The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[Greg Jennings]

You're the one who didn't watch the video. Orion passes though the belts into outer space and then must pass through them on the way back to earth, nothing there about three weeks in the radiation belt.

--Dave

Have you watched my videos yet Dave? I wasted 70 minutes that I will never get back watching yours because you said you'd watch mine - totaling 15 minutes - in return.

Well?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Have you watched my videos yet Dave? I wasted 70 minutes that I will never get back watching yours because you said you'd watch mine - totaling 15 minutes - in return.

Well?

Nothing to say about the moon module?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Have you watched my videos yet Dave? I wasted 70 minutes that I will never get back watching yours because you said you'd watch mine - totaling 15 minutes - in return.

Well?

Yes, I watched, the amount and degree of flag waving is not due to the manipulation of the twisting of the pole. So the experiment was not a duplication of the event that supposedly took place on the moon.

But that is only one anomaly, there many all of taken together show a staged event.

My favorite is the moon module, and the absence of a crater under it and dirt on the landing pads that would have been there from the rocket blast as the module landed.

See pic and explain it.

--Dave

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yes, I watched, the amount and degree of flag waving is not due to the manipulation of the twisting of the pole. So the experiment was not a duplication of the event that supposedly took place on the moon.

But that is only one anomaly, there many all of taken together show a staged event.

My favorite is the moon module, and the absence of a crater under it and dirt on the landing pads that would have been there from the rocket blast as the module landed.

See pic and explain it.

--Dave

You simply couldn't have understood the moon video if that's your honest conclusion. Did you watch the one I posted that is a step-by-step refutation of your "10 reasons video"? Every single piece of "empirical evidence for a flat earth" is explained. It's 12 minutes. You should watch it

 

[DFT_Dave]

You simply couldn't have understood the moon video if that's your honest conclusion. Did you watch the one I posted that is a step-by-step refutation of your "10 reasons video"? Every single piece of "empirical evidence for a flat earth" is explained. It's 12 minutes. You should watch it

I looked back at every post, I posted a video "10 reasons why people think the moon landing was a hoax", which gives both sides of the story. You responded with a video that dealt only with the flag waving.

Can you address the module problem?

--Dave

 

[Town Heretic]

Nothing to say about the moon module?

--Dave

Here's a pretty good rebuttal. Essentially, you have to understand the forces in play:

The lunar module (LM) descent stage engine had a maximum thrust of 9870 ft-lb, but this was throttleable back to a minimum of 1050 ft-lb. Sounds like a lot. But, the diameter of the nozzle was 63 inches, which is an area of about 3120 in². Dividing this into the force (thrust) and you have a pressure range of 0.4-3.2 ft-lb/in², otherwise known as psi. This is equivalent to the metric 2760-22,100 N/m². But let’s stick with psi.

​

​

Anyone who owns a car probably knows that this is already significantly less than your tire pressure … by a factor of 10-100. When Apollo 11 landed, the thrust was down to about 1/3 of max, so down to around 1 psi.


Now let’s look at the average adult footstep: The average non-American weighs around 150 lbs. The average human footprint is around 50 in² (don’t believe me? do the math yourself!). Divide the first into the second and you have the average human footstep exerting a simple 3 psi.


This is 3x larger than Apollo’s engines!!


The very fact that the astronauts walking on the moon did not create “blast craters” underneath them should be explanation enough as to why the engine did not create a blast crater under it — the pressure was simply too low. - Exposing Pseudo Astronomy, 2009 (link) ​

A blast crater wouldn't make any sense.

 

[Town Heretic]

NASA engineer, "Orion will pass through the Van Allen Belts. An area of dangerous radiation. Shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges 'before' we send people through this region of space.

Funny thing. It looks like this NASA guy never heard of the Apollo missions that had no problem passing through the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

The article I linked to dealt with the belts, concerns and testing utilized, as well as the results of that testing. Radiation in those belts isn't uniform. From the article you apparently never read:

The first recommendations for dealing with the Van Allen belts on a possible mission to the Moon came in the summer of 1960. Robert O. Piland and Stanley C. White of NASA’s Space Task Group presented their research into the problem at a meeting in Washington. It would be impracticable to shield astronauts against the high radiation environment of the inner Van Allen belt, they said, but a moderate amount of protection could feasibly protect a crew from the outer van Allen belt...[FONT=&quot]By February of 1964, NASA was confident that Apollo crews would be passing through the belts fast enough that the spacecraft’s skin and all the instrumentation lining the walls would be enough protection.​

- Apollo Rocketed Through the Van Allen Belts, Popular Science, Sept. 19, 2014 (link)​

[/FONT]

Yes, you seem to follow those who say, "ignore your senses and logic and believe what we tell you", despite the many contradictions they present us with.

Senses yes, where they aren't supported by reason. Many a mirage and conspiracy theory look substantive from a distance, but fail upon serious and close consideration, like the theories you've been sold. On some level you know that, or you wouldn't go out of your way to avoid fairly straight forward consideration of the near inherent absurdity/improbability of a global conspiracy on the point, outside the authoritative address and dismissal of scientific understanding.

Your theory rests on the back of a giant turtle, after a fashion.

 

[JudgeRightly]

A circle is not a ball.

--Dave

Ancient Hebrew (not sure about modern Hebrew) did not have a word for "sphere," so the word for circle was used.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

There are basic laws of physics that help us see the flaws of evolution, yet, for one reason or another, many Christians and well meaning people, still believe in evolution.

There are many flaws that violate laws of physics in the moon landing account that prove it was staged. For example, there is absolutely no moisture on the moons surface so there should be no well defined foot prints. The surface would be like hot dry sand on the beach.

The blast from the rocket engine while landing would have created a small crater underneath the lander and a lot of dust would have been visible on the landing pads, yet neither exist.

And there's much more, so these events must be looked at. We have been lied to about an earth that has evolved, we are being lied to about multi-universes, and I suspect we are being lied to about outer space and the moon landings.

A theory of physics that is relativity, is no different to me than a morality that is relativity, if you get my point.

--Dave

You should watch the Mythbuster's moon specials episodes. They tackle these issues and others.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

The clearly defined foot prints would be impossible on a planet with no moisture on it. The foot prints would be undefined like when we walk on dry sand.

View attachment 25092

--Dave

 

[Town Heretic]

The clearly defined foot prints would be impossible on a planet with no moisture on it. The foot prints would be undefined like when we walk on dry sand.

View attachment 25092

That's our Dave, just keep putting them out and moving along. lain: At this point all you're sustaining is the notion that flat earthers wouldn't leave footprints on any surface.

Okay, let's address the Dave Cosnette bit. Footprints hold their shape in a couple of ways. One way, the way FE adherents ignore, occurs when the substance is composed of elements that can hold a shape by their nature, interlocking in the way flour will. Regolith, the substance we're speaking to on the moon, is essentially pulverized rock shards. It is a good bet to hold an impression when disturbed. Water need not enter into it.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Here's a pretty good rebuttal. Essentially, you have to understand the forces in play:

The lunar module (LM) descent stage engine had a maximum thrust of 9870 ft-lb, but this was throttleable back to a minimum of 1050 ft-lb. Sounds like a lot. But, the diameter of the nozzle was 63 inches, which is an area of about 3120 in². Dividing this into the force (thrust) and you have a pressure range of 0.4-3.2 ft-lb/in², otherwise known as psi. This is equivalent to the metric 2760-22,100 N/m². But let’s stick with psi.

​

​

Anyone who owns a car probably knows that this is already significantly less than your tire pressure … by a factor of 10-100. When Apollo 11 landed, the thrust was down to about 1/3 of max, so down to around 1 psi.


Now let’s look at the average adult footstep: The average non-American weighs around 150 lbs. The average human footprint is around 50 in² (don’t believe me? do the math yourself!). Divide the first into the second and you have the average human footstep exerting a simple 3 psi.


This is 3x larger than Apollo’s engines!!


The very fact that the astronauts walking on the moon did not create “blast craters” underneath them should be explanation enough as to why the engine did not create a blast crater under it — the pressure was simply too low. - Exposing Pseudo Astronomy, 2009 (link) ​

A blast crater wouldn't make any sense.

How much did the lunar module weigh?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

That's our Dave, just keep putting them out and moving along. lain: At this point all you're sustaining is the notion that flat earthers wouldn't leave footprints on any surface.

Okay, let's address the Dave Cosnette bit. Footprints hold their shape in a couple of ways. One way, the way FE adherents ignore, occurs when the substance is composed of elements that can hold a shape by their nature, interlocking in the way flour will. Regolith, the substance we're speaking to on the moon, is essentially pulverized rock shards. It is a good bet to hold an impression when disturbed. Water need not enter into it.

Notice from this short video of astronauts walking on the moon all the dust, dirt, sand, they kid up into the air.

--Dave

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=sfp&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=omr&p=video+of+astronaut+walking+on+the+moon#id=2&vid=edaa7507d6d92cccd2ed036a439fa487&action=click

 

[Town Heretic]

How much did the lunar module weigh?

--Dave

And the goal posts keep moving. Has nothing to do with a blast crater.

The spacecraft mass of 15,065 kg was the mass of the LM including astronauts, propellants and expendables. Of course, that's here, not there.

 

[DFT_Dave]

And the goal posts keep moving. Has nothing to do with a blast crater.

The spacecraft mass of 15,065 kg was the mass of the LM including astronauts, propellants and expendables. Of course, that's here, not there.

The lunar module was about 13,000 lbs.

The astronauts weight with suits would be about 200 to 300 lbs I would suspect.

The 300 lb astronauts kick up dust as they walk and run on the moons surface and leave deep clear footprints, but a 13,000 lb module descending at a greater speed than the astronauts can run slowed by the thrust of an engine so it does not crash leaves no mark of any kind on the moons surface.

I own a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to anyone for a great price who believes we went to the moon.

--Dave

 

[chair]

And the goal posts keep moving. Has nothing to do with a blast crater.

The spacecraft mass of 15,065 kg was the mass of the LM including astronauts, propellants and expendables. Of course, that's here, not there.

If you want to be 100% accurate- the mass is the same of the earth as on the moon. The weight is different.

 

[gcthomas]

The lunar module was about 13,000 lbs.

The astronauts weight with suits would be about 200 to 300 lbs I would suspect.

The 300 lb astronauts kick up dust as they walk and run on the moons surface and leave deep clear footprints, but a 13,000 lb module descending at a greater speed than the astronauts can run slowed by the thrust of an engine so it does not crash leaves no mark of any kind on the moons surface.

I own a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to anyone for a great price who believes we went to the moon.

--Dave

I would really suggest that you familiarise yourself with Newtonian Physics. Your comments uniformly avoid any discussion of forces, which is essential for this thread. Many of the comments intended to clarify things for you make use of force concepts, but they have all gone over your head, as you respond using some ideas around motion vitalism.

Would you like me to find some Newtonian Physics resources so you can get to a level where you can understand the arguments?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Daft Dave,

If the Earth is not a globe, why does the rainbow reflect a half circle? Why does the moon and sun light up one side of the Flat Earth? Why always a 180°, half of 360°?? We can tell by the satellites that we send up to revolve around the Round Earth!! Where are you coming up with this Flat Earth stuff? Dave, I thought you must know better. You always seemed to be so smart to me. But you aren't, evidently. C'mon!! Are you serious??!

May God Show You The Truth,

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

The clearly defined foot prints would be impossible on a planet with no moisture on it. The foot prints would be undefined like when we walk on dry sand.

View attachment 25092

--Dave

The regolith 'soil' is electrically charged from solar radiation, so it binds to itself. The astronauts had problems getting the stuff of their space suits when reentering the LEM.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The regolith 'soil' is electrically charged from solar radiation, so it binds to itself. The astronauts had problems getting the stuff of their space suits when reentering the LEM.

Funny how none of it got on the LEM when it landed. It was on the astronauts shoes but not on the landing pads.

--Dave