This guy isn't a FEarther, but he excoriates StarLink as a fraud

Yeah, OFC it is a venture capital grab. I agree 100%. Although if I am getting scammed... Starlink is literally my only internet option that supports the job for this household needs (I need good ping and decent bandwidth... Real world applications I get around 100mbps daytime and 400mbps nighttime never a ping over 50ms worldwide) and I cannot use Dish, HughesNet or whatever other options instead due to latency and issues with weather. I live roughly 10 miles from the nearest 3G signal (1 bar, assuming I am on top of this certain hill 10miles away) and my nearest 4G signal is 25+ miles away in a small town. There is no way for me to get scammed here because my income would be 0 without Starlink. I am not moving my family into a city just to work and have decent internet. This video doesn't cover the science, just points we all agree on.

No one has provided me an explanation of the pings I get, let alone why my worst pings are not to the tip of South America/Africa, as they should be on FE. I can make a call to nearly anywhere and get ~30ms ping. You asked this and some additional related questions for me to other FEers and I can't get an answer. 

Flat Earthers don't even have to provide a conclusive model, they just have to demonstrate it is not contradictory and it wins by default because it is according to the literal interpretation of Scripture.

I still have some questions about FE but I've found the globe debunked many times over in these couple of weeks of research.

Consider also, how easy it is to disprove a flat earth. NASA needs to provide just one genuine picture of the Earth, or film a flight over Antarctica, or photograph curvature, etc.

But every time they provide supposed evidence it ends up being falsified.

Long story short, the burden of proof is on the globetards and they haven't delivered.

That's the thing: they haven't JUST "not delivered". They were caught faking. Repeatedly. WHY?!  

WHY!?!?!?!?!?!

If the globe earth is the truth, then why all the bullshit? Why all the scams? Why all the trickery and fakery? 

If you hired a man to build you a house in another state, and every time you asked for progress reports you caught him faking it -- sending fake photos off the Internet, lying in various ways -- would you conclude your house is actually being built? Or would you rightly conclude that you can kiss (whatever money you gave the scammer) goodbye?

When you catch the powers that be (NASA, etc.) going to elaborate pains to produce lying propaganda, you know they're hiding the truth. It's that simple.

You can be *morally* certain of it: people don't lie for no reason. They don't spend tons of time, money, and effort creating elaborate hoaxes just for fun.

They did this with the search for the Missing Link (between apes and men) in the 20th century. Many hoaxes. Because evolution is false, but they desperately wanted to prop it up as true.

This guy isn't a FEarther, but he excoriates StarLink as a fraud

I haven't watched the video, nor do I know anything about StarLink. But I want to make one, off-the-cuff, uninformed comment (take it for what it's worth).

There is obviously SOME degree of marketing nonsense involved: just look at the name. Star Link.

I assure you, no "stars" are involved in your super-duper Internet connection. And it's not some 24th century Star Trek equivalent of the Internet where various star systems are linked together in a vast network.

Sorry to disappoint, but the whole thing is all very much close to Earth.

That doesn't prove anything, just that they're not afraid to fluff it up a bit, at least in the marketing wankery department. They're trying VERY HARD to evoke "Sci-Fi" vibes, to make you think they're super special, almost breakthrough in nature. Color me doubtful.

Problem with a NASA photo is that we'd never be able to independently verify that it's real.  

That's what is so strange.  They could just show us a fake photo and lie 100% but they don't.

They actually admit it's a "composite" and you can watch interviews with the NASA artists that openly state they create the images and add artistic touches to both the earth and the "renditions" of the planets.










Be sure to notice Pluto the dog in the photo of Pluto:

2min




The Blue Marble is photoshopped, but it has to be...

1min 53sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/LOou3eAIqzC1/


Funny song:  there ain't no photographs of earth
5min 19 sec



They openly admit everything and must be laughing so hard that we still can't seem to figure it out.  

This is what Venus looks like through a home telescope:

That nikon p1000 is junk compared to a real telescope and large sensor camera with manual focus.

I was thinking the same thing. I'm not particularly 100% convinced by p900 and p1000 videos of stars. I'll have to see about getting a decent telescope once we sell our house. 

As far as I know, the problem with viewing venus is that it is so close to the sun that it never gets very high in the sky without daylight appearing. Anything in space is best viewed high in the sky, so there is the least amount of atmosphere distorting the view, and in cold weather and high altitudes for less distortion. Then you want to view it when it is physically close to earth in its orbit, but that would mean it is casting a shadow and may be hard to see. Taking all that into consideration, it still takes a good quality large scope (minimum 4-6" diameter) with a high magnification lens to clearly see a planet. Then, the problem becomes getting enough contrast to see anything other than a bright ball. Our eyes are the best chance of seeing such detail and contrast because cameras and display screens have a low dynamic range, meaning there's little difference between light and dark.

Jupiter when it is closest to the earth, if that happens during the winter, is the best one to look at, but I still struggle to make out any details with my 4" diameter telescope. The mirror is getting cloudy on it, and the highest magnification lens doesn't provide as clear of an image as the lower magnification lenses; a problem even microscopes have.

I just found this video. He comments on using a filter, which he doesn't have, to get better details. I think this is a good representation of what one can expect from a big-ish telescope using a camera. If I'm correct, he's just viewing IR with that filter, so no color image and I don't think IR focuses very sharp.
https://youtu.be/d49TPvlwAtU?t=154

I just found this video. He comments on using a filter, which he doesn't have, to get better details. I think this is a good representation of what one can expect from a big-ish telescope using a camera. If I'm correct, he's just viewing IR with that filter, so no color image and I don't think IR focuses very sharp.
https://youtu.be/d49TPvlwAtU?t=154

Thanks
Hmm...I wonder if my friend was actually showing me a star instead of Venus. ??

Funny song:  there ain't no photographs of earth
5min 19 sec

I apologize.  I just rewatched this video---it's been a while since I saw it first---and it has "G da**" and some vulgarity.  :/

I remembered it made good points about the fact that if NASA was taking photos of Pluto and other things so very far away, why couldn't they just take a photo of Earth?

But I forgot about the other so I'm sorry about that!