there was also an ico project to raise funds for a rocket to see what the earth really is. who knows what end?
Sounds like a scam for gullible investors to me.
Topic: Did we actually really land on moon? - page 21. (Read 7469 times)
Sounds like a scam for gullible investors to me.
there was also an ico project to raise funds for a rocket to see what the earth really is. who knows what end?
Sounds like a scam for gullible investors to me.
Was the rocket to be pointed up, or down?
there was also an ico project to raise funds for a rocket to see what the earth really is. who knows what end?
Sounds like a scam for gullible investors to me.
there was also an ico project to raise funds for a rocket to see what the earth really is. who knows what end?
....Do all three sides of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, hell yes....
What if you measured the three corners and they didn't add to 180? What would you do?I know what he'd do. He'd flatten the earth out so that they WOULD add up to 180 degrees.
So because of hilly terrain, I do think three D trig and the 180 degree triangle issue must be considered.
And since we've got to stop those zombie hordes, the accuracy provided by 3d trig ballistics targeting is very important. Our tank and howitzer crews are ready to fight the zombies, but they can't do it with just their eyeballs.
That's kinda a secondary point. Nothing that we know of is flat. Everything, macro or micro, winds up being spheres, globes, or some other shape. Nothing is flat. When you view flat water under a microscope, it isn't really flat. The flat glass slide you view the flat water on isn't really flat... if you magnify it enough. Everything has humps and low points, mountains and valleys. Flat earth isn't flat anywhere.
The point is, the FE people have been duped into the idea of flat earth. Whatever the shape of the earth, it certainly isn't flat. And given all the liquids that attempt to form themselves into a sort-of spherical shape when tossed into the air, even if there was a dome, the water outside it would be a big sphere. So the earth would be a big sphere inside it.
Since this simple point alone shows that FE people are all mixed up, let's get on with reasons why NASA wouldn't want us to see the real videos of their moon landings, and would have stage-created some videos that were specifically faked for the public.
....Do all three sides of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, hell yes....
What if you measured the three corners and they didn't add to 180? What would you do?I know what he'd do. He'd flatten the earth out so that they WOULD add up to 180 degrees.
So because of hilly terrain, I do think three D trig and the 180 degree triangle issue must be considered.
And since we've got to stop those zombie hordes, the accuracy provided by 3d trig ballistics targeting is very important. Our tank and howitzer crews are ready to fight the zombies, but they can't do it with just their eyeballs.
....Do all three sides of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, hell yes....
What if you measured the three corners and they didn't add to 180? What would you do?I know what he'd do. He'd flatten the earth out so that they WOULD add up to 180 degrees.
^^^ Well, I don't have to ask why you refuse to acknowledge that the horizon is crated by the angular resolution limit of the "eye" being used; Earth curvature falsified....
>>> garbage pictures deleted
There could be multiple reasons why the horizon is seen by the eye.
A) earth curvature
B) hilly terrain
C) rising terrain
D) massive clouds of locusts or angry bees creating an apparent horizon
E) In the ocean while sailing, synchronized jumping of millions of fish into the air at the same time
F) A giant tsunami coming toward you hundreds of feet high, either on land or water
G) Massive flows of molten lava from deep underground create a horizon that moves toward you that you want to move away from
H) A giant mess of dirt and former civilization coming toward you, formed by the impact of a 300 meter wide asteroid a thousand miles away.
But this one is my favorite.
I) Place a row of girls in bikinis some distance away, and however far away they are, 5, 10 50 or 100 feet, that's the horizon.
None of these involve the angular resolution limit of the human eye.
....Do all three sides of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, hell yes....
What if you measured the three corners and they didn't add to 180? What would you do?
^^^ Well, I don't have to ask why you refuse to acknowledge that the horizon is crated by the angular resolution limit of the "eye" being used; Earth curvature falsified.
If you can't understand that for example, railroad tracks are parallel and don't physically converge in the distance, why am I arguing with a moron who can't understand what optical phenomena is? Are you really a fool or do you just play one on TV?
You change the subject from something I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to, subjects that I have to theorize about and, that somebody who's completely brainwashed with the heliocentric Copernican model of the universe would conciser absolutely absurd; 2 mile tall giants and the holographic Sun and Moon.
You clearly have no interest in being intellectually honest, facts and or God forbid the truth. Do all three sides of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, hell yes, but that's fucking irrelevant if I've proven that your precious curvature is nothing but optical convergence!
Image source: ODD TV
If you can't understand that for example, railroad tracks are parallel and don't physically converge in the distance, why am I arguing with a moron who can't understand what optical phenomena is? Are you really a fool or do you just play one on TV?
You change the subject from something I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to, subjects that I have to theorize about and, that somebody who's completely brainwashed with the heliocentric Copernican model of the universe would conciser absolutely absurd; 2 mile tall giants and the holographic Sun and Moon.
You clearly have no interest in being intellectually honest, facts and or God forbid the truth. Do all three sides of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, hell yes, but that's fucking irrelevant if I've proven that your precious curvature is nothing but optical convergence!
Image source: ODD TV
^^^ The Moon is a holographic projection made of plasma, so obviously if the ocean is cooling the projector solenoids it's not being towed around by an aircraft. Thanks for strawmanning my arguments, I'm sure everybody appreciates your honesty...
@nutty, you're an idiot!
The Earth is round, it's a circular plain. Also, believing that water can stick to a spinning sphere in vacuum is embarrassingly moronic IMO, an impossible flywheel with a 4,000 mile radius and a 1,000 MPH rim speed no less.
The Earth is an engineered structure with artificial lighting.
>>> deleted garbage image
@nutty, you're an idiot!
The Earth is round, it's a circular plain. Also, believing that water can stick to a spinning sphere in vacuum is embarrassingly moronic IMO, an impossible flywheel with a 4,000 mile radius and a 1,000 MPH rim speed no less.
The Earth is an engineered structure with artificial lighting.
>>> deleted garbage image
When are you going to share some of that great stuff you been smoking? I think maybe I don't want any...
Since you've got it all figured out that the Earth is a circular plain why don't you want to use three dimensional trig? Seems like it would be very useful.
In your world do the legs of a triangle add up to 180 degrees or less or more?
^^^ The Moon is a holographic projection made of plasma, so obviously if the ocean is cooling the projector solenoids it's not being towed around by an aircraft. Thanks for strawmanning my arguments, I'm sure everybody appreciates your honesty...
@nutty, you're an idiot!
The Earth is round, it's a circular plain. Also, believing that water can stick to a spinning sphere in vacuum is embarrassingly moronic IMO, an impossible flywheel with a 4,000 mile radius and a 1,000 MPH rim speed no less.
The Earth is an engineered structure with artificial lighting.
Image source: The Truman Show (1998)
@nutty, you're an idiot!
The Earth is round, it's a circular plain. Also, believing that water can stick to a spinning sphere in vacuum is embarrassingly moronic IMO, an impossible flywheel with a 4,000 mile radius and a 1,000 MPH rim speed no less.
The Earth is an engineered structure with artificial lighting.
Image source: The Truman Show (1998)
...
Tides are caused by some water pumping machine that cools the sun projector? That's pretty fucking lame dude. Creative, yet still embarrassing to profess as something you actually believe.
Tides are caused by some water pumping machine that cools the sun projector? That's pretty fucking lame dude. Creative, yet still embarrassing to profess as something you actually believe.
Don't forget the two mile high Titans who built the dome over our small flat space.
Or the 32 mile wide image that's the Moon being moved around in the sky by some airplane-thingy.
The Universe is replete with mystery.
These clowns have nothing; nutildah is frothing at the mouth over the bible and, spendy seems to think that railroad tracks actually converge in the distance while proclaiming the ophthalmology textbook description of a normal eye is in error.
It's a clown world after all folks!
It's a clown world after all folks!
<<< garbage images deleted
You're putting the cart before the horse here (Porsche not withstanding), as I stated before the globe and thus the Copernican model's large heavy ball Moon are dead in the water as soon as the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile is defined. This is before any celestial measurements are made with the sextant.
How is the ratio defined you ask? Since we will be measuring objects with a sextant using the human eye, the ratio is defined by the angular resolution limit of the human eye being 1 minute. This equates to being able to see a 1 foot object at a maximum distance of 1/2 nautical miles. Beyond 1/2 nautical miles, objects 1 foot and smaller can not be seen; objects in the field of view converge to a point at 1/2 nautical miles.
If we place the human eye 1 foot above ground (observably a plain), all objects will converge to the vanishing point at a distance of 1 nautical mile. Since we are above a plain the vanishing point will form a line i.e. the horizon.
The horizon is shown here to be an optical phenomenon thus, if the resolution limit changes due to using a zoom lens or, the height above ground changes (angle of attack) then, the distance objects converge to a point at (the horizon) changes also.
The globe model requires that the horizon is a physical barrier (the theoretical curve) that can only change in distance based on the viewers height. The distance to the horizon on a globe is (((coincidentally))) the same distance to the horizon as based on the human eye but, if a zoom lens is employed and the resolution limit is changed to any other value than 1 minute then, the model breaks down and is falsified.
So there you have it, the globe and Copernican models are falsified and we can start measuring objects and distances with our sextant. Any questions?
The horizon line is created inside the eye i.e. it's an optical phenomenon. If the resolution limit is changed to another value from 1 minute i.e. by the use of a zoom lens, the distance to the horizon changes.
If the distance to the horizon changes depending on the "eye" being used, then the horizon is not a physical object i.e. there's no curve. Why can't you get this through your fucking skull?
Because my skull is too fucking intelligent?"...In fact, I don't think it (resolution limit of the eye)† has any relation to anything at all. No relation to calculating distances whatsoever. So why do you keep posting it? Measurement of distances and their relative positions is not limited by the human eye, that is why we have instruments, to be more precise than our natural senses..."
† added by me for clarity."...You already stated 1 degree = ~60 nautical miles in the flat earth thread and guess what, the Moon measures 32'..."
"...At sixty feet, one degree of arc is about one foot wide. So this 1:60 ratio applies, and at 3600 miles, 1 degree would sweep 60 miles..."You're putting the cart before the horse here (Porsche not withstanding), as I stated before the globe and thus the Copernican model's large heavy ball Moon are dead in the water as soon as the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile is defined. This is before any celestial measurements are made with the sextant.
How is the ratio defined you ask? Since we will be measuring objects with a sextant using the human eye, the ratio is defined by the angular resolution limit of the human eye being 1 minute. This equates to being able to see a 1 foot object at a maximum distance of 1/2 nautical miles. Beyond 1/2 nautical miles, objects 1 foot and smaller can not be seen; objects in the field of view converge to a point at 1/2 nautical miles.
If we place the human eye 1 foot above ground (observably a plain), all objects will converge to the vanishing point at a distance of 1 nautical mile. Since we are above a plain the vanishing point will form a line i.e. the horizon.
The horizon is shown here to be an optical phenomenon thus, if the resolution limit changes due to using a zoom lens or, the height above ground changes (angle of attack) then, the distance objects converge to a point at (the horizon) changes also.
The globe model requires that the horizon is a physical barrier (the theoretical curve) that can only change in distance based on the viewers height. The distance to the horizon on a globe is (((coincidentally))) the same distance to the horizon as based on the human eye but, if a zoom lens is employed and the resolution limit is changed to any other value than 1 minute then, the model breaks down and is falsified.
So there you have it, the globe and Copernican models are falsified and we can start measuring objects and distances with our sextant. Any questions?
The horizon line is created inside the eye i.e. it's an optical phenomenon. If the resolution limit is changed to another value from 1 minute i.e. by the use of a zoom lens, the distance to the horizon changes.
If the distance to the horizon changes depending on the "eye" being used, then the horizon is not a physical object i.e. there's no curve. Why can't you get this through your fucking skull?
One problem with your theory is the importance of 1 minute. Actually, eyeballs are vastly different from person to person. According to your theory which has lynchpin the importance of direct measurement, if someone can only see barely and a blur, then the universe is limited to that.
And the person with 2020 vision develops cataracts, and the entire universe changes to adapt.
I'll leave it right there, too. I'm responding only to actual statements and deleting youtube links and stupid pictures.
Image source: US dollar
"...In fact, I don't think it (resolution limit of the eye)† has any relation to anything at all. No relation to calculating distances whatsoever. So why do you keep posting it? Measurement of distances and their relative positions is not limited by the human eye, that is why we have instruments, to be more precise than our natural senses..."
† added by me for clarity."...You already stated 1 degree = ~60 nautical miles in the flat earth thread and guess what, the Moon measures 32'..."
"...At sixty feet, one degree of arc is about one foot wide. So this 1:60 ratio applies, and at 3600 miles, 1 degree would sweep 60 miles..."You're putting the cart before the horse here (Porsche not withstanding), as I stated before the globe and thus the Copernican model's large heavy ball Moon are dead in the water as soon as the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile is defined. This is before any celestial measurements are made with the sextant.
How is the ratio defined you ask? Since we will be measuring objects with a sextant using the human eye, the ratio is defined by the angular resolution limit of the human eye being 1 minute. This equates to being able to see a 1 foot object at a maximum distance of 1/2 nautical miles. Beyond 1/2 nautical miles, objects 1 foot and smaller can not be seen; objects in the field of view converge to a point at 1/2 nautical miles.
If we place the human eye 1 foot above ground (observably a plain), all objects will converge to the vanishing point at a distance of 1 nautical mile. Since we are above a plain the vanishing point will form a line i.e. the horizon.
The horizon is shown here to be an optical phenomenon thus, if the resolution limit changes due to using a zoom lens or, the height above ground changes (angle of attack) then, the distance objects converge to a point at (the horizon) changes also.
The globe model requires that the horizon is a physical barrier (the theoretical curve) that can only change in distance based on the viewers height. The distance to the horizon on a globe is (((coincidentally))) the same distance to the horizon as based on the human eye but, if a zoom lens is employed and the resolution limit is changed to any other value than 1 minute then, the model breaks down and is falsified.
So there you have it, the globe and Copernican models are falsified and we can start measuring objects and distances with our sextant. Any questions?
The horizon line is created inside the eye i.e. it's an optical phenomenon. If the resolution limit is changed to another value from 1 minute i.e. by the use of a zoom lens, the distance to the horizon changes.
If the distance to the horizon changes depending on the "eye" being used, then the horizon is not a physical object i.e. there's no curve. Why can't you get this through your fucking skull?
I'm just going to leave this here.
NASA Going Nowhere Since 1958 -- https://youtu.be/AGxhmZ6OKUU
"...The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick..."
.....Meaningless images deleted.
You're claiming it's a "trick" and "based on trig" while providing exactly "nothing" to back it up, you're full of shit!
Claiming? The history of the "rule of 60s" is well known. What's the big deal? What backs up the approximation is called trigonometry.
You are full of shit, period.
I provide references:
<<< OPTHAMOLOGY REFERNCE?
In fact, I don't think it has any relation to anything at all. No relation to calculating distances whatsoever. So why do you keep posting it? Measurement of distances and their relative positions is not limited by the human eye, that is why we have instruments, to be more precise than our natural senses.
"...The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick..."
.....Meaningless images deleted.
You're claiming it's a "trick" and "based on trig" while providing exactly "nothing" to back it up, you're full of shit!
Claiming? The history of the "rule of 60s" is well known. What's the big deal? What backs up the approximation is called trigonometry.
You are full of shit, period.
I provide references:
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
Image source: Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. p. 54. ISBN 978-0444511416.
"...The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick..."
.....Meaningless images deleted.
You're claiming it's a "trick" and "based on trig" while providing exactly "nothing" to back it up, you're full of shit!
Claiming? The history of the "rule of 60s" is well known. What's the big deal? What backs up the approximation is called trigonometry.
"...The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick..."
.....Meaningless images deleted.
You're claiming it's a "trick" and "based on trig" while providing exactly "nothing" to back it up, you're full of shit!
Today is the 50th anniversary since men first walked on the Moon. It is a stunning achievement that took thousands of workers, billions of dollars, and the will of an entire nation, perhaps even the world when you consider the motivations. This is a day worth celebrating.
Yeah, riiiight... dream on. Moonlanding was staged in a hollywood studio at remote secret location. No one can land on the moon as it is not a solid object but lesser light created on day 4 of Lord's creation.
bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r13qk2BH6Sc
Jump to: