• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Moon landing conspiracy and Flat Earth conspiracy theories go here and nowhere else

Status
Not open for further replies.

Weilthain

Banned
Look at my tag. I'm the whore.

No.

I'm using the it's not in the mission parameters and these things have a budget.
I don’t buy that for a second.

car.moon.live stream.1972

this video will get my point across that “no cameras in space” makes no damn sense, way better than my drunk ass can

 

Weilthain

Banned
X8hDfTE.jpg

this is cringe as fuck but more real than I like to admit
 

Nymphae

Banned
We'd need a telescope with at least an order of magnitude bigger size mirror than is on the Hubble telescope. I think you can see the difficulty with that.

I honestly don't understand how this is the case, perhaps you can show me some info that will enlighten me. And why not just take some pictures with Hubble? Some crazy high res shots of the moon landing sites would be very cool.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
I honestly don't understand how this is the case, perhaps you can show me some info that will enlighten me. And why not just take some pictures with Hubble? Some crazy high res shots of the moon landing sites would be very cool.
In order to answer this question, we need to understand something about the resolving power of telescopes. Take a look at this image. This is an aerial image of the Statue of Liberty made available by a Web site called TerraServer. This image has 1-meter resolution, which means that something on the ground that is 1 meter square produces one pixel in the image. In the image of the Statue of Liberty, her head is about 3 meters across, so her head should take up about 3 pixels by 3 pixels in the image (see this page for other fun Statue of Liberty facts).

So, a good spy satellite might have 1-meter resolution like this. The best telescope available today is the Hubble Space Telescope. It has a resolving power of 0.1 arc-seconds. I am open to correction on this, but as best I can tell, the Hubble telescope would have something like 15-centimeter resolving power if it were pointed at something on the Earth, like the Statue of Liberty (if you are a telescope expert, please write in and correct me if I am wrong). Fifteen centimeters is about half a foot.

The moon is about 1,000 times farther away from the Hubble Space Telescope than the Earth is. That means that if you pointed the Hubble at the moon, it would have 150-meter resolution. At that resolution, a football stadium occupies just one or two pixels of the image. That means that there would be no way to discern the Lunar Excursion Module or any of the other equipment left on the moon. It is just too small to pick up, even with the world's best telescope.



So let’s look at our lunar descent stage. It’s 4 meters across, but 400,000,000 meters away. That gives it an angular size of (4/400,000,000) x 206265 = 0.002 arcseconds.


Hey, wait a sec! Hubble’s resolution is only 0.1 arcseconds, so the lander is way too small to be seen as anything more than a dot, even by Hubble. It would have to be a lot bigger to be seen at all. In fact, if you do the math (set Hubble’s resolution to 0.1 arcseconds and the distance to 400,000 kilometers) you see that Hubble’s resolution on the Moon is about 200 meters! In other words, even a football stadium on the Moon would look like a dot to Hubble.


That’s a pretty big surprise to most people. They’re used to seeing magnificent detail in Hubble images, stars in galaxies and wisps of gas in beautiful nebulae. But those objects are far, far larger than the Moon. Hubble’s resolution is 0.1 arcseconds no matter how far away an object is. Those wisps of gas appear to be finely resolved, but they’re billions of kilometers across. That’s a bit roomier than the lunar landers were.


So even if we built a colossal sports arena in Tycho crater, Hubble would barely see it at all. The landers, rovers, and other junk left on the lunar surface by the astronauts are totally invisible.


Using a bigger telescope won’t help much. You’d need a mirror 50 times bigger than Hubble’s to see the landers at all, and we don’t have a 100 meter telescope handy.
 

Weilthain

Banned
I honestly don't understand how this is the case, perhaps you can show me some info that will enlighten me. And why not just take some pictures with Hubble? Some crazy high res shots of the moon landing sites would be very cool.

I can’t get over how Israel and India both had missions to the moon recently, that orbited the earth for weeks getting further away from earth each orbit but didn’t take a single picture of the journey let alone video it.

I can’t get over the fact the basic bitches try to defend this nonsense. The little remote control robot that was supposed to come out once it had landed had cameras on it right?

anyone actually watch these events? I did it was the most pathetic thing ever. I can’t believe anyone could take it seriously. Propaganda at its finest. Not a single piece of real footage from space. Just simulation screens and cheap looking cgi.

how anyone can defend this stuff is a mystery. Yet they are so quick to hurl insults and question my intelligence for questioning it.
 
Last edited:

Nymphae

Banned




Ok, but "we can still see the things we left there" is not a super strong argument then if we can only see some blurry grey mounds.
 

Nymphae

Banned

Those "blurry grey mounds" are exactly where they're supposed to be.

That isn't a photograph of the landing sites, and peoiple disingenuously argue the point like they can literally see the machinery with their own telescopes. It's grey mounds where they told us they went, show me pictures of the sites from before the landing without those mounds.
 
I can’t get over how Israel and India both had missions to the moon recently, that orbited the earth for weeks getting further away from earth each orbit but didn’t take a single picture of the journey let alone video it.

I can’t get over the fact the basic bitches try to defend this nonsense. The little remote control robot that was supposed to come out once it had landed had cameras on it right?

anyone actually watch these events? I did it was the most pathetic thing ever I can’t believe anyone could take out seriously. Propaganda at its finest. Not a single piece of real footage from space. Just simulation screen and cheap looking cgi.

how anyone can defend this stuff is a mystery. Yet they are so quick to hurl insults and question my intelligence for questioning it.

CCTV from inside the Indian flight


 
I laud the attempt to keep this flat earth crap contained, but I'm afraid it will only keep rising to the top like the hot air of a foul fart, stinking up the off-topic section.

All you need to prove that our planet isn't flat are two sticks and a bit of distance. As already observed by Eratosthenes 2250 frikkin' years ago. He did so by comparing shadows cast on the day of the summer solstice in Alexandria and a more southern city in Egypt. At noon, when the sun was directly overhead in the southern city of Aswan (Syene), there were no shadows but in Alexandria, a stick set in the ground cast a shadow.

From this simple observation, Eratosthenes realized that if he knew the angle of the shadow and the distance between the cities, he could calculate the circumference of the globe. He calculated that the circumference of the Earth was about 40.000km, which still holds true today:

lEQSY46aWwMwt0Rp8cyEqFkVA8ED-DZJsOhtNF6sHbuEsYyyT-961X8=s0-d


Flat Earth theory simply can not explain this!

You don't need fancy videos from space or whatever impossible requests flat-earthers demand in order to realize that Earth is spherical. You don't need to go to space, have continuous 24/7 4K video streams, camera tricks, plane trips, astronaut accounts or whatever bullshit they claim is necessary to utter and completely destroy flat Earth theories. All you need are two sticks and enough distance. It's sad to see that people from over 2.000 years ago were smart enough to figure this out, compared to nowadays where every idiot seems to rely on fake youtube conspiracy videos.

The sad thing is that no amount of scientific, empirical or mathematical evidence will be sufficient to make them realize their stupid ideas. Which is exactly why there's simply no need to even try, they will only reply with more senseless deflection in order to keep this topic afloat and satiate their delusions.

The simple reason why is because they rely on a simple fallacy called "epistemological contextualism" in order to shield themselves against any kind of argument, no matter how well argued it is. Yes, most of us didn't have the chance to go to space in order to personally witness our spherical planet, but that is not an argument even worth making. Have you personally witnessed atoms, visited antarctica, deduced the molecular composition of water or seen a picture of bosons? Of course not and you don't need to because that's not how the scientific method works.

The thing is, if you warp any given context strongly enough, anything becomes possible and that is the rational trickery that these flat-earther fools rely on. Context shifting is the name of their game and nothing else. You can say that 2m is tall for a human, but compared to a giraffe it's small. It all depends on the context and anytime you provide irrefutable proof that the Earth is round, they will simply shift to another context in order to defend their ridiculous ideas.

Their method is based on an infinitely relative argumentative regress:

If you post a picture of our Earth, they require a video. > If you post a video, they want a continuous live-stream. > If you provide a live-stream they say it's too close to Earth. > If you provide a video from further away, they will say it's fake or cgi. etc, etc...

If you provide mathematical evidence, they will say it "space math" (as that would be somehow different from regular math). > If you provide empirical evidence, they will counter with a low budget sh*tty youtube video that's based on optical illusions and other fakeries. > If you bring up physics, they will say that gravity doesn't exist. > etc, etc...
People need to realize that this f*cking dumb trickery will never end and so their useless discussion keeps going ad absurdum. It's best to just ignore these fools and let this retarded sh*t fade into obscurity because everything else will onyl strengthen their delusions.

These are the very good reasons why we shouldn't keep entertaining these fools.
 
Last edited:

Lupin3

Targeting terrorists with a D-Pad
I can’t get over how Israel and India both had missions to the moon recently, that orbited the earth for weeks getting further away from earth each orbit but didn’t take a single picture of the journey let alone video it.

What missions? Please specify!
 
Israel........India.......

It's all countries beginning with "I" that are in on it. We've cracked it

I hear that Iceland have got an alien corpse and Ireland are setting up a leprechaun colony on the moon
 
Last edited:

Nymphae

Banned
Did you even watch your own video?

ISyszKS.jpg


"No flat Earth theory can explain the angle of all 3 shadows, but the spherical model explains it all." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

You can literally see the shadow in the red X well, it's just closer to the center so the shadow is smaller. A well on the right at same distance as the far left one, would produce a symmetrical shadow.
 
You can literally see the shadow in the red X well, it's just closer to the center so the shadow is smaller. A well on the right at same distance as the far left one, would produce a symmetrical shadow.

You fail to take into account that the well the far right "red X" is wrongly tilted for the shadow to fall like that. Hence why it's wrong.

Also, you are aware that this is merely a graphical representation, right?
What matters is that flat earth theory cannot explain this observable phenomenon, as correctly stated by Tyson.

Your video is bunk.

EDIT: You can "lol" react all you like Nymphae Nymphae , it won't change the fact that Eratosthenes is still right.
 
Last edited:

Weilthain

Banned
it’s my birthday now
thank you all for the gifts

I wonder what people would think when if NASA goes to the moon in 2024 they didn’t film the journey.
Everyone was ok when Israel and India forgot, I don’t think that would be ok if NASA didn’t film it
 

Nymphae

Banned
You fail to take into account that the well the far right "red X" is wrongly tilted for the shadow to fall like that. Hence why it's wrong.

Also, you are aware that this is merely a graphical representation, right?
What matters is that flat earth theory cannot explain this observable phenomenon, as correctly stated by Tyson.

Your video is bunk.

"We can't see the bottom of both wells at the same time. What might explain this? There are 2 possible explanations. First, we could have a flat earth, with a sun that's small and close by so that the light hits the second well at an angle."

If the one on the left is having that shadow produced, a well over to the right at the same distance from the light source would produce the same shadow, symmetrically.
 
it’s my birthday now
thank you all for the gifts

I wonder what people would think when if NASA goes to the moon in 2024 they didn’t film the journey.
Everyone was ok when Israel and India forgot, I don’t think that would be ok if NASA didn’t film it
Happy birthday sir, long may you continue to amuse and terrify me in equal measures
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
That isn't a photograph of the landing sites
Yeah it is, it's from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter .

show me pictures of the sites from before the landing without those mounds.
Okay.

Here's the Apollo 11 landing site from the scouting pics taken by one of the first Lunar Orbiters.

iv_085_h1.jpg


Here's the landing site in better detail from a newer orbiter 40 years later.

BUr2GzeQHi53wwLAtCjq5d-970-80.jpg
 
"We can't see the bottom of both wells at the same time. What might explain this? There are 2 possible explanations. First, we could have a flat earth, with a sun that's small and close by so that the light hits the second well at an angle."

So we need 3 sticks instead of 2 in order to completely refute flat earth theory.
That's fine by me.
 
Do you see stars during the daylight hours on Earth? Neither do I. Not that strange.
atmosphere, for earth. I think Neil De Grass has said stars would be visible even during the day in space.


ISS weighs 419700kg. Pluggin that into https://www.omnicalculator.com/everyday-life/helium-balloons shows that you'd need 34 million party balloons to keep ISS up there. It might work.
I've seen ISS through a telescope and it didn't have any balloons or even one giant balloon above it. Maybe they painted it black to absorb the suns heat and stay puffed up.

the flat earth claim is the iss is a high altitude plane or drone. But I think it is in orbit. Though if rockets have 2~% failure rate it is ridiculous having astronauts fly up there again and again, it is fated for disaster sooner or later.

This is also amazing:



Note that you can only see the stars when you're on the night side of the Earth. When you're on the daylight side, it's too bright to see the stars. Basic photography knowledge.



on photographs, but supposedly you can see them with the naked eye all the time outside earth's atmosphere.


All you need to prove that our planet isn't flat are two sticks and a bit of distance. As already observed by Eratosthenes 2250 frikkin' years ago. He did so by comparing shadows cast on the day of the summer solstice in Alexandria and a more southern city in Egypt. At noon, when the sun was directly overhead in the southern city of Aswan (Syene), there were no shadows but in Alexandria, a stick set in the ground cast a shadow.

From this simple observation, Eratosthenes realized that if he knew the angle of the shadow and the distance between the cities, he could calculate the circumference of the globe. He calculated that the circumference of the Earth was about 40.000km, which still holds true today:
No it won't and never will.

I think this question from a seemingly reputable source, suggests you need to assume distant sun for erathostene's proof to work.

Assuming that the sunlight comes from a very long distance away, Eratosthenes experiment can be the basis to prove that:a) the Earth is a sphereb) the Earth is not flat c) the Earth rotates around itselfd) the Earth rotates around the sun- Ellinogermaniki Agogi have authored the official schoolbooks for Science in the 5th and 6th Grade of Primary School, and for German in High School.
http://eratosthenes.ea.gr/sites/default/files/Eratosthenes Knowledge Questions EN_0.pdf

Did you even watch your own video?

ISyszKS.jpg


"No flat Earth theory can explain the angle of all 3 shadows, but the spherical model explains it all." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
He states:
With just two wells both explanations work, erathostenes only had two wells.
Yeah it is, it's from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter .


Okay.

Here's the Apollo 11 landing site from the scouting pics taken by one of the first Lunar Orbiters.

iv_085_h1.jpg


Here's the landing site in better detail from a newer orbiter 40 years later.

BUr2GzeQHi53wwLAtCjq5d-970-80.jpg
unmanned robots could have left those marks.
 
Last edited:

JoeDanny

Member
Here's the real conspiracy theory: Flat Earthers are a group of elaborate trolls that have purposefully infected gullible kids on the internet with their brainless "theories", kids who outright refuse any evidence brought to them and live in a bubble of cynicism.
 
Here's the real conspiracy theory: Flat Earthers are a group of elaborate trolls that have purposefully infected gullible kids on the internet with their brainless "theories", kids who outright refuse any evidence brought to them and live in a bubble of cynicism.
Well they're carrying out 'experiments', if they never do the 3 well experiment their gig is up. Also someone is bound to do the 3 well experiment, if it hasn't been done yet.
 
He states:
With just two wells both explanations work, erathostenes only had two wells.

This only means that we need 3 sticks instead of 2 in order to refute flat Earth. That does not prove Eratosthenes wrong and neither does it show that Tyson is refuting him. In fact, Tyson explains why Eratosthenes' explanation is the only correct one.
 
If it were fisheye you would clearly see it before it gets that high. It’s not like anyone can reach up and perform a switcheroo.
earlier in the video it looks quite curved. the earth is much bigger than that curve at that height suggests.

I've seen curvature from other high altitude balloons, and the curve is much subtler.
This only means that we need 3 sticks instead of 2 in order to refute flat Earth. That does not prove Eratosthenes wrong and neither does it show that Tyson is refuting him. In fact, Tyson explains why Eratosthenes' explanation is the only correct one.
Well the flat earthers claim to be looking for truth and doing experiments. If they're lying they won't touch this one with a ten foot pole. IF not they'll show they are obviously mistaken. Even if flat earthers don't someone doing debunking will.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom