Artemis would not pass modern day proof standard in speedruning, yet I am sure certain people on here is going to claim the Artemis mission is real, no conspiracy to fake space here.
Hahaha, that's another checkmate argument. How the hell does a drone accelerate at 10k feet to rotate at the same rate as the ground. It makes no fucking sense! He's running on you.
We do absolutely nothing to censor or control FE posts here. They are simply unpopular. For example, this OP video is just low quality pointless rambling. He points out zero evidence - just states "this is fake". Better had OP posted the sped up footage itself, and add a title "this looks fake" - that would be a better post.
The topic is not manually being suppressed. The majority of people either don't vote on them, then the rest down-vote them and a dedicated bunch of FE users upvote absolutely anything FE related no matter how shit.
They only have a lot of comments because some naive users here think it's possible to engage FE people in good faith discussion or that they may be reasoned with.
When you or any other FE type present some actual proof of the Artemis hoax I will be the first to congratulate you. So far, you've presented only ignorance and vague assumptions.
I don't have the time to waste on arguing with you, and I know it's pointless. Anyone can go through your comment and pick out the assumptions you claim as fact.
What kind of camera is supposed to be on the Artemis? How big is the aperture? Would the brightness of the earth require the lens to be open to such an extent that the over-exposure would erase the stars? Should stars have registered on that cameras sensor at the settings that were used? Have you taken a still from the footage and fiddled with the exposure levels to check that the stars are not there in the darkness of the footage? No, you simply assume you should be able to see certain things clearly without addressing such technical matters and more.
So Earth is violently spinning and flying through space, but the space government can take video of it where it sits perfectly still? That's just aperture and lens stuff
How do you know the movement of the shadow would register at that distance and resolution over the period of time the video lasts? How far away is that shot supposed to be from? You simply don't know what it should look like at all. Everything is assumption.
I know it wouldn't have the day light standing still relative to earth's terrain. This I why they put such low effort into making it convincing, apparently you don't have to.
Whatever kind of camera it was it must be pretty amazing to survive extreme temperatures, a almost perfect vacuum, and the van allen radiation belt with no problems. Wouldn't the stars also be far brighter with no atmosphere? Odd we NEVER see them, I think I know why.
Except that you don't know why for any of those things. For example during the moon landings the camera settings used would not have registered the stars on film. So technically that aspect of the photographs was accurate. But it's pointless bringing them up because those cameras shouldn't have operated at those temps on the moons surface anyway. And the film would have been destroyed by temps and radiation. So talking about stars is pointless.
I am (safely) presuming on artemis they're not using a film camera. They use some type of digital censor. So then we have a different story, and that needs to be adressed. It probably should not function in space either, due to radiation / temperatures or other reasons. So then all the content we see is probably fake.
But you haven't made that determination based on the content of the image. You simply haven't demonstrated know how the image should look. Whoever potentially faked it probably knows much more than you how it should look, and that's is why they have made it look as it does.
How long was the original footage, how much time elapses in the video actually? Is it true that we would see visible movement of the earth and the shadow in this amount of time? None of that is addressed by that man's ramblings.
Don't think i'm arguing the video is not fake, it probably is, but nothing but conjecture is offered as "proof". And certainly nothing shown proves the earth is flat. I'd like to see the original video and a discussion of such matters instead of some guy and his low effort ramblings.
Dude I've seen 3.5 hour documentaries telling me that secret glands in a hog contain powerful psychoactive chemicals. Never underestimate a grad student of psychology working on a thesis.
The actual album is a bit longer than the movie, but just thought I'd bring it up. Worth a look if you like Air or haven't seen the original movie (or short really...it's like 15 minutes).
Artemis doesn't approach the earth in a straight line, it follows an arched trajectory gradually getting lower/closer to the earth. If it is travelling in the same direction as the rotation of the planet, then depending on artemus speed the planet's spin would be relatively imperceptible . Also the compressed nature of the footage needs to be taken into account. Perhaps some small movement is detectable in the raw footage.
Like I said, even if the footage is fake they would be likely to account for this and have the footage show it - ie. have it show the planet hardly moving, if at all.
Alright dude if that's what you perceive, so be it. What I plainly see is daylight not moving relative to terrain features on earth. If you shine a light on a soccer ball and the angle doesn't change relative to the hexagons on the ball, it doesn't matter how I approach the ball. I would be able to see the lit side of the ball is unchanging. Live in whatever reality you want man.
Sorry buddy, I believe in objective truth. You guys construct a fantasy built from "FE proofs". But don't worry, that's it from me. I'm not engaging with this stuff again.
I dont see how you are objective, from what I can tell you are a globe and artemis believer by default. I am biased for FE, but I had to overcome a lifetime of sci-fi brainwashing to get there.
PS this wasn't a FE proof, I just said artemis is fake like the globe.
Artemis would not pass modern day proof standard in speedruning, yet I am sure certain people on here is going to claim the Artemis mission is real, no conspiracy to fake space here.
Hahaha, that's another checkmate argument. How the hell does a drone accelerate at 10k feet to rotate at the same rate as the ground. It makes no fucking sense! He's running on you.
We do absolutely nothing to censor or control FE posts here. They are simply unpopular. For example, this OP video is just low quality pointless rambling. He points out zero evidence - just states "this is fake". Better had OP posted the sped up footage itself, and add a title "this looks fake" - that would be a better post.
The topic is not manually being suppressed. The majority of people either don't vote on them, then the rest down-vote them and a dedicated bunch of FE users upvote absolutely anything FE related no matter how shit.
They only have a lot of comments because some naive users here think it's possible to engage FE people in good faith discussion or that they may be reasoned with.
When you or any other FE type present some actual proof of the Artemis hoax I will be the first to congratulate you. So far, you've presented only ignorance and vague assumptions.
I don't have the time to waste on arguing with you, and I know it's pointless. Anyone can go through your comment and pick out the assumptions you claim as fact.
keep telling yourself you have presented evidence
Flat Earth posts here have gotten hundreds of comments in a usually very quiet forum. How is it unpopular?
How did the video show no proof? Was it not a NASA video of Earth where Earth is not spinning, has zero clouds, and no stars behind it?
What kind of camera is supposed to be on the Artemis? How big is the aperture? Would the brightness of the earth require the lens to be open to such an extent that the over-exposure would erase the stars? Should stars have registered on that cameras sensor at the settings that were used? Have you taken a still from the footage and fiddled with the exposure levels to check that the stars are not there in the darkness of the footage? No, you simply assume you should be able to see certain things clearly without addressing such technical matters and more.
So Earth is violently spinning and flying through space, but the space government can take video of it where it sits perfectly still? That's just aperture and lens stuff
How do you know the movement of the shadow would register at that distance and resolution over the period of time the video lasts? How far away is that shot supposed to be from? You simply don't know what it should look like at all. Everything is assumption.
It should look like a ball spinning through space with a complex and ever changing weather patterns ... its not that
I know it wouldn't have the day light standing still relative to earth's terrain. This I why they put such low effort into making it convincing, apparently you don't have to.
You don't know, you assume.
Whatever kind of camera it was it must be pretty amazing to survive extreme temperatures, a almost perfect vacuum, and the van allen radiation belt with no problems. Wouldn't the stars also be far brighter with no atmosphere? Odd we NEVER see them, I think I know why.
Except that you don't know why for any of those things. For example during the moon landings the camera settings used would not have registered the stars on film. So technically that aspect of the photographs was accurate. But it's pointless bringing them up because those cameras shouldn't have operated at those temps on the moons surface anyway. And the film would have been destroyed by temps and radiation. So talking about stars is pointless.
I am (safely) presuming on artemis they're not using a film camera. They use some type of digital censor. So then we have a different story, and that needs to be adressed. It probably should not function in space either, due to radiation / temperatures or other reasons. So then all the content we see is probably fake.
But you haven't made that determination based on the content of the image. You simply haven't demonstrated know how the image should look. Whoever potentially faked it probably knows much more than you how it should look, and that's is why they have made it look as it does.
The sunlight on earth did not move, despite the footage being sped up. This proves 100% its fake.
How long was the original footage, how much time elapses in the video actually? Is it true that we would see visible movement of the earth and the shadow in this amount of time? None of that is addressed by that man's ramblings.
Don't think i'm arguing the video is not fake, it probably is, but nothing but conjecture is offered as "proof". And certainly nothing shown proves the earth is flat. I'd like to see the original video and a discussion of such matters instead of some guy and his low effort ramblings.
Those are good questions. Why don't you go investigate for us, although I think I already know the verdict.
There is no point in talking to that guy. He doesn't want to know the truth.
This guy is a complete retard.
Dude I've seen 3.5 hour documentaries telling me that secret glands in a hog contain powerful psychoactive chemicals. Never underestimate a grad student of psychology working on a thesis.
I was insinuating that a lot of stupid videos are likely college projects.
I'm going to try and watch this tonight or soon enough.
I started it and they had a clip from the old B & W movie A Trip to the Moon. The French duo Air made a soundtrack to that movie called Le Voyage dans la Lune.
The actual album is a bit longer than the movie, but just thought I'd bring it up. Worth a look if you like Air or haven't seen the original movie (or short really...it's like 15 minutes).
The diagram here shows potentially why the earth would not appear to be spinning in the footage (whether is was real, or faked to look real):
https://curiosmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Artemis-I-NASA-The-Trajectory-scaled.jpg
Artemis doesn't approach the earth in a straight line, it follows an arched trajectory gradually getting lower/closer to the earth. If it is travelling in the same direction as the rotation of the planet, then depending on artemus speed the planet's spin would be relatively imperceptible . Also the compressed nature of the footage needs to be taken into account. Perhaps some small movement is detectable in the raw footage.
Like I said, even if the footage is fake they would be likely to account for this and have the footage show it - ie. have it show the planet hardly moving, if at all.
Alright dude if that's what you perceive, so be it. What I plainly see is daylight not moving relative to terrain features on earth. If you shine a light on a soccer ball and the angle doesn't change relative to the hexagons on the ball, it doesn't matter how I approach the ball. I would be able to see the lit side of the ball is unchanging. Live in whatever reality you want man.
Sorry buddy, I believe in objective truth. You guys construct a fantasy built from "FE proofs". But don't worry, that's it from me. I'm not engaging with this stuff again.
I dont see how you are objective, from what I can tell you are a globe and artemis believer by default. I am biased for FE, but I had to overcome a lifetime of sci-fi brainwashing to get there.
PS this wasn't a FE proof, I just said artemis is fake like the globe.
Run away from the truth.