Not that long ago I found a video online that showed the original broadcast of the moon landing. As they were approaching the moon, it was an animated picture, which is quite obvious when you see it, showing the orbit around the moon in preparation for the landing.
Here it is, I found it. You can see it around 12:30. At points in the video, it clearly states on the screen that it is a simulation:
It was simulation. Listen to the communications right after landing and keep in mind there should be just over 2.5 second radio signal delay to moon and back...ooops!
It's a simulation because there isn't any camera to record it. The astronauts are inside the spaceship and can't record video on the outside.
Think about it. When you saw Neil Armstrong take the first steps on the moon, it wasn't really the first steps. Someone had to set up the camera outside the lunar module in order to get the video of Armstrong coming down the ladder to take the first steps.
Of course this is assuming the moon landing was real, but we won't get into that...
Says the man who wouldn't have the first clue to sending a TV picture back from the Moon. The fact that camera technology has had half a century of improvement doesn't cross your mind? Or that the lunar environment is rather harsh? Or that the bit rate available for transmission is far lower than what we are used to with the internet? There's nothing fake about something that is real. The lunar gravity is hard to mimic.
No because I know stopmotion and a shitty Hollywood set when I see one. You think they were talking to Nixon on a landline with no delay? That's retarded. Nobody has been to the moon dude. Nobody has left "low earth orbit ". You believe in cartoons and want to tell me I'm the stupid one.
No, I worked in the business and know what I am talking about. A delay of a few seconds is hardly noticeable in a normal conversation. Men went and returned. You are one of the strange people that so fervently want it not to be true, that you turn your eyes away from all the factual evidence. Be happy with all your cartoons. By your own words, that's all you have.
Duh. The camera was mounted on the exterior of the vehicle. We had gotten quite used to doing that with our satellites and space probes. Just like you can have a door camera for your house, or other surveillance cameras. So, the video of burglars must be a simulation because there wasn't anyone there to hold the camera? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
Then explain to me why they had to simulate the moon orbit? It plainly states in the old footage that it was a simulation. This is 1969 we're talking about. Hand-held calculators didn't even exist then, let alone your Ring doorbell. Most people still owned black and white TVs.
I don't know what you are even talking about. I presume you are talking about an illustration animation of some sort. In those days, the special effects were real. Stop motion. Optical superposition. No computer-generated imagery. But we did have closed-circuit television, ever since the 1930s, so I don't know why you think we needed a Ring camera on the LEM. You seem to be dreadfully ignorant of the technology in use.
Aldrin is either showing his age or just pulling O'Brien's leg. Here's a link to the videotape of the Apollo 11 moon landing. https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/original-recorded-footage-of-the-moon-landing-found-64226885969 Everybody around the world saw it on TV. No "simulation." They had closed-circuit cameras on the LEM and radioed the signal back to Earth. When they had landed, they posted a camera a distance away from the LEM so they could have that view handy. Those who think there were no cameras are basically too stupid to understand that there were cameras.
Since the last thread was full I'll just place my reply here. You don't have a clue what flat earthers even believe so why are you making so many assumptions? I don't actually know of any flat earthers who think there is an edge you can fall off of. That's something you are brainwashed to think flat earthers think. You didn't even have the courtesy of giving me any links to your proof.
Don't even bring biblical into this. You must not realize how many times 666 comes up in heliocentrism. Weird, the sun in the center, sounds like sun God apollo worshipers to me. The Bible is undoubtedly a flat earth book. Heliocentrism is all a religion because you just believe in something you cannot prove. Show me proof.
Your gas pressure explanation is a clear begging the question fallacy. You are assuming there is no container so therefore there must be no container. I'm telling you to show me one example other than earth of air pressure without a container.
If I "don't have a clue," it is because you are not telling me. I keep asking for your proof and you keep not having any. What assumptions? No edge? Is the Earth of infinite extent? You tell me. Is there a map? Is there a diameter? Is there a center? You have a theory with no content.
I have been careful not to mention the Bible, as it is irrelevant to the subject. Why do you mention it? Easy (now) to prove heliocentrism: measurement of stellar parallax proves that the Earth moves. The fact that all the other orbits are centered on the Sun is additional proof.
Oh. One example OTHER THAN THE EARTH. That wasn't part of your challenge. You have no intellectual integrity, cheating by changing the goal posts. How about Mars? Or Venus? Or Titan? I have no idea what this means for you. There is no difficulty measuring gas pressure anywhere.
I am tired of your sleazy approach. Cough it up. Tell us what your conception of a "flat earth" amounts to. Don't keep it a deep, dark secret and then accuse people of "making assumptions." If there is an assumption---and it is incorrect---spell out what it is and what the correct view is. But I don't think you can do that, either because you don't really have the information or because you do not have the necessary mental organization. Prove me wrong.
I'm telling you space is a violation of natural law, it's the only time ever that gas pressure doesn't require a container?. I guess it's OK to violate natural laws to you? I want to see your cited research papers or some videos proving this. Who did it where when and how was it done. Your side gets all the funding so it should be easy.
Your entire concept of flat earth is based off of a psyop (flat earth society).
I guess the closest map would either be the AE map or Gleason, but that isn't exactly made for flat earth. But if I'm being fair your globe model hasn't came close to an accurate map either.
Anything above where we can reach and beyond the shorelines of Antarctica is speculation. I know the last time someone tried to circumnavigate Antarctica it was captain Cook and it took him 3 years and an estimated 60-80 thousand miles.
That's larger than the equator. Which gets me to my next point, north is center and south is any direction away from center. West amd east navigation is done in circles just like on a globe, nobody has ever done north south circumnavigation though.
The sun is small and local same with the moon. Kinda why they look the same size in the sky. Eratosthenes little sticks and shadows experiment works exactly the same with a smaller local sun.
The only reason you say it doesn't because you heard some religious zealot say it so it must true because clearly you've never done the work yourself.
How big or far nobody knows. And we definitely don't believe planets the sun or the moon are terrafirma you can go. You've clearly never seen unedited photos/videos of planets. They don't look solid at all. They're just wandering stars.
You're the one that brought God up in this conversation so fuck off with that. I'm showing you proof that the devil has had his hands all over your model and he left his signature in your math.
You are all over the place. Space is simply there. The interplanetary medium is a very tenuous gas. The interstellar medium is even more tenuous. Why do you have such an ignorant view of what it is? Gas pressure existed without containers before containers were invented...but there was still gas pressure, on the Earth, on Venus, on Mars, and on Titan (to mention but a few places). I don't need to prove facts long in evidence. Read an encyclopedia.
I don't have a "concept" of a flat earth. I think it is an inherently incoherent idea. I am looking to you for explanation, but you have been very stingy. Now you seem to think the flat earth is like a phonograph record with the north pole at the hole and all the parallels of latitude in concentric circles. This runs into the problem that the real parallels of latitude have smaller diameters south of the equator, but your gramophone model would keep making them larger and larger. Distances don't work out at all. Airliners fly Great Circle routes between (e.g.) Buenos Aires and Cape Town. According to your gramophone Earth, they would have to fly in some other way different from a Great Circle and fly a greater distance. Airplanes are rather sensitive to matters of distance, and would run out of fuel if they were flying farther than they think they are. Not happening.
I don't think you can do the math to show that the Eratosthenes measurement works in your scheme, so don't make assertions you cannot prove. But no astronomical events would be properly represented. It is laughable anyway, because we now know the Sun to be 93 million miles distant by optical measurement. Does the Earth spin like a flipped coin? If it doesn't, then we would not be able to observe the entire sphere of the heavens (constellations) that we know can be observed.
No videos of Mars or photos of Venus? You just aren't looking, are you. We even have photos from probes that land on asteroids. Your education needs enhancement. Here are plenty of stock photos of Antarctica from space. Enjoy. https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/antarctica-from-space.html
You're hopelessly brainwashed. You're really good at memorizing and regurgitating Rockefeller funded textbook nonsense. The math works out the same If the sun is 300 times closer and 300 times smaller. Seasons and the star patterns make 100% sense on the flat earth. Your ball is where we have trouble making things work.
I'm sorry but I don't accept cgi as acceptable proof. Why can't nasa just give us an actual photograph. You cannot find me a single unedited photograph from space. I promise you that. Actually the one they say is real is from the 1969 moon mission, which was terribly faked, so that means there isn't a single one thats real.
Have you seen the press conference when they returned? They couldn't keep their stories straight and they looked as depressed as someone who just had their dog killed in front of them. They were being forced to lie. They probably honestly thought they were going to space but come to find out it was a joke. It's why they all have Hollywood stars, they're actors, not real spaceman. All the people from the Challenger mission are still alive. They have been managed to be found working at universities using the same name. But the "official" story is they all have twins, but none of the twins showed up to their brothers or sisters funeral kinda fuckung weird isn't it. Nasa gets 63 million dollars a day to find ways to fool you.
Nasa even admits they have a graphic artist who gets strips of Data and then they have to create the images based on data. It's all photoshopped and cgi.
Actually, the math doesn't work out the same at all. The distance between Syrene and Alexandria was about 900 km. The angle of shadow was about 7 degrees. This works out to a right triangle altitude of 7,329 km (the Earth radius is about 6,378 km). We know from stereoscopic trigonometry that the Sun is actually about 150 million km distant. The seasons and the star patterns are impossible on a flat Earth (you are welcome to try and explain). Even the daily progression of the Sun is impossible, because daytime (or nighttime) would be simultaneous all over the Earth...yet we know that we have portions in daylight and portions in darkness at any given time. Your picture would have the sun rise in the "south" (Antarctica) travel north to go over the north pole and then set again in the "south". This doesn't happen. The stars are located according to a spherical coordinate system with no distortion. They exist in all directions. According to your view, we can only see into the upward hemisphere. This limitation doesn't happen. How is it we can see all the stars? You can't make any astronomical motions make sense; just try to. Does the Sun go around and under the Earth like the Egyptians believed? What is the diameter of the gramophone Earth? What is the orbit of the sun? (Remember, we already know from direct optical measurement that the sun is 150 million km distant. How do you get around that one?)
The photos of Antarctica are photos. You have no means of disproof. NASA has given innumerable photographs---which you are happy to spurn as being "cgi" (even before computer-generated imagery was possible). So you are posing a challenge in bad faith, just as you reject these legitimate photos. You have no integrity, yourself. Nothing faked about the 1969 Moon mission. Just a lot of stupid misunderstanding of what is possible with photography (no stars? camera can't see if the lens stop were opened wide enough to see the stars---it would have been blinded by the sunlight). Here's a 1966 moon-Earth photo from Lunar Orbiter I: https://www.britannica.com/technology/Lunar-Orbiter Unedited from strip photography accomplished inside the probe. I wish you would get tired of the bullshit challenges. Plenty of evidence. You just want to put your head in the sand.
So, now you rely on how astronauts feel who have gone through tremendous deceleration forces and aerodynamic loads, restored to full Earth gravity after prolonged weightlessness, and you think they are physically wasted because they are "Lying"? You've got to be kidding. You go through that ordeal and see how collected you are at the end of it. Your story about Challenger is a total fabrication, which is disgusting. (They found the bodies in the forward section of the Shuttle resting on the floor of the ocean. I bet you didn't know that, did you?)
Come up with a flat Earth that works, with a Sun that is 150 million km distant and simultaneous day and night. You can't. You won't even try. You wouldn't know how to try. You throw all these challenges out and I meet them all. Because I have worked in the business for 40 years, you ignoramus. You don't have a single particle of evidence. You have nothing but delusion, and you have thrown away the key to reality.
The ignorance in every single one of your comments is astonishing. You know absolutely nothing about flat earth or what they claim but you want to sit here and say it's impossible. How the fuck would you know? Your whole excuse for every fucking thing is gravity. Which has never been proven to even exist.
Have you been to space to confirm every thing you've been told? Nope. How many times does nasa have to be caught lying and faking things before you can admit to at least that? My guess is you'll be a globetard forever because of your cognitive dissonance. I'd give you videos to watch but as you said before they aren't worth your time. You don't even want to know what it is flat earthers actually think. You've proven your ignorance with every single preprogrammed glober response there is.
As for one of the challenger astronauts here ya go. There is a photo of all the ones they've found at different universities using the same names and everything. Finding videos of this is extremely difficult. Everything flat earth is censored like crazy. You get shit and paid shills like professor Dave or scimandan. They're the first ones on YouTube when you search flat earth for a reason.
I can't believe you're on a truth board and you blindly believe the government without any question at all.
That's because they never went to the moon. Why do all the astronauts have Hollywood stars? Because they are actors.
Not that long ago I found a video online that showed the original broadcast of the moon landing. As they were approaching the moon, it was an animated picture, which is quite obvious when you see it, showing the orbit around the moon in preparation for the landing.
Here it is, I found it. You can see it around 12:30. At points in the video, it clearly states on the screen that it is a simulation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBdyzTvA3oA
It was simulation. Listen to the communications right after landing and keep in mind there should be just over 2.5 second radio signal delay to moon and back...ooops!
It's a simulation because there isn't any camera to record it. The astronauts are inside the spaceship and can't record video on the outside.
Think about it. When you saw Neil Armstrong take the first steps on the moon, it wasn't really the first steps. Someone had to set up the camera outside the lunar module in order to get the video of Armstrong coming down the ladder to take the first steps.
Of course this is assuming the moon landing was real, but we won't get into that...
All this time, not once did I question how they got the footage. Such a good point you raise.
All the footage looks almost as bad as an old godzilla movie. It's terribly fake.
Says the man who wouldn't have the first clue to sending a TV picture back from the Moon. The fact that camera technology has had half a century of improvement doesn't cross your mind? Or that the lunar environment is rather harsh? Or that the bit rate available for transmission is far lower than what we are used to with the internet? There's nothing fake about something that is real. The lunar gravity is hard to mimic.
No because I know stopmotion and a shitty Hollywood set when I see one. You think they were talking to Nixon on a landline with no delay? That's retarded. Nobody has been to the moon dude. Nobody has left "low earth orbit ". You believe in cartoons and want to tell me I'm the stupid one.
No, I worked in the business and know what I am talking about. A delay of a few seconds is hardly noticeable in a normal conversation. Men went and returned. You are one of the strange people that so fervently want it not to be true, that you turn your eyes away from all the factual evidence. Be happy with all your cartoons. By your own words, that's all you have.
Duh. The camera was mounted on the exterior of the vehicle. We had gotten quite used to doing that with our satellites and space probes. Just like you can have a door camera for your house, or other surveillance cameras. So, the video of burglars must be a simulation because there wasn't anyone there to hold the camera? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
Then explain to me why they had to simulate the moon orbit? It plainly states in the old footage that it was a simulation. This is 1969 we're talking about. Hand-held calculators didn't even exist then, let alone your Ring doorbell. Most people still owned black and white TVs.
I don't know what you are even talking about. I presume you are talking about an illustration animation of some sort. In those days, the special effects were real. Stop motion. Optical superposition. No computer-generated imagery. But we did have closed-circuit television, ever since the 1930s, so I don't know why you think we needed a Ring camera on the LEM. You seem to be dreadfully ignorant of the technology in use.
Yeah, I can explain. The moon landing was psyop.
Aldrin is either showing his age or just pulling O'Brien's leg. Here's a link to the videotape of the Apollo 11 moon landing. https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/original-recorded-footage-of-the-moon-landing-found-64226885969 Everybody around the world saw it on TV. No "simulation." They had closed-circuit cameras on the LEM and radioed the signal back to Earth. When they had landed, they posted a camera a distance away from the LEM so they could have that view handy. Those who think there were no cameras are basically too stupid to understand that there were cameras.
Gullibles believe we went to the moon.
No. Just people who watched it happened. If you think it didn't happen, you are suffering a delusion. In other words, you are nuts.
Since the last thread was full I'll just place my reply here. You don't have a clue what flat earthers even believe so why are you making so many assumptions? I don't actually know of any flat earthers who think there is an edge you can fall off of. That's something you are brainwashed to think flat earthers think. You didn't even have the courtesy of giving me any links to your proof.
Don't even bring biblical into this. You must not realize how many times 666 comes up in heliocentrism. Weird, the sun in the center, sounds like sun God apollo worshipers to me. The Bible is undoubtedly a flat earth book. Heliocentrism is all a religion because you just believe in something you cannot prove. Show me proof.
Your gas pressure explanation is a clear begging the question fallacy. You are assuming there is no container so therefore there must be no container. I'm telling you to show me one example other than earth of air pressure without a container.
If I "don't have a clue," it is because you are not telling me. I keep asking for your proof and you keep not having any. What assumptions? No edge? Is the Earth of infinite extent? You tell me. Is there a map? Is there a diameter? Is there a center? You have a theory with no content.
I have been careful not to mention the Bible, as it is irrelevant to the subject. Why do you mention it? Easy (now) to prove heliocentrism: measurement of stellar parallax proves that the Earth moves. The fact that all the other orbits are centered on the Sun is additional proof.
Oh. One example OTHER THAN THE EARTH. That wasn't part of your challenge. You have no intellectual integrity, cheating by changing the goal posts. How about Mars? Or Venus? Or Titan? I have no idea what this means for you. There is no difficulty measuring gas pressure anywhere.
I am tired of your sleazy approach. Cough it up. Tell us what your conception of a "flat earth" amounts to. Don't keep it a deep, dark secret and then accuse people of "making assumptions." If there is an assumption---and it is incorrect---spell out what it is and what the correct view is. But I don't think you can do that, either because you don't really have the information or because you do not have the necessary mental organization. Prove me wrong.
I'm telling you space is a violation of natural law, it's the only time ever that gas pressure doesn't require a container?. I guess it's OK to violate natural laws to you? I want to see your cited research papers or some videos proving this. Who did it where when and how was it done. Your side gets all the funding so it should be easy.
Your entire concept of flat earth is based off of a psyop (flat earth society).
I guess the closest map would either be the AE map or Gleason, but that isn't exactly made for flat earth. But if I'm being fair your globe model hasn't came close to an accurate map either.
Anything above where we can reach and beyond the shorelines of Antarctica is speculation. I know the last time someone tried to circumnavigate Antarctica it was captain Cook and it took him 3 years and an estimated 60-80 thousand miles.
That's larger than the equator. Which gets me to my next point, north is center and south is any direction away from center. West amd east navigation is done in circles just like on a globe, nobody has ever done north south circumnavigation though.
The sun is small and local same with the moon. Kinda why they look the same size in the sky. Eratosthenes little sticks and shadows experiment works exactly the same with a smaller local sun. The only reason you say it doesn't because you heard some religious zealot say it so it must true because clearly you've never done the work yourself. How big or far nobody knows. And we definitely don't believe planets the sun or the moon are terrafirma you can go. You've clearly never seen unedited photos/videos of planets. They don't look solid at all. They're just wandering stars.
You're the one that brought God up in this conversation so fuck off with that. I'm showing you proof that the devil has had his hands all over your model and he left his signature in your math.
You are all over the place. Space is simply there. The interplanetary medium is a very tenuous gas. The interstellar medium is even more tenuous. Why do you have such an ignorant view of what it is? Gas pressure existed without containers before containers were invented...but there was still gas pressure, on the Earth, on Venus, on Mars, and on Titan (to mention but a few places). I don't need to prove facts long in evidence. Read an encyclopedia.
I don't have a "concept" of a flat earth. I think it is an inherently incoherent idea. I am looking to you for explanation, but you have been very stingy. Now you seem to think the flat earth is like a phonograph record with the north pole at the hole and all the parallels of latitude in concentric circles. This runs into the problem that the real parallels of latitude have smaller diameters south of the equator, but your gramophone model would keep making them larger and larger. Distances don't work out at all. Airliners fly Great Circle routes between (e.g.) Buenos Aires and Cape Town. According to your gramophone Earth, they would have to fly in some other way different from a Great Circle and fly a greater distance. Airplanes are rather sensitive to matters of distance, and would run out of fuel if they were flying farther than they think they are. Not happening.
I don't think you can do the math to show that the Eratosthenes measurement works in your scheme, so don't make assertions you cannot prove. But no astronomical events would be properly represented. It is laughable anyway, because we now know the Sun to be 93 million miles distant by optical measurement. Does the Earth spin like a flipped coin? If it doesn't, then we would not be able to observe the entire sphere of the heavens (constellations) that we know can be observed.
No videos of Mars or photos of Venus? You just aren't looking, are you. We even have photos from probes that land on asteroids. Your education needs enhancement. Here are plenty of stock photos of Antarctica from space. Enjoy. https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/antarctica-from-space.html
You're hopelessly brainwashed. You're really good at memorizing and regurgitating Rockefeller funded textbook nonsense. The math works out the same If the sun is 300 times closer and 300 times smaller. Seasons and the star patterns make 100% sense on the flat earth. Your ball is where we have trouble making things work.
I'm sorry but I don't accept cgi as acceptable proof. Why can't nasa just give us an actual photograph. You cannot find me a single unedited photograph from space. I promise you that. Actually the one they say is real is from the 1969 moon mission, which was terribly faked, so that means there isn't a single one thats real.
Have you seen the press conference when they returned? They couldn't keep their stories straight and they looked as depressed as someone who just had their dog killed in front of them. They were being forced to lie. They probably honestly thought they were going to space but come to find out it was a joke. It's why they all have Hollywood stars, they're actors, not real spaceman. All the people from the Challenger mission are still alive. They have been managed to be found working at universities using the same name. But the "official" story is they all have twins, but none of the twins showed up to their brothers or sisters funeral kinda fuckung weird isn't it. Nasa gets 63 million dollars a day to find ways to fool you. Nasa even admits they have a graphic artist who gets strips of Data and then they have to create the images based on data. It's all photoshopped and cgi.
Actually, the math doesn't work out the same at all. The distance between Syrene and Alexandria was about 900 km. The angle of shadow was about 7 degrees. This works out to a right triangle altitude of 7,329 km (the Earth radius is about 6,378 km). We know from stereoscopic trigonometry that the Sun is actually about 150 million km distant. The seasons and the star patterns are impossible on a flat Earth (you are welcome to try and explain). Even the daily progression of the Sun is impossible, because daytime (or nighttime) would be simultaneous all over the Earth...yet we know that we have portions in daylight and portions in darkness at any given time. Your picture would have the sun rise in the "south" (Antarctica) travel north to go over the north pole and then set again in the "south". This doesn't happen. The stars are located according to a spherical coordinate system with no distortion. They exist in all directions. According to your view, we can only see into the upward hemisphere. This limitation doesn't happen. How is it we can see all the stars? You can't make any astronomical motions make sense; just try to. Does the Sun go around and under the Earth like the Egyptians believed? What is the diameter of the gramophone Earth? What is the orbit of the sun? (Remember, we already know from direct optical measurement that the sun is 150 million km distant. How do you get around that one?)
The photos of Antarctica are photos. You have no means of disproof. NASA has given innumerable photographs---which you are happy to spurn as being "cgi" (even before computer-generated imagery was possible). So you are posing a challenge in bad faith, just as you reject these legitimate photos. You have no integrity, yourself. Nothing faked about the 1969 Moon mission. Just a lot of stupid misunderstanding of what is possible with photography (no stars? camera can't see if the lens stop were opened wide enough to see the stars---it would have been blinded by the sunlight). Here's a 1966 moon-Earth photo from Lunar Orbiter I: https://www.britannica.com/technology/Lunar-Orbiter Unedited from strip photography accomplished inside the probe. I wish you would get tired of the bullshit challenges. Plenty of evidence. You just want to put your head in the sand.
So, now you rely on how astronauts feel who have gone through tremendous deceleration forces and aerodynamic loads, restored to full Earth gravity after prolonged weightlessness, and you think they are physically wasted because they are "Lying"? You've got to be kidding. You go through that ordeal and see how collected you are at the end of it. Your story about Challenger is a total fabrication, which is disgusting. (They found the bodies in the forward section of the Shuttle resting on the floor of the ocean. I bet you didn't know that, did you?)
Come up with a flat Earth that works, with a Sun that is 150 million km distant and simultaneous day and night. You can't. You won't even try. You wouldn't know how to try. You throw all these challenges out and I meet them all. Because I have worked in the business for 40 years, you ignoramus. You don't have a single particle of evidence. You have nothing but delusion, and you have thrown away the key to reality.
The ignorance in every single one of your comments is astonishing. You know absolutely nothing about flat earth or what they claim but you want to sit here and say it's impossible. How the fuck would you know? Your whole excuse for every fucking thing is gravity. Which has never been proven to even exist.
Have you been to space to confirm every thing you've been told? Nope. How many times does nasa have to be caught lying and faking things before you can admit to at least that? My guess is you'll be a globetard forever because of your cognitive dissonance. I'd give you videos to watch but as you said before they aren't worth your time. You don't even want to know what it is flat earthers actually think. You've proven your ignorance with every single preprogrammed glober response there is.
As for one of the challenger astronauts here ya go. There is a photo of all the ones they've found at different universities using the same names and everything. Finding videos of this is extremely difficult. Everything flat earth is censored like crazy. You get shit and paid shills like professor Dave or scimandan. They're the first ones on YouTube when you search flat earth for a reason.
I can't believe you're on a truth board and you blindly believe the government without any question at all.