Topic: Flat Earth an apology to notbatman and Badecker (Read 201 times)

I saw the ISS up there. It sure looks flat to me.     

Just watch the ISS with your paranoid eyes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNsCMBKFakk

Look at a flat table top. It's flat, right? Then look at it through a microscope. Suddenly its full of mountains and valleys. It's flat, right? Lol .

For now, since I know this may be a sensitive topic for others, before I comment any further about this topic, I just want to make sure I understand and follow, is BADecker a flat earther then?  

Ah. You are starting to see a little. I'm glad you can be dumbfounded. There might be hope for you, yet.

Since you seem to be humbling yourself, do you think that you will be exalted? Or WILL you be exalted because it is sincere humility? Matthew 23:12:

well i am a bit dumbfounded that you are looking smarter and smarter.

and i am looking quite a bit sheepish about my belief.

Now I see a flawed video. why do it?

I can give more then one reason.

But can any wizz kid math science 🧬 guy.  Come up with a different math solution?

7 minutes free fall seems correct.

it took 7 minutes but there was 1 minute full braking burn. clearly visible.

and there was some steering rocket mini burst. also clearly shown .

then missing footage and boom a 7 minute landing time.

have to,say no wants to touch the thread.

I-would love ❤️ to hear from notbatman as here is exactly what he has said there areinconsistent clearly wrong space videos .

The earth isn't flat. It's concave. Our eye are goofy, and only make it look globular. notbatman will tell you different.

Not all videos like that are fake. You found one that might be fake in part.

Often there are anomalies in things that we don't think about. Somebody shows us what they are, and then we realize that we were wrong.

So far it is looking like you are right.

Well I am not a flat earther.

But both you and notbatman have been attacked about screaming fake fake fake.

When I posted here I was attacked and shown perfect proof that the booster lands in about 7 minutes.  Not my math but that of a debunker.

His proof is perfect if the booster fell with  un chekced and smashed out at over 1000 kilometers an hour.  Yep seven minutes according to high school physics . video clearly show seven minutes time.  And  the entire 1 minute braking burn is or has been left out.

That rocket booster  had a 1 minute braking burn  and multiple steering bursts.

Can some one prove me wrong base on modern physics  as solved by someone other then myself  I am correct.

Personally I want to be proven wrong here and go back to my old belief that the space videos are real.

any help here?

or do we all owe notbatman and badecker an apology ?

they have claimed fake videos multiple times this one seems faked.

So at the least they are partially correct.

wtf is happening to the word we live in?

by the way the weightlessness video section clearly looks wrong.  But that is more subjective.

I guess they will eventually alter the video or take it down if I am right.  I hope I am wrong and someone can show me the math that I am wrong.

^^^ At Christmas time, if you look North, you can see Santa and his sleigh. They got the idea for Burning Man because he burns up in the atmosphere every year.

Of course the video is fake.

I

watched the show live not realizing the flat earth thread was locked.  wanted to post in it and say see  notbatman and badecker you guys are wrong.

I end up seeing a very suspicious video that appears faked.


the times don't match worse yet the weightless 'proof' appears faked.

thus this thread.

^^^ Maybe they burned the thrusters sideways or in a downward vector somewhat, just to move the whole rocket into position over the place the pad would be once they got there. And the only reason it look like the flame was pointing down was that they used one of notbatman's favorite fish-eye lenses in their camera.

 

Well badecker if the 7 minute solve is correct based on free fall and no thrusters

and they burned the thrusters as they showed us for more then 1 minute you actually have legit proof that the video is faked.


the solve includes the   time for the  for the booster to slow down after it was released fro space ship it was going at 6700 kilometers per hour.

so it traveled upwards for 3 minutes before it started to fall to earth.

this is not my math but that of odolvlobo.

it then descended.

I actually think the answer could be a bit more then 7 minutes.  As it was at 84 kliometers  plus what ever it traveled upwards after  the drop.

Maybe we can get a more clear solve

pretend it goes straight up cuts loose at 84 klicks

then travels straight up for 3 minutes at this point even though it slows from 6700 kph to 0 kph it has gone upwards quite a bit maybe more then 100 klicks before it starts to drop..

now I assume straight up and straight down.   which absolutely positively means the video is faked.

How can THE VIDEO be true?  lets see one explanation is  it traveled 84 klicks not straight up but on an angle.  So when it is dropped from space ship and still has good old mo behind it we are doing an arc.  in order to determine if this is true


 basically   this path   ^    vs   this path l

we need to know the landing coordinates.  take off was Cape Canaveral correct?

of course I don't know where it landed in the atlantic but they say it did land in the atlantic.

I know that limits  the path  to be steeper then say this ^  and closer to this     l  

  this path l  means faked landing is certain.

^^^ How about relativity physics? The speed was so fast that it took the vehicle back into time just enough to reduce whatever the time seemed to be, down to seven minutes.

 

Hey I the stupid moronic idiot that could not solve a high school  physic's question.

but we now have a solve at seven minutes  which is the exact time it did take to land.

Only problem is that would be seven minutes without use of any thrusters  and video clearly shows a 1 minute braking burn.

and conveniently skips showing second burn that occurs at landing.

Since those burns greatly reduce the free fall speed and allow a successful landing  they must  add time.  and seven minute would only be possible with a faked landing.

Well as I said I am stupid and can't do high school physics so maybe the seven minute solve found by odolvlobo is wrong.

looks to me that  there is either an error in the seven minute solve

or a faked video.

Repeat this only indicates faked video to be hugely certain.

I am not a flat earther.

Maybe that 7 minute solve is wrong.  anyone else care to solve that physics problem?

Any excuse that they can't have a second pad a couple hundred meters away is just nonsense. They could have a second pad, and let a camera on it get the major landing details, while the camera on the landing pad caught the fine details.

What would be wrong with a second pad only 10 meters away? Don't they have enough control over where the ship lands regarding pads?


However, I am not there. So I don't really know. Maybe things like this always look fishy. notbatman always talked about a fish-eye lens. And, of course, there could be fish watching from within the water. 

ahh I am a stupid idiot  you 7 got  minutes for the rocket to free fall back to earth which is correct.

my faulty math shows how stupid I am.

but  since you have the complete and totally accurate calculation that the rocket would free fall back to earth in 7 minutes.

that means it hit the ground or should I say ship at a high rate of speed since in order to travel that distance as per your solve of the formula.

also there was a 1 minute burn of breaking rockets which slowed the  booster there fore  how did it do it in 7 minutes.

it did not .

So if it did not do free fall for the entire seven minutes it can't have traveled 84 kilometers in seven minutes as per your calculation.

the problem is that 1 minute of thrusters make it really hard to think it did as we are told.

I watched and clocked 1 full minute of thruster burning to reduce the free fall.  which has to add a lot of time to you correct calculation. of free fall.

So while your seven minutes allows it to fall freely in the timeline it did do it in.  It disallows for the use of trusters.

we witnessed the 1 minute burn.  and we witnessed the booster less then 20 seconds from landing.

BTW no effort to show the last 20 seconds from any other angle and if you look at the  flim 20 seconds away  from landing something is missing.

No sign of  thrust er being fired no movement on the deck from thruster.

Frankly I am not a flat earth guy but I see a forged video.

I also see issues with weightless movement via the dinosaur balloon and the astronauts straps and zippers. at 4.34:10 seconds to 434:30 seconds

a zipper tie on right wrist moves wrong.

I am not a flat earth guy.

But your calucatations say 7 minutes of free fall and back to earth.  Which discounts thruster use of 1 full minute and of course the unshown landing which shows zero indication of thruster affecting a wet deck.

So I see a faked video landing.

I don't say this means a flat earth.

I do say booster landed too quickly.  you get 7 minutes with no thruster used. So how did it get done in 7 mminutes with more then a minute of thruster use.  the answer is simple this particular landing is a faked video.

accord ing to your formula solve of 7 minutes the video can not be real

It's not clear to me what you are saying. This is basic high school physics. Just do the math.

6706 km/h is 1863 m/s. The velocity of a falling object increases at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s. If the booster is traveling straight up at 1863 m/s, then it would start falling after 1863/9.8 =  190 seconds, or about three minutes. The booster is most certainly not traveling straight up, so the time will be less.

The distance that an object falls is 4.9 m/s² (assuming no air friction), so the time it takes to fall 84 km is sqrt( 84000/4.9 ) = 131 seconds, or about two minutes.

Now, the complete question is how long does it take for an object at 84000 m and traveling at 1863 m/s take to hit the ground (assuming no air friction and no thrusters). This equation describes the question:

0 = 84000 + 1863t - 9.8t²

The answer is 421 seconds = 7 minutes.

All of these numbers are close to the timeline. There are no impossibilities occurring here, and while it really sucks that we couldn't see the landing as it happened, that is not evidence of a hoax. You seem to have fallen victim to the most common flat-earth fallacy: if you don't understand something, then it must be impossible.

Edit: fixed math

https://youtu.be/hH75bVG7HBo

84.3 kilometers was how far they said the booster was from earth

at time line 4:30.19.  they show the booster firing steering rockets.

they show steering flaps moving and at around 4:30:58. the booster does a long burn to slow it from falling.

the burn ends at about

4:31.30

at 4:32:11 the camera dies on the booster

at 4:32:42 they show where the booster should land

at 4:33:00. that camera dies

and at 4:33:12. they show the booster is landed

WTF faked landing.

 Once I saw this I realized both badecker  and notbatman. are correct about at least one thing they are faking parts of the space program videos.

they is more to this at 4:33:50. they have a dinosaur ballon.

think helium ballon. and think how weightlessness should be.

the ballon behaved like a helium ballon more then a weightless object.

Also why use a ballon why not use an actual plastic model with some real weight?

So here is what I have concluded this space shot has two clearly faked parts.

For those that are challenged about the booster.  Please check into free fall rules.

A  booster or for that matter a bowling ball dropped from 84.3 kilometers takes some time to fall to earth.

4:33.12 - 4:26:17 is about 7 minutes

clearly shown on the un-doctered  feeds on YouTube


 https://www.angio.net/personal/climb/speed.html


if allowed to free fall it takes about 2 minutes and 11 seconds.

but as clearly shown it used rockets to steer it to the ship and rockets burned to reduce the speed 1 full minute.

So while the math shows you could get it to land in under the 7 minutes they claim it took to land it. the idea that two cameras fail and we have no landing imagery is pretty far fetched.

To say that nothing is going on whatever, would be a lie. But you are right. It is hoax filled. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54535149 AND https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54535079.