Mr. Nice

I just showed you the craft without cladding - point out where it was unable to do any of the above. Please do tell, because nobody has any idea what you are talking about. I do feel a muttley-moment coming on though

It is NOT from NASA. It was built by Northrop Grumman and you are a repeater of other people's claims. You also appear to be ignoring where I am giving your posts a good kicking.

Thank you for your stunning and insightful argument. I have no answer to it. Well, if you ignore that the Moon looks exactly like that from every space mission in history that has photographed it, that is.

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.

We already went 6 times and nobody was murdered. There was no fakery and I can prove it. Try me with specifics. Oh btw - Bart Sibrel is a lying lowlife. Either straight through the centre with a more protected craft or what Apollo did, they took a wide angled trajectory around the outer edges of the belts. Come on then, what have you got? Have you ever, ever bothered to look for the endless debunks for any of it? No idea what that is about. We don't need to pretend. We already did it 6 times. Now are you going to debate this?

Nice strawman. The world has a robust space program, we just don't go the Moon as often and use a lot more far safer unmanned methods. Well that's a big load of bollocks. Nobody was murdered and there were no "fakes". I spent ages crafting a good response about the expenditure and along you come and ignore it and make a provably wrong statement. I agree with that 100% - That's where it went with Apollo. That's rather a largely inaccurate suggestion. Most of it.

Oh, I did a blog for that as well. His entire dialogue is ignorance, incorrect statements and his perverse bare assertion. From page 1 below most of his beginning is a wall of rhetoric, it starts about half way down: WAGGING THE MOONDOGGIE PART 1 - DEBUNKED (waggingthemoondoggiedebunked.blogspot.com) WAGGING THE MOONDOGGIE PART 2 - DEBUNKED (waggingthemoondoggiedebunked.blogspot.com) I did two pages of his horseshit before I got totally bored. It was just the same thing over and over.

How is this relevant to the OP? You've found some freemasons in NASA, does that mean they are scum then? It's like you have a preformed opinion of every one who has ever been in the organisation. Are we not doing debate then? In the other thread I await your rebuttal on fraud with finances and the post above . Tell me about that doctored Aldrin picture?

Bizarre and just odd. What is happening on Earth that makes any difference? Nothing. Please tell me you aren't a rockets in space denier because it is a vacuum. Please tell me this. I took a look at the Apollo 11 ascent video. The ascent to close by the CSM was reasonably quick. The change in orbital planes is what took the time. It's a whole lot of messing about. How fast does that go? As fast as the rocket thrust detemines. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Exhaust goes one way at thousands of miles per hour, the rocket goes in the other. P.s. there is no "lift" in a vacuum. Correct, why would they Nobody really cares about you "waking up" if it then put you into a slumber about stuff you don't know much about. Well, with all due respect, David has posted quite a few things over the years from outside sources and makes no claim that they are the "truth". As he puts it, pass on information and make of it what you will. I made garbage of William Cooper's article which to me, in its entirety shows some real ignorance of the subject matter of space travel. Call signs: Apollo 13 “Odyssey,” reminiscent of the long voyage of Odysseus of Greek mythology. “Aquarius,” after the Egyptian god Aquarius, the water carrier. Aquarius brought fertility and therefore life and knowledge to the Nile Valley, as the Apollo 13 crew hoped to bring knowledge from the Moon. Hogwash. The accident happened at 55:54:53 mission time / 03:08 UTC on April 14, 10:08 PM EST, April 13. Hogwash again. The landing point is estimated to be at 19.33 N, 33.55 W. Baffling gibberish. How is it relevant to the OP? Prove that, but so what! A film made by a proven liar, showing about as many deceptive things as you can get. Pick any section and I'll tear it apart. Bare assertion and provably wrong - the mountain of evidence proves we landed on the Moon. Nope, it is up there with mankind's greatest achievement. Let's get specific, because this post is just daft observations and incorrect facts. The runway is 15 or 33 depending on direction. Can you point out your skills of numbers with the other ones in this list List of Space Shuttle landing sites - Wikipedia

@peterThis should help you with any hiccups: MOON HOAX: DEBUNKED!: 7.10 Do Russian calculations show that the Saturn V wasn’t powerful enough? (moonhoaxdebunked.com)

Once again, you baffle with a claim that has not only no substance but doesn't make any sense.

Spam spam spam spam spam.....lovely spam! Dear me, someone who cowardly has me on ignore fails to read one of the dozen or so rebuttals just on this forum alone. I used to coin a phrase for this and it is still totally relevant.... WHACKAMOLE! Click grey arrow top right for those not sure how these other post links work.....

Your informed rebuttal is something to behold. You are most certainly a valuable member of this forum and not at all a troll who has no clue whatsoever about anything. Well done.

Just that one post. We have the magic flat earth solar furnace heating and illuminating the planet. Its motion completely unexplained ...its speed unexplained....its disappearance and appearance unexplained....its impossible illumination pattern completely unexplained. The flat earther shoots himself in the foot with an uzi as he proves the Sun should get smaller as it sets* *of course this ignores the crazy anti-physics, suggesting the atmosphere enlarges it.

He doesn't need to point the nose down. The plane is under constant gravitational attraction of 9.8m s². The trim of the plane, its acceleration, drag, thrust, lift are all variable but in flight between second to second, that balance keeps the plane at a set altitude if not.... wthin the auto-pilot on every commercial airliner is a "Set altitude"! This adjusts trim accordingly.

Jolly good. But to every observer there is what we perceive. This matches with a planet it does not match with a flat earth. There isn't any magic explanation that works for both.

This "realm" has all the above attributes of a planet and none of the attributes of a flat Earth. That's what the narrative shows. It can still be this mystical thing you allude to, but a realm with planets in. Just saying.

Here is a short and by no means concise list: The Sun sets without any size change and that is impossible in itself. The vanishing point is named thus! The Sun's motion through the sky is the same at every angle, location and time. It NEVER varies - 15 degrees of angular distance per hour. On any map of the flat earth, the two tropic circles HAVE to be different circumferences - the Sun HAS to increase speed for the larger one!! It provably does not differ in speed anywhere, any time. There has been not one iota of scientific measurement that corresponds to a flat earth, including sudden speed changes from the Sun. The Moon is inverted in the Southern Hemisphere. At a range of distances starting with the unfeasible Everest height for the Sun - the horizon is a ridiculous distance away. ANYONE can take an image through a quality telescope of Mars/Jupiter etc. and see them rotating. ANYONE can take an image through a filter and see the Sun rotating. Lunar eclipses occur where the Earth moves across the Sun's path to the Moon. There are so many problems with long haul flight distances on the common flat earth map - it is quite absurd. Australia on the regulation flat earth map is 5,000 miles across!! Star fields rotate in opposite directions by hemisphere. Gravity - there is no offer of a workable counter explanation. Sea tides. There is no mechanism where the Sun is able to illuminate half a disc. It is an absurd magic spotlight needed to do this. It is impossible for anything including the Sun and Moon to drop below eye level when they are always above it. There are thousands of orbiting satellites. Including the ISS. There are hundreds of thousands of images taken in space over the decades. There is live footage from the ISS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY4UJceEaVg / https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html Amongst the orbiting satellites are 24/7 weather satellites downloading realtime data. Satellite TV dishes receiving data from a point out in space. This list could go on for pages and pages. Some of the answers given by flat earthers to these are amongst the most absurd things written on the internet. HELLOOOOOOO anyone here? @inkwould you care to explain to me how a realm incorporates a flat earth in view of the above? Just curious.

@inkAny chance this guff about moderation can be put in its own thread and not in my slam dunk flat earth owned thread?

Yes I could. It is easy enough if you study the link I gave you for 3 year olds. Nope, it's not complicated at all but I suddenly see where you are going with this and had to slap my palm to my forehead. You are hijacking the thread with this nonsense now.

Yes, I could. Here, let me point you to some help: Preschool Maths Workbook: Comparing, Shapes and Numbers for 3 year old kids (Preschool Learning Books) : Books, Leland: Amazon.co.uk: Books

Pi is a ratio that has no fixed division. It has an infinite number of decimal places. Please do. I'll give you the answer next week. You suggest that an issue that I suggested relates to this issue, relates to this issue? Get off the bong.

Try making your request a little clearer. Would you like me to quote pi to more decimal places? It doesn't get bigger or smaller daily and 3 decimal places is accurate enough.

Pi has most certainly been defined and to various numbers of decimal places. Thank you for your useless "correction" which for the purposes of typing in two measurements of Earth won't be accurate to that level anyway. No really it doesn't. It is a constant where occasional somebody with too much time on their hands attempts to define it to more decimal places. It's still rounded up to 3.142 if using 3 decimal places How Many Digits Of Pi Have Been Calculated? (popularmechanics.com) A smart guy like me knows you are talking bollocks, how about that?

Ah some modtrolling. Wicked, can't beat it.