Re: Space Travel, the Firmament & God

It doesn’t look like it’s spinning to you?

No, it doesn't.
It looks like an out of focus object, seen through a lens which is creating diffraction patterns and through a turbulent atmosphere.
I see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING indicating any feature on the object itself nor any alleged motion of that.

these features constantly appear to change in shape, though their specific details remain seen throughout the time.

Again, this a direct contradiction.
Either they remain the same, or they are changing.
Pick a lane and stick to it.

We can see the blue area is rotating

No, we don't.
Again, if you want to claim such utter crap, provide the frames from the video clearly showing this.
Make sure it shows the rotation like you claim.

This also means you need to show it changing from not blue to blue across the image, rather than all at once.
It also means showing how it is periodic.

The frames must all be looked at closely and thoroughly to see all this

Yet instead of attempting that, you just continually assert your pathetic crap with no justification.

The point is that this cannot be possible by any external cause or effects or out of focus instruments. Not a chance in hell

You mean you choose to remain wilfully ignorant of explanations and close yourself off to the possibility of such, to pretend your delusional fantasy is true.

Have you ever seen diffraction patterns do anything even close to this before? Anyone can say it’s caused by this or that or both this and that, like you are saying here, it’s nothing but crap without any actual examples you can show me here, so either show me any examples of it, or don’t say this crap is capable of causing this!

Have you ever seen diffraction patterns

That is only one part of it.
Primarily explaining the specific spikes that appear.

I notice you still don't provide any analysis of the frames to support your pathetic BS.
It seems all you can do is assert pathetic crap.

Likewise, I see no response to the fact that even if your dishonest, delusional BS was true and these stars are magical and have features; they still need to be incredibly far away, and it still wouldn't work in your delusional fantasy.

I would show the frames if I had a computer at hand, though you’d still make excuses for it all. You always have and always will make up excuses for everything.

I would show the frames if I had a computer at hand

So go get one and make an argument.

You always have and always will make up excuses for everything.

Clearly explaining why you are spouting pure BS, and explaining what is actually expected for the RE model vs FE model and so on, is NOT making excuses.

Do you know what is making excuses? Saying that you would be able to make an argument if you had a computer, but because you don't you can't.

I’m not wasting my time on it because you already say it’s not rotating at all, it’s diffraction causing the star to appear to be in constant and rapid rotation,,but you dont see it rotating or appearing to rotate anyway, how obvious can it look any other way is pure denial of what we all can clearly see as rotation, you see what you want to see and not see what is obvious to everyone else but you

I’m not wasting my time on it

And another pathetic excuse from you.
Not wasting your time, to defend your BS claims, claims you have made no real attempt to defend.
As if you know trying to do it will show you are a lying POS.

Again, I'm not the one making excuses here. YOU ARE!
You make bold baseless claim, and that make excuses as to why you shouldn't have to defend them, and then just insult those who question your BS.

The one wasting everyone's time here is YOU!

If you aren't willing to defend your BS, don't claim it.

Here, I'll do it for you. This is one frame:

This is the following frame:


This is not rotation.
This is not a blue feature on it rotating to come into view.
This is something affecting the colour of the view.
And there are plenty of things that can do that, including auto-white balance which is a feature on most cameras, including the Nikon P900.
And auto white balance really sucks and utterly fails to do its job when the only thing in the scene is a single light source.

So going to stop with all the BS?

It is clearly in rotation, a very rapid and constant rotation, that’s blatantly obvious to see in this video.

There’s no external cause or causes that can make this all happen, it has many details that are in different positions over the frames, while it rotates rapidly. No effect or camera issue or anything else can make that happen. If it did, there’d never be such details in other positions over the frames. It would look entirely different and no same details in other positions would be seen in all the frames.

I find it amazing and want to see them closer and closer in future. I’m sure we will too.

We’ve just begun to see what stars and Saturn, etc. up close enough to see what they really are, what they look like and move like.

Excuses are not going to last much longer, though they already don’t wash at all now.

It is clearly in rotation, a very rapid and constant rotation, that’s blatantly obvious to see in this video.

When been over this before.

Quote from: turbonium2 on December 02, 2023, 11:17:57 PM

The effects of atmosphere do not, have not, will not cause motionless objects to appear in constant, endless motion, let alone cause anything to appear in motion, and the closest thing to causing any motion is blurring out all the air around an object, which we see blur out everything in the area, not just an object in that area. 

And yet here is a short video with my cellphone showing an airplane running light like it’s in “endless motion”



And.  Again.

Just the fact Jupiter and Saturn exist with their own moon systems kills your dome delusion.

Or this picture of a red warning light on a radio tower

September 03, 2023,

Ok?

Look.  Bridge in motion.







Oh, look.  I can make a light off a radio tower look like one of your stars.

[/quote]

Well, look what the heat haze is doing to the edge of the moon.



Added

The still light siting still is not always stilly.

Like this light sitting with nothing to do.



How the atmosphere makes it spin… and prance.  How the heat off the tracks makes it dance.  While autofocus fights it’s self in a dizzy trance.   



As the still shot shows the jets of gas that are shotty



Oh how the heat could make the light that sat still dance and prance



It’s fun to trick flat earther’s, you just got to know how…

I’m not wasting my time on it

Now.  Turbo.

Comets travel about the solar system between planets and around the sun under the influence of the sun.

Why can’t people travel with machines in the paths of comets.

It is clearly in rotation, a very rapid and constant rotation, that’s blatantly obvious to see in this video.

Repeating the same pathetic lie will not magically make it true.

If you want to claim it is in rapid and constant rotation, then PROVE IT!
Explain exactly what visual observation you are making from the video to show it, and show it frame by frame.

Otherwise, you are just repeating the same pathetic lie again and again.

Excuses are not going to last much longer, though they already don’t wash at all now.

Then stop with all the excuses.
Either prove your pathetic BS is true or stop claiming it.

We’ve waited to see proof of any rocket flying up into ‘space, which they’ll never show us, since they burn all their fuel within the first 8 or 9 minutes or less, and by then they’re completely out of all our view, far enough away to not be seen with any instruments, because of their distance away and their low altitude, making them impossible to see.

Again, I’ve repeatedly told you that rockets flying straight upward the whole time, would be seen as ever smaller specks in the blue skies above us, even through magnification, would soon be very very small specks below the blue skies.

When now they’re trying to sell this bs story with rockets that are clearly below our blue skies, because those rockets BLOCK OUT THE BLUE SKIES ABOVE THEM, just like we see PLANES DO EVERY DAY!!

Objects block out things behind them, above them, below them, those are facts they everyone knows before grade school, so why I need to tell you that simple fact doesn’t make any sense, it’s not open to debate, it’s fact.


When the rocket is showing us ‘black of space’ from a camera supposedly pointed out to its side, while we DO see it is well below our blue skies, they would see only those same blue skies above them in the rocket, because we can see it is blue above the rocket, and we never see any ‘black of space’ above the rockets…

The blue skies are see high  above the rocket, in all directions upward.

The blue skies above the rocket would be higher than the view across the rockets side, and it’s blue skies seen behind it and above it in all directions, including what would be ‘across from it’ at the same altitude it’s at.

Of course, as always, it is often what they DONT show us that is more important than what they do show us. But in this case, it is both.

They show us ‘black of space’
seen across the side of a rocket which is clearly well below the blue above it, and behind it, blocking out the blue above and behind it…

Here’s what they make sure is NEVER shown from a rocket camera - the view above the rocket, because they know it CANNOT be shown….

Because it would show the blue skies above it, of course.

Why would that be a problem, we can all see it is blue above the rocket?

Right, we all know that, why wouldn’t they show it must be a simple oversight, or they didn’t have a camera pointed upward on the rocket, but it’s no big deal!! There’s nothing to hide here!

But they know many people don’t use their intelligence or reasoning or common sense very often anymore. Nobody cares what they see or don’t see and put the two things together

If they had pointed that same camera showing ‘the bla k of space’ directly upward along the side of that rocket, or had another camera pointed straight upward on the rocket….

We’d see blue skies above that rocket, same as we see blue above it from the surface.

So they show the ‘black of space’ at the same altitude as the rocket, and then show blue skies above the rocket, at a much higher altitude than tney showed ‘black of space’ is!!

The blue skies cannot vanish from sight and show only ‘black of space’ when it’s blue all above the rocket. higher than the rocket, higher than the ‘black of space’ is seen on the video.

So that’s why they don’t show the view above the rocket, because it is blue, and even though we see it is blue above the rocket, we don’t realize it cannot be black of space lower than it is all blue!

I see you have yet again had your BS so utterly defeated you have decide you have no choice but to entirely flee the topic.

I take it that means you fully accept that footage does not show any rotation like you have repeatedly claimed; that you fully admit you repeatedly lied to us?

I’ve told you I need to use a computer for that, and when I do I’ll show the frames to you, don’t bs about me avoiding it, youre just being a weasel, as usual.

Look soecifically along the top part of the star to see the rotation, it’s most noticeable there.

There are some sort of ‘tall spikes’ atop the star, which also change shape like the other features, but the spikes are seen going around in a rotational movement seen in many of the frames.

Of course, seeing an objects motion requires seeing it on video footage, it doesn’t show up in separate frames or images, as they are most aware of, and why they never have shown us videos of Saturn or stars at all.

I’ve told you I need to use a computer for that,

What are using to post in this thread?  A stone tablet. 

I’ve told you I need

i.e. you came up with pathetic excuses.
And apparently, you haven't had access to a computer for two weeks.
If you didn't have access, you shouldn't have made the pathetic claim.

And if that really was the issue, you wouldn't entirely ignore the topic and spam with other pathetic BS.

You have done what you and other lying scum like you do so often.
You spam a bunch of BS, have it refuted many times, then flee to other BS to pretend you are correct.
It just shows how pathetic, dishonest, and desperate you are.

Look specifically along the top part of the star to see the rotation, it’s most noticeable there.

Again, I see no rotation there.
If you want to claim it is, PROVE IT!

And before you make the same pathetic excuses, save it.
Leave this thread, and never come back until you have done the analysis on the computer to show it.

I’ll do it when I want to do it, when I want to set up my computer, I don’t give a s$(; what you want me to do and by next week or whatever. Move on, it’s my issue not yours

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 27, 2025, 05:24:48 AM

I’m not wasting my time on it

And another pathetic excuse from you.
Not wasting your time, to defend your BS claims, claims you have made no real attempt to defend.
As if you know trying to do it will show you are a lying POS.

Again, I'm not the one making excuses here. YOU ARE!
You make bold baseless claim, and that make excuses as to why you shouldn't have to defend them, and then just insult those who question your BS.

The one wasting everyone's time here is YOU!

If you aren't willing to defend your BS, don't claim it.

Here, I'll do it for you. This is one frame:

This is the following frame:


This is not rotation.
This is not a blue feature on it rotating to come into view.
This is something affecting the colour of the view.
And there are plenty of things that can do that, including auto-white balance which is a feature on most cameras, including the Nikon P900.
And auto white balance really sucks and utterly fails to do its job when the only thing in the scene is a single light source.

Right, this is really just a tiny point of light trillions of miles away, look at what happens to it with distortion and effects of atmosphere and a few camera settings you know he used here!!

It’s just from every possible excuse in a very specific level of each one in combination causing all this to appear on the tiny point of light trillions of miles away!

It must look like a tiny point of star or it’s caused by something to look like that and move like that.

I’m not wasting my time on it

Now.  Turbo.

Comets travel about the solar system between planets and around the sun under the influence of the sun.

Why can’t people travel with machines in the paths of comets.

We’ve waited to see proof of any rocket flying up into ‘space, which they’ll never show us, since they burn all their fuel within the first 8 or 9 minutes or less, and by then they’re completely out of all our view, far enough away to not be seen with any instruments, because of their distance away and their low altitude, making them impossible to see.

What are you talking about?  SpaceX live streams their Falcon 9 launches all the time, including on board cameras showing the flight from shortly after lift off all the way to orbit.

I’ll do it when I want to do it,

i.e. you will continue to spout pathetic BS excuses, while refusing to defend your pathetic BS.

Again, the appropriate action for you here is to leave the thread and only come back once you have done it.

It is entirely inappropriate for you to spam the same pathetic, baseless BS, or to deflect onto a completely different issue.

Right, this is really just a tiny point of light trillions of miles away

viewed through a turbulent atmosphere and an out of focus camera.
You don't even have something which would be quite simple to help resolve this issue, scanning through the focal lengths, to show it going in and out of focus, to show this is where it is most focused.
And why is that? Because they can't focus past it in any meaningful way, and any attempt to do so would just show it is out of focus.

Again, there are plenty of ways for you to try to honestly defend your pathetic BS, but you continue to appeal to pathetic, dishonest BS.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 02, 2025, 10:18:36 PM

We’ve waited to see proof of any rocket flying up into ‘space, which they’ll never show us, since they burn all their fuel within the first 8 or 9 minutes or less, and by then they’re completely out of all our view, far enough away to not be seen with any instruments, because of their distance away and their low altitude, making them impossible to see.

What are you talking about?  SpaceX live streams their Falcon 9 launches all the time, including on board cameras showing the flight from shortly after lift off all the way to orbit.

Oh no, not this crap again!

They love to create cheesy videos where they add fake scenes of a ball Earth below rockets, like this one.

But this one stopped showing the rocket from Earth after they showed it in ‘space’, unlike others, showing the rockets below the blue sky while showing ‘the black of space’ surrounding a piece of a ball Earth directly across the side of the rocket!

You never addressed what I said about that earlier. I said how can we clearly see the rocket is below the blue skies and blocking out the blue skies behind and above it, while the supposed rocket camera shows the ‘black of space above part of a ball Earth below!

From the actual altitude of the rocket, which we don’t know exactly, we know it is well below the blue skies high above it, and behind it, blocking it out because it IS below the blue skies above it.

So if they had filmed the skies directly above the rocket, we’d see it was all blue skies, just as we see it blue high above it from the surface.

From its size, we know it is no higher than cruising altitude of planes, around 30 to 40000 feet or so. We also know it is blue high above the rockets too, and that we can easily see the rocket at that altitude confirms it is no higher than planes fly at cruising altitude. It is probably even lower than tnat, otherwise the rocket would be very small to see, being a bit longer than planes doesn’t account for that, look at half the rocket as a plane, it is still much bigger to see than a 747 for example at cruising altitide, which are just little specks on the sky at those altitudes.

Thanks to them showing the rocket from liftoff into air and through clouds that the phony instrument panel
‘measures’ as 19 km altitude, or over 60000 feet, in continual footage, where there ARE no clouds nearly that high up, which is the first problem I’ll note here…

The continual footage shows they are not zooming in on the rocket at all, so we know its size based on the size we saw it at the launch pad.

Have you ever seen how large a 747 (and new versions) are when sitting on the tarmac, from an airport or near the runway?  I’ve seen it countless times because I live near an airport.  And I’ve seen 747’s and other large planes flying very high in the sky at cruising altitudes too, at other locations, (since they’re rarely seen cruising above airports, unless on paths that go near airports, but I don’t know of any off hand.

The length of a 747 ranges from 230 to 250 feet or so, nose to tail. The space x rocket is 397 feet long at the launch pad and when last seen from the ground flying through clouds that can’t exist at 60000 feet altitude, so that’s one thing indicating the rocket is far lower than such altitudes theiy put on a phony instrument panel.

That we can easily see the rocket as it begins to fly into the clouds is much bigger to see than planes at HALF that altitude accounting for their different lengths, further confirms beyond any doubt that the rocket is nowhere NEAR 62000 feet altitude at that time.

We also know they don’t zoom in on the rocket after it launches up into air.  Of course even a moron would zoom in on it as it flies up, but not the geniuses at NASA or Space X!!   Maybe we need to tell them their cameras have a zoom
Feature on them!!’😂😂

The whole video is a complete joke. I won’t go into all the bs though, it would take a whole page to post them all.


Ok, so we have the blue sky high above the rocket, we have the rocket flying up into clouds, and we see the rocket easily in the sky compared to a 747 at 40000 feet, as a little speck above.

Btw, that’s why they’re now ‘darkening’ bright blue skies when the rockets are around clouds, hoping nobody notices it’s bright at first, then suddenly much darker, in a split second!!

Unless you want to tell me there’s no clouds there when the rocket flies into something in the sky that aren’t clouds, which their phony instrument panel says is at 62000 feet altitude?

Oh no, not this crap again!

You mean this video that shows what you ask for but also shows you are wrong so you desperately dismiss it as fake.

Do you have any evidence it is fake?
No.
Do you have any reason to think it is fake?
No.

All you have is your pathetic desperation to pretend Earth is flat.

But again, your pathetic rant about rockets was a just a pathetic deflection from your inability to support your claims of magic rotating stars.

How about you finish up that BS before you start lying about rockets?

Quote from: markjo on August 03, 2025, 10:13:11 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 02, 2025, 10:18:36 PM

We’ve waited to see proof of any rocket flying up into ‘space, which they’ll never show us, since they burn all their fuel within the first 8 or 9 minutes or less, and by then they’re completely out of all our view, far enough away to not be seen with any instruments, because of their distance away and their low altitude, making them impossible to see.

What are you talking about?  SpaceX live streams their Falcon 9 launches all the time, including on board cameras showing the flight from shortly after lift off all the way to orbit.

Oh no, not this crap again!

They love to create cheesy videos where they add fake scenes of a ball Earth below rockets, like this one.

Thanks for demonstrating yet again that FE’ers have no interest in engaging in a good faith discussion.  You asked for evidence of rockets going into space and immediately dismiss said evidence when presented. 

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 03, 2025, 10:29:55 PM

Oh no, not this crap again!

You mean this video that shows what you ask for but also shows you are wrong so you desperately dismiss it as fake.

Do you have any evidence it is fake?
No.
Do you have any reason to think it is fake?
No.

All you have is your pathetic desperation to pretend Earth is flat.

But again, your pathetic rant about rockets was a just a pathetic deflection from your inability to support your claims of magic rotating stars.

How about you finish up that BS before you start lying about rockets?

No, we’re still dealing with your bs, which started years ago.

Clouds don’t exist at 62000 feet altitude, like the bs ‘instrument panel’ reads as the rocket enters clouds.

So that alone proves their ‘instrument readings’ are fake.

That’s probably why you ignored it.

Let’s settle this issue first, the rest isn’t necessary to deal with.

Clouds don’t exist at 62000 feet altitude, like the bs ‘instrument panel’ reads as the rocket enters clouds.

Ahem.

A polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) is a cloud that forms in the winter polar stratosphere at altitudes from 15,000 to 25,000 m (49,000 to 82,000 ft). They are best observed during civil twilight, when the Sun is between 1° and 6° below the horizon, as well as in winter and in more northerly latitudes.

Thanks for demonstrating yet again that FE’ers have no interest in engaging in a good faith discussion.  You asked for evidence of rockets going into space and immediately dismiss said evidence when presented.

I explained why the video is not evidence, and that’s why I dismissed it.  I could have gone further into why it’s not evidence, like I said, because it would fill up a page to post.

But it’s YOUR SIDE who ignores my points as to the fake footage added to the real footage taken on ground.

Clouds don’t exist at 62000 feet. They faked the measurements of altitude (and speed)

Clouds like these are seen every day, and exist around 6500-8000 feet, and rarely if ever exist up to 20000 feet.

We also know this when we’re in planes that are always above clouds at cruising altitudes.

The funny part is that when they go from the rocket entering clouds, to a supposed ‘rocket camera view’ to the surface, the rocket is high above the clouds! Watch from about 140 in the clip which is about 39 seconds on the ‘instrument panel’. At this point it reads about 2.6 km or about 8800 feet, which matches correctly to cloud altitudes.

Note just before the next scene from the rocket, it suddenly zooms up way faster, which is also edited in that way. They quickly cut to the rocket view after that.

The instant zoom up in speed isn’t ‘measured’ any faster than before the zoom up in speed, and it would if it was true, but the speed continues going up at a constant rate the whole time.

Now the rocket camera shows clouds far below the rocket, only a couple seconds later, so maybe that’s why they edited in the suddenly zooming up rocket before they cut to the rocket view of clouds far below it.

But at around 2:09 in the clip, or about 1:14 on the panel, after seeing the rocket well above clouds….

They go back to the ground view of the rocket, where we see it flying up into clouds!

It’s now veering off at a lateral direction, at a slight upward angle. We know this when we see it enter the clouds there, not directly upward, but a slight angle upaward into them…

If you don’t see the clouds there, because they darkened the scene trying to make the clouds not seen, just take a few frames of the clip there, and edit the frames contrast, brightness and so on.

The blue skies reappear, and the clouds can now be seen, which they edited out earlier on.

Now we see the rocket has veered off laterally, after the other scene indicates it’s flying straight up or nearly so. The camera shows the side of the rocket pointed to its tail or end section, and its engines blasting out orange flames. It shows clouds far below the rocket, and the surface of Earth directly below it..

Look at its angle of flight shown from the surface , where it is approaching clouds and soon vanishes into them.

The view of the rocket from the ground would mean the rocket camera, showing the side of the rocket, should point across the air, only at a slightly downward angle towards the surface, not directly down to the surface or nearly straight down to it.

The two scenes don’t match up to one another, in any way at all.

The view from the surface appears to be genuine footage, or almost all of it appears to be genuine anyway, except with the impossibly instant acceleration of the rocket which looks completely ridiculous, and the darkening of footage soon after the launch.

These are some of the things which any ONE prove that its fake, but we have many that do, and I’ve shown you a few of them here.

The scenes from the ‘rocket’
are the fakes, and the scenes from the surface are genuine, other than with the exceptions I’ve mentioned above.

You who are the believers of their ball Earth fable, who believe there is an endless space above Earth, who believe rockets fly into space and to the moon….never look  at the obvious flaws and problems in them.  Or ignore them as not a problem, perhaps.

How you cannot see the clouds would be possible, but when you see the rocket vanish from sight within the air would only be into clouds, obviously. The clouds are easily seen if you edit the frames as well which confirms it.

 

No, we’re still dealing with your bs, which started years ago.

What BS?
Do you mean reality backed up by mountains of evidence

Clouds don’t exist at 62000 feet altitude

Why are you so insistent on spouting such obvious lies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud

High clouds form at altitudes of 3,000 to 7,600 m (10,000 to 25,000 ft) in the polar regions, 5,000 to 12,200 m (16,500 to 40,000 ft) in the temperate regions, and 6,100 to 18,300 m (20,000 to 60,000 ft) in the tropics.

62000 feet altitude, like the bs ‘instrument panel’ reads as the rocket enters clouds.

And as per usual, you just spout pure BS.
Firstly, the instrument panel in that video shows altitude in km, not feet. So you are already failing, and blatantly lying to everyone. But I don't see anywhere in that footage where it enters clouds at anything like that.
In fact, looking at the footage, at 8.5 km, we can see it clearly above the clouds, with the visible in the shot below:


Then later on, it switches to a side view and we watch the rocket continue to climb, and still no rocket flying through clouds.
Then later still, at 20 km altitude, it switches back to the view from the rocket, and we can see the same cloud formations, just from higher up:


And in case it isn't obvious to lying scum like you, here are the clouds seen lower down with a red box around them:


And in fact, if we go earlier, we see those same clouds at less than 4km.
So the clouds this rocket is flying through are at altitudes of less than 13000 ft.
But that doesn't stop lying scum like you pretending they are much higher.

Yet again, all you have demonstrated is that you are worthless, desperate, pathetic, lying, subhuman scum.

Let’s settle this issue first, the rest isn’t necessary to deal with.

Why?
Why don't you settle the issue of the stars first? Because THAT IS WHAT YOU NEED.
Remember, YOU are the one wanting to claim space isn't real and there is a magic dome trapping us and there is a massive global conspiracy to hide the truth. Yet you have nothing to support that BS and instead just lie to everyone.

I explained why the video is not evidence, and that’s why I dismissed it.

No, you didn't.
You dismissed it like pathetic, lying scum. And then proceeded to lie about it, like pathetic, lying scum.
As usual for your lies, you just spout bold pathetic lies and don't even attempt to support them or justify them.

I could have gone further into why it’s not evidence

Could you?
Because you haven't at all gone into it.

But it’s YOUR SIDE who ignores my points as to the fake footage

No, we don't. We refute your lies.

The funny part is that when they go from the rocket entering clouds, to a supposed ‘rocket camera view’ to the surface, the rocket is high above the clouds!

i.e. you blatantly lied to everyone.

Note just before the next scene from the rocket, it suddenly zooms up way faster

Now try that again honestly.
The camera stopped tracking it.

The instant zoom up in speed

Is not the rocket changing speed, and you would have to be a complete imbecile to think it is, and a worthless lying POS to pretend it is. So which are you?

They go back to the ground view of the rocket, where we see it flying up into clouds!

No, we don't.
Again, provide the frame from the video, or admit you are a lying POS.

Again, if you want to try using a lack of a computer as an excuse, then get lost and don't bother coming back until you have a computer and can use it to justify your blatant lies.

It’s now veering off at a lateral direction

You mean you yet again fail understand 3D space.

The two scenes don’t match up to one another, in any way at all.

Yet you can't demonstrate a single inconsistency and instead just repeatedly lie.

These are some of the things which any ONE prove that its fake

You mean if you weren't repeatedly lying to us.
But the fact you need to resort to so many lies, instead clearly shows you are just lying and looking for excuses to dismiss it as fake, but can't show any actual fault.

You who are the believers of their ball Earth fable

No, we are the ones who accept reality.
Meanwhile you cling to fairy tales and repeatedly lie to us.

Again, if you want to say a particular frame shows something, then provide the frame.
If you think by simply adjusting the brightness and contrast you can reveal something, then do so and describe the adjustments made.
Otherwise, you are spouting worthless, baseless BS, and it just shows how utterly pathetic and desperate you are.

And it looks like either topic you want to focus on you are stuck with the same pathetic excuse.
So get lost until you are willing to admit you have repeatedly lied to us, or get a computer to back up your BS.

Quote from: markjo on August 04, 2025, 06:39:23 AM

Thanks for demonstrating yet again that FE’ers have no interest in engaging in a good faith discussion.  You asked for evidence of rockets going into space and immediately dismiss said evidence when presented.

I explained why the video is not evidence, and that’s why I dismissed it.  I could have gone further into why it’s not evidence, like I said, because it would fill up a page to post.

But it’s YOUR SIDE who ignores my points as to the fake footage added to the real footage taken on ground.

"Space flight is fake because the videos of space flight are fake because space flight is fake" is not a valid argument.

Okay here are two frames from the video.

Note the first frame shows the clouds well below the rocket at 1:07 on the display reads altitude at 9.5 km





The second frame is at 1:33 on the display and the altitude reads 19.2 km.

I’ve brightened and added contrast to the frame so you can see the white clouds against the blue sky as the rocket is about to fly into these clouds.




These frames clearly don’t match up at all, the clouds are first shown well below the rocket, at only 9.5 km, and the second image shows the rocket flying up into clouds at 19.2 km.

They certainly can’t both be genuine, the one taken from the surface, because it shows the entire progression from launch, in separate scenes at least.

That’s why they deliberately darkened the footage showing blue sky and white clouds, which I’ve edited back into the frame.