Title: RAW FOOTAGE: Balloon, aka NASA "Satellite" Floats Across Full Moon Source:
YT URL Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAfdkWy0QtE&feature=youtu.be Published:Feb 3, 2018 Author:Flat Earth Dude Post Date:2019-09-28 17:41:37 by Liberator Keywords:NASA, Satellite, Balloon Views:31163 Comments:184
(Video taken through a Nikon P900 camera)
Poster Comment:
Cool! Great shot of the Moon as well. (Sure doesn't seem like it's 239,000 miles away.)
So.... is balloon technology how NASA really photographs earth? It appears they are able to attach an equipment gondola to the Balloon...and let 'er rip into Low Earth Orbit.
One also wonders if "Astronauts" are actually embedded into a special Balloon gondola instead what's depicted in those dodgy "ISS" shots. Orbital velocity is the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity's pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite's motion -- the satellite's tendency to keep going. This is approximately 17,000 mph (27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers). Without gravity, the satellite's inertia would carry it off into space.
Moving juuuust a bit slower than 17,000 MPH. Source:
With respect to, 'HOW STUFF WORKS', I mis-formatted the post, so it's my fault there's some confusion.
OF NOTE:
According to 'HOW STUFF WORKS' and the link I provided:
"Orbital velocity is the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity's pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite's motion -- the satellite's tendency to keep going. This is approximately 17,000 mph.(27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers). Without gravity, the satellite's inertia would carry it off into space.
We see neither traveling at 17,000 mph -- whether a gi-normous NASA balloon or the pix taken from NASA "Satellites" (which are actually "gondolas" tethered TO balloons at low earth orbit.)
NASA's Giant Helium Balloons will neither be escaping much beyond the stratosphere, nor dragged to earth via "gravity"...
They drift (or are guided) at a very manageable speed (as captured by this amateur videographer in front of the moon), thus it is the perfect medium from which to view and photograph the earth....or be its passenger.
They drift (or are guided) at a very manageable speed (as captured by this amateur videographer in front of the moon), thus it is the perfect medium from which to view and photograph the earth....or be its passenger.
What would be the point of a randomly-drifting mission for either photography or passenger flight?
Go take a look at the KH-11, from which the Hubbell telescope is derived. These are not randomly-drifting machines - I know; in a past life I helped to track them. When you know weeks, months or years in advance exactly when and where one would clear the horizon, that's pretty much the opposite of random.
Go take a look at the KH-11, from which the Hubbell telescope is derived. These are not randomly-drifting machines - I know; in a past life I helped to track them. When you know weeks, months or years in advance exactly when and where one would clear the horizon, that's pretty much the opposite of random.
Facts don't count when you debate Flattards. Math is irrelevant to Flattards and they don't recognize the concept of mathematical proofs or their finality as a problem's correct solution.
I have noticed some interesting theories recently on the rise of Flat Earthers on YouBoob. Naturally, we all recognize how YouBoob is monetizing all of this while trying to use it to smear all religions, many of whose fundamentalists do reject science. It's a subtle attack strategy used by the TED people and Silicon Valley.
But there is a real question of just how 'tarded the Flattards really are. And it is a serious question. These are the kids who flunked algebra and geometry and chemistry and physics. And they're the kids who argued with the teachers in every class you ever took, the contrarian adolescent types. It is a pronounced personality characteristic that they exhibit.
Some people might consider the questioning of their fundamental intelligence and competence to be hitting below the belt but you can't view many of their top-rated videos - their best stuff - without starting to question if Flattards should be a category in the DSM as a mental disability or condition.
[I thought Neil might like these videos; the first vlogger shows his test for dyscalculia based on an aircraft flight plan and says that no Flattard has managed to pass it with only a few even willing to try to. It reminded me of Neil's posts about aircraft flight plans on some old flat earth threads here at LF.]
[I thought Neil might like these videos; the first vlogger shows his test for dyscalculia based on an aircraft flight plan and says that no Flattard has managed to pass it with only a few even willing to try to. It reminded me of Neil's posts about aircraft flight plans on some old flat earth threads here at LF.]
Certainly all of us have our strengths and weaknesses in comprehension of various subjects and things. I know I have my weaknesses, so I can empathize with others who have them, even if they are weak in areas I'm strong in. TC, I remember you posting that photo that showed one of the Apollo landing sites from the lander with the earth hugely lit behind it on the horizon. I pretty much knew immediately it was doctored as the earth wouldn't be on the horizon for any Apollo mission, and the shadows didn't match earth's spherical illumination. Earth was also way too detailed for the cameras they had back then. It was a beautiful shot designed for desktop backgrounds, but was not real. That stood out to me but not to yourself, I suppose, and others. Certainly you're better than me in other areas.
Then there is at least one person on this site for whom it is not possible for police to ever commit a sin. It could be said that that person suffers from a form of "dyscalculia" related to police. I'm sure many of us would say similar for those with "Trump derangement syndrome" because they cannot fathom Trump ever doing anything good. Another person here is a baseball, hot dogs and apple pie version of the worst of head-chopping ISIS members, yet still professes Christianity.
I've said before and say again, My theory is that people have an overwhelming ability to believe things even if they are completely untrue. Liberator, whom I still do like and respect, believing the earth is flat is a validation of that theory, which I've subscribed to even before I read of his stating his belief. It's the same reason why most people's religious beliefs reflect that of their parents, no matter what the faith is-- Christianity, Judaim, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism or even Atheism. If it were otherwise then we'd see religious beliefs homogenously spread throughout the world, but we don't. Entire countries are by and large one faith, and remain so from one generation to the next.
So.... that's okay. It's the old cliche. Do you/we accept people who see the world differently than we do? Or do we make a big stink about it and call them stupid? The old saying comes to mind, which I like:
A fool thinks himself wise, but a wise man knows he is a fool.
And when you think about that quote, it inescapably means that all of us are fools. The only difference is that some of us know it, and some of us don't.
Or do we make a big stink about it and call them stupid?
We shouldn't call Liberator "stupid"...that's a harsh word. How about gullible, that's better.
Are you a fool, Pinguinite? I don't think so, except when it comes to God. It seems you can't use your excellent logic to bring yourself to a sufficient understanding of God.
We shouldn't call Liberator "stupid"...that's a harsh word. How about gullible, that's better.
Are you a fool, Pinguinite? I don't think so, except when it comes to God. It seems you can't use your excellent logic to bring yourself to a sufficient understanding of God.
Gullible might apply. But I would say it applies to people who believe the earth is either flat or only 6000 years old. Or that God would condemn souls to hell for all eternity because their physical brains didn't somehow have recorded within them in some biochemical way some notion of Jesus being the son of God. How logical is it that one would face an eternity in hell because a Christian who was supposed to share the gospel 2 days before the person died in an accident? You have your explanation for how that is just and okay. And Liberator has his explanation for how the earth is flat. Stone has his explanation for the earth only being 6k years old.... we all have explanations for what we believe, but that does not make them true.
I say God is better than that. And with the model I subscribe to, he is. All falls in place very very well. The model of God that you 3 subscribe to does, I say, sell God short.
Or maybe I'm just gullible too. Well, no "maybe" about it. Everyone of us is gullible, in one way or another. We are all fools, in the end.
Why can't the universe be as old as it is big? Do you doubt the speed of light is what science says it is? Is the furthest object away no more than 6000 light years distant?
You choose.... **we**... choose to believe what we want. And that which we choose to believe, we call truth. For me, it is illogical to believe that God created a universe/earth just 6000 years ago and made it look like it was far older. Christianity teaches God is not the "author of deception". Well, if He made the universe look older than it is, that would be pretty deceiving.
As for evolution, it explains a lot and I have no problem with it. But it's not compatible with your version of truth.
As for evolution, it explains a lot and I have no problem with it.
Why wouldn't you have a problem with something that can't be duplicated in the lab. Something with no evidence. If there is evidence you should share it. Something that has never been witnessed but would be witnessed if it was happening.
There are no new species evolving. A peach tree is always a peach tree and never changes into anything else. All the other species 100 percent of the time produce after like kind and have never been shown to produce a new or different species. So frankly people who believe in evolution are kind of dumb. Maybe not dumb in all ways but certainly dumb on the fairy tale of evolution. It is bullshit and you should know better because you are smart generally speaking.
Why wouldn't you have a problem with something that can't be duplicated in the lab. Something with no evidence. If there is evidence you should share it. Something that has never been witnessed but would be witnessed if it was happening.
I won't debate evolution now. But suffice to say that a great many people consider denying evolution on par with denying a spherical earth.
You don't believe evolution because it conflicts with your belief in the Bible as the "Word of God" literal truth. As far as I'm concerned, you validate my point that people will believe what they choose to believe.
I used to queston the Bible because of evolution. Then I did some research and learned that there isn't anything to it that is scientific. It is a religion.
It is wise of you not to debate evolution. The facts aren't on evolutions side.
You should read a book by Gary Parker a former evolutionist professor head of the science department at some university that I forget the name of.
He was biased towards evolution. Or if you don't want to then don't.
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
I honestly don't have time and little inclination to look into this, but the quote above is not necessarily an indictment on evolution as a whole. Rather it's an indictment of "random mutation" and natural selection as the basis of how complex life came to be.
In other words, what if evolution is real but does NOT involve "random mutation". What if there is some biological mechanism that facilitates evolution without "random mutation" being an ingredient? What if there are mutations driving evolution, but they do not happen randomly?
Beyond that, one major problem with creationism is that it's a theory that cannot be disproven. That is, no amount of physical evidence that is collected could definitively show that creationism/intelligent design could NOT have happened. That's important because any theory that cannot be disproven cannot be proven either. Creationism/intelligent design is therefore a "default" theory that one subscribes to if there are no other known theories that can work.
Beyond that, one major problem with creationism is that it's a theory that cannot be disproven. That is, no amount of physical evidence that is collected could definitively show that creationism/intelligent design could NOT have happened. That's important because any theory that cannot be disproven cannot be proven either.
Something that can't be disproven can't be proven. What a load of crap.
If apple trees started evolving and having a new kind of fruit on them. That would disprove creationism because things produce after like kind.
If a monkey turned into a man that would disprove creationism. You don't see your own made up biases.
How do you disprove the big bang? Stick that in your fuse box.
If apple trees started evolving and having a new kind of fruit on them. That would disprove creationism because things produce after like kind.
No it would not. Creationism involves, from the perspective of our physical world, new life forms springing into existence. There is nothing about creationism that states that evolution can't also exist. Even if all life did evolve from primordial goo over the last 4.5 billion years, a new life form could divinely appear tomorrow, in full glory showing off the power of "intelligent design". None of us can prove such a thing cannot happen, as none of us can prove alternate universes do not exist, or what the nature of them is or in what ways they can or cannot impact our universe.
But creationism, even if proven, does not disprove evolution. And evolution, even if proven, does not disprove creationism. Strictly speaking, in science terms, both can co-exist, even if one were to deem them incompatible from a religious perspective.
How do you disprove the big bang? Stick that in your fuse box.
You and I don't communicate all that well. That's why I've not responded to many of your posts.
But creationism, even if proven, does not disprove evolution. And evolution, even if proven, does not disprove creationism. Strictly speaking, in science terms, both can co-exist, even if one were to deem them incompatible from a religious perspective.
I was short on time yesterday. Let me revisit this.
You say they can both be true. So the earth could have been created in the timeframe the Bible describes, thousands of years ago. And it can also be true that it was billions of years ago.
No they cannot both be true.
You also said there can be two truths. No only on truth. For example the Easter bunny exists or he doesn't. Both can't be true. Please explain how two things that are different can both be true. They can't so I expect a dodge here.
Stick that in your fuse box simply means think about that.
You say they can both be true. So the earth could have been created in the timeframe the Bible describes, thousands of years ago. And it can also be true that it was billions of years ago.
You are overly rigid in your way of thinking Stone. I referred to creationism and evolution being not incompatible. Nowhere did I refer to the age of the earth. You equate creationism with a 6000 year old earth. I don't subscribe to that at all. Life could have, for example, been divinely started billions of years ago, and evolved from that point forward. At points throughout earth's history, life could have been divinely modified. Who knows? Who could authoritatively say it couldn't have happened?
I do not in any way subscribe to the theory of a 6000 year old earth. That notion is quite incompatible with observation, in my opinion. As I see it, if it is 6k years old, then God made it intentionally look like it was billions of years older than that in which case it's not the fault of scientists for having been fooled by God. Further, it's clearly illogical to suggest the earth is only 6k years old while having no problem with the universe being many billions of light years in size. Why shouldn't the earth and universe be as old as it is big?
You are locked into your myopic view of the earth and universe being in the form as described by a theologian-scientist who lived some 5000 years ago who doubtless had no clue about even the most basic of scientific principles.
You also said there can be two truths. No only on truth. For example the Easter bunny exists or he doesn't. Both can't be true. Please explain how two things that are different can both be true. They can't so I expect a dodge here.
I said no such thing. Read what I wrote again. I said there are differing **versions** of the truth. Do you disagree?
You also said at one point I called Jesus a liar, when I never made any such claim whatsoever. Not even close.
You are demonstrating an inability to truly listen to opposing views. How can you enlighten other people with their shortcomings in understanding if you do not really listen to them?
I do not in any way subscribe to the theory of a 6000 year old earth. That notion is quite incompatible with observation, in my opinion. As I see it, if it is 6k years old, then God made it intentionally look like it was billions of years older than that in which case it's not the fault of scientists for having been fooled by God. Further, it's clearly illogical to suggest the earth is only 6k years old while having no problem with the universe being many billions of light years in size. Why shouldn't the earth and universe be as old as it is big?
So you eliminated one class of problem with geology and how God would have had to create the earth in such a way as to make it look 4 billion years old.
You still have the problem with God creating the universe with all those light particles traveling in all directions from every sun. We are seeing light with telescopes that have been traveling toward us for hundreds of thousands of years. Other more exotic particles arriving on Earth have been en route for millions or billions of years.
You still have the problem with God creating the universe with all those light particles traveling in all directions from every sun. We are seeing light with telescopes that have been traveling toward us for hundreds of thousands of years. Other more exotic particles arriving on Earth have been en route for millions or billions of years.
Yes, that's one of my points. Unless Y6k creationists would suggest the universe is far older than the earth is (which some may) then yes, God must have created the photons mid-flight to make it appear they were sourced from these very distant sources hundreds of millions & billions of light years way.
At least God would only have to do that for photons heading for earth, which would ease the difficulty of the task rather substantially.
