Re: Space Travel, the Firmament & God

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

And we see no clouds at all.
Instead, we see the limit of the colour range of the camera and a desperate attempt by you to pretend they are clouds.

Tell me, how many clouds do you know of that have such straight lines defining their edges?

Here is another example from slightly earlier, where you can easily see a cloud in the lower left corner.

Why isn't that cloud missing?

Yet again you have shown no problem with reality and instead just showed everyone how desperate and dishonest you are.

The frame I posted shows no straight lines or defined edges on those clouds.

You’re in total denial of reality.

They are clearly clouds in being white and in their shapes, and the rocket goes into them and cannot be seen or only partially seen within those clouds.

The sky behind those clouds is now seen as blue, too.

I did not color the clouds white and the sky blue, I simply added brightness and contrast mainly. That’s what brightened their true colours and shapes.

Pick any other frame from that area, add brightness and contrast to them, and they will show the same thing.

Look at how the sky is blue before the launch and just after it. How could the sky instantly darken like that in a few seconds? It’s impossible, we never see such an instant transition, except if a storm suddenly comes over the skies, and there’s no storm coming in here.

I’ve seen older videos of rockets clearly flying through clouds when they claim they’re in ‘space’ or almost so, but they didn’t put a phony instrument panel on the clips then.

Look at their ramping up speed, on the phony panel. The rocket is no faster at all the whole time.

It would be hard to keep them in view on the cameras if they sped up like that. The camera doesn’t move any faster to track the rocket at all.  Phantom speeding up, not shown by the rocket speeding up at all, not shown by the camera panning up faster to keep in in view.

The two positions of the rocket don’t match up at all.

It’s flying off at a sideways slant up when they show it pointed down to the surface, it’s ridiculous

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 05, 2025, 08:56:01 PM

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

And we see no clouds at all.
Instead, we see the limit of the colour range of the camera and a desperate attempt by you to pretend they are clouds.

Tell me, how many clouds do you know of that have such straight lines defining their edges?

Here is another example from slightly earlier, where you can easily see a cloud in the lower left corner.

Why isn't that cloud missing?

Yet again you have shown no problem with reality and instead just showed everyone how desperate and dishonest you are.

Right, there’s a cloud seen in the bottom left corner. And what is seen above that cloud and rocket?

There is no blue skies, so what else could it be there? It cannot be space, that cloud is seen in the bottom corner, and we can’t see clouds and space at the same time can we?

Perhaps that little white cloud is not high enough for the rocket to fly through while that unknown dark area are clouds they’re trying to hide by darkening the video of them

What else would it be? Why isn’t the sky blue anymore, how come there’s a little white cloud seen in the corner but the higher region is so dark?

What would the rocket camera be pointed to when it’s seen a second before that from the ground flying like a plane into the clouds they’ve tried to darken out?

Perspective doesn’t make a plane look like it’s flying across the surface like the rocket is seen flying into clouds, and we see the rocket flying upward at first then veering off like a plane across the surface into clouds.

The bottom of the rocket is clearly not pointing down to the surface here, we see both its nose and tail going across the skies above Earth. No angle or perspective changes the angle of planes or rockets in air.

So what is the rocket cam pointing down to? It shows clouds and surface of Earth directly below the tail of the rocket. It shows the fire spewing out below the tail.

Look at the direction of the fire coming out at the bottom of the rocket.  Where is it pointed to? They show it pointed directly down to clouds and the surface.

This is a complete joke

Compare the rockets trajectory seen from the ground, just before they show the view from the rocket, pointed down to Earth, and vice versa.

You’ll see that the two scenes don’t match up. The rocket camera is the faked scenes, as always.

They show part of a ball Earth and black of space and Earth directly below it, while the view from ground shows it below blue skies flying through clouds with its tail pointed across the surface.

It’s shocking and terrifying to see the level of ignorance and blind acceptance of their garbage claims.

They twisted what really happened in the past the opposite way of the truth.

How could the Vatican charge heresy on Copernicus for thinking the Sun was the center of the universe and not the Earth, when it actually described the Earth as still and never moving, while stars and Sun CIRCLED IT FROM ABOVR.

There is no reference to a universe, nor that Earth was the center of a universe, with the sun and stars rotating around the Earth.

Copernicus was among the world elite, the Roman church was corrupt and among the elite as well.

It was the other way around and still is.

What else would it be? Why isn’t the sky blue anymore, how come there’s a little white cloud seen in the corner but the higher region is so dark?

The bright rocket plume in the middle of the frame is probably causing the automatic exposure system to darken the rest of the image.  You do know how modern cameras handle bright light sources, don't you?

The frame I posted shows no straight lines or defined edges on those clouds.

And that highly dishonest statement is only "true" because there are no clouds in it.

Here is an enlarged view from that frame:


Look at all those straight lines.

This is NOT a cloud.
This is the limit of the colour range of the camera, where you have steps in the colour which you are falsely trying to pretend are clousd.

Meanwhile, in the frame I provided, which was just shortly before, we clearly see a cloud in the lower left, clearly appearing as a cloud.

So yet again, you are just showing everyone how much of a pathetic, dishonest scumbag you are.

You’re in total denial of reality.

You sure do love projecting don't you?

Pick any other frame from that area, add brightness and contrast to them, and they will show the same thing.

Go use the one I provided above. The one with the clearly visible cloud.
And then tell us why that cloud should be white, but the other "clouds" which you have to lie about are not.

Look at how the sky is blue before the launch and just after it. How could the sky instantly darken like that in a few seconds?

Auto exposure.
You are aware cameras are not magic which magically captures the actual brightness of a scene with no variability at all so any footage you see from it would show the actual brightness in reality, with an infinite dynamic range capable of capture dark night scenes as well as looking straight up at the sun?

You can do the same by having a nice open field, and having a camera facing away from the sun, then turning it to face the sun.

I’ve seen older videos of rockets clearly flying through clouds when they claim they’re in ‘space’ or almost so

Your baseless claims are worthless.
Provide the footage or don't pretend it exists.

It would be hard to keep them in view on the cameras if they sped up like that.

Why?

The camera doesn’t move any faster to track the rocket at all.

On what basis do you make this claim?

The two positions of the rocket don’t match up at all.

How? You are yet to demonstrate any descrepency.

It’s flying off at a sideways slant up

Is it? Or do you just entirely fail to understand 3D geometry?

it pointed down to the surface

Is it? Or do you just entirely fail to understand 3D geometry?

Right, there’s a cloud seen in the bottom left corner.

And if your BS claim was true, it wouldn't be there.
It shows you are a lying POS.

There is no blue skies

Are you colour blind?
It looks blue to me.

What else would it be?

Reality. Something you seem to hate with a passion.

Compare the rockets trajectory seen from the ground

I would need to know the orientation of the camera to do that.

You’ll see that the two scenes don’t match up.

I fail to see a discrepancy at all.
And your pathetic assertion that they don't match up doesn't make it true.

It’s shocking and terrifying to see the level of ignorance and blind acceptance of their garbage claims.

Don't you mean YOUR level of ignorance and garbage claims, that you appear to just want us to accept without any thinking, even though your claims are such clearly BS.


Now can you show anything wrong with the image?

We have clearly established it is NOT flying through clouds, and there is absolutely no evidence of them altering the scene, and instead you are just latching onto the limited colour resolution of the footage, to try to blow up a slight difference in colour to pretend they are clouds with nice straight borders; and just failing to understand 3D geometry.
It is truly pathetic.

I would need to know the orientation of the camera to do that.
——

I fail to see a discrepancy at
——

and just failing to understand 3D geometry.

We know both of the cameras positions. One is on the surface pointed up to the rocket, and the one on the rocket is along one side of it pointed directly downward. We see part of its engines on the bottom of it, with flames coming out of it.

The rocket seen from ground is a few miles away or so, and obviously not pointed towards the surface from the tail.

We can see its nose and tail, the nose slightly up more than the tail is.

From the ground, it doesn’t matter what angle or position of the camera is, there’s no way to show its tail pointed downward to clouds and below clouds to the surface, from the angle of the rocket we see here..

But if you really think it’s possible to show clouds directly below the rocket and the surface directly below clouds, which means a direct view to the surface from below the rocket, go ahead and show how it’s possible to show this, I’d love to see it!!

You don’t need to know the position or orientation of the camera on the surface, take any position and orientation and angle of camera you like,   if you believe it’s possible that the rocket is pointed directly down to clouds and the surface….

Look at the position of the rockets tail, and its nose, only slightly higher up than the tail is. 

It’s viewed from the surface at that position, nose slightly higher up than the tail.

We’ve seen countless planes at the same position many times, while they’re ascending up in air, only at lower altitudes than the rocket is here, but it’s the same trajectory and angle of planes seen all the time at.

How does a 3d view of this frame, and many more similar frames, showing the rocket ascending slightly while mostly horizontal to the surface below, like planes do all the time.

When you’re shown two views from ground and rocket, within the same second, like this, and they clearly don’t match up at all….

It’s always this very same excuse that you’re now spewing out here, that I don’t understand 3 d geometry here!!

The rocket’s trajectory, seen from the ground, showing BOTH its nose and tail, nose slightly angled up and the tail slightly angled downward, being nowhere near pointed directly down to the surface, nor any angle near to downward like they depict here…

Every time they try this, viewing it from rocket and from ground, at the same time, I’m sure they think it’s very convincing ‘proof’ of their bs story, showing the view from a rocket at same time as from the ground, your side thinks it’s absolute proof of it, having both views of it from ground and rocket at same time, showing that it really does fly into the black of space with a ball Earth below them!!!

That you all cannot somehow see they don’t match up at all, is truly baffling.

The first and easiest to understand and clearly see that doesn’t match up with the two views, is where we see the position of the rocket from the surface, is clearly not matched up to what we’d really see down from the tail of the rocket!

It’s not even close to matching up at all!

I see you now entirely flees from the exposure of your lies about the clouds.
Typical and pathetic.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 06, 2025, 03:13:54 PM

I would need to know the orientation of the camera to do that.

We know both of the cameras positions.

Congrats on entirely failing to understand the difference between position and orientation.

If you want to know the attitude of an object seen by a camera, you need to either know the position of both accurate, so you can work out the orientation of the camera, or directly know the orientation of the camera, to then work out the orientation of the object viewed in the camera.

Otherwise, you don't know.
A rocket point straight up, with the camera pointing almost straight up, can appear quite similar to an object pointing up at an angle of a few degrees with the camera looking up less than that.

obviously not pointed towards the surface from the tail.

No, that isn't obvious at all.
The best you get is that it is not pointing straight down.

go ahead and show how it’s possible to show this

No. You go and show how you work out the orientation of the rocket, with all the math behind it; rather than a pathetic baseless assertion.

Look at the position of the rockets tail, and its nose, only slightly higher up than the tail is.

Again, that is your baseless assertion.
Something you are yet to justify.

If you want to claim the nose is only slightly higher up than the tail, then prove it.

they clearly don’t match up at all….

Again, you are yet to show any problem.

I don’t understand 3 d geometry here!!

And I say that, because you don't.
You take the view from a camera almost certainly looking up, and lie to everyone by pretending it is looking basically level.

Actually, from the ground, looking up to things like planes or rockets, we can see their trajectories in the air, ‘space’ doesn’t exist of course.

When rockets are first launched up from ground, we see them flying straight upward, right?

We still see them flying straight up in air afterwards, right?

And then, we see them veer off of straight upward flight, and fly out at a slight upward angle, right?

Same as that rocket is shown to do in its flight, right?

So we actually SEE these rockets, and this rocket too, first flying straight upward, and then veering off at an angle which is only slightly upward in a slight ascent.

That’s how we definitely know this rocket is flying in a slight ascent at that time. It first flew straight upward in air, then veered off at a slight ascent in its trajectory.

So look at when it first veers off from going straight upward, and where it’s tail is pointed out to…

In fact, the rocket does not fly in a greater ascent after that point. It further goes into a lesser and lesser ascent in its flight outward in the distance.

We can see its trajectory of an ever slighter ascent too. We can see the entire plane from nose to tail, and its trajectory is seen over the whole planes position in air.

Take your bs excuse and trash it as the crap it is.

And then, we see them veer off of straight upward flight, and fly out at a slight upward angle, right?

And the important question is when that happens.
Because we see that footage from the rocket as well.

That’s how we definitely know this rocket is flying in a slight ascent at that time.

No. That isn't how we know anything.

That gets you to it will go to a slight pitch up attitude at some point, not at that time.

Again, if you want to say it is doing it at that time you need more than your pathetic assertion.

Take a look at the two views in the same 1:33 point on that panel. That’s exactly why I chose that frame showing it from the ground and immediately goes to the rocket view of it.

They clearly don’t match up at all, when they obviously would if it was genuine footage from both views.

Take a look at the two views in the same 1:33 point on that panel.

I have.
I don't see any problem.
If you think there is a problem, then prove it.
Don't just assert it, prove it.

Where would the tail of the rocket possibly be pointed down to the clouds with the surface directly below the clouds?

What can I show you that proves the tail isn’t pointed straight down to the surface, when we all can see the tail is nowhere near to being pointed down to the surface at all here.

Its nose is not much higher up than the tail is, no angle of view here makes the tail point to the surface, unless it bends halfway on the rocket with the nose staying in place!

Prove the tail can point straight down to the surface, that’s what you claim is possible here, right?

All of the possible views down the tail, don’t ever point straight down to the surface at all, not even close to it.

Why would you need more proof that it’s tail isn’t pointed down to the surface, we can clearly see it’s not pointed down to the surface, thats what proves it.

Try and try very hard, hours and weeks on it, and see if you can figure out how it’s possible to point straight down to the surface here.

It’s obviously not possible at all, and even you know it’s not possible, but you’re such a coward that you can’t even admit it!

Do you really think it’s more likely the tail is pointed straight down to the surface than it’s nowhere near it?

Here’s another clear example of your being in complete and utter denial of reality.

How sad you are, to be so blind

Where would the tail of the rocket possibly be pointed down to the clouds with the surface directly below the clouds?

Do you have anything to show you are seeing the surface directly below the clouds, and not off to the side some distance? No.
It is just a pathetic assertion from you.

What can I show you that proves the tail isn’t pointed straight down to the surface

This is kind of the point.
It is like taking a picture off to the side of the picture, and asking what can you show to prove, from that picture alone, that the cat is looking at a bird.
You can't. You don't have the required information.
In this case, it is your claim that one view shows the rocking pointing straight down to the surface, which you can't justify at all.
That combined with your other claim that it is almost level.

Prove the tail can point straight down to the surface, that’s what you claim is possible here, right?

No, that is another strawman from you.

we can clearly see it’s not pointed down to the surface

Again, this just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of 3D geometry, or setting up a strawman to attack.
Again, I never said the rocket is pointing directly down to the surface, rather than a slight angle.

Here’s another clear example of your being in complete and utter denial of reality.

No, this is another example of you asserting pure BS to try to dismiss evidence which shows you are wrong as fake.
Just like you pathetic asserted it was flying through clouds, and had to alter the footage to try to pretend the limited colour is magically clouds which they hid, even though they didn't hide other clouds which are clearly visible, and with these new clouds having very flat sides as if it is just the limit of the colour resolution of the camera and not clouds at all.

You have done this countless times.
And when pressed to justify your pathetic BS, you dodge at all costs, making up whatever pathetic excuses you can to pretend your BS is true and that you don't need to justify it.

Where would the tail of the rocket possibly be pointed down to the clouds with the surface directly below the clouds?

I'm not sure if you know how rockets get to orbit, but they generally start to pitch over almost immediately after liftoff so that they can start to gain the horizontal speed necessary for orbit.  That means that by the time the rocket reaches the clouds, the tail of the rocket is not pointed straight down.  I guess I thought that would have been obvious from the video.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 09, 2025, 06:47:42 AM

Where would the tail of the rocket possibly be pointed down to the clouds with the surface directly below the clouds?

Do you have anything to show you are seeing the surface directly below the clouds, and not off to the side some distance? No.
It is just a pathetic assertion from you.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 09, 2025, 06:47:42 AM

What can I show you that proves the tail isn’t pointed straight down to the surface

This is kind of the point.
It is like taking a picture off to the side of the picture, and asking what can you show to prove, from that picture alone, that the cat is looking at a bird.
You can't. You don't have the required information.
In this case, it is your claim that one view shows the rocking pointing straight down to the surface, which you can't justify at all.
That combined with your other claim that it is almost level.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 09, 2025, 06:47:42 AM

Prove the tail can point straight down to the surface, that’s what you claim is possible here, right?

No, that is another strawman from you.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 09, 2025, 06:47:42 AM

we can clearly see it’s not pointed down to the surface

Again, this just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of 3D geometry, or setting up a strawman to attack.
Again, I never said the rocket is pointing directly down to the surface, rather than a slight angle.

Quote from: turbonium2 on August 09, 2025, 06:47:42 AM

Here’s another clear example of your being in complete and utter denial of reality.

No, this is another example of you asserting pure BS to try to dismiss evidence which shows you are wrong as fake.
Just like you pathetic asserted it was flying through clouds, and had to alter the footage to try to pretend the limited colour is magically clouds which they hid, even though they didn't hide other clouds which are clearly visible, and with these new clouds having very flat sides as if it is just the limit of the colour resolution of the camera and not clouds at all.

You have done this countless times.
And when pressed to justify your pathetic BS, you dodge at all costs, making up whatever pathetic excuses you can to pretend your BS is true and that you don't need to justify it.

Look again at the view from the rocket to the surface directly below it.

Notice something else about the frame?

It is entirely showing the surface, directly filled with a view over the surface, in all directions around the frame.

What is very important about that viewpoint, is that we know there’s no angle pointed out by the tail here, which could be pointed down to the surface, and show nothing but the surface from any angle at all from what we see of it here.

Once again, you think it needs proof that it cannot be possible for the tail, in that very position, out across to air above the surface, couldn’t point straight down to the surface and show nothing but the surface!!

You’re a complete idiot.
I have all of the proof here, showing the view down to the surface, and only the surface.

When we see the rocket from the ground, its tail is clearly pointed out across and above the surface.

They prove those two views obviously don’t match up at all. How could the tail of that rocket, which is flying ACROSS THE SURFACE, seen flying across the surface since veering off from straight upward.

We see the entire flight of the rocket in snippets, which are time stamped.

At no point does the rocket change from a slight ascent after veering off of going straight upward.  That’s the only time its tail is pointed down to the surface, we can all see that.

From that point, it veers off laterally in an ascent over the surface, and a lesser ascent later on, making it more level to Earths surface.

Your bs excuses are garbage

We don’t know it’s real trajectory? You jackass, we ACTUALLY SEE ITS ENTIRE TRAJECTORY UP TO THAT FRAME AND BEYOND IT.

We can clearly see what trajectory the plane has, throughout that time.

It clearly, without any doubt, remains in a slight ascent, when first seen above us, and afterwards when flying out from us.

That video shows its entire trajectory. And I’m not going to waste any more time explaining what everyone else in the world would clearly see, but a nutcase past any hope of recovering his sanity or rational thought

Another flub in the video..

After the rocket is last seen going through clouds you think aren’t seen, which are the white stuff with wispy ends seen in that frame, flying a slight descent up into the clouds you don’t see that make the rocket vanish partly when going through them…

Within 20 seconds or so, the clearly visible rocket which is close enough to see without magnification as it goes into the clouds….

Is now in black of space with ball Earth seen below it!

What an amazing speed it must have that we never see any faster from Earth!

It takes a minute and a half to fly up and across the sky and go through clouds, while seeing it very easily the whole time..

But in only another 20 seconds, which we never see from ground, only the rocket, which rises up into black of space and ball Earth below in only 20 seconds!

Wonder why that part wasn’t show from the ground! 

And as always, there’s never any stars in the black of space. With complete darkness all around the rocket except the ball Earth below them.

Filming stars from black of space cannot be done yet it seems. We film them from Earth no problem. Fake videos don’t want fake stars to cause problems, just say it’s the exposure and too bright to film stars from black of space as always. They buy that bs every time

And as always, there’s never any stars in the black of space. With complete darkness all around the rocket except the ball Earth below them.

Filming stars from black of space cannot be done yet it seems. We film them from Earth no problem. Fake videos don’t want fake stars to cause problems, just say it’s the exposure and too bright to film stars from black of space as always. They buy that bs every time

How many stars can you see at night in a big city?  How many stars can you see at night out in the boonies?

Look again at the view from the rocket to the surface directly below it.

I have. There is nothing in it indicating the rocket is pointing straight down.
If you wish to claim it is, you need more than just saying the view is filled.

I can point a camera at a table from a bunch of different angles and have the view filled by the table.
That doesn't mean the camera is pointing straight down at the table.

Lets just make up some numbers for it.
Lets say the FOV is 90 degrees.
That means from the centre, the edge is 45 degrees away.
Lets also say the horizon would be at an angle of dip of 10 degrees (I haven't bothered doing the math here, because this is just to demonstrate the point).
That means in order to not capture the horizon, the camera would need to be pointed at 55 degrees below level.

That means you have a 35 degree range from straight down that the camera can be while the view is still filled by the object below.

So no, the object below filling the FOV does not show the camera is pointing straight down.

For this pathetic BS of yours to work, you need to know the FOV of the camera, and the angle of dip to the horizon.
You know neither.
So you fail yet again, with yet another pathetic desperate lie.
And even worse, that pathetic desperate BS argument of yours, even gives the instruction with that pathetic BS thrown in.
How do you know the rocket is providing a view to the surface directly below, and not some 100 km away?

Any other pathetic BS you want to try?

Once again, you think it needs proof

Yes. I think your pathetic, baseless claims need proof.
Because you keep asserting pure BS with no justification at all, or with an attempt at a justification which is so clearly pathetic BS.
And I do this, because I'm not an idiot, and because I see through your pathetic BS.

When we see the rocket from the ground, its tail is clearly pointed out across and above the surface.

No, it isn't.
That is your pathetic assertion.
One you have made absolutely no attempt to justify. Instead you just keep asserting it.

It clearly, without any doubt, remains in a slight ascent, when first seen above us, and afterwards when flying out from us.

Again, that is your assertion you haven't even tried to justify.

Another flub in the video..

Or to express it more honestly, you have yet again realised your pathetic BS is trivial to refute or challenge to show is unsupported, so you yet again need to flee the topic and spout more pathetic BS.

After the rocket is last seen going through clouds you think aren’t seen

You mean, going through the air without any trace of passing through a cloud, which you need to lie about to pretend the footage is fake, only to flee from the refutation of your pathetic BS.

flying a slight descent up into the clouds

You mean flighting a significant ascent that you cannot show is not going up, and the view from the rocket supports it still being an ascent.

Within 20 seconds or so, the clearly visible rocket which is close enough to see without magnification

And another pathetic lie.
Do you think this video footage isn't magnifying the rocket at all?
Are you truly that pathetic and desperate?

Is now in black of space with ball Earth seen below it!

The real question for you is when it got to that "black of space".
We only get definitive evidence that it is there at the 2 minute mark. But that is really just showing it is above the majority of the atmosphere, not that it is actually in space.
But we only know that because we can see it out to the side.
We don't know when it got there.

So more pathetic, desperate BS from you.

And as always, there’s never any stars in the black of space.

And another pathetic, desperate, trivial to refute pile of BS from you.
Yes, just like if I took a camera out at night, and shined a flash light at it to get the auto exposure set for the flashlight.
You can even do it with your eyes.

This is quite well known.

You have a very bright Earth clearly in view, and a rocket engine which is glowing red hot, and illuminated by the sun.
And you expect to see much fainter stars?

just say it’s the exposure and too bright to film stars from black of space as always.

i.e. you already know the answer to your pathetic BS.
i.e. you are intentionally and wilfully lying to everyone.

Look at the frames below, note their time and the clouds in each frame…







The first frame shows all clouds well below the rocket, obviously.

The next two frames show the rocket passing by clouds seen in lower left of the frames..

The clouds are well below the rocket several seconds BEFORE the rocket later passes by them as seen from the ground view!!

All the clouds are far below the rocket, supposedly, and seconds afterwards, the rocket is flying past clouds going up at an ever lower slant or ever less ascent upward.

That’s clearly not possible, clouds cannot be seen far below the rocket and later passes by clouds that were above the rocket at that point!!

I’m sure you can see that’s part of a cloud in the bottom left corner? If not, watch that section on the video itself, as a cloud peeks in on the corner of the frame!

The first frame shows all clouds well below the rocket, obviously.
The next two frames show the rocket passing by clouds seen in lower left of the frames..

Now imagine a hypothetical.
You are watching someone walk up a mountain through your window, and you have decided to film it. And they also filmed a view of your window from the mountain.

From their view you can see your house and windows are heaps far away.
But as you watch the recording from inside your house, you notice one of the bits of window frame to the left.

So like a complete imbecile that completely fails to understand 3D geometry, you now boldly claim that that means they are right next to your window and just walking past it, and that the footage they allegedly shot is fake.

That is how utterly stupid you sound now.
Again, all you are demonstrating is that you either completely fail to understand 3D geometry, or that you are happy to wilfully lie to everyone, spouting whatever pathetic BS you can to pretend your lies are true.

And I notice that yet again you have entirely abandoned your previous claims, as if you know they are pure BS which you have no chance of defending, so you will flee to more pure BS that you have no chance of defending.

Again, all you are doing by doing this, is showing how utterly pathetic, desperate and dishonest you and your delusional fantasy are.

The two views don’t match up at all, that’s very obvious to see.

You keep on spewing about me not understanding 3 d geometry here, like it magically solves your problems like this one!

Look where the clouds are seen in the rocket view. All the clouds are seen far below the rocket, right?

There’s no 3 d geometry making the rocket passing by clouds here.

The other view from ground is a few seconds later than this is, supposedly. It should be even higher above all clouds than the first view of them!

The two views don’t match up at all, that’s very obvious to see.

If it was so obvious to see, why have you resorted to 3 separate arguments which you have fled from because you can't justify any of them?

It is quite clearly not obvious to find anything that doesn't match up.
It seems far more likely that these views do match up, and you are just looking for whatever pathetic BS you can find to claim they don't.

You keep on spewing about me not understanding 3 d geometry here

Because you keep demonstrating a complete lack of understanding.
The most extreme example is this recent one, where you want to pretend that just because the direction to the cloud is similar to the rocket, that must mean they are the same distance away.
That demonstrates an entirely 2 dimensional view, completely lacking any understanding of depth, of objects can be seen in a similar direction, yet have drastically different distances.

If I watch a plane fly past my window, I don't see parts of the window and think the plane must be the same distance away from me as the window.
Because I'm not a complete imbecile.

Are you really trying to suggest you are that insanely stupid that you don't understand this incredibly simple aspect of 3D geometry?
Or are you just intentionally and wilfully lying to us, like the pathetic, desperate, lying, subhuman scum you are?

They didn’t continue the ground view though, it is another big problem for the faking of it.

Rockets are supposedly in the blackness of space, far above and beyond the skies of blue, not always below the blue of our skies, but they always are seen below blue skies, never above or past blue skies.

In fact, everything above us is seen below the blue, which are not the skies being the blue color we see, it is the blue waters of the firmament. All is below the firmament and its blue waters.

Their excuses of how the moon looks to be under the blue while in black of space is nonsense. 

I said rockets can be proven to fly up into space if we see them fly beyond blue skies into the black of space, but they’re trying to show black of soace seen from a rocket we see well below blue skies blocking it out above the rockets!

More 3d magical geometry views again!  More bs yet again is more like it