Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    That is NOT an answer. It is sheer and utter fallacious stupidity.
    You notice that on the moon there's no trees, no ocean or lakes, no life.

    The earth is not like the moon because it has trees, oceans and lakes, and life.

    The earth must not be a sphere.

    Again this is not a proof.

    Not seeing trees, lakes etc does not prove the earth is not a sphere.

    And like wise seeing spheres, sun/moon, in the sky does not prove the earth is a sphere.

    --Dave
    www.dynamicfreetheism.com
    The only view of ultimate reality that provides
    rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
    The only view that proves the existence and explains
    the nature of God.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
      You do not perceive the Earth moving, so your interpretation is that the Earth is not moving.
      You do not perceive a Heliocentric solar system, so your interpretation is that you live in a geocentric universe.

      Your interpretation contradicts reality because of a lack of perception.

      So, what methods are available to correct your lack of perception?
      The ancients created orreries, machines to model the movement of the sun, planets, and moons to expand their perception.
      We all share the same perception from earth. That won't change.

      Cosmologies come from expanding our imagination not our perception.

      --Dave
      www.dynamicfreetheism.com
      The only view of ultimate reality that provides
      rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
      The only view that proves the existence and explains
      the nature of God.

      Comment


      • Fake moon footprint

        The first foot print from the moon should be our first evidence that we never went to the moon.

        Before I explain why, I would like see if anyone else can explain why this footprint is not from the moon.

        Click image for larger version

Name:	maxresdefault.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	127.4 KB
ID:	2434987

        --Dave
        www.dynamicfreetheism.com
        The only view of ultimate reality that provides
        rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
        The only view that proves the existence and explains
        the nature of God.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
          Fake moon footprint

          The first foot print from the moon should be our first evidence that we never went to the moon.

          Before I explain why, I would like see if anyone else can explain why this footprint is not from the moon.

          [ATTACH=CONFIG]26890[/ATTACH]

          --Dave
          I'm going to let you watch this video.

          https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2m7k1z
          (couldn't find it on discovery.com, sorry)

          And then I'm going to ask you to not try to completely change the topic from the current discussion.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
            And seeing spheres in space does not prove the earth is a sphere either.

            --Dave
            The sun moves below the horizon in exactly the same time as it takes for it to move it's own arc diameter anywhere else in the sky.
            Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

            It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
              I'm going to let you watch this video.

              https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2m7k1z
              (couldn't find it on discovery.com, sorry)

              And then I'm going to ask you to not try to completely change the topic from the current discussion.
              My answer to all the questions about sun, moon, and stars that prove we are a spinning globe is that we have not been told the truth about the universe. We know we have not been told the truth because NASA faked the moon landings. We've never been back to the moon because we were never there in the first place.

              In the mythbusters video the first footprint test failed so they put a thin layer of what they said simulated moon "dust" in a vacuum chamber then pressed a moon boot into it in order to get a foot print to match the moon print.

              But this is not a true test because they did not try this test outside of the vacuum chamber to see if there was any difference between the two conditions. The moon surface also would be deeper than the thin layer used in this test.

              The moon surface is said to have sharp grains of particles not smooth grains that we have here on earth which are a result of wind and water which the moon does not have. The difference between sand and dust is that dust is much smaller and smoother grain because of wind. If the moon does not have wind then fine moon dust could not exist there.

              At about 21:35 into the video they show footage of the astronauts running on the moon surface and you can clearly see their foot prints being filled in as one would expect to see here on earth on dry sand and contradicts the perfect foot prints also said to be from the moon.

              The perfect foot print shows moisture as it would here on earth. Fine moon dust contradicts no wind in order to create it on the moon as it does here on earth. That "powdery grey dirt is formed (on the moon) by micrometeorite impacts which pulverize local rocks into fine particles" is pure conjecture without proof. Fine particles cannot both be fine and have rough edges as claimed in the video.

              --Dave
              www.dynamicfreetheism.com
              The only view of ultimate reality that provides
              rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
              The only view that proves the existence and explains
              the nature of God.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
                The sun moves below the horizon in exactly the same time as it takes for it to move it's own arc diameter anywhere else in the sky.
                The claim of flat earth is that we see everything over head in perspective just as we see everything in perspective on earth. But then it's argued that the sun should get much smaller the farther away it is from us.

                It has been argued that the sun maintains it's size from sun rise to sun set from where ever we are on earth. But I argued back that this is wrong because even if the earth is a globe the sun is still farther away from us at sun set and sun rise than it is when it's directly above us.

                Seeing the sun even from a globe is tricky business. At sun rise and sun set I'm not really seeing the sun anyway.

                Click image for larger version

Name:	fig_00493_1e.png
Views:	1
Size:	178.6 KB
ID:	2434988

                The most popular refraction example is the pencil in the glass of water.

                Click image for larger version

Name:	06-6-photo_Refraction-350x468.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	35.8 KB
ID:	2434989

                Refraction not only bends light it also magnifies, or enlarges the pencil in the glass making it look bigger than it is. So if we can say at sun set and sun rise the sum is not where it actually is, we should also say it also looks larger than it actually is.

                --Dave
                www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                The only view that proves the existence and explains
                the nature of God.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                  My answer to all the questions about sun, moon, and stars that prove we are a spinning globe is that we have not been told the truth about the universe. We know we have not been told the truth because NASA faked the moon landings. We've never been back to the moon because we were never there in the first place.


                  In the mythbusters video the first footprint test failed so they put a thin layer of what they said simulated moon "dust" in a vacuum chamber then pressed a moon boot into it in order to get a foot print to match the moon print.
                  Why is that a problem?

                  But this is not a true test because they did not try this test outside of the vacuum chamber to see if there was any difference between the two conditions.
                  Why should they?

                  They're trying to simulate the surface of the moon.

                  The moon's surface (aside from what little atmosphere there is) is for all intents and purposes a vacuum.


                  In the moon's atmosphere, there are only 100 molecules per cubic centimeter. In comparison, Earth's atmosphere at sea level has about 100 billion billion molecules per cubic centimeter.


                  https://www.space.com/18067-moon-atmosphere.html

                  So if the moon's surface is a vacuum, and the test was done in a vacuum, then the conditions are similar enough for science to be done.

                  The moon surface also would be deeper than the thin layer used in this test.
                  Which is irrelevant. They weren't testing for depth.

                  They were comparing the structure of the footprint. It matched the photo almost exactly, which shows that such a footprint could be made even with that little regolith.

                  The moon surface is said to have sharp grains of particles not smooth grains that we have here on earth which are a result of wind and water which the moon does not have.
                  As you saw, footprints in sand are much softer and less defined than footprints in regolith BECAUSE of the sharper grains.

                  The difference between sand and dust is that dust is much smaller and smoother grain because of wind. If the moon does not have wind then fine moon dust could not exist there.
                  Why not?

                  Here's the problem with that assertion, and the solution that my position offers:

                  The problem with it is that the lunar regolith is not sedimentary dust, it's not the same kind of particle we have here on earth.

                  The solution to your supposed problem is that the regolith is a product of meteorites slamming into the moon. In other words, the dust on the moon are the debris from meteorite impacts.

                  Which is COMPLETELY consistent with my position, the Hydroplate Theory, which asserts that when the fountains of the great deep broke forth, they launched crustal debris from the edges of the cracks in the crust into space, where some of it impacted the moon (which is why the moon has so many craters, and half of the moon (what used to be the leading half of the moon in its orbit) is now facing the earth due to gravity, which also explains lunar libration; and the rest of the debris was shot out into orbit around the sun and eventually into interstellar space) looks like it was melted at some point in the past.

                  At about 21:35 into the video they show footage of the astronauts running on the moon surface and you can clearly see their foot prints being filled in as one would expect to see here on earth on dry sand and contradicts the perfect foot prints also said to be from the moon.
                  No, Dave, NOT as one would expect, and even in the video, you can clearly see that the footprints are not being filled in, the dust that's being kicked up is being kicked AWAY from the footprints. Watch that portion again, and look closely at where the dust is going, and notice that the footprints are still there, clearly defined even in such a low quality video (as compared to today's footage).

                  On earth, when you run along the beach, your footprints are not clearly defined, but look more like indentations in the sand, because the sand particles, since they are smooth, will quickly slide against each other and fill in the footprints the moment you take your foot away, and while sand is being kicked away from the footprints in front of you, the sand also

                  On the moon, however, the lesser gravity combined with the sharp edges allows the regolith to be pushed together and become "locked" together (think puzzle pieces), which prevents them from sliding. The amount of lunar dust that fills in the resulting footprint is therefore FAR less than the amount in a footprint made on the earth in sand.

                  The portion of the video you're talking about, though, is dealing with whether the footage was sped up or slowed down to make it seem like it was real.

                  The perfect foot print shows moisture as it would here on earth.
                  Moisture cannot account for the clearly defined structure of the footprint.

                  They even showed what that would look like with wet sand.

                  Fine moon dust contradicts no wind in order to create it on the moon as it does here on earth.
                  Straw man, moon dust was not created by wind. It was created by meteorite impacts.

                  That "powdery grey dirt is formed (on the moon) by micrometeorite impacts which pulverize local rocks into fine particles" is pure conjecture without proof.
                  Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave.

                  Fine particles cannot both be fine and have rough edges as claimed in the video.

                  --Dave
                  Why not?

                  Such dust particles clearly exist, or are you going to deny the existence of lunar regolith brought back from the moon, as well?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                    The claim of flat earth is that we see everything over head in perspective just as we see everything in perspective on earth. But then it's argued that the sun should get much smaller the farther away it is from us.

                    It has been argued that the sun maintains it's size from sun rise to sun set from where ever we are on earth. But I argued back that this is wrong because even if the earth is a globe the sun is still farther away from us at sun set and sun rise than it is when it's directly above us.

                    Seeing the sun even from a globe is tricky business. At sun rise and sun set I'm not really seeing the sun anyway.

                    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26891[/ATTACH]

                    The most popular refraction example is the pencil in the glass of water.

                    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26892[/ATTACH]

                    Refraction not only bends light it also magnifies, or enlarges the pencil in the glass making it look bigger than it is. So if we can say at sun set and sun rise the sum is not where it actually is, we should also say it also looks larger than it actually is.

                    --Dave
                    Refraction CANNOT ACCOUNT for the sun going BELOW the horizon on a flat earth, because it is NOT possible to have the sun that low on a flat earth, as [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] has shown you MULTIPLE times.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                      This is good evidence for the spinning globe.
                      Actually, it's unequivocal evidence the earth is NOT motionless.

                      The stars circling the night sky is unequivocal evidence that the earth is rotating (the stars circle in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres).

                      Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                      I have to keep reminding you that evidence for a spinning globe is not my problem. My problem is that there's evidence and scriptures that support a flat motionless earth.
                      Only in your mind and that of other confused people.

                      Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                      I obviously can't confirm or deny a stellar parallax. I can only accept what people have said about it. I can't judge those who have made the observations and interpreted them. I don't have that expertise.
                      There are things that you can confirm that you ignore or deny (stars circling the poles).

                      Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                      But I want you to make that case, while I make the case for flat earth.


                      Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                      The other part of this thread is "we never went to the moon". "If" it is true that we never went there then my position is that NASA has lied to us about everything it has told us about the universe.
                      The IF part is your problem.
                      All of my ancestors are human.
                      Originally posted by Squeaky
                      That explains why your an idiot.
                      Originally posted by God's Truth
                      Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                      Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                      (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                      1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                      (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                      Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                        This is not a fallacy because it's a proposition not a proof.
                        Your proposition is wrong, therefore everything else that you say about it is a failure.

                        Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                        If the earth is flat and stationary and then it becomes that which is the reference point for everything that is moving above it.
                        It's not stationary, so move on.

                        Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                        If the earth is moving with everything else in the universe then it is not a reference point for everything else.
                        Wrong again.... there are MANY times that we use the earth as a reference. You still have no handle on how MOTION works.
                        All of my ancestors are human.
                        Originally posted by Squeaky
                        That explains why your an idiot.
                        Originally posted by God's Truth
                        Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                        Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                        (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                        1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                        (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                        Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                          You notice that on the moon there's no trees, no ocean or lakes, no life.

                          The earth is not like the moon because it has trees, oceans and lakes, and life.

                          The earth must not be a sphere.

                          Again this is not a proof.
                          Again, this is ILLOGICAL and STUPID.

                          Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                          Not seeing trees, lakes etc does not prove the earth is not a sphere.

                          And like wise seeing spheres, sun/moon, in the sky does not prove the earth is a sphere.

                          --Dave
                          All of the other objects that we observe (sun, moon, planets, moons of other planets) are spheres.... why do you think that the earth is not like the rest?
                          All of my ancestors are human.
                          Originally posted by Squeaky
                          That explains why your an idiot.
                          Originally posted by God's Truth
                          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post


                            Why is that a problem?

                            Why should they?

                            They're trying to simulate the surface of the moon.

                            The moon's surface (aside from what little atmosphere there is) is for all intents and purposes a vacuum.


                            In the moon's atmosphere, there are only 100 molecules per cubic centimeter. In comparison, Earth's atmosphere at sea level has about 100 billion billion molecules per cubic centimeter.


                            https://www.space.com/18067-moon-atmosphere.html

                            So if the moon's surface is a vacuum, and the test was done in a vacuum, then the conditions are similar enough for science to be done.


                            Which is irrelevant. They weren't testing for depth.

                            They were comparing the structure of the footprint. It matched the photo almost exactly, which shows that such a footprint could be made even with that little regolith.

                            As you saw, footprints in sand are much softer and less defined than footprints in regolith BECAUSE of the sharper grains.

                            Why not?

                            Here's the problem with that assertion, and the solution that my position offers:

                            The problem with it is that the lunar regolith is not sedimentary dust, it's not the same kind of particle we have here on earth.

                            The solution to your supposed problem is that the regolith is a product of meteorites slamming into the moon. In other words, the dust on the moon are the debris from meteorite impacts.

                            Which is COMPLETELY consistent with my position, the Hydroplate Theory, which asserts that when the fountains of the great deep broke forth, they launched crustal debris from the edges of the cracks in the crust into space, where some of it impacted the moon (which is why the moon has so many craters, and half of the moon (what used to be the leading half of the moon in its orbit) is now facing the earth due to gravity, which also explains lunar libration; and the rest of the debris was shot out into orbit around the sun and eventually into interstellar space) looks like it was melted at some point in the past.

                            No, Dave, NOT as one would expect, and even in the video, you can clearly see that the footprints are not being filled in, the dust that's being kicked up is being kicked AWAY from the footprints. Watch that portion again, and look closely at where the dust is going, and notice that the footprints are still there, clearly defined even in such a low quality video (as compared to today's footage).

                            On earth, when you run along the beach, your footprints are not clearly defined, but look more like indentations in the sand, because the sand particles, since they are smooth, will quickly slide against each other and fill in the footprints the moment you take your foot away, and while sand is being kicked away from the footprints in front of you, the sand also

                            On the moon, however, the lesser gravity combined with the sharp edges allows the regolith to be pushed together and become "locked" together (think puzzle pieces), which prevents them from sliding. The amount of lunar dust that fills in the resulting footprint is therefore FAR less than the amount in a footprint made on the earth in sand.

                            The portion of the video you're talking about, though, is dealing with whether the footage was sped up or slowed down to make it seem like it was real.

                            Moisture cannot account for the clearly defined structure of the footprint.

                            They even showed what that would look like with wet sand.

                            Straw man, moon dust was not created by wind. It was created by meteorite impacts.

                            Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave.

                            Why not?

                            Such dust particles clearly exist, or are you going to deny the existence of lunar regolith brought back from the moon, as well?
                            Yes, if I don't believe we went to the moon I obviously don't believe we brought anything back from it. That would be logical and you should have understood that with out asking me.

                            Two things now follow from the foot print and the astronauts kicking up moon dust.

                            1. Early in the mythbuster video, 9:47, it's mentioned the NASA vacuum chamber would be a good place to run some tests, but, no one is allowed to use it. I will explain why next post.

                            2. The Lunar Lander kicked up no dust and left no evidence from it's thruster that it had used it to land on the moon.

                            Astronauts supposedly had moon dust cling to their suits as they kicked it up as they jumped around on the moon.

                            Imagine how much moon dust would have been kicked up by the Lunar Module truster as it landed. The lander must have been covered by moon dust. Certainly those landing pods would have been covered in dust, right.

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	apollo11-jpc-pd.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	130.3 KB
ID:	2434990

                            The perfect foot print and the lack of any moon dust or crater imprint from the thruster under the Lunar Module are two strong evidences for me that we never went to the mood.

                            --Dave
                            www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                            The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                            rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                            The only view that proves the existence and explains
                            the nature of God.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                              Refraction CANNOT ACCOUNT for the sun going BELOW the horizon on a flat earth, because it is NOT possible to have the sun that low on a flat earth, as [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] has shown you MULTIPLE times.
                              The sun on the flat earth model is close and much smaller than the earth, not millions of miles away from us and much larger than the earth. The farther away it gets from us the more atmosphere we have to look through to see it, so there is more atmosphere between us and the sun as it moves away from us.

                              --Dave
                              www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                              The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                              rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                              The only view that proves the existence and explains
                              the nature of God.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                                Actually, it's unequivocal evidence the earth is NOT motionless.

                                The stars circling the night sky is unequivocal evidence that the earth is rotating (the stars circle in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres).

                                Only in your mind and that of other confused people.

                                There are things that you can confirm that you ignore or deny (stars circling the poles).

                                The IF part is your problem.
                                Here is one website I found that addresses the whole Flat Earth Dome Model by Walter Bislin.

                                http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index...rth+dome+model

                                It shows what a flat earth model can and cannot account for.

                                --Dave
                                www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                                The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                                rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                                The only view that proves the existence and explains
                                the nature of God.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X