Originally posted by FreakyKBHI know for a fact that man has not landed on the moon.
[b]I don't have to do any such research because you are as full of shyte as a christmas turkey.
Good God, man: what have you been feeding the kinfolk?
It gives me much comfort knowing I've declined your invitations up to this point.
You undoubtedly fully believe nobody landed on the moon in spite of all the moon hoax refutations.
I do not ...[text shortened]... here are no such things as conspiracies.
[pssst: they can see your lips moving while you type!][/b]
There's a way to find out. We could go there and look for foot prints... and golf balls.
Originally posted by lemon limeI don't see him attempting to explain how the retroreflector got to be placed so exactly a laser beam from Earth could hit it and a few photons makes its way back to Earth to be detected and so able to suss out the distance to the moon with centimeter accuracy, see how fast it is receding in real time.
[b]I know for a fact that man has not landed on the moon.
There's a way to find out. We could go there and look for foot prints... and golf balls.[/b]
I imagine he would say, robots did it. And I know the tech involved from that era since I was actively involved with Apollo, just as a tech but nonetheless I was there at Goddard and know full well there was no tech available to put a robot on the moon that could have done that job.
So far, not a word about that except 'I know for a FACT blah blah blah'.
What really ticks me off about this moon landing fake conspiracy is deriding the intelligence of the people, the literally thousands of people like me and many more MUCH more intelligent than I, dissing the entire affair, dissing one of the highest achievements mankind ever did up to that point in time.
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirLike what kind of a priori? Seems like the well experiment should do well enough. We in century 21 have much better clock tech than anyone 3000 years ago or even 50 years ago and that is the key to making such measurements. You know that experiment I presume? You see two wells at a time where it is exactly noon at well A where you can see all the way to the bottom with no shadowing of the bottom surface and at the same time it would not be exactly overhead noon say 10,000 km away would have shadows that would not let you see the bottom and measuring the shadows, where the difference in those angles, straight up 90 degrees at the noon well and say 80 degrees at well #2 at the same time would allow you to do the trig and determine the the shape of Earth.
Is there any way of proving the Earth isn't flat, without relying on a priori axioms?
Didn't think so.
Originally posted by shavixmirIf you do distance measurements between a number of places distributed over the whole earth it is difficult to Show a plane, which would allow for all of them to be true simultaniously. This is as near to "axiomfree" as it goes.
Is there any way of proving the Earth isn't flat, without relying on a priori axioms?
Didn't think so.
Originally posted by sonhouseWas that before or after NASA started lying? 😉
Like what kind of a priori? Seems like the well experiment should do well enough. We in century 21 have much better clock tech than anyone 3000 years ago or even 50 years ago and that is the key to making such measurements. You know that experiment I presume? You see two wells at a time where it is exactly noon at well A where you can see all the way to t ...[text shortened]... at well #2 at the same time would allow you to do the trig and determine the the shape of Earth.
1 edit
Originally posted by HandyAndyWhich is funny since I posted a rocket with real photofilm from 1959, showing a clear curvature of Earth way before NASA existed. That cut right through two objections of what's his face: Real photography apparently is ONLY done with film since OBVIOUSLY nobody could fake that🙂 and NASA lies about the shape of Earth, so clearly those lies started way before NASA was around.
Was that before or after NASA started lying? 😉
Originally posted by sonhouseWasn't NASA born in 1958 (soon after Sputnik)?
Which is funny since I posted a rocket with real photofilm from 1959, showing a clear curvature of Earth way before NASA existed. That cut right through two objections of what's his face: Real photography apparently is ONLY done with film since OBVIOUSLY nobody could fake that🙂 and NASA lies about the shape of Earth, so clearly those lies started way before NASA was around.
2 edits
Originally posted by HandyAndyMy bad, July 29 1958. Yes, soon after Sput, which was Oct. 4 1957. I know that date well, being a long time nerd🙂 High School in Anchorage saw the newspaper bit, kind of front page thing, words about one foot high🙂 Shock and awe for sure.
Wasn't NASA born in 1958 (soon after Sputnik)?
Dang. Half my argument gone🙂 But it was 'real' photography, he can't refute that. Especially since there were no digital cameras and not much of digital anything back in the late 50's.
A casio 115 calculator has more computing power than all the Eniacs and such....
Originally posted by lemon limeWhile there, we could strike "Le Penseur" pose and try-try-TRY to figure out: how in the wide, wide world did the earth-facing side of the moon ever get a crater?
[b]I know for a fact that man has not landed on the moon.
There's a way to find out. We could go there and look for foot prints... and golf balls.[/b]
Originally posted by sonhouseA casio 115 calculator has more computing power than all the Eniacs and such....
My bad, July 29 1958. Yes, soon after Sput, which was Oct. 4 1957. I know that date well, being a long time nerd🙂 High School in Anchorage saw the newspaper bit, kind of front page thing, words about one foot high🙂 Shock and awe for sure.
Dang. Half my argument gone🙂 But it was 'real' photography, he can't refute that. Especially since there were no d ...[text shortened]... e late 50's.
A casio 115 calculator has more computing power than all the Eniacs and such....
And yet we cannot make a return trip.
Prolly just a coincidinky.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou haven't made comment old chap about the mirrors on the moon alluded to by Stephen Fry:
[b]A casio 115 calculator has more computing power than all the Eniacs and such....
And yet we cannot make a return trip.
Prolly just a coincidinky.[/b]
'The mirror's existence, and the fact that astronomers can bounce lasers off it and detect the returning beam, has also provided Nasa and other scientists with compelling evidence to refute the claims of moon-landing deniers who claim the Apollo lunar mission were hoaxes filmed in an Earth-based studio.' (www.theguardian.com)