Comments by "Randy Schissler" (@randyschissler5791) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@JFrouny Here is a partial list of photos of the Earth. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS08-13-2369 to 88, that's 19 photos.
AS08-14-2507 to 80, that's 73 photos.
AS08-16-2619 to 58, that's 39 photos.
AS08-16-2587 to 609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-40-5923 to 24, that’s 2 photos.
AS14-64-9189 to 97, that’s 9 photos.
AS17-134-20383 to 84, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-134-20387, that’s 1 photo.
AS17-137-20910-11, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-162-24047 and 48, that's two photos.
AS17-162-24066 to 73, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22669 to 71, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22679 to 86, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22699 to 702, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22717 to 51, that's 34 photos.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@MatthewScott420 "look up NASA Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft"
Just shows how ignorant you really are! You think NASA Reference Publication 1207 is saying that the earth is flat and non rotating, when it doesn't say that at all. It’s a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more quickly, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect. Such as the curve and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, so that everyone was on the same page. The equations that have been derived in the report are based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass,” which doesn't happen in reality, as aircraft burn fuel while they fly and change mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations in the report are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@coryleblanc The sun. What we see everyday in reality can only happen if the earth is a globe. Impossible on a flat earth. Observe the sun throughout the course of a day, at sunrise, mid day over head, and sunset. Preferably over an open ocean on a clear day. Notice how the sun maintains the same size throughout the day, the key point being that the sun keeps the same size, whether it be sunrise, mid day over head, or sunset until it rather abruptly goes over the horizon. Trust me, I know full well about the flat earth model of the sun travelling in a circle around the earth, but what I have just described, that we see everyday in reality, is impossible with that flat earth model.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chrisbr1969 "You can see Chicago perfectly from 60 miles away."
The problem you are ignoring is that you can only see the skyline of Chicago. If the earth was really flat, you would see the base as well. Thus, the earth is a globe. The reason why curvature is so hard to see, from our tiny vantage point on earth, is because the earth is very, very, very big. Flat earthers seem to think that the earth should curve away, dramatically all around them, but that's not realistic. It's because the earth is very, very, very big. Even from 60 miles away, the curvature is miniscule, but still enough to block the base of Chicago.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@raymond3803 "Bullshit! NASA admits all the moon landing telemetry was destroyed. Bill Nye admitted we can't leave earth. There's no place to go."
NASA never said telemetry was destroyed. You don't even know what telemetry is. Astronaut Don Pettit, not a spokesman for NASA, no one of any authority for NASA, said the technology was destroyed to keep going to the moon. When the Apollo program was cancelled in 1972 after six landings, everything associated with it went bye bye. That meant any left over parts, infrastructure, engineers, manufacturing contracts with contractors, everything. That's what Don Pettit was referring to.
Bill Nye is simply saying that we are not going to go off and live on another planet when the earth becomes a polluted wasteland, so take care of it and protect it for generations to come.
I suggest you quit taking little snippets from conspiracy theories, that get twisted and taken out of context, in attempts to manipulate into thinking that those little snippets mean something that they don't.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That's quite a load of blather. Anyway, here is a partial list of some of the best photos of the earth from space. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS17-148-22725 to 22751, that's 26 photos.
AS08-14-2383 to 2394, that's 12 photos.
AS08-15-2535 to 2580, that's 46 photos.
AS08-16-2588 to 2609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-44-6668 to AS11-44-6696, that's 29 photos.
AS11-36-5293 to 5309, that's 17 photos.
AS11-36-5317 to 5381, that's 65 photos.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Thought_Criminal_13
NASA didn't lose all the telemetry tapes. A few backup tapes were recorded over, because they were considered redundant and copies were made of the relevant data. If there are copies, nothing is lost!
NASA didn't lose any technology. You obviously have no idea what old astronaut Don Pettit was talking about. When congress canceled already scheduled moon missions after Apollo 17, everything associated with it went bye, bye. And yes, it is difficult to build it back again.
False on saying astronauts couldn't see stars. They couldn't see them while looking at the solar corona. Pay attention to the question by Sir Patrick Moore : "Could you actually see stars when looking at the solar corona, in spite of the glare?"
No astronaut or member of NASA has ever said it was impossible to travel through the Van Allen belts. Probably referring to the video clip that conspiracy theorists love to use, with NASA engineer Kelly Smith? Kelly never said anything of the sort. in that video.
A conspiracy theorist showed you a video that supposedly showed one bubble, (more likely a piece of debris or water) and you think that means they filmed underwater in pools? Are you really that gullible to believe such nonsense?
Buzz Aldrin never admitted he didn't go to the moon. Maybe you should watch the whole 17 minute interview with little girl Zoey, instead of the edited conspiracy theory version. Notice the question Zoey asks: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?" Long time means from the last time since going to the moon. Buzz answers appropriately, "We didn't go there" during the long time since the last time going to the moon. Please pay close attention to what he said immediately after, as it's very telling as to why no one has gone back to the moon since the last time going to the moon. It's not that hard to understand. Also, if you watch the first part of the interview he talks about going to the moon. And at the end of the interview, he still talks about going to the moon. With all that talk about going to the moon, he went to the moon.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@danielswish41 "So tell me, what is the reason, no flat earther hast ever done that!? "
Because flat earthers are cowards, and their flat earth leaders are nothing but huckstering cons! The only videos you will see from flat earthers, about movement of the sun, are grossly overexposed, with lens flare that show the sun only as distorted giant blobs of blurry light. Nothing like the sun you would see in reality. Yet, they fool someone like you, into thinking that's a credible view of a flat earth sun, being zoomed back into full view.
If it really was perspective that you claim, the sun would get smaller, and smaller, and smaller as it moves away from you on your flat earth. So small, that it would eventually become a tiny pinpoint of light in darkness, but still visible. Yet, we don't see that in reality do we? Instead, throughout the course of a day, the sun maintains the same size, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset. The fact it stays the same size, proves the earth is a rotating globe.
PS. There is no official globe math, only false flat earth math that skews reality, and fools people like you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@peppersrestaurant1462 So, you've never watched the sun during the course of a day then. Try it sometime, and notice how it stays the same size, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down over the horizon. On your flat earth model, it would have to get smaller and smaller and smaller, as it moves away from you, until it was just a tiny dot. But, that's not what we see in reality, is it? What we see in reality is impossible on a flat earth, and only works if the earth is a globe.
Also, level doesn't mean flat, and level requires gravity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lcx1876 Not sure if you deleted your post to me or not, but I'm answering anyway.
The Earth doesn't spin, it rotates. It makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. You know what an analog clock is, right? watch the big hand, and realize that it moves twice as fast as the earth rotates! That's so slow, it's hard to imagine that can be referred to as spinning.
Water sticks to the Earth because of gravity. Now, I know that since you are a flat earther, that you are required to think that gravity is fake, but try and be open minded. The Earth is much bigger than you think, and mass creates gravity. Gravity is pulling water and everything else to the center of the earth. The Earth is so big, that the water on it may look flat, but it's not. The water in your bathtub isn't flat either. Remember, level doesn't mean flat. Level exists because of gravity. A tool level, the long thing with a bubble in it, works because of gravity.
Here is something else you don't realize. If the Earth was the size of a basketball, the depths of the mighty oceans would only be a quarter of a millimeter in thickness! Now, a millimeter isn't much, but imagine only a quarter of a millimeter! That's not much water to stick to a basketball is it? Remember when I told you that the Earth is much bigger than you think? That's why the vast oceans aren't much water to stick to the Earth, either.
An "experiment on this Earth where you can have a large body of level water with no container," would be impossible, because the Earth's gravity would override it. It would be like pouring water on a basketball and watching the water fall to the ground. Some of the water would stick to the basketball, but most of it would fall to the ground because of Earth's gravity pulling it down.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@flint20001 "We can see cities and islands100 miles away"
A curvature formula that ignores elevation, ignores line of sight, is not a valid formula. Were your eyeballs on the ground, looking outward, when you made that assessment? Likewise, seeing a city skyscraper skyline, or mountain top on an island, is not valid. Could you see the very base of the city, or the beach on the island? No!
"a spinning ball going faster than a speeding bullet"
The earth isn't spinning, it rotates. It makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. That's not exactly what I would call spinning. If you were looking at an analogue clock, the hour hand on the clock would be moving twice as fast as the earth rotates. You still think that is faster than a speeding bullet?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrisbr1969 "And the fact you don’t know there are NASA documents STATING the earth is flat "
Totally false, you let yourself get fooled. NASA Reference Publication 1207: Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model, is a prime example of how flat earthers like yourself, cherry pick a couple words to try and say that NASA and the military state that the earth is flat and motionless. This document and others like it, don't say that at all. 1207 is a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation model written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more efficiently, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect on the model. Such as the curvature and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, because they are insignificant to the model. Notice how the document also states that the equations that have been derived based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass.” Which doesn't happen in reality either, as aircraft have flaps and ailerons, and burn fuel while they fly thus changing mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which also doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations in the document are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that has no flaps to change position, burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@timid3000 Seeing land masses and city sky lines 50,60,70 miles and more doesn't prove anything. Notice how you said sky lines! Land masses and city sky lines are much higher than 100ft. The bottom of those sky lines and land masses aren't seen though, right? They disappeared. Oh, that's right, perspective... You haven't explained anything! Your head bobbing in the water so you can't see above the waves, and the van above your eye level that blocks your view, don't prove anything except you can't see above something that is above your eye level. If you are looking at the horizon and see a 2ft wave, it's still a 2ft wave. It isn't a 100 ft wave, it's a 2ft wave! Sit down with a piece of paper and diagram a 6ft person standing at shoreline, a 2ft wave, and a 100+ft ship in the distance. Show how that 2ft wave obliterates that 100+ft ship. It can't be done, unless the ship is on a globe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@TheAIInvestor2024 The simplest, easiest example of a globe earth, and debunking of a flat earth, is sunrise and sunset. On a flat earth, there would be no need for timezones, because at sunrise the entire world would have sunrise simultaneously, at the same time. Whether it be China, New York City, or Los Angeles. Same with sunset, as on a flat earth the entire earth would go to nighttime simultaneously, at the same time. Yet, in reality it isn't like that at all, right? On a globe earth, while it is night in Beijing, it is daytime in New York City. Impossible on a flat earth!
1
-
@TheAIInvestor2024 Why would you feel the earth spinning? When you are on a train, do you feel some force wanting to throw you to the back of the train? When you are on a plane, do you feel some force wanting to throw you to the back of the plane? Besides, we're talking about one measly earth spin in a 24 hour period! You think that is some fast movement? Feeling that spin would be like watching paint dry!
Since I don't understand how sunrise and sunsets works on flat earth, why don't you explain it then?
Circular window of the surface of the earth can produce an image of a globe? Seriously? How long did it take you to make up that goofy nonsense?
I've studied the moon landing in depth, and haven't seen any evidence to prove a hoax. Care to elaborate on all that evidence? Please show the proof of fakery of 1/6 gravity in a vacuum? Especially since no Hollywood movie has ever been able to, to this day!
Of course things get smaller and smaller as they go further away, but why would the bottom of a ship disappear? What explanation would that be other than going over a curve? It can't be waves, unless they are 50-100 feet high! A straight road is not a valid example, as elevation comes into play.
So, why doesn't someone send a camera up in space to show the curve, just to try to appease a few misguided flat earther's? That's hilarious! It would be pointless anyway, since you would automatically declare it as fake! Right? You won't accept any photo or video, it all has to be fake, as far as you are concerned.
1
-
1
-
@TheAIInvestor2024 Strange how you are so passionate about your flat earth, make comment after comment about it, yet refuse to explain anything as to why you think it is flat? You just ramble on, making claims, but nothing to back it up. I suspect you are confused yourself, about how your flat earth is supposed to work.
Also, you say that this isn't about debunking flat earth, which we have, in many ways. If flat earth is debunked, then what are we left with? Uh...maybe a globe? So you see, debunking flat earth is proving the globe.
1
-
1
-
@TheAIInvestor2024 Because once the sunrise starts, the entire flat earth will see the sun, whether it be China or New York City, all at the same absolute time. Likewise, when the sun sets, the entire flat earth will go dark all at the same absolute time. To prove it in a simple experiment, all you need to do is suspend an opaque flat disc (or anything flat) in a darkened room, and use a handheld light to mimic the sun. Move it from comepletely below the disc, then above, then completely below the disc again and observe. The disc is either all lit or all dark, no partial states where some is and some isn't. That's why flat earth doesn't work.
Using the same experiment with a globe shows different results, which explains why some of the globe is dark, while another part of the globe is lit. That proves the globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NatureBoyWooo I probably know the flat earth theory, better than you do. To prove the earth a globe, all you have to do is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe. On your flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Even in darkness, that tiny little pinpoint of light, would still be visible. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, even at sunset. Thus, the earth is a rotating globe.
1
-
@NatureBoyWooo The earth makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. If you look at the big hand on an analog clock, the big hand would be moving twice as fast as the earth rotates. If you were on the moon looking back at the earth, it would look like it wasn't moving at all, though it would be. Stand there for an hour, and you'd notice it moved a few degrees. Now, before you start talking about 1000mph, maybe you need to understand how huge the earth really is. That's one of the main things flat earthers can't understand, how huge the earth really is. They are totally bamboozled by big things, huge distances, and big numbers like 1000mph. That's why they look at something that appears flat, and call it flat, even though it really isn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HuWhiteNat "Does a pilot constantly have to adjust the nose of the plane down to compensate for the sphere?"
Why do you parrot the same, dumb, flat earth nonsense? This just proves your ignorance about altitude and how pilots fly planes, and no, many pilots don't admit the earth is flat. Pilots fly by altitude, using a device called an altimeter. They don't fly by straight lines, and worry about flying in a straight line out into space. Also, altitude is equidistant around the earth, so if you are flying a particular altitude, you just maintain that altitude, and ignore the curvature of the earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If we are spinning at 1000 miles per hour even with gravity we should either perceive it or we wouldn’t be able to survive it. "
The earth makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. If you look at the big hand on an analog clock, the big hand would be moving twice as fast as the earth rotates. If you were on the moon looking back at the earth, it would look like it wasn't moving at all, though it would be. Stand there for an hour, and you'd notice it moved a few degrees. Now, before you start talking about 1000mph, maybe you need to understand how huge the earth really is. That's one of the main things flat earthers can't understand, how huge the earth really is. They are totally bamboozled by big things, huge distances, and big numbers like 1000mph and the sun being 93 million miles away. That's why they look at something that appears flat, and call it flat, even though it really isn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timishere1925 Did you see this, that I posted above?
Here is a partial list of some of the best photos of the earth from space. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS17-148-22725 to 22751, that's 26 photos.
AS08-14-2383 to 2394, that's 12 photos.
AS08-15-2535 to 2580, that's 46 photos.
AS08-16-2588 to 2609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-44-6668 to AS11-44-6696, that's 29 photos.
AS11-36-5293 to 5309, that's 17 photos.
AS11-36-5317 to 5381, that's 65 photos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ty-Leo False! There is no border control, no immigration officers, no police force, no nothing. Since no country owns Antarctica, no visa is required to travel there. If you are a citizen of a country that is a signatory of the Antarctic Treaty, you do need to get permission to travel to Antarctica. This is nearly always done through tour operators. If you are going on your own, you will most likely be asked to register your intended visit, list your travel plans and possible environmental impact, and agree to follow the regulations of the Treaty. If you come from a country that is not a signatory, you are not required to get a permit, but the ports that you leave from may insist that you have some sort of permission before you go.
I guess you think that if you can't go there to drill for oil, destroy native life, build permanent structures, leave trash, etc., that is some sort of infringement keeping you from going there? If that's the purpose you want to go there, then that will be frowned upon, and perhaps the boat or plane you were planning to take you there, wouldn't let you on board. The biggest obstacle keeping you from traveling to Antarctica is that it is expensive, it’s remote, it’s a harsh environment, and if something goes wrong it’s a long way to get the level of medical help you might conceivably need.
1
-
1
-
@tobyncummins "To debunk flat earth era once and for all the establishment only need to fly them down to Antarctica to prove once and for all that they were mistaken. "
That's a naive pipedream, at best. The establishment, whoever that is, wouldn't want to waste their time on what they perceive to be a relatively few group of people with mental problems. Flat earthers wouldn't volunteer for it, some too cowardly, for fear that their passionate flat earth fantasy world may be nothing but a fraud, and they couldn't take the embarrassment. Others would refuse, because they would seriously think that they were going to be taken and executed for their flat earth beliefs, never to be seen again. Maybe thrown over the edge, lol! Then others, like Eric Dubay, would never go, because it's too lucrative to keep up the show, enjoying that feeling of royalty, thus it's better to keep things the way they are. I don't think Eric Dubay personally believes the earth is flat, it's just a scheme for him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If i shine a small penlight on the ground"
If the penlight is the sun, and you're holding the penlight at arms length, and the scale is 2 miles by 2 miles, how is the penlight ever going to cover that scale of the earth? Even in a room the size of a gymnasium, you still wouldn't be able to cover the floor, and you would still be able to see a flicker of light from it on all corners of the gym floor. You seem to think that the sun is not as bright as it seems. The reality is that the sun is blindingly bright, and if only a pinpoint, you would still be able to see it. Look at the sun sometime and see how bright it is, hopefully you won't go blind in the process. Another problem, that in your theory, the sun gets smaller and smaller the farther away it moves. This is clearly false, just by observing the movement of the sun on a clear day. At sunrise, at mid day overhead, and sunset, the sun maintains the same size throughout the course of a day. Observe the sun setting at the ocean on a clear day. It certainly isn't getting smaller as it goes over the horizon. And again, it's going over the horizon, over the curve of the earth, not moving away and getting smaller as it goes.
1
-
@saltysergeant4284 I'm talking about covering the Earth in the circular motion you are talking about for flat earth. During that circular motion you are saying represents flat earth, after it's done it's full rotation, the whole earth should have been covered. A penlight, or 12 watt bulb would no way be able to accomplish that on a 2 mile field, or a gymnasium. The point is, that whatever light source you use, that is capable of covering the entire earth during it's rotation, would still be able to be seen from the farthest edges. This alone makes your flat earth model impossible, with the reality we see with our eyes. Also, your light source would have to get smaller and smaller as it gets farther away, which we know doesn't happen in reality either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1