It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ultra High Definition (4K) Crew Earth Observations

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Still being obtuse.

I didn't say this was fake, I suggested that if NASA was faking things it could be for other reasons then to cover up Flat Earth. Again not seeing the context in which the comment was made.....




posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: CollidinParticules




Others have given a valid explanation so they seem to understand what was being questioned.


Well then that's good you got your answer...something that didn't need to go 5 pages to answer had you been clearer sooner.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo




I have pointed out that the youtube link gives very helpful information about how that footage was obtained. It is not my problem if you seen unable to follow links and then follow up information with your own research.


I didn't ask you. So you are still claiming that the specific info I was looking for, applying to this specific vid can be found from that YT link?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Al your irrelevant postings are good for almost one page.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: CollidinParticules




I didn't say this was fake,


Well it has nothing to do with the FE BS, and your not saying it's fake...you see that is where the being clearer on the problem comes into play.



I suggested that if NASA was faking things it could be for other reasons then to cover up Flat Earth.


Such as?



Again not seeing the context in which the comment was made.....


And what context would that be?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: CollidinParticules




Al your irrelevant postings are good for almost one page.


Irrelevant to what your supposed problem that no one knows what it is?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




And what context would that be?


The context of the comment telling me I was trying to prove this is fake because of my Flat Earth views? You still have to ask? See, this is exactly what I meant. You just can't seem to follow the logical course of a discussion.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

See, again. I just told you that obviously some posters knew what I was talking about since they posted a valid explanation.

You even just said this yourself,



Well then that's good you got your answer...something that didn't need to go 5 pages to answer had you been clearer sooner.


Implying that it is clear now, then the next comment you act like you still don't get it.



edit on 30-5-2016 by CollidinParticules because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: CollidinParticules



See, again. I just told you that obviously some posters knew what I was talking about since they posted a valid explanation.


Well then you don't need to search for the answer then do you?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And yet another reply that doesn't make any sense. Since this explanation was posted, and I verified it, I obviously accepted it, so what are you talking about?

I don't think you made one reply that actually made sense in relation to the comment you responded too.
edit on 30-5-2016 by CollidinParticules because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: CollidinParticules




Others have given a valid explanation so they seem to understand what was being questioned.


Well then that's good you got your answer...something that didn't need to go 5 pages to answer had you been clearer sooner.


I think that he wasn't even sure what the problem was, but he saw something that seemed off to him.

Like he just couldn't put his finger on what it was.

Just my impression so far
.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: CollidinParticules

Can you explain what it is you are concerned with in the second video? I've read all 6 pages and I don't understand what it is you are asking about it.

The Earth stays the same size during the entire second video, so they did not zoom the camera (nor did the ISS seem to move closer during that video). But what if they did zoom the camera? They didn't, but why is that important?



edit on 5/30/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
Many thanks for this. It's great to see such superb, HQ videos.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustMike
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
Many thanks for this. It's great to see such superb, HQ videos.



I know wasn't it?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: CollidinParticules




Implying that it is clear now, then the next comment you act like you still don't get it.


SO you never agreed that what you were told is what your problem is with the video in fact you said it was a possibility...unless it's the answer your looking for then yes I am confused on what your problem is?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

You read all 6 pages, including the final explanation which I accepted and you still don't get what the perceived problem was?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: CollidinParticules




I don't think you made one reply that actually made sense in relation to the comment you responded too.


Because what I was commenting on made no sense.

Hard to make sense out of nonsense.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: CollidinParticules




You read all 6 pages, including the final explanation which I accepted and you still don't get what the perceived problem was?


No you said it was a possibility...that is a huge difference then actually accepting it.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

If you had any sense you wouldn't even try to prolong this particular discussion which exists due to you not understanding the context of posts, and your inability to make a logical continuation.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And here you go again. I called it a "possible explanation" when I was still trying to verify it. I even said so in that post. In the posts after that one I called it "a valid explanation".

See, no matter what, you just can't get it right.




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join