The time has come, the Walrus said, to speak of [Flat Earth] - and other things...

a reply to: merka
No it’s a fish eye lens that’s being used in your video.
There’s tons of videos out there that show there’s no curvature at over a hundred thousand feet.
You need to understand that before any of us went over to the flat earth we all believed in the globe.
I believed in it for sixty years until I looked with an open mind and used common sense.
Why you all seem to think you can talk down to people who believe the earth is flat just show’s ignorance.
Why don’t you do what we do ? Look into it.
I can tell most on this thread haven’t done any research is because of the questions some of you are asking.
Some of you actually still believe we went to the moon. That in itself shows the lack of any research because a couple of hours research will show you we were fooled.
Google the lunar lander. Zoom in on it and tell the truth. Do you really believe this thing flew 238,000 miles. Landed and returned. ?

a reply to: lambros56

"Google the lunar lander. Zoom in on it and tell the truth. Do you really believe this thing flew 238,000 miles. Landed and returned. ?"

This has been explained to you.

Research? Plainly you haven't done any.

www.sciencemuseum.org.uk...
"The lunar module comprised a descent stage with four legs and the crew cabin ascent stage. It looked fragile and unwieldy but was designed to be as light weight as possible and had only to work in the vacuum of space—so it didn’t matter what shape it was—so long as it fitted into the rocket."

a reply to: lambros56

"Google the lunar lander. Zoom in on it and tell the truth. Do you really believe this thing flew 238,000 miles. Landed and returned. ?"

Instead of just Googling pictures of it and coming to an uninformed opinion, why not try Googling on it's design and construction and finding out how it worked?

Like, research?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Did you zoom in ?
Did you see what that thing is made of ?
Does it look airtight to you ?
Would you climb in it and be lowered into a tank of water ?
Zoom in and look over every part of it and tell me it’s airtight.
There’s not one panel that looks sealed.
It looks like a school project from from primary pupils.

a reply to: lambros56

I did more than zoom in.

I researched it's design, construction and materials.

I posted a link for you.

Panel?

Try Googling on the pressurised and sealed crew compartment.

Those panels only had to work in the vacuum of space, not underwater.

Do some proper research.

a reply to: lambros56

The crew compartment was sealed and pressurised.

The rest didn't need to be.

As you can't seem to research this properly, here:

www.howitworksdaily.com...

I’ve done the research. Im pointing out one little thing. The lunar lander.
Forget about the construct and design
You’re another one that hasn’t zoomed in.
Look at it and tell me you’d feel safe in it in a tank of water.
They didn’t even fly it on earth.
They just went up and took a chance.
Yeah okay ….

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Give it up flat earthers!!!!

a reply to: lambros56

"They didn’t even fly it on earth."

It wasn't designed to fly on Earth. It was designed to "fly" in the vacuum of space and not in Earth's gravity.

Not in water, either.

For goodness' sakes.....

No, I won't forget about it's design and construction.

Like a sealed and pressurised crew compartment.

a reply to: lambros56

I have done more than zoom in on Google photos. I have posted actual stuff.

Here, "research" this:

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment


Here's the long range infrared footage proving yet again that empirical evidence supports the flat Earth hypothesis. Again, I am not a physicist, and I do not have the benefit of the data which large advanced government bodies have, so I do not understand all the nuances of our environment - but the basics can be understood simply with reference to straightforward photographic testing.

Explain this please, or acknowledge that a huge & highly sophisticated disinformation campaign has been waged for ninety plus years.

I am, or rather I'm an Applied Mathematician which is basically physics.

It's not common knowledge but it is a common phenomenon caused by temperature inversion that allows you to see 'over' the horizon as the inversion effect acts like a periscope but heat differences are causing the refraction instead of mirrors - It also magnifies objects in the far distance and makes them appear far larger than they are.

In pyhsics it's called an superior mirage or more commonly known as 'fata morgana'. If there's more than a 10C temperature difference within a 100m distance on the vertical plane then light is bent to a greater degree than the curvature of the Earth and causes the mirage.

I only heard of it a few years back but there's hundreds of photos of the phenomenom showing ships and islands floating in mid air or you can visit a beach or lake on a hot day and witness the effect yourself if lucky. I live on the UK coast and can see a wind farm that's around 70 miles away and various oil rigs on a clear still day and only visible when the effect occurs

There's a good explanation of the effect on this site and the effect has a really interesting history to it and contains good pictures and video showing the effect: Fata Morgana

There's a more Physics heavy lecture/explanation of it here but it's very maths/physics heavy and makes it look far more complicated and innacessible than the subject

WARNING DIRECT PDF FILE - British Columbia University Library Physics of Atmospheric Objects

Completely legitimate link but can't find a version that won't automatically open the PDF - the diagrams give a decent overview of the physics behind it.

a reply to: lambros56

You do realise that zooming in to pictures of pieces of equipment you obviously don't understand hardly constitutes proof of anything, and is called an opinion.

As to safety, back then and even in this day of age, was not the main priority at NASA, but getting the job done inside a margin of risk.

Risks that the crew was willing to take.

a reply to: lambros56

The guys that "flew" in it had balls. Test pilots have balls.

They weren't health and safety worrying snowflakes.

originally posted by: lambros56
a reply to: merka
No it’s a fish eye lens that’s being used in your video.
There’s tons of videos out there that show there’s no curvature at over a hundred thousand feet.
You need to understand that before any of us went over to the flat earth we all believed in the globe.
I believed in it for sixty years until I looked with an open mind and used common sense.
Why you all seem to think you can talk down to people who believe the earth is flat just show’s ignorance.
Why don’t you do what we do ? Look into it.
I can tell most on this thread haven’t done any research is because of the questions some of you are asking.
Some of you actually still believe we went to the moon. That in itself shows the lack of any research because a couple of hours research will show you we were fooled.
Google the lunar lander. Zoom in on it and tell the truth. Do you really believe this thing flew 238,000 miles. Landed and returned. ?

What do you mean "no"?

I already described how lens distortion work.

Show me all those videos and I'll tell you the same answer for all of them - the curvature of the earth is still subtle at that low height above the Earth, but at the center line where lens distortion is minimal you still the most accurate curvature. Most flat earthers will look at it below the center line and go "OMG FLAT!!!". Duh. That's how a fisheye lens work, it not only make something flat a curve, it also makes something that curves flat.

Regarding the lunar lander, no I dont believe that.

Obviously it used the huge honking Saturn rocket to get out of orbit, then the command module when into orbit around the moon as the lunar module landed. When it returned to the command module, it left a huge chunk behind. Then it was the command module that returned and ultimately just a small portion of that which landed on Earth carrying the astronauts.

Believing that spindly little lunar module flew straight up from a runway by magic or whatever was needed for that and landed on the moon would be ridiculous. The logistics behind just getting it there was insane. It didnt just pop into existance on the moon and flew back.

It's like... take a regular Tesla. I question whether an average person would even be able to gather the copper for one of the wires in a day - digging a copper mine without even knowing where to dig or how mining work is probably hard. Or figure out how to make the plastic surrounding it without having any clue what even plastic is. And then figure out how to actually make it safe for the electric current needed. That's long before we start getting into more... technical... details.

Yet factories can output THOUSANDS of those things daily.

This is one of the basic fallacies that keep popping up with flat earthers. "I cant see how anyone could do that, so nobody can because it's impossible!".

By the same logic, a Tesla is impossible. Yet they exist. Some would even argue it's a simple car.

When you got a large enough organisation and basicly infinite money humans can accomplish quite alot. Especially when they think the gains outweigh the risks to the point they are willing to die for it.

a reply to: lambros56

i.pinimg.com...

CLICK THIS. This is how the carried the LM into space. then th ecommand module pulled it out and it and the LM flew to the moon. they entered orbit,then went down to the moon surface. then after a bit,they blasted off in the return stage to orbit,connected back up to the lunar ascent module,took the cargo and left the ascent module in orbit or something.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

"Do you really believe this thing flew 238,000 miles. Landed and returned. ?"

It didn't fly to the Moon on it's own and it didn't return.

The ascent stage took off and rendevoud with the Command Module and was then jettisoned.

The other half was left on the Moon.

Research?

Try doing some for a change.

Deny Ignorance.

originally posted by: ATSAlex

+10000000000000

never seen that pic before or that eclipse coming to think of it

Was just thinking that it would be difficult to play Risk™ on a Globe™.

Perhaps the little Army™ pieces could be magnetized, but the players couldn't see the whole game surface.

Maybe we're just dumb drones in a game of Mega-Risk™, and the players wanna see the whole game-area ?

Flat-bed trucks don't really have flat beds.
It's a lie !
A scam !

Don't believe those Logistics™ companies !

They work with... you know who ...


Don't believe anything they tell you !

a reply to: Nothin

Love Risk. But has caused lots of family strife - "Why are you attacking me and not her"? And so on.