Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
ali smack

6 stupid things about the moon landing

97 posts in this topic

Well the point still stands. I don't laugh or mock those who believe something different.

I do, if their beliefs go against facts and reality,

And Moonhoaxers have reached a point where they are equal to someone who claims the capital of England is Paris...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously imagine yourself when the world was flat, you had the understanding of the world being flat and some crazy nut job is telling you it's round. Because back then they didn't have the scientific understanding that they do now. Now imagine what could be discovered in the next few millenniums. What if we can't comprehend possibilities now until it's proven like we did back then. Everything you are debating with me about would change. Which means everything you said was actually not fact. YET you know what facts would remain? The ones I'm explaining in this thread. Because it wouldn't matter that all our science had changed and all our theories had changed and all the facts had changed. My facts would still be there proving that in science facts can change and people cna certainly lie and people who can't think for themselves will carry on following the people who lie and enslave them.

There is a body of scientific knowledge that has been so well tested over the years that it cannot be reasonably challenged. For instance, Einstein showed that Newtonian mechanics breaks down in extreme conditions, but Newton is still good enough for pretty all everyday purposes, including current spaceflight. The flat earth theory is still good enough for finding your way around your local area, if you don't think too much about things like horizons or how the sun fits in. To put it another way, a new theory must work where the old theory breaks down, but it still has to agree with the old one over a wide range of circumstances. There will never be a scientific revolution that makes the moon a high-gravity world, because the moon's gravity is one of those too-well-established-to-challenge facts.

Edited by flyingswan
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a body of scientific knowledge that has been so well tested over the years that it cannot be reasonably challenged. For instance, Einstein showed that Newtonian mechanics breaks down in extreme conditions, but Newton is still good enough for pretty all everyday purposes, including current spaceflight. The flat earth theory is still good enough for finding your way around your local area, if you don't think too much about things like horizons or how the sun fits in. To put it another way, a new theory must work where the old theory breaks down, but it still has to agree with the old one over a wide range of circumstances. There will never be a scientific revolution that makes the moon a high-gravity world, because the moon's gravity is one of those too-well-established-to-challenge facts.

Yeah cause we fall off the edge of the earth.... Oh wait we don't. See the old theory does not stick or work with the new theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do, if their beliefs go against facts and reality,

And Moonhoaxers have reached a point where they are equal to someone who claims the capital of England is Paris...

Well by that simple comment you would have been one of the people laughing at the people who said the world was round and not flat. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But look at the great job they did in keeping all of the drone strikes secret......

Are they a secret now?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Key word in topic,"stupid" :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the moon landing there is nothing based on science though.

You being ignorant of the science won't make it go away.

lol It's based on believing certain people not science. :tu:

This might be projection.

The Apollo Nutters here do know the evidence for Apollo. Hoax believers invariably are utterly ignorant of it. They uncritically believe the Hoax promoters.

So what would you think if the government announced on live TV tomorrow that the whole thing was a lie and a cover up?

They'd be lying for some nefarious reason.

Seriously imagine yourself when the world was flat,

The world never was flat.

you had the understanding of the world being flat

That would be a believe, not a fact.

(Of course, locally the surface of the Earth is pretty flat.)

and some crazy nut job is telling you it's round.

What's his evidence?

Now imagine what could be discovered in the next few millenniums. What if we can't comprehend possibilities now until it's proven like we did back then. Everything you are debating with me about would change. Which means everything you said was actually not fact. YET you know what facts would remain?

Facts don't change, their interpretation does.

When I measured myself this morning, 2013-02-09 8:00 CET, my length was 179.6 cm.

This is an observed fact, and it is never going to change.

It will always be a fact that I measured that length at that time and place.

I interpret it as "Pretty average for a Dutch guy of my generation."

A 100 years from now, when the average Dutch guy will be a nine-footer it might be interpreted as "My, those dudes were small."

The FACT will not have changed.

As won't the fact that flat-earth-guy observed the Earth locally to be flat.

Edited by Halcyon Dayz
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah cause we fall off the edge of the earth.... Oh wait we don't. See the old theory does not stick or work with the new theory.

What don't you understand about "finding you way around your local area"? Do you need to know the curvature of the earth to find your way to the nearest shop? You don't give it a thought, any more than an engineer needs to consider relativity when designing a car. The Earth's curvature becomes an issue when navigating across an ocean, relativity is important in designing a particle accelerator, but both the flat earth theory and Newtonian mechanics continue to work in the circumstances for which they were originally developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What don't you understand about "finding you way around your local area"? Do you need to know the curvature of the earth to find your way to the nearest shop? You don't give it a thought, any more than an engineer needs to consider relativity when designing a car. The Earth's curvature becomes an issue when navigating across an ocean, relativity is important in designing a particle accelerator, but both the flat earth theory and Newtonian mechanics continue to work in the circumstances for which they were originally developed.

The theory is stil not used. What you are sayign does not make any difference to that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory is stil not used. What you are sayign does not make any difference to that fact.

I don't believe you. When do you have to consider the curvature of the Earth in your normal life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe you. When do you have to consider the curvature of the Earth in your normal life?

That's got nothing to do with the point.

The point is about facts, the fact is the world is round. (well sort of)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's got nothing to do with the point.

The point is about facts, the fact is the world is round. (well sort of)

The world being round doesn't affect the way you navigate in your local area. You effectively work on the basis that it is flat, like a map.

Relativity doesn't affect the way we design ordinary machines, engineers effectively work on the basis that Newtonian mechanics is correct.

Similarly, in spite of what you claim, no future scientific discovery is going to affect the body of knowledge we have about the main environment differences between the earth and the moon. The moon has low gravity, practically a vacuum for an atmosphere and a surface exposed to meteorites, cosmic radiation and the solar wind.

Edited by flyingswan
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory is stil not used. What you are sayign does not make any difference to that fact.

WRONG, absolutely 100% wrong. It's used every time you look at a map, every time you navigate somewhere, every time you estimate or look up a distance for road travel. Every time you build something. Every time you use a spirit level.. Even every time you look at a ruler and say "that is perfectly straight". The flat earth concept works fine over most everyday distances. It is correct for normal everyday, local use.

You are claiming that flat earth concepts are absolutely useless and can never be used. That's easily, demonstrably wrong and very silly.

What YOU are saying shows that you are, as are most conspiracy believers, of the simplistic view that everything can be divided into a Yes or No scenario. You do not and will not concede that there are different ways to approach problems. You don't understand that concepts that work fine in some situations won't work outside certain constraints, YET are still perfectly suitable and adequately accurate for normal use. It's NOT a ridiculously simple Yes or No situation, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

Unfortunately this type of 'Yes or No', 'with us or against us' type of approach only works in certain situations, too... It only works on gullible and uninformed people - it doesn't work in situations where there are knowledgeable persons about...

I have a simple challenge for you, Coffey. Answer two very easy questions - feel free to use more than Yes or No answers, but try to keep them to the point..

Q. 1 Do you believe Apollo happened substantially as is recorded by history?

Q. 2 If not, what, in your opinion, is the VERY BEST evidence to the contrary?

Then, I'll be delighted to go politely through that evidence with you, in a logical, scientific, step by step fashion, with proper cites and references. That way you can show how well you understand science, and how well you have chosen your smoking gun..

So, rather than tell folks here they don't understand science, how about you show the way?

I hope you I don't make any basic errors at the start - that would be soo embarrassing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{crickets chirp...}

Hey, where'd Coffey go?

Funny, s/he seems to posting merrily on other threads.. Wonder why s/he doesn't like this one any more?

Anyway, if s/he doesn't choose to further engage, I might go back and see what was the last evidence s/he posted, and then I'll work though that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah cause we fall off the edge of the earth.... Oh wait we don't. See the old theory does not stick or work with the new theory.

Didn't flying swan mention that theories aren't replaced by other theories, but rather that a new theory starts working where an old theory breaks down?

So the old "Flat Earth Theory" (which I'm sure I remember hearing somewhere was never widely believed) breaks down when your ship doesn't fall off the edge of the Earth, and so "Round Earth Theory" almost 'patches over' that problem by explaining that the Earth is curved and, therefore, we could never fall off.

Forgive me if I've somehow misread...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{crickets chirp...}

Hey, where'd Coffey go?

Funny, s/he seems to posting merrily on other threads.. Wonder why s/he doesn't like this one any more?

Anyway, if s/he doesn't choose to further engage, I might go back and see what was the last evidence s/he posted, and then I'll work though that...

Troling much?

I have nothign further to discuss, I disagree with you and don't want to waste time discussing soemhting which I have said my opinion on furhter if you don't accept my opinion and prefer to beleive your own.

It doesn't mean you have "won".

If you look at it that way then clearly, you are fighting your own little battle.

I'm not stupid I know we use the whole flat thing when building a house, that doens't prove flat eath theory or that it is used. We build houses flat for structural preaosns and becuas eit's pleasing ont he eye, not because we beelive the area it is built on is flat. In fact we make the area we build on flat to accomadate the house, the same with other structures. So that does not prove we use flat earth theory for small scale things. at all. So seeing as thta doesn't prove my point wrong I am now leaving this thread as beating a dead horse is boring and I'd rather discuss more important issues. It's ncie to know you like following me aorund the forum though. Always tell you are doign soemthing right when you have a stalker.

Edited by Coffey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not stupid I know we use the whole flat thing when building a house, that doens't prove flat eath theory or that it is used.

You seem to be saying here that you know that the flat earth theory is used but that doesn't prove that it is used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be saying here that you know that the flat earth theory is used but that doesn't prove that it is used.

No I said when building ahouse you make it flat. That has nothing to dow ith flat Earth theory.

You make a house flat, by digging into the ground (EARTH) and building a flat foundation, so the house is flat for prosthetic reasons and for balancing objects int he house. If you proceed to emasure a row of houses they will not be the same level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I said when building ahouse you make it flat. That has nothing to dow ith flat Earth theory.

You don't understand the argument, otherwise you would realise that you are contradicting yourself and defeating your own case. It has EVERYTHING to do with the point that Chrlz is making.

You make a house flat, by digging into the ground (EARTH) and building a flat foundation, so the house is flat for prosthetic reasons and for balancing objects int he house. If you proceed to emasure a row of houses they will not be the same level.

This is where you are wrong (well this is one of the many places where you are wrong, but I'll stick with this one for now).

The point is that you are making a flat foundation for a flat based house on a planet which is curved. Hence, for objects as small as a house you do not need to take the curvature of the Earth into account. As you can, quite happily, assume the Earth is flat for constructing a house then on this scale the building work does not need to take into account that the Earth is spherical. On this scale the construction is exactly the same as if the Earth was flat. It, therefore, logically, follows that on this scale the construction is entirely consistent with a flat Earth theory. Not only is the construction consistent with the flat Earth theory but you the spherical Earth theory is totally ignored. Hence for the purposes of house construction you are, effectively, building a house in accordance with the flat Earth theory and NOT in accordance with the spherical Earth theory.

Which is EXACTLY the point Chrlz was making.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't understand the argument, otherwise you would realise that you are contradicting yourself and defeating your own case. It has EVERYTHING to do with the point that Chrlz is making.

This is where you are wrong (well this is one of the many places where you are wrong, but I'll stick with this one for now).

The point is that you are making a flat foundation for a flat based house on a planet which is curved. Hence, for objects as small as a house you do not need to take the curvature of the Earth into account. As you can, quite happily, assume the Earth is flat for constructing a house then on this scale the building work does not need to take into account that the Earth is spherical. On this scale the construction is exactly the same as if the Earth was flat. It, therefore, logically, follows that on this scale the construction is entirely consistent with a flat Earth theory. Not only is the construction consistent with the flat Earth theory but you the spherical Earth theory is totally ignored. Hence for the purposes of house construction you are, effectively, building a house in accordance with the flat Earth theory and NOT in accordance with the spherical Earth theory.

Which is EXACTLY the point Chrlz was making.

Wrong.... If the ground was perfectly flat, you would not need to construct a flat foundation... OR measure using instruments to find out if it is perfectly flat. You would merely measure angles and length/height only, which you do not. By building at a 90 degree angle going by what youa re saying would be enough to determine it is flat. Which is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Verazzano Narrows Bridge - New York

The towers soared 650 feet above the water, while the double-deck roadway was suspended 226 feet high. The main span stretched 4260 feet between towers. These distances are so high and far apart that in designing the bridge it was necessary to take into account the curvature of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troling {sic} much?

Ironyng much?

I have nothign further to discuss

Yes, you adequately showed that with what you posted after this one..

So it's just as well you have nothign {sic} further. It's a real surprise that you would make ignorant claims and then refuse to back *anything* up. :rolleyes:

Oh no, wait, you stayed and posted some more. How ... quaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.