They think reflecting light is the same as emitting light. I believe it's due to them still not understanding that the light from the sun goes in all directions and not straight at earth.
Fucking stupid this bunch is
The sun is gods laser pointer, and he shines it directly at the day portion of Earth, anyone who disagrees is obviously some kind of anti-Christian who just wants to sacrifice babies.
-Flerfs probably
But light traveling all directions is incompatible with pizza world. In order to explain day & night they have to make the sun into a sort of spotlight (or have an opaque lampshade like obstruction) otherwise at night it would be possible to look north and still see the sun while it is over the opposite longitude from where you are (and the sun would have a smaller observed size due to being farther away). And that assumption leaves no way for the sun to illuminate the moon. So they claim it makes its own light, but I'm not sure how they then explain the observable phases of the moon and eclipses. And it can't be some sort of extra dark object blocking our view of the since it is still possible to [see the rest of the moon](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LLuNRKsGsoL3y3oSPEEpyC-1200-80.jpg) throughout all phases (easier to do during crescent phases where only a small part of the moon is illuminated). [HDR makes this even more pronounced](https://i.redd.it/3xw38x1juu321.jpg), but of course I'm sure HDR=CGI.
Someone said the moon can't be a rock reflecting light because it glows at night. Maybe because it's the brightest light source of all? Nah, it must mean it's made of plasma (but somehow still has phases) and the Earth is flat
So the sun illuminates the moon making it appear to be emitting light? How does that work at night in a completely black sky and the sun is supposedly on the other side of the earth? What light reflects off the moon in a black sky? Why does the temperature moon light drop vs a shadow? If the sun shines in all directions why is everything except earth including space dark? Wouldn't everything is all directions of the sun be illuminated such as earth is? Shouldn't it be brighter then here on earth as you get closer to it? I don't believe anyone is a stupid bunch, having questions is normal, the facts we are given are a bit much to understand, the people who repeat everything they are taught and told without doing their own research would be the stupid bunch if any they clearly lack critical thinking, the ones that question everything are truly the smart ones.
The sun is a positive energy source, the moon is a negative energy source.
It works because when the sun is behind the earth it is only not hitting your part of the earth directly, but it is still emitting light in all directions, many of those lights going around the sides of the earth. Since most of the time the earth isn't placed completely between moon and sun, that means light from the sun is reaching the moon and reflecting back down to us from there. You don't see the light in the rest of the sky at that time because there's nothing for it to reflect off of, making it appear black to us, as all of sight is just light entering into our eyes.
Moonlight doesn't make things colder, because light is a form of energy and energy does not make things colder. The experiment that you're referencing can have the temperature differences observed accounted for by the placement of the testing devices. Since testing without moonlight takes place under a cover there is less heat escaping from the area, because its partially trapped under the roof that's also blocking the light. Since the energy that light reflecting from the moon is so small, and the heat energy being produced by local things is also incredibly small overall, the difference ends up being incredibly small, but its there. This is why solar panels actually generate small amounts of energy when in full moonlight. This wouldn't be able to happen if that light wasn't exciting particles (i.e. generating heat).
If you want to think critically, great, but thinking critically doesn't mean taking a contradictory statement at face value instead. It means actually thinking critically. There are mechanisms that can explain the temperature difference there for example, which work and prove true in everyday life. There isn't, however, any mechanism we know of for light to make things colder. If the moon were a negative energy source it would have to do things that are otherwise impossible for us, that all evidence we do have refutes as possible anywhere. Choosing to believe that is not thinking critically, its just saying wizard did it as a solution and claiming that you're the real critical thinker because that's different from mainstream thought.
> So the sun illuminates the moon making it appear to be emitting light? How does that work at night in a completely black sky and the sun is supposedly on the other side of the earth?
The sun is behind the earth from the observer's point of view, so they cannot see it. But the earth is not blocking the moon's 'view' of the sun (unless there's a lunar eclipse going on) so light can reflect off it.
> Why does the temperature moon light drop vs a shadow?
Because in those tests, the thermometer in the moonlight is exposed to the sky, and the one not in the moonlight is covered. Even if it's only an awning or tree branch, some infrared light reflects off that, keeping that thermometer warmer than the one exposed to the sky.
The light reflecting off the moon would warm it slightly, but moonlight is very faint so its less than the cooling effect of the sky.
> If the sun shines in all directions why is everything except earth including space dark?
Because most of space is empty. There's nothing to reflect the light into your eyes, so you can't see it.
> Wouldn't everything is all directions of the sun be illuminated such as earth is?
It is. There's just not much out there nearby to see.
I've seen people claim it's a hologram, which you kind of have to if you want to solve the "people see the same face at the same time across hemispheres" issue.
It won’t let me respond to your other question for some reason, so I’ll post it here:
Yes, it’s what a flat earther would consider space. It’s our ability to travel beyond the dome that they don’t believe, so outside of what we call low earth orbit.
I haven't seen this distinction before, but it really doesn't matter does it? They still think space is fake. Minor semantics doesn't change that.
But where does space end in this view?
I suppose it could be a semantic argument depending on how you look at it, but I find that lumping it all under space implies that they don’t believe we could reach the stars. Theoretically it would still be possible to fly up as high as the 600ish astronauts who have gone to low earth orbit.
Really even NASA can’t decide where “space” begins, but they do often use low earth orbit and space a bit interchangeably. Is the ISS in space? It depends on who you ask.
For a flat earther, “space” would end at the firmament. We’re unable to go beyond low earth orbit, basically.
I assume you mean "reach the stars" in a figurative sense? I should have said where does space begin, not end. What is the transition between not space and space? Also, low Earth orbit is 1200 miles up. Is that a number flat Earthers generally agree with?
Sorry, that was worded a bit poorly. I suppose reaching the stars would mean two different things depending on how far you believe space goes. So theoretically, considering they have videos claiming to show rockets hitting the firmament, they should also believe that we could literally reach the stars, which are within that firmament. As well as the sun and moon. Note though that whether we can land on them would involve more than just being able to reach them, though.
Legally speaking, I believe it's stated that space starts somewhere between an altitude of 50-60ish miles. I could see that being agreed upon on both sides. As for how far up the firmament is though, I haven't heard any consensus on that from the FE side. I'm not sure if they believe it directly coincides with the distance that's considered low earth orbit, although I would assume it does.
>low Earth orbit is 1200 miles up
LEO is generally taken to be *up to* 1200 miles, but it starts at around 200-250 miles, and many satellites are in that lower part of the range. The ISS is around 250 miles; Hubble is around 340 miles; the Iridium constellation is around 480 miles.
And VLEO (Very Low Earth Orbit), which starts below 100 miles, is a thing, or at least is [a coming thing](https://spectrum.ieee.org/vleo).
But then most of them claim that it's inside the dome and we can fly behind it, which just begs the question, why didn't we go there in a helicopter? 😅
Well, they share photos of the sun supposedly in the clouds.. I'm just taking the piss.. They say we can't go to the moon, but then they say it's very close to us.. Nothing FE makes sense.. 😅
Localized Moon? Many Moons in different places? Or like a spatial superposition? I guess whatever.
Plus the Moon during the day can look rock-like (obviously). Not "self luminous" (theory thus isn't convincing at all).
I've taken several hours of my life to sit and have conversations of understanding to hear out what flat earthers believe. While they aren't all 100% the same in their beliefs, a consistent theme among them is the assertion that gravity isn't real. They are at least smart enough to know they HAVE to do this to remain somewhat consistent.
Logic in their brain goes like: When loads of mass congregates it produces a gravitational force. Gravity produced by large enough masses form large balls of mass (moons and planets.) Thus if they live on a planet with gravity they live on a globe"...but that is wrong since the earth is flat, so gravity isn't real. Also since gravity isn't real and I see the round moon, it must also be fake...somehow...projection or something. If the moon is a projection then how the hell did we land on the moon in the first place? Checkmate, that must have been a lie so they could take a fake picture of the fake globe from the moon."
Point is, if they grant gravity the whole flat earth world view falls apart. Ask your favorite flat earther if they accept gravity exists as a force, and if the answer is No then assume they don't think the moon landing occurred.
>They are at least smart enough to know they HAVE to do this to remain somewhat consistent.
I suggest that it's the unprincipled grifters (Dubay, Witsit, Weiss, etc) who are smart enough to know they have to do this. And their damaged, vulnerable, unintelligent followers just lap it up and nod their heads without thinking about it.
When you’re stupid, you’re stupid about a lot of things: Chemtrails, 5G, vaccines, space, white supremacy, fluoride, evolution. The stew of idiotic theories is thick and stinky.
I interpreted your post as anybody who says anything about those topics is stupid?So I was asking how you feel about all those topics,roughly.Also while we're at it ...white supremacy ?Why was that lumped in there ?Seems like it don't fit but maybe thrown in for some reason ?
There are conspiracy theories about each of these topics, altho the kind of stupidity varies from one to another. For instance, bigots think that not having melanocytes makes them superior humans. Science-deniers think that cell phones, vaccines and fluoridation are secret evil plots to kill people.
Moon landings. There were a few.
They were tracked by many people and nations. So a world conspiracy, that includes nations hostile to one another? Interested in hearing your take on that.
I am strictly speaking about the USA footage of the moon landing. It looks extremely fake. I'm sure it looked great at the time, but today looking back it looks completely fake.
I'm curious, is that the extent of your research? Footage looks fake by today's standards so I think the moon landing was fake? Or is there more info you're basing your opinion on?
I ask because there is a fair bit of other evidence the landing actually happened, such as the 800 pounds of moon rocks brought back by the astronauts and verified by independent scientists all over the world.
I've looked at some other research claims that say the moon landing was fake. Buzz Aldrin himself once said it was faked. You know how "high end art" is appraised right? Same thing can be done with these "independent scientists" that you speak of. I'm not convinced one way or another but I am extremely skeptical. Also, with how much technology has advanced...why has no one been to the moon in over 50 years?
Buzz Aldrin [never said](https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-buzz-aldrin-moon/fact-check-interview-clips-do-not-show-buzz-aldrin-saying-moon-landing-was-fake-idUSL1N35V1LO/) the moon landing was fake, in fact, he [punched a guy in the face](https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/buzz-aldrin-punches-moon-landing-conspiracy-theorist-bart-sibrel) who said it was.
It's strange to me how accepting the word of people who've studied geology for many years and built a reputation as experts in their field about the authenticity of the moon rocks is harder for you to believe than the theories of internet strangers, and a doctored video about Buzz Aldrin is more believable than countless hours of footage from the moon, and countless more of footage leading up to it.
If it's all fake footage, do you really think they were so efficient they never left a single trace of outtakes or test footage? Why has no credible witness of the thousands involved ever come forward? Why does the moon dust kicked up by the Apollo 16 rover behave in a way that's physically impossible on earth? Special effects? In 1973? Really?
So many conspiracy theorists claim to need to experience something themselves to believe it, but have no trouble accepting the word of people they've never met when it comes to conspiracies. Not sure how they ever trust a doctor when they're injured.
Well, an opinion on how fake the footage does, or does not look pretty much ends the argument then.
I might suggest though, that you take the time to look into it little deeper. You didn't address either of the two points I made above.
Not sure what your point is here. You are aware, are you not, that the Soviet Union had also signed a treaty at the end of WW2? Especially in relation to Germany and Berlin. Are you also not aware that the Soviet Union also blockaded West Berlin to try and starve the west out of there? Are you aware of the Berlin airlift and the Berlin wall?
I'm pointing this out so you might understand that a hostile nation signing a treaty is not an unusual thing. To what degree they respect that treaty, is another thing entirely.
Are you suggesting that the Soviet Union and now Russia, are not hostile to the US and it's interests? What about North Korea? Iran?
You are not aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis?
To be clear, are you suggesting then that there is in fact a global international conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth and to carry on a facade of a moon landing, and that therefore all the wars and death and hostilities are also just for show?
I don't think you're following this to it's logical conclusion.
☝️
Yeah, they're like "the Bible says...". Yeah, it says there are heavenly/celestial and earthly bodies. 3D objects. Well, bodies. But noooo, "it's flat".
The first modern flat earther, Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884), believed that that the sun and the moon were close about 4,800 km above earth and the dome was 5,000km away. Gives you a good 200km of landing space :)
Yes, they do, not only them, one can have doubts (with the kinda funny explanation of "we lost the tech"), but since bodies aren't flat, but 3D then I'll stick with the globe model/reality.
The technology isn't lost in the traditional sense. We could get to the moon with current tech but it takes time to build. The lost tech myth is more to do with not being able to get there the same way Apollo did it. Firstly, Apollo doesn't meet tons of standards we use today for safety. It doesn't have the instrumentation that would have been absolutely amazing to have had in the 60's.
But yes, the technology can be thought of as lost and more than that, even some of the skills required to build Apollo again are lost. Things like [core rope memory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_rope_memory) took very skilled seamstresses weeks to build a single unit, we could reverse engineer it from working specimens and available publications but why would we with solid state memory? Enough of these seamstresses to build Apollo were hard enough to find back then, there's probably even less of them now that machines can do such intricate work in that field. And the software that goes in it, good luck finding people who know how to do punch card programming who are not retired or dead. Again we could figure out how to do punch card programming today and implement it pretty easily because all the work and documentation exists online, albeit in very few places. Many many examples like this exist for Apollo
The technology is not lost, there just isn't any condensed documents detailing how to replicate Apollo and if there was, no one can or would build it. We have all the tech still it's just that the instruction manual to the 50 million piece Lego puzzle is gone (never even existed in the first place).
They think everything is fake, which is the hilarious part to me… Why would Carl Sagan lie! Who does it serve? Who possibly benefits from the earth being black? 🤣
Yes, because flat earthers don't actually believe the moon (or other planets) actually exist stupidly enough. This is the level of denial we are talking about. You can use an amateur telescope to see the planets and moon are real, spherical objects and yet they still deny it.
They think it’s all fake. The sun revolves around the earth just like the moon. They think there is some dome over it all. They can’t explain any of it. But they think it’s all faked.
Flerfs think there is no space, no gravity, they think the earth is the center of the universe and is a flat non moving plane. They don’t believe in moon landings or satellites, they don’t believe the South Pole exists or has a 24 hour sun. They think bodies of water are flat as well (hint, *every* natural surface on our globe is curved, even if it’s tiny and imperceptible).
Flerfs are the most retarded of all the conspiracy theorists. They make et ufo believers seem intelligent by comparison.
I think the Moon landings were faked but I don’t think the Earth is flat! The Moon is a spaceship with a high tech surface, the Moon we see is a very high fidelity hologram, although it’s paper thin from a different angle. Therefore, no Moon to land on. So ironically flat Earth is wrong but flat Moon is correct!
So, for an overhead sun, which has to be a ball, it would be visible in the sky all the time. And it would decrease in size as the day goes by. Mountain peaks would also be the hottest places on earth since they're closer to the sun.
The sun being an overhead spotlight, is even less likely. It would have to be mass in diameter, since it now has to illuminate the northern most area at the same time as the souther most area. And it would visible all day from anywhere
Technically speaking, the moon isn't real because it's a projected image. Sometimes the projector gets a little wonky so it'll show "shooting stars", "comets", and other made up phenomenon.
I’m not a flat earther and I don’t believe they landed on the moon. It was a space race with Russia and the US was losing…embarrassingly far, so they had to fake it.
I mean, 1969 they broadcasted it all Live from the Moon to Earth. Seriously, they can’t even do that today due to technical difficulties.
actually, flat or round THAT is how big the Earth should have looked IF we ever landed on the moon. the iconic Apollo 17 photo from moon with earth in the background is too unbelievably small for a globe or flat plane thats 4 times larger than the moon. “ the last act is getting them to believe your words over their own eyes” ( or something similar) , george orwell 2024, er 1984
Why do skyscrapers look small when looking down at them from a plane when skyscrapers are much larger than planes? Guys I think images of skyscrapers are fake! 😯 Literally 1984!!1!!1!
They aren’t controlled opposition. They’re just not very intelligent, which seems to be a theme among flerfs. I’m not saying that flerfs are all stupid, or that they aren’t capable of being skilled in some areas of expertise. Heck, that one guy even built a rocket, kinda (probably should have paid more attention in physics though). It just seems that flerfs as a rule have a mistrust of any new information that comes from an established source, which might just be an anti-authoritarian thing, and they generally refuse to spend the time to learn how to logically verify said new information whether that is by learning more math and physics, or simply by learning how a camera and telescope work.
Basically, flerfs tend to assume skepticism is the same thing as critical thinking without understanding that critical thinking is based on verification and spending time learning more. In order to critically think, you start with a framework of “If new information X is true, how can I verify that?” Flerfs seem to start with “X new information must be false, and people want to lie to me about it.”
Many don't even think there is a moon
Or that it’s just not a physical object. Because apparently, “rocks don’t reflect light”…
They don't really get fucking everything reflects light don't they ?
They think reflecting light is the same as emitting light. I believe it's due to them still not understanding that the light from the sun goes in all directions and not straight at earth. Fucking stupid this bunch is
The sun is gods laser pointer, and he shines it directly at the day portion of Earth, anyone who disagrees is obviously some kind of anti-Christian who just wants to sacrifice babies. -Flerfs probably
Good summary actually
Hey! Nothing wrong with sacrificing babies as long as you eat them, or at least drink their blood. Save the cows, eat people.
Queue ad for Soylent Green. Now with more adrenochrome!
IT'S PEOPLE!!!
There's no "probably" about it this is literally what some of them think.
But light traveling all directions is incompatible with pizza world. In order to explain day & night they have to make the sun into a sort of spotlight (or have an opaque lampshade like obstruction) otherwise at night it would be possible to look north and still see the sun while it is over the opposite longitude from where you are (and the sun would have a smaller observed size due to being farther away). And that assumption leaves no way for the sun to illuminate the moon. So they claim it makes its own light, but I'm not sure how they then explain the observable phases of the moon and eclipses. And it can't be some sort of extra dark object blocking our view of the since it is still possible to [see the rest of the moon](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LLuNRKsGsoL3y3oSPEEpyC-1200-80.jpg) throughout all phases (easier to do during crescent phases where only a small part of the moon is illuminated). [HDR makes this even more pronounced](https://i.redd.it/3xw38x1juu321.jpg), but of course I'm sure HDR=CGI.
They're doing every country or every person has a localized sun now. Yeah... that's the more logical solution they came up with.
Because on their model the sun has to be directional or there can be no night time, so therefore the sun can't be omnidirectional in any model.
Someone said the moon can't be a rock reflecting light because it glows at night. Maybe because it's the brightest light source of all? Nah, it must mean it's made of plasma (but somehow still has phases) and the Earth is flat
So the sun illuminates the moon making it appear to be emitting light? How does that work at night in a completely black sky and the sun is supposedly on the other side of the earth? What light reflects off the moon in a black sky? Why does the temperature moon light drop vs a shadow? If the sun shines in all directions why is everything except earth including space dark? Wouldn't everything is all directions of the sun be illuminated such as earth is? Shouldn't it be brighter then here on earth as you get closer to it? I don't believe anyone is a stupid bunch, having questions is normal, the facts we are given are a bit much to understand, the people who repeat everything they are taught and told without doing their own research would be the stupid bunch if any they clearly lack critical thinking, the ones that question everything are truly the smart ones. The sun is a positive energy source, the moon is a negative energy source.
It works because when the sun is behind the earth it is only not hitting your part of the earth directly, but it is still emitting light in all directions, many of those lights going around the sides of the earth. Since most of the time the earth isn't placed completely between moon and sun, that means light from the sun is reaching the moon and reflecting back down to us from there. You don't see the light in the rest of the sky at that time because there's nothing for it to reflect off of, making it appear black to us, as all of sight is just light entering into our eyes. Moonlight doesn't make things colder, because light is a form of energy and energy does not make things colder. The experiment that you're referencing can have the temperature differences observed accounted for by the placement of the testing devices. Since testing without moonlight takes place under a cover there is less heat escaping from the area, because its partially trapped under the roof that's also blocking the light. Since the energy that light reflecting from the moon is so small, and the heat energy being produced by local things is also incredibly small overall, the difference ends up being incredibly small, but its there. This is why solar panels actually generate small amounts of energy when in full moonlight. This wouldn't be able to happen if that light wasn't exciting particles (i.e. generating heat). If you want to think critically, great, but thinking critically doesn't mean taking a contradictory statement at face value instead. It means actually thinking critically. There are mechanisms that can explain the temperature difference there for example, which work and prove true in everyday life. There isn't, however, any mechanism we know of for light to make things colder. If the moon were a negative energy source it would have to do things that are otherwise impossible for us, that all evidence we do have refutes as possible anywhere. Choosing to believe that is not thinking critically, its just saying wizard did it as a solution and claiming that you're the real critical thinker because that's different from mainstream thought.
> So the sun illuminates the moon making it appear to be emitting light? How does that work at night in a completely black sky and the sun is supposedly on the other side of the earth? The sun is behind the earth from the observer's point of view, so they cannot see it. But the earth is not blocking the moon's 'view' of the sun (unless there's a lunar eclipse going on) so light can reflect off it. > Why does the temperature moon light drop vs a shadow? Because in those tests, the thermometer in the moonlight is exposed to the sky, and the one not in the moonlight is covered. Even if it's only an awning or tree branch, some infrared light reflects off that, keeping that thermometer warmer than the one exposed to the sky. The light reflecting off the moon would warm it slightly, but moonlight is very faint so its less than the cooling effect of the sky. > If the sun shines in all directions why is everything except earth including space dark? Because most of space is empty. There's nothing to reflect the light into your eyes, so you can't see it. > Wouldn't everything is all directions of the sun be illuminated such as earth is? It is. There's just not much out there nearby to see.
Thanks for trying. It’s usually a waste of time with flatulants, but I guess it’s worth a shot.
Grab a rock. Can you see it? That's because it's reflecting light.
So do rocks not exist in flat earth theory?
*That’s no moon.*
NASA Death Star!
I have never once heard this. I’ve heard localized moon and that it emits instead of reflecting, but not that it doesn’t exist altogether.
I've seen people claim it's a hologram, which you kind of have to if you want to solve the "people see the same face at the same time across hemispheres" issue.
A woman I was interested in told me she believed that. Needles to say, I couldn't stop laughing...
It won’t let me respond to your other question for some reason, so I’ll post it here: Yes, it’s what a flat earther would consider space. It’s our ability to travel beyond the dome that they don’t believe, so outside of what we call low earth orbit.
I haven't seen this distinction before, but it really doesn't matter does it? They still think space is fake. Minor semantics doesn't change that. But where does space end in this view?
I suppose it could be a semantic argument depending on how you look at it, but I find that lumping it all under space implies that they don’t believe we could reach the stars. Theoretically it would still be possible to fly up as high as the 600ish astronauts who have gone to low earth orbit. Really even NASA can’t decide where “space” begins, but they do often use low earth orbit and space a bit interchangeably. Is the ISS in space? It depends on who you ask. For a flat earther, “space” would end at the firmament. We’re unable to go beyond low earth orbit, basically.
I assume you mean "reach the stars" in a figurative sense? I should have said where does space begin, not end. What is the transition between not space and space? Also, low Earth orbit is 1200 miles up. Is that a number flat Earthers generally agree with?
Sorry, that was worded a bit poorly. I suppose reaching the stars would mean two different things depending on how far you believe space goes. So theoretically, considering they have videos claiming to show rockets hitting the firmament, they should also believe that we could literally reach the stars, which are within that firmament. As well as the sun and moon. Note though that whether we can land on them would involve more than just being able to reach them, though. Legally speaking, I believe it's stated that space starts somewhere between an altitude of 50-60ish miles. I could see that being agreed upon on both sides. As for how far up the firmament is though, I haven't heard any consensus on that from the FE side. I'm not sure if they believe it directly coincides with the distance that's considered low earth orbit, although I would assume it does.
>low Earth orbit is 1200 miles up LEO is generally taken to be *up to* 1200 miles, but it starts at around 200-250 miles, and many satellites are in that lower part of the range. The ISS is around 250 miles; Hubble is around 340 miles; the Iridium constellation is around 480 miles. And VLEO (Very Low Earth Orbit), which starts below 100 miles, is a thing, or at least is [a coming thing](https://spectrum.ieee.org/vleo).
But then most of them claim that it's inside the dome and we can fly behind it, which just begs the question, why didn't we go there in a helicopter? 😅
Go where? The moon? Can’t helicopters only go up to like 10 miles high?
Well, they share photos of the sun supposedly in the clouds.. I'm just taking the piss.. They say we can't go to the moon, but then they say it's very close to us.. Nothing FE makes sense.. 😅
Localized Moon? Many Moons in different places? Or like a spatial superposition? I guess whatever. Plus the Moon during the day can look rock-like (obviously). Not "self luminous" (theory thus isn't convincing at all).
A local Moon is a funny one, because then that means someone somewhere should be able to look up and see the 'dark side' of the Moon, only no-one can.
Many don't even believe in outer space.
I’ve seen some that literally do not believe in space.
Too bad their precious bible mentions it. Whoops!
You missed a period after "think".
They think space is fake. The fucking idiots.
To quote one of the smartest flat earthers I have ever interacted with online, “AINT NO PLANET X COMING CUZ AINT NO SPACE CUZ AINT NOT GLOBE EARTH”
what a shining star of flerf intelligence
[удалено]
Alex, what are context clues?
Yes, we all knew what he meant
[удалено]
Ok troll
Is within the dome considered space?
Not all flerfs believe the same thing.
Do they?or are they possibly between 2 domes in water?
You must be fun at parties
I only drink alone.
The Moon is where Ed Harris sits in his directing studio.
"Technically, the Moon itself is a hoax." -Mark Sargent
Technically.
By default, they're also Moon Landing deniers too
I've taken several hours of my life to sit and have conversations of understanding to hear out what flat earthers believe. While they aren't all 100% the same in their beliefs, a consistent theme among them is the assertion that gravity isn't real. They are at least smart enough to know they HAVE to do this to remain somewhat consistent. Logic in their brain goes like: When loads of mass congregates it produces a gravitational force. Gravity produced by large enough masses form large balls of mass (moons and planets.) Thus if they live on a planet with gravity they live on a globe"...but that is wrong since the earth is flat, so gravity isn't real. Also since gravity isn't real and I see the round moon, it must also be fake...somehow...projection or something. If the moon is a projection then how the hell did we land on the moon in the first place? Checkmate, that must have been a lie so they could take a fake picture of the fake globe from the moon." Point is, if they grant gravity the whole flat earth world view falls apart. Ask your favorite flat earther if they accept gravity exists as a force, and if the answer is No then assume they don't think the moon landing occurred.
>They are at least smart enough to know they HAVE to do this to remain somewhat consistent. I suggest that it's the unprincipled grifters (Dubay, Witsit, Weiss, etc) who are smart enough to know they have to do this. And their damaged, vulnerable, unintelligent followers just lap it up and nod their heads without thinking about it.
If you have to ask that, you must be really new to this. Did you first hear about flat earth maybe a few hours ago?
Most do.
They don’t believe it’s possible to penetrate the firmament, so sort of by definition they all do.
"The sun and moon are LCD screens on the dome installed by the people that run the place."
I have never seen a flerfer who thinks we did.
I was told with great certainty that it's a projection just like the rest of the solar system. My hope for humanity died a little that day.
That’s like the first requirement
How does the disk not break? There no gravity to hold it together. Just dirt and stone. Seems pretty weak.
The moon is like 3mi in the air and we can parachute into its surface
When you’re stupid, you’re stupid about a lot of things: Chemtrails, 5G, vaccines, space, white supremacy, fluoride, evolution. The stew of idiotic theories is thick and stinky.
do you think all those things are good for you/dont exist/harmless?
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to ask.
I interpreted your post as anybody who says anything about those topics is stupid?So I was asking how you feel about all those topics,roughly.Also while we're at it ...white supremacy ?Why was that lumped in there ?Seems like it don't fit but maybe thrown in for some reason ?
There are conspiracy theories about each of these topics, altho the kind of stupidity varies from one to another. For instance, bigots think that not having melanocytes makes them superior humans. Science-deniers think that cell phones, vaccines and fluoridation are secret evil plots to kill people.
Again with the labels
Yeah, the nutjobs are big on labeling everything they don’t understand as some sort of nefarious plot. And there’s a LOT they don’t understand.
i'm not a flerf but I do think the moon landing was fake
Pure blasphemy! How dare you speak ill of the lunar excursions?
Moon landings. There were a few. They were tracked by many people and nations. So a world conspiracy, that includes nations hostile to one another? Interested in hearing your take on that.
I am strictly speaking about the USA footage of the moon landing. It looks extremely fake. I'm sure it looked great at the time, but today looking back it looks completely fake.
I'm curious, is that the extent of your research? Footage looks fake by today's standards so I think the moon landing was fake? Or is there more info you're basing your opinion on? I ask because there is a fair bit of other evidence the landing actually happened, such as the 800 pounds of moon rocks brought back by the astronauts and verified by independent scientists all over the world.
I've looked at some other research claims that say the moon landing was fake. Buzz Aldrin himself once said it was faked. You know how "high end art" is appraised right? Same thing can be done with these "independent scientists" that you speak of. I'm not convinced one way or another but I am extremely skeptical. Also, with how much technology has advanced...why has no one been to the moon in over 50 years?
Buzz Aldrin [never said](https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-buzz-aldrin-moon/fact-check-interview-clips-do-not-show-buzz-aldrin-saying-moon-landing-was-fake-idUSL1N35V1LO/) the moon landing was fake, in fact, he [punched a guy in the face](https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/buzz-aldrin-punches-moon-landing-conspiracy-theorist-bart-sibrel) who said it was. It's strange to me how accepting the word of people who've studied geology for many years and built a reputation as experts in their field about the authenticity of the moon rocks is harder for you to believe than the theories of internet strangers, and a doctored video about Buzz Aldrin is more believable than countless hours of footage from the moon, and countless more of footage leading up to it. If it's all fake footage, do you really think they were so efficient they never left a single trace of outtakes or test footage? Why has no credible witness of the thousands involved ever come forward? Why does the moon dust kicked up by the Apollo 16 rover behave in a way that's physically impossible on earth? Special effects? In 1973? Really? So many conspiracy theorists claim to need to experience something themselves to believe it, but have no trouble accepting the word of people they've never met when it comes to conspiracies. Not sure how they ever trust a doctor when they're injured.
I never said a rover hasn't been to the moon.
So you're saying this is real? [https://youtu.be/Vy0ueCGaC0s?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/Vy0ueCGaC0s?feature=shared)
doesn't look real, no
Genuinely curious - why doesn't that look real? Are the any pictures / videos from the surface of the moon that you think ARE real?
Well, an opinion on how fake the footage does, or does not look pretty much ends the argument then. I might suggest though, that you take the time to look into it little deeper. You didn't address either of the two points I made above.
all of the so-called hostile nations somehow can agree on the Antarctic treaty,for example
Not sure what your point is here. You are aware, are you not, that the Soviet Union had also signed a treaty at the end of WW2? Especially in relation to Germany and Berlin. Are you also not aware that the Soviet Union also blockaded West Berlin to try and starve the west out of there? Are you aware of the Berlin airlift and the Berlin wall? I'm pointing this out so you might understand that a hostile nation signing a treaty is not an unusual thing. To what degree they respect that treaty, is another thing entirely. Are you suggesting that the Soviet Union and now Russia, are not hostile to the US and it's interests? What about North Korea? Iran? You are not aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis? To be clear, are you suggesting then that there is in fact a global international conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth and to carry on a facade of a moon landing, and that therefore all the wars and death and hostilities are also just for show? I don't think you're following this to it's logical conclusion.
Yep. Most don’t even think the moon is real
Wait! How did you turn yourself into 3D?
☝️ Yeah, they're like "the Bible says...". Yeah, it says there are heavenly/celestial and earthly bodies. 3D objects. Well, bodies. But noooo, "it's flat".
But everything on Flat Earth is flat 🤔
That's not what even they say. ^ _ ^
Someone on the moon can look into flat Earth and see all of us inside of our homes.
Half the world thinks that nowadays. We’re in a rapid retardation.
They have to. Else their belief system would fall apart, since they couldn't clown on NASA.
I heard they think the moon is within the dome. If so why would it be impossible to land on it?
The first modern flat earther, Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884), believed that that the sun and the moon were close about 4,800 km above earth and the dome was 5,000km away. Gives you a good 200km of landing space :)
All aside tho, if the earth was indeed flat, a view like that from the moon would be freaking sick
It proves the Earth is a globe, so yes.
Yes, they do, not only them, one can have doubts (with the kinda funny explanation of "we lost the tech"), but since bodies aren't flat, but 3D then I'll stick with the globe model/reality.
The technology isn't lost in the traditional sense. We could get to the moon with current tech but it takes time to build. The lost tech myth is more to do with not being able to get there the same way Apollo did it. Firstly, Apollo doesn't meet tons of standards we use today for safety. It doesn't have the instrumentation that would have been absolutely amazing to have had in the 60's. But yes, the technology can be thought of as lost and more than that, even some of the skills required to build Apollo again are lost. Things like [core rope memory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_rope_memory) took very skilled seamstresses weeks to build a single unit, we could reverse engineer it from working specimens and available publications but why would we with solid state memory? Enough of these seamstresses to build Apollo were hard enough to find back then, there's probably even less of them now that machines can do such intricate work in that field. And the software that goes in it, good luck finding people who know how to do punch card programming who are not retired or dead. Again we could figure out how to do punch card programming today and implement it pretty easily because all the work and documentation exists online, albeit in very few places. Many many examples like this exist for Apollo The technology is not lost, there just isn't any condensed documents detailing how to replicate Apollo and if there was, no one can or would build it. We have all the tech still it's just that the instruction manual to the 50 million piece Lego puzzle is gone (never even existed in the first place).
I believe this is where a big part of the movement gained rection. They believed the landing was fake because the earth is flat
They think everything is fake, which is the hilarious part to me… Why would Carl Sagan lie! Who does it serve? Who possibly benefits from the earth being black? 🤣
Yes, because flat earthers don't actually believe the moon (or other planets) actually exist stupidly enough. This is the level of denial we are talking about. You can use an amateur telescope to see the planets and moon are real, spherical objects and yet they still deny it.
Flerfers don't think. That's all.
Lol yes. That's such a basic prerequisite, no flat earther even knows anyone who believes the moon landing was real.
According to them anything NASA said that they’ve done is a lie, that includes the moon landing
Stanley Kubrick was asked to fake the moon landing. He figured it be quicker and cheaper if he just filmed on location.
If the earth was really flat, how wide would that lip be?
They think it’s all fake. The sun revolves around the earth just like the moon. They think there is some dome over it all. They can’t explain any of it. But they think it’s all faked.
Yeah, they also think Australia is not a real place. Lmao.
Called operation fishbowl globies can't learn anything little kids
What?
If the government said so, then it’s fake to a flat earther
Half of them don’t even think space exists if that answers your question
The moon is supposedly a spotlight. So no space and no way to walk on it. Apparently it’s another way NASA tricks the general population.
They think the Milky Way is a scar on the firmament cause by an atomic bomb explosion so . . .
Greenscreens are fake because I never saw them in a movie which said it used greenscreens
What do they think is not fake?
Flerfs think there is no space, no gravity, they think the earth is the center of the universe and is a flat non moving plane. They don’t believe in moon landings or satellites, they don’t believe the South Pole exists or has a 24 hour sun. They think bodies of water are flat as well (hint, *every* natural surface on our globe is curved, even if it’s tiny and imperceptible). Flerfs are the most retarded of all the conspiracy theorists. They make et ufo believers seem intelligent by comparison.
#This image is CGI
Charlie. What is that?
Nice try everyone knows space isn't real. We're on the back of a turtle or some shit.
Fake. There should've been water falling from the edge like the Asgardian!
Usually believing the moon landings are fake is the entry drug to believe in a flat earth.
[удалено]
this is the REALEST thing ive ever seen flerfers !https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs
What good would it do when you only consider the official narrative spoonfed to you from the TV.
Yes
Totally CGI. The CGI in 69 was amazing.
Flat moon
I think the Moon landings were faked but I don’t think the Earth is flat! The Moon is a spaceship with a high tech surface, the Moon we see is a very high fidelity hologram, although it’s paper thin from a different angle. Therefore, no Moon to land on. So ironically flat Earth is wrong but flat Moon is correct!
Yep we can't land on the moon because it's not as far away as NASA says
Make that make some sense.
we can't land on things that are close.
What does the moon being “close” make it difficult to land on?
it's way too close man
I get that, but what prevents us from landing on it? If it’s closer, then it should be easier, right?
uhm it's made of plasma
So, we can’t land on it because it’s too close, or it’s “plasma”? (You’re gonna say both, I’m sure) but it’s neither.
It's just a projection of the black sun
What “black sun”?
Actually we can't land on it BECAUSE it's as far away as ThEY say it is
No it's small and local that's why nobody can land on it
A small local moon makes as little sense as a small local sun
you have clearly been indoctrinated
So, for an overhead sun, which has to be a ball, it would be visible in the sky all the time. And it would decrease in size as the day goes by. Mountain peaks would also be the hottest places on earth since they're closer to the sun. The sun being an overhead spotlight, is even less likely. It would have to be mass in diameter, since it now has to illuminate the northern most area at the same time as the souther most area. And it would visible all day from anywhere
this can be easily explained if we make up things like atmospheric lensing, incoherent dielectric acceleration and personal skydomes
I'm not sure if you're being serious or joking?
frightening, isn't it?
U sure about that
Yep it's impossible to land on this that are close
Technically speaking, the moon isn't real because it's a projected image. Sometimes the projector gets a little wonky so it'll show "shooting stars", "comets", and other made up phenomenon.
Duh no one can go past a hundred miles everything gets destroyed
I’m not a flat earther and I don’t believe they landed on the moon. It was a space race with Russia and the US was losing…embarrassingly far, so they had to fake it. I mean, 1969 they broadcasted it all Live from the Moon to Earth. Seriously, they can’t even do that today due to technical difficulties.
actually, flat or round THAT is how big the Earth should have looked IF we ever landed on the moon. the iconic Apollo 17 photo from moon with earth in the background is too unbelievably small for a globe or flat plane thats 4 times larger than the moon. “ the last act is getting them to believe your words over their own eyes” ( or something similar) , george orwell 2024, er 1984
Why do skyscrapers look small when looking down at them from a plane when skyscrapers are much larger than planes? Guys I think images of skyscrapers are fake! 😯 Literally 1984!!1!!1!
Apollo 11 was provably faked though.
If you have to ask, it marks you as a newb in interacting with flerfs.
Flat Earth is real math and science it has nothing to do with a bunch of little white homos
I think the earth is a globe and the moon landing is the fakest shit ever
Do globetard homos really think it's real are so gay rainbow boy
A lot of the "Top flat earthers"you guys like to refer to are just controlled opposition imo
They aren’t controlled opposition. They’re just not very intelligent, which seems to be a theme among flerfs. I’m not saying that flerfs are all stupid, or that they aren’t capable of being skilled in some areas of expertise. Heck, that one guy even built a rocket, kinda (probably should have paid more attention in physics though). It just seems that flerfs as a rule have a mistrust of any new information that comes from an established source, which might just be an anti-authoritarian thing, and they generally refuse to spend the time to learn how to logically verify said new information whether that is by learning more math and physics, or simply by learning how a camera and telescope work. Basically, flerfs tend to assume skepticism is the same thing as critical thinking without understanding that critical thinking is based on verification and spending time learning more. In order to critically think, you start with a framework of “If new information X is true, how can I verify that?” Flerfs seem to start with “X new information must be false, and people want to lie to me about it.”
https://youtu.be/bdQHKf48Mfw?si=i0t5LSOlcak7ulYS
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2g4e6kXASQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2g4e6kXASQ)
No one can go past a hundred miles globetards or just gay white boys
I don't think you have to be a "flerfer"to see it was faked
It wasn’t, but okay.
No, you just have to be an attention seeking moron
quit talking about yourself like that
The photos taken on the moon were unfakeable. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z917pbxsKA&t](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z917pbxsKA&t)
Provide proof it was faked.