Space shuttle videos...

Whenever the space shuttles launch, there is a video on the news showing live coverage of the space shuttle while it's leaving the Earth. You can clearly see the land on the earth, and eventually the curvature of the earth. Soon you can also see the rockets fall off. So what did the government do to make this? Make thousands of frames with their "advanced computers" and make a perfect video? But the only thing that doesn't make sense this way, is that if you were near the launch pad you can see the shuttle do exactly what it is doing on the video. Hmm....pwned?

I've seen a shuttle launch

I've seen a shuttle launch

so have i. i live 10 miles south of cape canaveral

And the videos of them landing as well.

In another thread (a sticky, I think), it says the shuttles were a hoax, and could not fly.
It even said that it was falling apart while sitting on the ground.

And that was said by some big FE'er.
More proof this is BS.

Whenever the space shuttles launch, there is a video on the news showing live coverage of the space shuttle while it's leaving the Earth. You can clearly see the land on the earth, and eventually the curvature of the earth. Soon you can also see the rockets fall off. So what did the government do to make this? Make thousands of frames with their "advanced computers" and make a perfect video?

They could easily make a realistic looking shuttle launch with 3D Studio Max or Maya. They don't need advanced computers to do that either.

But the only thing that doesn't make sense this way, is that if you were near the launch pad you can see the shuttle do exactly what it is doing on the video. Hmm....pwned?

Well then, there are a few possibilities.

1) The government faked it there too. (this excuse has actually been used by FEers before)
2) You are in fact part of the conspiracy yourself, along with everyone else who was there watching the launch.

They could easily make a realistic looking shuttle launch with 3D Studio Max or Maya. They don't need advanced computers to do that either.

But shuttles have been going up into space since the sixties.

And don't tell me a 40 year old computer could make something so realistic.

But shuttles have been going up into space since the sixties.

And don't tell me a 40 year old computer could make something so realistic.

Well, what do you think NASA spent all of their money on? Space shuttles? Yeah right! Obviously they were creating advanced digital editing software so they could fake evidence.

Quote

They could easily make a realistic looking shuttle launch with 3D Studio Max or Maya. They don't need advanced computers to do that either.

But shuttles have been going up into space since the sixties.

And don't tell me a 40 year old computer could make something so realistic.

Maybe most computers couldn't 40 years ago, but the government may well have had far more powerful computers than is generally known. Where do you get that 40 years figure, anyway? It's dead wrong, we have not had a shuttle program since 1966; we hadn't even landed on the Moon then yet. The first shuttle launch was in 1981.
It would be relatively simple to fake a shuttle launch. First, the shuttles would actually be capable of flight- but not in space. The shuttle would launch from the pad and boost upwards until beyond the range of human sight; all video from beyond that point would be computer-generated.

Quote from: "GUN"

Quote

They could easily make a realistic looking shuttle launch with 3D Studio Max or Maya. They don't need advanced computers to do that either.

But shuttles have been going up into space since the sixties.

And don't tell me a 40 year old computer could make something so realistic.

Maybe most computers couldn't 40 years ago, but the government may well have had far more powerful computers than is generally known. Where do you get that 40 years figure, anyway? It's dead wrong, we have not had a shuttle program since 1966; we hadn't even landed on the Moon then yet. The first shuttle launch was in 1981.

It would be relatively simple to fake a shuttle launch. First, the shuttles would actually be capable of flight- but not in space. The shuttle would launch from the pad and boost upwards until beyond the range of human sight; all video from beyond that point would be computer-generated.

But wait a minute.......
I thought that the money that was supposed to develope these advanced computers was taken by the people in charge....

Government Paychecks:
It's very possible that the conspiracy runs by just sucking money out of the government that they are underneath. Seeing as the head honchos in those governments don't have to know about the conspiracy, it'd be pretty easy to take money from the government. Also, even if the leaders DID know, it's tax money that's going into the space exploration research, so really, they'd still be pulling profit. Basically, if you chose to believe this option, the leaders of the conspiracy are taking tax money and getting filthy stinking rich off of it. Sounds like a motive to me.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6308&start=0

Maybe most computers couldn't 40 years ago, but the government may well have had far more powerful computers than is generally known. Where do you get that 40 years figure, anyway? It's dead wrong, we have not had a shuttle program since 1966; we hadn't even landed on the Moon then yet. The first shuttle launch was in 1981.
It would be relatively simple to fake a shuttle launch. First, the shuttles would actually be capable of flight- but not in space. The shuttle would launch from the pad and boost upwards until beyond the range of human sight; all video from beyond that point would be computer-generated.

Unfortunately people can see shuttles even after they leave the atmosphere.

And how could they have faked the moon landing in 1969 if they didn't have shuttles to fake it with until 1981? There were plenty of spectators there watching the shuttle take off.

And how could they have faked the moon landing in 1969 if they didn't have shuttles to fake it with until 1981? There were plenty of spectators there watching the shuttle take off.

Because they didn't go in a shuttle.  :roll:

Because they didn't go in a shuttle.

Quite right, but the Saturn V was a good deal bigger then the shuttle; so big, that you could actually see some of its components after it left Earth orbit.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

I'll admit, these photos are low quality, and could have been faked.  But there were a lot of astronomers (many of them amateurs) who could take these kinds of pictures back in the 1960's.  The government can't buy off everyone with a 16-inch telescope.

But wait a minute.......
I thought that the money that was supposed to develope these advanced computers was taken by the people in charge....

Have you looked into how much money goes into space exploration teams? NASA alone gets billions and billions of dollars (probably however much they need). And let me tell you, high-powered computers cost a BUTTLOAD less money to make than rockets (especially since for every launch, they'd have to repair everything on the shuttle, AND refuel it, whereas on a computer, once they have designed it, that's all they need to do with it).

~D-Draw

Quote from: "GUN"

But wait a minute.......
I thought that the money that was supposed to develope these advanced computers was taken by the people in charge....

Have you looked into how much money goes into space exploration teams? NASA alone gets billions and billions of dollars (probably however much they need). And let me tell you, high-powered computers cost a BUTTLOAD less money to make than rockets (especially since for every launch, they'd have to repair everything on the shuttle, AND refuel it, whereas on a computer, once they have designed it, that's all they need to do with it).

~D-Draw

so where does the rest go?

The pockets of the power structure.

So...Any picture used anywhere of evidence that there is a round Earth at any time will instantly be dismissed as propaganda? Even if I were to video tape clear evidence?

...My, you guys sure do love having an unstoppable handicap, don't you?

Videos can easily be faked.  We've presented photos proving the Flat Earth before and they've been dismissed as fakes.  Surely the same logic that applies to us should apply to you.

Videos can easily be faked.  We've presented photos proving the Flat Earth before and they've been dismissed as fakes.  Surely the same logic that applies to us should apply to you.

There are photos that are clearly faked, and some that are not so clearly faked. However, that does not mean you can instantly dismiss any photograph against your theories as faked.

It's annoying when photographs that someone personally takes are discounted as fake. It's annoying as hell.

It's pretty clear that photos are not necessary in proving the shape of the Earth anyway, why don't you rely on your brain instead of photographic evidence.  The round Earth theory is thousands of years old, yet photos are only a few hundred years old...

It's pretty clear that photos are not necessary in proving the shape of the Earth anyway, why don't you rely on your brain instead of photographic evidence.  The round Earth theory is thousands of years old, yet photos are only a few hundred years old...

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The age of photographs has nothing to do with it, I think you should get rid of the whole 'photos are fake'part of the FAQ.

you boomerang throughing retard?

Who are you to be calling anyone a retard?

Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"

you boomerang throughing retard?

Who are you to be calling anyone a retard?

What the hell are you talking about?

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"

you boomerang throughing retard?

Who are you to be calling anyone a retard?

What the hell are you talking about?

 i think, dear sir, that he is implying that due to your misuse and abuse of the english language in that quote YOU are the one that is retarded.  or at the very least someone which such poor writing skills is in no place to judge if someone else is retarded or otherwise.

It's so very uncool to edit out posts when people attack you on what you wrote.  There is a strong case for disabling edit functions on internet forums.

The pockets of the power structure.

Then why aren't these guys listed on the worlds most richest people? If there really is only 3 people in NASA who are in on this, then shouldn't they be getting billions of dollars each year?

And what about the rest of the people? Shouldn't some of the NASA workers who are not in on it question why they are making computers soley to generate a video of a rocket taking off?

It's pretty clear that photos are not necessary in proving the shape of the Earth anyway, why don't you rely on your brain instead of photographic evidence.  The round Earth theory is thousands of years old, yet photos are only a few hundred years old...

Because any little bit of evidence flung at you, you eople deny. How do you explain a horizon, and the fact that as objects move farther away the Earth curvuture becomes apparent?

Because they didn't go in a shuttle.  :roll:

Good point. :oops:

Because any little bit of evidence flung at you, you eople deny. How do you explain a horizon, and the fact that as objects move farther away the Earth curvuture becomes apparent?

The horizon is proof that the Earth is round (especially from high altitudes). But they deny it anyway.

Videos can easily be faked.  We've presented photos proving the Flat Earth before and they've been dismissed as fakes.  Surely the same logic that applies to us should apply to you.

Unless you're talking about D-Draw's lovely thread about visiting the ice wall, I've never seen an actual picture, only ones that are drawn.

Quote from: "beast"

Videos can easily be faked.  We've presented photos proving the Flat Earth before and they've been dismissed as fakes.  Surely the same logic that applies to us should apply to you.

There are photos that are clearly faked, and some that are not so clearly faked. However, that does not mean you can instantly dismiss any photograph against your theories as faked.

It's annoying when photographs that someone personally takes are discounted as fake. It's annoying as hell.

http://i10.tinypic.com/3zgt1d2.jpg

That's a horrible picture I took of the Sun through my telescope by just putting up my digital camera to the lens.

It's real I swear it It just looks terrible.

This doesn't have any relation to this really though.

The round Earth theory is thousands of years old, yet photos are only a few hundred years old...

What does that have to do with anything? What's your point?