Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Bastian Baasch

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Theory / Skylab
« on: February 02, 2019, 04:36:53 PM »
This is one question I've never seen flat earthers answer: How do you explain the Skylab missions?

Now, I won't attempt to do better what someone on this forum has done before, so instead I'll just show it. CriticalThinker started a very well informed, evidence based post asking the same question, sadly his thread was proliferated by offtopic posts. So here's his great post again.
I realize that not every member of the FE community believes that NASA is part of a great conspiracy, but I see a general consensus that the majority of the FE community believs that real people haven't been in space to see the curvature of the earth.

So I am interested in their take on certain aspects of this video taken in SkyLab in 1974 and released to the public in 1974.

Specific points of interest as follows.
@ 1:03 the man is able to accelerate his rotation too quickly to be an underwater environment.
@1:18-1:43 The three men execute intersecting 3d pathways that would make wire harnesses tangled, the video segment is too long to be explained by parabolic flight as it exceeds 20 seconds in duration and the SkyLab is too large of an internal volume to fit inside the largest aircraft available at that time.

Photo real CGI in 1974 was not available.

This video provides a time period correct comparison as this was made in 1972.

This is the same effects in 2013.  During the commentary they stated that they had to digitally erase the entire body and create a CGI one.  When you look at the movie footage, the CGI bodies just aren't quite right.  Even with today's technology they look off.

Notice how the actors on the wire harnesses don't intertwine the way the 3 men from the first video do.  That's because they can't.  Only distant background characters are on intersecting courses and they are fully CGI.  They clearly don't look like actual people.

Based on all of this, how did NASA fake the video from skylab in 1974 using 1974 technology?

Thank you,


Thank you CriticalThinker! Now, in addition to the points he's raised. What about this footage? This is a video demonstrating fluid experiments on the Skylab missions. How do you do this before or in the very early stages of CGI? The first CGI water was in 1995 with the movie The Abyss (, and that doesn't look very real. According to wikipedia, the first realistic CGI was in 1995 with the movie Waterworld, so that certainly doesn't help FE'rs (  How would NASA have that level of CGI more than 20 years before? I believe it was stack in a prior post who pointed out the difficulties of CGI water and how you would need server farms and such to pull it off, but he was referring to ISS footage, the same question still applies, how would NASA more than 20 years before that footage, pull off the same feat?

Edit: For all those who say the fluid stuff could be from parabolic flight, it can't be, 5:41 to 6:27 is longer than the 20 seconds of parabolic flight.

I'm very interested in an answer from Bishop and co., especially considering there is no mention in the TFES wiki of Skylab. And given the amount of offtopic posts in CriticalThinker's original thread and how whenever AATW mentions it in any of his posts, it's ignored, it's almost like FE'rs ignore the very existence of Skylab.

Flat Earth Theory / Young Sunflowers
« on: January 08, 2019, 10:40:08 PM »
You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun. Its projection upon the atmoplane.

The apparent sun at sunrise is on the rim of the sun's area of light and is racing along the equator or your latitude line to you. However straight your latitude line is in your local area where you can see will be how the sun appears.

If you were on the equator, and there was a race car (or jet ski) racing along the surface of the earth to you on the circular equator line, and you only see it until it is nearby, would you see it from the East or very near the East? If so, there is your answer.

Consider what happens when you walk into a dark movie theater. There is a projector at the back of the room, shining an image on the screen. When you look at the screen, you are not looking in the direction of the ultimate source of the light. The light from the projector doesn't need to bend at all in that scenario, just reflect.

You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun.
Where is the actual sun?

Probably further North.

Wise did have an interesting thread last year where not all of the shadows in daylight scenes were coming from the sun, and seemed to be coming from another direction. He had a bunch of examples of that happening. Maybe it's somewhere on the other FES website.

In the movie projector example above, there is still recurrent light coming from the projector source. If you look back at the projector, it shines light on you, despite you not being between the projector and the screen. It would be interesting if it could be determined which other direction the shadows were coming from in that thread, which I can't seem to find at the moment.

Hi, new user here! I saw this projection explanation from Tom Bishop in edby's sunrise thread and what puzzles me about this whole apparent sun business and it being a projection of the real sun is the behavior of young sunflowers. They track the sun through the sky, as this article and the supporting study show ( )basically the plant has a circadian rhythm, it's controlling its growth through its internal clock, turning to get the most sunlight. But young sunflowers follow the apparent sun, but that's a projection according to FErs, so why would it follow that, shouldn't it follow the actual sun since that's the source of the radiation? Shouldn't we see a difference between the apparent/projection sun's position and the actual source of radiation, or what the sunflower's looking at?

Here's a time lapse video of a young sunflower following the sun. The sunflower footage starts at about 0:37 seconds.

Pages: [1]