Project Apollo Reference

  • 23 Replies
  • 5006 Views
?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Project Apollo Reference
« on: January 19, 2008, 07:44:02 PM »
Quote from: 17 November
Quote from: Optimus Prime
Also, to clarify for me... you do *not* accept the fact that we landed on the moon am I correct?

Quote from: 17 November
You are correct.  I do not believe that men have physically landed on the moon.  
I will post a list which I compiled a while back of a few others who also do not believe this story.

And here it is:

The classic expose of the Apollo moon travel hoax is 'We Never Went to the Moon' by Bill Kaysing (1975).  Bill Kaysing worked for the "space" program (for the Rocketdyne Corporation) back in the 1950's and 1960's, and he was a well informed authority on the subject having studied it for decades.  The following website distributes many older books and videos debunking the space hoax by Bill Kaysing and others including 'We Never Went to the Moon' (1975 and subsequent editions) by Bill Kaysing, informative interviews of Bill Kaysing, official NASA "space" videos including all of the Apollo videos and several relevant contemporaneous NASA publications.  This website along with David Percy's website listed below are the best two websites debunking NASA's Apollo Moon travel hoax that we have come across:
http://www.weirdvideos.com/index2.html

  The following link is a synopsis of the case debunking the moon landing hoax by the late Bill Kaysing (1922-2005):
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/moon.html

  Bill Kaysing's expose of the Moon landing hoax was first published by Eden Press in 1975, and the Moon landing hoax has not been repeated since.  NASA stopped producing Apollo video movies depicting alleged interstellar travel to the Moon after 1974.

  Dr. David Groves, Ph.D. works for Quantech Image Processing and worked on some of the NASA photos. He said he can pinpoint the exact point at which the artificial light was used. Using the focal length of the camera's lens and an actual boot, he has calculated (using ray-tracing) that the artificial light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera

  'Capricorn One,' written and directed by Peter Hyams (an associate of Arthur Clarke who collaborated with him for the movie 2010), is a 1978 movie starring Elliott Gould and O.J. Simpson about a faked mission to the Moon.  'Capricorn One' is also available through the aforementioned website:
http://www.weirdvideos.com/index2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One

  'Dark Moon:  Apollo and the Whistle Blowers' by British authors David Percy and Mary Bennett is the most comprehensive expose (well in excess of 500 pages) I have encountered concerning the moon landing hoax.  They also produced a two-and-a-half hour documentary movie entitled 'What Happened On the Moon.'  The 'Fortean Times' states that David Percy's 1997 'Astro-Nots' article generated more feedback than any other article in the journal's history.  David Percy's books and videos can be obtained through the Aulis Publishers website.  The website also contains many articles debunking the Apollo program and other space related material by Percy, Bennett, and other writers:  
http://www.aulis.com/index.htm

  'Dark Moon' can also be obtained through its american publisher:
http://store.adventuresunlimitedpress.com/store.lasso?sub=detail&sid=C1943459A9EA45&item=1245

  Bart Sibrel, an american producer, directed the documentary movie 'A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.'  The documentary is available through his website which also contains information exposing moon landing propaganda.  Sibrel made a follow-up documentary entitled 'Asdtronauts Gone Wild' which includes personal interviews by Baret Sibrel with several of the astronauts including Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.  At the very beginning of the documentary, Aldrin is so eager to avoid discussion of the subject that he hit Sibrel in the face, a spontaneous and violent act which is non-sensical unless Aldrin felt unable to face Sibrel's questions.
http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7284336491671901968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronauts_Gone_Wild

  'Was It Only A Paper Moon?' is a DVD video documentary by James Collier that debunks the moon landing claims which can be obtained from the following website along with other material by Collier:
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/moon/

  Ralph Rene's website which includes his book 'NASA Mooned America':
http://www.rene-r.com/

  Masonic symbolism used by NASA is also part of the subject of the following essay by the Venezuelan flat earther:
http://geocities.com/levelwater/mathlies03.html

  Goddard's Journal is a website which has a section exposing the Moon landing hoax:
http://users.erols.com/igoddard/moon01.htm

  An informative article by Byron Lebeau who investigated the other exposes listed here is contained on the MAAR website:
http://www.maar.us/nasa_mooned_us.html

'Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program' by William Brian
www.amazon.com/Moongate-Suppressed-Findings-Space-Program/dp/0941292002

'How America Faked the Moon Landings' by Charles T. Hawkins
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6477886391235654973&q=faked+moon
 
'Moon Landings: Did NASA Lie?' and
'Lumières sur la Lune (Lights on the Moon): La NASA a t-elle menti!'
by Philippe Lheureux
www.world-mysteries.com/nasa1.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1399132.stm
 
Jan Lundberg - Hasselblad technician
 
Howard McCurdy - American University space historian
 
Jack White - American photo historian known for his attempt to prove forgery in photos related to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy

Marcus Allen - British publisher of Nexus magazine said that photographs of the lander would not prove that the US put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem - the Russians did that in 1959 - the big problem is getting people there."

Clyde Lewis - Ground Zero Radio
www.clydelewis.com
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The following sites of interest have already been posted courtesy of "Goodfriend."  They are reposted here with the objetive of consolidating the space hoax resources in one post:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
http://batesmotel.8m.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The following article is a synopsis of the controversy over the existence of Moon travel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'How the CIA Manufactures History'

A study of how false history is manufactured and propagated by the US Central Intellignce Agency has been written by former agent Victor Marchetti (author of The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, 1973):
www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/9/3/Marchetti305-320.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  As part of the hoax, the following sites endorse the moon landing propaganda:

  As can be inferred from its name, the website of Phil Plait, the most prominent of this lot of NASA apologists, consists of unsubstantiated claims, faulty logic, and generally all around "bad astronomy":
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

 Other defenders of the fantasy of Moon travel:
http://www.clavius.org/
http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/index.html
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm?list45245
www.moonhoax.com


  The Project Apollo Archive sells the NASA Apollo videos:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/

  Last and certainly least is NASA's official website:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html?skipIntro=1

?

Bushido

Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2008, 07:45:51 PM »
Bullshit, just as everything else you have posted.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2008, 07:46:58 PM »
tl, dr.  Enough said.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2008, 08:20:33 PM »
Quote from: 17 November
As can be inferred from its name, the website of Phil Plait, the most prominent of this lot of NASA apologists, consists of unsubstantiated claims, faulty logic, and generally all around "bad astronomy":
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

 Other defenders of the fantasy of Moon travel:
http://www.clavius.org/
http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/index.html
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm?list45245
www.moonhoax.com

Quote from: Bushido
Bullshit, just as everything else you have posted.

I concur.  That is an accurate description of these websites.

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2008, 09:01:55 PM »
The main problem with people like you that either just love to debate the point and see if you can get a rise out of people (which I believe is your category... you're not near decisive or fanatic enough to be a naysayer) or actually believe we never made it to the moon, is that for some reason - you have some sort of issue with humans having the ability.

I would like to know. Sources and websites, etc... all that aside. Why it is that you personally believe we never went to the moon. Do you think we didn't have the technology? Do you think it's simply not possible? Do you think the moon is a disc or too small to land on perhaps?

I'd just like to know what your personal thoughts are - *not someone else's* - on why you think we never made it to the moon.

In return, I will be happy to give my reasons on why I think it is / was possible that we made it to the moon.
Dyslexics are teople poo!

?

Bushido

Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2008, 09:08:08 PM »

In fact, I'm going to sig it.  ;)

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2008, 10:06:37 PM »
Quote from: Optimus Prime
I would like to know. Sources and websites, etc... all that aside. Why it is that you personally believe we never went to the moon. Do you think we didn't have the technology? Do you think it's simply not possible? Do you think the moon is a disc or too small to land on perhaps?
When investigating geocentric cosmology due to biblical motivation several years ago, due to Rowbotham's book and a number of other factors such as Cosmas Indicopleustes and the early Church, I became convinced that the Earth was flat.  I thought that Charles Johnson was extreme at first and was only interested in geocentrism, but not knowing of spherical geocentric sources at the time I eventually read Cosmas Indicopleustes and Samuel Rowbotham.  After reading Rowbotham's book in pareticular, the question of the veracity of the Moon landings came to mind.  I had no doubt that some writers had refuted this, and I was right.  For what it's worth, I had correspondence with Bill Kaysing before he died.

As to what I believe about the Moon, it is a ball of fire which emits like just like the Sun as per the first chapter of Genesis.

?

Germanicus

  • 485
  • Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2008, 01:50:53 PM »
Quote
As to what I believe about the Moon, it is a ball of fire which emits like just like the Sun as per the first chapter of Genesis.

Genesis also states that the world was made in seven days. Carbon dating and astronomical observations prove otherwise. It also said man lived at the same time as all other creatures. Then why are there no humans in the bellies of T-rex's. Also, you most idiotic claim that the moon is fire is disputed by the fact that in lunar cycles half of the moon would have to literally go out and start up again later.

Lastly, what makes the bible any more true than other religions/

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2008, 03:28:12 PM »
Quote from: Germanicus
Genesis also states that the world was made in seven days. Carbon dating and astronomical observations prove otherwise.

Wrong.
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMk11.htm

To be more technical, the moon itself is a vehicle for light as a lamp is a vehicle for displaying light.  The fact that the Moon has phases does indeed prove that the Moon is not a ball of fire, but a vehicle for its light.

By the same token, one learns about the Sun by applying this knowledge deduced from the Moon.  The Sun is a vehicle for light as well as the chariot symbol accurately portrays it.

?

Germanicus

  • 485
  • Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2008, 03:47:35 PM »
You archaic fool. Cosmological backround radiation proves the big bang.

Also
Quote
As to what I believe about the Moon, it is a ball of fire

Quote
The fact that the Moon has phases does indeed prove that the Moon is not a ball of fire


*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2008, 06:31:35 PM »

When investigating geocentric cosmology due to biblical motivation several years ago, due to Rowbotham's book and a number of other factors such as Cosmas Indicopleustes and the early Church, I became convinced that the Earth was flat.  I thought that Charles Johnson was extreme at first and was only interested in geocentrism, but not knowing of spherical geocentric sources at the time I eventually read Cosmas Indicopleustes and Samuel Rowbotham.  After reading Rowbotham's book in pareticular, the question of the veracity of the Moon landings came to mind.  I had no doubt that some writers had refuted this, and I was right.  For what it's worth, I had correspondence with Bill Kaysing before he died.

As to what I believe about the Moon, it is a ball of fire which emits like just like the Sun as per the first chapter of Genesis.

Fair enough. The reasons I believe the moon is not simply a ball of fire, nor emits its own radiative light is very simple.
I've been a HAM radio operator for nearly.. 13 years now I think? I've worked in all sorts of related fields, and I will leave any professors or studies aside like I originally said I would.

It would not be possible to perform radio communications by bouncing signals off the moon, with the delays that happen if it were the distance and size that you speak of. The radio signals themselves would also be lost amongst the Moon's radiation if it were emitting similar radiative light such as the Sun as you imply.

There are other reasons, but this one is enough I think. I don't want to bore the rest of the forum with this. Simply put, radio communications to distant places on the earth from one point to the other, via the moon, are not possible without the "round earth" description of at least close to it's currently described size and position in space relative to earth.

That's it. Agree to disagree I suppose.

- Optimus
Dyslexics are teople poo!

Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2008, 03:33:45 AM »
Genesis also states that the world was made in seven days.
And on the seventh day He rested.

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2008, 07:13:28 AM »
Genesis also states that the world was made in seven days.
And on the seventh day He rested.

Actually it states 6000 years after one has read Peter:

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that One Day is with the Lord as a Thousand Years, and a Thousand Years as One Day.
Dyslexics are teople poo!

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2008, 07:58:09 PM »

When investigating geocentric cosmology due to biblical motivation several years ago, due to Rowbotham's book and a number of other factors such as Cosmas Indicopleustes and the early Church, I became convinced that the Earth was flat.  I thought that Charles Johnson was extreme at first and was only interested in geocentrism, but not knowing of spherical geocentric sources at the time I eventually read Cosmas Indicopleustes and Samuel Rowbotham.  After reading Rowbotham's book in pareticular, the question of the veracity of the Moon landings came to mind.  I had no doubt that some writers had refuted this, and I was right.  For what it's worth, I had correspondence with Bill Kaysing before he died.

As to what I believe about the Moon, it is a ball of fire which emits like just like the Sun as per the first chapter of Genesis.

Fair enough. The reasons I believe the moon is not simply a ball of fire, nor emits its own radiative light is very simple.
I've been a HAM radio operator for nearly.. 13 years now I think? I've worked in all sorts of related fields, and I will leave any professors or studies aside like I originally said I would.

It would not be possible to perform radio communications by bouncing signals off the moon, with the delays that happen if it were the distance and size that you speak of. The radio signals themselves would also be lost amongst the Moon's radiation if it were emitting similar radiative light such as the Sun as you imply.

There are other reasons, but this one is enough I think. I don't want to bore the rest of the forum with this. Simply put, radio communications to distant places on the earth from one point to the other, via the moon, are not possible without the "round earth" description of at least close to it's currently described size and position in space relative to earth.

That's it. Agree to disagree I suppose.

- Optimus


Thank all that is good that there is someone with some first hand knowledge on why the earth must be round. Notice, there was no explicit desire to show the earth is round, pure and simple facts that give credence to the RE theory. He's not here to prove that the moon is not anything like the sun because they like the idea, it's because it works with life. Radio signals travel in predictable ways and have never been shown to do anything different. It is science and it so far has not been refuted with any evidence. I really hope someone here can give some evidence against the moon/radio proof. Not conjecture or some Universal Force that swings the signal back to earth or that the top of the earth has some kind of barrier that doesn't allow radio signals through, I want evidence.

Let's see it...
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2008, 10:43:25 PM »
Quote from: Benocrates
Radio signals travel in predictable ways and have never been shown to do anything different. It is science and it so far has not been refuted with any evidence. I really hope someone here can give some evidence against the moon/radio proof. Not conjecture or some Universal Force that swings the signal back to earth or that the top of the earth has some kind of barrier that doesn't allow radio signals through, I want evidence.

Let's see it...

Everything I have ever investigated has confirmed that the Earth is overall flat as opposed to spherical.  I confess that I have not investigated radio scientific theory very much.  However, I am guessing that you will more easily pardon my ignorance than you will agree with my approach.  (I suspect that the point of contention could be a theory widely taken for granted.) Anyway, I have two questions...

First, I request you post a reference or references with information relating to radio signals reflected from the moon which you believe are relevant.

Second, please explain briefly or succinctly why radio signals in relation to the moon serve as a proof for you that the world is round.

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2008, 10:24:46 AM »
I'll just start off here and give as much information as I can since I don't know much about radio signals either.

    In regards to you not knowing anything about radio signals, that in and of itself is fine. However I would claim that due to the wealth of evidence for a RE and a lack of evidence for a conspiracy to fake that evidence we have to give the burden of proof to the FE theorists to prove their model. If they chose not to do that then fine, but they can never claim to be correct. Hopefully someone will post the actual evidence for the moon radio theory in technical detail so we can present our case even when not forced to yet.

     From what I can logically deduce about the radio signal test and why it proves a RE theory it seems that it is more likely to disprove current FE theory. I would say that this is a significant enough point to bring down therefore questioning the entire theory. If is most often claimed, also in this thread, that the moon is flat (or even spherical) and moves around the earth at such close a distance that only some areas of the earth can see it at a time. Also, that the moon is a ununiformed source of light based on some kind of fusion or a mystery force.

   It seems that the notion of bouncing a radio signal off the moon and that signal returning to the earth the the exact time it would take for a radio signal to travil the distance REers claim the moon is, also being different from a FE model. Also, I am willing to bet you can bounce the signal off the moon at a certain angle and predict where it will return to earth based on angles and other maths. You would have to admit that proof of this phenomenon would lead to a shattering of the FE model.

Oh, and your not allowed to just change everything you think if this turns out bad for you, no new moon models based on pure conjecture. Go measure something and show us, lol.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

Dead Kangaroo

  • FES' Anchor Roo
  • The Elder Ones
  • 4551
  • K800 Model 101.
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2008, 10:40:12 AM »
Nuclear power stations would be pretty nifty on the moon.

?

Chase_the_Bass

  • 170
  • Musical Master
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2008, 12:48:50 PM »
Genesis also states that the world was made in seven days.
And on the seventh day He rested.

Actually it states 6000 years after one has read Peter:

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that One Day is with the Lord as a Thousand Years, and a Thousand Years as One Day.

That could just be a more poetic way of saying that God is not confined by the conventions of time. So it could be millions, billions of years.
A painter paints pictures on canvas.  But musicians paint their pictures on silence.  ~Leopold Stokowski

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2008, 06:55:15 PM »
I saw a guy try to simulate the rockets on the moon with a leaf blower on earth. He said they would cause the same movement of dirt.

He also claimed you should be able to see stars in the background from a camera picture on the moon with the sun hitting it. That would be a very good contrast setting, brightly lit objects, AND small points of light. Me want.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2008, 07:44:09 PM »
Quote from: Benocrates
I would claim that due to the wealth of evidence for a RE and a lack of evidence for a conspiracy to fake that evidence we have to give the burden of proof to the FE theorists to prove their model.
I do not concur with these claims, but it is no big deal as I figured you would believe as such which is fine.  We can agree to disagree on this which is actually what I expected.

Quote from: Benocrates
It seems that the notion of bouncing a radio signal off the moon and that signal returning to the earth the exact time it would take for a radio signal to travel the distance REers claim the moon is, also being different from a FE model.

Before we examine statistics, it is apparent we perhaps have some significant diffferences in approach.  I have two comments reguarding this statement.

First, "IF" radio signals can indeed be bounced back from the Moon with the amount of time giving a measure of the distance (which is a question in itself - perhaps this is true but I am largely ignorant of this science as I have already stated), then the difference between the two models would be more a matter of a difference in the DISTANCE of the moon from the Earth rather than the shape of the Earth.  In other words, the 200,000 miles claimes by most modern astronomers or the 3000 miles or even 700 miles claimed by most flat Earth believers.  I should point out that belief in the closeness of the stars is a characteristic of some spherical geocentrists.

Second, as to the ability of radio signals themselves to determine distance (irreguardless of which of our views is correct), my understanding is that it is based on the alleged wavelengths of a given frequency.  I have read that the wave theory itself is just that - a nineteenth century THEORY.  I am certainly not denying that signals exist, but a hypothetical distance or model serving as the basis for alleged facts which are claimed to crush an opponents theory is rather flimsy in my opinion.  Again, someone with more technical knowledge of radio signals themselves and/or their history is more than welcome to comment on this.
 
Quote from: Benocrates
I am willing to bet you can bounce the signal off the moon at a certain angle and predict where it will return to earth based on angles and other maths.
So far I see no reason why this is not possible, but I am not at all afraid of statistical reality being a threat to flat Earth science as I am convinced that it would support it.  However, I am concerned about the habitual misrepresentation of statistics to accomodate a deeply ingrained or prejudiced viewpoint.

Quote from: Benocrates
You would have to admit that proof of this phenomenon would lead to a shattering of the FE model.
If proof of this phenomenon confirmed a flat Earth model, would you admit that it shattered round Earth theory?

Quote from: Benocrates
your not allowed to just change everything you think if this turns out bad for you, no new moon models based on pure conjecture.
The view of the Moon which I posited as a ball of fire which I qualified upon close questioning to be technically only a vehicle for the light rather than the light itself is a view which I have held a long time as I first learned of it from Saint Basil's 'Hexameron' which I have posted a link to in the Flat Earth Believers section long before this discussion took place.  In other words, I have held the view of the Moon itself as technically a vehicle for light for a long time.  I did not just make it up on the spot to win an argument as finding such details buried in the works of stuff like Saint Basil requires more time than a quick fix in an internet debate can tolerate.  I cannot vouch for others, but my views are the same as they have been for a while.  Of course, if you point out a genuine fault in my reasoning or facts, I would intend to correct it.

*

sokarul

  • 18473
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2008, 08:22:35 PM »


Quote from: Benocrates
It seems that the notion of bouncing a radio signal off the moon and that signal returning to the earth the exact time it would take for a radio signal to travel the distance REers claim the moon is, also being different from a FE model.

Before we examine statistics, it is apparent we perhaps have some significant diffferences in approach.  I have two comments reguarding this statement.

First, "IF" radio signals can indeed be bounced back from the Moon with the amount of time giving a measure of the distance (which is a question in itself - perhaps this is true but I am largely ignorant of this science as I have already stated),
We all know that.  "Atoms don't exist."
Quote
then the difference between the two models would be more a matter of a difference in the DISTANCE of the moon from the Earth rather than the shape of the Earth.  In other words, the 200,000 miles claimes by most all modern astronomers or the 3000 miles or even 700 miles claimed by most flat Earth believers.  I should point out that belief in the closeness of the stars is a characteristic of some spherical geocentrists.
Fixed and the moon being so far away disproves the FE.
Quote
Second, as to the ability of radio signals themselves to determine distance (irreguardless of which of our views is correct), my understanding is that it is based on the alleged wavelengths of a given frequency.  I have read that the wave theory itself is just that - a nineteenth century THEORY.  I am certainly not denying that signals exist, but a hypothetical distance or model serving as the basis for alleged facts which are claimed to crush an opponents theory is rather flimsy in my opinion.  Again, someone with more technical knowledge of radio signals themselves and/or their history is more than welcome to comment on this.
What do you want to know about them?  They all travel at the same speed, the speed of light.  Their energy differs by frequency though.  To use frequency to measure a distance all you do is time the time it takes for the signal to hit the moon and then come back.
 
Quote from: Benocrates
I am willing to bet you can bounce the signal off the moon at a certain angle and predict where it will return to earth based on angles and other maths.
So far I see no reason why this is not possible, but I am not at all afraid of statistical reality being a threat to flat Earth science as I am convinced that it would support it.  However, I am concerned about the habitual misrepresentation of statistics to accomodate a deeply ingrained or prejudiced viewpoint.

Quote from: Benocrates
You would have to admit that proof of this phenomenon would lead to a shattering of the FE model.
If proof of this phenomenon confirmed a flat Earth model, would you admit that it shattered round Earth theory?

Quote from: Benocrates
your not allowed to just change everything you think if this turns out bad for you, no new moon models based on pure conjecture.
Quote
The view of the Moon which I posited as a ball of fire which I qualified upon close questioning to be technically only a vehicle for the light rather than the light itself is a view which I have held a long time as I first learned of it from Saint Basil's 'Hexameron' which I have posted a link to in the Flat Earth Believers section long before this discussion took place.  In other words, I have held the view of the Moon itself as technically a vehicle for light for a long time.  I did not just make it up on the spot to win an argument as finding such details buried in the works of stuff like Saint Basil requires more time than a quick fix in an internet debate can tolerate.  I cannot vouch for others, but my views are the same as they have been for a while.  Of course, if you point out a genuine fault in my reasoning or facts, I would intend to correct it.
Everything you say is a fault, from your views on every religion thats not your own, to using 10 AD ideas 2000 years later, to ignoring evidence that disproves you.   
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2008, 09:13:32 PM »
Quote from: sokarul
To use frequency to measure a distance all you do is time the time it takes for the signal to hit the moon and then come back.
Thanks. Now we're getting somewhere. 
Since we can determine distance by clocking the return time if we know the constant speed leads to this question:
What is the evidence that these frequencies actually travel at 186,000 miles per hour?

Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Project Apollo Reference
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2008, 06:10:35 AM »
lol, I can't figure out if this guy is a total nutter or elaborate troll. I'm leaning towards nutter....
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness