Did we actually really land on moon?

[Astargath]

I'll just leave this here.

1965 scientist claims the moon is plasma - UNCUT | RetroFocus -- https://youtu.be/XhIwZuPGfss

Uhh nice, a youtube video, what a surprise, your favorite source of research.

"The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is Australia's national broadcaster founded in 1929. It is currently principally funded by the direct grants from the Australian government, but is expressly independent of government and partisan politics. The ABC plays a leading role in journalistic independence and is fundamental in the history of broadcasting in Australia. ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation

ABC News (Australia) -- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVgO39Bk5sMo66-6o6Spn6Q

Your brain works in a funny way. Lets say we have around 10000 scientists who say we did go to the moon. If you find one that says we didnt or claims some other crazy shit, boom you jump head first and believe that one guy, why? Perhaps its because of your need to feel special, to feel there is a purpose and that not everything is a random mess? I know reality can be hard but its still fun.

[Spendulus]

I'll just leave this here.

1965 scientist claims the moon is plasma - UNCUT | RetroFocus -- https://youtu.be/XhIwZuPGfss

You're leaving off the really good part of the intro text to the video -

The ABC has been unable to confirm Mr Foster’s identity beyond the entry in the production notebook from 1965: “People – Int Tasmanian Professor (FOSTER)”.

We have also been unable to find any documentation of his work.

[Astargath]

I'll just leave this here.

1965 scientist claims the moon is plasma - UNCUT | RetroFocus -- https://youtu.be/XhIwZuPGfss

You're leaving off the really good part of the intro text to the video -

The ABC has been unable to confirm Mr Foster’s identity beyond the entry in the production notebook from 1965: “People – Int Tasmanian Professor (FOSTER)”.

We have also been unable to find any documentation of his work.

STOP IT, YOU ARE DOING SOME REAL RESEARCH, HOW DARE YOU? He often does that or miss-quotes people or simply doesn't understand the quotes, like the famous quote he keeps posting about that guy who said they had to Photoshop images of the earth, the idiot doesn't realize that he said that because most images from space are small areas of the earth. I showed him a full image of earth by the russian ''nasa'' and he still denied it.

[notbatman]

^{Image source: https://www.xyz.net.au/vatican-council-ii-communist-revolution-acceding-power-catholic-church-1963/}

"... STOP IT, YOU ARE DOING SOME REAL RESEARCH, HOW DARE YOU? He often does that or miss-quotes people or simply doesn't understand the quotes, like the famous quote he keeps posting about that guy who said they had to Photoshop images of the earth, the idiot doesn't realize that he said that because most images from space are small areas of the earth. I showed him a full image of earth by the russian ''nasa'' and he still denied it."

^{Image source: http://www.therealnewsonline.com/our-blogs/category/fe}

I'll just leave this here.

1965 scientist claims the moon is plasma - UNCUT | RetroFocus -- https://youtu.be/XhIwZuPGfss

You're leaving off the really good part of the intro text to the video -

The ABC has been unable to confirm Mr Foster’s identity beyond the entry in the production notebook from 1965: “People – Int Tasmanian Professor (FOSTER)”.

We have also been unable to find any documentation of his work.

So you're saying it's Fake News from 1965 made by "Paid anti-American propagandists", damn those those Australian shitposters!


^{Image source: https://www.4chan.org/}

[Spendulus]

I'll just leave this here.

1965 scientist claims the moon is plasma - UNCUT | RetroFocus -- https://youtu.be/XhIwZuPGfss

You're leaving off the really good part of the intro text to the video -

The ABC has been unable to confirm Mr Foster’s identity beyond the entry in the production notebook from 1965: “People – Int Tasmanian Professor (FOSTER)”.

We have also been unable to find any documentation of his work.

STOP IT, YOU ARE DOING SOME REAL RESEARCH, HOW DARE YOU? He often does that or miss-quotes people or simply doesn't understand the quotes, like the famous quote he keeps posting about that guy who said they had to Photoshop images of the earth, the idiot doesn't realize that he said that because most images from space are small areas of the earth. I showed him a full image of earth by the russian ''nasa'' and he still denied it.

Really.

Well, Notbat has recently been showing off his trig skills, so I would expect he could estimate the distance out from which the Earth would comprise 30 degrees in the field of view.

The bizarre reliance on Youtube for Truthy is odd.

[notbatman]

^^^ You'll note that two (2) measurements are required for calculating distance and measuring size along with, the eye's angular resolution limit and viewing height.

One reading (with a sextant) is taken at the horizon (0 degrees) when refraction is at a maximum and, one reading is taken at 90 degrees when refraction is at a minimum (zero refraction).

All you give me to work with is fantasy art made in Photoshop, and an arbitrarily decided apparent size for an imaginary object in an imaginary unbounded space.

[BADecker]

^^^ You'll note that two (2) measurements are required for calculating distance and measuring size along with, the eye's angular resolution limit and viewing height.

One reading (with a sextant) is taken at the horizon (0 degrees) when refraction is at a maximum and, one reading is taken at 90 degrees when refraction is at a minimum (zero refraction).

All you give me to work with is fantasy art made in Photoshop, and an arbitrarily decided apparent size for an imaginary object in an imaginary unbounded space.

Except that the eye's angular resolution limit changes at any time with a telescope or binoculars.

Depending on the height of the eye above the land - like 6 feet or 1 foot or 100 feet, etc. - 90 degrees only shows an infinite distance slightly above the horizon... if the sun is directly overhead.

All you give anybody to work with is fantasy graphics, and an unprovable/unproved arbitrary size for the sun and any other object.

This means that the people who have provable info are the ones to work with.

[Spendulus]

^^^ You'll note that two (2) measurements are required for calculating distance and measuring size along with, the eye's angular resolution limit and viewing height.

One reading (with a sextant) is taken at the horizon (0 degrees) when refraction is at a maximum and, one reading is taken at 90 degrees when refraction is at a minimum (zero refraction).

All you give me to work with is fantasy art made in Photoshop, and an arbitrarily decided apparent size for an imaginary object in an imaginary unbounded space.

Actually, the trig proofs for size and orbital mechanics of the Sun and Moon are irrefutable. That's the nature of a large number of mathematical proofs.

So the discussion really is either about how does NotBat expand his knowledge of trig to where he must accept this, or what parts of science he ignores to retain this position.

[notbatman]

^^^ I've already pulled the rug out from under you even before the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile is proven, before the un-refracted size of the Sun/Moon is measured and its distance calculated.

Do you realize where you are?

You came into the FE thread and agreed that 1 degree is ~60 nautical miles, do you not realize that fact has be covered up and you need to back peddle or the Copernican model dies from a direct measurement of the Sun/Moon's diameter?

Well it matters not because I've already trashed the Copernican model with the angular size limit of the human eye, the horizon has to be a physical barrier in your falsified Copernican model. BADecker made a point that the distance to the horizon changes with a change in the limit from a zoom lens, this is not possible if the horizon is a physical barrier.

[BADecker]

^^^ Why do you think there are rugs on the launch pad?

One minute to one nautical mile only works on a globe.

Globe Earth at 8,000 miles in diameter proves that the farther away from the earth you go, the greater becomes the width of what is a nautical mile on the earth, if you use the same 1 minute.

So far, all you have done is to trash your calc.

[notbatman]

^^^ The 8,000 mile globe only works when hijacking the math for the angular limit of the human eye i.e. 1 minute to 1 nautical mile. If you use a Nikon P900 the you've changed that ratio and it no longer works and the globe, thus the Copernican model are falsified.

You can't win this argument, the P900 is a consumer grade camera and anybody can go out and film this shit and prove it. The horizon is 1 nautical mile away at a 1 foot camera height on a globe, but the P900's angular resolution limit is far beyond the human eye and the horizon is tens of miles away at 1 foot.


Simple Flat Earth Distance to the Horizon Test - Part 2 - Retest and Confirmation -- https://youtu.be/GAdd4aidDbg

[BADecker]

^^^ Cameras don't have anything to do with it. Transit or telescope show us far better than eye, camera, or sextant, except when the sextant is mounted with a telescope.

At one foot, the horizon is much closer than 6 feet. You can easily test this on flat land. Try one inch. Try laying the telescope on the ground on flat land. The horizon almost pops right into telescope because it is so close.

[notbatman]

Red Bull calls BULL on NASA! -- https://youtu.be/cGRfbPMn0x0

[Spendulus]

^^^ I've already pulled the rug out from under you even before the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile is proven, before the un-refracted size of the Sun/Moon is measured and its distance calculated.

Do you realize where you are?

You came into the FE thread and agreed that 1 degree is ~60 nautical miles, do you not realize that fact has be covered up and you need to back peddle or the Copernican model dies from a direct measurement of the Sun/Moon's diameter?

Well it matters not because I've already trashed the Copernican model with the angular size limit of the human eye, the horizon has to be a physical barrier in your falsified Copernican model. BADecker made a point that the distance to the horizon changes with a change in the limit from a zoom lens, this is not possible if the horizon is a physical barrier.

No formulas exist based on your beliefs which will predict the positions of the sun, or the moon in the future.
No formulas exist based on your beliefs which will predict eclipses, either solar or lunar.

The solution to these issues came with the discovery that the celestial bodies move in elliptical orbits, eg Kepler's three laws of motion.

So I, and people that have studied this math, can predict the future paths of the celestial bodies.

Your beliefs do not provide a way for you to do this. That is called being wrong.

*** BONUS ***

https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/

[BADecker]

^^^ The 8,000 mile globe only works when hijacking the math for the angular limit of the human eye i.e. 1 minute to 1 nautical mile. If you use a Nikon P900 the you've changed that ratio and it no longer works and the globe, thus the Copernican model are falsified.

You can't win this argument, the P900 is a consumer grade camera and anybody can go out and film this shit and prove it. The horizon is 1 nautical mile away at a 1 foot camera height on a globe, but the P900's angular resolution limit is far beyond the human eye and the horizon is tens of miles away at 1 foot.


Simple Flat Earth Distance to the Horizon Test - Part 2 - Retest and Confirmation -- https://youtu.be/GAdd4aidDbg

Winning doesn't have anything to do with it. The moon is a globe. Tons of scientific proofs all over the place.

[hunterWood]

There are some skeptics thinks that we don't actually landed on the moon.  ....

Paid anti-American propagandists.

...In 1969, technology was not that advance yet and nowadays, many attempts were failed....

1969 pressurized jet aircraft were flying passengers around the world just like today.

1969 technology was perfectly fine for the Moon missions. This is demonstratedly true.

If you think somehow 1969 tech wasn't capable, be my guest; show how it was not adequate.

And street cars were much faster and more powerful back then, right out of the factory.

The fuel, chemical reaction is the same. The main difference with the cars are areal dynamics, and something else about the way it manages fuel, so it last longer. With Rocket, you really are not going to improve in areal dynamics. And the fuel has to burn at maximum capacity. So rocket technology is pretty much the same as back in the 60s.

[Spendulus]

^^^ The 8,000 mile globe only works when hijacking the math for the angular limit of the human eye i.e. 1 minute to 1 nautical mile....

I recently went from the USA to Asia over the North Pole.

Now how could that be if the Earth was flat?

[notbatman]

^^^


Image source: https://www.thejournal.ie/santa-claus-2519077-Dec2015/

[Spendulus]

...nonsense

Ridicule is not a defense to your arguments.

https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/22095/do-airlines-fly-directly-over-the-north-pole

[notbatman]

^^^

I flew north of 78 degrees latitude thus the Earth is a globe.