HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

  • 3179 Replies
  • 128211 Views
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #60 on: July 22, 2019, 06:12:54 AM »


Hello mister new globularist.

Rockets can not work in a vacuum. Not only rockets, nothing work in a vacuum. in fact, what we call vacuum is a kind of black hole. it pulls everything around it and breaks it apart. it would only take a few seconds if space had actually been reached. claiming that the rocket works in space proves that you are completely ignorant of physics.

the rest of your claims are just as unfounded as the others, so it's not worth it for now. I recommend that you review the Q&A and believers section before you enter into discussions during your stay here. reading destroys ignorance, but we can't teach you to think.

Of course, the best way to learn physics is to read the flat earth society believers section. 

Not a physics textbook or anything.

?

frenat

  • 3591
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #61 on: July 22, 2019, 06:16:46 AM »
Rockets can not work in a vacuum. Not only rockets, nothing work in a vacuum. in fact, what we call vacuum is a kind of black hole. it pulls everything around it and breaks it apart. it would only take a few seconds if space had actually been reached. claiming that the rocket works in space proves that you are completely ignorant of physics.

This is some funny shit right here. What kind of misunderstanding of physics do you have to have to think a vacuum, which is nothing by definition, can create any force at all to pull on anything?Thanks for the humor!

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #62 on: July 22, 2019, 06:34:53 AM »

IN ADDITION :

COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :



Oh, ok - so gunpowder does not ignite in a vacuum - so if I shot a gun in a vacuum the bullets would not work? Let's see you try that!!??

Ha, ha you fool ... That is why they take their OxYgEn with them (to combine with Hydrogen or Kerosene) - 'to BuRn' and the cause an equal and opposite reaction, which is the thrust that propels the rocket! ...
« Last Edit: July 22, 2019, 06:40:36 AM by radioflat »

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #63 on: July 22, 2019, 06:53:05 AM »
0a. COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :

0b. The air locks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.

0c. Batteries are very heavy.. can you imagine the weight of a battery in 1965, big enough to run an air system for a week???????

0d. Lunar Rover problems : While watching this video pay attention to these problems as well :

A) When you look at footage from these lunar rovers, is that the dust behaves as if there is an atmosphere. It forms waves and is resisted by air and it falls back to the ground at the same speed. The dust from the wheelspin should propel 300 feet away.

B) It's a remote control small scale toy  car. 
   The driver NEVER STEERS the wheel.

C) Listen it : 29min 49sec in the video : I seriously doubt that spoiled little douchebag (Edgar Mitchell's son) was joking about having him whacked - anyone know if this dude still alive?


1. CGI are possible, however, they never presented them, since Neil Armstrong and especially Michael Collins have pointed out many times that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars from the moon, or from the lunar orbit.

However, Michael Collins wrote on page 221 of "Carrying the Fire" : "My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different, this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human ever had."?

See the last part of this video : APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 3 : It's about Michael Collins contradicting himself : During famous Apollo 11 conference he claimed that he wasn't able to see *ANY* star from the lunar orbit...However in his book he claims that he was very able to observe countless stars from earth' orbit...How about that??? You see, this is an example where the same person asserts two totally contradictory claims (in two different occasions)...There is more to it (concerning Michael Collins) :

Michael Collins was designated the navigator for Apollo 11. In his book he lists the 37 navigation stars they were to use, plus their corresponding octal numbers which identified them to the computers. Here's how Michael explains that navigation package:

"The astronaut, peering out through either his telescope or his sextant finds one of the chosen few, superimposes a + on it, and pushes a button at the instant of perfect alignment. He then tells the computer which star it was, by numbers. Repeating this process on a second star allows the computer and the platform to determine which way the spacecraft is pointing. So we now know which way is up? Well, not exactly, because "up" is a rather fragile concept meaning away from the center of the earth, a direction opposite the gravity vector used to clutch us tightly by. But suppose we cannot even see the earth in our window, suppose we are floating free of earth's gravity. What now, M.I.T.? Back to our friendly stars. We simply define a new up-down and left-right, using the stars in place of earth. All will be well as long as we all play the game by the same rules, as long as the ground controllers send us instructions using the same stellar frame of reference. Now we are free of all terrestrial conventions and can correct our course to and from the Moon by pointing in the proper direction relative to the stars."

Someone could say that there is the difference : Michael Collins was able to see the stars by naked eyes from earth's orbit (Gemini), but he wasn't able to see *ANY* star from the lunar orbit...And if someone attempted to claim such a ridiculous claim, then he would have to be able to explain to us this : what would disable Michael Collins to see the stars from the lunar orbit? If there was anything that could obscure the stars while he was in lunar orbit, that very same reason (an obstacle) would disable him to see the stars TO EVEN A GREATER EXTENT while he was in earth's orbit since according to NeilDeGrass Tyson the only reason why we can't see the stars from the earth (during the day) is the presence of earth's atmosphere which is a glow with scattered light from the sun!!! If you take away the atmosphere, the sun will still be there but the sky goes dark! That is what folks get when they get to the edge of the atmosphere, the atmosphere is no longer between you and the rest of the universe and the stars would reveal themselves just as they would at night! Plain and simple!!!

2. YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY : LUNACY - PART 2 :

3. When the first crew who landed on the moon did a world tour ,they presented the Dutch premier with a piece of moon rock ,,,when he died a few years ago the university of Utrecht in Holland did some experiments on what they thought was moon rock ,,and it was found to be worthless petrified wood ,,?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

4. No tyre tracks from rover : Even guys who believe that we landed on the moon admit that there is huge amount of altered (photoshopped) "apollo" images.--- MOON FAKERY - 3 : http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/192/moon-fakery-3.htm

5. Set of excerpts of "docking" : You must be a genuine idiot so to be unable to recognize obvious fakery in this cheap animation : once again : 100% proof moon landing Hoax in a 1 minute clip :

6. In 60 years of all of NASA or any other organizations outer space video footage... there does not exist a single video clip of someone panning the camera 360 degrees!!! HOW COME???

7. Why Are There No Real Photos of The Complete Earth? = NASA has never been into space far enough from the Earth to get the whole planet in the frame.

8. How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such. Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.

Now let's see why we should take with a grain of salt official (NASA) "data" regarding the temperature of/on the surface of the moon :

In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.

"The light of the moon, though concentrated by the most powerful burning-glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate thermometer. M. De la Hire collected the rays of the full moon when on the meridian, by means of a burning-glass 35 inches in diameter, and made them fall on the bulb of a delicate air-thermometer. No effect was produced though the lunar rays by this glass were concentrated 300 times.

Professor Forbes concentrated the moon's light by a lens 30 inches in diameter, its focal distance being about 41 inches, and having a power of concentration exceeding 6000 times. The image of the moon, which was only 18 hours past full, and less than two hours from the meridian, was brilliantly thrown by this lens on the extremity of a commodious thermopile. Although the observations were made in the most unexceptional manner, and (supposing that half the rays were reflected, dispersed and absorbed), though the light of the moon was concentrated 3000 times, not the slightest thermo effect was produced."

9. All NASA missions were and are faked. A total fraud. NASA has extorted trillions of dollars since their formation. What a sham!

10. NASA : "The simulator provided 5/6-g thrust (83 % of the propulsion) to simulate the amount of thrust that the rocket engine would need to lift the craft while flying down to the surface of the moon."

This would be using 83 % of earth's propulsion requirements to adjust for an environment with only 17 % of the earth's gravity???????????????? Explanations such as this certainly drive home the point that no matter how convoluted they will always have rationalization (no matter how stupid) for everything!!!<<<

So, since the gravitational force is 6 times stronger on the earth than on the moon, shouldn't then simulator provide 600 % of the propulsion (instead of 83 %) to simulate the amount of thrust that the rocket engine would need to lift the craft while flying down to the surface of the moon???

A BAD ATTEMPT AT RESPONDING TO THIS PROBLEM :

No. The LLRV (flown on Earth) cut the load of the craft to 1/6th (simulating lunar gravity) by lifting 5/6th of the load with a jet engine, leaving 1/6th of the load to be carried by the rocket engine.?

WHY IS THIS A BAD RESPOND :

By cutting the load of the craft to 1/6th you don't cut 1/6th of the whole weight of the craft, you would still have to increase the amount of thrust instead of decreasing it...

11. They can't find any of the footage or telemetry info regarding one of humankind's greatest ever achievements, if not it's greatest, and they don't even know where to look? FFS. Game up. Proof positive.

12. Very interesting comment left by one of my viewers :

You know, as a retired advanced sport scuba diver, myself nor any of my diving buddies ever sacrificed our equipment underwater at any depth in any which way in regards to safety in a possible serious risk of damaging our life support system!  Now what kind of and IDIOTIC FOOL would be taking chances in an environment like ( coff coffff ) so-called space where you risk an INSTANT VIOLENT DEATH if your life support system failed in a compromising manner?  Huh?  You'd think these drunkin' freemansonic clowns are actors-on-a-stage!   I call this:  ( ( (  FIRST CLASS BS  ) ) )

14. *The money the money the money.*  Project Apollo was the source of money for the cost of the Vietnam War and CIA black ops all over the world.  The cost of the SR71, F15,F16,F14 the XB70 Valkyrie project the B1B project, the Corona spy satellites that were replaced by newer spy satellites,  replacing the fleet of WWII Essex class aircraft carriers with the Nimitz class nuclear super carriers,  the entire fleet of nuclear submarines, replace the M48 and M60 tanks with the M1A1 battle tank, the Bradley fighting vehicle project to replace the M113 APC. But the old M113 in an upgraded from is still in service, a all services rifle the M16, replaced the BAR with the M60 light machine gun, that was replaced by the M249 SAW anti missile missile systems. The space program was always a military project first and a large number of space missions were a cover for covert spy missions and Apollo was no exception the Pentagon budget just became so large with the short list of projects I have given along with the space shuttle another military project we were stuck in low earth orbit. As we tried to move to man missions to Mars we have had 3 more wars more high tech  weapons systems,  Reagan's star wars projects.  We pay as much on military budgets as the next 10 countries and Trump and Congress wants to spend a lot more on the military. If we cut the Pentagon budget by 15-20% we would still be out spending every other country in the world.

The last paragraph explains the main reason for faking other moon missions (China's, India's, Russian's)!!!
« Last Edit: July 22, 2019, 07:00:15 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #64 on: July 22, 2019, 06:55:57 AM »
Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.
Prove.

Do magnets require oxygen to "work"?

Is there oxygen available in insulated wire conductors?
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.


*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #66 on: July 22, 2019, 07:03:07 AM »
@wise: I just wanted to comment on one of your statements upthread: You said that electric vehicles did not exist in 1969 and have "just been discovered." In case you were not aware, the very first automobiles were electric. Before efficient combustion engines were invented. Once gasoline engines became cheap enough and efficient enough, the early car makers stopped making electric cars because gasoline was very cheap and the batteries for electric cars were not very good. But electric cars did exist. Also, golf carts existed and many, if not most, of them were electric. Golfers were using electric golf carts long before Apollo. I even owned a toy electric train set before Apollo, and an electric car or rover is just a much bigger version of that, with batteries.

Also, we've had electric motors for many decades. Fans and water pumps and many other things run on electric motors. All the technology to build an electric rover existed in the 1960's. Batteries were not as good as the ones we have in today's electric cars, but they were good enough for the purpose. And they don't need oxygen.

I'll tell you what had not been invented yet in 1969: Technology good enough to fake the live TV transmission! It could be faked pretty well today, and science fiction shows do that kind of thing all the time. But not way back then.

I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.

As for the question of heat, here's a thought experiment: Imagine putting your hand in water that's 100 C. You would be burned horribly. But you can sit for five or ten minutes in a dry sauna that's 100 C. This is because water is more dense and therefore holds more heat than air at the same temperature. So heat passes from water to your hand very rapidly, but passes into your body from air at the same temperature very slowly. On the moon there is no atmosphere, so the heat passes to the astronauts' space suites even more slowly, and those suites are insulated, slowing the heat even more. Just like a firefighter who can walk into the intense heat of a burning building wearing insulated firefighting gear and an oxygen tank, the astronauts can walk out into the high temperature but zero density of the moon wearing their space suits and oxygen tank.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #67 on: July 22, 2019, 07:12:33 AM »
Ckljamas, there's a whole other thread devoted to rocket propulsion, perhaps you could add to that thread?

Dutchy, in the video, the two men are lying.

The backdrop is not identical in the two photos. The mountain shape on right bulges up slightly compared to on the left, and the shadowing is different. When superimposing, the mountains are similar, but not identical. The terrain in the foreground is also different between photos.
Their whole argument rests on the backgrounds being identical and they aren't. The photo on right is taken in front of lunar landing module, and closer to the mountain than in photo on the left, which explains all the differences.
As such, there is no end of set and no front projection involved in the photos. That's an assumption based on their bias.

Have a closer look.
It only adds to the confusion. The picture on the left has a mountain top with a slight downward ''arc'' from left to right, while in the picture on the right the opposite is true.
Furthermore the horizon is at a measly 2.43 km. The mountain seems to grow in the right picture.
I think they slightly changed the black sky line..that only makes sense as to why the top of the mountain is shape shifting all of a sudden.
Other than that it's identical.
Quote
Look closer and you will also see tracks behind the lunar rover. Remember, the tyres were made of aluminium mesh, wire, and titanium blocks, not rubber. Thus, the tracks left, are finer than tracks left by vehicles here on earth in sand.

The lunar rovers had cooling radiators for the batteries, and built to withstand moon temperature fluctuations of -328 degrees Fahrenheit to 392 degrees Fahrenheit. The batteries were kept within operating temperatures.
Silver oxide batteries have good performance characteristics at temperature extremes. They can be used up to 55°C(131°F)
Again the special ''moon condition'' despite abnormal temperatures well outside the operating window are the only explanation why the two silver-oxide batteries of the lunar rover kept working.
You don't have to repeat the official explaination.
But ain't that handy that despite extreme temperatures the ''moon conditions'' and ''no air molecules'' were such that the lunar rover could be easily powered by two silver-oxide batteries.
I guess the moon was really looking forward to our visit  ::)
Quote
Back to the starry moon sky argument again. Armstrong and Collins both say they didn't see stars on the Apollo 11 moon landing. Collins saw stars during the Gemini 7 spacewalk, so why are these pair of fools even comparing what they say about seeing stars?
Neil Armstrong EXCLUDED that he (or generally speaking anyone) saw (or could see) stars from the lunar surface, because quote : ''the sky is pitch black and other than the sun the earth is the ONLY visble object''.
Liars sometimes forget the exact propaganda about what they should see but didn't see when asked for...don't you understand ?

Dutchy, dutchy, dutchy. The two men in the video are a pair of hucksters. The background mountain in the two photos are not identical, which means it's not a backdrop, which means it's likely an actual mountain photographed from two different locations. Fancy that, just like the astronauts said.  Location 1 with the lunar lander in front, and location 2 in front of the lunar lander, making the mountain appear to grow higher because you're closer to it. It's not that difficult to understand.

The temperature around the batteries was regulated by cooling.

The stars being seen by the astronauts is such a big concern to you. Any chance the stars weren't seen in the same way we can't see stars here on earth in the daytime, due to the sunlight from the sun? The only reason we see a blue sky during the day here on earth, is because of our atmosphere. Plus, the regolith on the moon, reflected a lot of sunlight. Collins when he did his spacewalk, wasn't standing on the moon surrounded by reflected sunlight, was he?

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #68 on: July 22, 2019, 08:36:42 AM »

14. *The money the money the money.*  Project Apollo was the source of money for the cost of the Vietnam War and CIA black ops all over the world.  The cost of the SR71, F15,F16,F14 the XB70 Valkyrie project the B1B project, the Corona spy satellites that were replaced by newer spy satellites,  replacing the fleet of WWII Essex class aircraft carriers with the Nimitz class nuclear super carriers,  the entire fleet of nuclear submarines, replace the M48 and M60 tanks with the M1A1 battle tank, the Bradley fighting vehicle project to replace the M113 APC. But the old M113 in an upgraded from is still in service, a all services rifle the M16, replaced the BAR with the M60 light machine gun, that was replaced by the M249 SAW anti missile missile systems. The space program was always a military project first and a large number of space missions were a cover for covert spy missions and Apollo was no exception the Pentagon budget just became so large with the short list of projects I have given along with the space shuttle another military project we were stuck in low earth orbit. As we tried to move to man missions to Mars we have had 3 more wars more high tech  weapons systems,  Reagan's star wars projects.  We pay as much on military budgets as the next 10 countries and Trump and Congress wants to spend a lot more on the military. If we cut the Pentagon budget by 15-20% we would still be out spending every other country in the world.

The last paragraph explains the main reason for faking other moon missions (China's, India's, Russian's)!!!

Do you realise how much you are contradicting yourself?

On the one hand, rockets can’t work in a vacuum, on the other you accept that spy satellites eventually replaced spy planes?

You’re absolutely right that the Apollo program was largely about developing technology that had military applications.  I don’t think Apollo was involved in actual spying, but developing the technology to launch spy satellites was certainly a big part of the agenda, along with communication, navigation and launch detection satellites. And of course improving rocket and guidance technology for ICBMs.

Far from being a reason to think the moon landings were fake, I regard this as a strong argument for why the US government poured money into it.  They would never have been happy with just telling the public this technology existed, they wanted it for real.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #69 on: July 22, 2019, 08:38:45 AM »
Few more very interesting comments left by my viewers below various APOLLO HOAX videos :

One lie leads to another lie and another until you finally forget what you originally said , hearing these assholenauts is exactly what is happening!

None of these heathens can get the story straight. The problem with telling a lie is that you have to remember the lie to keep it going.

And those footprints are fake as fuck. Footprints like that ONLY occur in WET sand, like on the wet beach line. Also these footprints are so huge and deep. Moon's gravity is 1/6 of earths gravity, they weigh only 20 kg on the moon, and not 200 kg like in the pictures.

Not to mentioned the kinetic energy are the same as on earth. While the gravity pull is different. That is how You will see the scam.
That means You should jump higher than You were just 1/6 as heavy?

I think the real question is why did they even "go" to the moon?  You would think that they would make a full documentary and record every moment while they were up there on the surface showing them doing some actual research or exploration but they only have videos of them driving in circles for no reason.  People make documentaries here on earth exploring jungles and what not all the time you would think that they would record everything as they ventured to a place no one has ever been to. We send men to another body in our solar system for the first time and what do they concentrate their camera on? the spaceship they flew in from earth. Doesn't that strike you as odd? It would be like sending the Rover to Mars with a camera that just points backwards at the Rover.

In an atmosphere that can KILL you, these guys sure did a LOT of shit that could damage their suits. Could have flipped that rover, got hurt, put a hole in the suit, Wtf ? If I am on the moon, no help to be found I would NOT be joy riding and falling in the ground with rocks all over the place, FAKE

If I fell over on the moon on those small rocks I'd shit myself and check my suit. not NASA, let's practice bouncing on our hands and knees more!

When a team wins the stupid super bowl they parade the players every day for a week and every news outlet asking all of them how does it feel and shit like that and yet these people went to the moon and played golf on it and drove 4wheel dune buggy and yet no hard questioning by random news guy of these people as how was it on the moon ,that alone always bugged me the reclusiveness of the astraunots as though they turned into some kind of a freak like Fantastic four characters.

The internet blew nasas bullshit out of the water. In 1969 they had not planned that. Todays excuses are we lost everything.

Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?

'It's okay if you know it'' you heard it folks,this astronut tells you right on video, he didn't go and he doesn't care that you know it, because he will lie and lie to everyone and its because the liberal mind has no empathy or morals, none at all,just like actors,same exact thing..and when confronted about the lies, they get violent, that is always the last resort..

I crack  up sometimes while watching these evaluations as I suddenly realize how the "brains" behind the moon fake could never have anticipated the way we can scrutinize and study these clips. Further, it must be painful for any living astronauts to see their lies repeated in endless loops on youtube. Their fakery shall live in infamy. lol and God help me, but Buzz is just sooo campy. I never tire of his shenanigans, esp the latest while Trump was speaking. Do you think Trump was trolling Buzz? I like to think so!

The specific thing that lead me to entertain that it's all a hoax is that when I would watch atronots being interviewed on tv; what immediately struck me;was that they didn't look or sound intelligent. But as my mind would be telling me something doesn't add up;it's as if another message immediately started playing about how asteonots are the "creme of the crop", highly educated, intelligent, carefully selected" So my initial instinct would be over ridden by that brainwashed thought, and I would continue watching the interviews.

What is funny to me is that grown 40 year old men and women look back at the movies they watch in the movies when they were little and laugh now of how fake they look now as much as they looked so real when they were little. But those same people look at footage of a film that was made 15 or 20 years before they were even conceived and swear on their children that it is a real event and indeed took place on the surface of the moon.

If some robot like Jesus would walk on the Moon in sandals, wrapped in bed shit and NASA would say that was Jesus,  I am sure millions would believe it.

I'm loving this series of videos! I too can't figure out how the thousands and thousands of experts in the fields involved wouldn't have caught on to the many oddities that they were seeing. As someone with a liberal arts degree and who knows absolutely nothing about any type of science or math, I can understand why I was fooled. Add ten years of tv programming to that and you've got a sucker. I wasn't the only one in this situation by a long shot. What really gets me though, are the millions of people who now have proof right before their eyes that the moon landings and everything else that comes out of NASA is pure baloney. They are absolutely determined to believe it all and to defend NASA until their last breath. This is one of the very rare occasions in which I can thank heavens for YouTube. Many thanks for the great videos!!!?
« Last Edit: July 22, 2019, 08:41:54 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #70 on: July 22, 2019, 08:48:15 AM »

I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.

It does if you want to use regular orbital mechanics in the explanation.  Or the photos of a clearly spherical earth that were released.


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40275
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #72 on: July 22, 2019, 09:08:26 AM »
Do you have a credible citation?
Yes. You have been cooked like a chicken at 100 degrees.
Have you ever heard of oven mitts?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40275
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #73 on: July 22, 2019, 09:14:46 AM »
0c. Batteries are very heavy.. can you imagine the weight of a battery in 1965, big enough to run an air system for a week???????
NASA didn't use batteries to run the air system for a week.  They used hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells to generate electricity.
https://www.hydrogenics.com/technology-resources/hydrogen-technology/fuel-cells/
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #74 on: July 22, 2019, 12:27:28 PM »
@wise: I just wanted to comment on one of your statements upthread: You said that electric vehicles did not exist in 1969 and have "just been discovered." In case you were not aware, the very first automobiles were electric. Before efficient combustion engines were invented. Once gasoline engines became cheap enough and efficient enough, the early car makers stopped making electric cars because gasoline was very cheap and the batteries for electric cars were not very good. But electric cars did exist. Also, golf carts existed and many, if not most, of them were electric. Golfers were using electric golf carts long before Apollo. I even owned a toy electric train set before Apollo, and an electric car or rover is just a much bigger version of that, with batteries.

Also, we've had electric motors for many decades. Fans and water pumps and many other things run on electric motors. All the technology to build an electric rover existed in the 1960's. Batteries were not as good as the ones we have in today's electric cars, but they were good enough for the purpose. And they don't need oxygen.

I'll tell you what had not been invented yet in 1969: Technology good enough to fake the live TV transmission! It could be faked pretty well today, and science fiction shows do that kind of thing all the time. But not way back then.

I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.

As for the question of heat, here's a thought experiment: Imagine putting your hand in water that's 100 C. You would be burned horribly. But you can sit for five or ten minutes in a dry sauna that's 100 C. This is because water is more dense and therefore holds more heat than air at the same temperature. So heat passes from water to your hand very rapidly, but passes into your body from air at the same temperature very slowly. On the moon there is no atmosphere, so the heat passes to the astronauts' space suites even more slowly, and those suites are insulated, slowing the heat even more. Just like a firefighter who can walk into the intense heat of a burning building wearing insulated firefighting gear and an oxygen tank, the astronauts can walk out into the high temperature but zero density of the moon wearing their space suits and oxygen tank.

What would prove the flatness of the earth?

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #75 on: July 22, 2019, 12:55:43 PM »

I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.

It does if you want to use regular orbital mechanics in the explanation.  Or the photos of a clearly spherical earth that were released.
Uh a poster named ‘unconvinced’ at page 2 claimed quote: ‘You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.’

I guess when it comes to the moonlandings we bend everything in favour of our fantasies.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #76 on: July 22, 2019, 01:03:01 PM »
Few more very interesting comments left by my viewers below various APOLLO HOAX videos :

One lie leads to another lie and another until you finally forget what you originally said , hearing these assholenauts is exactly what is happening!

None of these heathens can get the story straight. The problem with telling a lie is that you have to remember the lie to keep it going.

And those footprints are fake as fuck. Footprints like that ONLY occur in WET sand, like on the wet beach line. Also these footprints are so huge and deep. Moon's gravity is 1/6 of earths gravity, they weigh only 20 kg on the moon, and not 200 kg like in the pictures.

Not to mentioned the kinetic energy are the same as on earth. While the gravity pull is different. That is how You will see the scam.
That means You should jump higher than You were just 1/6 as heavy?

I think the real question is why did they even "go" to the moon?  You would think that they would make a full documentary and record every moment while they were up there on the surface showing them doing some actual research or exploration but they only have videos of them driving in circles for no reason.  People make documentaries here on earth exploring jungles and what not all the time you would think that they would record everything as they ventured to a place no one has ever been to. We send men to another body in our solar system for the first time and what do they concentrate their camera on? the spaceship they flew in from earth. Doesn't that strike you as odd? It would be like sending the Rover to Mars with a camera that just points backwards at the Rover.

In an atmosphere that can KILL you, these guys sure did a LOT of shit that could damage their suits. Could have flipped that rover, got hurt, put a hole in the suit, Wtf ? If I am on the moon, no help to be found I would NOT be joy riding and falling in the ground with rocks all over the place, FAKE

If I fell over on the moon on those small rocks I'd shit myself and check my suit. not NASA, let's practice bouncing on our hands and knees more!

When a team wins the stupid super bowl they parade the players every day for a week and every news outlet asking all of them how does it feel and shit like that and yet these people went to the moon and played golf on it and drove 4wheel dune buggy and yet no hard questioning by random news guy of these people as how was it on the moon ,that alone always bugged me the reclusiveness of the astraunots as though they turned into some kind of a freak like Fantastic four characters.

The internet blew nasas bullshit out of the water. In 1969 they had not planned that. Todays excuses are we lost everything.

Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?

'It's okay if you know it'' you heard it folks,this astronut tells you right on video, he didn't go and he doesn't care that you know it, because he will lie and lie to everyone and its because the liberal mind has no empathy or morals, none at all,just like actors,same exact thing..and when confronted about the lies, they get violent, that is always the last resort..

I crack  up sometimes while watching these evaluations as I suddenly realize how the "brains" behind the moon fake could never have anticipated the way we can scrutinize and study these clips. Further, it must be painful for any living astronauts to see their lies repeated in endless loops on youtube. Their fakery shall live in infamy. lol and God help me, but Buzz is just sooo campy. I never tire of his shenanigans, esp the latest while Trump was speaking. Do you think Trump was trolling Buzz? I like to think so!

The specific thing that lead me to entertain that it's all a hoax is that when I would watch atronots being interviewed on tv; what immediately struck me;was that they didn't look or sound intelligent. But as my mind would be telling me something doesn't add up;it's as if another message immediately started playing about how asteonots are the "creme of the crop", highly educated, intelligent, carefully selected" So my initial instinct would be over ridden by that brainwashed thought, and I would continue watching the interviews.

What is funny to me is that grown 40 year old men and women look back at the movies they watch in the movies when they were little and laugh now of how fake they look now as much as they looked so real when they were little. But those same people look at footage of a film that was made 15 or 20 years before they were even conceived and swear on their children that it is a real event and indeed took place on the surface of the moon.

If some robot like Jesus would walk on the Moon in sandals, wrapped in bed shit and NASA would say that was Jesus,  I am sure millions would believe it.

I'm loving this series of videos! I too can't figure out how the thousands and thousands of experts in the fields involved wouldn't have caught on to the many oddities that they were seeing. As someone with a liberal arts degree and who knows absolutely nothing about any type of science or math, I can understand why I was fooled. Add ten years of tv programming to that and you've got a sucker. I wasn't the only one in this situation by a long shot. What really gets me though, are the millions of people who now have proof right before their eyes that the moon landings and everything else that comes out of NASA is pure baloney. They are absolutely determined to believe it all and to defend NASA until their last breath. This is one of the very rare occasions in which I can thank heavens for YouTube. Many thanks for the great videos!!!?
Excelent post, please continue about the footprints etc. the more obvious the fakery the more outlandish the ‘moonish’ conditions.
And no one claiming those magic conditions came closer than 340.000 km of the moon.

I think the most obvious of the whole fakery is those moon conditions.
Extreme and all, but our weak batteries, limited air conditioning, delicate film, even more delicate human tissue could successfully cope with the most extreme conditions ever by a huge margin.
Like i said ‘the moon was really looking forward to our visit and paved the way’.
And those defending the whole saga do so from 340.000 km away as if they were there in 1969.
 ;D ;D ;D
Continue ... you are doing a great job and it’s  a pleasure to read !!

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #77 on: July 22, 2019, 01:20:49 PM »
Dutchy, dutchy, dutchy. The two men in the video are a pair of hucksters. The background mountain in the two photos are not identical, which means it's not a backdrop, which means it's likely an actual mountain photographed from two different locations. Fancy that, just like the astronauts said.  Location 1 with the lunar lander in front, and location 2 in front of the lunar lander, making the mountain appear to grow higher because you're closer to it. It's not that difficult to understand.
It's the opposite....magic moon conditions again ? Or camera specialties when moon conditions don't cut it ? ;D ;D



« Last Edit: July 22, 2019, 07:25:27 PM by dutchy »

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #78 on: July 22, 2019, 02:07:09 PM »

I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.

It does if you want to use regular orbital mechanics in the explanation.  Or the photos of a clearly spherical earth that were released.
Uh a poster named ‘unconvinced’ at page 2 claimed quote: ‘You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.’

I guess when it comes to the moonlandings we bend everything in favour of our fantasies.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Nope.  That was JackBlack.

I know it’s confusing to tell who actually said what.  I trust this doesn’t affect your unnerving ability to find the hidden meaning in everything?

;)

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #79 on: July 22, 2019, 02:10:56 PM »
Rockets can not work in a vacuum. Not only rockets, nothing work in a vacuum. in fact, what we call vacuum is a kind of black hole. it pulls everything around it and breaks it apart. it would only take a few seconds if space had actually been reached. claiming that the rocket works in space proves that you are completely ignorant of physics.
Yes, that is your baseless claim that you are yet to back up in any way.
Repeating the same assertion wont make it true.

Where is your evidence?

Meanwhile conventional physics easily shows that rockets will work in a vacuum and in order to have them not work would require violation of physical laws.

but we can't teach you to think.
Yes, you would have to be able to think yourself to do that.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #80 on: July 22, 2019, 02:28:20 PM »
jamas, I notice you still don't respond to a very simple question which clearly shows that rockets do work in a vacuum.
Why is this?
Can't think of a way to troll your way out of it?

0a. COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM
Citation needed.
Providing a single example of a single type of combustion not working does not show no combustion can.
Try it with a rocket.

A) When you look at footage from these lunar rovers, is that the dust behaves as if there is an atmosphere. It forms waves and is resisted by air and it falls back to the ground at the same speed. The dust from the wheelspin should propel 300 feet away.
No, it shows you don't understand dust, or are dishonestly presenting it.
The dust is being thrown up by the wheels. There is no indication of any interaction with an atmosphere, which would make the dust linger for quite a while.

Care to back up your claim that the dust from wheelspin should propel 300 feet away?
Or is that just your usual pull a number from thin air BS?

The driver NEVER STEERS the wheel.
You mean you don't understand how control systems work and think all vehicles need to be steered with wheels.
How about you try to learn how it was actually controlled.
Then provide a video which focuses on them turning around. I notice you seem to cut that bit out.

CGI are possible
Not to the level required at that time.

Michael Collins have pointed out many times that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars from the moon, or from the lunar orbit.
Where?

2. YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY
And it seems you have gone off into your spam land again. So I will skip the rest.

Now care to answer the very simple question yet?

What force acts on the gas to make it move in a particular direction when exiting the rocket and what body is providing this force?
Again, the only rational answer is that the rocket is providing a force to the gas to move it backwards due to the way it is partially contained.
That means rockets would work in a vacuum.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #81 on: July 22, 2019, 03:00:44 PM »
Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.
It destroys the common FE model.
They have the moon being a tiny rock, something like 50 km wide. Nothing like what was transmitted back to Earth from Apollo.
Perhaps more importantly, they need to reject all of NASA as fake, as if they accept NASA can go to space and so on, then they have to explain how satellites orbit a FE, which makes no sense and instead indicates Earth is round, and all the footage provided off a RE, either live footage, videos or pictures.

Uh a poster named ‘unconvinced’ at page 2 claimed quote: ‘You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.’
No, I did. But I don't see how that is relevant in any way.
It isn't like we only have a single picture of Earth from space instead of the countless photos from many different directions, all of which show Earth to be roughly circular.
That does provide enough information to determine the shape of an object.
Do you know what shape appears as a circle from any direction? A sphere.

And no one claiming those magic conditions came closer than 340.000 km of the moon.
And those defending the whole saga do so from 340.000 km away as if they were there in 1969.
Well there goes FE with its mere 5000 km away moon.

I am very aware how the different types of perspective work and able to perfectly execute it on a canvas.
But can you work backwards?
Some people really struggle with that.

If you would like to, please draw a side on, orthographic projection of the examples I provided Earlier, without just cheating.
Can you work out what shape they have to be?

It totally depends on the object....
If that were true the first ‘blue marble’ a single shot from earth was not enough for you to accept the earth to be a sphere
No, it doesn't depend on the object at all.
A single view of an unknown object will not allow you to determine its shape.

The first blue marble shot of Earth was not enough to determine the shape of Earth, but there was already mountains of evidence to show Earth was and is a roughly spherical object. Since then plenty more images have been taking from a multitude of different angles.

So your strawmanning is quite out of place.

And you did not comment on the ‘growing mountain on the right’
What growing mountain?

You seem to be comparing it to the size of the LM and completely ignoring how perspective works.
Also, just to make sure, you are aware they are parts of an assembled panorama, not a single image?

Yes of course it does, but the car should have been coocking and all batteries with it within a relative short timeframe.
Why?

And i don’t believe how they handled the cooling properly, using change-of-phase wax thermal capacitor packages and reflective, upward-facing radiating surfaces.
Then demonstrate that it doesn't work.
So far all we have is your claim that it shouldn't work.
I take it you also reject cooling using heat pipes like used on laptops and some CPU cooling assemblies?

That’s the power of scientific jargon..... that’s why startrek was such a success.
No, the "scientific jargon" used in startrek is complete crap.

You could not possibly know.
No, I could know quite easily, because I actually understand how our eyes will adjust to the environment, changing how bright an object needs to be in order for us to see it.
This is obvious.

If you were standing on the illuminated surface of the moon with all that light shining in your face, you would not see the stars.

Somehow you are continiously avoiding the obvious.
No, the obvious is what I stated above. You would not see the stars.
It is only if you managed to exclude the light from the sun and moon and gave your eyes time to adjust that you would be able to see the stars.

The extremely faint stars should be strongly engraved in the memory BECAUSE they were hard to see
No, they wouldn't be, as they would be used to seeing the stars on Earth at night.
The pitch black sky would be what is strongly engraved in the memory because of just how unusual that is.
On Earth we typically see one of 2 skies (ignoring the clouds and sunrise/sunset)
A bright blue sky, with an even brighter sun, or a dark sky illuminated with many points of light in the form of stars.
Seeing a black sky without stars is what would be memorable.
However that would be less so today with all the light pollution.

*

Stash

  • 5962
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #82 on: July 22, 2019, 03:08:25 PM »
Dutchy, dutchy, dutchy. The two men in the video are a pair of hucksters. The background mountain in the two photos are not identical, which means it's not a backdrop, which means it's likely an actual mountain photographed from two different locations. Fancy that, just like the astronauts said.  Location 1 with the lunar lander in front, and location 2 in front of the lunar lander, making the mountain appear to grow higher because you're closer to it. It's not that difficult to understand.
It's the opposite....magic moon conditions again ? Or camera specialties when moon conditions don't cut it ? ;D ;D


Going by the NASA reference numbers on the images I did some searching. The first image referenced in the meme, A17pan120264, has been close cropped. Here is the actual image with a super wide angle lens:



The image in the meme:



Strangely, when I put any combination of the number tagged to this photo (A17 14722492 pan) from the meme into search, nothing comes up:



I think you’ve been played.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #83 on: July 22, 2019, 03:10:56 PM »
0a. COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM:

  • Combustion of material with its own oxidiser is not impossible but the ignition is difficult.

  • The combustion chamber of a rocket engine is very far from being a vacuum.
    For example the combustion chamber pressure in the SpaceX Raptor engine is 300 bar or almost 262 kilograms per square centimeter. Roughly 300 x normal atmospheric pressure.
Quote from: cikljamas
0b. The airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.
Why should there be any "airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside"?
The lunar rover is only driven by astronauts wearing spacesuits (Extravehicular Mobility Units) so why would airlocks be needed?

You possibly mean the Lunar Module (LM) and not the Lunar Rover. If this if the case there were no airlocks simply to save weight.
When entering the LM from the CM the airlock is part of the CM (one hatch on the CM and one on the LM).
On the surface, the LM was depressurised before exit and repressurised after re-entry.
The LM atmosphere was pure oxygen atmosphere at only 5 psi, about one-third the pressure of the air.

So you, cikljamas, might not be able to understand these simple issues but that in no way proves it is "Fantasy the lot" it just proves that you are too lazy to investigate and understand it!

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #84 on: July 22, 2019, 03:38:21 PM »
Strangely, when I put any combination of the number tagged to this photo (A17 14722492 pan) from the meme into search, nothing comes up:
I actually found it easier to find that one.
Here is the fully assembled panorama:


The main images used all start with AS17-147-, and then there is 22493 through to 22495 and 22517 through to 22520.
For the other they all start with AS17-134- and then go 22437 through to 22446.

The strange part is the 2 are labelled in significantly different ways.
The close shot is labelled based upon magazine number and the number of the first picture.
The far one is labelled based upon the time.
Why?

Perhaps the best comparison would be comparing AS17-134-20441 with AS17-147-22518.
This shows they are quite similar, but definitely a 3D object taken from different angles.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #85 on: July 22, 2019, 03:41:56 PM »
0a. COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM ...

But the inside of the combustion chamber of a rocket engine is not a vacuum. By definition, there will be no combustion in a vacuum because in a vacuum there's nothing to burn. But squirt some fuel and oxidizer into the chamber and voila! it's no longer a vacuum.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #86 on: July 22, 2019, 03:55:29 PM »
Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.
It destroys the common FE model.

Yes. The common model is flawed. We need an uncommon model. I admit to being disappointed in those FEers who are so inflexible in their model that they are forced to invent silly conspiracy theories to back up their flawed model, rather than revising the model to be more in line with reality.

Notably, the duration of a conspiracy is inversely related to the number of people involved. A conspiracy of five people, if they are careful and lucky, can be maintained for a few years. A conspiracy of a hundred people might last a few weeks or a month. A conspiracy of a thousand people will fall apart within a day. And a conspiracy of ten thousand people won't last for five minutes. There's no way that all the world's governments and space agencies, or even just NASA, could maintain a conspiracy overnight.

I'm not going to get into the old fruitless argument, but a correct model of FE must be one that does not stand upon a belief in a massive conspiracy. The common model fails this test. An uncommon model is needed.

*

Stash

  • 5962
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #87 on: July 22, 2019, 03:59:59 PM »
Strangely, when I put any combination of the number tagged to this photo (A17 14722492 pan) from the meme into search, nothing comes up:
I actually found it easier to find that one.
Here is the fully assembled panorama:


The main images used all start with AS17-147-, and then there is 22493 through to 22495 and 22517 through to 22520.
For the other they all start with AS17-134- and then go 22437 through to 22446.

The strange part is the 2 are labelled in significantly different ways.
The close shot is labelled based upon magazine number and the number of the first picture.
The far one is labelled based upon the time.
Why?

Perhaps the best comparison would be comparing AS17-134-20441 with AS17-147-22518.
This shows they are quite similar, but definitely a 3D object taken from different angles.

Incredible. The crazy part is the disingenuous desperation: Take images, slated for panoramas and such, blow them up, place them side by side, create a meme, all saying "How can this be?!?" Completely out of context and out of the reality. All to forward a notion that fakery is involved. Maybe if one is a conspiracy theorist it's ok to fudge evidence because you think it serves the greater good of what you're sure of, exposing conspiracy?

That's just not how this is supposed to work. One shouldn't have to manufacture 'evidence'.

Dutchy, I'm not blaming you, but you've fallen into a trap.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #88 on: July 22, 2019, 04:07:51 PM »
Yes. The common model is flawed. We need an uncommon model. I admit to being disappointed in those FEers who are so inflexible in their model that they are forced to invent silly conspiracy theories to back up their flawed model, rather than revising the model to be more in line with reality.
The problem is that the only way to make it consistent with reality is to make Earth round, or to manipulate reality to such an extent that reality is pretending Earth is round. (But then Gaussian curvature gets in the way and Says Earth is round anyway).
All the FE models have some massive issues. Other FE models can address them while introducing their own issues.

The moon is one simple example of such a massive issue.

It is well know that the moon, just like the sun, is observed at different times in different locations. It also appears in a different apparent direction.
This one aspect (other than the exact direction being wrong) works with the common FE model, and has the moon being tiny, preventing people landing on it.
However it is also observed that it remains basically the same size and the same view is presented (ignoring the phases). That goes directly against the common FE model.
In order to have this aspect match you need to have the moon very far away such that its motion over the course of a day doesn't significantly change the distance and the movement across Earth doesn't change the direction you are looking at it. This then allows a nice distant moon and allows it to be roughly the same apparent size and the same side. But that introduces the problem of it not being in the same direction and it appearing at different times in different locations.
The sane way to solve both is to keep the moon far away and large, and then have the different directions and times be a result of Earth being round such that different side of Earth faces the moon.
That solves the problem of the moon, without introducing more.

So we don't need an uncommon FE model. We need a RE model.

You shouldn't be trying to get a correct FE model, as that starts with the assumption that Earth is flat. What you should be trying to get is a correct Earth model, which would allow Earth to be any shape.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #89 on: July 22, 2019, 04:11:33 PM »
Incredible. The crazy part is the disingenuous desperation: Take images, slated for panoramas and such, blow them up, place them side by side, create a meme, all saying "How can this be?!?" Completely out of context and out of the reality. All to forward a notion that fakery is involved. Maybe if one is a conspiracy theorist it's ok to fudge evidence because you think it serves the greater good of what you're sure of, exposing conspiracy?
The issue is do those making it actually believe?
I have always held that the majority of people making this "evidence" don't believe at all and know what they are saying is built upon lies. They aren't doing it to promote the truth but to try to have people rebel and overthrow the government, or to simply line their pockets. They are like snake oil salesmen.

One I found particularly stupid was someone claiming the ISS had to be fake because an astronaut dissolves as they leave the room, where the footage was a loop of this repeatedly playing, with a dissolve effect added to complete the loop.