Timelapse of the sun proves flat earth

[Chisel]

Please watch the entire video before you comment.

Explain to me why the sun gets bigger in the footage if the sun is at a fixed distance 93 million miles away?

Simply because it isn't.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Please watch the entire video before you comment.

Explain to me why the sun doubles, triples, quadruples,.. in size if the sun is at a fixed distance 93 million miles away?

Simply because it isn't.

Sorry, the video does NOT CLAIM the sun double, triples, quadruples in size. Rather, the video points to the SCATTERED LIGHT AT THE HORIZON shrinking after the sun has set.

People who take advantage of you like that are committing a serious sin, assaulting your mind in ways you are not prepared to defend against.

 

[Chisel]

You can see the sun getting bigger, that's what I mean.

 

[JacksBratt]

You can see the sun getting bigger, that's what I mean.

Nobody, on either side, will be solidly proven until someone shoots an uncut, unedited, single stream HD video of a rocket going straight up, not rolling over to go horizontal and off out of sight, but straight up with cameras pointing down, sideways and up, until it either goes into space and shows the shrinking ball earth below... or hits the firmament, however high that is.
Oh..... wait a sec..... can't NASA do that now..... shucks... all CGI and paintings... wouldn't want to waste the trillions of dollars of US taxpayer money on taking a real time video from space... no, no, no.. They have much better things to do... like trying to figure out how to go through the Van Allen belts..like they did in the 70's..

We must have been smarter and tougher in the 70's.

Much easier to just use paintings and photo shop and fabricate an image to match what they have been feeding us for centuries.... Truth can take a hike, it's too expensive and hard to explain.

 

[JacksBratt]

Nice to see your smiling face this fine morning.

 

[lasthero]

wouldn't want to waste the trillions of dollars of US taxpayer money on taking a real time video from space...

Ahem.

Now, go ahead. Tell me why you don’t accept it.

 

[JackRT]

They have much better things to do... like trying to figure out how to go through the Van Allen belts..like they did in the 70's..

We must have been smarter and tougher in the 70's.

The Van Allen radiation belts are indeed a serious hazard to any astronaut spending an extended time within them. All the earth orbit manned missions' including the international space station' are well below this radiation hazard. However, the manned missions to the moon had to transit the VA belts both outbound and inbound. A lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rad in one hour. At the time of these missions the VA belts had been well mapped out in terms of radiation intensities. The Apollo mission's average speed through the belts was about 25,000 km/hr for a transit time of about 53 min each both outbound and inbound. Each transit would have resulted in crew members receiving about 12 Rads of radiation. So each astronaut on each complete Mission would have received about 24 Rads or about 8% of a lethal dose. Is there a risk? Yes, but it was a calculated risk. All such voyages of exploration were calculated risks. Some never came back. Lief Erikson, Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan did. Well, Magellan died in the last leg of the journey home, but his crew did make it back with his records. They were all calculated risks. That is how human progress takes place. The risks may vary but they are all risks.

 

[JacksBratt]

Ahem.

Now, go ahead. Tell me why you don’t accept it.

For one thing, I have, at the moment, two "live streams" going. One is dark (night time) the other is nice bright and daylight... Which is real? Are there two of them..

If you think that the ISS is real... try this simple and authentic test that uses NASA's own data to prove or disprove the reality of the fake ISS.

1/ Link to the Live feed and location of the ISS.
2/Get it to send you a message when it is going to go over your house..
3/ When it is going over your house... go outside and look up and find it...
4/ go back inside, quick and see if your sky outside matches the live feed that NASA is streaming....
5/ No test is authentic until it has passed the test of time. There is the chance that the sky will be cloudy both on the stream and over your head in real life... However, repeat this test and you will soon find.. they do not match up.

Oh, and by the way. I cannot make out one piece of a land mass that I can or could recognize from your posted stream, that would be identifiable as a location on our globe.

 

[JacksBratt]

The Van Allen radiation belts are indeed a serious hazard to any astronaut spending an extended time within them. All the earth orbit manned missions' including the international space station' are well below this radiation hazard. However, the manned missions to the moon had to transit the VA belts both outbound and inbound. A lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rad in one hour. At the time of these missions the VA belts had been well mapped out in terms of radiation intensities. The Apollo mission's average speed through the belts was about 25,000 km/hr for a transit time of about 53 min each both outbound and inbound. Each transit would have resulted in crew members receiving about 12 Rads of radiation. So each astronaut on each complete Mission would have received about 24 Rads or about 8% of a lethal dose. Is there a risk? Yes, but it was a calculated risk. All such voyages of exploration were calculated risks. Some never came back. Lief Erikson, Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan did. Well, Magellan died in the last leg of the journey home, but his crew did make it back with his records. They were all calculated risks. That is how human progress takes place. The risks may vary but they are all risks.

So, they sent six missions to the moon, in a tin can, and they were OK..

But now, NASA is afraid of sending one lonely mission through the belts on their way to Mars?

As a result, they are spending billions of dollars in research? Are you serious...

That's like saying that they better make all the roads in North America single direction so that there are no head on collisions.. we did it for decades, cars passing each other at 60 mph or more within feet of each other.(what the hay... they only spent a split second passing each other).. but.... now we better not do that and were going to spend billions of dollars to build thousands of miles of new roads...and until we get the infrastructure in place... we won't let anyone on the road.

 

[Aldebaran]

So, they sent six missions to the moon, in a tin can, and they were OK..

But now, NASA is afraid of sending one lonely mission through the belts on their way to Mars?

As a result, they are spending billions of dollars in research? Are you serious...

Their concern about going to Mars isn't just the Van Allen belts around the earth. It's the much longer duration they'd be in space being exposed to ambient radiation. Also, there's not nearly as much protection from radiation within the thin atmosphere of Mars once they got there.

 

[JacksBratt]

Their concern about going to Mars isn't just the Van Allen belts around the earth. It's the much longer duration they'd be in space being exposed to ambient radiation. Also, there's not nearly as much protection from radiation within the thin atmosphere of Mars once they got there.

Any discussions that I have seen, from NASA spokes people... they are always talking about the Van Allen belts.. not just ambient radiation in space... which by the way would also affect the people if they were on the ISS and not in a studio with a green screen.

 

[Aldebaran]

Any discussions that I have seen, from NASA spokes people... they are always talking about the Van Allen belts.. not just ambient radiation in space... which by the way would also affect the people if they were on the ISS and not in a studio with a green screen.

People who have been on the ISS have been affected by radiation. Studies have been done on the astronauts there to examine the effects, which are still minimal since they are below the Van Allen belts.

 

[JackRT]

The earth's magnetic field has two major effects. Firstly, it shields organic life on the surface from the full effect of cosmic radiation. Secondly, it concentrates much of this radiation the VA belts. The VA belts were not much a problem as they were traversed quite rapidly. However, a mission to Mars will take about six months both outbound and inbound almost all of it well away from the magnetic shielding effect of a planet. This makes the crew vulnerable to radiation from solar storms. That is a problem that needs a solution.

 

[JacksBratt]

These are nice posts, guys, on the Van Allen belts and all the talk of how they got around it... but.... I still don't believe:
1/ That they even went
2/ That NASA plans to go at all
3/ That anyone has ever spent more than a few hours in low earth orbit.
4/ You can convince 99% of the world that these are actually lies.
I do believe that people will believe anything if you put it on a television screen and add commentary by anyone as long as they are presented as an expert in some "xxxxxxology"

 

[Aldebaran]

These are nice posts, guys, on the Van Allen belts and all the talk of how they got around it... but.... I still don't believe:
1/ That they even went
2/ That NASA plans to go at all
3/ That anyone has ever spent more than a few hours in low earth orbit.
4/ You can convince 99% of the world that these are actually lies.
I do believe that people will believe anything if you put it on a television screen and add commentary by anyone as long as they are presented as an expert in some "xxxxxxology"

Then why ask any questions here?
BTW, #3 assumes the earth is round. Not easy to "orbit" a flat planet with a dome over it. But I'm glad you're starting to accept the spherical earth.

 

[JacksBratt]

Then why ask any questions here?
BTW, #3 assumes the earth is round. Not easy to "orbit" a flat planet with a dome over it. But I'm glad you're starting to accept the spherical earth.

I have never stated that I was a FE believer... I am someone that is not sure what is truth but well aware that FE model still has some issues and the globe has some problems as well.
There are a couple of issues that I still have to investigate and figure out before I could claim to be a FE'er.

I do know that the Bible, when read in proper context... does not describe a spinning ball flying through space.
I also know that a geocentric, flat, snow globe of a FE... lends itself better to the biblical creation, flood and other events of the bible and totally obliterates the atheistic, Darwinian evolutionary theory of how we came to be.

So, a Christian.. never being told of a globe or flat earth.. needs neither for salvation...while a evolutionist... needs a globe.

 

[Aldebaran]

I have never stated that I was a FE believer...

And yet every one of your arguments are against a spherical earth.

I am someone that is not sure what is truth but well aware that FE model still has some issues and the globe has some problems as well.
There are a couple of issues that I still have to investigate and figure out before I could claim to be a FE'er.

I do know that the Bible, when read in proper context... does not describe a spinning ball flying through space.
I also know that a geocentric, flat, snow globe of a FE... lends itself better to the biblical creation, flood and other events of the bible and totally obliterates the atheistic, Darwinian evolutionary theory of how we came to be.

So, a Christian.. never being told of a globe or flat earth.. needs neither for salvation...while a evolutionist... needs a globe.

I'm a Christian and I don't need a flat earth.

 

[JacksBratt]

And yet every one of your arguments are against a spherical earth.



I'm a Christian and I don't need a flat earth.

My arguments may in fact conclude a FE but my arguments are based on real observations.

I am a Christian and I don't need a globe or a FE... However, if the Earth was flat... and the atheistic Darwinian evolutionary camp needs it to be a globe.... would this not give them motive for hiding the FE if they did in fact have knowledge of it?

IF the Earth is Flat... should it not be exposed, investigated and presented as such?

 

[Aldebaran]

My arguments may in fact conclude a FE but my arguments are based on real observations.

You need to consider all observations though. You're automatically taking any evidence of a spherical earth and dismissing them. If I show you a picture taken from a satellite of a round earth, you simply say, "Fake! Fish eye lens, CGI." That shows that you're not considering evidence to the contrary of what you believe.

I am a Christian and I don't need a globe or a FE... However, if the Earth was flat... and the atheistic Darwinian evolutionary camp needs it to be a globe.... would this not give them motive for hiding the FE if they did in fact have knowledge of it?

IF the Earth is Flat... should it not be exposed, investigated and presented as such?

I don't see how the earth needs to be a globe to support Darwin.
Have you ever considered how the bible describes how God created the earth? In some places, we're told how God stretched out the Heavens and other flowery descriptions, and yet the beginning of Genesis simply says that He spoke things into existence. If God can create everything we see just by speaking, I'd say He could easily be powerful enough to create the universe science has shown us, which is far greater than a flat earth with a dome over it that's no more than a few thousand miles high being the entire universe.

In other words, science shows God's creation to be MUCH greater than a literal interpretation of the bible does.

 

[JacksBratt]

You need to consider all observations though. You're automatically taking any evidence of a spherical earth and dismissing them. If I show you a picture taken from a satellite of a round earth, you simply say, "Fake! Fish eye lens, CGI." That shows that you're not considering evidence to the contrary of what you believe.

That is because NASA has admitted that they do not have any pictures of the complete spherical earth from space. They have admitted that they have to be CGI and photo shop. I hope that I don't have to show you that clip again.

The pictures of the earth from the ISS are not proof of the earth being spherical due to the fact that there are no pictures from the ISS that do not use anything except a fish eye lens. Even the live stream, if it is even such a thing, is with a fish eye lens.

I don't see how the earth needs to be a globe to support Darwin.

Maybe, then, you can explain Evolution in a snow globe, flat earth with a dome over top.

Have you ever considered how the bible describes how God created the earth? In some places, we're told how God stretched out the Heavens and other flowery descriptions, and yet the beginning of Genesis simply says that He spoke things into existence. If God can create everything we see just by speaking, I'd say He could easily be powerful enough to create the universe science has shown us, which is far greater than a flat earth with a dome over it that's no more than a few thousand miles high being the entire universe.

I agree, God's ability is not in question.. ever.

In other words, science shows God's creation to be MUCH greater than a literal interpretation of the bible does.

That is true but still not my point.

Evolution takes much much much more faith than Creation.. but, again, that is still not my point..

My point is simply... a FE model demands a creator... even more than a Globe does.

Hey, I think this universe, flat or globe, demands a creator... right from the very basic building block of life...DNA.... to the most magnificent of all nature and God's creation.