Did we land on the moon?

Do you believe that we landed on the moon?

  • Yes

    Votes: 81 51.6%
  • No

    Votes: 50 31.8%
  • Don't know / not sure

    Votes: 26 16.6%

  • Total voters
    157
  • Poll closed .

JTA

Pigeon
What these three intellectuals all have in common is that they all outright dismiss facts, and resort to ridicule or ad hominems.

Because, I would guess, to even reason against "flat earthers" (psyop term) would in their minds make them idiots. And their ego will not allow it.

"But muh GPS".

And NASA resorts to the same:

"But muh rockets, space stations and moon rocks and moon buggys and satellites and pictures. Duuuuh and my pear shapes and muh obloids".

Yawn.

Excellent point, ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies and commonly employed as lazy defensive arguments/counter-arguments.
 

Krieger_07

Sparrow
Excellent point, ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies and commonly employed as lazy defensive arguments/counter-arguments.
I think both sides are responsible for that. But, if you are trying to "debunk" the spherical earth theory" you'd better bring models that work and explain phenomena better than our current models, starting with little phenomena like parallax, or coriollis effect, a whole range of axioms in spherical trigonometry (whose calculations would be moot point if the earth is flat and not round, thus rendering it useless as a way to create maps and geographical systems), etc. etc.

The burden of proof is on the likes of you since the round earth theory is the basis of a lot of models used in cartography, geographical systems, astronomy etc.

As for me, spherical earth, given what I know (and I may be wrong but its unlikely) is a fact. It's up to you to prove us otherwise.

On the journey to the Moon, I'm not so sure, might have been a fraud, or a legitimate achievement. What I know is that space exploration is the last priority of our elites.
 

typtre

Robin
I think both sides are responsible for that. But, if you are trying to "debunk" the spherical earth theory" you'd better bring models that work and explain phenomena better than our current models, starting with little phenomena like parallax, or coriollis effect, a whole range of axioms in spherical trigonometry (whose calculations would be moot point if the earth is flat and not round, thus rendering it useless as a way to create maps and geographical systems), etc. etc.
The parallax claim is only theoretical. It is explained by reasonable math, but it is never observed. It is a delusion, a diversion. A truth within a lie.

giphy.gif


https://thenarrowgateweb.com/2016/12/27/27-the-stars-declare-the-truth/

Chapter 3.

The burden of proof is on the likes of you since the round earth theory is the basis of a lot of models used in cartography, geographical systems, astronomy etc.

As for me, spherical earth, given what I know (and I may be wrong but its unlikely) is a fact. It's up to you to prove us otherwise.

On the journey to the Moon, I'm not so sure, might have been a fraud, or a legitimate achievement. What I know is that space exploration is the last priority of our elites.

I would argue I have presented every statement I made with facts, proofs, and otherwise useful information, and the burden of proof now actually lies with the Globe model believers since all they do is dismiss everything outright without the faintest of genuine interest in being proved wrong or prove me wrong.

People might argue this has "derailed" the thread, while I would say this is the biggest argument of all that no one has ever gone to the moon and no one will ever go to the moon in the current narrative.
 

Krieger_07

Sparrow
The parallax claim is only theoretical. It is explained by reasonable math, but it is never observed. It is a delusion, a diversion. A truth within a lie.

giphy.gif


https://thenarrowgateweb.com/2016/12/27/27-the-stars-declare-the-truth/

Chapter 3.



I would argue I have presented every statement I made with facts, proofs, and otherwise useful information, and the burden of proof now actually lies with the Globe model believers since all they do is dismiss everything outright without the faintest of genuine interest in being proved wrong or prove me wrong.

People might argue this has "derailed" the thread, while I would say this is the biggest argument of all that no one has ever gone to the moon and no one will ever go to the moon in the current narrative.

I will read the link you posted, but it's pretty obvious I wasn't clear enough. YOU FLAT EARTHERS are the ones that have prove you are correct. Look, if flat earth is true, how come the models that calculate longitude and latitude are useful in guiding sailor and airmen to their destinations? If flat earth was a fact, NONE of those models would work at all. To prove otherwise you would have to build a whole new model using the flat earth assumptions, a model useful enough for a sailor or aircraft pilot to reach their destinations successfully across the world and explain how come latitude and longitude based models have worked so far. That's just the start. You would have to develop new models to measure land surface, since earth curvature would be an illusion. You would have to prove or rather disprove the coriollis effect, show us how spherical trigonometry is all wrong and develop new models that are more useful than the ones we currently use, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The burden of proof is on your side. The only reason I'm 99.9% confident in the spherical earth theory and not 100% is because I haven't been able to reach space and see the sphere (or flat land?) myself and probably, because I'm not a sailor. It would be useful if sailor or ex-sailor could chime in, his input would be appreciated. In the end, I think this is a distraction from the fact that right now the elite is deploying the largest array of satellites in the history of earth, a grid that will enable not only internet connection everywhere but also tracking and tracing everywhere...
 

typtre

Robin
I will read the link you posted, but it's pretty obvious I wasn't clear enough. YOU FLAT EARTHERS are the ones that have prove you are correct. Look, if flat earth is true, how come the models that calculate longitude and latitude are useful in guiding sailor and airmen to their destinations? If flat earth was a fact, NONE of those models would work at all. To prove otherwise you would have to build a whole new model using the flat earth assumptions, a model useful enough for a sailor or aircraft pilot to reach their destinations successfully across the world and explain how come latitude and longitude based models have worked so far. That's just the start. You would have to develop new models to measure land surface, since earth curvature would be an illusion. You would have to prove or rather disprove the coriollis effect, show us how spherical trigonometry is all wrong and develop new models that are more useful than the ones we currently use, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The burden of proof is on your side. The only reason I'm 99.9% confident in the spherical earth theory and not 100% is because I haven't been able to reach space and see the sphere (or flat land?) myself and probably, because I'm not a sailor. It would be useful if sailor or ex-sailor could chime in, his input would be appreciated. In the end, I think this is a distraction from the fact that right now the elite is deploying the largest array of satellites in the history of earth, a grid that will enable not only internet connection everywhere but also tracking and tracing everywhere...

You were perfectly clear, and I understand why you think the way you do, because that is where I started (however I started with Gravity). But allow me to Captain Hindsight and tell you that you (and many others) are in the wrong starting position. The only ones dealing with models instead of reality are The Scientists from the Church of Science, Bankers, and Central Planners.

What makes you think longitude and latitude cannot work on a flat plane?
While on the topic of navigation, I will briefly mention the North Star (Polaris), which has never moved, despite parallaxes and Earth's supposed breakneck speed through the vastness of Space.

The revised Hipparcos parallax gives a distance to Polaris of about 433 light-years (133 parsecs), while calculations by some other methods derive distances up to 35% closer.
That is some real Science...


The truth is hidden in plain sight.

Italian physicist and radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi succeeds in sending the first radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean, disproving detractors who told him that the curvature of the earth would limit transmission to 200 miles or less.

The scientists who developed radar in WWII said the same thing, the radar will not work because curvature. It worked, so it was then explained by ionosphere bouncing or some other baloney. This is important, because it was built and then explained away. What about sonar? What does sonar bounce against?

The red bull guy, who made the highest jump, is the most obvious proof by observation the coriolis effect is false and never used in anything of importance. They guy just went straight up, did not drift, and ended up where he took off instead of miles and countries away. But, lets have a look at what Wikipedia has to say, which is quite telling:


In physics, the Coriolis force is an inertial or fictitious force[1] that acts on objects that are in motion within a frame of reference that rotates with respect to an inertial frame. In a reference frame with clockwise rotation, the force acts to the left of the motion of the object. In one with anticlockwise (or counterclockwise) rotation, the force acts to the right. Deflection of an object due to the Coriolis force is called the Coriolis effect.
A fictitious force, eh?

A fictitious force (also called a pseudo force) is a force that appears to act on a mass whose motion is described using a non-inertial frame of reference, such as an accelerating or rotating reference frame.
A force that appears to act, eh?

How great is Science!

But this is already taking the discussion of proof in the wrong direction.
We should start by looking at the fact that the curvature is never observed, and any questions regarding other fancy explanations derived from the assumption of a Globe model should be left for later. Neil deIdiot Tyson would say "oh, but you are so tiny how can you see curvature" at which point we can turn to math and high powered optical instruments. But this always seems to be where dishonesty enters the scene, and as we just saw, Science has a real problem with math and logical deduction.

This is why I say the burden of proof is now with the ones telling us there is a curvature (and hence, a Globe).
 

typtre

Robin
I would like to add that I have a bachelors degree in aeronautical engineering and I fly sail planes and simulators in my spare time which would in my humble opinion qualify myself as an airman.
 

asdf

Robin
I would like to add that I have a bachelors degree in aeronautical engineering and I fly sail planes and simulators in my spare time which would in my humble opinion qualify myself as an airman.
So your proof is "the red bull guy", a snarky comment about "fictitious force"(which you included the definition and still managed to misunderstand the meaning), and comments about radar technology when it was in its infancy and still being developed (you can find many comments about the principles of flight being impossible when it was first being developed).
 

typtre

Robin
What would happen if you fly over the edge and what is on the other side of the earth?
You would be shot down by the countries that agreed in 1952 by the United Nations Antarctic Treaty that no one is allowed to freely pass the 60 degree parallel (where the flat earth on the UN flag ends) and is still enforced to this day. Antarctica is the final frontier and no one is allowed to freely explore. I cannot answer you.

640px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png


So your proof is "the red bull guy", a snarky comment about "fictitious force"(which you included the definition and still managed to misunderstand the meaning), and comments about radar technology when it was in its infancy and still being developed (you can find many comments about the principles of flight being impossible when it was first being developed).
I merely pointed out to Krieger_07 who wanted to know how the flat earth can explain diffuse "scientific" phenomena, such as the (ficticious) coriolis effect. A force which is never used anywhere and never observed anywhere.

I did not misunderstand. I think you missed the point. They said you cannot radio across the Atlantic, the transmission will be lost to space. They said you cannot spot the German bombers in time for the fighters to prepare, they will be behind the Earths curvature. But evidentally, the transmission worked. The bombers were spotted well in time. Radar still works. Why is that?

I will add that radar in its infancy is built on the same principle applied today, and now I question whether you understand radar at all.
The fundamentals of radar has not changed. The point is not radar. The point is curvature. And the apparent lack of it.
 
Last edited:
You would be shot down by the countries that agreed in 1952 by the United Nations Antarctic Treaty that no one is allowed to freely pass the 60 degree parallel (where the flat earth on the UN flag ends) and is still enforced to this day. Antarctica is the final frontier and no one is allowed to freely explore. I cannot answer you.

640px-Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg.png
If you fly west on the equator will you reach Antarctica, too?
 

typtre

Robin
If you fly west on the equator will you reach Antarctica, too?
No, you will fly in a circle. If you fly "South", you will end up in Antarctica.

Aha! Flat Earth disproved!

Hold up.



I will add a counter position to myself:
This guy seems honest, but he is also confused.


Essentially, for the ones not willing to do their own due diligence, this should provide the zero sum game everyone is looking for and we can return to baseline. Curvature.
 
Last edited:

Krieger_07

Sparrow
You were perfectly clear, and I understand why you think the way you do, because that is where I started (however I started with Gravity). But allow me to Captain Hindsight and tell you that you (and many others) are in the wrong starting position. The only ones dealing with models instead of reality are The Scientists from the Church of Science, Bankers, and Central Planners.

What makes you think longitude and latitude cannot work on a flat plane?
While on the topic of navigation, I will briefly mention the North Star (Polaris), which has never moved, despite parallaxes and Earth's supposed breakneck speed through the vastness of Space.


That is some real Science...


The truth is hidden in plain sight.



The scientists who developed radar in WWII said the same thing, the radar will not work because curvature. It worked, so it was then explained by ionosphere bouncing or some other baloney. This is important, because it was built and then explained away. What about sonar? What does sonar bounce against?

The red bull guy, who made the highest jump, is the most obvious proof by observation the coriolis effect is false and never used in anything of importance. They guy just went straight up, did not drift, and ended up where he took off instead of miles and countries away. But, lets have a look at what Wikipedia has to say, which is quite telling:



A fictitious force, eh?


A force that appears to act, eh?

How great is Science!

But this is already taking the discussion of proof in the wrong direction.
We should start by looking at the fact that the curvature is never observed, and any questions regarding other fancy explanations derived from the assumption of a Globe model should be left for later. Neil deIdiot Tyson would say "oh, but you are so tiny how can you see curvature" at which point we can turn to math and high powered optical instruments. But this always seems to be where dishonesty enters the scene, and as we just saw, Science has a real problem with math and logical deduction.

This is why I say the burden of proof is now with the ones telling us there is a curvature (and hence, a Globe).

Thank you for your response. I will not answer more here since this thread is for another topic so I guess the next response you will have from me would be from another thread regarding this topic. Hence, I will go straight to the point:

What makes you think longitude and latitude cannot work on a flat plane?

Well, latitude and longitude measurements are based on the premise the Earth is ROUND since they are spherical coordinates https://cs.nyu.edu/visual/home/proj/tiger/gisfaq.html . Latitude was discovered in antiquity since ancient greeks already thought earth to be round. Longitude could only be calculated using the assumption of a round earth. You are welcome to show us a working model that enables us to calculated distances accurately across long distances using assumptions derived from the flat earth theory. If such a thing is possible, then we have to check our assumptions. The burden of proof is on you not on models that have been useful for hundreds of years.

While on the topic of navigation, I will briefly mention the North Star (Polaris), which has never moved, despite parallaxes and Earth's supposed breakneck speed through the vastness of Space.

WEll, if my memory serves, parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines. In the article you cited, about pollaris, explains that the stars motionlessness is more an ilussion than a fact, due to its location in the sky (lying nearly in a direct line with the Earth's rotational axis "above" the North Pole). Granted, they could be wrong but the article doesn't say what you state.

Fictitious force in no way is described as a mental construct, as explained in this article: https://infogalactic.com/info/Fictitious_force

As I said before, there are literally THOUSANDS of phenomena that would need to be explained away or reformulated if flat earth theory is correct. If Flat earth theory is correct, even the way we measure distances is incorrect and re-calculations would be in order. I'm not saying it's not possible, but without compelling evidence (like sailors navigating using methods based on flat earth assumptions and reaching their stated destinations, ditto for airmen, etc.) flat earth theory is a tough sell... Look, even maps would have to re-designed, since current "flat maps" are conversions from spherical coordinates you flat earthers would have to prove how those maps were useful since they are so wrong. Let alone computer models based on those assumptions... And that's just for starters, let alone other phenomena, like the fact that no one (that we know of)has fallen from the edge of the world; after all, if I were to navigate from america in a round the world maritime journey, east, through Europe, Africa, Asia, the Pacific and later on the Western coast of Americas, at some point I should have fallen or seen the edge of the earth...after all such a trip should impossible in a flat earth or am I wrong?

BTW thank you for the post, It made examine a lot of ideas and concepts I knew little or nothing about.
 
Last edited:

Krieger_07

Sparrow
On the topic at hand, the real one, personally, I wouldn't be surprised if humans never reached the moon, at least in the date and manner stated so far. It's curious the Russians and no other nation so far has publicly reached the moon and built bases there like it has happened in the Antarctic. Some reasons for this might be:

1. They never reached the moon, it was all a farce to beat the USSR in a Cold War contest.
2. Maybe we have reached the moon....and built bases with doomsday weapons at the ready...
3. Maybe the Astronauts saw something they didn't expect (Aliens? Radiation they couldn't bear for more than a few hours? etc.)
4. Maybe it's all too expensive and with no immediate profit opportunities and thus no financial viability.
5. Maybe it's spiritual rot, a decadent society rarely undertakes hard or complex projects and the western world was already on its way down in the 60s and in later years, society cohesion and other factors would not allow it to maintain basic infrastructure, let alone reach the stars...
6. Cognitive decline: Across the developed world, IQs are on the wane, at least according to multiple sources (studies, anecdotes, declining scores and the need to revise and lower standards) and I may add the same situation is happening in most of the third world but that's just based on my opinion in Hispanic America. Causes can be multiple: environmental toxins, hypotrophy due to the massive automation of tasks and the loss of ever more mind related capacities (can you calculate 25 x 25 in your head? or pocket change in a regular basis?), destruction of attention spans thanks to certain technologies, reduction of births (if less people are born, due to contraception and abortion, specially amongst high IQ peoples, in all likelihood potential high IQ children are being avoided or murdered, thus reducing the number of high IQ (115 and upwards) people from a population group which is ALREADY A MINORITY IN EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH thus reducing their share in the population. While low IQ peoples are affected by contraception and abortion, they already are a majority of births under natural conditions. Thus, if low IQ people increase their share everywhere and high IQ people are killing themselves with contraception and abortion, well, dysgenic effects ensue....
7. The elites (western ones at least) are not interested all in space exploration, specially when they are engaged in turning Earth into a prison planet.

Maybe it's a combination of all those factors. The next years will be interesting since China promised they will launch a manned mission to the Moon.
 

typtre

Robin
Thank you for your response. I will not answer more here since this thread is for another topic so I guess the next response you will have from me would be from another thread regarding this topic.
Probably for the best.
Well, latitude and longitude measurements are based on the premise the Earth is ROUND since they are spherical coordinates. Longitude could only be calculated using the assumption of a round earth. You are welcome to show us a working model that enables us to calculated distances accurately across long distances using assumptions derived from the flat earth theory. If such a thing is possible, then we have to check our assumptions. The burden of proof is on you not on models that have been useful for hundreds of years.
From: Bob Chamberlain <[email protected]> Really? You are gonna use these guys as a source? ;)

I will point to the WGS, which is a common reference system used in GPS, for maps, etc., across the world. Take a look at their map, and notice the shape. An area can always be chosen according to ones needs and converted into coordinates, alas you have yourself a reference system. There are countless variations of reference systems as you will see. It is just math. Lets leave it at that.

And that's just for starters, let alone other phenomena, like the fact that no one (that we know of)has fallen from the edge of the world; after all, if I were to navigate from america in a round the world maritime journey, east, through Europe, Africa, Asia, the Pacific and later on the Western coast of Americas, at some point I should have fallen or seen the edge of the earth...after all such a trip should impossible in a flat earth or am I wrong?
Clue: Can you find someone who navigated the Globe north to south without big Moon Landing holes in their story?

If you ever read on the page I provided with stars and parallaxes, take a look at the chapter of Another Brick in the Wall. The start of the edge has been seen, but it has been memory holed, and today it is forbidden to go there and explore.

This coast of Victoria Land was a grand scene of glaciers launching their gigantic ends into the sea. From the coastline, where the walls of ice stood as sheer cliffs hundreds of feet high

BTW thank you for the post, It made examine a lot of ideas and concepts I knew little or nothing about.
Excellent! I want a nation of thinkers, not a nation of workers. As opposed to what Rockerfeller wanted.

It's curious the Russians and no other nation so far has publicly reached the moon and built bases there like it has happened in the Antarctic.
Really makes you think...
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member
I would like to add that I have a bachelors degree in aeronautical engineering and I fly sail planes and simulators in my spare time which would in my humble opinion qualify myself as an airman.

BS. Now I'm pretty sure that you're a shill, because no engineer could buy into that psyop, especially not an aerospace engineer.

This BTW is NOT a flat earth thread, so don't contaminate it with your disinfo. Stick to the topic on hand.
 
Top