Rocks remember, and so do we

“Geologists have a saying: rocks remember.” –Neil Armstrong

Looming up above us, hundreds of thousands of miles away, is the largest moon in the inner solar system: our Moon.

Moon and Apollo 11 landing site

Image credit: © 2004 by Ulli and Christian 'Pete' Lotzmann.

One of the greatest achievements in the history of our planet culminated on July 20th, 1969, when the first creatures from our world set foot on the Moon, becoming — as far as we know — the first creatures to ever willingly leave their own world and land on another.

Armstrong descending to take the first steps on the Moon

Image credit: NASA, of Neil Armstrong's descent towards the lunar surface.

The honor of the first step went to Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong, who took a small step for himself, but heralded a metaphorical giant leap forward for mankind. Earlier today, Neil Armstrong died at the age of 82, and though he is but one man, he leaves behind not just one but two worlds full of memories. He was known as a man of few words, but the ones he said were often memorable.

There was the Earth…

All three Apollo 11 Astronauts with Barack Obama

Image credit: NASA / Getty Images North America.

“It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn’t feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.” –Neil Armstrong

And the Moon…

Buzz on the Moon with "The Eagle"

Image credit: NASA / Apollo 11, photo by Neil Armstrong.

“This is one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” –Neil Armstrong

And everywhere in between.

Neil returning from the Moon

Image credit: NASA / Apollo 11 / Buzz Aldrin, of Neil after his historic moonwalk.

“The important achievement of Apollo was demonstrating that humanity is not forever chained to this planet and our visions go rather further than that and our opportunities are unlimited.” -Neil Armstrong

Almost all the photos of astronauts on the Moon from the Apollo 11 mission were of Buzz Aldrin, as Neil Armstrong had the responsibility of most of the mission photography tasks with a single Hasselblad camera. But there is one photo I’ve found — that is my absolute favorite — of Neil Armstrong on the Moon.

Buzz Aldrin on the Lunar Surface

Image credit: NASA / Neil Armstrong.

Sure, that’s Buzz Aldrin in the spacesuit, but look hard. Look closer at Buzz’s helmet; it’s amazing what a partially reflective surface can do when the Sun’s at the right angle.

Image credit: NASA / Neil Armstrong.

That’s Neil, back by “The Eagle,” the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, reflected in Buzz Aldrin’s helmet.

The only lunar Self-Portrait I know of.

Image credit: NASA / Neil Armstrong. The only lunar Self-Portrait I know of.

For his final task on the Moon, he left a small package filled with items memorializing previously deceased pioneers in space exploration, including Soviet cosmonauts Yuri Gagarin and Vladimir Komarov, and Apollo 1 astronauts Gus GrissomEd White and Roger Chaffee. Now it’s Neil’s turn, and our turn to memorialize him. His family released the following statement:

“For those who may ask what they can do to honor Neil, we have a simple request. Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink.”

You can bet I’ll be doing exactly that for quite some time, whenever the clouds part at night and I can see the Moon. Rocks remember, and so will we. Rest in Peace, Neil Armstrong.

Comments

  1. #1 Mark V2
    August 25, 2012

    “Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty”…I think you do this, Ethan. So thanks to you and Neil both.

  2. #2 pirtle
    August 25, 2012

    This is a really beautiful post, Ethan. Thank you for sharing it with us. Neil will be very missed, but surely never forgotten.

  3. #3 Mike
    Maui, Hawaii
    August 25, 2012

    I remember what I was doing the moment he stepped onto the moon. Knowing how dangerous space travel has proven to be, it is a miracle that these guys made it. I honor Neil Armstrong for his courage and accomplishments.

  4. #4 Michel
    astromenorca.org
    August 26, 2012

    Neil and all his collegues, before and after, the landing, are the people who facsinated me as a kid and gave me a wonder and exitement for the universe, space and earth.
    For that I thank Neil and all who made it possible, from the cantina man who made sure they ate well all the way up.
    Yes, it was a indeed a small step for man (I think it was a bit bigger), but indead a giant leap for mankind.
    Again, thank you Neil!!
    Bon voyage.

  5. #5 Michel
    astromenorca.org
    August 26, 2012

    Oh and btw.
    I so remember what I was doing when he landed!
    I was in front of the TV!!!
    With a “don´t sit so close in front of the tv it will ruin your eyes” behind me.
    Moms…

  6. #6 10 Minutes of Terror
    August 26, 2012

    This is one shot, starting about 10 minutes before touch down. Seen trough the right window of Lunar Module (LM). Landing on the Sea of Tranquility : 20 July 1969 20:17,40 UTC.

    Video starts at 40 000 ft above the Moon surface. “You are go to Continued Power Descent”.

    youtube.com/watch?v=2BvbD-1qZtc

  7. #7 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    The depressing bit for me was that I’m remembering him for his “There’s no such thing as Global Warming” schtick as landing on the Moon.

  8. #8 chelle
    August 26, 2012

    For me “The Eagle has landed.” is his the most catchy quote. I often think of it when haven taken a flight to somewhere and all wheels are ‘back’ on the ground.

    btw it’s a bit weird that you also mention the small package with items from the deceased Apollo 1 astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee. They are my inspiration why I find the *sparks* that are being generated by ever increasing high energy colliders, to be a hazardous thing. And why I question some parts of science that doesn’t like to take the time to slow down and reflect for a moment, because of peer pressure and the race for knowledge that we’re on. Here’s a clip about that tragic accident and the situation from a documentary made by Ron Howard:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8chx10UbI8

    With thousands of years still in front of us why the nervous rush?

  9. #9 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    How do you know they haven’t contemplated it?

    By the fact that, despite your discomfort on the subject, they go ahead?

    Not really evidence led, is it.

  10. #10 10 Minutes of Terror
    August 26, 2012

    @wow
    You are a .facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=435906653115430&set=a.116008071771958.7699.111607872211978&type=1&theater

  11. #11 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    Thank you.

  12. #12 chelle
    August 26, 2012

    > “How do you know they haven’t contemplated it?”

    A. They don’t keep in mind that the HiggsField/DarkMatter/DarkEnergy (Aether) could transfer energy, from the collision-center on to the surrounding matter, disrupting the inner-dynamics and energy-exchange within those atoms.

    B. They don’t look at the high frequency & density collision difference that is a 10^9 higher in the lab than in nature, they only compare it to single cosmic-rays collisions.

    C. I do give it some thought but it is waved away as being loony, why would someone with a name in science than risk his career with bringing up this idea, and slowing down a whole research industry. It first needs to happen to no sound ridiculous, there’s a twist to it. My only reference is that a chain-reaction is possible on all levels above the sub-atomic world. Anyway, we do see many (types) of Supernovae in the Universe. Who says that one type isn’t induced by civilizations like ours, that strive and evolve up to the point that we are; building ever stronger colliders to research the components and mechanisms of matter, only to find themselves igniting, and ending up within, one giant blast. Doing science is not without any risk and we are now at temperatures that are the hottest in the Universe, 100 000 times more tense than the heart of the Sun, and with an enormous frequency rate, and we keep on increasing luminosity. So who know’s one day these generated *Sparks* might be strong enough to set-off a combustion process.

  13. #13 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    “HiggsField/DarkMatter/DarkEnergy (Aether)”

    Those aren’t the aether.

    “They don’t look at the high frequency & density collision”

    Yes they did. How the heck do you think they arrived at the design of the project in the first place?

    “I do give it some thought”

    No you don’t. You give it some fear.

    “but it is waved away as being loony”

    Ever considered it may be actually loony?

  14. #14 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    Alan, you seem to think that somehow your response was some valid response to the sentence you quoted.

    It wasn’t.

  15. #15 Alan L.
    August 26, 2012

    @ Wow
    The depressing bit for me was that I’m remembering him for his “There’s no such thing as Global Warming” schtick as landing on the Moon.

    You are such a shi++y troll.

    Please buzz off.

  16. #16 Chelle
    August 26, 2012

    “You give it some fear.”

    It’s a matter of being alert. You care about Global Warming with a few degrees here and there, melting the polar ice. While I like to keep an eye on these *sparks* that have the most intense luminosity in our Universe. In a way we are both prudent about our Blue Planet.

  17. #17 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    Nope, you’re completely ignorant.

    You give it some fear.

    “You care about Global Warming with a few degrees here and there, melting the polar ice”

    “a few degrees here and there” is the difference between a glacial and interglacial. Three degrees overall is the difference between the two.

    And no, it’s not “melting the polar ice”. Rather like worrying about malnutrition “causing a little bit of peckishness in europe”.

  18. #18 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    ” While I like to keep an eye on these *sparks* that have the most intense luminosity in our Universe.”

    Nope, incorrect.

    You even once admitteed yourself that this is merely the luminosity that hasn’t been ***UNIVERSAL*** since the early moments of the Big Bang.

  19. #19 Chelle
    August 26, 2012

    In both case it is the intervention of mankind that destroys or could destroy the delicate balance of nature. Take care.

  20. #20 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    Except in the case of global warming, the evidence is solid. In the case of the LHC, nonexistent.

    In fact the only evidence we have shows it is NOT going to disturb, let alone destroy, the delicate balance of nature. A nature that has supernovas and hypernovas and particles streaming onto the earth at energies a thousand times larger than the energies of the LHC is not going to be destroyed by the LHC.

    Take medication.

  21. #21 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    Wow
    August 24, 4:08 am

    And why do you insist on asking “is it possible” questions that are little more than “is it possible that I will be crushed to death by falling hippopotomi by tuesday 3pm?”?

    The answer would be “no” except for patently worthless values of “yes”.

  22. #22 Chelle
    August 26, 2012

    “A nature that has supernovas and hypernovas and particles streaming onto the earth at energies a thousand times larger than the energies of the LHC …”

    That’s true, but the frequency & density at the LHC is 1 billion times higher than in nature. That’s why they only mention Micro Black Holes or Stranglets in the report, because they should come out of single events, and not at something like a shower of sparks that could cause a combustion process, like how it is also used to ignite the engine of the rockets that NASA uses. The difference in the concentration level is immense (10^9), just like how a magnifying glass bundles light / energy into one area, or the ignition of a car.

  23. #23 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    “but the frequency & density at the LHC is 1 billion times higher than in nature”

    A meaningless statement.

    There are places today with a thousand times greater flux than the LHC (energy density).

    But the average place doesn’t. And you’ll use that to proclaim your “billion times” correct.

    You have latched on, yet again, to a meaningless point and thereby rendered “you’re wrong” as the only conclusion.

  24. #24 chelle
    August 26, 2012

    “There are places today with a thousand times greater flux than the LHC (energy density).”

    A greater concentration, where?

    In nature there are about a thousand cosmic-ray collisions of a few GeV’s (1 GeV= 10^9 electron Volt) per second per m^2. In LHC it are about one 1 billion per second per cm^2. That’s 1.000.000 times more for a surface which is 10.000 smaller, a density difference of 10 billion.

    By the end of this year we humans are going to generate collisions on this planet, that are even 1000 times more intense, with energies of 8 TeV (1 TeV= 10^12 eV). These collisions are in nature even less frequent per m^2 while the frequency at the LHC of 1 billion per cm^2 is maintained.

    btw look at this table to make a comparison in temperature:
    http://tinyurl.com/temperature-list

  25. #25 Michael Haubrich
    Central Coast
    August 26, 2012

    I shall wink as soon as the clouds clear in Minneapolis. Hope it is tonight.

  26. #26 Sinisa Lazarek
    August 26, 2012

    Just heard it yesterday on the news :( RIP Neil.

  27. #27 OKThen
    Unintended consequences
    August 26, 2012

    Chelle
    Good discussion. Concept driven. Kept it at that level and I for one will appreciate it; regardless of whether I share your opinion.

    As much as I can I try to keep out of the shouting matches.

    Thanks for that Ron Howard documentary clip.

    Somehow dangers and risks and etc.. seem necessary for mankind’s progress. And when we see clear risks, we should mitigate them whenever possible.

    As far as the LDC, I personally think that we are progressing at a very cautious snails pace. We should have built three of them not one.

    Compared to the world’s current nuclear power plants the LHC is extremely safe. And compared to climate change, the LHC will have zero environmental impact on planet earth.

    But again, I do appreciate your reasoned arguments. thanks.
    And yes unintended consequences are by definition very difficult to predict.

  28. #28 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    ““There are places today with a thousand times greater flux than the LHC (energy density).”

    A greater concentration, where?”

    Here:

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

    “In LHC it are about one 1 billion per second per cm^2″

    Yup, so? The GCRs are produced not from the empty space but from some localised event like a supernova and accelerated. Since the volume of space compared to the volume of space occupied by the sources of GCRs, the concentration of such events at those places are ASTRONOMICALLY higher.

    Oddly enough, the universe still exists.

    Also you’re COMPLETELY forgetting that these are random events. Therefore the chance of a sixteen-sigma event of concentration in the LHC is practically nil over its lifetime, whereas the chance of it happening over the lifetime of the earth by GCRs is a billion times higher.

    Yet, somehow, this planet still survived.

    And guess what? Despite running, the world HAS NOT ENDED.

  29. #29 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    Actuall, found out the target size is 20 microns across.

    The flux therefore is 4/100,000th of a cm^2.

    And GCRs go beyond 10^21eV, not merely 10^9’s. But I guess when you have as little valid reason for scaremongering, you’ve gotta go with a big lie, haven’t you?

  30. #30 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    And remember too, the location that is getting this “bombardment” either

    a) doesn’t exist, if it’s the target location annhialation/collision

    or

    b) moving EXTREMELY quickly though space, never the same spot twice, if you’re talking about the spacetime rather than the material (which was annhialated as per discussion above).

  31. #31 Chelle
    August 26, 2012

    OKThen,

    Thanks for the compliment, and yes perhaps the LHC is still pretty safe, but when you make up a safety report I think it should be included, because combustion is a very normal process, and we know now for sure that the vacuum in which these collisions happen contains a substance. And its a bit like *Lightning* that doesn’t come without Thunder.

    __

    Wow,

    In point C at my post at 5:56 am I actually suggested that an ignition that leads to a combustion process might instigate one kind of Supernova, there are many different types, and nearly every 50 years there is one in our Milky Way.

    Yes, there are ‘Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays’ , but these are very rare events only a few per year over the whole sky. And we don’t know what those events actually are, because some of them appear to possess energies that are theoretically too high.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray

    Regarding the ‘target size of 20 microns across’, yes, but for an experiment like the Double-slit the space in-between the slits is much larger than those 20 microns, and still the opening of the second slit has its effect.

    btw you can light a cigarette or whatever while, “moving EXTREMELY quickly though space”, so?

  32. #32 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    “I actually suggested that an ignition that leads to a combustion process might instigate one kind of Supernova”

    And that suggestion is rather like suggesting that throwing bullets at an elephant could cause it to learn to play piano.

    “Yes, there are ‘Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays’ ”

    You had to be told that before you knew that. Odd. Innit.

    “btw you can light a cigarette or whatever while, “moving EXTREMELY quickly though space””

    No you can’t. You need oxygen to cause ignition.

    There’s no ignition in space.

    Or do you mean that the atmosphere of the earth is moving with it?

    Well, that means you’re saying that option (a) is operating.

    Except the mass that is there is obliterated from the target area on the very first collision.

    Therefore there is ONLY ONE EVENT. The other events are on OTHER masses.

    And GCRs do the exact same thing. But at energies a million times bigger.

    And no death of the universe.

  33. #33 Sinisa Lazarek
    August 26, 2012

    guys, why can’t we keep the posts related to topic?? The passing of Neil Armstrong has nothing to do with LHC.

    Chelle, we know how you feel about LHC (regardless if it’s justified or not), and you&wow have been over this over and over on the posts before. Why repeat it again here??

  34. #34 chelle
    August 26, 2012

    Sinisa,

    You are right. Although, I thought that my first comment (and clip) at 1:59 am was ‘on topic’ in relation to how those 3 other astronauts passed away.

  35. #35 Sinisa Lazarek
    August 26, 2012

    I have nothing against the clip and 1st post. It’s a nice addition, but what followed after was same old same old… let’s stick to topic :)

  36. #36 Chelle
    August 26, 2012

    … same old same old…

    Yes, the problem is also ‘Wow’ with his compulsive behavior, who starts filling up the comment section here with 2 or even 3 posts at a time, instead of just taking his time, and wait before pressing “Submit Comment”.

  37. #37 Wow
    August 26, 2012

    Who’d’a guessed. It was my fault for her post at 1:59.

    Not only am I a Professor Xavier, I can also TRAVEL IN TIME!!!

  38. #38 skeith
    August 26, 2012

    Chelle:

    Leave it to you to turn an otherwise-beautiful memorial post into yet another dissertation on your irrational and uncomprehending terror of things you don’t care to understand, based on your TV-trope stereotypes of scientists and science.

    Build that Aether engine, man. Then you’ll have proven all of us wrong. You want to be the Galileo of our time – it will be super-easy to gather accolades for your genius once you build your Aether engine and demonstrate it. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

  39. #39 chelle
    August 26, 2012

    skeith,

    My first post was very on topic, because those 3 Astronauts where first choice to land on the moon, and nobody would have talked about Neil Armstrong if it wasn’t for a *spark*, and the race that was on, and peer pressure and the fear to ask questions, look at that clip. Just like you also proved point C of my comment at August 26, 5:56 am:

    “C. I do give it some thought but it is waved away as being loony, why would someone with a name in science than risk his career with bringing up this idea …”

    And an ‘Aether engine’ is something that you funny enough made up, but still the Vacuum is filled up with matter: HiggsField, DarkMatter and DarkEnergy; that I groupname ‘Aether’, and that most likely transfers energy from those collisions on to the matter that surrounds it. So it isn’t a ‘TV-trope’ question to ask what IS going on during those collisions with a frequency & density that is 10^9 times above normal, those are facts.

  40. #40 Wow
    August 27, 2012

    “My first post was very on topic, ”

    “I find the *sparks* that are being generated by ever increasing high energy colliders, to be a hazardous thing.”

    Yes.

  41. #41 Angel Gabriel
    Here and now
    August 27, 2012

    Do not mourn the passing of the dead
    Nor expect them to be reborn in paradise
    Simply remember who they are
    Ever appreciated; ever near at heart
    Neither galaxy nor heartbeat is too far to feel
    Their story is never too old
    Rich in excitement and struggle
    Breath deep, feel their wonder and honor

  42. #42 riomar9
    USA
    May 4, 2015

    Did they, not WE, THEY, really go to the moon? I’m surprised that such intelligent men that you yourselves are? can STILL continue believing anyone has ever gone to the moon. When are you intellects going to wake up? People from NASA plainly divulge the TRUTH to everyone very clearly in the following video called: INDIA LEADS TO TRUE FLAT EARTH – NASA LEADS TO BS AND THE DOME.

    Watch for yourselves and see if these NASA PEOPLE are talking bullshit when they CLEARLY, and without a shadow of a doubt, EXPLAIN WHY: NO ONE HAS EVER, EEEVERRRR…GONE TO THE MOON!!!!
    WAKE UP from your slumber in FAIRY TAIL-LAND!
    In case you’re not interested in the FLAT EARTH theory, which is EXTREMELY interesting, and probably TRUE, than just watch the first 40 seconds of the video, then skip to 4:10 on video timer.
    To those MANY of you who have still not seen this video, all I can say is: Sorry to burst your bubble with this wonderful, TRUTHFUL video!
    NO MOON LANDINGS, OR WALKING, or SKINNY DIPPING ON IT!
    It has ALL been a disgusting HOAX!!!! Billions upon BILLIONS of $$$$$DOLLARS, and MORE, has NASA gotten from the population in the GOOD OLE” USA for their expensive toys to play around with…Yea, and to deceive the FLAT WORLD ZOMBIES!!!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eJLag-n33c

  43. #43 Wow
    May 5, 2015

    “Did they, not WE, THEY, really go to the moon?”

    They did.

    You’re a lunatic.

  44. #44 PJ
    Perth, west Oz
    May 5, 2015

    That’s riomars 2nd posting with the same crap …

    riomar9 on Mostly Mute Monday: A final view from the Moon (Synopsis)

    Must be limited in the ‘ think’ department. Flatearthers, huh !
    Easier to ignore the SOBs.

  45. #45 Sean T
    May 5, 2015

    riomar9,

    Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what a “cat’s eye reflector” is, but it is a device that allows a laser beam to be sent to it, bounce off it, and return in the direction from which it came. We can shoot a laser beam at a specific spot on the moon, and the beam will return to the place from which it was sent. Are you seriously contending that this is a natural phenomenon, and not a cat’s eye reflector that was placed on the moon by the Apollo astronauts?

  46. #46 riomar9
    USA
    May 5, 2015

    You obviously didn’t watch the video, and if you did, you’re just too scared of the disappointing TRUTH of the matter regarding the BS, of THEY, having EVER gone to the moon…huh? As usual, the TRUTH and a hurt pride is just so hard to accept by many, as it is so apparent with you by your demented replies.
    It’s not MY fault if you can’t handle the TRUTH. It wasn’t ME who recorded the video, it was YOUR HEROES from NASA, YOUR OWN HEROES!
    Being stuck in ZOMBIE-land is obviously much easier and more comfortable for you, but it doesn’t matter, the NASA video, the NASA hoaxers you wish to continue believing, supporting and admiring so much, NO MATTER WHAT, explain to ALL, as CLEAR AS DAYLIGHT, boys, as to WHY they have NOT, as of yet, been able to go to the moon, much less anywhere else, yet you prefer to say I’m the lunatic? Oh You’re so hurt. If you are not able to be convinced even by your own NASA heroes when they’re throwing the TRUTH right at your face, than I can only feel so very sorry for you for being so mesmerized with the whole bullshit about THEM going to, landing, walking and skinny dipping on the moon, oh, and another thing, also sticking a flag on the supposed surface of the moon, which afterwards starts to move back and forth in a place that should be void of ANY AIR OR WIND WHATSOEVER, TO MOVE THE THING!!!! Who’s the lunatic…really?
    I’m only informing you about what THEY recorded for ALL who wish to not only see, but to ALREADY KNOW THE TRUTH about the FAKE trips!!!! Again, I so sorry I burst your bubble, disturbed your comfort, and hurt your feelings and pride, and that with just a TINY BIT of NASA info. Get the hell out of the box in which you’ve been entombed for so long already brothers and sisters.
    For now, have a nice depressing day, but get over it as quickly as possible…K? Please don’t blame ME, blame THEM, “YOUR NASA HEROES”, and only accept the TRUTH for what it is. If you don’t like the video-info I posted, than write to NASA, simple as that…
    OH HOW SWEET IS THE TRUTH!!!

    I believe that it is better to tell the TRUTH, than a lie.
    I believe it is better to be FREE, than to be a slave.
    And I believe it is better to KNOW, than to be IGNORANT!!!
    H. L. Mencken

    The truth is incontrovertible.
    Malice may attack it,
    Ignorance may deride it,
    but in the end, there it is.
    Winston Churchill

  47. #47 riomar
    USA
    May 6, 2015

    To answer Sean T, You nor I, nor anyone else outside of NASA, the HOAXERS, ever saw anyone place ANYTHING or any such reflector on the moon, period! For decades they have said and shown myriads of things over the controlled news media to make people like yourself believe ANYTHING, THEY say. As Rogan said: there’s a movie out there about a 40 foot gorilla standing on top of the Empire State building. Do YOU believe that that gorilla is, or was ever really up there standing on top of that building? Come on man! The video I posted for you to check out proves it, again, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, they were NEVER on the moon. I used to believe it, but there”s now a lot of researched-info out there, done by many intelligent, sophisticated, well educated people, such as yourselves, out there regarding the hoaxes, but it’s not MY fault my friend. Finding bits and pieces of TRUTH doesn’t bother me one bit at all the way it obviously has, so very much, bothered and demented some of you on this really nice site. So some, right express their maddening-rage with ridiculous insults, instead of having an open mind, which is so desperately needed in this out times. That really sad.

  48. #48 Wow
    May 6, 2015

    “and if you did, you’re just too scared of the disappointing TRUTH of the matter regarding the BS”

    No, it was complete and utter bollocks. Not a shred of validity nor even sanity.

  49. #49 Sean T
    May 6, 2015

    So what’s the TRUTH riomar9? (See I can write in all caps too; it doesn’t make my point any better). Why is it that if we shoot a laser at one spot on the moon, the beam bounces back to us (we can even measure the time it takes for it to make the round trip and thereby get a very accurate measurement of the distance to the moon), and if we shine a laser at ANY OTHER PLACE ON THE MOON (see all caps again!) it just bounces randomly off into space? What natural feature of the moon accounts for that behavior? Or is it more logical to believe that astronauts really were there and that they really did place a cat’s eye reflector on the moon?

  50. #50 riomar9
    USA
    May 6, 2015

    To Wow and everyone else who is so hurt: So you ‘re saying there’s no validity to the videos I have directed you to with the URL I posted, even though you so capriciously defend the NASA hoaxers? You say there is no validity to what I posted which I got from the genuine video-ads, are you saying they are wrong on what they talk about and divulge in the videos, and you, who are so insanely pissed off, the ones who are right? Please answer the question TRUTHFULLY..K?

  51. #51 riomar9
    USA
    May 6, 2015

    Sean T, As you well know, CAPITALS are a way to EMPHASIZE a point, especially when persons such as yourself and Mr. WOW just seem to be so hard-headed and plainly don’t, or CAN”T accept the truth for what it is. To repeat myself… THEY said what THEY said, and NOT ME, get it?
    So, to answer your question, (partially), I would say it would best and more logical if you, (and the whoever else there is who seem to not want to UNDERSTAND the whole thing regarding my original post) would just watch the video over and over until it is recorded or fully ingrained in your head, so Please don’t ask questions without having really looked at the video enough times. To repeat myself…THEY said what THEY said on the videos, and NOT ME. I hope you do or will understand, just don’t go all crazy on me about it and lets just get along with one another. I don’t mind learning something from you all, even though I can’t be on the computer too long cause I have a fam and other responsibilities, but if I have any questions I hope you all can help me out with your answers, for I know you all are very intelligent and more than likely, you will be able to answer them for me, but let’s do it in good terms, K?
    As good ole’ Charlie Rich’s old Song says: Keep On Rolling With The Flow, check it out, I know some of you out there will like it just as much as I do, and always have since I first heard it.
    Finally, I’m planning on posting some other stuff whenever I’m able to, and if it’s ok with Ethan? I just hope you all don’t get all overly upset about it, cause there’s nothing wrong with discovering whatever pieces of truth may be out there for us to think about. Anyway, Good day//night my friends, and be well.

  52. #52 PJ
    Perth, west Oz
    May 6, 2015

    Promoting and provoking argument is not what this blog is about. We are all trying to learn as best we can, without having to wade through the dross. Whatever we believe is our personal belief and does not need to be attacked. Join in the conversations without malice. You may learn something as well.

  53. #53 Wow
    May 7, 2015

    It’s what riomar is about, thouhg.

    Because they’re either

    a) under religious ecstasy
    b) wanting to troll
    c) wanting to disrupt
    e) nuts

    rioblah, go here where you won’t pollute this thread with your claims:

    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/…/weekend-diversion-you-are-responsible-for-what-you-say/

    Read above the line, comprehend what it means, and post only there on this subject.

  54. #54 Sean T
    May 7, 2015

    You still haven’t answered my question. Why does a laser pointed to a particular spot on the moon bounce right back at us while a laser beam pointed at any other spot on the moon just bounce off in a random direction into space? What possible natural phenomenon accounts for that fact? Unless you can satisfactorily answer that question (and some others, such as why do images taken of the moon by some of our space telescopes show what look suspiciously like the lunar modules, for instance), you will not be taken seriously. Your points are not valid ones, no matter how much you write in all caps.

    You are promoting an idea that is, to be polite, far outside of the mainstream of modern science. Rather than just shut down such, ahem, non-mainstream discussion, the owner of this blog has provided a forum for such discussion. Wow has pointed you to that forum in his post above. I would strongly suggest that you make use of it if you wish to consider promoting your unusual idea.

  55. #55 riomar9
    USA
    May 8, 2015

    Sean T, (and the rest of you), I’ll answer your question, but first, I really don’t or didn’t mean to upset anyone, but as Ethan says in the comments policy, that, anyone can post anything here, as long as we follow rules, which by the looks of it, at least one of you has already broke them by calling me an SOB, so what’s with that?
    I posted info I saw regarding a video which had something to do, or IS related to the supposed landings and/or flights to the moon in which you so much believe, and which pics are here posted in this page. But if you prefer to continue believing everything they’ve put out in the past, and presently still continue putting out for all to see, it’s up to you. I really thought the video should’ve been of great interest to you, that is if you had only tried to at least be a little more open minded, don’t you think? You love NASA, so why can’t you accept what they themselves say in those video-ads? That’s all I wished to know, but I just don’t understand why you all got so upset about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with spreading what I consider to be TRUTHFUL info, is there, especially when, at long last, is coming from NASA itself?
    You wish to continue drinking all the cool aid they throw at you, go ahead, be my guest, but I also don’t understand why you would take it to the point of sending people with a different opinion such as mine, (even though it’s related to the moon pics and trips and all of that, in this particular page) to another section that’s probably not related to this particular subject, I don’t know yet, I have to see, or maybe I’ll just leave you guys alone in your comfort zone? But it’s ok, I just never thought you all would be so upset and closed-minded, that’s all. Anyway, to me, as I’ve said, especially after watching videos after videos, and and other media, being analyzed by well educated people such as yourselves…seriously, and proving, (without a shadow of a doubt to me, and many, many others), through their analysis, that the trips to moon were faked, therefore, NASA, from now on, as far as I’m concerned, will, continue to be a bunch of HOAXERS, and have been for many decades, cause it amounts to fraud, deception and thievery from them against us all. It’s all a virtual reality game to them, with a lot of fakery in my humblest opinion, and we’re paying for it.
    While I still had some doubts about the moon trips being hoaxes, I finally became very disappointed myself when I fist saw the video-ad where the astronaut and the engineer both explain, very clearly and most definitely, why they have, as of yet, not been able to go to moon, much less anywhere else.
    Anyway, Sean T, the answer to your question can also be automatically answered by simply you (and the rest who disagree with me) saying, or ADMITTING that you all believe the videos are hoaxes, I just don’t understand why you and the other guys would do that – deny something from someone you believe and support so much…NASA! Indeed, it really does seem to me like you all believe do that, (just as I believe they never went to the moon), even though it was put out by NASA.
    You cannot be accepting from them only what is convenient to you. By you refusing to accept what the NASA astronaut and the NASA engineer say, translates into an extremely radical negation from you all in my point of view, and are being extremely selfishly closed-minded, that’s the way I see it..

    So now Sean T, the answer to your question is that, based on what I’ve seen and heard so far, especially in the video-ads, they never left any multi-eyed pussy cat mirror on the moon, because they have never been there, it’s all a bunch of BS, simple as that.
    But why get all riled up about it when you all also disagree with one another on some things as I have seen. Even debating or arguing about the metric system and stuff like that.
    To continue with the answer regarding the multi-eyed pussycat mirrors, those kind of measurement, much more so now in this days and times, can very easily be experimented with and simulated in a humongous building with fake or prototype moons, just as they can very easily simulate flying huge planes with a huge plane simulator prototype. With those type of simulations they are still able to acquire a great deal of data which they can work with to get a good idea regarding the answers they may be looking for in the type of research they are working on, (having to do with the moon and other stuff). That’s what I believe, and wish, you yourselves, would be much more open-minded about all this, cause we are IN FACT, living in a government hoax-galore time, whether you wish to accept it or not. They ARE indeed HOAXERS!

    Good day//night and best regards to all of you my BROTHERS AND SISTERS!…and God Bless…also good bye in case I don’t post anything here in this site anymore cause I don’t also with to upset you with more TRUTHS.. Take care. Believe you me…Truth is SWEET!

    A somewhat shortened statement from Tyson Degrass:
    The earth is not round, its shape is more an oblate spheroid…no, it’s more like a PEAR!

    Wow!!!! Still I always see the earth pics, (even though there’s actually only ONE pic by NASA from long ago, (which is FAKE), (even saw some of them here in this site already), are always as round as a PERFECTLY…ROUND BALL!!!!
    Who is telling the truth…NASA, or Degrass? At least think about that one you guys… Bye!

  56. #56 Ragtag Media
    May 8, 2015

    riomar9, I watched the video and I didn’t see anything that would convince me the earth is flat.
    As far as the Moon landing goes. well, after the moon landing My grandmother bought me this Time Life Series “To The Moon” it has record recordings of the missions here is one on Ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/TO-THE-MOON-1969-Nice-Time-Life-6-LP-Slipcased-Book-Record-APOLLO-History-Set-/360727267204

    Buy it and listen. Remember, we were in direct competition with the USSR in a race.
    Think about it, if the United States faked the moon landing surly the Soviets would know and expose the United States as we were enemy’s.
    Besides, it’s very difficult for people to keep secrets let alone that many people who would be involved in such a grand scheme.

  57. #57 PJ
    Perth, west Oz
    May 8, 2015

    The earth is an oblate spheroid – polar diameter = 7899.8 miles and equatorial diameter of 7926.28 miles. So, not much difference. To all appearances, it would appear the ‘ perfect round ball ‘ shape at distance.

  58. #58 Wow
    May 9, 2015

    I think the earth is current;y figured to be a spheroid with roughly eight nodes. There’s a wiki on the geological and cartographical definition of the shape of the earth, which is modified as they get a more accurate measure of the earth’s precise shape. I can’t be bothered to get it, look it up yourself and the search will show up some interesting stuff even before you get there as reward.

  59. #59 Wow
    May 9, 2015

    riomar9, fuck off to the dump thread with your conspiracy theory laden bollocks.

    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-you-are-responsible-for-what-you-say/

  60. #60 riomar9
    USA
    May 9, 2015

    Ragtag, this is regarding the question you posted for me, but please wait just a second.
    Papi WOW WOW is a very angry puppy…and extremely selfish at that, who probably has to be constantly changing his pampers because of the anger-shitting-fits he goes thru over someone else s opinions.. That’s what you get WOWIE, for responding the way you do, which is NASTY!

    On this particular page I wish to respond to a question asked by Ragtag, regarding earth, which, as you all can see, is also in a big sense, related to the subject of space travel-feats, (which include photographing the earth from up there) supposedly accomplished by NASA’s astronauts, k? One of those accomplishment was: being able to stand on the moon, and even being photographed there, (as you can see in some of the photos) after they had traveled from a pear-shaped earth, so please, just because some of you insist on just living and thinking with an very incredulous mind, and inside a box, don’t say this is off topic, or that it belongs somewhere else.
    If Ethan wishes to cut me off, than let him be the one to do it, and not anyone else, unless you, (the ones harshly criticizing me for my initial post and different opinion) are also running the show or site, if that is the case, than there’s nothing I can do about it, but I hope I can still continue posting this type of info here so long as it contains topic material as some posts do. It is of great importance, though some may think otherwise, as they unfortunately do.
    Anyway Ragtag, (and anyone else who may be checking out this, my second subject post) I also recommend you watch this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDs2T2PgxNM

    of a balloon which is flown, and is fitted with a camera, using a standard, truth photo-shooting lens, it’s short, (bout 15 min or so). On this particular short video called: High Altitude Balloon, check out how straight the earth looks at horizon when the balloon has already ascended much higher, and you will see, that it, (horizon) is …FLAT!!!!!!!!
    If you are standing on a dock, on your apartment porch, etc., etc.,, or, on a boat, on a perfectly smooth ocean, the visible horizon is only about 3 miles away, according to their calculations. The EXPERTS say) at higher altitudes, the curvature of the Earth is much more obvious, but the curvature is visible at (ANY ALTITUDE???). That’s what they say.
    If you’re in an airplane at 35,000 feet, the horizon is 230 miles away. The HIGHEST certified altitude of an airliner was Concorde ‘s 60,000 feet. Today some of the huge jets can fly at 51,000 feet.
    Ragtag, as you can see, the balloon went even higher before it finally burst, (75,000 ft…WOW!) that is, 15 thousand feet HIGHER, than what the Concorde flew. So, again, many so-called EXPERTS, in a very articulate and mesmerizing way, (to make the wow wows out there jump with joy) say: OBVIOUSLY, at higher altitudes (230 miles, or 35,000 feet) the curvature is MORE visible. In fact Ragtag, shouldn’t it be very MUCH more visible from that balloon height? It would INDEED be quite a curve! Wouldn’t you agree, since you believe there is a curve?
    But you can’t tell me Ragtag, (and you all) that you see a curve even at that altitude, can you?…NO you can’t! You, nor anyone one else who may be interested in watching that particular video, WITH AN OPEN MIND, will be able to see a curve, cause THERE IS NO CURVE!!!
    In that same page where the video I am referring to is, there is another, or other, balloon videos, which show an utterly ridiculous curve, but even you, (and the other folks here) can, VERY CLEARLY, see that they used a fish-eye lens, (NASA just LOVES using those kind of lenses to deceive as many as they can). Some use it because they get turned on buy watching curves, even down here on regular terrain surface, (thousands such photos) when taking videos or photos, but that does not mean that the terrain is curved, or that from higher altitudes, (75,000 ft…WOW!) the earth is curved or round!…as clearly is shown by that video.
    Other videos show the same thing. These people don’t work for NASA, they have the money to be able to do what they do, and are just enjoying themselves, and are, what I would also say, obviously exclusively interested, in finding out what the earth REALLY looks like form up there, and that my friends, thru a simple standard camera lens, (which NASA hates). This guy, (and others like him) with his beautiful video, is/are proving to us all, what the REAL TRUTH IS, and that is, that the earth is indeed FLAT!!!!
    And of course, because they are also individuals who don’t take NASA at their word, so they just want to convince themselves once and for all, if it is true the earth is round, no, oblate spheroid, no…pear-shaped as NASA promotes over and over, but, unfortunately for the balloon fliers, they only find out it is…FLAT!!!!
    I Personally I am still not totally convinced on everything having to do with the flat earth, especially how the sun and moon go around to do their amazing assigned tasks. But hopefully soon there will be more convincing evidence, by some genius out there with a more accurate or logical solution to the question.
    Finally, I hope with this video, some, or many more of you out there, will get to become, (at least just a little bit) more open minded? Please respond if you can Ragtag, to tell me what you think…K? Best regards. riomar9.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDs2T2PgxNM

  61. #61 riomar9
    USA
    May 10, 2015

    To PJ West Perth OZ, Did you mean to say: To all appearances, it would appear the ‘ perfect round ball ‘ shape at distance? If so, can you please clarify, cause it sounds like you’re saying that, from a far distance, the earth would actually, or obviously, look perfectly round? Is that what you mean?

    It all depends at what particular distances it would be seen from.

    At a certain great distance, (let’s say, just for fun, 50,000 – 200,000 miles, or 80,500 -330,000kmkm) it would make more sense that we would be able to see, (at least a good indication), of the so-called, delicious (pear shaped, or true world shape, just as one of the most famous persons, Tyson Degrass, so informatively said the earth as being, even though he said it with doubting face gestures).
    Now, from a much more greater distance, (let’s say, 400000 or 650000km) we would start losing more of the pear-shape earth, and it would already start looking more like, maybe a softball, then a tennis ball, gulf ball, marble…etc., etc…to…finally having to say: I’m hungry, where the hell is the damned pear?

    Now, at closer distances, well, you already know what it looks like from NASA’s low-orbit flights, (300-400 miles, or, 480km high MAX!) while using their priceless, unscratched and dust-free fish-eye lens, so the artificially produced curve is continually seen, (as the craft is orbiting around), as a continuous round horizon, or loop. At that distance, (300 miles), the pear-shaped world CURVE, would be, perceived, as being perfectly round and smooth, with no bulges, again, just a continuous smooth loop. That’s actually the way it looks whenever you watch the fish-eyed lens videos produced by NASA, on youtube and other sites.

    Oh, before I forget, what is your personal answer regarding the NASA video I referred to in my first post, regarding the moon landing hoaxes, where the NASA engineer by the name of Kelly Smith talks about them not being able to go to the moon, not at this time at least, due to the problems they would encounter because of the Van Allen Belts’ intense radiation, (which would’ve charred the astronauts and obliterated the wimpy tin foil-shielded, so-called space crafts, they used to go to the moon)?
    Do you personally believe the video and its content is a hoax, or real? It’s from NASA! If you say real, than you can’t possibly believe they ever went to the moon, and if you say no, than you are, (politely)…utterly confused. Best regards and, What say you my friend?

  62. #62 riomr9
    USA
    May 13, 2015

    My 0 my, how many people are just so scared of the truth! And all just because it is put out by someone who doesn’t have to challenge all those who try to debunk the TRUTH, with their, so-called, sophisticated, technical arguments, even though what’s posted contain, and are pieces of REAL, factual truths, in the form of videos, where they also themselves can SEE, what that real truth is.
    For anyone who wishes to check them out, and isn’t afraid of what a simple TRUTH-SEEKER reveals, through video(s) than check one of the newest flight videos already out there having to do with the SpaceX Dragon Commercial Cargo Ship, which they barely launched on April the 15th of this year.
    At a particular time during the rocket flight, and when the DRAGON is already at a pretty high altitude, you can clearly see how the horizon of the earth really looks like, (after the FAKE curved video-shot) and you will see that it is…FLAT! Totally FLAT! You cannot dispute that, and if you do, well, you’re just way deep down, stuck inside the box!
    Here is the URL for that video of Space X Dragon.

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

    This other one is an extended version of the one I initially posted, and which has to do as to why they have not yet been able to send anyone beyond earth’s orbit. It all has to do with the extremely high Van Allen Belts Radiation, (which would most definitely cause great damage to, not only the ship and its electronics, but also the crew) and also the extremely high temperatures, (4,000 degrees F) they would encounter upon re entry of the ship. Check them out. Enjoy!

    URL for the Extended version of the NASA engineer…Enjoy!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE

  63. #63 Ragtag Media
    May 13, 2015

    @ riomar9 # 60
    riomar9, The cameras field of view was to small. How do I know?
    Well for one, when I was growing up in Texas, we had our own personal plane that we would fly around the state and to Oklahoma and our family was into photography and different lenses gave us differing views.

    But what really stands out is that I LOVED model rocketry as a youth and I saved and purchased an Estes Astrocam I think it was, similar to this one:
    http://www.rocketreviews.com/estes-industries-snapshot-rtf–by-simon-berry.html

    And the field of view was so limited that not enough height was possible to see the earths arch.

  64. #64 PJ
    Perth, west Oz
    May 13, 2015

    @62 riomr9
    From outside the earths atmosphere to the point where earth appears as a dot to the naked eye the shape of the earth is round. As I pointed out above, the difference between axial and equatorial diameters are negligible. Perhaps you could look at the orbiting weather satellite pics, which are available every day …
    http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/satellite/?tz=AEST&unit=p23&domain=15&view=34&satSubmit=Refresh+View

    Make sure you press for full disk. You will find these available for your own country as well. They may give you some insight as to the shape of our planet.

    Yes, I watched. I have no doubt you believe what you saw & heard.

  65. #65 PJ
    Perth, west Oz
    May 13, 2015

    correction – @ 61 riomr9

  66. #66 Ragtag Media
    May 13, 2015

    @ riomar9
    Look Here:
    http://i58.tinypic.com/qzj9dt.jpg
    I took a snapshot of the video you posted of the Space X and put it into windows paint and simply drew a straight line from point A to B and you can see the arch/bulge in between.

    Heck that’s pretty basic.
    I’m just not buying it.
    What am I missing?

  67. #67 riomar9
    USA
    May 13, 2015

    This is for you Sean T. and of course, anyone else who may be interested…especially you Ethan, cause by the looks of it, you’ve really spent a lot of time in everything you’ve done in your site, which is appreciated, but unfortunately my brother, many of your believes are not what you think they are. This NASA space thing has always been a HOAX against the American people, (Billions upon Billions of $$$$$) and you should not continue appreciating the evils they have perpetrated, and continue to perpetrate, especially against people like yourself Ethan, who have studied so very hard to become very learned in this kind of science, (astrophysics ad such) and all that other interesting stuff you like so much. There’s a saying that’s going on in many truth-seeking circles: “Everything we Know Is the Opposite of the TRUTH”!

    They never went to the moon! Check out all the freaking screw ups on this very telling video. It’s really amazing how people can still believe, and still will continue to believe they really did go to the moon.

    Fake sunlight
    Impossible camera shots
    Shadows cast in two different directions
    Cross Hairs are BEHIND the astronauts, the equipment, rover, flag, instead of in front of the camera shot
    Extra Positioned Lights
    Cables to help astronauts get up from crawling position
    Prop rocks…and on and on with their BULLSHIT for the blind and dormant to see, jump for joy, and enjoy themselves so gleefully and keep call them HEROES!!!!

    I hope many of you begin to OPEN your eyes more and more, after watching this video? Check the crap of the moving flag in what is supposed to be and ATMOSPHERE LESS moon, at, or about 27 seconds into the video, but especially starting at 7:19. So freaking ridiculous man! As the narrator says, that piece of clip was never re released because they knew it was a BIG screw up!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XTdZroa02I

    Sean T, Check out the video at timer marker 9:49, having to do with the Apollo 11 so-called, cat’s eye reflector question you asked me about in one of your posts, and which, as you say, they supposedly left on the moon to do measuring ranges and all that crap. This video will probably still not be enough to convince you otherwise, because of how conditioned you are to believe anything and everything you’ve read, or heard, or seen, regarding the moon landings. And also because you’ll probably say that they needed to leave it there to be able to do more extensive research and other different experiments. This video tells it all, and I sincerely do hope it does make you, (and many others) think much more critically about the whole thing, after watching the whole video. Don’t let their lies keep blinding you all!

    Also, I know for sure others, will still defend them, (NASA) and all their bullshit, no matter what!…(especially near the end of this extremely informative video, when a moon walk-faker astronaut throws a punch at a TRUTH-SEEKER who knows it was just all a bunch of BULLSHIT, and tells him so!) even though it is what it is, without any question, (a COLOSSAL amount of evidence, PROOF, they never went to the moon) to be able to hang them all by their balls, (if there was any real justice here in the good ole’ USA) if they ever had been taken to court, to where it would’ve been an easy win against them, the government, and especially NASA…the Snakes!

  68. #68 Wow
    May 14, 2015

    What do we think? We think FUCK OFF you ridiculous moronic blowhard.

  69. #69 Sean T
    May 14, 2015

    fine riomar9, let’s suppose that there is no cat’s eye reflector on the moon. Let’s also forget about your silly conspiracy theories based on things you think you see in the video you posted. Just answer one simple question. If there’s not a cat’s eye reflector on the moon, why is it that when a laser beam is pointed at one particular spot on the moon, it bounces right back to the source instead of (as happens ANYWHERE else on the moon) bouncing randomly off into space? What natural phenomenon (since it must be a natural phenomenon if astronauts have not visited the moon) can account for this observation?

  70. #70 riomar9
    USA
    May 16, 2015

    Saen T, please check out this longer version again, especially starting right at 3:02 to 4:52 on video timer, . Then watch from 6:03 to 6:08, of course not unless you wish to watch the whole thing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE

    (Listen VERY CLOSELY, to all the points being made on those particular places on the video, which are not only, PARAMOUNT, (in the fullest sense of the word!) but also whistle-blowing.
    It really seems non of you are taking any of that info seriously, and so aren’t really paying close attention to what the NASA ENGINEER is clearly saying? Who do you want to hear that crucial info from to believe it?
    After watching it again, (VERY CAREFULLY this time) then tell me…(just admit it once and for all…all of you) that you don’t believe anything that NASA engineer is saying in the NASA video AD…just man up, and plainly say that it’s all a bunch of bullshit!
    Also, after watching it Sean T, tell me if you still, KNOW, they went to the moon to jump around with cables, and to drop some multi-eyed reflective pussycat mirror on it, and which ever other toys you and others believe they left there…K., which will, of course, and most definitely, only mean you DON’T believe the video, nor what the NASA engineer explained so precisely , and that is, that they have to OVERCOME, ALL, those obstacles, BEFORE, they can send manned flights, cause sure as hell, they did NOT have that kind of technology back than…PRIOD!…especially the kind of humongous shielding that’s needed for re entry.
    I’ll check with you later and also explain my answer to you about the pussy cat mirror, since you keep asking, even though I already answer it for you.. For now, gotta go…later, and give my regards to puppy WOW WOW.

  71. #71 riomar9
    USA
    May 17, 2015

    Ragtag, at what altitude, exactly, during the flight do you say the field of view was too short? That’s what you say in your post that, at that distance, the field of view is too small or narrow, to be able see a any curve, yet, at a point, just after a few minutes from launch-time, (and which is still quite a distance LOWER, than the distance you say you used windows paint to check the curvature) there’s already a ridiculous curve showing up. Again, at a LOWER altitude, so how can that be? How can you say that the field of view was too short when SpaceX was at the higher altitude, (shouldn’t it logically be wider?) At that higher distance, the curve should have been more obvious and more pronounced than previously, but at that higher altitude, as you can see on the video… most definitely; it shows there is NO CURVE!
    I don’t know at what particular video-time it was when you checked it out with paint, but anyone can clearly see there is already virtually NO CURVE buddy. Check it out again, but this time precisely @ 20:18:23:25, (on the NASA’s video cameras’ timer, not the Youtube timer…K?) just right before it cuts off to the blue screen. At that particular time, it is where the curve has almost completely disappeared, (due to the fact that the lens was no longer able to make the earth look curved because of the angle of the rocket, along with the angle of their video camera, which up there, is acting or functioning, as if the camera was on level ground). So, at that precise moment, the lens, (again, due to the angle of it) starts showing the real picture of how the earth’s horizon REALLY looks like.

    With wide angle lenses, if the camera is at a leveled position on the ground, and the shot you’re taking is straight out (towards a straight, leveled horizon) even thought the horizon looks wider with that type of lens, it also at the same time shows how the horizon really looks like, and that is…STRAIGHT all across the shot, but with a wider view. Also, when you are taking shots on the ground, and the horizon looks straight, but stretched out due to the wide lens, as you start shifting the angle of the camera, (clockwise/counterclockwise) then the shot or scene changes, and the horizon now begins to look distorted. It starts looking curved, (just an ILLUSION, away from what the true shape of the horizon really is). So, it is so obvious they use that type of lens to make it look curved.

    Ah, but then what? Check this out. If you now advance to the 20:19:24 rocket-video camera-time, and also just a few seconds more, wahlaa, something VERY interesting happens to the horizon, indeed, and you’ve seen this before I’m pretty sure. When they once again show that same-looking shot, but of course, now the rocket being at a higher altitude, the curvature starts to go the opposite direction. That right there Ragtag, without a shadow of a doubt, shows it is the lens that is creating the ILLUSION of a curved earth/horizon. Again also, that shot right there, (with a reversed curve) should automatically tell you, that the lens they are using is a wide angle lens. If you still say you don’t see that, than, I don’t know what is going on with you guys?
    Also compare this other so ridiculously exaggerated earth curve, (after they go to a new, or much different shot further on down the flight) which doesn’t even look like earth at all, but only looks like the half of a white egg shell, with an absurdly exaggerated curve.
    A couple of things more regarding the no-curve shots they show; check and compare the amount of time they show those particular shots (ones which show virtually no curve, and then with the reversed curve). Notice how they show those particular shots, but only for a very little while, compared to the longer shots they show, when the FAKE curves are showing, a really short time indeed. That right there my friend, tells me they are only playing with us by showing us the earth’s no-curve truth. They’re poking at us, teasing us…mocking and laughing their heartless chests away and just having fun with us by showing us bits and pieces of truth…those damned SNAKES!
    (The VIPER’S red tongue running across their NASA logo, tells us they are indeed SNAKES, but even that, you’ll probably deny) Check it out, it is a FACT. Come on man…don’t be afraid to admit it.
    I can understand WOWIE bitching about it and shitting all over himself, but why all of you. It seems like no matter what EVEIDENCE is presented to you, you will never be persuade to see or recognize the, OBVIOUS, of what’s really being shown, and going on. You guys are twisting the truth, just like they twist the earth. Man o Man!

  72. #72 PJ
    Perth, west Oz
    May 17, 2015

    Hey, riomar9, take a trip in an aircraft during sunrise, daytime, or sunset. When that craft is up around 35 – 37,000 feet, take a peek out of your window & open your eyes. You might just see what the rest of the world knows to be the plain truth – the curvature of planet earth. Go on, do it.

  73. #73 Wow
    May 17, 2015

    Fuck off Dick, or as your new sock says, “roimar9″.

  74. #74 Michael Kelsey
    SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
    May 17, 2015

    @PJ #72: Unfortunately, that doesn’t work. Aircraft altitude isn’t high enough to see the horizon curve. If you take a panoramic or fish-eye picture from that altitude, you’ll see a curved horizon in the picture, but it’s an artifact of the lenses.

    To see the curve visually, you need to be in orbit, and a relatively high one at that.

  75. #75 Wow
    May 17, 2015

    It’s not necessary either.

    Go to the dockside on a clear day and watch (if necessary with binoculars) the ships going over the horizon or coming back over it.

    Explain it on a flat earth.

  76. #76 Ragtag Media
    May 17, 2015

    Well I have stood right there by the Keck observatory on Mauna Kea looking out over the ocean on a clear day and it sure looks like a curve. Is the brain filling in the gaps(pre conception) or the curvature of the cornea and lens of the eye creating an illusion?

  77. #77 PJ
    Perth, west Oz
    May 17, 2015

    @ Michael Kelsey #74

    See http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

    Part 5 : Summary and Conclusions

    My personal observations are based on no optical assistance – ie: no glasses, or optics of any sort. I do realise the effect of lenticular barrelling with lenses.

  78. #78 Wow
    May 18, 2015

    Quick back-of-the-envelope calculation.

    Visual acuity 1 arc minute. Visual separation 11 arc minutes for astronomic double stars to be seen. Let’s say that 5x that is visible, a degree.

    200m above sea level (a high, but not impossible cliff) the Horizon is 50km. 100km end-to-end in your visual cone. That’s an angular separation of 0.017 radians, or one degree.

    So it would be *just about* possible 200m ASL.

    2 miles up, 4x bigger. Four degrees is easy. Though through a small aeroplane window, you’re not going to have an unrestricted view. You will have a handy level guide, though.

  79. #79 Wow
    May 18, 2015

    (The VIPER’S red tongue running across their NASA logo, tells us they are indeed SNAKES, but even that, you’ll probably deny) Check it out, it is a FACT.

    Ah, a straight-up lunatic.

    Unless someone comes on TV from NASA and refuses to eat a live gerbil, they will insist that NASA are all alien lizard overlords.

    This fuckwit is one reason why we need more stoners. He’d be just as batshit insane, but totally blissed out and not bothering anyone about it.

  80. #80 Michael Kelsey
    SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
    May 18, 2015

    @PJ #77: Thank you very much for the link!

    @Ragtag Media #76: See below for the maths. The issue I raise with Wow below is distinguishing the flat curve of the horizon going around you (i.e., the apparent “plane of the Earth”) vs. the upward bulging of the directly middle part horizon compared with far sides, which is what allows you to see the spherical shape. I’ve seen the same kind of curving effect as you on land, looking out over the Central Valley; but I was only at 3500 feet, too low for the actual bulge to be discernable.

    @Wow #78, I did the same calculation, but I think what you’re doing isn’t quite right. It’s a nasty problem in spherical geometry. To observe the curvature, what you need to know is the sagitta (how much the center of the bow pokes up above the endpoints). I think that what you computed instead is the apparent flat circular arc (i.e., the horizon curving away from you).

    The horizon distance is the first part: d = 3.57 km/sqrt(m) * h, with h in meters. From an aircraft at 10 km, the horizon is 357 km away. If we assume a 60 degree field of view (looking out an airplane window from the seat), that’s just about one radian, so the span (chord) of the horizon is the same as the radius, 357 km.

    The Earth’s radius is 6378 km. The sagitta in the small-angle limit is s ~ L^2/8r, where L is the span length, so we get 2.5 km; that is the actual height of the “bulge” at the center of the horizon compared to the endpoints of the 60 deg FOV I assumed above.

    So finally, is that bulge visible to the naked eye? It’s a height of 2.5 km compared to a half span of 178.5 km, or an angular deflection of 14 mrad, or 0.8 deg. That’s bigger than the full moon, so if you’ve got a sharp horizon without haze or clouds
    (and no distortion from the aircraft glass and plastic) you might be able to notice it.

    But it’s pretty marginal. The horizon from an airplane is usually rather fuzzy, at least in my experience, when you can see it at all. If you put a ruler or sheet of paper up against the window, aligned with a good sharp horizon, it’s probably measurable.

  81. #81 Wow
    May 18, 2015

    “@Wow #78, I did the same calculation, but I think what you’re doing isn’t quite right. It’s a nasty problem in spherical geometry”

    Not when you’re talking about tangential lines on a sphere, where you can keep it all conic section and therefore mostly simple circles.

    And for a few degrees, the difference would be tiny anyway.

  82. #82 Michael Kelsey
    SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
    May 18, 2015

    @Wow #81: Then I’m confused. I got a result at least two orders of magnitude different from yours: at 10 km height, the horizon bulge I compute is just 0.8 deg, whereas you compute a bulge of _four_ degrees at just 200 m! Clearly, one of us is wrong.

    My result is compatible with the Lynch paper posted by PJ #77 (which I only read _after_ going through my own math; I promise!). I think you computed the apparent “curvature” of the round, flat horizon we see going around at any altitude, rather than the upward bulge due to the spherical Earth.

    I would be extremely pleased to be proven wrong! If you have the time and interest, comparing your computation to mine, or noticing where I made a bad assumption, would be awesome. If you don’t, I’d certainly understand.

  83. #83 Wow
    May 18, 2015

    Well it gets doubled because you’re taking the droop from the centroid to the ends whereas I take from end to end, when you’re trying to fit a straight line you’d project from one end to the other. And the drop is from the “straight at one end” idea. And I took a wider FOV. 40 degree FOV is what you take note of, but our field of vision is quite a bit bigger than that. OK, not 90 degrees, but getting close.

    But as I said, it’s quite irrelevant since you can do the test to see ships leaving harbour on a clear day.

    Using theodolites and laser levels you can spot the difference easily over a few miles, but you’d need civil engineering experience to know how to do it properly.

  84. #84 riomar9
    USA
    May 19, 2015

    See PJ, even you all don’t agree as to what’s seen or not seen, nor if what’s being calculated is correct or not, despite the fact you’re all trying to figure it out with your sophisticated equations, and which is made to look nonsensical.
    All I see in these posts, is all of you debating back and forth as to who the hell is right, and who is wrong, so all of that makes it seem like it’s just a bunch of confused minds who are not able to decide which way to go. This ah way, or thata way? That’s how it looks like.
    1. Michael on # 74 says you PJ, are wrong when you say you can see the horizon from an altitude of from 35 – 37,000 ft., and even want me to take a high ride to see for myself, then:
    2. at # 75 Puppy loveless WOW WOWIE says the earth’s downward curve can be seen from HIS dockside toilet on a clear day, then,
    3. At # 76, Ragtag also says he can see the curve when he stands by the Keck observatory
    4. then, as I mentioned before: According to EXPERT’S calculations, the curve can be seen from ANY altitude.

    So, which one of you is right in all these?
    Anyway, The video I asked Ragtag to watch tells the whole story. I rather stick to what I see from the snakes themselves through their own revealing videos, than to believe or accept any calculations and the different outcomes/opinions derived from same, when not one of you, can come to an agreement.

    FACT: The video shows very clearly how the horizon looks like at a certain point, when the rocket is already 208 km (129 miles) above the earth, and also when the fisheye lens from the video camera aboard the SpaceX rocket is at a certain angle, to where by then, is NOT artificially curving the horizon. Yet, at a LOWER altitude, the curve is already pretty noticeable.
    I know you all can clearly see that if you watch the video, but you’ll still only deny it.
    Then, FACT: At still at a little higher altitude, but still at the 208km range, we can, without any doubt, see the bulging goes the OPPOSITE DIRECTION, which also without any doubt, clearly shows they are using a fish eye lens or a wide angle one to artificially make the earth look round…which is a bunch of genuine bullcrap.
    Look at it PJ and Ragftag, (and now even you Michael), see how the bulge of the curve is now in the opposite direction at 10:05 in the video marker? In between those times when the shots show the bulge going down, and then the bulge going up, the COMPLETELY STRAIGHT horizon shot, could’ve been shown, if only they had left the shot alone and not mess with it , instead of switching to command center, where we can see all the bullshit going on, where everyone is only turning every which way buy loose, instead of monitoring the bullshit rocket flight..

    Why the hell would they use freaking fisheye, or wide angle lenses and bulging rocket windows? Why not just use a good freaking standard lens which can most definitely show the true plain of the horizon?
    They can afford to buy a standard lens, it will only cost them around $580,000 dollars, which is nothing to them, since it’s our money which would pay for it, and also paying for the rest of their bullshit.

    Well, it’s obviously because that’s the way they keep all their boxed-in slaves believing their bullshit deceptions…by twisting the TRUTH on them!

    Points: – At a higher altitude, there is no curve, (which is the true shape of the horizon, but:
    At a LOWER altitude there’s the ridiculous curve. Then:
    Again at a bit higher altitude, the curve bulge is reversed. Then:
    At still a bit higher, the ridiculous curve is exaggerated even more.
    But, After they realize what the hell is going on, (that the true straight horizon is showing) they pretty quickly change to a new shot, to where we again, can see even a MORE ridiculous artificial curve.

    As I mentioned before, notice how they leave the true straight horizon shots, but only a very short time…MUCH SHORTER, compared to the shots with the artificial curves.
    I’m telling you: They poke on you, they tease you, they mock you…they just laugh and laugh at you because they’ve got you in their grip to where you can’t let go of your conditioned state…believing all their bullshit!

    PJ, Michael invalidated your claim: That you can see curvature from 35,000+ ft, and he also invalidated Ragtag’s claim that he can see the curve by standing by an observatory, but that’s nothing you guys, Michael Kaylse, TOTALLY, made WOW WOWIE, the atomic shit bomb, explode and cacation everyone near him for saying he can see, on a clear day, form his dockside toilet, that the earth is curved

    Finally: Non of you can truly calculate the ASTRONOMICAL amount of crap that has been propagated for the longest time already. It’s so pathetically ridiculous, but I guess you really do feel very comfortable in what you’ve been conditioned with, even though non of you can get your calculation or stories STRAIGHT, or to agree. WAKE UP ALREADY!!!!!

  85. #85 Wow
    May 19, 2015

    Why do the hulls of ships disappear before the tops, dumbass?

  86. #86 PJ
    Perth, west Oz
    May 19, 2015

    OK, rimmer9, look at the reference I gave in PJ#77, then read the response from MK #80. There is agreeance.
    WOW had suggested watching a ship sail away over the horizon (about 4.7Km for a person 1.7M tall). Standing on a 30 metre rise, the horizon is approx 19.2 Km away. If we had a flat earth, the ship would still be seen until it was a mere dot. (Actually, it would disappear in the smog most likely). Work out the distance that would be from the observer. I’ll give you a clue – it’s more than 4.7 Km.
    If you had read the continuation of the post, you would have found Michael agreeing after some evidence was pointed out. But, you didn’t & jumped right in because it suited your version of things.
    Question, what are your dimensions of the flat earth? Diameter is ……….? Thickness is …….. ? What is on the other side of the disc …….. ? Why is earth the only flat planet in existence ? Oh, by the way, did you look at the weather satellite pics I suggested to you before?

  87. #87 Sean T
    May 19, 2015

    riomar9,

    You still have not provided an alternate explanation for the known observation. (BTW, a NASA engineer can be WRONG, you know).

  88. #88 Ragtag Media
    May 19, 2015

    They say: This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to shrink into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point from the bottom up.
    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon

    looks suspicious to me. just tilting your head up or down, BOTH lines would change.

    But riomar9, I think they got ya here with the boat thing and horizon, see here:
    http://www.kayarchy.co.uk/html/02technique/005seakayaknavigation/007nightnavigation.htm

    This guy has a simple kayak navigation page with no skin in this game and look, he took photo and then went up a hill behind him and took it again.
    The vanishing point theory falls apart because he could not simply zoom in he had to climb higher.

  89. #89 eric
    May 19, 2015

    Riomar is right: curved horizons, moon landings, its all a hoax. I invite you over to my house. I was able to buy some edge-front property quite cheap, and from here you can see the ocean going over the edge and falling down onto the next turtle.

  90. #90 Wow
    May 19, 2015

    “They say: This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to shrink into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point from the bottom up.”

    That isn’t a vanishing point that is on the horizon, though. That’s a vanishing point BELOW it.

    Otherwise there would be no difference between the top and bottom of the ship. They’re both equally as far away.

    These sorts of things only work on those who don’t want to think because it won’t prove them right.

    And that’s the flat earth society in a nutshell.

  91. #91 riomar9
    USA
    May 22, 2015

    Response for Sean T.

    First:PJ, in case you also read this response to Sean T PJ, I just want to let you know I’ve been real busy, but I’ll get back to you soon as I am able to. Also, your opinion on this, if you wish, is also welcomed, that is, if you don’t mind.

    Sean T, Among the so-called “solid proof” that proponents of Apollo put forth, are the retro-reflectors that the astronauts supposedly left on the moon when they went there in their really expensive flying limousine joy rides.
    According to you, and obviously many others, that right there, is “irrefutable” evidence, (which is ridiculous) which “proves” they were really there…really…there!

    Once again Sean T, you asked me the same questions, even though as I’ve said before, I have answered your questions about four times already, but I’ll let you pretend you still haven’t seen my answer, even this one more time I’ll be answering it, so again my answer is: They did not leave any such mirrors…not the USA, nor the Russians, etc., etc., cause I don’t they have never gone to the moon, so please keep that in mind…K?

    You ask: If there’s not a cat’s eye reflector on the moon, why is it that when a laser beam is pointed at one particular spot on the moon, it bounces right back to the source instead of (as happens ANYWHERE else on the moon) bouncing randomly off into space? What “natural phenomenon” (since it must be a natural phenomenon if astronauts have not visited the moon) can account for this observation?

    Just want you to notice how your question is contradictory when you say:
    If there’s not a reflector on the moon, which according to you, is what causes the beam to bounce back, but then at the same time you also say: it “bounces” randomly off into space. What? Well, with what you at the same time say and ask, you answer your own questions, and the answer being:
    The “natural phenomena” is already inherent there on the moon, and it is what accounts for the beam being able to “bounce” off randomly into space. And so, those same natural phenomena, are what accounts for the beam being able to, also, return, or bounce back to the receiver located back at the snakeorama observatory.
    That was proven by MIT & the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory, where both succeeded in bouncing lasers off the moon, and back to earth – and that my friend, WITHOUT, any such retro-reflectors, and they did that long before Apollo 11. That is what they reported, that is what they claimed.

    Before I explain what my opinions, views are, regarding laser range measurements, as to how it’s being done, (very plausible in my personal opinion) first, just in case you haven’t read it, it says:
    The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from “MOON’S SURFACE”, (moon’s surface is The Natural Phenomena you ask about Sean T) using a laser with a millisecond pulse length. Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser.[1]

    Since you already know their side of the story, and believe it, which to me is just plain BS, please examine and consider the following possibility very carefully Sean T. I can’t prove what I claim, but neither can you conclusively prove, that what they say is true, no matter how much you believe it, no matter how much you read about it, etc., etc., but at least, I’ve personally taken time to really think about it, and look at it in a rational, reasonable, realistic logical manner, to see what makes sense as to how it is they are possibly doing it, and after doing that (thinking about it very carefully) I have come to the conclusion that it is perfectly doable, and so there’s a possibility that that’s how they’re doing it, but again, it’s my opinion K? Can’t prove it, but since I believe it’s doable, therefore it is possible that’s what they’re doing, and have been doing from the beginning, when they first started propagating the retro-reflector BS? So, since you asked me to explain what natural phenomena could possibly account for the beam bouncing back to the source, than I ask you to read my response very carefully Sean T, but please, do it with the cliché…open mind, or out of the box, otherwise, you, and others, will only dismiss it because you are not willing to put aside your believes, at least for the short amount of time it will take you to read the whole thing, so please bear with me, and try to do that Sean T, and also anyone else who may be interested in the idea, or notion, regarding the retro-reflectors.!

    So here goes whatever, but this whatever, makes a lot of sense to me, and to others whom I have shown my opinion/views to.
    First: It’s very possible the MIT and Crimean range experiments, are what NASA also started doing at MIT, and possibly even Crimean, and also McDonald’s, right after 1962, and have continued doing it to the present, but maybe not anymore at those places, (definitely not anymore a McDonald’s of course), and also at Apache starting in 2005, which was when they first started their laser range measurements, but who knows?
    Now, obviously, by then, they had already mapped and/or recorded the areas of where they each (MIT/Crimean) had been aiming their range finding laser beams to, and since by that early time, they had already gotten real good, or pretty good measurements, (considering it was at that earlier time, 1962), the real good possibility existed, where, they (NASA) decided to start using those areas to shoot, or aim more laser beams at, but of course, also other new areas, and clearly right before 1969, still maybe from those same observatories (MIT and Crime) ad then McDonalds, then Apache as I’ve said, but of course, they also started doing it from which ever other several observatories already existed. The snakes from NASA, have always been very smart and have always been very much ahead of us, in panning and perpetrating their agenda they have most definitely continued succeed in doing that.
    As I’ve said, they start experimenting with different new areas on the moon, which of course also include such area(s), which even now, they keep saying is where the astronauts supposedly landed. If you really think about it Sean T, that’s a very, very good possibility, cause at that time, it was where it would also be, just perfect, to not only continue with the range finding measurements, and which as I mention, by now there are other (probably many) different areas where they can aim the range laser beams at. Not only that Sean T, at that time, it was also a real good starting point (also just perfect) for them snakes to begin their deception about their smoking mirrors.
    And so they, being the snakes they are, they so very gleefully, and without giving an iota of a shit about what they were about to start perpetrating and Bullshitting everyone…THE WORLD! They bullshitted everyone about the HEROIC upcoming earth orbits, moon missions, trips to the moon, orbiting it, and the “HISTORIC” moon landing crap, and of course, also about the BS reflectors being left there, or were supposedly planning to leave there…ON THE MOON! They stuck to what turned out to be their PERFECT plan, to do just that. It’s a very good possibility” that, that is what may be doing on, and has been going on from the beginning before 1969, to the present? This makes much more sense to me, and others, as I’ve said. From the start, they discovered the possibility was there to start the GRAND deception, because it was indeed doable, and could work 100%! The results from their satanic plans, (very smart vipers!) are still alive and kicking today, especially with individuals such as you, as you can see!

    As I’ve said: I cannot prove this personal opinion or view analysis, which make a lot of sense, (because it’s doable) but neither can you, nor anyone else for that matter, to put it bluntly, will ever, be able to “prove” those reflectors are really there. (even now no one can see the flag which supposedly is there, much less reflectors!)
    There’s just no way, and that’s a fact Sean T. With what I’ve seen on many videos already, I can now say, that I KNOW, and that without a shadow of a doubt, they have NEVER, gone to the moon, much less, dropped off or left any reflective toys there.

    For now Sean T, even though I believe I haven’t, and perhaps never will be able to convince you (nor any of the other few here) otherwise, nevertheless, I’ll just leave it at that. If you wish for me to explain in a little more detail in a second part, as to what it is they do, (my opinion and which is very possible) and/or how they do it, and why it is possible for them to be doing it that way, then let me know. I believe my observations make a lot of sense, because the possibility exists, and has always existed since they first contrived it in their evil reptilian minds for them to be able to do it in such way, and worst, to get away with it, as they have obviously done! Later Sean T…

    PJ, in case you also read this response to Sean T PJ, I just want to let you know I’ve been real busy, but I’ll get back you soon as I am able to. Also, your opinion on this, if you wish, is welcomed, that is, if you don’t mind.

  92. #92 Ragtag Media
    May 22, 2015

    riomar9
    So no reply for me?
    puppy loveless may need to have you “explain in a little more detail in a second part,”.

  93. #93 riomar9
    USA
    May 25, 2015

    Felix Baumgartner: At 1:02 on video timer it begins to show altitude and which at that time it is 24 miles above the earth (126, 720km). At 2:15 on video timer, from inside the capsule, or whatever the hell he was in, through the window you can see the earth looks, not exactly flat, but a bit curved in the opposite direction, instead of how the curve should look in a round earth, if the earth was round, and also, which is very obvious, they are using the lying, disgusting fish eye lens…again! Even in a, “just for fun event”, buy some wealthy bastard, which is also a snake, and also obviously being monitored by the his gurus, the snakes from NASA, to make sure, he will show all the gullible, slumbered people, back down in earth, that the world is round, by using the damned fish eye lens.
    That is all they are doing it for, and no other reason. It’s all just to continue conditioning, indoctrinating, boxing in, enslaving, more poor, naive, and totally innocent grown ups, and sadly, innocent children; in other words: Just Bullshitting everyone! Then, at 3:04 on the youtube video timer, the shot from outside the spacecraft shows, a clearly faked earth curve. There should be no denying of that clear FACT! If you think about it carefully, the guy is already going down, but, the curve starts to looks even more ridiculous, the lower he descends. What the hell?
    Then at 3:56 youtube timer, we start seeing a ridiculous, reversed, earth curvature. Again, with that, there no denying of the fact that he’s using a freaking fish eye lens! Why the hell would he do that? Well, it’s because NASA told him to, and so that’s what he did, the freaking bastard! Ahh, but then at 4:08:17 youtube timer, the real truth is revealed for a few seconds, and since by that time, and at that angle, the FLAT earth true image is at the axis of the fish eye lens, which is at the point, where the faking lens is able to capture the true image of whatever is coming in thru the lens. The image is at the center of the lens, and not off the center, but, once the angle of the camera/lens again changes, when he’s already going down, the camera lens then once again begins to produce the artificial, or fake curve. There is no question about that, and you all know it (those of you who continue to say it is really totally round, pear-shaped, oblate spheroid, steroidal?). Look at the ridiculous phony curvature at exactly 4:19, 20, then look at 4:29, 30, there we can again see the curve reversed, and it continues to curve even more, up to 4:36. They even enjoy show us that pathetic, artificially produced, reversed curve. To some, I’ll bet they believe the world is actually round in both directions!
    Right after that, we can see a perfect balled earth, especially at 4:29. At different altitudes the curve looks very different, because it’s FAKE! What a crock of shit this guys love to promote. Are you going to tell me you don’t see that? Just to remind you, from the window, we can see there is no curve at all, not in the slightest. The ridiculous curve they initially show, would’ve shown at least some curve, even thru the window, and even if the field of view was smaller from the window.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyIVaZXDhho

  94. #94 riomar9
    USA
    May 25, 2015

    For Ragtag. Felix Baumgartner: At 1:02 on video timer it begins to show altitude and which at that time it is 24 miles above the earth (126, 720km). At 2:15 on video timer, from inside the capsule, or whatever the hell he was in, through the window you can see the earth looks, not exactly flat, but a bit curved in the opposite direction, instead of how the curve should look in a round earth, if the earth was round, and also, which is very obvious, they are using the lying, disgusting fish eye lens…again! Even in a, “just for fun event”, buy some wealthy bastard, which is also a snake, and also obviously being monitored by the his gurus, the snakes from NASA, to make sure, he will show all the gullible, slumbered people, back down in earth, that the world is round, by using the damned fish eye lens.
    That is all they are doing it for, and no other reason. It’s all just to continue conditioning, indoctrinating, boxing in, enslaving, more poor, naïve, and totally innocent grown ups, and sadly, innocent children; in other words: Just Bullshitting everyone! Then, at 3:04 on the youtube video timer, the shot from outside the spacecraft shows, a clearly faked earth curve. There should be no denying of that clear FACT! If you think about it carefully, the guy is already going down, but, the curve starts to looks even more ridiculous, the lower he descends. What the hell?
    Then at 3:56 youtube timer, we start seeing a ridiculous, reversed, earth curvature. Again, with that, there no denying of the fact that he’s using a freaking fish eye lens! Why the hell would he do that? Well, it’s because NASA told him to, and so that’s what he did, the freaking bastard! Ahh, but then at 4:08:17 youtube timer, the real truth is revealed for a few seconds, and since by that time, and at that angle, the FLAT earth true image is at the axis of the fish eye lens, which is at the point, where the faking lens is able to capture the true image of whatever is coming in thru the lens. The image is at the center of the lens, and not off the center, but, once the angle of the camera/lens again changes, when he’s already going down, the camera lens then once again begins to produce the artificial, or fake curve. There is no question about that, and you all know it (those of you who continue to say it is really totally round, pear-shaped, oblate spheroid, steroidal?). Look at the ridiculous phony curvature at exactly 4:19, 20, then look at 4:29, 30, there we can again see the curve reversed, and it continues to curve even more, up to 4:36. They even enjoy show us that pathetic, artificially produced, reversed curve. To some, I’ll bet they believe the world is actually round in both directions!
    Right after that, we can see a perfect balled earth, especially at 4:29. At different altitudes the curve looks very different, because it’s FAKE! What a crock of shit this guys love to promote. Are you going to tell me you don’t see that? Just to remind you, from the window, we can see there is no curve at all, not in the slightest. The ridiculous curve they initially show, would’ve shown at least some curve, even thru the window, and even if the field of view was smaller from the window.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyIVaZXDhho

  95. #95 riomar9
    USA
    May 25, 2015
  96. #96 riomar9
    USA
    May 26, 2015

    PJ…
    Hope you read it all?
    This is what I’ll do: instead of answering your question(s), (to which, believe me, the answer(s) are not really that important, compared to what I’ve written here for you to read) let me say this PJ, and whoever else wishes to take a look at this, and that is, that, it is fact, many of them so-called experts, are running scared because they know the real truth is still continuing to come out little by little, in bits and pieces…drip, drip, and they don’t want that to happen because it really threatens all the snakes, and their positions, which are only, bullshitting-positions.

    Listen PJ, for the president of the USA, to even take time during important public speeches, to mention the Flat Earth Society by saying: “We don’t have time to meet with the flat earth society” should tell you, and everyone else, they’re really worried about it; about the truth coming out. Also, for Tyson Degrass, (who looked worried as shit) to be asking a journalist guest, (in Tyson’s own bullshit TV show called: Star Talk) what can he (Tyson) do, because he’s been getting thousands of tweets and emails regarding the flat earth? The journalist says: Well, then you have to put out a lot more (INTERESTING, in other words) information, instead of him having said…more FACTUAL information!
    In the near future PJ, we’ll know if, what the so-called CTs, (including myself) are saying is true or not, but it all depends on whether they finally come clean or not. Another thing PJ, I truly do believe, that by them (NASA) putting out videos such as the one where Terry Smith, the NASA aeronautics engineer, explains why they haven’t been able to go anywhere yet, (and also the other video where the astronaut by the name of Terry Virts, also reveals they can’t go BEYOND earth orbit) is because they are preparing themselves – and really smart at that – just in case some well-know group of tycoons, who have been true believers, enthusiasts and supporters of the Apollo space comedy show, finally get together, and then slam them NASA and the rest of the government) with a gargantuan amount of $$$$$multi-trillion$$$$$ lawsuits, for their freaking hoaxes having to do with them ever having gone to the moon or not?
    With these types of videos, which are indeed damning and revealing, they can really fight back because, once in court, they can then just very easily say: “Hey, we let the public know by putting out ads which very clearly say, and explain, why we haven’t been able to go anywhere above earth orbit yet. Thru those videos we truthfully explained the shielding problems we are still trying to solve, to be able to do that…to send someone to the moon and many other places”. That’s what they can claim in the future, if it ever does happens, that they are taken to court.
    That would be a really good defense on their part, and unfortunately, would, more than likely, (99.99999%) also get them off the hook, and so, once again, if that happens, then they can just continue bullshitting and getting away with it. That is why I also even suspect that is one of the other, reason why they also dumped the space shuttle program, (and also not sending anyone to the moon, at least for now) and it is because more, many more people, are also more and more, questioning the validity of their claims which they started since the 1960s, cause if it turns out they really never have been able to go there, and that they hoaxed everything, then, that only means, as I’ve stated before, they have committed the worst crime in history, because it has involved fraud, by ripping off everyone in the USA and elsewhere (which include many millionaires and billionaires) of trillions of dollars, for over half a century…literally and shamelessly, ripping off the people of the good ole’ US of A! So, at least think about that PJ…and also the rest of you.

    I’m now posting another video which, of course, you all don’t have to watch, but it’s extremely interesting, and vitally important, in case you have not watched it yet?

    URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp9Y8I6v_Ds

    It reveals, and that without any question, the kind of scoundrel snakes they really are, by faking an earth orbit. The guy by the name of Chris Cassidy, thru his stupid ass lying, reveals the truth of where they are really broadcasting from, and which was NOT form any freaking, bullshit earth orbit. They are all just a bunch of scum. With that involuntary revelation, (which is what liars always do) he not only deceived the caller who asked a question, but also deceived every one else who was listening at that time, to that particular broadcast thru the radio. The really sad thing about it is that, their freaking deception was being perpetrated against, (possibly millions) all the children who may have been listening to that particular show, and who are real space rocket and, of course, NASA enthusiasts, but the NASA snakes, and of course, also their astronauts snake employees, didn’t, nor ever will, give a shit about that, they only care about continuing to spew crap to the public, with their freaking demonic hoaxes. Check out the video, then afterwards, tell me you will still continue believing their bullshit, cause that’s all it is for all of us out here, and which as you know, include all of you here…all these has always been an encounter of the first kind with BULLSHIT!!!! I just hope you all stop making excuses for them, and also defending their retched deeds at any cost, after you watch the video, that is, in case you do watch it?

    I guess that’s it for now, but please do let me know what you think about the video, and of course, the rest of my post if you don’t mind? Looking forward to your reply.
    Good day/night to all, Best Regards, and God Bless.

    URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp9Y8I6v_Ds

  97. #97 PJ
    Perth, west Oz
    May 26, 2015

    Hey, rimmer9, how goes it? I still require the answers to those questions. I just watched the vid posted above. The time lag between hearing their words and watching their mouths move was certainly out of sync. but not totally detrimental. As for the location, it is possible it was a slip of the tongue, but not necessarily condemning. It may be the space station was near overhead to a particular location mentioned, so in spatial terms, that would be correct.
    Have you ever flown over antarctica ? I can guarantee you will not see the rim of planet earth. You will not see the continent stretching around the rim for 360 degrees, either. Go look for yourself.
    The fisheye lens you are so fond of denegrating has known properties which distort a view in predictable ways. No argument there. Understanding, however, is a part of knowing how to use the lens properly. It cannot be stated the lens is a fake way of showing the curvature of our planet if the intent of the photographer was not understood.
    Once again, try to answer the questions I have asked. Avoiding them does not help your cause, or give credence to it, or yourself.

  98. #98 riomar9
    USA
    May 27, 2015

    PJ said at #52: We are all trying to learn as best we can.

    Hey PJ, waz up. I want you to take look at #61 which I posted. Now, honestly, does that look like someone who is real savvy at math like you guys? PJ. I know it doesn’t, and after looking at it myself, I realized I shouldn’t have posted it, not that way anyway. But, I’m not ashamed to say that I’m really bad at math, but I like to use rational, logical thinking and reasoning in what I present, even though you may disagree with that logic or reasoning. Why would, not throwing out numbers for things you guys already know the answer to, be something which is required to be respected as an individual who just wishes to share his/her views, believes or opinions? You say credence to my cause is on the line if I don’t throw out some answer numbers at you; well, to that I would say that, I believe the videos I have posted for you guys to watch (whoever has watched or wants to watch them) give pretty good credence to my cause, but if you differ with that, then what can I do brother/sister?
    Anyway, hope you read the rest of my post, and my answer to your questions follow after this, but, first I would like to ask you what it is you want me to notice in the page you had asked me to watch, and which I have done? I know it’s supposed to be real time weather monitoring, but what is in there, other than that, which you wanted me to see or notice, because what they are doing there is something which can also be done with real time animation/CGI programs etc., as you should already know. They can do just about anything they want, with everything they have at there disposal, to continue what I believe is a BIG deception. The photos they frequently show about the satellites in orbit, the earth, and the space crafts, and especially other planets, are, ALL, computer generated. There is no way for any of us to really know, if those things are really up there or not. Well, maybe, maybe low earth orbit satellites are there, but as far as hundreds of thousands, or millions of miles away, satellite deployments, that’s just not believable to me. Have you seen the movie GRAVITY? Doesn’t all that look astonishingly REAL? In the movies, it looks exactly the same way their satellites and spacecrafts animations/renditions look, and vise versa.

    As to the question(s) you asked me: Standing on a 30 meter rise, the horizon is approx 19.2 Km away. If we had a flat earth, the ship would still be seen until it was a mere dot. Work out the distance that would be from the observer. I’ll give you a clue – it’s more than 4.7 Km.

    My answer is, and PJ, look at it very closely please: Assuming the earth is indeed flat, and if the observer is looking at the horizon from the 30 meter rise, than, the distance would still be 19.2km, but, that is also assuming the earth’s edge (if there’s an edge?) was also at that distance where the horizon is at (19.2km), or that, that’s where the drop would be on the flat earth, but, since we don’t know the size of the flat earth yet, from that height the observer would not be able to say how far the horizon would be if the drop or end wasn’t there yet, even from a higher altitude, but if you think about it, even if the size of the earth would already be known, then the formulas to calculate the distance to the ship-dot from port let’s say, would be totally different. They would work in a totally different way than the formulas now used to calculate the horizon’s distance form the observer on a round earth and, that should be obvious. On a flat earth, the crew on the ship would have to call and say how far they had traveled from land. There would probably have to be markers along the way on the flat earth because we could never be able to tell only with our eyes, (how far the horizon or edge would be) and, perhaps not even with a telescope…at least not a regular or typical/common magnification-levels telescope, because of the huge distance to the edge. So, again, assuming the flat earth ended where the horizon would be, then the horizon distance from the observer standing on a 30 meter rise, would be the same (19.2 Km away), isn’t that correct? There would be no more of the horizon to be seen after that. That’s where the earth would end, at least on that side of the disk (if it is a disk?).
    That’s how I see it with how I understood your question. If not, then please correct me in what I’m wrong. I would really appreciate it.

    Anyway, PJ, I would never ridicule you, nor doubt your credence, just because you can’t answer a question such as: What is below the earth’s surface, after the 8 miles they have drilled? That is the deepest they have been able to go, so what is below those 8 miles? Even if you don’t answer, or don’t want to, or can’t answer the question it’s ok, but I would never doubt your credence, unless you would keep badgering me, by saying that I am wrong with what I say and/or ask in that question, especially if what I say, and what I ask, are both legit, and which is the case in what I just said, and asked, but of course you already know that no one really knows, for a fact, what’s below the surface of the earth, after those 8 miles. So, all you would have to say is: I don’t know riomar, and that would be cool with me. If the earth is indeed flat, I hope someone finds a way to measure it so we can know how big it really is? If it is flat, it probably is larger, (overall)) than the globe earth.
    So with the above, I believe I have answered your questions PJ? But maybe the one I can still give my most sincere opinion or answer to would be the last one you asked which reads: Why is the earth the only flat planet in existence? To that, my friend, all I can say is that we don’t know if there are more like it or not, just as no one knows if, and where, other humanoid-inhabited planets exist…it’s just the way it is. It may be true what it says in the Bible: That the earth is a disk, and that it is covered with a glass ceiling like a tent. That’s what it says, but who knows? Also, if it is true, then, that is another reason why they keep it hush hush, because it is a fact, many (perhaps all) of them, want to discredit what it says there in the Bible, cause if you notice, they are all just a bunch of hypocrites with their family values and all that crap. I personally don’t really mind, at all, if it turns out the earth is really flat; I don’t see why everyone gets so up tide about it, or extremely pissed off, such as WOW? What say you PJ…Later…

  99. #99 PJ
    Perth, west Oz
    May 27, 2015

    Hey, rimmer9, I was under the impression science had progressed with flat-earthers to have made measurements of their flat earth by now. It becomes obvious one sees what one wants to see & believe.
    What I was trying to show you with the weather pics is that if you are in the U.S., then all that shows in the global weather front is the continents on that side of the globe, ie; north & south america. From my perspective, there is Aus., Asia & parts of eastern Europe. For someone in Africa, they would view Africa, arabic states, eastern Europe, good old England & Ireland, through to the scandinavia, the Baltic states, etc.
    I did not ask what is under the earths surface; rather, for your flat earth, what is on the other side of the disc ?
    I see by the latter part of your writing above, you are not that sure of the state of the shape of our planet. Keep an open mind. You will find out soon enough the real truth. Read Ethans writings. Do you think he is also a part of the conspiracy you want to believe in? I think not. Do you think your teachers were giving you a load of tripe, too?

  100. #100 riomar9
    USA
    May 28, 2015

    Did you read all my post, or just part of it?
    Right now, I’m not that sure of the state of the shape of our planet, and it’s because I discovered how more and more people are leaning towards a flat earth idea because of the information which is out there having to do with the flat earth theory, but the round shape idea, cannot be discarded in totality form our mind simply because there is a possibility of earth being round. As I said in one of my previous posts I have not been totally convinced of the flat earth because, I have not found any good reasonable, logical explanations, to my satisfaction at least, which also explain in a rational, sensible manner of how the earth and moon accomplish their assigned tasks. And so, the round earth idea remains, somewhat, until proven otherwise.
    Listen PJ, unfortunately, teachers teach what they have been taught, simple as that. no one was born with the knowledge of everything, which includes knowledge about the stars, the earth/moon etc., as you should know PJ. But, even when they (teachers) take it upon themselves to learn, or try to discover something new, (for example, about astrophysics) they do it by using the scientific knowledge they acquired thru their previous studies, from books which teach the things related to, or regarding what they undertake as research, to learn something more about what interests them. With the flat earth idea, that same knowledge could be put to the test, to see if it also makes sense, or if it works with a flat earth.
    What I’m trying to do with what I do is, try to get others to at least take a look at the flat earth theory, and really examine it with an open mind, because individuals like you, with the really cool knowledge of math, and physics, and all that really cool stuff, would really help prove/disprove the flat earth theory, if they would just think about it, and maybe just assign it to themselves, as a personal project, to investigate it, in an unbiased manner, but especially, with an open mind, if they are indeed willing to get into it, but of course not everyone is going to want to do that.
    The round earth idea, or believe, stemmed right from the very start, when when we first started attending school as children. We were immediately indoctrinated, and started being conditioned to believe the earth was round. They did that, at the government’s orders (literally) by the government mandating that all USA schools, must have in their classrooms, a ball, a globe, which would represent the earth, and that, that is what our earth home looks like. Honestly, at that age, who would question their teachers by asking: How do you know Miss Roundie, that the earth is a globe? Children just accept whatever their teachers say because they are the teacher, and so children are at their mercy for almost anything because at that age we are very vulnerable and impressionable, and most definitely, the government is aware of that fact, and that, you should also know PJ, so, I’m not trying to insult Ethan or anybody else hear with my opinions or views…K? I just think it would be really cool if everyone (as many as possible) would at least think about it, start looking into it some more, even if it’s only to disprove/debunk the flat earth idea, and The Flat Earth Society! But, as I’ve said, you can accept what I present, or you can just continue with your believes. That’s cool my brothers/sisters!

    These are the questions you asked me in #86 PJ:

    Question:
    1. what are your dimensions of the flat earth? Diameter is ……….?

    The dimensions of the flat earth are not known at this time as I stated in my previous post I believe, but if the earth does turn out to be flat, I believe it will be bigger than the round earth?.

    2. Thickness is …….. ?
    As to it’s thickness, again, no one knows at this time, since as you know, NASA the snakes are the ones in control…everywhere! That’s why when some private person tries to show space travel can be done at a very cheap price, NASA takes care that they don’t succeed, and so they just blow up the private person’s rocket ships, because they don’t want anyone without a contract with NASA, to be meddling in their affair, of keeping the truth from the public, and that is also why that guy who jumped from outer space, was, ORDERED, to use a fish eye lens so the people of the earth could see that, even a private individual, could prove the earth is round!

    3. What is on the other side of the disc …….. ?

    Unfortunately, there are no answers right now to any of your questions, and you can see why, I already explained it.
    But, I never thought or said you asked the question: What is below the surface after 8 miles. I was asked you that question myself just to reverse it on you, so you would know, and understand, that even right now, and even after many , many years, there are still many things which still need to be answered regarding the supposed round earth, but I never thought you asked me that question. I just threw at at you to make a point, that’s all.

    4. Why is earth the only flat planet in existence ?

    If you did read all my post, I believe I answered this last one. Please check if you haven’t done so…but only if you want of course?
    Be cool you ALL! Later…

  101. #101 PJ
    Perth, west Oz
    May 28, 2015

    Let’s start with the basics of the makeup of planet earth.
    1) Crust
    2) upper mantle
    3) lower mantle (MgSiO3)
    4) core floaters (CaS & MgS)
    5) fluid core (Fe & S)
    6) inner core (Ni Si)
    That takes care of 6,371 Km to the centre of the earth (average), then the reverse order as you come out the other side.
    As for your 4) above, the discussion concerns the local planets – in other words, the ones we do know about. They are all round balls (near enough), yet you ask us to try & believe our earth is a flat disc of unknown diameter and unknown thickness.
    For you to research further, without biased NASA thoughts, take a trip & fly over the south pole – go buy a flight on Space Ship II and travel out far enough to see the curvature for yourself. I’m sure Richard Branson would gladly help you out.
    Good luck with these simple challenges. The real answers await you.

  102. #102 riomar9
    USA
    May 28, 2015

    PJ…
    2) upper mantle?
    3) lower mantle (MgSiO3)
    4) core floaters (CaS & MgS)
    5) fluid core (Fe & S)
    6) inner core (Ni Si)

    That takes care of 6,371 Km to the center of the earth (average), then the reverse order as you come out the other side.

    So you have already gone thru the earth from one side to the other? I don’t think so brother/sister.
    First of all, how can you prove that my friend, when I have already told you they have NOT been able to go further than eight (8) miles deep. The Russians were the ones to do that, but they could not continue due to the damage their equipment was suffering. So if that’s the case, what evidence is there you can show, that what you say is true?

    That is what they think it is made out of, but there is no SOLID “proof”, to be able to say that is the case, because as I’ve said, according to what I’ve read, they have not gone deeper than eight miles! So, there’s still a long, long way to go to be able to determine if that is the case; that it is made out of that stuff, but no one know that for a FACT.
    Also, if they don’t know for sure what is really inside deeper that that, how can they know what other planets are made of? Huh, Huh? Come on man, don’t kid yourself with that nonsense for now.
    Later PJ…Be cool

  103. #103 Wow
    May 29, 2015

    Jesus christ, is this turd STILL stuck in the treads here???

    Huge reams of words, all spittle flecked and flying.

    No sense whatsoever.

  104. #104 Sean T
    May 29, 2015

    riomar9,

    Let’s say that there’s a room in a house. In that room there’s a whole lot of blood. There’s a gun lying on the floor of the room. Across the room from the gun, there’s a dead body with several gunshot wounds in it. Further investigation reveals fingerprints on the gun that do not match those of the dead person. Also, investigation reveals that the bullets recovered from the body during a subsequent autopsy matched the gun that was found at the scene.

    Are we justified in concluding that there was a murder in this room? Nobody actually saw a murder occur, so by your standards, I would think we’d not be justified in that conclusion. After all, a meteor could have hit the gun causing it to fire and kill the person. Someone else could have walked in, found the dead person, gone crazy and fired several more shots from the gun into the dead body.

    Of course, the alternative explanation is very unlikely. Hopefully you see the analogy. When talking about the structural layers of the earth, it’s not just wild guesses We have evidence, much of it derived from observations of seismic waves travelling through the earth, that indicates that the accepted structure is the most likely explanation for the observations. If you don’t accept this structure, then first familiarize yourself with the behavior of seismic waves, then formulate another explanation that is consistent with those observations, and finally devise some way to test and see whether your alternative explanation is correct and the accepted one is wrong. That’s real science, and nobody will ever try to stop you from doing that. Of course, that is quite a bit harder than going on a website and whining that modern science has everything wrong and referring to some youtube videos as evidence.