The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Pythagoras on September 19, 2014, 05:05:06 PM

Title: moon landings.
Post by: Pythagoras 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
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: jroa on September 19, 2014, 05:20:48 PM
So, they made a fake picture, and are claiming that it proves that the other picture is real?  Are you serious? 
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Thork on September 19, 2014, 05:21:43 PM
The Russians determined back in 1959 that it was going to take four feet of solid lead to protect a person if they wanted to walk on the Moon's surface.

How did the Americans get over the radiation inside the Van Allen belt from space outside of earth's magnetic field? How did the US manage that with tin foil and little glass windows? What were their space suits made of? I have never had a proper answer to this.

Quote from: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/06/masonic-moon-landing-hoax.html
There is an area of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt 272 miles from Earth which the Russians could never pass. In fact in 1959 Bill Kaysing reported on a Russian study which discovered that the amount of radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in 4 feet of lead in order to avoid instant death. John Mauldin, a NASA physicist, said they would need at least two meters of thick shielding.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pythagoras 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.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pythagoras on September 19, 2014, 05:40:31 PM
And thork, I have never seen a scientific paper that supports that statement.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Ghost of V on September 19, 2014, 05:43:34 PM
"Visual Recreation Of Moon Landing Shows It Wasn't A Hoax"

This just proves how easy it is for NASA and other agencies to make fake yet very real looking footage. Not that we needed proof to begin with, but this just cements the facts that we already know.

Thanks, Pythagoras.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pythagoras 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.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Ghost of V on September 19, 2014, 05:53:39 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.

Well, now you know. Maybe do some research before you post next time?

Regardless, the moon landing footage looks a lot worse than what you've posted here, with a number of visual artifacts that prove it as a fakery.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: jroa on September 19, 2014, 06:11:55 PM
Who took the original picture?  Did they have a film crew waiting on the moon in order to take the picture of the first man to step foot on the moon? 

Also, this admitted hoax picture is in color. 
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pythagoras 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?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Ghost of V on September 19, 2014, 06:36:03 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?

Your debate methods are flawed. Instead of telling us how stupid we are for not being able to find the resources you've insinuated, why don't you try to present the evidence you've found and your reasoning instead?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 19, 2014, 06:41:13 PM
Who took the original picture?  Did they have a film crew waiting on the moon in order to take the picture of the first man to step foot on the moon? 

Also, this admitted hoax picture is in color.
Why would anyone need to take the original picture? Automated cameras were common enough in 1969.

So what if it is in color? Did you have a point? Have you seen the "colorized" versions of classic films, such as the "Wizard of Oz"?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pythagoras 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
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Ghost of V on September 19, 2014, 06:43:15 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

You posted a link.

How about you post an original thought next?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: jroa on September 19, 2014, 06:46:36 PM
Here is a picture of noone taking the picture of the original moon landing.  lol
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: jroa on September 19, 2014, 06:48:56 PM
Oh, wait, it is actually, "here is a fake picture that proves that the other pictures are real."  lol even harder. 
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 19, 2014, 06:49:49 PM
Here is a picture of noone taking the picture of the original moon landing.  lol
Here's is a picture of the relevant automated camera. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera)
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pythagoras 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
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Ghost of V on September 19, 2014, 06:53:48 PM
As usual all I get are one liners deflectory questions from the flat earth socioty

So you're an alt. Good to know.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pythagoras 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
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: jroa on September 19, 2014, 06:59:37 PM
So, the camera crew were the first people on the moon? 
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Ghost of V on September 19, 2014, 07:02:59 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

If you're insinuating that I didn't read your first post, then I have some news for you: you're right.

But I did click on the link, and I've seen this before. It was wrong then, it's wrong now.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 19, 2014, 07:08:11 PM
So, the camera crew were the first people on the moon?
No. The referenced video was from the referenced automated camera. Why do you think that a film implies a film crew?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pythagoras 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?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 20, 2014, 02:04:05 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.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 20, 2014, 04:28:36 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.
Speaking of records, please produce your evidence that "[a]ll th e salient records, films, video records and documents have 'lost'." Thanks.

Oh and you might want to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings)
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 20, 2014, 04:35:55 AM
Hi Gulliver,  most amusing... the space agencies are totally independent.. very droll
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 20, 2014, 04:54:07 AM
Hi Gulliver,  most amusing... the space agencies are totally independent.. very droll
Are you implying that all of the listed, in the referenced article, third-parties acted in bad faith? Do you have any evidence for this or your prior outlandish claim?

From the referenced article:

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Kettering_Grammar_School
Kettering Grammar School
A group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits.[9][10] In 1972 a member of the group tracked Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon.[11]
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 20, 2014, 05:05:52 AM
Hi again Gulliver,

what evidence remains of this tracking?  Is it more than the text in the wikipedian entry?  What happened to the hours and hours and hours of the transmissions from these missions?  What happened to the blueprints of the "spacecraft".

I shall repeat ad nauseum, "extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence".
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 20, 2014, 05:20:42 AM
Hi again Gulliver,

what evidence remains of this tracking?  Is it more than the text in the wikipedian entry?  What happened to the hours and hours and hours of the transmissions from these missions?  What happened to the blueprints of the "spacecraft".

I shall repeat ad nauseum, "extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence".
I'm glad that you corrected your error, using "evidence" instead of "proof", in the adage that you wish to apply to others, but not yourself.

I refer you to the article's well-documented sources.

Of course, I've managed to provide a well-sourced article showing third-party accounts and their evidence; you've failed to back up your claims. If you want to claim that all of the Apollo blueprints are missing, you really should provide evidence  to back your outlandish claim.

Of, and here's a reference that contradicts you: http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/apollo.html (http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/apollo.html)

Oh, and you don't have to trust the blueprints, Apollo 19's and 20's Saturn V are on public display, along with various other Apollo modules. Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Apollo_missions#Surplus_hardware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Apollo_missions#Surplus_hardware)
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 20, 2014, 06:26:52 AM
Hi Gulliver, these drawings are not blueprints.  The level of technical detail is reminiscent of Gundamn Anime technical manuals.   For me, these drawings confirm my skepticism that objects described therein could have achieved the outcomes that have been posited.  How, for example, did the lunar buggy get stowed and how did they get it out?  Where is the film evidence of that task being undertaken?   How did the craft protect the personnel from the heat and the cold?  How did they even open the door of the lunar lander inwards when the air pressure inside the module would have made such a feat practically impossible?  I remain skeptical until I have convinced myself that such feats are possible.

I quote from NASA ...http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.lrvdep.html

Figure 1-39 is a cartoon of the deployment sequence. Section 1.9.3 of the document contains a complete description of the deployment. See, also, a set of Grumman LRV Deployment Cartoons.]


and here

http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/25.html

"Plans for the Lunar Module and Lunar Rover have been destroyed and no longer exist."

Much paperwork relating to the Lunar Module and Rover has been discarded, however this is to be expected. No company is going to keep in storage millions of documents for an obsolete project that has no chance of being resurrected. But it is not true to say the documents no longer exist. The National Archives microfilmed everything they thought was historically significant and those films are currently in storage. It is not uncommon for space enthusiasts and modelers to find many obscure facts and details about the LM, Rover, and other Apollo hardware from this archive.

A complete set of blueprints of the world's first Particle Accelerator don't survive to this day nor does the very first aircraft, HMS Victory or even the Titanic. Does it mean that they didn't exist or were not built? It's another ridiculous claim.

[A film clip (8.6Mb) shows Charlie Duke and Bob Parker participating in a shirtsleeve demonstration of Rover deployment. Digitization by Gary Neff.]

[Don McMillan has provided an animation ( 0.7 Mb ) of his Virtual Rover unfolding during deployment. A second animation shows the hinges in action.]
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 20, 2014, 07:16:48 AM
...these drawings are not blueprints....
Yes, they are.
Quote
...How did they even open the door of the lunar lander inwards when the air pressure inside the module would have made such a feat practically impossible?...
Do you really hope to debate this topic seriously with such a lame question? Why don't you read the Wikipedia article on the LM? It talks about the two depressurizations required for lunar excursions. Hell, a high school science student should be able to answer how the "practically impossible" feat could be easily accomplished!
Quote

...Figure 1-39 is a cartoon of the deployment sequence. Section 1.9.3 of the document contains a complete description of the deployment. See, also, a set of Grumman LRV Deployment Cartoons.]
Are you implying that engineers should not use cartoons? Really?
Quote
...http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/25.html

"Plans for the Lunar Module and Lunar Rover have been destroyed and no longer exist."

Much paperwork relating to the Lunar Module and Rover has been discarded, however this is to be expected. No company is going to keep in storage millions of documents for an obsolete project that has no chance of being resurrected. But it is not true to say the documents no longer exist. The National Archives microfilmed everything they thought was historically significant and those films are currently in storage. It is not uncommon for space enthusiasts and modelers to find many obscure facts and details about the LM, Rover, and other Apollo hardware from this archive.

A complete set of blueprints of the world's first Particle Accelerator don't survive to this day nor does the very first aircraft, HMS Victory or even the Titanic. Does it mean that they didn't exist or were not built? It's another ridiculous claim.

[A film clip (8.6Mb) shows Charlie Duke and Bob Parker participating in a shirtsleeve demonstration of Rover deployment. Digitization by Gary Neff.]

[Don McMillan has provided an animation ( 0.7 Mb ) of his Virtual Rover unfolding during deployment. A second animation shows the hinges in action.]
You might want to read that quote again. That page makes the case against the quoted hoax. It does not allege that the blueprints have been lost for even the LM, vice your outlandish claims that all of the Apollo blueprints have been lost.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 20, 2014, 08:49:06 AM
...these drawings are not blueprints....
Yes, they are.
Are you saying NASA is wrong about them not being blueprints? If so, could you please present evidence to the fact that, contrary to NASA's description, they are blueprints?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 20, 2014, 09:11:05 AM
...these drawings are not blueprints....
Yes, they are.
Are you saying NASA is wrong about them not being blueprints? If so, could you please present evidence to the fact that, contrary to NASA's description, they are blueprints?
Please do tell me where NASA addresses these not being blueprints. Thanks.

Perhaps, a definition would help you.

Quote from: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/blueprint
A design plan or other technical drawing.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 20, 2014, 09:15:41 AM
While I commend you for actually looking up a term before (re-)using it (an improvement from your previous failings - now you just need to make sure you do this before you first use a term, and be just a little bit more thorough), a dictionary definition isn't the be-all and end-all of language you're trying to portray it as. While the term can be used in an informal context to refer to virtually any technical drawing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint), it's important to keep the context of this conversation in mind.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pythagoras 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?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 20, 2014, 09:27:54 AM
While I commend you for actually looking up a term before (re-)using it (an improvement from your previous failings - now you just need to make sure you do this before you first use a term, and be just a little bit more thorough), a dictionary definition isn't the be-all and end-all of language you're trying to portray it as. While the term can be used in an informal context to refer to virtually any technical drawing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint), it's important to keep the context of this conversation in mind.
And since, as anounce so clearly documented, the US has many, many documents in storage, and since the question is whether supporting documentation exists, the use of the connotation in the definition quoted clearly applies. And of course, I renew my thanks to anounce for documenting this so well.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 20, 2014, 09:58:19 AM
And since, as anounce so clearly documented, the US has many, many documents in storage, and since the question is whether supporting documentation exists, the use of the connotation in the definition quoted clearly applies. And of course, I renew my thanks to anounce for documenting this so well.
Entirely irrelevant, but I can see why you're struggling to come up with a response. Seriously though, good job, you're almost ready to start using the English language. A few more interventions and maybe you'll stop screwing up.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 20, 2014, 05:01:17 PM
And since, as anounce so clearly documented, the US has many, many documents in storage, and since the question is whether supporting documentation exists, the use of the connotation in the definition quoted clearly applies. And of course, I renew my thanks to anounce for documenting this so well.
Entirely irrelevant, but I can see why you're struggling to come up with a response. Seriously though, good job, you're almost ready to start using the English language. A few more interventions and maybe you'll stop screwing up.
anounce has claimed the all Apollo blueprints have been "last", Do you think you might have a relevant point about his outlandish claim? Do try to stop personal attacks and concentrate on the issues.

Of course, anounce has done such a great job documenting that his outlandish claim is false. I thank him for his effort.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 20, 2014, 05:11:01 PM
I have a point relevant to your claim, and am awaiting response. If you don't have one, that's fine - all you need to do is simply say so. If you didn't wanted to be subjected to basic scrutiny, you shouldn't have made a claim. Pointing out that you screwed up is not a personal attack - at no point did I attack you, merely your preparation and thoroughness. Unfortunately, this time you forgot to find out what a personal attack is before claiming that one took place.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 21, 2014, 12:25:45 AM
Hi Gulliver,

My comment was that the salient records have been "lost".  The original high quality video images have been "lost".  If we wish to examine the detailed construction drawings of the appollo hardwared, BOM etc etc we simply cannot do that because they have been "lost".   

If the Apollo mission myth were true, it would represent the greatest achievement of mankind.  If we wish to do this excursion again, then the detailed construction drawings, BOM and project documents would be vital.  Instead, we have a litany of apologetics... e.g.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/one-giant-blunder-for-mankind-how-nasa-lost-moon-pictures/2006/08/04/1154198328978.html . 

So, despite the fact that I have provided you with a reference that unambiguously declares that the blueprints DO NOT EXIST  "A complete set of blueprints of the world's first Particle Accelerator don't survive to this day nor does the very first aircraft, HMS Victory or even the Titanic. Does it mean that they didn't exist or were not built? It's another ridiculous claim."  ..  Gulliver makes the statement that I am supporting the view that the documents do exist.

The above quote is AN APOLOGIST attempt to explain why there are no SALIENT blueprints.... after all... we can't expect anyone to keep them can we? 

The unambiguous point that I am making is that NO SALIENT EXAMINABLE DOCUMENTATION now exists which I can use to allay my skepticism.

You and I arguing about whether it did or didn't exist in the past IS NOT the point of my original posting.

Your comments on decompression are quite different to what is in my memory about door opening... I will get back to you on that.

PS Gulliver, are you interested in having a FE discussion which I will record for possible use on Markus Allens "truth in 7 minutes" ?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: markjo on September 21, 2014, 12:50:18 AM
If the Apollo mission myth were true, it would represent the greatest achievement of mankind.  If we wish to do this excursion again, then the detailed construction drawings, BOM and project documents would be vital.
Why would NASA have any of the blueprints when a variety of contractors designed and built all of the equipment?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Rama Set on September 21, 2014, 12:55:21 AM
I think the point that Gulliver is actually making is that there are good reasons independent of NASA documentation to believe the Aplollo missions happened. To be honest, I am not sure how a blueprint is convincing evidence in the first place. You can get blueprints of the Starship Enterprise after all. The fact that amateur radio operators the world over intercepted radio communications from space that were identical to the NASA transcripts seems, in my mind, much more convincing. Or perhaps the unique geology of moon rocks might be convincing to you.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 21, 2014, 03:54:50 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.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pythagoras 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.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 21, 2014, 09:05:16 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.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pythagoras 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.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 21, 2014, 10:09:19 AM
I have a point relevant to your claim, and am awaiting response. If you don't have one, that's fine - all you need to do is simply say so. If you didn't wanted to be subjected to basic scrutiny, you shouldn't have made a claim. Pointing out that you screwed up is not a personal attack - at no point did I attack you, merely your preparation and thoroughness. Unfortunately, this time you forgot to find out what a personal attack is before claiming that one took place.
Sorry, I don't see your point about my claim. Perhaps taking the effort to quote would better support your position.

I do see at least one personal attack you made.
...[Yo]u're almost ready to start using the English language. A few more interventions and maybe you'll stop screwing up.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 21, 2014, 10:29:52 AM
Sorry, I don't see your point about my claim. Perhaps taking the effort to quote would better support your position.
I don't think so. I generally view you as a person capable of reading, so if you had any intention of responding, you'd already have done so. Since you didn't, I'll just assume you forfeit and move on. You're welcome to amend this at any time.

I do see at least one personal attack you made.
...[Y]ou're almost ready to start using the English language. A few more interventions and maybe you'll stop screwing up.
Ah, so you don't understand what a personal attack is. Let me explain: telling you that you constantly screw up and that you're not capable of using the English language to facilitate communication is not a personal attack - it's an assessment of your knowledge and actions. At no point did I attack your person, merely your knowledge and judgement. The two are easy to mix up, but a criticism of your ideas, beliefs, and actions is not equivalent to a criticism of your person.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Rama Set on September 21, 2014, 10:33:39 AM
This is a pretty disingenuous statement pizaa. Sarcastically condescending to someone is meant to belittle.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 21, 2014, 11:14:31 AM
...http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/one-giant-blunder-for-mankind-how-nasa-lost-moon-pictures/2006/08/04/1154198328978.html ...
The article is outdated, from 2006. A restoration project recovered quite a bit. See: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11_hdpage.html#.VB63fPn85mM
...So, despite the fact that I have provided you with a reference that unambiguously declares that the blueprints DO NOT EXIST...
No, you did not. Please read that source again after you spend a few minutes ensuring that you understand the purpose and use of a rhetoric sentence, especially one used as a sub-title to introduce the hoax claim the author is about to debunk. Thanks. (This is the second time I've had to point out your error here, so I please ask you to apply some extra diligence now. Thanks.)
...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....
OMG! That is so awesome. Even other FEers say that can't be done, and you can. You're amazing. Heck, FET has not one, but two, wild speculative "theories" about the reason you can't. See FE's AWT and EA (with a non-zero Bishop Constant).

Please document your breathtaking ability. Wouldn't you just need a good camera (or cell phone) with video and zoom? I think that randi.org would be very happy to award you their $1,000,000 prize. I even think you'd quickly win the Nobel Prize too! Do it for everyone. I'm sure that you'll be the FES's hero of the decade.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 21, 2014, 11:18:45 AM
This is a pretty disingenuous statement pizaa. Sarcastically condescending to someone is meant to belittle.
I do apologise if what I said came across as sarcastic or condescending - I was making a genuine comment on Gulliver's ability to communicate based on the evidence presented.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 21, 2014, 11:28:11 AM
This is a pretty disingenuous statement pizaa. Sarcastically condescending to someone is meant to belittle.
I do apologise if what I said came across as sarcastic or condescending - I was making a genuine comment on Gulliver's ability to communicate based on the evidence presented.
I agree with Rama Set. Whether you believe that your opinion is true is irrelevant. Now please address the topic, and stop the personal attacks.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 21, 2014, 11:57:58 AM
Gulliver, once again I simply reiterate to claim victory in this discussion.  The reference post http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/25.html clearly states, in its way, that we do not have the blueprints in one place and why should we?  Furthermore, we do not have all the blueprints and why should we?  Since they don't have them, I remain sceptical.

The video site you directed me to is a "restoration" .  What is it a restoration of?  The crappy video?  Apparently the pics we saw were televised screen projections, not even direct feed.  My scepticism is unappeased.

Finally, tell me about this money I can claim... I look forward to it... sadly for you, the Bedford canal experiment is easily repeated on Victoria's Port Phillip Bay.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 21, 2014, 12:34:04 PM
Gulliver, once again I simply reiterate to claim victory in this discussion.  The reference post http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/25.html clearly states, in its way, that we do not have the blueprints in one place and why should we?  Furthermore, we do not have all the blueprints and why should we?  Since they don't have them, I remain sceptical.

The video site you directed me to is a "restoration" .  What is it a restoration of?  The crappy video?  Apparently the pics we saw were televised screen projections, not even direct feed.  My scepticism is unappeased.

Finally, tell me about this money I can claim... I look forward to it... sadly for you, the Bedford canal experiment is easily repeated on Victoria's Port Phillip Bay.
Again, the referenced post is clearly a rhetorical sentence. You cannot claim victory. I highlighted the telltale quotation marks for you below:
(http://i.imgur.com/ZnODtcT.png)
You're welcome to remain skeptical, but you really should re-examine the level of detail you require. Seriously?

The restoration project documentation is online and available, so I won't bother to answer your questions here. Yes, you saw the live feed. That the radio waves had to travel and be converted several times is hardly important, but hey it's your standard.

I've provided you with enough for you to research the prizes involved. They're both famous. I'm sure that you can use Google. How long until you can upload your  documentation?

I don't understand the reason you think that it's unfortunate for me that you can repeat an experiment. I'm all for new documentation. That is what Science thrives on. Of course, your unsubstantiated claims are not worth much. I'm sure you understand the extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation. All the best in your endeavors.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 21, 2014, 12:44:54 PM
Whether you believe that your opinion is true is irrelevant.
Of course, but that's not what I'm claiming. I'm simply pointing out that making an evidence-based assessment of your abilities is not a personal attack.

Now please address the topic
I'm waiting for you to address the topic. No input from me is possible until you stop the derailment and address it. Since the only input you provided so far is an expression of lack of understanding of what a personal attack is, we've been focusing on that. You have ultimate control over how the rest of our conversation will go.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: markjo on September 21, 2014, 03:29:14 PM
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. "
Anders has little faith in materials engineers.  Has he (or you) never heard of high temperature silicone kitchenware?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Snupes on September 21, 2014, 06:13:40 PM
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. "
Anders has little faith in materials engineers.  Has he (or you) never heard of high temperature silicone kitchenware?
Do you use that in a vacuum often?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 21, 2014, 06:20:56 PM
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. "
Anders has little faith in materials engineers.  Has he (or you) never heard of high temperature silicone kitchenware?
Do you use that in a vacuum often?
Did you mean to imply that the Moon's lack of atmosphere would change the effect of the insulation between the moon walker and the lunar surface? See: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=13594.0 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=13594.0)
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: markjo on September 21, 2014, 06:49:13 PM
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. "
Anders has little faith in materials engineers.  Has he (or you) never heard of high temperature silicone kitchenware?
Do you use that in a vacuum often?
Can you give me any good reasons why high temperature silicone (or any of a large number of high temperature thermal insulators) shouldn't work in a vacuum?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 21, 2014, 10:42:14 PM
just explain this one for me Gulliver...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWTMnd0d6XU

Back to the blueprints.  The reference clearly states that they are not in one place and that they don't all exist.  I have now built several factories and organised the design and construction of many machines.  The companies that I worked for always kept the blueprints, BOM etc etc in a catalogued system.  Some as far back as 1920.  This would be considered normal practice.  NASA can't be bothered keeping records to 1972... fine... it obviously wasn't important.  (my conclusion, it wasn't important, it was a hoax). 

The article then goes on to say that the drawings were never all together at the one time.  So exactly how were these devices put together?  There was no single manager in charge of piecing the rocket together?  The various contractors arrived in a group consciousness system and randomly placed their parts into the jigsaw?  While that is clearly what really happened, I have little doubt that NASA is not claiming that process.  NASA will claim that construction was done using a tightly disciplined military style procedure.  Someone was in charge.  That person would need total control over all aspects of the design and build... delegated for sure, but still in control.

I remain sceptical about the competition you are talking about... no references provided.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 22, 2014, 02:06:48 AM
just explain this one for me Gulliver...<snipped>

Back to the blueprints.  The reference clearly states that they are not in one place and that they don't all exist.  I have now built several factories and organised the design and construction of many machines.  The companies that I worked for always kept the blueprints, BOM etc etc in a catalogued system.  Some as far back as 1920.  This would be considered normal practice.  NASA can't be bothered keeping records to 1972... fine... it obviously wasn't important.  (my conclusion, it wasn't important, it was a hoax). 

The article then goes on to say that the drawings were never all together at the one time.  So exactly how were these devices put together?  There was no single manager in charge of piecing the rocket together?  The various contractors arrived in a group consciousness system and randomly placed their parts into the jigsaw?  While that is clearly what really happened, I have little doubt that NASA is not claiming that process.  NASA will claim that construction was done using a tightly disciplined military style procedure.  Someone was in charge.  That person would need total control over all aspects of the design and build... delegated for sure, but still in control.

I remain sceptical about the competition you are talking about... no references provided.
Please open a new topic if you wish to discuss over-water mirages, as your source correctly calls it.

Why do you believe that the integration blueprints are not available? Please don't provide any more straw man fallacies.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 22, 2014, 07:55:12 AM
Gulliver,  I don't believe anything at all.  I will remain a skeptic until the evidence confirms that the Apollo missions took place to my satisfaction.

What is the story with the restorations btw?  was the original data found or not?  In what way was my reference to the newspaper article out of date?  Are you telling me that the data has been found?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 22, 2014, 08:39:06 AM
Gulliver,  I don't believe anything at all.  I will remain a skeptic until the evidence confirms that the Apollo missions took place to my satisfaction.

What is the story with the restorations btw?  was the original data found or not?  In what way was my reference to the newspaper article out of date?  Are you telling me that the data has been found?
I really don't care what level of evidence you need. I do find it amazing though that you'll believe that the earth is flat because it looks flat, which it doesn't. You do have hills where you look, don't you.?

Yes, they found the missing records and spent over $200,000 restoring them, but, of course, you could have just read that on then NASA link I gave you.

How long will it take you to document your amazing ability to see ships with a telescope that RET predicts should be over the horizon?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 22, 2014, 09:10:03 AM
that is easy... my everyday experience will not be denied...  I reiterate what I type earlier in this thread...

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.

You just keep saying.... the documents are there.  I keep pointing to the reference that clearly says that documents are missing and that they are not held by NASA.

I am sceptical that the original data has "suddenly been found" but I am sure someone will review and find it to be faked. 

Also, you required me start a new thread to discuss Bedford Canal phenomena and then you want it reinstated to this thread.  What do you really want?

Just another example of the more obvious physical impossibilities is that if these guys are supposed have stood in two hundred degree sun with "water cooling" in a vacuum, how did the coolant disperse its heat?  there is no way for the coolant to pass its heat to the environment.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Rama Set on September 22, 2014, 11:29:41 AM
The moon only gets to slightly above 100C in every source I have seen.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 22, 2014, 11:48:15 AM
up to 127 in fact.. what is that in farenheit? hmm well over 200
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 22, 2014, 12:12:30 PM
... 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.
I renew my challenge. Document your amazing ability.
Quote
In my work as a mining engineer, ...I constantly request a 3D model of the putative sea level globe in its entirety and I am simply unable to shake one loose.
So then, to be fair, you must have a 3D model of the putative sea-level flat earth in its entirety. Please start a relevant topic and post it. Thanks.
Quote
There is a series of four well known astronomical observations which clearly demonstrate that the motion of the sun is geocentric and not heliocentric.
First, that sentence needs some work. Perhaps you meant that the solar system is geocentric. Again, please start a relevant topic and post all four replete with documentation to a volume similar to NASA's.
Quote
...As discussed above, the salient documentation to verify these missions has been lost.
Please avoid No True Scotsman fallacies.
Quote
...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. " ...Also, you required me start a new thread to discuss Bedford Canal phenomena and then you want it reinstated to this thread.
I did no such thing. I will not, however, comment on your cheesy mirage video in this thread
Quote
Just another example of the more obvious physical impossibilities is that if these guys are supposed have stood in two hundred degree sun with "water cooling" in a vacuum, how did the coolant disperse its heat?  there is no way for the coolant to pass its heat to the environment.
OKay, the question and claim there demonstrate beyond all doubt that you're lying. You cannot be a professional mining engineer and not know the heat can be exchanged without an atmosphere. Goodness, calculating heat loss by venting a gas into a vacuum is a common high school physics homework problem. Yes, the ice sublimates into the vacuum. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Cooling_and_Ventilation_Garment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Cooling_and_Ventilation_Garment)
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 22, 2014, 12:37:09 PM
you just believe anything don't you?  how does a thin sheet of ice (formed by a separate feed water source get formed externally at 127oC? A separate water supply?  I am now HIGHLY sceptical of this.  I suspect that the blueprints and specific design for these spacesuits are a little difficult to get hold of.  Please provide the blueprint and complete design for this suit.  I shall review the mathematics of this at my leisure over the coming weeks.

I think you should review your previous comments... you clearly requested that I commence a new thread.

I notice that you completely avoid commenting on the COMPLETE LACK of real world applications of globalist influenced surveying.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Rama Set on September 22, 2014, 01:34:11 PM
up to 127 in fact.. what is that in farenheit? hmm well over 200

Considering Heiwa is European and an "engineer" I assumed he was using SI units.  Now, do you know that 127C is a daytime high and most lunar walks were scheduled for dawn when temperatures would not be near the daytime high.  Not that that would matter seeing as the outside of the suit was made from fiberglass, whose melting point is well above even 200C, nevermind 127C.  There are multiple layers of aluminum after that, whose melting point is also well above 127C.  The suits has a coating of teflon, which easily withstands these temperatures, and the sole of the boots were made from silicon which I personally use in my oven at temperatures up to 500C260C.

This claim that gear for the Apollo 11 moon walk would melt is ridiculous on it's face.

EDIT: Screwed up my temp units.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 22, 2014, 03:52:07 PM
you just believe anything don't you?  how does a thin sheet of ice (formed by a separate feed water source get formed externally at 127oC? A separate water supply?  I am now HIGHLY sceptical of this.  I suspect that the blueprints and specific design for these spacesuits are a little difficult to get hold of.  Please provide the blueprint and complete design for this suit.  I shall review the mathematics of this at my leisure over the coming weeks.

I think you should review your previous comments... you clearly requested that I commence a new thread.

I notice that you completely avoid commenting on the COMPLETE LACK of real world applications of globalist influenced surveying.
No, I will not believe your outlandish and unsubstantiated claims, such as "[T]here is no way for the coolant to pass its heat to the environment." I feel no obligation to do your research for you.

There is no reason to think that the ice need form at that temperature. RS points out correctly the importance of the Sun's angle of incidence. You also forgot that heat exchangers can accomplish amazing feats and that the panel could very well be placed in the shade of some other part of the suit.

Yes, I did ask you to start a new thread if you wanted to discuss a new topic. No, I did not "require[d you] start a new thread to discuss Bedford Canal phenomena"

I'd be happy to comment on the "COMPLETE LACK of real world applications of globalist influenced surveying" in a thread on that topic but only after you provide clear, incontrovertible evidence that such a lack exists.

Again, how long until you can document your absolutely amazing ability to see a ship down to its waterline at a distance that RET claims to be typically impossible?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 22, 2014, 09:06:54 PM
Thanks Gulliver and Rama Set.  As discussed, I am sceptical that the purported Apollo missions took place. 

Ships.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eC4JjwZ9w4  start looking at 7.30 minutes.

With respect to the surveying discussion Gulliver, you need to apply the scientific method.  I have put forward the hypothesis that there are NO REAL WORLD civil or mining applications which make allowances for the purported curvature of the earth and that in every PRACTICAL sense, the zero datum of the earth is planar.  You can easily disprove this hypothesis simply by finding a real world example.  Simple task for you.

I am completely sceptical about the space suit... I think it is BS.  How many litres of fluid have to be evaporated?  How many litres were required for the lunar lander?  Rama, the days on the moon are 28 days long.  The landing took place in daylight and Armstrong purportedly set foot on the moon six hours later.  They stayed 21.5 hours. The amount of liquid (presumably water) that had to be carried simply to be "sublimated" would be pretty hefty methinks.  It will be a pleasant diversion to walk through this arithmetic at some stage.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: markjo on September 22, 2014, 10:51:31 PM
Ships.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eC4JjwZ9w4  start looking at 7.30 minutes.
That ship appears to be in front of the horizon, not behind it.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Rama Set on September 23, 2014, 12:09:01 AM
Thanks Gulliver and Rama Set.  As discussed, I am sceptical that the purported Apollo missions took place. 

Ships.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eC4JjwZ9w4  start looking at 7.30 minutes.

With respect to the surveying discussion Gulliver, you need to apply the scientific method.  I have put forward the hypothesis that there are NO REAL WORLD civil or mining applications which make allowances for the purported curvature of the earth and that in every PRACTICAL sense, the zero datum of the earth is planar.  You can easily disprove this hypothesis simply by finding a real world example.  Simple task for you.

I am completely sceptical about the space suit... I think it is BS.  How many litres of fluid have to be evaporated?  How many litres were required for the lunar lander?  Rama, the days on the moon are 28 days long.  The landing took place in daylight and Armstrong purportedly set foot on the moon six hours later.  They stayed 21.5 hours. The amount of liquid (presumably water) that had to be carried simply to be "sublimated" would be pretty hefty methinks.  It will be a pleasant diversion to walk through this arithmetic at some stage.

Apollo 11 made 2.5hr moonwalk, so be sure to use that time in your calculations. I note that you did not address my rebuttal to Heiwa's obviously ridiculous claim about spacesuit materials melting. I look forward to your reply, but since I adequately showed Heiwa's claim to be fanciful, I do not expect a provocative response.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 23, 2014, 04:23:12 AM
...With respect to the surveying discussion Gulliver, you need to apply the scientific method.  I have put forward the hypothesis that there are NO REAL WORLD civil or mining applications which make allowances for the purported curvature of the earth and that in every PRACTICAL sense, the zero datum of the earth is planar.  You can easily disprove this hypothesis simply by finding a real world example.  Simple task for you...
If this were a thread on surveying, I would simply point out that I have no obligation to "disprove" your hypothesis. Feel free to do your own work.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 23, 2014, 12:29:04 PM
Gulliver et al...  The lunar lander will also need to have its heat dissipated..  be sure to consider that.

Since you have vacated the field,  I claim COMPLETE vindication of my hypothesis that there are NO REAL WORLD applications of globalist thinking in mining or civil engineering applications. 

The whole point is that any ship will ALWAYS be in front of the horizon because the undisturbed sea level is flat.  If the earth was a globe then two points ten kilometres apart would have a hump 1.9m high etc etc.

Game, set and match.  Thank you ball boys, thank you linesmen.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: markjo on September 23, 2014, 01:13:50 PM
Since you have vacated the field,  I claim COMPLETE vindication of my hypothesis that there are NO REAL WORLD applications of globalist thinking in mining or civil engineering applications. 
Does surveying count?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelling#Refraction_and_curvature
http://civilengineersforum.com/geodetic-surveying/
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Rama Set on September 23, 2014, 01:28:32 PM
...With respect to the surveying discussion Gulliver, you need to apply the scientific method.  I have put forward the hypothesis that there are NO REAL WORLD civil or mining applications which make allowances for the purported curvature of the earth and that in every PRACTICAL sense, the zero datum of the earth is planar.  You can easily disprove this hypothesis simply by finding a real world example.  Simple task for you...
If this were a thread on surveying, I would simply point out that I have no obligation to "disprove" your hypothesis. Feel free to do your own work.

Although Geodetic surveys immediately spring to mind.  As does naval radar.  As does GPS... It goes on and on.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: markjo on September 23, 2014, 02:35:31 PM
...With respect to the surveying discussion Gulliver, you need to apply the scientific method.  I have put forward the hypothesis that there are NO REAL WORLD civil or mining applications which make allowances for the purported curvature of the earth and that in every PRACTICAL sense, the zero datum of the earth is planar.  You can easily disprove this hypothesis simply by finding a real world example.  Simple task for you...
If this were a thread on surveying, I would simply point out that I have no obligation to "disprove" your hypothesis. Feel free to do your own work.

Although Geodetic surveys immediately spring to mind.  As does naval radar.  As does GPS... It goes on and on.
Very long tunnels, such as the channel tunnel.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Rama Set on September 23, 2014, 02:42:19 PM
...With respect to the surveying discussion Gulliver, you need to apply the scientific method.  I have put forward the hypothesis that there are NO REAL WORLD civil or mining applications which make allowances for the purported curvature of the earth and that in every PRACTICAL sense, the zero datum of the earth is planar.  You can easily disprove this hypothesis simply by finding a real world example.  Simple task for you...
If this were a thread on surveying, I would simply point out that I have no obligation to "disprove" your hypothesis. Feel free to do your own work.

Although Geodetic surveys immediately spring to mind.  As does naval radar.  As does GPS... It goes on and on.
Very long tunnels, such as the channel tunnel.

Cue mistaking avg height above sea level for meaning no curvature.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 23, 2014, 08:04:23 PM
Yes, surveying exactly... using the reference you provided ... and I quote... Refraction and curvature[edit]

The curvature of the earth means that a line of sight that is horizontal at the instrument will be higher and higher above a spheroid at greater distances. The effect may be significant for some work at distances under 100 meters.

The line of sight is horizontal at the instrument, but is not a straight line because of refraction in the air. The change of air density with elevation causes the line of sight to bend toward the earth.

The combined correction for refraction and curvature is approximately:[3]
\Delta h_{meters} = 0.067 D_{km} ^2  or \Delta h_{feet} = 0.021 \left(\frac {D_{ft}}{1000} \right)^2
For precise work these effects need to be calculated and corrections applied. For most work it is sufficient to keep the foresight and backsight distances approximately equal so that the refraction and curvature effects cancel out. Refraction is generally the greatest source of error in leveling. For short level lines the effects of temperature and pressure are generally insignificant, but the effect of the temperature gradient dT / dh can lead to errors.[4]


Over the distance of Bedford Canal experiment, this correction is 6.7m.  Yet such a correction is NEVER applied in any mining or civil engineering project... and in particular NOT  the Chunnel which is well over this distance.  The reason, we are told, is because the rate of refraction CANCELS out the rate of curvature on the earth.  But this is nonsense of course, because the air density close to sea level will be the same for a horizontal line of sight.  To get light to bend 6.9m over the distance of 10 km with a line of sight over sea level... you guys just believe anything....

The GPS reference will have to be explained to me.  GPS outcomes are easily achieved from land stations and blimps.  Even if the satellite myth were true, there is simply no need to deploy such things to achieve GPS.  And why don't we have any pics of the north and south pole from these satellites?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Rama Set on September 24, 2014, 01:06:52 AM
I have never seen a blimp. Can you show me pictures of your GPS blimps? 

Why are you expecting photos from a GPS satellite?  That is not their function.

Why would I expect you to accept such a photo when you are apparently hung up on things like the BLE?

Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 24, 2014, 09:31:16 AM
Hi Rama... you will have to look elsewhere for the satellite GPS discussion.. I didn't raise it and, quite frankly, I don't give a damn. 

I simply point out that satellites are not relevant to the previous discussion and, moreover, that any "benefits" attributed to them could be achieved in any either model of the world, namely global or dinner plate.   The reference to the poles was made by me to clearly indicate my view that both satellites and the Poles are covered in BS as well.

Summarising the discussion to date.  A CGI reproduction does not prove a pic of a man on the moon is real.  There are no real world applications of the correction to survey data  to compensate for the putative curvature of the earth.  There is no curving of light running parallel to the ocean because the medium does not vary with distance, only with altitude.  The purported lunar landing missions to the purported moon are physically impossible for many reasons, not the least of which is the inability to provide sufficient quantity of "sublimatable" liquid to maintain a temperature that would permit humans to continue to function.  Of course that discussion used the questionable assumptions that there is a vacuum in space.  The point being that the BS based on BS assumption is entirely contradictory of its own assumptions and is a complete fail.

So I am still looking for a globalist who would like to discuss the Flat Earth topic for an internet radio program.  If any globalists are interested, please send me a message.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Rama Set on September 24, 2014, 11:35:17 AM
I realize why you mentioned satellites and I responded because of the logical deficiency contained in your view. My hope is that you realize this deficiency so that you can appreciate all the other evidence before you.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: model 29 on September 24, 2014, 04:58:26 PM
  The whole point is that any ship will ALWAYS be in front of the horizon because the undisturbed sea level is flat.  If the earth was a globe then two points ten kilometres apart would have a hump 1.9m high etc etc.
There is a hump, and ships are not always in front of the horizon.

Ships..   start looking at 7.30 minutes.
Video was shot from an elevated position, the ship isn't beyond the horizon, and seems as though camera operator, or whoever added the text, is confusing 'melting into the horizon' with lack of resolution at low magnification.  I am mildly surprised they didn't try claiming 'restoration' between 1x and whatever maximum power is.

  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. 
  I can see ships disappear down over the horizon with the use of a telescope.  What was your elevation?  I've seen distant hills sink beyond the waterline/horizon as I lowered my viewing elevation without increasing my distance, and also noticed buildings at the shoreline compress due to refraction (pictures available if desired).  I have also viewed a major city located at basically sea-level, half sunk below the horizon when viewed from 2,500 feet 60 miles away with no other distant significant hills to block the view.

There is a series of four well known astronomical observations which clearly demonstrate that the motion of the sun is geocentric and not heliocentric.
Such as?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 24, 2014, 10:00:00 PM
Hi Model29,

the point is that if there was a curve on the earth as you have accepted as fact, then we would be unable to see the vessel at the waterline.  There are no ifs or buts about this point when the observation is taken at eye level from the waters edge.

The papers are:

Michelson and Morley 1887 "on the relative motion of the earth and Luminiferous Aether"
Airy G 1871 Proc Royal Sc. London V 20 p35
Michelson and Gale 1925 Astrophysical Journa v61 pp 140-5 Detection of 24 hr . rotation of aether around earth to 2% accuracy
Sagnac M 1913 "Sur la preuve de la realite de ''ether lumineaux par l'expeience de l'inerpherograph tournant" (On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether using the experiment of a turning interferometer")  Comptes Rendus v157 p708-710 and 1410-1413.  (proof the aether really exists - demolishing the BS of relativity)

enjoy... and welcome to the real world!
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Rama Set on September 24, 2014, 11:06:51 PM
Oh dear. The Sagnac effect is perfectly well explained by special relativity and Michaelson-Morley experiments have been repeated and have continued to yield a null result to ever increasing levels of discrimination, up to 10-17 level.  Why do you think you are an expert in physics?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 25, 2014, 10:26:40 AM
yes Rama.... your worst nightmare... someone familiar with physics...I obtained my BSc from the University of Melbourne in 1979 with a physics major.  I then read Engineering and obtained BEng and later an MBA... so please don't expect me to be phased by ad hominem attacks such as "what makes you such and expert in physics" and all the attempts to paint me as a "know it all".  I claim no expertise, but I do claim the capability to understand sound reasoning in matters of physics and engineering when I hear it or read it.  I would speculate that you may find discussions with me a pleasant change compared to persons that obtain their knowledge of these matters directly from the doubly entendred “Big Bang Theory television series..  As a very special favour to you, I shall present some very, very sound reasoning for you to cogitate on, adapted from Malcolm Bowden.  As I did with Model29, I welcome you to the real world, now becoming heavily populated!

The Michelson Morley Experiment was expected to demonstrate that earth moved through the Aether at 30km/s because, after all, wasn't this the speed of the earth around the sun in the direction of travel?  It was very, very awkward when the results were between 1 and 10 km/s wasn't it? In a desperate attempt to explain this RATHER embarrassing result, the Fitzgerald-Lorenz contraction was invented, with absolutely no justification provided for this “solution”.  This solution was only invented to overcome the idea that the earth was stationary in the Aether.  To complete this travesty, the Einstein myth and “Special Relativity” were invented to “abolish” the Aether.  Einstein's biographer commented: “The problem that now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives.  The first was that the earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable (???).  The second was that the Aether was carried along by the earth in its passage through space, a possibility which had already been ruled out... by a number of experiments, notably those of... James Bradley.  The third solution was that the Aether simply did not exist, which to many nineteenth century scienties was equivalent to scrapping current views of light, electricity and magnetism and starting again.” Ronald Clark, 1971

In fact, the first possibility is the only one that fits all of the results of the experiments carried out... i.e. the earth is stationary in a rotating Aether.  Einstein's relativity theory was supposedly verified by the Transit of Venus experiment, the results of which were HOPELESS and would not possibly stand scrutiny today.

The Michelson Gale Experiment demonstrated that the Aether was passing across the surface of the earth once every twenty four hours. However, it was unclear if the earth was moving or the Aether.

The Airy experiment proved that water filled telescopes did not have to be tilted more than air filled telescopes because the moving starlight was carried by a rotating Aether that was passing across a stationary earth.  If the earth was moving, then the water filled telescope would need more tilt.

Finally, the Sagnac experiment proving that there IS an Aether.  He split a beam of light and sent the two beams in opposite directions around a path, recombined the beams, and noted their interference fringes. The whole system was on a turntable anhe then turned it at 2 revolutions per second, remeasured the fringes and found they had changed.  This was due to the movement of the mirrors, which made the parth for one beam longer and the other shorter.  This proved that the Aether existed because once the light left the source, its speed was controlled by the comparatively stationary Aether in the laboratory.  THIS DEMOLISHED THE THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: markjo on September 25, 2014, 12:22:24 PM
The Michelson Gale Experiment demonstrated that the Aether was passing across the surface of the earth once every twenty four hours. However, it was unclear if the earth was moving or the Aether.
Foucault's pendulum and stellar aberration prove that it's the earth moving, not the aether.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 25, 2014, 12:38:45 PM
... THIS DEMOLISHED THE THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
Nope. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity)

Also FET relies on SR. See: http://wiki.tfes.org/Special_Relativity#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light (http://wiki.tfes.org/Special_Relativity#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light)

Now, would you please return to the thread's topic: "moon landings"? Thanks.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 25, 2014, 09:14:00 PM
Markjo, the Foucault experiment is better explained by Barbour J. and Bertotti B. "Gravity and Intertia in a Machian Framework" Il Nouovo Cimento 32(B):1-27, 11 March 1977 and also Gerardus Bouw's "Geocentric Papers".  The earth is stationary.

Gulliver, SR doesn't apply where significant gravity exists and it is bogus. It's creation came about entirely to demolish the Aether.  But the Aether is now marching boldly back into physics Gulliver.  Soon all of you will fear and tremble at its majestic return.  The top physicists of the time walked out on Einsteins lectures as they were considered to be rubbish.  At first Einstein claimed he had never even heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment and then later recanted.  How disingenuous is that?

A stationary earth fits all of the data without flim flam.  Your house of cards is now collapsing.

As I noted earlier, it was not I that brought this thread here.

I simply stated that CGI renderings do not prove that a photo purporting to be a man on the moon is genuine.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: markjo on September 25, 2014, 09:58:49 PM
Markjo, the Foucault experiment is better explained by Barbour J. and Bertotti B. "Gravity and Intertia in a Machian Framework" Il Nouovo Cimento 32(B):1-27, 11 March 1977 and also Gerardus Bouw's "Geocentric Papers".  The earth is stationary.

Mach's principle?  Seriously? 
Quote from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02726208
The theory in its present form is still very rudimentary and incomplete and so far merely provides the framework of a Machian theory of gravity and inertia. In particular, the behaviour of rods and clocks and the related problem of the anisotropy of inertial mass can be fully understood only when the rest of physics has been brought into this Machian framework.

As for geocentrism... You do realize that geocentrism is, for the most part, still a round earth model, don't you?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 25, 2014, 10:51:58 PM
of course Machs principle... the arithmetic holds ups perfectly and it doesn't require faith, unlike relativity... which doesn't apply in such and such a circumstance but does apply bla bla bla.

Many geocentrists can't quite bring themselves to fight two battles at one time.  The evidence for a motionless earth and a rotating Aether does not depend upon the shape of the earth.

And how is it that you know so much about these things Markjo?  And why, if you believe the earth is a globe in relativistic universe, are you haunting the corridors of the Flat Earth Society? 

And the same question of you Gulliver.. why do you choose to tell me (and presumably others) where they can put information and in which thread and generally act as a gatekeeper?

I ask simply to understand the dynamics of the tfes... are you one of the instigators and or controllers herein?  What is your power?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: markjo on September 26, 2014, 01:10:59 AM
of course Machs principle... the arithmetic holds ups perfectly and it doesn't require faith, unlike relativity... which doesn't apply in such and such a circumstance but does apply bla bla bla.
From what I've heard about Mach's principle, no on is exactly sure just what Mach's principle really says.

Many geocentrists can't quite bring themselves to fight two battles at one time.  The evidence for a motionless earth and a rotating Aether does not depend upon the shape of the earth.
That's because a round stationary earth is a far easier battle to fight than a flat stationary earth.

And how is it that you know so much about these things Markjo?  And why, if you believe the earth is a globe in relativistic universe, are you haunting the corridors of the Flat Earth Society? 
I'm helping FE'ers improve FET by pointing out flaws in their models.

I ask simply to understand the dynamics of the tfes... are you one of the instigators and or controllers herein?  What is your power?
Some call me an RE DA (devil's advocate).  Apparently I'm an FE'er but argue RE for kicks.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Gulliver on September 26, 2014, 06:59:55 AM
...Gulliver, SR doesn't apply where significant gravity exists and it is bogus. ...
Nope. See previous reference for list of experiments that disprove your outlandish claim.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: markjo on September 26, 2014, 12:22:13 PM
SR doesn't apply where significant gravity exists and it is bogus. ...
Actually, SR (the equivalence principle, in particular) says that gravity is the same as acceleration and is a principle tenet of many FE models.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on September 26, 2014, 08:17:46 PM
Gulliver, relativistic arguments that are said to "prove" relativity are snuffed out once the Aether is proven to exist.  The Sagnac experiment clearly demonstrates the Aether exists.  The results of the experiment are EXACTLY as Sagnac calculated.  The split light beams experience drag and change the fringe patterns, an effect which is used for the gyroscopic compass in aircraft.  Without Aether, this effect could not be observed.  If there is no Aether, then the fringe patterns would not alter and gyroscopes could not work.  There is NO relativistic explanation of this effect.  Please DO NOT bother with the Wikipedia entry on this, the inertial reference frame at any velocity still does not explain this. 

Markjo... Luka Popov "The dynamical description of the geocentric Universe" 26th April 2013. Abstract: Using Mach's principle, we will show that the observed diurnal and annual motion of the EArth can just as well be accounted as the diurnal rotation and annual revolution of the Universe around the fixed and catered Earth.  This can be performed by postulating the existence of vector a scalar potentials caused by the simultaneous motion of the masses in the Universe, including the distant stars.

And finally Rama, the MM experiment did not then and does not now yield a NULL result.  It yields a result between 1 and 10 km/sec CONSISTENT with the 24hr rotation of the Aether.  This was CONFIRMED with the Michaelson Gale experiment.

So, let's summarise the discussion to date.

CGI rendering do not prove that a pic of a man in a comical film prop was actually taken on the putative moon.
The physics of this putative moon landing on this putative moon is entirely inconsistent within it's own self defined conditions
The Aether is proven to exist
The Aether is proven to rotate around the earth every 24 hours
The Earth is proven to be stationary
The application of Mach's principle provides a completely satisfactory account of a geocentric universe as demonstrated by Barbour, Popov and others

Thanks for coming everyone.  I am still seeking a globalist to do a radio talk with me on the geocentric flat earth.  What about you Rama-set?  You are giving me the impression that you think that you will be able to pull my arguments apart easily.  You will be able to educate many people and alert them to all the kerazy thinking people such as me have.
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: markjo on September 26, 2014, 08:22:08 PM
This can be performed by postulating the existence of vector a scalar potentials caused by the simultaneous motion of the masses in the Universe, including the distant stars.
Have these "vector a scalar potentials" been experimentally verified?
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: Rekt on January 27, 2017, 04:36:48 PM
The Russians determined back in 1959 that it was going to take four feet of solid lead to protect a person if they wanted to walk on the Moon's surface.

How did the Americans get over the radiation inside the Van Allen belt from space outside of earth's magnetic field? How did the US manage that with tin foil and little glass windows? What were their space suits made of? I have never had a proper answer to this.

Quote from: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/06/masonic-moon-landing-hoax.html
There is an area of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt 272 miles from Earth which the Russians could never pass. In fact in 1959 Bill Kaysing reported on a Russian study which discovered that the amount of radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in 4 feet of lead in order to avoid instant death. John Mauldin, a NASA physicist, said they would need at least two meters of thick shielding.
This was assuming that planes are all uniform. The Van Allen Belts are there, and they are deadly. However, by adjusting the inclination of the orbit of the transit to the moon, they were able to not hit the Van Allen Belts' most dangerous areas for any period of time. They did receive higher than normal doses of radiation, but those were well within tolerable limits, even under the annual max for nuclear power workers. There's a great article here, I would suggest reading the same article. Van Allen HIMSELF disputes that the astronauts would have survived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Environment
Title: Re: moon landings.
Post by: juner on January 27, 2017, 04:39:50 PM
The Russians determined back in 1959 that it was going to take four feet of solid lead to protect a person if they wanted to walk on the Moon's surface.

How did the Americans get over the radiation inside the Van Allen belt from space outside of earth's magnetic field? How did the US manage that with tin foil and little glass windows? What were their space suits made of? I have never had a proper answer to this.

Quote from: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/06/masonic-moon-landing-hoax.html
There is an area of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt 272 miles from Earth which the Russians could never pass. In fact in 1959 Bill Kaysing reported on a Russian study which discovered that the amount of radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in 4 feet of lead in order to avoid instant death. John Mauldin, a NASA physicist, said they would need at least two meters of thick shielding.
This was assuming that planes are all uniform. The Van Allen Belts are there, and they are deadly. However, by adjusting the inclination of the orbit of the transit to the moon, they were able to not hit the Van Allen Belts' most dangerous areas for any period of time. They did receive higher than normal doses of radiation, but those were well within tolerable limits, even under the annual max for nuclear power workers. There's a great article here, I would suggest reading the same article. Van Allen HIMSELF disputes that the astronauts would have survived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Environment

You know this discussion is over two years old, right? Did you not see the notice that you were posting in an ancient thread? I'd suggest maybe starting a new thread if you want to have a discussion around a particular topic. The person you quoted doesn't even have an account here anymore.