Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
The wiki does not clearly explain what exactly the evidence against NASA is. Even the more lengthy explanations are not of the highest quality. For example, the page "A Close Look at the Lunar Lander", is a joke of an explanation. It even quotes Tom Bishop and someone called "Mizzle" as if they are experts

  "Anyone who thinks that this landed and launched from the surface of the moon and that
    grown men lived in it with their space car is sadly deluded."
   
    - Tom Bishop

So can anyone give me a good argument proving the faults in NASA's official story?

Offline Hmmm

  • *
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Hi, Rekt, i have an argument you might consider weak, but you will likely become interested in - it's a lot of videos on youtube!
If humans would land on the moon, then why the moon "feels" like a lantern/hologram, just as the sun. Exactly because no one can ever land on the local sky object in atmosphere!.

Hi, Rekt, i have an argument you might consider weak, but you will likely become interested in - it's a lot of videos on youtube!
If humans would land on the moon, then why the moon "feels" like a lantern/hologram, just as the sun. Exactly because no one can ever land on the local sky object in atmosphere!.

Sorry, but the video you linked directly there is clearly achieving that effect on his own by adjusting the focus of the camera. That's why it goes from looking quite crisp at one point, to being a blurry mess shortly after. Bringing something out of focus is bound to do all sorts of things to it when you're gazing at it through trees or with clouds around. Your video doesn't prove anything other than someone with a very bad quality camera played around with the focus settings while looking at the moon.

When the first video I click on for your other link looks like someone did a poor job in Photoshop, I'm not all that tempted to look any further.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 280
    • View Profile
Hi, Rekt, i have an argument you might consider weak, but you will likely become interested in - it's a lot of videos on youtube!
If humans would land on the moon, then why the moon "feels" like a lantern/hologram, just as the sun. Exactly because no one can ever land on the local sky object in atmosphere!.

Sorry, but the video you linked directly there is clearly achieving that effect on his own by adjusting the focus of the camera. That's why it goes from looking quite crisp at one point, to being a blurry mess shortly after. Bringing something out of focus is bound to do all sorts of things to it when you're gazing at it through trees or with clouds around. Your video doesn't prove anything other than someone with a very bad quality camera played around with the focus settings while looking at the moon.

When the first video I click on for your other link looks like someone did a poor job in Photoshop, I'm not all that tempted to look any further.

The video is just crap...doesn't show anything much.

Pry yourself away from the computer screen.

View the moon through binoculars on a clear night - it's not only obvious that it's a very solid spherical object - but you can actually see shadows cast by mountains and crater rims near the edge of light and darkness.   It's viscerally obvious that it's a real place...and that it's huge.

The argument that it has the gut feel of a hologram is no evidence of anything.  Also holograms don't work like they do in StarWars.   You actually have to be looking towards the source of the hologram in order to see them.   You can't "project" a hologram out to some place away from the projector.   Light still travels in straight lines.

The reason FE'ers believe that there is a NASA conspiracy is that it's necessary for them to believe this in order to void all of the evidence from satellites, moon landings, ISS video recordings, mars probes, space telescopes,   solar telescopes, retro-reflectors placed on the moon, and ALL of that stuff which disprove their pet theory.

NASA continually produces proof that the world is round...it does this on a daily, even hourly basis.   So if you believe (for whatever reasons) that the world is flat - then NASA (and a HELL of a lot of other people going back at least 400 years and spanning dozens of different countries) must be part of a gigantic conspiracy.

I've worked with a lot of people at NASA - including several astronauts who flew in the Space Shuttle and worked on the construction of the ISS.  (I make flight simulators and worked on some of the many simulators made for Shuttle and ISS).  Nobody made me sign papers to keep this secret - the guys I worked with were compelling in their knowledge of what the world looks like from orbit how various unexpected things were hard to do in zero g.   There is no conspiracy.

This isn't proof that NASA is a conspiracy - none whatever - not one scrap.  It's a desperate assertion from people who are clutching to their theory by the thinnest of margins.

Hi, Rekt, i have an argument you might consider weak, but you will likely become interested in - it's a lot of videos on youtube!
If humans would land on the moon, then why the moon "feels" like a lantern/hologram, just as the sun. Exactly because no one can ever land on the local sky object in atmosphere!.

Sorry, but the video you linked directly there is clearly achieving that effect on his own by adjusting the focus of the camera. That's why it goes from looking quite crisp at one point, to being a blurry mess shortly after. Bringing something out of focus is bound to do all sorts of things to it when you're gazing at it through trees or with clouds around. Your video doesn't prove anything other than someone with a very bad quality camera played around with the focus settings while looking at the moon.

When the first video I click on for your other link looks like someone did a poor job in Photoshop, I'm not all that tempted to look any further.

The video is just crap...doesn't show anything much.

Pry yourself away from the computer screen.

View the moon through binoculars on a clear night - it's not only obvious that it's a very solid spherical object - but you can actually see shadows cast by mountains and crater rims near the edge of light and darkness.   It's viscerally obvious that it's a real place...and that it's huge.

The argument that it has the gut feel of a hologram is no evidence of anything.  Also holograms don't work like they do in StarWars.   You actually have to be looking towards the source of the hologram in order to see them.   You can't "project" a hologram out to some place away from the projector.   Light still travels in straight lines.

The reason FE'ers believe that there is a NASA conspiracy is that it's necessary for them to believe this in order to void all of the evidence from satellites, moon landings, ISS video recordings, mars probes, space telescopes,   solar telescopes, retro-reflectors placed on the moon, and ALL of that stuff which disprove their pet theory.

NASA continually produces proof that the world is round...it does this on a daily, even hourly basis.   So if you believe (for whatever reasons) that the world is flat - then NASA (and a HELL of a lot of other people going back at least 400 years and spanning dozens of different countries) must be part of a gigantic conspiracy.

I've worked with a lot of people at NASA - including several astronauts who flew in the Space Shuttle and worked on the construction of the ISS.  (I make flight simulators and worked on some of the many simulators made for Shuttle and ISS).  Nobody made me sign papers to keep this secret - the guys I worked with were compelling in their knowledge of what the world looks like from orbit how various unexpected things were hard to do in zero g.   There is no conspiracy.

This isn't proof that NASA is a conspiracy - none whatever - not one scrap.  It's a desperate assertion from people who are clutching to their theory by the thinnest of margins.
Let's at least be honest about one thing here. Flat Earth isn't a theory. It's a hyped up hypothesis. A theory implies it's been tested in multiple ways, and verified through rigorous scientific experimentation. Flat Earth has none of this, or they can't be bothered to present it. It's a pet hypothesis that people are clinging to on the slimmest of errors, because they can't be bothered to attempt to understand how something works before exclaiming that it obviously doesn't work that way for a RE. Like Tom's little post nearby on the moon. Let's say, just for a moment, what is being shown there isn't possible on a round Earth. How is it any more possible on a flat? It's not unless the moon is doing crraaazzzyyyy things up there in the sky, which aren't visible to us at all.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Offline Merkava

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Masterdebater
    • View Profile
Kudo's to anyone who even understood what Hmmm was attempting to communicate.  I'm not on that list.
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Kudo's to anyone who even understood what Hmmm was attempting to communicate.  I'm not on that list.
I quite agree. His tone was like: "I know I'm wrong but here's some probably fake evidence"?

Offline Hmmm

  • *
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Rekt,what about moon shifting its poles? It's a weird thing.

Rekt,what about moon shifting its poles? It's a weird thing.
I see nothing incorrect about his image. For all intents and purposes he flipped the moon and pretended he didn't. The part of the moon missing is exactly in accordance with what should be missing. Nothing to see here but paranoia.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Offline Hmmm

  • *
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Curious Squirrel,[/quote]
Nothing to see here but paranoia.
[/quote]
You might be right about that.