Cool Mission?

  • 577 Replies
  • 37918 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 22472
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #180 on: December 30, 2022, 01:46:03 PM »
Why should I find the original video?
Because you have used a clickbait video, which has compiled clips of unknown origin to get views and money, which is quite happily lying to you.

It doesn't support your BS claims at all.

I am reasonably certain that NASA could, given money to throw at them, film me doing MARTIAL ARTS IN SPACE, simply by recording me doing punches and kicks, and just insert me into a space background. Laughably bad technique, and I'm not funding it.
Yes, laughably bad and in no way comparable to the actual 0g footage we have.
0g footage you are yet to explain.

The girl is sitting on a rolling chair in the first video.
And again you just spout whatever BS comes to your mind without even thinking about it.
There is nothing to indicate she is just sitting on a rolling chair.
Her movements would be impossible if she was just on a rolling chair.

At this point, I stopped watching.
Of course, why would you keep watching and have to explain more which you can't.

Space technology and electric cars are not improved, just repackaged. Because they're fake, and it is not possible to make them much better.
You not liking them doesn't make them fake.

Okay, here's evidence. Zero Background astronaut jumping.
So your "evidence" is pathetic CGI, which doesn't even show 0g?

Forget calling me sheeple, you sheeple. And give it a rest. You lose.
No, you lose, as you are yet to explain 0g.

Nothing can be proven to be real if everything can be photoshopped.
Which really describes you quite well. You just reject everything which doesn't fit your sheeple delusional.
Truly pathetic.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #181 on: December 30, 2022, 04:14:10 PM »
Quote
That's what sheeple do, cover their eyes and ears so as not to be exposed to anything that may challenge their belief system.

Yes, you do.

Despite me telling you numerous times that these things aren't real, you continue to fall back on "holograms are fake, but NASA clearly is not movie magic."

And I did watch video 1, as explained in my updated post.

And if you're gonna tell me about CGI only being very recent, background filming dates back to black and white era.

I asked, what exactly, specifically, makes you quite sure?

As in, what evidence do you have that makes you "quite sure"? Or is just that you believe it to be the case because your belief system won't allow you to think otherwise.

Specific evidence required or you're just being a sheeple.

Okay, here's evidence. Zero Background astronaut jumping.

Wait, your specific evidence is a 3 second stock footage green-screen clip??? You realize that's not evidence. I'm talking about EVIDENCE that the actual events are fake. All you're doing is saying that a forger can paint a Picasso that looks like the real thing, therefore the original Picasso is fake. Do realize how stupid that is?

I'm talking specifically, how are you "quite sure", meaning, direct evidence. Not just your opinion and your sheeple belief system.

Same for Helium satellites. Not, "Oh, my belief system won't let me believe in actual satellites so they must be balloons..." That's sheeple talk, not evidence. You're literally just making things up because you're stuck in a sheeple belief system.


All of this is readily available and royalty free. In other words, it costs NASA nothing to make their animations if they have a good movie-making software.

What royalty free footage is out there that resembles any of the footage you've been shown? 50 minute uncut footage?

What readily available software was available to do so 60-70 years ago?

There are people willing and able to make stock images which NASA shamelessly uses. Just add background, and you can claim this astronaut is on Mars, the moon, the sun, Jupiter, or in a cave.

"Just add a background"? You think that's all that is required???

Where are these 1000's of VFX artists that are required for the 1000's of videos NASA (And many other Space Agencies/Companies) has produced? Who are these people you are referring to? Any one of the thousands of VFX artists speak out over the many decades?

Here are the VFX credits for 'The Martian':


876 people...For one movie...Not all shots required CGI/VFX.

Here are all of the VFX companies that worked on 'The Martian':


25 VFX companies...For one movie...Not all shots required CGI/VFX.

Nothing can be proven to be real if everything can be photoshopped.

You realize that:
A) Photoshop is for images, not video/film
B) Photoshop didn't exist before 1987

We're talking direct evidence for all of your assertions. Not just hand-waving opinions based upon your sheeple belief system you are stuck in. You realize you are so blinded by your belief system that you are just a sheeple. A slave to it. Rather than actually intelligently addressing anything with actual evidence. But I guess that's what sheeple do, just stick their heads in the ground in the face of evidence to the contrary of their belief system. Well done. You fit the definition to a tee.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2793
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #182 on: December 30, 2022, 09:03:20 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Challenges

Quote
The replication crisis is an ongoing methodological crisis that affects parts of the social and life sciences. In subsequent investigations, the results of many scientific studies are proven to be unrepeatable. The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s as part of a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis represents an important body of research in metascience, which aims to improve the quality of all scientific research while reducing waste.

An area of study or speculation that masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy that it would not otherwise be able to achieve is sometimes referred to as pseudoscience, fringe science, or junk science. Physicist Richard Feynman coined the term "cargo cult science" for cases in which researchers believe and at a glance looks like they are doing science, but lack the honesty allowing their results to be rigorously evaluated. Various types of commercial advertising, ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into these categories. Science has been described as "the most important tool" for separating valid claims from invalid ones.

There can also be an element of political or ideological bias on all sides of scientific debates. Sometimes, research may be characterized as "bad science," research that may be well-intended but is incorrect, obsolete, incomplete, or over-simplified expositions of scientific ideas. The term "scientific misconduct" refers to situations such as where researchers have intentionally misrepresented their published data or have purposely given credit for a discovery to the wrong person.

In other words, it is imperative that one understand the difference between blind science and real science.

So look. I can, if I have the patience, do frame by frame movement of character layers, exporting each of them as an additional picture. I can even swap visible picture layers, creating an illusion of motion. The only actual problem is that I am not an animator, and not any good at this. And frankly, I don't care, because I'm not trying to convince people with staged animation.

In order to animate realistically at normal speed, you need anywhere from 16 frames per second to as many as 120 fps. But the average is 30 fps. This is kinda tedious, as in, for a minute of animation, I get to cycle up to 3600 frames per minute. That is a serious pain in the ass. If I set on stealing taxpayer money, that would be worth it. But I'm not, and so that is a pain in the ass. 

But I certainly am familiar with the process, having attempted to do so in order to make RPG games (the reason I say it is not in my skillset is that I tend to make jumpy frame movement).

This is an example of what I am talking about.



This black and white era film, yet this composite of two film layers is nonetheless doable even at this time. The Great Train Robbery dated 1903, it was possible to record two frames separately well before photoshop. Photoshop and other programs just created the availability of animation using the computer alone.

Here, lemme show you how easy it is to do animation with Photoshop programs.
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/creating-frame-animations.html

I will move a person around, and adjust the background. I simply crop and resize the background and shrink her a bit to give the illusion of moving back.

I used GIMP (basically, free photoshop) and an online GIF converter. That was it.

Zero expense, and if I was any good at it, I could convince you to give up tax money in order to fund more "space missions." Now, granted, it's a stupid fucking animation, but the BG moved and the girl moved. It's hilariously bad, actually.  And yes, ideally, I'd have a camcorder and pro-grade film-making software. But I don't, yet I can still show how painfully easy it is to make someone appear to float in midair. If I can do it, someone at NASA who has a camcorder, and decent software can make it look good. But you can tell something about it isn't real. The first girl was sitting in a chair the whole time, and at one point her feet seemed to be moving through the ground.

This isn't a joke though. This tax expense (for even one launch) is the livelihood of working families, and you people don't fucking care. This "science" actually affects the lives of many people, and the fraud of such science means a million or two every "launch" so that people can spend a few hours making fake shots.

NASA needs to be defunded far more than the police.



« Last Edit: December 30, 2022, 09:35:15 PM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #183 on: December 31, 2022, 12:32:06 AM »
In order to animate realistically at normal speed, you need anywhere from 16 frames per second to as many as 120 fps. But the average is 30 fps. This is kinda tedious, as in, for a minute of animation, I get to cycle up to 3600 frames per minute. That is a serious pain in the ass. If I set on stealing taxpayer money, that would be worth it. But I'm not, and so that is a pain in the ass. 

You think it's really that easy for a NASA to produce 1000's of videos going back 70 years when it takes 100's of people and dozens of companies just to composite 1 movie?

Where are these 1000's of VFX artists that are required for the 1000's of videos NASA (And many other Space Agencies/Companies) has produced? Who are these people you are referring to? Any one of the thousands of VFX artists speak out over the many decades?

Here are the VFX credits for 'The Martian':


876 people...For one movie...Not all shots required CGI/VFX.

Here are all of the VFX companies that worked on 'The Martian':


25 VFX companies...For one movie...Not all shots required CGI/VFX.

NASA needs to be defunded far more than the police.

You realize that there are dozens of agencies/companies around the world that put satellites into space. Not just NASA, right?

And I didn't ask for more hand-waving speculation with you stupidly claiming all this could be done by someone with GIMP loaded on their PC? That's just ludicrous.

Here's how many people worked on the VFX for 'Apollo 13':




Pure sheeple stupidity to think that 1000's of real space videos were just whipped up by a person with a software bundle. Especially considering when the software didn't even exist to handle any of this.

I asked what direct evidence you have for any of your assertions. Not just your sheeple-attitude pleading to your belief system whining about how you think something doesn't exist. Actual evidence. Enough sheeple speculation, put your money where your mouth is. Evidence. Or are you anti-evidence? Sure seems that way and exactly how sheeple behave.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #184 on: December 31, 2022, 04:13:32 AM »


So look. I can, if I have the patience, do frame by frame movement of character layers, exporting each of them as an additional picture.

Which has nothing to do with people personally witnessing how the international space station and starlink satellites have change the night sky.

And has nothing to do with real rockets placing real satellites in space actively broadcasting and providing real services by various space agencies for various companies.

Quote
Iridium Communications Inc. (formerly Iridium Satellite LLC) is a publicly traded American company headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Iridium operates the Iridium satellite constellation, a system of 66 active satellites and 9 in-orbit spares[2] used for worldwide voice and data communication from hand-held satellite phones and other transceiver units.[3] The nearly polar orbit and communication between satellites via inter-satellite links provide global service availability.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_Communications


Quote
Satellite fleet
Edit
Until 2019, most of the satellites used by DISH Network were owned and operated by EchoStar Corporation. DISH frequently moves satellites among its many orbiting slots so this list may not be accurate. Refer to Lyngsat and DISH Channel Chart for detailed satellite information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dish_Network


Quote
Satellite Fleet
EchoStar Satellite Services L.L.C. is a satellite owner/operator with a fleet of 10 satellites. We provide Ku-band transponder capacity, with comprehensive coverage of the United States and the Gulf of Mexico, on our satellites located at 121° and 105°.
https://echostarsatelliteservices.com/satellites


Quote
As of February 2020, DirecTV manages a fleet of 12 satellites in geostationary orbit at positions ranging from 95°W to 119°W, ensuring strong coverage of the North American continent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV

I am saying believe.  It’s verified by the use of the technology in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and the positioning of millions of different satellites dishes.


In you delusion, think if the lawyers for Dish network found EchoStar satellites were really a bunch of land based towers….

Anyway…

Quote
SpaceX Launches 'Starlink Maritime' High-Speed Internet for Yachts

https://www.boatblurb.com/post/spacex-launches-starlink-maritime-high-speed-internet-for-yachts?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8c3BpOmj_AIV8xitBh2aeggnEAAYAiAAEgKVIvD_BwE

Big news yacht owners- the days of VHF radio for primary communications may soon be coming to an end.

SpaceX is expanding its Starlink Maritime internet service to private yachts, off-shore oil rigs, and commercial vessels.

According to the Starlink Maritime website, customers can expect ‘high-speed, low-latency internet’ with download speeds over 350 megabits per second, even in the most remote corners of the world.

The service won't be cheap, as Starlink Maritime will have an initial hardware fee of $10,000 USD which includes two terminals and associated components. Users can expect a monthly fee of roughly $5000 USD, although it can be paused or canceled at any time (i.e., during the off-season). Those prices are still higher than existing Starlink terrestrial service, which is also marketed as a premium service provider.

Or if shipping companies and off shore oil rigs couldn’t get the services as promised by starlink. 
« Last Edit: December 31, 2022, 04:16:56 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #185 on: December 31, 2022, 04:21:11 AM »
Quote

https://www.viasat.com/enterprise-and-mobility/aviation/business/

Introducing Viasat Select
Connect without compromise and without speed limits


Near-global coverage

Viasat offers high-capacity, ka-band broadband connectivity through an optimized, end-to-end network including satellite design, ground infrastructure, and service operation support. Covering over 90% of business aviation flight paths with Ka-band and near-global coverage for Ku-band, Viasat has the expertise as well as the Wi-Fi coverage private jet aircraft travelers demand


*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2793
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #186 on: December 31, 2022, 05:53:10 AM »
Quote
You think it's really that easy for a NASA to produce 1000's of videos going back 70 years when it takes 100's of people and dozens of companies just to composite 1 movie?

I'm sorry, you were being rhetorical, right?

Of course it's easy.  It took about four hours to make that animation, which eventually expired. :RIP:

That was mainly due to background removal and figuring out the best way to get what I wanted. Had I two assistants, and we knew what we were doing, this would have taken half an hour, we probably could have cut more frames to get a very smooth looking video. It was pretty easy to do two frames actually. A team of seven or more could have compiled multiple frames at once then put them to together. 70 years ago? Hollywood had film studios churning out millions. All you need is one film team, and you can make a film, if they have their shit together and a real division of labor.

What's this about hundreds of hours and dozens of companies? They make hundreds of films a year. Close to 700, at current count. Most of the dozens of companies thing is unions requiring hiring of multiple companies for different parts of a film. Back in the 1920s or so, a single company usually handled everything, this is union inefficiency not the reality of filming. If you can make only 10 films a year (they don't need to be long, just a series of well timed clips showing takeoff, launch, and the big show is zero g), over 50 years you've you've got 500 clips. They don't have to work much harder to get over 4000 clips. The Great Train Robbery has a scene where people are talking and trains are going by in the background. You just need two cameras in order to do that effect. I think you just cut out parts of the film and lat the atop each other, before all the CGI and photoshop stuff. Pretty dead simple. Not taking hundreds of hours.

The movie, the one you said was a fake prank? They asked a real question there.

We see a launch from the moon.



That implies a cameraman filmed this. Wearing a space suit, right? (The one appears to be the last because they didn't manage the splashy return shot)
Only the entire narrative falls apart when we ask a simple question...

Did they leave him in space?

I'll pause, because I want this to sink in.

We see a shot from the ground at the moon of the moon lander launching the top half of the moon lander. Only someone had to film the process from the ground, someone had to be stranded on the moon... unless it was a set, and he could just walk off afterwards. Which it logically HAD to be, as the footage from the ground of the moon literally can't be used otherwise, as the one to give it to the moon crew is still stuck on the moon!

Use some damned logic, guys!

Wanna explain this? No wait, you're busy throwing a long page of some kind of figures at me. I didn't bother to read it.

Quote
Here's how many people worked on the VFX for 'Apollo 13':

It's blue. And tiny. And probably doesn't mention all the people who filmed things. There are supposed to be only like three ppl in the shuttle in most cases but we have at least a fourth one recording everything, often from angles that aren't possible in a "real space flight" (as if there were such a thing). And the film is dead steady despite "zero g".

Or asking how they covered this with "satellite" across the world.

But you're not answering, how does a lunar module launch, leave the recording in space, and we get the footage? This is a rhetorical question.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2022, 06:08:16 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #187 on: December 31, 2022, 06:38:02 AM »
It took about four hours to make that animation,

We aren’t discussing animation.

We are posting about tangible assets like weather satellites, space probes, sat phone satellites, GPS satellites, communication satellites.  Items that can be tracked in space by their active broadcasting, often by radar, and been known to visibly change the night sky.


Quote

China’s new satellite-hunting radar aims to blind US

https://asiatimes.com/2022/11/chinas-new-satellite-hunting-radar-aims-to-blind-us/

The 10-meter-tall SLC-1 radar unveiled at this year’s Zhuhai Airshow can detect and track low-orbiting satellites and predict their paths, its manufacturer China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (CETC) claimed at the show, the South China Morning Post reported last week.

bulmabriefs144 must be a troll at this point.   Or has the comprehension of a Dalmatian….

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #188 on: December 31, 2022, 07:42:22 AM »



I'll pause, because I want this to sink in.



That you’re fucking ridiculous?  Or off your rocker?

How about a “simple” remote camera?  And a few tries…


Quote
How NASA captured lunar lift-off

Written by Andy Stout | Jan 15, 2021 12:00:00 AM

https://www.redsharknews.com/technology-computing/item/2742-how-nasa-captured-lunar-lift-off?hs_amp=true

For these final three Apollo missions RCA supplied colour television cameras made to the strict weight and volume parameters that NASA imposed on the project to make sure everything could get out of Earth’s gravity well. The cameras were very successful, capturing images of numerous EVAs, but while they could be controlled from Houston it was felt that the several second delay between earth and the Moon would make capturing the Module’s ascent impossible. So, the plan was to pre-programme the camera and hope that the NASA camera operator in Houston, Ed Fendell, got his timing just right.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #189 on: December 31, 2022, 08:08:23 AM »

I'm sorry, you were being rhetorical, right?




Any proof the missions weren’t broadcasting from the moon?


Quote
Kettering Grammar School

In 1966 the project went international when Swedish student Sven Grahn contacted the group with a recording of the signals from Kosmos 104.[10][11] The same year it discovered Soviet launches from Plesetsk Cosmodrome, officially unacknowledged until 1983.[9]

In 1969, a group used simple radio equipment to monitor the Apollo 11 mission and calculated its orbits.[12][13] According to the group, in December 1972 a member "pick[ed] up Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon".[14]

In 1973 the group tracked Skylab[15] and in July 1975, the team supported ITN in their coverage of the Soyuz - Apollo link up which took place 140 miles over Bognor Regis on 17 July 1975.[16]

In 1978 the group predicted the crash of Kosmos 954 spacecraft.[17]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Grammar_School

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #190 on: December 31, 2022, 08:48:14 AM »
Quote
I'll pause, because I want this to sink in.

Perhaps in your pause you could answer my radar questions, please?

I can reiterate them if you wish.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42683
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #191 on: December 31, 2022, 09:39:53 AM »
We see a launch from the moon.



That implies a cameraman filmed this. Wearing a space suit, right? (The one appears to be the last because they didn't manage the splashy return shot)
Only the entire narrative falls apart when we ask a simple question...
Protip: don't try to debunk a narrative if you haven't read the narrative.

Did they leave him in space?

I'll pause, because I want this to sink in.
Maybe you should take a pause and do a little bit of research.  This took me about 3 seconds to find:
https://www.redsharknews.com/technology-computing/item/2742-how-nasa-captured-lunar-lift-off

We see a shot from the ground at the moon of the moon lander launching the top half of the moon lander. Only someone had to film the process from the ground, someone had to be stranded on the moon... unless it was a set, and he could just walk off afterwards. Which it logically HAD to be, as the footage from the ground of the moon literally can't be used otherwise, as the one to give it to the moon crew is still stuck on the moon!

Use some damned logic, guys!
GIGO.  Garbage In, Garbage Out.  Logic is only as good as your input.  You can't make a good logical argument if you don't know the facts.  A remote controlled camera on the lunar rover means that no camera man need be left behind on the moon.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 22472
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #192 on: December 31, 2022, 12:18:52 PM »
In other words, it is imperative that one understand the difference between blind science and real science.
And more pathetic deflection.
Just what does this have to do with the issue at hand?

So look. I can, if I have the patience, do frame by frame movement of character layers, exporting each of them as an additional picture. I can even swap visible picture layers, creating an illusion of motion. The only actual problem is that I am not an animator, and not any good at this. And frankly, I don't care, because I'm not trying to convince people with staged animation.
The problem is that you cannot provide photorealistic CGI renderings of humans as observed in the footage, nor will compositing produce the observed 0g motion.
So you have no explanation for these 0g clips.
Nor do you have any evidence that it is fake.
Nor any reason to think it is fake.
Nor any motive for them to fake it.
Nor any way to address the countless other bits of evidence of the reality of space.

If I set on stealing taxpayer money, that would be worth it. But I'm not, and so that is a pain in the ass.
No, it wouldn't.
If you are set on stealing taxpayer money, you put it in the black budget so you can take it with no questions asked.
For example, under Trump NASA had a budget of $20 billion. But the black budget was $80 billion.
With the black budget, there is virtually no accountability. That money can simply be taken and nothing produced.
But NASA needs to spend the money on so much it isn't funny.

It would cost far more to fake.

This isn't a joke though. This tax expense (for even one launch) is the livelihood of working families, and you people don't fucking care.
We do care.
You don't seem to.
Instead you are willing to blatantly lie about loads of people, with absolutely no evidence at all. Ignoring everything that NASA has provided, just to fuel your pathetic delusional cult.

Of course it's easy.  It took about four hours to make that animation, which eventually expired.
If you have unlimited funding, it is easy to make a bunch of shitty animations.
But that isn't the case.

We see a launch from the moon.
That implies a cameraman filmed this. Wearing a space suit, right?
You really do love spouting this delusional BS don't you?
Again, do you not realise that you don't need a person holding the camera?
Have you seen these before:


Notice how there is a camera?
It doesn't need a person holding it.

Only the entire narrative falls apart when we ask a simple question...
No, your delusional BS falls apart when we ask a simple question:
Why does it need a camera man standing there holding the camera?

All it takes is just that tiny bit of rational thought to see you are spouting delusional garbage, and with that, your pathetic question, and your entire line of reasoning falls apart.

But that is the level of desperation you have sunk to. That is level of delusional, dishonest BS you need to spout to try and prop up your fantasy.

I'll pause, because I want this to sink in.
You want your level of desperation and dishonesty to sink in?
You want everyone to know how much you hate the truth, and either how utterly brainwashed and incapable of rational thought you are, or how willing you are to spout pure BS, which you know to be pure BS, just to try propping up your other delusional BS?

Use some damned logic, guys!
Follow your own advice.
If you had tried using logic, you wouldn't be spouting such delusional BS.

There are supposed to be only like three ppl in the shuttle in most cases but we have at least a fourth one recording everything, often from angles that aren't possible in a "real space flight" (as if there were such a thing). And the film is dead steady despite "zero g".
Do you mean the real Apollo 13, or the movie version of it?

But you're not answering, how does a lunar module launch, leave the recording in space, and we get the footage? This is a rhetorical question.
And more delusional BS, absent even an attempt at logic.
What makes you think it was just recorded there?
Again, going back to the drone, that can transmit footage live to a controller.
Some people even race these drones from the perspective of the drone.

So before you ask about the recording being left there, first ask if it was recorded on film there, or transmitted back to Earth.

Again, the application of a tiny bit of logic would save you from such delusional BS.
But again, you don't care about the truth, so you don't use logic. Instead you use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend it must be fake.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2793
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #193 on: December 31, 2022, 09:21:47 PM »
Yes, yes. Delusional BS.

Do you even understand what a delusion is?!?

A delusion is a state of resulting in distorted thinking. For example, if I were to belief I have psychic powers. Or that everyone here loves me. Or that it is possible to travel in space when there is no air. Or that satellites are everywhere, when in fact a cursory look at the sky at night proves otherwise. Or that radio waves travel at the speed of light, when in fact I saw a live New Years Eve broadcast on Youtube from New York, where the ball appeared to be at a minute lag (didn't hit the clock until 12:01, nor did the fireworks go off until after that). There was a delay, and I saw it.

Delusion is not an absence of belief. That's called skepticism.

Now, I'm not afraid to admit that it's actually kinda cool that shows are lagged, because it means this world is more interesting than the one where all of you have everything figured out. Why was there a minute lag? Was it curvature, distance, air resistance, or something else? I dunno, but it's cool to look at it. Maybe someone's watch was simply slow and they didn't give the ball time to drop.

But I don't need to put up with your delusions. Or your BS.

Do me a favor, and stop projecting. Delusional BS indeed. It's a new year, and I'm making a resolution to have less long discussions with people who don't get very simple concepts (you don't get that I know the narrative because I've heard it, and you sound dumb for not noticing that if a module launches, either the camera guy needs other travel arrangements :o or he just walks off the set or gets in a plane) or look at things with any sort of common sense. Such useless tools will only make me feel disappointed in humanity.

I will fail. But anyway.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2793
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #194 on: December 31, 2022, 10:49:00 PM »
Let's ask another question. Has Sandra Bullock been in  space?

According the movie Gravity, she has.

But that's a movie. They're separate from science. Right?

Prove it. Prove that there is a difference between a Hollywood film of someone in space, and a lower budget shorter picture where people are hanging out on the moon or in ISS. Prove that someone went to Mars for real. Or even outer space.

Because all of these things have been possible with sets (even cheap sets) for nearly a century.

Oh look, a NASA takeoff!



Wait no, it's a short film made in 1959, years before either CGI or the first moon landing. The stars don't look real but the setup of the rockets in this Russian-made film are similar to what was used by NASA. Likewise, most depictions in film, well before NASA's takeoff all look a certain way.



From Flash Gordon (1954).



From Voyage to the Moon (1902).

Coincidence? No. Hollywood spearheaded the space exploration hype for years.

« Last Edit: December 31, 2022, 10:50:34 PM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22472
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #195 on: January 01, 2023, 01:23:58 AM »
Do you even understand what a delusion is?!?
A delusion is a state of resulting in distorted thinking.
Yes, here is a simple definition:
a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in mental conditions.
But yes, it would typically involve some form of "distorted thinking".

For example, believing Earth is flat, even though all the available evidence which can determine if Earth is flat or round indicates it is round.
Believing that the "prongs" somehow magically make it an accelerometer, rather than the chip, the chip which is sold as an accelerometer, even though that chip is only found on accelerometers or devices with an accelerometer, while those "prongs" are found on so many devices it isn't funny.
Claiming that the RE model should have midnight at 12pm at one point in the year, even though you know the distinction between a solar sidereal day, and yet still claiming that we should somehow magically observe a sidereal day as a solar day that lasts a shorter amount of time and then has Earth magically jump.

There are plenty more examples I could provide.

If you truly believe all the BS you have been spouting, then it is a clear sign of incredibly distorted thinking.

Or that it is possible to travel in space when there is no air. Or that satellites are everywhere, when in fact a cursory look at the sky at night proves otherwise. Or that radio waves travel at the speed of light, when in fact I saw a live New Years Eve broadcast on Youtube from New York, where the ball appeared to be at a minute lag (didn't hit the clock until 12:01, nor did the fireworks go off until after that). There was a delay, and I saw it.
And these are more example of your distorted thinking.
Why should air matter?
You were asked a simple question which demonstrated just how absurd that line of reasoning is, but with your distorted thinking you fled from it because you can't handle reality.
Satellites provide plenty of services including providing GPS. Services you are yet to explain with anything other than satellites, nor are you able to demonstrate any reason at all to doubt their existence.
This latest claim of yours is just more delusional BS.
Just what is a cursory look at the night sky meant to prove? It would be a sign of extremely distorted thinking to believe that a cursory look could disprove the existence of satellites.

How about a much longer look, preferably looking from multiple separate locations, in an area with minimal light pollution.
You can often see bright flashing lights moving across the sky, typically from satellites that spin to reflect the light of the sun onto Earth. You can also often observe plenty of other streaks of lights. You can even see the ISS at the appropriate time. But perhaps most relevant to the recent discussion, you can see lights which appear to remain stationary. They don't appear to circle Earth. And these all appear in a single band, with the location of this band varying depending on your latitude.

There is plenty of evidence that radio waves travel at the speed of light, including the worldwide use of RADAR. But you ignore it all, and now appeal to lag. Just how do you think a delay in a live broadcast in any way demonstrates that radio waves don't travel at the speed of light?

Delusion is not an absence of belief. That's called skepticism.
Dismissing everything you disagree with as fake or wrong is not scepticism.
Spouting outright BS with no justification at all, while claiming to be correct and ignoring actual explanations is not scepticism.
What you are displaying is not scepticism. It is rejection of reality.

Why was there a minute lag?
Probably because like all live broadcasts, they like having a bit of a buffer.

But I don't need to put up with your delusions. Or your BS.
What delusions and BS? You mean continually refuting YOUR delusional BS?

Do me a favor, and stop projecting.
Follow your own advice.
If I was projecting and was the one spouting delusional BS you wouldn't need to flee from so many things that have been said.

I'm making a resolution to have less long discussions with people who don't get very simple concepts
So you wont have a discussion with yourself?

you sound dumb for not noticing that if a module launches, either the camera guy needs other travel arrangements :o or he just walks off the set or gets in a plane
Or, there isn't a camera guy.
You sound really dumb for acting like there must be a person holding every camera.

Such useless tools will only make me feel disappointed in humanity.
Then stop being such a useless tool.

Let's ask another question. Has Sandra Bullock been in  space?
As far as I know, no.
The 0g scenes, where she was truly in 0g, were filmed in short scenes on a vomit comet.
The longer shots where her motion was more restricted were shot in a harness.

This in no way helps you explain the 0g scenes you have repeatedly fled from.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #196 on: January 01, 2023, 02:44:33 AM »

Coincidence? No. Hollywood spearheaded the space exploration hype for years.

This is delusional in the context that satellites produce very real services like GPS and communications/internet in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.  And visibly change the night sky.  And are tracked by radar.

“No. Hollywood spearheaded the space exploration hype for years.” is not an explanation for the services provided by satellites and how they visibly change the night sky.  Only a troll or a delusional person would use such an argument.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #197 on: January 01, 2023, 03:06:08 AM »
Prove it. Prove that there is a difference between a Hollywood film of someone in space, and a lower budget shorter picture where people are hanging out on the moon or in ISS. Prove that someone went to Mars for real. Or even outer space.

Actually, the onus is on you to prove the Hollywood fakery of space travel. Thus far, you've provided no evidence, just a constant flow of speculation and notions you make up. And whenever presented with evidence, you pull the sheeple trump card: The "It's all lies, 'they' are lying.." conspiracy thing. Classic slave to a belief system mentality. Aka, sheeple.

It's unclear why you just keep going on with made up excuses. One can only assume that you are just trolling or you really are a sheeple to your belief system. What trolls do is exactly what you do, just run your mouth about things you make up without ever presenting any evidence to back up your claims. Strangely, that's what sheeple do as well; Just blather on, concocting speculative scenarios, so entrenched in their belief system that they are unwilling, perhaps incapable, of actually examining contrary evidence without sheeple bias.

I mean, you've been shown evidence against everything you claim and you have provided none to counter. Perfect example, you're shown that it took 800 VFX artists and 2 dozen VFX companies to create select shots in 1 movie and you still claim a random person could do the same in GIMP and that same person could do everything the dozens of space agencies around the world publish and have presented for decades, even before there was photorealistic CGI.
You just hand-wave the evidence away, make wildly ignorant speculative claims with zero evidence and think you've actually made a valid point. You haven't. Without evidence, you are summarily dismissed.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #198 on: January 01, 2023, 03:55:59 AM »

Prove it.

Again…

Any proof the missions to the moon weren’t broadcasting from the moon?


Quote
Kettering Grammar School

In 1966 the project went international when Swedish student Sven Grahn contacted the group with a recording of the signals from Kosmos 104.[10][11] The same year it discovered Soviet launches from Plesetsk Cosmodrome, officially unacknowledged until 1983.[9]

In 1969, a group used simple radio equipment to monitor the Apollo 11 mission and calculated its orbits.[12][13] According to the group, in December 1972 a member "pick[ed] up Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon".[14]

In 1973 the group tracked Skylab[15] and in July 1975, the team supported ITN in their coverage of the Soyuz - Apollo link up which took place 140 miles over Bognor Regis on 17 July 1975.[16]

In 1978 the group predicted the crash of Kosmos 954 spacecraft.[17]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Grammar_School

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2793
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #199 on: January 01, 2023, 05:10:36 AM »

Coincidence? No. Hollywood spearheaded the space exploration hype for years.

This is delusional in the context that satellites produce very real services like GPS and communications/internet in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.  And visibly change the night sky.  And are tracked by radar.

“No. Hollywood spearheaded the space exploration hype for years.” is not an explanation for the services provided by satellites and how they visibly change the night sky.  Only a troll or a delusional person would use such an argument.

I'll get to that. Answer the question.

Has Sandra Bullock been to space?

1. You admit you are gullible enough to believe movies are real if you say "yes."
2. You admit that high quality space videos can be fake if you say "no."

What the hell do you mean "visibly changes the night sky"? There are supposed to be 30,000 or so satellites. This means in any given area, there should be satellites constantly flying past. But it doesn't really work this way. You've explained before about "geostationary orbit" which is another way of saying that the Earth only orbits because you've seen it orbit.

Right, on TV. From NASA. Never from your own eyes, or your own feeling of motion sickness.



In actual fact, you cannot prove that this "geostationary orbit" is not in fact  simply no orbit, and the satellite you see, is actually dangling suspended from a helium balloon with a rope or string attached below it.

(())
||
||
||
}[]

So your dangling satellite produces actual effects, so what!

It doesn't change the fact that you have been conned, and rather than be honest with yourself and me, you double down and support their lie.

This is called the Greater Fool Theory. The person fooled looks for a greater fool to recoup their losses. And so they sink more money into a sunk cost to try to persuade some other idiot to spend $8000 on a roller coaster ride in the sky. This is also how cryptocurrency continues despite its non-fungible status (hmmmm, I can't convert crypto back into money once I bought, without finding some sucker who will buy).

But Greater Fool Theory and indeed any model of sunk cost, alway fails, so it's far better to cut one's losses, admit the scam, and go home. You will always lose more hiding from shame than you will gain from being honest. For one thing, you will gain the respect of people who matter. For another, the people who conned you can be exposed for the fraud they are and brought to justice. Other companies (like Google) honestly admit that their balloons are just that.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2023, 05:35:03 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #200 on: January 01, 2023, 05:18:24 AM »

It doesn't change the fact that you have been conned,

Then how did I get timely emails in the middle of the pacific, and positioning data from GPS satellites?

Along with numerous another explanations of the triangulation of services that pinpoint to specific satellites in the sky. 



Quote
Satellite Observing Opportunities

https://in-the-sky.org/satpasses.php

Use the form below to search for satellites which will fly over your location.
Results are shown starting from the evening of the selected date. To show pre-dawn passes, select the day before and then scroll down to the bottom of that night's passes.
By default, satellites are only shown if they reach a maximum brightness of 4th magnitude. This filters out the large number of very faint satellites which fly over. Passes are also only shown if they occur during the hours of darkness. To show daytime passes, tick the box "Include daytime passes".

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #201 on: January 01, 2023, 12:21:32 PM »

Coincidence? No. Hollywood spearheaded the space exploration hype for years.

This is delusional in the context that satellites produce very real services like GPS and communications/internet in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.  And visibly change the night sky.  And are tracked by radar.

“No. Hollywood spearheaded the space exploration hype for years.” is not an explanation for the services provided by satellites and how they visibly change the night sky.  Only a troll or a delusional person would use such an argument.

I'll get to that. Answer the question.

Has Sandra Bullock been to space?

1. You admit you are gullible enough to believe movies are real if you say "yes."
2. You admit that high quality space videos can be fake if you say "no."

When was Sandra in space? Oh yeah, 2013. Have you forgotten that we've had 6 decades of footage prior to 'Gravity'?

Have you forgotten that there are dozens of space agencies/companies around the globe, not just NASA? All producing the same type of footage. For decades, well predating Sandra in space.

Here's all the people who put Sandra in space back in 2013:



That's just for 1 movie. Imagine the army required for decades of footage and no one has spilled the beans???

Right, on TV. From NASA. Never from your own eyes, or your own feeling of motion sickness.

Oh no, not Eric DuBay...

You're sliding backward. There are way "better" FEr's to follow than DuBay. He was canceled by the FE community years ago as being an anti-semitic crank.

In actual fact, you cannot prove that this "geostationary orbit" is not in fact  simply no orbit, and the satellite you see, is actually dangling suspended from a helium balloon with a rope or string attached below it.

Yeah, I can, my now wife called me on a sat phone from the middle of the Pacific years ago whilst she was on her way sailing back to the States from Fiji on a 42 footer. As well, she was the navigatrix using GPS the entire journey. No towers (or land for that matter) within thousands of miles.

Not to mention my Direct TV dish points upward.

And not to mention, you have no evidence to the contrary.

Other companies (like Google) honestly admit that their balloons are just that.

What evidence do you have for this? Not speculation, evidence.

*

JackBlack

  • 22472
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #202 on: January 01, 2023, 02:10:35 PM »
Has Sandra Bullock been to space?
Already answered. No.

2. You admit that high quality space videos can be fake if you say "no."
Not ones with long periods of 0g with the person performing various things which would be impossible in a harness, and without breathing apparatus.
Then there is the issue of time. Gravity was shot quite recently, yet we have footage from space from quite some time ago.

What the hell do you mean "visibly changes the night sky"? There are supposed to be 30,000 or so satellites. This means in any given area, there should be satellites constantly flying past. But it doesn't really work this way.
Thigns like this:



Considering how large the sky is, and how little of LEO satellites you can see, that doesn't mean you should be constantly having satellites flying overhead.
But more important is light pollution. A lot of these satellites are quite faint, so if you are in a brightly lit city, you wont see them.
It is easiest to see them with long exposure photography in a dark area (like on a farm away from a big city).

You've explained before about "geostationary orbit" which is another way of saying that the Earth only orbits because you've seen it orbit.
No, that is nothing like saying Earth only orbits because you have seen it orbit.


In actual fact, you cannot prove that this "geostationary orbit" is not in fact  simply no orbit, and the satellite you see, is actually dangling suspended from a helium balloon with a rope or string attached below it.
Sure you can.
Observe these from multiple locations on Earth, and use that to determine their altitude (which will also show that Earth is round as a bonus).
Then measure the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, understand what causes it, and extrapolate that to the altitude of the satellites to recognise that a helium balloon would not work.

But more importantly, what magic holds these balloons in place?
They can be observed in a long exposure photo of the night sky as a single point.
If they were helium filled balloons in the atmosphere, they would be drifting quite a lot.
And, if they were just helium filled balloons, why do we only get them for geostationary orbits in a single band directly above the equator? Why don't we get them everywhere?

It doesn't change the fact that you have been conned
No, we haven't been conned, as we aren't believing your delusional BS.

This is called the Greater Fool Theory. The person fooled looks for a greater fool to recoup their losses.
So you are trying to find a greater fool, and failing miserably, all to pretend you aren't delusional?

But Greater Fool Theory and indeed any model of sunk cost, alway fails, so it's far better to cut one's losses, admit the scam, and go home. You will always lose more hiding from shame than you will gain from being honest. For one thing, you will gain the respect of people who matter. For another, the people who conned you can be exposed for the fraud they are and brought to justice.
So why don't you follow your own advice, and admit to being conned by FE con men, and accept that Earth is round, and rotating and that satellites exist and move on and try to regain some respect from being honest and try to expose these FE con men?


Other companies (like Google) honestly admit that their balloons are just that.
You mean like here?
https://hackaday.com/2021/01/28/google-loons-internet-balloons-come-back-to-earth-after-a-decade-in-the-stratosphere/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/technology/loon-google-balloons.html
https://spacenews.com/google-to-shut-down-loon

They trialled it for remote areas, and it failed miserably.
And now it is no more.

But do you not notice the utter ridiculousness of your position?
These helium filled balloons would be much larger and much closer than satellites, as you would need a balloon many times the size of the satellite in order to keep it up.
This should make them even more visible.
Your only possible saving grace would be if you accept that Earth is round which would make them visible for a much smaller area.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #203 on: January 02, 2023, 01:53:40 AM »


What the hell do you mean "visibly changes the night sky"?

Let’s look at the earth’s natural satellite, the moon.

In the flat earth delusion.  Where the moon supposedly orbits above a flat earth?


https://tenor.com/view/flat-earth-atmosphere-and-sun-and-moon-movement-gif-18798944

For the flat earth.  How is it possible only one side of the moon is visible? If the moon circled above a flat earth, I should see different views of the moon as it passed overhead.  I should see it’s corresponding backside as it passes overhead and trailed off into the west.   
« Last Edit: January 02, 2023, 03:16:28 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #204 on: January 02, 2023, 03:18:21 AM »
Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science - Part 1: The Moon







« Last Edit: January 02, 2023, 03:25:58 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2793
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #205 on: January 02, 2023, 06:17:53 AM »
Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science - Part 1: The Moon







You keep defaulting to this stupid video.

If it isn't science, why should any of us be interested?

Science is based on observations. When tou aren't using those, you're relying on rumor and hearsay.

So by definition "Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science" is an unfortunate choice of words, because it implies your ideas are unscientific and thus unworthy of being taken seriously (not that science is the only reasonable pursuit, I also put faith in faith).

But let's deal with the second part, that picture.

Is that true? Is there only one way of seeing only one side of the moon? No,but REers seem to think so.

The Earth is flat, with a dome. The moon is also flat circling around the dome. In this way, you can see only one face of the moon, though it has phases. Because the moon has no other side, except according to NASA. We have never observed anything else, except according to NASA. Like a spotlight projected against a screen you can only see one side of the moon because the other side is outside the screen. You would have to go outside of Earth in order to do this (yes, I am implying that the moon is part of Earth's atmosphere, as is the sun), and until you can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that space missions are real (you would have to explain to me how rocket fuel burns in an anaerobic environment (you said it has oxidizers) with further has no air for friction or surface tension, meaning if it got space, and even if it burned, it wouldn't go nowhere), that's not happening. So yes, there are other ways in which we can see that view.

But your idea about the moon orbiting an orbiting and rotating Earth has a flaw. At best, we have a geostationary satellite, meaning the moon is over New Jersey. and nowhere else. At worst we have the moon dragging behind unable to stay in orbit. After all, the moon's speed compared to the Earth is only like 12 mph. But this doesn't happen. The Earth's diameter is 7000 miles, meaning to get from one side to another would take several days. But I'm told that's wrong, or that that's the speed it rotates (having something to do with phases).
Nope this just in, the site that I found that 12 mph thing is also wrong. The moon really really orbits the Earth at 2,288 miles per hour, making it go from one end to another of Earth in 3 hours (hmmmmm). That's no good either, but then  we have the added complication of Earth rotating while the moon orbits. Based on what "science" has told us, the Earth rotates at roughly 1000 mph. This means even if the Earth rotates against the moon, the moon gains two hours for every hour Earth moves. All of this is a convoluted mess which means if we matched the moon's pace for 1000 mph (tidally locked and geostationary at 1000 mph), the moon has 1288 mph of additional speed. The moon should be shooting by in 21 miles a minute, with us able to see it, but not for very long. After all, a plane passes out of sight much sooner than a few hours. Yet the moon doesn't move like this, making it patent nonsense. What we see instead is closer to a speed of orbit of 583 mph (not counting the speed it requires to match Earth's rotation, which makes it 1583 mph). Where did I get that from? From measuring Earth's diameter. It takes the moon 12 hours to be seen at night, so 7000/12 is 583(ish).

Only there is a problem with this too! I have often seen the moon rise during the day, and at night it hasn't really moved away. So while people in New Zealand can see the moon, eighteen timezone hours from me, it hasn't gone anywhere in hours. I can still see it when I go to bed at night. This implies either we are able to see halfway across the Earth (invalidating curvature theory) or that there are two moons.
I'll let you decide which one is more plausible, but what isn't, is most depictions of Earth rotating while the moon orbits.

With a non-rotating non-orbiting Earth, no such flaw exists. The moon simply moves around the Earth, like we see every night. The moon is tidally locked, meaning the same side always faces us. We know this from real science. Not "without science". We also know because the moon is tidally locked, that it cannot rotate (12 mph or otherwise). So something else is at work here. Either the moon is reflecting light from the sun at an asynchronous rate, or there is a third object in the sky that we cannot see, but which obstructs the moon.

Real science always takes observations, wherever they might lead, even if such observations are not agreed on by scientific consensus (an oxymoron btw). It's not science if there's an imposed consensus.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2023, 06:27:42 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #206 on: January 02, 2023, 06:37:39 AM »
Science is based on observations. When tou aren't using those, you're relying on rumor and hearsay.
...The Earth is flat, with a dome.

There are no observations of a dome. Thus your view of the earth is un-scientific based upon rumor and heresay.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #207 on: January 02, 2023, 07:06:01 AM »
(making them those susp helium balloons that NASA uses, instead of the supposed space satellites).


Soo.  To pursue/expand on what was posted by another poster…

There were none of these huge ass ballon’s floating around providing “satellite” services when using my satellite dish is the 1980’s…

Quote

Jul 7, 2020,07:22pm EDT
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/07/07/googles-internet-balloons-use-ai-to-deliver-web-voice-video-from-12-miles-high/amp/

Yesterday Google sister company Loon announced that it is now providing internet service to subscribers of Telkom Kenya via 35 tennis court-sized balloons over 20,000 square miles in western and central Kenya. Over 35,000 Kenyans have already connected, mostly unaware, to the internet via a Loon balloon for voice and video calling, web connectivity, and streaming media.




Quote
Why Google’s Internet-Beaming Balloons Ran Out of Air
Loon’s technology brought the web to places that lacked it—but that wasn’t nearly enough.

BY AARON MAK
JAN 26, 202111:53 AM

https://slate.com/technology/2021/01/loon-google-alphabet-shuttered.html

Loon’s struggle to become financially sustainable was largely due to the higher-than-expected expenses required to operate the balloons, combined with the fact that customers in remote areas often can only afford internet service at a lower price. Each balloon cost tens of thousands of dollars and had to be replaced every five months.


Quote
Sri Lankan authorities ran into difficulties providing a radio frequency for Loon, as the United Nations was reportedly opposed to allowing the company to use the same frequency as the country’s public broadcasters.

Quote
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loon_LLC#Connectivity

Incidents
On May 29, 2014, a Loon balloon crashed into power lines in Washington, United States.[54]
On June 20, 2014, New Zealand officials briefly scrambled emergency services personnel when a Loon balloon came down.[55]
In November 2014, a South African farmer found a crashed Loon balloon in the Karoo desert between Strydenburg and Britstown.[56]
On April 23, 2015, a Loon balloon crashed in a field near Bragg City, Missouri.[57]
On September 12, 2015, a Loon balloon crashed in the front lawn of a residence on Rancho Hills, Chino Hills, California.
On February 17, 2016, a Loon balloon crashed in the tea-growing region of Gampola, Sri Lanka while carrying out tests.[58]
On April 7, 2016, a Loon balloon landed on a farm in Dundee, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.[59]
On April 22, 2016, a Loon balloon crashed in a field in the Ńeembucú Department, Paraguay.[60][61]
On August 22, 2016, a Loon balloon landed on a ranch in Formosa, Argentina about 40 km West of the Capital of Formosa.[62]
On August 26, 2016, a Loon balloon landed northwest of Madison, South Dakota.
On January 9, 2017, a Loon Balloon crashed in Sieyic, near Changuinola, Bocas del Toro province, Panama.[63]
On January 8, 2017 and January 10, 2017, two Loon Balloons landed at 10 km E of Cerro Chato & 40 km NNW of Mariscala, Uruguay.
On February 17, 2017 a Loon Balloon crashed in Buriti dos Montes, Brazil.[64]
On March 14, 2017, a Loon Balloon crashed in San Luis, Tolima, Colombia.
On March 19, 2017, a Loon Balloon crashed in Tacuarembó, Uruguay.
On August 9, 2017, a Loon Balloon crashed in a reedbed in Olmos, Lambayeque, Peru.
On December 30, 2017, a Loon Balloon crashed in Nthambiro, Igembe Central, Meru County, Kenya.[65]
On March 1, 2021, a Loon Ballon crashed into a tree in Tocantins, Brazil.[66]


Quote
Initially, the balloons communicated using unlicensed 2.4 and 5.8 GHz ISM bands,[33]

Quote
Satellite Name: Echostar 16 (Echostar XVI)
Status: active
Position: 61° W (61.5° W)
Details:
32 Ku-band transponders to provide expanded services, including HD programming, for DISH Network’s more than 14 million direct-to-home television subscribers in the United States.


Now…

Do you have any evidence that large tennis court sized balloon platforms that are expensive to replace, need to be replace repeatedly, and have a history of crashing to earth are providing the satellite services of EchoStar 16 at 61.5° W that broadcasts on the Ku band (12 to 18 gigahertz)

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #208 on: January 02, 2023, 07:28:59 AM »
The moon is tidally locked, meaning the same side always faces us.


Note: changed to more applicable quote…

You didn’t answer the question..





For the flat earth delusion.  How can a person in South American (yellow) see the same face/side of the moon represented by the triangle as a person in North America (green)


How are people north of the moon and south of the moon seeing the same features at the same time in a flat earth delusion.




No mater your answer.  You’ll still affirm your a troll at this point….
« Last Edit: January 02, 2023, 07:35:08 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #209 on: January 02, 2023, 09:51:49 AM »

Because the moon has no other side,

WTF?   You understand how objects work? Right?

Example.  A cube has six sides.

Even if the moon was some sort of cylinder, which there is no proof it’s anything but a relatively solid (as proven by tides on earth and blocks the sun during a solar eclipse) spherical body, you would get this effect…



People in the South American country of Argentina would see the”face” in this example.

People in Easter Brazil would see it on edge.

People in North America would see the backside of the “face”.