The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Theorist on March 30, 2015, 04:34:40 PM
-
Supposing NASA sent guys high up in their rocket in 1969 and they faked how far away they are from Earth (see "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon") OK right I can believe it could happen, but how did they have lengthy footage of them floating around in the spacecraft if they were still in a low orbit?
This destroys flat earth theory unless you can prove how they faked weightlessness, whilst in low orbit.
Then again if they were a lot closer to the earth than they said how are they weightless anyway?!
Earth filled the whole window and they supposedly used a paper cutout to make earth seem further away and of course this enforces the idea earth is a ball, not a disc.
To fake zero gravity in that way means they had some sort of machine in 1969 that could fly above earth as a plane does and yet have zero gravity inside. So, zero gravity inside, normal atmosphere outside. For flat earth to be true, they couldn't really be weightless where they were. :P
This proves they were indeed miles and miles up. Its just that yeah they weren't anywhere near the moon and never went. Faking the distance from the earth was imperative. I can accept all of that and the Bart Sibrel stuff, but what about them floating around inside the craft?
-
Because those weightless bits of footage were taken in a vomit comet?
-
Because those weightless bits of footage were taken in a vomit comet?
I can't see how they would be able to patch together all those short segments but OK, I can believe it. They had Stanley Kubrick helping let's not forget.
Its hard to tell because NASA has billions of dollars and could easily make it seem like one longer segment, it would take an absurd amount of doing, but I can't rule it out.
-
The fact that there are no long segments of weightless footage from the 60s/70s is actually a point that it was faked in a plane.
-
The fact that there are no long segments of weightless footage from the 60s/70s is actually a point that it was faked in a plane.
No it's not. It just does not discount that it could be in a plane.
-
Its the lack of any cameras panning around 180 degrees that really shows its staged I think. This is apparently a statistical impossibility. The other thing is, if they were really on the moon it is one of the first things they would do having finally conquered space and got a man landed, its supposedly the greatest achievement ever and so on.
-
Its the lack of any cameras panning around 180 degrees that really shows its staged I think. This is apparently a statistical impossibility. The other thing is, if they were really on the moon it is one of the first things they would do having finally conquered space and got a man landed, its supposedly the greatest achievement ever and so on.
Stop believing life should be like a movie. Just because the moon landing was not filmed in the style of the Matrix does not prove it is false.
-
Its the lack of any cameras panning around 180 degrees that really shows its staged I think. This is apparently a statistical impossibility. The other thing is, if they were really on the moon it is one of the first things they would do having finally conquered space and got a man landed, its supposedly the greatest achievement ever and so on.
Stop believing life should be like a movie. Just because the moon landing was not filmed in the style of the Matrix does not prove it is false.
It would have statistically happened though and never has = red flag.
-
Its the lack of any cameras panning around 180 degrees that really shows its staged I think. This is apparently a statistical impossibility. The other thing is, if they were really on the moon it is one of the first things they would do having finally conquered space and got a man landed, its supposedly the greatest achievement ever and so on.
Stop believing life should be like a movie. Just because the moon landing was not filmed in the style of the Matrix does not prove it is false.
It would have statistically happened though and never has = red flag.
Can you show your calculation of that statistical probability please?
-
Its the lack of any cameras panning around 180 degrees that really shows its staged I think. This is apparently a statistical impossibility. The other thing is, if they were really on the moon it is one of the first things they would do having finally conquered space and got a man landed, its supposedly the greatest achievement ever and so on.
Stop believing life should be like a movie. Just because the moon landing was not filmed in the style of the Matrix does not prove it is false.
It would have statistically happened though and never has = red flag.
Can you show your calculation of that statistical probability please?
Over thousands of hours of footage you don't need to collect any data on why the camera never does a half circle, or approximate half circle.
We already know there's thousands of hours of footage in space where it never happens once.
Throw a dice 50,000 times... did you get a six?
There you go then.
You show me proof that it is statistically possible to randomly film stuff in that way over thousands of hours all without ever turning the camera in an approximate half circle.
There isn't even a debate that can be had about this. Please stop shilling. :P
-
So you can't back up your claim. Good game!
-
So you can't back up your claim. Good game!
Ms. Set, I know you want to keep up your husband's legacy, but you frankly aren't doing a good job of it.
Seriously though, how would one begin to calculate the quantitative probability of a half-circle occurring over thousands of hours of footage? Can you explain why a qualitative observation isn't good enough for you?
-
Over thousands of hours of footage you don't need to collect any data on why the camera never does a half circle, or approximate half circle.
We already know there's thousands of hours of footage in space where it never happens once.
Why should we believe that you have personally viewed all those thousands of hours of footage?
-
Over thousands of hours of footage you don't need to collect any data on why the camera never does a half circle, or approximate half circle.
We already know there's thousands of hours of footage in space where it never happens once.
Why should we believe that you have personally viewed all those thousands of hours of footage?
Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, markjo. Do you have any arguments that aren't fallacious?
-
Actually, he's sort of right. If you rode a machine into the center of the earth, like in that one movie, and found a world of wonders, the first thing you would naturally do with the video camera in your hand would be to pan around.
It would be very odd if several people went down to the center of the earth and didn't pan around with their video cameras.
And if you were making a lengthy documentary of your experiences, especially, at some point you would make a half circle pan with your video camera.
-
Over thousands of hours of footage you don't need to collect any data on why the camera never does a half circle, or approximate half circle.
We already know there's thousands of hours of footage in space where it never happens once.
Why should we believe that you have personally viewed all those thousands of hours of footage?
Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, markjo. Do you have any arguments that aren't fallacious?
Probably not. I guess that I don't have any evidence that wasn't obviously faked either. ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEsDC2oc6Bw
-
Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, markjo. Do you have any arguments that aren't fallacious?
Shouldn't this cut both ways? I mean, the argument advanced by the conspiracists in this thread is basically just "I can't imagine why there wouldn't be longer shots/more panoramic shots" mixed in with a huge false dilemma (Apollo can only be as I expect it to be, or fake).
Just look at Tom's very next post after yours:
If you rode a machine into the center of the earth, like in that one movie, and found a world of wonders, the first thing you would naturally do with the video camera in your hand would be to pan around.
It would be very odd if several people went down to the center of the earth and didn't pan around with their video camrras.
And if you were making a lengthy documentary if your experiences, especially, at some point you would make a half circle pan with your video camera.
"I would have done things differently, therefore those things must not have been done at all." Argument from incredulity and false dilemma. In my view, anyway. I bet y'all will disagree.
This is my main problem with the conspiracist view at large. It's all argument from incredulity.
-
Actually, he's sort of right. If you rode a machine into the center of the earth, like in that one movie, and found a world of wonders, the first thing you would naturally do with the video camera in your hand would be to pan around.
It would be very odd if several people went down to the center of the earth and didn't pan around with their video camrras.
And if you were making a lengthy documentary if your experiences, especially, at some point you would make a half circle pan with your video camera.
I don't think it is wrong to expect, but to call it statistically likely is an assertion he cannot mathematically support. Also, the lack of pan does not insinuate that the moon-landings are fakes either.
-
Also, the lack of pan does not insinuate that the moon-landings are fakes either.
Actually, it does insinuate that.
-
Also, the lack of pan does not insinuate that the moon-landings are fakes either.
Actually, it does insinuate that.
Then it's a good thing that I found a video showing such a pan on the moon.
-
Also, the lack of pan does not insinuate that the moon-landings are fakes either.
Actually, it does insinuate that.
Then it's a good thing that I found a video showing such a pan on the moon.
That's not video footage.
-
Also, the lack of pan does not insinuate that the moon-landings are fakes either.
Actually, it does insinuate that.
Then it's a good thing that I found a video showing such a pan on the moon.
That's not video footage.
Then, pray tell, what is it?
-
Also, the lack of pan does not insinuate that the moon-landings are fakes either.
Actually, it does insinuate that.
Then it's a good thing that I found a video showing such a pan on the moon.
That's not video footage.
Then, pray tell, what is it?
Goalposts. Tom just moved then.
-
So just to be clear, at some point in this thread it was already determined that there is zero gravity on the moon and that video pans on the moon are therefore relevant? I must have missed that.
-
So just to be clear, at some point in this thread it was already determined that there is zero gravity on the moon and that video pans on the moon are therefore relevant? I must have missed that.
Someone said that they had reviewed thousands of hours of NASA video and hadn't found any 180 degree panoramas. The moon rover pan was one that I found fairly quickly, however a quick Google/Youtube search reveals pans in various space environments.
-
We all know about those panoramas. Those were specifically staged parts of the missions, taken with special rotating equipment, this one being from the Lunar Rover.
I am saying, that the video cameras the astronauts had should have made sweeping views of the landscape. It would only be natural for any astronaut new to a foreign world to do that. A staged panoramic, taken as part of the mission, falls outside of this scope.
-
So just to be clear, at some point in this thread it was already determined that there is zero gravity on the moon and that video pans on the moon are therefore relevant? I must have missed that.
Someone said that they had reviewed thousands of hours of NASA video and hadn't found any 180 degree panoramas. The moon rover pan was one that I found fairly quickly, however a quick Google/Youtube search reveals pans in various space environments.
Okay, but that's not relevant. We're talking about how zero gravity is faked, and the moon has gravity in RET. That wouldn't have had to fake that in the same way.
-
We all know about those panoramas. Those were specifically staged parts of the missions, taken with special rotating equipment, this one being from the Lunar Rover.
I am saying, that the video cameras the astronauts had should have made sweeping views of the landscape. It would only be natural for any astronaut new to a foreign world to do that. A staged panoramic, taken as part of the mission, falls outside of this scope.
First of all... What the Th*rk are you saying? How is an unplanned panorama any more legitimate than a planned panorama? Remember that astronauts, especially the Apollo era astronauts, are highly trained professionals on scientific missions, not starry eyed tourists.
Secondly, the Apollo astronauts didn't carry video cameras. but they did take panoramas with their still cameras.
http://moonpans.com/prints/fullpans.htm
-
How is an unplanned panorama any more legitimate than a planned panorama?
Think.
Secondly, the Apollo astronauts didn't carry video cameras. but they did take panoramas with their still cameras.
http://moonpans.com/prints/fullpans.htm
There are a lot of examples where astronauts have hand-held video cameras.
-
How is an unplanned panorama any more legitimate than a planned panorama?
Think.
I have. If NASA is faking everything, then how do you know which panoramas were planned and which ones were unplanned?
Secondly, the Apollo astronauts didn't carry video cameras. but they did take panoramas with their still cameras.
http://moonpans.com/prints/fullpans.htm
There are a lot of examples where astronauts have hand-held video cameras.
Then please provide some of those examples.
-
There is absolutely zero (0, nil, none) evidence that any of the 60s/70s moon footage was taken in a plane. The fact that is even a question just shows what lengths FEF believers will go to in order to discredit mankind's achievements.
-
There is absolutely zero (0, nil, none) evidence that any of the 60s/70s moon footage was taken in a plane. The fact that is even a question just shows what lengths FEF believers will go to in order to discredit mankind's achievements.
It being mankind's greatest "achievement" is precisely why the dire lack of videos showing them panning all the way around is fantastically dubious. NASA has this covered, they claim to have "lost" 700-900 boxes of tapes of moon landings. That's not tapes folks, thats boxes of tapes.
This doesn't help the round Earth argument either.
-
Over thousands of hours of footage you don't need to collect any data on why the camera never does a half circle, or approximate half circle.
We already know there's thousands of hours of footage in space where it never happens once.
Why should we believe that you have personally viewed all those thousands of hours of footage?
Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, markjo. Do you have any arguments that aren't fallacious?
Probably not. I guess that I don't have any evidence that wasn't obviously faked either. ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEsDC2oc6Bw
The camera never finishes a 360° turn. It turns to the left very slowly, making it appear to be going all the way around - Then it stops. It never shows the lander again when panning left. Then it (conveniently) changes directions to go right, very slowly. Not one single 360° turn was made.
Try harder next time.
—