The Rod of God -- (!) Pages 33 and 34 (!)

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:19 am

Moving Sale wrote:Anyways I have a question for you. Do you believe that a lake, one mile from shore to shore, is flat (as it appears to me) or is it 8" diff due to the earth's curve, the same as one mile of ocean must be?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:21 am

A pic from the Apollo 11 archives -- and a question for our readers and deep thinkers...

What is happening in this picture?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:36 am

The LEM is docking/undocking with the orbiter.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:54 am

Another one...

Yes, separating, where LEM must be on descent to the surface of the moon.

In the pictures, why is the LEM above the orbiter?

And why is the orbiter in that position?

The pics are showing the LEM separating from the orbiter -- and on the way to the surface of the moon.
Then shouldn't this be a picture of the LEM and not the orbiter?

On the theoretical descent, I see nothing that would indicate that these pictures make sense.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:58 am

It's possible that the orbiter's stabilizers only work, or work best with the orbiter's tail to the moon's surface.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:02 am

poptart wrote:
In the pictures, why is the LEM above the orbiter?

There is no "above" and "below" in space.

Objects may be in any given position for a number of maneuvering procedures.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:20 am

Marty wrote:t's possible that the orbiter's stabilizers only work, or work best with the orbiter's tail to the moon's surface.

Could be.
Well, that must be it.

:wink:

Marty wrote:There is no "above" and "below" in space.

Objects may be in any given position for a number of maneuvering procedures.

Hmmmm...

From the Apollo 11 archives... here is a sequence of separation of the LEM from the orbiter.
I won't post the pictures, because they come out too large for this board.
You should look at them, though.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... 6567HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... 6568HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... 6570HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... 6573HR.jpg

And at this point (the last linked pic), obviously the LEM begins to move "down" to the moon's surface.

Between which pictures were the previous pictures taken?

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:55 am

Pops, I have all of the Apollo missions from 11 forward to the last one on DVD. You are basing things from single pictures and then using them for a pretext to create your context on the matter. I've told you before that they are very boring to the point of being scroll-by scenes, much like your responses.

Those thingies you see at 90 degree angles on the side of the Command Module are to roll and pitch the CM to maneuver to capture the LEM from the final booster stage, to releasing the LEM to the Moon surface and then recapture it when the LEM leaves the surface. You pretty much see the same docking system used today with the ISS and what comes up from the Earth to dock.

You say the astronauts couldn't see the stars. What they said on unfiltered footage is the surface of the Moon is so bright that you cannot see the stars while they are on the surface. Once again, you are looking for ways to prove your belief of the flat-Earth that makes zero sense.

At this time, I'm not looking to debate a misguided and uneducated person like some sort of nonsensical Jehovah's Witness with their 144,000. I'm disqualifying your total line of reason as being nonsense. God has covered your eyes to prove you as being a bad witness in your attempts to convert unsuspecting flat-faced people in Korea so you don't lead His people into the abyss.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:07 am

AP wrote:You say the astronauts couldn't see the stars. What they said on unfiltered footage is the surface of the Moon is so bright that you cannot see the stars while they are on the surface. Once again, you are looking for ways to prove your belief of the flat-Earth that makes zero sense.

Michael Collins was not ON the moon.

He was orbiting the moon and he said he never saw any stars.

I don't remember seeing any (stars).

- Michael Collins.

Was he sleeping?

AP wrote:I'm disqualifying your total line of reason as being nonsense

Join the crowd.
It's how the sheeple roll.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:11 am

AP wrote:You are basing things from single pictures and then using them for a pretext to create your context on the matter.

No, actually I am just asking questions about the undocking procedure -- and how it would relate to those pictures.

Do you have a link to the specific procedure - which tells the position of orbiter, LEM and moon?

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:37 am

The surface of the Moon reflects direct sunlight with its reflective surface. It is brighter than the relative ambient light in view. Did they edit the parts where he orbited around the dark side of the Moon, you know... those periods the S-band antennae losses contact with the Earth? Ever see the current pics and video of the ISS going around the Earth with the Sun out of view?

As far as the docking and undocking maneuvers... well, there is video of the rotations using those maneuvering jets on the sides, much like there is very current video of the Space Shuttle doing the same things to check for damage after the re-entry accident you don't believe in... since it is easy to find. You want me to link it to you? Well, you are intellectually dishonest and won't find anything for yourself.

Bottom line pops, you are in full bloom as the successor of LTard2 to become LTard 3.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:38 am

This info from the Apollo 11 tutorial seems to verify what Marty said.

http://nassp.sourceforge.net/download/O ... torial.pdf

Scroll to #7.

It is consistent with the first pics I posted.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:47 am

AP wrote:Well, you are intellectually dishonest

Did they edit the parts where he orbited around the dark side of the Moon, you know... those periods the S-band antennae losses contact with the Earth?

Did who edit what?

Did you watch the video?

Collins said he never saw any stars.

27 orbits around the moon and he never saw any stars.

You buy that?

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:58 am

"I don't remember seeing any stars on the DAYLIGHT side of the Moon." Then there was agreement. Go back and read what I wrote just a few posts ago about the daylight side of the Moon. I've seen that press conference in full a long time ago.

You have KYOA so badly it is pathetic. A 1:03 minute clip with Monty Python added clips.

This is actually funny that you are that fucking stupid.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:01 am

lol

I don't care about Monty Python -- I'm interested in the words of the astronauts.

The question that was asked was, "When you looked up, could you see stars, in spite of the solar glare?"

Michael Collins, who was never ON the surface of the moon, interrupts and incredibly says, "I don't remember seeing any."

1. He was never ON the surface of the moon, so how would he be one to answer?

2. Do you believe Collins could not look out the window of the orbiter and see stars?

Edgar Mitchell, 6th man to walk on the moon.
Stars 10x brighter and numerous from space.

Collins didn't remember seeing any.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:37 am

MS wrote:Anyways I have a question for you. Do you believe that a lake, one mile from shore to shore, is flat (as it appears to me) or is it 8" diff due to the earth's curve, the same as one mile of ocean must be?

This speaks to your question -- from 20:55 - 35:00

Water always seeks the lowest point - and it is always flat (except in very small droplets).
If one says water humps, they are denying the basic qualities of water which are clearly observable to us all.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:40 am

Jay wrote:While you and MS jerk each other off with your precious calculators, the point of perspective you keep choosing to conveniently ignore is the perspective from height, not a lateral plane. Unless you are going up several miles, you aren't seeing it (the curve).

Goober has already talked about perspective from horizon. Using your eyes instead instead of numbers, gives you all the perspective you need. Until you grow some balls and see things from the right PERSPECTIVE, or height, your numbers and argument are moot.

I still can't believe Jay was crazy enough to not only post this concept once, but... twice.
lol

The "precious calculators" MS and I have cited happen to be FACT, you crazy boob.
It's mathematical FACT.

Yes, Goober did indeed talk about perspective from horizon -- using the very same link I had previously posted.

You immediately derided me for the link -- and yet you praised him when he did.

The link told basic FACT.

FACT is, the lower you are to the ground, the MORE the earth's curvature comes into play -- and supposedly blocks one from viewing an object.

The earth curvature dynamic is not something you have to go to 35,000 ft (or whatever it's supposed to be) in order to recognize.

It's a dynamic that can be observed from LOW elevation, you zany nutjob.

Forget about all the math in this pic and just look at the pic itself.

With a round earth, iIf you're in the boat on the left, you can not see the lighthouse.
The earth's curvature blocks you -- and you don't need to go to 35,000 ft to experience earth curvature, right?

LMAO!

But if you were to go UP -- to the top of one of the boat's sail poles, you could then see the lighthouse.

As I said early in this thread, as soon as you came in trashing me, YOU ARE NOT SMART, JAY.

lol

So play with the numbers on the calculator, child.
Use 'em with the pics below.

Have a good ol' time, Jay.
I luv you lots.

http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html

31 miles away.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129 ... otostream/

This is quite a problem, indeed, for round earth nutjobs.

Sack up!

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:37 am

A full moon looks like this to us...

NASA recently released a sequence of pics of the moon passing in front of earth -- from 1 million miles away.

The sun in the NASA pic is behind the camera, as the earth is entirely lit up.
So of course the moon is also entirely lit up.

That being so, how in the world is the moon so... dark?

Is that supposed to be because it is the dark side of the moon?

NASA fail.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:16 am

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

Alan Eustace recorded the worlds highest skydive...from space. This is just one of many photos as well as available videos of the event. The curvature of the Earth is clearly visible.

So pops, is this fraudulent as well? It only made all of the major and local news and entertainment reports, worldwide.

Care to dispute this?

You are an embarrassment.

1. It is not Alan Eustace. It's Felix Baumgartner.

2. You really thought that was the supposed true curvature of the earth there, didn't you? He was that high up.

Jay wrote:As to your "fish eye lens" comment, the free fall was again recorded from multiple viewpoints, including a camera attached to the diver. Every single view from that high up shows a curved horizon and round planet.

Fisheye lens, circus clown.

You need to research this topic a LOT more, because almost everything you post is insult and NONSENSE.
No substance.
A yapping poodle.

I guess you should be thankful that the empty-skulled sheeple crowd has your back, though.

Frickin' zombies.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:14 am

Lunar wave going once... twice...

Ahhh, nevermind.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:46 am

poptart wrote:The sun in the NASA pic is behind the camera, as the earth is entirely lit up.
So of course the moon is also entirely lit up.

That being so, how in the world is the moon so... dark?

Is that supposed to be because it is the dark side of the moon?

NASA fail.

Could it possibly have something to do with the composition of the surface of the bodies?

The moon, according to the dudes that alledgedly went there is gray dust. Gray dust is not the most reflective thing in the world. Large bodies of water act like a mirror.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:59 am

Taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

Dark side of the moon on the right.

If anything, it's supposedly lighter than the side we see all the time.

Except in the recent NASA photo release.

It somehow became balck. :)

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:34 pm

poptart wrote:

Oh, the irony.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:00 pm

poptart wrote:
The sun in the NASA pic is behind the camera, as the earth is entirely lit up.
So of course the moon is also entirely lit up.

That being so, how in the world is the moon so... dark?

Perhaps the picture was taken with a camera that utilised lenses that define certain area of the spectrum of light differently than others (ultraviolet, infra-red...etc...)

But...I suppose the real answer is that photography and physics are the devil's playthings...designed and manipulated to distance us from our creator.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:09 pm

For the record, I just want to state that I don't think poptart is stupid. It takes effort, dedication and perspicacity of faith to maintain his position.

What we're witnessing is the modern adaptation of an 11th century monk's self-flagellation.
I once claimed to poptart that I understood him to be an "experientialist". He somewhat dodged the issue at the time, but I'm fairly sure I have my answer now.

poptart logging in to pronounce the world is flat = Mohamed Atta shouting "Allahu Akbar" before spearing into the WTC. The acts are indistinguishable.

In a curious way, I somewhat admire him.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:21 pm

poptart wrote:lol

I don't care about Monty Python -- I'm interested in the words of the astronauts.

The question that was asked was, "When you looked up, could you see stars, in spite of the solar glare?"

Michael Collins, who was never ON the surface of the moon, interrupts and incredibly says, "I don't remember seeing any."

1. He was never ON the surface of the moon, so how would he be one to answer?

2. Do you believe Collins could not look out the window of the orbiter and see stars?

He agreed that in orbit on the DAYLIGHT side he couldn't either after Neil's statement.

Atomic Punk wrote:"I don't remember seeing any stars on the DAYLIGHT side of the Moon." Then there was agreement. Go back and read what I wrote just a few posts ago about the daylight side of the Moon. I've seen that press conference in full a long time ago.

You have KYOA so badly it is pathetic. A 1:03 minute clip with Monty Python added clips.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 2:58 am

poptart wrote:
1. It is not Alan Eustace. It's Felix Baumgartner.

2. You really thought that was the supposed true curvature of the earth there, didn't you? He was that high up.

You stupid ass clown, Eustace beat Felix Baumgartner's record for free fall. Look it up, then flap your idiotic cum hole.

As to a fish eye lens perspective, let us know when you actually know for a fact that this type of lens was employed on that shot. After all, you have such a rich and extensive background in photography.

We are still waiting for the answer to the question of intent and reason to a cover up of the flat Earth.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 3:27 am

As to AP's post, poptart, do you have any idea or concept just how bright sunlight is when viewed within an atmosphere that is so much thinner than we have it here on Earth?

Of course you don't.

Needless to say, the view from the thin atmosphere of the moon is completely different from Earths. Much brighter, much more intense and blinding. Starlight would of course be reduced, even to invisibility. How very inconvenient for you.

The atmosphere on the moon is vastly different than on Earth. As such, visibility due to said brightness, especially given the reduction and diffusion of light by the protective visors of the astronauts helmet visors would account for their reduced visibility of starlight in space. This would also affect photographs as well.

As you have consistently shown, you know jack-fucking-shit about how space and atmospheric photography works with digital and satellite technology, let alone basic film.

Put up or shut up troll.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 3:42 am

poptart wrote:
MS wrote:Anyways I have a question for you. Do you believe that a lake, one mile from shore to shore, is flat (as it appears to me) or is it 8" diff due to the earth's curve, the same as one mile of ocean must be?
This speaks to your question -- from 20:55 - 35:00

Water always seeks the lowest point - and it is always flat (except in very small droplets).
If one says water humps, they are denying the basic qualities of water which are clearly observable to us all.

Yea I watched it twice and now I am twice as confused as I was before. The salar might be flat and the thin layer of water would then be flat. Still doesn't answer my question.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:04 am

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:
poptart wrote:
The sun in the NASA pic is behind the camera, as the earth is entirely lit up.
So of course the moon is also entirely lit up.

That being so, how in the world is the moon so... dark?

Perhaps the picture was taken with a camera that utilised lenses that define certain area of the spectrum of light differently than others (ultraviolet, infra-red...etc...)

But...I suppose the real answer is that photography and physics are the devil's playthings...designed and manipulated to distance us from our creator.

Or perhaps there is a firmament, as the Bible says, and the whole "we've got a camera a million miles away" deal is bullcrap.

Do you honestly think this is real?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:07 am

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:poptart logging in to pronounce the world is flat...

Except that I've said many times that I don't know for sure what the shape of the earth is.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:13 am

Jay in Phoenix wrote:
poptart wrote:
1. It is not Alan Eustace. It's Felix Baumgartner.

2. You really thought that was the supposed true curvature of the earth there, didn't you? He was that high up.
You stupid ass clown, Eustace beat Felix Baumgartner's record for free fall. Look it up, then flap your idiotic cum hole.

You're really going to come in and call me stupid?

Alan Eustace recorded the worlds highest skydive...from space. This is just one of many photos as well as available videos of the event.

You said this was Alan Eustace.

All I did was inform you that it isn't.

So it's gone for nearly the whole thread.

Poptart informing Jay of things -- and Jay ranting, lecturing, flailing, name-calling...

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:15 am

Marty wrote:I once claimed to poptart that I understood him to be an "experientialist". He somewhat dodged the issue at the time, but I'm fairly sure I have my answer now.

I could say many things about this, but I will just say -- I am a VERY good judge of people, their behavior, mannerisms, and whether they are telling a truth or not.
It is my area of expertise.

In the case of the Apollo astronauts, it isn't even difficult at all.

They are LYING about going to the moon.
They never went.
lol

Understand, again, it is not even a difficult case to diagnose.
It was simple to tell within a very short period of time of watching them.
Their guilt is CLEAR.
I have NO doubt at all about it.

People can think what they want about what I'm saying.

And not that it is even needed, but further evidence of their lying about it is shown in one of the videos I posted -- which probably nobody watched.
lol

The Apollo 11 crew was busted manufacturing a fake earth image within their craft (along with getting help on the charade from ground control) when they were supposedly halfway to the moon -- but were really still in low orbit over the earth.
The bogus earth picture to show to the flag-waving American sheeple.

The Apollo astronauts are all liars.
They never went to the moon.

It's just a little (or a lot) embarrassing that people can't recognize the charade.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:34 am

Jay wrote:We are still waiting for the answer to the question of intent and reason to a cover up of the flat Earth.

Again... I've said repeatedly that I don't know what the shape of the earth is.
I don't believe the shape is what we've been told all of our lives.
I do assume we are enclosed by a firmament.

You know, I've answered this question twice.
See page 5.

I can elaborate, but watch this first... or not.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:45 am

Moving Sale wrote:
poptart wrote:
MS wrote:Anyways I have a question for you. Do you believe that a lake, one mile from shore to shore, is flat (as it appears to me) or is it 8" diff due to the earth's curve, the same as one mile of ocean must be?
This speaks to your question -- from 20:55 - 35:00

Water always seeks the lowest point - and it is always flat (except in very small droplets).
If one says water humps, they are denying the basic qualities of water which are clearly observable to us all.
Yea I watched it twice and now I am twice as confused as I was before. The salar might be flat and the thin layer of water would then be flat. Still doesn't answer my question.

Here's something to think about.

Assume a natural lake forms -- and it is 1/4 mile long.
According to round earth theory, that means there must be a 2" hump in it.

This diagram is obviously over-pronounced, but it would be something like this, from A to B.

The round-earthers will have us believe that water will not flow off the hump and down to the lower parts, but will somehow stay up at the Tangent Point.

When we all look at this diagram though, we all know that water will not stay at the Tangent Point, right?

It WILL flow down to it's lowest available level.

Round earth requires magic.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 12:07 pm

Ohhh, the Irony.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 12:59 pm

You add very little to the discussion.

If you keep putting water onto the Tangent Point in the above diagram, do you know (as you do know (lol)), that water will flow down off the high point to the lowest available level?
Or do you somehow believe water added to that point will not flow to the lower level?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:49 pm

the water does go to the low point which is a tangental arc. Seeing as the radius of this arc is roughly four thousand miles, it appears to be a flat surface.

Really accurate surveying gizmos with lasers and stuff out there. Dudes with glasses and beards and hard hats are always roaming around using this stuff. They usually drive orange pickup trucks. I have actually SEEN they. I didn't read about them in a book written by some nomadic goat fukker 3 thousand years ago. These guys are like mikey smart. Some are prolly even religious. If this round earf thing was BS, they'd have told us about it by now.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:56 pm

poptart wrote:
The round-earthers will have us believe that water will not flow off the hump and down to the lower parts, but will somehow stay up at the Tangent Point.

I'm just coming off a Sabbath bender, so I have neither the strength nor the resolve to explain "gravity" to you.

Take care. Be well.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:59 pm

smackaholic wrote:Dudes with glasses and beards and hard hats are always roaming around...

Sounds like the bar KC $cott drinks at...