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.
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.
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.
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.
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.