You assume 50km up you should see the earth spinning. An arbitrarily chosen distance. Why? Of course there is no such thing as magically floating to that height to check, free from need for energy to get there and insulated from physical influence. You have to name how you get up there to see. lets take 2 examples: Let's take a light drone first. Why would a drone, say, flying straight upwards only, not at the same time be moving (dragged) in the same rotational direction as the incredibly massive body it is gravitational linked to? It would appear to us on the ground to be flying straight upwards all the way. The planet would not spin away from it, it drags the thing with it.
And in the case where there is enough force to at least partially overcome the gravity force, like with a rocket: why then when Rockets are seen to shoot upwards into the sky with massive explosive force; why does their trail form a parabolic arc instead of just a straight line up into the sky? They only have one source of directional force, on the bottom. By your "logic", the trail should be seen to go straight upwards from the perspective of a person on the ground. But they don't.
As to pixelated artifacts and photoshop layers - I presume you are using the compressed OP video? Which is itself a copy of a compressed video WHICH IS a sped up version of ANOTHER compressed video - All that compression and manipulation renders the argument null. If you are going to start arguing about layers and such you need to use the rawest files available - youtube uploads are subject to automatic compression. The video was also probably compressed before it was uploaded too.
And even then, evidence that editing software was used to render a video or image is not evidence that the footage is completely fake. I can film something, open it in adobe pro, compress it, render it, export it and show you the video. If you examine it you will find artifacts - evidence the video has been through editing software. But this is not evidence the footage filmed was faked. It is only evidence it has been opened and saved and exported from editing software.
For anyone else who might be reading these comments, I don't agree with even one sentence 925thejoyisgone has typed above. But I'm not wasting any more time or mental effort engaging with this delusional wrong-headedness.
I have a question for you...have you ever watched that documentary American Moon?
Is it worth the watch? I'm not a fan of videos in the slightest, but I wouldn't mind your opinion on it, especially because they somewhat distance themselves from "flat-Earthers" right at the outset.
He made a really good point lmao. Please explain to me how a hovering drone accelerates to match the earth rotating below on a shorter circumference than the drone?
You assume 50km up you should see the earth spinning. An arbitrarily chosen distance. Why? Of course there is no such thing as magically floating to that height to check, free from need for energy to get there and insulated from physical influence. You have to name how you get up there to see. lets take 2 examples: Let's take a light drone first. Why would a drone, say, flying straight upwards only, not at the same time be moving (dragged) in the same rotational direction as the incredibly massive body it is gravitational linked to? It would appear to us on the ground to be flying straight upwards all the way. The planet would not spin away from it, it drags the thing with it.
And in the case where there is enough force to at least partially overcome the gravity force, like with a rocket: why then when Rockets are seen to shoot upwards into the sky with massive explosive force; why does their trail form a parabolic arc instead of just a straight line up into the sky? They only have one source of directional force, on the bottom. By your "logic", the trail should be seen to go straight upwards from the perspective of a person on the ground. But they don't.
As to pixelated artifacts and photoshop layers - I presume you are using the compressed OP video? Which is itself a copy of a compressed video WHICH IS a sped up version of ANOTHER compressed video - All that compression and manipulation renders the argument null. If you are going to start arguing about layers and such you need to use the rawest files available - youtube uploads are subject to automatic compression. The video was also probably compressed before it was uploaded too.
And even then, evidence that editing software was used to render a video or image is not evidence that the footage is completely fake. I can film something, open it in adobe pro, compress it, render it, export it and show you the video. If you examine it you will find artifacts - evidence the video has been through editing software. But this is not evidence the footage filmed was faked. It is only evidence it has been opened and saved and exported from editing software.
For anyone else who might be reading these comments, I don't agree with even one sentence 925thejoyisgone has typed above. But I'm not wasting any more time or mental effort engaging with this delusional wrong-headedness.
I have a question for you...have you ever watched that documentary American Moon?
Is it worth the watch? I'm not a fan of videos in the slightest, but I wouldn't mind your opinion on it, especially because they somewhat distance themselves from "flat-Earthers" right at the outset.
He made a really good point lmao. Please explain to me how a hovering drone accelerates to match the earth rotating below on a shorter circumference than the drone?
Truth hurts your brain. Noted.