Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

So no, the burden of proof rests entirely upon you.
Our side has met our burden, many times over.

By always flying rockets out of all sight, preventing us from SEEING rockets after going out of sight, at one, and only one spot on Earth, to turn it around that I can go there, no problem, to see and film rockets from, while it has NEVER been done, by anyone, in the past 50 or more years, is about the most pathetic excuse you've ever made, and that's quite an achievement from all the other crap you've come up with so far.

As I mentioned before, this would be just the same, as if a magician performed a trick, and went behind a curtain during the trick, and you wanted to see what's behind the curtain. He wouldn't let you go there, of course. It would reveal the secrets of the trick to you.

But unlike you, the magician doesn't claim his trick is actually real, so you know it IS a trick, he said it was, and didn'y let you see how he did it behind the curtain. That's fair enough, nobody's lying here, and we know why he's hiding something, too.

But YOUR trick uses a massive area in the ocean as your black curtain, while saying it is all real, and not hiding anything, and I can go there and see it for myself, if I want to. That's NOT being honest in the least, it is utter BS.  How would you possibly ever know we can go there? That's what you claim here, so what proof do you have for it being true? Nothing, of course.

You've never tried to go there, and know that NOBODY has ever gone there, so you spew about it being allowed, and I can go there if I don't believe it's all BS!

Sorry, it is YOU who has no proof of being allowed, and when there is NOT ONE VIDEO TAKEN FROM THERE, ever, it's BS.

It's hard to tell if you're completely gullible and naive, or have another agenda, but I don't care, it's your problem, and your fault for defending it. Good luck explaining yourself on Judgement Day, because you'll need it!

By always flying rockets out of all sight, preventing us from SEEING rockets after going out of sight

The world doesn't revolve around you.

They are launching rockets to orbit.
They are not preventing you from seeing them.

Like I said, if you want to go see it, then you go waste the money on a boat to go out to the ocean, to watch a rocket launch where you don't see anything up close, and will likely just see a fairly poorly resolved object streaking through the sky.

Don't expect others to do it for you. And don't expect rocket launch companies to wastefully launch a rocket straight up just to have it turn and try to go into orbit.

Stop with the pathetic, dishonest BS, and try defending your claims.

Again, where is your evidence of all the rockets crashing into the ocean?
Where is your evidence of your magical dome?

You have none at all.
All you have are paranoid, delusional ramblings.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 02, 2023, 03:12:47 AM

So no, the burden of proof rests entirely upon you.
Our side has met our burden, many times over.

By always flying rockets out of all sight, preventing us from SEEING rockets after going out of sight, at one, and only one spot on Earth, to turn it around that I can go there, no problem, to see and film rockets from, while it has NEVER been done, by anyone, in the past 50 or more years, is about the most pathetic excuse you've ever made, and that's quite an achievement from all the other crap you've come up with so far.

As I mentioned before, this would be just the same, as if a magician performed a trick, and went behind a curtain during the trick, and you wanted to see what's behind the curtain. He wouldn't let you go there, of course. It would reveal the secrets of the trick to you.

But unlike you, the magician doesn't claim his trick is actually real, so you know it IS a trick, he said it was, and didn'y let you see how he did it behind the curtain. That's fair enough, nobody's lying here, and we know why he's hiding something, too.

But YOUR trick uses a massive area in the ocean as your black curtain, while saying it is all real, and not hiding anything, and I can go there and see it for myself, if I want to. That's NOT being honest in the least, it is utter BS.  How would you possibly ever know we can go there? That's what you claim here, so what proof do you have for it being true? Nothing, of course.

You've never tried to go there, and know that NOBODY has ever gone there, so you spew about it being allowed, and I can go there if I don't believe it's all BS!

Sorry, it is YOU who has no proof of being allowed, and when there is NOT ONE VIDEO TAKEN FROM THERE, ever, it's BS.

It's hard to tell if you're completely gullible and naive, or have another agenda, but I don't care, it's your problem, and your fault for defending it. Good luck explaining yourself on Judgement Day, because you'll need it!

Yes, when a rocket goes high enough to be in orbit, they are being flown out of all sight. Who would have thought? Just like you complain of. You won't be able to see it with your naked eyes here on the ground.

So, if for four or five decades, rockets that went that high, weren't being discarded in the sea, tell us what you think really happened to all those rockets? Your sky dome must have a lot of holes in it, aside from all the metaphorical holes. 

We've all seen plenty of videos of rockets and rocket capsules landing on Earth or landing at sea. They return to Earth, Turbo - whole.

Again, WHY WOULD THEY?
It would be a massive waste of time, with basically no purpose.

Good one!

Hmm, why would they possibly BOTHER to film rockets when they fly out of all sight, after the first 3-4 minutes?

Because nobody has ever FILMED a rocket after the first 3-4 minutes? Because if a rocket suddenly EXPLODED or MALFUNCTION over the ocean, when they are out of all sight, it would help NASA to understand WHAT HAPPENED to it, BEFORE it exploded or malfunctioned? Because they supposedly have 'footage' and 'tracking data' of every single rocket, from start to finish, but somehow, have NEVER filmed a rocket after the first 3-4 minutes, when it flies out of sight? But, of course, they are happy to show 'footage' of them, a few minutes AFTER that, when we see some tiny lights moving across the PITCH BLACK SKY, which they claim ARE their rockets, flying around in 'space'?


No, that's obviously a 'massive waste of time', it's better to show a bunch of actors suspended by wires in a staged 'capsule', and shooting golf balls on the 'moon', which is certainly NOT a 'massive waste of time' whatsoever!!

I can hear them now...

'Sure, we CAN film rockets flying directly over our US Navy ships, when they drop their debris into the ocean, and film the rest of their flights, before they fly up into 'space', but it would be a MASSIVE WASTE OF TIME! We DO like filming them as little lights in the dark sky, though!!'


Are you delusional, or have a hidden agenda, or in pure denial or reality?

It doesn't matter in the least, but I'm curious...

Good one!

Hmm, why would they possibly BOTHER to film rockets when they fly out of all sight, after the first 3-4 minutes?

Yes, it is a good one. A question you clearly can't answer.

But it is also more nuanced than you present.
It isn't merely why would they film it there.
It is why would they film it there rather than a better location; a location where they can see more details of the launch; a location where the footage is more likely to be of interest to more people.

The only people with motivation to do so are dishonest people like you who falsely claim all rockets crash into the ocean and none go to space.
Because for people like you it would mean filming the rocket crashing into the ocean.

Because nobody has ever FILMED a rocket after the first 3-4 minutes?

Except they have. As already shown. You were shown an example going over land for something like 10 minutes.

Because if a rocket suddenly EXPLODED or MALFUNCTION over the ocean, when they are out of all sight, it would help NASA to understand WHAT HAPPENED to it, BEFORE it exploded or malfunctioned?

Not really.
They already have quite a lot of telemetry.
So you are relying upon a rare occurrence, with that then being rare to get useful data compared to what they have.

Because they supposedly have 'footage' and 'tracking data' of every single rocket, from start to finish

No they don't.
More modern ones often have cameras on the rocket providing footage.
But there is not footage of every rocket.

No, that's obviously a 'massive waste of time', it's better to show a bunch of actors suspended by wires in a staged 'capsule', and shooting golf balls on the 'moon', which is certainly NOT a 'massive waste of time' whatsoever!!

And now you are just resorting to paranoid delusions.

Are you delusional, or have a hidden agenda, or in pure denial or reality?

And more pathetic projection.
I am sane, and being honest. You should try it some time.

Again, if you want the footage, go get it yourself.

Otherwise, stop with the pathetic deflection and try defending your delusional BS.

Where is your evidence that all rockets are crashing into the ocean?
Where is your evidence of a magical dome?

It doesn't matter in the least, but I'm curious...
[/quote]

Quote from: JackBlack on July 02, 2023, 03:12:47 AM

Again, WHY WOULD THEY?
It would be a massive waste of time, with basically no purpose.

Good one!

Hmm, why would they possibly BOTHER to film rockets when they fly out of all sight, after the first 3-4 minutes?

Because nobody has ever FILMED a rocket after the first 3-4 minutes? Because if a rocket suddenly EXPLODED or MALFUNCTION over the ocean, when they are out of all sight, it would help NASA to understand WHAT HAPPENED to it, BEFORE it exploded or malfunctioned? Because they supposedly have 'footage' and 'tracking data' of every single rocket, from start to finish, but somehow, have NEVER filmed a rocket after the first 3-4 minutes, when it flies out of sight? But, of course, they are happy to show 'footage' of them, a few minutes AFTER that, when we see some tiny lights moving across the PITCH BLACK SKY, which they claim ARE their rockets, flying around in 'space'?


No, that's obviously a 'massive waste of time', it's better to show a bunch of actors suspended by wires in a staged 'capsule', and shooting golf balls on the 'moon', which is certainly NOT a 'massive waste of time' whatsoever!!

I can hear them now...

'Sure, we CAN film rockets flying directly over our US Navy ships, when they drop their debris into the ocean, and film the rest of their flights, before they fly up into 'space', but it would be a MASSIVE WASTE OF TIME! We DO like filming them as little lights in the dark sky, though!!'


Are you delusional, or have a hidden agenda, or in pure denial or reality?

It doesn't matter in the least, but I'm curious...

Turdonmimum,

You have no evidence for a magical sky dome. You have no evidence rockets are not doing or not going exactly where the authorities are saying they are going. PLUS, there is excellent film of the Space X rockets landing, precisely where Space X say they will land. Are you only whining about no footage of rockets landing, from 50 years ago?

Turdonmimum, you have no argument. There is NOTHING suspicious. NOTHING.

You seem to be letting your paranoid schizophrenia get the better of you.

Hmm, why would they possibly BOTHER to film rockets when they fly out of all sight, after the first 3-4 minutes?

Here is up to 40 min of footage of a rocket launching up to deployment of its payload. Launched just this week too.

starts at 20min if you want to skip the talky talk.

This was all live when it happened.

The main reason they made it off limits for planes to fly anywhere CLOSE to rockets, is because planes fly nearly as fast as rockets do, and because planes fly HIGHER than rockets do, at cruising altitudes and speeds. If we saw a plane flying above a rocket, going just as FAST as a rocket, we'd know that rockets are a fraud, and all the rest is BS too, as they are all LINKED to their BS about rockets going up into 'space'.

Why are all rocket videos that we see today, made by NASA, et al, or shown by mass media sources? I thought the public was allowed to be there, too. If they are, why are there no videos taken by them? Sure, we can go there, go out on the ocean, we just haven't FILMED one of them yet!  Good one!

I think a key requirement to be a flat earther is an acute inability to use google search.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 02, 2023, 10:25:37 PM

Hmm, why would they possibly BOTHER to film rockets when they fly out of all sight, after the first 3-4 minutes?

Here is up to 40 min of footage of a rocket launching up to deployment of its payload. Launched just this week too.

starts at 20min if you want to skip the talky talk.

This was all live when it happened.

Alright, I will watch it.

Now, let's talk about something.

If I were to make a low budget (or even a higher budget) film where I wanted to show a shuttle going into space, how would I do it? I mean, all I have is a camera and some props, not billions to go into space myself.

Well first, I'd have a zoomed out model rocket that looks realistic and that I load up with makeshift propulsion. Or I could just air pump, film it in slow motion, and add flames under it. Next, we need a close up shot. But again, I don't have a real space ship. So what I do is called compositing. I plaster on a space ship to the film clip, and I can even make little pinpricks so light shines through the film, giving the illusion of a rocket burning. I can do all of this well before CGI. Next, I cut the frame (this is what the word special effects actually refers to, it's a seamless cut in the action to make an effect) and change perspective to a space setting.

All outer space filmings do the equivalent of premature ejaculation. That is, the space shuttle has barely left the troposphere and "Oh look! It's in outer space!!!" Uhhhh you jumped kinda there from about 20,000 ft (roughly 3.5 miles) to 62 miles. They figure the average person will be fooled, they haven't the footage, and they know that even if they could really do this, most people have a short attention span and the longer the trick goes on, the more chance of failure. If a trick were real,they'd be able to continue it without cutting for time. But like me and my low budget film, this long takeoff is not only impossible to film, but but audiences don't expect it.

So let's look at this takeoff.
1. Distant shot
2. Closeup shot
3. Cut to outer space "stage separation."

 At the very least, even were everything not a low budget film using fake rockets and composites, we are still looking at something that isn't live.  The time gap between takeoff and stage separation would not be instant. But it often is.

To this video's credit, it looks real, they show it going more gradually upward with less skip, even though logic should kick in, and we should ask where this camera actually is. Next we see an angled shot. But I realized the camera isn't moving. It's jerking back and forth in place. Switch to composite shot again. Oh look, we have a curved edge to the Earth. This isn't a well made background or anything.

Elon Musk, like everyone else, signs a NDA stating that he won't reveal the magic trick. He hires people to do a frame by frame shot. For awhile, the shots are real. But this ball of blue blob isn't. It's a nice picture though.

They cut to a downward shot, once again set against a background where you can't tell the the camera isn't moving and it shakes back and forth. They move the camera this time, because the object legit appears to be falling. Interesting how to make things fly, you have to hold them fixed in place, but to  make things fall you just let them do their thing. Nice trick and all, but it was a distraction while they prepped the stage separation "event." Misdirection.



Abracadabra! Nothing is what it seems!

Now, let's talk about something.

That the reality is human kind keeps placing objects in earth’s orbit adding to the lights of the night sky.  With the very visible and discernible international space station in orbit.


With you unable to provide any credible evidence the ISS is faked.


With about ever major country having a space agency.

To how comets travel about the planets and sun.


To amateurs that find and track spy satellites.

Meet the amateur astronomers who track secretive spy satellites for fun

https://www.popsci.com/zuma-spy-satellite-amateur-astronomer/?amp

Marco Langbroek has been an amateur astronomer for 40 years, starting when he was six years old. He was fascinated by meteors and fireballs, and started taking pictures of them. He kept it up even as he grew into a decidedly more down-to-earth career in archaeology.

It’s a short jump from meteors to falling satellites, and Langbroek soon became interested in things that fell from the sky that humans had put up there to begin with—satellite re-entry. The change in direction led to a new, loosely-knit network of amateur observers that keeps tabs on the orbits of hundreds of classified satellites that continuously orbit the planet.

“I discovered you could do all kinds of observations on secret satellites, and that captured my imagination, because, well, it’s secret. That’s exciting,” Langbroek, who’s based in the Netherlands, explains with a laugh. “Seeing what you’re not to supposed to see is always a thrill.”

While you blind yourself bulmabriefs144, others that truly seek the truth are “Seeing what you’re not to supposed to see is always a thrill.”

Now, let's talk about something.
If I were to make a low budget (or even a higher budget) film

i.e. lets go and pretend all the evidence is fake because you don't like it and hate reality.

If you don't trust it, you can always go watch a launch yourself.

As for how, I would probably do the cheap option, and use footage from NASA.

All outer space filmings do the equivalent of premature ejaculation. That is, the space shuttle has barely left the troposphere and "Oh look! It's in outer space!!!"

You mean you have no idea how high the shuttle is, and assume it must still be deep in the atmosphere and should have blue all around.
While in reality, it is much higher than that.

What is your basis for claiming it is 20 000 ft? That you need some excuse to dismiss reality?

At the very least, even were everything not a low budget film using fake rockets and composites, we are still looking at something that isn't live.  The time gap between takeoff and stage separation would not be instant. But it often is.

It never is.
It takes off, takes some time, and then you have stage separation.

So you are now just desperately lying to pretend it can't be real.

even though logic should kick in

It does, and we realise you are just making pathetic excuses.

We get it, you hate reality,  so you make up whatever excuses you can. Including outright lying about the altitude of the rocket.
But you can't show any actual faults.

Yes, it is a good one. A question you clearly can't answer.

But it is also more nuanced than you present.
It isn't merely why would they film it there.
It is why would they film it there rather than a better location; a location where they can see more details of the launch; a location where the footage is more likely to be of interest to more people.

The only people with motivation to do so are dishonest people like you who falsely claim all rockets crash into the ocean and none go to space.
Because for people like you it would mean filming the rocket crashing into the ocean.

Not really.
They already have quite a lot of telemetry.
So you are relying upon a rare occurrence, with that then being rare to get useful data compared to what they have.

That's complete nonsense, as usual.

Who WOULDN'T want to film rockets after they fly out of all sight over the ocean, in about 3-4 minutes in all?

They are STILL in view from the launch area, when they vanish soon afterwards, it's basic common sense to film them AFTER that point, directly below their paths, or near to their paths! 

We would see them MUCH CLOSER AND BETTER from there, not to mention seeing them AT ALL from there! 

There's only ONE reason we haven't ever filmed them from there, why THEY'VE never filmed them from there, or likely, never SHOW us their films of them from there!

All you have are ridiculous, absurd excuses for this. Everyone knows that if you saw a plane in the distance, you'd get a MUCH BETTER view of it from directly below it, right? Rockets would be the same, right? Of course they are, you know that much I'm sure.


The excuse about it being 'unsafe' to go there doesn't work anyway, because the US Navy ships ARE right there! Do you really believe THEY'VE never filmed a rocket from their ships, directly BELOW the rockets? I'm sure they don't bother filming rockets while flying right above their ships, right?

You make up ANY excuse for it, no matter how ludicrous it is, because your fairy tale cannot hold up without them, no matter what!


Why, then, would they NEVER film rockets much closer, when they're all out of view from the launch area? Nobody would be that stupid, so it's NOT because of them being stupid, it is for a very GOOD, very LOGICAL reason, we've seen no footage from there - it would show what REALLY happens to rockets, after the first few minutes, when they fly out of all sight, over the ocean, within 'restricted zones', where THEY are, but nobody else, where THEY could film rockets above them, and surely have, and never, EVER show them to us, for that very reason!

You're living in complete denial of reality, or have some sort of agenda, and that's why you play the moron, who spews on about nothing being hidden at all!

That's complete nonsense, as usual.

Why? Because you say so, and it so clearly demonstrates your claim is pure BS?

Who WOULDN'T want to film rockets after they fly out of all sight over the ocean, in about 3-4 minutes in all?

Stop acting like everyone wants to do this.
You need to tell us why they would want to, especially why they would prefer that over the alternatives.
And there simply isn't any sane reason.

Instead, you just need to continually repeat this pathetic lie to pretend there should be loads of footage.

Clinging to this dishonest BS just shows how pathetic your position is.

If you want it filmed from there, go do it yourself.
Don't make insane assumptions about what other people would want. Especially when it has already been explained why those assumptions are BS.

Either film it yourself, or stop clinging to this delusional BS.


Again, where is your evidence that rockets are crashing into the ocean?
Where is your evidence for your magical dome?

YOU HAVE NONE!

There ARE no 'alternatives', that's the whole problem.

The launch area is the ONLY place we can see rockets from, nowhere else is allowed at all, for one reason, and that's the ONLY reason why we can't see them after 3-4 minutes.

They have ALWAYS hidden rockets from all view, after the first few minutes, and you have no excuse for it, and trying to say they aren't hiding anything, when that's ALL they do here, is an absolute crime, and theft, and they only get AWAY with it, when people like you sit back and say 'ok, I see nothing wrong when you don't let us see rockets after 3 or 4 minutes, we see them later on, as little lights at night, when they are in 'orbit', so that's good enough for me'

There ARE no 'alternatives', that's the whole problem.

The launch area is the ONLY place we can see rockets from, nowhere else is allowed at all, for one reason, and that's the ONLY reason why we can't see them after 3-4 minutes.

They have ALWAYS hidden rockets from all view, after the first few minutes, and you have no excuse for it, and trying to say they aren't hiding anything, when that's ALL they do here, is an absolute crime, and theft, and they only get AWAY with it, when people like you sit back and say 'ok, I see nothing wrong when you don't let us see rockets after 3 or 4 minutes, we see them later on, as little lights at night, when they are in 'orbit', so that's good enough for me'

Your a pitiful little troll.

Anyway Stash met you conditions.  And all you can do Turbo is keep lying.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 29, 2023, 01:12:32 AM

Quote from: Stash on April 28, 2023, 10:47:18 PM

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 28, 2023, 10:39:01 PM

Yes, he thought the Firmament was all about SPACE, of course. It's obviously because the Bible constantly mentions 'outer space' in passages.

That's why it was so important to him, and why he wished to tell the world about it, as his last words on Earth!  Trivial, and meaningless, our last words are usually just meaningless drivel!

I'm not sure why you keep going around in circles when this debate was "settled", according to your own criteria, weeks ago...

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 02, 2023, 04:05:51 AM

No, I'm the one who challenges you ball Earth believers to settle who is the liar, and who is telling the truth, by sending rockets upward, to prove if there is, or is not, a Firmament above the Earth.

This is very, very simple to do, and it would settle this entire debate, once and for all. But when your side refuses to do it, having the rockets to do it, we know who the liar is already, and it's not the one who wants to prove who is right, it s the one who refuses to prove who is right, because they know it's not them.

Yes, this is very, very simple to do, and it would settle this entire debate, once and for all. You proposed that we use our rockets to "settle the debate". So here you go, to "settle the debate" as you put it. You asked to send rockets upward to see if they punch a firmament. Here’s one, an uncut rocket flight straight up to 307k feet. It meets your criteria to end the debate and then some:


UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight

Here's another one to "settle the debate":
351,000 feet...


Since this is exactly what you asked for, according to you, this has settled the debate. You have exactly what you asked for and you know what? You're a very dishonest person. You have something factual that goes against your narrative, exactly what you asked for, and you still stomp your feet. That makes you a liar. You're not seeking any truth and you will openly lie, in front of anyone and everyone. Utterly shameful. I hope you're ok with your dishonesty. I certainly am not.

Debate settled...No firmament.

How would you possibly know it's altitude? You don't know it/ You see their 'gauges' put on the videos, which shows it as being at that altitude. What BS you believe as true, without a shred of evidence for it.

That's why they are launched at night when they put fake readings on the clips. Clouds would ruin the whole sham instantly. Get serious.

Umm, first of all, you apparently don't know the difference between day and night. Both of those videos are during, which I'm surprised I have to mention, the day. Do you realize that? As well, in your world there are always clouds in the sky.

Secondly, I have way more evidence than you have. Your "evidence" being somewhere less than zero. I have eyewitness accounts, first hand even, video confirmation. Not to mention the 100's if not thousands in support of designing, engineering, building, and launching such a vehicle. And you have, ummm, yeah, you have, "I reckon those 'gauges' are fake" with zero evidence that they are. You see how this works? And I guess that means that no matter what video you ever post, all anyone has to do is say, "Oh, that's fake..." Well done.

Thirdly, using your own argument, how would you possibly know there is a firmament? You have zero evidence of it other than you just saying so. I mean, zero, zilch.

Lastly, this is exactly the criteria you asked for to "settle the debate"...Remember this:

"...by sending rockets upward, to prove if there is, or is not..."

So you get delivered to you on a silver platter exactly what you asked for and are now trying to side-step it. Do you actually get how dishonest that is? Does that even register? Do you realize that you are making a mockery of your own cause?

You might want to pick a new cause celebre because you are terrible at this flat earth stuff. Straight up lying completely undermines any sort of legitimacy you may think you have. You've done a terrible disservice to anyone who actually believes in FE, making FE look like just a bunch of people who will wiggle and lie there way out of anything when confronted with actual evidence. 

As it stands, considering that you have no evidence to counter any of this and no evidence in support of your dome, as shown here, there is no firmament no matter how much you kick and scream, plead and beg. Debate settled.

There ARE no 'alternatives', that's the whole problem.

There are, as already demonstrated.

It is just people don't care for them.

If you want a video from elsewhere, you go take it.
Don't expect everyone else to do it for you.

The launch area is the ONLY place we can see rockets from, nowhere else is allowed at all, for one reason, and that's the ONLY reason why we can't see them after 3-4 minutes.

Prove it.

They have ALWAYS hidden rockets from all view, after the first few minutes

Except in the plenty of cases where they haven't. Including some footage that has been shown here.
There is absolutely no basis for your insane claim that they are hiding them.

If you want to watch them, or have footage of them, go do it yourself.

You have no evidence they are being hidden.
You have no evidence they are crashing down into the ocean rather than going to space.
You have no evidence for any of your delusional BS.

And that includes your dome, of which there is no evidence at all.

Conversely, there is plenty of evidence of rockets going into space. Evidence that you just dismiss as fake.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 07, 2023, 07:17:23 AM

Now, let's talk about something.

That the reality is human kind keeps placing objects in earth’s orbit adding to the lights of the night sky.  With the very visible and discernible international space station in orbit.


With you unable to provide any credible evidence the ISS is faked.


With about ever major country having a space agency.

To how comets travel about the planets and sun.


To amateurs that find and track spy satellites.

Quote

Meet the amateur astronomers who track secretive spy satellites for fun

https://www.popsci.com/zuma-spy-satellite-amateur-astronomer/?amp

Marco Langbroek has been an amateur astronomer for 40 years, starting when he was six years old. He was fascinated by meteors and fireballs, and started taking pictures of them. He kept it up even as he grew into a decidedly more down-to-earth career in archaeology.

It’s a short jump from meteors to falling satellites, and Langbroek soon became interested in things that fell from the sky that humans had put up there to begin with—satellite re-entry. The change in direction led to a new, loosely-knit network of amateur observers that keeps tabs on the orbits of hundreds of classified satellites that continuously orbit the planet.

“I discovered you could do all kinds of observations on secret satellites, and that captured my imagination, because, well, it’s secret. That’s exciting,” Langbroek, who’s based in the Netherlands, explains with a laugh. “Seeing what you’re not to supposed to see is always a thrill.”

While you blind yourself bulmabriefs144, others that truly seek the truth are “Seeing what you’re not to supposed to see is always a thrill.”

A shill for the state who does counter-conspiracy work for pay telling me about being blind. Don't you understand that money is worthless without trust? Without people being able to trust their government (which involve the government not lying, not people being gullible), money will inflate until it becomes a scrap of paper. They declare it worthless, and have all your money again.

We already have all evidence. We know that Mars missions send astronauts to fake Mars (areas like part of Newfoundland and South America, if I remember correctly) for extended periods. They say it's for training but you can sure as hell bet they get footage from this.
We also know that even without CGI, compositing shots was already so go that they could put someone in a shot in two different places and have them play their own twin (e.g. Parent Trap). And they could safely put Esther Williams underwater for very extended sequences. Why is it not possible to move someone from a pool to "space"? Legit fact: one astronaut almost drowned in space. Where there is supposed to be no air and no moisture.



Instead of accepting you might be wrong, I'll wager eventually you'll try to get this person banned in order to silence them.

You calk me blind, but you are knowingly cooperating in untruth, blind to the fact that you will be used and thrown away.

A shill for the state

??

Can you address what was actually posted instead of changing the subject.

To humankind increasing the number of lights in the night sky, to the international space station, to amateurs that attempt to keep the governments in check by outing spy satellites in orbit. There is more than enough evidence that mankind is placing objects in space in orbit around the earth.  And that is not even including missions to the moon and sun. 

How’s my line go again.  Comets travel about the sun and planets.  Crash into planets and absorbed by the sun.  Why can’t mankind follow in the paths of comets.

 Without people being able to trust their government (which involve the government not lying, not people being gullible),

Which has what to do with private companies making money off services like satellite phone communications for the Pacific Ocean?  Or the Chinese space missions actively sending data from the moon? 

A shill for the state who does counter-conspiracy work for pay telling me about being blind.

A paranoid delusional, nutcase claiming others are paid shills to avoid admitting the truth.

We already have all evidence.

No, you don't.
You have NO evidence.
You have a bunch of lies and wilful rejection of reality.
You rely upon extreme paranoid to dismiss everything that shows you are wrong as fake; while happily accepting any BS anyone else provides.

Even now, you don't rely upon actual evidence that anything is fake.
Instead you just appeal to the fact that fake things can be made to act like that means it must all be fake.

That is not how rational thought works.

All the evidence shows you are wrong.

Why is it not possible to move someone from a pool to "space"?

How are they going to breathe?
There are extended shots of Astronauts, with no breathing apparatus, in free fall (0g). If that was underwater, they would have drowned.
They also move in a manner completely inconsistent with being underwater.

So it being possible is entirely irrelevant to if it would actually explain what is observed.

You aren't looking for the truth, you are looking for a pathetic excuse to dismiss reality.

Legit fact: one astronaut almost drowned in space. Where there is supposed to be no air and no moisture.

And more dishonest BS from you.
It wasn't just an astronaut in space.
It was an astronaut in a space-suit. A suit which has water for a cooling system.
And if that system leaks, it can cause serious issues for the astronaut. Especially as they are in free fall, so they can't lift their head above the water or have it pool in the bottom of the suit.

You calk me blind, but you are knowingly cooperating in untruth, blind to the fact that you will be used and thrown away.

No, that would be you.
Coming here and spouting so many pathetic lies to try and reject reality it isn't funny.
In plenty of these cases you are knowingly lying. You present an alleged issue for the RE, while you already know why it isn't an issue; and you just lie to pretend it is an issue and the answer doesn't work.
You reach a point where the FE doesn't work, and you have no explanation and you just don't care and want to ignore it.
You repeat the same pathetic lies about the RE even after they have been refuted so many times it isn't funny; with you typically just ignoring that refutation and moving on.

So it is quite clear that YOU are the one trying to spread untruth here.

Do you have any evidence at all, that space is fake? Or can you just appeal to paranoid delusional BS where you claim it might be faked?

If not, how about you address the issue of the thread and explain why we can't go to space (ignoring if we have or haven't).

It is just people don't care for them.

If you want a video from elsewhere, you go take it.
Don't expect everyone else to do it for you.

If you want to watch them, or have footage of them, go do it yourself.

You have no evidence they are being hidden.
You have no evidence they are crashing down into the ocean rather than going to space.

Yes, that's exactly why they PREVENT everyone from SEEING them after the first 3-4 minutes at the only area we CAN see them from, the launch area!

We have NEVER been allowed to see or film rockets after the first 3-4 minutes from the ocean, that's why there's not a single VIDEO of it, since day one, and over 50 years SINCE then.

Saying 'nobody has bothered or cared to film a rocket from there', and 'why don't YOU go there and film a rocket?', are complete nonsense, because we WOULD have MANY videos of rockets from there, if we WERE allowed to go there! 

'Hey, let's go off the coast, and film a rocket flying across the ocean. From a point where rockets fly out of all sight from the launch area! Nobody has EVER filmed a rocket from there before, it would certainly be interesting to see it for the first time!'

'Nah' why bother, it's a waste of time!'

That's your argument, isn't it?  NOBODY HAS EVER CARED TO FILM A ROCKET WHERE NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN THEM BEFORE!   Not that it's OFF LIMITS to everyone, of course. EVERYONE can go there, and film rockets, anytime they want to, no problem!

Do you realize that when we last see rockets from the launch area, they are STILL in view? Yes, look at any video of rockets when last seen on video, and notice that they are often still in view.

But for some strange reason, the videos CUT OUT while the rockets are still seen! I'm sure they kept FILMING them, until they were OUT of all view, right? So either THEY inexplicably cut the last part of the videos, or someone else did FOR them, but whatever the case, they WERE cut off.

Anyway, when we last see them on video, at the launch area, just before they cut it off, they would ALSO be seen from OTHER points, from the ocean, right? 

And if people 'care about filming them' when they're far away, from the launch area, why would they NOT 'care' to film them from a point where NOBODY has seen or filmed one before? Oh, right, because you SAY nobody has 'cared' to do it in over 50 years, that's GOT to why!!

Of course, that means [/b]I'm[/b] the only person in the world, who has ever WANTED to see and film a rocket from there, right?  Nobody else has EVER tried to do it before, nobody has ever CARED to do it before!


Ok, any OTHER reasons we've never gone there in over 50 years, or is that about it?

Right, so if I DO go out there, charter a boat, and sail out there, before a rocket launch, I'll be the first person in the world who's filmed a rocket after the first 3-4 minutes, right?

We already KNOW that the rocket would BE visible, because it is visible from the LAUNCH area at that point, and even afterwards, except they cut off the footage before that!

In fact, from that point, rockets would be CLOSER to us, than from the launch area, or at least the same distance away, right?

I'm sure that I'll be allowed to go there, film a rocket from my boat, and bring it back, and put it on YouTube, and become rich and famous from it, right?

I wonder why nobody would have EVER done that before, even TRIED to do it before, in over 50 years? 

I also wonder why NASA, or those on the US Navy ships, which are below these rockets, and collect their debris from the ocean, have ALSO never once filmed rockets from there, either? Maybe THEY 'don't care to' either!!


Thanks, but I really 'don't care to' hear a bunch of BS excuses, I've already heard MORE than enough! 

Maybe someone, someday in future, will realize 'Hey, why not go out into the ocean, and film a rocket from there? It's never been FILMED from there before, nobody has ever 'cared to do it' before'.   

Imagine if someone used their own brain for once, and realized that they could film rockets after the first 3-4 minutes, just by going about 1 or 2 hundred miles off the coast, and film them for the very first time ever, AFTER the first 4 minutes!  Nobody has EVER even TRIED to film them from that point, because nobody has ever CARED about doing it before!



This gets better and better, I can't wait to hear your next excuse!

Quote from: JackBlack on July 08, 2023, 02:33:39 AM

It is just people don't care for them.

If you want a video from elsewhere, you go take it.
Don't expect everyone else to do it for you.

If you want to watch them, or have footage of them, go do it yourself.

You have no evidence they are being hidden.
You have no evidence they are crashing down into the ocean rather than going to space.

Yes, that's exactly why they PREVENT everyone from SEEING them after the first 3-4 minutes at the only area we CAN see them from, the launch area!

We have NEVER been allowed to see or film rockets after the first 3-4 minutes from the ocean, that's why there's not a single VIDEO of it, since day one, and over 50 years SINCE then.

Saying 'nobody has bothered or cared to film a rocket from there', and 'why don't YOU go there and film a rocket?', are complete nonsense, because we WOULD have MANY videos of rockets from there, if we WERE allowed to go there! 

'Hey, let's go off the coast, and film a rocket flying across the ocean. From a point where rockets fly out of all sight from the launch area! Nobody has EVER filmed a rocket from there before, it would certainly be interesting to see it for the first time!'

'Nah' why bother, it's a waste of time!'

That's your argument, isn't it?  NOBODY HAS EVER CARED TO FILM A ROCKET WHERE NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN THEM BEFORE!   Not that it's OFF LIMITS to everyone, of course. EVERYONE can go there, and film rockets, anytime they want to, no problem!

Do you realize that when we last see rockets from the launch area, they are STILL in view? Yes, look at any video of rockets when last seen on video, and notice that they are often still in view.

But for some strange reason, the videos CUT OUT while the rockets are still seen! I'm sure they kept FILMING them, until they were OUT of all view, right? So either THEY inexplicably cut the last part of the videos, or someone else did FOR them, but whatever the case, they WERE cut off.

Anyway, when we last see them on video, at the launch area, just before they cut it off, they would ALSO be seen from OTHER points, from the ocean, right? 

And if people 'care about filming them' when they're far away, from the launch area, why would they NOT 'care' to film them from a point where NOBODY has seen or filmed one before? Oh, right, because you SAY nobody has 'cared' to do it in over 50 years, that's GOT to why!!

Of course, that means [/b]I'm[/b] the only person in the world, who has ever WANTED to see and film a rocket from there, right?  Nobody else has EVER tried to do it before, nobody has ever CARED to do it before!


Ok, any OTHER reasons we've never gone there in over 50 years, or is that about it?

Right, so if I DO go out there, charter a boat, and sail out there, before a rocket launch, I'll be the first person in the world who's filmed a rocket after the first 3-4 minutes, right?

We already KNOW that the rocket would BE visible, because it is visible from the LAUNCH area at that point, and even afterwards, except they cut off the footage before that!

In fact, from that point, rockets would be CLOSER to us, than from the launch area, or at least the same distance away, right?

I'm sure that I'll be allowed to go there, film a rocket from my boat, and bring it back, and put it on YouTube, and become rich and famous from it, right?

I wonder why nobody would have EVER done that before, even TRIED to do it before, in over 50 years? 

I also wonder why NASA, or those on the US Navy ships, which are below these rockets, and collect their debris from the ocean, have ALSO never once filmed rockets from there, either? Maybe THEY 'don't care to' either!!


Thanks, but I really 'don't care to' hear a bunch of BS excuses, I've already heard MORE than enough! 

Maybe someone, someday in future, will realize 'Hey, why not go out into the ocean, and film a rocket from there? It's never been FILMED from there before, nobody has ever 'cared to do it' before'.   

Imagine if someone used their own brain for once, and realized that they could film rockets after the first 3-4 minutes, just by going about 1 or 2 hundred miles off the coast, and film them for the very first time ever, AFTER the first 4 minutes!  Nobody has EVER even TRIED to film them from that point, because nobody has ever CARED about doing it before!



This gets better and better, I can't wait to hear your next excuse!

Yeah right, soo, umm, Earth must be flat because Turdarium can't find any film of a rocket after 3 or 4 minutes after takeoff. That means the Earth is flat, folks, and it's covered in a sky dome that nobody has ever seen, filmed, or felt. Just makes total sense!

Nobody here has tried too hard to find film of a rocket landing in the ocean, Turdarium, and that goes quadruple for you. For a guy who hasn't got a clue in the world how a rocket even works, you sure have it all figured out, dontcha boy?

Being that all rockets are nothing more than missiles, with a phony 'crew capsule', and massive side or bottom engines pasted on them, to drop off about 4 minutes later on, into these huge 'restricted zones', so they have an excuse to not let anyone see them when they spend all their fuel, and plummet into the Atlantic, soon afterwards.

It's not a coincidence that we created missiles with advanced guidance systems at the same time as rockets had advanced guidance systems, too, or about the same time, anyway.

They told us that rockets veer off almost in horizontal paths, to gain speed, which is ALSO a lie, because rockets veer off at very low altitudes, below where clouds are, and where there is far more AIR RESISTANCE than at higher altitudes, which is why PLANES fly at high altitudes, as soon as possible after taking off into the air.

This goes to the Firmament above our flat Earth. If rockets really WERE flying up into 'space', they would go straight up through the air, to reach beyond it, into 'space', and THEN veer off into 'orbit' of a ball Earth, that also doesn't exist.

That's what planes do, they fly as straight up as possible, after they take off from the ground, until they reach cruising altitudes, where there is much less AIR, and much less AIR RESISTANCE to fly through.  Not only that, but planes are able to GAIN MORE SPEED there, too.

But rockets can fly straight up, unlike planes, and would spend even LESS time to reach high altitudes like planes fly within, by an angular ascent, and more time to reach up to such altitudes.

Rockets are doing the complete opposite of what planes do, which also shows that rockets are all faked, of course. Speed is gained by flying through LESS air, of course. Not where rockets veer off at.

Rockets cannot fly beyond the Firmament above the Earth, that's why they veer off at low altitudes, and fly out of all sight after a few minutes, where they all crash down into the ocean.

That is the most important, most crucial secret they must make sure is ever found out by us.

They have no choice but to leave many clues that rockets are NOT legit. They veer off at low altitudes, below where clouds are, at about 10-12000 feet. And they never fly much higher than that, when they go out of all sight, over the ocean, either.

Because of the Firmament, rockets cannot ever go up into 'space', which doesn't exist, either. Not as they claim it does, as an endless area surrounding a ball Earth.

Being that all rockets are nothing more than missiles, with a phony 'crew capsule', and massive side or bottom engines pasted on them, to drop off about 4 minutes later on, into these huge 'restricted zones',

Again stash met your “video requirements”.

None of what you’re staring is true for this blue origin launch.  And it’s successful landing.

UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight

Then you have radar tracking of space objects where some are bright enough in the night sky to track.  With mankind adding to the lights of the night sky.

Hey turbo.  Didn’t get self righteous and think you wrote the cited material below.

Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris

Among the more than 8700 objects larger than 10 cm in Earth orbits, only about 6% are operational satellites and the remainder is space debris. Europe currently has no operational space surveillance system, but a powerful radar facility for the detection and tracking of space debris and the imaging of space objects is available in the form of the 34 m dish radar at the Research Establishment for Applied Science (FGAN) at Wachtberg near Bonn, in Germany.
In this article, the current space-debris environment surrounding the Earth is briefly presented and the hazard that it and meteoroids represent is discussed. The more than ten years of successful cooperation between FGAN and ESA’s European Space Operations Centre (ESOC) in the field of space-debris research is also summarised.

https://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet109/chapter16_bul109.pdf

With space junk falling from space now and then.


Lastly.  Space dust, radiation from the sun, charge particles from the sun make it to earth.  Meteorites fall to earth from space. Meteorites have been recorded crashing into the moon.  Comets travel the solar system.  About planets.  Sometimes crashing into them.  Comets pivot about the sun.  Somethings the sun is too much, and comets do not survey the pivot.

Now.  Why can’t mankind at least travel the paths of comets, and travel to the source of meteorites.


With there being absolutely zero evidence by radar survey of a “dome”.  While radar surveys of the moon and Venus are conducted from earth.

Again, your video shows a rocket veering off at low altitude, flying out of all sight, where they never allow us to go and see them, or film them from.

If you look at videos of rockets, in daylight, when clouds are in the sky, which they stopped doing because of what it shows - their actual altitude in the sky.

These rockets are seen veering off LOWER than the clouds are, about 10-12000 feet, typically.

Eventually, the rockets fly up INTO the clouds, and take over 20 seconds before they are ABOVE the clouds, and never go much higher than that, when they fly out of all sight.

Of course, they never put an 'instrument panel' on THOSE videos, it would show how FAKE they are! 

But it still shows that rockets veer off at low altitudes, and fly off in a very slow, very GRADUAL ascent, which takes over 20 seconds to fly above the clouds during their flights.

Of course, this is confirmed by seeing their orientation in the sky, where their engines are seen behind the unseen nose in the front.

If we were ever ALLOWED to see and film rockets from that point, across our view, we'd see they are flying almost horizontal, as well. And we'd also see the nose and tail are nearly straight across from one another, indicating it IS in a horizontal path, NOT going up into 'space', like they fake it in their videos, showing a partial ball Earth below it, with blackness of 'space surrounding it!

This video was taken in cloudless skies, which is what they want. They hate launching rockets when there's clouds in the sky, it gives the fake away. To anyone using their brain and common sense, that is. It's rarely seen these days, sadly.

It's also funny when we see the rocket flying off nearly horizontal, with the engines on the bottom seen nearly the same height as the nose, which is not seen in the front, but the rest of it is....

That's when they put it in split screen, with the 'view' from the rocket beside the view from Earth.

From Earth, the rocket is seen under our blue skies, while from the 'rocket', we see a part of ball Earth and the blackness of 'space' around it! How could we see the rocket UNDER the blue sky, BOLCKING part of the bule sky out, ABOVE the rocket, and also see a ball Earth in black 'space', FROM this 'rocket'? Because only the view from Earth is real, the other view is a complete FAKE, that's why.

That rocket is clearly no higher that cruising altitude, perhaps lower, which is about 50000 feet high. If it was as high as the 'gauge' reads, which is a laughable 100000 plus feet altitude, we couldn't SEE it on the video, or a tiny speck at most, and it would NOT block out the blue sky, it would be above it, in 'space', by that point.

What a joke.

Again, your video shows a rocket veering off at low altitude, m

This video?

UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight

Really?

And your changing the subject from the opening post…

One of the most intriguing aspects of flat earth are those that push space travel is impossible.

And yet.  Comets come and go, changing the night sky.  Comets that travel about our solar system.  Orbit the sun if they don’t get vaporized by the sun.  And a well documented comet that broke apart and crashed into Jupiter.  Leaving dark spots for months, if not changes to Jupiter for years. 

Meteorites light up heaven and earth when falling from space. 

We know, or the evidence is well documented, there is a belt of asteroids in our solar system.

We have a moon, earth’s natural satellite, orbiting our planet.  We can see with binoculars or telescopes other planets in our solar system also have natural satellites.

But, some flat earther’s believe it’s impossible for man to follow where comets, meteorites, and natural satellites have traveled.  Makes no sense.

What proof do you have it’s impossible for mankind to travel in the paths of comets, and to the source of meteorites.

Yes, that's exactly why they PREVENT everyone from SEEING them after the first 3-4 minutes at the only area we CAN see them from, the launch area!

You have been provided footage which lasted for something like 10 minutes.

Stop just repeating the same pathetic lie.
You can get the footage.

If you want to claim otherwise, you need to prove it.

And no, the absence of video from it does not prove it in any way.

Saying 'nobody has bothered or cared to film a rocket from there', and 'why don't YOU go there and film a rocket?', are complete nonsense, because we WOULD have MANY videos of rockets from there, if we WERE allowed to go there!

No, we wouldn't.

Just think of any random thing.
People could paint their wall in a checkerboard pattern, and film the paint dry.
Where are all the videos of this?
Just think, "it would certainly be interesting to see it for the first time!"
Are you saying people aren't allowed to do that?
No. Because such a claim would be insanity.

Your fantasy about everyone thinking it is interesting is just that, a fantasy.
And that is all your argument is. A pure fantasy because you can't handle reality.

Why should someone prefer to spend all the time and money to go out to sea, a considerable way (and take on the associated risks of that) just to film a crappy video, which they could have done far cheaper and getting far more detail by driving to be closer to the launch site?

Don't just act like they can do this, with no consequences at all, no choice of alternatives, no cost, and so on.

Of course, that means [/b]I'm[/b] the only person in the world, who has ever WANTED to see and film a rocket from there, right?

And yet you make no attempt to try. I wonder why?

As I said, if you want the footage, get it yourself.

I know I wouldn't care to do that.

Most rocket enthusiasts want to see the initial launch up close, so they aren't going to care to go out to sea. Especially not if it means giving up on seeing the initial stages of the launch.
Why would they want to give that up, to spend considerable time on a boat to go out to sea to film the rocket when quite far away (close to space if not already in space)?

Your pathetic excuses make no sense.

I'll be the first person in the world who's filmed a rocket after the first 3-4 minutes, right?

No. You have already been provided footage after much longer than that.

In fact, from that point, rockets would be CLOSER to us, than from the launch area, or at least the same distance away, right?

At that single moment, yes. But overall, NO!
In the early stages of the launch it would be much closer to the launch area.

I also wonder why NASA, or those on the US Navy ships, which are below these rockets, and collect their debris from the ocean, have ALSO never once filmed rockets from there, either? Maybe THEY 'don't care to' either!!

Maybe because they have work to do.
And unlike you, they don't see the big deal.

Thanks, but I really 'don't care to' hear a bunch of BS excuses

Then stop making them and start justifying your BS.


Where is your evidence that rockets crash into the ocean?
Where is your evidence of your magical dome?

You have none.

Stop making pathetic excuses, and address your complete lack of evidence.

It's not a coincidence that we created missiles with advanced guidance systems at the same time as rockets had advanced guidance systems, too, or about the same time, anyway.

Yes, because guidance systems are comparable.

They told us that rockets veer off almost in horizontal paths, to gain speed, which is ALSO a lie, because rockets veer off at very low altitudes

No, that is just another of your baseless claims. A claim you cannot justify at all.
You were even provided with footage of a rocket quite quickly going above a plane.

It is just another desperate fantasy of yours to try to dismiss reality.

This goes to the Firmament above our flat Earth. If rockets really WERE flying up into 'space', they would go straight up through the air, to reach beyond it, into 'space', and THEN veer off into 'orbit' of a ball Earth, that also doesn't exist.

No, they wouldn't, as that would be a massive waste of fuel.
For a 1 kg object, going to LEO, the kinetic energy required is roughly 32 MJ. The gravitational potential energy required (taking the simple option of treating g as fixed at 9.8 m/s^2) is only ~ 4 MJ

So why would they waste all that fuel?
Especially considering if they followed your insane advice, they would need to go up much higher, to then turn and ignite their engines to get up enough speed to reach orbital velocity before falling back down into the atmosphere. It would be a massive waste.

That's what planes do, they fly as straight up as possible, after they take off from the ground, until they reach cruising altitudes, where there is much less AIR, and much less AIR RESISTANCE to fly through.  Not only that, but planes are able to GAIN MORE SPEED there, too.

Planes fly at roughly 1000 km/hr, compared to the rockets 28 000 km/hr, and they still take off going horizontal, and continue to fly mostly horizontal to keep up their lift.

But considering you want to make such comparisons, how about missiles?

They pop out of their tubes or out of the water, and then turn to go mostly sideways quite quickly.

Rockets are doing the complete opposite of what planes do, which also shows that rockets are all faked, of course.

Or that you are desperately trying to reject reality.

Rockets cannot fly beyond the Firmament above the Earth, that's why they veer off at low altitudes

Even if we were to accept your delusional BS as true in almost its entirety, why would they veer off below the altitude of planes?

Even your fantasy makes no sense.
You aren't trying for a coherent model, you are just spouting whatever delusional BS you can to pretend it is fake.

and fly out of all sight after a few minutes, where they all crash down into the ocean.
That is the most important, most crucial secret they must make sure is ever found out by us.
They have no choice but to leave many clues that rockets are NOT legit. They veer off at low altitudes, below where clouds are, at about 10-12000 feet. And they never fly much higher than that, when they go out of all sight, over the ocean, either.
Because of the Firmament, rockets cannot ever go up into 'space', which doesn't exist, either. Not as they claim it does, as an endless area surrounding a ball Earth.

No, that is your paranoid delusion.
A bunch of worthless claims you cannot justify at all.

Again, where is your evidence that rockets crash into the ocean?
Where is your evidence of your magic dome?

Again, your video shows a rocket veering off at low altitude, flying out of all sight, where they never allow us to go and see them, or film them from.

No it doesn't.
If you think it does, why don't you tell us how you calculated its altitude?

If you look at videos of rockets, in daylight, when clouds are in the sky, which they stopped doing because of what it shows - their actual altitude in the sky.

You still see the rocket go quite high.
If you disagree, provide footage to prove it.

Of course, this is confirmed by seeing their orientation in the sky, where their engines are seen behind the unseen nose in the front.

Which tells you nothing about the altitude.
And it also confirms that it is NOT going horizontal.

If we were ever ALLOWED to see and film rockets from that point

And again appealing to delusional BS.

You are allowed to film it.

To anyone using their brain and common sense, that is. It's rarely seen these days, sadly.

Yes, you are a great example of those lacking common sense and refusing to use their brain.
But those that have common sense and use their brain can see straight through your BS.

From Earth, the rocket is seen under our blue skies, while from the 'rocket', we see a part of ball Earth and the blackness of 'space' around it! How could we see the rocket UNDER the blue sky, BOLCKING part of the bule sky out, ABOVE the rocket, and also see a ball Earth in black 'space', FROM this 'rocket'? Because only the view from Earth is real, the other view is a complete FAKE, that's why.

Again, this is your delusional fantasy where you want to pretend the blue comes from a magic dome, rather than the atmosphere just scattering the light.

You see the sky as blue because otherwise it is just the darkness of space.
But put an object in it, and that blue is much harder to see.

You are seeing the rocket THROUGH the blue atmosphere, not under it.

That rocket is clearly no higher that cruising altitude

Based upon what?

we couldn't SEE it on the video, or a tiny speck at most

So you don't understand how zoom works either?