This thread is meant to debunk the deranged idea that our realm is a planet floating in space.
If the so called established science can't be challenged, then it's not science, but religion.
/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal
File (): EBB8999170B861DACE0B30BD4B4E3775-880166.jpg (859.5 KB, 1200x800, thtfx.jpeg)
File (): 5AFBC2B050DCE12E59A35BCA999CD5AD-6936214.gif (6.6 MB, 900x900, 900px-SunAnimation.gif)
2670 replies and 1404 files omitted.
>>169477
>implying the pilots are taking three times as long for all three of the other flights just to conceal the true distance of the fourth one
>implying they could do this on a plane with minimum velocity without detouring in a way that would be impossible to conceal
Now you're just moving the goalpost. You lost the argument over the logic, so now you're resorting to denying the flight paths themselves.
You don't believe me, go crowdfund some flights from Jakarta to Bogota and try them yourself.
>implying the pilots are taking three times as long for all three of the other flights just to conceal the true distance of the fourth one
>implying they could do this on a plane with minimum velocity without detouring in a way that would be impossible to conceal
Now you're just moving the goalpost. You lost the argument over the logic, so now you're resorting to denying the flight paths themselves.
You don't believe me, go crowdfund some flights from Jakarta to Bogota and try them yourself.
Anonymous
No.169479
>>169477
Also, the path that moves over Sydney is still twice as long as the next path, even with that ugly black line you drew. Idk what you were trying to prove with that one.
Also, the path that moves over Sydney is still twice as long as the next path, even with that ugly black line you drew. Idk what you were trying to prove with that one.
Anonymous
No.169481
>>169474
>draw the arc on the map instead of straight line over or alongside the Americas.
The arc is reflective of the path the plane takes irl.
On a round earth, it's actually a straight line.
But that's still hardly relevant because even if you make the line straight as in >>169477 you'll find that it's still much longer than the other paths.
>draw the arc on the map instead of straight line over or alongside the Americas.
The arc is reflective of the path the plane takes irl.
On a round earth, it's actually a straight line.
But that's still hardly relevant because even if you make the line straight as in >>169477 you'll find that it's still much longer than the other paths.
File (): F762B59523B9824A1C0017DED2016317-10065780.mp4 (9.6 MB, Resolution:480x854 Length:00:04:33, don-t-tell-me-you-believe-the_EDIT.mp4) [play once] [loop]
>>169478
>Now you're just moving the goalpost.
On the contrary, I'm securing their fixed position with proof. Instruments are calibrated to lie to the pilots.
>Now you're just moving the goalpost.
On the contrary, I'm securing their fixed position with proof. Instruments are calibrated to lie to the pilots.
>>169482
Then what are those planes really doing so that all of the passengers arrive at similar travel times?
If they took different paths, they wouldn't be hard to spot.
If they moved three times slower, they wouldn't be able to stay in the air.
So what are they doing? You claim that the instruments are lying to pilots, but what's your alternative proposal to what's happening?
Then what are those planes really doing so that all of the passengers arrive at similar travel times?
If they took different paths, they wouldn't be hard to spot.
If they moved three times slower, they wouldn't be able to stay in the air.
So what are they doing? You claim that the instruments are lying to pilots, but what's your alternative proposal to what's happening?
>>169484
I'm still playing the video, it didn't finish yet but here your are answering back. WOW!
Are you really after the truth? Or you just want to be right?
I'm still playing the video, it didn't finish yet but here your are answering back. WOW!
Are you really after the truth? Or you just want to be right?
>>169485
You still haven't explained how planes are able to fly in four different directions with those flight paths, and arrive in similar travel times for what would be wildly different distance on flat earth, but similar distance on round earth.
You can claim the pilots had their equipment like to them, but that doesn't explain how all those planes are getting there in the same amount of time.
You still haven't explained how planes are able to fly in four different directions with those flight paths, and arrive in similar travel times for what would be wildly different distance on flat earth, but similar distance on round earth.
You can claim the pilots had their equipment like to them, but that doesn't explain how all those planes are getting there in the same amount of time.
Anonymous
No.169490
>>169488
I'm not contesting that instruments could lie to pilots. I'm asking you how the planes are able to arrive at their destination from three different directions in the same travel time.
You can't just fly a plane at a third of its cruising speed: it will crash.
I'm not contesting that instruments could lie to pilots. I'm asking you how the planes are able to arrive at their destination from three different directions in the same travel time.
You can't just fly a plane at a third of its cruising speed: it will crash.
>>169489
>You still haven't explained how planes are able to fly in four different directions with those flight paths, and arrive in similar travel times for what would be wildly different distance on flat earth, but similar distance on round earth.
It is right in front of your eyes. Get an orange and use a tailor measure tape, no matter from where choose to measure, the diametric opposite side will be at the same exact distance.
WOW!
>You still haven't explained how planes are able to fly in four different directions with those flight paths, and arrive in similar travel times for what would be wildly different distance on flat earth, but similar distance on round earth.
It is right in front of your eyes. Get an orange and use a tailor measure tape, no matter from where choose to measure, the diametric opposite side will be at the same exact distance.
WOW!
>>169491
Yeah, that works on a sphere; it does not work on a circle. You can clearly see on the chart that the path over Sydney is longer on the flat model, because it runs closer to the "ice wall" and would thus be much longer on flat earth.
Yeah, that works on a sphere; it does not work on a circle. You can clearly see on the chart that the path over Sydney is longer on the flat model, because it runs closer to the "ice wall" and would thus be much longer on flat earth.
>>169492
Make it easy for everyponer, get the times and the links to check what you claim is true and not a wild fantasy.
Make it easy for everyponer, get the times and the links to check what you claim is true and not a wild fantasy.
>>169494
>Jakarta–Istanbul–Bogota: 12h 0m + 13h 45m = 25.75 hours
>Jakarta–Hong Kong–New York–Bogota: 5h 5m + 16h 0m + 5h 42m = 26.783 hours
>Jakarta–Tokyo–Houston–Bogota: 7h 35m + 12h 5m + 4h 55m = 24.583 hours
>Jakarta–Sydney–Auckland–Santiago–Bogota: 6h 55m + 3h 5m + 11h 0m + 6h 14m = 27.23 hours
All these flights vary by only a couple hours, when on flat earth the path over Sydney should take 2-3 times as long because of it's southernmost route.
>Jakarta–Istanbul–Bogota: 12h 0m + 13h 45m = 25.75 hours
>Jakarta–Hong Kong–New York–Bogota: 5h 5m + 16h 0m + 5h 42m = 26.783 hours
>Jakarta–Tokyo–Houston–Bogota: 7h 35m + 12h 5m + 4h 55m = 24.583 hours
>Jakarta–Sydney–Auckland–Santiago–Bogota: 6h 55m + 3h 5m + 11h 0m + 6h 14m = 27.23 hours
All these flights vary by only a couple hours, when on flat earth the path over Sydney should take 2-3 times as long because of it's southernmost route.
>>169495
Plug it into the air miles calculator if you will
https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/bog-to-cgk/
On a flat earth, the further you go from the pole, the greater the distance around the earth will be. It's a radius/circumference thing. That's not happening here over Sydney. They're flying straight towards the antipodal point, just like a tailor's tape around an orange, that tailor's tape giving similar measurements for the other three flight paths.
Plug it into the air miles calculator if you will
https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/bog-to-cgk/
On a flat earth, the further you go from the pole, the greater the distance around the earth will be. It's a radius/circumference thing. That's not happening here over Sydney. They're flying straight towards the antipodal point, just like a tailor's tape around an orange, that tailor's tape giving similar measurements for the other three flight paths.
>>169496
I've been doing this for over an hour. I need to go to bed. Fiddle with the link below. It shouldn't be hard to find other links, because the Jakarta-Bogota flight is famously the longest flight on earth (being on exact other side of the world, no matter what direction you fly in). In all cases, and all paths, the flights vary by ~3 hours at most.
>>169498
>straight lines on a flat plane
An ice ring has a circumference.
In either case, you could still see that the path was longer. It was STILL twice as even when you drew that straight black line through it.
I provided a link.
Pro-tip: you were onto something with the tape measure and orange analogy. Think a bit longer about the shape of an orange.
I've been doing this for over an hour. I need to go to bed. Fiddle with the link below. It shouldn't be hard to find other links, because the Jakarta-Bogota flight is famously the longest flight on earth (being on exact other side of the world, no matter what direction you fly in). In all cases, and all paths, the flights vary by ~3 hours at most.
>>169498
>straight lines on a flat plane
An ice ring has a circumference.
In either case, you could still see that the path was longer. It was STILL twice as even when you drew that straight black line through it.
I provided a link.
Pro-tip: you were onto something with the tape measure and orange analogy. Think a bit longer about the shape of an orange.
Anonymous
No.169501
>>169498
All this time, you've been arguing for a round, circular earth. Idk what shape it would be if not a circle were it still surrounded by an ice ring.
The earth you described would have its circumference be 78142.78 miles of "ice ring".
All this time, you've been arguing for a round, circular earth. Idk what shape it would be if not a circle were it still surrounded by an ice ring.
The earth you described would have its circumference be 78142.78 miles of "ice ring".
Anonymous
No.169672
Did y'all like the partial solar eclipse the other day? Yesterday at noonish, my time? You know the collander trick, right? You grab a collander and hold it about waist-high and line it so the sunlight travels through the holes with least friction. This will project the shape of the sun on the ground, so you dont burn your retinas.
So this one was a partial solar eclipse. The sun never looked mpre than like the moon from castlevania; cool as shit, but not what you WANNA see.
Well.
It just so happens, THAT is gonna happen on April 8th 2024; right ~ 6 mos from now.
A full and total solar eclipse, with the mass darkening of the sky and the full ring of fire visible aloft.
And for me, its gonna peak at... 1:37
13:37, if using....
Anyway, you wanna know why this is significant?
Because if you understand all the references Ive made, you would know that none of this is possible on a flat earth.
So this one was a partial solar eclipse. The sun never looked mpre than like the moon from castlevania; cool as shit, but not what you WANNA see.
Well.
It just so happens, THAT is gonna happen on April 8th 2024; right ~ 6 mos from now.
A full and total solar eclipse, with the mass darkening of the sky and the full ring of fire visible aloft.
And for me, its gonna peak at... 1:37
13:37, if using....
Anyway, you wanna know why this is significant?
Because if you understand all the references Ive made, you would know that none of this is possible on a flat earth.
File (): 9DFBB64CFAC1FA863AED1DD8F830FAC7-53007.jpg (51.8 KB, 568x719, ef475ee71d3fa335.jpeg)
>oxygen
I don't tell me it is because the NASA hacks used more pressure to fit more gas because both tanks contain liquid oxygen and liquid is for practical purposes incompressible.
I don't tell me it is because the NASA hacks used more pressure to fit more gas because both tanks contain liquid oxygen and liquid is for practical purposes incompressible.
>>169746
Those suits only had 6 hours of oxygen, iirc. Idk where the 22 hours thing comes from. I could be mistaken though; where did you find this information?
If you look closer, the suit and it's backup pack have significantly more volume than the driver's tanks. Oxygen/Nitrogen balance probably plays a role, as nitrogen saturation is a factor to keep divers from dying from the bends, but I would have to look it up first. Diving is also a much more oxygen-intensive task than walking in microgravity.
The Apollo 11 suits are also airtight, unlike the diver's gear which loses air with every breath in the form of bubbles. Humans don't absorb 100% of the oxygen they inhale, so as I gather the space suit has a longer life by refiltering exhaled air and sealing CO2 away.
Those suits only had 6 hours of oxygen, iirc. Idk where the 22 hours thing comes from. I could be mistaken though; where did you find this information?
If you look closer, the suit and it's backup pack have significantly more volume than the driver's tanks. Oxygen/Nitrogen balance probably plays a role, as nitrogen saturation is a factor to keep divers from dying from the bends, but I would have to look it up first. Diving is also a much more oxygen-intensive task than walking in microgravity.
The Apollo 11 suits are also airtight, unlike the diver's gear which loses air with every breath in the form of bubbles. Humans don't absorb 100% of the oxygen they inhale, so as I gather the space suit has a longer life by refiltering exhaled air and sealing CO2 away.
File (): 7DD34641FA8785AA9721B616E59A99BE-28528.jpg (27.9 KB, 500x529, evidence-source-proof-look-up-tiny-computer-in-your-hand.jpg)
>>169758
I tried reverse-image searching. It didn't work. Where did you get the pic?
When I looked it up, I saw that it is in fact only 6 hours of oxygen.
I tried reverse-image searching. It didn't work. Where did you get the pic?
When I looked it up, I saw that it is in fact only 6 hours of oxygen.
>>169759
>I tried reverse-image searching. It didn't work
Of course it won't work. You dump your dumb phone and get a real computer to search for oxygen tanks.
>I tried reverse-image searching. It didn't work
Of course it won't work. You dump your dumb phone and get a real computer to search for oxygen tanks.
>>169760
I was asking about where you got the meme. I have the oxygen tank info right in front of me on my computer. All sources I see say six hours.
I was asking about where you got the meme. I have the oxygen tank info right in front of me on my computer. All sources I see say six hours.
Anonymous
No.169765
>>169763
Well, it looks like they were mistaken though.
Of course 22 hours doesn't make sense, because that's not what it was. They did not walk on the moon for anywhere close to 22 hours. It was made for 6 hours.
Well, it looks like they were mistaken though.
Of course 22 hours doesn't make sense, because that's not what it was. They did not walk on the moon for anywhere close to 22 hours. It was made for 6 hours.
Talking about soooorces.
Most globers listen to this dumb nigger Tyson and agree he is smart. LOL
Most globers listen to this dumb nigger Tyson and agree he is smart. LOL
File (): E8C4C4A0797ACA7402CE099A8FE0C3C5-26533732.pdf (25.3 MB, , ALSJ-FlightPLSS.pdf)
>>169766
This is public domain information, ffs.
The 22 hours thing was an ass pull. I cannot find anyone who's ever claimed the suit has 22 hours of oxygen, and considering the fact that you won't say where you got it, you can't either.
This is public domain information, ffs.
The 22 hours thing was an ass pull. I cannot find anyone who's ever claimed the suit has 22 hours of oxygen, and considering the fact that you won't say where you got it, you can't either.
Anonymous
No.169771
>>169768
>Most globers listen to this dumb nigger Tyson and agree he is smart
Barely anyone thinks that. Even other astrophysicists think he's an egotistical hack. Faggot celebrity-scientist.
>Most globers listen to this dumb nigger Tyson and agree he is smart
Barely anyone thinks that. Even other astrophysicists think he's an egotistical hack. Faggot celebrity-scientist.
File (): EE4D253FE04E220CF181ABF21B177E30-134082.jpg (130.9 KB, 1200x750, DEX8_DDWAAAjH7Z.jpg)
File (): E093AFDA04E0FCFBEDB3D9F687870A59-220877.jpg (215.7 KB, 708x994, Untitled.jpg)
>>169770
That PDF is about the technology used for life support in a close system and it does not apply to the meme which is specifically about gas volume/hour endurance.
It is very simple, so many cubic feet of oxygen can keep alive a human so many hours. It is like a fuel calculus, so much fuel, so many miles.
That PDF is about the technology used for life support in a close system and it does not apply to the meme which is specifically about gas volume/hour endurance.
It is very simple, so many cubic feet of oxygen can keep alive a human so many hours. It is like a fuel calculus, so much fuel, so many miles.
>>169779
The PDF is about the life support system, which includes how much oxygen the tank can provide.
It is able to go for 6 hours instead of two for multiple reasons including but not limited to the fact that it doesn't need to account for nitrogen saturated bends, it's visibly larger than a single diving tank or pair of tanks, and the fact that it doesn't waste oxygen by expelling it in bubbles every time a breath is taken like the diver does.
The PDF is about the life support system, which includes how much oxygen the tank can provide.
It is able to go for 6 hours instead of two for multiple reasons including but not limited to the fact that it doesn't need to account for nitrogen saturated bends, it's visibly larger than a single diving tank or pair of tanks, and the fact that it doesn't waste oxygen by expelling it in bubbles every time a breath is taken like the diver does.
>>169782
Dude, that might work. and with a lot of limits, in a submarine where size and weight are allowed, not on the back of a man.
Dude, that might work. and with a lot of limits, in a submarine where size and weight are allowed, not on the back of a man.
Anonymous
No.169786
>>169785
The designer expressed regret for not being able to make it last that long without increasing the volume of the suit, but luckily, equipment weighs a lot less on the moon.
Besides, these men were the fittest America had to offer. U.S. soldiers periodically carry heavier loads on their backs.
The designer expressed regret for not being able to make it last that long without increasing the volume of the suit, but luckily, equipment weighs a lot less on the moon.
Besides, these men were the fittest America had to offer. U.S. soldiers periodically carry heavier loads on their backs.
I believe the meme he shared is confusing aggregate time with the walk time. Google brings up that:
"The moonwalks conducted by American astronauts lasted for 20 hours and 14 minutes. During the Apollo 17 mission, astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin spent 21 hours and 36 minutes on the lunar surface. In total, American astronauts have spent 3 days, 8 hours, 22 minutes and 26 seconds walking on the moon."
This matches the meme time, which quite purposely confused the time when each individual walk before returning to pick up a new supply was:
"walked around for about two and a half hours"
In other words, their big ass backpack allowed for double the time of an average dive tank. You can tell in the image that those tanks don't match the size of the backpack, nor match the weight because you need to remain mobile under water while on the moon, you can just walk and jump.
You have been lied to. Next time, don't believe random fucking strangers on the internet giving you shit tier memes.
"The moonwalks conducted by American astronauts lasted for 20 hours and 14 minutes. During the Apollo 17 mission, astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin spent 21 hours and 36 minutes on the lunar surface. In total, American astronauts have spent 3 days, 8 hours, 22 minutes and 26 seconds walking on the moon."
This matches the meme time, which quite purposely confused the time when each individual walk before returning to pick up a new supply was:
"walked around for about two and a half hours"
In other words, their big ass backpack allowed for double the time of an average dive tank. You can tell in the image that those tanks don't match the size of the backpack, nor match the weight because you need to remain mobile under water while on the moon, you can just walk and jump.
You have been lied to. Next time, don't believe random fucking strangers on the internet giving you shit tier memes.
File (): A59CCB8093331B05EFC265A2F08A824F-178718.gif (174.5 KB, 683x683, pGPWn7I.gif)
>>169792
>Next time, don't believe random fucking strangers on the internet giving you shit tier memes.
Those hideous racists...
>Next time, don't believe random fucking strangers on the internet giving you shit tier memes.
Those hideous racists...
>>169794
I didn't say anything about them being racists. I said they lied to you because they are strangers giving you shit memes. Nice try at deflection.
I didn't say anything about them being racists. I said they lied to you because they are strangers giving you shit memes. Nice try at deflection.
>>169795
>I said they lied to you because they are strangers giving you shit memes.
Did you ever consider that memes can be homemade?
>I said they lied to you because they are strangers giving you shit memes.
Did you ever consider that memes can be homemade?
Anonymous
No.169798
>>169797
Exactly my point. Seeing as they made them at home and they gave you the wrong number on your meme for you to believe, then you were lied to.
Unless you are speaking to it being homemade as in you made it yourself, in which case you took the wrong fucking number, dumbass.
Exactly my point. Seeing as they made them at home and they gave you the wrong number on your meme for you to believe, then you were lied to.
Unless you are speaking to it being homemade as in you made it yourself, in which case you took the wrong fucking number, dumbass.
>>169797
That's no excuse for being shit-tier and inaccurate. Even at face value the meme made no sense, and the maker either did zero actual research or made it inaccurate on purpose.
And then you went and reposted it without checking, and claimed it proved your point, leaving the rest of us to check for you and call out that it's nonsense. Nice move.
That's no excuse for being shit-tier and inaccurate. Even at face value the meme made no sense, and the maker either did zero actual research or made it inaccurate on purpose.
And then you went and reposted it without checking, and claimed it proved your point, leaving the rest of us to check for you and call out that it's nonsense. Nice move.
>>169799
>Even at face value the meme made no sense
It makes totally sense, even with all the mentally gymnastics cannot be beaten, IMO.
>Even at face value the meme made no sense
It makes totally sense, even with all the mentally gymnastics cannot be beaten, IMO.
Anonymous
No.169801
>>169800
It makes no sense because nobody has ever claimed that the life support system works for 22 hours, except for the brainlet who made this meme.
It makes no sense because nobody has ever claimed that the life support system works for 22 hours, except for the brainlet who made this meme.
>>169803
The meme says 22 hours. You lied. You are suggesting you made the meme yourself or comes from trusted sources. It is proven to be a lie because it was 2.5 hours.
The meme says 22 hours. You lied. You are suggesting you made the meme yourself or comes from trusted sources. It is proven to be a lie because it was 2.5 hours.
>>169804
>The meme says 22 hours. You lied.
You lie. According to NASA, its actors in space costumes were there for 22 hours. If they replenished their air supply, is not proven.
>The meme says 22 hours. You lied.
You lie. According to NASA, its actors in space costumes were there for 22 hours. If they replenished their air supply, is not proven.
>>169806
https://youtu.be/S7Cl1hRMPA8?feature=shared
The meme says 22 hours. The sources said 22 is aggregate. Are you telling me that they didn't sleep at all during the mission?
https://youtu.be/S7Cl1hRMPA8?feature=shared
The meme says 22 hours. The sources said 22 is aggregate. Are you telling me that they didn't sleep at all during the mission?
Anonymous
No.169808
>>169803
The life support system is visibly bigger than the two tanks in your stupid meme: the tank is literally bigger.
It also, again, doesn't need to account for bends, and it is doesn't waste oxygen by bubbling it away.
It's ridiculous for a suit to last 22 hours, but one being designed to last for six hours is well within the realm of possibility for all of the reasons described above. Just the fact that the suit is a closed system alone means it's drastically more air-efficient than the civilian diver's tank.
Also, they didn't even use it for the full 6 hours, they did it for 2.5 hours. 6 hours is it's absolute maximum. Even most diving tanks can actually go for longer than their labelling recommends, but only retards would push the limit when their brain tissue is on the line. They made a suit that was more than twice the capacity they needed because they had to account for things going wrong and the astronauts somehow being delayed on their path back to the vessel.
The life support system is visibly bigger than the two tanks in your stupid meme: the tank is literally bigger.
It also, again, doesn't need to account for bends, and it is doesn't waste oxygen by bubbling it away.
It's ridiculous for a suit to last 22 hours, but one being designed to last for six hours is well within the realm of possibility for all of the reasons described above. Just the fact that the suit is a closed system alone means it's drastically more air-efficient than the civilian diver's tank.
Also, they didn't even use it for the full 6 hours, they did it for 2.5 hours. 6 hours is it's absolute maximum. Even most diving tanks can actually go for longer than their labelling recommends, but only retards would push the limit when their brain tissue is on the line. They made a suit that was more than twice the capacity they needed because they had to account for things going wrong and the astronauts somehow being delayed on their path back to the vessel.
>>169807
>Are you telling me that they didn't sleep at all during the mission?
Sleeping does not stops breathing. Just saying.
>Are you telling me that they didn't sleep at all during the mission?
Sleeping does not stops breathing. Just saying.
Anonymous
No.169811
>>169806
>You lie. According to NASA, its actors in space costumes were there for 22 hours.
Where and when has NASA ever said this? It's not in any of their documentation or their announcements.
>You lie. According to NASA, its actors in space costumes were there for 22 hours.
Where and when has NASA ever said this? It's not in any of their documentation or their announcements.
Anonymous
No.169813
>>169809
They weren't wearing the suits while they slept, idiot. They slept aboard the vessel, which had more than enough Oxygen.
They weren't wearing the suits while they slept, idiot. They slept aboard the vessel, which had more than enough Oxygen.
Anonymous
No.169857
>>169803
>refusing to acknowledge the tank sizes
We all said the tank on the suit is visibly bigger. You can see that it's bigger.
>refusing to acknowledge the tank sizes
We all said the tank on the suit is visibly bigger. You can see that it's bigger.
Anonymous
No.169858
>>169755
You simply get as much attention as you intended to raise. By saging, that means nothing at all.
You simply get as much attention as you intended to raise. By saging, that means nothing at all.
Anonymous
No.169954
Heres a quick short, so you wont have missed out
https://youtube.com/shorts/cu4tYxZA0g4?si=ke3za4YYvg579u2g
https://youtube.com/shorts/cu4tYxZA0g4?si=ke3za4YYvg579u2g
File (): D9B9905569EEE59D2664E13D8579E33A-89094.jpg (87.0 KB, 662x441, Flat-Earth-Memes-22-copy.jpg)
Hello anons.
File (): DCA1627D00F21F4D7B731D67260DE759-505429.jpg (493.6 KB, 1500x2200, smallprototy.jpg)
Privately owned high altitude aerostatic balloon.
File (): F25969F0BC69C5A62421DEF2B55851F8-173760.jpg (169.7 KB, 1080x1080, modus-operandi.jpg)
>>170137
It's pretty easy to cut photos like this to make them appear flat. It doesn't help that the lower photo is so grainy; almost as it it were cut from a larger image.
Of course, we could settle this right away if we had the name of the balloon and the date this photo was taken.
>>170139
Privately owned by who?
It's pretty easy to cut photos like this to make them appear flat. It doesn't help that the lower photo is so grainy; almost as it it were cut from a larger image.
Of course, we could settle this right away if we had the name of the balloon and the date this photo was taken.
>>170139
Privately owned by who?
>>170141
>It's pretty easy to cut photos like this to make them appear flat
You tell me. For decades the masons have been using eyefish lenses and everybody swallowed the hoax.
>It's pretty easy to cut photos like this to make them appear flat
You tell me. For decades the masons have been using eyefish lenses and everybody swallowed the hoax.
Anonymous
No.170143
File (): 01E7760BD252ED6D0223A503D2618247-218010.jpg (212.9 KB, 1080x1080, fisheye-video.jpg)
File (): 1FFFEBBEA014C6A3066A3D3409DB9B9F-206521.jpg (201.7 KB, 1080x1080, little-piggy.jpg)
File (): C3E4E8089CA5B0ACE4E0BBECE2CBDA63-241650.jpg (236.0 KB, 1080x1080, high-altitude-balloon.jpg)
File (): 6AE7BEBECCFCA85B9CA692BBB26E9397-211522.jpg (206.6 KB, 1080x1080, fisheye-makes-flat.jpg)
File (): 2BAAC80E7D626CC4E3500BBF2FFC8C70-142235.jpg (138.9 KB, 1080x1080, overdefishing.jpg)
>>170142
More like the opposite. Defishing high altitude photos make them appear flat. Give me a named example of a balloon and I'll show it to you.
More like the opposite. Defishing high altitude photos make them appear flat. Give me a named example of a balloon and I'll show it to you.
Anonymous
No.170144
Anonymous
No.170147
>>170145
>true evidence
You've still yet to give the name of the balloon, or any single example we can analyze.
>true evidence
You've still yet to give the name of the balloon, or any single example we can analyze.
Anonymous
No.170148
Anonymous
No.170150
>>170149
Just wait until april. Many may have missed the last one, but they WONT miss this one
No doubt itll be factored into the ramping WW3 talking points,... ugh, its gonna get spicy
Just wait until april. Many may have missed the last one, but they WONT miss this one
No doubt itll be factored into the ramping WW3 talking points,... ugh, its gonna get spicy
Anonymous
No.170153
>>169806
>According to NASA, its actors in space costumes were there for 22 hours.
I haven't found NASA saying this anywhere. You must be mistaken.
>According to NASA, its actors in space costumes were there for 22 hours.
I haven't found NASA saying this anywhere. You must be mistaken.
File (): 1F0DD02ED4C0C5B5A081D3F1C54C5B08-54164.jpg (52.9 KB, 612x680, globers.jpg)
Globers in this thread.
File (): 5AEC8D87170628376AFD8A6FEE4B1C6D-265030.jpg (258.8 KB, 636x1384, chunk of the moon appears to be orbiting near Earth.jpg)
File (): B65650C4B6972D85905A9EDBE6052673-1890222.mp4 (1.8 MB, Resolution:270x480 Length:00:01:11, Chunk Of Moon Falls Off - NASA Nonsense.mp4) [play once] [loop]
Chunk of the moon appears to be orbiting near Earth.
To the globers.
>>170186
What's so special about this particular pic?
Also, this wasn't filmed. It was a photograph. The videos are much lower quality because video tech wasn't as developed back then.
What's so special about this particular pic?
Also, this wasn't filmed. It was a photograph. The videos are much lower quality because video tech wasn't as developed back then.
>>170185
>they're saying a piece of the moon just fell off
It didn't "just fall off". It's been there for a century.
>two years ago they said the same.
>second time in two years
The asteroid was named as a quasi-satellite in 2016, a study in 2021 analyzed it's material composition, and a recent study graphed it's current orbit and extrapolated it's previous orbit. This retard didn't even read the articles he's ridiculing, because he's claiming that NASA said two things happened when in fact both articles are referring to the same fucking rock.
It was two years ago (2021) that a study was done analyzing the light reflecting off of the asteroid and concluding that it had the same substance composition as the moon, but weren't sure how a lunar object would
The new study is based on a computer simulation that graphs the asteroids orbit, explaining how Kamoʻoalewa attained such a peculiar orbit bouncing between the earth and Sun's gravity.
Both studies were referring to the same rock, the rock that has been circling for decades. Nobody ever claimed that a piece of the moon "fell off" of it two years in a row, unlike what this wigger is saying.
Do you even research this shit before posting it?
>they're saying a piece of the moon just fell off
It didn't "just fall off". It's been there for a century.
>two years ago they said the same.
>second time in two years
The asteroid was named as a quasi-satellite in 2016, a study in 2021 analyzed it's material composition, and a recent study graphed it's current orbit and extrapolated it's previous orbit. This retard didn't even read the articles he's ridiculing, because he's claiming that NASA said two things happened when in fact both articles are referring to the same fucking rock.
It was two years ago (2021) that a study was done analyzing the light reflecting off of the asteroid and concluding that it had the same substance composition as the moon, but weren't sure how a lunar object would
The new study is based on a computer simulation that graphs the asteroids orbit, explaining how Kamoʻoalewa attained such a peculiar orbit bouncing between the earth and Sun's gravity.
Both studies were referring to the same rock, the rock that has been circling for decades. Nobody ever claimed that a piece of the moon "fell off" of it two years in a row, unlike what this wigger is saying.
Do you even research this shit before posting it?
>>170185
>NASA just announced
Ffs, they did not "just announce" it. The recent announcement was publishing a simulation-based study about it's historical orbit and a prediction for how long it will start near earth.
>NASA just announced
Ffs, they did not "just announce" it. The recent announcement was publishing a simulation-based study about it's historical orbit and a prediction for how long it will start near earth.
>>170194
You know he wont, because it is.
Still waiting on that whole eclipse thing not to mention the ships over the horizon thing
But staff is okay with this cuz it doesnt hilight (and yet it does) their malfeasance
You know he wont, because it is.
Still waiting on that whole eclipse thing not to mention the ships over the horizon thing
But staff is okay with this cuz it doesnt hilight (and yet it does) their malfeasance
File (): 88C9C1A8226E8C34948A050A475D00BB-44672.jpg (43.6 KB, 681x673, MEDIA MUSK91b276A.jpeg)
>>170212
Starlink is going pretty well for him. That satellite Internet is really taking off.
Elon owns half of the satellites orbiting the earth right now. It's come to the point where the U.S. military had to buy their own Starlink system for Ukraine so that Elon wouldn't be able to turn it off.
Starlink is going pretty well for him. That satellite Internet is really taking off.
Elon owns half of the satellites orbiting the earth right now. It's come to the point where the U.S. military had to buy their own Starlink system for Ukraine so that Elon wouldn't be able to turn it off.
>>170213
>Starlink is going pretty well for him. That satellite Internet is really taking off.
A hint.
Neither Starlink or any satellite service does work in the mountains away from populated regions nor in the middle of the ocean. And when actually and intermittently works is because there is a balloon floating at 30km high relaying the signal.
>Starlink is going pretty well for him. That satellite Internet is really taking off.
A hint.
Neither Starlink or any satellite service does work in the mountains away from populated regions nor in the middle of the ocean. And when actually and intermittently works is because there is a balloon floating at 30km high relaying the signal.
>>170216
>Neither Starlink or any satellite service does work in the mountains
Weren't they using Starlink terminals out in the mountains of Morocco after that earthquake recently?
The biggest benefit of Starlink is that it works even in remote areas and where infrastructure has gone to shit.
>ocean
Yes it does. It has almost complete coverage over all the world's oceans. They use it on ships all of the time.
>Neither Starlink or any satellite service does work in the mountains
Weren't they using Starlink terminals out in the mountains of Morocco after that earthquake recently?
The biggest benefit of Starlink is that it works even in remote areas and where infrastructure has gone to shit.
>ocean
Yes it does. It has almost complete coverage over all the world's oceans. They use it on ships all of the time.
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-100] [101-200] [201-300] [301-400] [401-500] [501-600] [601-700] [701-800] [801-900] [901-1000] [1001-1100] [1101-1200] [1201-1300] [1301-1400] [1401-1500] [1501-1600] [1601-1700] [1701-1800] [1801-1900] [1901-2000] [2001-2100] [2101-2200] [2201-2300] [2301-2400] [2401-2500] [2501-2600] [2601-2700] [2701-2770] [Next] [Live (last 100 replies)]
2770 replies | 1431 files | 277 UUIDs | Page 5