• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
Professor Goldie making things simple

Screenshot_20220504-152636_Sketchbook.jpg
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
1,029
Your lack of knowledge makes me look a genius, in comparison.
....and I never claimed to be a genius. So we all know where that'd put you on the iq scale.



Who the heck ever said it did?

If that's what you got out of my post, your reading ability might be ok, but your ability to understand what you've read, sucks.



That defines you perfectly, mr "i think he said the Earth illuminates the Moon", guy. Lol

Also, it wasn't what I was referring to at all, but seeing as you brought up the idea of the Earth lighting the Moon, there is such a thing as "Earth shine".
So in a way, some light reflected off of the Earth does in fact strike the Moon.

Look it up.



Yet my asinine chart from nasa is where the info in your next statement comes from. Lol



Yep, and that data came from the same source as the data reflected in "my" chart.

Also, keep in mind those are DAYTIME highs.

Daytime on the Moon lasts approx two weeks. When the astronauts were on the Moon, it was early in the Lunar day and the Sun was only about 30 degrees above the horizon.

Or are you so ignorant as to think that the instant any Sunlight hits an object in space or on the Moon, that it instantly becomes 260K?

It takes time for heat to build up. Even on Earth it does. Ever cook something in the oven without heating the oven up, first? Probably not.
Edited to add:...and here on Earth we have conduction and convection to aid heating and cooling, in addition to radiation which is the only way heat is transferred in space. So would it not stand to reason that if only one third of the possible ways to heat something up exists in space, that it would take longer to heat things up in space?
Edited again to further add: ...do you even know what conduction and convection are? It seems as though you do not.



You act like one.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how on average, the "far side" of the moon is cold and the earth facing side is hot under your nonsendical cosmological model.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
15,877
Reaction score
35,068
Location
SnowFlake City
I'm still waiting for you to explain how on average, the "far side" of the moon is cold and the earth facing side is hot under your nonsendical cosmological model.
The moon is a rotating body.
Two week long day (and night).
So...
The moon goes through a day/night — hot/cold cycle just like the earth's (which is round, not necessarily a perfect sphere) day/night cycle.

[back to the regularly scheduled debate]
BF
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I'm still waiting for you to explain how on average, the "far side" of the moon is cold and the earth facing side is hot under your nonsendical cosmological model.
The discussion was about the time period they were on the Moon.

Does it not stand to reason that if they were on the Earth facing Sunlit side of the Moon, that the far side (relative to the astronauts position upon the Moons surface) would have not been Sunlit, are therefore much colder than where they were?

You obviously have poor comprehension skills when reading, or you would have been able to grasp the context the first time.

Edited to add:...and further, any idiot around knows that a reference to the "far side" of the Moon refers to the non-Earth facing side. Which obviously would not have been Sunlit if the astronauts were on the Sunlit side.
 
Last edited:

BarnacleBob

Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor
Founding Member
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
20,104
Reaction score
46,417
FB_IMG_1651775399288.jpg


 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
1,029
The discussion was about the time period they were on the Moon.

Does it not stand to reason that if they were on the Earth facing Sunlit side of the Moon, that the far side (relative to the astronauts position upon the Moons surface) would have not been Sunlit, are therefore much colder than where they were?

You obviously have poor comprehension skills when reading, or you would have been able to grasp the context the first time.

Edited to add:...and further, any idiot around knows that a reference to the "far side" of the Moon refers to the non-Earth facing side. Which obviously would not have been Sunlit if the astronauts were on the Sunlit side.
If the astronots were on the earth facing side and the moon was fully lit ("full moon" for those more technically minded than you) as you claim , then why are the shadows so long in the pictures? For instance, the shadow of a man is 2-3x the height of a man in many of the pictures. On earth, you would only experience shdows like that near sunset and sunrise. A full moon should have almost no shadows (like 12 noon here on earth).
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
If the astronots were on the earth facing side and the moon was fully lit ("full moon" for those more technically minded than you) as you claim ,
First, the Moon is always "fully lit" on its Sun-facing side. Ie : one half of the Moons surface is always facing the Sun and is therefore lit up by the Sun.

It's only our viewing angle from Earth that causes it to to appear to have less than half its surface lit at various times in its orbit around the Earth.
....and by your response, everyone can clearly see it is YOU who are technically challenged, as you obviously have no idea how the Moons phases work.


then why are the shadows so long in the pictures?
Because from the astronauts perspective, the Sun was omly 30 degrees above the horizon.

What time of day is it on Earth when the Sun is only 30 degrees above the horizon?

A technically challenged person like you might think it was high noon, but it wasn't. It was early to mid morning in the lunar day.
A day that lasts about 14 days here on Earth.
....and by the fact it was Lunar morning for the astronauts, the Moon's surface was not yet heated to the high temps that you mistakenly believe it was.

Which gets back to my previous comment about things in space taking time to heat up.

On earth, you would only experience shdows like that near sunset and sunrise. A full moon should have almost no shadows (like 12 noon here on earth
See? There's the problem. You keep trying to compare how things are here on Earth to how you think things should be on the Moon.
It's the same thing with all the Moon hoax people.


Based on your response(s), it's obvious that you have not truly thought about and honestly researched any of this Moon stuff.

Yet you get nasty and hurl insults at anyone who has researched this stuff and then takes their own personal time to try to help you to be able to understand and not be so technically challenged.

Which is why I said you act like a flat Earther, as that is exactly how they respond to anyone trying to help them too.
Ie: it's a clasic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You try to come across like an expert, yet your responses clearly show that you are anything but that.
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
1,029
First, the Moon is always "fully lit" on its Sun-facing side. Ie : one half of the Moons surface is always facing the Sun and is therefore lit up by the Sun.

It's only our viewing angle from Earth that causes it to to appear to have less than half its surface lit at various times in its orbit around the Earth.
....and by your response, everyone can clearly see it is YOU who are technically challenged, as you obviously have no idea how the Moons phases work.



Because from the astronauts perspective, the Sun was omly 30 degrees above the horizon.

What time of day is it on Earth when the Sun is only 30 degrees above the horizon?

A technically challenged person like you might think it was high noon, but it wasn't. It was early to mid morning in the lunar day.
A day that lasts about 14 days here on Earth.
....and by the fact it was Lunar morning for the astronauts, the Moon's surface was not yet heated to the high temps that you mistakenly believe it was.

Which gets back to my previous comment about things in space taking time to heat up.


See? There's the problem. You keep trying to compare how things are here on Earth to how you think things should be on the Moon.
It's the same thing with all the Moon hoax people.


Based on your response(s), it's obvious that you have not truly thought about and honestly researched any of this Moon stuff.

Yet you get nasty and hurl insults at anyone who has researched this stuff and then takes their own personal time to try to help you to be able to understand and not be so technically challenged.

Which is why I said you act like a flat Earther, as that is exactly how they respond to anyone trying to help them too.
Ie: it's a clasic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You try to come across like an expert, yet your responses clearly show that you are anything but that.
Your answer makes absolutely no sense. If the astronots were right smack in the middle of the lit side of the moon, there should be almost no shadows. Try it at home. It's really that simple.
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Your answer makes absolutely no sense. If the astronots were right smack in the middle of the lit side of the moon, there should be almost no shadows. Try it at home. It's really that simple.
I already told you that relative to the astronauts position on the Moon, the Sun was at a 30 degree angle.

What part of that is so hard for you to comprehend, and why would you think it means they had to be in the middle of the Sunlit side?


You have obviously not researched this subject at all, and have obviously given no serious thought to it either.
....yet want to act qs though you are an authority on the subject.

How long have you suffered from DKS?
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
I already told you that relative to the astronauts position on the Moon, the Sun was at a 30 degree angle.

What part of that is so hard for you to comprehend, and why would you think it means they had to be in the middle of the Sunlit side?


You have obviously not researched this subject at all, and have obviously given no serious thought to it either.
....yet want to act qs though you are an authority on the subject.

How long have you suffered from DKS?
STM must be a result of DKS which results in TFS
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
Screenshot_20220506-144248_Sketchbook.jpg
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
1,029
I already told you that relative to the astronauts position on the Moon, the Sun was at a 30 degree angle.

What part of that is so hard for you to comprehend, and why would you think it means they had to be in the middle of the Sunlit side?


You have obviously not researched this subject at all, and have obviously given no serious thought to it either.
....yet want to act qs though you are an authority on the subject.

How long have you suffered from DKS?
30 degrees from the horizon or 30 from vertical?
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
30 degrees from the horizon or 30 from vertical?
The Sun, as well as every other Astronomical object's elevation in the observer's sky is always measured from the Horizon. Based on your attitude of smug authority on these matters, I have to say that I am shocked that you did not already know that.


What time of day is it in your locale when the Sun is 30 degrees above the Horizon?

At that time, has heating occurred that would put your locale at it's high temperature for the day? If not, why on Earth would you think it's always 260K everywhere on the Moons lit side? The Moon only heats up due to radiation, while on Earth we also have conduction and convection to aid in heating things up.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
Which then causes one to have MPS.
...I hear MPS has a few meanings but Mad Planet Syndrom is the newest in the field of study according to my research.
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
1,029
At that time, has heating occurred that would put your locale at it's high temperature for the day? If not, why on Earth would you think it's always 260K everywhere on the Moons lit side? The Moon only heats up due to radiation, while on Earth we also have conduction and convection to aid in heating things up.
9:30am or 4:00pm probably. In the morning maybe 10 degrees from the high, afternoon is within 5 degrees of the high. But your current problem (as opposed to the other dozens of problems in your argument) is that by your own admission, the moon is being constantly lit. If the sun were frozen at a 30 degree position (e.g. moon), as opposed to coming from nighttime temperatures and slowly warming over 4 hours (earth), the temperature would probably be just a few degrees different than when it's overhead. Obviously a big reason it's hotter at noon on earth is more related to the duration of sun exposure (heating). So what's your claim....that rather than 260-414 F it's really only 240-390 F? Doesn't seem to really help you much.

And just to hold your feet to the fire, the original issue the temperature issue stemmed from is the feasability of having camera film and camera (again Hasselblad confirmed there were no changes made from their earth cameras to their "moon" cameras) work and develop with the absolute quality one would find in earth-taken pictures. So again will, a camera and film work/survive in 400 F heat? Or 260 F heat even? Heat a piece of film to 300 degrees for a few hours and let me know how it turns out. How about a video camera?
 
Last edited:

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
Screenshot_20220507-091703_Sketchbook.jpg
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
But your current problem (as opposed to the other dozens of problems in your argument) is that by your own admission, the moon is being constantly lit.
Where the f' did I ever say that? Never, did I say that the whole Moon or even just one side of the Moon is "constantly" being lit.

If the sun were frozen at a 30 degree position, as opposed to coming from nighttime temperatures and slowly warming

Where the f' did you ever get that idea? Why would the Sun be "frozen in the sky as opposed to coming from nighttime temperatures and slowly warming."?

You appear to be stuck in the mistaken belief that the Moon has a constantly lit side and a constantly dark side.

News flash! The dark side of the Moon is the name of a Pink Floyd album. Not a region of the actual Moon. Lol





Your lack of reading comprehension is astonishing.



the temperature would probably be
....whatever you wanna guess it might be, that also supports your incorrect position? Probably?

Why not just look at the actual data? You know, what Space .com did that you then looked at. Once.

7Doni.png


That shows the rate of heating/cooling and it has degrees in F and K.
...but you probably don't like that chart, as to accept what it shows would destroy your preexisting assumptions about what you think the temps on the Moon surely had to have been.




Another issue is that you seemingly think that K and F are the same.


So far in this discussion you've demonstrated a woefully lacking understanding of any of this stuff.
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
Where the f' did I ever say that? Never, did I say that the whole Moon or even just one side of the Moon is "constantly" being lit.



Where the f' did you ever get that idea? Why would the Sun be "frozen in the sky as opposed to coming from nighttime temperatures and slowly warming."?

You appear to be stuck in the mistaken belief that the Moon has a constantly lit side and a constantly dark side.

News flash! The dark side of the Moon is the name of a Pink Floyd album. Not a region of the actual Moon. Lol





Your lack of reading comprehension is astonishing.




....whatever you wanna guess it might be, that also supports your incorrect position? Probably?

Why not just look at the actual data? You know, what Space .com did that you then looked at. Once.

View attachment 257909

That shows the rate of heating/cooling and it has degrees in F and K.
...but you probably don't like that chart, as to accept what it shows would destroy your preexisting assumptions about what you think the temps on the Moon surely had to have been.




Another issue is that you seemingly think that K and F are the same.


So far in this discussion you've demonstrated a woefully lacking understanding of any of this stuff.
The harder they come The harder they Fall
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
Where the f' did I ever say that? Never, did I say that the whole Moon or even just one side of the Moon is "constantly" being lit.



Where the f' did you ever get that idea? Why would the Sun be "frozen in the sky as opposed to coming from nighttime temperatures and slowly warming."?

You appear to be stuck in the mistaken belief that the Moon has a constantly lit side and a constantly dark side.

News flash! The dark side of the Moon is the name of a Pink Floyd album. Not a region of the actual Moon. Lol





Your lack of reading comprehension is astonishing.




....whatever you wanna guess it might be, that also supports your incorrect position? Probably?

Why not just look at the actual data? You know, what Space .com did that you then looked at. Once.

View attachment 257909

That shows the rate of heating/cooling and it has degrees in F and K.
...but you probably don't like that chart, as to accept what it shows would destroy your preexisting assumptions about what you think the temps on the Moon surely had to have been.




Another issue is that you seemingly think that K and F are the same.


So far in this discussion you've demonstrated a woefully lacking understanding of any of this stuff.
Wait so you're saying -400° Fahrenheit is not the same as 280° Fahrenheit?
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
1,029
Where the f' did I ever say that? Never, did I say that the whole Moon or even just one side of the Moon is "constantly" being lit.



Where the f' did you ever get that idea? Why would the Sun be "frozen in the sky as opposed to coming from nighttime temperatures and slowly warming."?

You appear to be stuck in the mistaken belief that the Moon has a constantly lit side and a constantly dark side.

News flash! The dark side of the Moon is the name of a Pink Floyd album. Not a region of the actual Moon. Lol





Your lack of reading comprehension is astonishing.




....whatever you wanna guess it might be, that also supports your incorrect position? Probably?

Why not just look at the actual data? You know, what Space .com did that you then looked at. Once.

View attachment 257909

That shows the rate of heating/cooling and it has degrees in F and K.
...but you probably don't like that chart, as to accept what it shows would destroy your preexisting assumptions about what you think the temps on the Moon surely had to have been.




Another issue is that you seemingly think that K and F are the same.


So far in this discussion you've demonstrated a woefully lacking understanding of any of this stuff.
Wow your whole response was extra idiotic even for you Joe. What I obviously meant was that "constantly" meaning the sun is shining for 14 days on any given point near the equator of the moon. I forgot how small your brain is that that would be confusing to you. As opposed to the earth where any given point near the equator is only lit for 12ish hours before dropping back to darkness. So in your little brain you can't see the distinction between a 14 days of sunlight heating a spot vs 12 hours of sunlight heating a spot. Now keep that in mind and reread what I wrote trying to use your little pea brain to answer my question rather than weaseling your way out of answering by looking for a small semantical difference.
 
Last edited:

the_shootist

Politically Gender Neutral
Eagle
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
81,168
Reaction score
178,445
Earff is a ball!

That is all! :laughing:
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
Wow your whole response was extra idiotic I forgot how small your brain is that that would be confusing to you. So in your little brain. Use your little pea brain to answer my question .
Nice argument
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
1,029
Another issue is that you seemingly think that K and F are the same.


So far in this discussion you've demonstrated a woefully lacking understanding of any of this stuff.
No I don't dummy. I have only use F and only cited F. Rather than being a doofus and switching between the two to sew confusion. So again space.com says 260-414 Farenheit degrees daylight temperature. Quit trying to obfiscate the myth that cameras and film can survive those temps by posting nonsense. What's your explanation for the camera/film issue?
 
Last edited:

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
1,029
Nice argument
Yes when trying to reason with Joe, it's like a phD human trying to explain calculus to a paramecium. He literally has no explanation for how cameras and film survive in 260-414 F temps so he'll sit there and argue about whether the temperature is 260 F or 261 F.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Wow your whole response was extra idiotic even for you Joe. What I obviously meant was that "constantly" meaning the sun is shining for 14 days on any given point near the equator of the moon.
So "constantly" now means 14 days? Lol

In case you did not realize, words have meanings.
...and if you use words that don't mean what you are attempting to convey, you then insult the reader for believing that you knew what you were writing?

extra idiotic even for you

how small your brain is

your little brain

your little pea brain


a paramecium

You are obviously a truly wonderful person.
....and to be clear, I'm being VERY sarcastic.


So in your little brain you can't see the distinction between a 14 hours of sunlight heating a spot vs 12 hours of sunlight heating a spot.
14 hours vs 12 hours isn't much of a difference.


Now keep that in mind and reread what I wrote trying to use your little pea brain to answer my question rather than weaseling your way out of answering by looking for a small semantical difference.
Again, words have meanings. If you wish to convey an idea, my suggestion would be to use the proper words.
....but if you choose not to, don't be an asshole and insult the reader for trusting that you had clue one as to what you were typing.




No I don't dummy. I have only use F and only cited F. Rather than being a doofus and switching between the two to sew confusion. So again space.com says 260-414 Farenheit degrees daylight temperature. Quit trying to obfiscate the myth that cameras anf film can survive those temps by posting nonsense. What's your explanation for the camera/film issue?
260 to 414 is quite a range. Are you saying it never gets lower than 260 amd never gets warmer than 414?

I'm asking because if I make an assumption about what you actually mean, you'll get mad and then hurl insults at me for inferring what you actually meant.

That's the same way my ex was. Say one thing and then get mad for basing my response on the words she used. Lol



What's your explanation for the camera/film issue?
I already told you. The film wasn't just laying around on the floor of the capsule. It was inside a container that offered sufficient protection during flight. The camera was white to reflect light on the Moon, and the heat the light carries.

In space, light radiation is the ONLY way objects heat up.
Reflect 95% of the light and you reflect 95% of the heat, too.

There is no air in contact with it, so no heating by conduction or convection.

If the Moon had an atmosphere and it was 260-414 F, they'd have never been able to even enter that atmosphere, let alone get out and walk around.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
15,877
Reaction score
35,068
Location
SnowFlake City
I hate to step in dog shit, but the film in the camera is not in the sunlight, it is inside the camera. If the camera is not in the direct sunlight it will not increase the internal temperature.
Heating on the moon is by irradiation, not convection. Y'all do understand the difference between the two processes, right? No medium (air) no convection.

BF
 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
978
Reaction score
1,036
I hate to step in dog shit, but the film in the camera is not in the sunlight, it is inside the camera. If the camera is not in the direct sunlight it will not increase the internal temperature.
Heating on the moon is by irradiation, not convection. Y'all do understand the difference between the two processes, right? No medium (air) no convection.

BF
The same irradiation that will turn that unprotected film into swiss cheese.
 

Casey Jones

Train left the station...
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
10,135
Reaction score
16,457
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
View attachment 257576

I must be an idiot to post here...this is an exercise in absurdity.

But remember Newton's law of Inertia? Put the spacecraft in motion, and, without atmospheric friction, it remains in motion. No fuel needed until a new trajectory or orbit required.

JK was right about this...it has, completely morphed into The Answer.

90
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
15,877
Reaction score
35,068
Location
SnowFlake City
The same irradiation that will turn that unprotected film into swiss cheese.
Actually, no.
The same irradiation that will turn that unprotected film into a black exposed piece of film.

PS: It's cool when they make dumpsters outta plastic so the dumpster can burn too.
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Eagle
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
25,660
Reaction score
54,854
Location
ORYGUN

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Eagle
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
25,660
Reaction score
54,854
Location
ORYGUN
More flat Earth obviously..... just.....darker.....

tenor.gif
OOOOOH, "I see" said the blind man as he picked up his axe & saw !!!

Is that "ballast" to keep the disc from wobbling ? Or is that the real side with mountains & streams ??? :don't    know2::don't    know2:
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
OOOOOH, "I see" said the blind man as he picked up his axe & saw !!!

Is that "ballast" to keep the disc from wobbling ? Or is that the real side with mountains & streams ??? :don't    know2::don't    know2:
Well according to the powers that want to be and their mushy brained victims, it's like a hologram or some computer's wet dream or some whacked out nonsense that I'm sure they'll happily elucidate for us stupid brainwashed victims of reality with a meme of some verbal diarrhea straight from the back alleys of the latest addition of the flat earth manual. :computer::bang head::don't know::exercise::hang::shit happens::spaceship::trolls::troll::welcome:whistle:
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
The same irradiation that will turn that unprotected film into swiss cheese.
Then obviously it was protected.

Keep in mind that the film used on Apollo missions was not the only film that has ever been in space. We have pictures from space.
...and did you miss that vid I posted about the film used in the original spy satellites? That film had no swiss cheese holes in it. how was it able to survive the irradiation of space?
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
Then obviously it was protected.

Keep in mind that the film used on Apollo missions was not the only film that has ever been in space. We have pictures from space.
...and did you miss that vid I posted about the film used in the original spy satellites? That film had no swiss cheese holes in it. how was it able to survive the irradiation of space?
It was microwave safe and BPA FREE?