The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Airplane on December 08, 2020, 09:20:07 PM
-
SpaceX recently posted this video to their official twitter feed. Not only is the curvature of the earth clearly visible, but the flat surfaces of the ISS are also visible which may rule out lens distortion as an explanation for the curve.
How is this phenomenon best explained by modern flat earth theory?
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1336349048534528001
Update:
This thread may also be used to discuss why SpaceX as a private company would choose to spend resources on a fake a mission to the ISS.
-
Honestly, this looks pretty fake. Looks like a model being suspended over a moving background. We don't see it dock either, which is a bit suspicious.
-
Honestly, this looks pretty fake. Looks like a model being suspended over a moving background. We don't see it dock either, which is a bit suspicious.
Perhaps you could explain further why one video, of one flight, out of a 60-year-plus, well-documented history of space flight, is "suspicious" ... ?
-
Perhaps you could explain further why one video, of one flight, out of a 60-year-plus, well-documented history of space flight, is "suspicious" ... ?
What makes you think that this one video is the only one that's suspicious? (Especially keeping in mind that you know that's not the case, because you were involved in discussion of other specific videos. Why lie?)
It's the only one being discussed in this thread, because that specific video is the subject of the thread. If you want a more general thread, start one - no need to hijack an existing one.
-
Honestly, this looks pretty fake. Looks like a model being suspended over a moving background. We don't see it dock either, which is a bit suspicious.
Perhaps you could explain further why one video, of one flight, out of a 60-year-plus, well-documented history of space flight, is "suspicious" ... ?
I believe I summed up my thoughts about it in my initial post. The video looks like a model superimposed over a moving image. And that coupled with the fact once we get very close to the object, the video cuts.
I didn't say anything about '60-year-plus, well-documented history' videos - though if you'd like to present something for me to take a look at, I'd be more than happy to give you my thoughts.
-
I didn't say anything about '60-year-plus, well-documented history' videos - though if you'd like to present something for me to take a look at, I'd be more than happy to give you my thoughts.
Oh, where to start, especially with the moderator looking on ...
Here's a 2m49s speeded-up version of a Soyuz relocating from one docking port to another on the ISS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJTkyVNZKgI
Here's another Soyuz docking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LTZn2TTUtQ
...and another relocation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D734VUuz6HA
Do these look like models?
-
Do these look like models?
Yes.
-
Do these look like models?
Yes.
Perhaps you could share what, in your opinion, a shuttle docking should look like?
-
Do these look like models?
Yes.
Do these look like models too?
https://youtu.be/IN34BtQ2G6w
-
Do these look like models?
Yes.
Perhaps you could share what, in your opinion, a shuttle docking should look like?
Having never seen it, it'd be pure speculation. I'm simply pointing out that the videos presented above look suspicious to me, for aforementioned reasons. I suppose in answer to your question as to what it should look like... 'not suspicious'... I suppose.
Do these look like models?
Yes.
Do these look like models too?
https://youtu.be/IN34BtQ2G6w
Yes - they look like models; but it's a good example of what can be done!
-
Do these look like models?
Yes.
Perhaps you could share what, in your opinion, a shuttle docking should look like?
Having never seen it, it'd be pure speculation. I'm simply pointing out that the videos presented above look suspicious to me, for aforementioned reasons. I suppose in answer to your question as to what it should look like... 'not suspicious'... I suppose.
Do these look like models?
Yes.
Do these look like models too?
https://youtu.be/IN34BtQ2G6w
Yes - they look like models; but it's a good example of what can be done!
That's exactly my point though, theres no reason it looks fake. We dont have a real sense of what things look like in outer space, where the ambient lighting from the sun is completely different and (net) zero gravity environment screws up out normal frames of reference which give us the cues we pick up on the notice when things do look fake here on earth - think of all the shitty Hollywood special effects you've seen over the years!
One of the key things that reinforces my belief in things like the moon landing is just how shitty the lander looked! Surely if they were just trying to fool everyone they would have built something that looked impressive to the eye! But instead they had to make something that they could launch to the moon so the aesthetics of it unfortunately suffered quite a bit...
Theres two cents no one asked for at least
-
Honestly, this looks pretty fake. Looks like a model being suspended over a moving background. We don't see it dock either, which is a bit suspicious.
Why is the fact you don't see it dock suspicious? You've just declared the whole thing a model (without evidence) so that would have been easy to fake.
-
Honestly, this looks pretty fake. Looks like a model being suspended over a moving background. We don't see it dock either, which is a bit suspicious.
Why is the fact you don't see it dock suspicious? You've just declared the whole thing a model (without evidence) so that would have been easy to fake.
Isn't it suspicious that it fades out just before the crucial moment? Perhaps not for you. It is for me.
-
Honestly, this looks pretty fake. Looks like a model being suspended over a moving background. We don't see it dock either, which is a bit suspicious.
Why is the fact you don't see it dock suspicious? You've just declared the whole thing a model (without evidence) so that would have been easy to fake.
Isn't it suspicious that it fades out just before the crucial moment? Perhaps not for you. It is for me.
Edited for Twitter. The whole thing is on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsts73ZGqQs
-
Honestly, this looks pretty fake. Looks like a model being suspended over a moving background. We don't see it dock either, which is a bit suspicious.
Why is the fact you don't see it dock suspicious? You've just declared the whole thing a model (without evidence) so that would have been easy to fake.
Isn't it suspicious that it fades out just before the crucial moment? Perhaps not for you. It is for me.
Edited for Twitter. The whole thing is on YouTube
Did you mean to share this video? It's different to the original one we're discussing.
-
Honestly, this looks pretty fake. Looks like a model being suspended over a moving background. We don't see it dock either, which is a bit suspicious.
Why is the fact you don't see it dock suspicious? You've just declared the whole thing a model (without evidence) so that would have been easy to fake.
Isn't it suspicious that it fades out just before the crucial moment? Perhaps not for you. It is for me.
Edited for Twitter. The whole thing is on YouTube
Did you mean to share this video? It's different to the original one we're discussing.
You had an issue with the original time lapse video not showing the docking. The video Tumeni just posted is the full approach and shows the docking as requested, non-time lapse, of the same mission. Jump to about 2:15:28 to see the docking event.
-
Honestly, this looks pretty fake. Looks like a model being suspended over a moving background. We don't see it dock either, which is a bit suspicious.
Why is the fact you don't see it dock suspicious? You've just declared the whole thing a model (without evidence) so that would have been easy to fake.
Isn't it suspicious that it fades out just before the crucial moment? Perhaps not for you. It is for me.
Edited for Twitter. The whole thing is on YouTube
Did you mean to share this video? It's different to the original one we're discussing.
You had an issue with the original time lapse video not showing the docking. The video Tumeni just posted is the full approach and shows the docking as requested, non-time lapse, of the same mission. Jump to about 2:15:28 to see the docking event.
It's a completely different video... If you'd like to discuss the issues with this one, then that's fine. A new thread perhaps?
Also, I didn't 'request' a video of docking. I simply stated that it was suspicious that in the video we're discussing (which looks off to me) that on top of it looking like a model suspending over a moving background, the additional fact that we don't see the docking is suspicious. Bearing in mind that the point of the original video was that it was a single, uncut timelapse of a docking.
-
Honestly, this looks pretty fake. Looks like a model being suspended over a moving background. We don't see it dock either, which is a bit suspicious.
Why is the fact you don't see it dock suspicious? You've just declared the whole thing a model (without evidence) so that would have been easy to fake.
Isn't it suspicious that it fades out just before the crucial moment? Perhaps not for you. It is for me.
Edited for Twitter. The whole thing is on YouTube
Did you mean to share this video? It's different to the original one we're discussing.
You had an issue with the original time lapse video not showing the docking. The video Tumeni just posted is the full approach and shows the docking as requested, non-time lapse, of the same mission. Jump to about 2:15:28 to see the docking event.
It's a completely different video... If you'd like to discuss the issues with this one, then that's fine. A new thread perhaps?
Also, I didn't 'request' a video of docking. I simply stated that it was suspicious that in the video we're discussing (which looks off to me) that on top of it looking like a model suspending over a moving background, the additional fact that we don't see the docking is suspicious. Bearing in mind that the point of the original video was that it was a single, uncut timelapse of a docking.
Your impression was incorrect of the original video. The original video was not intended as a single, uncut timelapse of a docking. It is a time lapse titled, "Time-lapse of Dragon on approach – two Dragons now docked to the @space_station" - A time lapse video of the 'approach', not the docking, hence the title. Why it matters that you desire the 'docking' part, I don't know, when that is not what the video is and stated as such. The second 'different' video is of the same mission, just not a time lapse, and it shows the docking, which for some reason you seemed to want to see.
If everything still seems suspicious and fake to you, then I guess that's just what it seems to you. I'm not sure what there really is to discuss.
-
Honestly, this looks pretty fake. Looks like a model being suspended over a moving background. We don't see it dock either, which is a bit suspicious.
Why is the fact you don't see it dock suspicious? You've just declared the whole thing a model (without evidence) so that would have been easy to fake.
Isn't it suspicious that it fades out just before the crucial moment? Perhaps not for you. It is for me.
Edited for Twitter. The whole thing is on YouTube
Did you mean to share this video? It's different to the original one we're discussing.
You had an issue with the original time lapse video not showing the docking. The video Tumeni just posted is the full approach and shows the docking as requested, non-time lapse, of the same mission. Jump to about 2:15:28 to see the docking event.
It's a completely different video... If you'd like to discuss the issues with this one, then that's fine. A new thread perhaps?
Also, I didn't 'request' a video of docking. I simply stated that it was suspicious that in the video we're discussing (which looks off to me) that on top of it looking like a model suspending over a moving background, the additional fact that we don't see the docking is suspicious. Bearing in mind that the point of the original video was that it was a single, uncut timelapse of a docking.
Your impression was incorrect of the original video. The original video was not intended as a single, uncut timelapse of a docking. It is a time lapse titled, "Time-lapse of Dragon on approach – two Dragons now docked to the @space_station" - A time lapse video of the 'approach', not the docking, hence the title. Why it matters that you desire the 'docking' part, I don't know, when that is not what the video is and stated as such. The second 'different' video is of the same mission, just not a time lapse, and it shows the docking, which for some reason you seemed to want to see.
If everything still seems suspicious and fake to you, then I guess that's just what it seems to you. I'm not sure what there really is to discuss.
Very well - the original video never claimed to show the docking. However, it remains suspicious to me that it doesn't. I didn't 'want to see it'. The original premise of this topic was - 'look, an uncut timelapse of an approach to the ISS; how can that be explained?'
I explained it. Adding that not only does it look fake to me, the additional fact that we do not see the docking procedure adds another question mark in my mind.
If you don't want to discuss further, then that's fine. Take care.
-
Honestly, this looks pretty fake. Looks like a model being suspended over a moving background. We don't see it dock either, which is a bit suspicious.
Why is the fact you don't see it dock suspicious? You've just declared the whole thing a model (without evidence) so that would have been easy to fake.
Isn't it suspicious that it fades out just before the crucial moment? Perhaps not for you. It is for me.
Edited for Twitter. The whole thing is on YouTube
Did you mean to share this video? It's different to the original one we're discussing.
You had an issue with the original time lapse video not showing the docking. The video Tumeni just posted is the full approach and shows the docking as requested, non-time lapse, of the same mission. Jump to about 2:15:28 to see the docking event.
It's a completely different video... If you'd like to discuss the issues with this one, then that's fine. A new thread perhaps?
Also, I didn't 'request' a video of docking. I simply stated that it was suspicious that in the video we're discussing (which looks off to me) that on top of it looking like a model suspending over a moving background, the additional fact that we don't see the docking is suspicious. Bearing in mind that the point of the original video was that it was a single, uncut timelapse of a docking.
Your impression was incorrect of the original video. The original video was not intended as a single, uncut timelapse of a docking. It is a time lapse titled, "Time-lapse of Dragon on approach – two Dragons now docked to the @space_station" - A time lapse video of the 'approach', not the docking, hence the title. Why it matters that you desire the 'docking' part, I don't know, when that is not what the video is and stated as such. The second 'different' video is of the same mission, just not a time lapse, and it shows the docking, which for some reason you seemed to want to see.
If everything still seems suspicious and fake to you, then I guess that's just what it seems to you. I'm not sure what there really is to discuss.
Very well - the original video never claimed to show the docking. However, it remains suspicious to me that it doesn't. I didn't 'want to see it'. The original premise of this topic was - 'look, an uncut timelapse of an approach to the ISS; how can that be explained?'
I explained it. Adding that not only does it look fake to me, the additional fact that we do not see the docking procedure adds another question mark in my mind.
If you don't want to discuss further, then that's fine. Take care.
I'm just not sure what it is you want to discuss. You said, "Isn't it suspicious that it fades out just before the crucial moment? Perhaps not for you. It is for me."
My answer here, as for some others as well is essentially, no, it's not suspicious. You still think it is. I don't see anything that makes me believe it is fake. You feel it is in a non-specific way other than it looks "like a model suspending over a moving background." I could point out that you yourself can see the ISS through even just binoculars quite clearly moving across the sky tracking it with a simple app that tells you exactly where it is and when to see it. But I'm guessing that doesn't matter.
Is it that you think just the dragon capsule approaching and docking is fake or that the whole of the ISS is fake as well?
-
Adding that not only does it look fake to me
So what's your reference frame here? You say it "looks fake". Based on what?
What experience of seeing space ships docks with other space ships do you have which could mean you can accurately assess this?
The only other experience you can possibly have are Hollywood films which actually are fake.
So other than a vague assertion that it "looks fake", which is entirely subjective and not based on much I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
-
Adding that not only does it look fake to me
So what's your reference frame here? You say it "looks fake". Based on what?
What experience of seeing space ships docks with other space ships do you have which could mean you can accurately assess this?
The only other experience you can possibly have are Hollywood films which actually are fake.
So other than a vague assertion that it "looks fake", which is entirely subjective and not based on much I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
You're correct - we have 'actual' fakes (Hollywood movies) - which look like the video posted by the OP. Hollywood movies actually look better. So there's one reference frame.
What's yours, based on your experience of seeing space ships dock with other spaceships?
-
Adding that not only does it look fake to me
So what's your reference frame here? You say it "looks fake". Based on what?
What experience of seeing space ships docks with other space ships do you have which could mean you can accurately assess this?
The only other experience you can possibly have are Hollywood films which actually are fake.
So other than a vague assertion that it "looks fake", which is entirely subjective and not based on much I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
You're correct - we have 'actual' fakes (Hollywood movies) - which look like the video posted by the OP. Hollywood movies actually look better. So there's one reference frame.
What's yours, based on your experience of seeing space ships dock with other spaceships?
The lighting and appearance of the video aside, can we talk about the logistics of faking something like this?
I think we can all agree that SpaceX does actually launch rockets. Anyone can go to Florida and observe the launches. These aren't small rockets either, the rocket which launched this capsule is roughly the height of a 21 story building.
My question is why would a private company (which needs to make money to continue existing) spend billions of dollars repeatedly launching a giant rocket into space solely to pretend dock with the ISS?
Another thing to remember is that this isn't a one off event. SpaceX routinely launches crew dragon to the ISS.
-
You're correct - we have 'actual' fakes (Hollywood movies) - which look like the video posted by the OP. Hollywood movies actually look better. So there's one reference frame.
Better by what metric?
I mean, lots of things enhanced by CGI look "better" (shinier, slicker, more impressive) than real life, that doesn't mean real life doesn't exist.
What's yours, based on your experience of seeing space ships dock with other spaceships?
I don't have one, apart from videos like the above.
But I'm not the one making vague claims that this is fake.
We all have a model of reality in our heads. When I saw Jurassic Park I didn't think "Holy shit! Dinosaurs are still alive". Because I know they aren't. But when I see footage like this...I know the ISS exists - you can literally see it from the ground. I know rockets are a thing - I saw a Shuttle launch back in the day. So on what basis would I think this would be faked? For what purpose would it be?
EDIT: You might want to have a go at this quiz
https://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/
I'd be interested to know your score.
-
The basis of why this would be faked isn't the topic of this discussion. Perhaps make a topic around the purpose of faking 'space' missions? That might yield some of the answers you're looking for.
I got 92%.
-
The basis of why this would be faked isn't the topic of this discussion. Perhaps make a topic around the purpose of faking 'space' missions? That might yield some of the answers you're looking for.
I got 92%.
Actually, the topic of the discussion is in the OP: The curvature of the earth clearly visible...flat surfaces of the ISS are also visible...no lens distortion...how explained by FET?
Is your explanation: The video is fake therefore the ISS and the curve seen are fake?
-
The basis of why this would be faked isn't the topic of this discussion. Perhaps make a topic around the purpose of faking 'space' missions? That might yield some of the answers you're looking for.
I got 92%.
As OP I have widened the topic of discussion to include SpaceX and its motives for faking a video like this. I believe it is core to the topic at hand.
It is especially pertinent given that the initial consensus of this thread is that the video is fake. Barring an investigation into how a video like this could be explained with flat earth theory I would rather this thread focus on why such a video would be fabricated. I feel like that would be more engaging than bickering over who can best recognize cgi.
-
The basis of why this would be faked isn't the topic of this discussion. Perhaps make a topic around the purpose of faking 'space' missions? That might yield some of the answers you're looking for.
I got 92%.
Actually, the topic of the discussion is in the OP: The curvature of the earth clearly visible...flat surfaces of the ISS are also visible...no lens distortion...how explained by FET?
Is your explanation: The video is fake therefore the ISS and the curve seen are fake?
My explanation would be closer to 'if the video is fake, then discussing any specific detail within it is irrelevant.' Like discussing how 'realistic' Star Wars is.
The discussion parameters have been changed. The OP would rather discuss the motives behind faking a space video, rather than its legitimacy. I imagine the answer is fairly simple... 'to make people think that the space video - and everything contained within it - is real.' To what end? Speculation: to further the narrative that we are conducting space missions.
But unfortunately, we're no longer discussing a specific video, but instead we're dealing with hypothetical motives of faking media. I'd have preferred the OP to create a new thread for people to speculate the motives of SpaceX in, and I'd have decided if I wanted to participate.
-
The basis of why this would be faked isn't the topic of this discussion. Perhaps make a topic around the purpose of faking 'space' missions? That might yield some of the answers you're looking for.
I got 92%.
Actually, the topic of the discussion is in the OP: The curvature of the earth clearly visible...flat surfaces of the ISS are also visible...no lens distortion...how explained by FET?
Is your explanation: The video is fake therefore the ISS and the curve seen are fake?
My explanation would be closer to 'if the video is fake, then discussing any specific detail within it is irrelevant.' Like discussing how 'realistic' Star Wars is.
The discussion parameters have been changed. The OP would rather discuss the motives behind faking a space video, rather than its legitimacy. I imagine the answer is fairly simple... 'to make people think that the space video - and everything contained within it - is real.' To what end? Speculation: to further the narrative that we are conducting space missions.
But unfortunately, we're no longer discussing a specific video, but instead we're dealing with hypothetical motives of faking media. I'd have preferred the OP to create a new thread for people to speculate the motives of SpaceX in, and I'd have decided if I wanted to participate.
Airplane "widened" the discussion to "include" the motive(s). So in addition to the curvature issue raised in the OP not instead of. You are not forced to discuss a motive. But sometimes if there is a crime, in this case, potential fakery, it helps to examine the why to potentially lend more credence to what is actually in question.
Again, I'm not sure what you want to discuss. I guess questions are, do you believe that space exploration is not real and that notion is perpetuated based upon your belief that the video is fake? And specifically, aside from the ISS looking vaguely like a model to you in the video, do you have anything directly you'd like to point to? Like why it looks like a model? Or are there other indicators that make it seem so to you, visible wires, lighting, other evidence, etc.,? Are other videos less or more convincing? Just saying, "It looks fake," doesn't offer a lot up to discuss.
-
The basis of why this would be faked isn't the topic of this discussion. Perhaps make a topic around the purpose of faking 'space' missions? That might yield some of the answers you're looking for.
I got 92%.
Actually, the topic of the discussion is in the OP: The curvature of the earth clearly visible...flat surfaces of the ISS are also visible...no lens distortion...how explained by FET?
Is your explanation: The video is fake therefore the ISS and the curve seen are fake?
My explanation would be closer to 'if the video is fake, then discussing any specific detail within it is irrelevant.' Like discussing how 'realistic' Star Wars is.
The discussion parameters have been changed. The OP would rather discuss the motives behind faking a space video, rather than its legitimacy. I imagine the answer is fairly simple... 'to make people think that the space video - and everything contained within it - is real.' To what end? Speculation: to further the narrative that we are conducting space missions.
But unfortunately, we're no longer discussing a specific video, but instead we're dealing with hypothetical motives of faking media. I'd have preferred the OP to create a new thread for people to speculate the motives of SpaceX in, and I'd have decided if I wanted to participate.
Airplane "widened" the discussion to "include" the motive(s). So in addition to the curvature issue raised in the OP not instead of. You are not forced to discuss a motive. But sometimes if there is a crime, in this case, potential fakery, it helps to examine the why to potentially lend more credence to what is actually in question.
Again, I'm not sure what you want to discuss. I guess questions are, do you believe that space exploration is not real and that notion is perpetuated based upon your belief that the video is fake? And specifically, aside from the ISS looking vaguely like a model to you in the video, do you have anything directly you'd like to point to? Like why it looks like a model? Or are there other indicators that make it seem so to you, visible wires, lighting, other evidence, etc.,? Are other videos less or more convincing? Just saying, "It looks fake," doesn't offer a lot up to discuss.
This is correct. I would prefer the discussion operate under the assumption that the video is real, but barring that, the specifics of how someone would go about faking a video is less interesting to me than why SpaceX would choose to fake this particular mission.
-
The initial question was related to the curvature seen in the initial video, and how that could be explained by a proponent FE. My contention was that the OP presumed that the validity of the video was not in question. But as I don't find the video in question to be valid, the apparent shape of the earth shown in a fake video is largely irrelevant.
This topic has since between widened to now say 'what are the motivations for faking a video like this' - which is an entirely different topic.
As you've said, there's very little to discuss. I don't think what is being shown in this particular video is real, and I'm not interested in endlessly speculating as to why SpaceX would produce it.
I think we're done here.
-
The initial question was related to the curvature seen in the initial video, and how that could be explained by a proponent FE. My contention was that the OP presumed that the validity of the video was not in question. But as I don't find the video in question to be valid, the apparent shape of the earth shown in a fake video is largely irrelevant.
This topic has since between widened to now say 'what are the motivations for faking a video like this' - which is an entirely different topic.
As you've said, there's very little to discuss. I don't think what is being shown in this particular video is real, and I'm not interested in endlessly speculating as to why SpaceX would produce it.
I think we're done here.
You are under no obligation to participate. My questions still stand as posed.
-
This looks computer generated. Just look how fake the capsule looks, don't you see it's just an animation?
-
I have been away for so long. It's nice to see that nothing has changed. Hyperfocus on technical tangents instead of answering real questions is still in fashion.
The video does not look like an animation or a model. It looks real. This is a SpaceX animation and it looks fake because of the perfect, smooth camera framing, and false lighting effects. It lacks texture detail, etc. The video posted by the OP is sped up, but it is real footage.
https://youtu.be/sZlzYzyREAI?t=98