It's happening! Russia will officially investigate Moon landing

[BeardotheWeirdo]

Not even the astronauts understand the science behind the rockets they pilot. They’re pilots. Not rocket scientists. But the majority of people understand that scientists know enough about this stuff and that they should defer to their understanding.

Anyway, the moon landing isn’t exactly hard to understand anyway. So most people could understand it. They may not be able to do the calculations, but when someone like Dr. Tyson explains it in laymen’s terms, they can certainly understand it.

And when Nasa contradicts themselves?

https://www.quora.com/How-can-humans-survive-the-Van-Allen-radiation-belts
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-barrier-in-space


How does NASA debunk this one? It was a huge media event, they didn't even film the lunar landing from the shuttle.. why?

Why were they faking filming the earth from far away?


Between 1958-1974, NASA had an 85% success rate launching shuttles. Just launching them, this doesn't include the tests. With a success rate that low it's hard to believe that they could.

This is the inside of the lunar lander, supposedly used by Armstrong to manually land on the moon. From my experiences using the lunar lander module at the science center, it's virtually impossible for anyone to land that thing, even in a simulation. Also, look at the controls, seriously, it's like an Atari joystick. Is that even enough room for two fully dressed astronauts to move around in? In their suits they couldn't reach most of the buttons, or move much.

As for it being impossible to keep all the NASA scientists quiet... If they expose the lie (if it is indeed a lie, I can't know for sure) then what, they lose their job, get arrested for exposing state secrets, and possibly get NASA shut down, or hurt it's funding.. No Scientist would ever think that's a good idea.

 

[MikeMcMann]

like @THEfightsAREfixed is a "critical thinker"

totally not an idiot

He is the return of that nutter prior banned poster who spread all the conspiracy stuff and could never answer the simplest of questions.

If the world is not a sphere how can you leave from the same point at the same time (ie. Toronto) on a flight heading east stopping in Dubai on route to Asia, and someone else can depart from the same place and head West on a flight thru Hawaii to Asia and you can end up at the same point?

Asia <---------(hawaii) ----------- Toronto ------------(Dubai) -------------> Asia

Something that is impossible in flat earth theory as at some point you would have to double back around. Or if you say the planet eventually spins around the flying plane such that East becomes, West, etc you then have to accept every airline is in on the conspiracy and willing to waste money to keep it by flying in the wrong direction for a period of time, knowing the planet will eventually rotate around them to correct it. Why not just fly the direct way to begin with?

it is a question I have posed to him and he has never been able to answer.

it is also something two flat earthers could try and disprove by simply hoping on two flights, as i describe and showing that the planes are doubling back.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Flatearthers like to push talk into Science areas most lay people cannot defend as they do not understand it themselves. And by understand, I mean at a construct and deconstruct level of understanding. Not that the flatearthers understand it either. And if they do talk to sciencey people then flat earthers just try to obfuscate or run away or change the topic.

But if you confront flat earthers with the most basic of concepts and do not allow them to obfuscate or change the topic you nail them every time.

Here is a map of Flat Earth.

Ask any flatearther to take any central point on the map and draw via opposing vectors how two flights, flying in opposite directions (either easterly and westerly or northerly and Southerly) can ever end up in the same location? Can't be done.

So how would they address that? Does Dubai on the Easterly Route not exist or Hawaii on the Westerly one not exist using Toronto Asia? Can you not stop over in both? Are the airlines doubling back and 'in on it' after wasting hours of time and gobs of fuel?

this is game/set/match to end any flatearther talk. They either try to reply with bafflegab trying to make this topic complex when it is not, hoping you allow them to 'change the topic' or they flee and go away for a while, hoping the posts disappear and then they start back with the same nonsense they were discussion prior.

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

View attachment 476959

Took me a few seconds.

 

[ralphc1]

And when Nasa contradicts themselves?

https://www.quora.com/How-can-humans-survive-the-Van-Allen-radiation-belts
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-barrier-in-space


How does NASA debunk this one? It was a huge media event, they didn't even film the lunar landing from the shuttle.. why?

Why were they faking filming the earth from far away?


Between 1958-1974, NASA had an 85% success rate launching shuttles. Just launching them, this doesn't include the tests. With a success rate that low it's hard to believe that they could.

This is the inside of the lunar lander, supposedly used by Armstrong to manually land on the moon. From my experiences using the lunar lander module at the science center, it's virtually impossible for anyone to land that thing, even in a simulation. Also, look at the controls, seriously, it's like an Atari joystick. Is that even enough room for two fully dressed astronauts to move around in? In their suits they couldn't reach most of the buttons, or move much.

As for it being impossible to keep all the NASA scientists quiet... If they expose the lie (if it is indeed a lie, I can't know for sure) then what, they lose their job, get arrested for exposing state secrets, and possibly get NASA shut down, or hurt it's funding.. No Scientist would ever think that's a good idea.

The US had 5 moon orbital missions to map the moon and decide where to try to land in 1966 and 1967 before the moon landing in 1969. They had experience putting spacecraft into orbit around the moon.

How could they film a lunar landing from the shuttle? The last moon landing was in 1972. The space shuttle didn't get into orbit until 1981.

If you mean film it from the command module, the lunar module had to slow down to land and the command module had to continue orbiting. It took it about two hours to orbit the moon so it wouldn't have a line of sight for the landing. There is lots of film of the LM as it disconnected from the command module and when it fired the rocket to slow down.

 

[GSP_37]

They'll probably conclude that their president is descended from the Mighty Moon God and everyone should give him all their money and obey his commands.

 

[Khabibs Tiramisu]

fake moon landing debates are fun to read. keep em coming guys.

 

[90 50]

Flatearthers like to push talk into Science areas most lay people cannot defend as they do not understand it themselves. And by understand, I mean at a construct and deconstruct level of understanding. Not that the flatearthers understand it either. And if they do talk to sciencey people then flat earthers just try to obfuscate or run away or change the topic.

But if you confront flat earthers with the most basic of concepts and do not allow them to obfuscate or change the topic you nail them every time.

Here is a map of Flat Earth.

Ask any flatearther to take any central point on the map and draw via opposing vectors how two flights, flying in opposite directions (either easterly and westerly or northerly and Southerly) can ever end up in the same location? Can't be done.

So how would they address that? Does Dubai on the Easterly Route not exist or Hawaii on the Westerly one not exist using Toronto Asia? Can you not stop over in both? Are the airlines doubling back and 'in on it' after wasting hours of time and gobs of fuel?

this is game/set/match to end any flatearther talk. They either try to reply with bafflegab trying to make this topic complex when it is not, hoping you allow them to 'change the topic' or they flee and go away for a while, hoping the posts disappear and then they start back with the same nonsense they were discussion prior.

The real problem is you sleeping sheep “round earth” fools don’t understand gravity and magnetism.

You see a flat true earth, and think that your compasses read straight always.

That is not the case, the gravety of the flat circular planet pulls downward, and from the center out forms a “shell”

As you move , the compass heading does too to stay in correlation with the magnetisms and gravity shell, so you see the compass reading straight but you are not flying straight. You are turning a circular motion and that’s how you end up there, with the compass reading staying the same heading all the time.

The compass moves with you.

 

[MikeMcMann]

The real problem is you sleeping sheep “round earth” fools don’t understand gravity and magnetism.

You see a flat true earth, and think that your compasses read straight always.

That is not the case, the gravety of the flat circular planet pulls downward, and from the center out forms a “shell”

As you move , the compass heading does too to stay in correlation with the magnetisms and gravity shell, so you see the compass reading straight but you are not flying straight. You are turning a circular motion and that’s how you end up there, with the compass reading staying the same heading all the time.

The compass moves with you.

Lol.

I'll assume you are joking as none of that describes how two planes can take off from the same airport, one heading westerly the other easterly and eventually end up meeting in the same spot unless you are saying one ends up eventually doubling back and catching the other from behind. Which we all know would be lolz worthy

 

[moreorless87]

Flatearthers like to push talk into Science areas most lay people cannot defend as they do not understand it themselves. And by understand, I mean at a construct and deconstruct level of understanding. Not that the flatearthers understand it either. And if they do talk to sciencey people then flat earthers just try to obfuscate or run away or change the topic.

But if you confront flat earthers with the most basic of concepts and do not allow them to obfuscate or change the topic you nail them every time.

Here is a map of Flat Earth.

Ask any flatearther to take any central point on the map and draw via opposing vectors how two flights, flying in opposite directions (either easterly and westerly or northerly and Southerly) can ever end up in the same location? Can't be done.

So how would they address that? Does Dubai on the Easterly Route not exist or Hawaii on the Westerly one not exist using Toronto Asia? Can you not stop over in both? Are the airlines doubling back and 'in on it' after wasting hours of time and gobs of fuel?

this is game/set/match to end any flatearther talk. They either try to reply with bafflegab trying to make this topic complex when it is not, hoping you allow them to 'change the topic' or they flee and go away for a while, hoping the posts disappear and then they start back with the same nonsense they were discussion prior.

My understanding is that the whole relaunch of the flat earth idea was never really a geuine effort to prove it but rather a test of debating technique looking to highlight the way the likes of creationists use the publics lack of scientific knowledge to make dishonest arguments. Basically taking a premise that everyone knew to be false and highlighting how arguments could be made in its favour.

Somewhere along the way though it actually picked up an audience who believed it, if I'm being charitable perhaps as part of a general mistrust in the establishment, if I'm being less charitable because their thick as shit.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

And when Nasa contradicts themselves?

https://www.quora.com/How-can-humans-survive-the-Van-Allen-radiation-belts
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-barrier-in-space


How does NASA debunk this one? It was a huge media event, they didn't even film the lunar landing from the shuttle.. why?

Why were they faking filming the earth from far away?


Between 1958-1974, NASA had an 85% success rate launching shuttles. Just launching them, this doesn't include the tests. With a success rate that low it's hard to believe that they could.

This is the inside of the lunar lander, supposedly used by Armstrong to manually land on the moon. From my experiences using the lunar lander module at the science center, it's virtually impossible for anyone to land that thing, even in a simulation. Also, look at the controls, seriously, it's like an Atari joystick. Is that even enough room for two fully dressed astronauts to move around in? In their suits they couldn't reach most of the buttons, or move much.

As for it being impossible to keep all the NASA scientists quiet... If they expose the lie (if it is indeed a lie, I can't know for sure) then what, they lose their job, get arrested for exposing state secrets, and possibly get NASA shut down, or hurt it's funding.. No Scientist would ever think that's a good idea.

You didn’t bother actually reading either of those links, did you. Typical retard conspiracy guy.

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

You didn’t bother actually reading either of those links, did you. Typical retard conspiracy guy.

What makes you think that, because the one explains the amount of radiation the astronauts were exposed to?

The video shows NASA saying the radiation is so bad they're afraid it will damage their electronic instruments... what would it do to humans then?

That's the question I'm posing since you're too angry and ignorant to figure it out.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

What makes you think that, because the one explains the amount of radiation the astronauts were exposed to?

The video shows NASA saying the radiation is so bad they're afraid it will damage their electronic instruments... what would it do to humans then?

That's the question I'm posing since you're too angry and ignorant to figure it out.

No, what makes me say it is that it’s obvious you never read the content contained in those two links.