The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: ElTrancy on March 28, 2018, 12:44:19 PM
-
Hello, I am not a Flat Earther, but I do have a question for the Flat Eathers. If I can PROVE the Moon Landing wasn't faked, does that mean I have disproved the Earth is Flat? The Moon -According to many Flat Earthers- is not actually a place, and is another government scheme, but if people have been there, that means it is real. Please, prove the Moon landing was fake, and I'll believe the Earth is flat. Not until then, though.
-
There is lots of footage on YouTube to demonstrate the fakery. The way the astronauts bounce as if they are on wires for one. The pathetic lunar landing module that looks like it was wrapped in tin foil. And how is it that they can get a little tv camera to broadcast images, from the moon, in 1969, uninterrupted, back to earth? Yet today, in 2018 if it gets a bit cloudy outside my Sky TV loses its satellite signal? No, primitive 60's technology couldn't achieve that. However, if you could prove it happened, it wouldn't disprove flat earth, just prove NASA went to the moon. They planted a flag, yes? Why was it blowing? Why can people not look through a powerful telescope and see a flag? There isn't one. Please provide proof of the flag that's allegedly there and silence us all.
-
...if you could prove it happened, it wouldn't disprove flat earth, just prove NASA went to the moon. ...
There you have it. The failure to go to the Moon proves something. Actually going to the Moonexper - still it's a flat Earth. This is not a theory to be debunked by experiment or observation.
-
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
-
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
CGI in the late 1960s? Really?
-
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
CGI in the late 1960s? Really?
So it's acceptable to believe that they could stick man on the moon but not fake an image of the earth? And I use 'CGI' loosely, its 'CGI' in its most primitive form.
-
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
CGI in the late 1960s? Really?
They had CGI but not the ability to send a TV signal from the moon. The True History Of Tech.
-
It wasn't 'CGI', it was the earliest form of what would become 'CGI'.
-
So it's acceptable to believe that they could stick man on the moon but not fake an image of the earth? And I use 'CGI' loosely, its 'CGI' in its most primitive form.
Ha. Ok, I’ll give you that.
But your earlier point, I don’t think YouTube is brilliant evidence, there’s a kinds of crazy stuff on there.
Which doesn’t mean everything on there is crazy, but you can find crazy stuff to back up any viewpoint on there.
The question is could they have faked it to the satisfaction of the Russians who never called the US out on faking it and kept the thousands of people involved in it all quiet. Can you imagine how many people would have had to be involved?
The moon landings are one of the best documented events in history. A few vague theories about flags waving or shadow angles from conspiracy theorists isn’t going to cut it. Read “Man On The Moon” by Andrew Chaikin and tell me that level of detail could be faked.
-
So it's acceptable to believe that they could stick man on the moon but not fake an image of the earth? And I use 'CGI' loosely, its 'CGI' in its most primitive form.
Ha. Ok, I’ll give you that.
But your earlier point, I don’t think YouTube is brilliant evidence, there’s a kinds of crazy stuff on there.
Which doesn’t mean everything on there is crazy, but you can find crazy stuff to back up any viewpoint on there.
The question is could they have faked it to the satisfaction of the Russians who never called the US out on faking it and kept the thousands of people involved in it all quiet. Can you imagine how many people would have had to be involved?
The moon landings are one of the best documented events in history. A few vague theories about flags waving or shadow angles from conspiracy theorists isn’t going to cut it. Read “Man On The Moon” by Andrew Chaikin and tell me that level of detail could be faked.
I absolutely agree about YouTube. Some of it is on a whole new level of insanity, but some videos put forth coherent arguments. And a lot of those videos are interesting and get you thinking.
As for the Russians, TBH yes I do think they convinced them. Certainly in 1969 the level of footage would have been state of the art (unlike some people I've seen I don't believe the Soviets were in on it), and if the Soviet scientists were duped then the government would listen to them. I do think that the people involved would have been top level and therefore easier to cover up.
-
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
What? What's this (https://qz.com/458826/behold-nasas-first-image-in-decades-of-the-whole-earth/) then? Seems to be exactly what you want. One non-CGI shot of the complete planet from space.
-
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
What? What's this (https://qz.com/458826/behold-nasas-first-image-in-decades-of-the-whole-earth/) then? Seems to be exactly what you want. One non-CGI shot of the complete planet from space.
And here is some real-time (non-CGI) footage of the earth.
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
-
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
What? What's this (https://qz.com/458826/behold-nasas-first-image-in-decades-of-the-whole-earth/) then? Seems to be exactly what you want. One non-CGI shot of the complete planet from space.
It's cgi clear as day. Doesn't even look real, has a clear cig look about it. And on closer inspection the original blue marble shot looks like its had modern computers brushing it up.
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
What? What's this (https://qz.com/458826/behold-nasas-first-image-in-decades-of-the-whole-earth/) then? Seems to be exactly what you want. One non-CGI shot of the complete planet from space.
And here is some real-time (non-CGI) footage of the earth.
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
Fakery, with modern technology they can easily create some fake 'real time, non cgi' footage of earth from the 'ISS'.
-
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
What? What's this (https://qz.com/458826/behold-nasas-first-image-in-decades-of-the-whole-earth/) then? Seems to be exactly what you want. One non-CGI shot of the complete planet from space.
It's cgi clear as day. Doesn't even look real, has a clear cig look about it. And on closer inspection the original blue marble shot looks like its had modern computers brushing it up.
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
What? What's this (https://qz.com/458826/behold-nasas-first-image-in-decades-of-the-whole-earth/) then? Seems to be exactly what you want. One non-CGI shot of the complete planet from space.
And here is some real-time (non-CGI) footage of the earth.
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
Fakery, with modern technology they can easily create some fake 'real time, non cgi' footage of earth from the 'ISS'.
Define 'cgi look' and show how you know it's fake. You lot love to throw these phrases about, but rarely if ever actually back them up. Let's see it. Ditto for the Himawari8 sat. Where's your evidence to claim both are fake?
I'd also love to see you support and define this bit too if you please
modern computers brushing it up.
-
There is lots of footage on YouTube to demonstrate the fakery.
Disagree
The way the astronauts bounce as if they are on wires for one.
Yet there's no actual PROOF of any wires...
The pathetic lunar landing module that looks like it was wrapped in tin foil.
Why does putting an outer layer of foil on something cast doubt upon its integrity? (see below)
"And how is it that they can get a little tv camera to broadcast images, from the moon, in 1969, uninterrupted, back to earth? Yet today, in 2018 if it gets a bit cloudy outside my Sky TV loses its satellite signal?"
You have a small dish. NASA used big dishes to receive what Apollo was transmitting. The method of transmission differed, too.
Why was it (the flag) blowing?
It wasn't
Why can people not look through a powerful telescope and see a flag?
Because it's beyond the capability of optics at the moment
Lunar Module
Here's the pressure vessel viewed toward the top of the vehicle, showing the docking hatch which connected to the Command Module, and the rectangular window for viewing the docking aid. The windows and hatch used for entry and exit on the Moon are hidden, and are to the top of the assembly.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-05.jpg
Here's the view from the rear once most/all of the ancillary 'stuff' has been bolted onto the side of the pressure vessel. This includes various tanks, and the electrical/system panel (to the left in this photo). The CM hatch is to the top, and lunar hatch hidden to the right.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg
As you can see, we have pictures noID-05 and noID-16 here - change the URL manually in your browser bar, and you can see a host of others, from 02 to nn.
02 shows the intermediate stage of foil wrap
03 shows a tech working on the rear section, with CM hatch to the top
04 shows the descent stage
05 is referenced above
06 shows the descent stage from below
07 shows the ascent and descent stages together
08 shows both stages from the side, lunar hatch to the right
09 shows ascent stage with lunar hatch to front right
10 shows ascent stage with lunar hatch to the front, and some ancillaries attached
11 shows ascent stage from below with lunar hatch front left
12 shows ascent and descent stage with some ancillaries
13 shows 'naked' ascent and descent stages
14 shows descent stage
15 shows descent stage
16 is referenced above
17 shows transport of LM
18 shows rear of ascent stage with ancillaries, especially the electrical panel
19 shows the ascent stage with lunar hatch to the front
20 shows ascent stage from rear left with ancillaries
21 shows descent stage
22 shows transport of LM
23 shows ascent stage with ancillaries, lunar hatch front right
24 shows the fairing to go around the LM on the Saturn V
25 shows an almost-complete ascent stage, lunar hatch to the left
26 shows the pressure vessel atop the descent stage skeleton
27 shows almost-complete ascent and descent stage from the rear
28 shows almost-complete ascent and descent stage from the side, lunar hatch to the left
etc
etc
-
I use 'CGI' loosely, its 'CGI' in its most primitive form.
Why is it that contradictory Team Hoaxers never argue with each other?
You say NASA had CGI to fake Moon pics. Others say that the Command Module computer lacked the power to carry out the mission. So they had computing power for one, but not the other?
-
It's cgi clear as day. Doesn't even look real, has a clear cig look about it.
How do you determine this, and prove it beyond all reasonable doubt?
-
prove its real?
-
No one's mentioned the lunar retro-reflectors yet, so I'll throw these in the ring too. Have fun with some harder to disprove evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
How do those get there without us heading to the moon?
-
I was wondering how fast you Flattards would respond. Let's make this really simple for your addlepate brains. If the moon was as close as you think it is, clearly closer than 6000 miles, as that is the largest distance I have found Flattards speaking of the Sun, and if the Moon Landing wasn't faked, take a moment. With a telescope, you could see the men on the Moon, and since the moon isn't as large as it is in the real world, the men, and their lunar ship would be HUGE compared to how it is in the real world. Also, you're saying 400,000 NASA employees would have to keep primitive "CGI" secret? Wow, you Flattards really don't know how much NASA employees talk. Also, we convinced the rest of the world to lie for us, just so we could be the first to the "Moon?" or how you Flattards think "keep the shape of the Earth secret?". Oh! Did I mention it would have been nearly impossible to make the shadows from the moon landing without CGI in 1968? The shadows run parallel, which can only happen with a light source SUPER far away, like the Sun...and the only way to make that effect without CGI is with lasers lined up like pixels on a TV screen. Problem, the lasers in 1968 were expensive, and really big. And by expensive, I mean more than the ENTIRE BUDGET of the Apollo Missions. And they were red, so the color pictures we have of the moon wouldn't have been possible! And yeah, as Spycrab said, ya'll know the lunar retro-reflectors are real things, right?
-
There is lots of footage on YouTube to demonstrate the fakery. The way the astronauts bounce as if they are on wires for one. The pathetic lunar landing module that looks like it was wrapped in tin foil. And how is it that they can get a little tv camera to broadcast images, from the moon, in 1969, uninterrupted, back to earth? Yet today, in 2018 if it gets a bit cloudy outside my Sky TV loses its satellite signal? No, primitive 60's technology couldn't achieve that. However, if you could prove it happened, it wouldn't disprove flat earth, just prove NASA went to the moon. They planted a flag, yes? Why was it blowing? Why can people not look through a powerful telescope and see a flag? There isn't one. Please provide proof of the flag that's allegedly there and silence us all.
That's because the Flag was fake, and the MOON IS HUGE YOU FLATTARD. Also, your Sky TV goes out, because it's slightly retarded, just like you ^-^
-
There is lots of footage on YouTube to demonstrate the fakery. The way the astronauts bounce as if they are on wires for one. The pathetic lunar landing module that looks like it was wrapped in tin foil. And how is it that they can get a little tv camera to broadcast images, from the moon, in 1969, uninterrupted, back to earth? Yet today, in 2018 if it gets a bit cloudy outside my Sky TV loses its satellite signal? No, primitive 60's technology couldn't achieve that. However, if you could prove it happened, it wouldn't disprove flat earth, just prove NASA went to the moon. They planted a flag, yes? Why was it blowing? Why can people not look through a powerful telescope and see a flag? There isn't one. Please provide proof of the flag that's allegedly there and silence us all.
That's because the Flag was fake, and the MOON IS HUGE YOU FLATTARD. Also, your Sky TV goes out, because it's slightly retarded, just like you ^-^
Don't type in all caps. It's not classy.
In other news, the flag did not flutter in the wind, it was a glitch in the telescopic arm they put in to keep it straight.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97589&page=1 (https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97589&page=1)
Also, again, the Sky TV is not a good analogy. NASA was using colossal dishes that could recieve signals through the clouds
A brief google image search will give you a good idea of what they look like.
By the way, if the moon were that huge, wouldn't it drown us all with tides, or be immediately ripped to pieces by earth's superior gravity?
I actually started a similar discussion in another thread, if you want to tell me how wrong I am.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9303.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9303.0)
-
There is lots of footage on YouTube to demonstrate the fakery. The way the astronauts bounce as if they are on wires for one. The pathetic lunar landing module that looks like it was wrapped in tin foil. And how is it that they can get a little tv camera to broadcast images, from the moon, in 1969, uninterrupted, back to earth? Yet today, in 2018 if it gets a bit cloudy outside my Sky TV loses its satellite signal? No, primitive 60's technology couldn't achieve that. However, if you could prove it happened, it wouldn't disprove flat earth, just prove NASA went to the moon. They planted a flag, yes? Why was it blowing? Why can people not look through a powerful telescope and see a flag? There isn't one. Please provide proof of the flag that's allegedly there and silence us all.
That's because the Flag was fake, and the MOON IS HUGE YOU FLATTARD. Also, your Sky TV goes out, because it's slightly retarded, just like you ^-^
Don't type in all caps. It's not classy.
In other news, the flag did not flutter in the wind, it was a glitch in the telescopic arm they put in to keep it straight.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97589&page=1 (https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97589&page=1)
Also, again, the Sky TV is not a good analogy. NASA was using colossal dishes that could recieve signals through the clouds
A brief google image search will give you a good idea of what they look like.
By the way, if the moon were that huge, wouldn't it drown us all with tides, or be immediately ripped to pieces by earth's superior gravity?
I actually started a similar discussion in another thread, if you want to tell me how wrong I am.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9303.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9303.0)
Spycrab, I was referring to the moon as huge, as it is very large compared to a human. It's like saying, "But if there are people on Earth, why can't I seem them from space?!"
-
Ah, sorry. ;D Carry on.
-
My profile picture is basically what they call the "Ice Wall" to me, I can never think of anything other than the Wall from GOT ;D
-
There is lots of footage on YouTube to demonstrate the fakery. The way the astronauts bounce as if they are on wires for one. The pathetic lunar landing module that looks like it was wrapped in tin foil. And how is it that they can get a little tv camera to broadcast images, from the moon, in 1969, uninterrupted, back to earth? Yet today, in 2018 if it gets a bit cloudy outside my Sky TV loses its satellite signal? No, primitive 60's technology couldn't achieve that. However, if you could prove it happened, it wouldn't disprove flat earth, just prove NASA went to the moon. They planted a flag, yes? Why was it blowing? Why can people not look through a powerful telescope and see a flag? There isn't one. Please provide proof of the flag that's allegedly there and silence us all.
That's because the Flag was fake, and the MOON IS HUGE YOU FLATTARD. Also, your Sky TV goes out, because it's slightly retarded, just like you ^-^
The flag was fake? Not what I expected to hear from a round earth heretic.
-
I'm not sure what "the flag was fake" actually means.
Although, if it helps, the flat had a rigid pole along the top, otherwise in the vacuum on the moon it would have just hung limply which would have not been very impressive in photos.
It flaps as they're screwing it into the surface.
If you want to learn more about it all then read "Man on the Moon" by Andrew Chaikin.
-
There is lots of footage on YouTube to demonstrate the fakery. The way the astronauts bounce as if they are on wires for one. The pathetic lunar landing module that looks like it was wrapped in tin foil. And how is it that they can get a little tv camera to broadcast images, from the moon, in 1969, uninterrupted, back to earth? Yet today, in 2018 if it gets a bit cloudy outside my Sky TV loses its satellite signal? No, primitive 60's technology couldn't achieve that. However, if you could prove it happened, it wouldn't disprove flat earth, just prove NASA went to the moon. They planted a flag, yes? Why was it blowing? Why can people not look through a powerful telescope and see a flag? There isn't one. Please provide proof of the flag that's allegedly there and silence us all.
That's because the Flag was fake, and the MOON IS HUGE YOU FLATTARD. Also, your Sky TV goes out, because it's slightly retarded, just like you ^-^
The flag was fake? Not what I expected to hear from a round earth heretic.
First of all, you guys are the heretics, ya might wanna look up the definition of the word "heretic" I was referring to the flag isn't a conventional flag, it was a fake flag, to make it seem like it was waving straight, but that would be impossible. I didn't mean they faked putting a flag there, I just meant the flag wasn't a normal flag.
-
There is lots of footage on YouTube to demonstrate the fakery. The way the astronauts bounce as if they are on wires for one. The pathetic lunar landing module that looks like it was wrapped in tin foil. And how is it that they can get a little tv camera to broadcast images, from the moon, in 1969, uninterrupted, back to earth? Yet today, in 2018 if it gets a bit cloudy outside my Sky TV loses its satellite signal? No, primitive 60's technology couldn't achieve that. However, if you could prove it happened, it wouldn't disprove flat earth, just prove NASA went to the moon. They planted a flag, yes? Why was it blowing? Why can people not look through a powerful telescope and see a flag? There isn't one. Please provide proof of the flag that's allegedly there and silence us all.
That's because the Flag was fake, and the MOON IS HUGE YOU FLATTARD. Also, your Sky TV goes out, because it's slightly retarded, just like you ^-^
The flag was fake? Not what I expected to hear from a round earth heretic.
First of all, you guys are the heretics, ya might wanna look up the definition of the word "heretic" I was referring to the flag isn't a conventional flag, it was a fake flag, to make it seem like it was waving straight, but that would be impossible. I didn't mean they faked putting a flag there, I just meant the flag wasn't a normal flag.
Cool story bro.
-
Wait you claim the flag is fake now?
Wtf
-
There is lots of footage on YouTube to demonstrate the fakery. The way the astronauts bounce as if they are on wires for one. The pathetic lunar landing module that looks like it was wrapped in tin foil. And how is it that they can get a little tv camera to broadcast images, from the moon, in 1969, uninterrupted, back to earth? Yet today, in 2018 if it gets a bit cloudy outside my Sky TV loses its satellite signal? No, primitive 60's technology couldn't achieve that. However, if you could prove it happened, it wouldn't disprove flat earth, just prove NASA went to the moon. They planted a flag, yes? Why was it blowing? Why can people not look through a powerful telescope and see a flag? There isn't one. Please provide proof of the flag that's allegedly there and silence us all.
And how do satellite tvs work? I thought satellites were another misconception/conspiracy theory. If the weather is bad between your dish and the satellite, it must prove satellites are real.
Also even someone who is as blinkered as you must admit there is not that much rain or heavy clouds between the earth and the motion to obscure a signal, plus the receiving ground stations are somewhat bigger than your teeny little sky dish.
-
And how do satellite tvs work? I thought satellites were another misconception/conspiracy theory. If the weather is bad between your dish and the satellite, it must prove satellites are real.
Also even someone who is as blinkered as you must admit there is not that much rain or heavy clouds between the earth and the motion to obscure a signal, plus the receiving ground stations are somewhat bigger than your teeny little sky dish.
I have to admit, using satellite TV as proof of a flat Earth shows commendable nerve. What the flat Earth theory is about satellites I can't begin to imagine.
-
And how do satellite tvs work? I thought satellites were another misconception/conspiracy theory. If the weather is bad between your dish and the satellite, it must prove satellites are real.
Also even someone who is as blinkered as you must admit there is not that much rain or heavy clouds between the earth and the motion to obscure a signal, plus the receiving ground stations are somewhat bigger than your teeny little sky dish.
I have to admit, using satellite TV as proof of a flat Earth shows commendable nerve. What the flat Earth theory is about satellites I can't begin to imagine.
Apparently they are all lies, and a conspiracy. In another thread it was claimed that the sat tv boxes are doctored to make us believe they are using a satellite!
-
And how do satellite tvs work? I thought satellites were another misconception/conspiracy theory. If the weather is bad between your dish and the satellite, it must prove satellites are real.
Also even someone who is as blinkered as you must admit there is not that much rain or heavy clouds between the earth and the motion to obscure a signal, plus the receiving ground stations are somewhat bigger than your teeny little sky dish.
I have to admit, using satellite TV as proof of a flat Earth shows commendable nerve. What the flat Earth theory is about satellites I can't begin to imagine.
Apparently they are all lies, and a conspiracy. In another thread it was claimed that the sat tv boxes are doctored to make us believe they are using a satellite!
That's quite funny. It's of course very easy to verify that your satellite dish only works when it's pointed up into the sky - in fact, to a very particular spot in the sky. There are little gadgets that measure the signal. Just how this is compatible with FE theory is a puzzle, but it's a puzzle in psychology, not physics.
-
Wait you claim the flag is fake now?
Wtf
I literally just explained it.
-
Wait you claim the flag is fake now?
Wtf
I literally just explained it.
Not really. You said it wasn't a normal flag. What do you mean by this? How can a flag not be normal?
-
FFS! It pretty much was a regular flag. The only difference is it was fixed to a rod along the top so it stayed upright rather than hanging limp as it would have done otherwise because of the lack of atmosphere.
-
Here is the description:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Flag_Assembly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Flag_Assembly)
-
Oh I understand now. I thought you meant the flag was literally fake, and not a flag. Sorry for the confusion.
-
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
The Himiwari-8 satellite provides complete images of the Earth every 10 minutes.
-
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
The Himiwari-8 satellite provides complete images of the Earth every 10 minutes.
Don’t bother, it will be explained as fake/all part of the mass conspiracy.................
Or
Tom will say he cant be bothered to spend the time or effort to explain this, but the onus is on you to prove it is true, although seeing the pictures, and the science behind it is evidence enough, he cant be bothered to devote more than 15 mins a day to discuss it.
It seems like the 15 mins a day allocated by the council members are to write posts saying it has been proved beyond doubt by,
Rowbotham, Winship, Holden, Dowie, Hampden,Blount, Smith, and Carpenter, all of who I were Victorian/Edwardian believers whose writings were over a hundred years ago, with no modern proof at all.
Recently Voliva and Johnson were modern proponents of a FE, one of which admitted his only reference book was the bible, and the other who made similar remarks. Great science and evidence that lot make.
On the other hand there are countless papers, practical experiences and a mountain of EVIDENCE that support RE, all of which are discounted as lies, rubbish, fake or a conspiracy.
I do work with Crew rescource Management, as do airline pilots etc, and there is a particular trait in humans which has led people to make fatal mistakes and crashes.
If a person completely believes something, they will discount any contrary evidence that does not support their belief, or massage the evidence to try to support their “knowledge” even to the point of crashing their aircraft, ship, etc even in the knowledge it spells certain doom.
Sound familiar? I predict certain doom for this site if the FE keep denying any sort of evidence presented.
-
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
The Himiwari-8 satellite provides complete images of the Earth every 10 minutes.
The images are CGI and are not of the earth.
-
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
The Himiwari-8 satellite provides complete images of the Earth every 10 minutes.
The images are CGI and are not of the earth.
Oh you are predictable parallax. Read my previous post, where i predicted what you will say. Does that make me a mind reader????
-
The images are CGI and are not of the earth.
Come on, you don't REALLY think there's a team of back-room staff assembling one of these every 10 minutes, do you .... ?
-
The images are CGI and are not of the earth.
Come on, you don't REALLY think there's a team of back-room staff assembling one of these every 10 minutes, do you .... ?
No, no I don't. But they'll have a very advanced computer program that can draw one of these images up every so often.
-
No, no I don't. But they'll have a very advanced computer program that can draw one of these images up every so often.
Speculation. Unless you have some empirical evidence of such a program ... ?
T
=====================================================
-
The images are CGI and are not of the earth.
Come on, you don't REALLY think there's a team of back-room staff assembling one of these every 10 minutes, do you .... ?
No, no I don't. But they'll have a very advanced computer program that can draw one of these images up every so often.
Proof, my dude, proof.
-Discrepancies between the 'cgi' images and the earth's actual form* like mountains out of place or something?
-How pictures could not be acquired from this angle?
-How you can tell it is in fact 'Computer Generated Imaging'?
-links to all or part of this 'advanced program'?
-any evidence at all?
So far you have reliably put out conjecture and statements, but they are empty and unhelpful without some facts for flavor.
You can do better than this, Parallax.
*and not just "the real earth is flat"
-
The images are CGI and are not of the earth.
Come on, you don't REALLY think there's a team of back-room staff assembling one of these every 10 minutes, do you .... ?
No, no I don't. But they'll have a very advanced computer program that can draw one of these images up every so often.
Proof, my dude, proof.
-Discrepancies between the 'cgi' images and the earth's actual form* like mountains out of place or something?
-How pictures could not be acquired from this angle?
-How you can tell it is in fact 'Computer Generated Imaging'?
-links to all or part of this 'advanced program'?
-any evidence at all?
So far you have reliably put out conjecture and statements, but they are empty and unhelpful without some facts for flavor.
You can do better than this, Parallax.
*and not just "the real earth is flat"
Well if you look at the blue marble shots of the earth over a few decades a major flaw is the fact North America seems to have got considerably larger.
-
The images are CGI and are not of the earth.
Come on, you don't REALLY think there's a team of back-room staff assembling one of these every 10 minutes, do you .... ?
No, no I don't. But they'll have a very advanced computer program that can draw one of these images up every so often.
Proof, my dude, proof.
-Discrepancies between the 'cgi' images and the earth's actual form* like mountains out of place or something?
-How pictures could not be acquired from this angle?
-How you can tell it is in fact 'Computer Generated Imaging'?
-links to all or part of this 'advanced program'?
-any evidence at all?
So far you have reliably put out conjecture and statements, but they are empty and unhelpful without some facts for flavor.
You can do better than this, Parallax.
*and not just "the real earth is flat"
Well if you look at the blue marble shots of the earth over a few decades a major flaw is the fact North America seems to have got considerably larger.
Would you please post links so we can see what you're referring to?
-
Well if you look at the blue marble shots of the earth over a few decades a major flaw is the fact North America seems to have got considerably larger.
Well, the size of any continent in a photo of Earth is entirely dependent on the distance of the camera from the Earth. It's simple geometry.
When you look at any sphere from a short distance, you don't see a full hemisphere, you see a Spherical Cap, and the size of that cap depends on how far away your observation point is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap
Simple geometry will yield the number of degrees latitude and longitude that can be seen from any given distance or height. At some point, a camera above central USA will only be able to 'see' the USA, and the USA will appear to fill a whole hemisphere. But it doesn't, it's just filling the spherical cap that the camera can see.
Different blue marbles have been taken from different distances, that's all.
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
-
The images are CGI and are not of the earth.
Come on, you don't REALLY think there's a team of back-room staff assembling one of these every 10 minutes, do you .... ?
No, no I don't. But they'll have a very advanced computer program that can draw one of these images up every so often.
If it is so sophisticated, and such an elemental part of the conspiracy theory, how do they get it so wrong, and easy enough for the conspiracy theorist to point out?
Or can it be as Tumeni says, and be perspective? The presence of which you will no doubt say doesn’t exist!
-
Proving the moon landing won't prove flat earth, it will just prove the moon landing. The only thing that will prove round earth is an actual, non cgi shot of the planet. But they can't give us that.
The Himiwari-8 satellite provides complete images of the Earth every 10 minutes.
The images are CGI and are not of the earth.
Two citations needed.
Well if you look at the blue marble shots of the earth over a few decades a major flaw is the fact North America seems to have got considerably larger.
That has nothing to do with Himiwari-8. Unless you can show conclusively that there is something capable of creating images of the Earth every 10 minutes that can match weather patterns then you are just howling at the moon.