1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you see

« on: May 26, 2015, 01:46:57 PM »

I don't even think the two images were related. The first shows no pixel change whatsoever from a straight line - ergo it is straight, not a curve. The second isn't a curve either. It is a collection of straight lines offset one another to give the illusion of a curve. The world isn't made up of pixels. I also have a field of vision larger than an inch wide. This is a poor attempt at FEr entrapment.

So you don't believe a sufficiently big enough sphere would appear flat to a person standing on it?

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: Pictures in space?

« on: May 26, 2015, 01:42:20 PM »

the pictures are actually paintings.

Any evidence to back that up or just your opinion?

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?

« on: November 16, 2014, 04:02:54 PM »

3) GPS works by sonar off reflectors on weather balloons high in the sky. It's a pretty simple concept, actually.

How would sonar work in the atmosphere?

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: Virgin Galactic

« on: November 07, 2014, 08:13:28 PM »

I'm No expert in US consumer law but I'd imagen thst deposits are held in a bank account that can't be accessed by virgin Galactic. Any experts out their know a bit more about US consumer law? You see thork unlike you and many other fers, I don't proclaim to be an expert in fields I am not.

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: Virgin Galactic

« on: November 07, 2014, 01:03:13 AM »

Did you miss the second sentence then thork?

And where is the evidence Branson  did not invest his own money in the venture?

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: Virgin Galactic

« on: November 04, 2014, 12:58:35 AM »

This is aimed at thork,

"For Branson—a typically rabid enthusiast about Virgin Galactic—to even insinuate, by his lack of strenuous affirmation otherwise, that the future of the program may indeed be in jeopardy after just one crash, albeit a fatal one, suggests strongly that he already knows what the final decision will be. Virgin claims it has taken more than 800 payments for suborbital tourist flights, at $200,000 each. This might sound like an extraordinary haul, but at $160 million, it represents barely one-third of what Branson has already reportedly invested in the program. The company can't access that passenger money, however, until it starts actually flying people into space."

Pay particular attention to the last 2 sentences and try and reconcile you rabid and baseless assertions that this is a monetary scam.

http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/whats-next-virgin-galactic?page=0%2C2

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 21, 2014, 09:08:55 AM »

  Wasn't the simulation performed on a computer?

Doesn't all CGI use the laws of physics?


Isn't this the definition of CGI?  Just better simulations used?

Of course of the above is true.  Another COMPREHENSIVE vindication for me.

No CGI has no need to follow the laws of physics any more than a painting does.

Stop embarrassing your self.

And this is a computer generated model/simulation not a computer generated image.

8

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 21, 2014, 08:36:50 AM »

so the bottom line for me is this.  In my everyday life I experience the world as being flat.  I can see ships in the distant horizon with the use of a telescope down to the waterline when they should have long disappeared over the horizon.  In my work as a mining engineer, I never make any allowance for the putative curvature of the earth.  To my knowledge, there is not a single real world application of geodetics.  Any bridge, canal, railroad or tunnel constructed assumed that the earth is flat and this continues to be the case today.  I constantly request a 3D model of the putative sea level globe in its entirety and I am simply unable to shake one loose.

There is a series of four well known astronomical observations which clearly demonstrate that the motion of the sun is geocentric and not heliocentric.

To offset this, we have the images of NASA and the space program.  Werner Von Braun is mostly known for his Disney publications and films.  The first director of NASA came from Paramount studios http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Keith_Glennan. 

The Apollo missions coincided with the film A Space Odyssey.  As discussed above, the salient documentation to verify these missions has been lost.  The machinery that is on display is just not capable, in my humble opinion, of performing the tasks that have been claimed for them.    Moreover, the physics of the mission are clearly demonstrating that the mission could not have taken place. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm .  In particular, Anders notes that "You cannot step on a 200° hot surface of any kind in vacuum without melting your protective gear and getting burnt. "

This thread commenced with the claim that a CGI rendering proved that a photograph purportedly of a man on the moon proves that the photo is genuine.  Gulliver has commented that I have not provided "proof" that key documents have gone missing.  On both of these last points, I would suggest that I have had a COMPREHENSIVE vindication of my views.

No all you have offered is opinion.

You have also failed to recognise that the image is a photo of a physics engine simulation that uses known physical values to replicate perfectly what we see in the original photo. It's not a computer generated drawing as you keep on trying to suggest.

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 20, 2014, 09:25:10 AM »

Hi Pythagoras.  I have to type that I am with the skeptics here.  As far as I can see, you have provided ABSOLUTE PROOF that the moon landing could have been faked easily.  How can a CGI reconstruction prove anything?  If we accept your argument, it shows at best that the lighting of the astronaut is not inconsistent with the possibility that this photo was taken on the putative moon.  I for one do not rely on the conjecture that the lighting of the astronaut is impossible to have the view that the apollo missions are fraudulent. 

The extraordinary claim that the Apollo missions are as they are painted requires extraordinary proof.  All the salient original records, blueprints, films, video records and documents have been "lost" so I guess that's that.

No single piece of evidence is absolute proof and I don't offer this as such.

This evidence I provide is proof against the dodgy lighting argument.  Something you don't subscribe to so fair enough.

And jora, any a see to my question who is in the photo and when was it taken?

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 19, 2014, 07:09:04 PM »

Apology accepted vaxhall.

And jora to put this to bed when was the picture taken and who is the subject in frame?

11

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 19, 2014, 06:55:07 PM »

No I'm from the other site. Did you not read my op

As usual all I get are one liners deflectory questions from the flat earth socioty

So you're an alt. Good to know.

Explains a lot lol

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 19, 2014, 06:53:05 PM »

Very constructive post from jora.  Nice to see you are as constructive hear as you are on the other site.

And to vaxhall, as far as I am aware this is original to this forum. If not then please point me to a previous thread.

As usual all I get are one liners deflectory questions from the flat earth socioty

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 19, 2014, 06:41:39 PM »

I have presented the evidence your inability to understand it is your falling not mine. Trying to deflect the original subject of the evidence by asking Irrelevant questions about who took the picture is a well documented technique used by conspiracies advocates when they have no rebuttal to the original statement

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 19, 2014, 06:34:53 PM »

The answer to your 1st question can be answered by doing about 5 seconds of investigation, perhaps you could do some maybe and what has colour got to do with anything?

15

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 19, 2014, 05:52:14 PM »

Oh my bad. I didn't realise NASH had physics engine in the 1960s.  Must have been one of those magic wand technology's conspicuous theorists love so much.

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 19, 2014, 05:40:31 PM »

And thork, I have never seen a scientific paper that supports that statement.

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: moon landings.

« on: September 19, 2014, 05:37:43 PM »

No they created a physics engine and input known values and the engine produced the same results as seen in the photos. The image you see isn't a drawn photo. It's a screen grab of a 3D world based on known optical laws and physical laws.

18

Flat Earth Community / moon landings.

« on: September 19, 2014, 05:05:06 PM »

Hi I'm. Not new as such I'm from the other site but hello anyway.

I would just like to drop this little jem into the mix.

Further proof of the moon landings
http://io9.com/meticulous-visual-recreation-of-moon-landing-shows-it-w-1636757909