Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion

[cmichael]

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


Enjoy all ye truth seekers.

[braingrunt]

So you won't talk about if taboo said something cogent. Maybe we could talk about this:

pont.png (1.38 MiB) Viewed 1035 times

I know you think there are problems with it so lets talk about it.

[JohnnyL]

PPS, I'm a LITTLE sorry for making this reply a little personal. You've been quite personal for many pages even though I've been trying hard not to be.

Seriously? Lol. Find any three posts of yours or larsenb's, in the first 60 pages of this thread or the other thread,, and they will be much more personal and heavier than everything cmichael has put up.

Now, you have been better in the past few pages, but... There's still no comparison, not even by a long shot.

I'm surprised that Allison and cmichael have been so patient with the browbeating and insinuations. I wasn't, and I'm usually pretty patient. <shrug>

[JohnnyL]

I'm not wasting any more of breath on you. You'll just have to fend for yourself on this good earth the Father gave us.

SpeedOfSound.JPG

if you think this is a problem I think you should work it out with a challenger. If not me then someone.

If this is really the end of our discussion here's some advice.

You have departed far from the widely accepted model of our world. You come across as not having done so carefully. If you will take the trouble to go deeper into challenges to your worldview, you have a chance to appear more careful and cogent to the outside world.
This can only help you in your cause as you try to convert the world. You will be better prepared to get other people to challenge their worldviews.

As it is, your worldview appears to be more emotional than logical, as we try to dig deeper. When you can't or don't want to go deep I think that your decision to view the world so differently, is more about psychology than science. You went down the funnel that was prepared for you.

I know that I look bad to you too. But frankly, for now, image is more your problem than mine.

It's a fairly well established truism, that those who make breakthroughs in science, or any other endeavor for that matter, almost always have to thoroughly master the existing pertinent science.

Incorrect, the opposite has been shown. More workable patents are held by those with lesser degrees, than those with higher degrees. I won't mention the conclusion as to why...

[braingrunt]

PPS, I'm a LITTLE sorry for making this reply a little personal. You've been quite personal for many pages even though I've been trying hard not to be.

Seriously? Lol. Find any three posts of yours or larsenb's, in the first 60 pages of this thread or the other thread,, and they will be much more personal and heavier than everything cmichael has put up.

Now, you have been better in the past few pages, but... There's still no comparison, not even by a long shot.

I'm surprised that Allison and cmichael have been so patient with the browbeating and insinuations. I wasn't, and I'm usually pretty patient. <shrug>

I admit it. (and this is not the first time I've done so)
But I'm trying to discuss calmly and rationally for now. It will work best if others do also. I'm trying to show that my behavior has nothing to do with the strength of my position. So lets talk if you want.

[larsenb]

PPS, I'm a LITTLE sorry for making this reply a little personal. You've been quite personal for many pages even though I've been trying hard not to be.

Seriously? Lol. Find any three posts of yours or larsenb's, in the first 60 pages of this thread or the other thread,, and they will be much more personal and heavier than everything cmichael has put up.

Now, you have been better in the past few pages, but... There's still no comparison, not even by a long shot.

I'm surprised that Allison and cmichael have been so patient with the browbeating and insinuations. I wasn't, and I'm usually pretty patient. <shrug>

Well, let's see. In cmichaels last post addressed to me, he was addressing the wrong person. The quotes he apparently attributes to me are nothing I've said.

Next, here's a quote of cmichael's own words from the same post: "You're both completely clueless and your advice is uninmformed. I don't care about my worldly image, when I know the field at least as well if not better than both of you combined."

Does the word 'insulting', and therefore, browbeating come to mind when you read this? That's certainly what comes to my mind, and I'm sure braingrunt would agree.

[larsenb]

I'm not wasting any more of breath on you. You'll just have to fend for yourself on this good earth the Father gave us.

SpeedOfSound.JPG

if you think this is a problem I think you should work it out with a challenger. If not me then someone.

If this is really the end of our discussion here's some advice.

You have departed far from the widely accepted model of our world. You come across as not having done so carefully. If you will take the trouble to go deeper into challenges to your worldview, you have a chance to appear more careful and cogent to the outside world.
This can only help you in your cause as you try to convert the world. You will be better prepared to get other people to challenge their worldviews.

As it is, your worldview appears to be more emotional than logical, as we try to dig deeper. When you can't or don't want to go deep I think that your decision to view the world so differently, is more about psychology than science. You went down the funnel that was prepared for you.

I know that I look bad to you too. But frankly, for now, image is more your problem than mine.

It's a fairly well established truism, that those who make breakthroughs in science, or any other endeavor for that matter, almost always have to thoroughly master the existing pertinent science.

Incorrect, the opposite has been shown. More workable patents are held by those with lesser degrees, than those with higher degrees. I won't mention the conclusion as to why...

I'm speaking primarily of breakthroughs in science or other fields of knowledge, and if I'd thought about it more, would have excluded the invention category. Where did I get this idea? From Hugh Nibley. Take up the argument with him, when you get to the other side . . . if it still interests you. Also notice that I wasn't being black-and-white about it.

[cmichael]

I'm not wasting any more of breath on you. You'll just have to fend for yourself on this good earth the Father gave us.

SpeedOfSound.JPG

if you think this is a problem I think you should work it out with a challenger. If not me then someone.

If this is really the end of our discussion here's some advice.

You have departed far from the widely accepted model of our world. You come across as not having done so carefully. If you will take the trouble to go deeper into challenges to your worldview, you have a chance to appear more careful and cogent to the outside world.
This can only help you in your cause as you try to convert the world. You will be better prepared to get other people to challenge their worldviews.

As it is, your worldview appears to be more emotional than logical, as we try to dig deeper. When you can't or don't want to go deep I think that your decision to view the world so differently, is more about psychology than science. You went down the funnel that was prepared for you.

I know that I look bad to you too. But frankly, for now, image is more your problem than mine.

It's a fairly well established truism, that those who make breakthroughs in science, or any other endeavor for that matter, almost always have to thoroughly master the existing pertinent science.

Incorrect, the opposite has been shown. More workable patents are held by those with lesser degrees, than those with higher degrees. I won't mention the conclusion as to why...

Onward Christian soldiers. When people say clueless things such as the momentum of the air going 1100 mph is NOT a problem for spacecraft exit and re-entry, then yes, they are clueless and no intelligent conversation can ensue. And that, after much diligent labor in the attempt.

So I moved on, since there is nothing but an impasse to be attained. I don't care who insulted whom. I am not interested in politics, word games, and one-upmanship. I am interested solely and exclusively in the truth of the matter, and from what I see now, it is true that the world is motionless and all the gainsaying and brow-beating won't change that.
In view of the fact that the earth has been shown in numerous ways to NOT be rotating , then the conclusion that Newton and Einstein were wrong is next.
The scripture that claims that the wisdom of the wise men shall perish is particularly significant to me now.

The 'advice' I was given was completely and thoroughly off the mark, and therefore completely clueless, and the perspective of the people pushing that advice on me were not interested in my welfare as much as they were interested in defending their intellectual turf. Don't pretend to give someone 'advice' whom you don't know or understand.

[cmichael]

Welcome to the Completely Clueless Brainwashing Channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVuk7vdurAw

We cannot even go to the moon, so all this nonsense about landing on Mars is just a $65 million dollar a day deception.

[cmichael]

The Smooth and Shaky Trip on the Saturn 5 Rocket


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ty8sbwuRew

Boys, boys, boys, there's no need to fight! Smooth, Shaky, doesn't matter. Since it's completely imaginary, you can imagine it as either as SMOOTH or as SHAKY as you like.

[braingrunt]

Onward Christian soldiers. When people say clueless things such as the momentum of the air going 1100 mph is NOT a problem for spacecraft exit and re-entry, then yes, they are clueless and no intelligent conversation can ensue. And that, after much diligent labor in the attempt.

Well, I will consider it a good outcome of our discussion,
that you now admit that if air moves with the earth it will dictate something about the flight of spacecraft or airplanes. It is very ingrained in most globe deniers I meet to think that planes should have a harder or easier time depending on which way they fly because they don't recognize flight as atmosphere-relative, similar to how swimming is water-relative. I think this is a good step for you.

If you want to go deeper into the problems that a moving atmosphere would cause to rockets, then I will make an effort to study it with you. We could pull out some drag force equations and try to work them. We were not at a dead end because there is certainly more depth we could get into.

[cmichael]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6J7WDjXouc

PhD Proves Globe Model False

[cmichael]

Where does the energy come from to spin the earth and keep it spinning?

Simple question. Simple answer.

Crickets.

[braingrunt]

Where does the energy come from to spin the earth and keep it spinning?

Simple question. Simple answer.

Crickets.

Where does the energy come from to stop the earth spinning?
In real life we can always see a reason something stopped but you posit something stopping for no reason. Magic maybe. Why do you want to imagine moving things stopping for no reason when this is completely contrary to what we can observe and test?

Also still waiting for an answer.

[JohnnyL]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6J7WDjXouc

PhD Proves Globe Model False

Amazing video (amazing camera!).

And I'm guessing that to get all those to add up perfectly proportionally, with mirage, etc., and the boat behind them, is pretty impossible.

How do you get 9 miles behind the apparent horizon?!

[cmichael]

Globeballers believe in a fiction. They claim the globe has been spinning for billions of years, and that with a velcro atmosphere glued to the surface, because - gravity. Gravity is strong enough to keep a layer of air glued to its surface, yet the earth itself is light enough to spin for an infinity without slowing down, like a helium balloon floating without anchors in the vacuum of space.

And they claim flat earth is nuts. ROFL. Everything in their imagination is paradoxical and contradictory, and they have the gall , the nerve, the conceit, to never question their paradigm seriously, as they do the TRUTH, which is that the earth does not spin, cannot spin, without some miraculous force that contradicts REAL physics in the REAL world. Only God can move the earth, as it says in scripture, but it does not happen without extraordinary measures, and it doesn't happen on a daily basis.

[cmichael]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6J7WDjXouc

PhD Proves Globe Model False

Amazing video (amazing camera!).

And I'm guessing that to get all those to add up perfectly proportionally, with mirage, etc., and the boat behind them, is pretty impossible.

How do you get 9 miles behind the apparent horizon?!

It's obvious when you lay it out, why do globalists jump immediately to nonsensical complexities? Water does not curve, it seeks to be level. Even the earth doesn't curve despite the 'eye-witnesses' who claim they have seen it from an airplane window. I've seen the same thing they have, from higher up, and the horizon doesn't curve. So until they admit that, there will be an impasse.

It will also remain at an impasse until they admit the earth is not in motion, and the energy or force required to put it into motion and keep it in motion does not exist, outside of course, the supernatural realm of God's power. They have no explanation for the origin or the continuance of the colossal amount of power needed to budge the earth one inch let alone 24,000 miles on a daily basis.

And the impasse will also remain until they accept the reality, that the axis of the earth, not being moored to any tethers, could not therefore keep the earth in a stable spin, but it would soon decay in its arc and collide with other masses, if any.

These are so common sense that they fly right under the radar of those who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

These are direct observations of the real world with realistic interpretations. The Speculations and Obfuscations from the Globalists are easily seen through when you have the courage to think and observe for yourself.

[cmichael]

Ya see, Johnny, when you're actually ON the earth, THEN you are subject to limits. In order to move a shovelful of dirt, you need a shovel, and you need a shoveller. Because - gravity. Because - physics.

BUT - and this is a BIG BUT. if you are NOT on the earth, if you are looking in from the outside, you don't need a shovel, you don't need a shoveller. You get all that energy and motion for nothing. It's a perpetual motion machine. It's like a helium balloon, only rotating around an axis, like, a string holding it in one spot so it doesn't wander all over the sky at 660 million miles per hour.

What applies to cannons and cannonballs , once you get as gargantuan as the earth, all those rules about motion and momentum, are in INVERSE PROPORTION until they just disappear magically. And you don't have to follow any rules anymore. Because spinning ball helium balloons are dancing in the sky to the tune of Newton's magic momentum music.

The earth spins like a top, and never topples. And its been doing that for billions of years, when we can't do it for nearly that long with much smaller masses while we are ON the earth. Right?

heliumballoon.jpg (14.87 KiB) Viewed 939 times

[cappaccio]

Can someone explain to me why there isn’t camera footage of some very elevated position, say the top of a very high mountain, pointed at some other very far elevated position, say another very high mountain that is more than just a few miles, more like 100’s of miles?

Shouldn’t you be able to see from the top of Mt Timpanogas to the top of Mt Rainer?

Don’t say the cameras don’t exist..

[braingrunt]

since cmichael is not talking to me, I call on JohnnyL and allison to witness that cmichael is apparently trying to squash down what I think he knows, with feeling and false comparisons.
In the globe model, earth is nothing like a top because the model doesn't have earth sitting on top of something millions of times its size and mass, and is not said to be moving through any other body's atmosphere.
However ludicrous you think the globe model is, it is no less silly to compare it to things which bear little resemblance.

What I think he knows, that he is trying to quash with feeling etc, is that moving things do not stop without friction. I think he knows this because so far he has avoided any direct denial of this truth and instead tries to direct his thoughts elsewhere. If he knows this, then he also knows that in a frictionless environment (space) there is no problem with the earth continuing to move unimpeded.
Incidentally he also knows that space, in the sense of lack of air, actually exists. Because globe or not, you can see it with weather balloons we send up.

As to why moving things keep moving unless they are impeded, who knows the ultimate deepest reason? At the practical level, we just know it's true because we can see and measure it, and in that sense it is bizarre to argue with it.

As to the ultimate deepest reason, I guess you could try asking God, the creator or organizer of our world, why it is so. As for me, I don't care much. The universe has to behave one way or other, why should I get heartburn about things as they actually are?

[gradles21]

This is an interesting video about SpaceX, might as well call it FakeX

[BeNotDeceived]

"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a conveyor belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop."

These questions have been addressed many times before, some in this thread and definitely on the Internet at large by people smarter than me. I have neither the time nor the inclination to nail down every last begged question or "whatabout" that stems from a failure to properly understand the system. I could regale readers with the behavior of gravitational attraction (which you won't believe), fluid and aerodynamics (which you need an engineering degree to really grok), orbital mechanics (which you will say are fake), the history of space photography in the pre-digital era (those were all matte paintings in 1972, right?), and eyewitness testimony from those who have seen the Earth from orbit (who you claim to be part of "the Globe conspiracy"), only to never even approach convincing you.

Frankly, I have better things to do than play chess with pigeons, and as I leave this debate, I fully expect you to declare victory with crowing glee. You'll never be convinced, and that's okay. Your personal incredulity doesn't change the laws of physics or transform the Earth into a glorified snow globe. I'll be sleeping well tonight on this glorious blue marble!

Bye bye, and I'll close the door behind me.

Weird that, the Broadway production of Chess,
has an interesting line, that is a paraphrase of Abraham 4:18.

Galloping Chess, but not Coincidence Pigeon. x2

[pancake]

Where did the lost tribes go? Where are they now? When are they coming back?

The narrator in the first one talks really slow so you can probably watch it on 2x speed.

[Pazooka]

Where did the lost tribes go? Where are they now? When are they coming back?

The narrator in the first one talks really slow so you can probably watch it on 2x speed.

One interesting flat earth Lost Tribes theory is that the earth is divided into 4 quadrants:

EAST - Includes Israel all the way to the “Far East”
SOUTH - Africa
WEST - North and South America
NORTH - missing land mass in the Pacific Ocean (some associate it with the lost continent of “Mu” or “Lemuria”

The theory maintains that the land mass will return to that quadrant from where it was taken - perhaps beyond the ice wall (??), in the same manner that the City of Enoch will be returned to the Gulf of Mexico (as per Joseph Smith).

This is one explanation of to what “lands of the North” *might* be referring.

[pancake]