Don't think for yourself, this is Reddit after all! Just ask Science Man In Chief Neil Degrasses Tyson! Science

• There was a large rocket, ergo it went to the moon.
• There were profiles and interviews of the astronauts in Life Magazine ergo it's all completely above board.
• Strange inconsistencies do not merit interest because, well, it happened.

This has been a Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson Sciency minute

One of the biggest things that you can't ignore is that the soviets had NASA infiltrated. This means that they would have known if the landings were fake and told the world. Oh wait they didn't...

They would have told the world

Citation needed there sparky.

Actually if you understand anything about the cold war then you would know the space race was propaganda, if the US getting to the moon was bs then the Soviets would have told the world, been a great thing for propaganda

You might know a thing or two about the cold war, hell you might even know a lot about it. But I'll tell you one thing that you'd be an idiot to disagree with; you don't know everything about the cold war. Assuming that soviet moles would know everything about NASA by virtue of their presence, and that they would report what they knew to the public at large is essentially infantile.

They would know that the landings were faked? Also how are the rockets explained?

They would report back to the soviets, who would have quickly jumped on a way to massively discredit the US

Your would've could've machine is sure well calibrated today. Speaking authoritatively about what would, could, and should have happened in the impossibly secret depths of international spycraft... would you by any chance be related to one Tom Clancy?

You stil haven't worked out that the 'Cold War' was an elaborate ruse, one used to support massive expansion of the MIC and keep the peasants of all countries involved in constant fear?

You're a special sort of special.

Of course... And your evidence?

See Antony C Sutton.

So instead of trying to give evidence or counter what I have said you just say a name and don't even link?

This isn't how TPTB on Earth operate by any stretch of the imagination...

right. Illuminati course. Anyway how would you know that? If you doubted that the soviets would tell the world, "Citation needed sparky" I think applies to you here

Also what is the reason for the fake moon landings in any case?

the entire conflict itself was propagana. lol.

What? Is that a weak attempt to deflect my point?

"What Dr. Oz is to medicine"

Tyson & Nye are God for hive mind

BUT BUT BUT WE PUT THE DERR REFLECTORZZZZ... ahhh I give up. The entire fuckin' moon was always reflective

http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/apollo_lm.jpg

That picture above is actually what NASA claim landed on the moon, then fucking rocketed from the surface of the moon, then docked with some other stupid claim, then actually flew back to earth.

I am not even joking.

Yup that's the LEM alright. It did in fact land on the moon and dock with the CM in lunar orbit. I never understand why people post pictures of the lem and just say "look at it!!!". Yes. That's the lem. It landed on the moon. What's your point?

One thing I always found interesting is that the early prototype designs for the LEM look like 'proper' space ships. All sleek and cool looking in a 60's sci-fi style.

They ended up with the real LEM after they realised the severe restrictions of payload and fuel weight meant the aesthetics would have to be sacrificed if they actually wanted to land on the moon.

So the nice big windows had to go, the seats had to go (they flew it standing up!), and thing ended up looking like a lumpy foil covered spider. Yet even today, most people's perception of what a space craft 'should' look like still comes from early science fiction, complete with aerodynamic styling for vacuum only craft!

This spaceship doesn't look pretend enough to be real!

Well, i don't believe a load of christmas wrapping paper and tent poles was capable of that nearly 50 years ago, considering we have not got the technical ability to do it now, not even close in fact.

Stay in that bubble if it makes you feel better though.

That "Christmas wrapping paper" is called Mylar excellent as thermal shielding. And the "tent poles" are Titanium, steel and Aluminum. All very much the gold standard for building spacecraft.

"Considering we have not got the technical ability to do it now, not even close in fact."

Oh look, things that are completely wrong.

That's some amazing tape. Able to withstand such massive temperature fluctuations and remaining stuck. Cool tech NASA has kept from the common man all this time apparently.

Are you really going to make the argument that NASA hasn't given their tech to the public. Among the cheap stuff, I'm sure you've heard of space blankets and Velcro?

They ain't never gave us tape that withstands temperatures of -400 to 250° degrees. Definite game changing tech right there.

I'm an engineer and can tell you they did, it's just way too expensive. Sourcing is a big part of an engineer's job and it's very difficult. That being said, I'm sure you could find exactly that kind of adhesive if you tried for a bit.

Show us any tape capable of even half of this range. It doesn't exist.

I really don't feel like this but I'll humor you. Give me specs such as usage, tensile force, and temp range and I can probably find something on a materials database pretty quick.

So this came up more or less randomly in my life. It's called aluminized kapton tape and you can buy it online. It can withstand exactly the temperatures you listed. In other words, you know nothing, Jon Snow. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapton

Non-mobile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapton

^{That's why I'm here, I don't judge you. PM /u/xl0 if I'm causing any trouble. WUT?}

Thank you for this. However, dissimilar to the tape you found, the tape used heavily on the piece of shit prop used to fake the moon missions was CLEAR SCOTCH TAPE.

That's a good effort though. You'll come around to the blatant truth eventually.

First it's "there's no such tape" then it's "that's scotch tape." If you honestly think that constitutes intelligent discussion enjoy your shitty life because there is no way you will ever make anything of yourself.
I happen to be an engineer that knows exactly how much work those NASA scientists put in and I plan on devoting my life to space colonization. I'll enjoy leaving you in the backwaters, miserable and destitute I'd imagine.

Rock and roll. Again, good for you. Its really quite simple. The tape was readily apparent in many staged Apollo "moon" missions. Saying what we can all see clear as day, DOES NOT magically transition to "no tape." Not sure where you're getting this shit.

If you're not able to follow along with this simple exchange, "space colonization" may not be the job for you.

Do I even bother saving you from your own ignorance anymore? How quickly your story changes. Kapton can be clear, firstly. Secondly, that's epoxy. Thirdly, your opinion does not matter at all and our colonization of space will happen even if the moon landings are fake.

You're now claiming what is clearly tape has magically transformed into epoxy? Overlapping both edges, EXACTLY how tape is naturally used, claiming its not. Wow.

If it were tape, its still kapton. It looks like epoxy to me. You're completely off your rocker in both cases. Not sure what I thought I'd find on r/conspiracy... Stereotypes exist for a reason

You're not following even the basics here, bud. Try to keep up.

If it were epoxy, why would anyone spread a perfectly even border around the perimeter of the sign? If it were epoxy, any competent installer would have used it like paste, not like scotch tape.

On to my second point: Why are you even reading and posting here? You blanket statement talk shit, yet waste even more time here advocating the official conspiracy theory? What dog you even got in this fight?

But please, show me this scotch tape because I'm looking at the lander right now and all i see is aluminized Kapton.

This transparent tape is that you're looking at?

http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/MoonHoax/NewHoax/AdhesiveTapeShow.jpg

That looks like epoxy to me, not clear scotch tape. I'm sure any backwoods red neck only knows of five or ten materials though so scotch tape it must be!

Amateur hour on moon hoax duty.

You ever use epoxy? You don't paint over the margins, in a perfectly tape like band around the perimeter. It's used much like glue. Not identical to how scotch tape is used.

You're going to need to try much harder than this.

I frequently use epoxy. That's why I'm quite sure it is. It's applied unevenly and isn't in strips. That being said the photo is low qual and I'm viewing on my phone. Needless to say it isn't fucking scotch tape, amateur hour indeed, more like arts and crafts hour with our local kindergarten conspiracy theorist.

As do I. Exoxy would be used to affix this label to the craft. It would NOT be used to smear evenly around the external edge (exactly identical to how tape would be uses) of the label.

He's making a fallacious statement. "If I haven't seen it or looked it up it's not real!"

"Able to withstand such massive temperature fluctuations "

You have no idea how radiation works. Do you.

We're talking about heat here. A massive range of ~-400 to 250° degrees F.

http://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/how-did-lunar-astronauts-survive-the-extreme-temperatures-on-the-moon/

What a fucking joke of an explanation. "The suits were designed to reflect heat...."

Yeah, no shit. Tell us how they transferred heat energy with water in a vacuum.

w...what....

Yes, terribly difficult to understand the basics.

1. No shit. The explanation provided is a joke.

2. As you're supporting this clear lie of staged moon walks, care to tell us how tape can perform in boiling heat and freezing cold, also how the "space suits" handled such temperature extremes.

1. Why is it a joke.

2. Temperature extremes aren't the same in space like you think they are. There is only one way for heat to exchange and that is through radiation. Not to mention that every single lunar landing was scheduled at lunar dawn, before everything has the chance to heat up very much.

And the way that the space suits worked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Cooling_and_Ventilation_Garment#Space_applications

"As you're supporting this clear lie of staged moon walks,"

we can literally prove the moon walks happened with the moon rocks they brought back

inb4: MUH ANTARCTICA

And yet, there's no Mylar up on the crew compartment...

Because there doesn't need to be? It's on the lower half because that's where all the equipment is.

You understand that equipment can withstand rads and heat far beyond the human body right? And yet the crew compartment looks like an EasyBake oven...

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-07/994536402.Es.r.html

How come Russia hasn't refuted the U.S. claim, What reasoning do they have for keeping quiet?

The fences are for sheep, there are no borders at the top.

Politics, that is only ever what the moon landings were.

That horizon doesnt even make any sense.

>What are hills?

What?

fucking tin foil garbage heap powered by a computer slower than a casio watch.

Laughable. When you realise that most people still believe the Moon Landing Hoax was real despite all evidence to the contrary, you begin to wonder if there is any hope for these braindead morons.

Putting it like that isn't gonna help. We'd be saying how closed minded 'they' were for calling 'us' "braindead morons" from the other point of view. And calling others that isn't exactly conducive to more dialogue...

I get where you are coming from, and I politely suggest that you still haven't fully realised the depths of stupidity you are surrounded by.

Remember how you used to believe that the Moon Landings were real? But then you looked at the evidence, saw you had been fooled, and admitted that you were wrong?

The braindead morons will, with rare exception, never do that. They cannot do that, because they are braindead morons. Indoctrinated into Scientism from an early age and completely incapable of synthesising their own opinions.

It doesn't matter what I write in this sub, or how I write it. The braindead morons will not change their minds until the tv tells them to do so.

Dude, describe to me the life/background of your typical 'braindead moron.'

No problemo, my good man.

The typical braindead moron in any of the 'Five Eyes' nations was, through no fault of their own, born into a system of mass indoctrination through techniques that have been mastered by those at the top of the control grid. The indoctrination begins early, and is chiefly achieved via mass 'education' and constant reinforcement via mass media.

As a result, many a braindead moron is churned out by this system. By about age 18-25, the braindead moron will be ready to begin his or her life as a wage-slave, which is one of the primary aims of the system of mass indoctrination. By this stage, the braindead moron will possess no capacity for independent thought and critical analysis, and will therefore be easily manipulated into following the herd on matters small and large.

In a cunning move, the ruling powers will train the braindead moron to consider himself educated and intelligent, and the further through the 'education' system the moron progressed, the more braindead he is likely to be. This is why the strongest elements of cultural marxist are saved for university level, so that the intelligentsia see it is a badge of honour that they think differently from the 'uneducated' masses who cannot reconcile some/all of the doublethink*.

In any event, the typical braindead moron will work, consume, and eventually die a shell of the human being he or she had the potential to become. He or she is unlikely to have ever said, much less written, any original thoughts worthy of being repeated to those who still possess functioning minds. He or she will have spent most of his/her life worrying about how the other braindead morons percieve him/her, without any of the spiritual enlightenment that humans shared with one another prior to the control grid's develish plot to mass produce disniformation units and indoctrination boosters to be installed into almost every household.

The typical braindead moron does not deserve the fate which confronts them any more than the factory farm animal deserves its fate. It is at first overwhelmingly depressing, and then eventually entirely liberating, to understand that the typical braindead moron and the factory farm animal differ only their ability to comprehend their existence, with the former less astute than the latter.

*Eg 'We should let lots of Muslims into the country' and 'We should promote gender equality' being held as simultaneous opinions is classic doublethink.

Any further questions?

Haven't you ever been that person at one time or another? I just think it's discouraging for newcomers, speaking about people like that. unfortunately people are susceptible to trickery, even on a large scale. We shouldn't shun people who aren't aware yet.

Of course I was once like that. But I never lost my ability to ask questions or admit that I was wrong.

This is where I, dare I say you, and many others on this sub are different from the typical braindead morons.

We still ask questions, we still admit when our previous opinions have changed.

If you speak with enough of the mindless drones around you, you will see that a great percentage of them can do neither. It has been trained out of them. Like lambs to the slaughter.

Honest question: If so many people were born into the system, were you born into the system? If so how did you realize this and break free?

Of course I was born into this system. Like many others, I eventually worked out the scam. But I am still surrounded by the system in every direction. They control my fellow humans, the people I deal with daily, so I am touched by the corrupt system every day. It is insidious.

It sounds like you're suffering from some delusions of grandeur. I'll agree that too much power in any places on the globe is a bad thing, but the indoctrination and mindlessness you're ranting about are mostly just symptoms of human greed. Power is addicting, and we don't really have the mechanisms in place yet to prevent the powerful from exploiting the weak, and that's bad.

Most people realize how shitty the system is, they just have real responsibilities and don't have time to ponder existential bullshit, because their kids are hungry. And their kids will be hungry again tomorrow, and the next day, and they need to be sure that their kid won't die. A "mindless drone" job doesn't sound too bad as an alternative.

Stop posting your cynical, dystopian copypasta and start focusing on working towards solutions if you truly believe what you rant about. Those mindless drones are going to do much more for their country when their kids miss their first few meals; after all, they say that revolution is only three missed meals away.

It's striking how your response is to order him to "stop posting" rather than just pondering how lucid his point might be and leaving it at that...

Mmm, striking indeed. It's almost as if his outlook on social interactions is likely to damage someone's relationships, or worse, lead to people thinking that it's futile to talk to people about why they should care about our system.

What is truly striking, sir, is that you're siding with the guy telling you to stop showing people that the government is wrong. He basically says the average citizen is a sheep. Sounds like a real freedom fighter stance to me

Indeed. I am not asking people to agree with me. In fact it doesn't matter to anybody what they write in reply, unless it is constructive and/or well-referenced. Those who attack my thoughts in this thread are simply lashing out against the truth, just the same as the sheeple do when you ask them how it is possible that rockets could possibly work in the 'vacuum' of 'space'. Newtonian physics anybody?

If somebody 'doesnt have time' to question the slavery they were born into, or the slavery they bore their own children into, then they are indeed as braindead and moronic as I described. Without question.

You're pretty dense. I didn't say they lacked the time to recognize it, just to ponder it. To sit and talk/type about it like you.

How? How did you realize and how did you escape?

I watched 'Spielberg's Hoax: Last Days of the Big Lie'. Have you seen it? Check it out. It will change you for the better. It did for me.

Great post.

Thank you, my friend.

They are the demigods of today. They are the priest of the religion of capital 'S' science. Gee wiz kids, the universe is big... better stay inside. But, read history, and you will find that Newton was the same sort of shill. He was a mystic and a numerologist.

The narrator is saying that (1) they blocked out the Sun so that they could shoot the moon from the other side of the spacecraft without the walls showing and (2) they used some sort of cutout to make the Earth look smaller and that's why it's not perfectly round. Also, (3) "these conversations discussing their deceptions were believed to be private ... until now."

My interpretation of the video: (1) they didn't want reflections of anything off the window and (2) the Earth didn't look perfectly round because they weren't directly on the day side of the Earth. Similarly, the moon only looks perfectly round when it's a full moon.

(3) The conversations between Houston and Apollo were over an open radio transmission that anybody with the right equipment could tune in to listen. They were not private. They were also documented in the official transcripts.

Public Affairs Office Transcript PDF

Top of page 61/2 (PDF page 67):

SC    Okay. Very good. Well we shut out the sun coming in from the other windows into the spacecraft, so it's look through a - the number 1 window and there isn't any reflected light. Now they ought to be pretty good pictures.

...

Second paragraph of page 62/1 (PDF page 68):

CAPCOM    Roger, Neil. We just wanted a narrative such that we can - when we get the playback, we can sort of correlate what we're seeing. Thank you very much.

Apollo 11 Technical Air-to_ground Voice Transcription (PDF)

Page 51 (PDF page 53)

00 10 36 08    CDR

Okay. Very good. Well, we shut out the Sun coming in from the other windows into the spacecraft, so it's look through a - the number 1 window, and there isn't any reflected light now. So, it ought to be a pretty good picture.

...

Page 52 (PDF page 54):

00 10 42 04 CC

Roger, Neil. We just wanted a narrative such that we can - When we get the playback, we can sort of correlate what we're seeing. Thank you very much.

No matter how much 'evidence' you find that it was a hoax, you'll find more that it isn't. But of course, if you're set on it being a hoax, you won't care about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

Downvote me to your heart's content dumbasses. Prove to me how stupid you are lol.

“But wait,” you say, “NASA has solid evidence of the validity of the Moon landings. They have, for example, all of that film footage shot on the moon and beamed live directly into our television sets.”

Since we’re on the subject, I have to mention that transmitting live footage back from the Moon was another rather innovative use of 1960s technology. More than two decades later, we would have trouble broadcasting live footage from the deserts of the Middle East, but in 1969, we could beam that shit back from the Moon with nary a technical glitch!

As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it. According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them. As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”

Given that these tapes allegedly documented an unprecedented and unduplicated historical event, one that is said to be the greatest technological achievement of the twentieth century, how in the world would it be possible to, uhmm, ‘lose’ 700 cartons of them? Would not an irreplaceable national treasure such as that be very carefully inventoried and locked away in a secure film vault? And would not copies have been made, and would not those copies also be securely tucked away somewhere? Come to think of it, would not multiple copies have been made for study by the scientific and academic communities?

Had NASA claimed that a few tapes, or even a few cartons of tapes, had been misplaced, then maybe we could give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps some careless NASA employee, for example, absent-mindedly taped a Super Bowl game over one of them. Or maybe some home porn. But does it really seem at all credible to claim that the entire collection of tapes has gone missing – all 700 cartons of them, the entire film record of the alleged Moon landings?

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

There's more than just NASA evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Part of a 13 part comment chain I did on why the writer of all that is a complete idiot.

http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2twsbo/is_this_enough_proof_that_the_moon_landing_did/co4hzyu

This is the big one for me too shark. As far as I know there are no legitimate pictures of Earth from space, where the entire earth is captured in one photo.

They are all either composites or heavily doctored like the video yo've linked to. Also look up the stop motion of the earth spinning where the clouds don't move. It's interesting.

I want to know why we can't just have a simple picture of the earth.

If the footage in OP was taken from LEO the scenery would be flying much much faster by. In the footage it is pretty much static.

Look at live streams from ISS and you can see how fast the scenery changes when filming from Earth orbit. The speed to stay in LEO is around 8 kilometers per second.

The footage in OP is definitely not from LEO.

Interesting. Do you think they are further out then?

Thinking a little further, if it was something blocking the view making a small slice of Earth look a full sphere with part of it in shadow, any camera movement would immediately move the clouds around as the area visible through the window changes. Same would

Also, when they open the iris of the camera to allow more light, you can see that the Earth does not fill the whole window but the upper right corner only which is the brightest.

Either it is a mockup of the Earth and this is filmed in a studio, or they really are far away from the Earth.

The scene would be somewhat easy to film on a studio set and if the landings were faked, why try weird camera trickery that can fail in so many ways on this specific shot?

The weather pattern doesn't seem to change even a little bit during the multiple minutes of broadcast, so I'd say they are very far away.

There's only one way to find out for sure and that's to find weather reports from that day. Were the clouds like that on that side of the planet, or is this a closeup of some portion of the planet like the video suggests?

It's three options with the most probable first (in my opinion):

1. They are far away on their way to the Moon

2. The view is of a static model of an Earth.

3. The view shows only a portion of the Earth (which seems impossible because the clouds do not change)

All of these three could be either validated or disproved by seeing a weather satellite image from that day, but I'm not sure if they exist. Weather radars were common back then, so an image showing the clouds in some detail at least could be there, some old newspapers for example.

Thats not true, and very easily explained. They are probably in geostationary orbit and filming out a side window.

It is true the footage was not filmed from LEO.

They can not be in geostationary orbit, because from there (35,000km), Earth is around 20 degrees in angular size. When they finally zoom out and switch on the lights, you can see the Earth filling around 5.6% of the view horizontally, thus the FOV of the camera should be around 355 degrees in order to show the Earth that size from geostationary orbit. And that certainly is not the case.

How about this https://youtu.be/V9l6J5JXgac?t=622

Where was that filmed from?

Assuming it's all faked, why leave the studio at all?

That was filmed here: www.apolloreality.atspace.co.uk (bottom of the page).

Well, they obviously had to launch astronauts into orbit because we needed to see them leave. So, it makes sense to film these shots which include astronauts floating around the ship in low earth orbit where its more realistic (because it is real).

The same logic could be applied to the Moon EVA shots too. Makes sense to film them in an actual 1/6:th gravity to make it look real.

For you, what is the single biggest giveaway that the trip to Moon & landing were faked?

… the whole point is it was impossible to get to the moon. Low earth orbit was routine.

The single best evidence? I don't really have any single thing. In fact, I generally have only investigated the moon landing for fun, rather than taking the conspiracy seriously. But over the years, all the small things start to add up to a big case.

The original astronaut who was to be the first on the moon, a loud, true and proud american who was getting angry and vocal at NASAs extreme lack of progress leading up to 1969, being killed off in a very very suspicious fire and explosion during a test launch.

The original NASA director who was about to go down in history for overseeing the greatest accomplishment of mankind resigning months before.

The fact that broadcasters were not given direct footage, but had to point their cameras toward a monitor and re-record the original footage from the monitor.

The footage of an astronaut being questioned about the above window footage, not being able to give an answer, getting furiously angry and suggesting that he will call the CIA to 'ice' the filmmaker.

Armstrong not doing interviews, coming across as ashamed despite the amazing thing he supposedly achieved. Refusing to swear on the bible that he landed on the moon despite the offer of $5000 given to charity if he did so.

All three astronauts unsure and looking completely confused when asked if they could see stars on the moon. Looking at each other like 'What are we supposed to say about this?'

No disturbance under the lunar lander despite thousands of pounds of force being ejected.

All the little clues left in Kubricks later films.

The fact that, despite the deaths during testing, the missions were carried out with no deaths. Apollo 13 had a major explosion near the moon yet made it back. We can't even send a space shuttle into orbit and back without quite frequent catastrophies 30 years later.

But fresh in my mind, the footage in the video above of the fallen over astronaut being 'pulled' up again is a goodie.

No smoking guns, but enough strangeness to warrant serious questions.

Thanks for the thorough answer. I pretty much think along the same lines, though still believe they did go there. Mainly because I see the faking being almost as hard to do as the real deal.

The 1/6 g footage on the Moon is hard to reproduce, because not every object (including sand & dust) could have been suspended mechanically to adjust for the lack of gravity. Another big thing is the accuracy of the scenery in the original footage that has only been verified not long ago when Moon satellites with enough resolving power were sent there.

There really are some big oddities during the whole program that does warrant for serious questions, that is for sure.

Could you go into detail about the clues in Kubricks films? Sounds very interesting.

Its been a while, this video seems to talk about The Shining and the hidden Apollo message.

Thanks!

I want to know why we can't just have a simple picture of the earth.

LEO is too low for that.

To get a full shot of Earth, you have to venture beyond LEO, and any photo taken beyond LEO is claimed as fake, as per the OP's video.

LEO is too low for that.

Sure, but people have been out of LEO and we've sent plenty of robots far enough out to get the picture. I would love to see a true, unedited pic of the earth in its entirety. Or one where you can see the moon and the earth in the frame. How amazing would that be?

and any photo taken beyond LEO is claimed as fake

There are several that are composites or heavily edited. I just want a single frame picture. I wouldn't claim it's fake. Can you provide a link to one?

Sure, but people have been out of LEO

Well....the only manned missions which claim to have gone beyond Low Earth Orbit (~2,000 km from Earth) are those from the simulated Apollo programme.

Which means the furthest any human has been in space may have been aboard Gemini 11, whose apogee was only 1,370 km.

the only manned missions which claim to have gone beyond Low Earth Orbit (~2,000 km from Earth) are those from the Apollo program

I feel like this is a major point that most people do not know, therefore making it impossible for them to consider the implications of it.

Even though "Space" and "Science" are trendier than ever, people will still act confused or in denial when you bring up these points. There is a reason why this little space-fact is not well-known, and it didn't happen by accident.

How do you discount all of the third party evidence for the lunar landings?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Because the "third party evidence" is such thin gruel. Perhaps you'd like to select one piece of evidence from that link that YOU think conclusively proves humans have walked on the moon...and I'll tell you why it doesn't?

The 382kg of moon rocks collected during the missions is the most compelling evidence to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

Specifically the larger samples that could not have been collected by a robot.

Definitely not conclusive evidence that humans have walked on the moon. Moon rocks have been found in many places on Earth, notably in Antarctica.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6620370/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-found-antarctica/#.VTZCP4Fwipo

In addition, many of the "moon rocks" gifted by NASA to foreign nations have mysteriously been withdrawn from public view, quite possibly to prevent a repeat of stories like this one, where a moon rock gifted to the Netherlands turned out to be a lump of petrified wood.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

The total mass of lunar meterites (not rocks as you call them) is approximately 90kg:

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/lmc/lmcintro.pdf

This is far less than the approximately 380kg retrieved during the Apollo missions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

In addition, meteorites have a burned outer layer from their entry into the atmosphere. This isn't apparent on the lunar rocks and any kind of tampering would be quite obvious to trained geologists:

The most concentrated portion of helium-3 is located on the outside of the rock from constant solar wind ions allowing a shallow penetration of the rock. Chipping away the outer layer would indicate no such evidence of solar wind induced helium-3, and that in itself would be evidence of tampering.

We were discussing indepentent proof of humans having been on the moon. The purported 380kg of moon rocks that NASA claims were collected by American astronauts is obviously not "third party evidence", is it? We know the Russians collected lunar samples and sent them back to earth remotely, so humans are not required for this procedure.

I don't doubt the geologists' claims that lunar meteorites would suffer surface damage during entry to the Earth's atmosphere, but if someone chipped off the burnt out layer before presenting a meteorite for independent analysis, it would be impossible to differentiate between this and a moon rock which had been collected on the moon.

The mere existence of moon rocks on Earth is therefore NOT PROOF that humans have walked on the moon.

The purported 380kg of moon rocks that NASA claims were collected by American astronauts is obviously not "third party evidence", is it?

The rocks have been verified by third parties. The NASA samples and the Soviet samples have been verified independently of each other. Are you suggesting that the Russians shared the samples with NASA who then submitted them as their own? Also, there are several rocks in the NASA collection which single-handedly outweigh all of the rocks from the Soviet missions (a total of 326 grams), where did these largest samples come from? In addition, the largest samples from the Apollo missions are larger than the largest lunar metorites, where did these come from if not from the Apollo missions?

I don't doubt the geologists' claims that lunar meteorites would suffer surface damage during entry to the Earth's atmosphere, but if someone chipped off the burnt out layer before presenting a meteorite for independent analysis, it would be impossible to differentiate between this and a moon rock which had been collected on the moon.

Incorrect, this kind of tampering would be noticeable. As I quoted above:

The most concentrated portion of helium-3 is located on the outside of the rock from constant solar wind ions allowing a shallow penetration of the rock. Chipping away the outer layer would indicate no such evidence of solar wind induced helium-3, and that in itself would be evidence of tampering.

Geologists are smart enough to see whether something has been "chipped away" are you suggesting otherwise?

The rocks have been verified by third parties.

And at least some of them have been proven to be fake, as per my link earlier. Or are you one of those people who believes the moon was once covered by lush forests!?

You need to understand that NASA's credibility on the provenance of its "moon rocks" was dealt a mortal blow by the INDEPENDENT analysis of the Armstrong petrified wood fake.

The fact that so many of the gifted moon rocks have since been "disappeared" supports the view that the Dutch fake was one of many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks

Step out of your state of denial.

And at least some of them have been proven to be fake, as per my link earlier. Or are you one of those people who believes the moon was once covered by lush forests!?

Incorrect, only "one" not "some" of the rocks officially claimed to be from the Apollo missions have been proven to be fake.

Furthermore:

The genuine Apollo 11 moon rock given to the Dutch is in the inventory of a different museum in the Netherlands, which is, in fact, one of the very few countries where the location of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 gift rocks is known.

/

You need to understand that NASA's credibility on the provenance of its "moon rocks" was dealt a mortal blow by the INDEPENDENT analysis of the Armstrong petrified wood fake.

No it wasn't, please give me an example of a single other instance where the rocks claimed to be a moon rock by a primary source have been found to be fake. I would love to see any reliable source that states that the provenance of the NASA moon rocks was dealt a "mortal blow" because of the Netherlands issue.

The fact that so many of the gifted moon rocks have since been "disappeared" supports the view that the Dutch fake was one of many.

No it doesn't, this is a conclusion that you have reached. Please provide me with evidence that any of the other rocks are fakes.

You seem to be holding on to this point a bit too dearly even in the face of actual evidence. It's quite concerning that you are so rigid in your worldview even when presented with facts counter to your beliefs.

I would love to see a true, unedited pic of the earth in its entirety.

The Earth in its entirety

Here: http://global.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071113_kaguya_e.html

Wow, those are pretty awesome. I've never seen them before.

Now THOSE look fake, like bad cgi?

Yeah sure :) If you're talking about the angle of the sun making it look like how they look then it's just that, the angle of the sun. Look up more of of KAGUYA's photos, they all fake?

http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/wallpaper/photography/photos/milestones-space-photography/earth-full-view/

Yeah, that's the same one that is always shown. Every, single, time. It was taken through the round window of a blacked out spacecraft.

I just want a single frame picture. I wouldn't claim it's fake.

So much for that.

It was taken through the round window of a blacked out spacecraft.

Yet the photo adheres to our geographical measurements here on Earth?

If the image is not correct, then we would expect the land masses on Earth to be different, right?

Did you watch his video? OP posted a video of them faking that very photo!

OP posted a video of them faking that very photo!

OP's video repeatedly states it's of Neil Armstrong etc. on Apollo 11.

The photo I linked is from Apollo 17.

Did you watch the video?

Yes, and you are correct.

But, now you admit the crew Apollo 11 was framing a photo of the Earth, and part of a hoax.

So, what is your point, beyond Neil Armstrong's involvement in the Apollo hoax?

now you admit the crew Apollo 11 was framing a photo of the Earth, and part of a hoax.

Eh?

When did I do such a thing?

OP's video repeatedly states it's of Neil Armstrong etc. on Apollo 11.

Or, you haven't watched the video?

Do you have a timestamp to suggest otherwise?

If not, i'm done with you.

What are you looking for? At time stamp for what?

I said the vid is of Armstrong / Apollo 11, you suggested otherwise.

What's the deal?

Yes, I know the video is of Armstrong faking a shot of the Earth on Apollo 11. Yes I know the Blue Marble photo is credited to Apollo 17.

OP posted video of NASA hero Armstrong hoaxing a photo of the Earth. The deal is, that puts into doubt the validity of the Apollo 17 photo, among other things.

Are you still lost? I know this can be hard to follow :(

Now, what is the timestamp about?

Ignore the downvotes , crazies be here

So much for that.

Hey, I'm being consistent here. I said if it was a single picture without any editing or composition. We have no idea how this picture was taken and as far as I know the OP's video is how it was achieved. They show the astronauts setting up the shot exactly as we see it.

As for the land masses, there are several possible explanations. But you do realize that you're putting forth the argument against people who believe the entire geometry of the earth is faked, right? Those aspects could just as easily be adjusted to fit the current paradigm. (in case you haven't noticed I don't actually believe the earth is flat. I just find this stuff interesting and am playing devil's advocate)

Hey, I'm being consistent here

You missed the letters "I" and "N".

I said if it was a single picture without any editing or composition. We have no idea how this picture was taken

So you've no idea how the image was taken, yet you immediately assume it's the product of editing or composition to fit your world view.

in case you haven't noticed I don't actually believe the earth is flat

Then i've lost interest in proving that point with you.

So you've no idea how the image was taken, yet you immediately assume it's the product of editing or composition to fit your world view.

No, like I sad, as far as I've read no such picture exists, possibly due to technical limitations (as I've heard it explained). Since you just grabbed this image without knowing the details yourself, you're guilty of the very thing you accuse me of.

yet you immediately assume ... to fit your world view.

If not ,please let us know how it was taken.

No, like I sad, as far as I've read no such picture exists

Yet I just showed you otherwise?

If not ,please let us know how it was taken.

I believe the extraordinarily remarkable and closely guarded secret of such photography is this:

Get a camera, and aim it outside the window.

Incredible stuff really.

Ah, so I can claim its edited and that's me doing whatever I can to make it fit my worldview, but you can claim its a straight shot and that's different why? Neither of us know how it was taken.

You asked for a photo, I provided one.

You claim the photo is fake, but didn't bother showing how.

No, I asked for a specific type of photo. You provided one and did not show that it met my requirements. I won't take your word for it because you don't know how it was taken either.you claim it's real but don't bother to show how.

You provided one and did not show that it met my requirements.

What about the photo didn't meet your requirements?

you claim it's real but don't bother to show how.

Hey I say it was taken by pointing the camera out of the window.

You gotta show how the photo I presented fails your requirements.

[deleted]

What a stupid video. I think the guy who made the annotations is being willfully obtuse. "Couldn't they just use the technology from the Apollo missions[...]?" Ya 1969 computers are great, let's use them instead. Radiation can be a problem for today's technology which is why they are testing new shielding.

What was the point of sharing that video?

3.30: "We must solve this, before we send people to this region of space," in 2014.

I see. Well, I don't really think it's fair I got downvoted so much for asking a simple question, but thanks.

The blast off of the lander FROM the moon is the most unfortunate looking fake...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw&feature=fvw

Everyone should watch this master piece.

Great camera work by the camera they left on the moon!

Operated by a NASA technician from mission control. Not that hard to do. Even in 1970~

With no lag? c'mon.... get serious

The time it takes for signals to get to the moon is 1.3 seconds. Not that hard of a delay to account for.....

OK, I'll play...

1.3 sec for image to get from moon to earth + 1.3 sec for remote control signal to get back to moon = ~3 sec.

AND YET THERE IS NO DELAY ON THE CAMERA ZOOM AND PAN AT ALL

Right...

You realize the guy filming that got it wrong the first two times on Apollo 15 and 16. Yet got it right on 17. If you see a clean ascent from the LEM it's probably from 17. Still not an issue.

If CGI that abysmal was put into a movie today it would be laughed out of the theater.

it looks about as good as the animation in an earlier episode of "gumby"

I re-watched that video and even posted it here a few weeks ago, after not seeing it for 15+years, it really is one of the most pathetic videos that NASA released.

We are not far off half a century since this alleged event and we are still another 50 to 70 years from having the technical ability from landing on the moon, according to people in the space exploration business.

At least the government didn't murder a bunch of people that time, well, apart from the thousands of innocent people in Vietnam, which is what this distraction was all about.

It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the Earth to the Moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.

-- Wernher Von Braun, "father of rocket science", Nazi

It's funny because you don't fly directly to the moon. It is resource intensive. That's why a stable orbit is established around Earth first, and then once the time is right a calculated burn is made to make the apogee far out enough to hit the moon, in essence. Try Kerbal Space Program. Try flying straight up, and attempt to get close to the moon. Not going to happen.

You would have read it of course Ambiguously_Ironic, but for others reading this thread chain, start with the below link, nothing heavy and is actually quite amusing...

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

Yep that's a great one. Another one I've linked elsewhere in this thread which is a really quick read and great to introduce someone to this topic is this one.

I just looked this up. The fact that there was no dust and that the area looked exactly the same before and after liftoff is pretty fishy

What's wrong with it? Looks fine to me.

If you look at the clip starting just after 34:47, the narrator claims a crescent insert creating the line between night and day is moved, but that line doesn't actually move, rather there's simply something moving between the camera and the window. More importantly though, pay attention to the size of the work light in the upper left compared to Earth supposedly being framed by the window in that clip, and compare those relative sizes with this image from the next clip. The window is way too large to have been framing the Earth in the previous shot, and rather when Armstrong said "we only have one window that has a view of the Earth and it's filled up with the TV camera" he obviously meant the camera was zoomed in on the window at the time, not that the camara was up against the glass.

[deleted]

Can your precious rational thinking explain this?!

Didn't think so.

Is it the first lunar landing that everyone refutes? Or all 6 of them? If you are getting all of your information on the landing from one source which is telling you it never happened then you aren't getting a very well balanced argument..

" they collected rocks, planted the US flag, and deployed a seismograph and an experiment called the Lunar Ranging Retroreflector – a reflective device that measures the distance between the Earth and the Moon using lasers from Earth — which is still in use today." -

from the first lunar landing there is equipment still in use, I am by no means an expert, but how do you suppose the equipment got to the moon? I would be interested to hear any theories.

http://www.universetoday.com/55512/how-many-people-have-walked-on-the-moon/

I hear a lot about the moon landing, however one of the more frustrating things I can't overcome, is the fact the rocket took off from Earth, which is an irrefutable fact, with the proposed intention of landing on the moon, but while everyone says it was staged, what was the rocket doing flying around in orbit? Just orbiting? biding it's time to make the story believable, then returning to earth? It seems to me that if you have the science to get into space, having a lunar landing modual is a marvel, yes, but all you need is a planned trajectory from Earth to get en-route to the moon and a few minor adjustments to make your landing. With 1/6 of the earth's gravitational pull, and a vastly smaller vessel, only a fraction of the fuel for take off from the moon is required. At which point you get on trajectory for Earth, then with a modual capable of withstanding the heat of re-entry it seems not a huge problem to make a safe return.

Many if the arguments are based on the fact we never had the technology to reach the moon, while in reality, not a huge amount of computing power is required once all the calculations have been made on earth. It only has to follow a pre-determined flight path.

I would be interested to hear points about the other 5 landings, did they never happen? What was their purpose? Why would they bother if they 'spoofed' everyone into believing they had done in once already? I believe they did land on the moon personally, it makes little sense to me the argument that they went into orbit of the moon, but never landed, despite the shaky video evidence, there's sound arguments for either side, and it is very easy to take all what you hear against it as fact and disregard arguments for, this is one of few theories on this board I can't get in on.

Very open for debate on this topic

There's several ways the launch could occur and yet their activities in space were covert. One, they could have been in LEO the whole two weeks. By the 1970's NASA was using Skylab. And what was Skylab made from? It was made from the middle stage of a Saturn V rocket. It could be that all the Apollo middle stages were covert skylabs before the official Skylab.

Two, it could be they went out to the moon and also faked the landing and reconnect...that they actually got in the lunar module and made a descent and then came back up without touchdown. This is all the aerial film ever showed us of landing and take off from the moon. And why would they go that far but not all the way to land? That's a no brainer in my mind, guaranteed success in the height of the cold war, very low odds of survivability on the moon surface. You know as late as '67-'68 Grumman didn't even have all the bugs worked out on the lunar module. NASA didn't even let them launch the lander on Apollo 1 I think it was...

Basically every mission could have been like Apollo 13 under the second scenario...13 being a fake "disaster" mission.

Film on moons surface? Stanley Kubrick... See Jay Weidner's work. Film of driving on moon? Think small scale set, remote control car...on the whole we weren't left with all that much impressive evidence that these missions actually occurred.

39 Comments 3 up votes, yea ok.

My thoughts exactly. It just goes to show how stubborn people are and how strongly they will hold onto beliefs that they have been taught since birth (even in the face of conflicting evidence).

I mean, all I am doing is asking people to watch a few minutes of a video and that gets me downvoted. In a conspiracy subreddit!

This being a conspiracy subreddit is no excuse for posting such poorly reasoned arguments. As for stubbornness, why have you responded to nearly everything here but the debunkings you asked for?

I have been responding to debunking comments.

Not the two that address the argument you presented:

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/338lcl/having_never_questioned_the_moon_landing_i/cqio1z0

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/338lcl/having_never_questioned_the_moon_landing_i/cqio1z0

I upvoted. Like I said in a previous comment I can totally see the moon landing being fake, moon being artificial, shit...even lizard people living in the center of the earth. At least these are mysteries that don't have lack of evidence.

I just can't wrap my head around the earth being flat. It doesn't make sense based on our current understanding of physics and scientific observation. I'm willing to entertain the idea but I think it's the most ridiculous theory yet in this thread. Nevermind the hundreds of photos taken by ISS scientists aboard a craft orbiting our planet, clearly showing the planet is like a sphere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvbN-cWe0A0

So why does the Earth totally not look flat in this video?

Wait, so you've seen evidence of the lizard people living in the center of the earth?

I just watched that.

From ISS, that's not a photo of the Earth... it's a fish-eyed lens, and only shows a small part of the ground.

The other part is animation, without clouds morphing.

How easily we are deceived.

You probably were downvoted because it's obvious we have been to the moon.

This is just psuedo science denialism crap.

How so?

Reflectors on the moon, left by human hands via Apollo 11,14 & 15 missions for one prove Humans have been to the moon.

Video evidence, moon rock samples, etc.

But I'm sure you or someone else is going to try and convince me how all that was faked.

Reflectors on the moon, left by human hands via Apollo 11,14 & 15 missions for one prove Humans have been to the moon.

Not when we can point the laser at reflectors left by unmanned Soviet missions. If the only reflectors ever left were during the Apollo missions, then your point would hold more water.

Video evidence

You mean the video evidence that was somehow lost by NASA and no longer exists to be analyzed by today's experts.

moon rock samples

Otherwise known as "moon" rock samples. Particularly because some have been proven to be fake.

Not when we can point the laser at reflectors left by unmanned Soviet missions. If the only reflectors ever left were during the Apollo missions, then your point would hold more water.

Do you even hear what you are saying? The Apollo reflectors on the moon are what scientists use all the time. The Soviet Reflector 1 was wasn't found until 2010.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20100413-apollo15-LRRR.html

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=605

http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/ucsd-physicists-locate-long-lost-soviet-reflector-on-moon/

You mean the video evidence that was somehow lost by NASA and no longer exists to be analyzed by today's experts.

LOL you live in a fantasy world. The Majority of the tapes still exist, the Apollo 11 tapes are the only ones that got erased. All the other moon tapes are still in possession.

Otherwise known as "moon" rock samples. Particularly because some have been proven to be fake.

LOL man you are so full of shit it's amazing people believe what you are saying. Very sad it's 2015 and your science denial is astounding.

You completely ignore major facts, and just make others up.

You still have provided ZERO evidence that the USA never left the atmosphere before 1971.

The Soviet Reflector 1 was wasn't found until 2010.

According to NASA and they sure have no reason to lie!

The Majority of the tapes still exist, the Apollo 11 tapes are the only ones that got erased. All the other moon tapes are still in possession.

From what I have read ALL the tapes have been misplaced. Can you link to a source stating that any moon tapes still exist?

LOL man you are so full of shit it's amazing people believe what you are saying. Very sad it's 2015 and your science denial is astounding.

Well when NASA hands out chunks of petrified wood and claims it came from the moon.... well.... that does hurt their credibility. Anyways, there are plenty of moon rocks that exist on our planet, especially in places like Antarctica.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo2.html :

By far the best place to find them is in Antarctica, where they are most plentiful and, due to the terrain, relatively easy to find and well preserved. And that is why it is curious that Antarctica just happens to be where a team of Apollo scientists led by Wernher von Braun ventured off to in the summer of 1967, two years before Apollo 11 blasted off. You would think that, what with the demanding task of perfecting the hugely complex Saturn V rockets, von Braun and his cronies at NASA would have had their hands full, but apparently there was something even more important for them to do down in Antarctica. NASA has never offered much of an explanation for the curiously timed expedition.

According to NASA and they sure have no reason to lie!

I have 100 times more reasons to trust NASA over some new moon hoax convert.

From what I have read ALL the tapes have been misplaced. Can you link to a source stating that any moon tapes still exist?

If you had done some reading from something not considered a blog site you may have been presented with unbiased facts.

The only tapes that went missing were the Apollo 11 tapes, all the other tapes are free to watch online encoded from their original copies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

Apollo 15 video library: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/video15.html

Well when NASA hands out chunks of petrified wood and claims it came from the moon.... well.... that does hurt their credibility. Anyways, there are plenty of moon rocks that exist on our planet, especially in places like Antarctica.

You obviously didn't read about the history of moon rock theft and sale on the black market, and the eventual flooding of said market with fake rocks. Which were then recovered by authorities who did not know the difference.

Or the intern that stole moon rocks so he could fuck his girlfriend on the moon?

http://gizmodo.com/5242736/how-an-intern-stole-nasas-moon-rocks

A great unbiased source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_on_the_Moon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks

Out of all the moon rocks out there, only 180 are missing.

I feel like you haven't thought this out enough....being a moon hoaxer.

From your own link:

The missing tapes were among over 700 boxes of magnetic data tapes recorded throughout the Apollo program which have not been found.

So no, you are wrong. ALL the Apollo program tapes are missing. But I guess that is not suspicious at all to you.

so you are admitting we have the capabilities to send things to the moon but not man? Logic is not your strong suit

I think the biggest problem with arguing that the moon landing was a hoax is how the hell have they managed to keep the people involved from talking.

First of all you have 12 astronauts that actually walked on the moon. Then you have an additional 17 that orbited it. Then you have the people involved with astronaut training, and the people controlling the mission from Houston. Already you are probably getting close to a 100 people who have to have known about it. And if you believe that the Apollo rockets and spacecraft were never actually capable of going to the moon you have to include thousands of people involved in development and mission planning.

And considering that real conspiracies that have been leaked, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, only involved a handful of people, yet someone talked within only a few years. Then how the hell have none of the thousands of people who must have detailed knowledge of the faked moonlanding provided any evidence?

I don't believe the moon landing was a hoax but I say it every time: Manhattan Project

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

"For those few misguided souls who still cling to the belief that the Moon landings never happened, examination of the results of five decades of LRRR experiments should evidence how delusional their rejection of the Moon landing really is."

Quotes like this, never mind on Wikipedia, calling the other side of the argument clearly delusional, worry me.

Wow so as someone who has never paid much attention to the moon landing debate, I just went through every link on that wikipedia article expecting there to be clear pictures and evidence that man has walked there.

I am now astounded that so far I actually disbelieve that man has walked on the moon... Its just a series of blurry photos that look less credible than the photographic evidence for alien moon structures. These supposedly show equipment and 'halos' from engine blasts and all I see is gray moon surface with red outlines that they expertly drew in to show what I'm supposed to see.

You'd think this decades-long debate could be solved with available photo technology that could point out every footprint on the moon...

I sometimes wonder whether the moon landing denial-ism is a piece of left over Soviet disinformation created during the cold war. To reframe one of America's greatest achievements as fraudulent would be quite a propaganda coup, and make the Soviet failures less damaging by comparison.

It would be interesting the trace the history and see where these stories first started appearing.

Makes sense.

EDIT: The soviets also hated coca cola.

As late as 2009, the Russian state television was still working on this line of propaganda:

"When state TV channel Rossiya reported last week on the restoration of video footage of the Apollo 11 moon landing, the account gave a lot of attention to dubious conspiracy theories that the landing was faked."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/19/russians-still-skeptical-_n_239982.html

Another interesting thing you will notice in this thread is that people believe every American and Soviet space mission before the moon landing to be unquestionably real.

As the entire space race was to some degree a propaganda battle for both sides, I don't think the idea of Soviet disinformation can be easily discounted.

Notice how they downvote you when presented with facts? No rational conversations here. LOL

I downvoted because there's way too much BS in OP's video and the comments here, and I suspect others have done the same.

We went to the moon, despite what some people believe. It's easily confirmed by referencing the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment left behind by Apollo 11, 14 & 15.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

It's still there to this day, and still used by modern scientists for their research.

The fact that this is brought up so often proves how little knowledge people actually have about human's space travel to the moon.

There were reflectors left by unmanned Soviet rockets before the US even broke Earth's atmosphere.

So bouncing lasers off of reflectors literally proves nothing about human beings leaving the Earth.

There were reflectors left by unmanned Soviet rockets before the US even broke Earth's atmosphere.

Supposedly Alan Shepard was the first American in space nearly 10 years before Lunokhod launched, with John Glen being the first American in Orbit just a year later.

Unless you are insinuating that most if not all of the early space attempts were staged, but until we got to the moon, what was the point? The Soviets were well invested in their space program already (making the bankrupting scheme unlikely at this point), and with Sputnik and Gagarin we were staging being behind them at that time.

Okay, yeah, I was wrong about the timeline.

Still, reflectors on the moon prove nothing about humans on the moon because the Soviets put them there with robots.

If there was proof of Lunar Ranging Tests done between 1969 and when Lunokhod touched down on the moon, it would be solid evidence that something was on the moon.

I can't think of any lunar soft landing or impact vehicle off the top of my head predating Lunokhod with a large reflective surface that could have a laser pointed at in hopes of having it reflected back with any consistency. I'm fairly convinced that only the Apollo missions could have placed the reflective fields there. It may be possible that the lander was equipped with automated machinery that could have installed it while we took the manned photos back home, but that seems like a convoluted way of doing things.

I'm fairly convinced that only the Apollo missions could have placed the reflective fields there.

The Lunokhod missions left reflectors there, this is very well documented.

That sentence was assuming that if there was documented evidence of laser lunar ranging tests predating the launch of Lunokhod.

If there was proof of Lunar Ranging Tests done between 1969 and when Lunokhod touched down on the moon, it would be solid evidence that something was on the moon.

The Apollo reflectors were put on the moon in 1969, the soviets put reflectors on the moon in 1970.

Apollo was manned, the soviet one was not.

If there are reflectors on the moon, that means we have been to the moon. Disproving your entire argument.

If there are reflectors on the moon, that means we have been to the moon.

No. It doesn't. An unmanned Soviet mission put reflectors on the moon.

Holy shit. Brainstorm. This may be a lot of "what if"s, but...

WHAT IF... NASA launched TWO rockets in '69? One is manned and goes into earth orbit. The other is a robot that goes to the moon. If played properly, that would explain how third-party interests "tracked" the lunar capsule on its flight path all the way to the moon, and how the artifacts and reflectors were placed there. Meanwhile, buzz and the boys go into low-earth orbit and do their camera tricks. Other "on-moon" footage filmed previously by Kubrick on a uk soundstage.

Basically OpNorthwoods in space.

BEFORE PEOPLE FLAME ME, this is just a WHAT IF. Some of us come here to discuss these theories with likeminded amateur investigators, we don't need the shills and haters.

There were reflectors left by unmanned Soviet rockets before the US even broke Earth's atmosphere

Proof of this? Because this sounds like pure BS to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme

..................

Lunokhod 1 was a lunar vehicle formed of a tub-like compartment with a large convex lid on eight independently powered wheels. Its length was 2.3 metres. Lunokhod 1 was equipped with a cone-shaped antenna, a highly directional helical antenna, four television cameras, and special extendable devices to impact the lunar soil for density measurements and mechanical property tests.

An X-ray spectrometer, an X-ray telescope, Cosmic Ray Detector, and a Laser device were also included. The vehicle was powered by batteries which were recharged during the lunar day by a solar cell array mounted on the underside of the lid. During the lunar nights, the lid was closed and a polonium-210 heat source kept the internal components at operating temperature.

The rover stood 135 cm (4 ft 5 in) high and had a mass of 840 kg (1,850 lb). It was about 170 cm (5 ft 7 in) long and 160 cm (4 ft 11 in) wide and had eight wheels each with an independent suspension, motor and brake. The rover had two speeds, ~1 km/h and ~2 km/h (0.6 mph and 1.2 mph).

Payload

Cameras (two TV & four panoramic telephotometers)
RIFMA X-ray fluorescence spectrometer
RT-1 X-ray telescope
PrOP odometer/penetrometer
RV-2N radiation detector
**TL laser retroreflector**

..........................

Lunokhod 2 (vehicle 8ЕЛ№204) was the second and more advanced of two unmanned lunar rovers landed on the Moon by the Soviet Union as part of the Lunokhod program. The launcher put the spacecraft into Earth parking orbit on January 8, 1973, followed by translunar injection. On January 12, 1973, Luna 21 was braked into a 90 by 100 km (approx. 56 by 62 mile) lunar orbit.

The Luna 21 spacecraft landed on the Moon and deployed the second Soviet lunar rover, Lunokhod 2. The primary objectives of the mission were to collect images of the lunar surface, examine ambient light levels to determine the feasibility of astronomical observations from the Moon, perform laser ranging experiments from Earth, observe solar X-rays, measure local magnetic fields, and study mechanical properties of the lunar surface material.

The landing occurred on January 15, 1973 at 23:35 UT in Le Monnier crater at 25.85 degrees N, 30.45 degrees E.

After landing, the Lunokhod 2 took TV images of the surrounding area, then rolled down a ramp to the surface at 01:14 UT on 1973-01-16 and took pictures of the Luna 21 lander and landing site.

That was After the Apollo program, not before. Apollo was 1969, Lunokhod was 1971.

Your comment: There were reflectors left by unmanned Soviet rockets before the US even broke Earth's atmosphere

I was asking for proof the US never broke Earth's atmosphere pre 1971.

The US and Soviet reflectors are on the moon. You can't argue that.

Okay, I got the timeline wrong. But the reflectors still do not prove that man walked on the moon. Because unmanned Soviet robots also put reflectors on the moon.

But the reflectors still do not prove that man walked on the moon

Uhhhh yes it does.

Because unmanned Soviet robots also put reflectors on the moon.

So?

You can't just make shit up kiddo.

Once again, where is your proof for: There were reflectors left by unmanned Soviet rockets before the US even broke Earth's atmosphere

I don't understand why reflectors being there before or after we left the atmosphere proves right or wrong? Why does this prove anything?

It proves humans have been to the moon, the USA reflectors were put there during the manned Apollo Missions.

What part aren't you getting? The soviets proved that retro reflectors could be placed robotically. If they can be placed robotically then their presence doesn't prove humans have been to the moon. That's like saying "I have this picture of an x-ray which proves humans have x-ray vision"

So you want to rewrite history and make suppositions to prove an argument? You are just speculating what ifs and calling it truth.

So now to prove a point the USA had to make a secret unmanned mission to the moon to replace the reflectors while they were simultaneously faking a moon landing mission at the same time?

Yeah....that doesn't sound very practical.

I'm not trying to prove any point other than your logic is flawed. Which it is.

How is my logic flawed? I don't have to make anything up to prove a point. There is just ZERO proof the Apollo reflectors were placed on the moon by robots.

And a ton of proof it was placed by humans.

You're saying their presence there is proof that people placed them. It had been shown that robots can place them, ergo their presence is proof of nothing. Your argument is shot down, you're backtracking and moving the goal posts. I'm done with you sweetheart, your money's on the dresser.

You're saying their presence there is proof that people placed them. It had been shown that robots can place them, ergo their presence is proof of nothing

So they made a secret moon mission using robots while at the same time conducting a manned mission to the moon?

Like I said before, that is not very practical.

Look at that strawman. Breathtaking.

It's not a straw man, it's a real question.

I'm not making any claims here. I'm not the person you started the conversation with. I'm merely pointing out that your logic of "reflectors on the moon proves men on the moon" is flawed. I'm not going to defend the moon hoax because I don't believe it. But if you're going to debate the moon hoax then you need a different argument.

It's actually conclusive proof.

The only people who don't think it's proof are moon hoaxers. They have to make up nonsensical claims like secret robot missions to the moon to prove their own flawed beliefs.

It's not conclusive proof as the soviets did it without a manned mission. All it proves is that it was delivered there. I don't know how to make it any more clear.

Like I said before, there were no unmanned USA missions to the moon at the exact same time as the real Apollo Missions.

The reflectors were tested, verified while the astronauts were still on the moon.

But their presence ergo manned mission is not a tautology. Personally I'd go with the fact that ham radio operators were able to listen to the broadcasts. With some simple location, length of recording, data and math one could show that Apollo 11 could not have been in leo or even geosync orbit. You'd have to be a pretty dedicated debunker with too much time on your hands to do that of course, but it would make a heck of an article. Even that wouldn't satisfy the deniers though as they'd simply claim terrestrial origin.

I don't know of an argument to be made that would satisfy a hard core skeptic.

Some people are like brick walls, facts just bounce off them and fly over their heads.

Me...I am a fucking sponge. LOL

Skepticism is healthy. Ideology can go either way.

Science Denial =//= Skepticism

Uh, no, your logic is flawed indeed.

How?

Right but technically it only matters if they were there when the research was done.

All the Apollo mission reflectors are there. The Soviet reflector 2 as well. The Soviet 1 reflector was considered lost until 2010.

You can still shine a laser on the Apollo reflectors to this day.

I already said that I got the timeline wrong but that does not even take a shred of validity from my point.

Yes, the US had put men in LEO before the unmanned Soviet rockets but nobody from the US was anywhere near the moon while said Soviet rockets were putting retroflectors on the moon.

I already said that I got the timeline wrong but that does not even take a shred of validity from my point.

Sure it does take away from any validity in your points, it means you have not done critical research. And therefore are not informed enough to have an opinion that matters on this subject.

Yes, the US had put men in LEO before the unmanned Soviet rockets but nobody from the US was anywhere near the moon while said Soviet rockets were putting retroflectors on the moon.

You seem to be under the impression that statement matters, why I can't discern.

If the reflectors are on the moon, and were scientifically validated, historically documented then that means man walked on the moon.

You have to begin to lie to yourself, ignore facts, and out right fabricate to convince the Apollo missions were faked.

Not to mention this back then would have been almost impossible to fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EliLP5uEYAU

Look at the way the kicked up dust from the wheels behaves, no way that could ever be faked.

If the reflectors are on the moon, and were scientifically validated, historically documented then that means man walked on the moon.

Let me break this down very simply for you:

1) Soviet robots put reflectors on the moon

2) Apollo missions put reflectors on the moon AFTER

Your conclusion: "If the reflectors are on the moon, and were scientifically validated, historically documented then that means man walked on the moon."

Do you see that your conclusion is wrong? This is pretty basic.

2) Apollo missions put reflectors on the moon AFTER

LOL that's fucking stupid dude. You are just making crap up now. The USA reflectors were verified while the astronauts were still on the moon. BEFORE the soviets put reflectors.

You have ZERO proof of anything, not a shred of proof. And until you can prove your point with a fact, you have no ground to stand on.

Okay, I was wrong about this timeline. So I do concede that point.

What? The Apollo ones were first by a year!

What's it like being wrong all the time?

How am I wrong? OP still has not provided proof to the question I asked.

And fuck you.

Well, when you give a bunch of (literally) ex-Nazis a huge pile of cash and control over the news...

They placed reflectors on the moon's surface.
Observatories shoot lasers at the reflectors and measure the time it takes for the light to come back.
This has been done many times over the years by different independent observatories.
http://spie.org/x38304.xml
We went to the moon period.

I don't really buy into the Moon landing conspiracy, but mirrors could have theoretically been placed on it without humans setting foot on its surface.

Unmanned Soviet robots placed reflectors on the moon.

Your "reflector" argument is invalid. Period.

[deleted]

I think believing the Earth is flat has about the same level of sanity as believing many of the "facts" about the Moon landing:

.....................

Consider this peculiar fact: in order to reach the surface of the Moon from the surface of the Earth, the Apollo astronauts would have had to travel a minimum of 234,000 miles*. Since the last Apollo flight allegedly returned from the Moon in 1972, the furthest that any astronaut from any country has traveled from the surface of the Earth is about 400 miles. And very few have even gone that far. The primary components of the current U.S. space program – the space shuttles, the space station, and the Hubble Telescope – operate at an orbiting altitude of about 200 miles.

(*NASA gives the distance from the center of Earth to the center of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. All on a single tank of gas.)

To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build will only reach an altitude of 200 miles. But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space. And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).

To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

Distance doesn't matter in space, all the matters is the Delta-v required to achieve an orbit. Even is the moon is 1200 times further away from the Earth than Low Earth Orbit, you only need 14.1 km/s of Delta V to go from the surface of Earth to Lunar orbit. LEO requires 9.3 km/s, so going to the moon 1200 times further away only requires about 50% additional acceleration.

You understand nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw&feature=fvw

If the earth is flat, will someone please explain these questions:

1. The angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky does not change significantly. It changes slightly over the course of a year but not by any measurable amount over the course of a day. The only explanation for this is that the diameter of the Earth is negligible compared to the distance to the sun. If the sun is a distant object then all the light from it must be parallel. However, the angle of incoming sunlight is known to change gradually over the surface of the Earth: there are time zones. The only explanation for this is that the Earth is round.

2. There are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Their centres of rotation are always either due North or due South respectively. The stars in between rise and set on the horizon much like the sun does. There is no flat Earth model which can account for this.

3. In the summer in Antarctica the sun is visible 24 hours a day. At the same time it is dark 24 hours a day in the Arctic. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it couldn't possibly be visible at all points around the edge of the disc while not being visible at the centre of the disc.

4. The sun sets. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it could never be seen to drop to an angle of elevation of less than 0 degrees. Also, its apparent size would change significantly over the course of a day.

5. Ships disappear over the horizon at the exact distance from shore as you would predict them to do if you were standing on a sphere with a radius of 4000 miles. Once they disappear the strongest telescope in the world won't bring them back into view. However, if you climb to higher ground the horizon line moves further away and you can see the ship again. The only explanation for these facts is that the world is round.

On the issue of why there are restrictions on visits to Antartica, it is because far too many people were going there. It is to prevent any environmental damage that people are restricted. Even if that wasn't the reason, it wouldn't prove the Earth is flat. It wouldn't even be evidence for the Earth being flat.

You can find photos of earthrise from the moon some of which are likely genuine and some that aren't. Watch some other videos of the moonlanding with an open mind and you might change your opinion. With no intention of being overly critical, conspiracy theories like this sort of discredit people who question things going on in the world. You may be right, but then again maybe not. Why would anyone want to pull off a hoax like this?

I think when you show this video to people it blows their minds...

that there is a schizophrenic hobo in their house uninvited using their computer.

Whether people debunk it or believe in it, what's important is to keep seeking truth and to do that we have to pay attention to how we respond to information. There are so many perspectives to look at it from. From a science perspective. From a psychology perspective but another one came to me via watching some videos and it is so powerful that i'm going to share them here.

Cause sometimes you can hear something and the penny not drop. From a human perspective, they don't do 180degree or 360 degree turn in space - with the camera. That's a big one right there but an even BIGGER one is the lack of pictures of the Earth from space.

There are more pictures of dogshit then the planet from space. From a human behavior perspective, that is impossible. People take photos. When you go on holiday? Photo's. People take photos of pigeons and what they're about to eat.

All of these things, have plenty of photos. Forget the science and the other stuff, because this is something every lay person can understand. Where. Are. The. Photographs?

That to me was the most obvious thing in the world and I hope it helps some folks who believe in the landings etc - it was a massive psy op not just to reaffirm that 'you are man', you are 'in it together (bullshit) and that we are insignificant. We are part of this planet. All is connected. And you've been lied too. There is not one human being on the planet - that can explain the lack of photos. There's not even any blurred photos..

We are an empire built of lies and held together by artificially manufactured consensus.

This again? DID THE SOVIETS CALL US OUT FOR FAKING IT? Not some random party member, but the entire central committee/council in an official UN statement?

No? Well then.

You foos are giving conspiracy theorists a bad name with this fucking juvenile shit.

https://youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1IU

Only video you need.

This video is nothing more than a guy smugly making claims.

I really have no idea why people link to it like it is something special or presents any actual evidence.

While i really haven't spent time on the moon landings, a video is usually intended to give you things to look into, not to provide absolute proof.

But the point is that this video is literally nothing more than a guy sitting in a chair and smugly talking about America in the 60's like he was personally privy to the deepest and most-protected secrets of the world's most powerful and well-funded nation.

Most of his arguments boil down to comments like "Hey everyone, trust me, nobody could have faked the footage back then. So that's that then... case closed".

Someone smugly talking about what was possible or not possible in the 60's (when he was probably a teenager at the time) and sarcastically mocking anyone who questions NASA... that is not proof, not thought provoking, and doesn't even give the viewer a starting base from which to research from.

Seriously, it is one of the stupidest "response" videos I have ever seen. And people link to it all the time as if it the "end all" of the debate. The only thing it proves is how weak and shallow the arguments are when attempting to "debunk" those who believe it was a hoax.

Yea i do agree. I tend to look at it more as is most likely fake but like i said haven't researched and I'm only going off of things I've come across.

It's explained crystal clear in the video.

Downvote me all you want, but the sad and obvious fact is that moon landing represents what humans are capable of when we have our priorities set on something other than a fucking perpetuating war machine driven by the inherent and requisite greed of corporations and their only priority: appeasement to their shareholders.

Yes, NASA released some shady shit to the media and edited pictures to make them better for articles and photo-ops etc. But when you take these instances, combined with viewing snippets of someone analyzing a five-second clip for an hour and let it affect your ability to take a step back and look at some basic fucking facts from 1969 - it benefits no one.

The space program and moon landing were the afterthought of honoring Kennedy's legacy, because when he was murdered, the last representation of what our country was founded on died with him. His death immediately ushered in the deep-seated-roots of a military-industrial-complex that has eternalized into the revolving door of partnership and subterfuge. Ex-military get streamlined into the civilian-intelligence panopticon then retire and get streamlined right back to Washington, in a sad, circuitous cycle which harbors any and all means possible to keep itself intact, functional, and concealed.

Fuck the history lesson, tl;dr

1.) Back in the 1950's - 1960's each country was pouring all their manpower, all their resources, and all their creativity into getting to the moon. Conduct some research of your own to see how much of a shithole-dump Earth, its inhabitants, and the priorities have sank too compared to 45 years ago.

2.) This picture: (http://imgur.com/V4MxMOu )was taken after Neil Armstrong walked on the moon; or after he faked walking on the moon if you wish... take a breath and embrace a moment of humility for once in your fucking life and look at his face; the tears, the joy, the MOMENT.

3.) Under the watch of all the countries that we were competing against - and 600,000,000 people.... we faked them all. Haha, suckers. Or, actually... we probably didn't -- given that we would need a 5,300ft. roll of film.

The next time you giggle at a Kardashian Tweet or mindlessly fling yourself into the air to celebrate someone else's achievement on TV, think about what the priority was like for the United States and the rest of the world before it was taken over by the corporative-militaristic-shitshow; back when we were represented by leaders that embraced the ideals of their fellow man and not by the corporations that now count as men.

EDIT: Someone PM'ed me this link about the Moon landings[2] and it is really great. The website looks amateur as hell, but the writer is great and makes some great points.

Here's another quick read that's very good for someone new to this subject.

You don't. They are hiding land. That's the reason for all these conspiracies.

What do you mean "hiding land"? Genuinely curious.

You wouldn't believe me if I told you. Suffice it to say, NASA is a film studio, the Earth is MUCH bigger than told or just flat, Antarctica is the known border, extra terrestrials exist but they are not from another planet, UN flag reflects true map, the sun is 300 miles away and is a very large transformer, the moon is weird, we have never left low Earth orbit, and Newton is a mystic.

This guy talks about it, with a funny take:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QciLVJZNq4c

And, part one of three, is a bit more serious:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbdH7a2IZw

Lol this fuckin' guy. When confronted with large numbers his mind completely explodes and he looks towards the drunken audience; "Are we in the matrix?? Lookit all these zeroes!"

He also thinks that the curvature of the earth should be apparent to humans in an airplane at any elevation because of, well mainly because of his feelings and cartoons he has seen. The curvature of the earth was first observed in the 30's by insane guys in balloons who went wayyyy higher than any plane ever will.

The U.N. Flag is an azimuthal equidistant projection by the way. Which is a projection generated from real data, taken from the earth, which is an oblate ellipsoid; a sphere. Seriously if you're willing to entertain the idea that the world is flat for any significant length of time your brain has fallen out. I

Aristotle proved the Earth was round with astronomical obsevations, in 300BC.

Also, ships had been disappearing over the horizon for ages before that. Take five vessels out onto the open ocean, send one North, another South, the third East, and the last West. They will all slowly disappear over the horizon, proving the Earth is round. Magellen knew this when he set out to circumnavigate the globe in the 1500s.

You make excellent points, and the balloons are a great example, but the Earth's curvature was observed and documented over two thousand years before the 1930s. All of that aside, this only strengthens your argument, a flat Earth is a Bronze Age argument that is completely absurd in this day and age.

"The first direct visual detection of the curvature of the horizon has been widely attributed to Auguste Piccard and Paul Kipfer on 27 May 1931 [2]. They reported seeing it from a hydrogen-filled balloon at an elevation of 15; 787 m (51; 783 ft) over Germany and Austria. On 11 November 1935, Albert W. Stevens and Orville A. Anderson became the first people to photograph the curvature [3]. They were flying in the helium-filled Explorer II balloon during a record-breaking flight to an altitude of 22; 066 m (72; 395 ft) over South Dakota"

2008 Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth. David K. Lynch

The curvature of the earth was first observed in the 30's

Note the last paragraph of my original post, I was simply trying to help your argument, the Earth's curvature was observed over two thousand years ago. What was I thinking though? Let's ignore empirical evidence and go with a single eye-witness account, that's bulletproof.

I didn't post that quote as an argument dude, i was just clarifying what I meant. The videos that spurred this conversation feature a man who thinks the horizon should appear to be curved as soon as he hops in a plane.

Right-right, I was a bit defensive there. Cheers.

You're stating the same point, only those crazy guys in the balloons could see the roundness from up there, something you wouldn't even see from a commercial plane.

I don't know waht to respond to here. Think you "lost your meds," maybe?

It's said the Earth curves 8 inches the first mile. But, double the number of miles, and you have to triple the drop. So, three miles out, you have a curve of 72 inches, or three feet.

Go sixty miles out, and you have a 120 ft drop. That twenty times my height. So, if something sixty miles away is on the same plane as you, then you were lied to.

But, from sea, you can see the Statue of Liberty sixty miles out, with no curve. Please explain?

I'm speaking from an educated perspective using terms and concepts from geomatics and geography. It's called an education, you can fuck right off with your meds bullshit. The idiot in your videos believes that curvature in the horizon should be visible from an airplane, which is ridiculous. the bottom of objects which are far away are occluded by the horizon over large distances. The earth is not a perfect sphere, and it's fucking huge. When you walk down a hallway, no, I don't see your shoes disappear as you pass the bathroom. This is not mind-blowing and it's not the result of "being lied to"

What curve do you expect to see sixty miles from the statue of liberty?

What curve do you expect to see sixty miles from the statue of liberty?

At sixty miles you get a 1440 inch or 120 foot drop. That's the Pythagorean theorem. But, if you try in person, you will see it's flat.

But, I already said that.

Oh, is that right? Is this from your imagination, a memory, a cartoon or reality? Show me a picture of the statue of liberty from sixty miles.

Show me how all of the detail in this image, right down to the base and the material that is touching the water, is visible from sixty miles distance:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/0328Jersey_City_Statue_of_Liberty.JPG

And after you cough this one up, you can explain to the class why it's possible to see Big Ben by simply standing on a chair in New Jersey and pointing a good telescope eastward.

And after you cough this one up, you can explain to the class why it's possible to see Big Ben by simply standing on a chair in New Jersey and pointing a good telescope eastward.

The atmosphere is the reason.

The fact that objects disappear over the horizon is simple observation and disproves this bullshit entirely.

Citing a mentally disturbed dude in a youtube video does nothing to prove flat earth. It proves you're mentally ill and ignorant.

Get in a fucking boat and get binoculars, and sail off the coast into the sea. Turn around and observe the land fall below the horizon. Simple observation made even by people hundreds of years ago.

Some dude says he hung out with high level NASA scientists and department of defense consultants and worked off and on for NASA doctoring photos to look real says the earth is flat. The guy is a nutcase.

Even if he did spend that time with those people, he's wrong about them joking about it. They really were trying to see if he'd believe it.

Flat Earth Theory takes the cake for the most tinfoil thing I've ever read. Beats lizardpeople.

What about hollow earth people? I think they take the cake

https://www.google.com/search?q=bear+mountain+ny+skyline

Are you aware how literally being on a mountain would change your perspective?

You said "when you try it yourself" you find that the earth is flat. That's because you were using your imagination and not referring to reality. If you were at sea level, dozens of miles away, the bottom of the statue of liberty would be occluded. And, when you discovered this obvious fact, your understanding of our planet would be on par with the first seafaring people. At this point I would congratulate you for discovering that the world is a sphere.

Yes, it would exaggerate the curvature more. Instead of 1,440 foot drop, it should be a 3,900 foot drop. But it's flat. You can also see Pittsburgh from the same spot.

You really don't understand this. 'Exaggerate the curve' ??

At sixty miles away, NYC should be 1440 ft down, and curved away. If you go on top of a hill 1500 ft high, and sixty miles away, then I would expect the effect to be exaggerated.

But, you say:

Are you aware how literally being on a mountain would change your perspective?

And, then you ask

You really don't understand this. 'Exaggerate the curve' ??

So, you explain what you think you are looking at from Bear Mt.

You are looking at a city. On a planet, which is so huge you might as well be on a plane at this distance. If you were at sea level, which is what we were discussing initially, the bottom of the statue of liberty would be occluded. By water. Because the earth is a sphere.

Are you literally saying that you think the buildings should appear to be pointing away from you? You simply don't understand scale. When the cartoon in your mind is proven wrong by observation, the correct conclusion to draw is not that the earth is flat. Completely ridiculous.

Remember when Sarah Palin allegedly said she could see Russia from Alaska, and the whole world had a chuckle? Im guessing you think that this was not because it is geometrically impossible, but because she just hadn't had a clear enough day yet. Is that about right?

Transatlantic transmission of information was a big deal back when it first happened. It's too bad you weren't around back then though; they could have consulted with you, and with your expert help, they could have rigged up a system of telescopes and hand signals, no need for radio!

And shipping, how foolish we have been for all these years, all you need to do to signal land is a lamp at ground level! The fools! For centuries these idiots have been putting lighthouses at elevation!

Yeah, but you can see NYC from 60 miles away, lol. It's not sunken below the horizon. The earth is flat for 60 miles in that one instance, which you can easily verify.

All your jokes and ridicule is just that. Doesn't avoid the obvious, which is the NYC skyline is level from sixty miles away.

Also, every study of large bits of land show them to be flat.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-06-19/news/chi-study-says-illinois-is-second-flattest-state-on-mainland-20140619_1_kansas-flattest-pancake

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html

Anyway you measure it, it's flat.

Do you have any measurements to show otherwise? Or, just ridicule?

Its not sunken below the horizon, from bear mountain, because the image is taken from a bloody mountain! Holy jebus man. When ships are observed coming over the horizon, first you see the mast.

Seriously dude. Lets stick to brass tacks here, you made a claim about the statue of liberty, from sixty miles, observed from sea level which turned out to be false. Dispute that.

It didn't. You can see it from sixty miles away. I posted the URL. You should be looking over the city.

Every claim I've made is true. But, who are you trying to convince? Me or you? YOu are not doing a good job.

You have been proven wrong. You have nothing to back up your original supposition.

Not sure what you are talking about. Your ramblings are hardly proof.

You claim that the full height of the statue of liberty is visible, from top to bottom, at any distance when observed at sea level. That is easily proven false.

I noticed that right off the bat when I slapped you with some real shit you responded with some "find your meds" b.s. and now that you've been properly shown a fool you refer to my writing as "ramblings." Right, and Newton was a wizard, or was it a witch? You're projecting and we're done.

You claim that the full height of the statue of liberty is visible, from top to bottom, at any distance when observed at sea level. That is easily proven false.

Prove it false then... what are you waiting for?

"find your meds"

That's what someone quoted when they linked this to a troll subreddit... Showed up when I clicked on your name... figured you deleted it, because I was making too much sense... sorry if wrong...

but, what's your point? Prove it false. Or show me a picture of the Earth that isn't obviously fake. Or, admit, that may you are a bit more religious than you think.

Does your understanding of gravity involve "dark matter" and 28-dimensions? If so, you may be a religious fanatic, and not even know it.

That's what someone quoted when they linked this to a troll subreddit... Showed up when I clicked on your name... figured you deleted it, because I was making too much sense... sorry if wrong...

What??

Alright, do you think that if you were standing on a mountain, that you should see the horizons actual curvature? Is that what we're getting at here? Do you think that the edges of the horizon, lets call it to your right and your left, should appear to 'bend away' if you were on, say, the epic heights of 'Bear Mountain'?

Because that's not the case. As I said in my second comment to you, the first people to observe the effect were in balloons, at extreme elevations. You don't see the curvature of the horizon by getting a piggyback ride or climbing a ladder. It's a planet. It's big.

The picture of the earth thing, I'm aware of it, it's interesting, I want answers too.

Gravity, don't care.

I don't know. There's some troll subreddit, and they linked to this for a bit. And someone made comment to me saying "I'm off my meds." But, I thought it was you.

I found it.

But, it was really weird. I clicked on your comment in my inbox, and it took me there. Then I click the back button and couldn't get find it again, until now.

I think it's weird that you can stand on a hill, see NYC in one direction, and see Pittsburgh in the other direction, and they both appear to be on a level field.

A principal of the flat Earth would be that when you go up higher, everything still looks level. And, that holds. You go on that hill, and NYC looks level with Pittsburgh, and each is 60 miles away in different directions. If you took a panning 360 photo (I argue), you would see it looks flat. Height doesn't matter, because it's flat. Just doesn't. You are just able to see a bit further away, maybe?

Gravity, don't care.

Just because there is "Law of Gravity" doesn't mean it's an actual physical principal. Law is law, but the many theories of gravity are yet unproven. The Unified Field Theory doesn't exist. If your science takes string theory and 26-dimentions to describe why things go down, or "dark matter," then you have left the world of the experimental, and entered the world of religion. And, every theory of gravity that tries to reconcile every observation requires this black magic.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

by the way, your idol up there thinks that you should see a literal curve in the horizon. i.e. it should not appear to be flat, but curved at the edges when you observe it from even a diving board of moderate elevation.

Man what happened to your brain

I'm sorry but I cannot even begin to approach these things you're claiming. The earth cannot be flat. mere observation of the stars and sun prove this.

I'm sorry but if you are buying this level of deception, you're just bluntly choosing to be ignorant of reality in favor of some fantasy..

OK, but why is there only one picture of the Earth? And, why did OP post video of that picture being faked?

"Only 1 picture of earth"?

Why would you ever think that?

"Only 1 picture of earth"? Why would you ever think that?

Eh, wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble

Because we were trying to one up the Russians back then. The motive was political. Remember "the great space race"? since then there are numerous pictures of the earth from distances varying so great.

Listen, the universe we live in is expansive and beautiful.you have to accept, at least that All planets and large bodies are round. This is a constant because there are constant forces that exist within this universe That shape these bodies.

But don't let one user on reddit.com sway you. and dont let a crockpot on YouTube do it either. Use that beautiful, intelligent brain you were blessed with as a human and go in search of evidence. Is it really more likely that collaborative efforts of scientists from all over the world over generations are all conspiring to lie to us? Or is it more likely that someone's let their distrust of governments pair too readily with an overactive imagination... The only reason why humans believed the earth was flat in our past is that we were Ignorant. And that the bible said the earth was round... And we all know that religion never lies right? they didn't want to admit that the "holy book" could be wrong.

Don't Regress. Evolve. Improve. learn.

since then there are numerous pictures of the earth from distances varying so great.

No, there is only one EVER. It's called the Blue Marble. And, as you can see in OPs video, it's a hoax.

Every other photo EVER TO THIS DATE is a composite taken by satellite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble

From the Wikipedia article: "The Blue Marble was not the first clear image taken of an illuminated face of the Earth, since similar shots from satellites had already been made as early as 1967."

There are pictures of the whole earth taken every day from geosynchronous orbit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVzl9Dqg2o4.

Here's a video from a Japanese lunar orbiter: http://www.space.com/10260-full-earth-rise.html

There were earlier pictures and films from the other Apollo astronauts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise

The Earth is not fully illuminated in that one because of the time of the lunar month that the Apollo mission went. For Apollo 17, they left Earth at the new moon, so the Earth was fully illuminated from the direction of the moon.

There are pictures of the whole earth taken every day from geosynchronous orbit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVzl9Dqg2o4.

NO IT'S NOT!

The YouTube description:

36 hours of our journey through space, as viewed from the Echostar 11 satellite at 110 degrees west, 22,000 miles above the USA

That is one time lapse video over thirty-six hours. How do I know it's fake?

Because in 36 hours, the clouds don't morph.

Look outside... the clouds change EVERY MINUTE.

Here's a video from a Japanese lunar orbiter: http://www.space.com/10260-full-earth-rise.html

So, why don't the clouds morph in that one too? Oh, because that would be too hard to animate? That's what I thought. Watch it and tell me it's not fake.

There were earlier pictures and films from the other Apollo astronauts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise

That's the very same Blue Marble photo transposed over another photo. Look at it. Again, the lies are in the clouds.

Same with the one that they say was taken earlier, that's only black and white, and they credit to what is basically a weather balloon. It's the same cloud print.

Check it out and tell me I'm wrong.

Here in reality, clouds morph.

What are you talking about, just checked out the clip posted by /u/twsmith, and the clouds change noticeably as the clip progresses, you see subtle changes over the day in the first part of the clip. Totally different weather the next day, with still more changes as time goes on.

And the Japanese lunar orbiter is a live feed over 1 min, do you expect global weather to change in 60 seconds?

And Earthrise shows West Africa, South America and the Atlantic, Blue Marble shows Africa, Madagascar and the Indian ocean. How are they the same picture?

Clouds change every minute. That's a time lapse video! The clouds in that video don't morph any in 60 minutes!

The clip from the Kaguya orbiter is live, not a time lapse.

It covers 36 hours in 5 minutes. How do you think it's live? Read the description. Look at the time stamp on the video.

Are you kidding me? I really have to ask. I'll paste the description here, AGAIN:

36 hours of our journey through space, as viewed from the Echostar 11 satellite at 110 degrees west, 22,000 miles above the USA

It's a 5 minute video!

They don't morph.

Where's the clip you are talking about?

My bad, thought you were talking about the other clip.

For the 36 hour clip, see here.

• https://youtu.be/cVzl9Dqg2o4?t=23s
• https://youtu.be/cVzl9Dqg2o4?t=32s

there is roughly an hour between these two points in the clip, and you can clearly see how the clouds have changed slightly over that time.

36 hour video... don't morph in one hour or ten...

you are legitimately mentally ill and I'm sorry that people are seriously arguing with you, seek help.

So, you believe clouds don't morph? You think in 36 hours they change none? And, you are called NGOs me mentally ill?

Argument takes two sides... You haven't made a point. Are you just here for name calling?

But they do morph in the video you keep sperging about

No, they don't! They hardly move a slight bit in 36 hours.

You should maybe take a look at the sky outside. Take a picture of it. Then take a picture of it five minutes later. It will be different.

Remember, every second in that video is 7.2 minutes.

Clouds morph every five minutes, at least.

So, every second in that video, the clouds should be completely different...

But, they hardly change.

You don't get it? Well, you shouldn't be calling me names.

[deleted]

So, which part do you dispute?

OK, that's what I'm looking at. Looks fake to me. Clouds morph and that picture isn't even round. If it's a clock, look at the 8 o'clock position. It's dented.

But, clouds should morph over that amount of time.

I don't think you appreciate the scale here. Your normal cumulus clouds wouldn't be visible at the resolution of this clip. What you are seeing are areas of overcast some 100km across at least, moving around. They aren't just gonna disappear in a short time.

That's simply not true. Who are you trying to convince? Me or you?

Okay. Even if this was true, and the Earth is flat, and these images by NASA are fake because "The clouds don't morph" why would you think a government organisation that has been keeping this "secret" for 70+ years slip up on something as simple as clouds morphing?

Would I think? How could you imagine they didn't?

No one ever expects the Internet.

Artist are lazy, and it likely looks odd with morphing. So, they leave it out.

Oh I see, so the Artists are in on the secret as well?

I imagine that NASA must employ a lot of people if they are keeping this huge thing a secret, I mean if they're a movie studio like you said, they would need editors, actors as astronauts, editors and now artists and graphic developers, that's a lot of people that are in on this secret don't you think?

"Being lazy" I mean lets be real here, this is a GLOBAL SECRET. This is something that has probably the funding of billions and billions of dollars, NASA and people must of had a look at these images before the released them to the public, if someone such as yourself could point out the clouds aren't moving, surely they would as well?

What about the Soviets? did they know the Earth was flat as well?

Satellites are another question, what how do Satellites orbit the Earth? are there any Satellites? I've certainly seen some, the ISS as well, we've got images of the ISS from the Earth taken by telescopes http://i.imgur.com/7XWpkZy.jpg, I've seen the ISS with my naked eye using my own telescope, what exactly am I seeing if the ISS isn't real?

I have another, genuine question. What about pilots? not all pilots are government employed and there is a large amount of people who own their own aircraft, do they all know that the Earth is flat? that's another HUGE amount of people that know the Earth is flat. Of course, IF they know.

Also what about the Polar routes? pilots have been flying over the poles to reduce travel time, including commercial flights. In 2011 Pilots were given permission to use Polar routes using Boeing 777's, this would reduce travel times and costs (Source http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078301/Mind-sleigh-Airlines-given-permission-fly-North-Pole-time-slashing-hours-exotic-destinations.html) Flights such as OMDB-KSFO, OMDB-KLAX, FRA-ANC and others fly over the poles, if the government's are in on this secret, why did they give airliners permission? and where do they actually go? because if the Earth is flat, then flying OUT towards the frozen edges is certainly not faster than flying directly.

I'm not trying to be aggressive in any way, I'm just providing circumstances and situations against the Flat Earth theory. I'm genuinely interested in your response.

Oh I see, so the Artists are in on the secret as well?

Someone produces the artwork. And, there's only one "Blue Marble" photo. OP posted video showing how it was likely faked. No other verifiable snapshot of the complete Earth.

NASA is more film studio than anything else. But, here's an artist/whistleblower talking about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbdH7a2IZw

Most likely sign NDAs beforehand.

I imagine that NASA must employ a lot of people if they are keeping this huge thing a secret, I mean if they're a movie studio like you said, they would need editors, actors as astronauts, editors and now artists and graphic developers, that's a lot of people that are in on this secret don't you think?

Astronauts are all actors. It's likely run through secret societies.

What about the Soviets? did they know the Earth was flat as well?

Yep.

Satellites are another question, what how do Satellites orbit the Earth? are there any Satellites? I've certainly seen some, the ISS as well, we've got images of the ISS from the Earth taken by telescopes http://i.imgur.com/7XWpkZy.jpg, I've seen the ISS with my naked eye using my own telescope, what exactly am I seeing if the ISS isn't real?

If you give them enough money to put a space station up, then you've given them enough to put a balloon up. I've seen ISS from the ground. But, what exactly does that mean?

But, I think they just glide. What do you think?

I have another, genuine question. What about pilots? not all pilots are government employed and there is a large amount of people who own their own aircraft, do they all know that the Earth is flat? that's another HUGE amount of people that know the Earth is flat. Of course, IF they know.

They all use maps that assume the Earth if flat, but they are also all indoctrinated.

Also what about the Polar routes? pilots have been flying over the poles to reduce travel time, including commercial flights. In 2011 Pilots were given permission to use Polar routes using Boeing 777's, this would reduce travel times and costs (Source http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078301/Mind-sleigh-Airlines-given-permission-fly-North-Pole-time-slashing-hours-exotic-destinations.html)

Not the south pole.

Flights such as OMDB-KSFO, OMDB-KLAX, FRA-ANC and others fly over the poles, if the government's are in on this secret, why did they give airliners permission? and where do they actually go? because if the Earth is flat, then flying OUT towards the frozen edges is certainly not faster than flying directly.

The border is south... it's Antarctica.

Someone produces the artwork. And, there's only one "Blue Marble" photo. OP posted video showing how it was likely faked. No other verifiable snapshot of the complete Earth. NASA is more film studio than anything else. But, here's an artist/whistleblower talking about it

I watched this video, it's ... interesting to say the least, but it just doesn't make sense, why are you dismissing countless evidence of the Earth being round by responding with a video of a "Whistleblower" who use to work for NASA?

If we look at this purely scientifically, there is simply not enough evidence for your side of the argument. A one time event of somebody posting a video on Youtube claiming to have worked for NASA is not evidence. He has nothing to back up his claims, and he is the ONLY person who works for ANY space agency (Because remember, there a countless space programs around the world) to have come forth... Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you?

Okay maybe we could look at this another way.

Going by your theory that the Government is hiding the fact that the Earth is flat, they would have to make sure that EVERY high-ranking and high-stature person is in on the secret, unless they want to accidentally stumble upon it. A good example is Virgin, Virgin Galactic, a spaceflight group within Virgin that want to provide Sub-orbital flights for space-tourists. Surely the Government would of told them about the fact that the Earth isn't round and so by going into Sub-orbit they would expose that.

Which would mean that the workers and founders of Virgin Galactic would know about this secret as well? what about Sierra Nevada Corporation, XCOR Aerospace and SpaceX? all privately funded space programs that will and have reached suborbital heights. do they all know about the secret as well?

What about all of the space programs on Earth? NASA isn't the only space program, just the most achieving, many countries have astronauts up in the ISS, do they all know about the secret? we're getting to the point where literally hundreds of thousands of people would have to know about this secret in order for nobody to accidentally slip up.

And what about the satellites we've sent to other planets? Venus? Mars? the Jovian moons? we recently landed a robot on Mars, was that fake as well? why go to the trouble of faking it and continue to THIS DAY, hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers worked on countless projects to do with different planets, Russia landed a probe on Venus, we have a probe on its way to Pluto, was that fake? whats the point in faking it all?

The famous Pale Blue Dot, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot, telescope, Satnav, technology today all uses the basis that the Earth is round, or is there an explanation to all of these with the theory?

And scientists in general! in school we are taught that the Earth is round, that the sun is 695,800 km and is the center of the Solar System, do famous scientists know the Earth is flat? did somebody one day walk up to Steven Hawking and say "Sorry sir, but everything you've been taught and studied is actually false", or do they all know about it?

Is the Solar System even real in this theory? we have absolute concrete evidence that the other planets in our solar system are round, you can SEE with your naked eye, Jupiter, Saturn, which have been common knowledge to humans for THOUSANDS of years!

If SO many people are in on this secret, wouldn't it just be easier to have told people in the first place? what purpose do they have to create this whole secret? what's the point?

Lets use a famous problem-solving principle by William of Ockham, Occam's Razor, which states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

So, is there a complete global secret that the Earth is flat, surrounded by endless expanse of ice which we call the South Pole, which is enforced by a Film-Studio called NASA. schools teach children the Earth is round because ... reasons, and we have faked pretty much every major achievement man has made in the last 60 years.

Or. The Earth is round, just like every other planet, and we orbit a star, within our galaxy.

Look, you are talking about your belief. I can't stand between a man and his religion.

Which would mean that the workers and founders of Virgin Galactic would know about this secret as well? what about Sierra Nevada Corporation, XCOR Aerospace and SpaceX

Why? Don't they just shot those fuckers out the air?

Is the Solar System even real in this theory? we have absolute concrete evidence that the other planets in our solar system are round, you can SEE with your naked eye, Jupiter, Saturn, which have been common knowledge to humans for THOUSANDS of years!

I can see them every night... but they got you calling them gods.

What can you verify? I can verify that there are zero real photos of Earth.

I can describe gravity without 26-dimenions or unobservable "dark" matter. LOL

See you didn't actually reply to anything I said with any credible source to back your claim up! you disregarded my question about private corporations without answering it.

Calling them Gods? the other planets in the system? you knew exactly what I meant and had no source or evidence to why these are fake again

See you keep saying that you can "verify" that there are no real photos of Earth but you've yet to do it, even though countless people have provided YOU with plenty of evidence that there is

Listen, I know, being a teenager is hard, I was there too, I believed in weird conspiracies as well, and looking back I cringe at myself so hard. But when you grow up and start interacting with the world around you it gets a lot easier to handle

See you didn't actually reply to anything I said with any credible source to back your claim up! you disregarded my question about private corporations without answering it.

I responded to every point that seemed reasonable.

Look at the stuff you say:

If we look at this purely scientifically, there is simply not enough evidence for your side of the argument.

Science isn't about a preponderance of evidence!

But, you believe it is! I can't really help that! Have better things to do that analyze your dribble.

Ask a real question if you want. You ignored my questions. You are not trying to have real conversation. Even if you were, you don't seem up to it.

Sorry, I just don't find you to be intellectually honest or interesting. Go watch Neil Tyson describe your gods for you, or whatever it is you do.

Okay. Lets suppose that's true. No human has taken physical pictures of the earth in its entirety.

It still doesn't address my other points. you haven't addressed my hypothetical reason as to why it was fabricated. And you've also ignored that I've brought up that we've physically proven that the earth is round without even having to leave the planet?

please do not strawman my argument. :/

It still doesn't address my other points. you haven't addressed my hypothetical reason as to why it was fabricated.

Hide land... keep you slave.

And you've also ignored that I've brought up that we've physically proven that the earth is round without even having to leave the planet?

It seems to be proven otherwise, but look into it.

You're in too deep, buddy.

You're not looking for any sort of intelligent discussion on the matter.

I say the picture was hoaxed for political reasons. I say physics dictates that the earth can not be flat because I refuse to believe that, logically, its not likely that "everything we know is a lie spoon fed to us by the government" and that over generations all scientists have been forced to back that up.

But you just want to accuse me of spewing "NWO religion" instead of trying to logically back your points. I can provide you with links for days supporting what I've said and you and I could even track the evolution of thought and how we as humans have discovered these things.

can you back your claims? Or do you just want to sit there with this "haha I'm right" mentality??

You're in too deep, buddy.

That's an attack.

You're not looking for any sort of intelligent discussion on the matter.

That's an attack and it's not true.

I say the picture was hoaxed for political reasons.

I agree.

I say physics dictates that the earth can not be flat

Yes. What specific physics. What experimental evidence? Or, is science your religion, and this is simply your NWO religious belief?

because I refuse to believe that, logically, its not likely that "everything we know is a lie spoon fed to us by the government" and that over generations all scientists have been forced to back that up.

Who mentioned the government?

But you just want to accuse me of spewing "NWO religion" instead of trying to logically back your points.

You asked mt to respond to your ramblings. At first I politely ignored them, because they were crazy. But, when pressed, I said you sound like religious fanatic, spouting your belief in face of fact.

I can provide you with links for days supporting what I've said and you and I could even track the evolution of thought and how we as humans have discovered these things.

OK, what is gravity, if not the Earth moving up at 9.8 m/s? Any idea? Newton got it wrong. Einstein got it wrong. Does it take "dark matter" or something else that is totally unobservable to make your beliefs work? Because, if you can't see it, and you can't measure it, and you are still calling it science, then you are really talking about religion.

can you back your claims?

Yes.

Or do you just want to sit there with this "haha I'm right" mentality??

This is fun too.

Question.. have you yourself physically witnessed/experienced any of your own claims? If so how?

claims

What claims? I can't find a real photo of the Earth all in one shot. I stand by that. There should be time lapsed video from ISS.

Just do me a favor and stop replying if you're not interested in a real discussion. thanks

Yes, I didn't read past the first point, because your beliefs are in ignorance. It is true. One photo ever.

Listen, the universe we live in is expansive and beautiful.you have to accept, at least that All planets and large bodies are round. This is a constant because there are constant forces that exist within this universe That shape these bodies.

That sounds like NWO religious rant. How do you know any of that? Is Jupiter a planet or god? What do you really know? How do you know pictures of Jupiter are real?

Your next paragraph is the same. What real point do you want me to address?

There are non-NASA rockets sent into low Earth orbit. They take pictures. Look at them. Find the ones without the fisheyed lenses, and see for yourself what NASA is not showing you.

Or, listen to Stephen Hawkins. You ever read one of his books? I knew Brief History in Time was crazy when I was fifteen years old.

Why does the horizon curve in Felix Baumgatner's famous Red Bull Stratos Jump? Seeing as he landed in New Mexico shouldn't it have stretched on basically forever to the North and half that far to the South?

You can answer it yourself...

I took a screen grab from that video of yours. Looks like the horizon curves out on the top left hand photo. Why is that?

http://imgur.com/zWVyUoa

Can you think of ANY reason for that to happen? Is it because the Earth is not round, or flat, but really concave? Or, is there another, better, answer that have nothing to do with the geometry of the Earth?

So, in the Red Bull Stratos Jump, why does the Earth look concave when looking away from it, and convex when looking at it?

The correct answer is fish-eyed lens.

Did you have the correct answer?

If so, you win freedom over your mind. If not, then sorry, it's back to the mines for you. Better luck next time.

What do I get if I answer your question?

Why does it seem so impossible that there could be more than one explanation? My own theory that I have fully adopted is a sort of distorted space theory, and there is nothing to contradict it even slightly other than only a few tiny recent theory quirks that are easily ignorable, amongst the many we're taught. I'm sure it's not the only logical theory either.

How is it possible to reach east asia by crossing the atlantic or the pacific? I'm all for entertaining out there thoughts but come on..

Look at the map. I think the problem is getting a one-way flight from Australia to South America.

I like this. So I'm wondering... How would a flat earth account for plane paths from Russia to American, going East, for instance?

You don't have issues until you are in the southern hemisphere.

Look at this:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flatmap.jpg

or this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_Nations#/media/File:Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg

I am in the southern hemisphere and had no trouble getting from South America to Australia in two flights, one stop over in Auckland.

Hey... hey, guys?

I think he's joking!

Well I know what I'm doing tonight. Time to strap in.

Found an actual recording of a guy who tries goes into NASA to expose them but falls short.

I'm glad this side of the story has so much evidence, and a nice lack of insults. Otherwise this would be too frightening a debate... /s

Side of the story. Implying schizophrenic delusions are a side. OH MY SIDES

I'm definitely willing to entertain thoughts like this. I even have a whole subreddit dedicated to entertaining thoughts: r/c_s_t

I like this sub.

That's the answer to the question, "why did we go to the moon?" To prove the Earth is round.

What's the meaning behind your username?

Eric Dubay fan? I've been into this stuff lately, it's oddly compelling.

Eh, dude is kind of a prick. I got banned from their forum for asking a few simple questions.

Yeah I've heard stories. When it comes to flat earth stuff I cannot make heads or tails of who is sincere and who is just trying to disrupt.

What I find odd is that the earth flat stuff is taking off on various sites all at once. I personally feel all it does it add more fuel to the fire for the anti alternative media push that started last week, and what will happen is"see,see, they believe the earth is flat, where will it end?". Regardless if it's flat or not they are up to something, and I believe it's a subject matter tool they will use at a later date for promotional slander.

Yeah it sounds like a black or blue dress arguement.

I've seen one or two. I applaud him for talking about it.

The idea that people thought the world was flat up until a few hundred years ago, and the only time we have been able to verify that it's not is through NASA, is an interesting thing to try and wrap your mind around.

Definitely takes removing some boundries. I just wish the flat earth debate wasn't so toxic. It seems like everyone is a shill.

My thing about flat earth is what about the ISS? and the hundreds of satellites orbiting the planet right now along with it?

Like, what are the arguments in support of the earth being flat? I don't get it. I get the artificial moon thing, we've never been there, etc. What I don't get is the flat earth theory, it just so obviously isn't flat..

Some of the arguments are pretty weak, some are stronger.

To me, it's less about what's true and it's more about whether or not NASA is deceiving us. If the earth isn't waht they say it is I have no way of knowing if it's flat, a cube or a torus.... I just want to know why there seems to be so much deception surrounding NASA and the stuff it releases.

What about physics? Our earth isn't a perfect sphere, no. But there is no reason why it wouldn't be round. It's the shape of least resistance. Maybe it could have been a cube or aanything at one point but the forces acting against it would have worn it down to a round shape just like every other planet. To accept that the earth is anything other than round, then we have to accept that all other planets would also not be round.

Our universe works on constants. H2O is H2O regardless of where in the universe it is. It all translates.

To accept that the earth is anything other than round, then we have to accept that all other planets would also not be round.

I think this is probably why most people shy away from the flat earth stuff on instinct. For the flat earth to be true the rabbit hole has to go deep. Very deep. To reconcile these notions with our current reality we have to be living in a system that is so highly controlled most people would never be able to accept it.

Which is partly why it's so fascinating to me. If it's true it's the ultimate conspiracy and the odds that we're the project of some alien race or ancient species becomes a hell of a lot more likely.

But also, to answer your question a little more directly, you can find flat earth explanations for all of the natural phenomenon we experience. Some of them are a little crazier than others but most make some sense. For example, if you picture the earth as a disc where north is always the center and south is always the edge, you start to understand how things like being able to 'circumnavigate' the earth east-west would be possible. (which brings us to another interesting point. Try to find examples of people circumnavigating the globe north to south. It's exceptionally rare and AFAIK has never been filmed)

First I'd really like to thank you for providing an intelligent and logical response to what I've brought up! It's always refreshing to see someone genuinely looking to expand on thought instrwad of regressing to a "no but I'm right" mentality.

I'll agree with you that its all extremely interesting in thought but it just always comes down to "why". Does it really make more sense that our entire reality is a huge elaborate conspiracy? It would require all governments, all scientists in on it to dupe us poor "regular folk"? Right? I think it comes down to an Occam's Razor sort of thought process. honestly I can understand where the distrust lies (i mean I'm on this dang reddit) and I can understand where the initial ideas come from But I seriously think a lot of the motives behind duping that picture were political. We as Americans had to be the "best there ever was" and we couldn't let those "damn commies" beat us to space! So of course we duped them. We had to maintain our dominance.

And, interestingly enough the idea of the earth being flat comes from the bible.. And I mean, that can't be wrong...can it?

Whar it comes down to honestly is exactly what you said; if you want to believe the earth is flat then you have to accept that we are all "living in the matrix" or however you'd like to put it. But otherwise I feel there is a glaringly large amount of evidence that support that our planet is a big, round, amorpheous hunk of matter and that we, as humans are actually accomplishing beautiful things by being able to know this and begin to understand how the universe looks And acts beyond what we physically see with our own two eyes on this planet. (which, by the way, also does support that our planet is round.. by observing stars and planets around us and how they move)

Sorry if this is disorganized... I'm writing from my phone :P

And, interestingly enough the idea of the earth being flat comes from the bible.. And I mean, that can't be wrong...can it?

This was always an interesting aspect of the whole thing to me. As someone who was raised an athiest the idea that the bible has some hidden truths in it is really enticing.

Whar it comes down to honestly is exactly what you said; if you want to believe the earth is flat then you have to accept that we are all "living in the matrix" or however you'd like

Yep. Thanks for understanding that I'm not trying to push this on anyone here, just pontificating on a subject that I find fascinating.

It's fascinating, yes. I'll give it that. In fact I'm willing to question everything. I've questioned the earth being flat, the moon being fake, lizardpeople, aliens visiting us and influencing us....and I cannot accept the earth being flat. You'll have to explain to me why every single video and photograph of the earth in low orbit shows its shape as that of a sphere. Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvbN-cWe0A0

It sure doesn't look flat to me.

I've gone down quite a few rabbit holes. This one just doesn't make any sense and is disproved by simple observation. I guarantee you if you had the equipment and means to do what this man did, you would see for yourself that the earth is definitely not flat.

You'll have to explain to me why every single video and photograph of the earth in low orbit shows its shape as that of a sphere.

Fish eye lens.

There some video on youtube of some amateurs putting a balloon up into LEO and you can't make out the curve. I've yet to see a video where you can see the curve of the earth and it's using a standard lens. They always use a wide angle lens that distorts the edges of the picture.

I just want to know why there seems to be so much deception surrounding NASA and the stuff it releases.

It's because Freemasons love using deception and NASA has always been crawling with them.

Try to think about this question.

OK, but why is there only one picture of the Earth? And, why did OP post video of that picture being faked?

If ISS exist (I've seen it fly overhead and I've seen the videos from "inside"), why don't they film stop motion video? How do I know the ISS I saw overhead isn't a big kite or solar glider? Why do the videos look like they are from inside a jet doing a noise dive?

Eh, fair enough, but I've seen a 1-hour long video of an astronaut going through the interior of the ISS (on youtube). Sorry, it was a couple weeks ago and I don't have the link. Anyway, it looked nothing like an aeroplane doing a nose dive - which is to say it was incredibly convincing.

That's why I like roundtable format discussions with people from different backgrounds. When Mark Sargent was on fakeologist he was asked some pressing questions by different members of the panel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l0U6qYju5g

shill

I don't think you know what that implies

Just watching Shark Tank one day while I decided to make a new username.

Righto...

I don't think it's an either or. I think many shots were faked in case they didn't make it to the moon and some are real because they did make it to the moon.

Yeah, that's the part that got me too.

The only reason why they would be fabricating going to the Moon would be entirely political. do not forget America's "who's dick is bigger" contest with Russia to land on the moon. If they were creating this it was just to try to beat those dang commies lol.

Doesn't mean we haven't since actually accomplished this and greater feats.

The only reason why they would be fabricating going to the Moon would be entirely political

This is what it was, we obviously have not gone back in time 46+ years, only in regards space development, while every other technical development in that time frame as advanced at a rapid rate.

We have not to this day achieved the technical ability to leave low earth orbit, yet the Apollo missions and only the Apollo missions managed it.

Why not? Read more of this thread dude. You want an eye opener? It's right here.

In the movie Interstellar, they said the moon landing was staged to bankrupt Russia by luring them into an expensive and senseless race to the moon.

And Hollywood surely wants us to know the real reason...

Considering the political climate and cold war race, it seems a reasonably plausible scenario. Low hanging fruit for Hollywood. In the movie, one of the main parts of the story was that the Earth was becoming uninhabitable, so there was a challenge in the plot to show why. They choose industrial excess and waste as big contributors. The bankrupting Russia story seemed to help this part of the plot.

What do you mean "hiding land"? Genuinely curious.

You asked for a photo, I provided one.

You claim the photo is fake, but didn't bother showing how.

No, I asked for a specific type of photo. You provided one and did not show that it met my requirements. I won't take your word for it because you don't know how it was taken either.you claim it's real but don't bother to show how.

"For those few misguided souls who still cling to the belief that the Moon landings never happened, examination of the results of five decades of LRRR experiments should evidence how delusional their rejection of the Moon landing really is."

Quotes like this, never mind on Wikipedia, calling the other side of the argument clearly delusional, worry me.

Wow so as someone who has never paid much attention to the moon landing debate, I just went through every link on that wikipedia article expecting there to be clear pictures and evidence that man has walked there.

I am now astounded that so far I actually disbelieve that man has walked on the moon... Its just a series of blurry photos that look less credible than the photographic evidence for alien moon structures. These supposedly show equipment and 'halos' from engine blasts and all I see is gray moon surface with red outlines that they expertly drew in to show what I'm supposed to see.

You'd think this decades-long debate could be solved with available photo technology that could point out every footprint on the moon...

Putting it like that isn't gonna help. We'd be saying how closed minded 'they' were for calling 'us' "braindead morons" from the other point of view. And calling others that isn't exactly conducive to more dialogue...

Dude, describe to me the life/background of your typical 'braindead moron.'

You claim that the full height of the statue of liberty is visible, from top to bottom, at any distance when observed at sea level. That is easily proven false.

I noticed that right off the bat when I slapped you with some real shit you responded with some "find your meds" b.s. and now that you've been properly shown a fool you refer to my writing as "ramblings." Right, and Newton was a wizard, or was it a witch? You're projecting and we're done.

From your own link:

The missing tapes were among over 700 boxes of magnetic data tapes recorded throughout the Apollo program which have not been found.

So no, you are wrong. ALL the Apollo program tapes are missing. But I guess that is not suspicious at all to you.

I have been responding to debunking comments.

It is true the footage was not filmed from LEO.

They can not be in geostationary orbit, because from there (35,000km), Earth is around 20 degrees in angular size. When they finally zoom out and switch on the lights, you can see the Earth filling around 5.6% of the view horizontally, thus the FOV of the camera should be around 355 degrees in order to show the Earth that size from geostationary orbit. And that certainly is not the case.

How about this https://youtu.be/V9l6J5JXgac?t=622

Where was that filmed from?

Assuming it's all faked, why leave the studio at all?

Operated by a NASA technician from mission control. Not that hard to do. Even in 1970~

But they do morph in the video you keep sperging about

Oh I see, so the Artists are in on the secret as well?

Someone produces the artwork. And, there's only one "Blue Marble" photo. OP posted video showing how it was likely faked. No other verifiable snapshot of the complete Earth.

NASA is more film studio than anything else. But, here's an artist/whistleblower talking about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbdH7a2IZw

Most likely sign NDAs beforehand.

I imagine that NASA must employ a lot of people if they are keeping this huge thing a secret, I mean if they're a movie studio like you said, they would need editors, actors as astronauts, editors and now artists and graphic developers, that's a lot of people that are in on this secret don't you think?

Astronauts are all actors. It's likely run through secret societies.

What about the Soviets? did they know the Earth was flat as well?

Yep.

Satellites are another question, what how do Satellites orbit the Earth? are there any Satellites? I've certainly seen some, the ISS as well, we've got images of the ISS from the Earth taken by telescopes http://i.imgur.com/7XWpkZy.jpg, I've seen the ISS with my naked eye using my own telescope, what exactly am I seeing if the ISS isn't real?

If you give them enough money to put a space station up, then you've given them enough to put a balloon up. I've seen ISS from the ground. But, what exactly does that mean?

But, I think they just glide. What do you think?

I have another, genuine question. What about pilots? not all pilots are government employed and there is a large amount of people who own their own aircraft, do they all know that the Earth is flat? that's another HUGE amount of people that know the Earth is flat. Of course, IF they know.

They all use maps that assume the Earth if flat, but they are also all indoctrinated.

Also what about the Polar routes? pilots have been flying over the poles to reduce travel time, including commercial flights. In 2011 Pilots were given permission to use Polar routes using Boeing 777's, this would reduce travel times and costs (Source http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078301/Mind-sleigh-Airlines-given-permission-fly-North-Pole-time-slashing-hours-exotic-destinations.html)

Not the south pole.

Flights such as OMDB-KSFO, OMDB-KLAX, FRA-ANC and others fly over the poles, if the government's are in on this secret, why did they give airliners permission? and where do they actually go? because if the Earth is flat, then flying OUT towards the frozen edges is certainly not faster than flying directly.

The border is south... it's Antarctica.

And at least some of them have been proven to be fake, as per my link earlier. Or are you one of those people who believes the moon was once covered by lush forests!?

Incorrect, only "one" not "some" of the rocks officially claimed to be from the Apollo missions have been proven to be fake.

Furthermore:

The genuine Apollo 11 moon rock given to the Dutch is in the inventory of a different museum in the Netherlands, which is, in fact, one of the very few countries where the location of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 gift rocks is known.

/

You need to understand that NASA's credibility on the provenance of its "moon rocks" was dealt a mortal blow by the INDEPENDENT analysis of the Armstrong petrified wood fake.

No it wasn't, please give me an example of a single other instance where the rocks claimed to be a moon rock by a primary source have been found to be fake. I would love to see any reliable source that states that the provenance of the NASA moon rocks was dealt a "mortal blow" because of the Netherlands issue.

The fact that so many of the gifted moon rocks have since been "disappeared" supports the view that the Dutch fake was one of many.

No it doesn't, this is a conclusion that you have reached. Please provide me with evidence that any of the other rocks are fakes.

You seem to be holding on to this point a bit too dearly even in the face of actual evidence. It's quite concerning that you are so rigid in your worldview even when presented with facts counter to your beliefs.

You're saying their presence there is proof that people placed them. It had been shown that robots can place them, ergo their presence is proof of nothing

So they made a secret moon mission using robots while at the same time conducting a manned mission to the moon?

Like I said before, that is not very practical.

Science Denial =//= Skepticism