1

Flat Earth Community / Re: If NASA faked the moon landing, why doesn’t it fake any more great achievements?

« on: May 13, 2020, 11:09:41 AM »

Most of them believe the mainstream story, they aren't lying, they are deceived. As I said I worked on satellites myself, more specifically on the flight software (responsible for controlling the trajectory/orientation of the satellites, supposedly). I was given specifications that I had to turn into computer code. The problem is quite often there were logical contradictions in the specifications. That wasn't an isolated incident, it happened on many occasions. If I didn't uncover them and programmed the software according to the specifications there is no way the satellites could have flown properly. The guys I was working with were just turning the internally inconsistent specs into code like drones. With people like that working on critical parts of the satellites there is no way thousands of satellites are flying up there without any problem. Even the tests we conducted on the code to make sure it was working properly weren't foolproof. Back then despite all that I still believed the code I was writing was embedded on satellites orbiting up there. It took me many years to wake up.

Your friend who helped build the Space Shuttle's robot arm wasn't lying, she really built a robot arm. The friend taking seismology data from a craft on Mars isn't lying, she really believes that's what she's doing. Who is paying them for that work? Yourselves, through your taxes.

That work isn't pointless, it helps propagate the grand illusion that we're insignificant blobs of matter on a tiny speck of dust lost in an infinite universe, that there's nothing special about Earth or about us, that in the future life will become impossible on Earth and that in the distant future all life will become impossible in the universe, that everything will cease to exist, so as to make you believe that your life is meaningless and hide your true origins and your true purpose here. And while you're living in your bubble looking at pretty CGI and pursuing pointless materialistic goals, evil is spreading here on Earth and progressively enslaving humanity and destroying life and love and happiness.

Folks generally believe in Conspiracies (such as space travel being a hoax) so that they can make sense of a chaotic world and be assured that the Earth is the center of the universe and that we are not insignificant. In some cases, it's also to support religious belief or doctrine; a few folks that I've observed on this site fall into the "God-fearing" category with one citing religious doctrine with the Earth being flat and the Sun being only 6 feet in diameter.

It's a coping mechanism which consists of stitching together a narrative to help rationalize and make sense of our complex world. It's like eating comfort food.

When factual events, such as space travel and the moon landing, are difficult to comprehend as things humans actually achieved, than conspirators create a story or adopt notions that border on being delusional to ridiculous. You can't make this stuff up; it's fascinating. Its equivalent to the ridiculousness of aliens having visited Earth or the existence of BigFoot.

That's what you want to believe. I was an atheist and then an agnostic for most of my life, that didn't prevent me from seeing that science cannot prove that the Earth isn't flat or isn't at the center of the universe. All science can reasonably say is that a particular theory in which the Earth is round and orbiting the Sun is simpler than another particular theory in which the Earth is flat and at the center. This does not prove that there is no flat Earth theory that is simpler than the mainstream round Earth theory. And more and more it appears that observations/phenomena can be explained in a simple way within a flat Earth model.

As for the coping mechanism, it is a coping mechanism to refuse to seriously consider evidence when that evidence goes against one's own cherished beliefs. Such as the belief that powerful organizations wouldn't do that to you, wouldn't lie to you like that, wouldn't wish you ill. You want to believe that you are the master of your own life, that the bad things that happen in the world or in your mind are mostly an unfortunate consequence of the laws of physics, that there is no will behind them. You don't want to face the idea that powerful groups who have power over your life do not have your best interests at heart, but want you to be their slave, believing and accepting what you're told, so you can be controlled while they further their agenda. And that agenda doesn't lead to a world that is free and full of love and happiness. It leads to a world full of fear and suffering in which humanity is enslaved. And that isn't comforting. But the truth isn't easy to face.

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: If NASA faked the moon landing, why doesn’t it fake any more great achievements?

« on: May 11, 2020, 12:14:47 PM »

NASA has a bunch of cartoonist and magicians on their staff. And of course writers like you all to come and flood sites with rubbish.

Is this an example of high quality upper flora comments?

I don't work for NASA but I wish I did. If I worked for them I'd certainly say so and brag about it.

I have a friend* who works for them, I don't know whether directly, she might just work with them.
She's doing some really cool stuff, taking seismology data from a craft on Mars to study "Marsquakes".
Which poses an interesting question for anyone who thinks NASA are faking it all.
Is the person I'm talking about "in on it"? Is she lying about this job?
Or is she being fed fake data? Why? For what purpose? Why would they employ her to do something entirely pointless?

[*full disclosure, no-one I've heard from in years, she's an ex-colleague and I heard this through a mutual ex-colleague]

I have a friend who helped build the Space Shuttle's robot arm. She got flown to the Kennedy Space center for all the shuttle launches as an expert consultant to help with any problems the arm might encounter. Again, very smart and I can't imagine she lied to me all those years about what she did.

Most of them believe the mainstream story, they aren't lying, they are deceived. As I said I worked on satellites myself, more specifically on the flight software (responsible for controlling the trajectory/orientation of the satellites, supposedly). I was given specifications that I had to turn into computer code. The problem is quite often there were logical contradictions in the specifications. That wasn't an isolated incident, it happened on many occasions. If I didn't uncover them and programmed the software according to the specifications there is no way the satellites could have flown properly. The guys I was working with were just turning the internally inconsistent specs into code like drones. With people like that working on critical parts of the satellites there is no way thousands of satellites are flying up there without any problem. Even the tests we conducted on the code to make sure it was working properly weren't foolproof. Back then despite all that I still believed the code I was writing was embedded on satellites orbiting up there. It took me many years to wake up.

Your friend who helped build the Space Shuttle's robot arm wasn't lying, she really built a robot arm. The friend taking seismology data from a craft on Mars isn't lying, she really believes that's what she's doing. Who is paying them for that work? Yourselves, through your taxes.

That work isn't pointless, it helps propagate the grand illusion that we're insignificant blobs of matter on a tiny speck of dust lost in an infinite universe, that there's nothing special about Earth or about us, that in the future life will become impossible on Earth and that in the distant future all life will become impossible in the universe, that everything will cease to exist, so as to make you believe that your life is meaningless and hide your true origins and your true purpose here. And while you're living in your bubble looking at pretty CGI and pursuing pointless materialistic goals, evil is spreading here on Earth and progressively enslaving humanity and destroying life and love and happiness.

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 11, 2020, 02:59:49 AM »

Meanwhile the other two guys claim to see stars, planets, moons and even the Magellanic clouds during the day pretty much all the time. Are you seeing the contradiction now? Either these two guys are lying, or the other one, or all of them.

Well we have gone in circles here, I've told you how to test looking out windows in different conditions. I see no contradictions, I see you taking some quotes literally and seeing lies and conspiracies. Try looking out your windows tonight and see how it looks compared to the day. There is no contradiction.

Pretty much all the time, as in pretty much all the time during the day when they're looking away from Earth into deep space (since that was the question). Whereas based on the above, I think you can agree that Leroy Chiao didn't say that deep space is the darkest black simply because sometimes he was blinded by interior lighting. They contradict one another in a profound way that cannot be explained away.

Again that's what you hear, taking descriptive quotes and taking them 100% literally to try and find contradictions that don't exist.  It's not what I see, it's not what most of the world sees.

Interesting that you mention the JPL. Did you know that one of its founders (Jack Parsons) was an occultist who worshipped the devil, and that he was friend with L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology? They performed rituals together. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-mar-19-me-10501-story.html

Did you know that high-ranking Nazis involved in war crimes went on to work for NASA? One of them was Wernher von Braun, who became director of the largest NASA center and worked on the Apollo program. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a31067396/hunters-amazon-nazi-nasa-true-story/

More recently, at least 8 NASA employees were caught buying child pornography. Their names have been kept secret and they weren't prosecuted. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3184951/NASA-employees-caught-buying-child-porn-site-showed-three-year-olds-abused-escape-prosecution-names-kept-secret.html

Now I'm not saying that all people working for the JPL or NASA are evil. I'm sure there are plenty of fine people there who sincerely believe they are working for the greater good, unaware of what's really going on behind the scenes. But I think you can agree there is some shady stuff going on over there. In itself that doesn't prove all the conspiracy theories about NASA are true. But it's an incentive to look more seriously into them.

Ah, no, that's not incentive to look closely at anything. I'm not even going to bother looking up what the founder did or didn't do of if any of those accusations are even true or just rumor. You can believe NASA and JPL is working for the devil and abusing children but you can dig up bad things about employees working for any large corporation.  I'm supposed to be shocked that out of 10,000 people, some of them did bad things?

Not proof of anything, certainly not proof that NASA is run by the devil.  It's run by Jim Bridenstine, appointed by Trump.

I'm just guessing at NASA, but the point still stands.  You see a great evil in the world, and it colors your views of everything you see.  I don't see a great evil conspiracy, so my views are different.

What's an example of a proven true conspiracy on the scale of NASA and other space agencies and dozens of governments hiding the shape of the planet from the whole worlds for thousands of years?

I see a lot of good in the world but I also see a great evil indeed. This would be the biggest proven conspiracy if it were proven to be true, but let's not focus on flat Earth right now, step by step.

As examples of proven conspiracies on a large scale, we have the mass surveillance programs of intelligence agencies conspiring with big tech companies to monitor all electronic communications (not so long ago one used to be seen as a nutjob for believing in such a thing).
We have the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the US government lied to start a war with Vietnam.
We have the mind control project MKULTRA of the CIA, involving illegal human experimentation (torture in various forms).

The best list of proven conspiracies I have found is this one : https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/lopc . If you go through the list it paints quite a bleak picture indeed. It is evidence of evil on a large scale that we aren't aware of or that we choose to ignore.

I've read about a lot of those, and yeah humans have done terrible things. There is evil. But there is good, and to me, NASA is one of the good guys. Pushing the frontiers of human knowledge, providing stunning, awe inspiring pictures of our glorious solar system and the even more breathtaking universe all around us.

Bravely risking their lives to do it.

Even as people call them frauds and liars. That has to sting.

( BTW, I'm impressed you are quoting everything so precisely. I'm really struggling keeping from making formatting mistakes at this point. )

Well, if you can tell I'm not an idiot that can be one more incentive to look more seriously into the evidence against the moon landings, for starters. There is the widespread belief that people who believe these conspiracies are real are nutjobs, but that's not the truth, there are well-educated people who have looked into them and who can tell that something is amiss. I also believe that many people who are otherwise not highly educated have a sixth sense for bullshit, they aren't able to explain the thought process that led them to see that they are being bullshitted but they see it clear as day, whereas highly educated individuals tend to be more trusting of authorities, since a great part of education involves believing and accepting what the authority (teacher) says.

A sixth sense for bullshit doesn't sound very scientific or reliable to me.

I still haven't seen a single piece of evidence that even slightly confuses me. It all looks perfectly natural to me, all makes sense. All fits in with everything I know about the world.

I've seen the ISS with my own eyes.  I've taken pictures of it, good enough to make out the solar panels. I've watched how fast it moved, I've seen it show up exactly, to the SECOND where it should be, EXACTLY on target as predicted days in advance. I've got pictures 3000 miles apart I took as I traveled. I've seen solar eclipses, I've seen lunar eclipses, I watched the transit of Venus across the sun with my own eyes. I've seen Jupiter and it's moons, other planets, nebula.

Never once did anything not look exactly like NASA shows.

If the ISS is fake I have no idea how they are doing it. It's always where it should be as it orbits. I refuse to believe they put a fake one up there every time *I* personally decide to take a picture of it.

It's just not credible to me that the moon landings and space shuttle and the ISS is fake.  And I am sorry but you do sound like one of those people when you accuse astronauts that risk their lives every day of lying because they don't describe looking out a window the same way. You are clearly intelligent, but I see a very strong bias here. It's not my place to question why, but I can tell you how it looks to me.

The issue is no matter what evidence I come up with it won’t get through to you. Think about it, what evidence could convince you? Or even slightly confuse you? If some astronaut says something that contradicts the official story, you will say that he didn’t mean it literally, or that he had a lapse of judgment. If you see something in a picture or video that shouldn’t be possible, you will say it must be some artefact, or that it’s possible. If one day the ISS doesn’t show up where it’s supposed to and then NASA comes up with the statement that it was due to peculiar atmospheric conditions or something, you will believe them. Seriously, try to think of one piece of evidence that would even begin to slightly confuse you. If you can’t think of any then you’ve already made up your mind no matter what.

Leroy Chiao has spent 36 hours on spacewalks, 229 days in space, he says again and again that deep space is the darkest black you can imagine during the day! That’s not a matter of internal lighting! The two other astronauts say they see stars, planets, moons and the Magellanic clouds during the day! How else do you want to interpret what they say? This has nothing to do with looking out the window during the day and during the night, here they’re all clearly talking about during the day, they mention it repeatedly.


I cannot make you accept what I’m saying here. I can only show you the way, then it’s up to you to see where it leads. Why do you think I wanted to be an astrophysicist and I became a space engineer? Because I was passionate about space, the beautiful pictures, the mysteries, the unknown left to be discovered and explored. Because I wanted to understand where we are, where we come from, where we are going. Because I wanted to find the truth. I trusted the mainstream story for so long. But progressively I woke up to the lies, more and more. I know it’s too hard to take it all at once. It took me many years to wake up.

When you get the time, watch the documentary American Moon from start to finish, going into it with an open mind, not believing that the guy who made the documentary is your enemy but that he is also honestly looking for the truth, and pointing out things that don’t make sense. Maybe if you watch the whole video there is one piece of evidence in there that will slightly confuse you and help you see things that you’re not seeing yet.

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 11, 2020, 12:52:41 AM »

I mentioned orbit differences because in your previous message you brought up Astronauts on the moon, and Apollo flights. So I was saying of course not everyone sees the same thing.

Go into a room at night,m turn on the light, walk until you can see the reflection of that light in the window.  What do you see?  Now move up to the window and look out, see anything different? Are you a liar now?

That's why I don't see a conspiracy. Of COURSE they will all see different things at different times and are all going to describe what struct them the most and no, I don't at all expect them to repeat the exact same thing when describing their experiences.  I see nothing wrong with that.

Okay. The problem is Leroy Chiao has spent 229 days in space, including 36 hours on spacewalks (as the official story goes https://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/members/chiao-bio.html), from 1994 until 2005. He retired from NASA in 2005.

The RT interview in which he mentions that "When you're in space and you're looking into deep space and you're on the Sun side of the orbit, it's the darkest black you can imagine" is from 2014.

He was saying the same in 2005 : "The most mysterious thing hes come across is the utter blackness of space. It looks like the darkest black you can imagine" (https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bellaire/news/article/St-Anne-pupils-make-contact-with-astronaut-in-9782028.php)

He was still saying the same in 2016 : "The creepiest thing is looking out into deep space while you are on the sunlit part of the orbit. The sunlight washes out the starlight, and all you can see is the darkest black you can imagine, going on basically to infinity!" (https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3tbjwa/were_all_astronauts_ask_us_anything_about_what/ , posting as Astrodude)

So the guy has been 229 days in space, 36 hours on spacewalks, and more than 10 years later he still talks about the darkest black you can imagine, as the "most mysterious thing" he's come across, "the creepiest thing". Is that the kind of comment you make year after year after year because on some occasions you didn't see stars because your eyes hadn't adapted to the darkness? Hell no. He is saying that during the day he never saw stars, even on spacewalks, and that it left a deep impression on him.

Meanwhile the other two guys claim to see stars, planets, moons and even the Magellanic clouds during the day pretty much all the time. Are you seeing the contradiction now? Either these two guys are lying, or the other one, or all of them.

You are taking when he said you can see stars "pretty much all the time" as literal.  Like, how can he see stars with his eyes closed, he said ALL THE TIME!

Again, I see nothing about their discussions I don't hear every day when talking to people.  You are being WAY to literal about interviews with people who are just trying to describe what it's like to work up there. Again, read my "room with a lamp at night" example above.  I might say I can see whats going on in my yard at night all the time, even though sometimes the lamp blinds me. It's just a figure of speech, they are not writing scientific papers on their observations, it's entertainment.

Pretty much all the time, as in pretty much all the time during the day when they're looking away from Earth into deep space (since that was the question). Whereas based on the above, I think you can agree that Leroy Chiao didn't say that deep space is the darkest black simply because sometimes he was blinded by interior lighting. They contradict one another in a profound way that cannot be explained away.

I have verified with my own eyes and telescopes and cameras a hundred times, things NASA and science has told me is true. Some of my friends work for JPL, I don't think they are liars, or actors.

Has NASA lied? I'm sure they have. Probably covered up sloppy safety issues or wasted money. But the shape of the earth? No way.

Interesting that you mention the JPL. Did you know that one of its founders (Jack Parsons) was an occultist who worshipped the devil, and that he was friend with L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology? They performed rituals together. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-mar-19-me-10501-story.html

Did you know that high-ranking Nazis involved in war crimes went on to work for NASA? One of them was Wernher von Braun, who became director of the largest NASA center and worked on the Apollo program. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a31067396/hunters-amazon-nazi-nasa-true-story/

More recently, at least 8 NASA employees were caught buying child pornography. Their names have been kept secret and they weren't prosecuted. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3184951/NASA-employees-caught-buying-child-porn-site-showed-three-year-olds-abused-escape-prosecution-names-kept-secret.html

Now I'm not saying that all people working for the JPL or NASA are evil. I'm sure there are plenty of fine people there who sincerely believe they are working for the greater good, unaware of what's really going on behind the scenes. But I think you can agree there is some shady stuff going on over there. In itself that doesn't prove all the conspiracy theories about NASA are true. But it's an incentive to look more seriously into them.

I'm just guessing at NASA, but the point still stands.  You see a great evil in the world, and it colors your views of everything you see.  I don't see a great evil conspiracy, so my views are different.

What's an example of a proven true conspiracy on the scale of NASA and other space agencies and dozens of governments hiding the shape of the planet from the whole worlds for thousands of years?

I see a lot of good in the world but I also see a great evil indeed. This would be the biggest proven conspiracy if it were proven to be true, but let's not focus on flat Earth right now, step by step.

As examples of proven conspiracies on a large scale, we have the mass surveillance programs of intelligence agencies conspiring with big tech companies to monitor all electronic communications (not so long ago one used to be seen as a nutjob for believing in such a thing).
We have the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the US government lied to start a war with Vietnam.
We have the mind control project MKULTRA of the CIA, involving illegal human experimentation (torture in various forms).

The best list of proven conspiracies I have found is this one : https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/lopc . If you go through the list it paints quite a bleak picture indeed. It is evidence of evil on a large scale that we aren't aware of or that we choose to ignore.

( BTW, I'm impressed you are quoting everything so precisely. I'm really struggling keeping from making formatting mistakes at this point. )

Well, if you can tell I'm not an idiot that can be one more incentive to look more seriously into the evidence against the moon landings, for starters. There is the widespread belief that people who believe these conspiracies are real are nutjobs, but that's not the truth, there are well-educated people who have looked into them and who can tell that something is amiss. I also believe that many people who are otherwise not highly educated have a sixth sense for bullshit, they aren't able to explain the thought process that led them to see that they are being bullshitted but they see it clear as day, whereas highly educated individuals tend to be more trusting of authorities, since a great part of education involves believing and accepting what the authority (teacher) says.

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 10, 2020, 01:40:50 PM »

There are two ways of looking at all those conversations you posted.

1. They are all liars who can't keep their stories straight but somehow have fooled the entire world for 50 years.

2. Differences in interior lighting, window materials, orbits, sun position, and eye light sensitivity means people see different things.

Number 2 is the obvious choice for me.

Considering Leroy Chiao has been on the ISS, and he says that during the day when you look into deep space it's the darkest black you can imagine, how do you explain how Mike Massimino and Don Pettit can see stars, moons, planets and the Magellanic clouds "pretty much all the time"?

It's not a difference in orbit because the orbit is the same. The sun position is irrelevant because they're all looking during the day away from the sun into deep space. Eye light sensitivity is not going to make two people see extremely faint details while some others would see the "darkest black you can imagine", unless these guys are blind. Window material is supposed to be the same and it wouldn't make such a difference. Interior lighting during the day is not going to make you stop seeing what's outside.

If you're going to pretend that different astronauts see totally different things in the same place then why trust anything they say they see? Seriously one might say something and some other one would say the total opposite, and maybe in their place we would see something totally different, so why listen to them at all if we see such a different world? Why believe pictures from space if other cameras or our own eyes would see something totally different? That's what your stance leads to.

I don't want to believe they're all liars but damn at least admit it when there is stuff that doesn't make sense, because there it's just your confirmation bias saying "there must be an explanation because I can't believe they would be lying". Yea well what if the explanation is they are lying? You don't want to believe it but what if it's true? The reasons you gave aren't valid so what's the explanation?

We bring up conformation bias because you see two people look at each other to see who is going to speak, and think that's suspicious behavior indicating a conspiracy.

If they were really looking to see who is going to speak, why do they then proceed to talk on top of each other again and again? Don't you see that saying that "they look at each other to see who is going to speak" is your own confirmation bias because you're assuming in the first place that they're telling the truth? Don't assume they're telling the truth and don't assume either they are lying but look at their body language, and indeed try to explain why would they look to see who is going to speak only to keep talking on top of each other for the rest of the conversation.

I do astrophotography as a hobby, I'm well aware of how lighting conditions can make it easier or harder to see stars, as well as how cameras work in general. I am not even slightly surprised two people in the same place can see differently. When I do stargazing it takes a good 15 minutes for my eyes to adjust. One guy looks at a bright light and he's not seeing anything out the windows for a while.

Doesn't explain how some guys can see the faintest details pretty much all the time and some others always see the darkest black you can imagine.

#3 0:20 Guy in the back left puts his hand out as he sees a foot coming at him, then reaches for something offscreen.
#3 0:36 I see the guy reaching behind him to gold on to a black curved bar.

What do you see?

#3 8:55 I see a woman floating in space, occasionally grabbing things and... her head is tilted to look at the camera? What is weird about wanting to have your face right side up for the camera?

What do you see wrong?

I'm gonna mention the precise timestamps, the timestamps I gave were supposed to be the beginning of the scene so you could see the context.

#3 0:22 What is the guy in the back left reaching for?
#3 0:47 I don't see a black curved bar, where is it? There is the wire of the mic but that's not what the guy is grabbing. His hand is visible and he appears to be grabbing something invisible while pulling the guy in blue towards him.

#3 From 9:00 to 9:07, don't focus on the tilt of her head. How can her whole body be moving in that way in zero-G? She has to grab something in order to not be carried away.

Every single 'contradiction' in American Moon is easily explained, and has been over and over.  That video isn't anything new, it's a re-hash of stuff that's been floating around forever, and has been debunked over and over before that video took them and mixed them in with pop culture references. I can't take a video seriously that makes me watch clips of Minions and Coneheads as evidence of a vast ranging conspiracy. At least Capricorn 1 was a decent movie. But doesn't prove anything.

Oh really? Have you watched the whole documentary? Clips of Minions and Coneheads and Capricorn One aren't proof of anything, seriously if that's what you're focusing on out of all the important info and evidence in the documentary then maybe you aren't willing to discuss the evidence.

The documentary asks a series of 42 questions. The first question starts at the 1:13:13 mark. I have mentioned a few of them in this thread that have gone unanswered. I'm not gonna list them all, just a few. Here is the link of the documentary again : https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/

Question # 4 (see from 1:11:50 to 1:13:00) : How is it possible that one of the very few astronauts to have crossed the Van Allen belts doesn't even know where they are, and even doubts having gone "far enough out to encounter the Van Allen belts"?

Question # 10 (see from 1:23:55 to 1:26:20) : Given that this is the LEM’s ascent engine tested on Earth, why is there no visible flame under it when it takes off from the moon?

Question # 16 (see from 1:40:08 to 1:46:10) : Given that, according to NASA’s manual, "The HGA pointing must remain within 2.5° of Earth" and that "the video signal will degrade extremely rapidly beyond that point", how was it possible to broadcast images with such violent oscillations without the signal breaking nor degrading during the live feeds from the Moon?

Question # 21 (see from 1:55:52 to 2:00:30) : Given that these are not artefacts from video conversion, nor are they glares inside the lens, can you explain what these flashes of light sometimes appearing over the head of the astronauts actually are?

Question # 22 (see from 2:00:30 to 2:03:30) : Can you explain how it is possible to make a movement such as this one, this one, or this one, without some kind of external force pulling you upwards?

Questions # 27-30 (see from 2:21:35 to 2:30:38) :
Given that, according to NASA, "no practical method exists for eliminating cosmic radiation damage", and that "this degrading factor must be accepted", where is the degradation, significant but acceptable, that should appear on the lunar pictures?
Given that this is the result of cosmic rays’ impact on film within the magnetosphere, where radiation is weaker than in external space, can you explain why on the lunar pictures there are no visible signs of radiation damage?
Given that this is the result of a simple X-ray scan, which last only a few seconds, can you explain why in the Apollo pictures, which have been exposed to cosmic radiation for up to 8 consecutive hours, there is no visible graining whatsoever?
Given that the lunar surface gets hit by an average of one to four particles per square centimeter per second, and that the cameras have been out on the surface, unprotected, for up to 8 consecutive hours, can you explain why on the lunar pictures there are no signs of degradation due to the radiation?

Questions # 34-35 (see from 2:48:42 to 2:56:50) :
When the sun is on the side, all shadows on the ground must appear parallel to each other. Can you explain why in this NASA picture the shadow of the LEM and those of the rocks in the foreground appear to be clearly diverging instead?
Given that this scene is supposedly lit by the sun, which is millions of miles away, can you explain why the shadows lead to a source that is located not far from the left edge of the image instead?

Question # 37 (see from 2:57:03 to 3:00:00) : Being millions of miles away, the sun casts sharp shadows on the ground. Can you explain why in these pictures there is a soft edge all around the astronaut’s figure instead?

None of it makes me think "How there is a powerful evil in this world that works on deceiving and enslaving humanity."  That's not in any of those videos, that's coming from your head. That's why most people don't see the same things you do, they see regular folks with incredible jobs doing neat things in space, and you see wires and deception everywhere. You have to ask yourself, if you see evil in all these people, where is that coming from?

When did I say that my realization there is a powerful evil in this world comes from these videos? That comes from your head, not mine. This realization comes from what I have seen and experienced, not from these videos.

Is there evil in the world? Hell yeah. But I don't think NASA is behind it all. People are jerks. Jerks do evil things. I wish there was one guy we could take out that is behind everything bad, but there isn't.

When did I say that NASA is behind it all? NASA would just be one part of the whole, one tentacle. Plenty of seemingly crazy conspiracy theories involving governments and government agencies turned out to be true. That of course doesn't prove that any seemingly crazy theory is true, but it should at least make us skeptical and not blindly trusting of what they want us to believe. And in the case of NASA there is a lot of evidence of deception.

There is always a logical explanation if you look closely enough.

And sometimes the only logical explanation remaining is that we are being deceived.

#3 9:00 Again, I see nothing wrong. At what exact second do you see her moving to the right that you can't explain? I see her reaching with her arm several times and moving her legs and nothing looks out of place to me. I'll need more exact timestamps.

Her waist is moving upwards/right, it's not her legs that are responsible for this movement. How does she get from the position at 9:02 to the one at 9:07? It clearly seems that if she wasn't holding on with her hand she would be carried away by an invisible force.

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 09, 2020, 10:56:19 PM »

A. I can see my yard out my window in the day.

B. I can not see my yard out the window at night with the lights on inside.

So why is it not surprising that they can sometimes see the stars, and sometimes not? They even have special viewing areas that can be covered and darkened to make viewing better. You think the internal environments in the Apollo capsules are exactly the same as in the ISS? Or the same as wearing a heavily reflective space suit helmet? Of course they can see stars in some situations and not others. I can't see stars in the day, but it doesn't mean they aren't there. None of that is evidence of lies at all.

Really listen to what they say :

"Whilst in space, have you ever looked away from Earth into the black void?"
*look at each other for several seconds not knowing what to say*
"Yea, yea, all the time, you can see the stars, pretty much all the time you can see the stars"
"There's all the stars there, the cool thing is that you can see it during the day"
"Yea you can and there's more than stars, you can see planets, you can see moons, you see the Magellanic clouds"

Meanwhile Leroy Chiao, who has also been on the ISS (as the official story goes), says :

"When you're in space and you're looking into deep space and you're on the Sun side of the orbit, the sunlight washes out all the starlights so you can't see any star just like here on Earth"
"When you look at into deep space away from the Sun it's the darkest black you can imagine"

Michael Collins also claimed he couldn't see any star while in lunar orbit.

So your analogy is completely off the mark. A more correct analogy is :

A. Two guys see their yard out their window during the day including the faintest details.
B. Two other guys see the darkest black you can imagine when they look out their window during the day.

If you don't see the contradiction there then you're full into the confirmation bias you guys keep bringing up.

And repeating "it looks like science fiction or a Hollywood movie" 100 times in a row doesn't change the fact he was saying the videos we have no are so amazing it looks like science fiction.

Don't focus on that part, the timestamp I mentioned begins right after that.

That whole video showed me nothing. Air bubbles? Air bubbles go up, not up AND sideways. Every single example is utter nonsense. I could debunk every one of them if I thought it would do any good.

Please do. You know what? I don't want to be right about all that. I don't want to believe that humanity has been lied to on such a grand scale for decades, centuries or even millennia. I don't want to believe that the people who govern us don't have our best interests at heart, that the stories we're told about who we are and where we come from and our place in the universe are lies, that the mainstream media lie to us on such a scale, I don't want to believe all that because it's easier not to. But I go where the evidence leads me, and unfortunately more and more the evidence leads me to that belief. And I still prefer to face the hard truth rather than swallow easy lies. When I was a kid I wanted to be an astrophysicist. I studied the mainstream fundamental theories of physics in depth. I became an engineer and I worked on satellites. There is stuff I saw there that didn't make sense. And more and more I realized how powerful people conspire against the general population. How the mainstream media spread lies. How there is a powerful evil in this world that works on deceiving and enslaving humanity. For most of my life the idea that men never walked on the moon struck me as far-fetched, as stupid. And yet the evidence is there. Watch the documentary American Moon from start to finish with an open mind, look at the evidence objectively, there are contradictions in the official story that can't be reconciled, that can't be explained away, evidence of lies, deception.

Point 3?  You mean showing over and over at 03:07 where her jacket sleeve gets caught on the patch on her chest?

You're right about that one, I hadn't noticed that.

Or where the guy goes to reach for the spinning person in case he needs to catch him, then grabs a handhold out of frame?

Watch carefully, his hand is not out of the frame when he pulls him back.

How about the one at 9:00? Don't focus on the tilt of her head, that's not the intriguing part. There is a force pulling her to the right, how do you explain that in a zero-G environment?

In the last video I linked, the guy is holding a mic with one hand, then somehow the fingers of his other hand go underneath the fingers of the hand holding the mic. How is that possible without video manipulation? Between 11:15 and 11:30 here :

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 09, 2020, 07:51:50 PM »

In many movies zero-gravity is simulated with wires, such as in Gravity or Ender's Game. In the TV series The Big Bang Theory there is an episode where the interior of the ISS and zero-G are simulated. The technology exists to make the wires invisible, even in real-time. In a live performance David Copperfield is seen suspended in the air and even flying, with no wires visible.

So there is evidence that the space agencies lie, evidence that they fake footage, evidence that the ISS crew are suspended by wires, and evidence that the wires can be made invisible.

You are making a logical fallacy here.

You are saying because a thing can be done, that is evidence that it's being used in a particular case.

I am right now, holding a roll of duct tape while typing with one hand.

That is proof it can be done.

Therefore, I say you must be doing the same, since I've proven it's possible.

See the flaw?

The logical fallacy is yours since I didn't say that. "So there is evidence that the space agencies lie" is a consequence of point 1, "evidence that they fake footage" is a consequence of point 2, "evidence that the ISS crew are suspended by wires" is a consequence of point 3, and "evidence that the wires can be made invisible" is that it's done in movies and magic shows.

I didn't say the fact it's done in movies and magic shows is proof that it's done in the ISS, I merely said it shows that it's possible. Otherwise some of you would have replied something like "we would see the wires if they were there".

However the evidence in point 3 is pretty compelling in itself that there are invisible wires being used.

By the way I will reply to your post in the thread on electromagnetic acceleration when I get the time.

All of these things have been refuted before. The eyes see what it wants to see. I've watched over all of the footage in these videos before and not much much to my surprise, I've never once seen a harness or a wire. I've seen some transitioning between takes which is normal for non-live footage, fades in, fades out etc. You see fade transitions all the time in many videos but it's not proof that the whole video is faked, it's just proof that someone is splicing the footage... No one cares about that. Show me a harness or wire and not just videos of people saying "hey look see! they moved in a way that IMO looks like they'd have a wire on". this is purely opinion and pretty obvious confirmation bias. Also regarding the "bubbles" in space, they're not bubbles, you can look this stuff up. Everything can be explained easily enough if you haven't already made up your mind.

Take a look at the facts... anyone can see the ISS is up there, anyone can listen in to radio transmissions, people have spoken to the astronauts on board the ISS live. Anyone with a telescope and a smart phone can track the ISS and see it. There's a shit ton of footage and none of that footage shows any wires or harnesses holding people up on the ISS. The only "evidence" is people claiming things that aren't bubbles are bubbles and that people are being held up by wires that simply aren't there.

"All of these things have been refuted before", yea right, just like supposedly all the evidence in the documentary American Moon has been refuted before, and yet when I mention specific points from the documentary there are many that go unanswered.

You say you've watched all the footage in these videos before, I sincerely doubt it, but let's say you have, don't watch the whole videos but focus only on the timestamps I have mentioned. I agree that in most such videos there is a lot of confirmation bias (just like there is confirmation bias on your side), however the specific examples I pinpointed are pretty hard to explain away. Why don't you watch the specific ones I mentioned and try to explain them?

In the first video between 11:27 and 11:47, only the man is fading out, not the whole scenery. In the third video (green screen fail), if you take the time to watch and listen to it all, the flags in the background move in a continuous way before, during and after the person is fading in, which shows that the background is a green screen.

In the first video at 00:30 what is he grabbing? At 03:10, how the hell can you explain how she's being pulled up without a harness or wires? At 08:55 how could she be moving that way on her own in zero-G?

How do you explain away the bubbles? What are they? Why are they always moving in the same general direction?

There is something flying up there that we can see, in itself that doesn't show there is anyone in it. Yes people have spoken to the "astronauts" live, that doesn't prove they are actually up there. How the hell do you explain that the two "astronauts" Mike Massimino and Don Pettit claim that they can see many stars, planets, moons and the Magellanic clouds during the day? Seriously look at them and listen to what they say (first video from 29:40 to 32:50, watch the whole segment)

8

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 09, 2020, 04:31:35 PM »

And the effects of radiation are not generally immediately apparent.
My understanding is that they did have some shielding and they chose a trajectory which attempted to minimise the exposure.

When the guys die around 80-90 it seems the effects of radiation aren't apparent at all.
It would be a nice story if they chose a trajectory to minimise the exposure, but then how do you explain that Alan Bean (supposedly the fourth astronaut to walk on the Moon) doesn't even know where the Van Allen belts are and believed they are beyond the moon? (see the documentary at 1:11:55). Surely he would have been trained to know where they are if he did go through them and if they had to navigate to minimise the exposure.

The amount of radiation the Apollo astronauts were exposed to was being monitored. Had it been a lethal dose I wonder whether they would have carried out subsequent missions but Apollo 8 went to the moon and back so I guess those guys were the guinea pigs in that regard.
These guys knew there were risks attached to these missions

Then how do you explain that the pictures supposedly taken on the moon show zero radiation exposure whereas a mere X-ray scan produces graining on pictures? (see 2:29:30 to 2:30:40)

Given that this is the LEM’s ascent engine tested on Earth (video @ 1:26:36), why is there no visible flame under it when it takes off from the moon?

I imagine the fact that one is operating in an atmosphere and the other in a vacuum is a factor here. If you check out the video, you can clearly see the effects of the engine starting as stuff is blown by the rocket. But if it was all special effects wouldn't they have added a flame if one "should" be there?

In the documentary this is addressed also, tests of rocket engines in vacuum do show a flame.
It's a pretty weak argument to say that "if it was fake wouldn't they have taken care of everything so that it appears not fake?". If there was no evidence it was fake then you would say there is no evidence. The point is there is evidence it is fake, but they still managed to fool billions of people so their fake was very well done, but not perfect as the evidence shows. You're assuming they did go and from that assumption you're dismissing all the evidence, instead of looking at the evidence objectively. There are damning contradictions in the official story which can't be ignored. You're not seeing your own confirmation bias.

Because the rocket is operating in a vacuum. There may have been a bit of vibration but otherwise if there's no air to pass the sound through you're not going to hear anything. Don't forget the rocket was designed to fire on the moon so only had to lift a 6th of the weight you'd get on earth of a relatively small craft - compared to the Saturn V rockets.

This is addressed in the documentary at 1:27:00. The cabin is pressurized and the engine is right in the middle of it.

Tracking the craft up to what point?

All the way to the surface

https://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/

So lines on a piece of paper is proof that they did go to the moon? While video evidence of astronauts being pulled up by an external force or lunar pictures showing zero graining while they supposedly went through the Van Allen belts isn't proof that they didn't? And if you watch the whole documentary there is plenty more evidence of fakery.

You can bet the Russians were tracking them too, they've never called the US out on the lie.
And at least 2 craft have been able to take good enough quality photos that we can see the Apollo landing sites, one of those being from China. Why are they verifying the US landed on the moon?

If you agree that there is compelling evidence that they didn't go, then indeed the question becomes why are the other space agencies not calling them out on it? If the evidence that they didn't go can't be explained away, then this has to be explained. And the answer is one people don't want to hear, it's one I didn't want to believe until recently, because it seems too big to be true, but consider it with an open mind : all the space agencies are in on it. We will leave the "why" for later, and for now just look at the evidence that they spread lies together.

The ISS is an international collaborative project between five space agencies : NASA, Roscosmos, JAXA, ESA and CSA. We get plenty of footage from within and outside the ISS, which is supposedly orbiting Earth. And in that footage there is plenty of evidence that : 1. They lie. 2. CGI trickery is used. 3. The crew are suspended by wires/harnesses or subjected to forces that aren't supposed to be there.

1. In the following video two "astronauts" supposed to be in the ISS clearly lie about being able to see stars, planets and moons during the day. If you claim that they can, other "astronauts" have claimed that all there is is a deep black. This is an obvious contradiction in the official story. A self-contradicting story cannot be true. Watch from 29:40 to 32:50



As other evidence, you may have heard that in order to train for spacewalks, the ISS crew train underwater at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, on an immersed full-scale replica of the ISS. And you know what's interesting? In many spacewalk videos, where they are supposed to be in space, bubbles can be seen moving upwards. See same video above from 24:00 to 25:30. You can find many more examples. In a given shot all bubbles seem to move in the same general direction, just like they would underwater here on Earth. On top of the fact that there aren't supposed to be bubbles appearing like that in space. In absence of an explanation for the existence of these bubbles moving in that way, this is evidence that they lie and fake footage on a grand scale (on top of the evidence found in the moon landing videos and elsewhere).


2. As evidence that the space agencies routinely use CGI in ISS footage, watch same video from 11:27 to 11:47

Then this one at 3:10



Then this one :



There are many other examples.


3. As evidence that the crew are suspended by wires/harnesses, watch the following video at 00:10, then 03:07, then 08:55 :



Again there are many other examples.


In many movies zero-gravity is simulated with wires, such as in Gravity or Ender's Game. In the TV series The Big Bang Theory there is an episode where the interior of the ISS and zero-G are simulated. The technology exists to make the wires invisible, even in real-time. In a live performance David Copperfield is seen suspended in the air and even flying, with no wires visible.

So there is evidence that the space agencies lie, evidence that they fake footage, evidence that the ISS crew are suspended by wires, and evidence that the wires can be made invisible.

Objects seen to be suspended as if in zero-G can be simulated too, for instance through augmented reality technology. There is evidence of that as well, see the following video from 11:05 to 13:40 for instance :




As to why they do it, I'll leave that for another post.

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 07, 2020, 03:01:07 PM »

If I really ramp up the focal length it creates even more seperation. Notice now the far away object shadow is totally horizontal while the objects close up have even more extreme shadow angles. I didn't move anything or change anything other than focal length.

ChrisTP has dealt with the light source "issue"

Blender is one thing, do you have a real picture example of this on Earth?

The astronauts were affected by the radiation
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29901

They would be affected if they went through the radiation belt. This Nature article doesn't prove they were affected by radiation. All it shows is that out of 7 astronauts who supposedly went to the moon, 3 died of cardiovascular disease, not that this was due to radiation exposure. A sample of 7 is not statistically significant. If you pick a random group of 7 US inhabitants who died between ages 55-64, often 3 of them will have died of cardiovascular disease.

Armstrong died at 82, Collins is 89 and Aldrin is 90, they don't seem to have been affected.

The documentary I linked asks interesting questions regarding the Van Allen belt :

Can you explain why NASA – despite everything van Allen had written on the dangers of radiation – has sent the first astronauts through the radioactive belts without any specific protection, and without even a monkey first, in order to evaluate the effects of radiation on a biological organism as complex as the human being?

If it were true, like the debunkers maintain, that “a lunar mission entails a total of radiation equivalent to an x-ray”, why does NASA describe today the Van Allen belts as “an area of dangerous radiation”?

Given that, according to NASA, “no practical method exists for eliminating cosmic radiation damage”, and that “this degrading factor must be accepted”, where is the degradation, significant but acceptable, that should appear on the lunar pictures?

Given that this is the result of a simple X-ray scan, which last only a few seconds, can you explain why in the Apollo pictures, which have been exposed to cosmic radiation for up to 8 consecutive hours, there is no visible graining whatsoever?

I can't sensibly talk about the recordings I don't know if any editing has been done to make the recording flow better.

They are supposed to be unedited and uncut.

There's no exhaust plume because of the type of engine which was used which burns with a clear flame and obviously you're not going to get a cloud of smoke in a vacuum.

Given that this is the LEM’s ascent engine tested on Earth (video @ 1:26:36), why is there no visible flame under it when it takes off from the moon?

Also :

Given that, as confirmed by the debunkers, “the astronauts are literally sitting on the engine”, why don’t we hear any sounds from the engine during lift-off?
Given that during the Apollo 15 lift-off we are even able to hear the music from the tape recorder in the cabin, why don’t we hear the sound of the engine as well?

If it was all faked then why would they use "takes" where you can see astronauts pulled up by wires?

I don't know, they didn't notice or didn't think people would notice?

Look at the video from 2:00:50 to 2:03:30. How the hell do you explain these movements?

The Michael Collins quote is deliberately and dishonestly taken out of context. I believe the quote was actually about whether he could see stars while on the day side of the moon which he could not without looking through some optical device. But you can't see stars during day time on earth either.

Michael Collins was never on the surface of the moon, as the official story goes he remained in lunar orbit while Armstrong and Aldrin descended in the LEM.

(at 48:30)

Some data was lost but as I've said there is plenty of 3rd party evidence for the missions. Jodrell Bank in the UK was tracking the craft, the Australians were relaying signals, the Chinese have taken photos of the Apollo landing sites, the reflectors put there by the astronauts are still used to measure the distance to the moon.

Tracking the craft up to what point? The distance to the moon was measured by reflected light even before the reflectors were (supposedly) put there.

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 07, 2020, 11:19:03 AM »

The gas isn't exploding inside the rocket.

Except in the case of some launches.

Just stop with ignorance.

The gas expands at a high velocity, that's what I call an explosion, but it's a controlled one. In a combustion engine the expanding gas pushes on pistons, in a rocket the expanding gas pushes on the rocket in one direction since it is also ejected in the opposite direction (which doesn't push it back).

The ignorance (or wilful disinformation) would be to attempt to prove that the moon landings were faked by invoking a falsehood (that rockets can't work in a vacuum).

There is plenty of convincing evidence that the moon landings were faked (multiple light sources on photos, astronauts and photos unaffected by the Van Allen radiation belt, recordings in which the astronauts reply to Houston in less than one second while they're supposed to be on the Moon, no visible exhaust plume during the LEM take off, astronauts who sometimes appear to be pulled upwards as if by a wire, Michael Collins who claimed in the Apollo 11 post flight press conference that he didn't see any star while he was orbiting the moon (Armstrong's reaction when he says that is very telling), telemetry data that was conveniently lost, inability to put men back on the moon 50 years later, ...), so invoking the false idea that rockets can't work in a vacuum as supposed evidence is a red herring that is a disservice to the truth.

11

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 07, 2020, 08:53:46 AM »

There is plenty of evidence that the moon landings were hoaxes, pretending that rockets can't work in vacuum distracts from the real evidence.

American Moon is the best documentary on the subject https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Electromagnetic acceleration experiment

« on: May 06, 2020, 10:26:31 PM »

For instance let's say we have a solid ring with a diameter of 20 cm. On this length the curve of a sphere of radius 6371 km goes down by about 3 nanometers (if my calculations are correct). So if we assume that light is deflected in the same way then we would have to detect a 3 nanometers difference.

I don't think your calculations are correct. There currently aren't any EA formulas that say how much light should be bending up, so we don't have any way of knowing. Certainly there is no way a Flat Earth calculation would include the diameter of a spherical Earth. But if light bends upwards at all in the experiment, then that would be some very interesting evidence.

Well I'm thinking if the observed sinking ship effect matches the supposed curvature of a spherical Earth, then the effect of electromagnetic acceleration should match it too, which is why I calculated the bending in that way. 3 nanometers is the curvature of a spherical Earth over a length of 20 cm, I'm pretty sure this is correct. I think it should be the same with EA, but I'll have to think more about it.

Using Interferometry you can fairly easily measure at the nanometer scale, I have no doubt we can measure very small deviations in light paths and lengths.  But I'd build something larger than 20cm, maybe a ring a meter across. You place the equipment to measure from one side of the ring to the other.

The ring is stationary while you do your measurement., so no need to take rotation or motion into account.

The way it works is you position the ring so the devices are horizontal, stop it and take your measurements.  Then you rotate it 90 degrees, lock it in place and take new measurements.  If light is being deflected upwards, you should see a difference.

Remember that if light is bending, it is also taking a longer path, and also the time traveled will change too. So there are many ways to measure this. distance using the speed of light is also extremely accurate, as is measuring the speed.  All of these should show changes based on orientations.

Thanks for the clarification. But what are you measuring exactly? The distance between the center of the target and the spot where the light hits? Can this really be measured at nanometer accuracy? I think that won't be as easy as it sounds. I believe the width of the laser beam itself would be much larger than a few nanometers.

Or if you're measuring the length of the light path across the ring, I'm not sure nanometer accuracy can be achieved. For instance this device (http://www.madcitylabs.com/nanogaugeseries.html) claims to provide a 1.5 nanometer accuracy but only over a range of 25 millimeters, so on a ring a meter across I would think the accuracy would be much less.

But over one meter the curvature of a spherical Earth is about 78 nanometers, so if EA deflects in a similar way that might be detectable. Not easy though.

There will be no measured deflection of light due to Earths gravity. Remember that in Einstein's universe, it is space-time itself that is bending. All light travels in a straight path, but that path can look bent to an outside observer.

So any light traveling in that ring will not show a bend, because the ring itself will be bent as well.  It's like drawing a straight line on paper. No matter how much you bend the paper, the line will always bend with it.

I think it's wrong to say that the ring would be bent as much as the light path in Einstein's universe, because there are electromagnetic forces holding the ring together, not just gravitation, and these forces make the ring deviate from a gravitationally straight path.

Light does get deflected by massive bodies in Einstein's universe. In principle I'm pretty sure it should be possible to detect the deflection of light around a massive body from the surface of that body itself. For instance if light is sent parallel to a spherical surface, it won't move away from the surface at the same rate depending on whether it is deflected or not, so in principle one could measure how far from the surface the light is after it has traveled a given distance.

Also now that I'm saying this I am not aware of experiments conducted on the surface of the Earth that show the gravitational deflection of light traveling horizontally. While such an experiment would show whether light is deflected downwards or upwards.

As far as I am aware, no measurements of light traveling from one point to another on the Earths surface have ever shown any curve or bending, or difference in speed or length in any orientation. And these experiments are done a lot, by the hundreds if not thousands of times at this point.

Well according to this paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0060) there is a deflection but it is too small to detect on Earth's surface : "The high speed of light in vacuo together with the weakness of Earth gravity rules out any experimental detection of gravitational deflection of light on the laboratory length scale"

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 06, 2020, 08:56:44 PM »

Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Because the method by which rockets propel themselves (thrust, provided by expelling gas from the nozzle at the rear) is fine and dandy as long is there is surrounding pressure to contain a plume.

Here is an intuitive way to understand how a rocket can work in a vacuum :

The exploding gas within the rocket moves at high velocity in all directions. The gas moving in the same direction as the rocket pushes on the rocket, while the gas moving in the opposite direction (the gas being expelled) doesn't push on anything. The net result is that the exploding gas pushes the rocket forward.

It works that way within the atmosphere as well. It is a misconception to think that the expelled gas is pushing on the atmosphere (that push is negligible).

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Electromagnetic acceleration experiment

« on: May 05, 2020, 02:26:28 PM »

Thanks for the replies, I'll think about it, but a suitable experiment may not be obvious at all.

A laser measuring device that works on interference patterns to detect lateral motion is pretty common and are super sensitive. Professional systems can measure at the scale of nanometers easily.

What you need is a rotating frame so you can measure any differences between horizontal and vertical orientations. Something like a very solid metal ring that can be spun around freely with the laser and target on the inside pointing at each other.

If light bends upward, you would see a change when you spin it as the light gets bent upwards by EA.

For instance let's say we have a solid ring with a diameter of 20 cm. On this length the curve of a sphere of radius 6371 km goes down by about 3 nanometers (if my calculations are correct). So if we assume that light is deflected in the same way then we would have to detect a 3 nanometers difference.

You're saying professional systems can do that, but could that accuracy really be reached with such a set-up? How would that work exactly? I'm not picturing exactly what you have in mind.

Does the ring have to be spinning while the measurement is made? If so the rotation of the ring itself would cause a deflection, even if light isn't deflected by electromagnetic acceleration, because the laser doesn't reach the target instantaneously, and the ring would be rotating while the laser is traveling from the source towards the target.

If the experiment doesn't require the ring to rotate while the measurements are made, there is still another issue : the round Earth framework predicts that light is deflected by gravitation. Over a distance of 20 cm parallel to the surface of the Earth, I believe the predicted deflection amounts to a few nanometers as well. Now obviously this is a downward deflection, while electromagnetic acceleration predicts an upward deflection, but would your experiment distinguish between the two or would it only detect the absolute value of the deflection and not the direction?

Also now that I'm saying this I am not aware of experiments conducted on the surface of the Earth that show the gravitational deflection of light traveling horizontally. While such an experiment would show whether light is deflected downwards or upwards.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Electromagnetic acceleration experiment

« on: May 04, 2020, 03:56:28 PM »

Hello,

The sinking ship effect (ships disappearing from the bottom up when they are sufficiently far) only seems explainable in a simple way on a flat Earth by assuming that light follows a curved trajectory. The electromagnetic acceleration (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration) hypothesis does this by assuming that light is attracted upwards, which I find explains the sinking ship effect neatly.

Atmospheric refraction doesn't seem to be a suitable explanation. The Wiki gives the Skunk Bay Timelapse as evidence (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Refraction), but you have to realize that there are big tides in that peninsula which mess with the observations (even if there is refraction involved).

So we are faced with two possibilities : either Earth is flat and light curves upwards, or Earth is round and light travels straight. We need an experiment that allows to distinguish between them.

Are you aware of any such experiment that has been carried out?