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.
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.
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.