Mr. Nice

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. No. The article explains the cause and the photograph from the air shows that it is not a property of the sky at all.

Why are rainbows curved? | Earth | EarthSky

The only deception I am seeing is from you doctoring a logo and providing to justification for it.

Say what? One view shows a 1/3 crescent on the left, one shows a half crescent on the right and now all of a sudden it's ok for light bending to explain this completely impossible thing? Surely you are smart enough to realise that the totally bonkers map used by flatties cannot work with any Sun/Moon activity? Here are the necessary patterns of illumination needed by the magic flying Sun spotlight on Flatnutia: What crazy world does a light do that! Here is a slam dunk post: International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Suddenly, A Flat Earther Appears! Mathematics are the Kryptonite of conspiracy theories. If the sun is 2500 miles above the earth's surface, then from 6000 miles away from the point directly beneath the sun it will appear at 22.62° above the horizon and be 6500 miles distant from the observer. So how big is the sun? The angular size of the sun varies between 0.545° and 0.5267°. Let's take the average of 0.53585° and round it to 0.536°. Now if we are at a position to observe the sun at the local zenith, directly under it, and we have the values of 0.536° for angular size and 2500 for distance, then we can determine that its actual size is 23.4 miles in diameter. But someone standing 6000 miles from the point directly under the sun should see the sun's angular size shrink to 0.206°, a 61% reduction. But, of course, everyone on earth sees the same angular size for the sun at the same time. (Sure, technically someone at the point closest to the sun sees it slightly larger than someone standing at the terminator, but the difference in distance is only about 0.004%.) For the observer 6500 miles from the sun to see it with an angular size of 0.536°, it would have to be 60.8 miles in diameter. The zetetic model just doesn't work. Then there's the problem of the moon. Everyone on earth sees virtually the same face of the moon at the same time. Two people seeing the moon from opposite sides of the earth at the same time will only see a rotational difference of 1.9° between them. But for the moon to be closer to the earth's surface than 2500 miles, let's say 2490 miles, Then the difference in angle for two observers standing 6000 miles apart would be a whopping 67.5°! From the earth, we'd be able to see most of the moon's surface, rather than slightly over half of it. And the moon would still have the same problems as the sun in regard to angular size. And there's still the problem of what compass heading people see the sun at from various locations, and the apparent motion of the stars from the southern hemisphere. Sorry, but the zetetic cosmology is just a gnostic cult for people who can't do basic geometry, but want to think they're among the world's cleverest thinkers.

You don't know how much you don't know. It's easier if you simply write down what you do know. You can have 30 seconds, that should be plenty of time for you. Reflection and Refraction in a Raindrop (lightcolourvision.org)

I ask because I have no idea what you are talking about! What are you talking about!? You said it was launching twice. There is only one rocket at 1 min 2 seconds. I watched this horseshit again at 1/4 speed, I saw Blue Origin launching. Why in the hell would you think it should be spinning now?

Time. T is for time. Duh. They flaunt it in the world's face do they? This fruitcake "satan" guff

Okay, well thank you for sharing your opinion. I too feel strangely comforted in the knowledge that I would not need to share any space mission with you. I dismiss nothing. You massively conflate it with no understanding. You are like every single conspiracy theorist. You think that YOU know things based on reports from the very people who you claim are lying! You clearly know zilch about this subject. Righto. Got any proof? So they got humans to the surface then

Nope. The NASA logo is a wonderful example of a timeless, traditional logo. While the sphere evidently signifies a planet, the stars in the meatball represent the space. The red chevron, on the other hand, forms the alternate shape of the constellation Andromeda. It is supposed to be a wing that exemplifies aeronautics. It's not a tongue and it makes TNASA or Santa That's also gobbleydegook. Go on, start. We already covered that in the Moon Hoax nonsense thread, so you might like to read that before posting crap about operation paperclip. So your distrust lies in nonsense about a snake tongue and employing experienced rocket engineers from Germany (most of whom were forced to work for the Nazis). Try again.

You are lying! That was in reference to an idiotic claim about UV radiation and nowhere did I coin the phrase about any buckets or hats. The astronauts wore a series of dosimeters and were exposed to small levels of radiation. This was indicative of the shielding rating of the vessel they were in. Another lie. I said they saw a charged particle. And as we can see from the Aurora, the magnetosphere will not stop every single charged particle or stop them from being deflected. Again this ignorance about buckets and hats. If they are in the craft they don't wear a helmet and if they are wearing a helmet they aren't in the craft. Instances where charged particles entered through either are not unusual. No system will stop every particle. Exposure to lethal or dangerous levels of radiation involve particles with very high flux and trillions and trillions of them for a significant period. Particles already entered through the hull will have largely been attenuated. Haha, gotta laugh it this. They see 1 flash of light in their eyeball from a single charged particle and suddenly they are dosed in radiation levels akin to Chernobyl! Dangerous in that one of us would have no understanding at all of a single thing occurring. That would be you btw. Are we done with the silly claim about pictures and video?

Now you are lying and provably so. From you! It is fine for times and dates , not for transient graphics - which part of this confuses you? No. Close enough though. Winnipeg is 49.9 degrees and London is 51.5 degrees. Show me your source for where the video was taken please in "Southern New Mexico". I want more than the damn name of the youtuber please. See my request above. Love this video - showing a solar eclipse at altitude - curve-mungus.

Of all the numerous daft things you have claimed that show you understand nothing, this one is right up there. 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. And exactly as seen from the Earth! From any same latitude there is no change in orientation, yet in the South the Moon is inverted. there is ZERO inversion across distances of the same across latitudes. And that is just another problem with your nonsensical claims. The problem is you and your clearly appalling ability to understand anything. Once again you fail to answer this issue honestly. If you have a sphere, and observers either side of it obliquely, 45% each, it is IMPOSSIBLE to see the same face, same orientation or not! Graphics above.

Waited all weekend to reply to this total crap. Here's the thing. Not one peace of that above is accurate, so it keeps making me wonder how much of this whole NASA are the antichrist is just down to ignorance and rubbish research. NONE of the original photographs are missing, lost, deleted or in any jeopardy at all. They are all kept safely stored in chilled storage facilities. Every one of them was copied numerous times and every one of them is online and freely available. None of the video tape used on the mission vanished. The telemetry and slow scan TV BACKUP tapes were overwritten from Apollo 11. All the telemetry was copied onto other media and all the TV was recorded as it was transmitted. These tapes were in short supply and nobody had the presence of mind to keep them, because it wasn't deemed important to keep backups when the data was already stored on other media.

Refraction is a function over varying density through the atmosphere - you seem unequipped to be able to understand this very basic and proven concept. Your post above lies by omission once again. The Moon in either place simultaneously visible could not possibly present the same face to places so far apart. As I said and as you evaded, as you do!, it is like looking at a the side of a person on opposites and yet being able to see his face!

Troll.

I've seen all this at normal speed. Who is they? And what rocket is launching twice? How did you verify this? What green screen was that? Supply the original source. There isn't one it is doctored.

You're joking right? Brainwashing where some series of clown observations are made and a great big frickin' GoFundMe page. Suckers.

It's from the two DJs Smashie and Nicey. Nicey is the DJ by Harry Enfield. Fast Show.

OMG! You are still chucking crap at your failure? Yet again another daft claim. The selenelion IS a full eclipse with the seemingly impossible both visible. Duh. Those are not times to the second and you didn't provide the exact location figures! Go check your sources - actually don't - just go and find a clue somewhere. I don't claim it, it happens, that's physics you see. It happened the whole time. But much much less as either rise to directly above.

Repeating your lie and failure does not suddenly make it real. I showed you quite clearly that the Moon orientation is the same across a line of latitude. Of course you just ignored it. And you said it wasn't authoritative! It's great for times and dates, hence the name. Not so much with lunar orientation - it uses transient graphics. Yet everyone, except you it seems, knows what the Moon looks like at their own location. There is variance over the course of the year but each latitude stays the same. You keep ignoring the 500 ton elephant standing on your head though. The Moon IS visible from Winnipeg and London simultaneously. Yet both see only a variation of the same face!! If the Moon was flat and it provably isn't, it would change shape anyway. It's like two people either side of a person both seeing the front of their face! Impossible.

Andy, that is someone else's quote parroted. Give me some instances where they haven't given a straight answer, because as an agency they pretty much provide every aspect of every mission. Ok. So within that paragraph I noticed your opinions which you are free to have of course. But I didn't notice any examples as to why you think this.

I asked specifically for evidence and you dump your bare assertion appeal to incredulity on this thread? I find it almost impossible to contemplate anyone being dumb enough to watch that and think is is fake. The film Gravity took months and months to assemble just short sequences and to map them together. It used actual space footage as a model. This stuff comes out every other day when they are busy and there was a 24/7 feed running that only somebody who knows zero about the process could claim it was CGI.

What "historical information" has been overwritten and how do you know? What old technology was lost that should have been kept and what does that have to do with trust? What incompetence do you mean?

You keep making these statements and fail every time to back them up. It says the solar wind is visible. Not what it is!

Failure to back up your claims noted. Though it may be a waste of time in that I've read quite a lot of it! Charged particles striking the retina. And?