Flat or round earth -The final experiment.

[Apple Sky]

And stop making this thread about moon landings. It’s about Antarctica & 24 hours of daylight every day for several months of the year.

I didn't start it, that was Strong.

 

[Phil G]

I didn't start it, that was Strong.

No it wasn't. @Strong in Him mentioned it in passing while making a much wider point that you don’t investigate. You chose to pick up on that one point to use as yet another opportunity to deflect. It has been tolerated for a few posts now, but it’s off topic.

 

[Apple Sky]

No it wasn't. @Strong in Him mentioned it in passing while making a much wider point that you don’t investigate. You chose to pick up on that one point to use as yet another opportunity to deflect. It has been tolerated for a few posts now, but it’s off topic.

How childish can you get

 

[Phil G]

How childish can you get

Flat or round earth -The final experiment.

This should be interesting guys , this fella is taking a group to Antarctica to prove one way or the other that the earth is either round or flat , and you can go with him if you want. Have to pay your own way though. His conversation with Carl is here and you only need to watch the first 15...

www.christianforums.com

 

[prodromos]

OK check Bill Kaysing out

We Never Went To The Moon - By Bill Kaysing.pdf

docs.google.com

If you can be bothered to read it.

I've read it. His claims don't stand up to even basic scrutiny.

 

[Apple Sky]

I've read it. His claims don't stand up to even basic scrutiny.

You mean they don't stand up to your beliefs.

 

[prodromos]

You mean they don't stand up to your beliefs.

No, as per your signature I investigated whether his claims were true. I found that they were not. You can search back where either you or someone else posted your above link, and I posted the results of my investigation.

 

[Apple Sky]

No, as per your signature I investigated whether his claims were true. I found that they were not. You can search back where either you or someone else posted your above link, and I posted the results of my investigation.

And where might this post be ?

 

[prodromos]

And where might this post be ?

That's what the search function is for, but since I can't rely on you to do your own research

In the introduction he states outright that he has already decided that he didn't believe in the moon landings. The book is then a result of him looking for support for what he has already decided. It is not a search for truth.
Then in Chapter 5 he admits the following;

So he is completely unqualified to make any claims about the rockets themselves, and as he demonstrates elsewhere in the book, he is no judge of space photography either, not understanding exposure times or the impact of diffuse light or light reflecting off the astronauts spacesuit. He worked at Rocketdyne industries for 7 years, but not in any engineering capacity. His sole university degree was a Bachelor of Arts in literature.

 

[Gene2memE]

You mean they don't stand up to your beliefs.

Kaysing doesn't even get the basics of the history of rocketry correct. Why should his lunacy about the moon landing - which is long on statements of impossibility but noticeably short on actual evidence - be taken remotely seriously?

 

[Apple Sky]

Kaysing doesn't even get the basics of the history of rocketry correct. Why should his lunacy about the moon landing - which is long on statements of impossibility but noticeably short on actual evidence - be taken remotely seriously?

I have a few questions to ask , but will ask them in the moon thread as not to derail this thread.

 

[Apple Sky]

We have been all but begging you to investigate our truth - that the earth is a globe.

I have investigated the globe, do you think I would be posting here if I hadn't ?

 

[Strong in Him]

OK check Bill Kaysing out

We Never Went To The Moon - By Bill Kaysing.pdf

docs.google.com

If you can be bothered to read it.

As I'm not afraid of investigation and have been trying to engage and answer the things you write, of course I bothered to read it.
Here are my thoughts.

OK

OK? OK, what?
OK You accept that you posted a poll which didn't say what you thought it was going to say - this was because you hadn't bothered to read it properly?

check Bill Kaysing out

Why? You're fobbing me off again.
You are told that you could look through a telescope to see/confirm the shape of the earth, or at least, see something which pointed to a globe earth. Your response was "here is a book that someone else has written about the moon landings".

I would be quite entitled to say that because you haven't considered my suggestion, there is no reason why I should consider yours. As I said though, I have read it, or at least the first bit.

The Introduction.
In 1970, a newspaper story was published that said that 1,721 adults, in 6 cities, had been asked about the moon landings. Of those, a "substantial number" did not believe that men had ever been to the moon. We are not told how many people made up this "substantial number."
The article admitted that "no attempt had been made to reach a cross-section of the population" - which means that, for all we know, they could have asked 1,000 members of the Flat Earth Society, plus a few hundred children. Nevertheless, this seems to have been enough to convince someone - 3 years later - that "a substantial number of Americans" do not accept the moon landings.
How many cities are there in America? How many were in this "substantial number"? WHY was no attempt made to reach a cross-section of the population?

How the book came to be written.
1. The author worked, for 7 years, for the group that built the propulsion units for Apollo. Despite this, he had no interest in watching the moon landings. He "decided he did not believe that Armstrong etc was going to the moon."
How did he decide that? Did he talk to his bosses, to NASA or the astronauts themselves?
Because he had already decided this was going to be a hoax, he did not watch the moon landings, read any media articles or pay attention to follow-on flights. So he had already made his mind up before he saw the programmes and did not read related articles etc.

2. He wrote a long list of questions that he wanted to put to NASA, like, "why didn't the astronauts make some visible signal from the moon?"
How did he know they didn't if he didn't watch the programme? How many of his other questions could have been answered if he'd watched the programme and read published articles?

Chapter 1.
He seems to think there is some sort of cover-up based almost entirely on the fact that NASA has chosen not to make some documents public, and few people, apart from employees, have visited the labs.
Is that it?

Chapter 2.
He goes off on a tangent and lists other occasions when he believes the government covered something up or lied to the people.
Is this supposed to be proof that the moon landings were also faked?

I am not offering any further thoughts for the moment.

General impressions?
i) If this is a book, it was almost certainly self-published - no publisher would put their name to something so badly written which consists of little more than photographs and dozens of questions.
ii) it looks as though someone has scanned all the pages of this book so that other people can read them online. Isn't that a breach of copyright?
iii) The author has written about space and the space programme; you deny that space exists and that it is "just air". Is this another example of you posting something without first reading it? You saw the title and thought, "oooh, this is proof that men never went to the moon"?

 

[Strong in Him]

I have investigated the globe, do you think I would be posting here if I hadn't ?

Yes.
Because you have already said that nothing will make you believe that the earth is a globe. That is your starting point.
Besides, you want people to know that they are being "deceived."

 

[Strong in Him]

How childish can you get

Calling you out on your mistake is childish?

I said that the truth does not fear investigation, mentioned 3 things that are true; the earth is a globe, men landed on the moon and people can visit Antarctica and told you to investigate.
YOU picked up on the moon landings; posting first a cartoon to show how funny they were, then a poll which did not show what you intended it to show and then referred us to a book that somebody else had written.

You could at least have had the decency to say, "sorry, I wandered off topic", instead of claiming that the fault was someone else's (mine) and then saying how childish everyone was being.

 

[Apple Sky]

As I'm not afraid of investigation and have been trying to engage and answer the things you write, of course I bothered to read it.
Here are my thoughts.

OK? OK, what?
OK You accept that you posted a poll which didn't say what you thought it was going to say - this was because you hadn't bothered to read it properly?

Why? You're fobbing me off again.
You are told that you could look through a telescope to see/confirm the shape of the earth, or at least, see something which pointed to a globe earth. Your response was "here is a book that someone else has written about the moon landings".

I would be quite entitled to say that because you haven't considered my suggestion, there is no reason why I should consider yours. As I said though, I have read it, or at least the first bit.

The Introduction.
In 1970, a newspaper story was published that said that 1,721 adults, in 6 cities, had been asked about the moon landings. Of those, a "substantial number" did not believe that men had ever been to the moon. We are not told how many people made up this "substantial number."
The article admitted that "no attempt had been made to reach a cross-section of the population" - which means that, for all we know, they could have asked 1,000 members of the Flat Earth Society, plus a few hundred children. Nevertheless, this seems to have been enough to convince someone - 3 years later - that "a substantial number of Americans" do not accept the moon landings.
How many cities are there in America? How many were in this "substantial number"? WHY was no attempt made to reach a cross-section of the population?

How the book came to be written.
1. The author worked, for 7 years, for the group that built the propulsion units for Apollo. Despite this, he had no interest in watching the moon landings. He "decided he did not believe that Armstrong etc was going to the moon."
How did he decide that? Did he talk to his bosses, to NASA or the astronauts themselves?
Because he had already decided this was going to be a hoax, he did not watch the moon landings, read any media articles or pay attention to follow-on flights. So he had already made his mind up before he saw the programmes and did not read related articles etc.

2. He wrote a long list of questions that he wanted to put to NASA, like, "why didn't the astronauts make some visible signal from the moon?"
How did he know they didn't if he didn't watch the programme? How many of his other questions could have been answered if he'd watched the programme and read published articles?

Chapter 1.
He seems to think there is some sort of cover-up based almost entirely on the fact that NASA has chosen not to make some documents public, and few people, apart from employees, have visited the labs.
Is that it?

Chapter 2.
He goes off on a tangent and lists other occasions when he believes the government covered something up or lied to the people.
Is this supposed to be proof that the moon landings were also faked?

I am not offering any further thoughts for the moment.

General impressions?
i) If this is a book, it was almost certainly self-published - no publisher would put their name to something so badly written which consists of little more than photographs and dozens of questions.
ii) it looks as though someone has scanned all the pages of this book so that other people can read them online. Isn't that a breach of copyright?
iii) The author has written about space and the space programme; you deny that space exists and that it is "just air". Is this another example of you posting something without first reading it? You saw the title and thought, "oooh, this is proof that men never went to the moon"?

This is not the appropriate thread to answer.

 

[Apple Sky]

YOU picked up on the moon landings;

Well you shouldn't have mentioned it.

 

[Phil G]

I have investigated the globe, do you think I would be posting here if I hadn't ?

It is very obvious that you have not investigated the globe. Otherwise you would be able to make your own arguments by referring to your own research. Instead you just link to other conspiracy theorists, effectively saying that whatever they say is true.

But you can't make your own arguments because you don't understand anything that you would be arguing about.

 

[Phil G]

Well you shouldn't have mentioned it.

"How childish can you get"

 

[Strong in Him]

This is not the appropriate thread to answer.

That's another cop out.