Did we actually really land on moon?

[Spendulus]

^^^

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

...

Now, now, please remember to attribute your sources. I think this forum rule does apply even to worthless sources, which is indeed curious.

Actually, you do have a problem with FlatEarthery coexisting with my flying over the N Pole, because it was a subsonic regular commercial jet.

I know how long it took and how far it was, and for the plane to have done this on a in the world of StupidFlat it would have had to be supersonic.

[1714934542]

1714934542

[1714934542]

1714934542

[1714934542]

1714934542

[BADecker]

^^^ Will flying over the Pole get you any closer to the moon?

[notbatman]

The predictions for a globe and thus the Copernican model break down when accounting for angular resolution limits. The horizon is provably not the physical object predicted by the globe.

The Moon's diameter can be measured directly and it's 32 nautical miles across, this is the end of the bullshit claims made by our absolutely corrupt government who say they put men on what is only a small plasma light.

[Douglasyukanov]

many observers examine the earth, the moon, and some planets bundle and surround the earth the results of the study reveal the earth is not moving but the moving objects or planets around the earth (round earth conclusions)

[Spendulus]

many observers examine the earth, the moon, and some planets bundle and surround the earth the results of the study reveal the earth is not moving but the moving objects or planets around the earth (round earth conclusions)

Well, you and those many observers be right on one of those objects.

Like a broken clock!

Right twice a day!

[Spendulus]

The predictions for a globe and thus the Copernican model break down when accounting for angular resolution limits. The horizon is provably not the physical object predicted by the globe.

The Moon's diameter can be measured directly and it's 32 nautical miles across, this is the end of the bullshit claims made by our absolutely corrupt government who say they put men on what is only a small plasma light.

I'm waiting for your response on my flying over the N Pole USA--> Asia.
In your flat world this would have been a much longer flight, taking 25-30 hours instead of 15.

But the pilot chose that route because it was shorter, given the winds on that day. That's obvious, if the origin and destination are pretty much on opposite sides of the globe, then the pilot can go any which way he chooses.

DIRECT -  9724 miles
VIA North Pole - 9174 miles at 500 mph 18 hours.

But in StupidFlatEarth, he'd be making a big dogleg.
How far? 15,000 miles? At 500 mph that's 30 hours.

The trip didn't take 30 hours. It took 18.

[notbatman]

^^^ How the hell do you land a plane on ball spinning a ~1,000 MPH below it, you fucking idiot? I say the horizon is not a physical object and you respond with some non-sequitur about Santa flying over the north pole, you're dumber than a sack of hammers m8.

Address my fucking point instead of changing the subject or I'm just going to keep ridiculing you.

[Spendulus]

^^^ How the hell do you land a plane on ball spinning a ~1,000 MPH below it, you fucking idiot?....

Pilots do it all the time. Just like birds. You know bugs do it also. Is it spinning at 1000 mph? I didn't say that. I was asking only about geometry of a dog leg flight path on StupidFlatEarth versus great circle flight path on a round globe.

Now answer the question, you fucking idiot.

[exemplaar]

More proofs of a staged moon landing in a remote hollywood studio for braindead zombie spentulus







+bonus:

[notbatman]

^^^ How the hell do you land a plane on ball spinning a ~1,000 MPH below it, you fucking idiot?....

Pilots do it all the time. Just like birds. You know bugs do it also. Is it spinning at 1000 mph? I didn't say that. I was asking only about geometry of a dog leg flight path on StupidFlatEarth versus great circle flight path on a round globe.

Now answer the question, you fucking idiot.

There's an atmospheric jet-stream moving at unknown hundreds of MPH and the aircraft is flying in, riding this stream, and you want to use flight times across the axis of rotation of a theoretical spinning sphere while riding a jet-stream as some kind of proof that debunks, angular resolution limits?

The eye has an angular resolution limit of 1 minute thus, a 1 foot object can be seen at a maximum distance of 1/2 nautical miles before it's too small to resolve.

I'm measuring the Moon's diameter directly using the distance to a horizon vanishing line formed by the 1 minute resolution limit of the human eye; the Moon is ~32 nautical miles in diameter. This direct measurement conflicts with the story that NASA landed man on a ~1876 nautical mile wide sphere, and you're telling me stories ABOUT FUCKING SANTA CLAUSE!!!

[Spendulus]

.....
I'm measuring the Moon's diameter directly using the distance to a horizon vanishing line formed by the 1 minute resolution limit of the human eye; the Moon is ~32 nautical miles in diameter. This direct measurement conflicts with the story that NASA landed man on a ~1876 nautical mile wide sphere, and you're telling me stories ABOUT FUCKING SANTA CLAUSE!!!

But you can't measure diameter using just the fact that the moon is about 0.5 degree in width, the diameter changes with the proposed distance of the Moon from the Earth.

That horizon vanishing line stuff is bogus, too many changes in land, hills and valleys, etc.

You can do better than that.

^^^ How the hell do you land a plane on ball spinning a ~1,000 MPH below it, you fucking idiot?....

Pilots do it all the time. Just like birds. You know bugs do it also. Is it spinning at 1000 mph? I didn't say that. I was asking only about geometry of a dog leg flight path on StupidFlatEarth versus great circle flight path on a round globe.

Now answer the question, you fucking idiot.

There's an atmospheric jet-stream moving at unknown hundreds of MPH and the aircraft is flying in, riding this stream, and you want to use flight times across the axis of rotation of a theoretical spinning sphere while riding a jet-stream as some kind of proof that debunks, angular resolution limits?

The eye has an angular resolution limit of 1 minute thus, a 1 foot object can be seen at a maximum distance of 1/2 nautical miles before it's too small to resolve.

I'm measuring the Moon's diameter directly using the distance to a horizon vanishing line formed by the 1 minute resolution limit of the human eye; the Moon is ~32 nautical miles in diameter. This direct measurement conflicts with the story that NASA landed man on a ~1876 nautical mile wide sphere, and you're telling me stories ABOUT FUCKING SANTA CLAUSE!!!

Well, the jet stream runs west-east, so on a globe, the jet would pass through it headed toward the pole, or travel in it on it's way directly east or west.

On the flat world, I don't how how you conceptualize jet streams. But I doubt you have a scheme in which the jet streams dogleg like the jet does.

So what exactly are you arguing here?

A) the earth is flat (blah-blah-blah)
B) the moon is a 32 mile reflected light thing
c) both of the above

Because (B) could be alleged to exist above a globe.
And (a) would of course imply (b).

Santa isn't going to answer these FUCKING QUESTIONS FOR YOU so you gonna have to answer them.

[notbatman]

^^^ I'm arguing that the vanishing line known as the horizon is caused by the angular resolution limit of the eye. The globe model creates a hard physical barrier in place of the vanishing line and doesn't address angular size limits.

You also refuse to address the subject and change the topic to Santa flying over the north pole.

The ratio of one (1) directly, empirically, physically measured minute to one (1) nautical mile created by the angular resolution limit of the human eye applies to the direct, empirical, physical measurement of the Moon's diameter at 32 minutes.

The Moon is measured to be about 36.8 statute miles or 59.2 kilometres wide. NASA claims the Moon is 2,158.8 statute miles or 3,474.2 kilometres wide and this number is provably wrong and they are liars.

[BADecker]

^^^ Except that your stuff doesn't work. Why not?

If a guy is standing directly under the center of the moon overhead, and another guy is standing exactly 18.4 miles west of the first guy, and a third guy is standing exactly 18.4 miles east of the first guy, and all of them are looking straight up...

... on a FE, the first guy would be looking at the center of the moon, and the other two guys would be looking at opposite edges of the moon.

But this isn't what happens. What happens is that all 3 guys are looking somewhere near the center of the moon. Even if they use very accurate transits, they still see nearly the exact center of the moon.

This proves that the earth is not flat, or even near so. It also shows that the moon is far wider than 36.8 miles.

Remember. Atmospheric distortion would be the same for all 3 guys on a flat earth. When you see the stars twinkle at night, the atmospheric distortion is shown to be a very small amount. This amount is far less than would have to exist to suggest that distortion is what causes all 3 guys to see the center of the moon, especially if they had very good telescopes on their transits.

[notbatman]

"...So what exactly are you arguing here?..."

^^^ I'm arguing that the vanishing line known as the horizon is caused by the angular resolution limit of the eye. The globe model creates a hard physical barrier in place of the vanishing line and doesn't address angular size limits.

You also refuse to address the subject and change the topic to Santa flying over the north pole.

The ratio of one (1) directly, empirically, physically measured minute to one (1) nautical mile created by the angular resolution limit of the human eye applies to the direct, empirical, physical measurement of the Moon's diameter at 32 minutes.

The Moon is measured to be about 36.8 statute miles or 59.2 kilometres wide. NASA claims the Moon is 2,158.8 statute miles or 3,474.2 kilometres wide and this number is provably wrong and they are liars.

^^^ Except that your stuff doesn't work. Why not?

If a guy is standing directly under the center of the moon overhead, and another guy is standing exactly 18.4 miles west of the first guy, and a third guy is standing exactly 18.4 miles east of the first guy, and all of them are looking straight up...

... on a FE, the first guy would be looking at the center of the moon, and the other two guys would be looking at opposite edges of the moon.

But this isn't what happens. What happens is that all 3 guys are looking somewhere near the center of the moon. Even if they use very accurate transits, they still see nearly the exact center of the moon.

This proves that the earth is not flat, or even near so. It also shows that the moon is far wider than 36.8 miles.

Remember. Atmospheric distortion would be the same for all 3 guys on a flat earth. When you see the stars twinkle at night, the atmospheric distortion is shown to be a very small amount. This amount is far less than would have to exist to suggest that distortion is what causes all 3 guys to see the center of the moon, especially if they had very good telescopes on their transits.

^^^

The guy in the middle is looking up at 90 degrees with zero refraction and the other two guys are seeing an amount of refraction that can be calculated.

You're a liar (or confused) and I prove it by showing the ratio for measured objects above the surface of Earth is, 1 nautical mile per 1 minute through calculating the distance to the horizon based on the angular resolution limit of the human eye†, then using that distance to measure the diameter of the Moon; 32 minutes.



† Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. p. 54. ISBN 978-0444511416.

[BADecker]

^^^ Except that your stuff doesn't work. Why not?

If a guy is standing directly under the center of the moon overhead, and another guy is standing exactly 18.4 miles west of the first guy, and a third guy is standing exactly 18.4 miles east of the first guy, and all of them are looking straight up...

... on a FE, the first guy would be looking at the center of the moon, and the other two guys would be looking at opposite edges of the moon.

But this isn't what happens. What happens is that all 3 guys are looking somewhere near the center of the moon. Even if they use very accurate transits, they still see nearly the exact center of the moon.

This proves that the earth is not flat, or even near so. It also shows that the moon is far wider than 36.8 miles.

Remember. Atmospheric distortion would be the same for all 3 guys on a flat earth. When you see the stars twinkle at night, the atmospheric distortion is shown to be a very small amount. This amount is far less than would have to exist to suggest that distortion is what causes all 3 guys to see the center of the moon, especially if they had very good telescopes on their transits.

^^^

The guy in the middle is looking up at 90 degrees with zero refraction and the other two guys are seeing an amount of refraction that can be calculated.

You're a liar (or confused) and I prove it by showing the ratio for measured objects above the surface of Earth is, 1 nautical mile per 1 minute through calculating the distance to the horizon based on the angular resolution limit of the human eye†, then using that distance to measure the diameter of the Moon; 32 minutes.



† Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. p. 54. ISBN 978-0444511416.

You are the confused liar. Why? We are talking about your idea of a flat earth.

At 90 degrees on a flat earth, all three would be seeing the same amount of refraction and distortion. Refraction and distortion doesn't change simply because the sun is overhead... or simply because it is not.

However, even on a globe earth the size of ours, at 36 miles apart, the amount of refraction and distortion would be so small, and the change of angle so tiny, that the outer two guys would still be looking virtually at the 90 degrees you are talking, and they would be seeing essentially the same thing the middle guy would be seeing.

Here's how you show yourself to be a troll. You consistently you use the term "90 degrees"  in what you say. But you never suggest what the 90-degrees is in reference to. For all we know, you might be talking about a piece of angle iron lying on the workbench. You might show pictures with 90 degrees in them, but come on out and say it. Say it right out in your writing.

You don't want to do this, because you need a way out of your distorted thinking. Your vagueness is like a disclaimer for your stupidity.

[notbatman]

^^^ Ninety (90) degrees with respect to the horizon level; we're physically measuring the angle above the horizon with a sextant. To simply dismiss "flat earth" as being false is to violate the very objectivity of the scientific proccess itself.

You've forced the assumption of a globe then come at me with non-sequitors about the measurement process itself. It's not on me that you feign some misunderstanding the objects being measured. I can't prove you feign something, it doesn't follow that nor is it proof that you're not playing the fool.

Either you're a fool or you're playing the fool, in which case you're a liar.


Image source: https://www.pinterest.ca/texasdiva74/mr-t-fool/


edit:

Since the refraction can be calculated, any single reading of the solar diameter between zero and the sextants maximum inscribed value can be used to obtain an approximate value. With more stringent (scientific) methods, measuring the diameter at 90 degrees simply minizes the margin of error and, measuring it at zero proves that refraction is present.

[BADecker]

^^^ Ninety (90) degrees with respect to the horizon level; we're physically measuring the angle above the horizon with a sextant. To simply dismiss "flat earth" as being false is to violate the very objectivity of the scientific proccess itself.

You've forced the assumption of a globe then come at me with non-sequitors about the measurement process itself. It's not on me that you feign some misunderstanding the objects being measured. I can't prove you feign something, it doesn't follow that nor is it proof that you're not playing the fool.

Either you're a fool or you're playing the fool, in which case you're a liar.

https://i.imgur.com/ltu8TVs.jpg
Image source: https://www.pinterest.ca/texasdiva74/mr-t-fool/

You finally get around to telling us which 90 degrees, but now we need to know which horizon. Is it the vague eye horizon? Or the 20x binocular horizon? Or the 35x telescope, or the 100x telescope. After all, anyone of them will have atmospheric distortion, right? So, which one has atmospheric distortion that allows anybody to know when they are measuring 90 degrees, or if they are off by a degree more or less?

You are forcing the assumption of 90 degrees when the only way to get 90 degrees on a FE is to be looking above the horizon the same height as the observational instrument is above the horizon. Why? Because the horizon rising to meet the eye is an optical illusion caused by the eye's ability to see a wide range of angles. Math and simple trig show us that at 90 degrees the horizon never rises to meet the eye.

Since you can't answer this with anything that makes sense, you are showing that you are the one who is on the hill. The only difference is that exemplaar is with you.

The Fool On The Hill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGDuGybCRSE

[iamsheikhadil]

Oh boy!

I didn't expect so many replies on my thread xD

Guess I brought in some good debate and also some fights along lmao.

After reading all the replies, I'm not still convinced that we did indeed land on the moon 100%.

But I'll continue to read more

[notbatman]

I prove the Moon is a close and small object by detailing its direct measurement thus, debunking the claim by an absolutely corrupt government and the organized crime cabal that rules over us that, homosexual men from a secret society travelled to and walked on, a Moon that's a giant solid rotating sphere.

[bkbirge]

Yay, another flat earth thread.

Yes, humans have landed on, walked on, driven rovers on, sent robots to, looked at with telescopes, brought back samples from, left equipment on, the moon.

Most people telling you we haven't are in one or more of these categories
1) mentally ill
2) trolls out for their own entertainment
3) religious fundamentalists

Those types of people are not worth engaging with, you just get drawn into their funhouse mirror world where they continuously move goal posts, redefine technical definitions to suit their own personal ideas, and generally spout nonsense that they try to sell as logic.

Here's a question for you flat earthers (which I won't see the answer since I've got most of them on ignore)…
Why is it that a large percentage of the flat earther/conspiracy contingent are also alt-right racist pieces of trash?

Would you take any financial advice from someone who thinks 400,000 NASA workers are all in on the 'scam'. Dang, still waiting for my lambo for being in the secret scientist cabal!

Threads like this are chiefly useful to help populate the ignore list.