@DeadlyAutism being an ass to people he never met

thank you

16 years ago today I came into this unfortunate plain of existence

yep

or full tackle football

Politics. Most of the people in my school don't even know the meaning of the word politics. My highschool is very anti teaching political subjects

no thats just always been a thing I do

yes they do STEM

But I've always done things involving the culinary arts field

Well I want to live in philly so

easy money

hello

lol

Hello

So who here knows anything about Michael Hastings

Looks like water being instant boiled to me

Sure we'll go with that

SO who here knows anything about Michael Hastings outside of the obvious car crash stuff everyone thinks they know

So who here knows anything about Michael hastings?

Than your dad is dead

Anyone who actually gives a f**k know about Michael Hastings

Thank you

So does anyone know anything about Michael Hastings?

and what is this?

ah

I'm was trying to figure out if they where trying to make a point with those pictures or not

@she powerland are you a conspiracy theorist or a Intellectual Skeptic?

so you tend to think first find the facts then make a statement rather then just run up with unproven evidence

PING

...

ooh

Anyone here a really good researcher. Like professional good.

@Morning Dew I would like to inform you that technology changes at a tremendous rate. Hence the reason the Earth appears different in all of those images. Also in case you're wondering no those technically aren't pictures of the entire earth. They are pictures pieced together from multiple pictures. Why? Because the earth is friken huge. The Earth's radius is 3958.8 miles. And its circumference is 24,901 miles. Thats pretty damn big. In order to take a picture of the entire earth you would have to go about one earth radius high (3958.8 miles) you can then only see half of the most there is to see. Once you get to the moon which is 238,900 miles you can then see 98.4% of the Earth. Therefor because we don't send missions out that far just to photograph the Earth because it would be far to expensive because NASA is underfunded it is actually cheaper and just as effective to take dozens of photographs up close and stitch them together into a complete project. Back to image quality. Thats just a matter of technology. Technology has changed so much between the first picture (1979) and now (2019) that the original tech used for the moon landings is equivalent to a single processor in the average phone. So if computational technology has changed that much its pretty safe to say photographic technology has also changed a lot. Not to mention since the pictures are being taken closer then the originals in 1978 which where taken from the moon, the atmosphere will have a different affect at said closer range. Not to mention the vast difference in ozone and other particulates in our atmosphere which would also change the way the Earth looks. So yes, the Earth looks different now then in 1978 for a multitude of reasons.

Says the one showing information from what looks like your own computer editing software. At least my information doesn't have Illuminati triangles pasted on it and comes from viable sources

Might I say again the earth is huge. Its circumference is 24,901 miles. 275 miles or 15km isn't squat compared to that so no. There will be no noticeable difference.

You weren't part of this. This is for Dew and I

also the earth is 400,000km or 238,900 miles away from the moon. So no the earth wouldn't dominate the picture because the distance is so unbelievable large. To give you an idea of how large this distance is Light the fastest thing in the universe moves at a pace of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). It still takes light 1.3 seconds. Sound like not alot. Well it is. In that time the light has move the entire distance of 400,000km or 238,900 miles.

You don't see over it

And no I answered Fourth amendments question

so not irrelevant

and I already debunked two of them because the distance the object was seen from was insignificant compared to the circumference of the earth

please I don't know who qjaxz is

Too answer your question first Brian. the moon isn't on a fixed orbit. Hence it appears bigger some seasons. its similar (on a much smaller scale) to how pluto orbits the sun on a uneven orbit sometimes being the 9th body orbiting the sun sometimes the 8th. so no the moon isn't always the same size. Also the pictures shown by you are actually enhanced and zoomed so the Earth will naturally appear bigger. I can tell its zoomed by the way because the surface of the moon is rather blurred and pixilated in places.

Now for you Dew

I want you to picture this with me ok.

no its not

the earth is too clear

this is a picture of earth from the Apollo 11 mission

Explain why I can't put a picture in

other then roles

If I'm not allowed to put pictures then how am I supposed to give evidence. And I was getting to you once I explain to brian the way the earth works in relation to the moon.

Because of this beautiful thing called being high up. Why do you think people climbed mountains to see better? Because you can physically see farther.

Really now. Because you can get the same effect from buildings

from anything with height and a an unobstructed view

Buecause canigou A: isn't that high in relation to the Earth. And B: doesn't reach high enough over the actual horizon to see Allauch

So that diagram is inaccurate and proves nothing

I won't be intellectually honest to a guy that backs up his work with a moon that has the illuminati triangle next to it and calls it evidence

Three french alps my foot. That looks like its from discord.

@Durpyturttle I don't do youtube. Just because there's a youtube channel with my tag doesn't prove squat. Theres probably a few dozen channels with that name.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME

Thats actually a load of BS

you know what.

I'll type it all again

i got time

its 2:30 in the morning

I got nothin but time

I won't stoop so low as to insult you. That is a personal attack and breaks the rules of a clean argument. I won't declare victory over an audience that didn't get to hear my final statement. I won't leave for the affore mentioned reason. And I don't need to pretend anything because I have A: nothing to lose and B: there's nothing to pretend. And finally that bot can be used by a member of the staff and could honestly have been triggered manually.

Oh my f***king god

ok

nope actually

yes that is exactly what I said

thank you

you can't use fingers to do that level of math

no one can

Do you deny the entire equation

There's your math.

and there is the ship cut off by the horizon

its not a building

for starts

Disproved by who

No

I won't be to when I may and may not sleep

now then. May I ask a few questions without being interrupted. I want only one person responding so I don't get tied up. Because there is one of me and I don't even know at this point how many of you.

I have not gotten a chance to refute this evidence. Now will you let me argue the evidence given or not. Not doing so if anything strengthens my case because it makes you look unsure of your evidence under a careful eye.

Now then. The reason an object appears to as it were, disappear is because the object is at a tremendous distance (not touching curvature here) from the camera/viewer. Now then because of the way cameras/eyes work due to depth of perception, farther objects appear smaller. In the case of the buey and ship shown the reason they "disappear" is because they zoom out to a point that the object is no more the pixels on the horizon. Also have I directly verbally attacked you once? I won't be insulted by anyone thank you very much.

Also you bombard me with all this evidence so quickly I hardly get a chance to reply in time. There are 2 or 3 of you and only 1 of me.

the curvature only applies at extreme distances. This object is not at an extreme distance. 10 miles at most.

because said ship is at an extreme distance.

Note you left this. Not me.

I don't need to.

As I see it this is still unresolved

I'l be more then happy to continue later today/tomorrow

if the Earth were flat one should be able to use a high-powered telescope to view Europe from the East Coast.

If the Earth were flat why are the other planets round?

that doesn't disprove either of my points

@F3li

still haven't answered why the east coast can't see Europe. Both have more then clean enough air.

and even with your China point the Chinese smog cloud has been seen from space. Why can't we see that?

except that's not how the atmosphere would work on such a short range scale.