Did we actually really land on moon?

[BADecker]

So, how important is the moon? What did we get from the moon landings? Loss in time and pages in the "Flat Earth" thread is nothing compared with what we have lost in space so far.


60 Years of Wasting Money in Space

The whole six-decade-long U.S. space boondoggle, from 1958 to 2019, has cost this nation at least $601 billion.  And what can we say we have achieved for this vast sum?  Well, freeze-dried food, Tang, computer chips, memory foam, and the burials of 23 American citizens and one Israeli.  There have been no significant scientific achievements and very early on in the game to sell space missions as carrying out anti-gravity experiments NASA ran out of even interesting trivial observations.

No significant information has been learned about achieving something truly important, like how humans could permanently live on nearby planets or asteroids, except that it can't be done.  NASA-generated hype—it spends about $4 million a year with a staff of 114 people on PR—has generated some interest in this or that space probe over the years, but there has been no claim that a fly-by past Jupiter or an ongoing useless Space Station has led to anything even remotely useful on earth.  The latest boondoggle,  a campaign pushed by Vice President Pence this last March,  aims to create a base on the moon's south pole by 2024, at a modest cost of $120 billion or so—but no one yet has been able to offer a convincing reason for doing so.  Except that, like landing a man, it would be a first.

And in his July 4th speech Trump again pledged "to plant a flag on Mars," no more hospitable than the moon.  No cost estimate provided, but since it would be a minimum of a three-year round trip to achieve it, the figure could easily match that of the moonwalk.

But wait.  Isn't it now, after 60 years, that we should be able to take a comprehensive look at all this expensive jingoistic folly and call a halt? Forget the hype that noodling around in space, in Kennedy's chauvinistic words, "will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills." Let's find something better to do.

[1715110075]

1715110075

[WackMack]

I believe Earth is NOT flat. I don't believe there are aliens in Area 51.

we'll know soon )) no wonder the crowd is going to storm the Area 51

[notbatman]

Image source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/692006298968823896/

^^^ I said any questions, not the most biased opinions possible from somebody who's (I'm assuming) based their entire life and career around a lie and the biggest conspiracy in the history of the mankind bar-none.

Wait, so you don't want to look at three dimensional trig?

You seem to have missed my response directed at you, and instead decided to quote my response to BADecker's disingenuous and biased comments. There's no trigonometry involved yet so let me reiterate:

"...You already stated 1 degree = ~60 nautical miles in the flat earth thread and guess what, the Moon measures 32'..."

At sixty feet, one degree of arc is about one foot wide. So this 1:60 ratio applies, and at 3600 miles, 1 degree would sweep 60 miles.

But three dimensional trig allows accommodation for hills and valley on the earth. It's far more precise. Given that your measurement errors are a substantial part of the measurements, this would be the way to get it right.

For example, from three points on the earth, say Manhattan, Los Angeles, and Miami, measure the angle to the moon at the same time. The four points form a triangle on each of four sides.

What is the sum of the angles between the three ground points?

You're putting the cart before the horse here (Porsche not withstanding), as I stated before the globe and thus the Copernican model's large heavy ball Moon are dead in the water as soon as the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile is defined. This is before any celestial measurements are made with the sextant.

How is the ratio defined you ask? Since we will be measuring objects with a sextant using the human eye, the ratio is defined by the angular resolution limit of the human eye being 1 minute. This equates to being able to see a 1 foot object at a maximum distance of 1/2 nautical miles. Beyond 1/2 nautical miles, objects 1 foot and smaller can not be seen; objects in the field of view converge to a point at 1/2 nautical miles.

If we place the human eye 1 foot above ground (observably a plain), all objects will converge to the vanishing point at a distance of 1 nautical mile. Since we are above a plain the vanishing point will form a line i.e. the horizon.

The horizon is shown here to be an optical phenomenon thus, if the resolution limit changes due to using a zoom lens or, the height above ground changes (angle of attack) then, the distance objects converge to a point at (the horizon) changes also.

The globe model requires that the horizon is a physical barrier (the theoretical curve) that can only change in distance based on the viewers height. The distance to the horizon on a globe is (((coincidentally))) the same distance to the horizon as based on the human eye but, if a zoom lens is employed and the resolution limit is changed to any other value than 1 minute then, the model breaks down and is falsified.

So there you have it, the globe and Copernican models are falsified and we can start measuring objects and distances with our sextant. Any questions?

Time is up, and there's no dodging this bullet headed directly at your glow-in-the-dark skull! If you want to maintain any semblance of credibility, you need to acknowledge the fact that the eye has an angular resolution limit of 1 minute and its implications.

[BADecker]

https://i.imgur.com/K5mPHHo.png
Image source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/692006298968823896/

^^^ I said any questions, not the most biased opinions possible from somebody who's (I'm assuming) based their entire life and career around a lie and the biggest conspiracy in the history of the mankind bar-none.

Wait, so you don't want to look at three dimensional trig?

You seem to have missed my response directed at you, and instead decided to quote my response to BADecker's disingenuous and biased comments. There's no trigonometry involved yet so let me reiterate:

"...You already stated 1 degree = ~60 nautical miles in the flat earth thread and guess what, the Moon measures 32'..."

At sixty feet, one degree of arc is about one foot wide. So this 1:60 ratio applies, and at 3600 miles, 1 degree would sweep 60 miles.

But three dimensional trig allows accommodation for hills and valley on the earth. It's far more precise. Given that your measurement errors are a substantial part of the measurements, this would be the way to get it right.

For example, from three points on the earth, say Manhattan, Los Angeles, and Miami, measure the angle to the moon at the same time. The four points form a triangle on each of four sides.

What is the sum of the angles between the three ground points?

You're putting the cart before the horse here (Porsche not withstanding), as I stated before the globe and thus the Copernican model's large heavy ball Moon are dead in the water as soon as the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile is defined. This is before any celestial measurements are made with the sextant.

How is the ratio defined you ask? Since we will be measuring objects with a sextant using the human eye, the ratio is defined by the angular resolution limit of the human eye being 1 minute. This equates to being able to see a 1 foot object at a maximum distance of 1/2 nautical miles. Beyond 1/2 nautical miles, objects 1 foot and smaller can not be seen; objects in the field of view converge to a point at 1/2 nautical miles.

If we place the human eye 1 foot above ground (observably a plain), all objects will converge to the vanishing point at a distance of 1 nautical mile. Since we are above a plain the vanishing point will form a line i.e. the horizon.

The horizon is shown here to be an optical phenomenon thus, if the resolution limit changes due to using a zoom lens or, the height above ground changes (angle of attack) then, the distance objects converge to a point at (the horizon) changes also.

The globe model requires that the horizon is a physical barrier (the theoretical curve) that can only change in distance based on the viewers height. The distance to the horizon on a globe is (((coincidentally))) the same distance to the horizon as based on the human eye but, if a zoom lens is employed and the resolution limit is changed to any other value than 1 minute then, the model breaks down and is falsified.

So there you have it, the globe and Copernican models are falsified and we can start measuring objects and distances with our sextant. Any questions?

Time is up, and there's no dodging this bullet headed directly at your glow-in-the-dark skull! If you want to maintain any semblance of credibility, you need to acknowledge the fact that the eye has an angular resolution limit of 1 minute and its implications.

How in the world gravitational are you? The eye... that's why we use binoculars and telescopes. That's exactly why we use transits for accurate angle measurements. These instruments are exactly why we know that the eye always sees above the horizon at 90 degrees to true vertical.

On a perfectly flat earth, the only way the eye could see the horizon, if it were situated exactly 90 degrees to the vertical, is if it were planted right at ground level, so that it's focal point was exactly at ground level.

This makes eye angle focus to not have any significance regarding FE or GE. Eye view for exact measurements doesn't have anything to do with it.

Since you can't seem to understand this simple concept, how in the world will you be able to tell if anybody went to the moon or not? And that's not the bad point. The bad point is that you don't even understand that you don't understand.

Now, let's get on with reasons why we did or did not go to the moon.

[Spendulus]

....

You seem to have missed my response directed at you, and instead decided to quote my response to BADecker's disingenuous and biased comments. There's no trigonometry involved yet so let me reiterate:
.....

How is the ratio defined you ask? Since we will be measuring objects with a sextant using the human eye, the ratio is defined by the angular resolution limit of the human eye being 1 minute. This equates to being able to see a 1 foot object at a maximum distance of 1/2 nautical miles. Beyond 1/2 nautical miles, objects 1 foot and smaller can not be seen; objects in the field of view converge to a point at 1/2 nautical miles.

If we place the human eye 1 foot above ground (observably a plain), all objects will converge to the vanishing point at a distance of 1 nautical mile. Since we are above a plain the vanishing point will form a line i.e. the horizon.

The horizon is shown here to be an optical phenomenon thus.....

The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick and yes, it is totally based on trig, which defines these relationships.

"horizon is shown here to be an optical phenomenon"

Not sure what twisted logic you have there, anything we see is an optical phenomenon. If you are claiming the horizon is fake, no, it's not. because we can see it, then get in a car and drive over to it. It'd be nice if you could think of some way to describe your ideas rather than placing a human eye 1' above ground, because I don't see how that would work. First of all, wouldn't the eye have to still be connected to a human?

A battleship can lob shells 20+ miles, way over the horizon, and accurately hit things all day long. This is done with lat-long surface specifications, but the calculations are done with three dimensional trig.

If the battleship were using your methods, it would last about three seconds before it's enemies, using the correct math, hit it.

[notbatman]

"...The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick..."

Image source: https://deskgram.net/explore/tags/bankshatehim

...
Once after the stepping into moon and placing the US flag video got telecasted to the common people more controversy existed out of the same for some reason. If we begin to go through different sources related to the planet moon then only it is possible to get a deep vision how this can be achieved when most other countries associated with it hasn't took any decision about the righteous of the incident.

Righteous?

I think it's pretty cool they planted the flag.

Other nations have no say in the matter.

like the children raped on pedo island? 50 years after the moon landing, the us gov is the first to run a pedo island for very important pedos... or maybe not...

[bkbirge]

Today is the 50th anniversary since men first walked on the Moon. It is a stunning achievement that took thousands of workers, billions of dollars, and the will of an entire nation, perhaps even the world when you consider the motivations. This is a day worth celebrating.

[Spendulus]

"...The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick..."

.....
Meaningless images deleted.

So you've got nothing to respond?

[exemplaar]

Today is the 50th anniversary since men first walked on the Moon. It is a stunning achievement that took thousands of workers, billions of dollars, and the will of an entire nation, perhaps even the world when you consider the motivations. This is a day worth celebrating.

Yeah, riiiight... dream on. Moonlanding was staged in a hollywood studio at remote secret location. No one can land on the moon as it is not a solid object but lesser light created on day 4 of Lord's creation.





bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r13qk2BH6Sc

[notbatman]

"...The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick..."

.....
Meaningless images deleted.

So you've got nothing to respond?

You're claiming it's a "trick" and "based on trig" while providing exactly "nothing" to back it up, you're full of shit!

[Spendulus]

"...The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick..."

.....
Meaningless images deleted.

So you've got nothing to respond?

You're claiming it's a "trick" and "based on trig" while providing exactly "nothing" to back it up, you're full of shit!

Claiming? The history of the "rule of 60s" is well known. What's the big deal? What backs up the approximation is called trigonometry.

[notbatman]

"...The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick..."

.....
Meaningless images deleted.

So you've got nothing to respond?

You're claiming it's a "trick" and "based on trig" while providing exactly "nothing" to back it up, you're full of shit!

Claiming? The history of the "rule of 60s" is well known. What's the big deal? What backs up the approximation is called trigonometry.

You are full of shit, period.

I provide references:

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.



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

[Spendulus]

"...The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick..."

.....
Meaningless images deleted.

So you've got nothing to respond?

You're claiming it's a "trick" and "based on trig" while providing exactly "nothing" to back it up, you're full of shit!

Claiming? The history of the "rule of 60s" is well known. What's the big deal? What backs up the approximation is called trigonometry.

You are full of shit, period.

I provide references:

<<< OPTHAMOLOGY REFERNCE?

And that has what relation to the use of the rule of 60s by a 13th century sailor?

In fact, I don't think it has any relation to anything at all. No relation to calculating distances whatsoever. So why do you keep posting it? Measurement of distances and their relative positions is not limited by the human eye, that is why we have instruments, to be more precise than our natural senses.

[notbatman]

^{Image source: US dollar}

"...In fact, I don't think it ^{(resolution limit of the eye)†} has any relation to anything at all. No relation to calculating distances whatsoever. So why do you keep posting it? Measurement of distances and their relative positions is not limited by the human eye, that is why we have instruments, to be more precise than our natural senses..."

^{† added by me for clarity.}

"...You already stated 1 degree = ~60 nautical miles in the flat earth thread and guess what, the Moon measures 32'..."

"...At sixty feet, one degree of arc is about one foot wide. So this 1:60 ratio applies, and at 3600 miles, 1 degree would sweep 60 miles..."

You're putting the cart before the horse here (Porsche not withstanding), as I stated before the globe and thus the Copernican model's large heavy ball Moon are dead in the water as soon as the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile is defined. This is before any celestial measurements are made with the sextant.

How is the ratio defined you ask? Since we will be measuring objects with a sextant using the human eye, the ratio is defined by the angular resolution limit of the human eye being 1 minute. This equates to being able to see a 1 foot object at a maximum distance of 1/2 nautical miles. Beyond 1/2 nautical miles, objects 1 foot and smaller can not be seen; objects in the field of view converge to a point at 1/2 nautical miles.

If we place the human eye 1 foot above ground (observably a plain), all objects will converge to the vanishing point at a distance of 1 nautical mile. Since we are above a plain the vanishing point will form a line i.e. the horizon.

The horizon is shown here to be an optical phenomenon thus, if the resolution limit changes due to using a zoom lens or, the height above ground changes (angle of attack) then, the distance objects converge to a point at (the horizon) changes also.

The globe model requires that the horizon is a physical barrier (the theoretical curve) that can only change in distance based on the viewers height. The distance to the horizon on a globe is (((coincidentally))) the same distance to the horizon as based on the human eye but, if a zoom lens is employed and the resolution limit is changed to any other value than 1 minute then, the model breaks down and is falsified.

So there you have it, the globe and Copernican models are falsified and we can start measuring objects and distances with our sextant. Any questions?

The horizon line is created inside the eye i.e. it's an optical phenomenon. If the resolution limit is changed to another value from 1 minute i.e. by the use of a zoom lens, the distance to the horizon changes.

If the distance to the horizon changes depending on the "eye" being used, then the horizon is not a physical object i.e. there's no curve. Why can't you get this through your fucking skull?


I'm just going to leave this here.

NASA Going Nowhere Since 1958 -- https://youtu.be/AGxhmZ6OKUU

[Spendulus]

<<< garbage images deleted

"...In fact, I don't think it ^{(resolution limit of the eye)†} has any relation to anything at all. No relation to calculating distances whatsoever. So why do you keep posting it? Measurement of distances and their relative positions is not limited by the human eye, that is why we have instruments, to be more precise than our natural senses..."

^{† added by me for clarity.}

"...You already stated 1 degree = ~60 nautical miles in the flat earth thread and guess what, the Moon measures 32'..."

"...At sixty feet, one degree of arc is about one foot wide. So this 1:60 ratio applies, and at 3600 miles, 1 degree would sweep 60 miles..."

You're putting the cart before the horse here (Porsche not withstanding), as I stated before the globe and thus the Copernican model's large heavy ball Moon are dead in the water as soon as the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile is defined. This is before any celestial measurements are made with the sextant.

How is the ratio defined you ask? Since we will be measuring objects with a sextant using the human eye, the ratio is defined by the angular resolution limit of the human eye being 1 minute. This equates to being able to see a 1 foot object at a maximum distance of 1/2 nautical miles. Beyond 1/2 nautical miles, objects 1 foot and smaller can not be seen; objects in the field of view converge to a point at 1/2 nautical miles.

If we place the human eye 1 foot above ground (observably a plain), all objects will converge to the vanishing point at a distance of 1 nautical mile. Since we are above a plain the vanishing point will form a line i.e. the horizon.

The horizon is shown here to be an optical phenomenon thus, if the resolution limit changes due to using a zoom lens or, the height above ground changes (angle of attack) then, the distance objects converge to a point at (the horizon) changes also.

The globe model requires that the horizon is a physical barrier (the theoretical curve) that can only change in distance based on the viewers height. The distance to the horizon on a globe is (((coincidentally))) the same distance to the horizon as based on the human eye but, if a zoom lens is employed and the resolution limit is changed to any other value than 1 minute then, the model breaks down and is falsified.

So there you have it, the globe and Copernican models are falsified and we can start measuring objects and distances with our sextant. Any questions?

The horizon line is created inside the eye i.e. it's an optical phenomenon. If the resolution limit is changed to another value from 1 minute i.e. by the use of a zoom lens, the distance to the horizon changes.

If the distance to the horizon changes depending on the "eye" being used, then the horizon is not a physical object i.e. there's no curve. Why can't you get this through your fucking skull?

Because my skull is too fucking intelligent?

One problem with your theory is the importance of 1 minute. Actually, eyeballs are vastly different from person to person. According to your theory which has lynchpin the importance of direct measurement, if someone can only see barely and a blur, then the universe is limited to that.

And the person with 2020 vision develops cataracts, and the entire universe changes to adapt.

I'm just going to leave this here.

NASA Going Nowhere Since 1958 -- https://youtu.be/AGxhmZ6OKUU

I'll leave it right there, too. I'm responding only to actual statements and deleting youtube links and stupid pictures.

[notbatman]

These clowns have nothing; nutildah is frothing at the mouth over the bible and, spendy seems to think that railroad tracks actually converge in the distance while proclaiming the ophthalmology textbook description of a normal eye is in error.

It's a clown world after all folks!

[Spendulus]

...
Tides are caused by some water pumping machine that cools the sun projector? That's pretty fucking lame dude. Creative, yet still embarrassing to profess as something you actually believe.

Don't forget the two mile high Titans who built the dome over our small flat space.

Or the 32 mile wide image that's the Moon being moved around in the sky by some airplane-thingy.

The Universe is replete with mystery.

[notbatman]

^^^ The Moon is a holographic projection made of plasma, so obviously if the ocean is cooling the projector solenoids it's not being towed around by an aircraft. Thanks for strawmanning my arguments, I'm sure everybody appreciates your honesty...



@nutty, you're an idiot!

The Earth is round, it's a circular plain. Also, believing that water can stick to a spinning sphere in vacuum is embarrassingly moronic IMO, an impossible flywheel with a 4,000 mile radius and a 1,000 MPH rim speed no less.

The Earth is an engineered structure with artificial lighting.



Image source: The Truman Show (1998)

[Spendulus]

^^^ The Moon is a holographic projection made of plasma, so obviously if the ocean is cooling the projector solenoids it's not being towed around by an aircraft. Thanks for strawmanning my arguments, I'm sure everybody appreciates your honesty...

@nutty, you're an idiot!

The Earth is round, it's a circular plain. Also, believing that water can stick to a spinning sphere in vacuum is embarrassingly moronic IMO, an impossible flywheel with a 4,000 mile radius and a 1,000 MPH rim speed no less.

The Earth is an engineered structure with artificial lighting.
>>> deleted garbage image

When are you going to share some of that great stuff you been smoking? I think maybe I don't want any...

Since you've got it all figured out that the Earth is a circular plain why don't you want to use three dimensional trig? Seems like it would be very useful.

In your world do the legs of a triangle add up to 180 degrees or less or more?

[notbatman]

^^^ Well, I don't have to ask why you refuse to acknowledge that the horizon is crated by the angular resolution limit of the "eye" being used; Earth curvature falsified.

If you can't understand that for example, railroad tracks are parallel and don't physically converge in the distance, why am I arguing with a moron who can't understand what optical phenomena is? Are you really a fool or do you just play one on TV?

You change the subject from something I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to, subjects that I have to theorize about and, that somebody who's completely brainwashed with the heliocentric Copernican model of the universe would conciser absolutely absurd; 2 mile tall giants and the holographic Sun and Moon.

You clearly have no interest in being intellectually honest, facts and or God forbid the truth. Do all three sides of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, hell yes, but that's fucking irrelevant if I've proven that your precious curvature is nothing but optical convergence!



Image source: ODD TV