[nickrulercreator]

If footage of the Earth from space is faked, it is only sensible to assume that there is one centralised source for this footage - otherwise the inconsistencies you were looking for would crop up early on.

That is, IF the footage is fake. But, there are no inconsistencies, and the footage matches the data. Unless you're telling me now that the data of the clouds is also faked.

Whether this is achieved via a pack of textures and shaders, or a simple seed for procedural generation, it is not at all difficult to arrange for consistent results across sources.

But it is difficult to do it in real-time. The footage of the car in space is real-time. The data becomes available periodically. We do not have a real-time source for the data of the clouds. This would be the difficult, or impossible part. To predict where the clouds would be before the next available data set to such a degree of accuracy is near impossible

The only thing you can honestly conclude is that the two sources you compared were (arguably) consistent with one another.

And if one source and is simply a meteorological station, then the data could be real. If you compare the footage of the car to the real data, and see that their exact, that provides a strong indication that the footage of the car is real too. If the clouds move in real-time, as they did in the footage, then it's more evidence it is real, as there is no way to perfectly show the clouds' shape in real time if it was faked using also fake data.

The only way for this to happen is if the meteorological data was also fake and being generated by, like you said, a seed for procedural generation.

[Tumeni]

I posted in the other thread a way to prove it happened, or was at least live.

No, what you proved is that it's consistent with other sources that also claim the Earth is round. That's a good thing, granted, but it's a poor effort when it comes to reaching any conclusions.

How many consistent sources (please specify an actual number) should be found before you find the consistency acceptable?

If you have a basis for not accepting any specific sources as valid, what is it?

[Tumeni]

QUOTE
No, these conclusions simply do not follow. If footage of the Earth from space is faked, it is only sensible to assume that there is one centralised source for this footage - otherwise the inconsistencies you were looking for would crop up early on. Whether this is achieved via a pack of textures and shaders, or a simple seed for procedural generation, it is not at all difficult to arrange for consistent results across sources. The only thing you can honestly conclude is that the two sources you compared were (arguably) consistent with one another.
END QUOTE

That's quite an IF.

Do you have any evidence that anyone, anywhere has a "pack of textures and shaders, or a simple seed for procedural generation" available to .... SpaceX, NASA, JAXA, Roscosmos, ESA  ?

[JohnAdams1145]

The only way for this to happen is if the meteorological data was also fake and being generated by, like you said, a seed for procedural generation.

But it's not! Otherwise it would be useless and people wouldn't rely on it. The meteorological data clearly has bearing on the real world because it's verifiably collected from the real world.

[nickrulercreator]

The only way for this to happen is if the meteorological data was also fake and being generated by, like you said, a seed for procedural generation.

But it's not! Otherwise it would be useless and people wouldn't rely on it. The meteorological data clearly has bearing on the real world because it's verifiably collected from the real world.

Exactly. To fake the meteorological data would expose the whole thing quite quickly, and wouldn't just be exposed by conspiracy theorists online. It would be exposed by scientists that rely on the data.

[xenotolerance]

And don't forget that the real-time procedural generation of cloud data also has to get rendered with each of the angles from the live stream of the car, in what's supposed to be a realistic HD 3D rendering. 3D video is not magic - to suggest that such a feat is even possible is a claim of evidence to itself. Then, this kind of editing leaves traces! (1) (2) (3)

looking forward to your efforts to this end