Not bad, I watched the original and I looked up the camera used, and it may be possible to get such good night images with it, but...
Shouldn't the stars get closer as he flies, and look like they are getting farther apart (zoomed in) as he flies closer to the stars ahead of him just like how e see distant trees and mountains space out as we get closer and drive by? Shouldn't he eventually fly under and past some stars, similar to how they said it should happen according to the google globe simulation? It only makes sense that something similar would happen when flying on a flat earth, unless the flat earth is floating in a universe of stars several light years wide.
It is strange that the stars don't move like in the google sim, but I don't think the sim takes into account the rotation of the stars, because I couldn't notice anywhere near as much rotation, if any, as in the real video. But, it's just as strange that I can measure the distance between some stars, which I would think would be quite close to a flat earth, and either not see a change in the distance between them, or see them get closer together as if the plane was flying away. I started by measuring a pair of stars just to the left of center, and they ended up at the far right by the end with no noticeable change in the distance between them. I also measured some that were very far left, to take into account the rotation, and they got significantly closer together by the end.
So, in my opinion, yet another problem with trusting videos.
Upon reading your comment, I looked to see if the stars actually got farther apart, simply taking a straight-edge and marking the distance between the two at the beginning and at the end, and they do in fact appear to be slightly farther apart from one another, and appear to be larger. As to how much farther apart they should have been and how much larger, that would depend on the distance travelled vs. how far away they actually are from the plane, which is an unknown, and both could also be affected by things like moisture in the atmosphere. Also, given that the stars are on/in a curved surface, the dome of the firmament, the perceived distance between them would also depend upon whether you were looking at them straight on or from a slight angle. So I see that as inconclusive, but I did not find what you claim, namely, that the start got "closer together" at the end. I found the opposite. And given your globe model, and the purported distance you claim the stars are from earth, that shouldn't happen either. So it's a wash.
Once again, you won't actually analyze what you're looking at but assume there MUST be "something wrong" with the videos. Which video don't you trust, the video the pilot took of his flight or the Google simulator? Perhaps the pilot was a stealth Flat Earther who manipulated the video? So Google simulations are inaccurate ... except when they appear to depict a globe? So not sure what you mean about "trusting" the video.
Probably the only case one one might make against the video is that if the stars were possibly rotating downward at the exact same rate at which the plane was dipping its nose down. I find that unlikely but someone should do the math. He was trusting the Google simulator as being accurate, and I'm not sure if took into account the time lapse and the movement of the stars in the time allotted. Nevertheless, the stars should be moving down and to the right, and if we judge how far to the right they moved, if there was a similar downward movement, it wouldn't have been enough to keep up with the change in the plane's angle.
But your case against it doesn't actually address the core point of the video, that the stars would move up and out of frame as the plane dips its nose to follow the curvature of the earth. As usual, it's a red herring thrown out there as a distraction. You bolded the statement I made regarding the core problem, namely, that the stars remain within the viewing frame for the entire duration of the flight when they should have moved significantly up and out of view.
Of course, it's also extremely condescending and insulting that you assume that we merely "trust" what videos say. You assume incorrectly. If I post a video here, it's because I've analyzed its claims. I reject a fair number of Flat Earth videos as fallacious ... despite what you might think. I do not engage in the same confirmation bias that you have repeatedly demonstrated, and that you demonstrate once again ... by assuming that there MUST be "something wrong" because ... you already know the earth is a globe. You might recall that I posted where I can't see anything wrong with the claims of this video. That's because I thought through them. I think through all of them and try to poke holes in the analysis. You, on the other hand, "know" up front that it's wrong and are looking for reasons to dismiss it. You won't evaluate the matter with an open mind and apply objective analysis to it. Instead, you throw out a red herring about the distances of the stars, which is not directly relevant to the point being made.
Topic: Space is fake and gαy (Read 90347 times)