The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: BiCurious on December 26, 2011, 05:48:59 AM

Title: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: BiCurious on December 26, 2011, 05:48:59 AM


I'd like to read a critique of it.

A video dissecting it would be even better.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 06:06:49 AM
This is so very interesting. Thanks !!

This brings so many memories of my favourite game when I was less than 11. It's called "Populous 4: The Beginning". I fact I still have the cd for that game in my house.

You play this shaman who reincarnates from "ball world to ball world", and you know why this is so familiar to me? Because the graphics in that video game and the ones in that video are identical.

They must have had the same artist to fake it.

There was this option in the game. You pressed "Enter" and you zoomed out, showing you the entire "world" below you, and you clicked on it, and forced it to revolve in any sense you chose, which is just what they're doing in this video !!

Congratulations. You're a Populous 4 fan, and you didn't even knew it !!

I thank you.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: BiCurious on December 26, 2011, 06:12:35 AM
Thank you for the reply, but your explanation, that the video is just Populous 4, is too far-fetched for me. I google searched "Populous 4" and the game looks nothing like the video, aside from aesthetics such as they both depict a round earth.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 06:20:27 AM
Did you actually play the game, dear clueless one?

I have when I was very very very young.

Do your videos even show the zoom out option, after you click enter, and see all the buildings like icons, and all the units as little colored dots?

If not, let me know and I'll find a video of that, for you.

You'll see the ability to fake this is not that developed. Populous even looks more perfectly designed, to make it more believable.

That video is just like populous, but easily to see how forged it is.

It's not cleverly designed you see. When you craft a visual illusion, you have to fool enough trained eyes. But you cannot.

I see through those visual illusions like knives cut through moist warm butter.

Also you should wish to see the in-game, between worlds menu. The one that rotates you, from world to world, showing you the map of those little world as you fly from one to the other.

This is the original space fake program. They hired all the visual effects fakers from Populous 4. Or maybe they created the Populous game, to improve their forging skills.

But I promise you, and swear this on my life. That video is 100% fake. Created by CGI just as Populous 4 was. I recognise their fine programming details that reveal they have the same source.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 06:21:52 AM
Thank you for the reply, but your explanation, that the video is just Populous 4, is too far-fetched for me. I google searched "Populous 4" and the game looks nothing like the video, aside from aesthetics such as they both depict a round earth.

(ftp://)

Apparently it's correct title is "Let's Play Populous 3: The Beginning, Part 4 "Combined Forces" "

I must have played it longer ago, than I thought !! HAHAhahahaha
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 06:26:33 AM
(ftp://)

Here's another one, for everyone's viewing pleasure.

There. Winning this one, was easier than stealing pie from an american.

Keep in mind, I played all of those battles when I was like ..... more than a decade ago.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 06:28:15 AM
I'd like to read a critique of it.

A video dissecting it would be even better.

Thanks.

You have both a critique of it, as well as two videos dissecting it.

Watch both of those videos, and maybe you will tell me next the Populous 3 worlds are also "real"?

That would be great news, since I loved playing that game. Imagine if it were real, and I actually got to play it for real, Ja?

You're welcome.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: BiCurious on December 26, 2011, 06:28:50 AM
I'm looking for an analysis describing how it is a forgery. Your comparison to Populous is lacking, as the video in the OP and the video you posted show very stark contrasts between the two.

I await a serious reply.

Also, please refrain from double, triple and even quadruple posting in this thread. It's just a pet peeve of mine, and there's a conveniently placed "modify" button on each of your posts.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 06:58:56 AM
I see !! You need to find whoever sees any errors with this forgery, so the designers can fake a better visual lie?

How quaint? You expect me to aid you in your quest to create the most convincing visual forgery of a non-existing world.

Alright, but I'm gonna need you to promise to make Populous 5, 6, 7, 8 ..... 100. As a reward to me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~No Stars. Only one that appears and glows regularly like some kind of radioactive, pulsing light. And utterly unlike any stars anyone has ever seen on the Real Sky

~There is a large crater of fire in Siberia, that wasn't shown. It weaker, simple light from cities at night would show, volcanoes, with their massive smoke clouds should also be present.

~Some of the clouds reflect the yellow lights under them "too well". Literally it looks like the clouds are on fire, from reflecting those lights so much, and so far up the sky and around the source. This doesn't appear in the real sky, when light reflect this. From a mountain for example, the lights are much weaker and they even shimmer very lightly. These lights are too constant to be real. They need to be faked more.

~Some of the other clouds have this pale light reflection, that other clouds simply do not have. As if there's a white reflector, or white flashlight above those clouds, lighting them in a selective fashion. Kind of like when you a take a splooge of white paint and toss it somewhere random a painting.

~That could not have been explained anyway other that the Moon or something. Which is impossible, because the moon would have left that small region, a lot faster than that video shows.

~Of course being composed "frame by frame", radically mocks any notion of taking it seriously. If you take it frame by frame, with freeze frame cameras, that take over 9000 frames per minute, you will feel the pain of how utterly fake that is.

~That yellow line that shine over the top and rightmost part of the fake horizon? What's that about? Why does it only appear in the left side of the fake horizon?

~Despite the large duration of this so called "flight", the clouds barely move at all. Look at any fixed satellite shot cloud formations across Europe, and they move a lot, even in the small space of 15 minutes.

http://www.sat24.com/ (ftp://www.sat24.com/)  Fixed clouds that stay "perfectly still" are a dead give away. So fix those to appear moving.

~At 0:25 there is this creepy series of giant lights flashing beneath a massive, dense white fluffy cloud? On the right side of the screen. That's utterly creepy and impossible. Geographically speaking, not that this video was geographical, instead of a visual effects fake. Of course.

~They look like giant lightning bolts? Please. Were storms even registered there on earth, at the exact moment of pretending to fly over them? Do your research if you want to fake thunder storms properly.

~ 0:30-34 Blue lights flash just before the scenery, on some isolated islands, or apparently above the sea, just outside the coastlines. Let me guess those would be "aliens" in your distorted world view.

~0:48-52 There is a white glowish mass of light within the giant mass of calm "clouds", appearing on the right, while you have a coast line with mountains and the sea to their left, on the other side, just before reaching the brighter part of this fabrication.
Fix that. It doesn't happen anywhere, nor does it appear on a real world.

~From 0:45 The upper side of the pseudo-metallic reflectors on the scenery fail to reflect all the yellow light from below it. Despite having reflects the yellow lights and the blue white flashes earlier from imaginary thunderstorms and other yellow lights on the left side. Fix that.

~Or does metal suddenly lose it's reflective properties 40 seconds into any CGI animation? Apparently real objects actually reflect that continously. Imagine that ....

~And of course, all those lost at sea, little lights from what I imagine the creators intented to seem ... islands? The distances between them are wrong, accoring to RET nonsense. You failed to calculate you actually have to send them any sort of visual confirmation, at the exact moment you pretend to soar above them, when they enter visual range of your camera.

~Then they use lasers to trace your trajectory across their sky, as you pretend to fly above their islands. Since this confirmation never happened, it's safe to say nothing like this flew over those islands.

~Unless you think you're in the middle age, where no one has enough skill to prove a satelitte flew over them, using sofisticated lasers, both from their location and from the satelite above them ... ?

~Buy some security lasers. The kind that spike when someone walks through them, and triggers the alarm. Then you'll be able to fake that better than this first, feeble attempt.

~On a positive note, if you planned for it's flaws to be so easily found, and having it shot down in a firey sea of chaos, you have got your wish !!

Merry Christmas.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: BiCurious on December 26, 2011, 07:22:44 AM
1. There are stars, if you set the video to "Original" quality and fullscreen it, you can see them very easily.

2. Siberia is not in this video, "this movie begins over the Pacific Ocean and continues over North and South America before entering daylight near Antarctica."

3. I do not see this, some sort of visual aid would be welcome.

4. ^

5. I do not know what "That could not have been explained anyway other that the Moon or something." is referring to. What is "that" ?

6. All videos, of real and fake things, are simply still frames stitched together. I don't see the validity of this claim.

7. I think you're referring to the glow of the ionosphere "Also visible is the earths ionosphere (thin yellow line)" present throughout the entirety of the video, and that's what it is. I don't know what you mean by "Why does it only appear in the left side of the fake horizon?"

8. This is true, the clouds are very static.

9. The "creepy series of giant lights flashing beneath a massive, dense white fluffy cloud" is lightning.

10. I do not know if storms were reported in the areas where there is lighting in this video.

11. If you are referring to the flashes of light appearing over the ocean, that's lightning striking the water.

12. That is an interesting anomaly, probably with a few explanations, but not convincing proof that the video is fake.

13 + 14. I think I understand what you're saying here, that the light which was so bright before is now more dim and not as "reflected".  This could be explained by the fact that the ISS is now moving closer to "Sunrise" and thus the sun's light is dampening any other light source.

15, 16, 17, 18. I'm having trouble understanding what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

19. I did not plan anything in this video, nor did I produce it. I'm as interested in any flaws found in this video as you are.

Thank you, I did have a merry christmas, as I got a nice Dobsonian 4.5in reflector telescope, and the nights for the rest of this week are predicted to be very clear. I'm excited :)
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 08:24:41 AM
And are you using your telescope to prove the Earth's Flatness?

If not, you are truly missing the point of the telescope.

Their purpose is to be pointed directly west, and see something there that "should not be there", by RET standards.

Like looking with a high rez telescope from Europe to America, and seeing South America instead. Because South America would West from Europe, if I recall the FET maps correctly.

Now, can you use that telescope to prove this?

If not, can you use that same telescope to sight something directly east or west, that "should be there", by RET standards?

Of course. Telescopes are not made strong enough to allow every common fool who steals them, to actually easily disprove the FET.

However, if I'm wrong, and you can use this telescope to either see cities that should or shouldn't be there, I am listening to your evidence.

Just kidding, I know you have no evidence. Your telescope knows the earth is flat. That's why it doesn't dare bend enough light to make it seem like RET is accurate.

Any Questions?

Or am I to take your previous questions, seriosly? What are you, 2 years old?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 08:44:26 AM
1. There are stars, if you set the video to "Original" quality and fullscreen it, you can see them very easily.

2. Siberia is not in this video, "this movie begins over the Pacific Ocean and continues over North and South America before entering daylight near Antarctica."

3. I do not see this, some sort of visual aid would be welcome.

4. ^

5. I do not know what "That could not have been explained anyway other that the Moon or something." is referring to. What is "that" ?

6. All videos, of real and fake things, are simply still frames stitched together. I don't see the validity of this claim.

7. I think you're referring to the glow of the ionosphere "Also visible is the earths ionosphere (thin yellow line)" present throughout the entirety of the video, and that's what it is. I don't know what you mean by "Why does it only appear in the left side of the fake horizon?"

8. This is true, the clouds are very static.

9. The "creepy series of giant lights flashing beneath a massive, dense white fluffy cloud" is lightning.

10. I do not know if storms were reported in the areas where there is lighting in this video.

11. If you are referring to the flashes of light appearing over the ocean, that's lightning striking the water.

12. That is an interesting anomaly, probably with a few explanations, but not convincing proof that the video is fake.

13 + 14. I think I understand what you're saying here, that the light which was so bright before is now more dim and not as "reflected".  This could be explained by the fact that the ISS is now moving closer to "Sunrise" and thus the sun's light is dampening any other light source.

15, 16, 17, 18. I'm having trouble understanding what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

19. I did not plan anything in this video, nor did I produce it. I'm as interested in any flaws found in this video as you are.

Thank you, I did have a merry christmas, as I got a nice Dobsonian 4.5in reflector telescope, and the nights for the rest of this week are predicted to be very clear. I'm excited :)

1. They are not stars. Stars shine continously. They don't magically apear on the sky after a few seconds, where they previously were not there. In the first seconds of the video, there were no stars in that vidoe. Utterly Retarded whoever forged that video ....

2.Indeed, but Iceland is also "not in the video"? If no volcanoes appear on there, that are actually active at the moment, how can you expect your forgery to become credible?

5. Clouds glowing white in the upper right side of the scenery. Since your eye sight is severly damaged, by RET telescopes, I am not surprised you missed that. Anyone who sees that video, can see the unusual light that is reflected on the upper part of the clouds, to the begining of the video, on the right upper side. There is no moon above it. No stars. NO NOTHING !! That light is as imbeciloid, as it's lack of reflection in the metal above it, which also shouldn't lose it's reflective properties in a real case scenario.

6. True, but a video is always less credible that what is before your very eyes. Videos being made by stitched frames, bound together in any way the artists saw fit, are just as believable, as me taking a video of you killing my neighbour.

If you honestly believe that video isn't faked, I shall compose a similar one, that shows your face on the body of someone who killed my neighbour. And then you will go to jail for it, for the rest of your unborn life.

7. The ionisphere doesn't appear in the left side, where the sun apparently rises, when you reach the so called day light. It only appears on the right and upper sides of the faked horizon. This is a very crass mistake, that anyone watching sees how idiotic it truly is.

8. Of course they're static. They're drawn there, but CGI animations. Moving them would be too costly for the Fake Fraud Crew of the Evil Artists Association (called N-ASS-A).

9. Dear deluded piece of person. If that WERE lightning, the camera would zoom so far up that lightning, you would see every person on that earth, with COUNTLESS details of the world down here, that would normally never appear in any sort of visual fake. As these details never appear, apparently you didn't know cameras have a zoom feature, that is extremely powerful? I see, you probably think you live in the middle ages, and you are seeing that thing with telescope or something.

You're not. That should be a very competent camera, able to zoom anywhere on the world, and see you running on a field, being chased and shot down in the back of the head by Nikita. Your cretinous fake camera doesn't zoom AT ALL, thus making it easier to fake everything it appears to shoot. No Zoom = No Real Camera.

10. If even satelites are unable to zoom unto the Earth and prove it's not faking it all, you're truly outmatched here, peon.

11. And yet it's not brighter from the future "sunlight". It's just dull and unreflective. If you don't fix that, anyone who looks on the upper part of those fakes will see how fake they are.

12. So fix that.

13. I feel somehow, you are utterly humiliated. There is no way for you to explain the lack of high resolution zoom that occurs absolutely no where on that forgery.

14. If it's a satelite camera the zoom should be extremely powerful. Or might you be blatantly retarded, to not know such?

15. Without a very high resolution zoom, to zoom in anywhere on that video, anywhere in the world beneath it, you have NO PROOF it's even a satelite !!

16. Your lies are becoming unrealistic. Fix that too, get yourself better writers, and a more competent, director of SCI.

17. 18. 19. Is it possible your staff is very underpayed? How else does one explain the errors they carefully left in this video, FOR ALL TO SEE AND WITNESS !!

Maybe they are sabotaging you on purpose to expose your filthy lies to the entire world. HAHAHAHHAA Maybe half your crew are Flat Earthers who are deliberately playing into my trap, to help me expose all those errors, that immediately prove how fake you are.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: BiCurious on December 26, 2011, 09:54:18 AM
To answer your first post, no, I use my telescope to look at the celestial bodies. Last night I looked at Jupiter and its 4 visible moons, for instance, and it was quite exhilarating.

To answer your second post, fuck my IQ just dropped like 70 points reading that. I think you made my IQ 0.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Rushy on December 26, 2011, 10:26:30 AM
Okay, since you're new I'm going to go ahead and save you a lot of time by just telling not to read Silverdane's posts. There is a reason he purposefully makes them hard to read, they're not meant to be read.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: BiCurious on December 26, 2011, 10:30:14 AM
Warning now heeded.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Rushy on December 26, 2011, 10:37:42 AM
If any other member that writes legibly cares to post feel free to read theirs.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Mizuki on December 26, 2011, 06:55:36 PM
The interesting thing about this video, is that star constellations can be seen.

Is there anyone with enough astronomical knowledge to make comment, one way or the other, about the stars that can be seen on this video?

Mizuki x
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Rushy on December 26, 2011, 06:59:39 PM
The interesting thing about this video, is that star constellations can be seen.

Is there anyone with enough astronomical knowledge to make comment, one way or the other, about the stars that can be seen on this video?

Mizuki x

As you can see here:

Quote
A time-lapse taken from the front of the International Space Station as it orbits our planet at night.

The camera could be exposed to the light longer because it was night time. This gave enough time for star exposure. Other pictures (i.e. the moon landings) had to use a faster exposure time, since the moon receives intense direct sunlight.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 26, 2011, 07:21:42 PM
The interesting thing about this video, is that star constellations can be seen.

Is there anyone with enough astronomical knowledge to make comment, one way or the other, about the stars that can be seen on this video?

Mizuki x
I don't see any star constellations. Would you please do a screen capture and post it here of the star constellations that you can see? Thanks.

I'd have to know the date and time (GMT) of the screen capture to answer your question.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: zarg on December 26, 2011, 07:57:55 PM
Would you please do a screen capture and post it here of the star constellations that you can see? Thanks.

I'd have to know the date and time (GMT) of the screen capture to answer your question.

From the video description:

Raw data was downloaded from;
The Gateway To Astronaut Photography of Earth "http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/mrf.htm".


A direct link to the original image there would be preferable to a screen capture.
Example: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=ISS030&roll=E&frame=5132 (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=ISS030&roll=E&frame=5132)
All metadata is listed including the exact date and time.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 26, 2011, 08:12:09 PM
Would you please do a screen capture and post it here of the star constellations that you can see? Thanks.

I'd have to know the date and time (GMT) of the screen capture to answer your question.

From the video description:

Raw data was downloaded from;
The Gateway To Astronaut Photography of Earth "http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/mrf.htm".


A direct link to the original image there would be preferable to a screen capture.
Example: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=ISS030&roll=E&frame=5132 (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=ISS030&roll=E&frame=5132)
All metadata is listed including the exact date and time.
Please try again... I asked for a screen capture showing the constellations that Mizuki claims to see and the date and time of that frame.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: zarg on December 26, 2011, 09:20:31 PM
You misunderstand, I'm not a FE'er and I'm not arguing on behalf of Mizuki. I'm saying that Mizuki should link you to a specific image on that site of what she is referring to, not just a screen capture from the youtube video. The one I linked to was just for demonstration of what the page looks like -- as you can see, the GMT date and time is included and there is a link you can click to request the original full high-res photo for analysis.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: BiCurious on December 27, 2011, 01:56:16 AM
Also, I'm still seeking an analysis from some of the smarter FE'er supporters on this website of the video. Silverdane doesn't really count.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Mizuki on December 27, 2011, 02:35:28 AM
The interesting thing about this video, is that star constellations can be seen.

Is there anyone with enough astronomical knowledge to make comment, one way or the other, about the stars that can be seen on this video?

Mizuki x
I don't see any star constellations. Would you please do a screen capture and post it here of the star constellations that you can see? Thanks.

I'd have to know the date and time (GMT) of the screen capture to answer your question.

Hi ClockTower.

I can see quite clearly what looks like stars rising in the dark sky in that video. So i was wondering if they are the the correct constellations in the correct place in the sky to how they would appear in a RE scenario. Someone with a genuine knowledge of astronomy would be able to discern a lot from this video.

I'm sorry that i can't put a screen capture up for you, as i am not very good with computers - i'm amazed that you can't see them.

Mizuki x
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 27, 2011, 03:24:59 AM
Hi ClockTower.

I can see quite clearly what looks like stars rising in the dark sky in that video. So i was wondering if they are the the correct constellations in the correct place in the sky to how they would appear in a RE scenario. Someone with a genuine knowledge of astronomy would be able to discern a lot from this video.

I'm sorry that i can't put a screen capture up for you, as i am not very good with computers - i'm amazed that you can't see them.

Mizuki x
A few bright objects seen over 180o do not constellations make. I'm pretty sure that NASA documents that one of the objects was an LEO satellite. I'd also be concerned a bright object might be a planet. There's just not enough information to answer your question.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 27, 2011, 06:05:51 AM
A constellation is nothing other than a few bright dots over much less than 180 degrees in the sky. When the constellations were first "invented" they didn't even know what the dots were. This is semantics on a...stellar scale. Badum tsh!

And now put your hands together for the next act.

(To the music of I Like To Boogie by T-Rex)

I Like To Argue by Clock-T-ower

He loves to argue, he loves to argue
Clocktower argue, semantics pretty argue
He loves to argue on a Saturday night

Silverdane Answer's got a double-line-space
Gayer's lost her cherry walking
all the way home
The flatness of the Earth blasted it's mind
Now it's neat sweaty for
the moon based grind

He loves to argue
He loves to argue on a Saturday night
He loves to argue
Flat Earth Argue, Tom Bishop argue
He loves to argue on a Saturday night


Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Mizuki on December 27, 2011, 09:07:43 AM
A constellation is nothing other than a few bright dots over much less than 180 degrees in the sky. When the constellations were first "invented" they didn't even know what the dots were. This is semantics on a...stellar scale. Badum tsh!

And now put your hands together for the next act.

(To the music of I Like To Boogie by T-Rex)

I Like To Argue by Clock-T-ower

He loves to argue, he loves to argue
Clocktower argue, semantics pretty argue
He loves to argue on a Saturday night

Silverdane Answer's got a double-line-space
Gayer's lost her cherry walking
all the way home
The flatness of the Earth blasted it's mind
Now it's neat sweaty for
the moon based grind

He loves to argue
He loves to argue on a Saturday night
He loves to argue
Flat Earth Argue, Tom Bishop argue
He loves to argue on a Saturday night

 ;D

I think you have hidden talents, Kasroa!

The definition of a constellation is a group of stars. Generally the ones that form the known patterns such as Orion, the Great Bear, etc.
Regardless of ClockTowers pedantry and semantic games, i can definitely see stars in that video.

Mizuki x
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 10:28:13 AM
Also, I'm still seeking an analysis from some of the smarter FE'er supporters on this website of the video. Silverdane doesn't really count.

The reality is that this is an extremely well done forgery. Everything is essentially where it should be and what it should look like assuming a round earth model. They did, however, leave out one key detail. An object orbiting the earth can only maintain the same orientation with the earth if it were constantly rotating at the same rate as its orbital period.

They say the ISS does have attitude thrusters, but would it be using them constantly at all times? Of course not, it would run out of propellant. They should have accounted for the change in orientation of the space station relative to the earth in this video.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: BiCurious on December 27, 2011, 08:25:46 PM
Well, considering the amount of drag there is in high-Earth orbit, not very much at all, they wouldn't have to constantly fire their thrusters, would they? They'd only need to fire them for a specific "burn period" to get the ISS to rotate at a "Geo-synchronous" rate (I put "Geo-synchronous" in quotes because I'm not sure if that's the right term) and then only fire them occasionally afterwards for maintenance of their rotation.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Rushy on December 27, 2011, 08:36:44 PM
The ISS is not a geosynchronous artificial satellite. However, it doesn't lose enough positional altitude to be noticeable across such a short time lapse video. The ISS doesn't usually use its own thrusters to reposition itself, but uses various shuttles to do so.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 08:41:45 PM
Well, considering the amount of drag there is in high-Earth orbit, not very much at all, they wouldn't have to constantly fire their thrusters, would they? They'd only need to fire them for a specific "burn period" to get the ISS to rotate at a "Geo-synchronous" rate (I put "Geo-synchronous" in quotes because I'm not sure if that's the right term) and then only fire them occasionally afterwards for maintenance of their rotation.

RE special pleading. You clearly know nothing about the orbit of the ISS.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Rushy on December 27, 2011, 08:42:52 PM
Well, considering the amount of drag there is in high-Earth orbit, not very much at all, they wouldn't have to constantly fire their thrusters, would they? They'd only need to fire them for a specific "burn period" to get the ISS to rotate at a "Geo-synchronous" rate (I put "Geo-synchronous" in quotes because I'm not sure if that's the right term) and then only fire them occasionally afterwards for maintenance of their rotation.

RE special pleading. You clearly know nothing about the orbit of the ISS.

You clearly have no idea what special pleading is.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 08:43:48 PM
Well, considering the amount of drag there is in high-Earth orbit, not very much at all, they wouldn't have to constantly fire their thrusters, would they? They'd only need to fire them for a specific "burn period" to get the ISS to rotate at a "Geo-synchronous" rate (I put "Geo-synchronous" in quotes because I'm not sure if that's the right term) and then only fire them occasionally afterwards for maintenance of their rotation.

RE special pleading. You clearly know nothing about the orbit of the ISS.

You clearly have no idea what special pleading is.

You're just saying that to hide the fact that you know I'm right.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Rushy on December 27, 2011, 08:45:47 PM
Well, considering the amount of drag there is in high-Earth orbit, not very much at all, they wouldn't have to constantly fire their thrusters, would they? They'd only need to fire them for a specific "burn period" to get the ISS to rotate at a "Geo-synchronous" rate (I put "Geo-synchronous" in quotes because I'm not sure if that's the right term) and then only fire them occasionally afterwards for maintenance of their rotation.

RE special pleading. You clearly know nothing about the orbit of the ISS.

You clearly have no idea what special pleading is.

You're just saying that to hide the fact that you know I'm right.

Continuing on like this after you clearly can't debate the topic anymore does nothing but make people not take you seriously. Soon the only person willing to argue with you will be ClockTower.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 27, 2011, 08:54:18 PM
Continuing on like this after you clearly can't debate the topic anymore does nothing but make people not take you seriously. Soon the only person willing to argue with you will be ClockTower.

Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Rushy on December 27, 2011, 09:00:16 PM
The time lapse is not long enough to show any altitude loss due to orbit. Are you referring to the actual angle orientation of the camera compared to the earth?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 27, 2011, 11:15:11 PM
Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.
You beg the question. The ISS is not in a circular orbit and does not keep the exact same angle between it and the Earth. Also the video capture is for more than half of an orbit. How did you measure that angle to determine that it was exactly the same throughout the orbit? With what precision can you measure that angle in any given frame? Wasn't the camera held by hand?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 29, 2011, 08:39:41 AM
The time lapse is not long enough to show any altitude loss due to orbit. Are you referring to the actual angle orientation of the camera compared to the earth?

Yes, the angle is what I was referring to. I never mentioned anything about altitude. Maybe you misread when I said "attitude?"

Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.
You beg the question. The ISS is not in a circular orbit and does not keep the exact same angle between it and the Earth. Also the video capture is for more than half of an orbit. How did you measure that angle to determine that it was exactly the same throughout the orbit? With what precision can you measure that angle in any given frame? Wasn't the camera held by hand?

1) The ISS has a periapsis of 376 km an an apoapsis of 398 km. It is approximately circular. Either way, that doesn’t affect its attitude.

2) Actually, yes it does keep the same orientation with the earth at all times. This might not be relevant to this discussion, but still an interesting point of information.

3) The location of the horizon does not change, and you can see parts of the ISS in the picture. Therefore you have enough information to see that the angle does not change. There is no need to measure the angle, because it’s relative angle that we are worried about. That is, a change in angle between the previous and the current. It also doesn’t matter if the camera was held by hand or not since you can see both the horizon and part of the ISS in all frames.

4) It starts next to Canada and ends just as Antarctica enters view. Probably between a third and a half, definitely not more than a half. We're probably talking about 35-40 minutes.

Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 29, 2011, 08:42:36 AM
There are many dubious ISS videos on youtube.

Beyond the cheap special effects, you can also you that the kid is brainwashed with globularist doctrine. Look at his face and mannerism and just try to convince yourself otherwise. He has the wide eyes of a puppet.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 29, 2011, 10:18:34 AM
The definition of a constellation is a group of stars. Generally the ones that form the known patterns such as Orion, the Great Bear, etc.
Regardless of ClockTowers pedantry and semantic games, i can definitely see stars in that video.

Mizuki x

Of course you do. So do I.

The only problem is they don't exist.

On that video, the first few seconds have no stars. Pure darkness sky, that isn't even that dark at night.

Very artificial. Only after some stars appear to "rise", do they start to move.

Also have you calculated if the speed of the rising stars is consistant with the speed of the so called "satellite" flying around the so called ball-earth?

Because according to RET, that horizon should be extremely wide, and impossible to look that small.

Also because of the fish eye's view, those stars have absolutely no curvature, the same way the horizon should have.

Since the earth should not be that round, and the RET pretends it's much more "wide" and thus hard to seen with that exagerated curve, the stars should also be a lot more curved.

Yet they appear on a flat skyline, that isn't even anything like the night sky. Which isn't black at all.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 29, 2011, 10:21:42 AM
Well, considering the amount of drag there is in high-Earth orbit, not very much at all, they wouldn't have to constantly fire their thrusters, would they? They'd only need to fire them for a specific "burn period" to get the ISS to rotate at a "Geo-synchronous" rate (I put "Geo-synchronous" in quotes because I'm not sure if that's the right term) and then only fire them occasionally afterwards for maintenance of their rotation.

You sound like one those unhealthy people who think they're Napoleon.

Tell me, have you escaped from the mental institution or did you bribe the interns to give you access to the internet and a computer?

You did none of those things. You only imagine doing them. But you haven't.

This isn't proof you Jarhead.

Your ass-umptions of "what they would do", counts for nothing. You can't even prove any of that existed, with a proper compass on their board, showing the actual curvature of the needle, because of the earth's shifting magnetic fields, due to their so called "trajectory of motion".

Without a compass, are RET incompetents?

Or does the Great Napoleon have a phobia of compasses?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 29, 2011, 01:51:00 PM
Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.
You beg the question. The ISS is not in a circular orbit and does not keep the exact same angle between it and the Earth. Also the video capture is for more than half of an orbit. How did you measure that angle to determine that it was exactly the same throughout the orbit? With what precision can you measure that angle in any given frame? Wasn't the camera held by hand?

1) The ISS has a periapsis of 376 km an an apoapsis of 398 km. It is approximately circular. Either way, that doesn’t affect its attitude.

2) Actually, yes it does keep the same orientation with the earth at all times. This might not be relevant to this discussion, but still an interesting point of information.

3) The location of the horizon does not change, and you can see parts of the ISS in the picture. Therefore you have enough information to see that the angle does not change. There is no need to measure the angle, because it’s relative angle that we are worried about. That is, a change in angle between the previous and the current. It also doesn’t matter if the camera was held by hand or not since you can see both the horizon and part of the ISS in all frames.

4) It starts next to Canada and ends just as Antarctica enters view. Probably between a third and a half, definitely not more than a half. We're probably talking about 35-40 minutes.
1) So you agree that it's not circular. I also note that you agree that it's in orbit around the Earth. Thanks for that concession. Do tell us how that would not affect attitude.
2) Do you honestly believe that? The attitude must be constantly adjusted and is not perfectly constant as you claim. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_control_(spacecraft) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_control_(spacecraft)).
3) Again to what precision are you measuring? Just stating that you can see that it isn't changing does not make it so.
4) Irrelevant.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 29, 2011, 02:19:39 PM
1) So you agree that it's not circular. I also note that you agree that it's in orbit around the Earth. Thanks for that concession. Do tell us how that would not affect attitude.
2) Do you honestly believe that? The attitude must be constantly adjusted and is not perfectly constant as you claim. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_control_(spacecraft) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_control_(spacecraft)).
3) Again to what precision are you measuring? Just stating that you can see that it isn't changing does not make it so.
4) Irrelevant.

1) You're welcome. I also admit that the earth is not a sphere (it is an oblate spheroid), but it is close enough that it is often modeled as such. As such, the ISS's orbit is close enough to circular that it can be modeled as such.

Either way, orbital parameters simply don't affect attitude, there is no relationship between them. If you think the orbit of a spacecraft somehow affects the direction it's facing, then you should probably show me how. You asserting that it somehow does does not make it so.

2) You're getting warmer. If only you'd pay attention to the source you posted, the answer is in there.

3) You never asked for my precision before, you asked for my reasoning. I gave it. The precision is not very high, but it does not need to be for the purposes of this observation. It is clear that there is no major change in angle over the period of time during which this video takes place.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 29, 2011, 02:35:15 PM
Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.
You beg the question. The ISS is not in a circular orbit and does not keep the exact same angle between it and the Earth. Also the video capture is for more than half of an orbit. How did you measure that angle to determine that it was exactly the same throughout the orbit? With what precision can you measure that angle in any given frame? Wasn't the camera held by hand?
Try again.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 29, 2011, 02:37:09 PM
Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.
You beg the question. The ISS is not in a circular orbit and does not keep the exact same angle between it and the Earth. Also the video capture is for more than half of an orbit. How did you measure that angle to determine that it was exactly the same throughout the orbit? With what precision can you measure that angle in any given frame? Wasn't the camera held by hand?
Try again.

So you've replied to my least relevant point. Congratulations. I'm beginning to think that you don't actually know shit about orbital mechanics or vehicle attitude control. Would this be far from the truth?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 29, 2011, 02:45:10 PM
Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.
You beg the question. The ISS is not in a circular orbit and does not keep the exact same angle between it and the Earth. Also the video capture is for more than half of an orbit. How did you measure that angle to determine that it was exactly the same throughout the orbit? With what precision can you measure that angle in any given frame? Wasn't the camera held by hand?
Try again.

So you've replied to my least relevant point. Congratulations. I'm beginning to think that you don't actually know shit about orbital mechanics or vehicle attitude control. Would this be far from the truth?
So no response at all? You must hate it when someone points out that you're not reading responses. I'll get to your other points with time--if any others are even worthy of a response. For example, I never claimed that the ISS doesn't use its own RCS, so responding to a straw man is low on my listm
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 29, 2011, 03:05:19 PM
Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.
You beg the question. The ISS is not in a circular orbit and does not keep the exact same angle between it and the Earth. Also the video capture is for more than half of an orbit. How did you measure that angle to determine that it was exactly the same throughout the orbit? With what precision can you measure that angle in any given frame? Wasn't the camera held by hand?
Try again.

So you've replied to my least relevant point. Congratulations. I'm beginning to think that you don't actually know shit about orbital mechanics or vehicle attitude control. Would this be far from the truth?
So no response at all? You must hate it when someone points out that you're not reading responses. I'll get to your other points with time--if any others are even worthy of a response. For example, I never claimed that the ISS doesn't use its own RCS, so responding to a straw man is low on my listm

So you still want to know to what precision I'm measuring, even though it's not relevant, and I already gave you a response about it? Are you angry or something? You should think about whether you're actually arguing the right point here.

Maybe if you would just look up how the space station controls its attitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope#International_Space_Station) instead of arguing out of your ass about irrelevant details while revealing your utter lack of knowledge in the field of astronautics, you might actually learn something about how the world works. That is why you're on this website, right?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 29, 2011, 03:22:14 PM
Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.
You beg the question. The ISS is not in a circular orbit and does not keep the exact same angle between it and the Earth. Also the video capture is for more than half of an orbit. How did you measure that angle to determine that it was exactly the same throughout the orbit? With what precision can you measure that angle in any given frame? Wasn't the camera held by hand?
Try again.

So you've replied to my least relevant point. Congratulations. I'm beginning to think that you don't actually know shit about orbital mechanics or vehicle attitude control. Would this be far from the truth?
So no response at all? You must hate it when someone points out that you're not reading responses. I'll get to your other points with time--if any others are even worthy of a response. For example, I never claimed that the ISS doesn't use its own RCS, so responding to a straw man is low on my list.

So you still want to know to what precision I'm measuring, even though it's not relevant, and I already gave you a response about it? Are you angry or something? You should think about whether you're actually arguing the right point here.

Maybe if you would just look up how the space station controls its attitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope#International_Space_Station) instead of arguing out of your ass about irrelevant details while revealing your utter lack of knowledge in the field of astronautics, you might actually learn something about how the world works. That is why you're on this website, right?
My point is that you don't read responses.

Now let me start with the basics... If a statelite is in a highly elliptical orbit and not using any attitude control and if the statelite at its apogee has a boom that points "down" parallel to the Earth's rotational axis (and southward), where is the boom pointing at perigee?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 29, 2011, 03:35:35 PM
Now let me start with the basics... If a statelite is in a highly elliptical orbit and not using any attitude control and if the statelite at its apogee has a boom that points "down" parallel to the Earth's rotational axis (and southward), where is the boom pointing at perigee?

Well it's obvious to me that you didn't read the link that I posted, but I'll humor you anyway because this is fun.

Assuming that the boom is not there for the purpose of gravity gradient stabilization (which is a valid assumption because you claim that the satellite is "not using any attitude control"), the boom will always be facing the same direction, parallel to the earth's axis of rotation. This is because there is no net external moment causing it to rotate. Orbital eccentricity does not magically introduce a net external moment on the spacecraft.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope#International_Space_Station)
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Rushy on December 29, 2011, 04:03:52 PM
I still don't understand what your ultimate point is though. Are you trying to prove the ISS is fake?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 29, 2011, 04:08:40 PM
I thought I was following this debate but that last post totally threw me.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 29, 2011, 04:09:27 PM
In fact I'm pretty sure that somewhere on this page, ClockTower and NASA_Lies switched arguments.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 29, 2011, 04:30:55 PM
Well it's obvious to me that you didn't read the link that I posted, but I'll humor you anyway because this is fun.

Assuming that the boom is not there for the purpose of gravity gradient stabilization (which is a valid assumption because you claim that the satellite is "not using any attitude control"), the boom will always be facing the same direction, parallel to the earth's axis of rotation. This is because there is no net external moment causing it to rotate. Orbital eccentricity does not magically introduce a net external moment on the spacecraft. [/url]

Wow I don't believe this. You have just proven it's fake !!

Obviously the boom would just throw it further and further from orbit, and further and further from the Earth itself.

Thus in a single revolution, those booms should already have sent it so far from the World, it wouldn't even be close to holding an orbit.

\Thanks you are a great Flat Earth theorist.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 29, 2011, 05:15:16 PM
Now let me start with the basics... If a statelite is in a highly elliptical orbit and not using any attitude control and if the statelite at its apogee has a boom that points "down" parallel to the Earth's rotational axis (and southward), where is the boom pointing at perigee?

Well it's obvious to me that you didn't read the link that I posted, but I'll humor you anyway because this is fun.

Assuming that the boom is not there for the purpose of gravity gradient stabilization (which is a valid assumption because you claim that the satellite is "not using any attitude control"), the boom will always be facing the same direction, parallel to the earth's axis of rotation. This is because there is no net external moment causing it to rotate. Orbital eccentricity does not magically introduce a net external moment on the spacecraft.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope#International_Space_Station)
So then let's for simplicity's sake make that statelite's orbit directly over the Equator at all times. Now is its attitude with a reference point, say the Rotational North Pole, the same throughout its orbit? If we change its orbit eccentricity to 1, does the attitude with the NP at some point in its orbit differ now from before the change?

Quote
Either way, orbital parameters simply don't affect attitude, there is no relationship between them.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 29, 2011, 08:45:17 PM
I've been lurking here a few days and I've read the FAQ. None of you really think the Earth is flat. Especially Silverdane. You just like arguing and throwing around technical data. This is like your Facebook. It's just what you do. You know the Earth is round. I know it's round. EVERYBODY knows it's round, but you ran out of ways to be different. Maybe you did the Goth thing or the Emo thing and that wasn't different enough. Everybody's doing that now, right? So what to do, what to do? I know! "THE EARTH IS FLAT!" That'll get someones attention. There's almost endless potential for argument because you can't prove it, and no RE'er can prove it on this forum, because none of us has ever actually been up into space to see it for sure. And even if we had, you'd just say we were part of the "Conspiracy". It can go on forever. I love it! I don't buy it for one second, but I love it. Keep it up "FE'ers".
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 30, 2011, 07:06:47 AM
So then let's for simplicity's sake make that statelite's orbit directly over the Equator at all times. Now is its attitude with a reference point, say the Rotational North Pole, the same throughout its orbit? If we change its orbit eccentricity to 1, does the attitude with the NP at some point in its orbit differ now from before the change?

Just so we have an understanding of exactly what's going on here, I've made a diagram. The X coordinate of the earth centered system is pointed towards the north pole, Z is facing to the right, and Y to the lower left. I've also included velocity vectors just for fun.

(http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2157/dereference.png)

The X component of the spacecraft's attitude will always be parallel to the earth centered system, but since the earth is rotating, the Y and Z components will deviate. However, the spacecraft's attitude will remain constant with respect to an inertial (non-rotating) reference frame.

Nothing changes with respect to attitude when the spacecraft changes its orbital eccentricity from 0 to 1.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: LinearPlane on December 30, 2011, 08:49:32 AM
Well it's obvious to me that you didn't read the link that I posted, but I'll humor you anyway because this is fun.

Assuming that the boom is not there for the purpose of gravity gradient stabilization (which is a valid assumption because you claim that the satellite is "not using any attitude control"), the boom will always be facing the same direction, parallel to the earth's axis of rotation. This is because there is no net external moment causing it to rotate. Orbital eccentricity does not magically introduce a net external moment on the spacecraft. [/url]

Wow I don't believe this. You have just proven it's fake !!

Obviously the boom would just throw it further and further from orbit, and further and further from the Earth itself.

Thus in a single revolution, those booms should already have sent it so far from the World, it wouldn't even be close to holding an orbit.

\Thanks you are a great Flat Earth theorist.

You are by far the fakest troll here. Get a new idea, it's been done already man. Arguing for something you don't even believe.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 09:45:25 AM
I've been lurking here a few days and I've read the FAQ. None of you really think the Earth is flat. Especially Silverdane. You just like arguing and throwing around technical data. This is like your Facebook. It's just what you do. You know the Earth is round. I know it's round. EVERYBODY knows it's round, but you ran out of ways to be different. Maybe you did the Goth thing or the Emo thing and that wasn't different enough. Everybody's doing that now, right? So what to do, what to do? I know! "THE EARTH IS FLAT!" That'll get someones attention. There's almost endless potential for argument because you can't prove it, and no RE'er can prove it on this forum, because none of us has ever actually been up into space to see it for sure. And even if we had, you'd just say we were part of the "Conspiracy". It can go on forever. I love it! I don't buy it for one second, but I love it. Keep it up "FE'ers".

You're trying to get attention by coming to a FET Society forum, and saying you're a Round Earther?

If that isn't the definition of Attention Whore, what is !?!?

You're the one trying to be different.

Every FET here, is just another believer on this site, which is named "Flat Earth Society". I don't see what's so special about us?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 09:56:03 AM
I know your kicking right into argument mode and I like that, but sorry, still not buying it. You don't believe any of this crap. Keep trying to convince everyone though because it's entertaining as all hell.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 30, 2011, 10:05:41 AM
I know your kicking right into argument mode and I like that, but sorry, still not buying it. You don't believe any of this crap. Keep trying to convince everyone though because it's entertaining as all hell.

If it is fake (which you cannot prove), then why wouldn't you just shut the hell up and go along with it instead of being a giant killjoy, especially since you readily admit that it's "entertaining as hell?"

Either way, go ruin a different thread, ClockTower and I were having an important discussion on orbital mechanics and attitude dynamics.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Rushy on December 30, 2011, 10:28:09 AM
Looks to me more like two people trying to discuss a subject they understand nothing about and neither seems to know what the ultimate point of the argument is. Its like watching people technobabble with Ryan, neither party has a clue what they're saying and its hilarious. The only difference is this time both of you appear to be serious and that is very unfortunate.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 10:29:20 AM
I know your kicking right into argument mode and I like that, but sorry, still not buying it. You don't believe any of this crap. Keep trying to convince everyone though because it's entertaining as all hell.

If it is fake (which you cannot prove), then why wouldn't you just shut the hell up and go along with it instead of being a giant killjoy, especially since you readily admit that it's "entertaining as hell?"

Either way, go ruin a different thread, ClockTower and I were having an important discussion on orbital mechanics and attitude dynamics.

You are a worthless idiot, and a waste of semen.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: LinearPlane on December 30, 2011, 10:30:40 AM
I know your kicking right into argument mode and I like that, but sorry, still not buying it. You don't believe any of this crap. Keep trying to convince everyone though because it's entertaining as all hell.

If it is fake (which you cannot prove), then why wouldn't you just shut the hell up and go along with it instead of being a giant killjoy, especially since you readily admit that it's "entertaining as hell?"

Either way, go ruin a different thread, ClockTower and I were having an important discussion on orbital mechanics and attitude dynamics.

You are a worthless idiot, and a waste of semen.

You're a trolling lying alt, so what's new?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 10:49:35 AM
I know your kicking right into argument mode and I like that, but sorry, still not buying it. You don't believe any of this crap. Keep trying to convince everyone though because it's entertaining as all hell.

If it is fake (which you cannot prove), then why wouldn't you just shut the hell up and go along with it instead of being a giant killjoy, especially since you readily admit that it's "entertaining as hell?"

Either way, go ruin a different thread, ClockTower and I were having an important discussion on orbital mechanics and attitude dynamics.

You are a worthless idiot, and a waste of semen.

You trying to have a serious argument? You don't even know what your talking about. You do a halfass decent job of sounding like you do to someone who doesn't know better, but even an American public school graduate like me can see right through you. This is a game. Nothing more. And I'm playing now too. SILVERDANE IS FULL OF CRAP!!!! You found something that gets you balls all hot and your running with it, but nope your fake. The theory is fake. None of you are making any kind of argument. Your just talking in circles arguing semantics and huge math formulas you read off some other website cuz I know you aren't reading any books. Magazines maybe, but they just have naked pictures in them. Sinner. Lol.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 30, 2011, 11:06:33 AM
Looks to me more like two people trying to discuss a subject they understand nothing about and neither seems to know what the ultimate point of the argument is. Its like watching people technobabble with Ryan, neither party has a clue what they're saying and its hilarious. The only difference is this time both of you appear to be serious and that is very unfortunate.

Oh yeah? Feel free to point out any mistakes I've made in this thread. You not understanding what was written shows your lack of understanding, not mine.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 11:36:08 AM
Oh yeah? Feel free to point out any mistakes I've made in this thread. You not understanding what was written shows your lack of understanding, not mine.

Dig true, Dig Deep. Once you join with all the RET fake goats to dig in the earth's crust, enough to prove that a liniar tunnel actually comes up from under the Earth somewhere else on it's surface, you will have proven your Dogma once and for all.

Get diggin' little RET piggy. Find your inner "Dig".
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: LinearPlane on December 30, 2011, 11:54:55 AM
Oh yeah? Feel free to point out any mistakes I've made in this thread. You not understanding what was written shows your lack of understanding, not mine.

Dig true, Dig Deep. Once you join with all the RET fake goats to dig in the earth's crust, enough to prove that a liniar tunnel actually comes up from under the Earth somewhere else on it's surface, you will have proven your Dogma once and for all.

Get diggin' little RET piggy. Find your inner "Dig".

Repeat, you are a trolling liar, so what else is new?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 12:40:33 PM
A linear tunnel? What is this Mordor or something? You should write scoring cuz you are very talented. An idiot, but talented. I will buy your first novel and I want it signed. We'll call it "Through The Linear Tunnel In 80 Days". You can have that one for free.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 12:43:28 PM

Repeat, you are a trolling liar, so what else is new?

Have I been lying? About what?

Did you already dig the tunnel, and come out the other side of the crust?

Because, dead canibal, such a thing is possible in any RET model.

Quote
A linear tunnel? What is this Mordor or something? You should write scoring cuz you are very talented. An idiot, but talented. I will buy your first novel and I want it signed. We'll call it "Through The Linear Tunnel In 80 Days". You can have that one for free.

A liniar tunnel is a perfectly straight tunnel. Like a deep well, that you see the water down, which reflects the sky enough to prove it's liniar.

You don't even know what linear is? You are the clichee of RET cultist.

Again, I could never write such a thing. For I do not believe Linear Tunnels are possible.

That is your Agenda, pathetic Round Earth Terrorist. Linear Tunnels that pierce the Earth's Crust in two places, are only possible in RET models.

They are, in fact, impossible in any FET models or maps or even theories. Thus, being a Flat Earth believer, I cannot write anything to support the Linear Tunnel ideology.

You should. You should even do something better, like actually dig the tunnel. You have enough RET majority of Diggers on this earth.

You could even ask your fellow Round Earth "brothers" on the other side of the world, from you, to start digging, while you dig from the other side.

Then you can all meet in the Earth's Core, and take pictures to humiliate all those "Evil Flat Earth Society" people.

What are you waiting for? Why spend your time oinking and squeeling over here, for? When you could have been diging halway to China by now?

If it's possible in RET models, why not try that in real life?

Get diggin'
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 30, 2011, 01:40:36 PM
Can we go back to the bit about how the ISS remains at the same angle with respect to Earth's surface. At first NASA_lies asked how it does this. Then ClockTower said something, then within a few posts NASA is deriding ClockTower for not reading the link he posted...a link which explained how the ISS remains at the same angle with respect to Earth's surface.

Have I missed something?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 30, 2011, 01:43:50 PM
Can we go back to the bit about how the ISS remains at the same angle with respect to Earth's surface. At first NASA_lies asked how it does this. Then ClockTower said something, then within a few posts NASA is deriding ClockTower for not reading the link he posted...a link which explained how the ISS remains at the same angle with respect to Earth's surface.

Have I missed something?
Yes vatos and Silverdane have the hots for each other and are derailing most threads.

Both vatos and Silverdane, I made a thread specifically for the two of you to duke it out.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52392.0
Please keep personal attacks and accusations amongst you two within this thread. This fighting has spread to too many threads.
Consider this a warning.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 02:05:55 PM
Derailing the thread? Really. It's nonsense and none of you believe it. Your just like Silverdane. Pretending to believe the earth is flat. I'll post where I please, thank you very much.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 30, 2011, 02:19:03 PM
What's going on here?

Continuing on like this after you clearly can't debate the topic anymore does nothing but make people not take you seriously. Soon the only person willing to argue with you will be ClockTower.

Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.

You beg the question. The ISS is not in a circular orbit and does not keep the exact same angle between it and the Earth. Also the video capture is for more than half of an orbit. How did you measure that angle to determine that it was exactly the same throughout the orbit? With what precision can you measure that angle in any given frame? Wasn't the camera held by hand?




2) Actually, yes it does keep the same orientation with the earth at all times. This might not be relevant to this discussion, but still an interesting point of information.

3) The location of the horizon does not change, and you can see parts of the ISS in the picture. Therefore you have enough information to see that the angle does not change. There is no need to measure the angle, because it’s relative angle that we are worried about. That is, a change in angle between the previous and the current. It also doesn’t matter if the camera was held by hand or not since you can see both the horizon and part of the ISS in all frames.




2) Do you honestly believe that? The attitude must be constantly adjusted and is not perfectly constant as you claim. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_control_(spacecraft) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_control_(spacecraft)).



2) You're getting warmer. If only you'd pay attention to the source you posted, the answer is in there.



*some back and forth over who is and who isn't responding to whom*

Then suddenly!




Maybe if you would just look up how the space station controls its attitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope#International_Space_Station) instead of arguing out of your ass about irrelevant details while revealing your utter lack of knowledge in the field of astronautics, you might actually learn something about how the world works. That is why you're on this website, right?



Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 30, 2011, 02:30:47 PM
Can we go back to the bit about how the ISS remains at the same angle with respect to Earth's surface. At first NASA_lies asked how it does this. Then ClockTower said something, then within a few posts NASA is deriding ClockTower for not reading the link he posted...a link which explained how the ISS remains at the same angle with respect to Earth's surface.

Have I missed something?

Nope, you are 100% correct. I was hoping ClockTower wouldn't notice, and it seems he hasn't. Looks like you've been paying more attention than he has.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 30, 2011, 02:32:55 PM
Well that's just all kinds of awesome
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 02:39:03 PM
Nope, you are 100% correct. I was hoping ClockTower wouldn't notice, and it seems he hasn't. Looks like you've been paying more attention than he has.

Is it because the craft is laying, perfectly still, in a hangar somewhere, as the theather projection in front of it, is projecting the illusion of flying in the air?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 30, 2011, 04:31:55 PM
So then let's for simplicity's sake make that statelite's orbit directly over the Equator at all times. Now is its attitude with a reference point, say the Rotational North Pole, the same throughout its orbit? If we change its orbit eccentricity to 1, does the attitude with the NP at some point in its orbit differ now from before the change?

Just so we have an understanding of exactly what's going on here, I've made a diagram. The X coordinate of the earth centered system is pointed towards the north pole, Z is facing to the right, and Y to the lower left. I've also included velocity vectors just for fun.

The X component of the spacecraft's attitude will always be parallel to the earth centered system, but since the earth is rotating, the Y and Z components will deviate. However, the spacecraft's attitude will remain constant with respect to an inertial (non-rotating) reference frame.

Nothing changes with respect to attitude when the spacecraft changes its orbital eccentricity from 0 to 1.
You did read my question, didn't you? Would you care to answer it?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 30, 2011, 05:45:18 PM
So then let's for simplicity's sake make that statelite's orbit directly over the Equator at all times. Now is its attitude with a reference point, say the Rotational North Pole, the same throughout its orbit? If we change its orbit eccentricity to 1, does the attitude with the NP at some point in its orbit differ now from before the change?

Just so we have an understanding of exactly what's going on here, I've made a diagram. The X coordinate of the earth centered system is pointed towards the north pole, Z is facing to the right, and Y to the lower left. I've also included velocity vectors just for fun.

The X component of the spacecraft's attitude will always be parallel to the earth centered system, but since the earth is rotating, the Y and Z components will deviate. However, the spacecraft's attitude will remain constant with respect to an inertial (non-rotating) reference frame.

Nothing changes with respect to attitude when the spacecraft changes its orbital eccentricity from 0 to 1.
You did read my question, didn't you? Would you care to answer it?

We're done here.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 30, 2011, 08:23:41 PM
So then let's for simplicity's sake make that statelite's orbit directly over the Equator at all times. Now is its attitude with a reference point, say the Rotational North Pole, the same throughout its orbit? If we change its orbit eccentricity to 1, does the attitude with the NP at some point in its orbit differ now from before the change?

Just so we have an understanding of exactly what's going on here, I've made a diagram. The X coordinate of the earth centered system is pointed towards the north pole, Z is facing to the right, and Y to the lower left. I've also included velocity vectors just for fun.

The X component of the spacecraft's attitude will always be parallel to the earth centered system, but since the earth is rotating, the Y and Z components will deviate. However, the spacecraft's attitude will remain constant with respect to an inertial (non-rotating) reference frame.

Nothing changes with respect to attitude when the spacecraft changes its orbital eccentricity from 0 to 1.
You did read my question, didn't you? Would you care to answer it?

We're done here.
Thanks for the concession. Okay, so, back to where we were...


The definition of a constellation is a group of stars. Generally the ones that form the known patterns such as Orion, the Great Bear, etc.
Regardless of ClockTowers pedantry and semantic games, i can definitely see stars in that video.

Mizuki x
Would you please tell me where you saw these stars and 'definitely' knew that they were stars? Heck when looking for Uranus and Neptune in my admittedly amateur telescope, I can't tell which is a planet and which is a star in less than a week. (It takes that long to get two clear nights and to see the movement of the planet against the stars.) That you are definite is probably a definite error on your part, but I'll give you a chance to convince us.

Did you think that any grouping of stars is a constellation? What is the largest separation in the sky you'd expect for a constellation with at least two bright stars (magnitude +2 and below)? What is the closest two 'stars' appear in the video?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Mizuki on December 31, 2011, 02:27:26 AM
Can anyone else see the stars, or at least what look like stars, in that video?

Mizuki x
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 31, 2011, 03:00:37 AM
Can anyone else see the stars, or at least what look like stars, in that video?

Mizuki x
Yes.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 31, 2011, 09:31:41 AM
So then let's for simplicity's sake make that statelite's orbit directly over the Equator at all times. Now is its attitude with a reference point, say the Rotational North Pole, the same throughout its orbit? If we change its orbit eccentricity to 1, does the attitude with the NP at some point in its orbit differ now from before the change?

Just so we have an understanding of exactly what's going on here, I've made a diagram. The X coordinate of the earth centered system is pointed towards the north pole, Z is facing to the right, and Y to the lower left. I've also included velocity vectors just for fun.

The X component of the spacecraft's attitude will always be parallel to the earth centered system, but since the earth is rotating, the Y and Z components will deviate. However, the spacecraft's attitude will remain constant with respect to an inertial (non-rotating) reference frame.

Nothing changes with respect to attitude when the spacecraft changes its orbital eccentricity from 0 to 1.
You did read my question, didn't you? Would you care to answer it?

We're done here.
Thanks for the concession. Okay, so, back to where we were...

You're welcome. Enjoy your ignorance. You must live in a sad world thinking that you can define a reference frame using a point as opposed to a coordinate system. I even drew a nice picture for you, and you still didn't understand. It's funny how you didn't include the picture in your post ;)
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 31, 2011, 09:40:01 AM
You're welcome. Enjoy your ignorance. You must live in a sad world thinking that you can define a reference frame using a point as opposed to a coordinate system. I even drew a nice picture for you, and you still didn't understand. It's funny how you didn't include the picture in your post ;)
Well, I guess we're not done. I guess it was silly of me to expect you to stand by what you said.

So...

Please do tell me why you think that I think that "you can define a reference frame using a point as opposed to a coordinate system". AFAIK, asking what the point in the orbit the attitude changes does not imply that I'm using a point to define a reference frame. Thanks.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Conker on December 31, 2011, 10:37:54 AM
If you are not using a point as a reference, what are you using?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 31, 2011, 12:25:01 PM
You're welcome. Enjoy your ignorance. You must live in a sad world thinking that you can define a reference frame using a point as opposed to a coordinate system. I even drew a nice picture for you, and you still didn't understand. It's funny how you didn't include the picture in your post ;)
Well, I guess we're not done. I guess it was silly of me to expect you to stand by what you said.

So...

Please do tell me why you think that I think that "you can define a reference frame using a point as opposed to a coordinate system". AFAIK, asking what the point in the orbit the attitude changes does not imply that I'm using a point to define a reference frame. Thanks.

So then let's for simplicity's sake make that statelite's orbit directly over the Equator at all times. Now is its attitude with a reference point, say the Rotational North Pole, the same throughout its orbit? If we change its orbit eccentricity to 1, does the attitude with the NP at some point in its orbit differ now from before the change?

What are you doing dude.

If you are not using a point as a reference, what are you using?

A coordinate system. A point does not give enough information with regards to attitude. Once again, my illustration of the situation, which I was hoping even ClockTower would understand.

(http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2157/dereference.png)
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Rushy on December 31, 2011, 12:55:27 PM
Well, its looks like the only person willing to argue with you is officially ClockTower. He has been trolling you for page after page while the entire forum sits back and laughs. Please stop posting and let this pathetic thread with no real point die.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: NASA_Lies on December 31, 2011, 01:05:55 PM
Well, its looks like the only person willing to argue with you is officially ClockTower. He has been trolling you for page after page while the entire forum sits back and laughs. Please stop posting and let this pathetic thread with no real point die.

You say that as if there are other threads that have a point.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 31, 2011, 03:40:40 PM
If you are not using a point as a reference, what are you using?
Please note that there's a difference between a reference and a reference frame.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Conker on December 31, 2011, 05:52:04 PM
If you are not using a point as a reference, what are you using?
Please note that there's a difference between a reference and a reference frame.

I was asking you about what are you using as a reference for you system, as you claim you are not using a ponti. Any other combination will result on a reference frame with less dimensions than the original. So, IŽll ask again. What do you use as a reference?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on December 31, 2011, 07:55:30 PM
If you are not using a point as a reference, what are you using?
Please note that there's a difference between a reference and a reference frame.

I was asking you about what are you using as a reference for you system, as you claim you are not using a ponti. Any other combination will result on a reference frame with less dimensions than the original. So, IŽll ask again. What do you use as a reference?
The NP, but I suspect you're still not noting the difference. The satellite will see the NP at differing angles from the plane of its orbit depending on orbital parameters. So a camera watching the horizon will see a different angle to the horizon over the course of any non-circular orbit.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Conker on January 01, 2012, 04:35:13 AM
Nope, as geometry was not my favourite subject, and writing in a different language does not help.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: ClockTower on January 01, 2012, 05:19:06 AM
Nope, as geometry was not my favourite subject, and writing in a different language does not help.
Alright, I'll try again. Here is another analogy.



Your head--Satellite--ISS camera
Mark on trunk--North Pole--horizon

The angle varies in all of the three cases. Yes, it will vary less in the last case, as the ISS does a good, but not perfect, job of keeping the same side pointed down to Earth.

I hope that helps.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on January 01, 2012, 11:41:48 AM
What's the current debate here? I'm not following this very well at all now. All I saw was a very simple video. Who is saying what about it? And who is saying they're wrong?
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Conker on January 01, 2012, 12:41:08 PM
What's the current debate here? I'm not following this very well at all now. All I saw was a very simple video. Who is saying what about it? And who is saying they're wrong?

Apparently they have derailed it to a Conservation of Momentum/Vectorial discussion. I still donŽt get the point. Can some FEŽer prove the video to be wrong/false?. I guess they canŽt.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: LinearPlane on January 04, 2012, 08:52:53 AM
Can anyone else see the stars, or at least what look like stars, in that video?

Mizuki x

Still posting after you got owned about going to the moon huh? Sad sad sad.
Title: Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on January 04, 2012, 09:48:21 AM
What's the current debate here? I'm not following this very well at all now. All I saw was a very simple video. Who is saying what about it? And who is saying they're wrong?

Apparently they have derailed it to a Conservation of Momentum/Vectorial discussion. I still donŽt get the point. Can some FEŽer prove the video to be wrong/false?. I guess they canŽt.

Looks like you were right.