Stanley Kubrick was the best director of all time
(files.catbox.moe)
Comments (338)
sorted by:
the best part was Jack Nicholson on the moon chopping astronauts with an axe. Totally realistic.
Funny you mentioned that, The Shining was actually about faking the moon landings. Kubrick wrote in discrepancies from the book that tell the tale through symbolism.
Nah, it was about the conquest of the American West.
Proof?
Yep.
Didn't think so 🤣
Thanks for admitting your meaningless bullshit interpretation of a film is just as relevant or real as any other.
Trying to prove the moon landings happened is about as realistic as proving the holohoax happened.
Shouldn't you be calling for bans in c/meta?
That asshole Kubrick was everywhere man
https://aae.lib.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/AABG_St.-Petersburg_11-05-20-1920x1440.jpg
I do see a lot of media cameras in that shot, they really adopted his methods!
Don't be fooled by the Stanley Kubrick interview hoax, either
https://youtube.com/watch?v=yDyJe1nmSOM&t=36m40s
Watch 45 seconds
A lot of money going into fake interview
Kubrick aside, questions remain.
Anticipating a question isnt a new phenomenon. The first part of the question already asks the entire question
Watch the last 20 minutes or so
I admit I was moved by some of these comparisons 15 years ago that I later recanted on.
Well, lets revisit...
Ok, so the last 20 mins includes the stanley kubrick hoax actor, and also a buzz aldrin out of context interview. If you watch the whole kid and buzz interview (11 mins) its painstakingly obvious this was willfully snipped out to serve up dishonest propaganda. The entire interview, both and after this question, Buzz is saying they went to the moon. If this is a sample of rest of video's integrity im glad I only endured 20 mins.
As for symbolism in movie. Talk to somebody who has taken a film studies class. To the film student, it is all so mundane to what the lay person sees as hidden meaning; compared to what director is obviously screaming from the roof tops. At 1h23m the narrator of the video, for example, says something so stupid it's, frankly, embarrassing. and I've already forgotten it.
Why don't you watch the FIRST 20 minutes instead, perhaps it'll get you unstuck from your loop.
Sorry you aren't very convincing. You're debunking it without anything to support it.
psyop inside a psyop is a psyop to obviously psyop
Exactly right. Op of this post is such a dirty rat, going multiple inception layers deep into deception. Turn of events:
Op, who I recently learned is a jew masquerading as a white, tells people to watch 20 mins of some video.
https://files.catbox.moe/9jpiwt.jpg
Link leads here:
https://ia804600.us.archive.org/35/items/the-great-masters-of-the-lie-part-1/The%20Great%20Masters%20of%20the%20LIE%20-%20Part%201.mp4
In last few mins of said video, Stanley Kubrick is seen in a dark room "admitting" to faking apollo11, here:
https://files.catbox.moe/b2g2je.jpg
At this point I still falsely think Op is white and accidentally spreading propaganda, but only in good faith.
https://files.catbox.moe/o9hsao.jpg
I inform him I watched his video but "Kubrick" in his video is actually an actor named Tom.
https://files.catbox.moe/znusmg.jpg
He finally later admits it looks like the clip I sent him proves it's from some disinfo scam attempt.
https://files.catbox.moe/ga201x.jpg
https://files.catbox.moe/0p9xf1.jpg
Thats my point!
Then the gaslighting kike has the gall to say I never watched 20 mins of his video, and I was the one who actually introduced the fake Kubrick video in order to muddy the waters. Wtaf.
https://files.catbox.moe/o3fee3.jpg
(Screenshots only before the dirty rat edits out his comments.)
Ultimately, I used to believe these types of posts were all apart of random shallow attempts to tear down Man's exceptionalism.
Now I understand they are a concerted jewish attempt to tear down White Man's exceptionalism. Space exploration to the moon was a victory for humanity but certain jews see must see it as a White man's victory that needs to be "revisionised."
Kubrick was a jew, like Op. Any symbolism in some movie was for the sake of pure interest in space at best, or to sew some sort of future doubt, at worst. Op, meanwhile, pretends he hates jews. That's because Op follows the motto of:
"Accuse others of what you are guilty of" --some commie jew
Here is the video that proves Kubrick confession was a hoax, played by an actor named Tom, and Op is willfully spreading propaganda:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=yDyJe1nmSOM&t=36m41s
After watching this short snippet (starts at 36m and 41seconds, no need to watch entirety, although any would benefit from the whole thing) - after watching 45 seconds you will say to yourself "oh shit, an actor named Tom, made to impersonate Stanley Kubrick, was directed these lines to make it appear a confession. I wonder who would pay for such a thing. I now question why the documentary that has been spreading online dares omit this inconvenient 45 seconds, or why the video maker has not since denounced or retracted the fake confession?
That's what a white person would do, anyway. Instead Op keeps sending people to this fake confession video and when you bring up the fact that its a hoax, then accuses you of being the one who is spreading it!
And there's your summary of how we learned Op is a dirty, gaslighting, jew.
P.s. here is the chutzpah he uses to debate you on anything:
Exhibit A https://files.catbox.moe/hqdg7x.jpg
Exhibit B https://files.catbox.moe/gbc6og.jpg
Exhibit C https://files.catbox.moe/nx8289.jpg
Exhibit D https://files.catbox.moe/7w2kw1.jpg
Exhibit E https://files.catbox.moe/78lele.jpg
Jury decision?
JEW
Holy wall of text, lefty 😂🤣
#StillCantProveItHappened
NASA in Hebrew means To Deceive
They scrubbed the original definition from the internet, you need an old hebrew dictionary to find it. It's the same with US Encyclopedias, they didn't have the word Holocaust until after 1970.
Do yourself a favor and watch the last 20 minutes or so of this movie - it lays out exactly how it was done, and how Kubrick confessed his role in filming it by writing it into The Shining.
The user JosephGoebbels5 is arguing in bad faith. Even after showing him the Kubrick interview was actually an actor named Tom, he still peddles "the last 20 minutes" of the video that he knows to be fraudulent. But I hope you take 45 seconds to see what JosephGoebels5 does NOT want you to see. The below link is already queued up to the relevant part https://youtube.com/watch?v=yDyJe1nmSOM&t=36m41s so you only need to watch 45 seconds.
Also for context, Buzz Aldrin was absolutrly NOT saying they didnt go the moon. The hatchet job that leaves out the full context of this interview can be seen here https://youtube.com/watch?v=Y4UP6nRMuGs , where Aldrin literally says the opposite.
Same with the medical literature. The modern Polio mortality graph over time is VERY different from out of print medical literature of 40+ years ago
Edit: typed “measels” meant “polio”
But didn’t erase anything else actually incriminating about any of their actual behavior or language. Sure thing.
Looks like your reports were ignored.
REPORT HARDER!!
Keep mashing that report button, Karen. Still haven't (((shut me down))) 😎
White men walked on the moon.
And blacks wuz kangz...
The achievements of white civilization do offend lesser men.
Especially killing 6 million jews amirite
Keep fumbling.
Fumbling as in... Trying to find the technology we lost to get to the moon again? 😂
The white man walked on the Moon and nothing you say or do can ever change that.
Six gorillion, get it right silly.
Just read Wagging The Moondoggie.
The thought of landing on the moon are hilarious.
Mythbusters disproved this theory with simple prop building. They exactly replicated the 'non-parallel' shadows using terrain features and elevation. This picture doesn't prove what you think it proves.
Fake moon landing hoaxers glow just about as bright as the flat-earthers. No one with any critical thinking skills would even consider the moon landings fake.
Because what purpose did it serve? To make Americans feel good about themselves? How does that help the Jews/Lizards? What is the goal of this supposed propaganda? Why would the Soviet Union participate in this?
And that's not even getting into the physical evidence or the evidence from other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
In short, fake moon landing posts are a discrediting psyop to make 'normies' think these sites are untrustworthy.
I used to align with your perspective until I peaked into the rabbit hole and accidentally stumbled down.
Assuming you’re arguing in good faith (and I believe you are), do please give the first 30 minutes or so of this documentary a chance.
https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY
Glow harder. American Moon only looks at the photographic evidence. There is so much more than simply photos.
And American Moon gets the photo analysis wrong, see Glyn Williams answer here - https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-do-you-think-about-massimo-mazucco-s-document-am%C3%A9rican-Moon-and-the-experts-of-photography-inside-saying-Apollo-photos-were-really-too-clear-to-be-Taken-in-the-moon-see-my-answer
So no, that video is not convincing at all.
My mistake. You’re not posting here sincerely.
https://www.luogocomune.net/american-moon-42-questions
1-4 don't understand that exposure is related to time. High doses are survivable for short periods. They are still more likely to have mutations. It's not 'safe'. But it's survivable for short times. https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2022/fesearchers-find-spaceflight-may-be-associated-with-dna-mutations-and-increased-risk-of-developing-heart-disease-and-cancer
5-9 don't understand that moon dust isn't the same as what we have on earth. It doesn't act the same.
10 there is a flame, it's just not in contiuous operation like in testing. We see the jet shoot out from under the module then ascend.
11-13 Mics don't pick up audio that's outside their frequency range. Why would the people on the ground want to hear the engine noises in comms?
14 0.9 of a second? These people have never communicated using radio. Try listening to HAM sometimes.
15-16 just made up nonesense. There's no wind on the moon. It doesn't need stabilization.
17-20 more dust misconceptions
21 why would flashes of light indicate a sound stage? Wouldn't they indicate an un-controlled environment, say, like the moon?
22 low gravity, momentum
23 momentum exists with or without air
24 ....I'm just going to stop there. this is obviously put together by CIA to convince morons who don't understand physics.
If it's any consolation man, I could only make it through half of American Moon... which, talk about not posting sincerely - the documentary isn't sincere with the evidence it presents to back its arguments. Much left out of context... anyway all it did was strengthen my resolve that men walked on the moon. If nothing else, the documentary affirms that we've at least sent probes to the moon that have returned, and we've left experimental stuff there... but for some reason we didn't do a manned mission like all of the evidence suggests.
But yea all that shit about dust not behaving the same and "no engine flame" - which is explained by this video where you see the engine fire (with flame) initially to launch, then they let momentum carry them away, then you see the engine fire again when they do a full burn to accelerate away and rendezvous with the lunar orbiter.
Mythbusters? Haaha.
What's next? Snopes? 😅
What's next, more alts?
The experiment they did can be done by anyone. Science that you don't like is still science.
😂
It was real in my mind!
Thanks for admitting the white man went to the Moon. Nothing you say or do will ever change this.
mythbusters is controlled by the media. They deliberately mucked up their oxyhydron generator to pretend it doesn't work. There are literally entire police stations which converted their whole fleet.
Where?
Cars running on hydrogen is a thing. Generating enough hydrogen to run the car using an on-board generator is busted.
From your replies I do not think you are an organic user. Fuck off
Negative, I am a meat popsicle.
From YOUR replies, I DO think you are a liar that doesn't have any sources.
Demands sources.
Doesn't even cite his own copy and pasted semantic hair splitting bullshit.
Yeah. I don't think you're an organic user.
"Organic - you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means"
Where's your Tumblr about flat earth? You gonna post that next?
"trust the science" is an oxymoron. No one trusts 'science'. We don't have to. The whole point is making predictions then testing those predictions until the confidence level of the results is acceptable. Then others do the same to verify.
We landed on the moon. Anyone who says otherwise is either a complete moron or alphabet soup goon.
Because the good government wouldn't lie to you, would they...
The white man walked on the Moon and there’s nothing you can say or do to change that.
Ok, prove it then without the aid of JewMedia.
Already done, illiterate paid shill.
Link? Been waiting for a while now. 😊
"Prove it to this moron who is emotionally invested in going against the truth no matter how many sources conclusively demonstrate that I'm wrong"
You probably believe the holohoax and in the clot shot. Keep trusting government, and JewMedia, what could possibly go wrong?
You think I got that knowledge from the US Gov?
You really are a smoothbrain.
Government says we went to the moon and then plumb lost the technology to ever go back again, ever... Lol
That's like Henry Ford losing his technology for the internal combustion engine, but we still fund his projects in hopes that one day we might drive a car, despite 60 years producing dick for advancement.
You know what else was lost? The original plans to the Wright Flyer.
Because no one cares. If we go back to the moon we will do it on a much different spaceship. NASA is mostly gov pork. Funneling money to CONTRACTORS are what matters, not the specific plans.
Keep clutching at those pearls though. I'm sure they're a very important part of your mental illness.
And yet, by some miracle, people are still flying and it's a billion dollar industry. No one ever said never to look at it again because we've already flown, nothing to see here, go back to sleep.
Genius rationale you got going on here 🤣
Eat shit, retard.
Finished your book yet?
Thanks for admitting that the white man went to the Moon.
The white man walked on the Moon and nothing you say or do can change that.
But were too stupid to retain the technology to ever go back and do it again?
But your third wife left you after you cheated on her?
Where did the technology go? Why couldn't they repeat it?
The white man walked on the Moon and nothing you say or do will ever change this.
Muh huwhite accomplishments totally didn't serve as distraction from the Hart Cellar Act & fabricated Warren Report REEEEEE
Video doesn't exist because I say so REEEEE
The white man walked on the Moon and nothing you say or do will ever change this.
He almost had me until they started playing that flat Earth bs.
Flat Earth shills are practicing the acceleration method to discredit anyone questioning the narrative. Next to the faked moon landings, any thread about what they found in Antarctica really brings them out of the woodwork.
It’s not working. There’s no place on this board for your proven lies. Go back to Voat and complain about thumbsy-uppies. Everyone here hates you and wants you dead. Which is the same as on Voat, but at least there you don’t pretend to be a flat earther.
Lmao I love how you guys put all 12 of yourselves on some sort of pedestal.
Get psychiatric help immediately.
Get psychiatric help immediately.
Thanks for admitting the white man walked on the Moon.
Get psychiatric help immediately.
You were already disproven.
The white man walked on the Moon and nothing you say or do will ever change this.
Maybe they thought so, too, and wanted you to stick around until the end.
I am still out on fake or not. OTOH - it would be very expensive to fake, very difficult to contain, and none of the evidence against is very strong except...
OTOH - the shit like NASA letting some intern recording over the OG footage, or the moon rocks getting lost, or passing fake moon rocks off as real, "forgetting" how to go back... those are the more damning arguments for me. The more incompetent NASA appears, the less I believe they were able to land on the moon.
But I mean satellites go up every day, ISS has been up there for 20 fuckin years, Hubble for 30+, Voyager has successfully left the internals of the solar system... so really the orbital mechanics part isn't that unbelievable. Just... for such a monumental event... you'd think they'd have valued the hard evidence a bit more. But maybe it's because it's such a monumental event that any and all evidence is brought under greater scrutiny.
So yea, I really don't know. But the video/pics argument and Van Allen belts and all that... not very compelling.
What? I mean the fact that you somehow extracted that from my comment tells me you're not a serious person. The orbital mechanics required to keep a satellite in orbit (or launch out of orbit and into the orbit of another heavenly body) have been understood since Newton... who had no dreams of "high tech weather balloons." What the hell does that even mean?
American Moon basically just tells me good reasons why we haven't gone back (aside from "cause fake"), while regurgitating all the talking points.
• Too expensive
• Too challenging
• People died (these top three are the weakest, which is odd that the movie would lead with them. They also aren't really arguments, so I'm not bothering with refuting them).
• Russians were really our friends the whole time? (that's a new one on me)
• Distributed manufacturing means no one had to know it was faked ...except that any one of those people/companies could have said "oh yea, our product never worked." Everything had to work to accomplish the mission, and no one has come out saying any part didn't. Not only did it have to work, but it had to integrate with other parts, and nobody's saying that didn't happen either. They said it's like 20k companies right? So that's leadership at 20k companies that have to stay quiet... let's say the big 5 (lead engineers, CEO, CFO)... that's 100k people that have to say their shit worked and integrated with the others. Possible, not likely. Also stagehands and set operators would've watched the footage and said "hey, that's exactly what we filmed!" No one's said that, and those who could are dying off pretty quickly. Nothing to lose, but we still haven't heard from them.
• The retroreflectors bit is hilarious. Yes, we know you can bounce a laser off the moon and detect it; regolith is reflective (which is why we can see the moon at all). But you have to use SOOPER sensitive equipment to see it because you're getting a small fraction of the reflection. Like headlights on a tree vs. headlights on a road sign or road reflector - the image is much brighter when it's coming off a dedicated reflector, and that's what we see when we hit the ones left on the moon. That's why in a laser lab (not that you've ever been to one, but just know this is true), they bounce lasers off expensive highly polished mirrors instead of, idk, very white plates. Because when you're taking a precise measurement, you want the strongest signal possible and not just some noise that "oh look, we can kinda see the laser." But the next part is where it gets really funny: "And even if reflectors are there, they could've been dropped there by an unmanned probe like the Soviets did."... So in 45 short minutes we've gone from "it's impossible to get to the moon" to "well, it's impossible to get men to the moon." So now the only challenge is getting back... Alright, I'm captivated.
• Well awesome... "The lunar rocks could've been brought back by unmanned probes like the Soviets did." Okay, so we can get probes back... but we definitely couldn't do it with people as a payload instead of not people. Shit so now the only logistical problems are food, oxygen, and waste management. Oh and extra fuel for weight, but that's negligible. Like I said, the moon rocks were one of my doubts, but this documentary seems to assert that the Soviets definitely brought some back, so I'm not sure how much worse it'd be (if at all) for men to bring them back instead of a robot. Lol "WHY DOES NASA NEED TO PROVE IT?" Fuck, that was already covered - the "moon hoax" theory blew up, particularly with the advent of the internet, so NASA responded. Shit they even show NASA's web page that was only created after the moon hoax conspiracy became more widespread.
• So now "we were really good at making movies look like real life, so NASA just made a good movie." Fair enough. Hell, birds might not even be real. Plato's Allegory of the Cave comes to mind. The follow up examples are retarded though and again run counter to the point - we have physical evidence that King Kong didn't climb the Empire State Building or that NYC wasn't washed away (and a complete lack of evidence of Oz), and we also have some evidence of men leaving stuff on the moon. We also have the authors of those works themselves saying that they were all works of fiction, while the only people saying the moon landing was fake are seemingly everyone who did nothing but watch and give conjecture as to how it could have been faked. The "authors of the work," so to speak, to the person, say it was real. So again, not really the "gotcha" the doc tries to make it. Up to this point in the movie (~52 minutes), I mean, even if men didn't go to the moon, but we were able to send unmanned probes and return samples and leave shit there, AND film movies that make it look like men did it and not robots... Idk, still pretty damn impressive.
• Next argument is basically the same as the previous. "NASA made a really good simulator, so they didn't have to actually go." Hilarious again is the fact that the doc concedes that we sent probes there to land and orbit the moon. So again, we can get to the moon, we can return from the moon, but we didn't send men there because we're really good at simulations or something. K yea, maybe. I didn't personally go, so I can't say for sure that we've put men on the moon. But the evidence is pretty compelling, and even if the final "men were there" part is a lie, all of the engineering feats surrounding it are still pretty amazing.
• Van Allen belts - flew through the thinner parts (i.e. not at the equator) at very high speed. NASA calculated the exposure as something like 12 rads/hour, which is well below the lethal dose (as the doc mentions). Radiation like that is hard on electronics too - SEUs are bad. But we run satellites through there all the time, and again, the doc even posits that the Soviets and Americans had been sending unmanned probes to the moon and back, so somehow the Van Allen belts had been largely mitigated in those missions. Which is to say, a bit of radiation protection and limiting exposure is all it really takes. Not nearly as big a concern as it's always made out to be; I'm a little surprised the doc even references it as evidence against. As to why that Orion video makes dramatic mention of the Van Allen belts as "a problem we need to solve"... I mean, that's true. It's dramatic effect to keep people interested - the problem has been solved. We have probes that basically live in the things; if radiation hardening weren't a thing, they would've gone incommunicado long ago. And I mean, if you're into SHTF type shit, you can go buy some rad hard microelectronics if you're afraid of nukes dropping (though if one drops that close it'll take more than that to survive). So yea, just like you wouldn't want to stand in an X-ray for hours on end, it would be bad to live in the Van Allen belts. But running through them at 25Mm/hour behind a few layers of metal walls... not as bad. The doc takes a bunch of statements out of context ("Van Allen himself said they were deadly!" Yea man, so are X-rays.) as arguments against, which is always a bad sign when trying to make a compelling case (and the doc is increasingly doing while contradicting itself).
• Holy shit the LEM thing. The construction arguments are silly so I'll skip them; just look at any module out in space today and you could make the same claims. But then "See? Here's what a probe landing looks like on Mars." So A) we can get a probe to land on Mars, and B) Mars has 2-3 times the gravity, which means much more thrust required, and it means an atmosphere to settle the dust much more quickly rather than launching it into oblivion due to lack of anything to stop the inertia. This is another self-contradictory part because they said they used the scale moon model to simulate orbiting and landing, but the scale model clearly didn't have any dust, which you can see the LEM's engine blowing away in the descent video. And as to why the dust didn't settle on the landing pads, that Russian dude in the interview is wrong - it's because the dust doesn't hang around because there's no atmosphere and very little gravity. The lack of atmosphere means there's no pressure differential after the engine shut off to pull dust/air back in to where the engine had been firing. I don't understand why you'd expect dust in the pads if the engine shut down before landing... the dust isn't hanging around 10 meters above the surface, and as noted there's no atmosphere and very little gravity to resettle the dust anywhere near where it had been blown away. The leaf blower analogy is pretty terrible not only because a leaf blower is an air pump using the atmosphere its in to create thrust (so wouldn't work at all on the moon, even if electric), but it's being used in an entirely different environment with entirely different physics. It's such a non-sequitur that it's just a disingenuous comparison... but I've been getting a lot of that in the past 1.5 hours of this doc. Also Armstrong's comment about the surface being "very fine grained" doesn't contradict the "no crater problem." Even if the layer is 6" deep, spreading that out in a what, 10m radius or more (however far out the thrust jet was redirected)... you wouldn't be able to perceive it. Underneath is luna firma, and even the Mars rover didn't blast a crater into, uh... martia firma? The "no crater problem" isn't a problem, and the evidence they show of the dust being blown away while landing contradicts the claim. "Oh but there are still small rocks there!" yes... yes some of the rocks wouldn't have been blown away. Just like the leaf blower left some larger particles behind; I often find that the leaves move, but the sticks stay around. So the overall argument here is: because my leaf blower has a thrust limit, the lunar landing isn't real. I'm saying it a lot... not very compelling. I'll give it 10-20 more minutes.
Oh wait look at this picture. So, previous pics had some dust around the underside of the footpads, but in this one you can actually see the thrust lines in the dust extending radially outward from the center of the craft. In an environment with no atmosphere, the only thing that could have caused that is thrust from the engine's exhaust gas (like "state of matter" gas, not "gasoline" gas). Or it's just a very convenient shot with the way the spread the dust on the set, idk. In any case, the documentary is shooting itself in the foot with this photo claiming it's evidence that the engine didn't even fire.
• As to the LEM take off, it looks like the engine fires enough to reach escape velocity with the initial burst and coasts from there. Idk how long the engines were supposed to have fired, but they clearly aren't accelerating after the initial push/burst, so that explains the lack of noise in the cabin. In fact this video shows the ENTIRE CONTEXT (recurring theme) which shows a flame on the initial burst, then when the LEM reaches altitude, it kicks the engines on full thrust which can be seen in the video and heard on the audio. Seems like very convenient footage for the doc to have left out. Patience thinning.
• Now the Grumman specs problem and the missing tapes - yea, this is where my doubts lie and aren't well mitigated by any evidence. I mean, then again, I've worked government, and that excuse is plausible. There's a record retention schedule for everything. Of course these tapes and data should've been exempted IMO, but again... I've worked in government. It's not implausible... even in the private sector. I helped design a diagnostic product that is still in use today, and I guarantee you the company doesn't still have my lab notebook or anything much beyond like... the specs of the current iteration of the product.
So yea, it does raise doubt, but on the whole the documentary to this point has pushed me more to believing than not. Bad faith arguments, poor analogies, misleading videos without context... I thought I would end at "okay we've been there, but maybe men haven't been there," but after the LEM part, particularly in the context of the claims with the rest of the video, I'm starting to think men went there.
Good exercise, thanks! Maybe I'll check the last half another time. Maybe they were saving the best for last.
• K fine one more - the audio delay thing. Where was the recording pulled from? If from the spacecraft, the receipt-to-acknowledgement delay would be minimal from Houston to the astronauts (which is all they show). However, if you're recording from Houston's side, there would be a significant delay. Simple as; there were tape recorders on both ends (this is well-documented). The delay would be dependent on which recording you listened to. Say it with me this time: The documentary seems to deliberately omit this very important context.
Ah okay. Well you're talking to a scientist who took lots of physics courses and even some history of science courses (that covered how we got many things wrong). Frankly I don't blame you, given what politics and money have done to science in recent years. Not to mention the rise in Scientism - the unquestioning belief in The Science (TM) even if The Science changes every five minutes. In any given moment, The Science is truth, no matter how contradictory to evidence.
That said... I mean, you can try to make a flat earth model work. No one's ever done it. It takes some wild and wonky physics; my friends and I tried it in college, and again actually about 8 years ago at my old job we ran it with another group of scientists. Things like the annual path of the sun, sticks at different latitudes casting different sized shadows at the same time... and yea, gravity is real. It's funny in that video they show water spinning off a tennis ball as some sort of proof that water can't stick to a spinning ball, but try it yourself. If you spin the ball REALLY fast, you may get it dry, but odds are it will still be damp because of the adhesive forces between the water and the surface. Also gravity doesn't just work on large objects, but it only works appreciably on large objects. But you can run the Cavendish experiment yourself.
And I mean... without gravity, what holds us to the flat earth anyway? Are we constantly accelerating up? I guess that'd have to be the case huh. But why doesn't anything get any closer? Is it all accelerating up too?
Kinda funny, thoughts like that sort of do get into how gravity works in a 4D universe, but I mean... you don't really seem to believe in 3D, so I'll skip that. Good luck.
There's nothing to learn except the video is deliberately deceptive through multiple lies of omission. To educate you must instill trust, and being caught in multiple lies and self-contradiction in the first half of the documentary isn't exactly the best way to accomplish that.
Idk, that's actually really an ironic thing to say, because I am the one who's done all the learning, and you're trying to teach me to be dumber and ignore things that are obviously true.
What... what exactly am I losing? You haven't offered anything of value. Even IF somehow flat earth physics worked or men didn't really go to the moon or birds aren't real (I added that last bit because why not be crazy?)... how does that butter my fucking bread? It doesn't change how math, logic, and the fundamental forces work. Though I suppose if you forsake gravity you have to come up with some fucking wild explanations for why matter behaves the way it does. Holy shit man the Ancient Greeks proved round Earth and Newton characterized gravity (nothing really to prove there - stuff attracts stuff. More stuff attracts harder than less stuff).
Damn dude you are the quintessential flat earther. Get over yourself. Or not, you clearly think you're the smartest person in every room lol. But leave me out of it; I've already been down this road and it's a dead end.