Have you been there?

Have you?

Or are you just reading this

SO you're just a believer?

The point is there is more than one narrative

Orly?

my evidence :

photos video

cartography

GPS

!mute @ProveIT

ProveIT#7570 (561298194206556273) is now muted for '**Unspecified.**', alright? <:THUMBSUP6:403560443345371137>

Boring

Arguer

Gtg

Alright, <@!398933943702781954> has been warned for '**Bad word usage**'.

<@398933943702781954> I saw that

That's called serious COG DIS

@!GPT how is it that we have perfectly accurate maps that are based on the globe?

@AwwNutz They're not

if the earth were actually flat, where is an accurate map based on this?

nMAP ping data shows this

google maps always shows me accurately where I am, based on GPS

can't do that with incorrect underlying data

Google can not be trusted

@AwwNutz Are you a hillary suporter?

who's hillary?

Good choice

taht just proves the dumb ppl use yahoo, smart ppl use google

its the other way around kiddo

https://youtu.be/ykPEy2MNVXs

Google sucks at everything they do
-- And by the way, they didnt even make most things that are anywhere near "good"

-- Android..they bought it
-- Google Earth they bought it
-- youtube they bought it
-- Chrome browser ..they Forked it from Chromium

the list goes on

and also (another) "btw"
@AwwNutz .. Google earth is based on flat data, and Wrapped around a "sphere" ..much like a texture in a video game , so uh...

then the distances between places would be completely wrong

especially in the north and south

no
im saying, ..once you "Zoom in" ..its flat again
-- you're only seeing the CGI "ball" ..from way zoomed out

oh that makes sense

when i take a picture of sphere and look at it on my monitor, it's flat

therefore a sphere is flat b/c it appears flat on my monitor

@!GPT https://i.redd.it/oiywzzxo5r411.jpg

@AwwNutz - No, bc if its a true "sphere" it would have dimensions and textures/shadows/gradients/etc
it should not "appear flat" to you
otherwise you'd be looking at a flat round >circle

ya pictures from space show its a sphere

Hi....

C

that's awesome

It would have been technically impossible to fake what was seen on tv in 1969. From a technology stand point.

apollo missions were amazing

ah

thanks

@AwwNutz amazingly fake

yees

@Citizen Z you think the footage shown on tv wasn't real?

The pivotal claim for the Apollo hoax theory without which all falls apart, is that what we saw on tv was slow motion footage of astronauts running around in a film studio.

no its not

Pictures are proof something exists now? I have pictures of bigfoot and lock ness monster

@Udo ya that wouldn't work would it

Because if it wasn’t slow motion, it couldn’t have happened on Earth, right

the rate at which objects fall is not linear, and slowing it down is linear

h=1/2At^2 but slowing it down would make it a different function

Anyone know anything about how slow motion is produced in film cameras?

There are two ways to make motion slow:
One is, you shoot it at normal speed, and play it back slow.
One is, you shoot it fast and play it back normal.
The second way is called ‘Overcranking’. It looks smoother and more realistic because you’re sampling natural motion at a higher frame rate. But that means they would’ve had to shoot it on film using high speed film cameras, right? Why

@Udo I dont' know myself, how is it done

In 1969 there were no high-speed video cameras yet. Some people did have magnetic disk recorders that could capture normal speed video and play it back slow. They used it for sports replays; it could record up to 30 seconds. Play back at 10 fps and you got a whopping 90 seconds of slowmo. I say 10 FPS because that was the video framerate for Apollo 11

They had a Non-Interlaced Slow Scan TV camera specially made for them by Westing House. All the later missions were using regular NTSC video cameras running at 29,97 FPS. That would be 3x harder to fake

Your point?

I'm getting there if you'd let me.

Or this guy can spam

lmao

@!GPT things are smaller at distance mhm

Keep in mind when people today watch documentaries about the Apollo missions, they’re looking at the highlights. They’re looking at short clips cut together. Short clips are much easier to fake. But in July 1969, 600 million people were all staring at a continuous lunar telecast that went on for a long time.

16 min into the EVA they turn on the video camera. 4min later you get your “one small step for man”, then aldrin climbs out, they move the camera onto a tripod, and proceed to do all their moon walking, flag planting, photo snapping, and rock picking. Then Armstrong climbs back up into the lander and its over. By this time the camera has been running for over 143 minutes.

So if we’re faking this with electronic slowmo at 1/3rd speed, we only need to record 47 minutes of continuous live action video on disk.

750k miles from the moon

250k from earth

lmao