[Devils Advocate]

So the ship disappeared from the naked eye but then was made visible again with a telescope, OK that's how telescopes work however......
This only works over relatively short distances doesn't it?
My telescope can see the moon which is either 3,000 or some 240,000 ish miles away, importantly we all agree it is not less than 3,000 miles away so why can I not see the beaches of France with it from the UK? Why can I not view the ferry all the way across the channel?
I think the curve of the globe prevents it, can anyone offer other reasons?

[Parallax]

So the ship disappeared from the naked eye but then was made visible again with a telescope, OK that's how telescopes work however......
This only works over relatively short distances doesn't it?
My telescope can see the moon which is either 3,000 or some 240,000 ish miles away, importantly we all agree it is not less than 3,000 miles away so why can I not see the beaches of France with it from the UK? Why can I not view the ferry all the way across the channel?
I think the curve of the globe prevents it, can anyone offer other reasons?

You can though, they have telescope's at Dover and Normandy so you can see across. And even see any ferry's.

[AATW]

So the ship disappeared from the naked eye but then was made visible again with a telescope, OK that's how telescopes work however......
This only works over relatively short distances doesn't it?
My telescope can see the moon which is either 3,000 or some 240,000 ish miles away, importantly we all agree it is not less than 3,000 miles away so why can I not see the beaches of France with it from the UK? Why can I not view the ferry all the way across the channel?
I think the curve of the globe prevents it, can anyone offer other reasons?

You can though, they have telescope's at Dover and Normandy so you can see across. And even see any ferry's.

On top of the cliffs, maybe. At ground level, not so much.

[inquisitive]

So the ship disappeared from the naked eye but then was made visible again with a telescope, OK that's how telescopes work however......
This only works over relatively short distances doesn't it?
My telescope can see the moon which is either 3,000 or some 240,000 ish miles away, importantly we all agree it is not less than 3,000 miles away so why can I not see the beaches of France with it from the UK? Why can I not view the ferry all the way across the channel?
I think the curve of the globe prevents it, can anyone offer other reasons?

You can though, they have telescope's at Dover and Normandy so you can see across. And even see any ferry's.

The path of the sun and measured distances proves a round earth.

[Devils Advocate]

You can though, they have telescope's at Dover and Normandy so you can see across. And even see any ferry's.

The telescope is 350 feet above sea level amigo. When viewed from the beach such observations do not work

[Tumeni]

Images you have seen, all CGI, videos you've seen either filmed in a studio or have a fish eye lens.

How can you claim this when you don't actually know what I've seen ...?

[Tumeni]

Then can you please explain to me why all the footage from 1969 has been 'lost'?

= = =
It hasn't been lost. All the still photos are in the Apollo 11 Image Gallery, easily found with a google search.

I have a DVD on the shelf in front of me with the BBC's broadcast of the Apollo 11 landing and EVA. It was published in 2009. If I and others can watch it from a DVD still available today, it's not 'lost'.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sky-Night-Apollo11-DVD/dp/B00264GAZM

Footage from the cameras the crew used in the Command Module can be found on the compil DVD "For All Mankind". It's more cinematic, sometimes out of sequence, but still intact.
= = =

Surely we are talking about a massive point in human history here, with footage and data that  would be archived for centuries, and NASA says they have 'lost' everything. Wonder why that is.

They didn't say that.

[Parallax]

Then can you please explain to me why all the footage from 1969 has been 'lost'?

= = =
It hasn't been lost. All the still photos are in the Apollo 11 Image Gallery, easily found with a google search.

I have a DVD on the shelf in front of me with the BBC's broadcast of the Apollo 11 landing and EVA. It was published in 2009. If I and others can watch it from a DVD still available today, it's not 'lost'.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sky-Night-Apollo11-DVD/dp/B00264GAZM

Footage from the cameras the crew used in the Command Module can be found on the compil DVD "For All Mankind". It's more cinematic, sometimes out of sequence, but still intact.
= = =

Surely we are talking about a massive point in human history here, with footage and data that  would be archived for centuries, and NASA says they have 'lost' everything. Wonder why that is.

They didn't say that.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

Pretty sure they admitted to taping over them.

[AATW]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

Pretty sure they admitted to taping over them.

Dude! Did you even read the whole first sentence of that page?

The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better, NASA officials said on Thursday.

Your initial post claimed they lost "everything". That is not true and your own post backs that up.

[jimbob]

Now I myself am a Flat-Earther, and as this being my first post on the forums, I would like to debunk curvature since every round-earther says, "The Earth is too big to notice a curvature", which makes no since. If the Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference there must exist a curvature drop of 8 inches, times the mile when you square the mile. 1 mile should equal an 8 inch curvature drop, which would be 1 squared times 8 which would equal 8. 2 miles for instance, 2 miles squared (2x2) equals 4 then times 8 would equal 32 inches of curvature. 3 miles, 3 squared times 8 would equal 72 inches in curvature and so on. So yes you should be able to notice a curvature within our horizon, which is indeed flat. Bill Nye in a video has said, the bottom of a ship will disappear first meaning there is a curvature, but if you go to a beach and watch a ship disappear than pull of you binoculars and zoom in past the horizon you should see the ship. If there was a curvature, you shouldn't be able to see the ship because the curve would have already gone over it. Ladies and Gentleman its all about perspective. I rest my case. The curvature has been debunked.




Why they would keep this a secret?

Boom Antarctic Treaty


The Antarctic Treaty
The Antarctic Treaty and related agreements, collectively known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), regulate international relations with respect to Antarctica, Earth's only continent without a native human population. For the purposes of the treaty system, Antarctica is defined as all of the land and ice shelves south of 60°S latitude. The treaty entered into force in 1961 and currently has 53 parties.[2] The treaty sets aside Antarctica as a scientific preserve, establishes freedom of scientific investigation and bans military activity on the continent. The treaty was the first arms control agreement established during the Cold War. Since September 2004, the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat headquarters has been located in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Articles of Treaty
Article 1 – The area is to be used for peaceful purposes only; military activity, such as weapons testing, is prohibited but military personnel and equipment may be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose;
Article 2 – Freedom of scientific investigations and cooperation shall continue;
Article 3 – Free exchange of information and personnel in cooperation with the United Nations and other international agencies;
Article 4 – The treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;
Article 5 – The treaty prohibits nuclear explosions or disposal of radioactive wastes;
Article 6 – Includes under the treaty all land and ice shelves but not the surrounding waters south of 60 degrees 00 minutes south;
Article 7 – Treaty-state observers have free access, including aerial observation, to any area and may inspect all stations, installations, and equipment; advance notice of all activities and of the introduction of military personnel must be given;
Article 8 – Allows for good jurisdiction over observers and scientists by their own states;
Article 9 – Frequent consultative meetings take place among member nations;
Article 10 – All treaty states will discourage activities by any country in Antarctica that are contrary to the treaty;
Article 11 – All disputes to be settled peacefully by the parties concerned or, ultimately, by the International Court of Justice;
Articles 12, 13, 14 – Deal with upholding, interpreting, and amending the treaty among involved nations.

The main objective of the ATS is to ensure in the interests of all humankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord. Pursuant to Article 1, the treaty forbids any measures of a military nature, but not the presence of military personnel or equipment for the purposes of scientific research.

Legal System
Antarctica currently has no permanent population and therefore it has no citizenship nor government. All personnel present on Antarctica at any time are citizens or nationals of some sovereignty outside Antarctica, as there is no Antarctic sovereignty. The majority of Antarctica is claimed by one or more countries, but most countries do not explicitly recognize those claims. The area on the mainland between 90 degrees west and 150 degrees west is the only major land on Earth not claimed by any country.[19] Until 2015 the interior of the Norwegian Sector, the extent of which had never been officially defined,[20] was considered to be unclaimed. That year, Norway formally laid claim to the area between its Queen Maud Land and the South Pole.[21]
Governments that are party to the Antarctic Treaty and its Protocol on Environmental Protection implement the articles of these agreements, and decisions taken under them, through national laws. These laws generally apply only to their own citizens, wherever they are in Antarctica, and serve to enforce the consensus decisions of the consultative parties: about which activities are acceptable, which areas require permits to enter, what processes of environmental impact assessment must precede activities, and so on. The Antarctic Treaty is often considered to represent an example of the common heritage of mankind principle.

United States Law
The law of the United States, including certain criminal offences by or against U.S. nationals, such as murder, may apply to areas not under jurisdiction of other countries. To this end, the United States now stations special deputy U.S. Marshals in Antarctica to provide a law enforcement presence.[24]
Some U.S. laws directly apply to Antarctica. For example, the Antarctic Conservation Act, Public Law 95-541, 16 U.S.C. § 2401 et seq., provides civil and criminal penalties for the following activities, unless authorized by regulation or statute:
the taking of native Antarctic mammals or birds
the introduction into Antarctica of non-indigenous plants and animals
entry into specially protected or scientific areas
the discharge or disposal of pollutants into Antarctica or Antarctic waters
the importation into the U.S. of certain items from Antarctica

And with all of these facts, your gonna trust these random guys you don’t know that are walking around with a PHD and listen to people from an American Space Agency tell you the Earth is flat yet all they have is composited images of Earth that is changed like every year. No.

I worked this out for another thread but it is also relevent here so here is the link to calculation and formula https://pasteboard.co/Her0ToJ.jpg

[Tumeni]

Pretty sure they admitted to taping over them.

"NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing."

The subtext to that is that no one WITHIN NASA could find them AT NASA.

The broadcast went out live to the whole world, and numerous TV companies receiving said broadcast kept their own copies, as they recorded the broadcast.

It's like Live Aid in 1985. The BBC didn't keep all of what they broadcast, but there's thousands of VHS owners out in the general   public who recorded it live off the broadcast. So, whilst someone looking within the BBC would say the footage was 'lost', there's still plenty of copies out there.

[Parallax]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

Pretty sure they admitted to taping over them.

Dude! Did you even read the whole first sentence of that page?

The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better, NASA officials said on Thursday.

Your initial post claimed they lost "everything". That is not true and your own post backs that up.

'Newly restored' copies. I noticed that, but the thing is that just means they used modern technology to brush stuff up. Face facts, NASA is the most corrupt organization on the face of the earth, they have everything to gain from hiding the truth.

Unless you don't believe that there is no way NASA is hiding so much as a single thing?

[Tumeni]

'Newly restored' copies. I noticed that, but the thing is that just means they used modern technology to brush stuff up.

So, the fact that they had SOMETHING to 'brush up' shows that it wasn't all 'lost', then....?

[Parallax]

'Newly restored' copies. I noticed that, but the thing is that just means they used modern technology to brush stuff up.

So, the fact that they had SOMETHING to 'brush up' shows that it wasn't all 'lost', then....?

Yet they admitted they lost it.

[AATW]

'Newly restored' copies. I noticed that, but the thing is that just means they used modern technology to brush stuff up.

So, the fact that they had SOMETHING to 'brush up' shows that it wasn't all 'lost', then....?

Yet they admitted they lost it.

They lost or taped over the original version of a certain format of the footage.
Other formats exist. Lots of other copies exist.
I honestly have no idea what point you think you're making.

[Parallax]

'Newly restored' copies. I noticed that, but the thing is that just means they used modern technology to brush stuff up.

So, the fact that they had SOMETHING to 'brush up' shows that it wasn't all 'lost', then....?

Yet they admitted they lost it.

They lost or taped over the original version of a certain format of the footage.
Other formats exist. Lots of other copies exist.
I honestly have no idea what point you think you're making.

My point is I claimed NASA said they lost footage, someone said they didn't, so I got a link to them saying they did.

The fact they didn't go to the moon in 1969 is totally irrelevant, the technology was far too primitive to achieve that goal.

[Frocious]

The fact they didn't go to the moon in 1969 is totally irrelevant, the technology was far too primitive to achieve that goal.

Can you prove this or is it another baseless claim?

[AATW]

My point is I claimed NASA said they lost footage, someone said they didn't, so I got a link to them saying they did.

No, you said:

Then can you please explain to me why all the footage from 1969 has been 'lost'?

My emphasis, but that word is quite an important part of your claim. NASA haven't lost all the footage and they never said they had, your own link backs that up.

[Tumeni]

... explain to me why all the footage from 1969 has been 'lost'? ...  NASA says they have 'lost' everything.

Contradicted by your own statement that they "brushed it up" (i.e. the footage which had evidently not been lost, since it was available to brush up .....)

[douglips]

“If the earth be a globe, at midnight the eye would have to penetrate thousands of miles of land and water even at 65 degrees North latitude, in order to see the sun at midnight. That the sun can be seen for days together in the Far North during the Northern summer, proves that there is something very seriously wrong with the globular hypothesis. Besides this how is it that the midnight sun is never seen in the south during the southern summer? Cook penetrated as far South as 71 degrees, Weddell in 1893 reached as far as 74 degrees, and Sir James C. Ross in 1841 and 1842 reached the 78th parallel, but I am not aware that any of these navigators have left it on record that the sun was seen at midnight in the south.” –Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny”

From the book written by James Cook himself, published in 1777:
https://books.google.com/books?id=qZtYAAAAcAAJ&dq=voyages%20of%20captain%20james%20cook%20second%20voyage&pg=PA265#v=onepage&q&f=false


From the entry for Thursday, 27 January 1774

Thus we spent the night, or rather that part of the twenty-four hours which answered to night; for we had no darkness but what was occasioned by fogs.

Heliocentrists also cannot explain why the Midnight Sun phenomenon is not experienced anywhere in the Southern hemisphere at any time of year. Quite to the contrary, it has been recorded by the Royal Belgian Geographical Society in “Expedition Antarctique Belge,” that during the most severe part of the Antarctic winter, from 71 degrees South latitude onwards, the sun sets on May 17th and is not seen above the horizon again until July 21st!

What the hell?
The same thing happens in the northern hemisphere - Barrow Alaska is dark from November to January. The flip side is it has midnight sun the summer.

Why do you take from the Belgian expedition the reports of winter darkness but ignore the reports of midnight sun from the same expedition?

From Through the first Antarctic night, 1898-1899 : a narrative of the voyage of the "Belgica" among newly discovered lands and over an unknown sea about the South pole written by the expedition's surgeon and anthropologist, chapter XXVIII:

The sea-ice appeared blue
under the midnight sun, for it was nearly mid-
night before we reached our destination.

It's like you don't even want to verify these things you hear. Google is not that hard, people.