.

.
Lightening in the clouds!
Author's analysis and FAQs answered:  https://randomphotons.com/alone
.

.
Go to the FAQs answered page and see the author's description of the source.
He composed the video by a 3-step process, beginning with the time exposures shot on the ISS.
This is not the same camera that the ISS live feed uses, which has set exposure parameters that can't be changed.
.
He has topics beginning with these:
.
.
Is this CGI?
All the sequences in the video are real photographs taken with a decent stills camera (typically a Nikon) with long exposure time. The only thing special about them is they are taken from a space station orbiting the Earth.
.
.
Why don’t the clouds move?
Since this is a time-lapse, one might expect to see the clouds moving throughout the video. After all, we can see clouds moving from Earth in real time.

However, the ISS is a lot further away from the cloud layer than we are, and that distance changes how much movement is visible.

cuмulonimbus, or storm clouds, are at most 13 km above us. The ISS is between 409 km and 416 km above us, so let’s say it is 400 km away from the cloud layer. (31 times further away from ISS)

Let’s imagine we are taking two square photos of the same clouds at the same moment in time with the same type of camera - one from earth looking straight up, the other from the ISS directly above it looking straight down.

This will give us two pyramids, with the point being the camera, and the base being the cloud layer. Something like this:
(The tiny red triangle is your view from Earth.)
Credit: David Peterson

If we calculate the dimensions of the bases, we can determine how much cloud area each photo will cover.
A typical 50 mm lens on a 35 mm sensor will have a field of view of about 46°. If we divide the pyramid in two we get two right-angled triangles, so we can use some Pythagorean geometry to calculate the area of the base. Here is the formula:


When we plug in 13 km for the Earth-bound photo, we get an area of 122 km², or an 11 km x 11 km square.
From the ISS at 400 km, we get an area of 115,315 km², or 340 km x 340 km of visible clouds.
That gives us a ratio of 967:1 between the areas covered by the two photos. Here is what that would look like:

Credit: David Peterson

The blue is the area covered by the photo from the ISS. The red is the area covered by the photo from Earth. You will understandably lose a lot of detail.

Not only that, but given the speed of the ISS, a full orbit takes 90 minutes travelling at 7.66 km/s. As such it would take only 44 seconds for something to appear on one edge of the photo and disappear off the other edge.

All those things combined mean you don’t see much change in clouds from the ISS.

• #clouds
• #cgi

.
.
If all this is not immediately comprehensible, don't feel like you're alone.
You have to remember the scale difference, including how close we are to the clouds above us.

Our instinct is to naturally think how FAR above us the clouds are, and this new recognition of how CLOSE we are compared to how FAR above the clouds the ISS is, requires an outlook that we are not accustomed to having in mind.

It is necessary to use your sense of scale to step outside the close-knit world of earthly bound views, to recognize how different the view of earth's cloud structure from the ISS is.

Clouds viewed at close range have one appearance, but the SAME clouds viewed from a place with 967 times less detail because it's 31 times further away, necessarily appear to be completely different clouds. And in order to notice the same cloud movement at the more distant location that we see from earth, you would need to use a 31-power magnification. Any movement of the camera would destroy the clarity of the time exposure. It would require a LOT more sophistication in the camera mount, since there are small vibrations happening all the time on the ISS due to various activities inside going on.

Canned information from NASA and modern science only begs the question since they are the ones accused of lying in the first place. 

Well, some of the purported ISS footage was clearly filmed in the "Vomit Comet" ... as evidenced by the turbulence they sometimes encounter.

Interesting.
I watch the livefeed a lot.
Sometimes after the sunsets they let the blackness be visible before cutting out. Ypu can sometimes see little rainbow streaks, like particles whizzing by.
But no stars, no city lights, no land - ever.
Weird.

.
I recommend you go onto their chat room, in the sidebar on the right, and ask some questions.
As I recall you have to be signed in to your web-based e-mail or use something like Facebook or Google to log in. 
They want to have some kind of ID apparently.
CAUTION -- don't let them know you believe in flat earth because that raises their red flags and they come out like vultures.
Pretend you are a GLOBE EARTHER and you'll get lots of calm attention.
Don't criticize the "big bang" or heliocentrism. Just read and ask about the ISS camera they use.
Ask them what technical specs the camera has.
It must be a video camera, but is it different from a Nikon P900? 
Is it specially designed for use on the ISS?
Does it have automatic shutter speed and aperture adjustment that prohibits manual override?
Is some engineer afraid that opening the exposure for night views (stars!) would endanger the light meter if it sees the sun?
When you finally get all the answers you can expect, THEN you can mention this other video.
The one that shows time exposures from the ISS and has stars in the sky and city lights all over the planet.
But beware, once you ask about the stars in the sky they won't be willing to help anymore.
Something about seeing stars from the ISS makes it a very controversial topic apparently.
Might have to do with the Apollo 11 crew suddenly not remembering having seen stars when walking on the moon?!? 
Good Luck!
.

Yikes sounds like fun.

What did you think of that clip from last night?

Did you notice you can see the camera lens reflected in the glass?

But no city lights,  no stars.

.
I think it was the clip you refer to that I watched.
There was a LOT of time showing a black screen, which is really boring viewing!
The  author of the page I linked above, explaining the reasons you see what you do in his video says that his still shots came from the ISS using a different camera than the one the ISS live feed uses. He answers a question from the Comments section with the model number of the camera, a Nikon, but not a P900. I forget what its model is. I can look for that again if it will help.
.
The difference is in the two exposure settings used, the ISS live feed camera's and this other Nikon camera's.
The ISS live feed camera is not adjustable by the crew, and is set for video of daytime space station views, therefore no stars are possible there. It would require changing the exposure for night time which isn't possible, they say.
.
The other camera, the Nikon (not a P900) takes exposures about 30 times longer using a 15mm wide angle lens.
Each still shot is therefore a time exposure so it has time to pick up very dim light like stars, which you can see in the sky there.
Please note that the stars do not show trails.
This is because each frame is fast enough to get the dim light of the stars but without being slow enough to show them moving.
The frames are effectively very close together though, and when combined into a movie format the stars appear to move.
This is the same way that animation works which makes drawings of animals and such to move with very natural movement.
To appreciate the sophistication of his process you have to read about it.
But all the data is extracted from the real photos, and no CGI or fake images are involved, he says.
He only adjusts the color saturation and contrast so as to bring out details that would be lost otherwise.
It's a lot of work for a hobbiest!
And it's something NASA could do but apparently they are not as creative as the author, who has devised this process.
.
It also picks up city lights on earth as well as cloud formations illuminated by the city lights and by  lightening.
The lightening flashes can be seen because they occur quickly but are bright enough to register in the longer exposures.
Each lightening flash is much faster than the time the shutter is open.
But they are recorded anyway, and some of them carry over into subsequent frames so they appear to stay lit up.
The overall effect makes for a very interesting pattern of lightening flashes in the clouds.
Even so, it is not exactly what you would see if you were physically watching it yourself.
The images are combined such that the earth appears to be moving much faster under the ISS than the live feed shows.
.
The process he used involves a 3-step procedure which he describes in some detail, if you're interested.
He posted this video 7 years ago, in 2011, and he has continued to return over these years to answer the endless questions.
He is consistently very patient with disbelieving viewers, and has kept on linking to his analysis page.
It seems that most incredulous viewers can't bother to read his analysis, though.
.
There is a lot of technical information that most viewers have no patience for, but that doesn't make him get rude.
He repeatedly asks deniers to supply their own data to support the numerous claims they make, but for 7 years, none have done so.
.
He ought to compile these responses over the years, but this is just a hobby for him, as he does not work for NASA.
When you go to the Comments section under his video, you can scroll to the bottom of the page and the site reloads older posts.
You can do this repeatedly, bringing up thousands of posts.
I made about 50 refreshing views and there appears to be no end in sight if you keep going.
They don't seem to let you skip to the end of the Comments page, maybe they do, but I haven't figured that out yet.
I went back to a ittle over 1 year's coverage, finding many replies from the author.
Most of his replies are seen when you click on the replies arrow under "view all 3 replies" or however many they are.
.

.
All Alone in the Night -- by David Peterson
Sample reply:

Sabrina Hernandez[color=var(--ytd-comment-metadata-text-color)]
[color=var(--ytd-comment-text-color)]How come this looks nothing like the Pegasus video footage done by Team Xtreme. Also do you know why there would not be footage of the side that is facing towards the sun? Do you know where I can find it[/color]
[color=var(--yt-button-text-color)]
1

[color=var(--yt-button-text-color)][color=var(--yt-button-color, inherit)]REPLY[/color][/color][/color]



[/font][/size][/color]



David Peterson[color=var(--ytd-comment-metadata-text-color)]3 months ago
[color=var(--ytd-comment-text-color)]Hey there. There are a couple of reasons the Pegasus footage would look different. Firstly, that was filmed in daylight, as you noted. You can see some daylight sequences in my other ISS video: [/color]
[color=var(--ytd-comment-text-color)].
There are still some other differences. Primarily, the Pegasus gets to about 32 km in altitude, which is not bad. But the ISS is at about 400 km, which is over 12 times higher. If you consider how it looks to us when looking at the ground from the 1st floor compared to the 12th for of a building, it gives some idea of the difference in perspective.[/color]
[color=var(--ytd-comment-text-color)].
Lastly, the colours are much more intense here, partly because I boosted the brightness and saturation a little, but also because these are time lapse photographs. Each frame was exposed for a full second instead of a fraction of a second. That let's the camera capture more light.
.
Hope that helped. There is more info at the FAQ too: https://randomphotons.com/alone[/color]


[/font][/size][/color]

.
This thread is a treasure trove of good stuff -- 90 pages of it! 

.
Bump for newcomers
.
Especially for the "All Alone in the Night" video -- amazing product of many hours of real photograph compilations.
.

.

Why look clouds white as snow seen from above during the night?
If they were illuminated by the moon, the illumination would have to change while the camara is orbiting the globe.