the line.

(https://i.imgur.com/U6rgHd9.jpg)

The only questions are, what is the size of your sun and how far away from earth is it? Until you can answer these I'm afraid there is no basis for your argument.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 06, 2019, 12:22:47 PM
‘All arguments brought forward by propagandists related to moon photography’ are the works of enthousiastic amatures with some background in photograpy from a personal hobby or interrest.
Compare that to the following names including some of the best world renowned film and photography experts in the docu ‘American moon’ :
Olivier Toscani,Toni Thorimbert, Paolo Attivissimo, Aldo Fallai, Peter Lindbergh, Danilo Pasqua, Nicola Pecorini who switly point out the appearent studio set up artifacts in many Apollo footage.
They know the equipment used in 1969, techniques of the days, studio tools, camera’s, film and much more...
And when those expert show that many Apollo photographs are 100% shot in a studio environment who are your photographic experts to claim the authenticity of ALL Apollo photographs ?

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

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

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

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


A lot more info here:

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2014/07/532-how-come-famous-photographers-claim.html
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: frenat on October 06, 2019, 12:59:30 PM
Houston, we still have the same problem.

The Zero G Plane is maintaining the same altitude over the ocean with exact horizontal flight.  We do not have to dip the nose or descend to keep from gaining altitude over the Earth. We can’t find any curvature to fly over and around.

Houston, do you copy?

This is Houston, we copy.

Get me that Dumb Assed Professor on the line.
on a globe, maintaining the same altitude means they wouldn't have to dip the nose. the plane would do it continuously to maintain the altitude.


(https://i.imgur.com/U6rgHd9.jpg)

Thanks for the pics showing the sun reflecting off the ripples and not in a perfect straight line. That is exactly what is expected on a globe.

(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/sun-glitter.jpg)

And you don't seem to understand the concept of a vanishing point. Thanks for the humor!
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: dutchy on October 06, 2019, 01:13:21 PM
‘All arguments brought forward by propagandists related to moon photography’ are the works of enthousiastic amatures with some background in photograpy from a personal hobby or interrest.
Compare that to the following names including some of the best world renowned film and photography experts in the docu ‘American moon’ :
Olivier Toscani,Toni Thorimbert, Paolo Attivissimo, Aldo Fallai, Peter Lindbergh, Danilo Pasqua, Nicola Pecorini who switly point out the appearent studio set up artifacts in many Apollo footage.
They know the equipment used in 1969, techniques of the days, studio tools, camera’s, film and much more...
And when those expert show that many Apollo photographs are 100% shot in a studio environment who are your photographic experts to claim the authenticity of ALL Apollo photographs ?

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

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

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

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


A lot more info here:

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2014/07/532-how-come-famous-photographers-claim.html
So a person writes a blog and claims that the best photographic experts don’t understand ‘space photography’ because they have not experienced photography in outerspace ?
Is this person an astronaut ?
If not he/she is not an expert on space photography because he/she has no clue whatsoever about photography in space and has no clue whatsoever him/herself.

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Crutchwater on October 06, 2019, 02:10:22 PM
So dutchy will fall back and appeal to the authority of a few film makers who are simply out to make a buck off the conspiracy crowd. (With only their opinion, btw).

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

You know, the tens of thousands of people that dutchy has labeled "liars"!
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 06, 2019, 02:12:37 PM
‘All arguments brought forward by propagandists related to moon photography’ are the works of enthousiastic amatures with some background in photograpy from a personal hobby or interrest.
Compare that to the following names including some of the best world renowned film and photography experts in the docu ‘American moon’ :
Olivier Toscani,Toni Thorimbert, Paolo Attivissimo, Aldo Fallai, Peter Lindbergh, Danilo Pasqua, Nicola Pecorini who switly point out the appearent studio set up artifacts in many Apollo footage.
They know the equipment used in 1969, techniques of the days, studio tools, camera’s, film and much more...
And when those expert show that many Apollo photographs are 100% shot in a studio environment who are your photographic experts to claim the authenticity of ALL Apollo photographs ?

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

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

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

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


A lot more info here:

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2014/07/532-how-come-famous-photographers-claim.html
So a person writes a blog and claims that the best photographic experts don’t understand ‘space photography’ because they have not experienced photography in outerspace ?
Is this person an astronaut ?
If not he/she is not an expert on space photography because he/she has no clue whatsoever about photography in space and has no clue whatsoever him/herself.

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

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

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

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

Fair points you raise. I've seen elsewhere from astronauts and space experts exactly what that rando blogger mentions. I just thought the individual captured those bits comprehensively.

But no, I would not say these fashion photoags are at all familar with photography on the moon.

I looked into Rene's Gemini claim. People have looked at Collin's book ('Carrying the Fire') where Rene supposedly found the "fake" photo. It's in the Collin's book but is captioned, 'The zero-G airplane - sickening!' and clearly shows it to have been taken inside an aircraft. So I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: JackBlack on October 06, 2019, 02:36:36 PM
The Zero G Plane is maintaining the same altitude over the ocean with exact horizontal flight.  We do not have to dip the nose or descend to keep from gaining altitude over the Earth.
Prove it.
So far all we have along these lines is the same repeated baseless assertion.
The amount a plane would have to dip to follow the curve is so tiny it would not be felt.


As for your latest meme, again it is pure nonsense.
You have brought up that exact same argument before and had it refuted.
Oceans are level, but not flat.
You are aware the sun doesn't just shoot out light from the centre?
You also seem to completely ignore how a reflection works.
It doesn't just hit the surface then cruise along.
And for a FE, your sun is far too low. You have it at head height.

For a FE, you should see the sun vanish high in the sky, or always see it.
With the claimed 5000 km above the surface, in order to have it within a degree of the horizon (ignoring refraction which would make it appear higher) you would need to have it over a point roughly 290 000 km away, i.e. well beyond the range of the known Earth.
As such, it would never appear to set for a FE.

So that picture is nothing like what you would expect for a FE.

And of course you massive exaggerate the curve.
For a curve like that you would need a much greater altitude. Like from a mountain, which has already been brought up before in favour of a RE, where the sun initially shines upwards, casting shadows upwards, and illuminating the tops of objects before the base.

Try redrawing the same meme, but this time make sure for the FE you have the sun at the appropriate height, showing how it is no where near the horizon.
For the RE, draw in the expected curve, not a massive exaggeration.
And for both, draw in the reflections properly, from all of the sun, not just the middle.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: JackBlack on October 06, 2019, 02:45:50 PM
Any sane person would sincerely doubt why we simply do not replicate the technological achievements of 1969-1972 in our highly advanced era by going to the moon NOW.
And what? Then going again next year, then the next then the next and so on?
Then people will complain about why we are wasting so much money repeatedly going to the moon.
Just because you can take a flight around the world (with some stops along the way) does that mean you do so each week? No.

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

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

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

claim that it will be extremely hard
Yes, claim. No rational argument, just a claim.
What basis is there for this claim?

Again, all you have provided is assertion and insult.
You have provided nothing of substance to indicate the moon landings were fake.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: dutchy on October 06, 2019, 02:52:06 PM
So dutchy will fall back and appeal to the authority of a few film makers who are simply out to make a buck off the conspiracy crowd. (With only their opinion, btw).

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

You know, the tens of thousands of people that dutchy has labeled "liars"!
No ....not again this avatar thief mister clutchwater.....

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

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

False accusations mister crutch....If only my friend ‘here to laugh at you’ was present to teach you some proper forum manners.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Mainframes on October 06, 2019, 03:07:22 PM
Dutch

Please just show us one “studio” attribute in an Apollo photo that will stand up to any scrutiny. It would need a detailed explanation with backing science as to why it is a studio photo and not actually taken on the moon.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: markjo on October 06, 2019, 03:32:46 PM
I am baffled when reading a so called self promoted expert claiming that the TOP experts in the docu American Moon have it all wrong.....and unknowingly about the NASA lunar light experts prior to Apollo.
... stunning the least......
That's alright.  I find it equally baffling that "so called self promoted experts" think that they know about photography in space than NASA does.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: dutchy on October 06, 2019, 03:33:05 PM
And what? Then going again next year, then the next then the next and so on?
Uhhh China wants to do it for the first time and surely it would be monumental for the country....
With a 100+ petaflop national computer their simulation capabilities put everything the Apollo ‘drawingboard’ could muster to infinite amaturism by comparison.
They also have the resources and above all 100% national pride and support to go for it and plant that red flag on the moon in front of 1.4 billion applauding citizens on earth.
But it seems they still have no real clue how to safely put men on the moon do they ?
And the Americans still have to solve many problems before bringing men to the moon ?
The Russians ? I think they have long accepted that a manned moon mission is impossble.
Quote
Then people will complain about why we are wasting so much money repeatedly going to the moon.
No silly,....we are not going every day, but you know.... a 1969 follow up.
Besides that ...a moonbase ( promised before the year 2000 ) and a future prospect for lunar visitation is extremely appealing to ‘ze people’ .....
Quote
Just because you can take a flight around the world (with some stops along the way) does that mean you do so each week? No.
‘Because some Yanks went to the moon 50 years ago means no one wants to return... humanity has been there, done that....nothing left to see or discover’
Wow never knew how bad your arguments are occasionally.
Quote
A sane person would expect you to do something just because you can.
Why should we go to the moon NOW?

What is more insane with that line of "reasoning" is that you appeal to a highly advanced error, but want us to cling to the technology of the past.
Because Apollo showed it was perfectly doable in a backwards timeframe with Neanderthaler computer technologies and it should be commercially very interresting to visit the moon now with the amount of worldwide billioners skyrocketing.
The problem is ... currently no one in the space business dares to cram humans into a moon machine on their way to the moon.... no one is that imbecile in 2019.
Quote
No. Forget the names.
Don't try to appeal to the authority of some photographer, as that seems to be all deniers can do. Just repeatedly appeal to some guy who claims it is fake, without being able to provide any justification.
Actually provide an argument to indicate they are fake.
Everyone at the flatearth forums relies on the expertise and authority from others.
Or do you know astronaut forum members or NASA outlets over here ?
My point that have presented many TOP photographers and filmmakers who show the fakery in the Apollo footage (from Percy to Toscani) while i still have to hear a worldwide expert claiming he/she examined all the Apollo footage and concluded that it was clearly shot on the moon..... all of it.

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

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

So please, please give my an expert name that has examined the Apollo photographs and concluded the lunar authenticity in every single photograph .. just as NASA claims.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Crutchwater on October 06, 2019, 03:54:29 PM
Dutchy, Michael Bay is also "loaded".

Do you think he will stop making films to increase his net worth? (not that I wish him to continue, used only as an example).


If I were Here to Laugh at You, I would be laughing at you!
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: JackBlack on October 06, 2019, 09:08:20 PM
They simply cannot believe the simpletons who think the Apollo footage was shot on the moon
Has it ever occured to you that those "simpletons" think it was shot on the moon because it was and that is what all the evidence points to?

Uhhh China wants to do it for the first time
Yes, for the first time, without all the technology from Apollo.
Now, when did they decide to do it?
The Apollo program took almost 10 years.

And modern technology is more susceptible to radiation due to the smaller components.

But it seems they still have no real clue how to safely put men on the moon do they ?
Do you expect the US to just hand over all their rocket technology to China?
And what makes you say they have no clue?

No silly,....we are not going every day, but you know.... a 1969 follow up.
I never said every day.
A mission to the moon is very expensive.
Just how often do you want to go?
Would once a century be enough?

Wow never knew how bad your arguments are occasionally.
You mean your own arguments right?
I was showing quite clearly how ridiculous your arguments work.

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we will do it often.
Us not doing something often doesn't mean we can't.
As such us not going to the moon now doesn't mean it didn't happen in the past.

Because Apollo showed it was perfectly doable
Again, it being doable doesn't mean we are doing it now.
Again, why should we go to the moon NOW?

Everyone at the flatearth forums relies on the expertise and authority from others.
No. The entire flat Earth movement is built upon a rejection of expertise and authority. If they relied upon it they would accept that Earth is a rotating, oblate spheroid that is orbiting the sun, and that we have landed on the moon.

My point that have presented many TOP photographers and filmmakers who show the fakery
You have presented nothing more than baseless claims.
Show the fakery. Stop just appealing to some mythical fakery you cannot substantiate in any way.

Again, you have provided absolutely nothing except empty words.
Do you have any actual evidence that the moon landings were fake?
Not just baseless claims/assertions, but actual evidence.

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Smoke machine police on October 06, 2019, 11:23:20 PM
Am I reading this right, dutchy? You aren't satisfied the Apollo program ever put a human on the moon between 1969 and 1972, but are more than satisfied mankind will land on the moon in the next five years? Huh? There's some gaps in logic taking place there, ol boy.

Give me one (1) 100 percent piece of proof mankind never landed on the moon from the Apollo program. Just one. Not 99.9 percent sure, 100 percent. Your best argument - hit us with it.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: dutchy on October 07, 2019, 12:14:53 AM
Am I reading this right, dutchy? You aren't satisfied the Apollo program ever put a human on the moon between 1969 and 1972, but are more than satisfied mankind will land on the moon in the next five years? Huh? There's some gaps in logic taking place there, ol boy.

Give me one (1) 100 percent piece of proof mankind never landed on the moon from the Apollo program. Just one. Not 99.9 percent sure, 100 percent. Your best argument - hit us with it.
Contrary to all of you ( so it seems) i am perfectly aware that i have been no where near outerspace.
I have not been to Australia either, but multitudes ( incl. close relatives) have..... so the odds of Australia being a figment of imagnation equals zero.
The handfull of American astronauts that claimed to have been on the moon is 12 to be precise.
And those 12 astronauts have made many contradictory statements about their experiences as i have tried to point out over the years.
Of course i understand that you don’t want any of it......
But a Doctor astronaut who has repeatedly claimed at symposia worldwide that his close friends in the military confirmed Roswell, shadow governments, free energy and more outlandish nonsense (Apollo had some stuff derived from Roswell UFO technology)...
and the rest of my meticulously efforts to show what bizare claims the astronauts have made.....cannot be trusted about any of their ‘moon’ claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A slamdunk yet again.....





Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 07, 2019, 12:38:19 AM
So dutchy will fall back and appeal to the authority of a few film makers who are simply out to make a buck off the conspiracy crowd. (With only their opinion, btw).

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

You know, the tens of thousands of people that dutchy has labeled "liars"!
No ....not again this avatar thief mister clutchwater.....

The top photographers are loaded they don’t need anything from online admirers.
They simply cannot believe the simpletons who think the Apollo footage was shot on the moon while countless of familiar film and studio atributes are present in the Apollo photographs.

Top fashion photographers who work in studios, not on the moon.

They have worked with all the same equipment as famous world renowned photographic experts.

Actually, they haven't that I know of. The Hasselblad 500 EL's used for Apollo were heavily modified for the missions, no viewfinder, reticular plates, locked hi-capacity magazines, specialized custom lenses, etc. In other words, not at all the same gear fashion photogs use.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: JackBlack on October 07, 2019, 01:06:17 AM
When various countries put men on the moon and the first billionair civilians tell their moontrip stories it will be very, very hard to deny.
No it wont. It will still be just as easy to deny. All you need to do is keep doing what you are doing now.
That is because this denial is not based upon evidence or rational thought.

The VAB’s were far more dangerous , only to practically vaporise during Apollo
No, they went around the majority of the VABs.

The cosmic particles could penetrade solid steal, only to be fully absent during the hours astronauts walked on the moon
Who says they were absent?

The lunar rover dish had to be aimed towards earth precisely with an extremely small bandwidth of error.
They used some visor with a cross to make sure earth is in the exact frame of reference.
But we see transmitions while the rover is driving and bouncing around while the camera is running and the public has the view from to rover on tv.
As the docu ‘American Moon’ shows the focus of the rover dish towards earth while driving around is all over the place considering the bandwidth needed.
But we see no noise or disturbences in the footage whatsoever... not even for a nano second.
This isn't a slam dunk by a long shot. It is yet again a collection of baseless claims.
In order for it to be slam dunk you would need to provide evidence to back up the claims.
Do you have any?
The only time one can just assert a claim is when it is from a daily occurrence, like a sunset, or grass appearing green.

You would also need to avoid nonsense like asserting there was no noise or disturbances even for a nanosecond.
Do you know just how short a nanosecond is, especially compared to the Apollo footage?
The Apollo footage as 10 frames per second, and 320 lines per frame.
That means each line took roughly 312.5 microseconds.
A nanosecond is thus only one 312 thousandth of a line. You are not going to see that.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: dutchy on October 07, 2019, 01:30:02 AM
This isn't a slam dunk by a long shot. It is yet again a collection of baseless claims.
In order for it to be slam dunk you would need to provide evidence to back up the claims.
Do you have any?
The only time one can just assert a claim is when it is from a daily occurrence, like a sunset, or grass appearing green.

You would also need to avoid nonsense like asserting there was no noise or disturbances even for a nanosecond.
Do you know just how short a nanosecond is, especially compared to the Apollo footage?
The Apollo footage as 10 frames per second, and 320 lines per frame.
That means each line took roughly 312.5 microseconds.
A nanosecond is thus only one 312 thousandth of a line. You are not going to see that.
Hmmm at first i thought that rab=Jack was nonsense.
Now i am truly in doubt.
Not only do you have exchanged replies between the two of you that were a clear sign something was going on.....
But you possess  exactly the same non existant ability to descern humor and a figure of speech.
Are you seriously going to lecture me about a nanosecond ?
There is only one person who would react the way you did and that is rabinoz.

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


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




Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: JackBlack on October 07, 2019, 03:22:59 AM
But you possess  exactly the same non existant ability to descern humor and a figure of speech.
I find neither of those work well in this place.
A figure of speech can be taken by either side to try and attack. I have seen FEers object to a REer using the word "sunset" to indicate that they think the sun is moving.
As for humour, outside of this place I would say FE is a joke.

A satelite truck  has to be stabilized in order to have the best transmission.
Yes, best transmission.
The required alignment will vary depending on what other transmission parameters there are.
For example, what the target is. Is this truck sending a signal to an object with a satellite dish, or some other antenna?

According to one document I have found, the gain is 24 db when aligned perfectly, 23.5 db when at 5 degrees and 20.5 db at 10 degrees.
However it also states that it isn't used when the rover is moving.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/HSI-481184-LCRU.pdf


The lunar rover is bouncing around and no disturbance is present in the signal while it is clear that the minimal required focus towards earth is not met during the jolly good ride on the rover. How do we know that ? Because there is a visor + cross that show exactly when our transmission towards earth misses it’s target (earth)
In the footage it becomes clear the earth is out of focus many times looking at the dish without loosing any signal quality.
So far all we have for this is your baseless claim.
Where is the footage of the rover bounding around while the rover's dish is being used for transmitting video?
Where is a measure of the quality of the signal?

Also, do you mean alignment or focus, the 2 are quite different.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: dutchy on October 07, 2019, 04:33:34 AM
So far all we have for this is your baseless claim.
Where is the footage of the rover bounding around while the rover's dish is being used for transmitting video?
Where is a measure of the quality of the signal?

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


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

See the bouncing and impossible continious allignment with earth ?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Unconvinced on October 07, 2019, 05:23:56 AM
So far all we have for this is your baseless claim.
Where is the footage of the rover bounding around while the rover's dish is being used for transmitting video?
Where is a measure of the quality of the signal?

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


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

See the bouncing and impossible continious allignment with earth ?

Hahaha!

That’s film footage recombined with audio.  As in, returned to earth and chemically developed, not broadcast from the moon.

It even identifies the 16mm camera in the video description.

The difference in quality between the film camera footage and the primitive video camera footage is enormous.  Here’s what Apollo 16 broadcast video camera footage looked like:



What’s more, only the 16mm “data acquisition camera” was capable of changing frame rates, between 1, 6, 12 and 24 fps.  Basically to save film.

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap16fj/02photoequip.html

The colour video cameras were fixed frame rate, with the colour camera used on Apollo 16 running at 30fps. Although this alternated between red, green and blue, which is why the colour gets out of sync if there’s too much movement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

So your legendary film producer hero couldn’t tell the difference between film and video footage?

Oh dear.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Unconvinced on October 07, 2019, 11:32:20 AM
Forgot to mention, dutchy-

Did either you or your “TOP film maker” Massimo Mazzucco ever stop to wonder what that gold foil covered thing is in the bottom of the entire video you posted?

Go on, have a guess.

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Smoke machine police on October 07, 2019, 11:41:18 AM
Ok, dutchy. I'll rephrase my question.

Give me (1) ten percent piece of proof, mankind never landed on the moon.

I'm trying to make it easy for you, but oh dear, you've recycled the same worn-out garbage. A satellite truck needs to be stabilised is the best you've got? That's a two (2) percent proof tops, and that's being super generous.

There is 100 percent proof the Apollo program landed mankind on the moon. One hundred, Dutch. Because, mankind one hundred percent have set foot on the moon.

I don't need to just take the astronauts word for it, I can take the word of the four hundred thousand people who made the program work. The thousands of people who monitored the astronauts snd spacecrafts every single movement. I can choose any aspect of the program I like, analyse it, and find it checks out. I already have with most of it. 

Isn't it better knowing your government succeeded in a proud achievement, than believing the nonsense from silly fools getting their five minutes of attention on YouTube?

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: JackBlack on October 07, 2019, 01:04:45 PM
Starting at 25.39 .....12 frames per second transmitted through the lunar rover mobile communications relay unit
That is only one part, and a very insignificant part at that.
You have shown the driving and bouncing.
Now show that this was actually transmitted through the high gain antenna while it was happening.

This is in the description of the video:
(http://The trip to Stone Mountain, on the Lunar Rover. 16mm)
This indicates that it was filmed on 16 mm film, not transmitted directly to Earth.

You also have the astronauts describing what is in front of them. Why would they need that if the footage was being transmitted to Earth?

So once again, there is no actual problem here.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 11, 2019, 06:37:23 PM
Houston, I hear a US Court ruled against Globe Earth. Is that a problem?

Houston, Do you copy?


Flat Earth - US Court Rules “no evidence of curvature”!

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Gumwars on October 11, 2019, 08:39:11 PM
Houston, I hear a US Court ruled against Globe Earth. Is that a problem?

Houston, Do you copy?


Flat Earth - US Court Rules “no evidence of curvature”!



Sweet intellectual dishonesty.  Plat, are you just stuck on lying or are you completely dense? 

Problem 1:  The court case doesn't prove the shape of the Earth.  It proves the plaintiff didn't do their homework.  Recall that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the defense, in proving Zen Garcia didn't do what he said he would do.  In this case, that Mr. Garcia would pay $15,000 if someone could prove that the Earth's curvature followed a given amount.  The plaintiff believed it would be easy and provided two YouTube videos as evidence.  The judge, like many of us when you do the same shit, was not impressed.

Problem 2:  The court case also doesn't prove the plaintiff was wrong either.  Much like the OJ Simpson case, the dude totally killed his wife, has admitted to it, but didn't get busted.  The plaintiff in this case was right, but couldn't prove it.  What did we learn?  The burden of proof and the presentation of sufficient evidence in a court of law is a tricky and difficult task.

So, is the Earth suddenly flat because of this?  Resoundingly no.  Is it still a globe?  Undoubtedly.  Further, I believe Mr. Zen Garcia is probably going to land himself in court again, against a more capable plaintiff, and get his ass handed to him.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 11, 2019, 08:48:41 PM
Houston, I hear a US Court ruled against Globe Earth. Is that a problem?

Houston, Do you copy?


Flat Earth - US Court Rules “no evidence of curvature”!



Sweet intellectual dishonesty.  Plat, are you just stuck on lying or are you completely dense? 

Problem 1:  The court case doesn't prove the shape of the Earth.  It proves the plaintiff didn't do their homework.  Recall that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the defense, in proving Zen Garcia didn't do what he said he would do.  In this case, that Mr. Garcia would pay $15,000 if someone could prove that the Earth's curvature followed a given amount.  The plaintiff believed it would be easy and provided two YouTube videos as evidence.  The judge, like many of us when you do the same shit, was not impressed.

Problem 2:  The court case also doesn't prove the plaintiff was wrong either.  Much like the OJ Simpson case, the dude totally killed his wife, has admitted to it, but didn't get busted.  The plaintiff in this case was right, but couldn't prove it.  What did we learn?  The burden of proof and the presentation of sufficient evidence in a court of law is a tricky and difficult task.

So, is the Earth suddenly flat because of this?  Resoundingly no.  Is it still a globe?  Undoubtedly.  Further, I believe Mr. Zen Garcia is probably going to land himself in court again, against a more capable plaintiff, and get his ass handed to him.

Who believed they proved Earth has curvature and who lost under a US Judge?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Gumwars on October 11, 2019, 09:37:02 PM
Who believed they proved Earth has curvature and who lost under a US Judge?

Are you incapable of reading the English language?  What part of my response do you not understand?  Is the extent of your rational capabilities this pedantic crap or are you actually able to think at all critically?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: JackBlack on October 11, 2019, 10:09:44 PM
Houston, I hear a US Court ruled against Globe Earth. Is that a problem?
No, it isn't a problem, you just seem to have trouble hearing.
Just what court case has the Globe Earth as a defendent or plantiff?

The case you are referring to seems to be Thomson vs Garcia, where Thomson lost, not Globe Earth.

All that indicates is that Thomson did not provide enough evidence of Earth being round, not that there is no evidence.

One person not presenting evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence.

However, in another case, long ago, a UK court (I think) ruled against a FE, stating that the evidence was provided was Earth to be round, or more specifically that the water surface of Old Bedford River curved.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Gumwars on October 11, 2019, 10:23:47 PM
However, in another case, long ago, a UK court (I think) ruled against a FE, stating that the evidence was provided was Earth to be round, or more specifically that the water surface of Old Bedford River curved.

Covered quite nicely in this article:

https://medium.com/@mjosefweber/the-bet-that-proved-the-earth-is-flat-3bc66aa4c20e
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 11, 2019, 11:32:34 PM
Who believed they proved Earth has curvature and who lost under a US Judge?

Are you incapable of reading the English language?  What part of my response do you not understand?  Is the extent of your rational capabilities this pedantic crap or are you actually able to think at all critically?

There was no evidence of curvature from a Globie. Case ruled against. What do you not understand?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 12, 2019, 12:27:51 AM
Who believed they proved Earth has curvature and who lost under a US Judge?

Are you incapable of reading the English language?  What part of my response do you not understand?  Is the extent of your rational capabilities this pedantic crap or are you actually able to think at all critically?

There was no evidence of curvature from a Globie. Case ruled against. What do you not understand?

What I understand is what gumwars already mentioned:

A small claims court in Barrow County, Georgia, found for the defendant regarding a contest put forth that (From Zen Garcia's FB page):
"Offering $5000 to any individual anywhere in the world, the payout was contingent on somebody submitting two scientifically repeatable experiments, which could verify the curvature of the earth according to the rate and accepted formula for determining such declination, should the earth be a sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference."

1) There was a dispute over the "verify the curvature of the earth according to the rate and accepted formula for determining such declination". Insofar that the defendant's accepted formula, 8 inches per mile squared, is not actually correct.
2) The Plaintiff submitted 2 YT videos for his submission as evidence to win the contest
3) The defendant rejected them
4) The Plaintiff then sued for $15k, why, I don't know
5) The contest was unwinnable to begin with, see #1
6) The judge determined there was not enough evidence provided by the plaintiff to win the contest and collect, I guess, damages on top.

I agree, I would have ruled against the Plaintiff as well.

This is akin to suing because you didn't win the giant stuffed panda bear at the 4H county fair after losing ten rounds of 'ring toss on the Coke bottle'.

If you FEr's want to cite this case as anything more than that, have at it. It's laughable and kinda sad at the same time.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 12, 2019, 12:43:38 AM
Who believed they proved Earth has curvature and who lost under a US Judge?

Are you incapable of reading the English language?  What part of my response do you not understand?  Is the extent of your rational capabilities this pedantic crap or are you actually able to think at all critically?

There was no evidence of curvature from a Globie. Case ruled against. What do you not understand?

What I understand is what gumwars already mentioned:

A small claims court in Barrow County, Georgia, found for the defendant regarding a contest put forth that (From Zen Garcia's FB page):
"Offering $5000 to any individual anywhere in the world, the payout was contingent on somebody submitting two scientifically repeatable experiments, which could verify the curvature of the earth according to the rate and accepted formula for determining such declination, should the earth be a sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference."

1) There was a dispute over the "verify the curvature of the earth according to the rate and accepted formula for determining such declination". Insofar that the defendant's accepted formula, 8 inches per mile squared, is not actually correct.
2) The Plaintiff submitted 2 YT videos for his submission as evidence to win the contest
3) The defendant rejected them
4) The Plaintiff then sued for $15k, why, I don't know
5) The contest was unwinnable to begin with, see #1
6) The judge determined there was not enough evidence provided by the plaintiff to win the contest and collect, I guess, damages on top.

I agree, I would have ruled against the Plaintiff as well.

This is akin to suing because you didn't win the giant stuffed panda bear at the 4H county fair after losing ten rounds of 'ring toss on the Coke bottle'.

If you FEr's want to cite this case as anything more than that, have at it. It's laughable and kinda sad at the same time.

You lost because you can't prove curvature.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 12, 2019, 12:51:29 AM
Who believed they proved Earth has curvature and who lost under a US Judge?

Are you incapable of reading the English language?  What part of my response do you not understand?  Is the extent of your rational capabilities this pedantic crap or are you actually able to think at all critically?

There was no evidence of curvature from a Globie. Case ruled against. What do you not understand?

What I understand is what gumwars already mentioned:

A small claims court in Barrow County, Georgia, found for the defendant regarding a contest put forth that (From Zen Garcia's FB page):
"Offering $5000 to any individual anywhere in the world, the payout was contingent on somebody submitting two scientifically repeatable experiments, which could verify the curvature of the earth according to the rate and accepted formula for determining such declination, should the earth be a sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference."

1) There was a dispute over the "verify the curvature of the earth according to the rate and accepted formula for determining such declination". Insofar that the defendant's accepted formula, 8 inches per mile squared, is not actually correct.
2) The Plaintiff submitted 2 YT videos for his submission as evidence to win the contest
3) The defendant rejected them
4) The Plaintiff then sued for $15k, why, I don't know
5) The contest was unwinnable to begin with, see #1
6) The judge determined there was not enough evidence provided by the plaintiff to win the contest and collect, I guess, damages on top.

I agree, I would have ruled against the Plaintiff as well.

This is akin to suing because you didn't win the giant stuffed panda bear at the 4H county fair after losing ten rounds of 'ring toss on the Coke bottle'.

If you FEr's want to cite this case as anything more than that, have at it. It's laughable and kinda sad at the same time.

You lost because you can't prove curvature.

Actually I don't have to because you proved curvature with this post:

(https://i.imgur.com/Mp7C7Ok.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/CkY3ALg.jpg)
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Mainframes on October 12, 2019, 12:53:33 AM
Who believed they proved Earth has curvature and who lost under a US Judge?

Are you incapable of reading the English language?  What part of my response do you not understand?  Is the extent of your rational capabilities this pedantic crap or are you actually able to think at all critically?

There was no evidence of curvature from a Globie. Case ruled against. What do you not understand?

What I understand is what gumwars already mentioned:

A small claims court in Barrow County, Georgia, found for the defendant regarding a contest put forth that (From Zen Garcia's FB page):
"Offering $5000 to any individual anywhere in the world, the payout was contingent on somebody submitting two scientifically repeatable experiments, which could verify the curvature of the earth according to the rate and accepted formula for determining such declination, should the earth be a sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference."

1) There was a dispute over the "verify the curvature of the earth according to the rate and accepted formula for determining such declination". Insofar that the defendant's accepted formula, 8 inches per mile squared, is not actually correct.
2) The Plaintiff submitted 2 YT videos for his submission as evidence to win the contest
3) The defendant rejected them
4) The Plaintiff then sued for $15k, why, I don't know
5) The contest was unwinnable to begin with, see #1
6) The judge determined there was not enough evidence provided by the plaintiff to win the contest and collect, I guess, damages on top.

I agree, I would have ruled against the Plaintiff as well.

This is akin to suing because you didn't win the giant stuffed panda bear at the 4H county fair after losing ten rounds of 'ring toss on the Coke bottle'.

If you FEr's want to cite this case as anything more than that, have at it. It's laughable and kinda sad at the same time.

You lost because you can't prove curvature.

A small court case lost because the plaintiff provided very limited and very poor evidence.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Denspressure on October 12, 2019, 01:22:37 AM
I know of only one short moment where the LRV was transmitting video while it was driving. Just when the antenna happened to be pointed at Earth:

http://apollo17.org?t=169:56:29

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Gumwars on October 12, 2019, 01:44:12 AM
Who believed they proved Earth has curvature and who lost under a US Judge?

Are you incapable of reading the English language?  What part of my response do you not understand?  Is the extent of your rational capabilities this pedantic crap or are you actually able to think at all critically?

There was no evidence of curvature from a Globie. Case ruled against. What do you not understand?

You're an idiot.  I can't stress this enough.  Only a completely ignorant fool would look at that ruling and arrive at the conclusion you've reached.  Either you have no reading comprehension skills or you are being deliberately dishonest.  It really is that simple.  Which is it?  Fool or liar?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: JackBlack on October 12, 2019, 02:12:34 AM
There was no evidence of curvature from a Globie.
And that doesn't mean that there is no evidence of curvature. All it means is that that globie didn't provide it.
What do you not understand?

You lost because you can't prove curvature.
I'm pretty sure Stash wasn't the one in the lawsuit. He didn't lose.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Smoke machine police on October 12, 2019, 02:24:55 AM
Who believed they proved Earth has curvature and who lost under a US Judge?

Are you incapable of reading the English language?  What part of my response do you not understand?  Is the extent of your rational capabilities this pedantic crap or are you actually able to think at all critically?

There was no evidence of curvature from a Globie. Case ruled against. What do you not understand?

A man failed to see he misunderstood the requirements of a competition. A court ruled against that man who lost that competition, and he wasn't entitled to collect $15,000.

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Plat Terra on October 12, 2019, 12:57:05 PM
Houston, again, we have a problem.  Another perfect Flat Earth Sunset was observed and recorded. These guys are killing us. Help us out here with another highly refracted sunset to cover this shit up.

Houston, do you copy?

Sun Fade Out #6

Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Stash on October 12, 2019, 01:21:25 PM
Houston, again, we have a problem.  Another perfect Flat Earth Sunset was observed and recorded. These guys are killing us. Help us out here with another highly refracted sunset to cover this shit up.

Houston, do you copy?

Sun Fade Out #6


I like how the author states that it is out of focus, but that doesn't matter. It does. And how using a solar filter doesn't matter. It does.

Solar filter sunset unexplained by FE:

(https://i.imgur.com/asHXWtu.png?1)



When you figure out how to get a 3000 mile high FE sun to set as observed by billions of people everyday, do let us know.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: JackBlack on October 12, 2019, 01:42:49 PM
Houston, again, we have a problem.  Another perfect Flat Earth Sunset was observed and recorded.
Really?
So the sun was observed to vanish high in the sky?
At least 10 degrees above the horizon (with the actual angle varying depending on where the observer is)?

No, it seems you have just got another example of a bunch of glare.
We can even see it disappear from the bottom up to some extent.

So instead of providing another FE sunset, you have provided another sunset which directly contradicts the FE model.

Again, if you want to avoid issues like this popping up and destroying your claims, stop using the sun. Use the moon instead, preferably a full moon.
That way you can clearly show it is well resolved and not being caused by glare or the like.
But I suppose then you can't dishonestly present reality as supporting a FE and would only be able to show moonsets consistent with a RE.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: SomeDutchGuy on October 12, 2019, 02:08:57 PM
Houston, again, we have a problem.  Another perfect Flat Earth Sunset was observed and recorded. These guys are killing us. Help us out here with another highly refracted sunset to cover this shit up.

Houston, do you copy?

Sun Fade Out #6


Have you ever been to the beach during sunrise or sunset?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Gumwars on October 12, 2019, 03:09:04 PM
Houston, again, we have a problem.  Another perfect Flat Earth Sunset was observed and recorded. These guys are killing us. Help us out here with another highly refracted sunset to cover this shit up.

Houston, do you copy?

Sun Fade Out #6


How many threads do you need to start, bring up the same shit, and get shut down on before you give up the ghost and admit you are just trolling?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Themightykabool on October 12, 2019, 03:30:24 PM
Houston, again, we have a problem.  Another perfect Flat Earth Sunset was observed and recorded. These guys are killing us. Help us out here with another highly refracted sunset to cover this shit up.

Houston, do you copy?

Sun Fade Out #6


Sad you have to wait for only the perfect conditions with whcih to apply your theory.
How feeble and weak the model is.
...And to still fail
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: rvlvr on October 12, 2019, 10:52:54 PM
Houston, again, we have a problem.  Another perfect Flat Earth Sunset was observed and recorded. These guys are killing us. Help us out here with another highly refracted sunset to cover this shit up.

Houston, do you copy?

Sun Fade Out #6


Have you ever been to the beach during sunrise or sunset?
I doubt he has. YouTube is his window to the world.
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Unconvinced on October 13, 2019, 07:31:10 AM
I know of only one short moment where the LRV was transmitting video while it was driving. Just when the antenna happened to be pointed at Earth:

http://apollo17.org?t=169:56:29



Cheers.  Wasn’t aware of that one.  Didn’t think they attempted  any transmissions at all.

So a very fuzzy image for a couple of seconds before losing the signal again.

Seems pretty much exactly what dutchy (and presumably the “TOP photographer and film maker”) claimed should have happened with the film footage that was so obviously not a transmission in the first place.

Not looking great for the credibility of the American Moon video, is it?
Title: Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
Post by: Unconvinced on October 13, 2019, 07:49:50 AM
Houston, again, we have a problem.  Another perfect Flat Earth Sunset was observed and recorded. These guys are killing us. Help us out here with another highly refracted sunset to cover this shit up.

Houston, do you copy?

Sun Fade Out #6


“NASA, it’s f&%cking bulls#it!” - Iru Landucci

Wow.  What a deep and meaningful quote to include in the video.

I feel this adds real gravitas to the argument.  Whoever this Iru Landucci is, you can tell he/she has really done their homework.  How can us roundies possibly respond to that?

;)