7 hours ago, Hummin said:

 

If the moon landing was faked, do you believe Trump would honor himself together with Kennedy ? 

 

Do you believe Trump would manage to keep his mouth shut, when he can be the first president to put people on the moon? Think about it for a second? In February humans are going to fly around the moon again, and it haven’t happened since Apollo 17 1972, if that wasn’t faked to 😉 

 

and again would Russian and China accept there was a fake moon landing, when they could bee the first if the race still was on ? 

 

This is a photograph purportedly taken by astronaut Harrison Schmitt on the Moon's surface, during the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972. What is your take on it?

 

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

This is a photograph purportedly taken by astronaut Harrison Schmitt on the Moon's surface, during the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972. What is your take on it?

 

 

I really do not know the conditions the pic where taken under, so? Do I need to have any thoughts about it? 

10 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

This is a photograph purportedly taken by astronaut Harrison Schmitt on the Moon's surface, during the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972. What is your take on it?

 

Shadows??!!

9 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Can someone explain to me that every celestial body that has been observed is roughly spherical, yet the Earth is flat?

 

Spherical under the NASA-sponsored version.

 

Non-NASA-sponsored footage shows a more nuanced reality.

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Shadows??!!

 

Absolutely, my dear Stiddle.

9 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Nonsense. I have previously worked in an Uranium mine and processing plant. It was hilarious to see the mine visitors point at stockpiled sulphur and talk about the dangerous yellowcake that thought they were seeing. Idiots.

Sulphur is used in large quantities to produce very strong acid - 99.9%, which is used in the extraction of uranium from the mother liquid. There is the aqueous phase and the organic phase. At a certain pH the uranium will pass into kerosene and leave the impurities behind. At a different pH the uranium migrates into water and then can be dried to form yellow cake. The acid is used to control the pH changes to allow this to happen. The fire protection was incredible, but needed to be when you have hundreds of thousands of litres of kerosene in open tanks.

By the way yellow cake is not yellow , it's green when it is first thickened.

Nonsense eh Sir!

 

Steven Young would say it differently. And he should know.

 

https://odysee.com/@Freedom_Now!:f/Mass-Hysteria---The-New-Clear-Conspiracy---Steve-A.-Young:0

11 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Spherical under the NASA-sponsored version.

 

Non-NASA-sponsored footage shows a more nuanced reality.

 

 

 

 

There are a couple of things about the earth that I don't understand.

 

Why cant a plane fly around the earth; across two poles?

Why are we not upside down half the time?

Why can't a plane fly direct from Cape Horn to The Cape of Good Hope?

Why the secrecy about the South Pole?

32 minutes ago, Hummin said:

 

I really do not know the conditions the pic where taken under, so? Do I need to have any thoughts about it? 

 

It was one of the widely disseminated pictures taken by Harrison Schmitt during the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972, on the surface of the Moon:

 

https://www.artsy.net/artwork/michael-light-045-astronauts-shadow-photographed-by-harrison-schmitt-apollo-17-december-7-19-1972

 

 

41 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Shadows??!!

Looks like they had taken some hand held battery powered lights up with them.

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

It was one of the widely disseminated pictures taken by Harrison Schmitt during the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972, on the surface of the Moon:

 

https://www.artsy.net/artwork/michael-light-045-astronauts-shadow-photographed-by-harrison-schmitt-apollo-17-december-7-19-1972

 

 

You tell me what is the conspiracy here, and why it is something wrong with it ?

15 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

There are a couple of things about the earth that I don't understand.

 

Why cant a plane fly around the earth; across two poles?

Why are we not upside down half the time?

Why can't a plane fly direct from Cape Horn to The Cape of Good Hope?

Why the secrecy about the South Pole?

 

Good questions. You will find that The Science always has an explanation, though some inconvenient contradictions sometimes show up out of the blue.

 

Here is one example, from CNN's official YouTube channel. This was broadcast live on CNN:

 

Richard Branson's ship starts gliding down around the 4:00 mark, starting from 50,000 feet. According to The Science, the Earth's curvature is visible at 35,000 feet. Yet here we are at 50,000, with a perfectly flat horizon.

 

How does one explain this discrepancy?

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Looks like they had taken some hand held battery powered lights up with them.

 

I asked your favourite source:

 

9 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You tell me what is the conspiracy here, and why it is something wrong with it ?

 

You are the science-minded party in this exchange, you will figure it out.

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

You are the science-minded party in this exchange, you will figure it out.

I have no need to check every mind bogging detail about the moon landing. If the moon landing was fake, we are living in a illusion created by simulation. There is no other answers to your conspiracies. 

 

There is nobody on this planet that can hide the truth for other people like you believe, there must be something bigger we can not grasp. It is a video game with constantly tests and tasks, and most likely continuesly restart over and over again and again

51 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Nonsense eh Sir!

 

Steven Young would say it differently. And he should know.

 

https://odysee.com/@Freedom_Now!:f/Mass-Hysteria---The-New-Clear-Conspiracy---Steve-A.-Young:0

Who is Steven Young and what mine did he work at?

 

You really are dumb.

 

If you are really interested I can describe the process from the moment the ore is mined to yellow cake production.

Been there , done that.

What is mind boggling me is the electrification of everything and we develop new technologies that constantly needs more energy and pollute more, and why we can not just make a step back, stop producing deleted things, and stop consuming BS. That’s my problem with the world, 

 

Research by Dutch analyst Alex de Vries-Gao in 2025 indicates that the global AI footprint has reached critical levels, matching the annual CO₂ emissions of New York City.

 

 

Key Environmental Impacts of AI (2025 Data)

• Carbon Emissions: AI systems emitted approximately 80 million metric tons of CO₂in 2025. This accounts for over 8% of all global aviation emissions.
• Water Consumption: AI-related water usage exceeded 765 billion liters this year. To put this in perspective, this volume surpasses the total amount of bottled water consumed globally and is one-third higher than previous estimates for the entire data center industry.
• Energy Demand: The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that AI data centers now consume as much electricity as aluminum smelters, with demand projected to double by 2030.
• Infrastructure Stress: A single hyperscale data center in the UK is projected to emit 180,000 tons of CO₂ annually, which is more than the emissions of 24,000 homes. In India, the rapid expansion is increasingly relying on diesel backup power, further worsening the carbon footprint. 

 

Transparency Concerns

While some tech giants report efficiency gains, current environmental disclosures are often incomplete. Many companies still fail to account for upstream energy impacts or specific water usage in their public reports. 

For further details on this report, you can read the full coverage at The Guardian.

41 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

There are a couple of things about the earth that I don't understand.

 

Why cant a plane fly around the earth; across two poles?

Why are we not upside down half the time?

Why can't a plane fly direct from Cape Horn to The Cape of Good Hope?

Why the secrecy about the South Pole?

Study gravity. We can fly a plane anywhere if we wish.

What secrecy is there about the south Pole apart from a hostile environment and only a few people have bothered to go there?

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I have no need to check every mind bogging detail about the moon landing.

 

I would have thought a science-minded person would be very interested in an apparent impossibility.

 

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

There is nobody on this planet that can hide the truth for other people like you believe

 

It is demonstrably much easier to do than people think. And once the seed of belief is sowed, it is virtually impossible to revert the process.

 

Carl Sagan described it pretty accurately:

 

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the Truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

15 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

You are the science-minded party in this exchange, you will figure it out.

That's a typical non answer.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

 

I would have thought a science-minded person would be very interested in an apparent impossibility.

 

 

It is demonstrably much easier to do than people think. And once the seed of belief is sowed, it is virtually impossible to revert the process.

 

Carl Sagan described it pretty accurately:

 

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the Truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

I think he may have been talking about the idiot flat earthers.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the Truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

Describes the group of deniers nicely.  

Just now, emptypockets said:

That's a typical non answer.

 

I was pointing out the oft-observed propensity, by some people, to play dumb and claim they don't understand something glaringly obvious – though they are usually very prompt to voice their opinions and refutations – rather than even entertain the possibility that the opposing party may have a point.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I would have thought a science-minded person would be very interested in an apparent impossibility.

 

 

It is demonstrably much easier to do than people think. And once the seed of belief is sowed, it is virtually impossible to revert the process.

 

Carl Sagan described it pretty accurately:

 

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the Truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

 

Even Im a science minded person, there is things I can not explain or grasp, but if you chose to believe in science you also accept there is people who knows what they are doing, and have been doing for whole life talking about, and also accept and recognize their work. No need for me to understand every little detail, or why some things maybe seems a bit off, there is often good explanations for why. The moon pictures and videos conspiracies have been debunked since day one, so why should I bother? I believe out of many reasonable reasons there was a moon landing project, and the Americans did the impossible. Anything else will rock with my belief in humanity. 

 

For others the same goes for if it was a moon landing. What will convince you ? The Americans land again at the moon in near future or the Chinese ? Would that ruin your world same as it would ruin my world and trust in the humanity? 

 

Accepting science as a lead factor, also means science can be renewed with different results at any time. But for what we know for now, latest science is our guide until debunked. 

59 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Nonsense eh Sir!

 

Steven Young would say it differently. And he should know.

 

https://odysee.com/@Freedom_Now!:f/Mass-Hysteria---The-New-Clear-Conspiracy---Steve-A.-Young:0

Just watched the video. Zero information about uranium mines.

I do agree with some of what he said about shutting down fossil and nuclear power generation in the west. Another stupid idea in my opinion.

However I don't subscribe to your whacky ideas.

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

Anything else will rock with my belief in humanity. 

 

I appreciate your honesty. I think this is the core issue.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

 

I appreciate your honesty. I think this is the core issue.

And thats what you chose to dumbifying me ? Take everything out if context? That’s clever 😉

4 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Describes the group of deniers nicely.  

 

Describes most of humanity quite nicely. Don't hesitate to get back to me regarding the shadows on the Moon pic.

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I was pointing out the oft-observed propensity, by some people, to play dumb and claim they don't understand something glaringly obvious – though they are usually very prompt to voice their opinions and refutations – rather than even entertain the possibility that the opposing party may have a point.

What point would that be? The earth is flat?

Just now, Hummin said:

And thats what you chose to dumbifying me ? Take everything out if context? That’s clever 😉

 

There was no sarcasm in my reply. I really think this is the core issue and few people will recognise it, in doing so I think you show more humility than most people I contend with in this debate, it is worth mentioning.

30 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

How does one explain this discrepancy?

For shooting tall buildings from the ground, a Tilt-Shift Lens (TS-E or PC lens) is the best specialized tool, allowing you to keep the camera level and shift the lens upward to prevent vertical lines from converging (leaning inwards), keeping them straight and natural.

 

This is why you can't trust photographs... because light can so easily be bent by design or by not caring about correct details in every case.  Without ALL the details involved in making the photo you question... you have no case.