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:31104 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.]
#20. To: Tooconservative, Hank Rearden, Pinguinite, Grand Island, sneakypete, A K A Stone, Deckard (#10)
"Facts don't count when you debate Flattards...[[blah, blah]...Globetards...YouBoob...mental disability..."
This particular post of yours is hysterical. BRAVO!!
"Debate"?? Did you really mention, "Debate"??
Can you FAIL more miserably on that count, my frothing friend? At least I see others here posing serious, valid questions and challenges -- even though they may disagree with NASA/Flat Earth/911 challenges.
Back to your concept of "debate": ""FLATARD! FLATARD! FLATARD!...YouBoob! YouBoob! YouBoob! Mental disability!!" does NOT constitute a "debate"; Or any reasoned discussion and challenge of simple claimed facts, math, or science. Neither do tantrums and hysterics over sources you hate and resent (YouTube) because they circumvent the "official" sources of "truth" and happen to expose previously pre-YouTube actual hidden truth. (Btw, baiting Neil/Ping into entering the fray? Lame.)
As the resident self-annointed arbiter of consensus and "acceptable subject matter" at LF, are you sure you even know the definition of "debate"? (I mean other than the same ol' puerile "Flatard" ad hominims I've seen from millennials and "adolescent types" -- yes, the same compliant pods you attempted to control, and indoctrinate as a teacher of the Rockefellerian agenda.)
Facts don't count when you debate Flattards. Math is irrelevant to Flattards...
Oh, the irony. Have you always been such a condescending, no-nothing little pr*ck?
Last evening, Prof. TooConservative, I lobbed 4 clear Test Questions for you to answer. They were "Factual," "Scientific," AND "Mathematical". As you routinely do, you engaged in your usual gaslighting attempt, not only failing to answer the questions, but changing the subject and entire premise...
But for now -- and for the sake of credibility and honesty, please answer just these a few still un-answered questions and explain NASA's own large credibility problem. Ignoring them won't make it go away. And besides -- I reeeeealy wanna believe!!
QUESTION #1:
FACT: Given NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT" (But they're "working on it!").
Simple logic and math: How then is NASA's claim to have traveled 778,000 miles (round trip) to the Moon AND back 5 times from 1969-1972 possible? (especially when 50 YEARS LATER they CAN NOT?)
Can you kindly work out that "Math" AND "Science" for us?
QUESTION #2(includes assumptive premise):
Can we all agree on this?
Given one accepts the established "Historical/Scientific Fact" NASA claims to have accomplished -- that is the greatest of feat in the annals of Human History: Plotting a precise course to and landing men on the Moon 239,000 miles away AND returning. Safely. FIVE TIMES. 50 years ago.
But...HOW is this all possible when NASA now admits escaping the SAME "Low Earth Orbit" is now NASA's "biggest challenge"? They admit it's a problem that is still not figured out...
QUESTION #3: Please rationally or logically explain how it was possible (or believable) that NASA "LOST THE TECHNOLOGY" (or threw it out)?
IF NASA has indeed already traveled back & forth to the Moon FIVE times, without any discussion about what it now says are current grave problems/solutions about leaving "Low Earth Orbit", how are NASA and any of those 169-1972 missions believable or credible??
Yes, I'm stupid; (Maybe I have a "mental disability" as you suggest.) Because I don't understand the above unanswered questions. But as a really smart teacher and person, I'm sure YOU can explain how these "facts," "Math," and "Science" is possible. And how NASA went to the Moon 5 times. And now? Nope, we are told by NASA itself: WE. CAN. NOT.
#22. To: Liberator, Hank Rearden, Pinguinite, Grand Island, sneakypete, A K A Stone, Deckard (#20)
Oh, the irony. Have you always been such a condescending, no-nothing little pr*ck?
Well, yeah, pretty much.
QUESTION #1: FACT: Given NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT" (But they're "working on it!").
Simple logic and math: How then is NASA's claim to have traveled 778,000 miles (round trip) to the Moon AND back 5 times from 1969-1972 possible? (especially when 50 YEARS LATER they CAN NOT?)
Elon Musk could do it, now. He's got Falcon 9 to reach low- and high-earth orbit and Falcon Heavy to reach the moon and he's starting testing on SpaceX Starship to send large payloads to Mars (or very large payloads to Earth orbit or to the Moon, the kind you need for big space colonies or a moon colony).
But NASA itself? Hell no. They have no contracted production of Saturn and Jupiter launchers that they own which they did have during the Apollo launches. And they don't even have the crappy, explosive, crew-killing, vastly overpriced Shuttles. So they can't even actually get to the ISS using NASA-owned launchers. Instead, they're paying SpaceX for cargo resupply flights and NASA and its Western partners all have to pay through the nose to use the old Russian launchers which are developing a really bad safety record. Not only that, but they don't have the Shuttle to launch the KH spy satellites and other classified military launches; those are now controlled directly by the Pentagon and they launch on their old ICBM-based launchers which NASA never operated or launched at all. So the Pentagon and SpaceX and SLS and Boeing and others can all make orbit and some of them can or will reach the moon in the next few years and SpaceX (and likely Blue Origin) will go to Mars by 2025. But NASA? They have nothing but a fistful of options to buy rides at $60M a pop from the fucking Russians.
NASA does have contracts for SLS (Space Launch System) to produce some very large launchers through 2030 which cost upward of a billion dollars a launch. Good luck to NASA trying to sell that to Congress! But SLS is actually just a front for Boeing and Lockheed to sell their very overpriced single-launch crappy technology to Congress under cost-plus contracts, the kind they love for Pentagon contracts that are so lucrative.
Here's a 2-minute video on the various launch platforms that are current or upcoming. You should watch it so you can grasp a few basic facts about modern American rocketry. One way or the other, we are going to have launchers far bigger than the old Saturn/Jupiter rockets that we used for Apollo. If we choose well (SpaceX or Blue Origin), we'll slash launch costs to a small fraction of what we pay for launches currently.
SLS continues to miss its mileposts. And Trump and Company are taking launches away from SLS and they're giving those launches to SpaceX. Musk is gobbling it all up.
NASA can barely launch a weather balloon using its own owned-and-developed technology. So that statement by NASA was entirely correct and probably understates just how defunded NASA has become, largely because there are a lot of U.S. senators that think we need to go to private launch companies to commercialize space. Which is the correct way to do space, given how cheap SpaceX launches are compared to anything NASA can contract from SLS or the upcoming Blue Origin vehicles.
NASA really just runs our legacy spaceports and tracking system and providing some astronaut training serverice and not much more. Because Congress doesn't trust them to build anything any more. And with good cause.
It's very clear to me that you have almost no factual knowledge of these programs and the technology involved, let alone the political wrangling in Congress. You simply don't understand these things and so you huddle back, posting these fact-free CTs about how "it's all a lie!". Pretty sad really. You don't seem to have the knowledge even to evaluate these programs on even an elementary basis, the kind we might expect to see from a middle-school student.
QUESTION #3: Please rationally or logically explain how it was possible (or believable) that NASA "LOST THE TECHNOLOGY" (or threw it out)?
NASA did scrap its Jupiter/Saturn launchers entirely. And much of the data used for launches and for vehicle tests was in software for obsolete computers. Over the decades, if you follow the computer tech news as I have for many years, you would be aware of the efforts to salvage the poorly-stored mag tapes and punched cards that NASA did keep. Hobbyists actually had to build custom hardware or use very old surplus tape drives and card readers and then write software just to extract the original data and source code. And it is not complete because the originals were so poorly stored that some are simply unsalvageable. This is not dissimilar to Hollyweird losing a lot of old B-movies because the celluloid film aged badly or was stored poorly, leaving us without archival copies of a lot of old movies and cinema serials and old theater newsreels. Then you also have a number of fires that happened in the film archive warehouses of the now-defunct movie studios of the era. When your studio is failing and you're firing people, preserving your worthless old films is low priority. And if you've insured your film archive (which is commercially worthless), an insurance payout from an arson is a good way to monetize it instead of continuing to pay to keep an archive that no one wants. So...once they had the Shuttle, NASA made preserving the documents and software and toolchains a very low priority. At the time, NASA believed we wouldn't want to go back to the moon, that the future of space flight was Shuttles in Earth orbit and that the moon and the other planets would all be explored by robots which were much cheaper.
But you don't know any of this because you actually prefer these laughable Flattard conspiracy theories. You spend your days watching their Flattard videos with three fingers buried deep in your ass, finally convinced you've caught those bounders in their lies. You convince yourself that people don't want to be around you because the Freemasons and Jesuits have brainwashed them while NASA manufactures fake space programs and launches fake moons and planets to deceive them all and that you are some brave freedom fighter, fightin' for da Trut' against The Man. And that someday you will finally prevail over all those Smart People who passed those darned math and science classes back in high school. And it never works out for you, does it? I suppose it really eats you up when you really let yourself think about it. So you don't think about it and prefer to flood some meaningless chitchat forums like LF with your propaganda. At least it keeps you busy so you don't have to confront the real problem you have in bringing the hoi polloi to understand what you think is Da Trut' on any given day (but which is guaranteed to change regularly). It's all very mysterious to you, isn't it? I don't doubt that it is.
LF such a "meaningless chitchat forum" that you've compulsively obsessed on and tossed away quite a bit of personal credibility capital on trying awfully hard to discredit every "CT" that's come down the pike.
Can you tell me what you think is at stake here at LF?
Let's assume you achieve your maximal goal: to convert every last contrarian old asshole at LF to all your CTs.
You'd have a small cheering section for your CT nonsense. All 20 of them. And they aren't on Twitter or Fakebook so you can't even consider any of LF's readers to ever post anything anywhere else to advance your kookeries on any other website.
With LF, there is no there there. Deckard faces the same problem with his stuff. The only people who believe are the same people who already believed the same CT material well before Deckard or you posted about your Latest Kook News.
We shouldn't overestimate the reach of LF as a forum. It's just chitchat for 25 rightwing men over 50.
We shouldn't overestimate the reach of LF as a forum. It's just chitchat for 25 rightwing men over 50.
Maybe - Gatlin might be a woman though.
Anyways, as I was driving east this morning I watched a beautiful sunrise over Lake Huron and started thinking about this flat earth stuff. The sun appears to move across the sky from east to west, right? If the earth is flat, why doesn't the entire earth experience daylight the same way? Why is it nighttime on the other side of the world when it is daylight here?
I was driving east this morning I watched a beautiful sunrise over Lake Huron and started thinking about this flat earth stuff.
The sun appears to move across the sky from east to west, right? If the earth is flat, why doesn't the entire earth experience daylight the same way? Why is it nighttime on the other side of the world when it is daylight here?
I'm not sure I understand the full context of your question.
We know by personal observation that the Sun circles over earth along various paths depending on the time of year, obviously taking 24 hours to complete its circuit over the plane.
THAT SAID...
Your question does cause a very interesting further pause in the areas of earth which are receiving sunlight during a typical 24-hour day....
If (as we are told) the "globe" is perpetually spinning east at @1000 MPH, AND the sun (we are told) is stationary, wouldn't that mean almost the entire "globe" should be bathed in sunlight ALL the time?
If (as we are told) the "globe" is perpetually spinning east at @1000 MPH, AND the sun (we are told) is stationary, wouldn't that mean almost the entire "globe" should be bathed in sunlight ALL the time?
No it wouldn't. The earth's circumference is 24,901 miles, which means an entire rotation takes 24 hours or one day.
Why is it light on one side of the world and dark on the opposite side at the same moment?
("If (as we are told) the 'globe' is perpetually spinning east at @1000 MPH, AND the sun (we are told) is stationary, wouldn't that mean almost the entire "globe" should be bathed in sunlight ALL the time?")
No it wouldn't. The earth's circumference is 24,901 miles, which means an entire rotation takes 24 hours or one day.
Yes, I agree.
This is in accordance to the Scientists' "Spinning Globe Earth" theory AND Earth-revolves-around-the-Sun" theory.
Why is it light on one side of the world and dark on the opposite side at the same moment?
Because it takes @24 hours for the Sun to shine to perpetually rotate in a circuit over the entire face of the Earth. AND, because the Sun is local and NOT 93,000 million miles away.
