Space Things

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

They can't even keep their "official" images of the "ball earth" consistent. I can't believe people believe these liars.

This is what happens when you use cameras with different lenses. Just so it is clear, this man's nose, eyes and mouth did not grow in size or get stretched forward.

You know, the local JC has a lot of really good introductory courses in basic physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy/reason, etc. that you would really benefit from.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Does anyone here know when the first physical object was put into "space?" I can't find a solid answer... Do any of you folks know?

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/explorer/bumper.html

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

The only issue I have with your explanation, is if "space" existed, then why do they have to fake going to "space?"
To me it's clear they cooked up the "space" and "ball earth" model and then they did their best to reverse engineer the entire concept.
We can argue about the "science" and physics of "space" until the cows come home, but you and I both know that neither of us can go to "space" and test any of this out for ourselves. Instead, we just have to take the word of a bunch of Freemasons and Jesuits, who aren't really helping their cause by faking the "moon landing" and photoshopping "space photos."
I recognize that everyone here is quite intelligent. I'm not trying to "win an argument" in order to boost my ego. I just really would like you all to look into some of the evidence that I'm presenting that shows that the operations in "space" have been faked. Why would they bother putting these hoaxes together and then forcing them on to the public?
Does anyone know when the first object traveled from "earth's atmosphere" and entered "space?" All the articles I find claim it was Sputnik in 1957. If that is the case, then how come the "Universal" logo from 1927 shows the "ball earth" in full detail 30 years prior to anything being launched into "space?" Could it be that they already had this model cooked up and they knew all along that they were going to push this agenda on the public?

You don't have to be in space to make a topographical map or globe of an area or planet. People have been making topographical maps long before we could even fly. Topographical globes have been around for several hundred years, if not thousands, in variable levels of accuracy of course, as with all maps before modern equipment.

https://www.britannica.com/science/globe-cartography

To date, I haven't seen any evidence presented by you that the moon landings were faked, and we have plenty of evidence they happened. Everything you have presented is surface-level basic observational errors because you lack a basic understand of science, physics, technology, etc. Honestly, I feel like I am teaching an elementary or grade school class in basic principles. I really think you should consider opening up some basic, fundamental-level, text books and starting at the beginning because you shouldn't be making so many errors or having such a hard time finding answers in a text book, internet Google search, whatever. Your sources are equally lost and ignorant of the world, and they are feeding you misinformation and making you worse off because of it.

Hopefully some of this sinks in for you.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

That "satellite" is just a contraption attached to a high altitude balloon with a fish eye lens attached to it. In the first five seconds, the image distorts as the lens bounces around. These are all photoshopped images and composites. None of these are a single frame photograph.

Again, you are really struggling. Some images of the globe are renderings. Some are not. Some are images that are stitched together from pictures when the Earth is rotated. Some times they will take a serious of images on different days when cloud cover over areas is light or not there, so you can see the land, and they composite all of those good images into a single image of each place on the clearest day, so the surface is visible for the whole globe. You know, Kim Kardashian photoshops her pictures too, but that doesn't mean she doesn't exist. She also takes pictures from a bunch of different angles, but that doesn't mean she is fake just because one photo makes her ass look especially big.

The moon is that size relative to Earth, but it isn't that close. You would need to be further away than the moon behind it far enough to create that shot, and you would lose all detail, so of course that is photoshopped, especially when the moon on the right is the side of the moon that faces the us and not the "dark side of the moon".

Take a class on photography too. You could also benefit from that. And try to think rationally, a photoshopped image is not the same thing as a render. There is no point in copying part of an image if it is entirely rendered. Again, do some research on how images are made. Stitching together photos of large objects isn't new and taking the best of two photos and stitching them together is as old as photography.

http://microsculpture.net/microsculpture.html

“Each image from the Microsculpture project is created from around 8000 individual photographs. The pinned insect is placed on an adapted microscope stage that enables me to have complete control over the positioning of the specimen in front of the lens. I shoot with a 36-megapixel camera that has a 10x microscope objective attached to it via a 200mm prime lens.

I photograph the insect in approximately 30 different sections, depending the size of the specimen. Each section is lit differently with strobe lights to bring out the micro sculptural beauty of that particular section of the body. For example, I will light and shoot just one antennae, then after I have completed this area I will move onto the eye and the lighting set up will change entirely to suit the texture and contours of that specific part area of the body. I continue this process until I have covered the whole surface area of the insect.

Due to the inherent shallow depth of field that microscope lenses provide, each individual photograph only contains a tiny slither of focus. To enable me to capture all the information I need to create a fully focused image, the camera is mounted onto an electronic rail that I program to move forward 10 microns between each shot. To give you an idea of how far that is, the average human hair is around 75 microns wide. The camera will then slowly move forward from the front of the insect to the back creating a folder of images that each have a thin plane of focus. Through various photo-stacking processes I flatten these images down to create a single picture that has complete focus throughout the full depth of the insect.

I repeat this process over the entire area of the insect and once I have 30 fully focused sections I bring them together in Photoshop to create the final photograph. From start to finish, a final photograph will take around 4 weeks to shoot, process and retouch.”

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

The problem here is this person's head changes widths with the different cameras. If you overlay them, the outlines of his face will not perfectly overlap. In the photos from NASA, the spheres perfectly overlap; same width, same height, same circumference, but different continent sizes within the circle.

I can widen his face any way I want after the fact, so compare the 8mm new image to the 85mm previous image and they will be similar, but the fact that his face is exaggerated to be more rectangle is because is rectangle to begin with and the lens is exaggerating that or might even be not symmetrically curved. The globe is perfectly round and the lens could be perfectly curved. Again, not complicated. Amazed I am having to break this down for you.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

So, if NASA claims the first object entered "space" in 1949, then how did Universal already know what the "ball earth" looked like in 1927, to the point they could arrive at the level of detail and precision that would accurately match a 1997 "photograph?"

I already answered this, but okay, this is a perfect task for you to do. I want you to type into Google: "How were topographical maps made...", and I want you to add to the end "before satellites", "before airplanes", "from the ground", etc. Do a deep dive. Practice your researching skills. When they talk about theodolites or modern instruments of surveyors look those up too. Yeah man. Go crazy. Have fun with it. Let us know what you find.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Alright, I did a bit of research and it mentioned SpaceX "satellites" so I went down the rabbit hole to research the company and their credentials and arrived at this.

Try researching your previous question. Try harder.

[ZDan]

Nobody is this stupid. ****weed is wasting alla yallz time on purpose. Don't feed the troll...

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

I was just researching Albert Einstein and I couldn't believe this quote belongs to him. They always put the truth in plain sight.

Given we both have access to the internet I'm a little surprised you didn't dig a little deeper.
That quote is attributed to Stuart Chase, not Einstein. The quote is not a support of a flat earth, it is a refutation of "common sense".

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Nobody is this stupid.

I disagree.

[Dadhawk]

Come on @Unplugem you can do better than this. Anyone that has ever seen an exploded diagram or built a model of the Saturn V rocket, or visited a space museum knows how this works. But just in case..maybe this will help.



As far as the Lunar Rover, well, it helps it DIDN'T have a Jeep chassis, and there are lots of videos showing it being folded and unfolded including on the Moon. Again, anyone that has ever assembled an IKEA wall of bookcases from a box that will fit in the back of a subcompact, knows there are ways with good engineering.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

I was just researching Albert Einstein

You weren't researching, you were looking for articles that support your view.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Taking quotes out of context does not further your argument.
He is not saying gravity doesn't exist. He is theorising that gravity is an emergent property, not a fundamental force.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Does anyone here know when the first physical object was put into "space?" I can't find a solid answer... Do any of you folks know?

First man made object put into orbit was Sputnik 1 in 1957.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_1

I think the German V2 rockets built in WW2 may have reached such an altitude, but were suborbital.


Technically everything exists in space such as the sun, moon, planets, solar systems, galaxies, galactic clusters, etc., and that's all physical matter. So nothing was ever "put" into space, it was already there when we became smart enough to understand it.