[DoctorMoe]

A friend of mine sent me a video by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
It's quite nice, as far as production goes... but then... just like in so many of their other videos,
the booboo happens.


Check out at 2:44 into the film - you'll see it.
There is the international space station filming footage from space, outside the atmosphere of the Earth. Ok. It's fake, for sure, but what proves that the video is fake, or that they are actually revealing something about the earth being flat?
The fact that the stars are rotating around the North Star even while the perspective is NOT on the Earth while it is rotating.

You see, we flat earthers believe that the earth is flat and does not rotate. Instead, the stars in the firmament rotate around Polaris (North Star).

But here, in this video, we see that even while the space station is OFF the planet, so one is not benefiting from the Earth's "rotation" to see the fixed stars "move" in the sky around us while we rotate (globe earth jargon), we can still see the stars in full rotation. So this video is of course faked.

I saw in the credits that this was from a video called - Earth -Time Lapse View from Space/Fly Over -Nasa, ISS
which has the same booboo all over the video - it shows a "satellite" (clearly fake) outside of the earth's atmosphere with the stars circumpolarly rotating in the sky.


(in particular at 1:49 and again at 3:30 - you can see the circumpolar rotation of the stars which makes no sense from a Globe earth theory perspective.)

Folks, according to "round earth theory" the stars are fixed. they don't move.
The only reason they move is due to being on a rotating earth.
So why are they moving in the background in a circumpolar fashion in these NASA "international space station" videos?

Try to explain THAT away with Round Earth theory.

So if this is footage from the international space station in space above the planet (say, 100,000-150,000 feet), it's moving along the flat earth and the roundness is faked with a fish eye effect, all the while the stars rotate in the firmament around the North Star. or the whole damned thing is faked. Or, the whole thing is faked and they took footage of stars rotating around the North Star and pasted it into the video of the "round earth" not realizing how dumb that is.

Another fake NASA video.

[frisbee]

Rotations of space vehicles

In RE the stars are fixed. The earth rotates and so on the surface of the earth the stars in the sky appear to rotate.

If a space craft were out in space away from any planetary body and just drifting the stars could appear to rotate if the space craft were spinning slowly. The fixed stars would appear to rotate about the spin axis of the space craft.

If a space craft orbits the earth while maintaining the same side always pointing toward the earth then it will rotate once with each orbit of the earth (roughly) and as a result from the spacecraft POV the stars will appear to rotate about the space craft's axis of rotation about once per orbit.

The space craft could maintain itself fixed with respect to the stars as it orbits the earth but then the earth would appear to spin around the space craft instead of the stars.

[DoctorMoe]

Rotations of space vehicles

In RE the stars are fixed. The earth rotates and so on the surface of the earth the stars in the sky appear to rotate.
If a space craft were out in space away from any planetary body and just drifting the stars could appear to rotate if the space craft were spinning slowly. The fixed stars would appear to rotate about the spin axis of the space craft.
If a space craft orbits the earth while maintaining the same side always pointing toward the earth then it will rotate once with each orbit of the earth (roughly) and as a result from the spacecraft POV the stars will appear to rotate about the space craft's axis of rotation about once per orbit.
The space craft could maintain itself fixed with respect to the stars as it orbits the earth but then the earth would appear to spin around the space craft instead of the stars.

Frisbee, nice logical attempt at a Globe Earth explanation.
This is one of those examples where simple observation does away with a lot of justification.

You'd be right if the station was fixed and rotating on its own axis.
But, if you simply WATCH and LOOK and OBSERVE the rotation of the stars relative to the movement of the "space station," it doesn't add up. There's no way the motion of the "space station" is creating that rotation. Watch at the times I pointed out in both videos. It's a booboo. 

[Pete Svarrior]

In RE the stars are fixed.

No, they most certainly are not.

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

[frisbee]

You'd be right if the station was fixed and rotating on its own axis.

If the station was fixed it would not be rotating on its own axis and if it was rotating on its own axis it would not be fixed.

Maybe try explaining again what you are trying to say, or not, if you are simply not interested in having your perception of the world challenged.

How did you come to the conclusion that the stars are rotating about the north polar star? Why on earth would NASA fake a video that makes mistakes that agree with a flat earth model if that is what they are trying to hide in the first place??

[frisbee]

In RE the stars are fixed.

No, they most certainly are not.

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

You may want to take up this point with DoctorMoe.

Folks, according to "round earth theory" the stars are fixed. they don't move.
The only reason they move is due to being on a rotating earth.

[DoctorMoe]

In RE the stars are fixed.

No, they most certainly are not.

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

You may want to take up this point with DoctorMoe.

Folks, according to "round earth theory" the stars are fixed. they don't move.
The only reason they move is due to being on a rotating earth.

I am aware of the notion that, according to GE theory, the stars, as well as our own solar system and galaxy, revolve / rotate around the Galactic Heart Center. I wonder how that really works, since Polaris maintains its fixed point at true north point origin of the magnet north. if we were careening around in space and millions of miles per hour, and if the other stars in other solar systems and galaxies were as well, there's no way polaris could remain fixed as well as all the other stars relative positions to polaris in our night sky. So, yeah, i am aware of this idea within GE - which doesn't actually work at all in reality.

However, let's say it does. The present discussion at hand is not speaking to the "possible but most unlikely" phenomenon of the rotation of galaxies around Galactic Heart Center, but rather to the more immediate effect of what is happening with the space station and how could the stars be rotating like that in the sky? I'll address in the next post.

By the way, I think GE people really shoot themselves in the foot with the argument that our solar system and the other solar systems in our galaxy (Along wiht other galaxies) are doing some rapid movement around GHC (514,000 mph) while the relative positions of the stars in the night sky always remain the same. That's another of those things that all you have to do is go out and observe the night sky to negate that theory.

[DoctorMoe]

You'd be right if the station was fixed and rotating on its own axis.

If the station was fixed it would not be rotating on its own axis and if it was rotating on its own axis it would not be fixed.

it's not rotating on its axis. if it was, the earth would appear to be going around upside down, and the earth stays put beneath the Space station.

Maybe try explaining again what you are trying to say, or not, if you are simply not interested in having your perception of the world challenged.

now let's not throw petty comments around. I am very ok with having my perception of the world challenged, since less than 2 months ago, I thought the earth was a ROUND GLOBE. In fact, I fought it tooth and nail, as you and many other GEs do around here. I rejected it straight out and I found myself throwing arguments out that, after I began to really look at ALL the facts, FE and GE, the GE just made no sense anymore. So, that's that.

To explain - if the space station was moving rotating on its own axis, we'd see the earth going upside down and around and around like that, AND the stars could be making that pattern, since the space station, from a fixed position rotating on its own axis could make the stars rotate as seen in the video. but we know that's not happening because the earth's relative position doesn't change.
so, and this comes up with the Polaris debate - how can we see circumpolar photography of the night sky creating perfect images of circular star tracks from different latitude positions around the Earth?
For example -
http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2011/08/north-circumpolar-stars-observed-from-portugal.html (Portugal)
http://home.comcast.net/~edwelda/site/?/page/Sky_Gallery/ (Boston)
http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=30&month=12&year=2007 (Italy) look down halfway on page.

the only place the perfect circle could work would be from the position on Earth on the north pole directly in line with Polaris.
however, portugal, italy, boston, they all show perfect circles. That cannot be. the stars' patterns would and should look different from different latittudes on the planet. but they're all the same. this demonstrates that the earth is not rotating on its axis and that the stars rotate around Polaris in the firmament.

So in this video, the same problem emerges.
the stars are making a circumpolar rotation but the space station is not rotating on its axis and its motion through space would not be able to create the motion of the stars we're seeing.

Why on earth would NASA fake a video that makes mistakes that agree with a flat earth model if that is what they are trying to hide in the first place??

That's a very good question.
My answer - because they're trying to hide the truth and they're not covering all their tracks and letting some things slip.

Why would NASA share an official picture of Earth "from space" that has the word SEX written in the clouds (when you look at it from upside down)

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-captures-epic-earth-image

Why did they fake the lunar landings? These are all easy to verify now. There's a lot of evidence.

NASA is a fake organization and they're not able to contain all the errors from faking the truth.

[frisbee]

I am aware of the notion that, according to GE theory, the stars, as well as our own solar system and galaxy, revolve / rotate around the Galactic Heart Center. I wonder how that really works, since Polaris maintains its fixed point at true north point origin of the magnet north.

That is an apparent fixed position only, due to the rotation of the earth. If the earth could magically spin about a different axis, say through the equator, then Polaris would appear to circle some other spot in space just the way other stars now circle Polaris.

"What’s more, the star we know as Polaris hasn’t been the only North Star.

A motion of Earth called precession causes our axis to trace out an imaginary circle on the celestial sphere every 26,000 years. Thousands of years ago, when the pyramids were rising from the sands of ancient Egypt, the North Star was an inconspicuous star called Thuban in the constellation Draco the Dragon. Twelve thousand years from now, the blue-white star Vega in the constellation Lyra will be a much brighter North Star than our current Polaris."
http://earthsky.org/space/north-star-movement

Incidently these motions, the milankovitch cycles, are recorded in the geology of our planet.

if we were careening around in space and millions of miles per hour, and if the other stars in other solar systems and galaxies were as well, there's no way polaris could remain fixed as well as all the other stars relative positions to polaris in our night sky. So, yeah, i am aware of this idea within GE - which doesn't actually work at all in reality.

"By the way, Polaris – like all stars – has more than one kind of motion. The stars we see in our night sky are all members of our Milky Way galaxy. All of these stars are moving through space, but they’re so far away we can’t easily see them move relative to each other. That’s why the stars appear fixed relative to each other. And it’s why, for the most part, we see the same constellations as our ancestors. So when you’re talking about stars “moving” or staying “fixed,” remember … they are all moving through the vastness of space. It’s just the relatively short time of a human lifespan that prevents us from seeing this grand motion."
http://earthsky.org/space/north-star-movement

However, let's say it does. The present discussion at hand is not speaking to the "possible but most unlikely" phenomenon of the rotation of galaxies around Galactic Heart Center, but rather to the more immediate effect of what is happening with the space station and how could the stars be rotating like that in the sky? I'll address in the next post.

By the way, I think GE people really shoot themselves in the foot with the argument that our solar system and the other solar systems in our galaxy (Along wiht other galaxies) are doing some rapid movement around GHC (514,000 mph) while the relative positions of the stars in the night sky always remain the same. That's another of those things that all you have to do is go out and observe the night sky to negate that theory.

Might be a good argument if the stars were not very far away per FET but that is a "begging the question" fallacy. The stars are very distant in the RE model.

[frisbee]

it's not rotating on its axis. if it was, the earth would appear to be going around upside down, and the earth stays put beneath the Space station.

Again you are assuming FET to "prove" this point and begging the question. You are mixing models together. In the RE model or GE model the ISS is in orbit and goes around the spherical earth. That means that if it has one side always facing the earth that it rotates about an axis with every orbit of the planet. If it was staionary then the earth would appear to rotate about the ISS from the POV of the ISS in a RE model. It's OK to think of things and how they would behave and what you'd observe if a particular model were true whether or not you believe in that model.

To explain - if the space station was moving rotating on its own axis, we'd see the earth going upside down and around and around like that, AND the stars could be making that pattern, since the space station, from a fixed position rotating on its own axis could make the stars rotate as seen in the video. but we know that's not happening because the earth's relative position doesn't change.

Same explanation as before, see above comment.

so, and this comes up with the Polaris debate - how can we see circumpolar photography of the night sky creating perfect images of circular star tracks from different latitude positions around the Earth?

Take a look a the first diagram here:
http://cseligman.com/text/sky/motions.htm

The fact that you can see the spot in the sky represented by the earth spin axis from other latitudes is that it is near infinitely far away. This argument does not hold any weight because again you are assuming FET is correct in order for the argument to hold any weight which is, again, a "begging the question" fallacy. It works with a RE model just fine.

the only place the perfect circle could work would be from the position on Earth on the north pole directly in line with Polaris.

That's the only place it'd be directly overhead. The earth diameter is not very big in relation to the stars and the universe so no, you are incorrect that where you are located in latitude would affect the observed circular motion of the stars. The only thing it affects is which direction is up.

the stars' patterns would and should look different from different latittudes on the planet.

And they do but only in terms of where up is directed.

And why do the stars rotate about a different spot in space in the southern hemisphere? And why at the south pole does this spot appear directly overhead?
http://photolibrary.usap.gov/PhotoDetails.aspx?filename=POLESOUTHERNROTATION.JPG

How on earth would that southern rotation be exactly the same at the same southern latitude regardless of longitude??

And I asked the question on another thread but no one answered yet. Where do the astronauts go when a space vehicle is launched?

[Jura-Glenlivet]

I walk my dogs 50% of the year in the dark in the countryside (at 52deg' north) so I am a massive star gazer, the motion of the stars and the procession of the planets speaks only of an earth that spins.
Frisbee is right, the station is still orbiting the earth so it sees the the universe from an earth perspective, sorry but it isn't a valid point you are making.

[DoctorMoe]

it's not rotating on its axis. if it was, the earth would appear to be going around upside down, and the earth stays put beneath the Space station.

Again you are assuming FET to "prove" this point and begging the question. You are mixing models together. In the RE model or GE model the ISS is in orbit and goes around the spherical earth. That means that if it has one side always facing the earth that it rotates about an axis with every orbit of the planet. If it was staionary then the earth would appear to rotate about the ISS from the POV of the ISS in a RE model. It's OK to think of things and how they would behave and what you'd observe if a particular model were true whether or not you believe in that model.

To explain - if the space station was moving rotating on its own axis, we'd see the earth going upside down and around and around like that, AND the stars could be making that pattern, since the space station, from a fixed position rotating on its own axis could make the stars rotate as seen in the video. but we know that's not happening because the earth's relative position doesn't change.

Same explanation as before, see above comment.

so, and this comes up with the Polaris debate - how can we see circumpolar photography of the night sky creating perfect images of circular star tracks from different latitude positions around the Earth?

Take a look a the first diagram here:
http://cseligman.com/text/sky/motions.htm

The fact that you can see the spot in the sky represented by the earth spin axis from other latitudes is that it is near infinitely far away. This argument does not hold any weight because again you are assuming FET is correct in order for the argument to hold any weight which is, again, a "begging the question" fallacy. It works with a RE model just fine.

the only place the perfect circle could work would be from the position on Earth on the north pole directly in line with Polaris.

That's the only place it'd be directly overhead. The earth diameter is not very big in relation to the stars and the universe so no, you are incorrect that where you are located in latitude would affect the observed circular motion of the stars. The only thing it affects is which direction is up.

the stars' patterns would and should look different from different latittudes on the planet.

And they do but only in terms of where up is directed.

And why do the stars rotate about a different spot in space in the southern hemisphere? And why at the south pole does this spot appear directly overhead?
http://photolibrary.usap.gov/PhotoDetails.aspx?filename=POLESOUTHERNROTATION.JPG

How on earth would that southern rotation be exactly the same at the same southern latitude regardless of longitude??

And I asked the question on another thread but no one answered yet. Where do the astronauts go when a space vehicle is launched?

Frisbee, you argue valid points. I would like to answer in earnest, but I don't know how to explain some of your questions. I'll need to think deeper at it. I am relatively new to Flat Earth theory and to be honest, I don't think we have answers to everything. In fact, neither does the globe earth model have real satisfactory answers to everything. What I have noticed is that many people argue conveniently, meaning, when they encounter something they cannot explain, they simply ignore it and rather put forward a more plausible argument based in something that is easier to explain. I have many questions that GEers have not given any satisfactory logical answers to. I could put them here but I'd be "off topicing" my own thread. lol.

and when I read your arguments, they don't really make sense to me.
In fact, I confess, I don't understand what you're trying to say with the motion of the ISS. It really appears like a false motion of the stars, that's what this thread is about. You have brought up many points that don't really make sense to me, but I am trying to understand them. It may be because you're explaining something in a model that I don't believe is true, so the logic, as sound as it seems, doesn't quite click into place because it is not quite true.
Or I just don't understand what you're expressing.

working on it.

you conveniently didn't address my points regarding NASA.
How do you explain those things I presented?

[DoctorMoe]

I walk my dogs 50% of the year in the dark in the countryside (at 52deg' north) so I am a massive star gazer, the motion of the stars and the procession of the planets speaks only of an earth that spins.
Frisbee is right, the station is still orbiting the earth so it sees the the universe from an earth perspective, sorry but it isn't a valid point you are making.

I may not be making a valid point here from a GE perspective. I can see that.
But the motion of the stars that you see is not only attributable to a GE spinning either.
This is a bit of  a standoff that many are making.

What I'd like to know is that, where are all the Flat Earthers?
i thought this was a flat earth forum.
With my posts, I'd say I get 9 round earthers argument to 1 flat earther comment / support.

[frisbee]

you conveniently didn't address my points regarding NASA.

I attempted to focus on why it is that the ISS is rotating in a RE model. I am also interested in the NASA conspiracy but maybe that's best done in a thread on that topic. Give me a link and I'll discuss it with you there.

Let me try again and see if I can correct my failure to explain why the ISS rotates. This is just a thought experiment.

Say you take a hunting bow and shoot an arrow into a basketball such that the tail end of the arrow is sticking out of the ball while the tip is lodged inside. Now you hold it so that the arrow is horizontal. You attach a string with glue to the top of the ball and let the whole thing hang motionless from the ceiling. Next you give the end of the arrow a nudge so that the whole thing rotates at say 1 RPM about the string axis. Now the tail feathers were pointing due east when you gave them a nudge. After 15 seconds they are pointing due south. After another 15 seconds they point due west. After the next 15 seconds they point due north. After 1 minute they are back where they started.

The whole time the tail feathers were pointing towards the ball. They rotated about the string axis with one revolution. If a tiny movie camera mounted to the tail end parallel to the string axis were looking up at the ceiling and recorded what it saw for that minute what would you see when you played it back on your monitor? You'd see a movie of a ceiling that spun around the point of attachment of the string to the ceiling.

Does that make sense now? If you can imagine all of this then the basketball is the earth, the tail feathers are the ISS, the ceiling is the star field. The only difference is that the orbital rotation of the ISS is not the same as the earth's rotation rate. The thought experiment would correspond more accurately to something in a geostationary orbit.

[Pete Svarrior]

In RE the stars are fixed.

No, they most certainly are not.

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

You may want to take up this point with DoctorMoe.

Folks, according to "round earth theory" the stars are fixed. they don't move.
The only reason they move is due to being on a rotating earth.

So you're both wrong. Who cares?

[DoctorMoe]

you conveniently didn't address my points regarding NASA.

I attempted to focus on why it is that the ISS is rotating in a RE model. I am also interested in the NASA conspiracy but maybe that's best done in a thread on that topic. Give me a link and I'll discuss it with you there.

Let me try again and see if I can correct my failure to explain why the ISS rotates. This is just a thought experiment.

Say you take a hunting bow and shoot an arrow into a basketball such that the tail end of the arrow is sticking out of the ball while the tip is lodged inside. Now you hold it so that the arrow is horizontal. You attach a string with glue to the top of the ball and let the whole thing hang motionless from the ceiling. Next you give the end of the arrow a nudge so that the whole thing rotates at say 1 RPM about the string axis. Now the tail feathers were pointing due east when you gave them a nudge. After 15 seconds they are pointing due south. After another 15 seconds they point due west. After the next 15 seconds they point due north. After 1 minute they are back where they started.

The whole time the tail feathers were pointing towards the ball. They rotated about the string axis with one revolution. If a tiny movie camera mounted to the tail end parallel to the string axis were looking up at the ceiling and recorded what it saw for that minute what would you see when you played it back on your monitor? You'd see a movie of a ceiling that spun around the point of attachment of the string to the ceiling.

Does that make sense now? If you can imagine all of this then the basketball is the earth, the tail feathers are the ISS, the ceiling is the star field. The only difference is that the orbital rotation of the ISS is not the same as the earth's rotation rate. The thought experiment would correspond more accurately to something in a geostationary orbit.

yes. I understand the metaphor and also how it equates with ISS and the apparent rotation of the stars in the sky.
Thanks for explaining it like that.

There are several threads about NASA general BS on this forum already.
I'll include a few links here -

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2144.msg53103#msg53103

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2522.msg63256#msg63256

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2577.msg64483#msg64483

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3255.msg74459#msg74459

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2989.msg70072#msg70072

[frisbee]

So you're both wrong.

And here I was under the impression that the stars were just holes drilled in a hard dome over a flat earth. Thanks for setting me straight.

Who cares?

Precisely. The motions you are bringing up are not of any consequence to what we are discussing.

[frisbee]

conspiracy links

Glad I could finally explain myself. Sorry, I just went back to the OP. This is a conspiracy thread so we might as well stay here.


I'm not really seeing any compelling arguments for a NASA conspiracy in the threads you listed.
Sex in the clouds is about as impressive as Jesus on a piece of toast.

Why did they fake the lunar landings?

They didn't. Why are there laser reflectors on the moon?

NASA is a fake organization

I can attest that there is an organization known as NASA. I worked there for 12 years of my career. They were in the habit of hiring students from the local universities to work as summer hires where I grew up in Silicon Valley. My older brother got to work on the arm for the space shuttle while getting a degree in mechanical engineering at USC. I have memories of my father taking me as a young child to the Naval base at Moffett field and going on board the dirigible stored there. He was a Navy pilot during WW2. NASA existed there alongside the Navy base. Lots of cool wind tunnels.

Where do the astronauts go that board the spacecraft? Are they really not on board? Do they get executed if the launch vehicle explodes as happened to the Challenger? I guess they just take one for the team huh? Maybe they should waste some time and money and send up a prominent member of the flat earth society just to clear the air. What could such a person contribute to the mission? Not much from I've read here. They'd probably have to restrain him from attempting suicide while he has a mental breakdown.

[Orbisect-64]

The most useful thing I personally got out of the 1st video is that it's very clear that many of the shots in space are CGI. For instance the camera zooms through clouds - and yet we know that no spacecraft or probes have gotten that deep into space.

Because the CGI is so real looking. . . this makes one ask: "How can I tell the difference between this and what they say is reality?" Because you can not tell the difference, it makes the photos and videos they claim are real, suspect and unbelievable.

And whenever they show us video footage claiming to be from the space station, it's never anywhere NEAR as clear as the footage in that video. So we're supposed to believe they can't get clear shots a few miles above our heads; but they can get crystal clear HD footage in other galaxies. . . YEAH RIGHT!

I downloaded that video because I'm making a presentation - and I need pictures and video that are admitted as art and CGI, but you can't tell the difference between them and NASA's pictures.

—

[frisbee]

The most useful thing I personally got out of the 1st video is that it's very clear that many of the shots in space are CGI. For instance the camera zooms through clouds - and yet we know that no spacecraft or probes have gotten that deep into space.

Because the CGI is so real looking. . . this makes one ask: "How can I tell the difference between this and what they say is reality?" Because you can not tell the difference, it makes the photos and videos they claim are real, suspect and unbelievable.

And whenever they show us video footage claiming to be from the space station, it's never anywhere NEAR as clear as the footage in that video. So we're supposed to believe they can't get clear shots a few miles above our heads; but they can get crystal clear HD footage in other galaxies. . . YEAH RIGHT!

I downloaded that video because I'm making a presentation - and I need pictures and video that are admitted as art and CGI, but you can't tell the difference between them and NASA's pictures.

—

I can certainly see the difference. It is pretty easy actually.

#t=19