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