what about these facts

1.You can go from America to China either by going east or by going west. How does that not proof the world is round?
2.When it is day time in america, it is night time in Israel, how is that not a proof that the world is round?
3.When is is winter time in the USA. it is summer in Australia. How is that not a proof that the world is round?
4.NASA is not the only one that has satellites that takes pictures of the earth, Russia have them, China have them, are they all together in this?

Here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0

if the sun light is a spotlight, then how come it is more like a straight line,?
if there are no satellites, how come there is TV services that uses satellites, they are also in this "conspiracy"?
how come there is not evidence for the "ice wall"? 

if the sun light is a spotlight, then how come it is more like a straight line,?
if there are no satellites, how come there is TV services that uses satellites, they are also in this "conspiracy"?
how come there is not evidence for the "ice wall"?

How come what is more like a straight line?
Evidence? Regardless, no.
Walls of ice have been seen

Quote from: pelegdru on February 21, 2012, 03:24:55 PM

if the sun light is a spotlight, then how come it is more like a straight line,?
if there are no satellites, how come there is TV services that uses satellites, they are also in this "conspiracy"?
how come there is not evidence for the "ice wall"?

How come what is more like a straight line?
Evidence? Regardless, no.
Walls of ice have been seen

the effect of the sun's light is more like a straight line rather than a spotlight. that's why as you go south it does not change but when you go east it does. "spot light" cannot explain that.
also, you claim no one ever landed on the moon, than how did the light reflectors get there?

the effect of the sun's light is more like a straight line rather than a spotlight. that's why as you go south it does not change but when you go east it does. "spot light" cannot explain that.

Please clarify.

also, you claim no one ever landed on the moon, than how did the light reflectors get there?

They didn't get there.

The Lunar Ranging experiments are a hoax NASA uses in attempt to "prove" their scam.

you can claim all you want that the reflectors are not that, it won't change the fact that they are there.

Quote from: pelegdru on February 21, 2012, 03:52:08 PM

the effect of the sun's light is more like a straight line rather than a spotlight. that's why as you go south it does not change but when you go east it does. "spot light" cannot explain that.

Please clarify.

Quote

also, you claim no one ever landed on the moon, than how did the light reflectors get there?

They didn't get there.

The Lunar Ranging experiments are a hoax NASA uses in attempt to "prove" their scam.

Please prove that every experiment to detect the reflectors your mysterious conspiracy modified.

The moon is shiny. If you can bounce sunlight off it, you can bounce lasers of it. You can't have it both ways.

The moon is shiny. If you can bounce sunlight off it, you can bounce lasers of it. You can't have it both ways.

Wrong, as usual. Bouncing is not reflecting directly back without significant loss of intensity. But you knew that.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Retroreflectors.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2012, 03:58:15 PM

Quote from: pelegdru on February 21, 2012, 03:52:08 PM

the effect of the sun's light is more like a straight line rather than a spotlight. that's why as you go south it does not change but when you go east it does. "spot light" cannot explain that.

Please clarify.

Quote

also, you claim no one ever landed on the moon, than how did the light reflectors get there?

They didn't get there.

The Lunar Ranging experiments are a hoax NASA uses in attempt to "prove" their scam.

Please prove that every experiment to detect the reflectors your mysterious conspiracy modified.

The two Lunar Ranging observatories NASA often cites are the APOLLO (the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation), as discussed in my first link, and the McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments.

Like the first lunar ranging observatory, the McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments are also funded by NASA. See: http://www.archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19750066483/19750066483#page/n0/mode/2up

Flip to the second page and you will find "This work is supported by NASA Grant NGR-44-012-165"

Bouncing is not reflecting directly back without significant loss of intensity.

So the moon isn't shiny? Because it seems shiny to me. Very shiny. I mean that's only a Zetetic observation of course. You will no doubt tell me my eyes are lying to me and really I am staring at the face of God, or a cosmic finger painting or its just cataracts etc. but when I look at the moon, I'm convinced that its shiny.

Also, what Tom said.

The two Lunar Ranging observatories NASA often cites are the APOLLO (the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation), as discussed in my first link, and the McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments.

The McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments are also funded by NASA. See: http://www.archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19750066483/19750066483#page/n0/mode/2up

Flip to the second page and you will find "This work is supported by NASA Grant NGR-44-012-165"

So you have innuendo about two observatories. Now try again with proof for all experiments using the all of the lunar retroreflectors (from Apollo 11, 14 or 15, and Lunokhod 1 and 2.)

Quote from: ClockTower on February 21, 2012, 04:13:13 PM

Bouncing is not reflecting directly back without significant loss of intensity.

So the moon isn't shiny? Because it seems shiny to me. Very shiny. I mean that's only a Zetetic observation of course. You will no doubt tell me my eyes are lying to me and really I am staring at the face of God, or a cosmic finger painting or its just cataracts etc. but when I look at the moon, I'm convinced that its shiny.

Also, what Tom said.

So what if the Moon is shiny? Why would lasers bounce back to their origin on Earth at the expected time interval from a 'shiny' Moon?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2012, 04:13:51 PM

The two Lunar Ranging observatories NASA often cites are the APOLLO (the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation), as discussed in my first link, and the McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments.

The McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments are also funded by NASA. See: http://www.archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19750066483/19750066483#page/n0/mode/2up

Flip to the second page and you will find "This work is supported by NASA Grant NGR-44-012-165"

So you have innuendo about two observatories. Now try again with proof for all experiments using the all of the lunar retroreflectors (from Apollo 11, 14 or 15, and Lunokhod 1 and 2.)

Which other lunar ranging observatories are you referencing? Those are the main two that NASA cites when confronted with accusations of scam. The other one they cite is the Goddard Laser Ranging Facility, which is owned and operated by NASA themselves.

How very convenient of NASA, when defending its scam with Lunar Ranging claims, to neglect to disclose they they themselves fund those experiments.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 21, 2012, 04:19:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2012, 04:13:51 PM

The two Lunar Ranging observatories NASA often cites are the APOLLO (the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation), as discussed in my first link, and the McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments.

The McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments are also funded by NASA. See: http://www.archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19750066483/19750066483#page/n0/mode/2up

Flip to the second page and you will find "This work is supported by NASA Grant NGR-44-012-165"

So you have innuendo about two observatories. Now try again with proof for all experiments using the all of the lunar retroreflectors (from Apollo 11, 14 or 15, and Lunokhod 1 and 2.)

Which other lunar ranging observatories are you referencing? Those are the main two that NASA cites when confronted with accusations of scam.

They very conveniently neglect to disclose they they themselves fund those experiments.

What? You're making the conclusion that the mysterious conspiracy has contrived all of the observatories involved and you've not checked all of them? That's not very zetetic of you!

1) Côte d'Azur Observatory
2) Crimean Astrophysical Observatory
3) MIT
4) Starfire Optical Range
5) and others that I'll leave you to deal with.

Happy hunting!

The Lunar Ranging experiments are a hoax NASA uses in attempt to "prove" their scam.

All of Tom Bishop's claims were systemically and comprehensively disproved in the thread linked above. His groping around is quite entertaining and I recommend reading it to everyone.

What? You're making the conclusion that the mysterious conspiracy has contrived all of the observatories involved and you've not checked all of them? That's not very zetetic of you!

1) Côte d'Azur Observatory
2) Crimean Astrophysical Observatory
3) MIT
4) Starfire Optical Range
5) and others that I'll leave you to deal with.

Happy hunting!

I am unable to find webpages for the lunar ranging experiments from those observatories. Please provide the appropriate sources and we can proceed.

The last one on your list is at a US Airforce Base.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2012, 03:58:15 PM

The Lunar Ranging experiments are a hoax NASA uses in attempt to "prove" their scam.

All of Tom Bishop's claims were systemically and comprehensively disproved in the thread linked above. His groping around is quite entertaining and I recommend reading it to everyone.

This is false. APOLLO is NASA funded and you know it. Your attempts at claiming that 'funded does not mean controlled' is also false. Funding means control by default. NASA employees are also on the project.

This is false. APOLLO is NASA funded and you know it. Your attempts at claiming that 'funded does not mean controlled' is also false. Funding means control by default. NASA employees are also on the project.

Tom, how many times do I have to tell you, don't be so dishonest as to repeat arguments that have already been countered as if it never happened. You claimed that NASA headed the project and NASA created the software. I investigated these claims and they were false -- all of them. The project is well-documented and we know who headed it and who created the software. It was done by the University of California, San Diego, not NASA.

NASA wasn't the only one who supported the project. Obviously all the organizations who donated can't simultaneously be in charge.

Your "debate" consists of making up stories about what might have been, like this:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 22, 2011, 09:18:31 AM

NASA is the customer and can easily say "we want the software to be developed by our external team" or "we want NASA employee John Smith to head this program".

This kind of speculation might be appropriate in regards to future projects, but not this. This already happened 6 years ago. We know who developed the software, and we know the project leader is Tom Murphy, also from UCSD like Eric.

Your speculations are irrelevant. They aren't reality.

Stop making shit up.

Tom, how many times do I have to tell you, don't be so dishonest as to repeat arguments that have already been countered as if it never happened. You claimed that NASA headed the project and NASA created the software. I investigated these claims and they were false -- all of them. The project is well-documented and we know who headed it and who created the software. It was done by the University of California, San Diego, not NASA.

It doesn't matter if NASA or the website documents claim that the Burger King programmed the lunar ranging software at Burger King University over one weekend for fun.

It's still a NASA funded project and therefore NASA controls the end result.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 21, 2012, 04:32:47 PM

What? You're making the conclusion that the mysterious conspiracy has contrived all of the observatories involved and you've not checked all of them? That's not very zetetic of you!

1) Côte d'Azur Observatory
2) Crimean Astrophysical Observatory
3) MIT
4) Starfire Optical Range
5) and others that I'll leave you to deal with.

Happy hunting!

I am unable to find webpages for the lunar ranging experiments from those observatories. Please provide the appropriate sources and we can proceed.

The last one on your list is at a US Airforce Base.

So you haven't addressed all of the experiments? Why do you keep jumping to conclusions without all of the facts?

I found those in five minutes by Goggling "lunar retroreflector experiments". Like I said: Happy Hunting.

Quote from: zarg on February 21, 2012, 04:36:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2012, 03:58:15 PM

The Lunar Ranging experiments are a hoax NASA uses in attempt to "prove" their scam.

All of Tom Bishop's claims were systemically and comprehensively disproved in the thread linked above. His groping around is quite entertaining and I recommend reading it to everyone.

This is false. APOLLO is NASA funded and you know it. Your attempts at claiming that 'funded does not mean controlled' is also false. Funding means control by default. NASA employees are also on the project.

Your attempt at claiming that any funding means nefarious and fraudulent control is unsupported and, frankly, paranoid.

When I give a dollar to a beggar, I have no control over how he or she spends it.
When the Defense Logistics Agency awards to Northrop Grumman Corporation a $14 million contract over 12 months on a firm, fixed price basis, the Government contracts only for the deliverable results and exercises little control on how the work is performed. There's just no way that company would allow such control to produce fraudulent results. The checks and balances means DLA answers to the company's advocates, including offices in the independent GAO, preventing any such abuse. Tom Bishop, you're jumping to conclusions again.

]So you haven't addressed all of the experiments? Why do you keep jumping to conclusions without all of the facts?

Those experiments don't have dedicated webpages to them. Once you provide the appropriate sources we can proceed.

As of now 3 of the lunar ranging operations are being funded by NASA.

If you provide the appropriate sources we will easily see that the others are funded by NASA/ESA/RSA.

When I give a dollar to a beggar, I have no control over how he or she spends it.
When the Defense Logistics Agency awards to Northrop Grumman Corporation a $14 million contract over 12 months on a firm, fixed price basis, the Government contracts only for the deliverable results and exercises little control on how the work is performed. There's just no way that company would allow such control to produce fraudulent results. The checks and balances means DLA answers to the company's advocates, including offices in the independent GAO, preventing any such abuse. Tom Bishop, you're jumping to conclusions again.

This is incorrect. The government doesn't write Northrop Gruman a 14 million dollar check and say "go wild." Government managers are on the project directing it every step of the way. Secret government projects are, surprise surprise, under 100% government control and done on government facilities. Northrop Gruman is a temp agency contracts people out to go work on government research bases under government managers.

Government contractors are public-private organizations -- arms the government uses to avoid liability. After the Apollo 1 fire it was the government contractor who got thrown under the bus. They pointed their fingers and were saying "oh no, it was North American Aviation's fault for sending us low quality employees." They were also telling the grieving families "since the designers were North American Aviation employees, not US Government employees, you can direct your lawsuits to them," despite that the people working on Apollo 1 were doing everything under close government instruction and supervision.

Quote

]So you haven't addressed all of the experiments? Why do you keep jumping to conclusions without all of the facts?

Those experiments don't have dedicated webpages to them. Once you provide the appropriate sources we can proceed.

As of now 3 of the lunar ranging operations are being funded by NASA.

If you provide the appropriate sources we will easily see that the others are funded by NASA/ESA/RSA.

Google is your friend. Why does the truth have to have a webpage dedicated to it?

Quote

When I give a dollar to a beggar, I have no control over how he or she spends it.
When the Defense Logistics Agency awards to Northrop Grumman Corporation a $14 million contract over 12 months on a firm, fixed price basis, the Government contracts only for the deliverable results and exercises little control on how the work is performed. There's just no way that company would allow such control to produce fraudulent results. The checks and balances means DLA answers to the company's advocates, including offices in the independent GAO, preventing any such abuse. Tom Bishop, you're jumping to conclusions again.

This is incorrect. The government doesn't write Northrop Gruman a 14 million dollar check and say "go wild." Government managers are on the project directing it every step of the way. Secret government projects are, surprise surprise, under 100% government control and done on government facilities. Northrop Gruman is a temp agency contracts people out to go work on government research bases under government managers.

Government contractors are public-private organizations -- arms the government uses to avoid liability. After the Apollo 1 fire it was the government contractor who got thrown under the bus. They pointed their fingers and were saying "oh no, it was North American Aviation's fault for sending us low quality employees." They were also telling the grieving families "since the designers were North American Aviation employees, not US Government employees, you can direct your lawsuits to them," despite that the people working on Apollo 1 were doing everything under close government instruction and supervision.

No. That's just not how it works. Feel free to try to document your outlandish claims though. No government managers direct every project every step of the way. There's oversight and accounting. Weekly status updates are common. Checkpoint deliverable results are common. The Government rarely even visits the premises where some projects are ran. You'd have to show me how NASA controlled the experiment at the Air Force Base and at the French observatory. I'd be very curious how that worked.

NGC is not a "temp agency". You're very wrong there. Contracts are awarded to NGC, not its employees.

Google is your friend. Why does the truth have to have a webpage dedicated to it?

The references on google do not lead to a webpage repository for the project. There is no repository of documents like the other projects. There is no way to verify that these experiments were done by private parties. Considering that these are public institutions, and all the projects we've seen so far are government projects, the burden seems to be on you to either provide an appropriate source or to demonstrate that these were private projects.

No. That's just not how it works. Feel free to try to document your outlandish claims though. No government managers direct every project every step of the way. There's oversight and accounting. Weekly status updates are common. Checkpoint deliverable results are common. The Government rarely even visits the premises where some projects are ran. You'd have to show me how NASA controlled the experiment at the Air Force Base and at the French observatory. I'd be very curious how that worked.

NGC is not a "temp agency". You're very wrong there. Contracts are awarded to NGC, not its employees.

Anyone with two braincells knows that the government does not relinquish control of top secret military projects to a private company with no control or oversight.

I don't feel the need to provide evidence for something so blatantly obvious.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 21, 2012, 06:10:41 PM

Google is your friend. Why does the truth have to have a webpage dedicated to it?

The references on google do not lead to a webpage repository of documents like the other project. There is no way to verify that these experiments were done by private parties. Considering that these are public institutions, and all the projects we've seen so far are government projects, the burden seems to be on you to either provide an appropriate source or demonstrate that these were private projects.

I'm sorry then, we must reject, as unsupported, your outlandish claim that every experiment showing the existence of any of the five lunar retroreflectors was faked.  Do keep trying though.

Quote

No. That's just not how it works. Feel free to try to document your outlandish claims though. No government managers direct every project every step of the way. There's oversight and accounting. Weekly status updates are common. Checkpoint deliverable results are common. The Government rarely even visits the premises where some projects are ran. You'd have to show me how NASA controlled the experiment at the Air Force Base and at the French observatory. I'd be very curious how that worked.

NGC is not a "temp agency". You're very wrong there. Contracts are awarded to NGC, not its employees.

Anyone with two braincells knows that the government does not relinquish control of top secret military projects to a private company with no control or oversight.

I don't feel the need to provide evidence for something so blatantly obvious.

Who said that the LLR was a top secret military project? Who said that there would be no control? Do stop with the straw men.

I'm sorry then, we must reject, as unsupported, your outlandish claim that every experiment showing the existence of any of the five lunar retroreflectors was faked.  Do keep trying though.

So far every lunar ranging project we've seen has been funded by NASA. There are no web pages giving details on the other claimed experiments, therefore they must be discarded. NASA can easily spread lies that there are all of these lunar ranging experiments going on all over the world. The public is easily fooled.

If these projects are real, the burden is on you -- the claimant -- to find information on them.

Who said that the LLR was a top secret military project? Who said that there would be no control? Do stop with the straw men.

We were speaking of defense projects. Please follow along.

It doesn't matter if NASA or the website documents claim that the Burger King programmed the lunar ranging software at Burger King University over one weekend for fun.

It's still a NASA funded project and therefore NASA controls the end result.

NASA was not the only organization that funded the project.

How the end result was achieved is fully documented.

This is the project lead:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/

These are the developers:

http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~emichels/

Here's a comprehensive document explaining how the system was designed and implemented:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~emichels/ApolloHousctl.pdf

Now tell us precisely which aspect described above was influenced by NASA and how it causes the software to lie. Otherwise, kindly stop making shit up.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2012, 05:06:58 PM

It doesn't matter if NASA or the website documents claim that the Burger King programmed the lunar ranging software at Burger King University over one weekend for fun.

It's still a NASA funded project and therefore NASA controls the end result.

NASA was not the only organization that funded the project.

How the end result was achieved is fully documented.

This is the project lead:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/

These are the developers:

http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~emichels/

Here's a comprehensive document explaining how the system was designed and implemented:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~emichels/ApolloHousctl.pdf

Now tell us precisely which aspect described above was influenced by NASA and how it causes the software to lie. Otherwise, kindly stop making shit up.

Everything was influenced by NASA. They have control by virtue of handing over the checks.

NASA was not the only organization that funded the project.

Now tell us precisely which aspect described above was influenced by NASA and how it causes the software to lie. Otherwise, kindly stop making shit up.

And remember your own damning logic:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2011, 09:26:16 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if JPL was involved in the construction. They provided the hardware control software after all. And as such they would need to know something on how it's constructed, needing to be extremely close to the builders if not building it themselves.

Well, now that we know who really provided the software, you sure shot yourself in the foot with this statement. I can't wait to see what you resort to next.

NASA was not the only organization that funded the project.

The National Science Foundation is NASA's biggest government partner. NSF works on space projects with NASA on a constant basis, as a cursory google search will show. Clearly they are tied into it.

Now tell us precisely which aspect described above was influenced by NASA and how it causes the software to lie. Otherwise, kindly stop making shit up.

NASA can absolutely cause the software to lie. Please don't be so deluded. If NASA is paying the programmers they can easily tell them to lie.

The National Science Foundation is NASA's biggest government partner. NSF works on space projects with NASA on a constant basis, as a cursory google search will show. Clearly they are tied into it.

You use the same faulty logic to incriminate NSF as you do to APOLLO.  NSF is not NASA, NASA is not the only organization NSF works with, and NSF is not the only organization NASA works with. Regardless, NSF and NASA still are not the only organizations that funded the project. You would know this if you'd read all the available documentation.

Quote

Now tell us precisely which aspect described above was influenced by NASA and how it causes the software to lie. Otherwise, kindly stop making shit up.

NASA can absolutely cause the software to lie. Please don't be so deluded. If NASA is paying the programmers they can easily ask them to lie.

Tom, we have source code and a document comprehensively explaining the software's design and implementation. Now tell us precisely which aspect was influenced by NASA and how it causes the software to lie. Otherwise, kindly stop making shit up.