How can you dismiss all the space footage?

I'm a history major and religion minor. My emphasis was not on Christianity but world religion. When you read religious text as history, you notice a curious thing.

• Pagan religions talk about great weapons as weapons of the gods.
• Hinduism likewise talks about the Brahma weapons, which many Hindus equate with some sort of nuke.
• Hinduism also talks about a race of peaceful people being taken over by warring race (I think the Dravidians and the Aryans)
• Judaism likewise talks about the descendents of Shem vs the other descendents of Noah, and how Ham's descendents forced the building of the Tower of Babel.
• In the story of Joseph, they mention a wind coming from the east that kills all of the crops for seven years. The date of both the Hindu passage about Brahma weapons and the passage about Joseph's 7 year famine? Same time frame.

How long have these people been around? Since ancient times.

They are the heirs of the Babylonians (famous for this tower above, as well as multiple examples of human wickedness), Romans (bread and circuses as well as crucifixion), Aztecs (blood sacrifices), and so on. They don't seem geographically similar, but they are ideologically similar. They are the warring nations of Pangaea. They are in opposition to the People of God. The people of God are not a race, or even a religion, but a value system. They want a culture that helps the rights of others, and doesn't encourage slaver, murder, or rape. The warring nations want an end to worship of God, and with it, an end to freedom. They are doomed to failure.

1Behold, a day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided in your presence. 2For I will gather all the nations for battle against Jerusalem, and the city will be captured, the houses looted, and the women ravished. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be removed from the city.

3Then the LORD will go out to fight against those nations, as He fights in the day of battle. 4On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half the mountain moving to the north and half to the south. 5You will flee by My mountain valley, for it will extend to Azal. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with Him.

6On that day there will be no light, no cold or frost. 7It will be a day known only to the LORD, without day or night; but when evening comes, there will be light.

8And on that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it toward the Eastern Seab and the other half toward the Western Sea, in summer and winter alike. 9On that day the LORD will become King over all the earth—the LORD alone, and His name alone.

10All the land from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem will be turned into a plain, but Jerusalem will be raised up and will remain in her place, from the Benjamin Gate to the site of the First Gate to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the royal winepresses. 11People will live there, and never again will there be an utter destruction. So Jerusalem will dwell securely.

12And this will be the plague with which the LORD strikes all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.

13On that day a great panic from the LORD will come upon them, so that each will seize the hand of another, and the hand of one will rise against the other. 14Judah will also fight at Jerusalem, and the wealth of all the surrounding nations will be collected—gold, silver, and apparel in great abundance. 15And a similar plague will strike the horses and mules, camels and donkeys, and all the animals in those camps.

16Then all the survivors from the nations that came against Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of Hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 17And should any of the families of the earth not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of Hosts, then the rain will not fall on them. 18And if the people of Egypt will not go up and enter in, then the rain will not fall on them; this will be the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 19This will be the punishment of Egypt and of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.

On the day Jesus was crucified, a great darkness swept over the land for an extended period of time (not a solar eclipse, which lasts only a few minutes in total). After this, both Jews and Gentiles worshiped God. This is the kingdom set up as prophesied by Daniel. A kingdom where all are under the same tent.

44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces."

This is the kingdom made by God. It's a kingdom oppressive people have tried and failed to overthrow.

all religions agree that the Earth is round though, and it's been that way for many centuries.
heliocentrism is a different story though. as pointed out, Galileo Galilei was accused of heresy for claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-in-rome-for-inquisition
"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642."
a blogger I respect, saccsiv.wordpress.com believes in geocentrism but he believes the Earth is round.

all religions agree that the Earth is round though, and it's been that way for many centuries.

They actually don't.

The lay people (the non-priests) and some of the priests agree that. Many modern Jews do (I know from asking).
But the source material doesn't.

The Earth as described in Genesis, as waters gathered around it to separate water from sky. Let's show a picture of how that works. First we draw a circle (1), then we pull water upward through evaporation (2).

In Egyptian religion, the sky goddess is in a state of near copulation at all times with the earth god, who is lying on his back.
In Hindu religion, the Discworld idea was lifted almost verbatim.

These are depicted as "round", but a round dome is quite different from a sphere. Many of the South American ones also have an idea of a center of the world, as does Norse.

Btw, this is incomplete. Taoism has Pangu. Buddhism has the Desire Realm. In all cases, the are are discs and/or domes, not spheres.

That is, NASA's teaching of a globe is actually at odds with religion. But since many of the followers of most religions are conventionally educated, but not educated about religion from childhood, so they believe in the postmodern globalist idea of Earth, not the classical religious idea.

When you refuse to consider options, you let other people do the thinking for you.

You mean like you?
Where you refuse to consider the option that you are wrong, that Earth is round, that photos from space can be real?
Instead, you just look for whatever excuse you can to dismiss it?

Then they publicly talk about visiting the moon AFTER having visited Venus.

And again your dishonesty knows no bounds.
You are comparing sending a probe to Venus, to people landing on the moon.
No person has landed on Venus yet, or even gotten close to Venus.
Sending a probe is much easier than sending a person.

Lunar 2 impacted the moon's surface in 1959
Lunar 3 captured pictures of the far side of the moon back in 1959.
Pioneer 4 had a flyby of the moon in 1959.
Notice how that predates a trip to Venus?

If I may make a theory?

Why not be honest?
May you engage in wild speculation to pretend there is a massive global conspiracy to hide the truth so your fantasy can still be true?

You don't have any rational basis for your objection, so you just to complete insanity to reject reality.
All because of how desperately you want your fantasy to be true.

Why do you think they publicly broadcast these?

And another great example of FEer dishonesty.
If they broadcast it, then it is clearly propaganda and they are lying.
If they don't broadcast it (or not in the ultra specific way a FE demands) then it is fake/lies/etc because they are clearly hiding something.

i.e. it doesn't matter what they do, they are lying.

If you knew anything about world history, you should know what propaganda looks like.

Yes. Like what the FEers produce.

Notice how for the most part, no one cares about space.
They take it for granted with things like weather forecasts and GPS, but most don't care.
Yes, you can find footage of a launch if you want, but it isn't being shoved into your face.
That is how we can easily tell it isn't propaganda.

Why do you think Google publicly showed their failure of their weather balloon system?

Because they publicly promoted it, and then wanted to save face when it was a complete failure.

There is a logical reason of line stability why towers provide stability to wireless, whereas orbiting satellites would not provide stability.

Yet you cannot demonstrate any logical reason and instead repeatedly lie.
You provide either vague BS with no justification at all, or outright lies.

Every season, the RE tilts according to your theory.

No, it doesn't.
That is an outright lie, but dishonest people like you that are willing to spout any lie you want to pretend the RE can't possibly be true.

According to all the available evidence, and therefore consistent with the mainstream RE model, the Earth rotates about its axis while orbiting the sun, and the axis of the rotation and orbit are not the same.

When you read between the lines

You see that FEers are repeatedly lying about so many things it isn't funny; while being entirely incapable of showing an actual fault with the RE model.
Instead of demonstrating a fault, they choose to lie about reality, lie about the RE model, or both.

Almost like the cellphone tower is the primary means of getting internet!

No, it isn't.
Most of the internet uses wires or fibre optics.
Cell towers are quite rare.
But then in cities where most people live, cell towers provide a good coverage.

Satellites are only used for internet in specific situations, where other methods are quite bad.

Satellites amount to magical thinking.

Your rejection of satellites amounts to magical thinking.

Ask yourself, what is special about it being in space that a much taller tower couldn't provide the same or better service?

Do you have a 400 km tall tower?
No.
For any given altitude, there will be a range, limited by the curve of Earth, and a practical range much smaller than that due to things like buildings and terrain getting in the way.
A satellite in space has a much greater altitude than a tower on the ground, and so it can cover a much larger area.
The distance to the horizon is given by r*acos(r/(r+h))
For a tower 500 m tall, that is 80 km.
For a 1 km tall tower, that is 113 km.
For a satellite orbiting at 400 km, that is 2200 km.
For a satellite orbiting at 35000 km, that is ~9000 km.
If we ignore the issue of needing to overlap ranges, then a single satellite at 400 km altitude would need to be covered by roughly 760 towers each 500 m tall.
If we instead go to 35 000 km, then we end up with over 12 000 towers needed.

So when you are in a population dense area, towers make sense, because a single tower, covering a relatively small area, reaches a very large number of people.
E.g. in New York, if a tower covered just a single km^2, it would cover over 11 000 people.
But if you tried to average that out over the entirety of the united states, it works out to be 33.6 people per km^2.
If you go to the pacific ocean, it drops to basically 0.

Satellites don't need a support on the ground. They can be over any terrain, including over the ocean.
Satellites themselves aren't affected by terrestrial weather. So if there is a hurricane it can take out a tower, but wont take out a satellite.
Towers require large areas, not just for the tower itself, but also for supports for it. These massive towers are typically held up by guy wires that periodically need to be replaced, and if done wrong the entire tower collapses. These guy wires also take up a lot of space on the ground. In general, they go off at a 45 degree angle, so however the tower is, you also need to take up that space in 3 directions out from the tower. A satellite doesn't have any requirements for the ground.

When you read religious text as history, you notice a curious thing.

That the person doing so is an idiot that can't tell fiction from reality?

And another wonderful example of the lies of FEers.
Where you entirely ignore what is shown on the image, and just draw in your own line.
Why don't you try toing it honestly?

What's that, it shows a curve?
Well that clearly explains why you don't.

And then lying by pretending a reflection is a hot-spot.

If it was a hot spot, multiple people should be able to take a picture of it, with it being seen in the same physical location.
Instead it moves as you move, as it is merely a reflection of the sun.

Ok?  Your picture shows the dip of the horizon.  Yeah.

Crew mission that can attest to the below picture taken in space.  And this view.  Backed by ground crew, data, and returned equipment. 

Looks curved to me? 



From this flight.




Back to this picture.




Why is the rest of the earth hidden behind the dip of the horizon.  😂😂😂

all religions agree that the Earth is round though

They don't.
People desperate to have their religion match reality distort their religion to pretend it shows Earth is round.
So what you really have are religious people accepting Earth is round, even if their religion clearly portrays it differently.

You also have some far more dishonest people claiming their religion said it was round before people knew it was to pretend their religion is divinely inspired, even though they were only able to reach the conclusion that it says Earth is round after it was known to be round for quite some time.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 07, 2024, 11:18:16 AM

Ok?  Your picture shows the dip of the horizon.  Yeah.

Crew mission that can attest to the below picture taken in space.  And this view.  Backed by ground crew, data, and returned equipment. 

Looks curved to me? 

You have a serious attention deficit problem. It's worse than mine. Picture 1 shows the line of the horizon. You measure across. If you're trying to make it into a hill, then you have already messed with your own head.  Lemme blow this up for you.



See that print there? Well, you see, outside atmosphere, ignition isn't a thing. That there is a bright point here

"Herp derp, that line in this picture looks curved." Yeah well, that picture looks fake, so we're even.
GIMP explains how to make straight lines curved. Here''s one of them. Spherize is another.
https://docs.gimp.org/2.10/en/plug-in-curve-bend.html

Let's demonstrate.


We'll gonna make a hill.


Oh wow, there's a tiny curve here before they added the ship layer on top! That's uhhhh proof!

to repeat my question, why is there no attempt to prove the Earth looks flat from a high altitude, in order to finally settle the debate?
a rocket is expensive, but apparently a weather balloon can also take footage from space.

See that print there? Well, you see, outside atmosphere, ignition isn't a thing. That there is a bright point here.

Erm...  that's called a reflection.  On a still lake, you can see the sun reflected, along with trees, clouds, mountains or anything else that happens to be in the right direction to see reflected:



When there are waves like over the sea, you see a much more diffuse reflection, because the light is hitting the uneven surface at lots of different angles.  You can recreate the exact same effect at home by shinning a torch light at matte steel plate vs a polished plate or mirror (grained steel should be the closest approximation to waves, because the texture is in parallel lines).

It's not a "hot spot" any more than than the reflection of the trees above are "cold spots" and has nothing do to with distance to the object being reflected.  Only the angle of light hitting the water.

You have a serious attention deficit problem. It's worse than mine. Picture 1 shows the line of the horizon.

Which you entirely ignore and just draw in your own line.
As if you don't give a damn what the evidence shows, you just care about your fantasy and pretending it is true.

outside atmosphere, ignition isn't a thing

Repeating the same lie wont help you. And that is irrelevant to the BS you are posting.
That "bright point" is a reflection.

Yeah well, that picture looks fake, so we're even.

You mean it doesn't show your fantasy, so you reject it.

GIMP explains how to make straight lines curved.

And notice how it distorts the entire image.

Guess what? You can also turn a curve into a straight line.

Yet again, you just reject things because they don't fit your fantasy.
While you will happily accept any BS you can come up with which does match your fantasy, even if it is pure BS.

If you were honest, you would either accept the photos provided until you can actually demonstrate they are fake, or you would also reject all the ones which allegedly show Earth is flat.

You have a serious attention deficit problem.

Me?  This has all been explained before repeatedly to you where you can’t comprehend how large the earth is…

Again…

Is this basketball flat? 

See that print there? Well, you see, outside atmosphere, ignition isn't a thing.

Why?  When rocket fuel supplies its own oxidizer.


You have repeatedly been debunked on this.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 14, 2022, 10:04:02 PM

Neither gunpowder nor rocket candy or acetone peroxide ignite in a vacuum.
But somehow this works in the vacuum of space.

Just delusional are you to see a non-result with your own eyes and still conclude something should work?

Rockets igniting in a vacuum.....

"Herp derp, that line in this picture looks curved."

Besides the rest of the arguments presented.

I also asked you a question..





Why is the rest of the earth hidden behind the dip of the horizon.  😂😂😂

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_balloon
"Hobbyists frequently purchase weather balloons because of its ease of use, low price point, and its widespread commoditisation.

These balloons are launched into what is defined as "near space", defined as the area of Earth's atmosphere between the Armstrong limit (18–19 km (11–12 mi) above sea level), where pressure falls to the point that a human being cannot survive without a pressurised suit, and the Kármán line (100 km (62 mi) above sea level[2]), where astrodynamics must take over from aerodynamics in order to maintain flight.

Due to the low cost of GPS and communications equipment, high-altitude ballooning is a popular hobby, with organizations such as UKHAS assisting the development of payloads.[3][4] "

"Hobbyists frequently purchase weather balloons because of its ease of use, low price point, and its widespread commoditisation.

Funny bulmabriefs144 is all about “balloons” to falsely try to explain away sat phone communications that provides coverage for all of the Pacific Ocean until you point out amateurs using balloons have broken the “monopoly” held by “NASA” an filming the earth.  😂

You have a serious attention deficit problem.

So?  Why does hobby balloonists show the distance to the horizon for earth is constant with change in height for a sphere.  And not a flat plane with an even higher ice wall around it? 

Erm...  that's called a reflection.  On a still lake, you can see the sun reflected, along with trees, clouds, mountains or anything else that happens to be in the right direction to see reflected:

So this is now the third time I need to restate what is in the picture.

Not the water lighting up. The sky around the sun is reacting to the sun. This can only happen is the sun is near or in the atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_balloon
"Hobbyists frequently purchase weather balloons because of its ease of use, low price point, and its widespread commoditisation.

These balloons are launched into what is defined as "near space", defined as the area of Earth's atmosphere between the Armstrong limit (18–19 km (11–12 mi) above sea level), where pressure falls to the point that a human being cannot survive without a pressurised suit, and the Kármán line (100 km (62 mi) above sea level[2]), where astrodynamics must take over from aerodynamics in order to maintain flight.

Due to the low cost of GPS and communications equipment, high-altitude ballooning is a popular hobby, with organizations such as UKHAS assisting the development of payloads.[3][4] "

The point I'm getting at, is that there are basically front balloon operations, where they show how noticeable balloons are.

We have planes that radar hits and we have stealth planes.  But somehow, people don't think that the same tech can be used on blimps and other dirigibles. At 80,000 ft up, most people do not see objects in the sky.
https://thedebrief.org/new-liquid-coating-could-make-stealth-aircraft-invisible-and-hypersonic/

radar reflecting shape and radar absorbing materials

I want you to think about this phrase. What's to stop a "satellite" from being tied to a balloon? Only the satellite is visible if the materials screen out signals.

They claim that's a parachute on the news connected to that red string. Yet these two photos are rather tight shots and ummmm this "parachute" appears to still be floating. We can also see the nearby trees even to their top, and it seems to instead dangle in a freestanding fashion.

For comparison.

Parachutes are usually shot with lots of short straps and you can see the tarp. There's no reason for a much longer string on a real parachute. Moreover, real paras settle as they slowly fall. This "parachute" hangs in the air much higher than the satellite. I'm sure the people there were made to sign an NDA, giving them money for their farm if they stayed quiet, and lawsuits if they refused.

https://hotairflyer.com/do-balloons-show-radar/

Overall, hot air balloons do not often show up on a flight radar unless they have a transponder or they are flying high enough, most balloons do not have a transponder and stay below 3000 feet. Some high altitude balloons may show up on a radar such as weather balloons.

Some of them can. And if someone is trying to tell the public that satellites exist, they will conveniently mention balloons being visible when it is a known project, and keep quiet or claim it's something else when it's not known. Like calling them weather balloons instead of what they are. Satellites.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_project
In commerce, this is called trade secrets. These are things that cannot be publicly admitted, so people instead use excuses. "The parachute is still up there!" says a news reporter while a helium balloon dangles onscreen.

These balloons are launched into what is defined as "near space", defined as the area of Earth's .

Asked you a question


One that returns the thread to on topic.  That stops you from flacking the thread with BS.

Why do these high altitude pics with consistency produce a dip of the horizon and a view to the horizon for altitude consistent with predictions for a spherical earth.  And in no way consistent with a flat earth encircled with an even higher ice wall. 

So this is now the third time I need to restate what is in the picture.

Not the water lighting up. The sky around the sun is reacting to the sun. This can only happen is the sun is near or in the atmosphere.

So you are appealing to glare?
You are still entirely wrong.
That does not require the sun to be in or near the atmosphere.

Why do you think it does?

The point I'm getting at, is that there are basically front balloon operations, where they show how noticeable balloons are.

No, you are trying to dismiss them as that, because you can't accept reality.

this "parachute" appears to still be floating.

Floating or caught in a tree?

We can also see the nearby trees even to their top

And more lies.
You can't see the top of the trees. If you could, you wouldn't be spouting such ignorant crap.

Here is a link for comparison:
https://www.facebook.com/leonhendrix/videos/517205835729631/

Notice how here, when the camera pans up, we can see it is caught in the tree?

Any more pathetic lies you want to spout?

But I don't see the point in this BS of yours at all.
It is known that this was a publicity stunt by Samsung. It was a weather balloon, not a satellite.

As Google has shown, balloons are not cost effective.
As basic math has shown, balloons are not cost effective.

But more problematic for you is that balloons cannot move at the velocities required for LEO satellites, don't maintain their position like geostationary satellites, and aren't at the right height for dishes pointing to geostationary satellites to point to.

You are just making up pathetic excuses, without thinking at all; all because of how much you hate reality.

Asked you a question


One that returns the thread to on topic.  That stops you from flacking the thread with BS.

Why do these high altitude pics with consistency produce a dip of the horizon and a view to the horizon for altitude consistent with predictions for a spherical earth.  And in no way consistent with a flat earth encircled with an even higher ice wall. 

Because that's what you want to see.

Simple answer. You have confirmation bias.

To a lesser extent, maybe they are also faked. I haven't looked at most of them so I dunno. But I do know you are more than willing to believe this, so yeah. It's you.

And even though I tell you until I am blue in the face that the angles from dead ahead to above you to behind you is only 180 degrees, while horizon is 360 degrees, you will always see this thing that isn't there.

You know what they call people who go around hallucinating things that aren't there?

Because that's what you want to see.
Simple answer. You have confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias can't magically make the horizon drop.
Confirmation bias can't magically hide the bottom of buildings.
Confirmation bias can't magically make a flat surface curved.

And even though I tell you until I am blue in the face that the angles from dead ahead to above you to behind you is only 180 degrees, while horizon is 360 degrees, you will always see this thing that isn't there.

Again, you can look down as well.
All this is doing is demonstrating your vision works with angles.
It is doing NOTHING to show Earth isn't round.

You know what they call people who go around hallucinating things that aren't there?

bulmabriefs144?

Quote

Erm...  that's called a reflection.  On a still lake, you can see the sun reflected, along with trees, clouds, mountains or anything else that happens to be in the right direction to see reflected:

So this is now the third time I need to restate what is in the picture.

Not the water lighting up. The sky around the sun is reacting to the sun. This can only happen is the sun is near or in the atmosphere.

implication being sun having height of 30 kilometers maximum. You know how messed geometry would be then? Along with shadow placement?

Quote from: IceDragon on March 08, 2024, 02:27:36 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_balloon
"Hobbyists frequently purchase weather balloons because of its ease of use, low price point, and its widespread commoditisation.

These balloons are launched into what is defined as "near space", defined as the area of Earth's atmosphere between the Armstrong limit (18–19 km (11–12 mi) above sea level), where pressure falls to the point that a human being cannot survive without a pressurised suit, and the Kármán line (100 km (62 mi) above sea level[2]), where astrodynamics must take over from aerodynamics in order to maintain flight.

Due to the low cost of GPS and communications equipment, high-altitude ballooning is a popular hobby, with organizations such as UKHAS assisting the development of payloads.[3][4] "

The point I'm getting at, is that there are basically front balloon operations, where they show how noticeable balloons are.

We have planes that radar hits and we have stealth planes.  But somehow, people don't think that the same tech can be used on blimps and other dirigibles. At 80,000 ft up, most people do not see objects in the sky.
https://thedebrief.org/new-liquid-coating-could-make-stealth-aircraft-invisible-and-hypersonic/

Quote

radar reflecting shape and radar absorbing materials

I want you to think about this phrase. What's to stop a "satellite" from being tied to a balloon? Only the satellite is visible if the materials screen out signals.

They claim that's a parachute on the news connected to that red string. Yet these two photos are rather tight shots and ummmm this "parachute" appears to still be floating. We can also see the nearby trees even to their top, and it seems to instead dangle in a freestanding fashion.

For comparison.

Parachutes are usually shot with lots of short straps and you can see the tarp. There's no reason for a much longer string on a real parachute. Moreover, real paras settle as they slowly fall. This "parachute" hangs in the air much higher than the satellite. I'm sure the people there were made to sign an NDA, giving them money for their farm if they stayed quiet, and lawsuits if they refused.

https://hotairflyer.com/do-balloons-show-radar/

Quote

Overall, hot air balloons do not often show up on a flight radar unless they have a transponder or they are flying high enough, most balloons do not have a transponder and stay below 3000 feet. Some high altitude balloons may show up on a radar such as weather balloons.

Some of them can. And if someone is trying to tell the public that satellites exist, they will conveniently mention balloons being visible when it is a known project, and keep quiet or claim it's something else when it's not known. Like calling them weather balloons instead of what they are. Satellites.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_project
In commerce, this is called trade secrets. These are things that cannot be publicly admitted, so people instead use excuses. "The parachute is still up there!" says a news reporter while a helium balloon dangles onscreen.

king, sattelites can stay in same spot for days in case of geostationary sattelites and be visible for 1000s of miles. Only object 35 000 km matches that. BTW before you say something yes that distance can be measured via parallax.

and about spaceselfie

https://www.unit9.com/project/samsung-spaceselfie/

all you needed to do was just google. its all public, like all supposedly hidden satloon launches

Quote

all religions agree that the Earth is round though, and it's been that way for many centuries.

They actually don't.

The lay people (the non-priests) and some of the priests agree that. Many modern Jews do (I know from asking).
But the source material doesn't.

The Earth as described in Genesis, as waters gathered around it to separate water from sky. Let's show a picture of how that works. First we draw a circle (1), then we pull water upward through evaporation (2).

In Egyptian religion, the sky goddess is in a state of near copulation at all times with the earth god, who is lying on his back.
In Hindu religion, the Discworld idea was lifted almost verbatim.

These are depicted as "round", but a round dome is quite different from a sphere. Many of the South American ones also have an idea of a center of the world, as does Norse.

Btw, this is incomplete. Taoism has Pangu. Buddhism has the Desire Realm. In all cases, the are are discs and/or domes, not spheres.

That is, NASA's teaching of a globe is actually at odds with religion. But since many of the followers of most religions are conventionally educated, but not educated about religion from childhood, so they believe in the postmodern globalist idea of Earth, not the classical religious idea.

now what did these people think about origin of thunder? or nature of fire? And greeks discovered earth was round so good luck with claiming they were flat earthers

I'm a history major and religion minor. My emphasis was not on Christianity but world religion. When you read religious text as history, you notice a curious thing.

i kinda doubt that

Confirmation bias can't magically make the horizon drop.
Confirmation bias can't magically hide the bottom of buildings.
Confirmation bias can't magically make a flat surface curved.

It can if that's what you're convinced you're seeing.

Horizon doesn't "drop". Angles drop. Horizon is a line.
The bottoms of buildings aren't hidden, the overall object shrinks.
A flat surface isn't curved. Unless you magically decide it is, while looking at a flat area, deciding you really see a curve.



Damn, I really can't see the bottom of these buildings.



Do you see the red line in the first picture (without blowing it up)? No? It's because shrinkage. Not descent into a curve.

This is your confirmation bias. You are convinced something stupid and wrong is right because if that's right, the other stupid stuff you may also believe in (climate change, open borders, neo-Marxism, population control, electric vehicles) is vindicated. But it's horseshit. Not even bullshit is good enough for that.

i kinda doubt that

You can doubt it all you want.

Remember references to thunder bolts and divine fire? Ancient weapons.

king, sattelites can stay in same spot for days in case of geostationary sattelites and be visible for 1000s of miles. Only object 35 000 km matches that. BTW before you say something yes that distance can be measured via parallax.

That's nice.

Stationary. Means not moving. Now, you can say that it is actually keeping orbital pace with the Earth, and that is all fine until... well, let's show it in a picture.

In September and March, no problem, it's keeping pace around say NYC. As Earth turns, we are assuming the constant centrifugal force and gravity are (*cough* magically) keeping this satellite exactly in place. Now, we're going to assume that the geostationary position means it stays fixed at the third line here and likewise fixed around Eastern Standard Time. No problem, right?

Big problem.

Despite the satellite keeping pace with this orbit as it spins, the satellite has stayed in place. The Earth however has tilted. In December, it is closer to Texas. In June it is closer to Newfoundland. In order for it to notice this subtle shift while a much more profound pull happens requires programming to adjust it.  The signal would go to the middle of the ocean, not magically hold latitude during different seasons. It would be one thing if it were pulled along with the atmosphere. I could totally believe a mass of air, water, dust, etc pulling satellites along with it (as it would inside the Earth's sky). But since you people insist that these satellites are outside all of this, yeah no.  It would get lost whenever seasons shift.

It can if that's what you're convinced you're seeing.

It isn't about what is convinced.
It is about what photos clearly demonstrate.

Horizon doesn't "drop". Angles drop. Horizon is a line.

Trying to hide behind semantic BS wont help you.
There is an angle of dip to the horizon.
This angle of dip gets larger (i.e. the horizon gets lower) with increasing altitude.

The bottoms of buildings aren't hidden, the overall object shrinks.

The bottoms are hidden, when you can clearly resolve the object.
Lying wont save you.

A flat surface isn't curved.

And likewise a curved surface isn't flat.
But that wont stop liars like you from calling it flat.

Damn, I really can't see the bottom of these buildings.

No, you have intentionally shrunk the image down to make it appear small, but I can still see all the way down to the shore.
Notice how the entire building is affected the same? How the building just appears to shrink.
Look at how hard it is to see the Antenna at the top of the WTC.

Compare that to something like this:


This is not the building shrinking making it hard to see. This is the bottom being hidden.

Your lies will not save you.

This is your confirmation bias.

No, this is you blatantly lying to try to escape reality.

You are convinced something stupid and wrong

If it is so stupid and wrong, why are you completely incapable of showing any fault with it?
Why do need to continually resort to pathetic lies?

and that is all fine until... well, let's show it in a picture.

Until you spout the same pathetic, refuted lies?

The Earth however has tilted.

No, it hasn't.
Earth's tilt remains constant.
This has been explained to you before, yet you keep on lying about it.
Here is a better picture for you to understand:

Notice how Earth hasn't changed?
In both cases the north pole is pointing up and to the right of this image.
But in December, the southern hemisphere is pointing "towards the sun", because the sun is to the left.
But in June, the northern hemisphere is pointing "towards the sun", because the sun is to the right.

Earth isn't tilting. The relative position of the sun is changing.

Going to stop repeating this pathetic lie?
Who am I kidding, of course you wont.
Because you are a compulsive liar, that will happily spout whatever dishonest you can come up with which you think can pretend to show a problem with the RE.
Grow up.

That's nice.

Stationary. Means not moving. Now, you can say that it is actually keeping orbital pace with the Earth, and that is all fine until... well, let's show it in a picture.

it orbits above equator, so it will always be above equator. Geometry between Earth and Sun angle will change but not between sattelite and earth. You can look at it as extension of earth in some way. This has curious effect called eclipse season where earth sun and sattelite are in line leading to eclipse as earths shadow blocks sun

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/652994-animationgeostationary-satellites-flare-and-eclipse-aside-trees/





these can be calculated in advance using not so complex math. idea that you are first one to bring this up is stupid.

Only it is not an extension of Earth.

It is a disconnected object that is in proximity to Earth only vaguely, as it wobbles, tilts, eccentrics, rotates, and orbits, and you say "simple math" is all that is needed.

Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in sidereal days.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in leap days and the fact that seasons don't start the same every year.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in other satellites.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in non-stationary orbiting objects (dead satellites, the moon itself, the Earth skimming past stars and moons as it orbits the galaxy...)
Simple math that has to hold up for several years without incident, or you lose satellite signal.

OR

Transmissions working from electromagnetic signals moving across the atmsophere and being picked up by various antennas, dishes, and so on. Exactly as was consistent with reality before the great satellite hoax began.

Sputnik was the first artificial satellite, so the entire satellite narrative hinges on that. It launched in October 4, 1957 and several totally not suspicious people claimed they could see it whizzing past. Even though it was the size of a beach balland flew from 142 miles and 588 miles away from Earth.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/sputnik/index.html
https://www.space.com/38331-sputnik-satellite-fun-facts.html
Tell me if you can see a beach ball with a fancy light tied to it, from between 142 miles and 588 miles away.

Here's the important part. They had dishes (as part of radar), as far back as the 1940s.

These "satellite" dishes aren't picking up satellite signals at all. They are picking up signals from (1) cell towers, (2) radio towers, (3) "weather balloons", (4) radio signals travelling across the atmosphere, and (5) hidden "satellites" produced by planes/helicopters/blimps/buoys/mini-broadcasters/underground or underwater fiber optic wires/etc.

Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in sidereal days.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in leap days and the fact that seasons don't start the same every year.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in other satellites.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in non-stationary orbiting objects (dead satellites, the moon itself, the Earth skimming past stars and moons as it orbits the galaxy...)
Simple math that has to hold up for several years without incident, or you lose satellite signal.

Not really.
As explained before, sidereal days and leap days do nothing.
Other orbiting craft are insignificant unless they collide.

Tell me if you can see a beach ball with a fancy light tied to it, from between 142 miles and 588 miles away.

If the light is bright enough, I certainly can see it.

These "satellite" dishes aren't picking up satellite signals at all.

Then why are they pointing far too high to be pointing to any radio tower?
Why do they all seem to be pointing to an object above the equator in orbit around Earth?

I also notice you entirely ignored the refutation of your lies regarding tilt. Why is that?