Stanley Kubrick's Confession: The Moon Landings Were Faked.

[belever]

As the technology of long distance photography continues to improve, it poses the question.

At what observed distance could a far away object no longer be dismissed as a mirage?

420km?
500km?
1000km?

 

[STKR]

Errm, I'm not entirely sure what exactly you're trying to say but flat earthers use the Gleason's map, which ironically is 2 dimensional map of the globe.

If the North Pole is in the centre of the Gleason's map, travelling North, East, South and West would put you at the same bearing.

I wouldn't even say I'm an advocate for flat earth at this stage anyway. For it to work in it's entirety, you would have to accept the geocentric model and all that comes with it. I'm not at that stage of acceptance yet. What I am saying is that curvature has been widely disproven time and time again using the scientific method of observable, testable and repeatable.

As per the example I have given previously, we have a world record landscape photograph showing a mountain range that should be 1.5-2kms below the earth's curvature. That can't be ignored.

As per the other examples I've given, aeroplanes never account for Earth's curvature. Why? They never account for Earth's curvature in engineering either? Railroads, bridges and even rocket trajectory. Why? It's claimed that we're on a spinning ball with curvature and the earth's crust is rotating at 1600kmph, or 30kms per second! Why would we never have to allow for curvature and rotation?

Watch these two videos and let me know what you think. They only go for a couple of minutes each...

https://fb.watch/i0xLxeF7J7/?mibextid=NnVzG8

https://www.facebook.com/100074887432964/videos/420475946497512/?mibextid=NnVzG8

And if you really have some time to spare, take a look at this one:

https://www.facebook.com/scott.gray.sukahdiBi/videos/925548470927358/?mibextid=NnVzG8

I sadly have no interest in joining a sailing forum to hear their views on the flat earth model. My main objective was to prove that the earth was round based on the model given to us. I personally cannot ignore the evidence provided.

I mean this in the most respectful way, but you haven't given me anything but an idea that the position of America makes no sense on the flat earth map and I should join a forum and seek answers from people who "often joke about the flat earth map". No real examples or explanations were given. It was merely conjecture. And your comment "sailing off the edge of the world" immediately shows me the lack of understanding one has about the map and model.

Look, I don't blame anyone for dismissing flat earth. I was there 3 months ago treating a flat earth acquaintance like he was insane, labeling him with the same knee-jerk "conspiracy theorists" label like we've all been subjected to. I'm genuinely embarrassed by that, as someone who considers himself to be objective and open minded.

Also im not labeling you anything, I can disagree with you and not call you anything. , Bring forward a sailor, a pilot or any one who has reached the edge of the world and Id love to hear. What you can do though is go onto forums of people who have sailed all around the world. all the millions of people who have sailed deep oceans over the centuries we dont have people saying Look heres the end of the world. 500years and nothing,  want to prove me wrong? get in a boat and go sailing come back with pictures.
what i said it if you go in the direction of that route i posted above you would reach the end of the earth if it was flat, but instead you end up in America.  thats my point, thats not hard to understand. its a big thing to over look.

I think its quack science, im not calling you a cook or anything
i just offered up some  info you dismissed. you dont want to ask people who have actually gone sailing around? fine.
What your talking about is a term called confirmation bias.

I didn't feel you we're labelling me specifically, more so the idea of flat earth model and the negative stigma associated with it. I would also like to point out we all are subject to confirmation bias. It's not reasonable to expect it doesn't apply to you or that you haven't demonstrated it throughout this discussion. As for the butt hurt comment. That's not necessary. It's hard to determine tonality and delivery through text.

I have listened to pilots, navy personnel and engineers all discuss the flat earth and the lack of curvature. It's not like I haven't sought such expertise and experience. You actually provided me with an incomplete example of how your dad's sailing buddies don't believe the flat earth map made sense and suggested I join a sailing forum. Just as you've stated, I too have a wife, kids and a business. I'm sure you can appreciate how unappealing your suggestion is for me. There's no confirmation bias in my decision there whatsoever, it just represents limited value to me.

Here's just one example from the Navy:
https://www.facebook.com/marius.bustea.3/videos/1083867785468907/?mibextid=NnVzG8

Video discussing sailors, pilots, engineers and surveyors not making allowances/corrections for curvature:

https://www.facebook.com/naughtgrl1515/videos/5521441287911353/?idorvanity=388187819331855&mibextid=NnVzG8

Here's a radio frequency microwave engineer discussing lack of curvature:

https://fb.watch/i0KaBXIbQK/?mibextid=NnVzG8

The examples are vast and cannot be easily ignored if you conduct an honest investigation.

 

[belever]

OK now I am brainstorming.

After how many years of technological advancement, yet no repeat moon landing (from 1969) and no moon base does the original achievement come into question?

54?
60?
80?
100?

noting we are dealing with an exponential advance of technology...

 

[STKR]

OK now I am brainstorming.

After how many years of technological advancement, yet no repeat moon landing (from 1969) and no moon base does the original achievement come into question?

54?
60?
80?
100?

noting we are dealing with an exponential advance of technology...

It's a good point. Especially when they claim they've "destroyed the technology, and it's a painful process to build it back again"

I'd say about 40-50 years, and the recent Artemis 1 mission comes as no surprise to me.