Oh, shut up, you arrogant Modernist twit.  Just because you pontificate something doesn't make it true.  Unless the moon were molten and rippling like water, the craters wouldn't be symmetrical circles.  Your proof is always "because I said so" ... just like when you pontificated "that's not how flight works" as if you were some kind of aviation expert.  Get lost.  90% of your "evidence" is merely your pontification.

So what is it that you do - if I'm pontificating, then what about these statements of yours?

With regard to the so-called "craters" on the moon, I find it rather odd that nearly all of them are almost perfect circles.

That's an argument from ignorance, plain and simple.

If you detonate a bomb or grenade on soft ground, it will leave a round crater. Same thing happens on the moon. The craters are not even always perfect circles, but usually that's just what a shockwave o expanding matter will form, it will radially expand in all directions.

I've exposed half of your crap as garabage that's been debunked a hundred times over by FE proponents.

You are doing a good job at handwaving away any evidence contrary to your standpoint, I agree.

You paste in stupid pictures which show objects cut off and asser that it's proof where there's no data about the observation whatsoever, but then dismiss FE videos are refraction, because you say so ... whereas refraction suddenly is no longer a consideration with your own pictures.

We know exactly how refraction works, it is a well examined phenomenon. It is not a magnifying glass, nor does it visually shift objects in front of each other spatially. That is baseless FE nonsense.

I can imagine why these "stupid pictures" anger you, because you know just as well as everyone else that on earth, over sufficient distance, all points drop away from your horizontal plane. Obviosuly we have to account for refraction and see how it affects what we observe. In our atmosphere, refraction bends light rays downwards, thus visually lifting up distant objects. This increases the effective, observed radius of earth. So strong refraction will actually lessen this drop due to curvature, you could say refraction makes the earth appear more flat than it actually is. Yet the curvature will still always be observable given a large enough distance.

This has obviously also been measured in multiple ways, here's a nice example from a surveyor. The horizontal plane of the theodolite at an elevation of 12.13ft intersects the building at an elevation of about 200ft. This is only possible if the horizontal plane of building's base is lower than the horizontal plane of the observer.


Here is another example. An image from an airplane, with an established eye level and a clear view of the horizon. We observe the dip of the horizon (drop from horizontal), and the cherry on top is that this was overlayed with a grid that takes the shape of a sphere. According to FE, somewhere ahead the horizon would have to visually converge with eye level (that's what perspective does with two flat planes), yet this obviously never happens.


(source: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth, original image without grid here)

Great point!  The closer you get to the moon, the brighter would be its light.  How would it be possible for NASA to take pictures/videos of the landing?  Wouldn't the moon's brightness be too extreme?  We're talking photo/video technology which is DECADES old.  An iphone still can't take a picture of a lightbulb, because it's too bright.  But a 60 year old camera can take a picture of the moon's light? 

The closer you get, the less light will actually directly reach you. Also keep in mind that the moon does not emit light, it only reflects it.

Still, it was indeed very bright on the moon.

How do you know that it's dark gray dirt? It is well known that they used cement powder in their studio.

I think that the comment was to point out the inconsistency here.  Either the moon looks like they portrayed it in the moon landing videos or else it can't be as shiny as it appears in the sky.  So either the moon landing was fake or they're lying about the nature of the moon ... or both.

That "gray dirt" is called Lunar regolith and its albedo value of 0.136 is high enough for it to reflect a lot of light (like a desert would). That's why we see it shine in the night sky (albeit much weaker than sunlight), because if you have a lot of dust that reflects a little light, then that all of that light combined will still be bright. That's what happens with the moon.

I reject every single word above because I reject the notion that we've been to the moon.  Ergo, there's no way to prove anything you said.  It's fantasy science.

The closer you get, the less light will actually directly reach you. Also keep in mind that the moon does not emit light, it only reflects it.

  This makes absolute 0 sense.  The truth is the exact opposite.

You just happened to choose a picture where they had multiple lights on the astronots.  There are many extremely dark shots (photos and videos) of the alleged moon missions.  You do that constantly, SELECTIVELY pick out what you think suits your agenda, and refuse to look at the entire picture ... a classic example of confirmation bias.

Please show me the pictures you're talking about. The majority of them are lit very brightly, as you would expect in a desert or a snowy (high albedo) environment.

The closer you get, the less light will actually directly reach you. Also keep in mind that the moon does not emit light, it only reflects it.

Please show proof that the moon does not emit light, but only reflects light.

Total solar eclipse from Madras, Oregon on August 21, 2017:




A video proves nothing, it may be fake. Better make sure, you can see an eclipse live. To prepare yourself, see:


https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2023-october-14