/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10399779
most fake shit ever, anyone believing this shit and anything nasa says ever are retarded, the best thing nasa has done for humanity is inventing the metal used in braces

>>10400357
>Someone who has no idea how hard it would be to fake an entire moon landing program in the Sixties

>>10399779
KEK

>>10400370
just prerecord it and then "livestream it" on ur playback tapes, whats so hard about that lmao?

>>10400357
t. Nasa shill

>>10400388
For starters, the fact that the entire Eastern Block would suck a giant dick for any actual proof, observation, anything of the moon landing being faked
The fact that USSR didn't point out it being fake is proof by itself

>>10400396
implying russia and usa didnt decide to work together lmao

>>10400396
Also thousands of people worked on Apollo both directly on the project and along side. These people would definitely be able to tell if a conspiracy is happening if there was one. Hell, exposing the conspiracy would've made them famous!

Yet not one person did. Not one disgruntled NASA employee spilled the beans after getting fired during NASA's post Apollo down sizing. Not one intern with no strong ties to NASA leaked the information. Not one NASA retiree on their deathbed confessed to it.

>>10400427
>USSR working together with USA

https://youtu.be/VmVxSFnjYCA
moon hoaxtards eternally BTFO

>>10400357
Post proof that NASA lies. I'll wait.

>>10400396
>>10400430
Nice proof. oh wait...

>>10400457
That is evidence you wingnut.

The Soviets had both the capability to tell if Apollo was faked and the motive to tell the whole world about it. Yet they didn't.

Thousands of people would have to be in on the conspiracy at NASA. Mistakes happen information gets leaked all the time. Yet no information about faking the moon landing came up.

Plus there are tons of documentation of the research, experiments, and equipment that went into Apollo, down to the plumbing of the toilets. And these documents (along with actual examples of equipment) consistent with the moon landings being real.


The world waited for evidence of this supposed conspiracy theory for over decades and yet the best moon hoaxers could bring up are either misunderstandings (ex: Van Allen belts and how they were dealt with) or unfalsifiable claims (ex: The conspiracy perfectly bought everyone's silence even though it's hard to buy out or blackmail on their deathbed).

>>10400457
Post your evidence that NASA lies. I cannot wait to see it.

schizos go to your retarded board
>>>/x/

>>10400529
>>>/pol/ also works.

>>10400510
there are intersecting shadows in photos and recordings, literal props with marked letters on them, reused background drops in different areas lmao, no more is needed, but u will find a way to circumvent this to stay in your bluepilled fantasy land

>>10400627
>there are intersecting shadows in photos and recordings
Care to give examples?

>literal props with marked letters on them
You mean the "c rock"? That was due to a hair caught in the film as it was developed. Also filmmakers dont label their props that way because the label may get caught on film

>reused background drops in different areas lmao
The moon is grey and hilly. Of course many places are going to look the same.

>lmao, no more is needed
You have failed to provide convincing evidence. So, more is needed.

>>10400627
That is evidence of your ignorance of how light works. Converging shadows indicates uneven terrain. MULTIPLE shadows per object would indicate multiple light sources. Stay retarded, friendo.

>>10400627
Do an experiment to confirm your claim. Get two lamps and shine them on one of your piss jugs. Notice how each piss jug has multiple shadows.

>>10400430
Because compartmentalization doesn't exist, and going against your country during the cold war would be wise and everyone would jump on your side.

Look at your own job for fuck's sake, how much do you really know about what goes on, what you're doing, or why? How can this be so difficult for[...], oh wait, this is the US. We're all retarded.

>>10400699
>compartmentalization
Doesn't work for Apollo. It was a project with so many pieces that needed to fit together precisely that strict compartmentalization would be impractical. NASA wasn't full of sheep, it was full of well educated scientists and engineers who took their craft seriously and would start asking questions if something didn't add up. Like if the requested specs for a lander by Grumman didn't make sense for landing on the moon. Grumman would keep asking to make sure everything is correct because to them they're making a real lander for a real mission. In the end a real product capable of sending men to the moon and back was assembled, and yet NASA doesn't use it?

>going against your country
Alright fine, that may work for the height of the cold war (it didn't really, people still criticized NASA during Apollo even their own employees), but what about after the Cold War? What about during the recent era when Americans started to distrust their government? What about disgruntled employees who got fired by NASA after Apollo? What about the people who feel that it's their patriotic duty to expose the lie to save their country?

Conspiracy theorists love to just give a simple explanation as to how their conspiracy works and don't bother to actually think about it in detail.

man never went to the moon

watch 'moon hoax now' by jet wintzer

you dont even need to into the science, the footage is garbage and doesn't hold up

>>10400795
http://www.clavius.org/index.html

>>10399779
You know Apollo 15 left a mirror on the moon that we’ve been able to shoot lasers at.

Why the fuck are people acting like there are many moon deniers?

This is just bullshit theory made by literal retards just like flat earth. You fags are giving those retards way too much attention.

>faking the moon landing would be more difficult, complicated, and expensive than just actually going to the moon
what's the point?

>>10400855
Retards today don't know how film making looked in the 60's.

>>10400730
>Doesn't work for Apollo. It was a project with so many pieces that needed to fit together precisely that strict compartmentalization would be impractical. NASA wasn't full of sheep, it was full of well educated scientists and engineers who took their craft seriously and would start asking questions if something didn't add up. Like if the requested specs for a lander by Grumman didn't make sense for landing on the moon. Grumman would keep asking to make sure everything is correct because to them they're making a real lander for a real mission. In the end a real product capable of sending men to the moon and back was assembled, and yet NASA doesn't use it?
Good answer, saved for future use

>>10400427
Never go full retard.

>>10400855
>this is what retards actually believe

>>10400430
>Also thousands of people worked on Apollo both directly on the project and along side. These people would definitely be able to tell if a conspiracy is happening if there was one.

You could get around that by faking it so thoroughly that you get everybody working ion the project to actually build the hardware and design the software that would actually be able to complete the mission.

Of course, if you do that, you can just, you know, complete the mission. Rather then spend extra money on fak sets and such.

>>10400901
The incidents that are described in this report can be put into several categories. I have listed these categories for the benefit and clarification of the reader.

It must be noted that all of these problems were given to my supervisors at the time they took place or shortly thereafter. Many of the problems could and should have been eliminated or prevented if NAA took the proper steps to do so. Almost every case of trouble gave a clear warning as to what was going to happen. This is why I say, that if the leadman, or assistant supervisor took the proper action the problem for the most part, could have been avoided.

>Lack of coordination between people in responsible positions.
>Lack of communication between almost everyone.
>The fact that people in responsible positions did not take many of the problems seriously.
>Engineers operating equipment instead of technical people.
>Many technicians do not know their job. This is partly due to the fact that they are constantly shifted from one job to another.
>People are lax when it comes to safety.
>People are lax when it comes to maintaining cleanliness levels.
>We do not make a large enough effort to enforce the PQCP.
>People do not get an official tie-in time period.
>We do not maintain proper work and systems records.
>NAA does not give the working force a feeling of accomplishment.
>There is not one procedure that I can remember that was completed without a deviation, either written or oral.
>Allowing ill practices to continue when the Company is aware of them.
>The constant transfer of QC and technical types of people to different types of tasks. Many of the techs will tell the QC man that they have never done that type of job before, or used that type of equipment before. This is one of the most prevalent problems NAA has.

Guess what happened to the man that made this report?

>>10400862
yeah and the moon landing looks like a bad film from the 60s. certainly doesn't look like people actually on the moon

>>10400627

So what retards are trying to say is: A manned moon landing didn't happen.
What about the other 5?

>>10400925
the other missions are worse as far as the footage goes. tons of fuck ups such as hitting a rock with a hammer and it making a noise, throwing things against a ship and having it make a noise ect..

>>10400925
Apollo 14 used figurines, it's pretty obvious.

>>10400449
What if NASA admitted to having "lost" an entire room's worth the telemetry data for the first Apollo mission, and had made no backup? Should this at least cause one to question their reliability? If not, one may have a much greater problem than disbelief.
Hoax believers will always insist on disproving a claim that has no substantial evidence behind it beside pictures, insisting no one has never successfully disproved "the body of science," or that "that many people couldn't lie," too prideful to humble themselves with conducting original research, yet hold alternative claims to a standard of evidence they themselves disregard in their belief, which just happen to be no different that what they were first instructed before they could think for themselves.

>>10400912
Stanley Kubrik brought him to the edge of the earth and pushed him off?

>>10400928
>hitting a rock with a hammer and it making a noise
Why is this an issue?

>>10400947
http://www.sciencedenierhallofshame.com/debunked/are-the-crew-members-of-1986-space-shuttle-challenger-still-alive/
Back to >>>/x/ with you

>>10400970
there is no air on the moon? the excuse they use is that his suit was acting like a drum, but it certainly doesn't sound like that. it sounds like someone hitting a rock with a hammer.

and how does that excuse work for when they throw objects and the collisions make noise?

>>10400976
>there is no air on the moon?
And? Sound needs a medium to travel through, the Astronaut is holding the hammer with a glove linked to a pressurised suit full of air. Put your ear against your desk and tap your finger on another part of the desk. Air isn't the only medium sound can travel through.
>and how does that excuse work for when they throw objects and the collisions make noise?
Source?

>>10399779

>>10400966
Why you deflecting with a bad joke? How do you explain the damning report by Thomas Baron, who died when a train plowed into his car when he was finishing his second report criticising the Apollo mission?

How many more excuses are you going to keep defending NASA with? It's quite bizarre.

>>10400912
>Guess what happened to the man that made this report?
I assume that you're talking about Thomas Baron and that you suspect fowl play?
If so, then what is your evidence that it was a murder?

youtu.be/mhWdc5rjeq0?t=44

One must truly be a special kind of ignorant to watch this clip and think "This looks passable as natural, non stop-motion animation."

>>10400430
>Yet not one person did
Exactly.
There's tonnes of people trying to "expose UFOs" and shit by claiming they worked for the goverment, but hardly anyone exposing the moon landing hoax that worked for the goverment

>>10400995
>there's no difference between the deceiver and the deceived

>>10400999
>How do you explain the damning report by Thomas Baron, who died when a train plowed into his car when he was finishing his second report criticising the Apollo mission?
He got hit by a train, so what?

>>10401002
Explained by a low framerate camera and the weird lighting typical in space.

If it were fake, then why didn't the Soviets ,who did their own spacewalk, call America out on it? The Soviets saw space travel as a weapon to attack and humiliate America and capitalism and would jump at the opportunity to do so against their greatest enemy.

>>10401002
It's sped up video shot at a low framerate, what were you expecting it to look like?

>>10401014
>>10401018
>be astronaut at 0:58
>be rotating in low gravity
>rotation instantly stops without any visible counter-movement
>problem, laws of physics?
>swivel my special space swivel helmet to m'ladies watching back on earth
>be glad NASA engineers designed for us astronots a pivot joint at the neck, y'know, because it looks really cool on TV and for other practical reasons

Sorry NASA, you had a good scam going, but lazily produced footage like this just kills any possible credibility you could have have to those with functional perception faculties.

>>10401000
>If so, then what is your evidence that it was a murder?

You'd have to be utterly brain dead not to see why he'd be murdered. Gus Grissom hung a lemon from the simulator he was using and died shortly after too. But to you these deaths are nothing more than accidents. Is this unbelievable amount of naivety required to think such a thing purely a defence mechanism to maintain one's view, or were you born with it?

>>10401046
>swivel my special space swivel helmet to m'ladies watching back on earth
>be glad NASA engineers designed for us astronots a pivot joint at the neck, y'know, because it looks really cool on TV and for other practical reasons
Why is being able to look around you without rotating your entire body not practical? Don't you think such a feature might be useful on an EVA?

>>10400427
>Being this dumb

>>10401052
>You'd have to be utterly brain dead not to see why he'd be murdered
So you don't have any evidence then, just ad hominems.
>But to you these deaths are nothing more than accidents.
Why did NASA let him publish his first report if they were just gonna kill him?

>>10401046
>rotation instantly stops without any visible counter-movement
What he has in his hand is a Hand-held Maneuvering Unit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-Held_Maneuvering_Unit
He could've used it to stop his rotation. Why don't we see it? Well, the framerate seems so low that it could've been missed my the camera as naneuvering thrusts are typically very short in the order of a fraction of a second.

The rest of your post is just you not understanding how the Gemini suits work.

>>10401046
>watch low framerate video at four times its original speed
>hurrr the movements luk funni
Why don't you post this shit on /x/ where people might actually be dumb enough to fall for it?

>>10401052
So you have no evidence then? You just listed some deaths related to NASA in some way, but you didn't explain how that means that NASA murdered people to cover up some supposed conspiracy.

Just like I said before, conspiracy theorists never fully think out their ideas. They just conclude that a conspiracy must exist and leave it there. That should be the beginning of research and investigation.

>>10401005
>There's tonnes of people trying to "expose UFOs" and shit by claiming they worked for the goverment, but hardly anyone exposing the moon landing hoax that worked for the goverment
That's because the government want people to believe in UFOs, they started the whole shit with Roswell, and sci-fi media in collaboration with government spread UFOs/aliens into our collective minds.

>>10400929
Yo why was Shepard's EVA suit so skinny compared to the others?

>>10401062
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-Held_Maneuvering_Unit
>fellow crewman James McDivitt recalled the gun as being "hopeless" and "utterly useless" as it required precise aim through the user's center of mass in order to translate in a straight line without inducing unwanted rotation.
>inducing unwanted rotation
On second thought, that totally explains away what looks exactly like hastily produced, stop-motion animation movement. Oh wait, you didn't even notice that part of the article before linking, did you?
Then what else could explain the jerky, unnatural movement? Solar winds? Maybe the radiation levels up there fucks with their motor system. C'mon, be more inventive if you want to keep your shill-pay.
What's wrong, at a loss for good copypasta?

>>10401060
>So you don't have any evidence then, just ad hominems.
A HEALTH AND SAFETY INSPECTOR died, killing his wife and stepdaughter, when his car was hit by a TRAIN. And this guy was criticising NASA, despite failing to protect his own health and safety from a moving train.
>Why did NASA let him publish his first report if they were just gonna kill him?
As a warning to anyone else critical of the mission. Talk shit, get hit.

>>10401118
>muh blue marble
Fuck off, retard
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/

>>10401118
>On second thought, that totally explains away what looks exactly like hastily produced, stop-motion animation movement
No, I already explained above why it looks like stop motion but you chose to ignore it because you're dead set in your schizo conspiracy theories. It is a low frame rate video that is being played at a speed far greater than that it was shot at, much like stop motion animations but not to as great of a degree. Play the video at 0.25x speed for a better idea of what it actually looks like.

>>10401098
Made of plastic.

>>10401123
>A HEALTH AND SAFETY INSPECTOR died, killing his wife and stepdaughter, when his car was hit by a TRAIN.
And?
>despite failing to protect his own health and safety from a moving train.
Just because he's a H&S inspector doesn't mean he's some ever vigilant superman with superhuman senses.
>As a warning to anyone else critical of the mission. Talk shit, get hit.
Of course they did.

>>10400357

>>10401123
>A HEALTH AND SAFETY INSPECTOR died, killing his wife and stepdaughter, when his car was hit by a TRAIN. And this guy was criticising NASA, despite failing to protect his own health and safety from a moving train.
Still no evidence then?

>>10401118
Maybe he got lucky that one time? Maybe he tugged on the connection between him and the craft? These explanations are far simpler and require fewer assumptions than a worldwide conspiracy.

Also you didn't address the Soviets.

>Then what else could explain the jerky, unnatural movement
This has been explained before. Film that was captured on a low framerate camera that was sped up to "normal" framerates.

>C'mon, be more inventive if you want to keep your shill-pay.
>What's wrong, at a loss for good copypasta?
Really? An insult? I'm not shilling, I'm explaining how your conclusions are wrong.

>>10401118
>fellow crewman James McDivitt recalled the gun as being "hopeless" and "utterly useless" as it required precise aim through the user's center of mass in order to translate in a straight line without inducing unwanted rotation.
>inducing unwanted rotation
I don't see how this refutes the idea that the device was used to stop his rotation in the video?

>>10400357
Moon Landings Faked? Filmmaker Says Not! | yeeet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

>>10401123
>A HEALTH AND SAFETY INSPECTOR died, killing his wife and stepdaughter, when his car was hit by a TRAIN. And this guy was criticising NASA, despite failing to protect his own health and safety from a moving train.

I hope you never get jury duty because you may end up sending an innocent person to prison with that line of reasoning.

>>10401135
>Just because he's a H&S inspector doesn't mean he's some ever vigilant superman with superhuman senses.
Yeah but you don't need superhuman senses to not get hit by a fucking train. Since you believe NASA when they say the car crash was simply an accident, can you explain how this "accident" happened? What evidence do you have that it was just an "accident"?
>Of course they did.
I'm sure everyone felt much more confident to expose anything after Thomas died.

>>10401138
I have circumstantial evidence for the death to be a murder, there is clear motivation for such a thing.

Now provide your evidence that it was just an "accident".

>>10401156
>Since you believe NASA when they say the car crash was simply an accident, can you explain how this "accident" happened? What evidence do you have that it was just an "accident"?
Not my burden of proof, faggot. You're the one claiming foul play was involved with literally no evidence to back up your statement, it's up to you to prove it.
>I'm sure everyone felt much more confident to expose anything after Thomas died.
I'm sure they did.

>>10401156
>Yeah but you don't need superhuman senses to not get hit by a fucking train

Do you live in some alternate reality where there are no accidents caused by trains? Where no one tries to cross some tracks shortly before a train comes by? Where some of said attempts end up either with the driver misjudging the speed of the train or the car getting stuck part way through?

>>10401165
>I have circumstantial evidence
Good for you, I don't give a shit about circumstantial evidence though, that's not gonna cut it.
>there is clear motivation for such a thing
Circular reasoning. There is only a clear motivation if you believe there was a cover-up, and you claim there was a cover-up with literally no actual evidence to support said claim.

>>10401156
>>10401123
Hold on, let me just add some random train driver on to my growing tally of people who would've needed to be "in on it" for the conspiracy to have worked.

>>10401144
>trust a nobody filmmaker who actually claims "it's harder to fake something than to do it for real"

Right, fair argument, not like there's hours of evidence of the shoddily edited and produced work of "space missions" compiled all over the net showing what a mockery the space programs truly are. So many bubbles in space, a terribly dangerous place, don't forget to bring a towel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHwxne9jnBE

>>10401195
>Right, fair argument, not like there's hours of evidence of the shoddily edited and produced work of "space missions" compiled all over the net showing what a mockery the space programs truly are.
You mean some cherry-picked shots of ice particles and other debris? That's your entire argument?

>>10401186
Don't forget the random woman who was a witness of the accident.

And the investigators of the accident.
And the insurance company who would love to not have to pay the Baron family if evidence of murder were found.
And the company who owned the train for not looking into the accident any further.
And the entire rest of the Baron family for not trying to "clear" Thomas's reputation.

Damn, I could've sworn that the smaller the conspiracy the better chance it has to not be found.

>>10401195
>have the ability to realistically mock-up a CGI earth in the background of EVA videos since the 60s
>somehow forget to CGI out a few bubbles despite them being clearly visible to the hundreds of people who would've had to review each frame of the video as the CGI was composited in and the video was checked for errors
It's hilarious how you hoaxfags experience so much cognitive dissonance. You believe NASA is some all-powerful organisation that can successfully keep the world's biggest hoax going for 50 years but they can't even spot some basic fucking "bubbles" in their "carefully crafted" videos.

questions for hoaxtards:
1) who was behind the conspiracy?
2) why?
3) who else knows?

i will post follow-up questions, because what i'm really interested in is how deep your conspiracy goes. so if you want to save time, please explain the entire depth of the conspiracy and the dark forces behind it.

i've heard the masons thing before from that annoying shill who answers every question with a question, and as far as i understand his theory, it goes to reptilians and pizza baby eating democrat cults. is that the consensus among moon hoaxtards?

>>10401217
>if you want to save time, please explain the entire depth of the conspiracy and the dark forces behind it
They can't do that because each time they come up against a new question they can't properly answer they just add a slew of more people who were in on it into their conspiracy. I'd say it started out small enough but as it currently stands, the moon conspiracy theory has become an absolute monstrosity of post-hoc reasoning that no one person can accurately describe.

>>10401147
Who would be more likely to drown in a swimming pool? A lifeguard, or a blind, no-armed, gender fluid 93 year old who is paralysed from the neck down?

Dying by drowning in a pool is very rare, and even rarer for lifeguards. Dying from getting hit by a train is very rare (by accident), but even rarer for health and safety inspectors.

>>10401166
>Not my burden of proof, faggot. You're the one claiming foul play was involved with literally no evidence to back up your statement, it's up to you to prove it.
The evidence I have is to show motivation for a murder - are you denying there being a motive? NASA were completely fine with it?

>>10401244
>A lifeguard, or a blind, no-armed, gender fluid 93 year old who is paralysed from the neck down?
False equivalence. For one, a H&S inspector isn't an expert on train tracks like a lifeguard is with water. Secondly, a H&S inspector isn't as different from the average person as a literal 90 year old paraplegic. That has got to be one of the worst fucking analogies I've ever seen on this site, please stop posting.

>>10401213
Strange isn't it how things like this only appear obvious to one after being shown? Turns out, we only see what we want to see until shown otherwise.
Almost as if the hoaxsters knew they couldn't trick everybody, so they didn't have to make an air-tight story to float on, just one good enough to cover themselves until the first generation of liars died, leaving their offspring to pay the consequence?

>implying keeping a deception private doesn't involve creating a hierarchy where only the few at the highest level know everything, and that a mere five decades would be some kind of unparalleled achievement. History is riddled with lies that went on for much longer, revealing you are either naive or simply pretending.

>>10401250
>The evidence I have is to show motivation for a murder
No, there is only motive for a murder if there is a conspiracy, one for which you have provided no evidence. Circular reasoning as explained above. >>10401176

>>10401217
please hoaxtards reply to this

>>10401264
>Almost as if the hoaxsters knew they couldn't trick everybody, so they didn't have to make an air-tight story to float on, just one good enough to cover themselves until the first generation of liars died, leaving their offspring to pay the consequence?
Ah yes, there it is, the old "they deliberately made the videos shitty". You're like a broken fucking record mate, grow up.

>>10401244
A lifegaurd drowning in a pool and a rocket safety inspector dying by train are not the same. The lifeguard was trained in pool safety. A rockey safety inspector was trained for rocket safety not locomotive safety.

Yes, such accidents are rare. But they can still happen.

>>10401250
No, motive alone isn't evidence. Evidence would be signs of tampering with the Barons car, or signs that they were killed by something other than a train. No, NASA was not fine with one of their employees dying. During the Shuttle era NASA had some pretty high up employees be critical of NASAs then flagship program, and as far as I'm aware they're completely fine. They didn't die mysteriously, they didn't get fired.

>>10401264
Except removing some bubbles is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more easy than making a convincing CGI backdrop of the earth. There is absolutely no reason these "bubbles" would've been left in the video for every conspiracy nut on YouTube to find unless of course the unthinkable happened and there wasn't actually a fucking hoax and the footage was real.

>>10401264
What you have presented is unfalsifiable because any evidence that could be used to disprove the conspiracy can be countered with "But the conspirators intentionally planted it" or "But the conspirators intentionally let that slide".

>>10401275
More like "they couldn't do a better job at the time, and when they could, thought it would be fun to leave all the bloopers in"
Pity, you'll be sharing in their payment in full soon enough.

>>10401296
Another unfalsifiable claim.

>>10401296
>they couldn't do a better job at the time
At the time? The clips shown in the video you posted seem recent enough, within the last 15 - 20 years at least. Are you saying they could create a convincing CGI backdrop of the Earth a few years ago but couldn't digitally remove some bubbles (which is a really fucking simple thing to do, even going frame by frame in Photoshop with a spot heal tool could give you decent results for this task)?

>>10401296
>Pity, you'll be sharing in their payment in full soon enough.
Was that supposed to be a threat or something? lmao

>>10401173
>Do you live in some alternate reality where there are no accidents caused by trains? Where no one tries to cross some tracks shortly before a train comes by? Where some of said attempts end up either with the driver misjudging the speed of the train or the car getting stuck part way through?
Are you living in some alternate reality where it's totally normal that a health and safety inspector dies, along with his wife and stepdaughter in an accident with a moving train, days after testifying and calling out the Apollo mission for its complete incompetence? You think the government would take no notice?

Regardless, even if his death was an accident, you still need to explain the reports of NASA he produced. Was he lying? If he wasn't, then why was he the only one that exposed it all?

>>10401313
>digitally remove some bubbles
Movies have been doing that with wires for a while.

But I guess a worldwide conspiracy with access to the funds and manpower of the most powerful nations on the planet had some budget cuts.

>>10401322
>Are you living in some alternate reality where it's totally normal that a health and safety inspector dies, along with his wife and stepdaughter in an accident with a moving train, days after testifying and calling out the Apollo mission for its complete incompetence? You think the government would take no notice?

For fucks sake, this was already explained to you. A ROCKET safety inspector died to a TRAIN. How is that suspicious at all?

Of course he was calling out the Apollo program for their safety issues THAT WAS HIS JOB. Also, unlike NASA of today which is safety minded to a fault, Apollo era NASA was notorious for taking risks.

>Regardless, even if his death was an accident, you still need to explain the reports of NASA he produced
I just did, NASA was being risky and the guy they have hired to criticize their safety did his job. You're ignoring that after Apollo 1 the capsule was redesigned to be safer and that the program didn't have a serious manned mission until Apollo 8. They've tested their equipment via robotic missions until they were confident that the equipment was safe. And no he wasnt the only one who exposed it all, he was just the most vocal at the time.

>>10401176
>Good for you, I don't give a shit about circumstantial evidence though, that's not gonna cut it.
What evidence has convinced you it was an accident?
>Circular reasoning. There is only a clear motivation if you believe there was a cover-up, and you claim there was a cover-up with literally no actual evidence to support said claim.
Was the content in the reports produced by Thomas Baron true or not?

>>10401186
Why would the train driver need to be in on it?

>>10401356
To ensure he didn't stop the train in time

>>10401353
What evidence has convinced you it was a murder?
>Was the content in the reports produced by Thomas Baron true or not?
What about it?

>>10401353
>What evidence has convinced you it was an accident?
Lack of evidence that the Barons car was tampered with before the accident.
Lack of evidence that the Barons died to something other than a train.
Lack of evidence that the Barons were incompacitaed in some way.

>Was the content in the reports produced by Thomas Baron true or not?
Yes, if somewhat overblown.

>The chairman of the NASA Oversight Committee claimed that Baron had made a valuable contribution to the Apollo fire probe, but that he had been "overzealous"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Baron

>>10401260
The H&S inspector doesn't need to be an expert on train tracks - it's the fact they're good at spotting danger that matters. This "accident" must have been quite extraordinary - how did it happen?

>>10401380
>it's the fact they're good at spotting danger that matters
"spotting danger" is an incredibly nebulous term. His job was to inspect the conditions at a rocket factory.
>This "accident" must have been quite extraordinary - how did it happen?
How does any train-related accident happen?

>>10401380
H&S inspectors are trained to spot potential dangers, but that doesnt mean that they are great at spotting danger 100% of the time. People are fallable.

>This "accident" must have been quite extraordinary - how did it happen?
I'm tired of arguing with you on this. What's your evidence of murder?

>>10401380
By your logic Chris Kyle shouldn't have been killed by that crazy guy considering how many confirmed kills he had.

>>10401282
>A lifegaurd drowning in a pool and a rocket safety inspector dying by train are not the same. The lifeguard was trained in pool safety. A rockey safety inspector was trained for rocket safety not locomotive safety.
The principle is the same, both the "accident" and the victim of the "accident" are highly unusual, which makes things even more suspect.
>No, motive alone isn't evidence. Evidence would be signs of tampering with the Barons car, or signs that they were killed by something other than a train.
How did the "accident" happen?

>>10401428
Still no evidence? Try again.

Merely postulating that the evidence may exist isn't enough.

>>10401343
>For fucks sake, this was already explained to you. A ROCKET safety inspector died to a TRAIN. How is that suspicious at all?
How did the "accident" go down?
>Of course he was calling out the Apollo program for their safety issues THAT WAS HIS JOB
So why was he the only one doing it?
>Also, unlike NASA of today which is safety minded to a fault, Apollo era NASA was notorious for taking risks.
It wasn't just safety he was critical of - he clearly states that people didn't know what they were doing. Explain that.
>And no he wasnt the only one who exposed it all, he was just the most vocal at the time.
Who were the others and why weren't they as vocal?

>>10401428
>The principle is the same
It really isn't.

Why are threads like this always getting so many posts?

It's basically like trying to make people stop believing in their religion. No matter what you say those retards won't get it.

Stop talking to 60 IQ apes.

>>10401360
So Thomas and his family were stuck on the train tracks, and didn't hear that a train was approaching so remained in the car until it struck them?

>>10401118
>Then what else could explain the jerky, unnatural movement
learn what framerate is

>>10401361
>What evidence has convinced you it was a murder?
The contents of Baron's reports.
>What about it?
You like the reports? Fill you with confidence?

>>10401451
>So Thomas and his family were stuck on the train tracks, and didn't hear that a train was approaching so remained in the car until it struck them?
You tell me, you seem to be pretty obsessed about this one event so I assume you've researched it pretty thoroughly.
>>10401459
>The contents of Baron's reports
Can you provide the specific section that proves foul play was involved?
>You like the reports?
Yes, they were real page turners.
Fill you with confidence?
I don't know, did they?

>>10401371
>Lack of evidence that the Barons car was tampered with before the accident.
>Lack of evidence that the Barons died to something other than a train.
>Lack of evidence that the Barons were incompacitaed in some way.
How did the "accident" happen please?
>Yes, if somewhat overblown.
>The chairman of the NASA Oversight Committee claimed that Baron had made a valuable contribution to the Apollo fire probe, but that he had been "overzealous"
Oh I see - so you believe the NASA chairman's claim over the claims of the H&S inspector? Why do you side with the chairman?

China really has the right idea. Retards are worked to death in mines and rice fields while intelligent people succeed. Anyone taking garbage like this or flat earth seriously shouldn't be allowed to breed.

>>10401442
>How did the "accident" go down?
You explain it since you apparently have detailed information on how it happened. I would love to see your evidence too while you're at it.

>So why was he the only one doing it?
He was not the only one doing it, there's a whole department dedicated to do what his job was.

>It wasn't just safety he was critical of - he clearly states that people didn't know what they were doing. Explain that.
I guess he meant that NASA wasn't fully aware of the dangers that they're getting into. Such as filling a capsule with pure oxygen where there are electronics that had a nasty habit of making sparks.

>Who were the others and why weren't they as vocal?
The organisation that he worked for the North American Aviation. As to why they weren't as vocal, because they trusted NASA to take their complaints seriously and didn't feel the need to leak their reports, unlike Thomas. And guess what, NAA was right. NASA redesigned large aspects of the Apollo program to be safer.

Again, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF MURDER? You have been told what counts as evidence. You are being obtuse, stop that.

>>10401466
what are you going to latch onto next?

>>10401450
it's because moon hoaxtards train themselves very hard to be excellent at baiting and sophistry, and people who hate the hoaxtards feel righteous about "real facts should be able to conquer these douchebags" so it becomes a mini-battle over details in sophistical garbage.

notice how if Anons call out the hoaxtards to actually come clean about their theory, they refuse to respond:

>>10401217
>>10401270
since hoaxtards are not even trying to discuss in good faith

>>10401466
>so you believe the NASA chairman's claim over the claims of the H&S inspector? Why do you side with the chairman?
I don't have any reason to distrust the chairman.

Why do you think that Thomas as murdered? Where is the evidence of murder?

Stop replying to this hoaxfag until he produces actual evidence of his claims

>>10401479
>people who hate the hoaxtards feel righteous about "real facts should be able to conquer these douchebags"

It's also because if hoaxers where just ignored then it gives the impression that their ideas hold merit and someone who doesn't understand the topic may see the hoaxer's posts and risk agreeing with them and becoming a hoaxer themselves.

I don't expect that "real facts should be able to conquer these douchebags", I expect that someone else would read this and see how the hoaxer's ideas don't hold up to scrutiny and maybe, just maybe, not side with the hoaxer.

>>10401396
>"spotting danger" is an incredibly nebulous term. His job was to inspect the conditions at a rocket factory.
It requires being aware of your surroundings.
>How does any train-related accident happen?
I'm asking about this one specifically. What fucked up so badly for Baron and the passengers to cause such a thing?

>mornin' jonny
>mornin' clyde
>listen, that baron fellow... he needs to go
>h'why, clyde?
>von braun's orders, straight from israel. baron's reports are... causing problems for the administration
>gee whiz, clyde, why are his safety reports of our spacecraft a problem if we're faking the landing anyway?
>just see to it that he's removed, jonny
>clyde, i just manage the propulsion team, what the heck do you want me to do?

>>10401398
You seem to know a lot about this accident - how did it happen?

>>10401401
How many kills did the crazy guy have?

>>10401498
kek

>>10401396
i wouldn't bother if i were you, his tactic is argument by exhaustion. once you stop replying (he won't stop replying because 98% of his time on the internet is spent researching or commenting about psychotic rubbish) he'll act as if you concede that space isn't real, the earth is flat (and also hollow and concave), space jews rotate the sky dome and trump is a lizard person

>>10401433
Where's your evidence of it being an accident? You don't have any, but I have circumstantial evidence that points to it being a murder.

Do we allow for the PSI of our atmosphere in gravitational calculations? It's the only thing that explains why water does not shoot out into space while spinning yet I've never heard it mentioned before.

The moon has next to no PSI if any, good thing it doesn't have the same type of rotation. Still I would think this would effect the gravity negatively. Those guys should be going higher when they jump, and that dust should take like an hour to settle.

>>10401462
>You tell me, you seem to be pretty obsessed about this one event so I assume you've researched it pretty thoroughly.
It is reported that Baron's car was struck by a train - you believe this to be true, can you please tell me how it happened?
>Can you provide the specific section that proves foul play was involved?
All of it? There's nothing positive.

>>10401517
>circumstantial evidence
Invalid as evidence. Where is your evidence of murder?

The Florida Highway Patrol found that Thomas Baron attempted to beat a train while crossing some tracks and failed.

There, that is how the accident happened. Care to share what you think happened?

>>10401501
Not many I'm guessing
>In September 2007, Routh was deployed to a forward operating base about 60 miles north of Baghdad, where he repaired weapons and worked as prison guard for six months. It was his only war-related experience,

>>10401509
I know, but I can't just leave him here to shitpost. He'll end up converting some poor soul to his "cause" and then we would have more hoaxers to deal with.

>>10401517
>I have circumstantial evidence
no you don't, you don't even have that

>>10401521
>Do we allow for the PSI of our atmosphere in gravitational calculations? It's the only thing that explains why water does not shoot out into space while spinning yet I've never heard it mentioned before.
What the fuck even is this post

>>10401521
lol what the fuck

>>10401533
>you believe this to be true
And you don't? Are you now trying to say that the train hitting the car he was in wasn't what killed him?
>All of it?
No, specific quotes please, and explain why said quotes would lead you to the conclusion of foul play.

1) who was behind the conspiracy?
2) why?
3) who else knows?

answers please

>The moon landing was a hoax.
>Proof: some dude got offed by NASA.
>QED
flawless logic, thanks schizos

>>10401471
>You explain it since you apparently have detailed information on how it happened. I would love to see your evidence too while you're at it.
There's no convincing evidence the train crash even happened - but you believe it did, so what evidence swayed you?
>He was not the only one doing it, there's a whole department dedicated to do what his job was.
Like who? What did they write?
>I guess he meant that NASA wasn't fully aware of the dangers that they're getting into. Such as filling a capsule with pure oxygen where there are electronics that had a nasty habit of making sparks.
Have you read the report? He clearly states people are told to use equipment they've never used before, and no one ever completes anything.
>As to why they weren't as vocal, because they trusted NASA to take their complaints seriously and didn't feel the need to leak their reports, unlike Thomas.
Why did nobody at NASA speak out?

>>10401483
>I don't have any reason to distrust the chairman.
Why do you distrust the inspector?

>>10401561
NASA did 9/11 too!

>>10401568
wot

>>10401565
>>10401568
What is your evidence of murder?

>>10401536
>The Florida Highway Patrol found that Thomas Baron attempted to beat a train while crossing some tracks and failed.
Jej - how did they find this? Also, what was so important for him to make such a retarded decision with two other people in the car? Are you really satisfied with that?

/sci/ is supposed to be smart. But look at all these replies to a troll thread!

...in every field.

>>10401586
the train driver must have been in on the conspiracy just like the USSR was

>>10401586
What is your evidence of murder?

Here read this.
http://www.clavius.org/baron.html

>>10401549
Interesting pic, never see that before. Fuckin saved.

>>10401586
>Jej
Ah, it's the flat earth schizo from /x/, I knew you'd expose yourself eventually

>>10401545
A trained killer nonetheless.

>>10401593
yeah i love seeing the nitty gritty. the pic above was from before they weight-optimized the design by removing some external metal plates

>>10401605
but it's tin foil and curtain rails reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>10401144
Hello fellow reddit user!!!!!
I too have upvoted this.

>>10401597
Yet Chris Kyle was more highly trained, so he should've spotted that Routh was going to shoot him and retaliated.

how can the moon be real if i can only get one bar of signal on my phone? checkmate, globeheads

>>10401617
>>10401618
nice CGI you shill

>>10401556
>And you don't? Are you now trying to say that the train hitting the car he was in wasn't what killed him?
Do you believe Baron was trying to beat the train but wasn't fast enough?
>No, specific quotes please, and explain why said quotes would lead you to the conclusion of foul play.
The report makes it impossible for the moon landings to be legitimate. Thomas became an enemy of the state in a "war" time period.

>>10401549
>>10401605
>>10401609
>>10401617
>>10401618
Dat engineering...

>>10401629
Commie gtfo

Nah, just kidding. I wish they'd been able to make a flight -- might have kept exploration going after the "race" was over.

Polite non-bump because troll thread.

>>10401624
>>No, specific quotes please,
>ThE rEpOrT mAkEs iT ImPoSsIbLe fOr tHe mOoNLaNdInGs tO bE LeGiTiMaTe

>>10401624
>The report makes it impossible for the moon landings to be legitimate.
That's not a specific quote, that's another baseless claim.

>>10401580
Makes much more sense and is much more likely than it being a freak accident.

>>10401642
>that pic
muh dick

>>10401642
>>10401643
>Lack of coordination between people in responsible positions.
>Lack of communication between almost everyone.
>The fact that people in responsible positions did not take many of the problems seriously.
>Engineers operating equipment instead of technical people.
>Many technicians do not know their job. This is partly due to the fact that they are constantly shifted from one job to another.
>People are lax when it comes to safety.
>People are lax when it comes to maintaining cleanliness levels.
>We do not make a large enough effort to enforce the PQCP.
>People do not get an official tie-in time period.
>We do not maintain proper work and systems records.
>NAA does not give the working force a feeling of accomplishment.
>There is not one procedure that I can remember that was completed without a deviation, either written or oral.
>Allowing ill practices to continue when the Company is aware of them.
>The constant transfer of QC and technical types of people to different types of tasks. Many of the techs will tell the QC man that they have never done that type of job before, or used that type of equipment before. This is one of the most prevalent problems NAA has.

you know, i've never seen a mars hoaxer

i can only conclude that moon hoaxers are martians. the logic is flawless.

>>10401642
I've actually stood under two of those things. One that was stood up like in the picture, and the other was hung on its side from the ceiling with all of this stages separated.

You don't really get the idea of the scale of the Saturn V until you see one in-person.

>>10401653
Wow, holy crap, checkmate roundearth atheists. BTW, redpill me on the Masons.

>>10401653
lol he's got a copypasta ready to go

>>10401657

>>10401657
imagine the sound

>>10401658
>>10401659
>got nothin' to defend it

>>10401657
>One that was stood up like in the picture.
Oops should've been more spesific. I meant stood up like in the picture of the post I was replying to.

>>10401653
What is your evidence of murder?

Read this.
http://www.clavius.org/baron.html

>>10401666
>reels off a load of shite from his lizardhoax.txt
>expects anyone to read it and conclude "ah yes i see now, this report makes it impossible that the apollo 11 landed on the moon"

>>10401664
>Imagine the sound

No need.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YTaG91KD5s

>>10401653
>all of this written before Apollo 1
>implying they didn't rectify these issues during the 9 other Apollo missions
>implying this is evidence the moon landings were "impossible"

rich people like musk spend all their money -- literally, nearly bankrupting themselves -- just to fuck with hoaxfags

OMFG HOAXTARD IS NOT REPLYING, HE FINALLY GOT SHUT DOWN, EPIC VICTORY FOR TEAM SANITY, WHAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTT?????????????????????//

>>10401719
BUT WHO WAS TRAIN???

>>10401664
imagine being fried by the exhaust plume

>>10401809
Imagine frying burgers with the exhaust plume.

>>10401316
The law of cause and effect is not a threat, it's merely inescapable reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM-2aHkQuI0

>>10401677
Maybe their CGI team bills them(us) big billions a year for all their mock-ups?

Anyone think it would be possible to build a theme park-type ride that simulates being in a Saturn V launch with authentic sound and g forces? It would be the shit at KSC or JSC.

>>10401657
That would have been in Huntsville -- they have a full-sized mockup displayed vertically, and one of the three unused Saturn 5s displayed horizontally. The other two are both displayed horizontally -- one in Houston, one at Cape Canaveral.

>>10401860
Earth's orbital speed is about 30 km/s (108,000 km/h; 67,000 mph)

Curvature is about 8 inches per mile squared.

The tilt of the Earth's axis is 23.5 degrees.

>One out of three ain't bad, eh?

>>10401876
Of course it would be possible -- though the sound would disappoint once you got up to speed.

>>10401892
You wouldn't be able to hear yourself think up until inboard cut off. I just don't think they could replicate the whole 4 g to -1.5 g to 4 g (while laying on your back) shitshow at staging unless they build it like that >rippen centrifuge ride

>>10401931
>unless they build it like that >rippen centrifuge ride

So. yeah...

>>10401931
It's my understanding that the sound transferred through the rocket structure was loud, but once you got above the speed of sund the noise was not too bad, as the internally-transmitted sound was not longer supplemented by sound from outside.

My memory could be faulty, though.

>>10401967
What? Am I a brainlet?

>>10400357
>most fake shit ever, anyone believing this shit and anything nasa says ever are retarded,
Well gee, at least you don't sound like bait.

>>10399779
It saddens me to see the young generation be this stupid. The excitement and energy fostered by the space program lasted until about the 5th landing. Then 'people' started in with the "muh taxes going to space, not welfare", and ho-hum we beat the Russians. The net result: diminished interest in science, and now the Internet provides a platform for every under-achieving, intellectually lazy, spoiled brat who thinks being edgy will somehow be cool.
I'm glad I'm old. You deserve the world you're creating.

>>10400357
Based and fpbpilled

>>10399779
If you believe that human beings have ever set foot on the moon, you're either extremely naiive or schizophrenic. Think about the plausibility of such a feat for ten seconds and you'll realize it's fake. We went to the moon 8 times in 10 years using 1960's technology and no knowledge of the van allen belts yet here we sit in the 21st century being told that It's too expensive/dangerous to do it. N*SA is bullshit fraud and money laundering scam.

>>10402030
>no knowledge of the van allen belts
>Van Allen Belts discovered in 1958
>Apollo 8 in 1968

Did it hurt to pull that post out of your ass?

>>10402030
van allen belts are my FAVORITE trollposts

How did the astronauts survive the COSMIC RADIATION on the moon? I can't find an answer to this

>>10402039
Bless this post.

>>10402037
And yet we've never been back. Private moon travel should have been commonplace 30 years ago if it were actually possible to do. No human being has ever been past LEO.

>>10402039
We did it reddit!!

>>10402044
Aww geez its almost like there's very little economic motivation to invest in space travel beyond LEO compared to the cost of getting there.

Once the national pride motivation of Apollo was gone, space travel as a whole got downsized. This isn't evidence that we never went to the moon.

>>10402040
It caught up with a few of them. See Swigert, Shepard, Schirra, etc. who died young.

>>10402030
then why do you believe in the van allen belts?

>>10402044
>reality doesn't live up to my arbitrary standards and desires so reality is false

>>10402030
1700's technology actually: the sextant

>NASA says that they have landed on the moon.
"NASA is tells only lies! They shouldn't be trusted!"

>NASA says that there's a belt of radiation that makes space travel beyond LEO a little bit difficult
"NASA is absolutely trustworthy about this!"

Interesting.

>>10401654
The Landers actually landed in death valley. The pictures are taken with iPhones using the sepia filter.

>>10402096
imagine being as credulous as this faggot

>>10402078
>NASA says that there's a belt of radiation that makes space travel beyond LEO lethal* without lift-off-preventatively- thick lead shielding, according to Van Allen's original radiation calculation, who was later forced to modify this conclusion to suit the party's version of reality.

*FTFY

>>10402122
"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

Thick lead shielding isn't needed when you can just go around the belt. Like >>10402039

Also, do you have evidence that Van Allen was forced to change his opinion? Or that he even had an opinion that manned spaceflight to the moon was impossible because of the belts? If not, then it can be safely assumed that you pulled that accusation out of your ass.

>>10400947
Still waiting for evidence that NASA lies.

>>10402122
you've already been told multiple times that lead would be inappropriate to protect against the van allen belts because it emits x-ray radiation when struck by the types of particles found in the van allen belts

and why do you believe in the van allen belts? i thought you said nasa are liars.

>>10402119
Believe it or not, conspiracy theorists are in fact more inclined to believe anything than everyone else. Belief in such theories is born of distrust in conventionally held understanding, and so to reinforce their distrust they readily believe any cockamamie ideas that confirm their bias

>>10401475
Nice webm. Too big to be on the vomit comet, and movement impossible with a harness. Brainlets BTFO.

still no response to this:

1) who was behind the conspiracy?
2) why?
3) who else knows?

>>10401610

>presented with valid evidence
>"oh yeah w-well i bet you use leddit!!!111"

>>10402131
Ever researched the work of someone like Eric Dubay?

The burden of proof will always be on the proclaimers of the odd ball out.

>>10402144
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eric Dubay

>>10401647

>>10401677
Worth it.

>>10402144
>Eric Dubay
The guy who needed 200 "proofs" that the Earth isn't round, yet every single one of them were refuted.

The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.

To address your image, why should we trust what some ancient cultures had to say about the shape of the Earth when they didn't have the tools and methods we have today to measure the Earth?

Also, explain sunsets and sunrises on the Flat Earth.

Imagine having difficulty understanding planets and space and shit when things like Kerbal Space Program and Simple Rockets exist.

>>10402157
This.

>>10402149
That is such smooth quality. Where the fuck did you find that?

>>10402169
>>>/wsg/

>>10402146
>17 whole quotes!
My man, you know he deserves that much respect.
>>10402149
Wow! Looks just like in Japanese animes!
>>10402156
I agree, 200 proofs was excessive for the disproof of a theory that was propped up by mathematical sophistry, pictures, and duct tape. His shorter bits are much greater examples.

>>10402176
>Question 1:
Looking down onto a supposedly flat surface, our view of it is abruptly cut short at a relatively short distance. Why? Back up your answer with geometry, assuming perfectly clear viewing conditions.

>Question 2:
We can see distant objects that are tall enough to peek over the horizon, so why can't we see all of the supposedly flat surface leading up to said objects? Back up your answer with geometry, assuming perfectly clear viewing conditions. Provide a diagram of a viewer on a flat surface, with a detailed explanation as to why that surface can't be seen all the way to a distant object on that same flat surface.

>Question 3:
Why does the height of the observer affect the distance that can be seen when looking down onto a flat surface?

>Question 4:
Provide a formula that can be used to calculate the distance at which land or sea stops being visible to an observer at a height H meters above a flat surface.

>Question 5:
Use your formula to calculate the altitude an observer would have to be situated at above the North Pole to see the whole of the giant Frisbee you think you live on.

>>10402182
because buddha man, fucking like consciousness yo, science can't explain that bro. but wait dude its your turn, hit this blunt

cuz like deepak chopra and shit man

>>10402176

>>10402182
Don't expect straight answers from a flatearther, their entire worldview is based on ignoring observable reality. Even observations that they personally can and have witnessed.

>>10402144
The Earth's curvature was mathematically proven in the 5th century bc

>>10402197
yeah but if you go back to 5th century BC sumeria, Axothtosthenes said that light is circular and time is rhombic, so like, you know, flat earth and pizzababy eating democrats

>>10402182
You would not need to ask this had you researched both sides of each of these points, I assure you, both models have answers to these questions, but one model makes far fewer assumptions, because it correct.

Also, the moon geometrically cannot possibly be sphere, as there is zero difference in 'reflected light' intensity at any two areas on it's lit surface.
Bonus: The moon's 'craters' could not possibly have been perfectly spherical impact marks, simply illogical that not one visible skid mark or ovular crater would be visible from it's face.

>>10402209
>spelling Eratosthenes that way
What a clown, but that doesn't make any of those things less true.

>>10401860
>er*c d*bay
Posting that literal scam artist should be an instant ban
Debunking 200 "Proofs" for a Flat Earth: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGSTO75_3Rv_gvv4rPK8VUfBypyBhgWn0

>>10402241
>Also, the moon geometrically cannot possibly be sphere
So what is it then, and how far away is it?

>>10402241
>The moon's 'craters' could not possibly have been perfectly spherical impact marks, simply illogical that not one visible skid mark or ovular crater would be visible from it's face.
Learn how impact craters are actually formed, cretin.

>>10402241
>Also, the moon geometrically cannot possibly be sphere, as there is zero difference in 'reflected light' intensity at any two areas on it's lit surface.
Why would you expect a difference? The difference in distance to the sun from the closest part of the moon to the furthest part is miniscule compared to the overall distance

>>10402241
>You would not need to ask this had you researched both sides of each of these points, I assure you, both models have answers to these questions, but one model makes far fewer assumptions, because it correct.
Why are you avoiding his questions?

>>10402293
>Wernher Von Braun created NASA
???

>>10402241
>flattard gets asked fundamental questions about his model of the world
>flattard refuses to answer them
I'm shocked.

Let's try again:

>Question 1:
Looking down onto a supposedly flat surface, our view of it is abruptly cut short at a relatively short distance. Why? Back up your answer with geometry, assuming perfectly clear viewing conditions.

>Question 2:
We can see distant objects that are tall enough to peek over the horizon, so why can't we see all of the supposedly flat surface leading up to said objects? Back up your answer with geometry, assuming perfectly clear viewing conditions. Provide a diagram of a viewer on a flat surface, with a detailed explanation as to why that surface can't be seen all the way to a distant object on that same flat surface.

>Question 3:
Why does the height of the observer affect the distance that can be seen when looking down onto a flat surface?

>Question 4:
Provide a formula that can be used to calculate the distance at which land or sea stops being visible to an observer at a height H meters above a flat surface.

>Question 5:
Use your formula to calculate the altitude an observer would have to be situated at above the North Pole to see the whole of the giant Frisbee you think you live on.

>>10400947
>Second, if such a conspiracy were to exist, and do what has been alleged, is it in any way logical that the ‘still living’ astronauts would be cleverly concealed with any of their original names intact? (Think ‘Witness Protection Program’) This little flaw in the theory is shared by many faux conspiracy theories. It’s alleged that a clandestine group devises ingenious methods to pull off some hoax, then makes easily avoidable and obvious mistakes that botch the whole plan. Two words: Highly improbable

I don't care about the Moon in general but I remember reading that the particular theory in this case is that it is a litmus test, NASA openly mocking you.

>>10401886
>Earth's orbital speed is about 30 km/s (108,000 km/h; 67,000 mph)
Wrong, it's 66,600mph on average.
>The tilt of the Earth's axis is 23.5 degrees.
The mean axial tilt is 23.4 degrees.

>>10403184
>in this case is that it is a litmus test, NASA openly mocking you
Hoaxtards always say this when someone calls out the stupidity of their theories.

>>10403193
illuminati satan lizards confirmed

>>10403184
yes that's what flattards say when you question why the UN would put the biggest, longest-running, most secret conspiracy ever on their insignia. they're just "testing the waters" and "mocking people who know the truth".

if only there were a diagnosis of mental illness that commonly features delusions that the nebulous They are messing with you

>>10403184
>remember reading that the particular theory in this case is that it is a litmus test, NASA openly mocking you.

So your conspiracy theory is unfalsifiable? Well then, it can be rejected without further investigation.

>>10403244
>why the UN would put the biggest, longest-running, most secret conspiracy ever on their insignia
I always ask flattards whenever they bring up the UN logo: What's the best way to most accurately represent the countries of the world on a circular image?

>>10403255
Why must it be circular?

>>10403592
Looks nicer, why not?

>>10403592
Probably to fit within the circular wreaths on the logo which symbolize peace.
Sure, non-circular maps could be used but they probably don't look right to most people.

https://youtu.be/1OqMSAPHUOM

>>10402156
Those 200 proofs were full of repetition of same statements

>>10402182

>>10402725
Here's the answer to all 5 of your questions:
The laws of perspective, combined with local air visible light diffraction ratio

>>10404477
"But muh perspective" is not an answer. The "law of perspective", as in foreshortening, behaves linearly, but the described phenomena are non-linear. The vanishing point is an imaginary point infinitely far away, not a few kilometers away. Parallel lines never meet, and straight lines do not bend. There is no distance beyond which an observer's eye starts rejecting light reflected or emitted by an object. The horizon self-evidently exists, and it is some distance (a function of the observer's height) below the notional vanishing point of the observer; why?

Provide a proper answer. Back up your answer with geometry, assuming perfectly clear viewing conditions. Provide a diagram of a viewer on a flat surface, with a detailed explanation as to why a surface can't be seen all the way to a distant object that IS visible sitting on that same flat surface.

>>10399779
>I want to believe.
No you don't.
You want to troll.

>>10404519
He's not trying to answer.
He's provoking you into responding so he can is ollect (You)s.
I know, it's weird, but there are people like that.

>>10401475
it's such a shame that we don't have skylab sized space station anymore

>>10401521
and the award for the most retarded post goes to anon

>>10404795
You can't refute what they said

>>10401521
What the fuck are you even saying?
Are you suggesting that atmospheric pressure is the only thing that keeps water on the surface of the Earth?
Because I think you'll find a little thing called "gravity" tends to explain that phenomenon pretty accurately.
The moon has an instantaneous tangential velocity much lower than the Earth's, being as how it's radius is so much smaller.
This, however, barely effects that atmosphere.
The Moon's low atmospheric pressure is because the Moon has a low mass, compared to the Earth, and gravitational attraction is a product of mass.

>>10406188
There's nothing to refute. He makes an observably false and ignorant assumption and then asks a question based on what is wrong

1) who was behind the conspiracy?
2) why?
3) who else knows?

>>10406188
Fine, I'll refute it.

Pressure can't explain why things fall when dropped (i.e. gravity) because air pressure is due to a force that's holding the air down. Plus, when an object, such as a pin, is dropped the difference in pressure between the top and bottom of the pin is insignificant and thus can't be responsible for pushing it down.

On top of that, air pressure varies significantly in one area due to the temperature and weather, thus a difference in the weight of an object during different weather conditions should be detected, but no such observation has been found.