.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Mr. Nice
-
Posts
568 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mr. Nice
-
-
1 hour ago, endfreemasonscum said:
Oh, you mean NASA should actually not do space exploration and should feed African kids instead? Rock solid proof of a hoax huh? Isn't this the job for the almighty?
-
1 minute ago, endfreemasonscum said:
Well, that's nasa for you
No, really it isn't. That is not NASA's explanation although quite rightly they agree it. This has been known about for some considerable time.
Going back to the original post you quoted about this, your reply is nothing to do with it.
Why do stars rotate in opposite directions by pole? And why can't the North see southern constellation and vice-versa.
Funny shaped "dome".
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, alexa said:
Feeding the world.
They do feed the world. The creation of jobs through any company enables people to work and support their families. The infrastructure to create the machinery and build things, deliver them etc. If you came into this thread to poke up your flag of virtue, gee, well done!
Back up your claims about low Earth orbit, which to be honest is hysterical given that you think the bloody world is flat!
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, alexa said:
B/C I don't understand the question being asked here.
So if I explain it to you, then you will answer it will you?
The flat earth map is an azimuthal equidistant projection. You yourself have frequently posted similar things to this.
Point 1 : On this map, it is claimed that the Sun goes around in a big circle, kind of like this:
I'm not even going to raise the first problem that it doesn't even come close to explaining the correct surface illumination. Now during the Summer in the Northern hemisphere that circle moves closer to the North pole and farther away during the winter - again just background information - not relevant but a major, major problem previously highlighted.
Point 2: Above, for the sake of argument, assume the Moon is the grey circle above.
Point 3: Now clearly that won't work, because the illumination from the Sun needs to vary to create the visible crescents etc.
Point 4: The Moon goes around in a circle but at a different speed.
At this point we have yet another enormous and impossible to work scenario. There is no speed that accounts for visibility of both at every location on the surface. But again not relevant to this point.
Point 5 : Here is your problem!
There is NO explanation whatsoever that can work with this - none - not even close.
1. The map cannot support the correct solar illumination for a sphere.
2. The map cannot support the correct motion of the Sun and Moon as viewed from the surface.
3. The map cannot support the illumination of the Moon from the Sun.
Now what?
-
9 hours ago, alexa said:
B/C I don't understand the question being asked here.
17 minutes ago, alexa said:
Spam - prove they have lied.
-
4 minutes ago, alexa said:
Don't they get enough money ? Doesn't NASA get something like 22 billion a year ?
They spend their budget on things like The James Webb telescope or the Parker solar probe. It may have escaped your attention, but NASA subcontracts out nearly ALL its budget to other companies that develop and build the hardware.
NASA in 2021 | NASA Solar System Exploration
What should a space exploration agency spend their money on?
-
13 minutes ago, alexa said:
So why can't they do this again today ?
They can. They need newer versions of this equipment and developed for bigger crew, bigger payloads.
Like this:
-
6 minutes ago, alexa said:
They can't go higher than low earth orbit which is 1,200 miles,
Yes they can. Yes they could.
6 minutes ago, alexa said:so how the hell did they go to moon if it's supposed distant is 238,855 miles away?
Well, a stunningly stupid claim in the first place - they placed a rocket in Low Earth parking orbit at 17,500mph. The rocket was restarted and accelerated the craft to 25,000mph. This placed it in a very eccentric elliptical orbit. The outer portion of the orbit intersected the Moon's path, like this:
That gif illustrates a free-return trajectory, so just as the craft arrives at the Moon it fires an orbital insertion and is captured in orbit by the Moon.
-
4 minutes ago, alexa said:
I will.
Before you post crap that you will evade answers to, explain to the forum why you can possibly defend this idiotic flat earth guff - are you really so afraid to be wrong?
South America and South Africa see the same face of the Moon at the same time! Sydney and Cape Town can also view the Moon at the same time later on in the 24hrs and they are even further apart.
Position Y will see a Moon with 2/3s illuminated face on the left.
Position X will see a Moon with 50% illuminate face on the right.
BOTH at the SAME time - Impossible! The whole situation dynamically alters in a matter of hours.
Explain this Alexa or explain to the viewing forum why you cannot.
-
8 minutes ago, alexa said:
It's so obvious that they know that we live under the firmament/dome.
A few posts above is an observation that just on its own, just that one single thing proves without any possibility of error that the Earth cannot be flat. Impossible.
The one with the flat earth map. Sun and Moon positions that MUST be wrong. There is no explanation certainly not from you.
If it is "so obvious" why can't you explain hundreds of basics? You want to talk about moon landings go to the thread...post your parroted claim....watch me tear it to pieces.
-
19 minutes ago, alexa said:
You can't get more in yer face than this.
Just look at the plans they have for it.
Really? How do you figure they recreate a starfield without doing it? Use the real one?
19 minutes ago, alexa said:Whats that Asronot doing there
Laughing at all the flatties. You seem compelled to enter this thread without any attempt to explain a single major problem with your daft belief system.
Two posts above is an observation that just on its own, just that one single thing proves without any possibility of error that the Earth cannot be flat. Impossible.
The one with the flat earth map. Sun and Moon positions that MUST be wrong. There is no explanation certainly not from you. The flat Earth response on this thread is very telling:
-
On 3/19/2022 at 10:50 PM, sock muppet said:
Radiation, the body can only sustain so much because it destroys the DNA.
I definitely answered this post. Equating occasional particles to dna damaging radiation is like equating a glass of salty water to the Atlantic ocean.
Do you have anything more than your huff 'n' puff?
-
2 hours ago, rebornsteve said:
No idea whether the below video is faked or not.
It's faked up to 26 seconds. Then it uses footage taken on the Moon. I think this was taken from an advert they did a while back. Oh and I could see the wires. It wasn't this one, but it's quite funny...
2 hours ago, rebornsteve said:I sent it to my brother and asked his opinion on moon landings. To clarify, my brother lives in California with his Russian wife. I knew his wife’s parents were scientists of some kind. So, her parents worked at Russian space complex in khazakstan for 15 years - where she was born. Wife’s father doesn’t believe they landed.
Send him over to debate it then. Otherwise it's hearsay and bare assertion. My mate who works with this bloke at Tesco, said his dad knows a teacher who knows one of the engineers who worked on Apollo. He says it happened exactly as claimed and they brought back 842lbs of peer reviewed samples to prove it.
-
4 hours ago, zArk said:
doh! i disagree as explained previously
"Doh" he says whilst cowardly ignoring irrefutable evidence. There is no answer to my post that works on a flat earth. None. You know it which is why you ignored it all.
4 hours ago, zArk said:well ,explain when the helio refraction solution occurs.
You have way, way more important stuff on the table than your inability to understand physics. You still haven't identified where the selenelion was filmed from have you? Fail. Every time, every point.
Now try to answer my post honestly for a change huh?
POINT 1:
1. The Moon is a sphere, there is no doubt of this with visible shadows and libration.
2. To say it is like a 2d postcard is just ridiculous. A 2d shape distorts from oblique angles!
3. That same angle changes as the Moon lowers to the horizon anyway so it is wrong just on that alone.
South America and South Africa see the same face of the Moon at the same time! Sydney and Cape Town can also view the Moon at the same time later on in the 24hrs and they are even further apart.
Position Y will see a Moon with 2/3s illuminated face on the left.
Position X will see a Moon with 50% illuminate face on the right.
BOTH at the SAME time - Impossible! The whole situation dynamically alters in a matter of hours. Explain this.
POINT 2:
And that is just another problem with your nonsensical claims.
-
15 minutes ago, sock muppet said:
Always in hidden in plain sight, until you start questioning
Oh, that's from....don't tell me.....it will come to me.....conspiracy for beginners. Yep. that's it.
All hidden, but where every one can see, but ONLY the really smart conspiracy theorists can work it out. I'll have to look harder - you guys are just amazing.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Given To Fly said:
I just did a quick search and 't minus' did originate from NASA
I'm raring to conclude that it means as you suggested. Never thought of it before. Makes so much sense.
You're raring are you
-
15 minutes ago, Given To Fly said:
And you prob believe that the eye, the pyramid and the slogans and hidden symbolism on the back of dollar notes is as non-conspiratorial as well
I love the way you take your claim and conflate it with other conspiracy claims. Good effort. The wing is a wing not a forked tongue. The name is NASA not with a silly made up T, or a silly made up anagram. I believe that every single symbol ever has some conspiracy nerd , somewhere, someplace making some "connection". Any symbol on a dollar bill would have the same crowd making the same claims.
-
37 minutes ago, sock muppet said:
You are correct, my apologies, it's just at my age i forget that a computer simulation qualifies as reality these days!
Or is it Virtual Insanity!
Off topic noise.
-
1 hour ago, sock muppet said:
I am a bleeding obvioust (new word i made up between obvious and theorist), and when something is too good to be true, well, it usually is.
Nope. You see part of the problem is that you have no clue about the subject so you aren't qualified to offer an opinion on what is obvious.
I just wrote a reasonably detailed reply to you and of course you have nothing in response.
1 hour ago, sock muppet said:Well shockingly NO is the answer to that in terms of PROOF and neither do you,
That is correct, I have no proof that there are dead astronauts on the Moon. Faceplant time.
1 hour ago, sock muppet said:the whole thing IS a media event and that is the TRUTH,
Nope. You have no evidence for any of your claims (well none that I can't tear to pieces) and once again you aren't qualified to pronounce, with your clear ignorance of any of this, that you know "the truth".
1 hour ago, sock muppet said:but i can see the force is strong in you,
And I can see that you have no evidence or knowledge of any of the subject matter.
1 hour ago, sock muppet said:i know a little off topic but just curious, what number booster shot are you on now,
Off topic shit, none of your business.
1 hour ago, sock muppet said:you know for the non existent virus
Sars2 is not non-existent.
1 hour ago, sock muppet said:well actually it is on topic because MSM never lies does it! Your Government would never lie to you either.
The appeal to incredulity, a pathetic attempt at poisoning the well and off topic bare assertion. NASA is not a government - it is predominantly a large bunch of scientists and engineers.
Here we are on page 2 and nobody has offered any tangible reason to mistrust NASA - just noise.
-
8 minutes ago, DaleP said:
I see what you mean now.
This experiment should be easily replicated in a dark room with/without a glass bowl(?)
Come to think of it, if you shine a light on a glass prism per Pink Floyd album cover, the light would be separated in a straight line by varying degrees.
It's replicated before in the picture I posted in response, together with a reply to the straw-grasping line you just referred to.
-
3 minutes ago, DaleP said:
He shot his foot again!
Just what this thread needs, troll-buddies.
-
1 minute ago, DaleP said:
.... says Mr Know-It-All
I don't claim to know it all, but I do know a lot on the subjects I mainly post on. And how dare you use my personal Muttley-gif
-
1
-
-
-
4 minutes ago, alexa said:
Why would the article feel the need state this ?
Straw grasping of the craziest kind - because it then goes on to say.....
A rainbow isn’t a flat two-dimensional image on the dome of sky. It’s more like a mosaic, composed of many separate bits … in three dimensions. More about the three-dimensional quality of rainbows below. Just know that your eye sees rainbows as flat for the same reason we see the sun and moon as flat disks, because, when we look in the sky, there are no visual cues to tell us otherwise.
4 minutes ago, alexa said:Could it be that this is what causes a rainbow to arc ?
No. The article explains the cause and the photograph from the air shows that it is not a property of the sky at all.
The Flat Earth/Globe Earth Discussion Thread
in Space & Universe
Posted · Edited by Mr. Nice
Batshit.
Not only do you have zero evidence for this epic facepalm of a claim it now places visible Sun and Moon angles into the realms of "pretend you can't see it" territory