Topic: Did we actually really land on moon? - page 29. (Read 7467 times)

If there's this, then there is gold and platinum and whatever other metals we need.


Two Quintillion Tons of Metal or Dense Oxides Found on the Moon

---

---

And once we get the metals mined, we will be able to build this (below) to go to the stars.


Game Changing Direct Drive Fusion Propulsion Progress

Trump has already done this. He's directed NASA to go back to the Moon. It is ONLY because the hate the media has for him that they do not / have not reported this.

But he is more of a doer than a talker, so let's see them minimize the issue when our men are boots on the ground.

Much easier though, and essentially the same, would be an Apollo 8 - Apollo 10 style mission, circle the Moon and return home. AFAIK all the parts and pieces are available for this, but we don't have a modern LEM built and ready to fly (or men trained to use it).

^^^ Right! If nothing else, the money borrowed from the banking system will help keep the fiat money Ponzi going for a while yet, so that those of us who are not prepared for the BIG crash still have time.

If I were Trump, I would announce re-start of the Moon (and/or Mars) program on the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing.  

It would be a political jackpot.  He can even plagiarize Kennedy's speech, nobody will care.  He will go in history as the greatest president of all time.  I think he is going to do it.

Politics. Democrats kill space programs. Time after time.


Maybe. Impossible to disprove. But we have gone back, again and agin, although with robots. We've mapped the entire moon's surface down to everything the size of a football.


The moon does act sort of like an outrigger on a canoe. Otherwise, like Uranus, a planet could rotate 90 degrees to the plane of the solar system.

Yes, I think we did land on the moon. But I also think it is a possibility, that some of what we saw, might have been produced. But not because they didn't do it, but because they didn't want to show us everything they really saw up there, and all the things that were really going on.

Once we got up there it seemed like everything changed. The Nation's attitude changed from, " Let's race!. The space race!.".to "Let's back off."
"Let's go back to just orbiting and make an international space station."  Why?

Maybe something up there said, "Back off. Go and tell your people you did it, and don't say a word about anything that is going on up here. Go back to your own neighborhood, orbiting and doing space experiments on your space station and we will help you here and there, but don't come back here...too often...or for a long time.

Also the stories of the moon ringing like a bell, and being hollow sound reasonable to me. Another whole thread.

Our earth was in chaos before the moon was in place. According to some theories the moon stabilized our earth made it habitable and keeps it from wobbling to much.

He says the moon is a projection just like the sun. I dont really understand what he means with that. He never explains where is the projector or how it projects such a huge light and why does it work the way it works, to confuse us?

^^^ Over in his FE thread, he told me I was dishonest for telling it to him simple-like. I suppose he is out looking for responses to you. It's taking him a while, and it should prove interesting.

The famous aviator Wiley Post, 1920ish, had lost one eye when young. He trained to estimate distances very accurately with one eye. Hence, with no triangulation. He would often win wagers in bars this way. It enabled him to pass the Airman's exam, which required good vision.

So I'll let that issue pass.

However, you are correct in that NotBat has not shown the total of the triangulation issue. There are several issues.

(A) How much does the Moon change in diameter, from the Supermoon to the minima, and why?

What does it mean, if an object in the sky periodically, and predictably, changes in diameter?

(B) From where might we stand, say in a couple of places, to measure the Sun and Moon over the course of a year?

This would be to find their distance from the Earth.

(C) We commonly measure the height of mountains on the Moon, and the depth of craters, using a form of simple triangulation. Measuring the spreading of the shadows as the Moon moves to a crescent.

Notbat, care to comment?

(D) Given that the terminator line moves precisely across the lunar surface over the course of a lunar day (27+ Earth days) and we measure heights on the Moon of objects as they approach that terminator, geometrically this is only possible if the Moon is a sphere like object.

NotBat claims the Moon is just a bright light?

(E) A lunar eclipse is when the Earth occludes the Sun, as viewed from the Moon. We will consider the trig involved in this, along with a quite interesting topic, after NotBat answers the above questions and issues. This topic is how we can predict lunar eclipses.

Any scientific theory is affirmed if it predicts correctly. We have a model of elliptical orbiting masses in space, which we can use to accurately predict many things. All on the basis of a synergistic development of math, and orbital mechanics, over three thousand years. But you reject all of that.

No problem. We can step through the fundamentals.

I'm simply agreeing with you. If that makes me a clown, you are worse than a joker.

Since "every eye has an angular resolution limit or distance," there is a limit to which you can trust measurements made by the simple eye. Isn't that what you are saying? And when you say "the human eye has limited abilities thus can't be used," aren't you simply confirming it?

So, what do you do when you want to measure things more exactly?

- If you want to measure the length of your car, you might use a tape measure. You can eyeball it and guess. But using a tape measure is way more accurate.

- If you want to measure the length of a table, you might use a yardstick or a ruler. You can eyeball it and guess. But using a tape measure or ruler is way more accurate.

- If you want to know the height of a tall building, you triangulate shadows with a smaller object that you know the height of. You can eyeball it and guess. But using triangulation with shadows is way more accurate.

But guess what triangulation is. It's measuring the size or distance of objects using 2 known measurements, of 3 possible measurements, to calculate the third. You can't triangulate distance or size by knowing only the angle. Or can you literally show us how?... since you agree that eyeballing it (even with a sextant) doesn't produce accurate measurements.

Come on, now. Don't keep us in suspense. Show us the calc you are using. Quit telling us that eyes have their limitation... or that they don't, if that is what you are trying to say. We all know this and agree with you on it. So, show us the calc that proves what the eyes are too limited to prove.

Besides, inviting forum members to post in YOUR flat earth thread, is like inviting guests for dinner then killing and eating them when they arrive for supper.




EDIT: Come on, now. You think you can measure the distance to the sun and moon by eyeballing them. How accurate are you when you eyeball the distance across your room in the funny farm? If you are anywhere close to the sun, you should have your room down to the thousandth of an inch.

You can literally see the ISS with your own eyes. With a camera you can see basically all the details, what is that then? If you think its some kind of plane then someone would have photos of it from another plane up close.

It's all right here (https://i.imgur.com/zS0G3hs.jpg ^{edit: version 2.1:} https://i.imgur.com/15e5eZH.jpg), a pole of known height and distance then just add a Moon that measures 32 minuets: 1 minuet = 1 mile for the human eye. Size and distance are then known; 32 nautical miles wide at an altitude of ~3,100 nautical miles.

Source: "Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. p. 54. ISBN 978-0444511416"



edit:

To simplify it, we have a known distance (observer to horizon), and three known angles (90°, horizon > base of Moon and horizon > top of Moon).

Be my guest, go right ahead. Show your work.

That's all make-believe crap designed to get funding and then fade away.

It can be ignored, instead of believed.

@Spendulus, the Moon is 32 nautical miles wide and I can prove it in a court of law with a sextant. You would have to debunk/discredit "Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. p. 54. ISBN 978-0444511416" to win.

This is well answered, in the past by someone commenting on the lying cunt Apollo Deniers.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080427113125AAw5ntS

I still feel compelled to give warning of our unfortunate tendency to take things out of context and the even more distressing one of swallowing the whole cake of misinformation just because it has pretty sprinkles of truth on top. It's a common tactic of prosecuting attorneys, smear campaigns and corrupt governments. I would worry more about the f...ing bakers in this case....and their motives.

When Collins said he couldn't see any stars, he was referring SPECIFICALLY to when they were photographing the solar corona and not for the entire mission.They used star charts along with their navigation tools during their trip and spotted stars with it.

I have studied many of the Apollo transcripts and am familiar with their method of use of the sextant (and a small star sighting telescope) for navigation.

^^^ You're a clown using pipul to win an argument with intellectual dishonestly. Every eye has an angular resolution limit or distance and I'm using that distance to measure other objects. You response (you fucking clown) is to conflate the maximum distance the eye (any eye or camera) can see with with the concept that the human eye has limited abilities thus can't be used.

This like telling somebody you're having guests for dinner then killing and eating them when they arrive for supper. You had "guests for dinner" and everybody you told about having "guests for dinner" believes that you met with some people and shared a meal together.

This is why we depend on things other than the eye alone for distant observations. We use telescopes, trig, calculus, laser rangefinders, satellites, etc., because these things bring the measurements down to the eye, where the eye can see them accurately.

Since, as you said, the eye has resolution limits, the eye can't be depended upon. That's why we use other tools, even the sextant. But even the sextant won't work to show distance or size without at least one other measurement in addition to the degree.

Or do you have non-hazy-eye calc that works better than trig?