Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

Closer to 12 and 12.25 than 12.5. It was only 12.5 when the back end of the tape got hung up on something.

The point you guys seem to have missed though is that in an actual sphere, total circumference should (roughly) 6 times the radius. At the diameter, this means a diametrical curvature of 2(6/4)r or 3r, and the radial (90 degree) curvature with radius of 3970 x 1.5; 3970 x 1.5=5955 - 3970 (discounting core to surface as this is equidistant from center and thus not accounting for actual curve)= 1985 miles. I feel like I'm missing something from the earlier calcation, but I can't remember. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Not by any stretch of the imagination would real sphere be possible (it's possible, but I mean, standing upright without noticing the curve) using the actual curve, and I'm being extremely generous by using what is equivalent to the original pi as 3 rather than 3.14... which instead gives us 6236.05615. If we subtract 3970 (the radius as defined in core to surface) from that, we get a curvature of 2266.05615 miles. Real spheres don't operate on 8 inch per mile, thet actually curve. And this curve is quite visible. Your invisible curve is a Smokescreen for the fact that Earth is quite obviously flat!

Instead of 8 inches per mile, this is about (2266/3970)=0.570780856423 or 1/2 mile per mile distance in curve. You'd notice. You also wouldn't be able to build anything.

Geometry is stifled by early Platonic thought, where they dealt in abstract figures rather than using functional forms in order to do real tasks. When you grab a real circular object, and try to really measure it, and it adds up to somewhere between 12 and 12.25, not 12.5, you know you have a garbage theory. And when people repeat over and over about how there should be a curve of (still quite noticeable) 8 inches per mile, and you crunch the math, and even discounting a lot of land, you at best get a substantially more curve than that, it's time to throw away "models" and start dealing in truth. And the truth is, we can't see this curve at all. We see something entirely different, that dumb crafty people try to convince us is curve. "Herp derp, sailboats disappear from the bottom!" Nope, they compress, due to narrowing angles of vision.

what YOU"RE missing is "roughly" and something so easily debunkable such as the ratio of circumference to diameter are so basic that you think no one but you and Danang have sounded the alarm?

astounding!

Again. That video is soundly debunked.

Why doesn’t the sun illuminate the bottom of your dome? 24/7? Duh…

Anyway.  The sun would have to turn north after setting in California.  No evidence.

The sun and its radiation are physically blocked by the curvature of the earth to create night. 

The sun wouldn’t set on a flat earth because the sun is too far above the earth in the delusion with the dimensions of the earth too small. 

And.  Again.

If the earth was flat. The sun should still come at you with seemingly very little change in speed for a long time, then seem to speed up and to fly by at a high rate of speed.  Greatly changing in apparent size.

Something like this. 




Which is nothing like reality.



Or this




Where on a flat earth the sun always 300 to 3000 miles above the earth couldn’t illuminate a cloud like this from the bottom. (and seriously, flat earther’s can’t scientifically agree on an actual distance to the sun by now?)




Where the sun stays a constant size as it arcs high into the sky from a earth rotating around its axis as it orbits the sun that is that  center of the solar system.

Where the sun changes very little distance from the viewer. 


Sorry.  No indication a sun 32 miles in diameter orbiting above a flat earth in atmosphere at high speed always relatively above the clouds in the middle of the van Allen belts making a constant right turn illuminating the underside of a dome. 

 sailboats disappear from the bottom!" Nope, they compress, due to narrowing angles of vision.

Then why can’t a good zoom lens bring the part blocked by the horizon back into view.  Or using crop to zoom an image?

Something like this…

Now, we can see how the curvature of the earth blocks the view of objects bottom up.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 10, 2024, 12:30:01 PM

Perspective can’t physically block things from view.

Things flat earther’s claim are blocked by perspective should be able to be brought back into view by zooming with a good telescope.

Notice as the camera zooms in on the building the horizon keep blocking the same portion of the building.  The building base is physically blocked from the line of sight by the physical curvature of the earth.

And why is it only the bottom at three miles?  While you can see the entire profile of a passenger jet 20 to 30 miles away.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 27, 2024, 06:42:40 AM

Again. That video is soundly debunked.

Why doesn’t the sun illuminate the bottom of your dome? 24/7? Duh…

most importantly
is that in the games-media-vs-flat-earth thread, the perspective where they clips an image of a tunnel

and any tunnel or long hallway really, shows perspective converging not just with a "rising to eye level horizon" but that the walls converge and the ceiling converges.

if the claim is the the bottom rises up, then the sides close in, and the top closes in.
everything should close in.

...yet for some reason, cut-off only happens from the bottom.



amazing!

what YOU"RE missing is "roughly" and something so easily debunkable such as the ratio of circumference to diameter are so basic that you think no one but you and Danang have sounded the alarm?

astounding!

What's astounding is that you think the ratio of circumference can become 8 inches by anything but funny math.

What's even more astounding is that you actually think land and water ought to look like you describe.

Let's do some digital editing, so that you can stare at your model in the mirror.

Unedited.

Spherize setting, horizontal curvature. As you can see, the lack of difference this makes even on the highest settings, proves Earth has horizontal curvature, because it is a flat disc.

Next, let's try vertical curvature.

The sky is tiny. Definitely not!


No radial curvature either.

and any tunnel or long hallway really, shows perspective converging not just with a "rising to eye level horizon" but that the walls converge and the ceiling converges.

Yes, convergence. Let's talk about convergence.

A guy in a deep enough well can see the sky above him, and the inside of a well. Rather quickly, obstruction ensures that everything converges ahead of him, in the form of a stone wall.
A guy at ground level can see about three to five miles or so, before everything shrinks to a tiny point more or less in all directions. Above him, a cloud bank obstructs the sun to the point where he can't even see it. However, off in the distance, he can see a mountain looming.
Now, a third guy has just climbed a mountain range, and here's where perspective gets interesting. You see, the third guy is distant enough that he can't see the second or first guy (not can they see him). He can however, see past those clouds and look at the sun. He can also see buildings and trees near where the second guy stands. He can even see past all that to the distant sea shore, a good 20 or so miles.

Curvature? No. The guy and the well are simply too small! He can see to where they are, and well past them, but even in the absence of buildings and trees, he cannot see them. They have converged. Meanwhile, he can see trees, large farms, hills, mountains. Major landforms yes, but at this distance, the people are pretty much invisible. He can see straight to a beach where the second guy cannot see.  He can see trees or buildings all around the first guy, but they converge so that he disappears behind them. He's not under any lip of the mountain, he's not around curvature, as he can see beyond the point were these two are. But objects close off around them. And even if they didn't, the second guy himself vanishes into a singularity. A dot.

I wold wager money there are people on this beach. Due to convergence, you cannot see any of them, even though the hilltop view clearly allows you to see the sand of the beach. Likewise, the buildings on the other coast appear tiny when compared with the near side. You can see distant mountains but not people. You can see even a distant bridge climbing up that mountain. But no people or pets on it.

Convergence. Not curvature.

how wide is that view (left-right) and at what angle does the triangle make for a 6ft person to the ground?

vs how far straight that is visible?



do triangles also follow "funny math" tricks?

It would be pushing it to think the picture shows even three miles of width of the horizon. 

The human eye can’t detect an 8 or twelve in drop on either side on a surface of waves.

Example.  The bridge / river are not even a half mile wide.



So.  Realistically, how much width would your ocean pictures of horizon show?  I would say three miles width would be very generous. 

The point you guys seem to have missed though is that in an actual sphere, total circumference should (roughly) 6 times the radius.

Yes, ROUGHLY, not exactly.

At the diameter, this means a diametrical curvature of 2(6/4)r or 3r, and the radial (90 degree) curvature with radius of 3970 x 1.5; 3970 x 1.5=5955 - 3970 (discounting core to surface as this is equidistant from center and thus not accounting for actual curve)= 1985 miles.

This means you are just making up numbers and throwing them together with no reason.

Try drawing a diagram, and showing what you mean by these numbers, because it looks like you have taken the circumference around 1/4 of Earth, and then subtracted the radius to give approximately the length of the arc along roughly 1/12th of Earth.
Just what do you think this should correspond to physically?

Not by any stretch of the imagination would real sphere be possible

Do you mean in general, or specifically Earth?
Are you trying to refute the existence of spherical objects?
Because you are yet to show any problem with reality.

it's possible, but I mean, standing upright without noticing the curve

Would be easy given the size of the curve.

Real spheres don't operate on 8 inch per mile

Yes, as explained repeatedly, as that is a straight line.
Yet here you are still clinging to it.
Again, do you understand basic geometry?

Your invisible curve is a Smokescreen for the fact that Earth is quite obviously flat!

Yet you can't provide a single thing to show it is curved, nor can you explain away the simple things which make it clear it isn't flat, like the horizon.

Instead of 8 inches per mile, this is about (2266/3970)=0.570780856423 or 1/2 mile per mile distance in curve.

No, it isn't, because that is also a straight line.

Again, do you understand basic geometry?
Do you understand the difference between a straight line and a curve?

If you are in a fixed cartesian reference frame, and you have a constant drop per unit distance, you have a straight line.
That is not a curve.
You will get never get a curve as some drop per some length.

Geometry is stifled by early Platonic thought, where they dealt in abstract figures rather than using functional forms in order to do real tasks.

You mean it goes to the pure shape, rather than shapes in reality which will necessarily be imperfect with measurements that will be imperfect.

When you grab a real circular object

By your own admission, you did not that.

I grabbed a roll of tape I had.
It is 88 mm across, and the perimeter is 277 mm.
This gives 3.147727....
Yes, I know it isn't perfectly pi. But I only measured to the nearest mm.

So no garbage theory, just garbage you grabbing a non-circular object to try to refute pi.

And when people repeat over and over about how there should be a curve of (still quite noticeable) 8 inches per mile

You mean the FEers, i.e. YOU, that are repeatedly told they are incorrect, and you just keep on ignoring the fact that you are appealing to a straight line?

it's time to throw away "models" and start dealing in truth.

So throw your BS model of straight line representing a curve, and try an actual curve.

And the truth is

That we can see the curve, such as how we see the horizon, how we see objects go over the horizon, how when we get higher, we can see further.

Nope, they compress, due to narrowing angles of vision.

The 2 are not mutually incompatible.
And it isn't magic compression. It is simple perspective. A statement of the angular size of objects. Something which doesn't make them actually blocked from view, and if you use better optics, you can still see them; yet the horizon doesn't move, and when an object is blocked by the horizon, you can't bring it back into view.
And no, I don't mean the dishonest BS you appeal to in your signature. The BS that has already been refuted.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 27, 2024, 10:09:37 AM

It would be pushing it to think the picture shows even three miles of width of the horizon. 

The human eye can’t detect an 8 or twelve in drop on either side on a surface of waves.

and the other question was how far straight can one see = depends on how much light can be sent from an unobstructed view.

ohoooo what possible could be obstructing the view of seeing more water?

sadly, bulmba, believes in parabolic umbrellas that follow each indivudal around as they walk.

What's astounding is that you think the ratio of circumference can become 8 inches by anything but funny math.

A ratio of circumference to diameter by definition is unitless. It is not 8 inches.
The drop you are appealing to is not the circumference. And YOU are the one continually appealing to this straight line of 8 inches per mile.

What's even more astounding is that you actually think land and water ought to look like you describe.

It isn't about what we think it out to look like.
It is about what geometry demands. You not liking that fact wont change it.

Let's do some digital editing, so that you can stare at your model in the mirror.

You mean so you can provide a bunch of delusional BS, so far disconnected from reality it isn't funny; where you just make up pure crap with no connection to the model at all.

How about this, instead, use software like PoVRay to see what it should look like. Actually put in the correct numbers for the model to show what it would look like.
Rather than taking a picture from reality and trying to distort it.
Any attempt at distorting the picture will intrinsically not show reality.
This means regardless of what you believe, if Earth was round, and you apply a filter to that image to make it look more round, you are showing what would be expected on a smaller ball, not Earth. So showing it doesn't match it useless.

Yes, convergence. Let's talk about convergence.

Actual convergence, which takes an infinite distance, or just your delusional BS where it works with pure magic?

A guy at ground level can see about three to five miles or so, before everything shrinks to a tiny point more or less in all directions. Above him, a cloud bank obstructs the sun to the point where he can't even see it. However, off in the distance, he can see a mountain looming.

So just your delusional BS where your vision is magically limited by pure magic, with no explanation at all.

Curvature?

Yes. As that can actually explain it.
It can explain why the person on the ground can only see a short distance, but can see objects much higher up much further away; while the person much higher up can see much further.

He can see to where they are, and well past them, but even in the absence of buildings and trees, he cannot see them. They have converged.

And if he uses the appropriate optics, he can see the one standing on the ground (not the one in the well, as the ground blocks the view.

Due to convergence, you cannot see any of them

Yet if you use appropriate optics, you can.
This is in contrast to objects obscured by the horizon, where no matter what optics you use, you can't see them.
This shows convergence is not providing the limit to your viewing distance, nor is it obstructing the view to more distant objects.

Curvature, not convergence, explains that.

Thank-you bulmabriefs, for finally sharing with us some of the flat earth cool aid you've been drinking all this time. Phuket word? Phuket word??

Everything this guy says, is exactly like the name of his channel suggests. Every word he says is "phuket". It is really, really phuket! (Just like his hairstyle )

I mean, you take your cues in life from a wanker like that? He used a dvd to represent the sun shrinking in size! What is he? Is he some kind of a monk? I'll bet you dress exactly like he does, in your best Hawaiian shirt from the 1990's, and neck beads.

Find yourself a world globe, Bulma, which will have printed on it, it's scale compared to the real world. Find that scale, because you will need it. Then, pull out your measuring tape, your calculator, and your geometry formulas, and start testing things.

Everything will work just perfectly.

Bulmabriefs, you wouldn't happen to live in Phuket by any chance, would you?

Phuket word recognises we each live in two separate worlds. Our seen immediate experience of the environment world and the greater entire world which is unseen. His mistake shared by all flat earthers is in thinking he can magically extend his immediate experience of the environment world to the entire world. He fails, but ten points for him trying.

Closer to 12 and 12.25 than 12.5. It was only 12.5 when the back end of the tape got hung up on something.

The point you guys seem to have missed though is that in an actual sphere, total circumference should (roughly) 6 times the radius. At the diameter, this means a diametrical curvature of 2(6/4)r or 3r, and the radial (90 degree) curvature with radius of 3970 x 1.5; 3970 x 1.5=5955 - 3970 (discounting core to surface as this is equidistant from center and thus not accounting for actual curve)= 1985 miles. I feel like I'm missing something from the earlier calcation, but I can't remember. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Not by any stretch of the imagination would real sphere be possible (it's possible, but I mean, standing upright without noticing the curve) using the actual curve, and I'm being extremely generous by using what is equivalent to the original pi as 3 rather than 3.14... which instead gives us 6236.05615. If we subtract 3970 (the radius as defined in core to surface) from that, we get a curvature of 2266.05615 miles. Real spheres don't operate on 8 inch per mile, thet actually curve. And this curve is quite visible. Your invisible curve is a Smokescreen for the fact that Earth is quite obviously flat!

Instead of 8 inches per mile, this is about (2266/3970)=0.570780856423 or 1/2 mile per mile distance in curve. You'd notice. You also wouldn't be able to build anything.

Geometry is stifled by early Platonic thought, where they dealt in abstract figures rather than using functional forms in order to do real tasks. When you grab a real circular object, and try to really measure it, and it adds up to somewhere between 12 and 12.25, not 12.5, you know you have a garbage theory. And when people repeat over and over about how there should be a curve of (still quite noticeable) 8 inches per mile, and you crunch the math, and even discounting a lot of land, you at best get a substantially more curve than that, it's time to throw away "models" and start dealing in truth. And the truth is, we can't see this curve at all. We see something entirely different, that dumb crafty people try to convince us is curve. "Herp derp, sailboats disappear from the bottom!" Nope, they compress, due to narrowing angles of vision.

It’s now the 28th Feb 2024, just to state an opening fact.

We have people arguing the toss about waves on a beach and the nature of circles and diameters . Talk about beating about the bush while refusing to acknowledge the ground on which it sits . To top it off  you said this:-


“The point you guys seem to have missed though is that in an actual sphere, total circumference should (roughly) 6 times the radius. At the diameter, this means a diametrical curvature of 2(6/4)r or 3r, and the radial (90 degree) curvature with radius of 3970 x 1.5; 3970 x 1.5=5955 - 3970 (discounting core to surface as this is equidistant from center and thus not accounting for actual curve)= 1985 miles. I feel like I'm missing something from the earlier calcation, but I can't remember. Anyway, it doesn't matter”

WTF……Well YES you are missing something, possibly everything, yes and it does matter.

Deciding to live your life with your head firmly wedged into some dark reality free corner is of course a matter of choice. Your choice. But to then use your severely self imposed limited non experience  of that dark void as some clue to what the world is like is just too way beyond madness to be taken seriously. Of course what you choose to see or more accurately not to see is your choice. The thing is just because you refuse to see those glaringly obvious things does not mean they are not there.

Turning to reality here in 2024 there are currently a whole bunch of countries all lining up to send various missions to the moon and you are arguing about something to do with a circle!!!! Just how divorced from reality is that?

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

Deciding that all this intense multinational activity is fake just proved the depth and scope of your own personal insanity, especially when it’s only the tip of the proverbial iceberg!

The other problem is the scope of your deliberate insanity is so huge and encompassing that it renders anything you say as utterly meaningless. You are not just ignoring the elephant in the room you are ignoring herds and herds of elephants along with ignoring both the room itself along with the city in which the room stands.

You choosing to ignore a massive part of reality is no basis on which to prove anything other than the depth of your own madness.

What is the point of debating the existence of a scratch on a table top when you refuse to acknowledge the table legs, the floor it stands on, the building supporting the floor and the very ground on which it all sits?

That is the nature of the utterly pointless argument you are currently engaged on.

Thr stupidity on display here by a number of flat earthers is simply mindboggling.

They seem to think mankind only landed on the moon once and totally ignore the fact mankind landed on the moon seven (7) times. Each time, the astronauts saw and filmed the globe earth from the moon. Twelve (12) people have walked on the surface of the moon.

I agree. If the reality of earth being in space is superfluous to your life, then concentrate on your immediate environment life and don't even think or worry about the shape of the planet. Nobody else needs to know. Keep it to yourself. But know that if your self radicalisation is not held in check and you feel you must argue the shape of the entire world, know that you will have your ass handed to you.

It’s now the 28th Feb 2024, just to state an opening fact.

And YOU decided to come to a FE forum, a forum for discussing and debating the shape of Earth.
Why?

WTF……Well YES you are missing something, possibly everything, yes and it does matter.

And yet other than saying that and throwing out insults, you don't respond to the statement at all.

If you want to say they are missing something, why not try saying what they are missing.

That is the nature of the utterly pointless argument you are currently engaged on.

Yet here you are. Why?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 28, 2024, 12:20:13 AM

It’s now the 28th Feb 2024, just to state an opening fact.

And YOU decided to come to a FE forum, a forum for discussing and debating the shape of Earth.
Why?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 28, 2024, 12:20:13 AM

WTF……Well YES you are missing something, possibly everything, yes and it does matter.

And yet other than saying that and throwing out insults, you don't respond to the statement at all.

If you want to say they are missing something, why not try saying what they are missing.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 28, 2024, 12:20:13 AM

That is the nature of the utterly pointless argument you are currently engaged on.

Yet here you are. Why?

Are you mad?

If you were debating the spelling of some words would it be logical to refuse to acknowledge half of the alphabet just because it didn’t suit either your argument or the person you were arguing with?

The irony if there could be any more! Is you then proceed to attempt to bring logic to bear on a situation totally devoid of it.

Ignoring reality and with all its indisputable and glaring facts is no more than an exercise in madness, one you are perfectly quipped for.

You say:-

“If you want to say they are missing something, why not try saying what they are missing”

I did, they are missing reality and the utter futility of what they are saying.

The points they are attempting to make are meaningless when they are purposely avoiding seeing the stark facts of reality. Choosing to ignore them makes no sense just as you trying to justify their actions does.

It’s just one more example, if any more were required, of your gross inconsistency.

Are you mad?

No. Are you?

You act like it is insanity to discuss/debate the shape of Earth, yet you came to a forum for that purpose.
Why?

Quote from: Timeisup on February 28, 2024, 02:29:01 AM

Are you mad?

No. Are you?

You act like it is insanity to discuss/debate the shape of Earth, yet you came to a forum for that purpose.
Why?

The Earth is a sphere as a circle is a circle.  Though I’m sure you could wish to question both.

It’s a sign of the times with mad people everywhere trying to bring to bear their neu-reality on to the world where expert knowledge and the truth can be sidelined for deranged fact free ideas.

Why are you here? From what I see you are no better than the flat earth cranks. After all you are the one who claims their ideas have enough scientific merit for them to produce valid scientific models!

Why are you here?

Because unlike you I care about the truth, and that means addressing arguments rather than just saying people are wrong.

From what I see you are no better than the flat earth cranks.

And that is just you projecting yet again.
You are the one that behaves just like a flat Earther.

models

I love how you claim to not have a grudge, and then keep bringing up past times where you were shown to be spouting pure BS.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 28, 2024, 02:47:32 AM

Why are you here?

Because unlike you I care about the truth, and that means addressing arguments rather than just saying people are wrong.  [or an expert and believing them]

directed @timesieies:

which to point out is how he also gauges teh truthiness of a factoid.
he doesn't gauge it based on the expert's title or appeal to authority, he gauges it on the validity of the arugment presented.

"expert" is meaningless to mr robot and arguing as such means you're having two different conversations.


PLEASE END THE INSANITY.

Thr stupidity on display here by a number of flat earthers is simply mindboggling.

They seem to think mankind only landed on the moon once and totally ignore the fact mankind landed on the moon seven (7) times. Each time, the astronauts saw and filmed the globe earth from the moon. Twelve (12) people have walked on the surface of the moon.

I agree. If the reality of earth being in space is superfluous to your life, then concentrate on your immediate environment life and don't even think or worry about the shape of the planet. Nobody else needs to know. Keep it to yourself. But know that if your self radicalisation is not held in check and you feel you must argue the shape of the entire world, know that you will have your ass handed to you.

Humans also landed on an asteroid the size of Texas.
In total 14 were to land but ended up trying to land 15 with one cosmonaut picked up from the devastated Russian space station.
Only 10 landed on the asteroid alive.
2 shuttles were sent up but only one made it because the other crashed.
I'm sort of an expert on this so I know it happened, just like you're an expert and know the moon landings happened, right?

Humans also landed on an asteroid the size of Texas.
In total 14 were to land but ended up trying to land 15 with one cosmonaut picked up from the devastated Russian space station.
Only 10 landed on the asteroid alive.
2 shuttles were sent up but only one made it because the other crashed.
I'm sort of an expert on this so I know it happened, just like you're an expert and know the moon landings happened, right?

The fundamental distinction here, is that YOU are the sole person spouting this delusional BS.
You don't have multiple different groups from multiple different countries corroborating it, nor do you have any photos or videos to justify it.

You spouting a bunch of BS doesn't make everything else BS.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 28, 2024, 01:12:24 AM

Thr stupidity on display here by a number of flat earthers is simply mindboggling.

They seem to think mankind only landed on the moon once and totally ignore the fact mankind landed on the moon seven (7) times. Each time, the astronauts saw and filmed the globe earth from the moon. Twelve (12) people have walked on the surface of the moon.

I agree. If the reality of earth being in space is superfluous to your life, then concentrate on your immediate environment life and don't even think or worry about the shape of the planet. Nobody else needs to know. Keep it to yourself. But know that if your self radicalisation is not held in check and you feel you must argue the shape of the entire world, know that you will have your ass handed to you.

Humans also landed on an asteroid the size of Texas.
In total 14 were to land but ended up trying to land 15 with one cosmonaut picked up from the devastated Russian space station.
Only 10 landed on the asteroid alive.
2 shuttles were sent up but only one made it because the other crashed.
I'm sort of an expert on this so I know it happened, just like you're an expert and know the moon landings happened, right?

Lol! I see what you did there. Proclaiming yourself an expert on an event that never happened and comparing that to me mentioning the moon landings.

I never said I was an expert on the moon landings, but what in your opinion would qualify me being an expert on the moon landings? Do I need to be an expert in the moon landings to accept they happened or mention they happened?

I don't think I need to be an expert on the moon landings to know they happened, at all. I know I can find all the information I want at any time on each of those moon landings. I can physically go and see the actual moon rocks they brought back to Earth. I can physically attend the Kennedy Space Centre if I want to and see first hand, the lunar modules, rovers, space suits, - pretty much most of what went to the moon and returned.

I know it would be impossible to fake all that. That's how I know it happened. In fact, it would be harder to fake it all, than to just go to the moon.

That's how I don't need to be an expert to know the moon landings happened.

That's how I don't need to be an expert to know the moon landings happened.

In other words, you could be completely wrong on all counts, but hey! Why worry about that? You don't really need science or the ability to be right! Just having someone tell you something is enough to know!

I know it would be impossible to fake all that.

On the contrary. The Apollo moon landing was July 20 (my brithday!) 1969.


By this point, despite still not having CGI, they were able to make convincing backgrounds and effects 10 years earlier in Ben Hur and Ten Commandments. If they can convince you that a matte painting and some model ships are real galleys, and that Ben Hur is actually riding a chariot, they can basically show you anything. Especially a moon landing, with government funds and a discretely hired film studio.


Oh, and fun fact! The ship actually sinks twice in Ben Hur.
http://www.wizardofmgm.com/2016/12/ben-hur-1959-miniature-ships.html

In other words, you could be completely wrong on all counts

No, in other words, you don't need to be an expert to know that various things have happened.

By this point, despite still not having CGI, they were able to make convincing backgrounds and effects 10 years earlier in Ben Hur and Ten Commandments.

Nothing like the footage from the moon landings.

Quote

That's how I don't need to be an expert to know the moon landings happened.

In other words, you could be completely wrong on all counts, but hey! Why worry about that? You don't really need science or the ability to be right! Just having someone tell you something is enough to know!

Quote

I know it would be impossible to fake all that.

On the contrary. The Apollo moon landing was July 20 (my brithday!) 1969.


By this point, despite still not having CGI, they were able to make convincing backgrounds and effects 10 years earlier in Ben Hur and Ten Commandments. If they can convince you that a matte painting and some model ships are real galleys, and that Ben Hur is actually riding a chariot, they can basically show you anything. Especially a moon landing, with government funds and a discretely hired film studio.


Oh, and fun fact! The ship actually sinks twice in Ben Hur.
http://www.wizardofmgm.com/2016/12/ben-hur-1959-miniature-ships.html

You're only a few years older than me.

Could I be completely wrong about the sky being colored blue in the daytime? Could I be completely wrong about me living in Australia? Could I be completely wrong about my gender?

How about we gather up the flat earther hoards from this site, and I'll join you all, and we'll spend a whole week touring the Kennedy Space Centre? Then you can tell me to my face as we are looking at actual rocket ships, moon rocks, space suits, talking to actual astronauts, etc., how it is all props and actors in an elaborate hollywood studio.

In the meantime, while you are deciding, if you haven't already done so, do yourself a favor and watch the documentary movie, "Apollo 11", and the documentary series, "From the Earth to the moon".

Make an attempt to understand the science, Bulma, and exercise that brain of yours for once, instead of always just your fingertips on your keyboard.

You are wrong about the way hordes is spelled. I have no opinion about the rest, except as it pertains to my own beliefs.

No need to waste your own money, I'll tell you that now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock
The main rocks supposed to be on the moon are Plagioclase feldspar (also found on Earth), Pyroxene (as a gem, definitely found on Earth), olivine (again, found on Earth's upper mantle), Ilmenite (found in Cornwall, originally). All of these can be found by geologists without ever leaving Earth, and some of them without much effort.





The rocket ships being actual doesn't mean they went into space, just as a nice car doesn't mean I drove it from US to Canada. There is nothing inherent about the building of a monstrous ship that proves it went anywhere.

My grandfather helped design spacesuits. He worked at Hamilton Standard which contracted under NASA along with making toilets and plane propellers. It doesn't mean his work wasn't just a prop for astronauts.

And I wouldn't believe anything astronauts told me.

There. I saved you money, which is more than I can say of the space cadets who routinely take billions from American taxpayers hoping to save for their children.

In the meantime, while you are deciding, if you haven't already done so, do yourself a favor and watch the documentary movie, "Apollo 11", and the documentary series, "From the Earth to the moon".

Should I also watch Williamsburg: Story of a Patriot? I'd get about as indoctrinated from that.

I exercise that brain of mine by debating you. Even though it seems like you guys never learn anything, as we always have the same stupid arguments.

Here's your education.

The main rocks supposed to be on the moon are Plagioclase feldspar (also found on Earth), Pyroxene (as a gem, definitely found on Earth), olivine (again, found on Earth's upper mantle), Ilmenite (found in Cornwall, originally). All of these can be found by geologists without ever leaving Earth, and some of them without much effort.

Which in no way negates the fact that rocks have been collected from the moon.

The rocket ships being actual doesn't mean they went into space

But it does show a level of insanity required to reject it.

And I wouldn't believe anything astronauts told me.

Of course you wouldn't, because it contradicts your fantasy, and you will never accept anything that shows you are wrong.

Even when you blatantly lie about the RE model, and have this corrected repeatedly, you still repeat the same pathetic lies.

Which in no way negates the fact that rocks could have been collected from the moon.

I concede that it could have been collected from the moon. But not that they were.

But it does show a level of insanity required to reject it.

Not at all. We can see rockets from our small town quite a ways from the launch area. And you know something? I've watched them go down. No, this isn't a moved across the sky descent. This is an upwards climb, then heading back down. These are probably the Space X up and return ships, but you can pretty clearly see from my distance that they never actually leave atmosphere. They go out of sight of the immediate crowd, but from a distance, I can see the wider picture.

They never head anywhere.

Of course you wouldn't, because it contradicts your fantasy, and you will never accept anything that shows you are wrong.

Would you believe someone who conned you and took your money? After the first Nigerian Princess scam, I would hope not.

This is the attitude I have towards astronauts. We visited some of this stuff when I was a kid going on school trips. Now that I know they lied, and know that they know they lied, I have no use for their talk.

I don't have to "believe a fantasy". I understand reality. The reality is the dollars and cents of how much NASA as a whole earns from tax money. Strictly speaking, I don't have to believe anything else about FE, to know that if they are lying about even one thing, they have exploited money from honest taxpayers. Yet I know that more than one thing is in doubt.