Did we actually really land on moon?

[Spendulus]

...unproven theoretical force (gravity), that's based on a theory (relativity 1905) that's been falsified (Sagnac|D&P 1939) for 80 years?....

If Sagnac proves anything, it is an affirmation of general relativity, not a falsification of it.

[exemplaar]

Now with official numbers for blind spentulus. More proofs that so called "moonlanding" is complete fraud. Moon is a light, not an object you can land on.













BONUS:
https://biblehub.com/luke/8-17.htm

[BADecker]

Now with official numbers for blind spentulus. More proofs that so called "moonlanding" is complete fraud. Moon is a light, not an object you can land on.

Oh come on. You know perfectly well that we ALL went to the moon.

 

[Spendulus]

Now with official numbers for blind spentulus. More proofs that so called "moonlanding" is complete fraud. Moon is a light, not an object you can land on....

...

Liar. No it was not removed from the library.

The actual NASA photos are all available to anyone, one click away. The ONLY WAY guys like you can make your argument is to change those photos into grainy, blurred junk and THEN claim you are SEEING THINGS in the photos.

Please stop trying to shift the goals and move to a new issue each time one of your claims is refuted.

That's ridiculous. Now let's hear about your argument that the LEM was made of cardboard.

[Spendulus]

....

.....

Really? REALLY?

Two astronauts in the visor acting as a mirror, one taking the picture.

SO WHAT? There's nothing here. Nothing here at all except a total braintard showing his stupidity off.

Now with official numbers for blind spentulus. More proofs that so called "moonlanding" is complete fraud. Moon is a light, not an object you can land on.....

....

No, they are not the same size.

Of course the images are blurred from the original crisp NASA images, right? That's obvious. But even in your purposely blurred copies, one rock's crop measures at 27 pixels, the other at 1 pixels.

[Astargath]

....

.....

Really? REALLY?

Two astronauts in the visor acting as a mirror, one taking the picture.

SO WHAT? There's nothing here. Nothing here at all except a total braintard showing his stupidity off.

Now with official numbers for blind spentulus. More proofs that so called "moonlanding" is complete fraud. Moon is a light, not an object you can land on.....

....

No, they are not the same size.

Of course the images are blurred from the original crisp NASA images, right? That's obvious. But even in your purposely blurred copies, one rock's crop measures at 27 pixels, the other at 1 pixels.

They are not blurred, they are literally Photoshoped, I don't know about notbatman but exemplar is a troll, don't quote him anymore, put him on ignore and forget about him.
https://pagesix.com/2015/03/22/astronauts-items-from-apollo-12-mission-up-for-auction/
https://bigfrog104.com/alan-bean-debunks-popular-apollo-17-rumor/

https://www.gettyimages.es/detail/fotograf%C3%ADa-de-noticias/astronaut-alan-bean-with-a-container-of-lunar-fotograf%C3%ADa-de-noticias/2644218?adppopup=true
https://www.industryweek.com/technology/starman-waiting-sky-euro-space-boss-proposes-moon-village

Again, literally a photoshop, just a troll.

[BADecker]

Now with official numbers for blind spentulus. More proofs that so called "moonlanding" is complete fraud. Moon is a light, not an object you can land on.

http://kenpfeiferdiscoveries.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/moon-hoax-6.jpg

http://kenpfeiferdiscoveries.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/moon-hoax-5.jpg

http://kenpfeiferdiscoveries.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/moon-hoax-4.jpg



http://kenpfeiferdiscoveries.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MOON-FAKE-SUN.jpg

http://kenpfeiferdiscoveries.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MOON-FAKE-LANDING-A.jpg

Note that the pictures are taken from two different vantage points, at two different angles. Between the LEM and the rock in question is a low ridge or burm, stretching from the right of the LEM across the photos. You can see it in both photos.

The left photo is taken from a vantage point much lower than the right picture. The left-pic-ridge simply cuts off the bottom of the rock-pic. Since the right photo is taken from a higher vantage point, it shows more or all of the rock. It simply happens that the amounts of rock seen in both pictures look about the same size.

Observe the smaller rock at the left-bottom of our rock in question to determine where the ridge is.

As Spendy says - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5150220.msg51538386#msg51538386 - if there wasn't so much blurring, this would be readily apparent.

There isn't any Photoshopping regarding the rock sizes. You can see the ridge if you look closely.

[hunterWood]

That two astronaut picture seems very fake. But beyond that one has to use critical thinking. If that picture were true image from the stack of images of the lunar landings, then people wouldn't just be noticing it it. It would have been an image used tens of thousands of times by moon landing deniers for decades now.

[Spendulus]

....
Again, literally a photoshop, just a troll.

Got it. Complete liars. That has to be suspected anytime the NASA photograph ID tag is not supplied by these fraudsters. ALL THE ACTUAL PHOTOS are one click away.

That rock, that's the one they talked about and went over to. Very interesting story.

[Spendulus]

^^^ The Sun and Moon are both 32 minuets (nautical miles) across at an altitude of about 3100 miles as measured directly with a sextant.

Save your propaganda trash for somebody else, you can't measure distances or sizes based on apparent size. Not only that Aristarchus fucking assumes the heliocentric Copernican model with a giant Sun millions of miles away.

Angular measurements need to be done from the horizon like with a sextant.

Let's hear about that claim the LEM was made from cardboard.

[BADecker]

^^^ The Sun and Moon are both 32 minuets (nautical miles) across at an altitude of about 3100 miles as measured directly with a sextant.

Save your propaganda trash for somebody else, you can't measure distances or sizes based on apparent size. Not only that Aristarchus fucking assumes the heliocentric Copernican model with a giant Sun millions of miles away.

Angular measurements need to be done from the horizon like with a sextant.

Absolutely. The sun and moon are both 32 minutes (nautical miles) across... AT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH.

The center of the earth is about 4,000 miles from the surface of the earth. The point at the center of the earth makes a triangle with the 32 nautical miles at the surface of the earth, showing this triangle with sides of 4,000 miles. This means that to get the sun to look as wide as it looks, the sun must be millions of miles away. The moon might be that far away, as well, except that we have used other methods to find the distance of the moon, and therefore the diameter thereof.

You keep on using only part of the calc that you need, just so you can promote your religious cult.

[Spendulus]

...Aristarchus fucking assumes the heliocentric Copernican model with a giant Sun millions of miles away.

Angular measurements need to be done from the horizon like with a sextant.

Aristarchus MEASURED AND CALCULATED the diameter of the Sun.

He didn't fucking assume anything.

[notbatman]

[X-POST]

I created this to show how to measure the angular size of objects. If you see any errors let me know.

https://i.imgur.com/zS0G3hs.jpg
version 2.1 -- https://i.imgur.com/15e5eZH.jpg

The angles that you have marked as 90° are not 90°. As a result, the calculations for P, E, and C are not correct.

P, E and C are not calculated from the diagram markings, they are calculated using measured and known values thus they are correct.

The marked angles can't be drawn at 90° due to optical convergence, hence the 90° angle notation to indicate their actual values. The reason for this is that parallel lines optically converge to a point at the horizon (see photograph with angle marked in red) but, physically parallel lines never converge. The 90° angle can be confirmed empirically by observing that the horizon line is at eye level.

^^^ The Sun and Moon are both 32 minuets (nautical miles) across at an altitude of about 3100 miles as measured directly with a sextant.

Save your propaganda trash for somebody else, you can't measure distances or sizes based on apparent size. Not only that Aristarchus fucking assumes the heliocentric Copernican model with a giant Sun millions of miles away.

Angular measurements need to be done from the horizon like with a sextant.

Let's hear about that claim the LEM was made from cardboard.

I posted an image (from NASA) showing what appears to be cardboard panels on the LEM already, they're probably the hard compressed type if that's any consolation.

...Aristarchus fucking assumes the heliocentric Copernican model with a giant Sun millions of miles away.

Angular measurements need to be done from the horizon like with a sextant.

Aristarchus MEASURED AND CALCULATED the diameter of the Sun.

He didn't fucking assume anything.

   Aristarchus assumed the heliocentric model was true, then made distance calculation based on that assumption and applied them to his apparent size measurements. The Sun's angle can be measured directly against the horizon and it's 32 nautical miles wide; 1 minute = 1 nautical mile.

...unproven theoretical force (gravity), that's based on a theory (relativity 1905) that's been falsified (Sagnac|D&P 1939) for 80 years?....

If Sagnac proves anything, it is an affirmation of general relativity, not a falsification of it.

Relativity was created after the 1887 M&M experiment proved the Earth is motionless. It was created to replace the static aether with an alternative explanation that allowed for the heliocentric/copernican model. Sagnac proved the static aether with his experiment but relativists, homosexuals and jews cried that rotating frames of reference weren't accounted for. Then in 1939 Dufour & Prunier replicated the Sagnac experiment taking rotating frames of reference into account thus falsifying relativity.

[Astargath]

^^ the 1887 M&M experiment proved the Earth is motionless.
^^ Then in 1939 Dufour & Prunier replicated the Sagnac experiment taking rotating frames of reference into account thus falsifying relativity.

How do you know this? Did you determine it based on your extensive knowledge of science? How do you know you are suitable to interpret their results accurately if you haven't studied it?

[notbatman]

^^^ Clearly my ability to articulate the argument proves I've studied these physical experiments to some degree.

Your argument is always about me and never the subject matter at hand, clearly your interest lies with maintaining the status quo of "official" lies by any argument necessary (pipul) not determining facts from fiction.

[Astargath]

^^^ Clearly my ability to articulate the argument proves I've studied these physical experiments to some degree.

Your argument is always about me and never the subject matter at hand, clearly your interest lies with maintaining the status quo of "official" lies by any argument necessary (pipul) not determining facts from fiction.

No my argument is about how are you judging those experiments if you are not a scientist? How do you know you have enough knowledge to determine whether those experiments are what they claim to be? You have no answer to this because you simply believe them.

[notbatman]

"...Your argument is always about me and never the subject matter at hand..."

"...No my argument is about how are you..."

oh really?

[BADecker]

"...Your argument is always about me and never the subject matter at hand..."

"...No my argument is about how are you..."

oh really?

Don't mind Astargath. When he can't explain or understand something himself, all he does is question others. He continues to question them after they give him the answers to the exact things he questions them about. Often he quotes the answers that others give, right in the same post where he asks the questions they answered in the posts he quoted.

It's kinda fun playing with him, but you can probably find him in the basement of the same funny farm you are in.

[notbatman]

@BADecker,

   If you can't show the solution for measuring angular size with the eye I just provided has any errors, then you need to admit the Sun & Moon are both 32 nautical miles in diameter or you're the one at the funny farm. A 32 mile wide Moon debunks the claim man landed what appears to be a cardboard box wrapped in foil with bicycle parts sticking out on it.

https://i.imgur.com/zS0G3hs.jpg
version 2.1 -- https://i.imgur.com/15e5eZH.jpg

BTW the 90 deg angle marking is off and it's not an error as it can't be drawn at 90 deg due to optical convergence.

"...Why is it that I don't believe you have ever had a sextant in your hands?..."

I can just stick my thumbs out then measure the base and top while one thumb stays at eye level.

[Spendulus]

@BADecker,

   If you can't show the solution for measuring angular size with the eye I just provided has any errors, then you need to admit the Sun & Moon are both 32 nautical miles in diameter or you're the one at the funny farm. A 32 mile wide Moon debunks the claim man landed what appears to be a cardboard box wrapped in foil with bicycle parts sticking out on it.

https://i.imgur.com/7vNhKqS.jpg

BTW the 90 deg angle marking is off and it's not an error as it can't be drawn at 90 deg due to optical convergence.

"...Why is it that I don't believe you have ever had a sextant in your hands?..."

I can just stick my thumbs out then measure the base and top while one thumb stays at eye level.

Or you could use a sextant to figure your position on the Earth, the GLOBE, down to a precision of a couple miles. Like men did hundreds of years ago.

Thank you for admitting the LEM only "looks like and might be cardboard," instead of continuing to claim it was cardboard.