The Earth Is Flat, Intellectuals Weep

[joaquin]

Seriously? You think broadcasting a TV signal from a celestial body 234,000 miles away is a task that requires less wattage and power than a TV or radio station broadcasting from Earth to receivers on Earth? With an Antenna only about 20 feet above the ground of that body, when transmitters on Earth broadcasting to Earth receivers use towers 1000 feet off the ground? You aren't even being logical on this.

Most FM radio stations max out broadcasting at 100,000 watts nowadays, and only have a broadcast area of about 200 miles or so. The highest wattage I could find used commercially was over half a million, 543,000 watts, and broadcasting to an area of maybe 600 miles. By my calculations, That's still 228,000 miles short of the moon.

It's not exactly that simple, but you need some combination of high power and high antenna if you plan on broadcasting any distance here on Earth. To get a broadcast quality signal 234,000 miles from the moon back to Houston, with no repeaters, is going to take a huge amount of power, and a much taller antenna than one mounted on this hunk of junk-

View attachment 41761

Anyway, if you don't think wattage or power is a problem, why don't you ask a radio or television engineer how long they could run their transmitter off batteries? And how many thousands of miles they could broadcast with that battery powered transmitter? And for how long? And if that antenna needs to be more than 20-30 feet off the ground?

It is not me that has a problem with the logistics. With everything else that has been possible since the Wright brothers first took flight!

Show me something in writing from engineers stating what you are trying to. I am not asking for a video from bitchute or youtube, please. On top of that, you're not factoring in that space not have an atmosphere to interfere with the signal the same way here on earth.

As I asked earlier: How much power and wattage would they need, Tank?

 

[joaquin]

@tankasnowgod
It is not me that has a problem with the logistics. With everything else that has been possible since the Wright brothers first took flight!

Show me something in writing from engineers stating what you are trying to. I am not asking for a video from bitchute or youtube, please. On top of that, you're not factoring in the fact that space not have an atmosphere to interfere with the signal the same way here on earth.

As I asked earlier: How much power and wattage would they need, Tank?

 

[tankasnowgod]

It is not me that has a problem with the logistics. With everything else that has been possible since the Wright brothers first took flight!

I get that. You seem to think that broadcasting a television signal 234,000 miles from another celestial body with limited power and an antenna only 20 feet or so from the ground is no problem. Like, shouldn't this incredible engineering feat be analyzed and explained?

Show me something in writing from engineers stating what you are trying to.

Um, why don't you produce this? I am the one who's skeptical that they could broadcast a signal 234,000 miles in the first place. Even satellites today only broadcast 22,000 miles from Earth. The claim of broadcasting from the moon is 10x greater than any other broadcast (TV, radio, or other) than has ever been claimed with any sort of "live" or interactive feed.

On top of that, you're not factoring in that space not have an atmosphere to interfere with the signal the same way here on earth.

Except, that to get that signal back to Earth, they WOULD have to broadcast through the atmosphere. Along with the other 230,000 or so miles from the moon. And most of that distance is filled with intense space radiation, which would likely make broadcasting that much more difficult. Even a simple hairdryer can interrupt signal reception on TVs and radios of the 60's. You don't think space radiation of an intensity 700 times more powerful than anything ever produced here on earth, spanning a distance of about 200,000 miles, is a potential problem for their broadcast signal?

Of course, to broadcast footage of men on the moon, that also requires all the other issues with getting men there in the first place and keeping them alive, from the radiation to the extreme heat to the vacuum of space, and so on.

 

[joaquin]

@tankasnowgod

You said: "Um, why don't you produce this?" I'm not denying that moon landings happened and are set to happen again. The onus probandi is on you.

 

[tankasnowgod]

@tankasnowgod

You said: "Um, why don't you produce this?" I'm not denying that moon landings happened and are set to happen again. The onus probandi is on you.

Then forget about the broadcast problem. Answer me this..... How did this "spacecraft" withstand the vacuum of space by being so flimsy? How did it withstand the temperature swings from -250 to 250 degrees on the surface of the moon? How did it buffer the intense space radiation while being so light, when the Russians thought that any spaceship would need to be clad in 4 feet of lead?

I don't believe NASA's timetable, I don't believe them on fuel efficiency, I don't believe their broadcast footage, I don't believe they solved the heat and radiation problems, and I don't believe that cheap looking prop was capable of landing on the moon (without disturbing any dust), nor blasting off from the moon and travelling 69 miles to hook up with the command module which was supposedly orbiting the moon at a leisurely 4000 miles per hour.

If you want to believe the claims of a Federal Agency like NASA, even when they stretch the bounds of logic and credibility, and claim to have lost pretty much all the evidence that they did so, well, go ahead. But, just like I don't blindly trust other Executive Agencies, like the NIH, CDC, FDA, FBI, CIA, NSA and such, I don't blindly trust NASA's claims, either.

 

[joaquin]

@tankasnowgod
you wrote:
"Then forget about the broadcast problem. Answer me this..... How did this "spacecraft" withstand the vacuum of space by being so flimsy? How did it withstand the temperature swings from -250 to 250 degrees on the surface of the moon? How did it buffer the intense space radiation while being so light, when the Russians thought that any spaceship would need to be clad in 4 feet of lead?"

I'm not an engineer. How would I have my fingertips all the minutia regarding the logistics of space travel.

You could come up with a thousand, no, ten thousand "how did they do this" and "how did they do that". That doesn't prove anything.

You and James both are inclined to throw out tons of presumptions and think that by piling a couple of dozen on top of each other that the whole constitutes irrefutable proof.

But what it feels like to me is that you're underestimating the minds around you.

Yes, there are some dumb folks walking around. But that does not mean each and everyone of us is a cheetos gobbling keeping-up-with-the-kardashians chucklehead.

 

[tankasnowgod]

You and James both are inclined to throw out tons of presumptions and think that by piling a couple of dozen on top of each other that the whole constitutes irrefutable proof.

Don't lump me in with James. I'm not a flat earther. I just think NASA's claims of landing on the moon stretch all credibility, and that it's far more likely they faked the moon landing. I think we can both agree, regardless of the shape of the Earth, and regardless of any space travel capabilities, that the video and photo evidence offered by NASA could have been faked here on Earth, and that it would be cheaper and easier to do so, rather than travelling to a celestial body that no one has done before or since, in recorded history. NASA in the 60s had a budget of around $5 Billion a year. 2001 was produced for about $10 Million in the mid 1960s. So, NASA sure had the capability and ability to stage any photo and video evidence, at a relative pittance of their budget. If they needed such evidence to continue to justify such huge numbers, I see no reason why they wouldn't have taken a few million (of even a few hundred million) to justify the multi-billions they received each year.

But what it feels like to me is that you're underestimating the minds around you.

I don't really know what you mean by this. Should I not "underestimate" the minds at NASA? And if so, does that hold true for other Federal Agencies? Should I not "underestimate" the mind of Anthony Fauci? Should I blindly believe the government's claims about COVID, even when they don't seem logical?

 

[Karlx]

Flat Earth shows how you can make a really convincing case for anything based on points and counterpoints and a sense of community. Or at least, in the absence of firm provability, you can always introduce an array of facts and queries that take down an existing hypothesis or belief. There's not enough independently verified evidence to be talking about an ice wall or a hole in the north pole. The same holds for the no-dinosaurs hypothesis. Basically everything Eric Dubay effeminately rambles about is highly suspect.

Yet so many people acquire epistemic certainty from mere redpills and schizo youtube channels. Just because the regime is evil doesn't mean the earth is flat. That's the jump you make, however. If you have an eccentric belief, watch opposing content for a couple days and see how you feel. You'll probably have the same revelatory gut feeling for the other way. That'll show you how impressionable the human mind is. In a similar light, if you watch a 2 hour documentary about how Jesus never existed, you'll see people in the comments saying 'wow I can't believe everything we've been taught has been a lie.' Guess what, there's no more evidence for countless historical figures than there is for Jesus. If anyone would like you not to believe Jesus existed it's regime academia, but even they don't push that.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZftML6pAv7E

 

[Ritchie]

Show me something in writing from engineers stating what you are trying to

You'll find a plethora on this website - Apollo Moon Landings, Mars Missions, Space Exploration, Humankind's Origins | AULIS Online – Different Thinking.

This is a great article for example, written by an aerodynamicist - Illusory Apollo: the Ultimate Mega Show | AULIS Online – Different Thinking

 

[JamesGatz]

Flat Earth shows how you can make a really convincing case for anything based on points and counterpoints and a sense of community. Or at least, in the absence of firm provability, you can always introduce an array of facts and queries that take down an existing hypothesis or belief. There's not enough independently verified evidence to be talking about an ice wall or a hole in the north pole. The same holds for the no-dinosaurs hypothesis. Basically everything Eric Dubay effeminately rambles about is highly suspect.

Yet so many people acquire epistemic certainty from mere redpills and schizo youtube channels. Just because the regime is evil doesn't mean the earth is flat. That's the jump you make, however. If you have an eccentric belief, watch opposing content for a couple days and see how you feel. You'll probably have the same revelatory gut feeling for the other way. That'll show you how impressionable the human mind is. In a similar light, if you watch a 2 hour documentary about how Jesus never existed, you'll see people in the comments saying 'wow I can't believe everything we've been taught has been a lie.' Guess what, there's no more evidence for countless historical figures than there is for Jesus. If anyone would like you not to believe Jesus existed it's regime academia, but even they don't push that.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZftML6pAv7E

NON-SEQUITUR BUT OK

It's just so FUNNY to ME how I present a bunch of FACTS that put into question what we are being told about the Earth and instead of trying to PROVE ME WRONG - you go on an offensive about RELIGION

Tell me this Karl

Which ONE OF THESE PHOTOS is the Real Earth?

After you Answer that - then tell me why there are SUPPOSEDLY 13,000 Sattelittes orbiting Earth and NONE are visible on any photo NASA puts out

After you answer that - then tell me how SATTELITES:

WITHSTAND 4,000 Degrees and -186 Degrees Farenheit (Far beyond their melting point) and orbit the Earth at 17,000 MILES PER HOUR for 15+ YEARS running on UNLIMITED GAS/ELECTRICITY all while DEFYING GRAVITY

 

[JamesGatz]

Can a GLOBE EARTHER PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY HELIUM BALLOONS ARE IMMUNE TO GRAVITY?

 

[joaquin]

@tankasnowgod @JamesGatz

If you are truly interested in the pursuit of truth, then will you at least admit that some of the claims made by the fake-moon-landing gang have been debunked?

All of this is copied from this website.

1.Conspiracy theory 1: shadows in the Moon landing photos prove the images were faked

Take a look at the image below, and at the full panorama on the NASA website. Look closely at the shadows cast by astronaut Neil Armstrong and another object just out of shot. What's wrong with them?

They're not parallel.

This image has been taken as proof by conspiracy theorists that the Moon landings were faked. Surely if the Sun were the only light source, then the shadows should be parallel? Doesn't this prove that the whole scene was mocked up in a studio, with multiple light sources creating different shadow patterns?

Well, no.

"This is on the surface of the Moon, but we can reproduce this effect any time we want to on Earth," Prof Ojha explains. "You have all seen this phenomenon yourself, where, because of perspective, parallel lines appear to be non-parallel. If you are trying to reduce on to a two-dimensional plane a three-dimensional situation, you can make lines do all sorts of weird things. Artists have been using this for centuries."

Go outside when the Sun is low in the sky and see this effect for yourself. Just like the images from Apollo 11, the shadows will not be parallel.

Conspiracy status: debunked


2. Conspiracy theory 2: Apollo astronauts could not have survived Earth's radiation field

Earth is surrounded by a zone of charged particles known as the 'Van Allen' radiation belt.

"These are regions surrounding the Earth in our magnetic field where high energy trapped particles from the Sun tend to get confined," Prof Ojha says. "What that means is if you are going into these regions, there are extremely high radiation concerns."

If that is the case, how did the Apollo astronauts travel through the Van Allen radiation belt and out of Earth's orbit unharmed? Surely the amount of radiation would have killed them? Doesn't this prove that the Moon landings were a hoax?

Prof Ojha has a killer reply.

"My answer to that is... firewalking," he says.

"If you’ve ever done firewalking, you’ll know the one thing you don’t do is linger around in the middle of the firepit. You cross as quickly as you can. From a science point of view, as long as you walk across quite quickly, looking at the thermal conductivity of your feet, you are not going to have enough thermal energy going into the soles of your feet to burn you. You’re absolutely fine. Just don’t hang around in the middle!

"In a similar way, the transit time through the Van Allen radiation belt right at the beginning of the Apollo voyages was incredibly short. Travelling through the Van Allen radiation belt if you are going fast enough – which you need to be if you’re going to the Moon – is no problem whatsoever."

Conspiracy status: debunked

3. Conspiracy theory 3: why are there no stars in pictures of the NASA Moon landings?

Here is another Moon landing photograph which has caught conspiracy theorists' eye.

Buzz Aldrin carries experiment equipment during the Apollo 11 Moon landing (NASA)

If the image really was taken on the Moon, shouldn't the sky be filled with stars? After all, there is no atmosphere to distort the image, no clouds to interrupt that glorious view.

Conspiracy theorists argue that the lack of stars in the Apollo 11 mission photographs prove that the event was staged. NASA could not have faked the full wonder of the lunar sky, and so they simply chose not to include any stars at all.

Here's another solution: both the astronauts and the lunar landscape itself are brightly lit by the Sun. The sky may look black, but remember, this is in fact daytime on the Moon.

If you're going to take a photo of a brightly lit scene, your camera's shutter speed needs to be fast and your aperture incredibly small. In that situation, faint objects like stars simply aren't going to show up.

Conspiracy status: debunked

================================================================================

i hate using the word debunked because it has been wrongfully used by mythbuster type dweebs for so long, but anyway..


Will tank and James Gaetz at least admit that some of the claims made by their group (i'm being respectful here) hold no weight?

 

[joaquin]

You'll find a plethora on this website - Apollo Moon Landings, Mars Missions, Space Exploration, Humankind's Origins | AULIS Online – Different Thinking.

This is a great article for example, written by an aerodynamicist - Illusory Apollo: the Ultimate Mega Show | AULIS Online – Different Thinking

I looked at that website, looks like the 3 main founders are far from being engineers, Mary Bennett is a writer/photographer that calls herself a researcher. Everybody on the planet can make the claim to be a researcher.

David S. Percy is another of the 3, you're not doing yourself any favors if this is one of your qualified scientists. He is a cameraman and writer, ergo, he bathes in the world of fiction.

Stan Gooch is the third person and he is listed as a "psychological researcher".

all of these are the aliens-reptilian-davidicke-fantastic orgy of mysticism and new age planet x face-on-mars types..

lastly you threw out the name Alexander Onoprienko. From what I can tell he is a Russian fellow of some sort and the Russians expended much energy deceiving their citizens in regards to the progress made by the USA in the space race. You fell for some USSR propaganda.

 

[JamesGatz]

@tankasnowgod @JamesGatz

If you are truly interested in the pursuit of truth, then will you at least admit that some of the claims made by the fake-moon-landing gang have been debunked?

All of this is copied from this website.

1.Conspiracy theory 1: shadows in the Moon landing photos prove the images were faked

Take a look at the image below, and at the full panorama on the NASA website. Look closely at the shadows cast by astronaut Neil Armstrong and another object just out of shot. What's wrong with them?

They're not parallel.

This image has been taken as proof by conspiracy theorists that the Moon landings were faked. Surely if the Sun were the only light source, then the shadows should be parallel? Doesn't this prove that the whole scene was mocked up in a studio, with multiple light sources creating different shadow patterns?

Well, no.

"This is on the surface of the Moon, but we can reproduce this effect any time we want to on Earth," Prof Ojha explains. "You have all seen this phenomenon yourself, where, because of perspective, parallel lines appear to be non-parallel. If you are trying to reduce on to a two-dimensional plane a three-dimensional situation, you can make lines do all sorts of weird things. Artists have been using this for centuries."

Go outside when the Sun is low in the sky and see this effect for yourself. Just like the images from Apollo 11, the shadows will not be parallel.

Conspiracy status: debunked


2. Conspiracy theory 2: Apollo astronauts could not have survived Earth's radiation field

Earth is surrounded by a zone of charged particles known as the 'Van Allen' radiation belt.

"These are regions surrounding the Earth in our magnetic field where high energy trapped particles from the Sun tend to get confined," Prof Ojha says. "What that means is if you are going into these regions, there are extremely high radiation concerns."

If that is the case, how did the Apollo astronauts travel through the Van Allen radiation belt and out of Earth's orbit unharmed? Surely the amount of radiation would have killed them? Doesn't this prove that the Moon landings were a hoax?

Prof Ojha has a killer reply.

"My answer to that is... firewalking," he says.

"If you’ve ever done firewalking, you’ll know the one thing you don’t do is linger around in the middle of the firepit. You cross as quickly as you can. From a science point of view, as long as you walk across quite quickly, looking at the thermal conductivity of your feet, you are not going to have enough thermal energy going into the soles of your feet to burn you. You’re absolutely fine. Just don’t hang around in the middle!

"In a similar way, the transit time through the Van Allen radiation belt right at the beginning of the Apollo voyages was incredibly short. Travelling through the Van Allen radiation belt if you are going fast enough – which you need to be if you’re going to the Moon – is no problem whatsoever."

Conspiracy status: debunked

3. Conspiracy theory 3: why are there no stars in pictures of the NASA Moon landings?

Here is another Moon landing photograph which has caught conspiracy theorists' eye.

Buzz Aldrin carries experiment equipment during the Apollo 11 Moon landing (NASA)

If the image really was taken on the Moon, shouldn't the sky be filled with stars? After all, there is no atmosphere to distort the image, no clouds to interrupt that glorious view.

Conspiracy theorists argue that the lack of stars in the Apollo 11 mission photographs prove that the event was staged. NASA could not have faked the full wonder of the lunar sky, and so they simply chose not to include any stars at all.

Here's another solution: both the astronauts and the lunar landscape itself are brightly lit by the Sun. The sky may look black, but remember, this is in fact daytime on the Moon.

If you're going to take a photo of a brightly lit scene, your camera's shutter speed needs to be fast and your aperture incredibly small. In that situation, faint objects like stars simply aren't going to show up.

Conspiracy status: debunked

================================================================================

i hate using the word debunked because it has been wrongfully used by mythbuster type dweebs for so long, but anyway..


Will tank and James Gaetz at least admit that some of the claims made by their group (i'm being respectful here) hold no weight?

MY DUDE - The SMOKING GUN for this being a SCAM is SO BAD

This is Neil Armstrong holding his 33rd Degree Masonic Flag on "the Moon" and here it hangs in the Supreme Masonic temple in Washington, DC - IT'S A SCAM MY DUDE - They're Con-Artists

 

[Ritchie]

You fell for some USSR propaganda.

Damn those Russkies, got me again.

 

[Karlx]

NON-SEQUITUR BUT OK

It's just so FUNNY to ME how I present a bunch of FACTS that put into question what we are being told about the Earth and instead of trying to PROVE ME WRONG - you go on an offensive about RELIGION

Tell me this Karl

Which ONE OF THESE PHOTOS is the Real Earth?

View attachment 41830

After you Answer that - then tell me why there are SUPPOSEDLY 13,000 Sattelittes orbiting Earth and NONE are visible on any photo NASA puts out

After you answer that - then tell me how SATTELITES:

WITHSTAND 4,000 Degrees and -186 Degrees Farenheit (Far beyond their melting point) and orbit the Earth at 17,000 MILES PER HOUR for 15+ YEARS running on UNLIMITED GAS/ELECTRICITY all while DEFYING GRAVITY

I already introduced the issue of fake pictures in space travel and the moon landing. I'd like to know why they exist, but the mere fact that there is an excess of pics (assuming the astronauts couldn't have possibly taken that many on a short and perilous mission, which I think is an agreeable fact). It also seems weird that there are evidently much fewer stars in space (from space) than there are plainly visible from the ground in rural Wisconsin, which is hardly the most light pollution-free locale that I know of.

As for the globe meme you posted, we've all seen those, and there could be many utterly mundane reasons for those globe images. Who ever said 'these are full, undoctored images of earth as it appeared to us from our spaceship'? As far as I know they're composite renderings based on current belief (or current lies, if you like).

I posted a tangent because it's still germane to the point I was making. It applies to all eccentric beliefs. You haven't proven anything, however. You've only introduced a few curiosities which may or may not be relevant to anything.

 

[JamesGatz]

You haven't proven anything, however. You've only introduced a few curiosities which may or may not be relevant to anything.

I think I DID PROVE SOMETHING though Karl:

BASED on what we SEE every year - It is simply NOT POSSIBLE for the 3 of these conditions to be true:

1) Earth Rotates
2) Earth performs Revolutions around the Sun
3) Earth is a sphere

Either they LIE about one or LIE ABOUT THEM ALL - its just simply NOT POSSIBLE for these conditions to be true based on what WE SEE

 

[JamesGatz]

The Globe Earthers HAVE BEEN SO QUIET lately

THEY JUST CANT BEAR with the fact EVERYTHING they learned in school AKA Indoctrination Camp is a LIE

They can't BEAR WITH THE FACT - NASA pulls more scams than the CIA

AH MAN DONT WORRY GUYS - I'm not even FINISHED YET - I will make it my mission to PULL YOU ALL OUT OF THE MATRIX

 

[JamesGatz]

Just explain to me this one scenario Globe Earthers - just this one and I promise I will be quiet

We can use our own observation to see that they are lying about the Earth rotating

If the Earth isn't rotating then its not performing revolutions around the sun

If its not rotating and performing revolutions, then its not a sphere

 

[Karlx]

Just explain to me this one scenario Globe Earthers - just this one and I promise I will be quiet

View attachment 41951

We can use our own observation to see that they are lying about the Earth rotating

If the Earth isn't rotating then its not performing revolutions around the sun

If its not rotating and performing revolutions, then its not a sphere

The Official rotational rate is a bit more than 360 degrees in 24 hours. It's said the earth completes a full 360-degree revolution in 23:56. So the earth's spin 'beats noon' every day by a little under 1 degree. Therefore after 6 months the discrepancy is just about exactly made up. And then there are leap years, of course, to make up the rest.

You're forgetting that the clock system is entirely based on human activity and the preference for the sun to be overhead at about noon (it is in a general sense, though it's impossible for it to be so in all locales).

The image assumes the true spin is 360 degrees per 24 hours, but officially it isn't. So that image is disinfo if you're a flat earther. Perhaps you could say the experts asserted the 23:56 rotational rate in order to make the wrongly presupposed globe model work.


I see various flat-earth things stated by Dubay, and normies will say the opposite thing — for example, that there is no midnight sun in Antarctica, or that moonlight bizarrely cools things as opposed to warms things (in other words, that it's cooler in the moon's light than in her shade!). But by simply pointing a thermometer at objects on a webcam, you aren't giving rigorous proof of something that astonishingly violates very fundamental/intuitive physics. It needs to be tested with sufficient standards for accuracy and then independently repeated, but this isn't the case. Of course it's inherently hard to get good studies on such things that the 'mainstream' sees as preposterous. I have seen lay globe-earthers nullify the 'cooling moonlight' hypothesis, showing that it's fairly easy to produce opposite conclusions.

As for the lack of a midnight sun in the far south, I see contradicting claims, both historically and presently, and I will never go there myself. If there is indeed no midnight sun in the far south, as there undoubtedly is in the equally far north, that is something you would expect in a flat-earth model.