165. The ISS is a hologram or a drone

"NASA claims one can observe the International Space Station pass by overhead proving its existence, yet analysis of the “ISS” seen through zoom cameras proves it to be some type of hologram/drone, not a physical floating space-base. As you can see in my documentary “ISS Hoax,” when zooming in/out, the “ISS” dramatically and impossibly changes shape and color, displaying a prismatic rainbow effect until coming into focus much like an old television turning on/off.  Through a telescope you can see something that looks like this, synched with the "ISS Tracker" website, claiming it to be the ISS."



A hologram?  Really?  It seems that Dubay believes the things in Sci-fi films more than he believes in science.  I wonder if he is aware that the "fi" stands for "fiction".

The analysis that Dubay pretended to do can’t have been very thorough if he can’t tell the difference between a drone and a hologram.  Maybe it could also have been …. A space station?  Just a suggestion.

Real holograms don't hack it

I suppose he mentions holograms because he has watched too much Star Trek and assumes that you can create a 3D image of things in mid-air that is visible from any angle.  This is utter nonsense.  If we could do that we would have holographic films instead of having to wear cardboard glasses.

Holograms can be created, but they have to be created in or on something.  E.g. There are holograms on some countries banknotes E.g. Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain and the  European Union.

Holograms do not have a wide viewing angle.  Consequently it is impossible to create a hologram that would be visible from a wide area on Earth.  You also need a light source, so you still have to have something physical flying around as well, which would defeat the purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography



" [The ISS] changes shape and color, displaying a prismatic rainbow effect until coming into focus much like an old television turning on/off"

The shape and colour distortions are easily explained by atmospheric effects.  The image is very small and formed by light that has travelled through a lot of atmosphere.  Of course it is not sharp and clear.

Re the television comment ... Is Dubay suggesting that NASA could build a hologram and place it in a simulated orbit but keeping the image in focus was beyond them?  I think atmospheric distortion is the simpler explanation of the two.

Could it be a drone?

What about a drone?  Sure why not.  It would of course have to be a drone that never landed to refuel, or possibly was re-fuelled regularly in flight by an invisible air tanker.  Solar power would be a possibility in theory, but currently (2018) the world endurance record for a solar-powered drone is only 81 hours held by AtlantikSolar and that has only been around since 2015.

https://www.atlantiksolar.ethz.ch/

Dubay's ISS Hoax video

As for his ISS Hoax video it just contains repeated unsubstantiated statements.  That motion couldn’t happen, there is a wire CGI’ed out.etc etc.  Utter nonsense, but I guess flat earthers will disbelieve whatever they want to disbelieve.  For this reason, photo or video evidence is next to useless for arguing a point either way.


< Prev     161-170    Next >

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

127. Straight reflections of sunlight and moonlight are impossible on a spherical Earth

Image
"The fact that the Sun and Moon’s reflections on water always form a straight line path from the horizon to the observer proves the Earth is not a ball. If Earth’s surface was curved it would be impossible for the reflected light to curve over the ball from horizon to observer." This is a flawed argument because Dubay does not understand how reflections operate Although he doesn't describe it very well, I presume that Dubay is referring to the angle of reflection from a curved surface.  I.e. the curve of the Earth would mean that the angle of reflection off the surface would result in nearly all the light  not reaching the observer's eyes. The fact that, if this was how reflections worked, that the same would be true on a flat Earth seems to have escaped Dubay's notice. This type of reflection is called specular reflection, and takes place with mirror like surfaces.  Generally the surface of the water is not perfectly flat so the reflection of the light...
Read more

Debunking Eric Dubay's 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball

Image
Conspiracy Baloney aims to provide resources to counter to the influence of the crazy anti-science conspiracy theories that are out there. This blog is specifically to debunk Eric Dubay's " 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball", that I have found flat earthers often cite. There are quite a few resources out there that comprehensively debunk this book, but I think that one more voice can only help.  I have tried to keep the rebuttals as non technical as possible. Eric Dubay’s proofs are laughably simplistic and demonstrate an almost complete lack of understanding of maths and anything scientific or technical. A list of "proofs" that show Dubay is an idiot He also likes to give historical quotes as proofs.  Typical are quotes from the 1800’s but he even has one from before 1600!.  Not only are these opinions not proof of anything, but the fact that he can’t provide quotes from more up to date sources destroys their credibility. Worse, ...
Read more

If Earth was a sphere the visible stars would be different

Image
The visible stars are a big problem for flat Earthers because what we observe is 100% consistent with a spherical Earth and completely impossible on a flat Earth. Their solution?  Simply to lie about what is observed.  These lies include denials of observations that are impossible on a flat Earth and pretending that observed stars would be impossible on spherical Earth. For the latter, it could be that Dubay simply can't do simple trigonometry but I think that he is once again deliberately lying. The strange thing about this is that everyone is capable of putting these claims to the test simply by looking up at the night sky.  The fact that flat Earth believers refuse to put these "proofs" to the test tells you that they are not really interested in truth, they are only interested in feeling good about their beliefs and will simply unquestioningly accept as fact anything that backs up these beliefs. Ignorance truly is bliss. 99...
Read more