What to know something? I don't care. Now let's see if they can pull it off again.

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Not quite.. fluid mechanics is central, but with a crucial extra ingredient: Newton’s laws. What keeps aircraft and helicopters up is aerodynamic lift, which comes from how they push air.

Bernoulli nails it:

Where there is an increase in velocity of a fluid over a solid there is a reduction of pressure and a force in that direction. That's about 90/95% of it.

We are probably talking about the same thing. Just using different words.

Used to lecture on this many moons ago.

18 minutes ago, connda said:

What to know something? I don't care. Now let's see if they can pull it off again.

'',,pull it off again.''

What the hoax?

On 1/19/2026 at 9:31 AM, Stiddle Mump said:

As far as I'm aware, there are no flights over the South Pole. A flight over the South Pole would not be even possible with a flat earth.

In order for there to be a flight over the South Pole..... the airlines need quite a few paying customers to fly between two cities that lie on opposite ends of a route that crosses the pole. Can you identify two such cities?

I would like make a big wager that you CANNOT. Unfortunately, almost every AN member who has read your dimwitted posts would know that is a bad bet and won't take it.

Here's some help to answer my query:

Great circle navigation determines the shortest route between two points on Earth's surface, and this path can sometimes pass near or over the South Pole—though not typically through it. 

For a flight to pass over the South Pole, the route must be a great circle that crosses both the geographic South Pole and the opposite point on Earth. 

 The shortest direct route that would actually go over the South Pole is between two cities that are antipodal—meaning they are on opposite sides of the Earth. 

One such pair is Ushuaia, Argentina, and Christchurch, New Zealand. 

 This route spans over 5,000 miles and is the shortest possible path between these two cities, requiring the flight to pass directly over the South Pole. 

While no commercial airlines currently operate this route, it is theoretically the shortest path that crosses the South Pole. The alternative route from Cape Town, South Africa, to Christchurch, New Zealand, is longer—over 6,000 miles—and does not pass directly over the pole. 

In practice, most long-haul flights in the Southern Hemisphere (like Sydney to Santiago) fly close to Antarctica but not over the South Pole, as the great circle path only touches the Antarctic coast. 

 The lack of population centers, infrastructure, and viable emergency landing options in the polar region makes such routes impractical for commercial aviation.

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

In order for there to be a flight over the South Pole..... the airlines need quite a few paying customers to fly between two cities that lie on opposite ends of a route that crosses the pole. Can you identify two such cities?

I would like make a big wager that you CANNOT. Unfortunately, almost every AN member who has read your dimwitted posts would know that is a bad bet and won't take it.

Here's some help to answer my query:

Great circle navigation determines the shortest route between two points on Earth's surface, and this path can sometimes pass near or over the South Pole—though not typically through it. 

For a flight to pass over the South Pole, the route must be a great circle that crosses both the geographic South Pole and the opposite point on Earth. 

 The shortest direct route that would actually go over the South Pole is between two cities that are antipodal—meaning they are on opposite sides of the Earth. 

One such pair is Ushuaia, Argentina, and Christchurch, New Zealand. 

 This route spans over 5,000 miles and is the shortest possible path between these two cities, requiring the flight to pass directly over the South Pole. 

While no commercial airlines currently operate this route, it is theoretically the shortest path that crosses the South Pole. The alternative route from Cape Town, South Africa, to Christchurch, New Zealand, is longer—over 6,000 miles—and does not pass directly over the pole. 

In practice, most long-haul flights in the Southern Hemisphere (like Sydney to Santiago) fly close to Antarctica but not over the South Pole, as the great circle path only touches the Antarctic coast. 

 The lack of population centers, infrastructure, and viable emergency landing options in the polar region makes such routes impractical for commercial aviation.

Which I had assumed was widely understood by anyone with a basic grasp of reality. That’s precisely why it’s baffling to see flat-Earth advocates clutching at this particular straw.

The argument collapses the moment even elementary principles are applied, and in doing so it unintentionally highlights how little the underlying concepts are understood by flat-earthers.

These questions don’t expose hidden flaws in mainstream science - they expose misunderstandings about frames of reference, shared motion, and how navigation actually works.

When an argument is this easily debunked, its persistence isn’t a sign of suppressed truth; it’s a sign that the goal is not understanding, but confirmation. The appeal lies not in the strength of the claim, but in the false sense of insight it provides to those already committed to the conclusion.

It’s not revealing something others have missed - it’s recycling a misunderstanding that has already been answered countless times.

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

There is no recognised aviation body, airline, regulator, or training organisation anywhere in the world that teaches or endorses a flat-Earth model. None.

There is plenty of evidence of endorsements and uses of a flat Earth model in the context of research and scientific endeavours, if one cares to do a little research. Three examples of many:

NASA, page 25:

A flat, non-rotating Earth with a still atmosphere is assumed, and all turning maneuvers are completely coordinated.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19690010344/downloads/19690010344.pdf

US Department of Defense, page 6:

II. VALIDITY OF FLAT EARTH ASSUMPTION FOR ATMOSPHERIC CALCULATIONS
The relative mass of the atmosphere at any elevation angle is given approximately by the cosecant of the elevation angle. This relationship is correct for a flat Earth and a flat atmosphere.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0020861.pdf

Harvard University (published in Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference for Future Space Systems, Boulder, Colo., August 6-8, 1979):

A closed form solution is developed for the motion of a ballistic vehicle entering the atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating Earth.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979atfm.conf..359B/abstract

9 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Of course it's not the case..... you completely lack an understanding of the fundamental principles of Newtonian (the simple kind) physics. Did you sleep through all the subjects in grades 9 - 12 or just physics?

Newton himself strongly suspected his theory was BS (as did Copernicus for his).

18 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

There is plenty of evidence of endorsements and uses of a flat Earth model in the context of research and scientific endeavours, if one cares to do a little research. Three examples of many:

NASA, page 25:

A flat, non-rotating Earth with a still atmosphere is assumed, and all turning maneuvers are completely coordinated.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19690010344/downloads/19690010344.pdf

This is going to be fun - each one dealt with individually - because again, you've quote mined - and picked out a needle in a haystack, removed context and force the reader (opposer / me) to go down a rabbit hole to accurately debunk the rubbish you just posted...

This is not an original 'epiphany moment' for you - its borrowed information from a flat-earth site - flat-earthers love quoting that sentence because it sounds like an admission. It isn’t. It’s just a standard modelling assumption, and once you understand why engineers write like this, the argument collapses.

What the NASA line actually says

“A flat, non-rotating Earth with a still atmosphere is assumed…”

This comes from a flight-mechanics and guidance analysis, not a geodesy or cosmology paper (thats a key point). The report explicitly states its assumptions up front - that’s normal engineering practice.

The document is from NASA and dates to 1969, focused on aircraft/vehicle trajectory modelling.

Why do engineers assume a “flat, non-rotating Earth” ???

Local physics is not the same as global geometry when considering aircraft dynamics over limited distances and timeframes:

- Earth curvature introduces errors of millimetres to metres

- Aircraft control errors are orders of magnitude larger

- Treating Earth as flat simplifies equations without affecting results

This is identical to:

- Civil engineers treating land as flat

- Architects ignoring Earth curvature

- Surveyors using planar maps for small areas

Yet no one thinks buildings prove Flat Earth.

A non-rotating frame work is good for mathematical convenience.

Rotation introduces:

- Coriolis terms

- Centrifugal accelerations

- Additional reference-frame transformations

For short-duration, low-altitude, local manoeuvres, these effects are negligible. Removing them:

- Simplifies control-law derivations

- Makes simulations tractable

- Does not deny rotation exists

Engineers choose reference frames, not cosmologies.

“Still atmosphere” does not mean no winds

It means:

- No background wind field

- Turbulence and gusts treated separately

- Allows isolation of vehicle response

Meteorologists do this too - nobody claims they deny weather.

So... Why is this NOT evidence for Flat Earth?

NASA also routinely uses:

- Spherical Earth models

- Oblate spheroid models

- Rotating Earth frames

- Earth-centred inertial frames

... and does so often in the same project, depending on purpose.

Flat-Earth logic here is equivalent to saying:

“Because a physics problem says ‘assume frictionless surface’, friction doesn’t exist.”

That’s not reasoning - it’s category error.

The context Flat-Earth arguments ignore

If NASA believed Earth were flat:

- GPS would fail

- Satellite orbits would be impossible

- Intercontinental ballistic trajectories wouldn’t work

- Star-tracking systems would be useless

- Gravity models would be wrong by kilometres

Yet all of those work with absurd precision.

In short - you have taken a local approximation for engineering maths and misunderstood it - its not a statement about reality, its not an admission and it not even controversial (amongst those who understand why such methods are used).

37 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

US Department of Defense, page 6:

II. VALIDITY OF FLAT EARTH ASSUMPTION FOR ATMOSPHERIC CALCULATIONS
The relative mass of the atmosphere at any elevation angle is given approximately by the cosecant of the elevation angle. This relationship is correct for a flat Earth and a flat atmosphere.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0020861.pdf

You used the same trick, with the same failure of understanding. This DoD quote is another example of a local approximation being abused as cosmology.

What the US Department of Defense document actually says

“VALIDITY OF FLAT EARTH ASSUMPTION FOR ATMOSPHERIC CALCULATIONS”

“The relative mass of the atmosphere at any elevation angle is given approximately by the cosecant of the elevation angle. This relationship is correct for a flat Earth and a flat atmosphere”...

This is a signal-propagation and atmospheric attenuation analysis - not a claim about Earth’s shape.

The issuing body is the United States Department of Defense, analysing radio / radar path effects, not geography.

Its the same thing as the NASA paper above - Engineers needed a quick, simple formula

They were calculating how much atmosphere a signal goes through at different angles.

To do that, they used a simple geometric model where:

- The Earth was treated as flat

- The atmosphere was treated as a flat slab

This makes the maths easy, not because Earth is flat, but because:

- The real Earth is so huge that over small distances the curve doesn’t matter much

- For their purpose, the flat assumption made the formula easier and was good enough

So basically - its just a mathematic shortcut - that all it is...

Its like like saying:

“We assume a straight road between A and B because for this short section the bends don’t change the result.”

It’s a practical approximation, not a statement about reality.

And does not mean:

- The DOD believe Earth is flat
- Does not prove Earth is flat
- The DoD rejects spherical Earth

Additoinally - Real atmospheric models do take Earth’s curvature into account when it really matters; this quote is just about a first-level approximation used in one specific calculation.

As an exampe: If you’re drawing a 5 km map of a city, you might treat the ground as flat.
That doesn’t mean planet is flat... Its just that for that map the curve doesn’t affect the result.

That’s exactly what the DoD paper is doing.

In short - you done the same thing again... and have taken a local approximation for engineering maths and misunderstood it - again - the comments are not statements about reality. And again, you have failed to understand why such methods are used.

49 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Harvard University (published in Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference for Future Space Systems, Boulder, Colo., August 6-8, 1979):

A closed form solution is developed for the motion of a ballistic vehicle entering the atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating Earth.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979atfm.conf..359B/abstract

Should I even bother at this stage... your 'characteristic quote mining' is getting desperate...

What that Harvard/AIAA conference paper is really doing doesn’t mean scientists think the Earth is flat:

The quote says

“…a closed form solution is developed for the motion of a ballistic vehicle entering the atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating Earth”...

What this actually means - in real English

Again... It’s about simplifying the maths

The authors were solving equations for a ballistic re-entry trajectory - how a spacecraft moves through the atmosphere as it comes in from space.

To make the problem solvable with a neat formula (a “closed form solution”), they assumed:

- Earth’s surface is flat - meaning they ignore curvature

- Earth is non-rotating - meaning they ignore Coriolis and rotation effects

These assumptions make the maths much simpler, especially for analytic solutions.

That doesn’t mean they believe Earth is actually flat or not rotating. It means:

“For this particular calculation, treating a tiny piece of Earth as flat and ignoring rotation is close enough to reality that it gives useful results”...

Why it doesn’t imply Earth is flat ???

These are just approximations

Scientists often use simplified models in technical papers — for example:

- Assuming no wind

- Treating an aircraft as a rigid body

- Ignoring tiny effects like Coriolis

- Using a flat surface instead of a curved one

All of these are not true in reality - but for some calculations, they’re close enough that the result is still valid at the scale being studied - as stated earlier - scale matters.

And there are similar to everyday examples...

- When a builder draws a house plan, they assume the land is flat even though the ground curves with the Earth.

- When doing short-distance physics, textbooks treat Earth as flat because curvature is negligible over a few kilometres.

... and this is exactly the same idea.

The approximations do have limits....

For long distances, rotation, gravity changes, and curvature do matter - and other models do include them (for example, full reentry or spacecraft orbital calculations). The fact that this special case model doesn’t include them is evidence that the simplification was intentional and limited, not a real assertion about Earth.

Thus... The paper assumes a flat, non-rotating Earth only to make the maths simpler for a very specific ballistic trajectory calculation - it’s a local approximation, not a claim that Earth is actually flat or non-rotating....

Or to put it another way... Imagine you’re calculating the path of a bullet fired from a rifle:

- You don’t need to include Earth’s curvature or rotation to predict where the bullet will land over 50 meters... But that doesn’t mean the world is flat.

It’s the same with these aerospace equations - as mentioned again - scale matters.

And once again, In short - you have done the same thing again... by taking a local approximation for engineering maths and misunderstanding why its used it - as earlier - the comments are not statements about reality - they're 'convenient simplifications' to avoid over complexity for 'scale mathematics'....

Now... Stop the silly 'quote minding'... and start thinking.

 

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You used the same trick, with the same failure of understanding. This DoD quote is another example of a local approximation being abused as cosmology.

What the US Department of Defense document actually says

“VALIDITY OF FLAT EARTH ASSUMPTION FOR ATMOSPHERIC CALCULATIONS”

“The relative mass of the atmosphere at any elevation angle is given approximately by the cosecant of the elevation angle. This relationship is correct for a flat Earth and a flat atmosphere”...

This is a signal-propagation and atmospheric attenuation analysis - not a claim about Earth’s shape.

The issuing body is the United States Department of Defense, analysing radio / radar path effects, not geography.

Its the same thing as the NASA paper above - Engineers needed a quick, simple formula

They were calculating how much atmosphere a signal goes through at different angles.

To do that, they used a simple geometric model where:

- The Earth was treated as flat

- The atmosphere was treated as a flat slab

This makes the maths easy, not because Earth is flat, but because:

- The real Earth is so huge that over small distances the curve doesn’t matter much

- For their purpose, the flat assumption made the formula easier and was good enough

So basically - its just a mathematic shortcut - that all it is...

Its like like saying:

“We assume a straight road between A and B because for this short section the bends don’t change the result.”

It’s a practical approximation, not a statement about reality.

And does not mean:

- The DOD believe Earth is flat
- Does not prove Earth is flat
- The DoD rejects spherical Earth

Additoinally - Real atmospheric models do take Earth’s curvature into account when it really matters; this quote is just about a first-level approximation used in one specific calculation.

As an exampe: If you’re drawing a 5 km map of a city, you might treat the ground as flat.
That doesn’t mean planet is flat... Its just that for that map the curve doesn’t affect the result.

That’s exactly what the DoD paper is doing.

In short - you done the same thing again... and have taken a local approximation for engineering maths and misunderstood it - again - the comments are not statements about reality. And again, you have failed to understand why such methods are used.

True to yourself, using the oppositional lens under which you assume this exchange is a duel which must produce a winner and a loser, you dive straight in and attempt to 'debunk' a claim which was never made and score rhetorical points.

I didn't provide these quotes as evidence of the flat Earth, but as a reply to your claim that flat Earth models weren't used by any aeronautical entity.

Your explanations, which were expected but are useful nonetheless, add more light to the issue. Interested people can acquaint themselves with these references and delve into the reasons why a model which supposedly doesn't exist and has long been relegated to the archives of archaic beliefs - and therefore akin to science-fiction - is used by the most prominent bodies in the aeronautical and spatial fields.

59 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

There is plenty of evidence of endorsements and uses of a flat Earth model in the context of research and scientific endeavours, if one cares to do a little research. Three examples of many:

There. In three separate responses above, I have taken the time to dismantle your cherry-picked, quote-mined claims one by one.

At this point, I am unsure whether you are deliberately presenting misinformation while hiding behind official sources and ignoring their proper context, or whether you simply do not understand why such statements are made in technical literature. Either way, the length of the explanations required should make one thing obvious - this is exactly why engaging with arguments like these becomes so exhausting - and why I often can't be bothered, instead stating I won't argue with fools.

The problem is not a lack of evidence, but the repeated reliance on inaccuracies presented as legitimate conclusions. When statements are stripped of their context and technical meaning, they can appear convincing to those who do not take the time to look deeper - which is precisely why such examples are so often used in flat-Earth arguments (the same can be said of many conspiracies).

These claims persist not because they are sound, but because they exploit a lack of understanding of how scientific modelling works. Either the nuance is missed entirely, or the material is filtered through others who knowingly distort it - selectively, incompletely, and out of context - to create the illusion of credibility.

Whatever site you took this information from - It's either misinformation by omission as they distort context and fact.

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Either way, the length of the explanations required should make one thing obvious - this is exactly why engaging with arguments like these becomes so exhausting - and why I often can't be bothered, instead stating I won't argue with fools.

It took you a few minutes because you did it with AI. A competent, professional writer will produce 1,000 words in a couple of hours, especially when it involves aggregating and organising that much information in the context of a debate. You "won't argue with fools" but you aren't fooling anybody, I just wanted you to know that.

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

True to yourself, using the oppositional lens under which you assume this exchange is a duel which must produce a winner and a loser, you dive straight in and attempt to 'debunk' a claim which was never made and score rhetorical points.

I didn't provide these quotes as evidence of the flat Earth, but as a reply to your claim that flat Earth models weren't used by any aeronautical entity.

Your explanations, which were expected but useful nonetheless, add more light to the issue. Interested people can acquaint themselves with these references and delve into the reasons why a model based on something which supposedly doesn't exist and has long been relegated to the archives of archaic beliefs - and therefore akin to science-fiction - is used by the most prominent bodies in the aeronautical and spatial fields.

Your examples were presented by you, as a proponent of the flat-earth conspiracy (not really a conspiracy so much as a misunderstanding elevated to ideology) to highlight how official bodies use models where 'the earth is considered flat'...

In reality, those models are not used by aeronautical or scientific bodies to describe the shape of the Earth at all. They exist solely to simplify mathematics in narrowly defined, localised problems, and they lend no support whatsoever to the suggestion that the Earth might be flat.

Given the context of this discussion, that distinction matters. Had I simply stated that NASA, the DoD, or Harvard “use flat models”,... such a claim would itself be misleading, as flat-Earth advocates routinely seize upon precisely that kind of decontextualised language.

The truth is far more mundane. Flat models are employed only as mathematical conveniences for down-scaled, local calculations where curvature and rotation are irrelevant to the outcome.

They are not global models, they are not physical descriptions of reality, and they have no bearing on large-scale Earth geometry or planetary physics.

That is the entirety of their role - nothing more. I could have stated that outright in my initial three responses, but doing so would inevitably have led to the claim that I had ignored the specific points you raised. Each example therefore had to be addressed individually and dismantled on its own terms, precisely to prevent further miscontextualisation of the simplified, quote-mined statements you presented.

When claims are built on excerpts stripped of their technical context, the only way to respond responsibly is to restore that context in full. Anything less would have allowed the same misleading interpretations to persist.

This highlights one of the central problems with debates of this kind. Accurately dismantling misinformation takes time, care, and explanation, while the misinformation itself can be presented in a few lines. For many people, a detailed rebuttal is simply dismissed as TLDR...

That imbalance is precisely why memes and soundbites are so effective in conspiracy communities. They reduce complex subjects to easily shareable fragments, sacrificing accuracy for simplicity and emotional appeal. Correcting those fragments requires far more effort than creating them - and that asymmetry is what allows such narratives to persist.

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It took you a few minutes because you did it with AI. A competent, professional writer will produce 1,000 words in a couple of hours, especially when it involves aggregating and organising that much information in the context of a debate. You "won't argue with fools" but you aren't fooling anybody, I just wanted you to know that.

The information has been sourced through Google and compiled in Microsoft Word for formatting, reorganisation, and assimilation, allowing me to present the argument as I intend it.

Yes, the material is drawn from existing sources rather than being entirely my own - I am not an astrophysicist.

That said, the structure, emphasis, and conclusions are solid and while not solely mine, not a lot is when I take information from many sources. I can type these responses more quickly than I can speak them - because the keyboard and documentation allow for better organisation formatting, copying pasting, rehashing, rewording for forum assimilation (some of you anyway)...

I type as quickly as I speak and the purpose here is clarity and accuracy, not authorship for its own sake.

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

There is plenty of evidence of endorsements and uses of a flat Earth model in the context of research and scientific endeavours, if one cares to do a little research. Three examples of many:

NASA, page 25:

A flat, non-rotating Earth with a still atmosphere is assumed, and all turning maneuvers are completely coordinated.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19690010344/downloads/19690010344.pdf

US Department of Defense, page 6:

II. VALIDITY OF FLAT EARTH ASSUMPTION FOR ATMOSPHERIC CALCULATIONS
The relative mass of the atmosphere at any elevation angle is given approximately by the cosecant of the elevation angle. This relationship is correct for a flat Earth and a flat atmosphere.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0020861.pdf

Harvard University (published in Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference for Future Space Systems, Boulder, Colo., August 6-8, 1979):

A closed form solution is developed for the motion of a ballistic vehicle entering the atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating Earth.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979atfm.conf..359B/abstract

Your grasp of the English language is indeed tenuous. Combine that shortcoming with extreme laziness and that's the result we see in your posts. 😳😂

Read the context instead of just searching for 'flat earth'. In the first quote you show... the context is that for the purposes of doing some complicated calculations the authors used a simplified model .... ie a flat earth. The simplification is done to make it easier to construct equations that will produce very accurate models of the REAL SITUATION... ie a rotating Earth.

The fact that the task of proving Earth's motion is 'remarkably difficult' also implies that for most situations, calculations made assuming a flat earth will still produce workable results for the true situation of a rotating Earth. Checkmate.

Your 'research' is completely laughable. Go directly back to grade school. Do not Pass GO. Do not collect $200.

Gents, this thread is not about Flat Earth, but about whether you believe they put a 'Man on the Moon'

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Newton himself strongly suspected his theory was BS (as did Copernicus for his).

Have you spoken with him lately? He confessed this directly to you?

Have to be quite a nut job to even consider the moon landings were real while we still never revisited nor SpaceX being able to do right now in 2026. Oh yeah we just went there once and then we magically forgot how we did it and never came again, we saw all already.

To then add to the distraction a new goal: Mars! Now they can delay truth for a few decades more.

3 minutes ago, BuffaloRider said:

Have to be quite a nut job to even consider the moon landings were real while we still never revisited nor SpaceX being able to do right now in 2026. Oh yeah we just went there once and then we magically forgot how we did it and never came again, we saw all already.

Your first post should perhaps exhibit a bit more depth of analysis.... you know first impressions are important.

42 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Gents, this thread is not about Flat Earth, but about whether you believe they put a 'Man on the Moon'

it's all related.... confronting science deniers is a responsibility of any rational world citizen.

20 minutes ago, BuffaloRider said:

Have to be quite a nut job to even consider the moon landings were real while we still never revisited nor SpaceX being able to do right now in 2026. Oh yeah we just went there once and then we magically forgot how we did it and never came again, we saw all already.

To then add to the distraction a new goal: Mars! Now they can delay truth for a few decades more.

Whoever you are here under your primary account, well done sitting on this sock puppet account since 2019 before creating your first post today. 👏👏👏

28 minutes ago, BuffaloRider said:

Have to be quite a nut job to even consider the moon landings were real while we still never revisited nor SpaceX being able to do right now in 2026. Oh yeah we just went there once and then we magically forgot how we did it and never came again, we saw all already.

To then add to the distraction a new goal: Mars! Now they can delay truth for a few decades more.

Impressive first post Sir. Cut to the chase. Hit the nail on the head. Cut the mustard. Bang on the money. Welcome to the fountain of debate.

Could you delve into some of the other contentious topics? Beware though, you will come under scrutiny by the sheep. Some might even be a bit rude. These members who believe every little thing they are told by the US Government and Wiki and AI.

You are going places on this platform for sure. Already, I sense there is a reluctance to engage you, because of your directness.

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

Your grasp of the English language is indeed tenuous. Combine that shortcoming with extreme laziness and that's the result we see in your posts. 😳😂

Read the context instead of just searching for 'flat earth'. In the first quote you show... the context is that for the purposes of doing some complicated calculations the authors used a simplified model .... ie a flat earth. The simplification is done to make it easier to construct equations that will produce very accurate models of the REAL SITUATION... ie a rotating Earth.

The fact that the task of proving Earth's motion is 'remarkably difficult' also implies that for most situations, calculations made assuming a flat earth will still produce workable results for the true situation of a rotating Earth. Checkmate.

Your 'research' is completely laughable. Go directly back to grade school. Do not Pass GO. Do not collect $200.

Anyone who chooses to read the stargazers link I posted earlier will see real examples of “near enough” maths being used to establish working concepts that can then be refined and built upon… “Theory”

A scientific theory explains observations and then makes predictions and is repeatable.

If it can do this it will gain acceptance until it is replaced by a better theory

It should also be noted that good science is fluid, it follows the evidence and cares not for your or my opinions or desires.

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

You are going places on this platform for sure

Those 'places' are so special that they have a name.... the ignore list.

6 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Those 'places' have a name.... the ignore list.

He has already proved him/herself. Give the chap a chance Gamby.

Only done one post. And very intense it was too. Can't wait for future posts.

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

You "won't argue with fools" but you aren't fooling anybody

I agree... he's not fooling anybody.... He can't fool those who understand science... and of course nobody can fool the willfully ignorant. They're already at the very left tip of the Poisson distribution where the X-axis represents understanding of science.

6 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

There is plenty of evidence of endorsements and uses of a flat Earth model

You have made an unfounded extrapolation of what was stated in the NASA document. They did not say they used the 'flat Earth model'.... They did say 'a non rotating flat earth was assumed'. The 'flat Earth model' generally disagrees with the scientific understanding of gravity. If that NASA publication was discounting the gravitational force they would have stated such.

What about exposing your own life as a hoax? It'd be about time.

35 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

You have made an unfounded extrapolation of what was stated in the NASA document. They did not say they used the 'flat Earth model'.... They did say 'a non rotating flat earth was assumed'. The 'flat Earth model' generally disagrees with the scientific understanding of gravity. If that NASA publication was discounting the gravitational force they would have stated such.

I never really understood why anyone would care if the moon landings where real of not.

It certainly doesn't make any difference to our lives.

Unlike COVID or climate change which governments use to destroy our lives, health, incomes and freedom to travel.