Toyota Nation Forum banner

81 - 100 of 123 Posts

·
Moderator
2014 Highlander LE
Joined
·
7,801 Posts
Discussion Starter #81
I watched the video, and I know what I saw and I saw the curvature of the earth in that video.

If that guy wanted more accurate photos, he would not be looking mountain ranges in southern Colorado, and would instead be looking at photos from a plane (not a plain) on a very clear day (no clouds or thunderstorms) over the ocean.

I guess this thread started out claiming that the Apollo project did not land on the moon, but am I correct in saying that you also believe the earth is flat, or something like that?


I did not cherry pick anything. There weren't any really good pics in the video of a flat horizon with clear weather. I used to live in Colorado, and spent time in southern Colorado where those pics were taken, and you can't expect to see an accurate horizon line with so many mountains and where the plateaus are anywhere from 4,000 to 6,000 feet above sea level, and mountains rise up another 8,000 feet above that. You need to look at pics over the ocean in clear weather at the horizon and viewing at 40,000 feet or more altitude with a wide enough angle of view.
Knowing that the earth is spherical (but not a perfect sphere) is not a religious belief, it is a fact. Someone who apparently believes the earth is flat, and then calls me immature, is the height of ludicrousness.
But you never answered my question. Do you in fact believe the earth is flat, or just a lot larger circumference than about 25K miles, or what is it that you believe?
To answer your Q:
I dont have a belief. I just know that the earth is not 24,901 around.

This is why I said you cannot take one example, which I called cheery picking. He has at least 20 videos. And that is JUST him. Over the water you can also prove this to yourself with a good zoom lens. On a CLEAR day with calm waters or on a large lake. This is why good science is done over the coarse of time over different conditions. Not a frame in a video to draw a conclusion from. You can take an object in view that is going away from you, and you can see the object disappear from the bottom up. Use your zoom lens and the object is back into full view. You should have an idea of the distance the object is. By doing the basic math of 8" drop per distance squared, you can calc the expected amount of the curve covering a object. But this doesn't happen on calm waters, or ice, etc.

I also know that our understanding of things is narrated and distributed with some major flaws to shape society and to secure the ruling entities.

NASA footage is often faked. We clearly have prrof of this in video footage. The zero grav in ISS to Apollo 11 photo and missions, on the moon. These are fake.
Once you see past your programmed belief, and accept the evidence by weighing conflicting information, and NOT defaulting to authority and just the evidence, you see that these programs are for thought and population control...WHat ever ideas you want to conjure up, it doesn't matter. Just as the Colosseum was many years ago. There are rulers, and they will do what is needed to rule and collect on its population. Or what ever you want to think.

But most people here (as over 65% of EU other universities dont even believe in the moon landings) are well programmed from news and "scientific" data reported by news and many sources. If you listen to lectures of physicists and historians, you can understand these. Our science today is based on theoretical numbers and models that are far from reality. They are designed to fit a commercial service and that is it. This is not just US, but globally. You show what is possible by the tech and the tax your pay, and all the years you devote to learning the "science" and you are now a arms developing tool for the powers that be....
With the idea that you are creating "out of this world" technological advancements...This in reality is a fantasy.

So now that Augmented Reality is polished, with 3D and VR, While having so many errors in the NASA footage with their live multi camera screw ups. (i can link you up to a few, as I have), New missions to moon like in 2023, will be very compelling, as the graphics of today's tech is leaps and bounds better than the tech of the 70's. But it doesnt matter much...
Most people are already programmed to believe the news as it is reported even if it looks bad or unbelievable..... Look at all the errors in news and the overall agendas it pushes towards...still very effective. Anything contrary is ridiculed and sidelined or discredited, or silenced. So once you see through this, and untangle your brain, it is only then that this makes any sense and difference.
But there is a wall your mind will hit, and that is the feeling of safety. This is where your cognitive dissonance will intervene, and have you revert back to your belief, and the confirmation you have to support that belief.
If you think of conspiracy theories, you can put some perspective into it. There are a few that were and today they are a proven and accepted reality. Gulf of Tonkin is one example. The US Liberty ship is another example. There are a number of others that we look too many years later to make a difference. But the voices were there at that time, yet silenced. Now we know and it is too late.

I type this to the thread, not to you Mark888, because you are so far on the protective side of your version of "reality", this info just bounces off your head as if its a magnetic opposite polarity.
But, perhaps there is a time you can see through the cracks. If you didn't see it on 2001 0911, then you are not going to see much at all. That was the most obvious to anyone who can think for themselves, and has a understanding of reality and materials, basic physics, and miracles that cannot happen. Then the counter evidence omitted to fit a belief.

I say this, as you showed your thought process by omitting any info, and grabbing a sliver of a video clip, yet ignoring the body of work. This is not a rational way to conclude something you see. Even in that small video he explains why you see what you see, but this is ignored to claim your belief. Regardless of its implications on anything else.
 

·
Moderator
2014 Highlander LE
Joined
·
7,801 Posts
Discussion Starter #82
Go into space yourself and tell us what you see. Here are 5 space companies that will make you an astronaut:
https://www.revfine.com/space-tourism/

Obviously, it will cost money, but if all members of the flat earth society pool their resources, they could afford to send one member of their group into space and report back what they saw.
Lol....that is pretty funny. If you watched the interviews of international astronauts and their experience in space....It is almost as funny as the Mars confrence after they "landed" the rover ..That was a sad and hilarious show of engineering and science. But, once you see that, you will know that you either paid for a true con job, or maybe you were the gullable sucker to agree to the terms in the first place. This would make more sense watching the astronots interviews.....Which further supports a BS "astronots in space".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,676 Posts
To answer your Q:
I dont have a belief. I just know that the earth is not 24,901 around.
The earth is not a exact sphere, so it is not exactly 24,901 miles in circumference. Also, due to the spinning of earth when it was formed from molten matter, the equator is bigger around than the at the poles.

So if not 25K miles around, approximately how big in circumference do you think (or know) the earth is?

Do you agree that the earth is roughly spherical? You seem to question this when you dismissed the NASA photos of earth as fakes in earlier posts, even when those photos did not claim any circumference numbers.
 

·
Moderator
2014 Highlander LE
Joined
·
7,801 Posts
Discussion Starter #84
The earth is not a exact sphere, so it is not exactly 24,901 miles in circumference. Also, due to the spinning of earth when it was formed from molten matter, the equator is bigger around than the at the poles.

So if not 25K miles around, approximately how big in circumference do you think (or know) the earth is?
.


Well, there is the rub...We see in the provided images that it is a perfect sphere, yet it is claimed to be a pear shape, or an oblate spheroid...You are giving nothing new to the topic, and only going off textbook BS that the earth was formed from molten matter some billions of years ago. This is at the best off the top of the theorecital science guessing as has been discussed by numerous professors and is irresponsible blabbing such theoretical assumptions. The deepest for a very long time ever dug was ~8miles, and the drill bits stopped working(Cola RU). There is claim to some fracking in more recent times for 12 miles but it is unsubstantiated.

Well, scientific reasoning doesn't work that way. Science can do deductive calculations and say what is NOT, not often identify what is. But, the shore and Chicago skyline is close to 100 miles across. Contrary to some thinking or claiming it is a mirage, this said to be seen on a clear day with some recorded accounts by photographer.
So you can take that distance and calculate how much was supposed to be covered by curvature, which is 8inches each mile squared, and you can know how large it is NOT.

Do you agree that the earth is roughly spherical? You seem to question this when you dismissed the NASA photos of earth as fakes in earlier posts, even when those photos did not claim any circumference numbers
The shape and the size are 2 matters that are both claimed by institutions supporting the religious theoretical science.
They claim and define as related. But in order to have size, you might need shape, for an overall 3D visual. I don't have any reason to believe it is spherical. We are in 2019 and I have yet to here about regular navigation from North to south and continue across south to north again. So, I don't have any beliefs of the earth shape. Just my default programming from first grade to drill in my brain that the world is a globe. This position doesn't take away from schooling or years university learning, and education about the earth, or geography. I have consciously questioned the information and looked at what we have to prove it. I can see why there is such a rapid increase for such groups, like the Society of Flat earthers. And can understand how with such a polarized social boiling pot, we have come from questioning, to these 2 polar opposites. But as history proves itself over an over again, yet like a fish in a bowl, the public forgets....the truth will rest somewhere in the middle....Maybe its a torus?

This again deviates from scientific fact in deductive methodology. So to answer the question.... we have evidence that Apollo 11 did fabricate the image of earth from the LEM. Amazing to simply ignore this footage. Based on that evidence of lying and faking, I cannot accept the later missions as anything different. Once a liar, and you are trying to keep that same story, you have no choice but to continue the lie with bigger better stories and distractions, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,676 Posts
Well, there is the rub...We see in the provided images that it is a perfect sphere, yet it is claimed to be a pear shape, or an oblate spheroid...

I don't have any reason to believe it is spherical. We are in 2019 and I have yet to here about regular navigation from North to south and continue across south to north again. So, I don't have any beliefs of the earth shape.
The earth is not perfectly spherical, as I explained above. But the fact that the diameter at the equator is larger (due to a phenomenon called equatorial bulge due to spinning of the earth faster at the equator than at the poles), is not visible to the human eye, because the difference is only about 27 miles. I don't believe any scientists have claimed the earth is pear shaped.

There is no regular ocean or land navigation around the globe from "due" north to south because there are glaciers at the north pole, and Antarctica is at the south pole, which prohibit a ship or vehicle from doing that. There are great circle air routes that go pretty far north on a regular basis (a lot further north than you realize). But I suppose you believe that "great circle routes" are a lie, because they relate directly to the fact that the earth is a globe (although not a perfect glove). Here is a link that explains great circle routes used by airlines (and by ships when possible):
https://gisgeography.com/great-circle-geodesic-line-shortest-flight-path/

You can verify the above by looking at a route map of an airline, or when taking a long flight from the USA to Europe or Asia, etc.

So you are saying that the earth is not even approximately spherical (or a globe), but you don't know what the shape of it is?

What about the shape of the moon, and other objects like the sun and planets? Do you deny they are roughly spherical?
 

·
Moderator
2014 Highlander LE
Joined
·
7,801 Posts
Discussion Starter #86 (Edited)
The earth is not perfectly spherical, as I explained above.
That's pretty funny. You are looking at this, as if some naive college kid goes to university thinking he is going to be wise and gain amazing knowledge by studying and memorizing what you are lecturing.

But the fact that the diameter at the equator is larger (due to a phenomenon called equatorial bulge due to spinning of the earth faster at the equator than at the poles), is not visible to the human eye, because the difference is only about 27 miles. I don't believe any scientists have claimed the earth is pear shaped.
This is also funny, you are explaining the reasons as if you measured it yourself. ....and yes Neil Tyson has explained it as such, "pear shaped".

There is no regular ocean or land navigation around the globe from "due" north to south because there are glaciers at the north pole, and Antarctica is at the south pole, which prohibit a ship or vehicle from doing that.
Some logic would have one navigate a plane...

There are great circle air routes that go pretty far north on a regular basis (a lot further north than you realize). But I suppose you believe that "great circle routes" are a lie, because they relate directly to the fact that the earth is a globe (although not a perfect glove).
I am not using belief. YOU are using belief, because you omit the videos that make the globe photo a fake. You can suppose and assume all you want, but that really doesn't belong in such a discussion.

Here is a link that explains great circle routes used by airlines (and by ships when possible):
https://gisgeography.com/great-circle-geodesic-line-shortest-flight-path/
You can verify the above by looking at a route map of an airline, or when taking a long flight from the USA to Europe or Asia, etc.

So you are saying that the earth is not even approximately spherical (or a globe), but you don't know what the shape of it is?
Can you point me where I said the earth is <not even approximately spherical (or a globe)> ? I may have said, I am sure it is not the size science claims , which would be right.
Yes, I don't know the shape. As we have no photo that is not faked. Since we have proof that the Apollo image is faked.

What about the shape of the moon, and other objects like the sun and planets? Do you deny they are roughly spherical?
The moon looks like it can be spherical when full, or a convex or concave shape. When it is not full, half moon or less, it suggests that it can also not be a sphere. Through the different phases of the moon, there is no gradual "shift" to it being crescent shaped. Between full and other shapes, there is no indication of a sphere.
Planets on the other hand are more ambiguous, and they are grossly exaggerated in how they look in many renderings and representations of them. I have looked through scopes and seen them pretty close up....
Even with a 1300mm Newtonian scope, unless we use stacking which introduces artifacts, you can not see them as spheres. You can see dots move around Jupiter, but to say they are "celestial" bodies of land is a ferry tale far cry from what we actually see at high magnification and even stacked images. Most and I hate to say all, but.....virtually all footage you see WILL have the stacked processed image WITH shading done to make it fit the defined expectation, and to show how nice of a image was made. Take a look at some of the astro sites, even contributed..They are all on how well you can make artwork out of them. Look at the source images, and you have dots, and some interesting looking larger dots and some with different shapes. You can also record stars that change color and shape, which is defined as scintillation due to chromatic abberation, refraction. While this sounds like a "good" explanation, ther eis no reason to think this. Also the way we measure the distance of subjects in the sky is a complete BS guessing. Often wrong by a factor of 120! It is guess work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,676 Posts
Yes, I don't know the shape. As we have no photo that is not faked. Since we have proof that the Apollo image is faked.
There are hundreds of photos taken by astronauts prior to Apollo 11 with a Hasselblad film camera (as I described in a prior post, with a link to the photos). The photos are not faked, and I personally have seen them at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. These photos were taken long before digital photography that could allow for manipulations of the images (so they were not manipulated or faked).

As far as great circles go, when traveling from Chicago to Edenborough, Scotland (a flight I once took) the normal flight path goes over Greenland. That is not exactly over the north pole, but is pretty far north, and does demonstrate the principle of a great circle being the shortest distance between two points on a globe.

The rest of your statements are deliberate misrepresentations of what I said, and are absurd.
 

·
Moderator
2014 Highlander LE
Joined
·
7,801 Posts
Discussion Starter #88 (Edited)
There are hundreds of photos taken by astronauts prior to Apollo 11 with a Hasselblad film camera (as I described in a prior post, with a link to the photos). The photos are not faked, and I personally have seen them at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. These photos were taken long before digital photography that could allow for manipulations of the images (so they were not manipulated or faked).
I am familiar with the camera and the lens system, as I used it years ago.

They didn't have digital around A11 either. Do you understand that you don't need digital to manipulate photography? How do you think the advertising industry did their work before digital, even in B/W film days? Stop being silly.
So they faked it on the LEM, and you seam perfectly OK with this, and ignore it, yet try to build some credibility around that faking? How does that work? Do you realize how pointless it sounds?

As far as great circles go, when traveling from Chicago to Edenborough, Scotland (a flight I once took) the normal flight path goes over Greenland. That is not exactly over the north pole, but is pretty far north, and does demonstrate the principle of a great circle being the shortest distance between two points on a globe.
The rest of your statements are deliberate misrepresentations of what I said, and are absurd.
Well then, point my absurdity out. I would like to either explain it or correct it. Interpretation is only as clear as a single perspective.

I just pointed yours out your absurdity of your first sentence claim of photos. Just because you can take a few different photos and then cut them out put them together and then take a photo of that, does not make it a legitimately documented photograph. I have to say, that having to explain this is as painful as it is sad for me.

FYI, there was only that one image in your link, not "photos"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,676 Posts
I am familiar with the camera and the lens system, as I used it years ago.

They didn't have digital around A11 either. Do you understand that you don't need digital to manipulate photography? How do you think the advertising industry did their work before digital, even in B/W film days? Stop being silly
I don't know what photos you say are faked, but (I hope you don't mind) I am not taking your word for it. I personally don't think the photos were faked, and faking a photo in the 1960's to make the earth appear like a globe or a sphere, when it is not, goes way beyond any technology back then that would enable such fakery.

Here are multiple NASA photos of the earth that shows it is a globe or sphere (although not a perfect sphere because the earth is about 27 miles larger diameter at the equator due to the spinning of the earth). In some cases the whole earth is shown from a vantage point outside earth orbit, and in other cases (while in earth orbit) the curvature of the earth is clearly visible.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/images/index.html

As far as me being silly, I will leave it up to everyone else to decide which one of us is the silly person.
 

·
&#9787;Black Member
Joined
·
1,427 Posts
The earth is not a exact sphere, so it is not exactly 24,901 miles in circumference. Also, due to the spinning of earth when it was formed from molten matter, the equator is bigger around than the at the poles.

So if not 25K miles around, approximately how big in circumference do you think (or know) the earth is?

Do you agree that the earth is roughly spherical? You seem to question this when you dismissed the NASA photos of earth as fakes in earlier posts, even when those photos did not claim any circumference numbers.

- the earth was not formed by molten matter... that is just a wild-guess..
- not saying I know how the world got here, but it aint that, NOBODY can know that
- the earth is flat.. as it appears, however there are mysteries... I don't claim to know all the answers (nobody does)

in general it looks like this:





^ Look familiar?? LOL!











exactly...........>:D>:D>:D
 

·
&#9787;Black Member
Joined
·
1,427 Posts
What about the shape of the moon, and other objects like the sun and planets? Do you deny they are roughly spherical?

- DISC
- not "sphere"
- DISC!

- that's why the moon only has 'one side'

- once I see the @ss end of the moon I'll call it a sphere... since I only see one side, it's a DISC
- same goes for planets and sun

remember - what you SEE is REALITY



.
 

·
&#9787;Black Member
Joined
·
1,427 Posts
There are hundreds of photos taken by astronauts prior to Apollo 11 with a Hasselblad film camera (as I described in a prior post, with a link to the photos). The photos are not faked, and I personally have seen them at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. These photos were taken long before digital photography that could allow for manipulations of the images (so they were not manipulated or faked).

As far as great circles go, when traveling from Chicago to Edenborough, Scotland (a flight I once took) the normal flight path goes over Greenland. That is not exactly over the north pole, but is pretty far north, and does demonstrate the principle of a great circle being the shortest distance between two points on a globe.

The rest of your statements are deliberate misrepresentations of what I said, and are absurd.


- the photos are fake
- you don't need 'digital photopgraphy' to manipulate photos
- airbrushing and trick photagraphy was the norm back then

- that's why NASA can't 'go back to the moon' because the fake pictures from 1969 wouldn't match up AT ALL with any 'modern' pics of the 'surface of the moon'

- ask yourself why NASA never 'went back'.. its effing 2019! Guess technology was better in 1969?!?! LOLOLOL!
- they'd be busted if they 'went back' and took 'new pix'

- so they don't go..














:)
 

·
&#9787;Black Member
Joined
·
1,427 Posts
I personally don't think the photos were faked, and faking a photo in the 1960's to make the earth appear like a globe or a sphere, when it is not, goes way beyond any technology back then that would enable such fakery.

- I'm going to guess that you are UNDER age 30
- airbrushing and matte backgrounds combined with massive stuidos was the NORM back then for trick-photography
- trick photography was't invented with photoshop in 2003 lol...
- Stanley Kubrick direct the fakery (director of 2001) which came out in 1968... one year BEFORE 'the moon landing':













^ all images were produced between 1966 and 1967 WIHOUT computers....













.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,676 Posts
I'm going to guess that you are UNDER age 30
- airbrushing and matte backgrounds combined with massive stuidos was the NORM back then for trick-photography
- trick photography was't invented with photoshop in 2003 lol...
- Stanley Kubrick direct the fakery (director of 2001) which came out in 1968... one year BEFORE 'the moon landing':
Way older than 30. I am old enough to have seen the original Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo still photos (negatives, transparencies, and prints) at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston shortly after they were produced prior to Apollo 11. I was invited (along with some other high school photographers in the area) to see them by a person who worked in the photo department at NASA. I also saw much the photo equipment used in space to take the pictures. As an experienced photographer, I would be able to tell if something massively faked (creating a sphere when none really exists) by looking at the negatives (they also used some slide or transparency film instead of negatives).

The photos I saw, and the ones in the link I provided (please view them all and hit "more" to see multiple pages), are high resolution images of earth not anything like the images of 2001 A Space Odyssey you posted (which look obviously fake to me), especially when showing the intricate detail of the earth from outer space, with clouds and atmosphere. In addition, there are many motion pictures of earth taken from Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions showing that the earth and the moon are spherical (hopefully you can see curvature of the moon yourself).

Also, even though airbrushing was possible of photos, I am talking about photos showing the curvature of the earth, not just changing (usually eliminating) some minor details in the photo. Even if you think the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked (it wasn't), that does not mean the earth is not spherical (but not an absolutely perfect sphere).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,676 Posts
- ask yourself why NASA never 'went back'.. its effing 2019!
They went 6 times, and picked up moon rocks each time. The public got tired of paying for it over and over again. The TV ratings went way down after several missions to the moon, and networks no longer carried the missions live on TV.

The real purpose of the moon landing was to be first on the moon and beat the Soviet Union, as part of the public relations campaign during the cold war to win the hearts and minds of those people in the world outside the US who where trying to decide between capitalism and communism. Once you win (the first Apollo 11 landing and returning astronauts safely to earth), and go then go back 5 more times, what is the purpose?

Based on the number of socialist candidates running for President now in the US, it looks like we lost that public relations campaign, probably because many young people think the US Apollo moon landings were faked, and that socialism is as good or better than capitalism.

If the moon landings were faked, why fake it 5 more times after Apollo 11? What was the purpose in doing that?
 

·
Moderator
2014 Highlander LE
Joined
·
7,801 Posts
Discussion Starter #98 (Edited)
I didn't write the quote saying that I dont think the images were faked...

Have you Mark888, listened to the Hasselblad engineer describe what alterations he himself made on the cameras?

@mark888
I didn't see an option to click more to see more photos. And you can't go back in folder level to see any link that would take me there. Can you post the link to earth images so we can select the image vs 1 image?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,676 Posts
Have you Mark888, listened to the Hasselblad engineer describe what alterations he himself made on the cameras?
Give me a break. The mods did not affect the pictures in any way that would make a flat surface or disc look like a sphere. One of the early Mercury astronauts (Wally Shirra) bought his own consumer (unmodified) Hasselblad and took it in orbit with him to take his own photos.

This link explains the history of the Hasselblad in space starting with Shirra, and also explains the mods done later to the NASA purchased Hasselblads, mostly to reduce weight, and none of which affected the images.
https://www.hasselblad.com/history/hasselblad-in-space/

I didn't see an option to click more to see more photos. And you can go back in folder level to see any link that would take me there. Can you post the link to earth images so we can select the image vs 1 image?
Go to: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/images/index.html

Many of the images (not all of them) show the earth as a sphere. At the bottom of each page is "MORE IMAGES" to see multiple pages.
 
81 - 100 of 123 Posts
Top