NASA's Fake CGI Ball Planets

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Go down

Re: NASA's Fake CGI Ball Planets

Post by newflatearther2000 on Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:10 am

How anyone can believe this crap is beyond me but here are the last 10 "Photos" of Saturn from Cassini! 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/cassini-mission-finale-photos-saturn-2017/

newflatearther2000

Posts : 7
Points : 511
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2017-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NASA's Fake CGI Ball Planets

Post by Bro on Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:21 am

Himawari Satallite Images Hoax Revealed...

Devastating Take Down... A precise video of only 5 concise minutes... that everyday FE researches can do and test for themselves via the links given underneath this video description on YouTube.

A video clearly showing the faking of Globe Earth Images / Pictures, every 10 seconds, from the (FAKE) Himawari Satellite... that is (NOT) in geosynchronous position over us...

I wish there was an award on the internet (given out by IFERS or ?) called something like the "Flatty" award...

I would award it to almost all of Eric's crystal clear videos and also to this YouTube video...

avatar
Bro

Posts : 56
Points : 521
Reputation : 46
Join date : 2017-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NASA's Fake CGI Ball Planets

Post by FL@T-E@RTH on Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:28 am

Great video!
I also noticed another smoking gun, the image shown at 4 mins into the video has the UTC time-code of 11.05am, it appears to be showing Australia in daylight, but Australia is 11 hours ahead of UTC (on the East coast) meaning it is 10pm at night, how can it possibly be in sunlight when it is October? Maybe if it was December 21st (Winter solstice) it could possibly still be light at 10pm, but no way on October 11th
avatar
FL@T-E@RTH

Posts : 214
Points : 1080
Reputation : 257
Join date : 2016-10-12
Age : 45
Location : Certainly Not On A Globe

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NASA's Fake CGI Ball Planets

Post by InnerCynic on Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:58 am

Awsome video. Again and again they ram that simulation garbage down everyones throat and call it fact. Incredible that after all these years the powers that be can't get it right. It really takes time and energy to LIE when the truth is so much simpler.
avatar
InnerCynic

Posts : 11
Points : 222
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2017-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NASA's Fake CGI Ball Planets

Post by RYANSILLYGENIUS on Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:03 pm

Have you noticed a black box hidden on Google Sky at the Virgo constellation? You can see it if you use infrared. I wonder what they're hiding! Razz Some think it's Saturn being hidden, but I don't believe that. It's gotta be something else. Others think it's Nibiru, LOL! Here's a screenshot.




Last edited by RYANSILLYGENIUS on Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:52 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : The picture won't show. I'm a noob who's gotta retry until it embeds.)

RYANSILLYGENIUS

Posts : 6
Points : 147
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2018-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NASA's Fake CGI Ball Planets

Post by Realearth on Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:32 am

Flat earther answers Bill Nye
avatar
Realearth

Posts : 135
Points : 754
Reputation : 139
Join date : 2017-01-25
Age : 72

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NASA's Fake CGI Ball Planets

Post by liminoid on Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:18 am

After coming across FE a few years back and experiencing my own paradigm shift with the basics, one of the elements in the FE conversation that has been interesting to me is understanding the source/origins/workflow for how they create all the cgi & space graphics.  

The sheer volume of created visual material out there makes it interesting to think about the fact that someone, somewhere had to make it.  Raw creative work takes effort.  

And if that is the case, the mindset of whoever is creating the imagery is interesting to me.  All sorts of questions pop up for me when I think about that.  

Are they willfully being deceptive?  
Are they well intentioned but unknowingly propagating untruth?
What "raw data" points are they using, if any, as a starting point for their visual creations?


It can obviously be a never ending waste of energy to try to understand all the inner workings of systemic deception, and answering questions like this aren't crucial, but for me it is helpful because it humanizes a bit of the machine that cranks all this stuff out.  

Lies ultimately are propagated by people, either knowingly or unknowingly- more likely some gradation of both.    

Polarizing ourselves against each other into conveniently labeled "sides" is easy, but it is important to remember that deception is only able to continue because a bunch of people kept letting themselves be complicit until complicity became normal. Our ability to transmute our polarizing instinct into love is what breaks that cycle... basically just my long way of saying I try to humanize people, even NASA artists.    

So while that meme about the guy saying "it's photoshopped, but it has to be" gets a lot of play, I've always wanted to go deeper on this topic and wondered about how that department/those people at NASA might do their thing.  

This video is glimpse into that, from the perspective of supporting the illusion.  

Points of note that we're helpful for me:

1. The guy they're interviewing (who makes the images) seems to be all in, believing what he is saying.  I find this to be simpler situation than to view him as some sort of willful co-conspirator.  It is easier to contain a lie this way.  

2. His raw data inputs for envisioning the images are essentially flickers of light and heavily pixelated "images." To quote the video "data. very, very complex data." Some of these are pretty funny.  So he sees a bunch of numbers plotted on a graph, then uses the narrative to which he's committed his career to contextualize that data into a picture or animation.

3. He says something to the effect of accuracy isn't the goal, communication and understanding of the is, showing his awareness of his role as storyteller.  

4. This is me trying to read between the lines and assuming, but it sounds like they're using calculations (ie math, gravity etc) to use the light fluctuations (supposedly planets crossings in front of stars) and conclude things like planet density, watery vs rocky surface, size, etc...  Lots of big jumps from the original observation of a light fluctuating... if we even assume that fluctuation itself is being observed. All this really drives home how so much of this hinges on our man Cavendish and his serendipitous discovery of the big G.  

Of course I've oversimplified what I'm sure are absurdly complicated mathmatics, but appealing to complexity isn't a solid rebuttal and sounds more like a redressed priesthood holding the keys to knowledge to me.



liminoid

Posts : 3
Points : 465
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2017-02-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NASA's Fake CGI Ball Planets

Post by vortexpuppy on Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:50 pm

The world of visible appearances (Visibles) with its conditioned associations to metaphysical concepts, is NOT the physical, substantial (Tangibles) objective reality in which we live, and in which everybody is a natural scientist capable of making their own judgements.

Interpreting and visualizing complex data according to a mathematical model is a FORMAL science, a language with grammar, logic and rhetoric. It is NOT a NATURAL Science, such as physics, biology, chemistry.

Imagery and Mathematics can therefore NEVER deliver proof of physical reality. Mathematics relies on axioms and assumptions. Unfortunately theoretical physics nowadays mostly relies on Mathematics. Their conclusions are only as good as their assumptions.

So are the assumptions correct?
No they are deluded, absurd, contradictory and incapable of demonstration.

For me in a nutshell:

It is correct to argue from FACTS against Theories that contradict lived life. (No, water can't bend).
It is Pseudo science to argue from HYPOTHESIS against the known facts. (Yes it can, here is an image).

Note: Replace the absurdity of curved water, with your favorite logical fallacy regarding natural science such as vacuum, pressure, space, light .....

vortexpuppy

Posts : 129
Points : 1260
Reputation : 251
Join date : 2015-12-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NASA's Fake CGI Ball Planets

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum