The Pale Blue Dot: Chapter Twenty One; Space Agencies – What Do They Really See?

Written By Thomas Perez. July 30, 2021 at 11:08PM. Copyright 2021.

The First Big Well Known Seven Space Agencies

Up until this point, I have covered only the space agency known as the ‘National Aeronautics Space Agency’ (NASA). I only covered them for two reasons, and two reasons alone; one, because I live in the country of the United States and two, NASA is considered to be the number one space agency out of the 78 agencies that exist today. Google places the number at 72 via Wikipedia.

However, according to operational status, there are 78 agencies still in existence as of today. Of those 78, 15 of them have launch capabilities. The RFSA – Russian Federation Space Agency is in 2nd place. While the ESA – European Space Agency, the ISRO – Indian Space Research Organisation, the CNSA – China National Space Administration, the JAXA – Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, and the SSI – Space Studies Institute in California are in a respectable 3rd to 7th place.

It is interesting to know that while NASA was established in 1958, the Russian space agency was created in 1922. The 5 remaining influential agencies came into existence relatively late in history. The European space agency was developed in 1975, the Indian space agency in 1969, the China space agency in 2003, the Japan space agency in 2003, and the SSI in 1977. The 78 Space Agencies, with their founding dates are as follows.

Space Agencies

1. Australian Space Agency – 2018

2. Belarus Space Agency – 2009

3. Mexican Space Agency – 2010

4. Algerian Space Agency – 2002

5. Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization – 2005

6. Austrian Space Agency – 1972

7. Space Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azercosmos) – 2021

8. National Space Science Agency – 2014

9. Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy – 1964

10. Bolivarian Agency for Space Activities – 2008

11. Brazilian Space Agency – 1994

12. UK Space Agency – 2010

13. Bolivian Space Agency – 2012

14. Bulgarian Space Agency – 1987

15. Canadian Space Agency – 1989

16. China National Space Administration – 1993

17. Colombian Space Commission – 2006

18. Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems – 1982

19. Czech: Ministerstvo dopravy České republiky (Ministry of Transport of the Czech Republic – Space Technologies and Satellite Systems Department – 2003

20. Luxembourg Space Agency – 2018

21. Danish National Space Center – 1968

22. European Space Agency – 1975

23. Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency – 2002

24. German Aerospace Center – 1969

25. Hellenic Space Centre – 2019

26. Hungarian Space Office – 1992

27. Indian Space Research Organisation – 1969

28. Spain – Instituto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial – 1942

29. Iranian Space Agency – 2004

30. Israeli Space Agency – 1983

31. Italian Space Agency – 1988

32. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency – 2003

33. National Space Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan – 2007

34. New Zealand Space Agency – 2016

35. Korea Aerospace Research Institute – 1989

36. Lithuanian Space Association – 2007

37. Malaysian Space Agency – 2002

38. U.S.A. – National Aeronautics and Space Administration – 1958

39. Egypt – National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Sciences – 1994

40. Singapore – Centre for Remote Imaging, Sensing and Processing – 1995

41. France – National Centre for Space Studies – 1961

42. Peru – National Commission for Aerospace Research and Development – 1974

43. Philippines – Department of Science and Technology – Advanced Science and Technology Institute – 2014

44. Philippine Space Agency – 2019

45. Costa Rica – Central American Association for Aeronautics and Space – 2010

46. Argentina – Comisión Nacional de Actividades Espaciales – 1991

47. Indonesia – National Institute of Aeronautics and Space – 1964

48. Uzbekistan – Uzbek State Space Research Agency (UzbekCosmos) – 2001

49. State Space Agency of Ukraine – 1992

50. Republic of China – National Space Organization – 1991

51. Nigeria – National Space Research and Development Agency – 1998

52. Netherlands Institute for Space Research – 1983

53. Norwegian Space Centre – 1987

54. Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission – 1961

55. Romanian Space Agency – 1991

56. El Salvador Aerospace Institute – 2020

57. Russia – Roscosmos – 1992

58. Turkish Space Agency – 2018

59. Bangladesh – Space Research and Remote Sensing Organization – 1980

60. Polish Space Agency – 2014

61. South African National Space Agency – 2010

62. Saudi Space Commission – 1977 and 2018

63. Vietnam National Space Center – 2006

64. Swedish National Space Agency – 1972

65. Swiss Space Office – 1998

66. Turkmenistan National Space Agency – 2011

67. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs – 1958

68. United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space – 1959

69. United Arab Emirates Space Agency – 2014

70. Dubai and United Arab Emirates – Mohammed bin Rashid Space Centre – 2006 and 2015

71. Syrian Space Agency – 2014

72. North Korea – National Aerospace Development Administration – 2013

73. Paraguayan Space Agency – 2014

74. National Remote Sensing Center of Mongolia – 1987

75. French – Centre national de la cartographie et de la télédétection – National Remote Sensing Center of Tunisia – 1988

76. Portugal Space – 2019

77. Morocco – Royal Center for Remote Sensing – Arabic – 1989

78. The RFSA – Russian Federation Space Agency – 1922.

What do these agencies have in common? – allies and enemies; more of the first rather than the later. For example, “The ISS has been the most politically complex space exploration program ever undertaken…” “Launched in 1998 and involving the U.S., Russia, Canada, Japan, and the participating countries of the European Space Agency – the International Space Station is one of the most ambitious international collaborations ever attempted.” (1).

Under “International Cooperation,” the countries involved in the ISS program are the United States – NASA, Russia – Roscosmos, Canada – CSA, Japan – JAXA, and Europe – the ESA country members include Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. All of the European nations, including the outsiders like the United States, Canada, and Japan are in collaboration with each other – the are allies. Allies often keep to their secrecies. While Russia – outside of her cooperation with the ISS, and having her own launch capabilities, are committed to their own secrecies. The same holds true for China. China is committed to its secrecies as well.

(1). https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/cooperation/index.html

The international cooperation is all well and good, but one thing still remains. No agency, and I do mean absolutely no agency, has ever sent an astronaut, cosmonaut or taikonaut beyond low Earth orbit, except for the United States, supposedly. “Only the United States has sent people beyond low Earth orbit, but experts say U.S. preeminence in space could be challenged. China became the third nation to independently launch a human into orbit in 2003 and its capabilities have since grown.” (2).

(2). https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/space-exploration-and-us-competitiveness

Out all the agencies, the ESA is the only agency that receives funding and support from its 22 different European countries, including the United Kingdom. Even Canada supports their endeavors – being an associate member. As mentioned above, many of these countries have their own space agencies – but they are all operated under a united central space “umbrella,” so to speak – the ESA. While the United States, Canada, Russia and Japan remain independent, but cooperative with each other.

However, the more I dig deeper into the topic of “manned Apollo missions to the Moon and back,” the more I am convinced that the other space agencies were duped into the hoax of it all, just like “Mr. and Mrs. Front Porch” was in 1969. See the following video…

Supposedly, except for the United States Apollo missions; the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs – 1958, the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space – 1959, the Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission – 1961, Indonesia – National Institute of Aeronautics and Space – 1964, France – National Centre for Space Studies – 1961, Spain – Instituto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial – 1942, Indian Space Research Organization – 1969, German Aerospace Center – 1969, Danish National Space Center – 1968, the Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy – 1964, and the Russian Federation Space Agency – 1922, no space agency created before, or during, 1969 has ever landed a Human being on the Moon or photographed any elaborate pictures of the Earth as a globe.

Why? Even Russia, with all her Sputnik glories of 1957 couldn’t achieve such a feat. But the United States supposedly did. She had to – it was a “cold war space race.” She could no longer be embarrassed by the former Soviet Union or the unpopular war that was taking the lives of thousands of young American troops in the far East – via Vietnam. She needed a distraction. She had to keep her promise. The promise that before the 60’s would come to a close, the United States will have landed a man on the Moon and safely bring him back home in time for Corn Flakes. The United States, after becoming the dominate superpower of the 1950’s after World War two, and proving its ideological, political, military and economic stance as the better system over fascism and communism, she had to demonstrate her superiority in space. Perish the thought that Russia could be far advanced in these things than the United States. It was the most elaborate hoax of all time.

But for the sake of this chapter, I will focus on the agencies that have launch capabilities. As mentioned above, there are 15 agencies that have acquired this capability. The following agencies have launch capabilities…

1. Australian Space Agency

2. China National Space Administration

3. European Space Agency

4. Iranian Space Agency

5. Israeli Space Agency

6. Italian Space Agency

7. National Aerospace Development Administration – N.Korea

8. Korea Aerospace Research Institute – S.Korea

9. Indian Space Research Organisation

10. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

11. National Aeronautics and Space Administration – United States

12. Centre National d’Études Spatiales – France

13. State Space Agency of Ukraine

14. Roscosmos – Russia

15. United States Space Force

Obviously, out of the 15, 10 are allies with one another. However, the United States manages to enjoy cordial, friendly and strategic relations with Russia and China. But tensions with N. Korea and Iranian governments still persist. Being capable of launch mechanisms, what do they see when they travel up to space? – beyond the Karman Line – which is 54 nautical miles; 62 miles; 330,000 feet above Earth’s main sea level. Do they see the curvature of the Earth? Or do they see a flat Earth?

In Chapters six, eight, and twelve, it was demonstrated and revealed that what we see courtesy of NASA’s lenses and video “live stream” technologies are due to their constant reliance upon fisheye methods. And as we have learned, fisheye lenses distort images. They turn flat surfaces into curvatures. We also learned about perception and illusion. But what do the astronauts, cosmonauts, and taikonauts see? What do they see with their own naked eyes? Do they see a curved or flat Earth? To answer that question, we must look at the comparisons. The following photographs are a few of these comparisons. The first two pictures show a dominate curve. It is obviously taken from the ISS, which is supposedly 250 miles above. The last three pictures show a flat Earth from an amazing 32,000 miles up, and two more comparisons. So, what gives here?

As we have already discovered in our previous chapters, they tell us that we can see the curvature of the Earth from a plane at 30,000 to 35,000 feet high. The following video from Facebook shows an altitude that is well above that. The video is filmed from 32,000 miles, not feet, but miles up, without a fisheye lens. Where is the curve? When you do see a curve, what you are seeing is an illusion – see Chapter 12. The bending of light distorts an image. “Light can bend around corners. In fact, light always bends around corners to some extent. This is a basic property of light and all other waves. … The ability of light to bend around corners is also known as “diffraction.” Light can therefore bend around the corner of an object by riding the curved surface of the object.” (3).

Any physics student knows that light travels in a straight line. But now researchers have shown that light can also travel in a curve, without any external influence. The effect is actually an optical illusion…” (4).

The following picture is a good demonstration of how curves can, by way of optical illusion, appear upon a flat disk…

(3). https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2014/02/07/can-light-bend-around-corners/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20light%20can%20bend%20around,light%20and%20all%20other%20waves.&text=The%20ability%20of%20light%20to,also%20known%20as%20%22diffraction%22.

(4). https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/04/light-bends-itself

We must remember that “Light has momentum and energy, so it is a source of gravity.” (5). “Light has energy, energy is equivalent to mass, and mass exerts gravitational force. Thus, light creates gravity, i.e., the bending of space-time.” (6). Rather it is a source for electromagnetism. Electric charges and magnets are manifestations of certain types of matter, most particularly electrons. Since matter carries energy, such objects will have a so-called “gravitational” field.

(5). https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22876/does-a-photon-exert-a-gravitational-pull

(6). http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1582

However, when it comes to planes, the illusion can also be seen due to them having double inserted windows to protect us from air pressure. The outside window is curved, the inner window is flat. Hence, the discrepancies by many. However, and this is most important, just because you see a curve doesn’t mean that it is a sphere – remember, “Quarters have curves but they are flat.” See flat horizon video below…

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2948414011868603&id=100001000994657

Continuing with our comparisons, before Sputnik in 1957, the V2 Rocket test launch was performed in 1946 (the 1st 9 B&W pictures). Moving fast forward, the Red Bull jump was 24.2 miles high. That is 127,776 feet (10th picture). While back in 1984, Bruce McCandless floated from 317 kilometers; that’s 171 NMI (nautical miles) high. That’s 1,040,024 ft high (11th picture). While the ISS is 250 miles high – that’s 1,320,000 ft high.

Now, Let’s do some quick checking up on these things.

“On October 24, 1946, that’s 12 years before NASA, researchers at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, strapped a Devry 35-millimeter movie camera into the nose of a V2 rocket captured from the Nazis and blasted it towards space. The rocket shot straight up, 65 miles into the atmosphere before sputtering to a stop and descending back to Earth.

Now, 65 miles is 343,200 ft! That is even higher than our 35,000 ft, 90,000 ft accomplishments in typical aviation, and much higher than Red Bull’s jump from 127,776 ft. Now, they say; “You should be able to detect a curvature from a plane at a cruising height of around 35,000 feet, but you need a fairly wide field of view (ie 60 degrees) and a virtually cloud-free horizon.” But in a video from 1946 showing the V2 rocket in space there is still no curvature of the Earth; not even at 343,200 ft high. Now, you know for a fact that the Earth is extremely distorted in the Red Bull video. Its actually pretty funny to me.

The 1946 video is funny too. What makes the video funny to me is when the commentator says, at the 1:27 mark into the video the following, quote; “Astonishingly, we can see the curvature of the Earth in this still (frozen) picture.” Unquote. Really, where? Look at the pictures and the time played into the film. There is no curvature. That journalist must have been indoctrinated to the core of his brain and eyeballs. We do not see a curvature because the camera did not utilize the fisheye lens that NASA-chooses to use today.

A blogger (a collector) reported this about the Devry camera used in 1946: “The lens port is rather small (about 32mm across) and so I cannot see much of the shutter blade. The best I can make out is that it is less then 180 degrees and more than 90.” Remember, according to science you only need a 60° field of view and a cloud free horizon to see the so-called curvature. But yet at 90° I still see no curvature in the film. That is because the camera showed the Earth for what it really is. Today they all use fisheye lenses. Fisheye lenses were created in September 1923 and have a 180° coverage. However, they began to be greatly utilized in the 1960’s.

Another thing that I find extremely funny is the fact that some of my critics have actually asked me, “Why do I make a big deal out of the mechanisms of fisheye lenses?” Some have even said; “NASA doesn’t use them, and if they do, it is only for specific occasions.” However, this is not true. NASA admits to the distortion – click the NASA link below (7) for confirmation of this. I already covered these things extensively in chapters six and eight. It’s just like I said, “We are not seeing the Earth in all her glory.” See pictures 12 to 14.

(7). https://www.nasa.gov/missions/science/ipix_camera.html

See following pictures…

Another interesting comparison are the similarities between space agencies. The China Rover animation Mars mission actually copies that of the United States. Are they all in this together – in cahoots? If so, this “togetherness” is similar to the Antarctic Treaty between nations that actually dislike each other – see chapter fifteen. Anybody who’d believe the following YouTube video would believe anything. Just think about it. Its common sense. If both of these videos were part of a term paper someone would of been given an “F” for wonderful plagiarism. Moreover, where is the out-cry from the United States against China for plagiarism? See videos below…

They show more to us through animation and trickery than reality, as the following video demonstrates…

Here is another video, but this one is made by me. It is a sarcastic, but truthful, video in reference to the Mars Curiosity Rover. I spent 4 plus hours scrutinizing this so-called 360 panoramic view from the Mars Curiosity Rover after seeing two pictures from a flat Earth blogger named Shalee Brindley in a flat Earth group page on Facebook. I had to verify this for myself, even if it comes from a flat Earther – you never know who might be a troll. But I finally found “it” too on NASA’s website. It’s very simple people – just use your eyes and look carefully at the fakery. For your convenience, I uploaded pictures below the following video, so you can focus in more clearly; just in case if you cannot view the video clearly.

 

The first picture is what NASA sent us from Mars…

The second picture is the same picture. But you will notice that I circled three objects in red. They are rocks. The rocks are exactly the same on both sides…

Rocks on the right side…

Rocks on the left side…

They are completely identical. And here is a wonderful ‘Toys R Us’ broken “plastic” wheel “on Mars.”

I can go on and on showing comparison after comparison, but I am confident that you know what I am demonstrating. Now, getting back to reality. When astronauts, cosmonauts or taikonauts are in LEO what do they see? They see a flat plane, a flat horizon. But they also see a curvature. It is not the curvature of the Earth, however. It is simply a curvature bend due to incoming light. As we have learned above, light bends objects, especially objects from a distance, like bridges supposedly going over the horizon due to the alleged curvature of the Earth. Observe the following pictures…

The preceding pictures are based upon facts. No Bridge maker, Railway trails that got laid down, highways that get paved/installed over hundreds of miles or Canals use any Earth curve calculations to build these structures over distance. Globe Earth believers can try to project their view onto flat Earthers, but they fail each and every time. Moreover, it’s funny when people post these pictures trying to prove a curve when all camera lenses suffer from compression, especially when zoomed in. Even the “The human eye compresses luminosity (light – T. Perez). In other words, we are unable to see true dynamic range. It is a physical impossibility.” (8).

(8). https://www.brucepercy.co.uk/blog/2016/6/24/human-eye-response#:~:text=The%20human%20eye%20compresses%20luminosity,It%20is%20a%20physical%20impossibility.

However, as we have learned in chapter one, there is supposed to be a curvature every M² x .7993624 = d or in simpler terms M² x 8 = d. As written in chapter one, this “means that for every mile of the distance between you and a second object, the curvature will obstruct 8 inches of its height.” This is simply untrue, especially when we utilize cameras like the Nikon P900 or P1000 which can eliminate zoom compression; hence bringing things back into focus on a straight line when they supposedly went down/over the alleged curvature of the Earth. This alone demonstrates the absurdity of the globe Earth model and its Pythagorean mathematics.

Conclusion

Since it is to be considered unknowable as to what the astronaut, cosmonaut or the taikonaut sees with their own naked eyes when in LEO, we can rest assuredly know that what they do see on a given particular day/night is due to the bending of light and eye compression. But they also see the more plausible flat Earth liner plane when in certain positions while in LEO. I am not referring to height, I am referring to position while in a particular height – even from the ISS, as the following picture, taken from chapter six, demonstrates…

The picture, as mentioned in chapter six is that of “Expedition 47 Flight Engineer Tim Peake of the European Space Agency (who) photographed rare, high altitude noctilucent or “night shining” clouds from the International Space Station on May 29, 2016. Polar mesospheric clouds – also known as noctilucent clouds – form between 76 to 85 kilometers (47 to 53 miles) above the Earth’s surface.” If the ISS is supposed to be 250 miles up, then this picture is in direct contradiction to the pictures and video feeds from the ISS taken above.

They see light bending, they admit to compression and/or a flat Earth plane, but what they choose to show us; whether from a LEO, or from a studio, is their trickery and illusion of distances persistent within every single streaming video, video shot, and photographic imagery; utilizing their fisheye technologies. When utilizing a blue or green screen as spoken of in chapter eleven, video and photographic fisheye lenses are often greatly used; while astronauts, and the like, are seen in the foreground.

And out of the 15 space agencies that have launch capabilities, all of them utilize fisheye lenses. Simply Google “Russian Fisheye Cameras” or any country from the other 14 mentioned above, and you will notice that they all use fisheye lenses. They will never admit to seeing a flat horizon, even if they saw it for an extended amount of time. It simply does not fit with their version of science history, Hermeticism, or preconceived notions on the shape of the Earth. However, there is some good news over the horizon – no pun intended.

“Engineers at MIT, in partnership with the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, have devised a way to build a camera lens that avoids the typical spherical curve of ultra-wide-angle glass, while still providing true optical fisheye distortion. “…”This is the first time that a flat lens has been able to product clear, 180-degree images that cover a true panoramic spread. The engineers were able to make it work by patterning a thin wafer of glass on one side with microscopic, three-dimensional structures that are positioned very precisely in order to scatter any inbound light in precisely the same way that a curved piece of glass would.” (9).

“This design is just one example of what’s called a “Metalens” — lenses that make use of microscopic features to change their optical characteristics in ways that would traditionally have been accomplished through macro design changes — like building a lens with an outward curve, for instance, or stacking multiple pieces of glass with different curvatures to achieve a desired field of view.” (Ibid).

“What’s unusual here is that the ability to accomplish a clear, detailed and accurate 180-degree panoramic image with a perfectly flat metalens design came as a surprise even to the engineers who worked on the project. It’s definitely an advancement of the science that goes beyond what many assumed was the state of the art.” (10. Ibid).

But I suppose globe spherical Earth adherents would cite in the near future that “The only reason the Earth appears flat in these newly released images is because some space agencies are now using the metalens design.” How unfortunate.

(9). https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/18/mit-engineers-develop-a-totally-flat-fisheye-lens-that-could-make-wide-angle-cameras-easier-to-produce/amp/#referrer=https://www.google.com&csi=0

10. Ibid.