Would it not be because former NASA employee's have lots of experience in their respective fields

proof?

@Flat Earth PhD I did some quick research on the camera tracking
Apollo 17 was not the first time it was done, just the first time it worked correctly. Apollo 15 and 16 did the same thing however in 15 the tilt mechanism did not work leading to not tracking https://youtu.be/BMBcLg0DkLA?t=50

In Apollo 16 the rover was parked to close and did not get as good of a shot https://youtu.be/yn1S-flYkaQ?t=8

I think the timing was pre programed on the rover using maths to figure out the correct distances and angles, timing etc and triggered by a command from earth

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/leaving-moon-watching-home

https://io9.gizmodo.com/how-nasa-captured-this-iconic-footage-of-apollo-17-leav-1671650186?IR=T

here is the articles i used

it was only quick research

do you have a counter argument?

I can't tell, i don't know for certain but that doesn't mean its faked

It looks like it begins to tilt over later in flight to burn prograde

The flight plan is precalculated

and the camera controls were preprogramed

if the flight path is known its not overwhelmingly difficult to figure out where the ascent module will be from a given position

The problem with debunking this is you disagree with the general consensus, so what evidence can i use that you will accept

it does initally, then it would burn perpendicular to the ground

i would have to look at the flight plan to be sure however

do you know the basics of orbital mechanics?

to get into a orbit it needs to accelerate perpendicular to the ground

ok

also it wouldn't burn exactly perpendicular to the ground, especially near the start

it would be a higher angle so it gains altitude as well

so i found the article that gif came from
https://www.aulis.com/apollo17_ascent.htm

Its impressive looking, but i don't think its exactly proof

firstly who is the author, Julius A. Birch. I can't find anything about them except this article on aulis online

secondly there are several assumptions within it and i can not verify their work

get back to work

its complicated

he wants my attention

beyond official sources such as NASA no idea, maybe disprove counter points

i thought they were going bankrupt

explain GPS

what about in the ocean

wrong server?

but its not

what is your point

<#551098189319766056>

nvm wrong one

wait

fish contain mercury

mercury is in vaccines

vaccines cause autism

its clear, fish cause autism

@Thinky can you give me some research papers related to the concentration of mercury in vaccines

nvm

thanks

why did the black guy get less black

ok

emojis are not

what is the firmament in terms of material and forces

is it made of something

is it a forcefield kind of thing?

i don't know what the gif is pointing out, that you can't see things in a small low resolution gif that are really far away?

what is it

i don't know what language it is in

@Flat Earth PhD For me at least, i can observe the direct impacts of sciences in general through its impact on the world e.g technology, and from what I've learnt everything fits together. Because i see results of science it adds credibility to it. Flat earth science to my knowledge doesn't have any spin off technologies
Also it isn't feasible for everyone to verify every part of science individually, so we trust that entire fields follow the general scientific method and function as a part of society

@Question For Your Life what are you trying to prove with some gifs

which uses scientific principles

no they don't, but the whole point of science is to learn and discover

yes, that is part of science

what is VC

nah im not, its all g