When you see videos that are this old it rely shows the progress we have made. The CGI they are using today is far better then this. Who knows, in a few more years time space might look real.
+Jim DiGiovanni That would be a vague and inaccurate claim with no foundation. If you would make such an outrageous assertion, naturally you would need a very solid base for such a claim.
MaceMan Inaccurate? NASA admits on their web-site that it is CGI and all the pictures of earth are composites. So don't tell me that is Inaccurate. So why don't you find me ONE real time-lapse video of the ENTIRE Earth rotating in Space complete with clouds morphing and paste it right here...The WHOLE Earth not a crop or a view from the top. Google images of the planets or earth from space...all cartoons. Its 2016 and we have not ONE legitimate image of our PLANE-t. B.S. There should be thousands or even a million of them by now from every angle possible.
Jim DiGiovanni You're going to have to offer a citation for NASA stating that all time-laps videos from the Cupola module are recreated. As for many other planets in our solar system, we do have pictures of all of them, and some of them you can even see from the ground with a telescope. In fact, not too long ago, Jupiter was visible by the naked eye, and I believe still is if you can see it. Depending on where you are, you can look up at the moon and you should see a rather bright light a far bit above it. That's Jupiter's highly reflective atmosphere giving the allusion that it would be the "brightest" object in the sky, even among other stars. If you had a telescope, you could also see many other planets, as in January of this year, many of our planets were visible given their phase. As for close pictures, you can even easily look up the pictures taken of Pluto from the New Horizons probe that just reached the outer solar system. You can see pictures from the ground on Mars thanks to the Curiosity rover. The reason as to why images of the Earth in high orbit is because it would cost far too much money for something almost meaningless. Low orbit and geosynchronous imagery is all we would need. And the only real good pictures of Earth from a wide scale would be those of the Apollo missions. Both during lunar transfer and after landing. And if your "plane-t" comment is alluding to the archaic idea that the Earth is flat, than there's little no no chance you have actually ever studied astronomy or astro-dynamics at all and solely listen to what you know will enforce your own beliefs.
MaceMan I have a telescope, and studied astronomy, and the Earth is flat, horizon is always at eye level no matter how high you go. The Ball theory is a joke. People upside down on a spinning ball rotating at 1000mph at the equator, traveling 65,000 mph as it makes it's long yearly journey around the Sun. B.S. The white sun is in our sky, local, it even casts hot spots on clouds, it is not 93 million miles away that is utter bullshit. All images from NASA of space are cartoons. They get way too much money to be showing us composite images of the Earth, it is 2016 show us real fucking image, non CGI edited photoshopped image of the Earth spinning and moving through space. I call bullshit. You can think whatever you want. I have no idea what it looks like, I just know I am not on a spinning ball upside down whipping through endless space with no purpose from a big bang of nothing where everything came from. Nature is way too mathematical to be a chance event. This place was created by something.
Jim DiGiovanni Given your, once more, lack of actual citation to any of your claims and continuous slander, I'd imagine you didn't particularly study that far into astronomy and astrophysics.You claim to have studied astronomy than you must realize that anything with a substantial radius would naturally form a sphere over time. Many flat Earthers believe that the 9.81m/s is not due to the relative gravity of the mass of the planet, but is rather the "disk Earth" traveling upwards at 9.81 meters per second, giving similar results. However you must also have to ask what is moving the "disk" along a prograde vector in the first place? Or how the sun travels above us in a circular motion around the Earth in contrast with the moon. How would it be able to do this if the disk were to be accelerating 9.81 meters per second prograde? Wouldn't these objects be pulled towards the Earth at a velocity given their mass? Yet this still doesn't explain lunar phases in a timely matter, other objects that can be clearly seen from Earth via the naked eye or telescope. Or perhaps the moons we can also see orbiting these extra-terra bodies in a similar manner to our own. Farther more, we have quantum gravity which reacts differently to the massive exposure to gravity we have on objects with large mass. Their nuclear influence is greater than their gravitational influence, however it still comes into play. Are the atoms that make up your body disks also? Please elaborate in your own words how you can refute any of these counter arguments.
@@ElveeKaye i hope he is being sarcastic cause i detected 3 fails so far, 1 speed is diferent in diferent videos, the ISS tour shows it almost stationary, while in the live feed its moving considerably fast. 2 you cant see the full earth from the perspective the camera was unless it was the size of the window and it was pressed onto it, but those devices outside would be way more stretched, and 3rd both from the ISS live feed and from the tour i saw, those windows are normal and dont curve the vision outside... im sure theres more but these are just some that ive seen.
Man i would give everything to see this in real life. Thank you !!!
thank you
How am I the first comment on this fucking video?! and 182 views?! This is what's wrong with us
После этой хрени фуфел и говорит что земля плоссссская!
When you see videos that are this old it rely shows the progress we have made.
The CGI they are using today is far better then this. Who knows, in a few more years time space might look real.
You can easily see how they get pics of the curvature, just isolate one window
💰🌐👁
Fake as usual.
+Jim DiGiovanni That would be a vague and inaccurate claim with no foundation. If you would make such an outrageous assertion, naturally you would need a very solid base for such a claim.
MaceMan Inaccurate? NASA admits on their web-site that it is CGI and all the pictures of earth are composites. So don't tell me that is Inaccurate. So why don't you find me ONE real time-lapse video of the ENTIRE Earth rotating in Space complete with clouds morphing and paste it right here...The WHOLE Earth not a crop or a view from the top. Google images of the planets or earth from space...all cartoons. Its 2016 and we have not ONE legitimate image of our PLANE-t. B.S. There should be thousands or even a million of them by now from every angle possible.
Jim DiGiovanni You're going to have to offer a citation for NASA stating that all time-laps videos from the Cupola module are recreated. As for many other planets in our solar system, we do have pictures of all of them, and some of them you can even see from the ground with a telescope.
In fact, not too long ago, Jupiter was visible by the naked eye, and I believe still is if you can see it. Depending on where you are, you can look up at the moon and you should see a rather bright light a far bit above it. That's Jupiter's highly reflective atmosphere giving the allusion that it would be the "brightest" object in the sky, even among other stars. If you had a telescope, you could also see many other planets, as in January of this year, many of our planets were visible given their phase.
As for close pictures, you can even easily look up the pictures taken of Pluto from the New Horizons probe that just reached the outer solar system. You can see pictures from the ground on Mars thanks to the Curiosity rover. The reason as to why images of the Earth in high orbit is because it would cost far too much money for something almost meaningless. Low orbit and geosynchronous imagery is all we would need. And the only real good pictures of Earth from a wide scale would be those of the Apollo missions. Both during lunar transfer and after landing.
And if your "plane-t" comment is alluding to the archaic idea that the Earth is flat, than there's little no no chance you have actually ever studied astronomy or astro-dynamics at all and solely listen to what you know will enforce your own beliefs.
MaceMan I have a telescope, and studied astronomy, and the Earth is flat, horizon is always at eye level no matter how high you go. The Ball theory is a joke. People upside down on a spinning ball rotating at 1000mph at the equator, traveling 65,000 mph as it makes it's long yearly journey around the Sun. B.S. The white sun is in our sky, local, it even casts hot spots on clouds, it is not 93 million miles away that is utter bullshit. All images from NASA of space are cartoons. They get way too much money to be showing us composite images of the Earth, it is 2016 show us real fucking image, non CGI edited photoshopped image of the Earth spinning and moving through space. I call bullshit. You can think whatever you want. I have no idea what it looks like, I just know I am not on a spinning ball upside down whipping through endless space with no purpose from a big bang of nothing where everything came from. Nature is way too mathematical to be a chance event. This place was created by something.
Jim DiGiovanni Given your, once more, lack of actual citation to any of your claims and continuous slander, I'd imagine you didn't particularly study that far into astronomy and astrophysics.You claim to have studied astronomy than you must realize that anything with a substantial radius would naturally form a sphere over time. Many flat Earthers believe that the 9.81m/s is not due to the relative gravity of the mass of the planet, but is rather the "disk Earth" traveling upwards at 9.81 meters per second, giving similar results.
However you must also have to ask what is moving the "disk" along a prograde vector in the first place? Or how the sun travels above us in a circular motion around the Earth in contrast with the moon. How would it be able to do this if the disk were to be accelerating 9.81 meters per second prograde? Wouldn't these objects be pulled towards the Earth at a velocity given their mass? Yet this still doesn't explain lunar phases in a timely matter, other objects that can be clearly seen from Earth via the naked eye or telescope. Or perhaps the moons we can also see orbiting these extra-terra bodies in a similar manner to our own.
Farther more, we have quantum gravity which reacts differently to the massive exposure to gravity we have on objects with large mass. Their nuclear influence is greater than their gravitational influence, however it still comes into play. Are the atoms that make up your body disks also?
Please elaborate in your own words how you can refute any of these counter arguments.
Я думаю это мультик
people believe this? omg...
LMFAO they can't even get the size/perspective right. nice video though, even though it's fake as all hell.
it's the windows warping earth
@@samh0191 Well, that just means that Earth's curvature is faked with the use of curved glass. Nice to see more people figuring it out.
@@ElveeKaye i hope he is being sarcastic cause i detected 3 fails so far, 1 speed is diferent in diferent videos, the ISS tour shows it almost stationary, while in the live feed its moving considerably fast. 2 you cant see the full earth from the perspective the camera was unless it was the size of the window and it was pressed onto it, but those devices outside would be way more stretched, and 3rd both from the ISS live feed and from the tour i saw, those windows are normal and dont curve the vision outside... im sure theres more but these are just some that ive seen.