[Action80]

Is that a Yes or No?

That is a "I am no longer going to engage you in this thread."

Have a good day.

I’m not sure what your point is. The specks are from radiation. You can literally see the same “specks” effect on a phone camera.

I wish you "two," would make up your mind.

[Tumeni]

I wish you "two," would make up your mind.

That could not have been your point when you were only asking me what I thought was on the screen.

I assumed the specks to be dust and dirt, he reckons specks from radiation exposure (dead pixels?). So what?

What was your original point about the video? You've asked me what I saw, I told you. What's your point...?

[secretagent10]

I wish you "two," would make up your mind.

What? You just asked him what he saw, and that’s what it looked like, and he gave you his answer.

Yes, it is radiation bombarding the lens. Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth. This isn’t us “making up our mind”. You’re running out of straws to grasp at here.

[Action80]

I wish you "two," would make up your mind.

What? You just asked him what he saw, and that’s what it looked like, and he gave you his answer.

Yes, it is radiation bombarding the lens. Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth. This isn’t us “making up our mind”. You’re running out of straws to grasp at here.

The entire video can be recreated here on earth, glad to see you can admit that.

When you RE have a firm grasp on all the stuff, let us here at FE know.

We'll be happy to listen then.

I guess there is nothing else to chat about then.

RE comes here to FE and asks the typical question, "How does FE explain this?" or "How does FE explain that?"

Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.

I am not grasping at any straws, just pointing out the typically weak stuff posted here by RE adherents.

[inquisitive]

I wish you "two," would make up your mind.

What? You just asked him what he saw, and that’s what it looked like, and he gave you his answer.

Yes, it is radiation bombarding the lens. Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth. This isn’t us “making up our mind”. You’re running out of straws to grasp at here.

The entire video can be recreated here on earth, glad to see you can admit that.

When you RE have a firm grasp on all the stuff, let us here at FE know.

We'll be happy to listen then.

I guess there is nothing else to chat about then.

RE comes here to FE and asks the typical question, "How does FE explain this?" or "How does FE explain that?"

Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.

I am not grasping at any straws, just pointing out the typically weak stuff posted here by RE adherents.

Please refer me to an explanation on how broadcast satellites work.

[Action80]

I wish you "two," would make up your mind.

What? You just asked him what he saw, and that’s what it looked like, and he gave you his answer.

Yes, it is radiation bombarding the lens. Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth. This isn’t us “making up our mind”. You’re running out of straws to grasp at here.

The entire video can be recreated here on earth, glad to see you can admit that.

When you RE have a firm grasp on all the stuff, let us here at FE know.

We'll be happy to listen then.

I guess there is nothing else to chat about then.

RE comes here to FE and asks the typical question, "How does FE explain this?" or "How does FE explain that?"

Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.

I am not grasping at any straws, just pointing out the typically weak stuff posted here by RE adherents.

Please refer me to an explanation on how broadcast satellites work.

Why?

[JSS]

I wish you "two," would make up your mind.

Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.

Let me get this straight.  If you ask a question and get multiple answers, then you can assume there is no explanation at all?

Remind me how many flat earth maps are there? And which one is the right one?

As for the specks in the start of that video, I'm going to go with noise in the sensor array when the gain is going to extremes due light shining into the lens. You can see classic lens flare effects as bright light is being sent into the lens at an angle, as well as spot it actually shining on parts of the lens mechanism itself. Probably radiation damage over time slowly degrading the sensor.

It certainly looks like some de-bayer  effects on those bright pixels but it's hard to be sure since the images were turned into jpegs, then compresed, then recompressed by YouTube.  Lots of artifacting going on there.

[inquisitive]

I wish you "two," would make up your mind.

What? You just asked him what he saw, and that’s what it looked like, and he gave you his answer.

Yes, it is radiation bombarding the lens. Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth. This isn’t us “making up our mind”. You’re running out of straws to grasp at here.

The entire video can be recreated here on earth, glad to see you can admit that.

When you RE have a firm grasp on all the stuff, let us here at FE know.

We'll be happy to listen then.

I guess there is nothing else to chat about then.

RE comes here to FE and asks the typical question, "How does FE explain this?" or "How does FE explain that?"

Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.

I am not grasping at any straws, just pointing out the typically weak stuff posted here by RE adherents.

Please refer me to an explanation on how broadcast satellites work.

Why?

I can't see how they would work as they do if the earth was flat.

[Action80]

I wish you "two," would make up your mind.

Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.

Let me get this straight.  If you ask a question and get multiple answers, then you can assume there is no explanation at all?

RE takes that exact same stance with FE.

Remind me how many flat earth maps are there? And which one is the right one?

Since there is no definitive explanation here, change the subject, I guess, uh?

Why don't you go to a map thread?

[Action80]

I can't see how they would work as they do if the earth was flat.

Maybe you need to go learn some things then.

[JSS]

I wish you "two," would make up your mind.

Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.

Let me get this straight.  If you ask a question and get multiple answers, then you can assume there is no explanation at all?

RE takes that exact same stance with FE.

That was the entire gist of my analogy, pointing out the hypocrisy of your comment. Why don't you apply that standard to flat earth?

Remind me how many flat earth maps are there? And which one is the right one?

Since there is no definitive explanation here, change the subject, I guess, uh?

Why don't you go to a map thread?

Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.

You conveniently 'forgot' to include the part of my comment that was entirely on topic.  If you have an issue with my analysis on the video noise, feel free to explain your reasoning.

So far I haven't seen any explanation from you on what is wrong with that video other than you claiming it's fake.  Please elaborate on your evidence? 

[Tumeni]

The entire video can be recreated here on earth...

Maybe so, but merely asserting this forms no disproof of what was presented already.

[inquisitive]

I can't see how they would work as they do if the earth was flat.

Maybe you need to go learn some things then.

Please provide some links.

[Action80]

I wish you "two," would make up your mind.

Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.

Let me get this straight.  If you ask a question and get multiple answers, then you can assume there is no explanation at all?

RE takes that exact same stance with FE.

That was the entire gist of my analogy, pointing out the hypocrisy of your comment. Why don't you apply that standard to flat earth?{/quote]
What hypocrisy?

Remind me how many flat earth maps are there? And which one is the right one?

Since there is no definitive explanation here, change the subject, I guess, uh?

Why don't you go to a map thread?

Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.

If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.

You conveniently 'forgot' to include the part of my comment that was entirely on topic.  If you have an issue with my analysis on the video noise, feel free to explain your reasoning.

So far I haven't seen any explanation from you on what is wrong with that video other than you claiming it's fake.  Please elaborate on your evidence?

All I saw was you offering a possible explanation.

In other words, you don't know either.

In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an studio here on earth.

[Action80]

I can't see how they would work as they do if the earth was flat.

Maybe you need to go learn some things then.

Please provide some links.

Ask the op for help.

Or don't.

[Tumeni]

In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an sudio here on earth.

The OP said "There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water.", and you seem to be lacking a substantive argument.

Claiming that it "could have" been done in a studio is not a substantive argument. So ...

Do you have a substantive argument to make?

[secretagent10]

I can't see how they would work as they do if the earth was flat.

Maybe you need to go learn some things then.

Please provide some links.

Ask the op for help.

Or don't.

Please make it a LITTLE less obvious when you’re willfully making ridiculous leaps.
Saying that you can see the effect of radiation on camera lenses is NOT saying “RE admits that this could be faked in a studio!”

If those specks are your best argument against the legitimacy of the video provided, then there’s not much to lean on for you.
I would be honestly more surprised if I WASN’T seeing radiation artifacts. It is known that there is more radiation bombardment in space.

[Action80]

In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an sudio here on earth.

The OP said "There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water.", and you seem to be lacking a substantive argument.

Claiming that it "could have" been done in a studio is not a substantive argument. So ...

Do you have a substantive argument to make?

Yes, the timelapse, as admitted by the OP, could have just as well been recreated in a studio here on earth.

Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth.

I guess we are done here.

[secretagent10]

In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an sudio here on earth.

The OP said "There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water.", and you seem to be lacking a substantive argument.

Claiming that it "could have" been done in a studio is not a substantive argument. So ...

Do you have a substantive argument to make?

Yes, the timelapse, as admitted by the OP, could have just as well been recreated in a studio here on earth.

Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth.

I guess we are done here.

I said that… clearly in reference to the specks specifically. I know you’re doing this on purpose though. Even Pete or Tom would be amazed at this level of deflection.

If I’m understanding correctly, what you’re NOW claiming is that footage, as presented, looks completely legitimate and has no flaws EXCEPT that it “could be faked”.

Which is not what I was originally talking about.

[JSS]

That was the entire gist of my analogy, pointing out the hypocrisy of your comment. Why don't you apply that standard to flat earth?

What hypocrisy?

The hypocrisy is you dismissing RE evidence because two people came up with different ideas for some noise, yet you consistently reject that argument when confronted with the fact that there are a dozen FE maps and conflicting theories none of which are compatible at all.

That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses.  Is that more clear?

Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.

If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.

Denial isn't a counterargument.

So far I haven't seen any explanation from you on what is wrong with that video other than you claiming it's fake.  Please elaborate on your evidence?

All I saw was you offering a possible explanation.

In other words, you don't know either.

In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an studio here on earth.

You have claimed this video is faked and have been asked to provide evidence as to why you think it's fake.

So far all you have come up with is that there is some noise or dust  in the camera feed.  Why does that make it fake?  Does noise not exist in cameras?  Dust isn't real? Is every video with noise or dust in the lens fake? If not, why is this one special?

Your best argument is that you think it could have been faked, therefore it is fake. That's a circular argument.

Again, what is your reasoning for this video being fake?  I asked you in the quote above, and you failed to provide your evidence or reasoning.