If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
Posts: 353
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm


Unread post by kickstones » Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:10 am

Peter » September 2nd, 2019, 12:18 am wrote:Flat Earth is probably an effective DBA strategy. But why give us real hoax info in the first place? That's my big question.

Maybe to allow a gradual acceptance of reality, maybe to see reaction to awareness, maybe with knowledge that for awareness of the masses something has to be repeated on mainstream media anyway so youtube info from small channels has no effect anyway?
They are certainly repeating this in mainstream media (UK) at the moment—take yesterday for example, neary every major/ minor news outlet reported headline news on UK boxing legend Carl Froch’s comments with regard to FE, fake NASA, fake CGI images, and fake moon landings:


More headlines....

Boxing champ Carl Froch says Earth is flat and 'whole planet has been sold lie'

He refuses to believe proof from NASA and Elon Musk, accusing them of being in the "little clique" ... s-20161081

Boxing champ Carl Froch is convinced the world is FLAT and says Nasa are 'faking CGI images of the planet ... mages.html

Boxing legend Carl Froch believes Earth is flat – and slams ‘fake’ Nasa ... nasa-fake/

Retired boxer Carl Froch claims the Earth is flat and NASA is a ‘fake space agency’ ... -10800726/

Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am


Unread post by Kham » Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:37 am

Where is the NASA Bashing?

I know Clues Forum has been a leader in exposing NASA as the frauds that they are but we have been pretty quiet lately. All that press feels reactionary, but to whom? Where are all the articulate and insightful folks that are presenting logical arguments that show space travel is impossible?

I am very much interested in reading those articles and viewing those videos but can’t seem to find any except for those ridiculous ones that are tied up with flat earth.

Anyone know where current space travel debunking can be found?

Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:30 am


Unread post by nokidding » Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:45 am

Balthasar blog Home page

Educated and reasonable, for example the problem of achieving orbit around a distant planet or moon. ... -planeten/


Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am


Unread post by Kham » Sat Oct 05, 2019 6:40 am

Thank you nokidding for the links.

My german is a bit rusty, more like completely covered in inches of thick rust like a twisted I-beam from the twin towers that has been at the bottom of Chesapeake Bay for 911 years. Any links in english?

Posts: 7150
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy


Unread post by simonshack » Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:10 am

Kham » October 5th, 2019, 6:40 am wrote:Thank you nokidding for the links.

My german is a bit rusty, more like completely covered in inches of thick rust like a twisted I-beam from the twin towers that has been at the bottom of Chesapeake Bay for 911 years. Any links in english?
Dear Kham,

Instead of using the (poor) google translation function, I would recommend using this far better translator machine:

I used it to translate the below sections of Balthasar's fine blog which lists a number of good "NASA bashing" links to various websites and literature... -_-

Source: ... raumfahrt/
Apollo, and more space hoaxes - Department of the "Forum of Clues", FORUM OF SEARCH OF SEPTEMBER CLUES. . . 2009 and following
( ... 2d17040191 )
September Clues is the most important portal for media counterfeits originated in the criticism of the gigantic fraud on the crime of 9/11 - nine eleven. Its CLUES SEARCH FORUM IN SEPTEMBER continues its work; its members have acquired unique expertise in the analysis of media counterfeiting. "Cluesforum" opened another space department in 2009: "Apollo, and more space hoaxes", where all current new space travel fakes are constantly analyzed and discovered.
From 2018: 84 discussions ("Topics"), all fully recoverable and searchable.
Selection of topics:
Yuri Gagarin Hoax - APOLLO - The lunar rocks of NASA disappear! - Skylab - ENDEAVOUR - the 30-year-old Space Shuttle hoax - ISS - HUBBLE - Elon Musk, SpaceX - MARS & the Curiosity Rover - Mars One - China's Moon Mission(s) - Re-entry - Project Orion.

2012, February 18.
Remembering Bill Kaysing. July 31, 1922 - April 21, 2005. - By Simon Shack. - Discussion in CLUESFORUM. Opened on 18.2.2012; 27 contributions; last on 9.1.2017. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1225
Interesting contributions from forum participants, e.g. This includes, for example, their personal experiences with space fraud.

2012, October 30
"We Never Went to the Moon' by Bill Kaysing - by " hoi.polloi "(name of one of the board's moderators). - Topic of this CLUESFORUM discussion: Presentation of the book, addition of other illustrations and discussion and appreciation of its meaning. - 29 contributions; last 4.11.2012. - 100 pages.
"I followed Simon's advice and ordered a copy of Bill Kaysing's book We Never Went to the Moon. I find an incredible, refreshing and revealing picture of the disjointed behavior of NASA's main employees during the impressive 1960s. Even with poor image quality, the evidence more or less holds up. I'm going to replace the guilty NASA images that have modern equivalents for the sake of both of us. "
The large volume is explained by the reproduction of all the pages of Kaysing's book; it replaces the photos with better images; it reproduces Kaysing's often readable comments in print. In practical terms, this discussion represents substantially a new, technically improved edition of the book.

Posts: 7150
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy


Unread post by simonshack » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:27 pm


This is a must read for everyone... :lol:

...from Balthasar's brilliant website. It's in English:


Let us all pray that Pope Francis will finally put an end to this disgraceful space hoax foisted upon humanity.
Not holding my breath - but why not pray ... on the top of our lungs?

Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am


Unread post by patrix » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:15 pm

A very watchable video on Flat Earth and some of its purposes.

However, from watching some of his other videos he seems to be a NASA hugger/shill, sigh...

"Weaponizing the Flat Earth Movement" - by David De Hilster (of the Dissident Science Youtube channel)

full link:

Posts: 7150
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy


Unread post by simonshack » Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:33 pm


or how our naked eyes can see that we're living on a globe

Dear Cluesforum readers,

If anyone of you are still leaning towards the idea that this world is flat as a pancake - what follows may save you a lot of precious lifetime (which you might otherwise waste away while watching & reading the innumerable Flat Earther videos and websites crowding the internets).

Lately, I've been discussing with a pen pal about the issue of Earth's curvature which, of course, is one of the Flat Earther's favorite topics which they endlessly submit as 'proof' of the world's -uh- flatness. Let me first make it clear that I do actually share ONE thing with the (earnest) Flat Earthers: that is, their quite reasonable request that whatever is claimed by astronomers should be EMPIRICALLY OBSERVABLE (that is, only under optical conditions that allow them to be observed).

Yes, it is true that Earth's curvature is quite hard to detect as we, for instance, look out of an airplane window. Most of the time, the distant horizon will be a hazy and undistinct line - due to various unfavorable atmospheric conditions. However, on rare occasions (i.e. in optimal atmospherical conditions) the curve can indeed be photographed - yet you wouldn't possibly be able to notice the slight curvature whilst viewing it from your airplane seat: it is just too subtle to make out with your naked eyes - and without a perfectly horizontal reference-line with which to compare/ gauge it with. Now, I wish I had a personal picture (similar to the below image) - but I hope I'll be able to snap such a photograph during some future flight of mine! Anyway, the below image (which I have no reason to suspect to be fake, manipulated / or heavily distorted - even though "edited in Photoshop CS6") was snapped by some Australian guy who describes it with this caption:

"Couldn't sleep on the plane back home to Australia so I peeked out the window and spotted this awesome sunrise! Photo edited using Photoshop CS6"
(it appears that he applied some extra contrast in Photoshop - yet this isn't something that would alter / distort the shapes and curves in any given image).

(That's right: that triangle I have placed in the middle of this image is 32 pixels high. I will explain later on why this 32px curvature is just what would be expected in a 3840px photograph - if Earth were a globe with a 6378km radius - and if that airplane was cruising at an altitude of about 9km). I will certainly try and snap a similar picture myself next time I board a flight - atmospheric & lighting conditions permitting, of course.

Before we get on though, I would like to get out of the way another favorite 'proof' that Flat Earthers submit: namely, their repeated claims about distant ships at sea 'not' disappearing behind the horizon - or that cityscapes viewed across (cold / humid / icy) lakes can sometimes be seen from great distances - whereas "they should be hidden by Earth's curvature". As an example of such debates, here's the link to a huge thread on Quora regarding the Chicago skyline seen from afar:

"Chicago is 59 miles from the opposite shore of Lake Michigan. Given the earth’s curvature, it should be 2320 feet below the horizon. How can it be seen?"

And here's a video by a guy who places various lights across an iced lake and, when zooming in on them with his Nikon P900 camera from several miles away, he's surprised to still see these lights in his camera (since he reckons that the curvature of the lake should obscure them):

Well, here's the thing: NOTHING can be seriously determined as to Earth's curvature by the above examples of 'scientific' inquiry. And the reason for this is simple: the very existence of a well-known optical phenomenon known as 'Fata Morgana' - and it is most common under cold / misty / humid atmospheric conditions. This phenomenon (caused by atmospheric refraction) causes variable optical illusions that can even make distant objects (such as ships or city lights) appear to 'hover' high above the horizon. You may read all about it on Wikipedia (yes, Wiki sometimes contains decent scientific information!):


So the question becomes: HOW can we possibly detect Earth's curvature through EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION - given that such variable atmospheric / optical distorsions will constantly fool our senses - and make a joke of any conclusions we may extrapolate thereof? To be sure, trying to measure distant ships or city skylines - as mentioned above - across vast and cold (or icy) water surfaces is a perfectly pointless exercise. Yet, this is what many Flat Earth proponents have been doing for years!

The answer to this question is, again, quite simple: we need to use observations that are performed under optimal atmospheric and optical conditions. Also, we need to make sure - as we snap photographs of them - that the camera lens we are using doesn't cause so-called 'barrel or pincushion' distorsions (let alone 'fisheye' distorsions!). However, these known lens distorsions are pretty much negligible when shooting landscapes with a good mid-size lens (a 50mm lens being the best choice for avoiding / minimizing such distorsions).


This is of course a KEY question - the answer to which requires a little math. Now, if you are a 'math-hater', you should probably stop reading right now. However, please know that I am always striving to simplify the discourse (in fact, some people call me "Simple Simon" - and I'm rather proud of it!). So here goes:

On the Stack Exchange website, a mathematician (David Garcia Bodego) provides us with the following calculi:

How high must one be for the curvature of the earth to be visible to the eye?

Considering the Earth as an spherical body, the distance from you to the horizon depends on Earth Radius and your height by:

Distance = (Radius + height) * Sinus {arc-cosinus [Radius / (Radius + height)]}

So it depends on your height:

| Height (m) | Dist. To Hor. (Km) |
| 1 | 3,6 |
| 10 | 11,3 |
| 100 | 35,7 |
| 1000 | 112,9 |
| 10000 | 357,1 |

A grand angular camera has a 24mm focal that can see 84º degrees. So the distance on between the edges on the horizon is:

| Height (m) | Dist. To Hor. (Km) | Dist. Edge<>Edge (km) |
| 1 | 3,6 | 4,8 |
| 10 | 11,3 | 15,1 |
| 100 | 35,7 | 47,8 |
| 1000 | 112,9 | 151,1 |
| 10000 | 357,1 | 477,9 |
Once that you have this data, you just need to calculate the arrow of the arc expected:

Arrow Circ. Arc = Radius * Cosinus [ Arc-Sinus (Dist/2/Radius)]

So, with this data and the initial data of the camera:

| Height (m) | Dist. To Hor. (Km) | Dist. Edge<>Edge (km) | Arrow (km) | Curvature (pixel) |
| 1 | 3,6 | 4,8 | 0,000 | 0 |
| 10 | 11,3 | 15,1 | 0,004 | 1 |
| 100 | 35,7 | 47,8 | 0,045 | 4 |
| 1000 | 112,9 | 151,1 | 0,448 | 11 |
| 10000 | 357,1 | 477,9 | 36 |

So finally... with a perfect visibility condition, a well-leveled camera, no fish-eye distortion...
On our 4K camera at 10 km height, the Earth curvature will be 2% -> 36 pixels on 3840 pixels wide.

Source: ... to-the-eye
As highlighted in red type (by myself), we see that, according to the above tables, the Earth curvature 'BULGE' viewed from 10km of altitude (and captured on an image 3840-pixels-wide) should amount to 36 pixels. (By the way, this is roughly 1% of 3840px - and not 2% as stated in the above post by David Garcia Bodego).

Well, in the airplane window-view image I posted above, I assumed that the photographer was traveling at 9km of altitude. This is 10% less than 10km - whereas 32px is about 11% less than 36px. Hence, that 32px bulge of Earth (as EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED & PHOTOGRAPHED) appears to be pretty consistent with the maths.


The answer to this question is: YES. In fact, I have personally been able to detect (with my own naked eyes) Earth's curvature during my frequent travels to the Southern tips of Sicily and Sardinia, where sceneries similar to the one illustrated below can be enjoyed: that is, an elevated panoramic view of the distant sea horizon - with some perfectly straight / horizontal foreground reference (such as the handrail in the image below). I can assure you - but you'll just have to take my word for it - that I have seen with my own eyes, on several occasions and locations, similar central horizon 'bulges' as the one illustrated in the below image (snapped by some anonymous photographer). You may now ask: "Simon! Why didn't you snap pictures of this yourself'?" Well, I'm actually kicking myself for it - as I just wasn't carrying any proper photographic equipment with me at the time... However, the below image seems to have been framed and executed with great care - with no visible lens distortion.

In any case, what we see in this 3840-pixel-wide image (shot from a 550m altitude) is a central 8-pixel BULGE of the sea horizon.
This is, in fact, almost exactly what would be mathematically expected - if the Earth's radius were 6378km.

Note that my yellow triangles (placed at positions 1,2,3) are 8px high. At the central position 2, I can place TWO of those triangles on top of each other (i.e. 16px).
Please open this image in your image editor and enlarge it - so as to fully and clearly realize what exactly I am illustrating here.
Image source:
Source of caption by author: ... to-the-eye

Let me repeat: I have witnessed on various occasions with my own eyes (in various optimal locations in Sicily and Sardinia) pretty much precisely what is illustrated in the above image: that is, a slight bulge in the middle-section of the seafront horizon - as compared with a foreground railing. This is part of my life experience - and one that cannot ever be overturned by any persons walking on this planet of ours. In fact, I will invite any such persons for a trip to Sicily or Sardinia - so that they can witness for themselves the obvious curvature of planet Earth.

In conclusion: Earth's radius of 6378km (or diameter of 12756km) can be EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED. Earth is NOT flat as a pancake! -_-

Any folks claiming that "Earth's curvature cannot be observed" have simply never had, in their lifetimes, an optimal opportunity to observe it for themselves!

Post Reply