Did we actually really land on moon?

[BADecker]

^^^ I only need an approximate value for the distance to the Sun to prove my point. However, since all of you Satan worshipping degenerates keep harping on about accuracy I'll give it some thought, perhaps I can devise a more accurate measure with modern equipment.

The trouble with this thinking is which approximate distance.

Just for fun, imagine that the sun is the size and distance that is agreed on in standard science, and that space is the thing that standard science suggests. What would you uses to determine the sun's distance and size? Would the methods you use give more than one answer, and possibly multitudes of answers? Or would you be able to use your methods to prove that the sun is 93 million miles away, and 800,000 miles in diameter?... if the sun actually were 93 m and 800 thousand m?

Use this reverse logic, and show us how you would prove distance and size if it were as standard science suggests. If you can't, how do you know that what you are using is proving what really exists?

[Spendulus]

^^^ I only need an approximate value for the distance to the Sun to prove my point. However, since all of you Satan worshipping degenerates keep harping on about accuracy I'll give it some thought, perhaps I can devise a more accurate measure with modern equipment.

You yourself said you could not calculate it, approximation or not, you never provided the calculation and resorted to saying, oh but I proved 1 min = 1 nautical mile, which you didn't btw. So yeah, you are a liar.

A = sin(1 degree) = 0.01745241

60 * A = 1.047 (Note exactly 1, but close)

It's a geometric ratio.

Multiple by 60 to get a minute instead of a degree.

Pilots and seamen have long known this "rule of 60s". No big deal.

[notbatman]

^^^ It's a ratio based on the angular resolution limit of the human eye (1 minute), when an "eye" other than human is used the ratio changes.

[notbatman]

^^^ What's wrong comrade, you don't like me posting proof of Russian collusion with the US government?

[xxkaiwaxx]

No we didn't land on the moon and we never will.

The narrative will always be "Coming Soon" or "Within the next 5 years".

[notbatman]

"two weeks" -- Josh Zerlan, BFL



@BADecker,

   This discussion of bouncing a LASER off of the Moon (I purpose it's actually bouncing off the firmament) has me thinking this is the ticket to accurately measuring the distance to the Sun.

I theorize that the Sun is a projection made of plasma, scalar waves (a type of radio wave with a negligible transverse component) are produced in the polar region by a Tesla coil type device (cooled by sea water) and are transmitted to the firmament where they're reflected, and converge on a layer of dense liquid crystal gas to create a plasmoid (the Sun).

I think the distance to this liquid crystal gaseous layer can be measured with a specially tuned MASER that will create an "artificial" plasmoid. It's then simply a matter of measuring the return trip of stimulated photons to get the distance.

I believe the faggots at HAARP have all the equipment needed to perform this experiment.

[Spendulus]

"two weeks" -- Josh Zerlan, BFL



@BADecker,

   This discussion of bouncing a LASER off of the Moon (I purpose it's actually bouncing off the firmament) has me thinking this is the ticket to accurately measuring the distance to the Sun.

I theorize that the Sun is a projection made of plasma, scalar waves (a type of radio wave with a negligible transverse component) are produced in the polar region by a Tesla coil type device (cooled by sea water) and are transmitted to the firmament where they're reflected, and converge on a layer of dense liquid crystal gas to create a plasmoid (the Sun).

I think the distance to this liquid crystal gaseous layer can be measured with a specially tuned MASER that will create an "artificial" plasmoid. It's then simply a matter of measuring the return trip of stimulated photons to get the distance.

I believe the faggots at HAARP have all the equipment needed to perform this experiment.

Since you've claimed that a triangle's legs add up to 180, let's talk about my trip to Asia from the US via the North Pole. It might just be interesting.

This is your chance to prove the Earth is flat.

^^^ It's a ratio based on the angular resolution limit of the human eye (1 minute)....

No, it's just chance that is approximately one minute. Frequency of light divided by aperture. Your example is for the case of 2020 vision in full daylight. It's entirely different at night when the aperture opens wider, and for better and worse vision.

[notbatman]

^^^ It's a ratio based on the angular resolution limit of the human eye (1 minute)....

No, it's just chance that is approximately one minute. Frequency of light divided by aperture. Your example is for the case of 2020 vision in full daylight. It's entirely different at night when the aperture opens wider, and for better and worse vision.

(((coincidence)))

[Spendulus]

^^^ It's a ratio based on the angular resolution limit of the human eye (1 minute)....

No, it's just chance that is approximately one minute. Frequency of light divided by aperture. Your example is for the case of 2020 vision in full daylight. It's entirely different at night when the aperture opens wider, and for better and worse vision.

(((coincidence)))

Ridiculous pictoral distraction deleted.

Yes. Coincidence that in the range of angular resolutions that occur with the human eye, under various conditions, with various persons, you have found the value of "1" and find it important.

[notbatman]

^^^ What do you think is more reasonable, that the nautical mile used for navigation in conjunction with the sextant, a tool that measures angles between objects using the human eye was created based on:

(A) the angular resolution limit of the human human eye,

or

(B) the radius of a globe in a time when everybody knew the Earth was flat, and it's just pure (((coincidence))) that the radius of the globe matches the 1 minute limit of the eye?

Keep in mind that the globe model breaks down and is falsified when a zoom lens with a limit of less than 1 minute is employed. We haven't even got to question of weather the "rule of 60s" applies to celestial objects yet and your claim that the Moon is a giant sphere 240k miles away (((Copernican model))) is dead in the water.

[BADecker]

^^^ What do you think is more reasonable, that the nautical mile used for navigation in conjunction with the sextant, a tool that measures angles between objects using the human eye was created based on:

(A) the angular resolution limit of the human human eye,

or

(B) the radius of a globe in a time when everybody knew the Earth was flat, and it's just pure (((coincidence))) that the radius of the globe matches the 1 minute limit of the eye?

Keep in mind that the globe model breaks down and is falsified when a zoom lens with a limit of less than 1 minute is employed. We haven't even got to question of weather the "rule of 60s" applies to celestial objects yet and your claim that the Moon is a giant sphere 240k miles away (((Copernican model))) is dead in the water.

As you have said in the past, when a telescope is used, the limitations of the human eye are extended. Using the Hubble telescope with the human eye proves that the unaided human eye sees a flat earth, and that it is wrong in this seeing.

[netherfikk]

You predicted that meme about area 51

[exemplaar]

.....
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.
....
Meaningless images deleted.

Got any proof for your wild claim?

Listen you spentulus the zombie:
-first, posted images are common sense facts, so they are not meaningless.
-second, It is well established fact now that the moon landing was staged in a studio at secret remote location. No one can or will ever be, landing on the moon as it is not a solid object, but lesser light in the firmament of heaven.

bonus hint:


+reminder for treasonous badecker

[Spendulus]

.....
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.
....
Meaningless images deleted.

Got any proof for your wild claim?

Listen you spentulus the zombie:
-first, posted images are common sense facts, so they are not meaningless.
-second, It is well established fact now that the moon landing was staged in a studio at secret remote location. No one can or will ever be, landing on the moon as it is not a solid object, but lesser light in the firmament of heaven.

bonus hint:
....
+reminder for treasonous badecker
....

Nonsense images deleted.

So you have no arguments, ... sock puppet.

^^^ What do you think is more reasonable, that the nautical mile used for navigation in conjunction with the sextant, a tool that measures angles between objects using the human eye was created based on:

(A) the angular resolution limit of the human human eye,

or

(B) the radius of a globe in a time when everybody knew the Earth was flat, and it's just pure (((coincidence))) that the radius of the globe matches the 1 minute limit of the eye?

Keep in mind that the globe model breaks down and is falsified when a zoom lens with a limit of less than 1 minute is employed. We haven't even got to question of weather the "rule of 60s" applies to celestial objects yet and your claim that the Moon is a giant sphere 240k miles away (((Copernican model))) is dead in the water.

I notice that you want to keep ducking and dodging numerous of my questions.

As for your rambling above, you seem to be asking now about the origin of the "nautical mile." That does not matter, any consistent units of measurement can be used.

You seem to think the angular resolution of the human eye is precise, but then people used to believe a red cunt hair was a precise unit of measurement, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair%27s_breadth

[notbatman]

^^^ This is what you look like right now.

[Spendulus]

^^^ This is what you look like right now.
....

Meaningless image deleted, post is left with zero content.

[BADecker]

^^^ This is what you look like right now.

I admire your strong religious tendencies, along with your CGI abilities.

 

[Spendulus]

^^^ This is what you look like right now.

....

I'm afraid you are going to have to answer some questions, and stop acting like a silly child.

[Nalbo]

I was too suspicious at first. We don't have the tech available right at the moment to put us farther from LEO how could we have possibly landed on moon 50 years ago.
But as I got a chance to relive the experience in real, I finally understood what it was like during the space race. Space was a war and budget and safety issues were not a concern.

[tansaneehongkao]

Google it. it helps you