The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Usagi on September 25, 2020, 02:29:03 AM
-
First... honest full disclosure... I am NOT a believer in a flat Earth.
But I respectfully ask you the following question that I really need a believable answer to.
WHY????
Why do you believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy to hide the "fact" that the Earth is actually flat and not a sphere?
To what end?
If what you believe is true, then why try to deceive the world into thinking Earth is a sphere?
How can you believe that across the globe (no pun intended) there are governments, groups of people, and scientists that would agree to conspire to deceive the rest of the world into believing the world is a sphere?
To what end??? Why? What do the conspirators get out of it?
If you believe the world has always been flat, do you believe that there has always been this conspiracy from the very beginning? What was their reason for the conspiracy back then? How did conspirators keep the secret??
People couldn't even keep an illicit sex act in the Oval Office of the most powerful person on Earth a secret... and that only involved two people. There must be millions of people actively working at keeping the conspiracy of a flat Earth secret... How do you reconcile so many people that must know the truth can keep the conspiracy alive?
Please... help me understand your reasoning, and how you think it is possible to keep the secret for so long, and why it should be a secret at all if it were to be true.
I ask again... Why???? and to what end??? HOW????
Thank you.
-
Tom and the lads nailed it in the faq/wiki, you should really give it a read. https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
Also thinking that brothel pimping "slick willy" car salesman on his way to pedophile island was the most powerful person in the world is profoundly naive. Modern american presidents are profoundly poor compared to the owners, whom they can see some of - having reached closer proximity to the glass ceiling. That's why the clinton foundation commits so many crimes, and obama does so many advertisements/tv spots - they need money. If you think that is power, that makes me sad.
Also, I feel compelled to clarify - belief of any kind is completely unwelcome in knowledge/fact, especially scientific. If you BELIEVE the earth is any particular shape then you have faith, not knowledge/science.
-
The Why is simple:
If The Heliocentric model(1492-1515A.D copernicus) is false and the earth is flat, then the big bang theory(1920-1930s) doesnt make sense and falls apart. If big bang is big smoke...then evolutionary theory(1850s? Charles Darwin aka darwinism,) also falls flat.
So you see...the moon landings wasnt so much about landing on the moon...it was about validating the Heliocentric model and the BBT
By group dynamics....(mass populations witnessing "apollo 11 1969")
-
If big bang is big smoke...then evolutionary theory(1850s? Charles Darwin aka darwinism,) also falls flat.
Does it? How so?
And we had photos and video from space long before the moon landings.
You still haven’t indicated any underlying motive? Who is hiding this from us and why?
-
Tom and the lads nailed it in the faq/wiki, you should really give it a read. https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
Also thinking that brothel pimping "slick willy" car salesman on his way to pedophile island was the most powerful person in the world is profoundly naive. Modern american presidents are profoundly poor compared to the owners, whom they can see some of - having reached closer proximity to the glass ceiling. That's why the clinton foundation commits so many crimes, and obama does so many advertisements/tv spots - they need money. If you think that is power, that makes me sad.
Also, I feel compelled to clarify - belief of any kind is completely unwelcome in knowledge/fact, especially scientific. If you BELIEVE the earth is any particular shape then you have faith, not knowledge/science.
Hi,
Regarding your statement that belief of any kind is completely unwelcome in knowledge/fact, especially scientific... would this apply to someone whom believes in a space travel conspiracy? This would also be faith and not knowledge/science, correct?
Thanks.
-
If big bang is big smoke...then evolutionary theory(1850s? Charles Darwin aka darwinism,) also falls flat.
Does it? How so?
And we had photos and video from space long before the moon landings.
You still haven’t indicated any underlying motive? Who is hiding this from us and why?
Please provide said evidence. You have the burden of proof my good fellow....
So, prove me wrong...present your case....
*Note*
1514- Heliocentric model "copernican system"----------------------1903 plane invented(flight)-------------1920-1930s Big Bang theorem introduced and named------------1946-1954 operation paperclip (high altitude "space flight" photos taken.-------1962 Operation Fish bowl-----1969 apollo 11....
Research for yourself before making false statements on matters in which you are misinformed.
-
@GoldCashew
"Regarding your statement that belief of any kind is completely unwelcome in knowledge/fact, especially scientific... would this apply to someone whom believes in a space travel conspiracy? This would also be faith and not knowledge/science, correct?"
That is a good, and tricky question. The recognition of the space travel conspiracy (hoaxing of "space" writ large) is evidence based, but still somewhat interpretive. It may be arguable that based on the available evidence that it is still more of a speculation than a "fact" - however with no positive evidence / proof of the possible existence of such a place as "space" (a violation of many natural laws) or space travel I would be equally justified in making the identical argument.
The presumptive, and mandated, perspective that space and space travel are real do not have adequate evidence that is even as compelling as the fraudulent footage that can trivially demonstrate the hoax. Factor in the scientific evidence that "space" cannot exist in the reality we have studied without violating many natural laws and I'd say the certainty on this "proto-fact" is very high.
-
If big bang is big smoke...then evolutionary theory(1850s? Charles Darwin aka darwinism,) also falls flat.
Does it? How so?
And we had photos and video from space long before the moon landings.
You still haven’t indicated any underlying motive? Who is hiding this from us and why?
Please provide said evidence. You have the burden of proof my good fellow....
So, prove me wrong...present your case....
OK. You said that "If big bang is big smoke...then evolutionary theory also falls flat.
Please explain what the connection between those two things is.
I don't need to provide evidence of photos from space pre-Apollo. You can Google that yourself. You can call the photos and videos fake of course, but pre Apollo were the Gemini and Mercury programmes, you can find plenty of photos from them.
Research for yourself before making false statements on matters in which you are misinformed.
What false statements have I made? And the topic of this thread is about the motive for FE being repressed. You have still provided none.
-
If big bang is big smoke...then evolutionary theory(1850s? Charles Darwin aka darwinism,) also falls flat.
Does it? How so?
And we had photos and video from space long before the moon landings.
You still haven’t indicated any underlying motive? Who is hiding this from us and why?
Please provide said evidence. You have the burden of proof my good fellow....
So, prove me wrong...present your case....
OK. You said that "If big bang is big smoke...then evolutionary theory also falls flat.
Please explain what the connection between those two things is.
I don't need to provide evidence of photos from space pre-Apollo. You can Google that yourself. You can call the photos and videos fake of course, but pre Apollo were the Gemini and Mercury programmes, you can find plenty of photos from them.
Research for yourself before making false statements on matters in which you are misinformed.
What false statements have I made? And the topic of this thread is about the motive for FE being repressed. You have still provided none.
If the big bang proposal is false, and "billions of years" is also false, then evolution hinges on big bang for its billions of years to support 6 out of the 7 proposed types of evolution. Basically, if the earth is only thousands of years old, and big bang is nonsense, then evolution doesnt make sense in 6 of its types. The only type of evolution we have actually witnessed in human history is " macro Evolution" or speciation within animal families or classifications. GOD'S Holy Word refers to them as "kinds"
In essence, if you cannot see the correlation between Heliocentricism, geocentrical flat earth model, and evolution.....I cannot help you. Research US Gov operations from 1946-1969...
-
If the big bang proposal is false, and "billions of years" is also false, then evolution hinges on big bang for its billions of years to support 6 out of the 7 proposed types of evolution.
Right, but as you have noted the theory of evolution predates the Big Bang theory. So clearly an old earth was known long before the Big Bang theory which is more about how the universe started.
Why could a flat earth not also be old and evolution have occurred on it? Evolution doesn't require a particular earth shape, it simply requires time and the right conditions.
And you still haven't indicated who is trying to hide the true shape of the earth from us and why, which is the point of this thread.
-
In essence, if you cannot see the correlation between Heliocentricism, geocentrical flat earth model, and evolution.....I cannot help you. Research US Gov operations from 1946-1969...
If you've explained it somewhere else, outwith this forum, please provide a link.
If you haven't explained it anywhere else, and you're unwilling or unable to engage with folks here and now to explain what you mean, then it's probably best you just leave. Taking a holier-than-thou attitood as though what you're thinking should be blindingly obvious to folks who don't know you or your thinking is just a dead-end.
-
If the big bang proposal is false, and "billions of years" is also false, then evolution hinges on big bang for its billions of years to support 6 out of the 7 proposed types of evolution.
Right, but as you have noted the theory of evolution predates the Big Bang theory. So clearly an old earth was known long before the Big Bang theory which is more about how the universe started.
Why could a flat earth not also be old and evolution have occurred on it? Evolution doesn't require a particular earth shape, it simply requires time and the right conditions.
And you still haven't indicated who is trying to hide the true shape of the earth from us and why, which is the point of this thread.
Firstly, Charles Darwin IS the only reason evolution theorem exists in it's current form. Before his study on the Galapagos islands in the 1800s, he was a preacher/minister, he was a christian!! For thousands of years, civilizations knew the earth was geocentrical and flat in nature, some even theorized of cubed earth. None of these civilizations before 800 bc, thought we "evolved" from bacteria over "millions" of years.
As far as why they would hide the shape of the earth, well simple: if the Heliocentrical copernican system is wrong and a lie, then at the time they found out that it indeed was wrong (Oct 24, 1946 Operation High Jump) the big bang, evolution, and the copernican system were all well established in school systems and in the mass population of earth, "common knowledge" if you will. Think about this: If, when in 1948(?) I believe....when the first achieved high altitude flight with the help of German astrophysicists in operation paper Clip, if they found out the earth was flat, AND that the firmament (Genesis 1:6-7) is a structural expanse, Do you think they would inform the general public that they cannot get high enough to break the glass ceiling? That there is no space that they can reach? Of course not...they would do as you see they did...they first established NASA in 1958, then in 1959 signed the Antarctic Peace treaty then in 1962 Operation Fish Bowl( high altitude nuclear weapons "testing") look up starfish explosion 1962). Then in 1969 they faked a moon landing to support their hoax by using group dynamics to confirm its validity.
-
I don't want to take anything away from any religious beliefs you have, but why couldn't Darwin be a Christian AND a scientist? These do not need to be mutually exclusive labels by any means.
I know a geology professor who is a leading expect on an ancient mountain belt, one that formed 1.2 - 1 billion years ago and was completely eroded by 700 million years ago. He is a devout christian and has published many books about how he reconciles scientific evidence and biblical teachings and descriptions. I've always admired him a great deal for that, and hes also just one of the genuinely nicest people I've ever met.
-
Also, the very concept of Big Bang was introduced by a Belgian catholic priest called Georges Lemaître. He was named a "Domestic prelate" by the Pope several decades later, so it seems he could cope with both his faith and his scientific career.
The religious views of Charles Darwin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin) are the subject of a full Wikipedia article on their own. It's almost 100 kilobytes long, so it's not a trivial matter.
-
I don't want to take anything away from any religious beliefs you have, but why couldn't Darwin be a Christian AND a scientist? These do not need to be mutually exclusive labels by any means.
I know a geology professor who is a leading expect on an ancient mountain belt, one that formed 1.2 - 1 billion years ago and was completely eroded by 700 million years ago. He is a devout christian and has published many books about how he reconciles scientific evidence and biblical teachings and descriptions. I've always admired him a great deal for that, and hes also just one of the genuinely nicest people I've ever met.
To be honest, I deduced, for a long period, that evolution and big bang theorems were the method the LORD God used in creation. In that, by 6 days bieng millions of years each "day". So, in essence I was on the same ideology as you speak of. However, be as it may, this is the surmise of it all, per God's Holy Word, Man brought death into the world(1 Corinthians 15:21) and by big bang and especially evolution(darwinism aka " natural selection ") death brought man into the world. As this may well be an over simplification, it is still inherently relevant and cohesive to my point.
-
Also, the very concept of Big Bang was introduced by a Belgian catholic priest called Georges Lemaître. He was named a "Domestic prelate" by the Pope several decades later, so it seems he could cope with both his faith and his scientific career.
The religious views of Charles Darwin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin) are the subject of a full Wikipedia article on their own. It's almost 100 kilobytes long, so it's not a trivial matter.
As stated in my response above, in God's Holy word, man brought death by sin, evolution/ darwinism says death brought man...
As for lamaiter, his theistic philosophy ,by my summation, cannot congeal with a "something came from nothing" deduction. As quoted by Julian Huxley, a British evolutionary biologist, said; “It is easier to believe that there was nothing before there was something than that there was something before there was nothing.” quite the quandary indeed....
-
Firstly, Charles Darwin IS the only reason evolution theorem exists in it's current form. Before his study on the Galapagos islands in the 1800s, he was a preacher/minister, he was a christian!! For thousands of years, civilizations knew the earth was geocentrical and flat in nature, some even theorized of cubed earth. None of these civilizations before 800 bc, thought we "evolved" from bacteria over "millions" of years.
Right. And ancient civilizations thought that everything was made of 4 elements - fire, water, air, earth. Many of then believed in multiple Gods.
Our modern civilization and technologies are built on many things which ancient civilizations hadn't discovered or didn't understand.
I am a Christian and my take on it all is that had I been born 500 years ago I probably would think that the Scriptures were scientifically accurate.
But being born now I understand them in a different way. Genesis tells us that we are a creation, it tells us Who created us and for what purpose. It also tells us about our need for redemption - the New Testament deals with that of course.
The exact timescales and mechanisms of creation - leave that to science. I see them as complimentary rather than contradictory.
-
Firstly, Charles Darwin IS the only reason evolution theorem exists in it's current form. Before his study on the Galapagos islands in the 1800s, he was a preacher/minister, he was a christian!! For thousands of years, civilizations knew the earth was geocentrical and flat in nature, some even theorized of cubed earth. None of these civilizations before 800 bc, thought we "evolved" from bacteria over "millions" of years.
Right. And ancient civilizations thought that everything was made of 4 elements - fire, water, air, earth. Many of then believed in multiple Gods.
True, however I encourage you to read "False Prophet Azazel" by John of the gentiles. It explains in detail the origin of Roman, Greek, Norse, Hindi, Buddhism.. mythologies. It is a fascinating read.
Our modern civilization and technologies are built on many things which ancient civilizations hadn't discovered or didn't understand.
Agreed to a certain extent, take the United States: Its heritage and history owes most of its cultural roots to Europe with a sprinkling of vast and diverse cultures from across the earth. Also, notice the United states uses Latin in its seals? Such as E PLURIBUS UNUM (out of many, one), also consider the use of the " Eagle" as their official mascot if you will. Combining these two facts, you can trace back this ideology and symbology to ancient Rome. In essence, before Rome fell in 507 b.c, it had two 2 colonies, France and what is modern England. These two lands were colonies of the Roman Empire and once the city fell, it is fairly safe to assume they fled to these colonies and settled them. So as I agree our civilization is much more technologically sound and scientifically advanced, much of the philosophies and ideologies that were manifested in ancient Rome and Greece in the late BCE era, is still taught today. For instance, The core comprehension of the Big Bang theory is the copernican system of cosmology "Heliocentric model", however it is known fact that pythagoras conceived a theory that toyed with the notion of a spherical earth and planetary bodies, so did newton.
I am a Christian and my take on it all is that had I been born 500 years ago I probably would think that the Scriptures were scientifically accurate.
But being born now I understand them in a different way. Genesis tells us that we are a creation, it tells us Who created us and for what purpose. It also tells us about our need for redemption - the New Testament deals with that of course.
The exact timescales and mechanisms of creation - leave that to science. I see them as complimentary rather than contradictory.
It is important to note that the word "Science" is a dirivitive of the Latin-"Scientia" which means Mans knowledge or systematized knowledge. In fact: philosophy, science, Natural Magic(would be known today as an archaic form of the modern term "physics"), also alchemy(chemistry,"pharma") all are synonymous terminology. Now, this is not intended to be a disagreement nor rebuttal, simply a interesting set of facts for you to consider.
-
To be honest, I deduced, for a long period, that evolution and big bang theorems were the method the LORD God used in creation. In that, by 6 days bieng millions of years each "day".
Wowee zowee kablowee. Do you know kent hovind? He's not perfect, but I think he might be able to help you.
-
Firstly, Charles Darwin IS the only reason evolution theorem exists in it's current form. Before his study on the Galapagos islands in the 1800s, he was a preacher/minister, ...
No, he wasn’t. His father sent him to study in preparation for a possible career as a country parson after neglecting his medical studies in Edinburgh but he didn’t actually finish the process before the Beagle voyage.
-
To be honest, I deduced, for a long period, that evolution and big bang theorems were the method the LORD God used in creation. In that, by 6 days bieng millions of years each "day".
Wowee zowee kablowee. Do you know kent hovind? He's not perfect, but I think he might be able to help you.
"not perfect" is being kind.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
-
Oh, he's no saint. But he's no al-capone either. They put him in prison for a year longer than capone, and got him on the same scam. He was a pastor for god's sake, and was prepared to pay what the irs made up he owed by donations by his church goers.
Most likely you haven't heard the real story.
-
@GoldCashew
"Regarding your statement that belief of any kind is completely unwelcome in knowledge/fact, especially scientific... would this apply to someone whom believes in a space travel conspiracy? This would also be faith and not knowledge/science, correct?"
That is a good, and tricky question. The recognition of the space travel conspiracy (hoaxing of "space" writ large) is evidence based, but still somewhat interpretive. It may be arguable that based on the available evidence that it is still more of a speculation than a "fact" - however with no positive evidence / proof of the possible existence of such a place as "space" (a violation of many natural laws) or space travel I would be equally justified in making the identical argument.
The presumptive, and mandated, perspective that space and space travel are real do not have adequate evidence that is even as compelling as the fraudulent footage that can trivially demonstrate the hoax. Factor in the scientific evidence that "space" cannot exist in the reality we have studied without violating many natural laws and I'd say the certainty on this "proto-fact" is very high.
Aren't you're statements that the recognition of the space travel conspiracy is evidence based, that space travel do not have adequate evidence, and that as per one of your previous posts astronsuts are actors... examples of confirmation bias or being biased towards a direction that supports a specific belief, i.e. flat earth?
If, as you say, belief of any kind is unwelcome, than what direct scientific evidence do you have that all of the supposed pictures taken from space by astronauts or satellites are fake, what exactly do you make of the ISS orbiting Earth that can be seen with telescopes, what do you make of 20+ minutes of weightlessness videos aboard the ISS without cutaway shots, what do you make of the over 130 Space Shuttle launches, what do you make of the regularly launched SpaceX rockets to space to launch satellites, etc? If your answer is something like go look at these youtube videos or those pictures are obviously fake... than that's not really direct evidence. It would seem more like a set of your own opinions (to support a belief and the belief in a conspiracy) vs. direct knowledge or fact.
So, I am just trying to challenge you that if belief of any kind is unwelcome, than that would mean your belief that space travel is a conspiracy and your belief that round earth is a conspiracy (without any direct scientific evidence) is unwelcome.
Are these things "tricky questions", as you say above, because believing in a set of (conspiracy) beliefs is in direct contradiction to your statement that believing without any direct scientific evidence is unwelcome?
-
Aren't you're statements that the recognition of the space travel conspiracy is evidence based, that space travel do not have adequate evidence, and that as per one of your previous posts astronsuts are actors... examples of confirmation bias or being biased towards a direction that supports a specific belief, i.e. flat earth?
Valid question, and one that is difficult to be certain of the answer. Bias is pernicious and pervasive, and despite best efforts - it seems unavoidable for all human beings. The best we can possibly do is recognize the bias when it rears its ugly head, and it is frequently the case that we miss it.
Personally I have no bias towards a belief of a flat earth. I have neither belief, nor bias towards that perspective. I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is.
I find the evidence for "space hoax" very compelling, and I cannot be sure it is not simply my bias making it appear that way. (Attempted, anyhow) Rationally critical and objective evaluation of the available evidence speaks for itself, in my view.
than what direct scientific evidence do you have that all of the supposed pictures taken from space by astronauts or satellites are fake
There are many analyses of the footage that exists, trivially demonstrating fraud. I recommend the wiki here quite highly. Perhaps the most damning and conclusive evidence is the fact that the entire concept of "outer space" is a violation of several obvious and steadfast natural laws. As outer space does not exist, there can be no footage from there.
If your answer is something like go look at these youtube videos or those pictures are obviously fake... than that's not really direct evidence
Exactly! There is no direct evidence for space whatsoever - it's ONLY on TV!
than that would mean your belief that space travel is a conspiracy and your belief that round earth is a conspiracy (without any direct scientific evidence) is unwelcome.
Completely correct, however my evidence and scientifically based perspectives are not beliefs! You may consider them suspicions, if you must. Ultimately, belief is supported by faith and knowledge is supported by science/fact. The science and facts are clear, and it is only the television giving you trouble.
-
Exactly! There is no direct evidence for space whatsoever - it's ONLY on TV!
There is loads of direct evidence. People routinely observe launches.
The ISS can be seen from the ground.
Technology like GPS and satellite TV demonstrably works.
As well as the pictures and video there is the testimony of hundreds of astronauts who have been to space.
Then there's the 7 rich private individuals who have paid to go to the ISS.
And in all this time, no whistleblowers? No CGI or special effects experts admitting they'd worked on faking footage?
I guess if you want to live your life only believing things which you have directly experienced then that's your business I guess but it's a pretty strange way to function and not something which I'd suggest you can consistently apply in practice.
Out of interest what are your thoughts on the Mariana Trench?
Fewer people have been there than have stood on the surface of the moon so I guess for the sake of consistency you don't believe it exists?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mariana-trench-is-7-miles-deep-whats-down-there/
-
I find the evidence for "space hoax" very compelling
Which bit of evidence do you find the most compelling? Perhaps your top three...?
Perhaps the most damning and conclusive evidence is the fact that the entire concept of "outer space" is a violation of several obvious and steadfast natural laws.
Which are ... what?
There is no direct evidence for space whatsoever - it's ONLY on TV!
There's the work and observations of thousands, perhaps millions of astronomers, cosmologists, astrophysicists, and the like, over hundreds of years.
There's measurements, telemetry, results from scientific experiments, etc., all from outwith Earth's atmosphere. There are multiple third-party proofs for the Apollo lunar landings, for example. There are sets of photographs taken from and of the far side of the Moon. How could that be done without going into space?
-
Jack, you tell us a lot about what you disbelieve, but nothing about what you know. Have you travelled at all? Have you seen anything much beyond your neighbourhood? I get an impression your knowledge comes from the web, rather than experience.
Seventy years ago people had little TV experience, but there was several hundred years of exploration history as well as tens of thousands of your own countrymen who had travelled all over the world: two world wars had seen to that, as well as seafarers, aviators and other travellers in peacetime. Who told them to lie in their accounts and histories about the shape of the Earth? They weren’t stupid, they knew from their own experience how the round earth worked and their lives had depended on it. For example, a sea captain, abandoned mid-ocean in a small boat by his mutinous crew, found his way across the vastness of the Pacific to safety by round earth navigation. Was he just really lucky, or did he know something you don’t?
-
@AATW
There is loads of direct evidence. People routinely observe launches.
Or they did once, at least in my country. Some of those launches are real, maybe even most of them.
The ISS can be seen from the ground.
That's true, I think. Something can be seen, but it is the wrong size (WAY too big).
Technology like GPS and satellite TV demonstrably works.
True. They have no obligation to work the way we are told they do.
As well as the pictures and video there is the testimony of hundreds of astronauts who have been to space. Then there's the 7 rich private individuals who have paid to go to the ISS.
Most likely, liars all. The MIC is not your friend, it does not share, and it does not tell the truth.
And in all this time, no whistleblowers?
They iced gus and his crew and thomas baron and his whole f*ing family. You should read the wiki, or just do some thorough critical study of apollo history. There are many whistleblowers, and some notable ones - very bad things happened to.
Out of interest what are your thoughts on the Mariana Trench?
I trust the piccards! They are wonderful.
@Tumeni
Top 3 :
1: "Space" is a violation of obvious natural laws. It cannot exist in the reality we have studied and were taught about.
2: Murdered whistleblowers/dissenters
3: Faked footage
Which are ... what?
Chief among them are the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and fundamental gas laws.
There's the work and observations of thousands, perhaps millions of astronomers, cosmologists, astrophysicists, and the like, over hundreds of years.
None of which have any evidence for "outer space" whatsoever. The lying (most likely) "astronauts" are the only ones, and they don't have any evidence to share beyond doctored footage and stories that contradict one another.
Those people you mentioned are not scientists. They do not practice science. They practice mythology under the guise of science.
There are multiple third-party proofs for the Apollo lunar landings, for example.
Nope, they all come from the serially lying MIC.
There are sets of photographs taken from and of the far side of the Moon.
Art! Nasa makes art - they are a branch of hollywood. There is much to be learned from history!
@longitube
Jack, you tell us a lot about what you disbelieve, but nothing about what you know
Oh, I manage to slip it in now and again. I don't talk about belief or disbelief much - neither have any place in knowledge, least of all scientific.
I get an impression your knowledge comes from the web, rather than experience.
There is an old indian sitar master anecdote I quite like : The pupil turns to the master and says, "Master, you are so wise and your art so splendid, please be my teacher and make me a great master too!" to which the master replies ,"You are mistaken. In life, you are a student... and then you die.". I am a student, and my knowledge comes from all sources - yes including the web.
Who told them to lie in their accounts and histories about the shape of the Earth?
For the vast majority, no one. They were just taught incorrectly to begin with, then they repeated it. It isn't a lie when you're misinformed. You might want to glance at the wiki, it does a good job with "the conspiracy" and the many misconceptions you seem to have about it. It's a comedy of err's you see - it's about taking a fall.
Was he just really lucky, or did he know something you don’t?
Depending on where he was, what season, and the type of craft - yes, he was crazy lucky. There is no such thing as "round earth" navigation or "flat earth" navigation - just navigation. It is hard for the conditioned to grasp such a simple premise/tautology that if the earth is flat then all things that we observe/do occur on a flat earth.
-
jack, all you're doing is expressing woolly and vague disbelief, offering nothing concrete to support your position. When you refer to things as "most likely" ....
Come up with something substantive, if you can ...
-
The ISS can be seen from the ground.
That's true, I think. Something can be seen, but it is the wrong size (WAY too big).
Way too big compared to what? What size do you think should it be?
The ISS is about the size of a football pitch, and orbits at about 400km. At its closest, it gives an angular diameter of about 50 arcseconds - equivalent to the maximum apparent size of Jupiter, a little less than the maximum size of Venus. Therefore, I expect the ISS to be about as big as Jupiter or Venus. The apparent size of the ISS, Venus or Jupiter will vary depending on conditions, but they're in the same range.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNaeY3ZLa7w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPYOo0a-Qt8
-
The ISS can be seen from the ground, with the naked eye, for the same reason a signalling mirror can be seen at a distance far greater than the distance at which one can discern the physical size or shape of the mirror.
"The range of a heliograph depends on the opacity of the air and the effective collecting area of the mirrors. Heliograph mirrors ranged from 1.5 inches to 12 inches or more. Stations at higher altitudes benefit from thinner, clearer air, and are required in any event for great ranges, to clear the curvature of the earth. A good approximation for ranges of 20–50 miles is that the flash of a circular mirror is visible to the naked eye for 10 miles for each inch of mirror diameter,[8] and farther with a telescope. The world record distance was established by a detachment of U.S. signal sergeants by the inter-operation of stations on Mount Ellen, Utah, and Mount Uncompahgre, Colorado, 183 miles (295 km) apart on September 17, 1894, with Signal Corps heliographs carrying mirrors only 8 inches square.[9]"
Bear in mind the ISS is the size of a football field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliograph
Maybe this is what Jack means by "too big".