[Mysfit]

Hello,
I am continuing clicking random page and have arrived at the moon.
I will copy everything from there, as there is little.

"The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth."

The rest is links to other things.
This seems a bit sparse for such a big part of our night. I checked the sun page and that has lots more... I will look at the sun page next.

I, and quite a few people acknowledge that the moon causes the tides, it illuminates the night with light reflected from the sun, it is made of rock (not cheese) and people have been there thanks to a lot of expensive science. I am unsure if these are all true for the flat earth society, but they are the most important things I know about Luna and feel the flat perspective of those could help spruce up the page.
But for now, I will look at what there already is.

Original - "The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth."

Proposed -  Unlike the Earth, the Moon has been proven to be a sphere (link to source). Through some calculations (detailed below) we can calculate the moon to approximately be 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the surface of the earth. Round Earth Proponents would have you believe the moon is x miles in diameter and x miles above the surface, but this would be inconsistent with multiple observations as detailed in the below links.


I will need help with wording and figures.

[Mysfit]

I have started work an a 'small effect' to cover the other moons which may be a good thing to add.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10924.0
It's in its infancy, but I feel it has promise. It even provides a zetetic way to prove/disprove it. Free of charge.

It may require its own page now that I think about it. Thoughts?

[RonJ]

For the last 50 years or so the ham radio community has been engaging in moon bounce activity.  These 'hams' are, of course, just regular people whose hobby happens to be designing, building, and/or operating radios of all kinds.  I have been a ham radio operator myself for well over 50 years.  On of these hobby pursuits has been known as moon bounce.  You can actually bounce a radio signal off the moon and have it return to your receiver or the receiver of another ham operator.  If you believe in the well known universal constant speed of light then using that figure has allowed the ham operators to calculate the moon's approximate distance of about 384,400 Km.  Hams are usually not involved with the government in any way and take no money from anyone.  They do all they do because it's a hobby and fun.  The efforts to conduct the moon bounce activities have been enhanced because the astronauts that visited the moon (if you so choose to believe that) have left behind a reflector that makes the returning signals stronger.  You can believe this or believe that the conspiracy has even penetrated into the private population.  Maybe I can take advantage of this and enhance my retirement benefits with an additional check from some government 'black' agency.  I wonder.... 

[Tom Bishop]

Proposed -  Unlike the Earth, the Moon has been proven to be a sphere (link to source). Through some calculations (detailed below) we can calculate the moon to approximately be 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the surface of the earth. Round Earth Proponents would have you believe the moon is x miles in diameter and x miles above the surface, but this would be inconsistent with multiple observations as detailed in the below links.


I will need help with wording and figures.

The only thing I can think of which shows the moon to be spherical is lunar liberation.

For the moon's calculations, they were done by Lady Blount's society from the early 1900's, and we only have bits and pieces of the studies that were published in her journals.

I agree about adding a section about Lunar Liberation, but since it is an observation, I would use the word "suggests" rather than "proves". I don't know if we will be able find those calculations that Blount's society used for the moon's distance.

[RonJ]

Is there any agreement that the distance from the earth to moon can be measured electronically with a reasonable amount of accuracy?  Do the FET proponents believe that this technology is fake, or can the distance to the moon really, really be measured in a couple of different ways?  Leave aside the issue of whether the moon is spherical.  Let the issue of distance alone be the question Du Jour. Of course the next question would be what would be an acceptable authority for that measurement?  What kind of equipment would be acceptable?  Is the standard speed of light an agreed upon figure?  Of course maybe all these questions can't really be answered in a reasonable way because everyone can have a different response so any proposed answer will be highly disputed and deemed to be fake or fabricated.  Maybe it's all about the controversy rather than the 'facts'.   

[Tom Bishop]

Research the matter and tell us what the flat earth consensus is, and any evidence to support those ideas.

[RonJ]

The flat earth wiki states that the moon is about 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.  The diagram on the wiki seems to indicate that the center of the moon's orbit is the North Pole.  I can't find any 'official' radius of orbit.  A rough estimate could be made from the diagram, but there doesn't seem to be any kind of scale on the 'map'.  My rough estimate would be about half the radius of the flat earth.  The 'official' figure (from the flat earth web site) I get for the radius is 12,250 miles.  No figure on the speed of light could be found.  All my research is based solely on what I could find on the flat earth wiki.  I am assuming that the flat earth consensus supports what data I could glean from the wiki and the website in general.  That's my starting point.   Would the Zetetic methods support any kind of electronic measurements other than using pictures that can be altered to bias the results?  What kind of authentication methods could be employed so everyone could agree on the results of these measurements? 

[Tom Bishop]

I did not have trouble finding flat earth material on this topic.

[RonJ]

I see you had no problem finding an amateur radio operator that said he couldn't communicate via the moon because he deemed it to be impossible.  Maybe you actually accepted the veracity of that YouTube video.  My core question remains; what kind of experiments would you find acceptable for measuring the distance to the moon?  Any measurements made would obviously depend on a fixed location on the earth and the current position of the moon in it's orbit.  The zenith points of the moon based upon the global earth paradigm are well known and used by nautical navigators all the time.  I am assuming that you deem all those figures as fake.  Is there any tables of the moon's position that you would certify as valid?  Unless there is a agreed upon moon's zenith position at a known time any distance measurement made could automatically be disputed.  All I'm trying to do is define all the possible variables in advance to mitigate misunderstandings.  If this data doesn't exist and you can't agree upon anything please let me know and I will understand.           

[Tom Bishop]

This forum is for contributing to projects that will further the Flat Earth theory or movement.

[MattyWS]

This forum is for contributing to projects that will further the Flat Earth theory or movement.

You're willing to flat out deny any projects with evidence to the contrary? If there's solid proof the moon is at 384,400 km distance from earth would you ignore that because it doesn't further the agenda of flat earth? For flat earth to be real, for any proof and any projects trying to gain proof or evidence, surely you would need to seek the truth regardless of whether or not what you find is proving your theory wrong. You can't deny deny solid data with the mindset "Nah doesn't prove flat earth so lets ignore that".

I could say 1+1 is 5. When someone brings me 1 apple and says "you now have 1 apple", then hands me another apple and says "now you have two apples", I can't just say "Nah because that's not proving that I have 5 so it doesn't count". I'd have to just admit my theory of 1+1=5 was wrong and adopt the fact that 1+1=2.

[Tom Bishop]

These are all very interesting topics and questions. I would recommend that you bring them up in the appropriate discussion forum, rather than the projects forum.