The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[patrick jane]

Not true about pilots seeing the curvature. If you check, I think you might find that nasa says OVER 65 miles high to see curvature. You trust them don't you?

People have trouble grasping the FACT that the ONLY people who know or have ever known are those that have been high enough (virtually nobody) and those that may have seen a REAL unaltered photo or image. ONLY those who have seen. If that doesn't register and make sense to folks, it's not my fault. I tried to tell as many as I could.

I should add that NASA HAS crews and teams that create and photograph "sets" and man made moon, planets, craters etc. They see PIXELS from their deep space cameras and then artists and CGI folks CREATE the beautiful colors and "scenery" and the world eats it up. So NO, hundreds of thousands, millions or even thousands of honest people are NOT "in the know" and NOT "in on it".

 

[JudgeRightly]

I am trying to understand DFT. And I realized that his attitude is not unusual- just rather extreme.

Don't forget that Flat Earthers are NOT exclusive to YECs or even creationists in general. One of the leaders of the Flat Earth Society is an atheist who adheres to naturalistic evolution.

 

[chair]

Don't forget that Flat Earthers are NOT exclusive to YECs or even creationists in general. One of the leaders of the Flat Earth Society is an atheist who adheres to naturalistic evolution.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying the two concepts are related. I am saying that the thinking of the proponents of these ideas is similar.

 

[The Berean]

No, you are wrong.... all the people that had anything to do with the mission would also have to know it was a big facade. Think of all the people it would take in production, set design, location managers, and on and on and on. All of these people for every lunar mission, every mars mission, every satellite launch.... all would have to be in on the secret. It would literally be 100s of thousands of people.

Commercial airline pilots couldn't be left out. After all...they can see the curvature with their own eyes and they also create flight plans that factor in the coriolis effect. Not to mention the pilots that fly from S. Africa to Sydney. Remember them? These pilots fly in a flight path that's impossible on a flat earth. They would have to be instructed on how to lie to keep the flat earth a secret and make sure no one REALLY knew what their actual flight path was and how they could accomplish it with one tank of gas and in just 13 hours.

Knight,

I have mentioned before that I have spent 15 years designing and building large commercial geosynchronous satellites that are for cable TV, satellite phones, mobile services ,etc. ALL of these satellites are designed to orbit a spherical Earth. ALL of its Earth observing sensing technologies are designed for a spherical Earth. The antennas are designed for a spherical Earth.

As for going to the Moon, this guy pretty much debunks the fake Moon landings were filmed on a stage. The technology to do so LITERALLY did not exist in 1969.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It amazes me how many people think we actually sent men all the way to the moon and back safely. We know it happened because they showed it on black & white TV 50 years ago. We have all the data, records and every detail of those landings and missions. Oh wait, they all disappeared. All of it. No plans to ever go back cuz WE DID IT !!! We believe. We believe the pics and images, we believe the video footage and gosh darn it we went to the moon, baby !!!

I am not sure how they lost several tons of original footage as well as the technology enabling them to get back there (per Don Pettit). Why isn't it in the Smithsonian?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I should add that NASA HAS crews and teams that create and photograph "sets" and man made moon, planets, craters etc. They see PIXELS from their deep space cameras and then artists and CGI folks CREATE the beautiful colors and "scenery" and the world eats it up. So NO, hundreds of thousands, millions or even thousands of honest people are NOT "in the know" and NOT "in on it".

Do you think Nixon called the moon, allegedly 240,000 miles away, on a rotary phone in 1969?
I still have trouble getting cell reception in my back bedroom in 2018.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Sometimes a picture speaks a thousand words, FYI (to the Moderators)

 

[Sherman]

Indeed.

I have been reading these flat earth debates on this site and other websites for a couple of months now and these debates have convinced me of only one point--You can't fix stupid. I have done a lot of flying myself and the earth doesn't look like that. I see objects pop up over the horizon. They wouldn't do that if the earth was flat. Even when driving long distances, I see mountains and other landmarks pop up over the horizon. I am not convinced by this flat earth schick.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You can't fix stupid.

Respectfully, I agree.

 

[Sherman]

Respectfully, I agree.

That is an example of stupid. It's a photoshop. It even looks photoshopped.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That is an example of stupid. It's a photoshop. It even looks photoshopped.

If you say so. :chuckle:

I've got hundreds of live video feeds miles and miles up...flat.

 

[Sherman]

Instead of posting these images and youtubes until you are blue in the face, start a Go Fundme and finance a plane to fly to that ice wall you talk about and take some pictures--some actual pictures.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Instead of posting these images and youtubes until you are blue in the face, start a Go Fundme and finance a plane to fly to that ice wall you talk about and take some pictures--some actual pictures.

I can't. Have you heard of the Antarctic Treaty?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

If you say so. :chuckle:

I've got hundreds of live video feeds miles and miles up...flat.

This just brings me back to my original question from a few days ago that wasn't really addressed.


Two groups (one amateur, one NASA) send an aircraft up the same distance, in the same location.

1. Shows curve
2. Shows a flat plane

Both cannot be true. One is lying.

I suspect that the agency collecting $50 million per DAY in taxpayer money has the most incentive to lie...not the amateurs.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That is an example of stupid. It's a photoshop. It even looks photoshopped.

Indeed. A simple ELA shows the changes made to the horizon in the image using forensic tools, e.g.,
https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#error-level-analysis.

When the error level is set to max and magnified hovering about the image one can note the manipulations done to the horizon.

AMR

 

[George Affleck]

This just brings me back to my original question from a few days ago that wasn't really addressed.


Two groups (one amateur, one NASA) send an aircraft up the same distance, in the same location.

1. Shows curve
2. Shows a flat plane

Both cannot be true. One is lying.

I suspect that the agency collecting $50 million per DAY in taxpayer money has the most incentive to lie...not the amateurs.

I suggest the amateurs have the most incentive to lie.
It doesn't cost them anything.

 

[CabinetMaker]

This just brings me back to my original question from a few days ago that wasn't really addressed.


Two groups (one amateur, one NASA) send an aircraft up the same distance, in the same location.

1. Shows curve
2. Shows a flat plane

Both cannot be true. One is lying.

I suspect that the agency collecting $50 million per DAY in taxpayer money has the most incentive to lie...not the amateurs.

The amateurs have the least sophisticated equipment and a lack of understanding of all the variables involved in interpreting what they are seeing. I would say the professionals are correct and the amateurs are mistaken.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Respectfully, I agree.

Tell us about your picture. How many miles of horizon are in the photograph? Based on that, how much curvature would you expect to see? Digital pictures are measured in pixels. How much distance does each pixel represent? Based on the distance/pixel, is there sufficient resolution to be able to see the curvature you expect? A picture by itself means nothing. You need to explain what is in the picture. Where was it taken? What was the altitude and the other questions I asked above.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I can't. Have you heard of the Antarctic Treaty?

Yes and it does not prevent over flights of the continent. You might want to read what the treaty actually says before making a blanket statement about what you think is says or have heard it says. You can find it here.

 

[Clete]

I suggest the amateurs have the most incentive to lie.
It doesn't cost them anything.

Not to mention the fact that anyone with virtually any camera with nearly any wide angle lens on it can make a curved horizon look flat and vise versa. It just depends on which lens and at what angle.

In other words, it's a false dichotomy. Neither are lying, they simply use different cameras or different lenses or hold the camera at a different angle. Aim a wide angle lens above the horizon and the horizon will have a convex curve, aim the camera below the horizon and it will have a concave curve, aim it directly at the horizon and it will be flat. That is, of course, if you have a horizon that looks flat with the naked eye. If you're sufficiently above the surface to see the convex curvature of the Earth then all it takes to flatten it out is to aim your wide angle lens below the horizon line.

If anyone doubts me, just go do it. Go outside and do it right now. Any wide angle lens will do. The wider the angle the stronger the effect. A very wide angle lens can make the walls in the room you're sitting in look curved, never mind the horizon.

Clete