Poll

Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?

In order to mask any validation God.
1 (9.1%)
In order to hide more land masses.
1 (9.1%)
In order to cover up something that may cause panic.
0 (0%)
In order to gain power to manipulate an artificial reality.
3 (27.3%)
In order to accomplish all of the above.
6 (54.5%)

Total Members Voted: 10

Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?

  • 460 Replies
  • 79219 Views
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #90 on: August 11, 2017, 01:12:42 PM »
I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that some astronauts see the stars in cislunarspace ten times as bright by simply looking out of the cabine's window.
others claim at the same position (different journey) not to have seen any stars without the use of optics.

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

Said =/= proved

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

Quote
In psychology this is called ''projection''
Someone who calls himself simba and accuses others that his learning curve barely qualifies for a six year old .


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

People literally explain things to you and you just brush it off, shut your ears and keep digging the same hole of stubbornness, you are the least entittled here to go pointing at people and say they have psychological issues.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #91 on: August 11, 2017, 01:13:02 PM »

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

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

Why would Neil use optics when he could, according to Neil, simply look at the beautifull stars  on the daylightside of the moon !!!!
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 03:17:34 PM by dutchy »

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #92 on: August 11, 2017, 01:16:56 PM »
[People literally explain things to you and you just brush it off, shut your ears and keep digging the same hole of stubbornness, you are the least entittled here to go pointing at people and say they have psychological issues.
Calm down boy. I didn't say to some  ''people'' over here that they have psychological issues, i pointed out a certain aspect of behaviour to YOU !!!!

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

Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #93 on: August 11, 2017, 01:43:06 PM »
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

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

so, you have THAT going for you.

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

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

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

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #94 on: August 11, 2017, 01:45:03 PM »
The level of ignorance displayed by dutchy and this resistance is futile sheep is astounding.

YouTube cult indoctrination at its finest.

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

Or a really bad troll
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #95 on: August 11, 2017, 01:52:18 PM »
[People literally explain things to you and you just brush it off, shut your ears and keep digging the same hole of stubbornness, you are the least entittled here to go pointing at people and say they have psychological issues.
Calm down boy. I didn't say to some  ''people'' over here that they have psychological issues, i pointed out a certain aspect of behaviour to YOU !!!!

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

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

Bottom line: If you don't have proof to back your argument, don't use said argument. You didn't even made mention of this subject wich goes to demonstrate my later point: you shut your ears, brush it off and keep on being sttuborn.

Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #96 on: August 11, 2017, 02:24:13 PM »
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

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

so, you have THAT going for you.

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

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

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

What does giving some insight have to do with an inhability to stand on two feet?

*

Sentinel

  • 575
  • Open your eyes...
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #97 on: August 11, 2017, 02:47:00 PM »
So poor dutchy outright admitted he is unfit to debate on here in the english language in the first place, yet he can't help himself to continue ridiculing matters he obviously doesn't understand properly.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're done on this board obviously and any of your responses should be considered
in vain and void from now on.  :-\

So I obviously got a warning for this post where I spilled nothing but the truth, dutchy left the eclipse thread stating he was obviously unfit for further debate when his arguements got destroyed, and yet he comes back gushing happily in other threads.
Are you fucking kidding, whoever got me that warning?  ::)
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #98 on: August 11, 2017, 03:10:20 PM »
So poor dutchy outright admitted he is unfit to debate on here in the english language in the first place, yet he can't help himself to continue ridiculing matters he obviously doesn't understand properly.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're done on this board obviously and any of your responses should be considered
in vain and void from now on.  :-\

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

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

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

To me it becomes more obvious by the minute,...''resistance is futile'' has never showed the kind of invalid reasoning that you and others have expressed.
Deliberate attacks and insults based on the wrong assumption about induvidual posters.
He is head and shoulders above you in that very aspect of human interaction.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 03:13:02 PM by dutchy »

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #99 on: August 11, 2017, 03:26:57 PM »
The level of ignorance displayed by dutchy and this resistance is futile sheep is astounding.

YouTube cult indoctrination at its finest.

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

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

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

If you can't handle that, join the ''Britney Spears fan forum'' or something similar superficial.......

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #100 on: August 11, 2017, 04:02:22 PM »
[People literally explain things to you and you just brush it off, shut your ears and keep digging the same hole of stubbornness, you are the least entittled here to go pointing at people and say they have psychological issues.
Calm down boy. I didn't say to some  ''people'' over here that they have psychological issues, i pointed out a certain aspect of behaviour to YOU !!!!

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

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

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

1 I have researched the moonlandings for i think about 5 years
2 I couldn't believe there were real people dumb enough to doubt the greatest achievement of mankind
3 I read chapters in the books of Bill Kaysing and Ralph Renee that started a process.
4 I watched all Jarrah White's video's about the moonlandings and read the counter arguments at the Clavius forum (pro NASA)
5 I started to look for every interview in papers and online footage made by astronauts and NASA insiders.
6 It became clear there were huge discrepancies in the official storyline
7 I read about how scientists and rocket engeneres envisioned spacetravel in the fifties and how extremely different it was when Apollo became reality.
8 I started to read about an ongoing rehabilitation program for Nazi's in the USA that lasted until the nineties and the heavy involvement from NASA.
9 I learned between the connection of Walt Disney and NASA (Werner Von Braun)

10 I started to examine the photographs and original video from the moon
11 I learned about that episode in American history...the Kennedy legacy, the cold war, and riots on home soil.
12 during the nineties NASA has repaired a lot of mistakes of the past concerning the Apollo missions.

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

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

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

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #101 on: August 11, 2017, 04:16:29 PM »
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

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

so, you have THAT going for you.


You should start an ignore list.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #102 on: August 11, 2017, 04:29:56 PM »
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

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

so, you have THAT going for you.


You should start an ignore list.

Nah... He's the reason I'm here ;^)
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #103 on: August 11, 2017, 04:39:45 PM »
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!

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

so, you have THAT going for you.


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

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


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #104 on: August 11, 2017, 07:13:53 PM »

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

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

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

Are you going to debunk all of those too? You really do have your work cut out trying to defend the indefensible.
Maybe you need a new pair anti-space agency glasses, your anti-NASA filters just don't cover the whole spectrum.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #105 on: August 12, 2017, 01:05:04 AM »
If you wouldn't be such an indoctrinated sheep you would try to listen.
I will brake it down real simple.

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

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

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

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

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

Liars, idiots and frauds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cold war is the important bit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you come up with something original and actually worth discussing, instead of just poisoning the well or fabricating some strawman or other and then running away saying "Oh I'm not going to talk about this with you, you're just wrong" then you might not be taken as just another troll.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #106 on: August 12, 2017, 02:04:09 AM »
Before i reply ( i am going to a party so i cannot comment on your weak attempts now) i will say the following.

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

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

Before you ignore this for the zillionth time ......    the moon has no atmosphere, so the scattered sunlight is absend !!!!!!
Look man.......  it's called PROOF of NASA inconsistancies that matter very much. We are not talking about the size of Neil's camera here...   
 

*

Sentinel

  • 575
  • Open your eyes...
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #107 on: August 12, 2017, 02:19:03 AM »
So poor dutchy outright admitted he is unfit to debate on here in the english language in the first place, yet he can't help himself to continue ridiculing matters he obviously doesn't understand properly.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're done on this board obviously and any of your responses should be considered
in vain and void from now on.  :-\

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

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

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

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

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

Look at this:


and the blue cosinus animation here:


Now think again.  ::)

And just for the record: Abandoning threads after your claims were debunked and then stating you did so only because you ran out of the proper scientific terms to go on further on the topic when being called out on it in other threads where you continue to gush about NASA pictures is nothing but weak in my book.
You really think we are that dumb to not know why you left in the first place? Man up and take the blow if you were wrong and learn for once how credibility works on any forum.  ::)
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • What do you, value?
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #108 on: August 12, 2017, 02:31:26 AM »
Before i reply ( i am going to a party so i cannot comment on your weak attempts now) i will say the following.

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

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

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

So much in fact that they added flaps to the visor in further missions:
Note the two flaps on the side and on the top of the visor:

And without atmosphere, the sun is incredible bright.

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

The golden visor reduced glare and brightness.


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

Then:
Here I go:

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

By that logic, it must mean I walked on the moon. If saying you have seen stars is proof for anything. Photos of stars and planets are more proof than just saying you saw them.
):

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #109 on: August 12, 2017, 02:44:47 AM »
So poor dutchy outright admitted he is unfit to debate on here in the english language in the first place, yet he can't help himself to continue ridiculing matters he obviously doesn't understand properly.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're done on this board obviously and any of your responses should be considered
in vain and void from now on.  :-\

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

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

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

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

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

Look at this:


and the blue cosinus animation here:


Now think again.  ::)

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

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

I hope you globers aren't married, because i still have to find any confession whatsoever on this forum of a globe posters that acknowledges something is off.
They go to great lenghts to defend everything,...... just everything.
Abd when ordinary people like me make a statement about understanding your model better, it is abused for all sorts of selfish reasons,..... i have to be more carefull next time ....which is a shame actually.
You and globers are always right, about EVERYTHING related to earth and the cosmos.
That is your default position and you talk about credibility boy ?????
That's called scientific dictatorship.
That is the sole reason why you indoctrinated sheep participate over here, your army of drilled lemmings is fucking boring among yourselves. You want to expand your evil empire over here.
Are you addults for real ?
Please go to a place where you can all dwell in your fantastic spinning, tilted, peershaped globe......, but this ain't the place !!

*

Sentinel

  • 575
  • Open your eyes...
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #110 on: August 12, 2017, 04:22:20 AM »
Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.

Look at this:


and the blue cosinus animation here:


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

As if we don't know you didn't even try because your claim about the eclipse shadow moving in counter direction when entering and leaving the Earths sphere has been trashed to bits.
But yeah, whatever. Just go forth with your ramblings about NASA pictures, I wonder when you would come to a point where your english skills "prevent" you from further engagement here and you'd run away like a coward again. As i see it now you're nothing short but a dishonest liar.  ::)
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #111 on: August 12, 2017, 04:37:42 AM »
Before i reply ( i am going to a party so i cannot comment on your weak attempts now) i will say the following.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bye bye, hope you enjoyed your party.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #112 on: August 12, 2017, 04:39:36 AM »
Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.

Look at this:


and the blue cosinus animation here:


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

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

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

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

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


?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #113 on: August 12, 2017, 05:06:32 AM »
"Reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere" doesn't amount to much, but light still reflects from lunar rocks and surface and re-reflects.
When an astronaut on the moon bends his head towards the sky.....

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

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

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


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


*

Sentinel

  • 575
  • Open your eyes...
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #114 on: August 12, 2017, 05:15:23 AM »
Your animation shows a fixed globe.
No, the globe is fixed there in reference of both the Sun and the Moons shadow to show the combined movement. Didn't you notice the terminator line moving constantly?
Quote
When you look at the original blue marble it only shows Africa and a bit of Europe.
South America and Australia are crammed into the last visible part of the globe.
Once you start to turn the globe, (the blue marble as reference) South America covers a lot of ground only after turning the globe a bit.
It means that any shadow from the sides cannot match the angular speed of the globe.
Again: Angular speed is irrelevant here since the transversal trajectory of the Moons shadow is linear, hence you have to look at the projected transversal speed of a point on a revolving Earth. I showed that in my second animation where you can see it as the blue dot shows zero velocity when being perpendicular to reference point straight up.
Quote
Your animation is full of bullshit because it fails to show the most important part,.....  the relative motion of the globe on the sides that are obscured but are there ( blue marble as reference where it seems some continents are on the othe side, but are crammed together at the sides)
The relative motion on the side is greater than the speed of the shadow when moving upward and the shadow is much faster when it is near the end of the eclips.

So either show me an animation from the perspective of someone standing on the side ( boat in the pacific) of the spinning globe at the start of the eclips where i can see why the speed of the umbra is faster than the uphill motion of the earth at that specific position.
See above, both animations disprove your claim about the relative motion on the side of the globe being faster than the Moons shadow, in fact the shadow is much faster as the projected trajectory for a point on the globe is very slow on the sides of the globe. If you can't see that I don't know what else to say tbh.
Quote
'Dishonest liar ?'
Either that, or you're just lacking the intellect to grasp the concept of it all. It's been shown and explained to you now, so what should it be?
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #115 on: August 12, 2017, 05:36:03 AM »
Your animation shows a fixed globe.
When you look at the original blue marble it only shows Africa and a bit of Europe.
South America and Australia are crammed into the last visible part of the globe.
Once you start to turn the globe, (the blue marble as reference) South America covers a lot of ground only after turning the globe a bit.
It means that any shadow from the sides cannot match the angular speed of the globe.

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

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

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

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

This is not an eclipse, but it shows the "front side" of the moon and shows how poorly the moon reflects, compared to the earth.

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #116 on: August 12, 2017, 05:46:44 AM »
"Reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere" doesn't amount to much, but light still reflects from lunar rocks and surface and re-reflects.
When an astronaut on the moon bends his head towards the sky.....

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

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

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


I understand that your masters don't like it you avoid this very simple question again and again........or maybe they command you to avoid an impossible answer......
All the pics of apollo suits I've seen show it wasn't easy to lean back or look up.  And even if done the large glass visor could still be catching reflected light from the surface making it harder for ones eyes to adjust.

*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • What do you, value?
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #117 on: August 12, 2017, 06:02:42 AM »
"Reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere" doesn't amount to much, but light still reflects from lunar rocks and surface and re-reflects.
When an astronaut on the moon bends his head towards the sky.....

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

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

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


I understand that your masters don't like it you avoid this very simple question again and again........or maybe they command you to avoid an impossible answer......
All the pics of apollo suits I've seen show it wasn't easy to lean back or look up.  And even if done the large glass visor could still be catching reflected light from the surface making it harder for ones eyes to adjust.
Because the suit is back heavy, it was difficult to look up. The astronaut had to curve his entire back back to view the sky.
While the suit had joints on the arms and legs, the back and torso did not have joints.
):

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #118 on: August 12, 2017, 07:22:19 AM »
What can interfere in the vacuum between an astronaut looking upwards between his line of sight and the starlight ?


Gee, I wonder what it could be...



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

Now dutchy you seem to still be having problems here. You have astronauts saying they couldn't see stars from the lunar surface and astronauts saying the could see stars in cislunar space. Which one of those are you saying is telling the truth?
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #119 on: August 12, 2017, 07:24:57 AM »
Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.

Look at this:


and the blue cosinus animation here:


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

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

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

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

'Dishonest liar ?' I really hope you don't have a spouce in life......
Ok, you think you have debunked the globe eclipse.  Explain how it works on a flat earth.  Because until you can do that, you have nothing.