Yeah nasa graphics designer Robert Simmon is on film admitting that it's all photoshop because it has to be. He gets strips of Data and has to create an image to closely match what people think it looks like. Yeah I'm telling you your photo reproduction of the lunar lander is fake.
The sun set works just fine. If you want to know more about it it's going to take more than a skip through a video. Took me weeks of research before I realized they were actually onto something. The sun isn't a ball of gas 93 million miles away, it's small local, and appears to be projected from outside the firmament. It's not gas, it seems to be more electric in nature. I'm assuming it's why the sky is blue, the electric nature of the sun excites nitrogen causing it to shine blue like the sky. It can only push so far.
You're under the impression light goes infinitely, it does not. There's a such thing as the inverse square law of light. And the atmos becomes opaque over long distances, and that varies depending on the weather conditions. Its like stacking a thousand panes of glass up. You can see through a few just fine but you couldn't shine a light through all 1000.
We can also scientifically prove that the distances at which your side says these stars are, would be impossible to see due to its angular size being so small. Even if light went these insane distances, it would be so tiny by the time it got here you literally couldn't see even the closest star.
There's a lot of holes in the heliocentric model that don't line-up with our actual observations. The globe brainwashing started when we were children. It's one of the first homework assignments you bring home from school, and have you never heard the whole "there is a globe in every, single, movie" thing? It's in movies and cartoons and every single thing we watch. It's not that people are lying, it's just everyone has been fooled.
Yeah, even Robert Simmons admits that the last photo of the whole Earth was taken in 1972 during the Apollo program. The point being that it was indeed a real photo. His job is to stitch together the strip images taken by low-Earth-orbit weather satellites. (LEO is too close to take a photo of the whole Earth.) Photoshop was invented in 1992. I guess we have a quarter-century of un-photoshopped photos in the archive. My photo from the 1967 Lunar Orbiter I was taken on board the probe and digitally scanned for radio transmission as strips. This was an image of the Moon and the Earth. I don't know why you think I included any Lunar Lander, which happened 2 years later. You can tell me all you want, but you can't prove it. It's just empty allegation.
The Sun is 93 million miles distant. We have measured the distance stereometrically. You haven't. In order to fit the Eratosthenes measurement, the Sun would have to be over 7,000 km high. How does that compare to your model? The funny story has the Sun moving endlessly over the flat earth, so there is no possibility for it to ever set...and it would be seen everywhere simultaneously. With sun and moon on the same side of the Earth, there is no possibility of having a lunar eclipse. It would not be surprising for the Sun to have some electrical characteristics (electric and magnetic fields, detected), but it is definitely powered by nuclear fusion (by the neutrinos emitted and detected). The sky is blue from Rayleigh scattering---and you should read up on it. (It's the same reason that mountain shadows at a great distance look blue. The scattered blue light fills in shadow.) Nitrogen does not have a natural spectrum in blue light. (See, you're good at fantasy, but not at science.)
Of course light goes infinitely. Nothing to stop it. Inverse square works just fine...but you have no idea how many photons are emitted by a star. What we see as stars are basically strings of photons. The "size" of a star is then an artifact of the telescope's resolution. (It form's an Airy's Disk at the image plane.) The atmosphere is not really opaque over long distances; we can see the rising or setting sun well enough, and any other distance is shorter. If you look upwards, it is the least opaque (no stacking of glass sheets). We can see the Earth surface just fine from space and take good photos, too (Hasselblad large format cameras were the standard).
No problem seeing far stars. All we need are the photons. As mentioned above, the star image will be the resolution limit of the telescope. Astronomers know this. When you get a really large telescope (like the Hubble telescope in orbit) you can see a lot farther. Not only do we see stars, but also distant galaxies (this back in the 1930s).
You can claim "holes in the heliocentric theory" but you don't mention any. So far, all you have done is illustrate your ignorance of the physics pertaining to the phenomena you bring up. Nobody has been fooled. We see the "curvature" of the Earth every time we are on a bluff and watch a sailing ship sail over the horizon, vanishing from the waterline up to the crow's nest. Not possible on a flat earth. We also watch airplane contrails recede to the horizon, where the airplane vanishes. (Or originate from the horizon.) Not possible on a flat earth. All the proofs are so evident, you must spend an awful lot of time not noticing them or thinking about what they mean.
Its clear you'll never be able to see the truth. And instead of doing actual research into the matter you're going to base your entire flat earth experience off of what I've told you which is quite ignorant of you.
And just so you know, horizon is not earth curve. Idk where you keep getting that from. Literally nobody debates that fact anymore.
If you are the representative, it helps to admit you are ignorant. And if you are so ignorant, how do you know I am not understanding you properly? Something so fundamental and obvious as a flat earth shouldn't require deep research. You just can't articulate anything conclusive. (I don't give any weight to silly videos where self-appointed geniuses display their misunderstanding of common physical phenomena. Nor do I have much respect for claims that have no photographic evidence. I mean, the true Earth has plenty of photographic evidence---you just want to deny it.)
I didn't say the horizon was the curvature. See, your problem is that you can't read closely because you are ignorant of the subject. The curvature is what causes the progressive vanishing of tall objects, from the bottom to the top, as they move farther away over the horizon. Impossible on a flat earth. (A flat earth would also have a horizon, but nothing could vanish beneath it. It would all be the top of the ice wall. Right?)
Yeah I'm saying you don't understand basic shit like perspective. You clearly don't watch videos because it might challenge your belief system. You're wrong about everything. And you've given me absolutely zero proof. I'm telling you things appear to disappear from the bottom up because of perspective not earth curve. You can watch a boat go "over the horizon " then zoom back in on it with a camera and bring the whole thing back into focus. Cameras can't zoom over something physically blocking your sight. If you had watched the whole video he would have showed you plenty explaining that to you and showing examples. Also the black swan photo which is a picture taken from an observer height of 1 foot and the horizon is roughly 19 miles away, it should be 3 miles from that height. Every amateur rocket not using a gopro shows a flat level horizon that rises to eye level. Impossible on a ball, because if you were up 70,000 ft the drop of the earth at the horizon should be about 150,000 feet below you. The horizon would be noticeably lower, but it always rises to eye level. There is a difference between intelligence and memorizing what you read in a Rockefeller funded textbook and I believe we are seeing that difference right now. Have a good rest of your life because clearly you're too far brainwashed to get this.
Yeah nasa graphics designer Robert Simmon is on film admitting that it's all photoshop because it has to be. He gets strips of Data and has to create an image to closely match what people think it looks like. Yeah I'm telling you your photo reproduction of the lunar lander is fake.
The sun set works just fine. If you want to know more about it it's going to take more than a skip through a video. Took me weeks of research before I realized they were actually onto something. The sun isn't a ball of gas 93 million miles away, it's small local, and appears to be projected from outside the firmament. It's not gas, it seems to be more electric in nature. I'm assuming it's why the sky is blue, the electric nature of the sun excites nitrogen causing it to shine blue like the sky. It can only push so far.
You're under the impression light goes infinitely, it does not. There's a such thing as the inverse square law of light. And the atmos becomes opaque over long distances, and that varies depending on the weather conditions. Its like stacking a thousand panes of glass up. You can see through a few just fine but you couldn't shine a light through all 1000.
We can also scientifically prove that the distances at which your side says these stars are, would be impossible to see due to its angular size being so small. Even if light went these insane distances, it would be so tiny by the time it got here you literally couldn't see even the closest star.
There's a lot of holes in the heliocentric model that don't line-up with our actual observations. The globe brainwashing started when we were children. It's one of the first homework assignments you bring home from school, and have you never heard the whole "there is a globe in every, single, movie" thing? It's in movies and cartoons and every single thing we watch. It's not that people are lying, it's just everyone has been fooled.
Yeah, even Robert Simmons admits that the last photo of the whole Earth was taken in 1972 during the Apollo program. The point being that it was indeed a real photo. His job is to stitch together the strip images taken by low-Earth-orbit weather satellites. (LEO is too close to take a photo of the whole Earth.) Photoshop was invented in 1992. I guess we have a quarter-century of un-photoshopped photos in the archive. My photo from the 1967 Lunar Orbiter I was taken on board the probe and digitally scanned for radio transmission as strips. This was an image of the Moon and the Earth. I don't know why you think I included any Lunar Lander, which happened 2 years later. You can tell me all you want, but you can't prove it. It's just empty allegation.
The Sun is 93 million miles distant. We have measured the distance stereometrically. You haven't. In order to fit the Eratosthenes measurement, the Sun would have to be over 7,000 km high. How does that compare to your model? The funny story has the Sun moving endlessly over the flat earth, so there is no possibility for it to ever set...and it would be seen everywhere simultaneously. With sun and moon on the same side of the Earth, there is no possibility of having a lunar eclipse. It would not be surprising for the Sun to have some electrical characteristics (electric and magnetic fields, detected), but it is definitely powered by nuclear fusion (by the neutrinos emitted and detected). The sky is blue from Rayleigh scattering---and you should read up on it. (It's the same reason that mountain shadows at a great distance look blue. The scattered blue light fills in shadow.) Nitrogen does not have a natural spectrum in blue light. (See, you're good at fantasy, but not at science.)
Of course light goes infinitely. Nothing to stop it. Inverse square works just fine...but you have no idea how many photons are emitted by a star. What we see as stars are basically strings of photons. The "size" of a star is then an artifact of the telescope's resolution. (It form's an Airy's Disk at the image plane.) The atmosphere is not really opaque over long distances; we can see the rising or setting sun well enough, and any other distance is shorter. If you look upwards, it is the least opaque (no stacking of glass sheets). We can see the Earth surface just fine from space and take good photos, too (Hasselblad large format cameras were the standard).
No problem seeing far stars. All we need are the photons. As mentioned above, the star image will be the resolution limit of the telescope. Astronomers know this. When you get a really large telescope (like the Hubble telescope in orbit) you can see a lot farther. Not only do we see stars, but also distant galaxies (this back in the 1930s).
You can claim "holes in the heliocentric theory" but you don't mention any. So far, all you have done is illustrate your ignorance of the physics pertaining to the phenomena you bring up. Nobody has been fooled. We see the "curvature" of the Earth every time we are on a bluff and watch a sailing ship sail over the horizon, vanishing from the waterline up to the crow's nest. Not possible on a flat earth. We also watch airplane contrails recede to the horizon, where the airplane vanishes. (Or originate from the horizon.) Not possible on a flat earth. All the proofs are so evident, you must spend an awful lot of time not noticing them or thinking about what they mean.
Its clear you'll never be able to see the truth. And instead of doing actual research into the matter you're going to base your entire flat earth experience off of what I've told you which is quite ignorant of you.
And just so you know, horizon is not earth curve. Idk where you keep getting that from. Literally nobody debates that fact anymore.
If you are the representative, it helps to admit you are ignorant. And if you are so ignorant, how do you know I am not understanding you properly? Something so fundamental and obvious as a flat earth shouldn't require deep research. You just can't articulate anything conclusive. (I don't give any weight to silly videos where self-appointed geniuses display their misunderstanding of common physical phenomena. Nor do I have much respect for claims that have no photographic evidence. I mean, the true Earth has plenty of photographic evidence---you just want to deny it.)
I didn't say the horizon was the curvature. See, your problem is that you can't read closely because you are ignorant of the subject. The curvature is what causes the progressive vanishing of tall objects, from the bottom to the top, as they move farther away over the horizon. Impossible on a flat earth. (A flat earth would also have a horizon, but nothing could vanish beneath it. It would all be the top of the ice wall. Right?)
Yeah I'm saying you don't understand basic shit like perspective. You clearly don't watch videos because it might challenge your belief system. You're wrong about everything. And you've given me absolutely zero proof. I'm telling you things appear to disappear from the bottom up because of perspective not earth curve. You can watch a boat go "over the horizon " then zoom back in on it with a camera and bring the whole thing back into focus. Cameras can't zoom over something physically blocking your sight. If you had watched the whole video he would have showed you plenty explaining that to you and showing examples. Also the black swan photo which is a picture taken from an observer height of 1 foot and the horizon is roughly 19 miles away, it should be 3 miles from that height. Every amateur rocket not using a gopro shows a flat level horizon that rises to eye level. Impossible on a ball, because if you were up 70,000 ft the drop of the earth at the horizon should be about 150,000 feet below you. The horizon would be noticeably lower, but it always rises to eye level. There is a difference between intelligence and memorizing what you read in a Rockefeller funded textbook and I believe we are seeing that difference right now. Have a good rest of your life because clearly you're too far brainwashed to get this.