Did we actually really land on moon?

[Cryptotourist]

^. Nice one, but hey - Houston we have a fucking problem.
Batty here, confuses face with phase. It's his NASA syndrome.

[Spendulus]

^. Nice one, but hey - Houston we have a fucking problem.
Batty here, confuses face with phase. It's his NASA syndrome.

Well, Moonbat has now been presented with a simple trig proof that the Moon is a sphere, or I guess a wacko could argue that it is only proven it is 51-52% a sphere, by two distant observers looking at the Moon.

And that it is only 59% a sphere, since one observer sees somewhat different parts at different times (libration).

None of his lying, story-making, or fantasies will help.

[paskah01]

If you believe in such thing so much, how can you not believing thing in such a way so much too?

[notbatman]

^^^ All observers see the same face, you're wrong or you're lying.

Nope, gotcha.

...

...If we take 6371.0 km as the mean radius of Earth...

They make an assumption that the earth's surface curves, it does not. You've proven nothing then accuse me of lying? Proof doesn't rely on assumptions, go find a length of rope asshole...

On top of that the fags at stackexchange are describing the theoretical area two simultaneous observers can view a theoretical moon globe from a theoretical earth globe. It doesn't even deal with reality or the question at hand and has nothing to do with empirical observations motherfucker!

The globe fails a distance to the horizon test (no curvature), a reproducible test that can be performed with a super-zoom camera.

Simultaneous observers see the same lunar face (rotation and refraction not withstanding), a reproducible test that can also be performed with super-zoom cameras.

You're a gatekeeping cock smoker pushing fairy tales and theoretical fancy.

[Cryptotourist]

They make an assumption that the earth's surface curves, it does not. ~

It's not an assumption you fucking moron.

[notbatman]

They make an assumption that the earth's surface curves, it does not. ~

It's not an assumption you fucking moron.

...
   Flat Earth Proven Again - 11.22 Miles and ZERO Curvature [Wide Awake] -- https://youtu.be/6hqzqmY9ny8

^^^ There, you've been provided with documented evidence that the earth's surface doesn't curve. Anybody with a super-zoom camera can reproduce this distance to the horizon test and fail the globe with a wide margin of error.

You're defending an incorrect assumption and I just proved it with documented evidence, faggot.

The stackechange article that led this question of assumptions doesn't even deal with the question of whether all observers see the same face of the moon or not. You guys are so full of shit you have to move the goal posts and can't deal with the question at hand. Not only that, even when you move the goal posts I still hand you your ass on silver platter with documented reproducible evidence.

Fuck off and die.

[Cryptotourist]

I was not aware that youtube videos are scientific proof.

You can squeak n scream all you want, but at the end of the day, you are nothing but a dumb lying cunt.

[notbatman]

^^^ I provide documented video evidence that can be reproduced, something you faggots can't do.

You're the cunt liar with your NASA propaganda.

[Spendulus]

They make an assumption that the earth's surface curves, it does not. ~

It's not an assumption you fucking moron.

It would be an assumption if it had not previously been proved mathematically, which of course it has, hundreds of years ago. But let's prove the matter here and now, and for this purpose consider it an assumption.

^^^ All observers see the same face, you're wrong or you're lying.

Nope, gotcha.

...

...If we take 6371.0 km as the mean radius of Earth...

... fags at stackexchange ....empirical observations motherfucker.... gatekeeping cock smoker ....

Nope. You are done, buddy. Any amateur astronomer (down to a ten year old) knows the facts on this one. It's called "name the craters I can see in different phases of the Moon."

They make an assumption that the earth's surface curves, it does not. You've proven nothing then accuse me of lying? Proof doesn't rely on assumptions, go find a length of rope asshole...

This is backwards. Make the prediction (if earth is round then distant observers see different parts of the moon) and then do the math. If the results correspond with the observations, confirm the hypothesis.

The results do agree with the observations. Secondly, libration is impossible without a spherical moon. All observers of the moon see libration.

You are done. Now run along, cry to mama, maybe you'll get some hot milk and cookies with your blanket.

[notbatman]

That's right folks, they can't refute the claim all observers see the same lunar face. All these clowns can do is dance around the subject, you know that dance that Jews do.

Mental acrobatics at its finest.



Here's video of them shutting it down. -- https://youtu.be/ubUooQ8wrwk

Currently all YouTube "Flat Earth" and "Moon Hoax" searches lead to nothing but globalist propaganda.

[Spendulus]

That's right folks, they can't refute the claim all observers see the same lunar face. .....

They do not, and your little farce is over. How about admit it. You've got a moon that's a sphere and the earth is a sphere, approximately.

Or do you think that you can argue against a mathematical proof with insults.

If so, that's not going to get you an A. That will get you an F.

Since you like to use sexual-orientation directed insults, and since I'm half drunk, I have one for you. Well, really more of a joke than an insult.

How about you get some cojones (eg ... "balls"... eg  ... "SPHERES") and admit you have been wrong?

[mikehersh2]

I feel pretty much the same after all these years trying to convince myself about this issue.

I know there are many proofs:
Lunar Ranging Retro Reflector (LRRR);
Hammer-feather drop; and
More moon landings.

And then I remember how primitive 60s cars and bikes are, and ask "really?"

It is interesting when you look at the facts about the launch and the mission itself, especially involving the technology that was used to actually get there. For example, they say they used only had 1Mb of memory space to utilize, and the actual hardware was the size of a stack of books. While some conspiracies and youtube videos can seem convincing, especially regarding the post-mission interview which if you haven't seen you it seems very fishy, the facts are undeniable. For example, how can one explain the rocks that have been brought back to the moon, rocks that have been sent to and tested by scientists and geologists nationwide, have never been identified as fakes. So many people would have to be lying, on such a grand scale, for this to be the case.

[notbatman]

"...You've got a moon that's a sphere and the earth is a sphere, approximately.

Or do you think that you can argue against a mathematical proof with insults..."

I've posted reproducible documented empirical evidence the earth's surface doesn't curve, a sphere is both mathematically and physically impossible with a horizon beyond 11.22 miles for an observer 1 foot above sea level.

...

...
   Flat Earth Proven Again - 11.22 Miles and ZERO Curvature [Wide Awake] -- https://youtu.be/6hqzqmY9ny8

^^^ There, you've been provided with documented evidence that the earth's surface doesn't curve. Anybody with a super-zoom camera can reproduce this distance to the horizon test and fail the globe with a wide margin of error.
...

"...How about you get some cojones..."

I've proven my point with documented evidence and refuted your copy pasta from the fags at stackexchange that, BTW doesn't actually address empirical observations of the moon's face. Now, I've got the cojones to label you a lackluster cock smoker for not conceding the point and not directly addressing direct observations of the moon's face.

The more you struggle the tighter my coils get, don't tread on me.

[Cryptotourist]

@Spendulus, there is no point to debate with Batty.
He'll dumb you down, and win from experience.

[Spendulus]

@Spendulus, there is no point to debate with Batty.
He'll dumb you down, and win from experience.

Do not cast pearls before swine?

A crypto forum is the wrong place to argue against clear and simple math, lol.

[Spendulus]

"...How about you get some cojones..."

I've proven my point with documented evidence and refuted your copy pasta from the fags....

You are done.

[ubercool]

I had this feeling for a long time and always wondered why humans never went to moon again..?
A country like India is still not about to land it's Rover but USA landed and brought back their astronauts..?

[notbatman]

@Spendulus https://youtu.be/FXJglfRC3qY

[BADecker]

@Spendulus https://youtu.be/FXJglfRC3qY

So, you wanted to go all along, but they stopped you, right? Are you too old to apply with SpaceX or Blue Origin?

Here's a list of private companies that are going to space - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies.

Are you crippled so that they won't take you? You could become ground support, and make something out of your life.

[Spendulus]

@Spendulus https://youtu.be/FXJglfRC3qY

Links, no, not from you. Not until you admit the error of your ways.