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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.