.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Mr. Nice
-
Posts
568 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mr. Nice
-
-
@alexaThis is one of hundreds. The camera does a 360 rotation. That is a circle. You cannot have a circle without a curve.
Your claim was dead in the water thousands of years ago when even the ancients knew more about it than you. The circle we see in the video is not the full Earth. Where is your idiotic Eric Doyoubuy video to explain this one? I'll tell he where, he never thought of it - just the deceptive use of the camera lens that inverts the curve as it passes light through the opposite side.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, alexa said:
I don't know, how duz a flat line horizon go around 360 degrees without curving ?
Well. I suggest you read the rest of the damn post!
What kind of person does this malarkey so consistently? I make posts that pretty much destroy your useless claims and you just come back with the pissy one-liners!
A circle. A line that comes back on itself over 360 degrees. Show me a circle without a curve. Oh wait....!
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, alexa said:
I basically removed the moronic video from your quote. You didn't actually say anything, avoid visual evidence and post this idiot Eric Doyoubuy's doctored video.
He intersperses genuine footage with movie "how we filmed it" documentary examples. He shows us the Earth from space....doctors the curve and fails to explain the 500 ton elephant his footage misses.
Even YOU can work this one out. A large percentage of these videos do a complete 360 sweep.
1. Tell me.....how does a flat line horizon go around 360 degrees without curving?
2. We don't see the whole Earth from this 20 miles up position....how come?
Clearly the answer to 1. Is that it MUST be a circle.....duh. it MUST be curved. The answer to 2. Is because we see a small segment of a sphere.
Of course you must evade this....because it proves the globe.
-
19 minutes ago, DaleP said:
Free energy!!
I don't actually know if you are joking.
-
9 minutes ago, DaleP said:
Imagine a burger. The bottom part of the bun is FE. Top bun is the flat moon.
The moon is showing lets say a half moon like the C: Sydney one.
By this everyone sees the half moon but obviously dark part of the moon could be on the left or right hand side depending on where you view it from. Or that there are a multiple image of the moon projected as in Holographic image which contains all angle of an object.
I imagined all that. Then I realised that none of that matched what actually happens.
The Moon isn't flat it's far enough away from both those positions for them to be completely unable to see the same face.
It's just a complete case closing observation. Planet. Sphere.
-
3 minutes ago, alexa said:
Watch at 9:45 min, this should explain your query.
My god that is just such ignorance. I'm going to go through that big pile of garbage point by point tomorrow....if I can be bothered.
"Places on Earth should see a different face" he says? It's a quarter of a million miles away there is virtually zero parallax at that distance ...duh! Incredibly though, on a flat Earth with the Moon closer to the Earth than places further apart viewing it simultaneously....the parallax is so big it is almost the opposite side of the damn thing.
You believe his lies and horseshit, without understanding a single thing about it....just because you can safely maintain your fixed belief. No other reason. You don't understand any explanation but at least his failed one keeps your daft claim safe.
It explains nothing.
-
10 minutes ago, alexa said:
I don't decide what is true.
An unbelievable thing to say. That is EXACTLY what you do and you are clearly ill-equipped to do so.
10 minutes ago, alexa said:Unfortunately this is what you do.
I decide what I believe to be true based on verifiable and undeniable observations. Not a single observation claimed by me is wrong. These things happen - and to you they are meaningless because you don't understand any of it. THAT is the fundamental problem here. This isn't a debate, it's you denying the observable world and believing proper gibberish that doesn't even explain it.
Posted 5 pages ago and your explanation didn't explain it! Remove the Sun from this picture. All over the World every country sees a Full Moon, how can positions A and C see a full Moon!? There is NO silly youtube video to explain this because there is no workable solution:
How can you possibly maintain your position when it explains NOTHING?
-
11 minutes ago, alexa said:
That's b/c what you want answered is gibberish to me.
Listen very carefully. The things I am asking are very real and irrefutable. They are exactly what is happening. If by gibberish you mean not true, then I say to you "how the hell would you know!".
Your whole belief system is maintainable by you, by virtue of your total ignorance of the very things that completely refute it.
I drew a dead simple diagram showing the Moon visible the same in 3 places that is not possible. You came up with your daft Moon illuminated claim that STILL cannot explain it! Go back to the diagram and remove the Sun. It's still a visible face that MUST be different to the same places.
At what point do you ever think to yourself that your lack of understanding could be hindering your decision making?
-
17 minutes ago, alexa said:
I have
No you haven't. You never do because you don't understand anything you post about. Eric "suck in the gullible" Doyoubuy makes up junk and of course you believe it. It's total nonsense and fails to answer the major problem of dozens that I highlighted. Here are 4 of them:
1. The angular speed of the Sun requires it to speed up to cover the same perceived distance! It doesn't speed up.
2. It stays the same size so the "vanishing point" is NOT the actual vanishing point!
3. It goes over the horizon bottom first and disappears below eyeline and that is impossible.
4. The angle formed from zenith to horizon when 0.001 degrees less than 90....makes it 1.7 BILLION miles away!
Meanwhile Eric Doyoubuy sells his wares to the easily led and fails to answer anything.
-
14 minutes ago, alexa said:
I don't pretend anything, it is the truth that you'll be surprised to hear.
Kindly answer my posts. Putting up an Eric Doyoubuy video that clearly is just making up nonsense doesn't answer the major problem you have with flat earth "theory".
-
26 minutes ago, DaleP said:
You forgot No.4. The ball earth keeps its water on the surface due to earth's 'gravity' yet the same gravity doesn't work for a model globe when you spin and pour water on it.
Please stop. If you want to put your hat in the ring, at least come in with something that isn't made up. The centrifugal force has been covered a few times.
Show your computations on the matter or learn how to use the search facility.
-
22 minutes ago, DaleP said:
You are not even sure either anyway....
Yes I am. 100% positive. I provided a video taken in space showing weightlessness. There are so, so many things that team hoax have not a scooby-doo about.
24 minutes ago, DaleP said:They may have, could have, probably have been to space, a half way may be but that doesn't prove they landed on the Moon.
No, the presence of 842lbs of peer reviewed rocks and soil and 3m core samples does that. Visible motion that can only occur in low gravity proves it. Images showing Apollo hardware on the Moon proves it. Quite a bit more also proves it.
27 minutes ago, DaleP said:People have said that there are already aliens on the dark side of the Moon that if anybody went near it they get attacked. If so, they would have done the U-turn.
"People" said that did they? Alienz huh? Do you think "people" have evidence for that or do you think maybe they mysteriously plucked it from their bottoms to try and sell books and stuff?
-
15 minutes ago, DaleP said:
^ It just sounds like a made up reason to cover it up.
Your opinion means nothing. Perhaps you are confusing it with proof. The flag was completely stationary as soon as they left it alone.
Click the timeline at 6:00 then any other place afterwards, pick a half dozen points. The flag is completely still.
Now apply logic. It moves about when they are putting it up. Then stops completely when they finish. What do your observational skills tell you about this!
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, DaleP said:
Astra+not is a person who do/did not go to the space.
If you have to copy all the Apollo-hoax-sheeple, at least spell it right. Astronot. They provably went to space. If you want to start off from a position of fail before I've even begun to dissect this crap, at least do some basic research huh?
-
Angular velocity: The Sun has the same angular velocity at every location on the planet, at every elevation, every time and every day of the year. Just that one thing is irrefutable and in itself proof that we cannot possibly be on a flat surface. It certainly helps to run away from this if you haven't a clue about mathematics and science.
International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Amazing.The Earth is flat after all
1. The vanishing point. If the Earth really is flat, the vanishing point of the observer's point of view is at the observer's eye height above the ground. If the observer is six feet tall, the vanishing point is six feet above ground level. If the observer is on top of a 10,000 foot mountain, the vanishing point is 10,000 feet above ground level. The video shows the sun BELOW his vanishing point (6pm), something that he himself implies is impossible, then he ignores the fact that his diagram shows exactly that.
2. The apparent diameter of the Sun. If the Earth really is flat, and the sun really is 3,000 miles above the surface and travels parallel to the Earth's surface, then it would appear to get smaller as it got further away from the observer. The difference would be dramatic - at twice the distance, the Sun would be half the apparent size it is overhead. By the time the Sun reached the horizon, it would appear little more than a small spot of bright light.
3. Relative angular velocity of the Sun. The Sun tracks across the sky at a rate of 1° every 4 min (15°/hr). This is an undeniable, observable fact. Taking the starting point as the Sun overhead the observer, if the Sun was travelling at a constant speed on a flat Earth, it would appear to get slower and slower as it approached the horizon. The only way to reconcile this with the observed facts is for the Sun to accelerate as it approaches the horizon.... and it would never get there because in order to do so, its speed would need to reach infinity. -
1 hour ago, alexa said:
Here in this video Eric Dubay explains it, it just a matter of perspective once again.
No, really he doesn't. He just uses words like "perspective" and "vanishing point" and hopes to suck in easily led people.
Let me PROPERLY explain something to you!
The vanishing point is called the vanishing point because things get smaller as they move away and then they vanish. Do you understand this unbelievably obvious thing?
One of the many things associated with a simple sunset involves objects above eyeline. This picture below sees a series of poles with a blue light on top of a 4m pole at regular intervals.
1 hour ago, alexa said:If when the sun is setting, if you zoom in, you will still see the sun above the horizon until it's completely disappeared due to perspective
I am worried that you have never actually seen a sunset now. Somebody with profound delusion fails to see the Sun going below the horizon. No matter what camera you have - it goes down, disappears full bloody size! Perspective is another thing you clearly don't understand. Again - things get smaller when they move away! Now that is perspective.
This below is NOT:
1 hour ago, alexa said:this is b//c the sun is just clearly moving in it's path towards the east where it will begin rising elsewhere.
The Sun moves towards the West. It disappears over the horizon. When it is at the horizon it is fractionally short of forming a 90 degree angle with zenith. That places it 1,700 million miles away. You may pretend to buy Eric Doyoubuy's horseshit, but unfortunately it doesn't even come close to explaining the problems shown to you, let alone actual reality.
-
8 minutes ago, alexa said:
Yes.
No it doesn't. It sets. It is actually being obscured from view by the rotation of the Earth and its curvature.
The forum awaits with baited breath for you to explain what the Sun is doing.
Your evasion of the Moon faces / Moon phases is still unresolved despite your absurd claim that the Moon is a self illuminating light that for some reason mimics the motion of Sun illuminating it.
-
2 hours ago, zArk said:
number 3 is satisfied and coupled with surrounding sunrise and moonset data the 2min window is confirmed
the partial eclipse is also confirmed and as i stated
It's almost satisfied. The elevated position was to the East of Alamogordo so the relevant SEA LEVEL times are slightly different.
2 hours ago, zArk said:2 and 1 doesnt matter the elevation or exact position as we are not going off a video timestamp or a video calculation.
Oh but they do! From an elevated position the Sun appears significantly sooner on top of the extra minutes from refraction and the Moon disappears later also on top of the extra minutes from refraction.
2 hours ago, zArk said:We have time and date data which can be cross referenced with data from other positions
I concur with cross referencing - it's a reasonable assessment.
2 hours ago, zArk said:tye video is used as evidemce that sun and moon were in the sky at the same time
Please tell me your evidence for the Sun being in the sky at the same time. Try not to say the sky was blue.
2 hours ago, zArk said:so at the final call.......can you tell me when the refraction occured. ??
The answer is the same as the first 10 times you asked me this daft question. The refraction was occurring the whole time.
1. Would you like me to show you a video of two sunsets using a drone going up a few hundred metres? Impossible on a flat Earth.
2. The actual Sunrise figure of 06:53 is not the time when the Sun is visible from an elevated position and does NOT account for refraction.
3. The actual Moonset figure of 06:55 is not the time when the Moon is visible from an elevated position and does NOT account for refraction.
4. Your video doesn't show the visible Sun - or am I missing something here?
-
1 hour ago, zArk said:
lol, the water tower and the motorway bridge identify it as Alamogordo
Ok, I'll buy that.
1 hour ago, zArk said:screw your neck in, get your facts correct.
My neck IS screwed in, I haven't denied it was anywhere and that is the first attempted fact substantiating the location. Well done, you deserve a medal for finally providing one. Now you need to answer from where the camera is pointed. Because if Alamogordo lies to the West from an elevated position, we can easily work out roughly from where.
From the size of the Moon in the image, we can tell that the camera has a zoom lens and from the size of the circular water tower we can see that it is at least a mile away when zoomed at the beginning. We know it's an elevated position, so see if you can figure out where he was shooting from. Oh, I had my neck screwed in weeks ago when I actually sussed this out:
Those are the Alamogordo times - see if you can work out what happens to visibility times from an elevated position.
-
2 hours ago, alexa said:
The sun doesn't set.
Evasion again. So the Sun, which the entire population of the world sees setting and rising, does something else does it? This thread should be changed to "Pulling teeth with flat earthers afraid to be wrong". So, so many things you've ran away from or just don't understand - proving irrefutably that we are on a globe. Yet you still continue to post.
-
4 minutes ago, DaleP said:
This is the danger of indoctrination.
They cannot even see a simple thing such as the difference of angle the image has been captured.
No. This is the danger of not getting your eyes tested. We haven't even got out of the starting gate and already we have the kind of response I would expect from Stevie Wonder.
-
2 minutes ago, DaleP said:
The difference.
There is no difference.
2 minutes ago, DaleP said:Your video shows astranot's back, you can't see his face.
It's astronaut. The clip on DarianF's video takes a clip from the full EVA I posted.
2 minutes ago, DaleP said:Darian's video, the astranot can be seen from his profile angle. Different angle. You say, there was only one camera...... I doubt it.
I don't care what you "doubt". You need to go to the opticians. It's the same camera and the same EVA.
-
Just now, DaleP said:
OK @DarianF
According to Mr Nice, the video you have posted is fake. Hence cannot be used to debunk Fake Moon.
BULLSHIT! The video is authentic, you are the one who thinks it is different to the one I posted showing where that clip comes from!
-
1 hour ago, alexa said:
I'll give you one thing, you know your stuff, pity it's all based on lies from the source i.e Masons etc etc.
And once again cowardly evasion. I know my stuff because I know trigonometry? Anyone who does maths can do this. Hells bells, all you need to do is go to an online calculator and it does it for you!
So, where is your explanation? This is nothing at all to do with any of your "masonic lies" bollocks - it is simple, reproducible mathematics. The angle formed from the Sun a fraction above the horizon makes it 1,720 million miles away. Now call me a wishful-thinker, but quite how anyone can maintain a belief in the stupid flat earth with evidence like this is many levels beyond absurd.
So to summarise:
We have your magic moon that self illuminates but doesn't even remotely explain simultaneous views from far apart at multiple locations.
We have a setting Sun on a flat Earth further away than it actually is for a planet!
You understand none of this, therefore you ignore it - but still believe the Earth is flat when it doesn't explain anything.
3 hours ago, alexa said:How can ppl believe such crap.
14 hours ago, alexa said:I do try to be as truthful as I can
When can we expect you to acknowledge these profound problems with your claim? You know, be as truthful as you can!
-
1
-
Fake Moon Landings
in Space & Universe
Posted
@alexaIs there any subject you post on that isn't influenced by ignorant claims? This claim was made on the other thread, page 2!
This engineering marvel was built by these guys:
Here it is without the cladding for micro-meteorites, and very expensive heat dispersion/ reflection foil
Another whackamole, Apollo-conspiracy-by-numbers moment. Let's put it into perspective. NASA didn't even design this craft and if it was faked, the entire Grumman team built a machine not fit for purpose and there was an awful lot of them! Plus, why didn't NASA make their craft a work of visual art for the
pictures.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/why-does-the-ascent-stage-of-apollo-11s-lunar-module-look-like-its-made-of-pap
Like everything else, the ascent and descent stages were built to be as light as possible. But because they knew they would operate only in a vacuum, many things really didn't need to be sturdy, nor did the shape of it matter. It would never have to deal with aerodynamic drag. In fact, the descent stage was designed to buckle in the right places upon landing, that was how it absorbed the impact. It was only going to be used once, this was the most weight-efficient method of handling the shock of landing.
Also, the complex insulation blankets covering the module had many layers, and contact points between the layers needed to be minimized so that heat wouldn't be passed through them by conduction. The black material is where thin Inconel sheets formed the outer layer of the insulation blanket, and they were painted matte black with Pyromark paint to improve their heat emission properties, so they would cool off quickly. (Black material both absorbs and emits heat better than material of other colors.) Beneath the black layer were reflective layers to prevent the heat of the black layer penetrating into the module. This treatment was done where the exhaust of the reaction control thrusters heated the lunar modules. It had a tendency to crinkle, and on this particular module, that may have been accentuated by the fact it was in fact installed at the last minute, as were the chutes under the thrusters. From the Lunar Module Coatings Page:
Considering the vast ambition of going to the Moon for the first time, it isn't surprising some fixes were last-minute.
The foil is Kapton MLI (multi-layer insulation) blankets, and it is actually pretty complex. In the places on the lunar modules that only needed to be a heat barrier to sunlight, high reflectivity was the most efffective approach, and those places are the shiny amber color of the Kapton. As there is no air in space to pass heat by convection, if you lower absorption of heat radiation by making surfaces that are highly reflective or emissive, and there are few contact points to pass heat by conduction, insulation can be highly effective. With the Kapton foil blankets, the contact points were reduced by hand-crinkling an inner layer of the blanket. From the Apollo News Reference:
So, this is bound to make the outer layer rather uneven.
All the other covering material you see is also just there to protect whatever is underneath from the effects of sunlight. Perhaps they were also thinking a bit about keeping dust out. That is all it has to do, and it was made merely sufficient for that job. Weight savings were more important than looks. The fancy stuff is underneath all those bare-bones panels.
I found a different photo of the lander that gives a better sense of the complexity of it. The photo shows the Ascent Stage in the process of assembly, before the heat shielding had been put on it:
This photo of an LM test article shows the sturdy underlying aluminum and titanium structure pretty clearly:
And a quote from the book Chariots of Apollo available on the NASA website's History section:
'Scrape' and 'SWIP' were both programs Grumman, the company that fabricated the Lunar Module, instituted specifically to reduce the weight of the LM.
I found both things on a great thread on the topic at CosmoQuest
You can pore over the LM Apollo Operations Handbook for a great deal of technical information on the spacecraft, for more evidence.