It is very easy to debunk the fake "Earth" from space photographs.
Just call (the Japan space agency) them and ask: according to which law of gravity did you launch into space this satellite? according to which law of gravity does it orbit the Earth, as the Earth itself supposedly orbits the Sun?
They will answer: of course, according to Newton's law of universal gravitation.
This is how we can see and easily deduce the entire faked sequence of events.
Satellites orbit at a much lower altitude than we are told, and they all use Nikola Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device and the Biefeld-Brown effect to stay in orbit.
We only have to take into consideration the Allais effect, to see and to prove that the entire satellite mission, as reported in the video, is completely fake.
Hello, for the record, I am pro-FE. I am very concerned by the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS6ijGjm8jw
I commented thus: Hi, just wondering:
1. The satellite must be speeding around the Earth at the SAME speed that the Earth is rotating in order to keep the same facing position.
2. The satellite must be doing 1. AND following the path of the Earth as IT rotates around the Sun.
3. The satellite must be keeping pace with the Sun as IT moves through it's galactic path. This must take some pretty smart calculations and flight path maneuvering.
4. Would the Sun at a rough distance of 93 million miles cause a shiny spot on the Earth as seen in this footage?
5. I thought that the earth was supposed to be an OBLATE SPHEROID......I can't see that particular shape in this footage.
6. Why can no stars be seen even when the Earth is in full shadow? Can anyone help me with these issues? Please help! .....
I received this answer:
1. Sort of, it's moving at 7000 mph which at 22000 mile altitude means it keeps pace with the rotation of the Earth.
3. The gravity of the Sun actually makes next to no difference to the satellite. The moon has more effect and that is still very small and only requires small alterations to the orbit.
4. Yep, that is the sun reflecting off the water.
5. It is, but the difference is very small and won't be visible in images this small. The diameter of the earth is only 26 miles more measured across the equator as from pole to pole. 6. The exposure time on the camera does not change at all. So it is only set to expose for the sunlit earth. And will not be sensitive enough to pick up the stars. Not sure how clear these answers are, if you want elaboration on any give us a shout. Hope it helps anyway. Any thoughts?
I really don't want this to be happening; I considered thus: Could these Earth 'images' be high-altitude shots rendered on a concave, stretched around a ball to make it look like a globe Earth? You see, if this satellite is real and the photos ARE taken from 22,000 miles away then we all may as well forget any notion of a flat Earth. These images need to be debunked now. Please go to the youtube page (title above) and go to http://www.jma-net.go.jp/msc/en/index.html AND http://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is this proof that the Earth is indeed a ball? Or is this just more imagery-fakery to put us all off the scent?
Shaun
WHAT IS NOT SAID ABOUT THE SATELLITES
A TESLA FREE RADIANT ENERGY TYPE IS SO SMALL THAT CAN BE CAMOUFLAGED EASILY
Answer me this without a dissertation and 38 links back to your own forum. Use plain English and don't go off on a tangent...
It is very easy to debunk the fake "Earth" from space photographs.
Answer me this without a dissertation and 38 links back to your own forum. Use plain English and don't go off on a tangent...
You must be new around here... Sandokhan/levee offers the very best proofs in the business and you will get all of them, every time, regardless how loosely related they may be.
Your brilliant analogies and observations (helium balloons compared to droplets, and coffee/shower vapour to cloud water droplets) should enable you to have no problems understanding the discussion.The shifting would probably be easier to explain if it could be reproduced more consistently. As I recall, this anomaly only occurs occasionally during solar eclipses.
A single image is sufficient to show that the photographs (JSA) are false:
(http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/1999/10/08/ast12oct99_1_resources/allais.gif)
The eclipse and the pendulum - How the pendulum's swing angle changed during the 1954 eclipse
The plane of the oscillation of the pendulum shifted approximately 15 centesimal degrees during the eclipse (approximately 13.5 degrees)
It takes a single counterexample to debunk a hypothesis (in our case, attractive gravity): and the Allais effect is the most important such counterexample.That might be true if the cause of that counterexample was well understood. Last I heard, the Allais effect was not well understood.
This kind of trolling would be expected on the other forum... but not here.
The shifting would probably be easier to explain if it could be reproduced more consistently. As I recall, this anomaly only occurs occasionally during solar eclipses.Then why does it occur only during some eclipses but not others?
Exactly, which means that the very source of the antigravitational effect is actually present, in the sky, during the solar eclipse.
That might be true if the cause of that counterexample was well understood. Last I heard, the Allais effect was not well understood.Oh? This doesn't sound like it's well understood to me.
It is very well understood: it invalidates immediately and absolutely the assumed law of universal gravitation, here are the calculations:
Comments. This striking deviation during the episode starting at 11:15 is unexplained. Structurally it closely resembles Allais's 1954 observation (Refs. 8, 9, and 10): first an increase of the precession rate, then a plateau, and then a decrease back to the original trend. However it occurred after the end of the visible eclipse, whereas the deviation observed by Allais occurred during the eclipse.
The nature of this common influence is unknown...
The photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse.
There are plenty of videos on youtube, showing a satellite transit across the moon, the ISS transits across the sun/moon.
http://home.clara.net/robertkeddie/Astro/geo.htm
Thanks in anticipation to anyone out there reading this.......because, I reason, surely there must be some rock solid proof of the existence of a satellite especially by the people that put them out there.....?!
Thanks in anticipation to anyone out there reading this.......because, I reason, surely there must be some rock solid proof of the existence of a satellite especially by the people that put them out there.....?!
The rock solid proof is that co-ordinates transmitted by the GPS satellites themselves shows they are in orbit. Try pointing your Satellite TV dish in some other direction and see what happens. You can use multiple dishes to triangulate the satellite positions.
As far as pictures of satellites from space, there have been numerous shuttle missions to repair and overhaul satellites, but I guess you think those are all somehow faked.
Here's a 1992 mission to repair Intelsat VI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5MPkiPoL4g there are plenty of others.
Hello, for the record, I am pro-FE. I am very concerned by the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS6ijGjm8jw
I commented thus: Hi, just wondering:
1. The satellite must be speeding around the Earth at the SAME speed that the Earth is rotating in order to keep the same facing position.
2. The satellite must be doing 1. AND following the path of the Earth as IT rotates around the Sun.
3. The satellite must be keeping pace with the Sun as IT moves through it's galactic path. This must take some pretty smart calculations and flight path maneuvering.
4. Would the Sun at a rough distance of 93 million miles cause a shiny spot on the Earth as seen in this footage?
5. I thought that the earth was supposed to be an OBLATE SPHEROID......I can't see that particular shape in this footage.
6. Why can no stars be seen even when the Earth is in full shadow? Can anyone help me with these issues? Please help! .....
I received this answer:
1. Sort of, it's moving at 7000 mph which at 22000 mile altitude means it keeps pace with the rotation of the Earth.
3. The gravity of the Sun actually makes next to no difference to the satellite. The moon has more effect and that is still very small and only requires small alterations to the orbit.
4. Yep, that is the sun reflecting off the water.
5. It is, but the difference is very small and won't be visible in images this small. The diameter of the earth is only 26 miles more measured across the equator as from pole to pole. 6. The exposure time on the camera does not change at all. So it is only set to expose for the sunlit earth. And will not be sensitive enough to pick up the stars. Not sure how clear these answers are, if you want elaboration on any give us a shout. Hope it helps anyway. Any thoughts?
I really don't want this to be happening; I considered thus: Could these Earth 'images' be high-altitude shots rendered on a concave, stretched around a ball to make it look like a globe Earth? You see, if this satellite is real and the photos ARE taken from 22,000 miles away then we all may as well forget any notion of a flat Earth. These images need to be debunked now. Please go to the youtube page (title above) and go to http://www.jma-net.go.jp/msc/en/index.html AND http://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is this proof that the Earth is indeed a ball? Or is this just more imagery-fakery to put us all off the scent?
Shaun
Really, I think that if it were really CGI, that the producers would be a lot smarter than you (I know you think that you are the smartest and greatest, but don't try to fool yourself!), and would be aware of these things.
As we understand that the producers using a cgi-spot instead of sunlight. So they are hiding the cgi-spotlight.
Result: Heavy fake. ;D
Look how is the center of "cgi image" perfect and how is the edges are nonsences as a 5 years old child drawn!Go and see my answer to your other post, because you are completely wrong!
To believe this nonsence as a true requered to be an idiot, but there is no idiot here, be sure that. oppositely the writers here are much smarter more than requered. * (not irony)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/68701ca656.png)
RESULT: Heavy Fake !!
Look how is the center of "cgi image" perfect and how is the edges are nonsences as a 5 years old child drawn!Go and see my answer to your other post, because you are completely wrong!
To believe this nonsence as a true requered to be an idiot, but there is no idiot here, be sure that. oppositely the writers here are much smarter more than requered. * (not irony)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/68701ca656.png)
RESULT: Heavy Fake !!
Wow, that's a new. Claiming space flight is a hoax by providing an image of the far side of the moon saying is clearly a real photo.Look how is the center of "cgi image" perfect and how is the edges are nonsences as a 5 years old child drawn!Go and see my answer to your other post, because you are completely wrong!
To believe this nonsence as a true requered to be an idiot, but there is no idiot here, be sure that. oppositely the writers here are much smarter more than requered. * (not irony)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/68701ca656.png)
RESULT: Heavy Fake !!
As everytime you were tried to defend the lies aimlessly.
This is 670x670 moon photo from earth. look how is the edge is perfect!
(http://www.geekykool.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/March-19-2011-Super-Moon.jpg)
Zoom to image and see how is perfect! This photo is real !!
The upside photo is real but that ptoho is fake under this line.
(http://www.fotonotlari.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ay-fotograflari-nasil-cekilir-800x800.jpg)
This is a 800x800 moon photo is fake like yours. Look the edge is how wrong. same wrong. This photo is fake too.
Look how is the center of "cgi image" perfect and how is the edges are nonsences as a 5 years old child drawn!Go and see my answer to your other post, because you are completely wrong!
To believe this nonsence as a true requered to be an idiot, but there is no idiot here, be sure that. oppositely the writers here are much smarter more than requered. * (not irony)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/68701ca656.png)
RESULT: Heavy Fake !!
As everytime you were tried to defend the lies aimlessly.
This is 670x670 moon photo from earth. look how is the edge is perfect!
(http://www.geekykool.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/March-19-2011-Super-Moon.jpg)
Zoom to image and see how is perfect! This photo is real !!
The upside photo is real but that ptoho is fake under this line.
(http://www.fotonotlari.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ay-fotograflari-nasil-cekilir-800x800.jpg)
This is a 800x800 moon photo is fake like yours. Look the edge is how wrong. same wrong. This photo is fake too.
Virus alert The site of "Ay Fotoğrafları Nasıl Çekilir?" is a spam site that want to try to get my information probably created by NASA agents.Oh, rubbish! The site looks fine on Windows 10 on my computer. To you everything is created by NASA agents.
Virus alert The site of "Ay Fotoğrafları Nasıl Çekilir?" is a spam site that want to try to get my information probably created by NASA agents.Oh, rubbish! The site looks fine on Windows 10 on my computer. To you everything is created by NASA agents.
Do you have nightmares about NASA agents invading you house or sometime?
Look, NASA and satellite surveillance is probably proving very useful in the fight against ISIS!
We are against ISIS as you are, so stop you stupid conspiracy ideas, there is no "NASA" conspiracy! There undoubtedly.
On the matter of Islamist extremists (ISIS, Boko Haram and other similar groups) we probably think very much alike. Those groups are doing much to damage Islam in the West, as many Westerners find it hard to separate them.
I wish you could just see that while we certainly have differences, there really should be a lot we can agree on. In our country we would say "get the chip off your shoulder!" Look up what it means.
This is 670x670 moon photo from earth. look how is the edge is perfect!
(http://www.geekykool.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/March-19-2011-Super-Moon.jpg)
Zoom to image and see how is perfect! This photo is real !!
This is 670x670 moon photo from earth. look how is the edge is perfect!
(http://www.geekykool.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/March-19-2011-Super-Moon.jpg)
Zoom to image and see how is perfect! This photo is real !!
You're going to call that photo real, when there is an obvious line down the middle of the moon where two different images were joined? Look at the large crater about 1/3 of the way from the bottom to the middle (Crater Leibnitz, by the way, name determined from this map (http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/Maurice+Collins%27+Farside+Map)) the splicing of left and right halves it impossible to miss! And almost dead center there is a sub-crater within Lipskiy that appears twice!
Don't jump to defend it, because I actually agree with your assessment of this photo (while disagreeing with your claims that the others are fake). I just find it amusing that the photo you chose to represent 'real' photos is in fact a real COMPOSITE photo. And as andruszkow pointed out, you are wrong about 'taken from earth' as it actually comes from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/lro-farside.html), operated by, of course, NASA!
I gave it an example to show the falses on the edges. This picture is better than the other one. But if we look the inside of the picture then we see this picture is fake too. But i just looked at the edges.
I started a list of ignore who answered instead of somebody other.
If you see your name on my signature, be sure i don't see your post and i don't care about it.
I started a list of ignore who answered instead of somebody other.
If you see your name on my signature, be sure i don't see your post and i don't care about it.
Wait, you're starting to ignore people who don't agree with you?
It's going to be a relief to not be reading your nonsense anymore to be honest. :) Thanks for reminding me that there's an ignore function.
Ah, the head-buried-in-sand approach. Classic.
You can't argue with stupid. Every time I come here I feel my brain melting at the total ignorance of the FEs and their absolute denial of the obvious.Ah, the head-buried-in-sand approach. Classic.
Exactly, including the lack of comprehension making the OP divert from his own topic.
I started a list of ignore who answered instead of somebody other.
If you see your name on my signature, be sure i don't see your post and i don't care about it.
Looks like I'm one up on you, I think I got there first - do I get the gold star?I started a list of ignore who answered instead of somebody other.
If you see your name on my signature, be sure i don't see your post and i don't care about it.
Woo hoo!! I made the 'ignore list'!
I seem to be in pretty good company there, we should have tee-shirts made or something.
I started a list of ignore who answered instead of somebody other.
If you see your name on my signature, be sure i don't see your post and i don't care about it.
Woo hoo!! I made the 'ignore list'!
I seem to be in pretty good company there, we should have tee-shirts made or something.