## Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

I would ask you a question. Do you understand what inertia is?

Because if you don't and clearly the maker of that silly meme does not, then the simple solution to this may not be easy to comprehend. I'll try and draw an analogy for you.

Let's say you are on a train and you jump up. In the compartment you go straight up. From outside you are moving at the speed of the train and going sideways. Basically you carry inertia from the train. On Earth, we are all travelling with the ground and carry that same inertia. When you jump up, you come down on the same spot. So basically Felix went straight up, carrying the same rotational speed as the Earth (his inertia) and was vertically above where he took off from. Now, of course there are winds which move the craft in various directions, but nothing drastic to alter his general position.

He jumps out and comes back roughly where he set off from. No, the Earth did not forget to spin and no, Felix did not mysteriously lose his inertia, defying the laws of physics. All so very simple.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oddsnsods said:

This has been doing the rounds lately. Surprised flerth posse arnt all over it_________

Yeah, try that with some water, or anything that moves directly in front of the subject. Won't work.

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Arnie said:

Yeah, try that with some water, or anything that moves directly in front of the subject. Won't work.

That's where the use of CGI comes in handy.

And that should be, "doesn't work." Water is inanimate. To suggest it "won't work" is like referring to a stubborn mule that refuses to do labor. "Doesn't work" works for water, as it suggest that the inanimate object won't work correctly in the example given by the video presenter.

4 hours ago, Arnie said:

Let's say you are on a train and you jump up. In the compartment you go straight up. From outside you are moving at the speed of the train and going sideways. Basically you carry inertia from the train. On Earth, we are all travelling with the ground and carry that same inertia. When you jump up, you come down on the same spot. So basically Felix went straight up, carrying the same rotational speed as the Earth (his inertia) and was vertically above where he took off from. Now, of course there are winds which move the craft in various directions, but nothing drastic to alter his general position.

Now you are just opening up a can of worms called The Flat Earthers.

What's interesting is, all the "facts" you state are merely the main narrative as presented by TPTB. That is, you aren't really saying anything original nor even any suggested variations on the mainstream narrative. You just Polly want a cracker it all right back at folks. It's as though you and your like are void of any original, creative thought. Feverishly defending science and NASA. You won't even believe your own eyes when any child can clearly see the video anomalies in just about ever post from the official NASA site, because you are...

Edited by KingKitty
##### Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

That's where the use of CGI comes in handy

Oh dear, the generic "they used CGI" statement. That won't work either because the time frame to get CGI done is ludicrously time consuming and the ISS has been doing live video feeds for some considerable time and quite enormous amounts of it. If you think this video below is CGI, then you are simply not informed about how CGI is used, how accurate it can be and how subtle flaws in the footage give the game away.

49 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

And that should be, "doesn't work." Water is inanimate. To suggest it "won't work" is like referring to a stubborn mule that refuses to do labor. "Doesn't work" works for water, as it suggest that the inanimate object won't work correctly in the example given by the video presenter.

False. Either of those two statements can be used. If you wan't to play the grammar police, at least make it something correct - and why exactly would you want to do that anyway? This forum has hundreds of posts with "should of" / "would of" / their instead of they're. Hardly makes the content wrong and I failed to see you performing any grammar police duty on any of those posts.

Edit: I just noticed an hilarious self contradiction you just made. In red above. Lol.

49 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

Now you are just opening up a can of worms called The Flat Earthers.

Nonsense. I am opening a can of physics that correctly explains reality.

49 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

What's interesting is, all the "facts" you state are merely the main narrative as presented by TPTB. T

A totally false statement. My "facts" are simple physics and nothing to do with any mainstream or "TPTB".

49 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

That is, you aren't really saying anything original nor even any suggested variations on the mainstream narrative. You just Polly want a cracker it all right back at folks. It's as though you and your like are void of any original, creative thought. Feverishly defending science and NASA. You won't even believe your own eyes when any child can clearly see the video anomalies in just about ever post from the official NASA site, because you are...

Hmmm, it's almost as though you have zero to say in reply to my physics explanation so resort to the ad-hominem route that "you and your like" routinely take. Now offer a counter explanation for inertia, because the beuty of this statement is that everyone can do it for themselves every day of their lives and see it in action. Can't you?

49 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

Feverishly defending science and NASA.

Nope, no fever here, just debating when people get things wrong. You seem to be feverishly attacking them. If my science is wrong, let's here yours.

49 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

You won't even believe your own eyes when any child can clearly see the video anomalies in just about ever post from the official NASA site, because you are...

Well that isn't true at all. A child will see stuff and be heavily influenced by what it is told. That is predicably how NASA attackers in general see things. It's funny that the more you know about science and space travel the less you see these made up anomalies, and obviously the reverse of that is true.

So are you going to tiptoe around the subject firing ad-hominems whilst avoiding my replies, or have you got something tangible to say?

Edited by Arnie

# IT’S A WONDERFUL LIE

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alexa said:

# IT’S A WONDERFUL LIE

And? You can see Stephan's Quintet with a reasonably good telescope - blurred just like the film. The Wonderful Life team were using actual images from an observatory/telescope. The JWT can image it in much better detail.

Edited by Arnie
typo
##### Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Arnie said:

And? You can see Stephan's Quintet with a reasonably good telescope - blurred just like the film. The Wonderful Life team were using actual images from an observatory/telescope. The JWT can image it in much better deatil.

And they've spent billions on recreating images that we had 75 years ago. They don't want you to seeing the firmament that these lights were placed in as it could lead to a relationship with the one who made them. see this video:

##### Share on other sites

@Arnie
Don't you think it's quite strange that even buzz is very VERY cagey about the moon landings?  (the 2nd clip)
EDIT: Also, that this guy on stage cannot give an honest response to water bubble sin speace, instead blaming it on'sweat, water coolant in the suit'  (last clip)

Edited by sickofallthebollocks
##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alexa said:

And they've spent billions on recreating images that we had 75 years ago.

Rubbish. These were initial test images and if you think the blurred galaxies from terrestrial based observatories in the 40s compare to those we see from a space based telescope then you really should go to specsavers.

2 hours ago, alexa said:

They don't want you to seeing the firmament that these lights were placed in as it could lead to a relationship with the one who made them. see this video:

This thread is about space travel not religious nonsensical flat Earth claims - I believe you have your own walled in thread to discuss your subject. These lights are not "placed" on anything. They can be zoomed into with extremely powerful telescopes - they are stars and galaxies(with billions of stars within them).

Edited by Arnie

##### Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

@Arnie
Don't you think it's quite strange that even buzz is very VERY cagey about the moon landings?  (the 2nd clip)

This clip has been taken from a longer interview and deliberately misrepresents what he said and why. Full interview, nothing wrong with it.

There is nothing strange about it. The little girl asked why nobody has been back (motivation and funding) and Buzz (alongside every space enthusiast) is not happy about the fact that we haven't returned. She asked why we haven't been back at 7 minutes, after he had already explained all about his Moon landing. He says we never went, as in we never went back.

42 minutes ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Also, that this guy on stage cannot give an honest response to water bubble sin speace, instead blaming it on'sweat, water coolant in the suit'  (last clip)

Who says he isn't being honest?? He is probaby confused at the daft question. Sources of instantly frozen water in space was what he was trying to explain.

##### Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

Oooh the crowd went, not the Sphinx/Tutankhamun's head.  I understand that some people go into a frenzy when certain imagery is used, but I cannot think of a single thing related to space travel, or anything else for that matter, that doesn't have some weird and wonderful alternative depiction.

Platinum is the distinctive color of Space Operations Command. This represents the strength of SpOC’s uniformed and civilian Guardian’s, the rarity of its calling, and the nobility of its mission.

The design incorporates elements that both recall the organization’s NASIC heritage while simultaneously looking towards the future that spurred its formation.

The majestic sphinx – an ancient symbol of wisdom, knowledge, and the challenges that NSIC analysts will solve – is invoked out of pride in an organization that traces its roots back to the earliest days of aerospace intelligence.

It sits omnipresent over the world – just as the domain the analysts of NSIC will monitor and help to protect and defend – and gazes upwards, drawing the viewers eye from the past into the future and the blackness of space.

In that blackness, a Northern star is prominently displayed. Its eight points of the star symbolize the points of a compass, displaying how NSIC intelligence professionals will analyze and assess to guide the United States acquisitions, policymakers, and warfighter communities through this new frontier

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arnie said:

Oooh the crowd went, not the Sphinx/Tutankhamun's head.  I understand that some people go into a frenzy when certain imagery is used, but I cannot think of a single thing related to space travel, or anything else for that matter, that doesn't have some weird and wonderful alternative depiction.

Platinum is the distinctive color of Space Operations Command. This represents the strength of SpOC’s uniformed and civilian Guardian’s, the rarity of its calling, and the nobility of its mission.

The design incorporates elements that both recall the organization’s NASIC heritage while simultaneously looking towards the future that spurred its formation.

The majestic sphinx – an ancient symbol of wisdom, knowledge, and the challenges that NSIC analysts will solve – is invoked out of pride in an organization that traces its roots back to the earliest days of aerospace intelligence.

It sits omnipresent over the world – just as the domain the analysts of NSIC will monitor and help to protect and defend – and gazes upwards, drawing the viewers eye from the past into the future and the blackness of space.

In that blackness, a Northern star is prominently displayed. Its eight points of the star symbolize the points of a compass, displaying how NSIC intelligence professionals will analyze and assess to guide the United States acquisitions, policymakers, and warfighter communities through this new frontier

Cool story bro.

##### Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Arnie said:

Oh dear, the generic "they used CGI" statement. That won't work either because the time frame to get CGI done is ludicrously time consuming and the ISS has been doing live video feeds for some considerable time and quite enormous amounts of it. If you think this video below is CGI, then you are simply not informed about how CGI is used, how accurate it can be and how subtle flaws in the footage give the game away.

False. Either of those two statements can be used. If you wan't to play the grammar police, at least make it something correct - and why exactly would you want to do that anyway? This forum has hundreds of posts with "should of" / "would of" / their instead of they're. Hardly makes the content wrong and I failed to see you performing any grammar police duty on any of those posts.

Edit: I just noticed an hilarious self contradiction you just made. In red above. Lol.

Nonsense. I am opening a can of physics that correctly explains reality.

A totally false statement. My "facts" are simple physics and nothing to do with any mainstream or "TPTB".

Hmmm, it's almost as though you have zero to say in reply to my physics explanation so resort to the ad-hominem route that "you and your like" routinely take. Now offer a counter explanation for inertia, because the beuty of this statement is that everyone can do it for themselves every day of their lives and see it in action. Can't you?

Nope, no fever here, just debating when people get things wrong. You seem to be feverishly attacking them. If my science is wrong, let's here yours.

Well that isn't true at all. A child will see stuff and be heavily influenced by what it is told. That is predicably how NASA attackers in general see things. It's funny that the more you know about science and space travel the less you see these made up anomalies, and obviously the reverse of that is true.

So are you going to tiptoe around the subject firing ad-hominems whilst avoiding my replies, or have you got something tangible to say?

Brilliant! Reality, you say?

The grammar thing was just me winding you up. I figured you to be the kind of individual who would get his knickers in a bunch over that...and I was right. Keep on believing in the science. After all, it's saved a billion or so people from a pandemic and is steering us away from destroying our own planet with cow farts.

Riddle me this, Captain Physics, why don't we go to the moon anymore? Our technology (science!) is light years ahead of what we (US of A) had in the 1960's, yet we don't seem to have any more interest in actually going to the moon? We should at least have moon bases up there by now? I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for that query? Now remember, I'm not as intelligent as you, so please type slowly.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arnie said:

Rubbish. These were initial test images and if you think the blurred galaxies from terrestrial based observatories in the 40s compare to those we see from a space based telescope then you really should go to specsavers.

And yet these latest pic's are all composited images.

##### Share on other sites

You know, Arnie? I think we just got off on the wrong foot. I'm not here to debate physics with you, which is why I am not replying to you various explanations.

Most of us here understand basic physics and grammar. What the true debate is over is: Why does NASA create videos with so many "digital anomalies"? For every sensible video you can post of the space station, I can match it with one that clearly shows anomalies that are a direct result of computer generated images and/or special effects. I've worked in CGI, computer graphics, etc., so I can spot them easily.

Proving that the average citizen is not very physics savvy does not mean that the various NASA videos aren't doctored. It only take one lie being exposed to unravel the whole ball of yarn. There are more than enough videos online, from NASA's official releases, that clearly show some anomalies that deserve credible explanations, if anything, because we pay taxes for this nonsense.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, alexa said:

And yet these latest pic's are all composited images.

Do you not understand this? The nature of the composite is simultaneous exposures at different wavelengths, that's one way to achieve such amazing resolution and detail.  Care to go back to your original silly claim? Because as I said there is a perfect reason for an old 40s film to use a star image of the day. There is also a perfect reason for you to pretend not to see that because it shows your claim to be baseless.

##### Share on other sites

10 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Hardly amzing sleight of hand and from a rather daft flat earther. Is it ok to post that junk outside of the walled off thread? If so, here is Professor Dave slapping him about:

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KingKitty said:

Brilliant! Reality, you say?

Well yes, the response to the vertical ascent, the carried intertia and his subsequent space jump. So yes, reality I do say.

5 hours ago, KingKitty said:

The grammar thing was just me winding you up. I figured you to be the kind of individual who would get his knickers in a bunch over that...and I was right. Keep on believing in the science. After all, it's saved a billion or so people from a pandemic and is steering us away from destroying our own planet with cow farts.

That is called trolling and your second sentence is a non sequitur. Two conspiracies in one to deny science.

5 hours ago, KingKitty said:

Riddle me this, Captain Physics, why don't we go to the moon anymore? Our technology (science!) is light years ahead of what we (US of A) had in the 1960's, yet we don't seem to have any more interest in actually going to the moon? We should at least have moon bases up there by now? I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for that query? Now remember, I'm not as intelligent as you, so please type slowly.

It costs a fortune. They were already pulling the rug during Apollo 12 from audience response, held on for the Apollo 13 emergency and tuned out in their droves for the rest. Nixon hated the space race and ever since nobody wanted to stump up the cash. We are going back real soon but sadly I fully expect lots of noise and silly claims to be made.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KingKitty said:

You know, Arnie? I think we just got off on the wrong foot. I'm not here to debate physics with you, which is why I am not replying to you various explanations.

I don't carry grudges or offend easily.

5 hours ago, KingKitty said:

Most of us here understand basic physics and grammar. What the true debate is over is: Why does NASA create videos with so many "digital anomalies"? For every sensible video you can post of the space station, I can match it with one that clearly shows anomalies that are a direct result of computer generated images and/or special effects. I've worked in CGI, computer graphics, etc., so I can spot them easily.

Nice circular argument. There aren't anomalies, there are video artefacts from transmission and erroneous claims.  I know many people in the media industry and they beg to disagree with what you say you "spot".

5 hours ago, KingKitty said:

Proving that the average citizen is not very physics savvy does not mean that the various NASA videos aren't doctored. It only take one lie being exposed to unravel the whole ball of yarn. There are more than enough videos online, from NASA's official releases, that clearly show some anomalies that deserve credible explanations, if anything, because we pay taxes for this nonsense.

Provide your best example. Just one and let's have a good old fashioned debate about them one at a time. Are you up for it?

Edited by Arnie
##### Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Arnie said:

Do you not understand this? The nature of the composite is simultaneous exposures at different wavelengths, that's one way to achieve such amazing resolution and detail.  Care to go back to your original silly claim? Because as I said there is a perfect reason for an old 40s film to use a star image of the day. There is also a perfect reason for you to pretend not to see that because it shows your claim to be baseless.

Why's it cost them billions to produce these images ?

##### Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, alexa said:

Why's it cost them billions to produce these images ?

Google is your friend. Why are you asking me, when you can simply do a search through the internet?

Are we done with the silly video you began with?

##### Share on other sites

MOD NOTE: CAN MEMBERS PLEASE REMOVE THE RUDE AND CONDESCENDING TONE FROM THE POSTS.

##### Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 10:02 AM, Arnie said:

fascinating video

the channel released this one after they were accused of faking stuff

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.