[Tanada]

Good point Subjectivist, I missed that, sorry. One other thought on that. Wouldn't a building built on a level foundation negate the possibility of attributing anything that happens above that level foundation to a round earth.

That level foundation has the exact same curvature as the Earth does for that radial distance from the core. This is one of the things I studied in Physics class lo those many years ago. You can take a slab of poured concrete as big as you wish, the example IIRC we used was a football field with a concrete surface that would have padding and astroturf laid on top for football games. Anyhow you have a 120 yard long slab of concrete. You can go over the entire surface with a level or roll marbles on it or whatever method you need to convince yourself it is flat and level. Then you set up the two goal posts exactly perpendicular to the field and you use a square to prove they are at a 90 degree angle to the field. If you put a laser pointer waist high on one of the goal posts and aim it at the opposite goal post on the other end of the field again using the square to make sure the laser is firing at a 90 degree angle where does the spot of light appear on the other goal post? If the slab of concrete is perfectly flat and both goal posts are perfectly straight up at 90 degrees on a flat earth the spot would appear at the same height on the target goal post. However it does not, it strikes the opposing goal post several inches higher because the curvature of the earth makes the other goal effectively a few inches lower on the horizon.

As for link you can post to YouTube or news or even to blogs but don't get carried away and don't try recruiting people to mob some other site.

[daveflat]

That makes sense, as soon as I read your first sentence Thanks

[daveflat]

Actually there is a problem with that. The curvature in the first mile should be 8 inch and then roughly times square of each mile thereafter. I just did the math an lets say we give the distance for the field you just said at 200 yards almost TWICE what you stated. The curvature we should expect at 200 yards would be- 1/10 th of an inch. Maybe someone just had bad aim ehhh?

Feel free too check my math - I used an earth curve calc. actually

[daveflat]

I honestly do not care if people watch or do not. I do feel like I spend hours typing away, and engaging with people, that maybe that would show them I actually care about the subject right or wrong, and that if I write it or post a video it is adding something to the conversation. The video is very interesting and includes engineer/technical type people like are found here and their testimony regarding their experience of earths curvature while performing their jobs.

Edited- I DO care that people do not watch videos that I think are important. They are supporting evidence and often where I learned something. It's funny- how people automatically discount the veracity of a video automatically when the words youtube and conspiracy are taken together. Conspiracies happen EVERYDAY. Large, small, each of us is a conspirator at some point whether you are conspiring to lay off a worker or conspiring to divorce your husband, yet the thought of a conspiracy on a larger scale seems unthinkable to the MAJORITY. All you have to do is watch CNN and then flip the station to FOX, each has its own clearly distinct agenda yet the MAJORITY who watch and root for their team have no idea they are being manipulated by the OWNERS of those stations wahtever end it is that they choose. -David Hicks

[ralfy]

ralfy-

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation”

Obviously works both ways, I 'm pretty sure NO ONE has taken a few minutes to watch videos I posted. At least I would have expected them to comment one way or another but nothing yet. Thats ok everyone knows I'm crazy.

Have you ever heard the story of the moon rock that turned out to be petrified wood? Google it.

Towards the end of the video he says something along the lines that it could be more difficult to fake the landing then actually go. And that seems reasonable to you? Wow. NASA 1/2 TRILLION SPENT since 1st moon landing. 2016 Budget $16 BIllion. And how has NASA improved your life directly?

So much how do you think it would have cost to fake the first moon landing? And the subsequent ones? Perhaps you can point out what video technology existed during the first landing that was used.

[daveflat]

I NOTICE something on this thread. If you look at the questions That I post or statements that I make. It seems to me that people start off "TRYING" to help me "SEE" their world view "KNOWING" that I could not possibly be correct and then attempting to help SAVE me from my DELUSIONS.

I have had 2 or 3 posters here give me answers here. Kaiserjeep spent an incredible amount of time with me. BUT, in the end KAISERJEEP proved my point HIMSELF and then dissappeared (I have to admit he may have just gotten tired and if that is the case I DO APOLOGIZE dfor saying what I just said!). That is when I asked him to prove my statement about Aircraft on a FLAT EARTH FALSE. DISSIDENT stopped by and ANSWERED my questions, the only problem was that NONE of his answers HOLD up to scrutiny. Check for yourselves. And THEN THE POSTERS disappear, can't beat him I'll just leave? I asked in a previous post to RALFY about the FAKE MOONROCK that turned out to be petrified wood (does not prove anything just, compelling evidence against) and RALFY responded WITHOUT answering my first question WHILE ASKING ANOTHER question. I WATCHED the film maker video that a poster put forth against NASA being SCUM liars (I have to admit not with a completely open mind but open to a strong case), BUT I believe NO one has watched a single video that I posted. I do NOT have an AGENDA here to drive traffic to youtube lololol. I own a chocolate business in NJ. I am 45 years old and TIRED of LIES. You can easily figure out my true identityy with about two minutes of googling, I say that because I have NOTHING to hide.

I may be wrong here and people are gathering better "facts" and then will return to this thread to "help me" once again see the light so to speak. I have been called a fool after viewing the video of the dude who is a professional film maker and listening to him make his case about how it is so CLEARLY MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to make a FILM about a fake moon landing than to ACTUALLY go to the MOON. Think about that statement. There are THOUSANDS of people working at NASA, THOUSANDS. THE budget for the FIRST moon landing alone in todays dollars would be $160 BILLION dollars. Let me say that AGAIN, THE budget for the FIRST moon landing alone in todays dollars would be $160 BILLION dollars. And this DUDE throws out a bunch of Industry mumbo jumbo that not 1 in a million people understand, about HOW GODDAM much more difficult making a film about a MOON LANDING would be THAN ACTUALLY GOING!!!!!!! and I AM FRICKING called STUPID???????

ALL of YOU can certainly accuse me of of this same error in thinking.

BUT, I HAVE to TELL you,I READ a I POST last night regarding flat earth earth and the guy put up a GREAT SIMPLE argument AGAINST it. Alot, if not most flat earth people think the sun travels above our sky at at a distance of around JUST 3000 miles. So this dude says, well all you flat earthers always tell me to pull out a telescope to see boats "reappear" over the horizon (which we do) so HE says why can't I pull out a telescope on a FLAT EARTH and "RE-SEE" the sun! I HAVE NO EXPLANATION for WHY we could not do so in a FLAT EARTH. Does that in and of itself make a flat earth impossible? I look at it right now as a good be of evidence against, but impossible hell, no.

ALL of YOU can certainly accuse me of of this same error in thinking.

This is where WE who argue IDEAS about our beliefs meet. I have stated already (not sure if on this board) that the earth "COULD" be an INFINITE plane (board erupts in laughter). In the case of an infinite plane I CAN imagine in my mind the sun travelling a far enough distance from the line of site here on earth that it could fall out of the line of sight of the viewer still. Does that men I am right - again NO!

So anyway my train of thought got lost here , in the end I am trying to say in simple words, please address MY questions before you answer my question with a question. I have one unanswered question I need to address to KAISERJEEP regarding perspective. But there is no use of me continuing to present arguments if everyone I deal withhere disappears after I logically put some doubt into there argument which is what is seeming to happen....

[daveflat]

Questions that are raised by this youtube video just one question after another 58 min. I bet NOT ONE person can watch this and then say NASA is in space. NOT ONE.

NASA Hoax Compilation Five

[ralfy]

I NOTICE something on this thread. If you look at the questions That I post or statements that I make. It seems to me that people start off "TRYING" to help me "SEE" their world view "KNOWING" that I could not possibly be correct and then attempting to help SAVE me from my DELUSIONS.

I have had 2 or 3 posters here give me answers here. Kaiserjeep spent an incredible amount of time with me. BUT, in the end KAISERJEEP proved my point HIMSELF and then dissappeared (I have to admit he may have just gotten tired and if that is the case I DO APOLOGIZE dfor saying what I just said!). That is when I asked him to prove my statement about Aircraft on a FLAT EARTH FALSE. DISSIDENT stopped by and ANSWERED my questions, the only problem was that NONE of his answers HOLD up to scrutiny. Check for yourselves. And THEN THE POSTERS disappear, can't beat him I'll just leave? I asked in a previous post to RALFY about the FAKE MOONROCK that turned out to be petrified wood (does not prove anything just, compelling evidence against) and RALFY responded WITHOUT answering my first question WHILE ASKING ANOTHER question. I WATCHED the film maker video that a poster put forth against NASA being SCUM liars (I have to admit not with a completely open mind but open to a strong case), BUT I believe NO one has watched a single video that I posted. I do NOT have an AGENDA here to drive traffic to youtube lololol. I own a chocolate business in NJ. I am 45 years old and TIRED of LIES. You can easily figure out my true identityy with about two minutes of googling, I say that because I have NOTHING to hide.

I may be wrong here and people are gathering better "facts" and then will return to this thread to "help me" once again see the light so to speak. I have been called a fool after viewing the video of the dude who is a professional film maker and listening to him make his case about how it is so CLEARLY MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to make a FILM about a fake moon landing than to ACTUALLY go to the MOON. Think about that statement. There are THOUSANDS of people working at NASA, THOUSANDS. THE budget for the FIRST moon landing alone in todays dollars would be $160 BILLION dollars. Let me say that AGAIN, THE budget for the FIRST moon landing alone in todays dollars would be $160 BILLION dollars. And this DUDE throws out a bunch of Industry mumbo jumbo that not 1 in a million people understand, about HOW GODDAM much more difficult making a film about a MOON LANDING would be THAN ACTUALLY GOING!!!!!!! and I AM FRICKING called STUPID???????

ALL of YOU can certainly accuse me of of this same error in thinking.

BUT, I HAVE to TELL you,I READ a I POST last night regarding flat earth earth and the guy put up a GREAT SIMPLE argument AGAINST it. Alot, if not most flat earth people think the sun travels above our sky at at a distance of around JUST 3000 miles. So this dude says, well all you flat earthers always tell me to pull out a telescope to see boats "reappear" over the horizon (which we do) so HE says why can't I pull out a telescope on a FLAT EARTH and "RE-SEE" the sun! I HAVE NO EXPLANATION for WHY we could not do so in a FLAT EARTH. Does that in and of itself make a flat earth impossible? I look at it right now as a good be of evidence against, but impossible hell, no.

ALL of YOU can certainly accuse me of of this same error in thinking.

This is where WE who argue IDEAS about our beliefs meet. I have stated already (not sure if on this board) that the earth "COULD" be an INFINITE plane (board erupts in laughter). In the case of an infinite plane I CAN imagine in my mind the sun travelling a far enough distance from the line of site here on earth that it could fall out of the line of sight of the viewer still. Does that men I am right - again NO!

So anyway my train of thought got lost here , in the end I am trying to say in simple words, please address MY questions before you answer my question with a question. I have one unanswered question I need to address to KAISERJEEP regarding perspective. But there is no use of me continuing to present arguments if everyone I deal withhere disappears after I logically put some doubt into there argument which is what is seeming to happen....

I don't need to answer your question because the only thing you need to prove is that the videos of the moon landing were fake. The easiest way to do that is to recreate the fake videos using technology that was available in 1969, then do the same for subsequent moon landings where the video frame rate used was much higher.

[daveflat]

FIRST, NO ONE here HAS to do anything regarding the QUESTIONS I POSED so I agree with your first statement, and surely, it's possible recreating fake videos IS the "easiest way" to prove the moon landing is fake ,it's one way for sure, whether or not it's the easiest way falls more along the lines of "opinion" I would think.

I honestly came hear with specific questions, statements and even theories of flat earth, ball earth, and NASA being a fraud, because it seems to me you cannot have one without the others. So why not start off by asking questions with really smart people?

I HONESTLY believe now that it is possible that if you are lucky enough to POSSESS higher intelligence than your average bear, you are than also CURSED with such a high amount of "BELIEF IN YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE" that it can make it more difficult to open your mind to solutions that math does not agree with, and harder to accept that the MATH that often STILL remains as the bedrock to many of the current assumptions is really just THEORY and could be just plain wrong. In the case of the pathagorus theorem video, it just out right proves the math is WRONG.

Thanks

If you carefully read through the thread you would find that the questions that I posed that do get addressed, when I offer rebuttals, either the poster disappears OR they then ask me a set of their OWN questions usually often requiring physics. ON TOP of that others come forward NOT even bothering to answer any of my questions, while informing me that "the earth is round because" ...(usually involving physics AGAIN). I wish I WAS smart enough to understand physics (and the math it's based upon) but I'm a simple chocolate make essentially and never really had a knack for higher level math or I was lazy (which I was regarding studying).

Folks, if you watch the videos I linked to and it does not cause a spark in your mind thats says to you, HUH??? then we just do not "see", the world in the same way I guess. It does not mean I am right and It does not mean others opinions are wrong, ONLY FACTS can help us start to approach the TRUTH whatever that is.

[daveflat]

I asked the guy who made the video about how it would be easier to go to the moon then fake it a question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU&lc=z12pfn2y0uavjjw4f04ccndyqmarvdoplzo0k.1489291135511455on
,I copy and pasted his response and mine. Can anyone see what a FAIL in logic that is OR he is a LIAR.

David Hicks1 day ago
Why don't you explain all the things that actually make people wonder if we went to the moon rather than talk about it in technical jargon that less than 1 in 100,000 people will understand and I am probably overstating that by at least a factor of one or two.

Yes, I imagine it is much more difficult to make a film about a moon landing thanto actually go to the moon. Perfectly logical. I guess that's why we have gone back so many times since.
Read more
Reply
sgcollins
sgcollins1 day agoHighlighted reply
hi david, who did you mean by 'you' in this message? if you meant me, my reason for not talking about those things is because i have no knowledge of them.
Reply
David Hicks
David Hicks1 second ago
So HOW can YOU then so easily disclaim that it was NOT a HOAX like YOUR video is TITLED?
This quote applies as much to YOU as it DOES to ME?
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation”
end of conersation
________________________________________________________________________

Seriously, he has never even bothered to look at what people are questioning and this guy is CREDIBLE???????? lololololololololol

[ralfy]

FIRST, NO ONE here HAS to do anything regarding the QUESTIONS I POSED so I agree with your first statement, and surely, it's possible recreating fake videos IS the "easiest way" to prove the moon landing is fake ,it's one way for sure, whether or not it's the easiest way falls more along the lines of "opinion" I would think.

I honestly came hear with specific questions, statements and even theories of flat earth, ball earth, and NASA being a fraud, because it seems to me you cannot have one without the others. So why not start off by asking questions with really smart people?

I HONESTLY believe now that it is possible that if you are lucky enough to POSSESS higher intelligence than your average bear, you are than also CURSED with such a high amount of "BELIEF IN YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE" that it can make it more difficult to open your mind to solutions that math does not agree with, and harder to accept that the MATH that often STILL remains as the bedrock to many of the current assumptions is really just THEORY and could be just plain wrong. In the case of the pathagorus theorem video, it just out right proves the math is WRONG.

Thanks

If you carefully read through the thread you would find that the questions that I posed that do get addressed, when I offer rebuttals, either the poster disappears OR they then ask me a set of their OWN questions usually often requiring physics. ON TOP of that others come forward NOT even bothering to answer any of my questions, while informing me that "the earth is round because" ...(usually involving physics AGAIN). I wish I WAS smart enough to understand physics (and the math it's based upon) but I'm a simple chocolate make essentially and never really had a knack for higher level math or I was lazy (which I was regarding studying).

Folks, if you watch the videos I linked to and it does not cause a spark in your mind thats says to you, HUH??? then we just do not "see", the world in the same way I guess. It does not mean I am right and It does not mean others opinions are wrong, ONLY FACTS can help us start to approach the TRUTH whatever that is.

Actually, the question isn't whether or not it is easy to recreate fake videos. It's whether or not the videos that were shown in 1969 are fake. The same question applies to videos of subsequent landings.

[ralfy]

I asked the guy who made the video about how it would be easier to go to the moon then fake it a question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU&lc=z12pfn2y0uavjjw4f04ccndyqmarvdoplzo0k.1489291135511455on
,I copy and pasted his response and mine. Can anyone see what a FAIL in logic that is OR he is a LIAR.

David Hicks1 day ago
Why don't you explain all the things that actually make people wonder if we went to the moon rather than talk about it in technical jargon that less than 1 in 100,000 people will understand and I am probably overstating that by at least a factor of one or two.

Yes, I imagine it is much more difficult to make a film about a moon landing thanto actually go to the moon. Perfectly logical. I guess that's why we have gone back so many times since.
Read more
Reply
sgcollins
sgcollins1 day agoHighlighted reply
hi david, who did you mean by 'you' in this message? if you meant me, my reason for not talking about those things is because i have no knowledge of them.
Reply
David Hicks
David Hicks1 second ago
So HOW can YOU then so easily disclaim that it was NOT a HOAX like YOUR video is TITLED?
This quote applies as much to YOU as it DOES to ME?
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation”
end of conersation
________________________________________________________________________

Seriously, he has never even bothered to look at what people are questioning and this guy is CREDIBLE???????? lololololololololol

That's an aside. The point isn't whether or not it would have been easier to just go to the moon than to fake the videos of the first moon landing, it's whether or not the videos of the landing were shot on earth.

That's what you need to prove. That is, you need to demonstrate that using available video technology during that time it would have been possible to make videos of a fake landing. And then do the same for subsequent landings where higher frame rates were used.

[daveflat]

I copied a another part of my conversation with the guy who made the video below:

Reply 1
David Hicks
David Hicks1 day ago (DAVID HICKS STATEMENTS FIRST)

Let me bring some 1st grade logic too you so we can see if any of the 21 THOUSAND zombies who upvoted you.....WAIT ONLY 21 THOUSAND out of 2 MILLION VIEWS upvoted you lol....... HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM!!!!! I almost think this is not worth arguing over (only 1% of the people (the absolute and complete zombified) who watched this video thought well of it enough to click a up button lol).

DAVID HICKS speaking again-

But for fun I will couple of a final points.

HIS very first sentence he says in the VIDEO, "

this is why the moon hoax would have been impossible, take 1"

,
DAVID HICKS

The budget for the 1ST moonlanding in todays dollars would be $160 BILLION. I understand that an expert in his particular field such as YOURSELF should think "highly" of himself, ESPECIALLY when said person has the GUMPTION to imply that the IT WOULD BE EASIER TO go to the MOON, which Thousands of people worked to get there (they didn't) then to make a moon landing film.

DAVID HICKS
Bro, @ 35 second into your deceptive video you state clearly,

"In fact the opposite is true....By the late 1960's they (NASA) did have the technical ability not to mention the requisite madness toooooooo send 3 guys to the moon and back

.....WAIT WHA????? I thought HE knew NOTHING.... Remember this RALFI - YOU POSTED HIS QUESTION (Scum Liar THAN SAYS)

hi david, who did you mean by 'you' in this message? if you meant me, my reason for not talking about those things is because i have no knowledge of them.

 about being an astroNOT or space engineer, Can you see it RALFY????? HE STATED and I quote " i don't know all those things. so i did not talk about them". BUT HE ALSO STATED HE IS ABLE to determine on HIS OWN that NASA had the technical ability of NASA to get to the MOON??????

DAVID HICKS

Bruh, you just digging this hole deeper. Let it rest, you got paid, you have been thouroghly discredited by me and I did not spend more than 1 hour or so to get you tripping over your own two feet as poorly as the dudes in th fake moon landing movie. THANKS and remember I have SCREENSHOTS of this conversation so when it disappears, just makes my point better, but if it stays IT makes my point better. What a QUANDRY EHHHHH?

If you like I can send a copy of screen shots!!! Over and Out!!

THAT DUDE is a LIAR, and a FRAUD. WHY would I give a SH%T about anything he says!!!!! NOW TELL ME I AM WRONG and you will PROVE YOUR OWN LACK of READING COMPREHENSION!

[MD]

However it does not, it strikes the opposing goal post several inches higher because the curvature of the earth makes the other goal effectively a few inches lower on the horizon.

As for link you can post to YouTube or news or even to blogs but don't get carried away and don't try recruiting people to mob some other site.

Several inches? I think a very small fraction of an inch, actually. Need to check the math... let's see now... arc segment on a roughly 4000 mile radius x degrees... Damn I need a calculator.

[MD]

the distance between the tops of two perfectly perpendicular to gravity goalposts on a football field is ridiculously small. Somewhere in the neighborhood of .0008 inches. I was messing with a lot of zeros so I might have screwed up somewhere, but not more than two orders, I'm sure.

You might be able to measure two radio tower x miles apart. 300 feet apart is just too close. Instrumentation error would kill any attempts at an accurate measurement.

Anyway, these questions were all resolved many years ago. It's a high school trig exercise now. Nothing to see here!

[daveflat]

I got roughly 1/10 inch with earth curve calculator so yeah, I agree! WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!@!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that might be one of the first times I was able to agree with someone here lol, THanks for checking.

[Tanada]

the distance between the tops of two perfectly perpendicular to gravity goalposts on a football field is ridiculously small. Somewhere in the neighborhood of .0008 inches. I was messing with a lot of zeros so I might have screwed up somewhere, but not more than two orders, I'm sure.

You might be able to measure two radio tower x miles apart. 300 feet apart is just too close. Instrumentation error would kill any attempts at an accurate measurement.

Anyway, these questions were all resolved many years ago. It's a high school trig exercise now. Nothing to see here!

Yeah, physics class was a few decades ago, I messed up either the way I remembered it or the whole concept. Either way though, if there is a measurable result that is the part that counts right ????? Oh and it isn't the distance between the tops of the poles, it is the height that the laser pointer positioned on one pole shines upon the other pole. This is supposed to demonstrate that the target poles is slightly around the curvature of the Earth. The problem with instrument error is why we did it as a math problem , physics, it is all theoretical until you use instruments, right?

[daveflat]

Can anyone this question?

Re: Math is Religion, Pythagoras proved earth NOT a sphere
Postby daveflat » Mon 13 Mar 2017, 16:45:17

dolonbaker- According to kaiserjeep YOU are INCORRECT -A DIRECT QUOTE from KAISERJEEP

The pilot or more often today, the autopilot - is continuously adjusting the attitude of the plane to maintain "level" flight (remember that in this context "level" is not a straight line, but defined as a 90 degree angle

This is what YOU SAID dolanbaker,

As the plane is always the same distance from the centre of gravity it is always about the same altitude above sea level, it (I assume you mean the aircraft) does not need to "steer downwards
" to follow the curvature of the earth.

The reading comprehension level here is absurdly low. dolonbaker can you NOT COMPREHEND the differences in the above two statements I BOLDED the important parts for EVERYONE here because (A) I made NEITHER STATEMENT and (B) it seems people cannot tell the difference on there own ??????

Cannot a single person here read and understand what is going on?????? If what you find during the course of our debate is NOT CONGRUENT with YOUR BELIEF system YOU AUTOMATICALLY DISMISS IT. I have absolutely no skin in THIS game NOW- EITHER dolanbaker is CORRECT and KAISERJEEP IS INCORRECT or vice versa KAISERJEEP is correct and dolanbaker is INCORRECT. OR THEY ARE BOTH INCORRECT. What both of there statements CANNOT POSSIBLY BE, is CORRECT- meaning at least one of them must be incorrect, since their statements CONTRADICT each other.

Now everyone will quietly disappear even though I will let the entire FORUM DECIDE who is correct. AND one FINAL POINT please do not say they are saying the same thing, can I at least get some backup from someone who can comprehend english on that point???????? ANYONE, regardless of what the outcome implies??????

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation”
EDITED: The Pearl Harbor comment is pure non sequitur at this point.....

[ralfy]

I copied a another part of my conversation with the guy who made the video below:

Reply 1
David Hicks
David Hicks1 day ago (DAVID HICKS STATEMENTS FIRST)

Let me bring some 1st grade logic too you so we can see if any of the 21 THOUSAND zombies who upvoted you.....WAIT ONLY 21 THOUSAND out of 2 MILLION VIEWS upvoted you lol....... HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM!!!!! I almost think this is not worth arguing over (only 1% of the people (the absolute and complete zombified) who watched this video thought well of it enough to click a up button lol).

DAVID HICKS speaking again-

But for fun I will couple of a final points.

HIS very first sentence he says in the VIDEO, "

this is why the moon hoax would have been impossible, take 1"

,
DAVID HICKS

The budget for the 1ST moonlanding in todays dollars would be $160 BILLION. I understand that an expert in his particular field such as YOURSELF should think "highly" of himself, ESPECIALLY when said person has the GUMPTION to imply that the IT WOULD BE EASIER TO go to the MOON, which Thousands of people worked to get there (they didn't) then to make a moon landing film.

DAVID HICKS
Bro, @ 35 second into your deceptive video you state clearly,

"In fact the opposite is true....By the late 1960's they (NASA) did have the technical ability not to mention the requisite madness toooooooo send 3 guys to the moon and back

.....WAIT WHA????? I thought HE knew NOTHING.... Remember this RALFI - YOU POSTED HIS QUESTION (Scum Liar THAN SAYS)

hi david, who did you mean by 'you' in this message? if you meant me, my reason for not talking about those things is because i have no knowledge of them.

 about being an astroNOT or space engineer, Can you see it RALFY????? HE STATED and I quote " i don't know all those things. so i did not talk about them". BUT HE ALSO STATED HE IS ABLE to determine on HIS OWN that NASA had the technical ability of NASA to get to the MOON??????

DAVID HICKS

Bruh, you just digging this hole deeper. Let it rest, you got paid, you have been thouroghly discredited by me and I did not spend more than 1 hour or so to get you tripping over your own two feet as poorly as the dudes in th fake moon landing movie. THANKS and remember I have SCREENSHOTS of this conversation so when it disappears, just makes my point better, but if it stays IT makes my point better. What a QUANDRY EHHHHH?

If you like I can send a copy of screen shots!!! Over and Out!!

THAT DUDE is a LIAR, and a FRAUD. WHY would I give a SH%T about anything he says!!!!! NOW TELL ME I AM WRONG and you will PROVE YOUR OWN LACK of READING COMPREHENSION!

Actually, the question I've been raising is whether or not it is possible to make a video of a fake moon landing using technology that was available in 1969, and whether similar could have been achieved for subsequent moon landings that used even higher frame rates.

[daveflat]

One quick question regarding the moon. There is a famous shot from the moon with the earth rising over its horizon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELfhVVVkmg. The question is this: How can we see the earth rising over the moons horizon when the same face of the moon is ALWAYS directed at earth and where they landed (supposedly)) is the part that we can see, the earth should be "over" the astronots head at all times no?

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation”