The US NEVER Went To The Moon

[Stu]

Stu,

This video not only shows that the flat earth cool moonlight claim is false, and the test is unscientific, it also shows that the moon is indeed reflecting the sunlight, not giving off its own light.

And as a bonus, it puts to bed the idiotic flat earth claim that the sun and moon are relatively the same size, and are close to the earth.

Stu wrote:
Rick, this one you can test yourself. Actual science. It's pretty conclusive

No Stu, it’s not actual science. As the video that I posted shows, your video’s unscientific “experiment” didn’t account for variables like shade.

Interesting. Point taken about cold moon light.

However that doesn't prove that the moon is reflecting the sun's light, and there is a very easy way to prove that.

Just look at any moon at night do you see that it receives enough sunlight to reflect it all the way to earth, 238,000 miles and even light up the earth. That is a pretty strong light right?

Right. Now look at any pictures of astronauts that are supposedly on the moon. What do you see? A dull surface. The astronauts should be blinded by the reflection of the moons surface. Yet what do we see. Dull dirt with no reflecting light. It is like that in all pictures. No where do we see any reflection just dull dirt. The moon's surface is not reflecting light.

And Rick I put some effort into responding to that other video you could at least respond to some of it, like the German Nickebein targeting system used during WWII which is impossible on a globe earth.

Not to mention all the other modern targeting systems like the 2 degree Pencil Beam which are impossible on a globe earth.

[RickD]

Stu wrote:
However that doesn't prove that the moon is reflecting the sun's light, and there is a very easy way to prove that.

Did you watch the entire video? Starting around 9:40 of the video, he shows and explains that the sun is the only source of light with the moon and the ball in the same picture.

It’s quite obvious to anyone watching.

stu wrote:
Just look at any moon at night do you see that it receives enough sunlight to reflect it all the way to earth, 238,000 miles and even light up the earth. That is a pretty strong light right?

Right. Now look at any pictures of astronauts that are supposedly on the moon. What do you see? A dull surface. The astronauts should be blinded by the reflection of the moons surface. Yet what do we see. Dull dirt with no reflecting light. It is like that in all pictures. No where do we see any reflection just dull dirt. The moon's surface is not reflecting light.

Here Stu. This explains your question about moonlight.
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/201 ... so-bright/

Stu,

I’m still waiting for the link to the “Christian flat earth” site you told me about.

[RickD]

Here’s another video that shows the absolute absurdity of a flat earth.

[Stu]

Stu wrote:
However that doesn't prove that the moon is reflecting the sun's light, and there is a very easy way to prove that.

Did you watch the entire video? Starting around 9:40 of the video, he shows and explains that the sun is the only source of light with the moon and the ball in the same picture.

It’s quite obvious to anyone watching.

stu wrote:
Just look at any moon at night do you see that it receives enough sunlight to reflect it all the way to earth, 238,000 miles and even light up the earth. That is a pretty strong light right?

Right. Now look at any pictures of astronauts that are supposedly on the moon. What do you see? A dull surface. The astronauts should be blinded by the reflection of the moons surface. Yet what do we see. Dull dirt with no reflecting light. It is like that in all pictures. No where do we see any reflection just dull dirt. The moon's surface is not reflecting light.

Here Stu. This explains your question about moonlight.
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/201 ... so-bright/

Stu,

I’m still waiting for the link to the “Christian flat earth” site you told me about.

No it doesn't it basically says that it has the least reflective capability of most bodies.
Yet it still can light up the earth so that we can see 238,000 miles away.

Now, how is that possible and yet the pictures of astronauts on the moon show no reflection whatsoever. The astronauts should be blinded, and everything should lit up, yet all we see are dull rocks. You honestly telling me that you think the moon surface we see in NASA pictures would in any way reach the earth. Come on.

[Stu]

Here’s another video that shows the absolute absurdity of a flat earth.

You're not responding to my rebutal posts and evidence that is not possible on a globe earth like the German VHF targeting system, this is becoming a one sided affair and has me thinking you have no answer apart from posting video after video with zero of your own input.

[Stu]

Here’s another video that shows the absolute absurdity of a flat earth.

Guess what, Professor Dave who acts as the bastion of truth deletes and blocks comments on his videos from flat earthers, including scientific ones.
Not a very honest thing to do, and makes it look as if flat earthers have no rebuttal. Professor Dave is dishonest.

I am busy with some videos that take up his challenge and complete his 10 tasks. But I'm sure you won't watch them so I don't know why I bother because you clearly aren't interested in a debate as you ignore all my questions that I put to you.

[RickD]

Stu wrote:
No it doesn't it basically says that it has the least reflective capability of most bodies.
Yet it still can light up the earth so that we can see 238,000 miles away.

Now, how is that possible and yet the pictures of astronauts on the moon show no reflection whatsoever. The astronauts should be blinded, and everything should lit up, yet all we see are dull rocks. You honestly telling me that you think the moon surface we see in NASA pictures would in any way reach the earth. Come on.

Stu, the link does explain it. The fact that you don’t understand what it’s saying, doesn’t mean it isn't explaining it. The moon reflects 12% of the sun’s light. Since the earth and the moon are approximately the same distance from the sun, the brightness of the moon would be about the same, whether on the moon, or from the earth. This is such basic stuff that you refuse to acknowledge.

[Stu]

Stu wrote:
No it doesn't it basically says that it has the least reflective capability of most bodies.
Yet it still can light up the earth so that we can see 238,000 miles away.

Now, how is that possible and yet the pictures of astronauts on the moon show no reflection whatsoever. The astronauts should be blinded, and everything should lit up, yet all we see are dull rocks. You honestly telling me that you think the moon surface we see in NASA pictures would in any way reach the earth. Come on.

Stu, the link does explain it. The fact that you don’t understand what it’s saying, doesn’t mean it isn't explaining it. The moon reflects 12% of the sun’s light. Since the earth and the moon are approximately the same distance from the sun, the brightness of the moon would be about the same, whether on the moon, or from the earth. This is such basic stuff that you refuse to acknowledge.

I understand just fine.

However, we apparantly have PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence of the moon's surface.

Not postulating, ACTUAL photos. Yet what do we see on them? Nothing but a dull moon surface. The astronauts aren't affected. ALL the pictures of moon missions have never shown it at all. THAT is evidence.

[RickD]

stu wrote:
I am busy with some videos that take up his challenge and complete his 10 tasks. But I'm sure you won't watch them so I don't know why I bother because you clearly aren't interested in a debate as you ignore all my questions that I put to you.

Stu,

To be honest, any time that I spend responding to your Flat Earth absurdities is more time than I should be spending on this subject. I picked at least three of your claims and took the time to research them. Then I posted how easily they were refuted. I tell you what. If you post the one argument that you think is the best argument for a flat earth, I will respond to that argument. But I won’t take the time to respond, until you post the Christian flat earth link you promised me. This should literally take you 30 seconds to copy and paste the link.

You do need to realize that your arguing that our spherical earth is flat, is as absurd as arguing that a basketball is really a dinner plate.

[RickD]

Stu wrote:
No it doesn't it basically says that it has the least reflective capability of most bodies.
Yet it still can light up the earth so that we can see 238,000 miles away.

Now, how is that possible and yet the pictures of astronauts on the moon show no reflection whatsoever. The astronauts should be blinded, and everything should lit up, yet all we see are dull rocks. You honestly telling me that you think the moon surface we see in NASA pictures would in any way reach the earth. Come on.

Stu, the link does explain it. The fact that you don’t understand what it’s saying, doesn’t mean it isn't explaining it. The moon reflects 12% of the sun’s light. Since the earth and the moon are approximately the same distance from the sun, the brightness of the moon would be about the same, whether on the moon, or from the earth. This is such basic stuff that you refuse to acknowledge.

I understand just fine.

However, we apparantly have PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence of the moon's surface.

Not postulating, ACTUAL photos. Yet what do we see on them? Nothing but a dull moon surface. The astronauts aren't affected. ALL the pictures of moon missions have never shown it at all. THAT is evidence.

I agree it’s a dull moon surface. If I had to take a wild guess, I’d say that the moon’s dullness is consistent with a moon that reflects 12% of the sun’s light.

FWIW, Saturn, at its closest point to earth is about 740,000 miles away. And we can see Saturn in a clear night’s sky, with the naked eye. And guess what? Saturn doesn’t give off its own light. When we see Saturn, we are also seeing the sun’s reflection. This is a fact. No conspiracy. This is basic 2nd grade science. A 7 year old can easily grasp this. Why do you refuse to acknowledge simple science?

[Stu]

stu wrote:
I am busy with some videos that take up his challenge and complete his 10 tasks. But I'm sure you won't watch them so I don't know why I bother because you clearly aren't interested in a debate as you ignore all my questions that I put to you.

Stu,

To be honest, any time that I spend responding to your Flat Earth absurdities is more time than I should be spending on this subject. I picked at least three of your claims and took the time to research them. Then I posted how easily they were refuted. I tell you what. If you post the one argument that you think is the best argument for a flat earth, I will respond to that argument. But I won’t take the time to respond, until you post the Christian flat earth link you promised me. This should literally take you 30 seconds to copy and paste the link.

You do need to realize that your arguing that our spherical earth is flat, is as absurd as arguing that a basketball is really a dinner plate.

Sorry what link did I promise you, I honestly don't know what you are referring to. If you can elaborate or point me to the post so I can recollect.

Sorry but that is not how debate works, flat earth is a very real topic. I have posted numerous examples of things that don't work on a globe earth. You ignore them all.

LOL There are so many flat earth proofs out there, but I will refer you to the German VHF targeting system.

Answer this question then.

During WWII the Germans used a targeting system called "Knickebein" which sent VHF radio waves from a tower in Stollberg (distance to target Derby = 443 miles) and a tower in Kleve (distance to target Derby = 331 miles) and at the point at which they coincided that is where the bombers would release their bombs.

It was so accurate the Germans could bomb specific buildings.

The problem to this very day is that VHF beams do not bounce off the ionosphere.

The UK government said that such a targeting system would be impossible and leading scientists said such a system would not be able to follow the curvature of the earth, so lives were lost while they debated the Germans perfectly working bombing strategy.

Work it out for yourself. Earth Curvature Calculator
Height of the tower was 342 feet and the distance to target was 443 miles.

There should have been 117,503 feet of curvature!!! But those pesky VHF waves made it all the way to Britain. Only possible on a flat earth.

It is explained at 13:00 in the video below.

[RickD]

You said something about Christian flat earth beliefs aren’t the same as flat earth Society beliefs.

I asked you for a Christian flat earth website so I can see how your beliefs differ from flat earth Society beliefs.

I’m not sure there’s really any practical difference, as far as this conversation goes, but you claim there’s enough of a difference that you told DBowling to stop assuming you agreed with FES beliefs.

And if you think that Knickebein is your best argument for a flat earth, then I’ll do some research as soon as you get me the “Christian flat earth” link.

[Stu]

You said something about Christian flat earth beliefs aren’t the same as flat earth Society beliefs.

I asked you for a Christian flat earth website so I can see how your beliefs differ from flat earth Society beliefs.

I’m not sure there’s really any practical difference, as far as this conversation goes, but you claim there’s enough of a difference that you told DBowling to stop assuming you agreed with FES beliefs.

And if you think that Knickebein is your best argument for a flat earth, then I’ll do some research as soon as you get me the “Christian flat earth” link.

LOL I never said there was a flat earth website that exists, I said that the Flat Earth Society is not a reliable source and is by no means Biblical. Not one flat earther I know or who's video's I have watched believes their take on flat earth. For instance they believe that the earth is flying upwards which accounts for gravity. Just nonsense stuff like that.

I never said there was the ultimate flat earther website, just that FES was not one to go to. There are plenty of Youtube channels like Pastor Dean Odle's one here though and websites like Rob Skiba's Testing The Globe.

[Stu]

You said something about Christian flat earth beliefs aren’t the same as flat earth Society beliefs.

I asked you for a Christian flat earth website so I can see how your beliefs differ from flat earth Society beliefs.

I’m not sure there’s really any practical difference, as far as this conversation goes, but you claim there’s enough of a difference that you told DBowling to stop assuming you agreed with FES beliefs.

And if you think that Knickebein is your best argument for a flat earth, then I’ll do some research as soon as you get me the “Christian flat earth” link.

Watch the video, it gives a much better picture than words, and then watch the next example on the video, impossible on a globe earth.

[RickD]

Stu,

Sometimes when I hold to a belief on something, I ask myself what would be one thing, anything, that would get me to change my mind on what I believe. For example, as a believer in Christ, if someone could somehow prove to me that the resurrection never happened, I’d have no choice but to rethink my entire Christian worldview.

What would be the one thing that would get you to rethink your flat earth beliefs? We’re talking about science. Something that can be scientifically shown to you, that would get you to have to rethink your flat earth beliefs.