"...The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick..."
.....Meaningless images deleted.
Topic: Did we actually really land on moon? - page 22. (Read 7469 times)
Meaningless images deleted.
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.
"...The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick..."
Image source: https://deskgram.net/explore/tags/bankshatehim
...
Once after the stepping into moon and placing the US flag video got telecasted to the common people more controversy existed out of the same for some reason. If we begin to go through different sources related to the planet moon then only it is possible to get a deep vision how this can be achieved when most other countries associated with it hasn't took any decision about the righteous of the incident.
Once after the stepping into moon and placing the US flag video got telecasted to the common people more controversy existed out of the same for some reason. If we begin to go through different sources related to the planet moon then only it is possible to get a deep vision how this can be achieved when most other countries associated with it hasn't took any decision about the righteous of the incident.
Righteous?
I think it's pretty cool they planted the flag.
Other nations have no say in the matter.
like the children raped on pedo island? 50 years after the moon landing, the us gov is the first to run a pedo island for very important pedos... or maybe not...
....
You seem to have missed my response directed at you, and instead decided to quote my response to BADecker's disingenuous and biased comments. There's no trigonometry involved yet so let me reiterate:
.....
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.....
You seem to have missed my response directed at you, and instead decided to quote my response to BADecker's disingenuous and biased comments. There's no trigonometry involved yet so let me reiterate:
.....
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.....
The 1:60 ratio is an old navigator's trick and yes, it is totally based on trig, which defines these relationships.
"horizon is shown here to be an optical phenomenon"
Not sure what twisted logic you have there, anything we see is an optical phenomenon. If you are claiming the horizon is fake, no, it's not. because we can see it, then get in a car and drive over to it. It'd be nice if you could think of some way to describe your ideas rather than placing a human eye 1' above ground, because I don't see how that would work. First of all, wouldn't the eye have to still be connected to a human?
A battleship can lob shells 20+ miles, way over the horizon, and accurately hit things all day long. This is done with lat-long surface specifications, but the calculations are done with three dimensional trig.
If the battleship were using your methods, it would last about three seconds before it's enemies, using the correct math, hit it.
https://i.imgur.com/K5mPHHo.png
Image source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/692006298968823896/
Wait, so you don't want to look at three dimensional trig?
You seem to have missed my response directed at you, and instead decided to quote my response to BADecker's disingenuous and biased comments. There's no trigonometry involved yet so let me reiterate:
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.
But three dimensional trig allows accommodation for hills and valley on the earth. It's far more precise. Given that your measurement errors are a substantial part of the measurements, this would be the way to get it right.
For example, from three points on the earth, say Manhattan, Los Angeles, and Miami, measure the angle to the moon at the same time. The four points form a triangle on each of four sides.
What is the sum of the angles between the three ground points?
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?
Time is up, and there's no dodging this bullet headed directly at your glow-in-the-dark skull! If you want to maintain any semblance of credibility, you need to acknowledge the fact that the eye has an angular resolution limit of 1 minute and its implications.
Image source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/692006298968823896/
^^^ I said any questions, not the most biased opinions possible from somebody who's (I'm assuming) based their entire life and career around a lie and the biggest conspiracy in the history of the mankind bar-none.
Wait, so you don't want to look at three dimensional trig?
You seem to have missed my response directed at you, and instead decided to quote my response to BADecker's disingenuous and biased comments. There's no trigonometry involved yet so let me reiterate:
"...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.
But three dimensional trig allows accommodation for hills and valley on the earth. It's far more precise. Given that your measurement errors are a substantial part of the measurements, this would be the way to get it right.
For example, from three points on the earth, say Manhattan, Los Angeles, and Miami, measure the angle to the moon at the same time. The four points form a triangle on each of four sides.
What is the sum of the angles between the three ground points?
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?
Time is up, and there's no dodging this bullet headed directly at your glow-in-the-dark skull! If you want to maintain any semblance of credibility, you need to acknowledge the fact that the eye has an angular resolution limit of 1 minute and its implications.
How in the world gravitational are you? The eye... that's why we use binoculars and telescopes. That's exactly why we use transits for accurate angle measurements. These instruments are exactly why we know that the eye always sees above the horizon at 90 degrees to true vertical.
On a perfectly flat earth, the only way the eye could see the horizon, if it were situated exactly 90 degrees to the vertical, is if it were planted right at ground level, so that it's focal point was exactly at ground level.
This makes eye angle focus to not have any significance regarding FE or GE. Eye view for exact measurements doesn't have anything to do with it.
Since you can't seem to understand this simple concept, how in the world will you be able to tell if anybody went to the moon or not? And that's not the bad point. The bad point is that you don't even understand that you don't understand.
Now, let's get on with reasons why we did or did not go to the moon.
Image source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/692006298968823896/
^^^ I said any questions, not the most biased opinions possible from somebody who's (I'm assuming) based their entire life and career around a lie and the biggest conspiracy in the history of the mankind bar-none.
Wait, so you don't want to look at three dimensional trig?
You seem to have missed my response directed at you, and instead decided to quote my response to BADecker's disingenuous and biased comments. There's no trigonometry involved yet so let me reiterate:
"...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.
But three dimensional trig allows accommodation for hills and valley on the earth. It's far more precise. Given that your measurement errors are a substantial part of the measurements, this would be the way to get it right.
For example, from three points on the earth, say Manhattan, Los Angeles, and Miami, measure the angle to the moon at the same time. The four points form a triangle on each of four sides.
What is the sum of the angles between the three ground points?
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?
Time is up, and there's no dodging this bullet headed directly at your glow-in-the-dark skull! If you want to maintain any semblance of credibility, you need to acknowledge the fact that the eye has an angular resolution limit of 1 minute and its implications.
Quote
I believe Earth is NOT flat. I don't believe there are aliens in Area 51.
we'll know soon )) no wonder the crowd is going to storm the Area 51
So, how important is the moon? What did we get from the moon landings? Loss in time and pages in the "Flat Earth" thread is nothing compared with what we have lost in space so far.
60 Years of Wasting Money in Space
60 Years of Wasting Money in Space
Quote from: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/kirkpatrick-sale/60-years-of-wasting-money-in-space/
The whole six-decade-long U.S. space boondoggle, from 1958 to 2019, has cost this nation at least $601 billion. And what can we say we have achieved for this vast sum? Well, freeze-dried food, Tang, computer chips, memory foam, and the burials of 23 American citizens and one Israeli. There have been no significant scientific achievements and very early on in the game to sell space missions as carrying out anti-gravity experiments NASA ran out of even interesting trivial observations.
No significant information has been learned about achieving something truly important, like how humans could permanently live on nearby planets or asteroids, except that it can't be done. NASA-generated hype—it spends about $4 million a year with a staff of 114 people on PR—has generated some interest in this or that space probe over the years, but there has been no claim that a fly-by past Jupiter or an ongoing useless Space Station has led to anything even remotely useful on earth. The latest boondoggle, a campaign pushed by Vice President Pence this last March, aims to create a base on the moon's south pole by 2024, at a modest cost of $120 billion or so—but no one yet has been able to offer a convincing reason for doing so. Except that, like landing a man, it would be a first.
And in his July 4th speech Trump again pledged "to plant a flag on Mars," no more hospitable than the moon. No cost estimate provided, but since it would be a minimum of a three-year round trip to achieve it, the figure could easily match that of the moonwalk.
But wait. Isn't it now, after 60 years, that we should be able to take a comprehensive look at all this expensive jingoistic folly and call a halt? Forget the hype that noodling around in space, in Kennedy's chauvinistic words, "will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills." Let's find something better to do.
No significant information has been learned about achieving something truly important, like how humans could permanently live on nearby planets or asteroids, except that it can't be done. NASA-generated hype—it spends about $4 million a year with a staff of 114 people on PR—has generated some interest in this or that space probe over the years, but there has been no claim that a fly-by past Jupiter or an ongoing useless Space Station has led to anything even remotely useful on earth. The latest boondoggle, a campaign pushed by Vice President Pence this last March, aims to create a base on the moon's south pole by 2024, at a modest cost of $120 billion or so—but no one yet has been able to offer a convincing reason for doing so. Except that, like landing a man, it would be a first.
And in his July 4th speech Trump again pledged "to plant a flag on Mars," no more hospitable than the moon. No cost estimate provided, but since it would be a minimum of a three-year round trip to achieve it, the figure could easily match that of the moonwalk.
But wait. Isn't it now, after 60 years, that we should be able to take a comprehensive look at all this expensive jingoistic folly and call a halt? Forget the hype that noodling around in space, in Kennedy's chauvinistic words, "will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills." Let's find something better to do.
.....
You will be judged for defending liars. If I were you I would immediately repent.
"Moon landing" was staged in a remote hollywood studio. No one can and will ever be able to land on the moon.
....
You will be judged for defending liars. If I were you I would immediately repent.
"Moon landing" was staged in a remote hollywood studio. No one can and will ever be able to land on the moon.
....
After deleting your garbage moonporn pics, the above is all you have left.
No proof of your claims?
And please no "bonus" pics. Just facts.
Oh boy!
I didn't expect so many replies on my thread xD
Guess I brought in some good debate and also some fights along lmao.
After reading all the replies, I'm not still convinced that we did indeed land on the moon 100%.
But I'll continue to read more
I didn't expect so many replies on my thread xD
Guess I brought in some good debate and also some fights along lmao.
After reading all the replies, I'm not still convinced that we did indeed land on the moon 100%.
But I'll continue to read more
If you will continue with a honest research then you will definitely discover that so called "moon landing" was staged in a hollywood studio at remote secret location. Complete fraud, you name it... Evidence is everywhere.
For instance, check this: http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/MoonHoax/Apollo11.HTM
+bonus:
a guy that has been to mars along with nasa - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg_u_dXsQjY&
Haven't you ever heard of documentary films and writings? Almost none of the documentaries are the clear writings of, or the direct filming of, the things that actually happened. Rather, they are enactments, that try to preserve the sense of what really happened.
At the time the documentaries of the moon shots were made on Earth, it was imperative for national security that the public be told that the documentaries were the actual recordings of the moon landings.
Now that we have found out that they were simple documentaries, NASA is even stating that they were. NASA ian't going to show you real, live videos and pictures of things that are top secret. So, get off it, and be glad that they are showing you as much as they are showing.
You will be judged for defending liars. If I were you I would immediately repent.
"Moon landing" was staged in a remote hollywood studio. No one can and will ever be able to land on the moon.
...
Once after the stepping into moon and placing the US flag video got telecasted to the common people more controversy existed out of the same for some reason. If we begin to go through different sources related to the planet moon then only it is possible to get a deep vision how this can be achieved when most other countries associated with it hasn't took any decision about the righteous of the incident.
Once after the stepping into moon and placing the US flag video got telecasted to the common people more controversy existed out of the same for some reason. If we begin to go through different sources related to the planet moon then only it is possible to get a deep vision how this can be achieved when most other countries associated with it hasn't took any decision about the righteous of the incident.
Righteous?
I think it's pretty cool they planted the flag.
Other nations have no say in the matter.
...
Once after the stepping into moon and placing the US flag video got telecasted to the common people more controversy existed out of the same for some reason. If we begin to go through different sources related to the planet moon then only it is possible to get a deep vision how this can be achieved when most other countries associated with it hasn't took any decision about the righteous of the incident.
Once after the stepping into moon and placing the US flag video got telecasted to the common people more controversy existed out of the same for some reason. If we begin to go through different sources related to the planet moon then only it is possible to get a deep vision how this can be achieved when most other countries associated with it hasn't took any decision about the righteous of the incident.
Righteous?
I think it's pretty cool they planted the flag.
Other nations have no say in the matter.
like the children raped on pedo island? 50 years after the moon landing, the us gov is the first to run a pedo island for very important pedos... or maybe not...
Actually, the technical reason why we didn't land on the moon is, it's only "land" if it's on the earth. Moon substance isn't land.
In case you had not heard, "Land" is a verb and a noun. 
Actually, the technical reason why we didn't land on the moon is, it's only "land" if it's on the earth. Moon substance isn't land.
Once after the stepping into moon and placing the US flag video got telecasted to the common people more controversy existed out of the same for some reason. If we begin to go through different sources related to the planet moon then only it is possible to get a deep vision how this can be achieved when most other countries associated with it hasn't took any decision about the righteous of the incident.
Actually, the technical reason why we didn't land on the moon is, it's only "land" if it's on the earth. Moon substance isn't land.
^^^ I said any questions, not the most biased opinions possible from somebody who's (I'm assuming) based their entire life and career around a lie and the biggest conspiracy in the history of the mankind bar-none.
Wait, so you don't want to look at three dimensional trig?
^^^ Any child looking at a picture of the earth bisected by the horizon, realizes that the horizon doesn't rise to meet the eye. Rather, the horizon drops from above down to meet the eye. Therefore the horizon meeting the eye thing is not even part of the discussion.
Understanding this shows that your view of the shape of the earth is skewed. There is no reason to ask any questions, because the answers will be skewed just like your view is.
Back to the fact that we landed on the moon.
Understanding this shows that your view of the shape of the earth is skewed. There is no reason to ask any questions, because the answers will be skewed just like your view is.
Back to the fact that we landed on the moon.
^^^ I said any questions, not the most biased opinions possible from somebody who's (I'm assuming) based their entire life and career around a lie and the biggest conspiracy in the history of the mankind bar-none.
^^^ The only time the horizon rises to meet the eye is when the eye is focused on the horizon. If the eye is focused above the horizon, the horizon never rises to the eye. If the eye is focused below the horizon, the horizon appears to rise way above the eye. If the eye is focused straight up, the horizon is not even seen, except slightly in peripheral vision. And that is without the atmospheric distortion.
Your use of the eye for distance and size measurements is entirely unreliable, and therefore stupid.
Your use of the eye for distance and size measurements is entirely unreliable, and therefore stupid.
"...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.
But three dimensional trig allows accommodation for hills and valley on the earth. It's far more precise. Given that your measurement errors are a substantial part of the measurements, this would be the way to get it right.
For example, from three points on the earth, say Manhattan, Los Angeles, and Miami, measure the angle to the moon at the same time. The four points form a triangle on each of four sides.
What is the sum of the angles between the three ground points?
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?
...http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/MoonHoax/Apollo11.HTM
+bonus:
a guy that has been to mars along with nasa - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg_u_dXsQjY&
+bonus:
a guy that has been to mars along with nasa - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg_u_dXsQjY&
Ridiculous rambling, attempting to see things in photos that really aren't there.
That website is garbage.
Oh boy!
I didn't expect so many replies on my thread xD
Guess I brought in some good debate and also some fights along lmao.
After reading all the replies, I'm not still convinced that we did indeed land on the moon 100%.
But I'll continue to read more
I didn't expect so many replies on my thread xD
Guess I brought in some good debate and also some fights along lmao.
After reading all the replies, I'm not still convinced that we did indeed land on the moon 100%.
But I'll continue to read more
If you will continue with a honest research then you will definitely discover that so called "moon landing" was staged in a hollywood studio at remote secret location. Complete fraud, you name it... Evidence is everywhere.
For instance, check this: http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/MoonHoax/Apollo11.HTM
+bonus:
a guy that has been to mars along with nasa - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg_u_dXsQjY&
Haven't you ever heard of documentary films and writings? Almost none of the documentaries are the clear writings of, or the direct filming of, the things that actually happened. Rather, they are enactments, that try to preserve the sense of what really happened.
At the time the documentaries of the moon shots were made on Earth, it was imperative for national security that the public be told that the documentaries were the actual recordings of the moon landings.
Now that we have found out that they were simple documentaries, NASA is even stating that they were. NASA ian't going to show you real, live videos and pictures of things that are top secret. So, get off it, and be glad that they are showing you as much as they are showing.
Jump to: