Originally Written By Thomas Perez. July 25, 2017 at 10:40pm. Copyright 2017. Updated 2020.
In Reference to Satellites
Flat Earther’s often argue the case of why we don’t see orbiting satellites in space during live video streaming feeds from NASA TV. They often ask; “Where are all the satellites?” However, NASA has finally solved that dilemma. According to a NASA application program, we can now see satellites in space. Here is the link to the application that works in conjunction with NASA; http://www.popsci.com/now-you-can-see-all-space-junk-floating-around-earth-real-time
The following pictures are satellites seen through space via the application. Only the first 4 pics are from the NASA application. The remaining 3 pics were uploaded by me for further enhancement of what the application is showing us. The 1st pic is displaying the number of satellites seen in space. Each colored dot is representative of a satellite. The 2nd pic is representative of a chosen colored satellite picked at random, in this case green, showing it’s particular orbital flight path with it’s range, altitude and velocity, etc. The 3rd pic is the same as the 2nd. But in this case I decided to zoom in. Note: after deciding to zoom in as much as I could, the application turned into what looked like a city grid (lines running parallel up and down and from east to west, intersecting). It was like something out of the Matrix. The 4th pic is pretty much what you get when you first download the image and “crunching numbers.” The remaining 3 pics are merely artist’s renderings of what such a scenario might look like.
According to ‘Universe Today;’ “there are 1071 operational satellites in orbit around the Earth. 50 percent of which were launched by the United States.
Half of that 1071 are in Low-Earth Orbit, just a few hundred kilometers above the surface. Some of the most notable of these include the International Space Station, the Hubble Space Telescope, and many Earth observation satellites.
About a twentieth are in Medium-Earth Orbit, around 20,000 kilometers up, which are generally global positioning satellites used for navigation. A small handful are in elliptical orbits, where their orbit brings them closer and further to the Earth. The rest are in geostationary orbit, at an altitude of almost 36,000 kilometers.
If we could see these satellites from Earth’s surface, they would appear to hang motionless in the sky. The fact that they remain over the geographic same area means they provide the perfect platform for telecommunications, broadcast or weather observations.
But there are many, many more artificial objects orbiting the Earth. In this collection of space debris we’re talking spent boosters, dead satellites, and even misplaced gloves. According to the United States Space Surveillance Network, there are more than 21,000 objects larger than 10 cm orbiting the Earth. Just a small fraction of these are operational satellites. It’s estimated there are a further 500,000 bits and pieces between 1 and 10 cm in size.” https://www.universetoday.com/42198/how-many-satellites-in-space/
However, the application is nothing more than a geodetic system of locations based upon a computer program of sorts – not seen from space at all. Since the program fails to show us any real evidence of such, we must still ask the question; “Where are all the satellites?” I am confident that we all would like to see just one, two, or maybe even three satellites hovering motionless above the earth. Any day now, the sooner the better. But we do not. Nevertheless, many sources claim that they are there.
When faced with this dilemma, we must conceade that the presupposition taken by flat Earthers, that deny the existence of supposedly thousands of active and non-active satellites orbiting in space, as the more extremely plausible position. For the flat Earther, it is one of the better observational and reasonable deductions thus far. Or is it? To answer that question, one must realize that the Earth is a very, very big place. It’s hard to say why, but people generally tend to underestimate the sheer enormity of our planet. Our planet is HUGE, in the real sense of the word. In comparison, the objects that orbit the planet are – for the lack of a better word to denote minuteness – puny.
The International Space Station
The International Space Station (ISS) – the biggest man-made object currently spinning around the planet, is also puny when compared to Earth. For example, the ISS has a surface area of around 2,500 square meters or 0.0025 square km. It is almost equal to the size of a football field. In contrast, the surface area of the Earth is 510.1 million km squared. The ISS was launched in 1998. With this information at hand, we can now calculate how many ISS’es would it take to completely cover the Earth’s surface by applying simple arithmetic.
Surface area of Earth = 510,100,000km2
Surface area of ISS = 2500km2
= 0.0025km2. So 510,100,000/0,0025 = 204,040,000,000. Which is 204 billion.
So, it would take 204 billion ISS’es to entirely cover the planet! To have some idea of what this means visually, take a look at this picture:
Naturally then, since the ISS is like a tiny dot when compared to the size of the Earth, then other orbiting bodies are relatively even tinier than that, and therefore, most of the time, can not be easily seen. Flat Earthers would speculate that because they can not be seen, actually really means that they are not there. But on the other hand, many would be quick to point out that sometimes, though rare, satellites do take photographic images of other satellites orbiting the Earth. However, after careful research, I have been unable to find anything that comes close to a photograph of a satellite orbiting inside the thermosphere (a layer of Earth’s atmosphere. More on the thermosphere below) which is clearly dark on the ISS’es live video stream(s). Its always either an artist’s rendering or a simple arial photograph taken from another obiting object above it – Earth’s curvature not included. Instead, it is always taken against the backdrop of Earth’s clouds – again, curvature not included. For an example of this, please observe the picture below.
The picture above was taken by NASA’s Landsat 8 satellite. The Landsat 8 orbits at around 428 miles (705 km) above Earth, 178 miles (286km) above the ISS; but still inside the thermosphere. Moreover, the site, a reputable site, cites that the image shows the ISS hidden in the clouds. In the clouds? If it is that low, shouldn’t we see, vapors of dissipating clouds, like frog, vanishing from it’s various lenses when on live video streaming?
Moreover, according to NASA; “Expedition 47 Flight Engineer Tim Peake of the European Space Agency 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.” The following picture is the actual photograph taken from https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/space-station-view-of-noctilucent-clouds
Not that it’s important, but some flat Earthers would ask; “Where is the curve?” Trying to debunk a curve is, well…pretty silly; since circles do have curves. According to https://www.howitworksdaily.com/10-incredible-space-robots/ “You should be able to detect it (the curvature) from an airplane at a cruising height of around 10,600 meters (35,000 feet), but you need a fairly wide field of view (I.e., 60 degrees) and a virtually cloud-free horizon.” However, and this is most important, whenever we see a live video feed or photograph from the ISS, even with a full body of clouds; it almost always shows, except if taking a photograph of a satellite against a full frame of Earth in the background on very rare occasions, a curved Earth. Moreover, if we are only able to see the curvature of the Earth beginning at an altitude of 35,000 feet (6.629 miles) then how can the ISS display a non-curvature (flat plane) at 1,320,000 feet (250 miles) in the picture above? Perhaps they descended down a bit to snap the picture, and ascended back above?
Impossible. Orbital objects simply do not go up or down. It’s defeats the purpose of an orbit. The ISS is in the same constant orbital altitude; day in and day out, year after year. However, according to NASA, “Each orbit takes 90-93 minutes, depending on the exact altitude of the ISS (that is 16x’s a day in a 24hr period – T. Perez). … The ISS orbital altitude drops gradually over time due to the Earth’s gravitational pull and atmospheric drag. Periodic re-boosts adjust the ISS orbit. As the ISS orbital altitude decays, the orbit tracks on Earth change slightly.” Moreover, Scott Kelly confirms this in a tweet on Twitter. Descent is due to what they call “gravity.”
The following two videos depicts the orbital path of the ISS on a flat equirectangular map and the flat Earth Gleason map…Note: “The equirectangular projection also called the geographic projection, lat/lon projection, or plane chart), is a simple map projection attributed to Marinus of Tyre, who Ptolemy claims invented the projection about AD 100.” (Wiki). While the Gleason map, also called the azimuthal equidistant projection map, was created in 1892.
The following GIF/picture illustrates how the ISS orbits the Earth with reference to day and night as projected on the flat equirectangular map and the flat Gleason map…
Its planned re-entry (decaying orbit) is scheduled for 2020 or beyond – with plans to start decreasing it’s orbit the year before. When it reaches 115 miles above the Earth, occupants will be evacuated to what they call cargo crafts. https://www.space.com/13071-international-space-station-reentry-plans.html
Perhaps the fisheye format was not used? Perhaps Tim Peake forgot to use it? Why use it at all, anyway? There are quite a few videos out there that show the Earth without the fisheye lenses. These videos show pilots flying up toward altitudes from 70,000 to 80,000 feet, while showing us the non-curvature of the Earth. There are also high altitude balloons that fly upwards to 100,000 – 120,000. And still, no curvature. However, let it be remembered that even if we were to see a curve, it just might as well be part of the curved circle of the Earth and not necessarily a spherical globe. For an example of fisheye curvatures on a flat circular surface, see my own personal quarter (coin) demonstration in chapter eight. But after reading most of the comments pertaining to these videos (the better ones anyway), it would seem, in all honesty, that the Globalists are nitpicking at straws.
But perhaps it is the flat Earthers that are the ones nitpicking at straws? Perhaps they are taking this a bit too far? However, in some cases, certainly not this one, an individual should not speculate, especially when empirical evidence suggests that satellites can not be seen. Yet nevertheless, people proclaim that they are there. But wait! There’s a contradiction that I can’t seem to get my head around. A contradiction that may co-inside with the oddities above and the so-called empirical evidence.
It is said that; “Geostationary weather satellites orbit the Earth above the equator at altitudes of 35,880 km (22,300 miles). Because of this orbit, they remain stationary with respect to the rotating Earth and thus can record or transmit images of the entire hemisphere below continuously with their visible-light and infrared sensors” (Wiki). Moreover, according to ‘Spacesim.org;’
“There are two basic types of weather satellites: those in geostationary orbits and those in polar orbits. Orbiting very high above the Earth, at an altitude of 35,800 kilometres / or 35,880 as cited in the paragraph above (the orbital altitude), geostationary satellites orbit the Earth in the same amount of time it takes the Earth to revolve once. From Earth, the satellite appears to stay still, always above the same area of the Earth. This orbit allows the satellite to monitor the same region all the time. Geostationary satellites usually measure in “real time”, meaning they transmit photographs to the receiving system on the ground as soon as the camera takes the picture. A series of photographs from these satellites can be displayed in sequence to produce a movie showing cloud movement. This allows forecasters to watch the progress of large weather systems such as fronts, storms, and hurricanes. Forecasters can also find out the wind direction and speed by monitoring cloud movement.
The polar orbiting satellite orbits in a path that closely follows the Earth’s meridian lines, passing over the north and south poles once each revolution. As the Earth rotates to the east beneath the satellite, each pass of the satellite monitors a narrow area running from north to south, to the west of the previous pass. These ‘strips’ can be pieced together to produce a picture of a larger area. Polar satellites circle at a much lower altitude at about 850 km.” That is 528.166 miles above. http://satellites.spacesim.org/english/function/weather/index.html
Similarly, according to The Smithsonian Institute; “satellites that orbit at different altitudes have different speeds. Satellites that are further away actually travel slower. The ISS has a Low Earth Orbit, about 400 kilometers (250 miles) above the earth’s surface. Objects orbiting at that altitude travel about 28,000 kilometers per hour (17,500 miles per hour). The GOES system of satellites, which tracks weather and other things, is in a geosynchronus orbit, 36,000 kilometers (22,000 miles) / or like it is cited above at 22,300 miles / above the earth. These satellites travel at about 11,000 kilometers per hour (7,000 miles per hour).” http://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/do-all-satellites-have-fly-same-speed-so-not-leave-their-orbit
Did you see it? It said; “above the Earth’s surface.” Keep reading.
In short, and to be more specifically broader; geostationary satellites, at an altitude of 35,880, travel at 6,858mph. Polar satellites, at an altitude of 528.166, travel at 17,000mph and the ISS, at an altitude of 250miles, travels at 17,150mph. With all that speed and birdseye views available, why can’t we see cloud formations, dissolves, or morphings from the ISS? Perhaps we can’t see it due to the height of the ISS in the actual thermosphere and it’s velocity? Ok, let’s look into that.
Weather satellites orbit the Earth at 528.166 – 22,300 miles above ground – traveling between 1,700 – 6,858mph. The thermosphere is at 50 – 440 miles above the Earth. The ISS orbits the Earth in the thermosphere at 220-250 miles above ground (1,320,000 ft or 1.32e+6), placing it in between the 50 and 440 mile mark of the thermosphere above – traveling at 17,150mph. From that altitude, again I repeat the question, and the question persists.
“Why can’t we see live video streams that can show us cloud formations, dissolves, or morphings from 220 – 250 miles above, traveling at 17,150mph?” But at the same time we can see them (the clouds) from weather satellites at 528 – 22,000 miles above, traveling at 1,700 – 6,858mph, forming, dissolving, and morphing?
Why such an oddity? Clouds are only 6,500 – 22,000 miles above. The ISS supposedly obits in between that. If we can see forming, dissolves and morphings of clouds from that distance, surely we should be able to see it from a measly 220-250 mile high altitude from the ISS’es live video stream. But I thought to myself, “perhaps they are referring to the origin (the beginning) of where the thermosphere starts and ends in calculation to it’s thickness and relative position of the ISS.”
But that couldn’t be the case because, the phrase “above the Earth’s surface” is used again. According to https://www.space.com/8876-international-space-station-numbers.html “248 (most calculate it at 250 -T. Perez) average distance in miles above Earth’s surface, the ISS orbits (400 kilometers). On a clear day, the ISS is easily visible to the naked eye from the ground.” Notice what the citation says ” from the ground” “above Earth’s surface.” So our calculation of miles could not be according to thermospheric measurements. According to all these measurements, wouldn’t that place the ISS under the clouds at a ratio difference of 0.026 and/or 0.088 in altitude with relation to cloud measurements in heights? According to the authorities, it certainly would.
It seems that we have no alternative, but to give this one to the flat Earthers. But wait! Perhaps, I should be more patient before conceding to this particular argument, and examine the nature of clouds. Ok, let’s do that.
In Reference to Clouds and Live Video Stream
The following are live feed/stream snap shots taken from the ISS TV Channel. I watched it for about an hour and 15 minutes or so. I was intrigued by the beauty of it all. I saw the image (Earth) turn from night to day, as the clouds became visible. But then I started to notice something quite odd. And when I did, I started taking snap shot pics. Five pics in all. You will notice that in the pictures clouds are not moving at all.
For I.e., look at the clouds that look like two eyes and the little patch of blue ocean water directly underneath it in pic number 5. This eye like description, with its little patch of blue ocean, is located on the top right hand corner of the pic. Once you’ve noticed that, work your way up to pics 4, 3, 2 and 1. You will notice that there is no change in cloud formation whatsoever. Not even so much as a slight variation. And all this on a globe that is supposed to be spinning in space at 1000 mph and hurtling through space at 67,000 mph?
According to flat Earthers, this is absurd! However, they fail to take into account that, according to mainstream science, the Earth actually spins 24 seconds on it’s axes a day. That is extremely slow. However, if you want to look at anything speeding, just look up at the Sun, Moon or stars as they rotate (according to flat Earthers, geocentrically) around the Earth, or as the Earth rotates around the Sun and stars (according to globalists, heliocentrically). Either model is fine for observing the speed of motion.
For a better understanding of what I am trying to convey in reference to clouds and patches of blue oceans, please click the link to the NASA Live Stream TV Video link below pic 5, and watch it for yourself, especially when the ISS is over the Earth during the risen sun. You decide.
Moreover, you can look at comparisons between video weather satellites and the ISS for yourself by Googling it, or by looking into various YouTube videos.
But moving right along; it is said, and believed that; “To make one complete rotation in 24 hours, a point near the equator of the Earth must move at close to 1000 miles per hour (1600 km/hr). The speed gets less as you move north.”
Similarly; “Earth is rotating on its axis at the familiar rate of one revolution per day. For those of us living at Earth’s mid-latitudes – including the United States, Europe, and Japan – the rate is almost a thousand miles an hour. The rate is higher at the equator and lower at the poles. In addition to this daily rotation, Earth orbits the Sun at an average speed of 67,000 mph, or 18.5 miles a second / The Sun, Earth, and the entire solar system also are in motion, orbiting the center of the Milky Way at a blazing 140 miles a second. Even at this great speed, our planetary neighborhood still takes about 200 million years to make one complete orbit – a testament to the vast size of our home galaxy / The Milky Way itself is moving through the vastness of intergalactic space. Our galaxy belongs to a cluster of nearby galaxies, the Local Group, and together we are easing toward the center of our cluster at a leisurely 25 miles a second / We, along with our cousins in the Local Group, are hurtling at a truly astonishing 375 miles a second toward the Virgo Cluster, an enormous collection of galaxies some 45 million light-years away.” https://stardate.org/astro-guide/faqs/how-fast-earth-moving-through-space
But with all this speed going on all around us, why can’t we see or feel it? According to Earthsky.org; “We can’t feel Earth’s rotation or spin because we’re all moving with it, at the same constant speed.”
Moreover, some might even go so far as to say that we sometimes do get a pretty good idea of Earth’s speed rotation when we look up and see the clouds moving and changing formation as a result of that movement. But movement of clouds are not dependant on a spinning ball. They move due to the forces of wind blowing upon them, and they move faster than the surface of Earth, which is supposedly spinning a 1000mph. On NASA’s live stream, the non movement of clouds are so noticable. It is extremely difficult not to become suspicious or questionable. Some might claim that the non-movement is due to weight and perception. Ok, let’s go over some things concerning the weight of an average cloud and perception.
According to Fiona MacDonald, we are told that; “Researchers have calculated that the average cumulus cloud – which is that nice, white fluffy kind you see on a sunny day – weighs an incredible 500,000 kg or 1.1 million pounds / Scientists have worked out that the water density of this cloud type is around a 1/2 gram of water per cubic metre. So, that’s about a marble’s worth of water in a box large enough for you and a friend to sit in. Not very much. Obviously, the density of other types of clouds would be much greater, but let’s stick to the cumulus for now / Once you’ve worked out the density of your cloud, you need to work out how big it is, which is a measurement that also varies widely / The US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, calculated that the average cumulus is about a kilometre across and roughly has the shape of a cube, so it’s as tall as it is wide / Do the math on that, and you’ve got a cloud with a volume of one billion cubic metres. Times that by your density and you get your answer of almost 500,000 kg. Or 100 elephants.” https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-how-much-a-cloud-weighs
How does something with all that weight, while not seemingly moving, stay afloat? “Clouds are also made up of water droplets that are sometimes so tiny that gravity has hardly any effect on them. And because of condensation, clouds are actually buoyant / Perhaps even more surprising is the fact that a cloud is actually less dense than dry air, so that keeps them floating.” (MacDonald).
Moreover, according to Scientific America; “Clouds are composed primarily of small water droplets and, if it’s cold enough, ice crystals. The vast majority of clouds you see contain droplets and/or crystals that are too small to have any appreciable fall velocity. So the particles continue to float with the surrounding air. For an analogy closer to the ground, think of tiny dust particles that, when viewed against a shaft of sunlight, appear to float in the air.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-clouds-float-when/
With reference to the speed of clouds; “Clouds can sometimes move at a few hundred miles per hour, but never over 500 mph. It gets more complicated when you notice how most clouds move generally eastward as seen from the ground. The Earth also spins eastward, so in fact the clouds are moving faster than the surface!”
Nevertheless, one would think that with all that space between the droplets of a cloud, you might see them move, change in size and variation. We do, here on earth, just like it is said. But we just don’t see it during NASA’s live video streams. Why not? A birds eye (perceptional) view from the Apollo or the ISS should be more telling than one from the bottom because of the high altitude in the thermosphere.
Maybe we can not see the clouds move due to the perception of the ISS video cameras being so far in space within the thermosphere. But remember, they are only 250 miles above the ground. While all weather satellites are 528 – 22,000 miles above ground. Shouldn’t something closer see movement much faster than something further? An easy demonstration of this case can be found when we simply board a train. A train is the fastest thing on ground level, at 70 to 180mph. We can see for ourselves that objects closer always move faster than objects that are further away. The same is similarly said for the heliocentric model. The further from the poles, the faster the rotation at the equator. So since the ISS’es video live streams are closer to the Earth than our weather satellites, we should definitely see morphings and movement of clouds, but we do not.
With reference to perception. Where exactly are we seeing these images from? Like I said the ISS is orbiting the thermosphere at 1,320,000 ft above (250 miles). The thermosphere is directly above the mesosphere and below the exosphere. It extends from about 90 km (56 miles) to between 500 and 1,000 km (311 to 621 miles) above our planet. https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/thermosphere-overview
The clouds and the sky are said to be at an average height of 6,500 to 20,000 – 22,000 miles high above the Earth. While Earth’s atmosphere is said to be 300 miles thick (from ground to top). With most of it within 10 miles of the surface. There are five main layers to this atmosphere. Working our way up from ground level we have; the Troposphere – 0 – 25 km (0 – 7 miles high), the Stratosphere – 25 – 50 km (7 – 31 miles high), the Mesosphere – 50 – 80 km (31 – 50 miles high), the Thermosphere – 80 – 700 km (50 – 440 miles high), and the Exosphere – 700 – 10,000 km (440 – 6,200 miles high).
As we have observed, planes can travel at altitudes of 35,000 ft (6.629 miles above). That places them at the highest point of the troposphere and just below the stratosphere. And not one single plane, pilot, co-pilot, or passenger ever took a snap shot of a curvature. More on the appearance of curvatures and flat planes in chapter eight.
However, let us be fair. When one watches NASA go live, we will quickly observe that the Earth appears to have a curvature. But this can be the result of cockpit window curvatures, fisheye lenses or deliberate distortion. However, in support of a spherical Earth, it would be impossible to deliberately distort the Earth without distorting the ISS’es solar panels that can be seen slightly overlapping the Earth. The only way possible for that reasoning to be feasible is to hang a model over the already curved image of the Earth. We do this all the time in modern TV and motion picture blockbuster films like; Star Wars, Gravity, and Kubicks 2001: A Space Odyssey. More on this in chapter eleven.
Signals, Pings and Reception
It may be possible that the ISS is not really above the Earth, orbiting at 250 miles above. However, if it is there, it should be of no concern to flat Earthers, since the orbiting ISS is said to be within low Earth orbit. But if the ISS, and all other orbiting satellites are not there, then how do we receive signals? I repeat the question from above; “where are all the satellites?” Where are the pings bouncing from? According to Newsweek and the New York Times, “99% of our transmissions come from under the water (oceans) not from satellites in space.”
From the New York Times; https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/10/technology/internet-cables-oceans.html
Update: As of Tuesday November 17, 2020 at 10:56am. Look carefully at the pictures, and at the time on my cell phone. The Space Dragon is supposedly docking with the ISS. Or did they already dock with it 8 or 16 hours ago? I watched two different so-called live feed channels on YouTube (its still live now, as of Tuesday Nov 17, 2020 10:56am, even as I am updating this article). According to the so-called “Live Feed” and from what I hear from the commentators, the Dragon crew has not boarded the ISS. However, according to other videos recorded 8 and 16 hours earlier, they did. So which is it? Somebody goofed big time. They better delete that posted video 8hrs ago. Its really kind of screwing up with their script. P.S. The last two pics are from Kubricks 2001: A Space Odyssey (1967). They are beginning to make the Earth look more and more like his version.
But you may still be asking the question; “How can they pull this off?” In chapter eight we will discuss NASA’s cameras, lenses and video equipment.
Another absurdity is the following depiction/image of the Earth from the ISS and SpaceX Tesla. Ludicrous to say the least. The size of the Earth is not the same. This is totally CGI.
And I would like someone to please explain the following images to me. We know that with the naked eye one can only see the ISS, and maybe other satellites, because they appear as little white dots moving – like stars. This is confirmed by the following quotation “To see the spacecraft, look in the direction indicated by “Approach” at the given time. You should see a slowly moving “star” (weather permitting).” They also tell us that one will need a program app to make out the details as seen in the photographs below.
It is said that we can track the ISS using different software programs. This is one of them…
The proceeding link was taken from this article…
Other software programs can found here…
They even tell us how to use these various programs, as cited here…
Question: How does the software to these various programs work? Answer: Since we can not see the image/object clearly; and since they appear as moving white dots moving across celestial bodies like the Sun and Moon, we need software programs to enhance the moving object. They admit this. But are we truly seeing the object that they are claiming? Is the object really in the sky, or is it a moving natural object? The possible answer to those questions can be found in Chapter 13.
However the following video, and many others like it, claim that they can actually see the ISS, but it still appears as a fast moving star. But after taking a still image of a flyby frame, people can capture the various details of the ISS, hence proving the existence of the ISS in space – in this case about 250 miles above the Earth.
Is the above video convincing? Unfortunately no; it is not. As stated above by skyatnightmagazine, these images are made from pre-programed apps that already have trajectories of a given object in them. Therefore, what we see may not be the true reality of that white flying, moving dot/star.
An object in view, in this case the ISS, can be found and calculated through its trajectory. “A trajectory or flight path is the path that an object with mass in motion follows through in space as a function of time.” – (Wiki). It can then be reasonably followed that any given object in its predicted trajectory can easily be programed into software enhancement; as the following link indicates…
After reading such citations, one when might exclaim, “This is absurd and ludicrous!” But is it really absurd and ludacris, especially when one considers everything covered above? However, that is what we are left to consider. Many would claim that this type of reasoning and logic can only lead to mere speculation and conspiracy theories. But what are conspiracy theories anyway? By what right is something considered a conspiracy theory? By what standard are such inklings of thought set up against? The norm? The mainstream? When one considers the observations; measurements, miles, kilometers, velocities, weights, apps, perceptions and distances – all coming from reliable sources discussed above, one should not simply concede to the obscure (the apparent norm), when it seems that the obscure is the performing obstructor. Instead one should reason onto themselves that something is not right. Something is amiss. Perhaps it is elusive, like trying to grip at water. If it is not, then I must ask, “Are they deceiving the masses?” If they are, “That isn’t very nice, you know. That isn’t very nice at all. Think about it. Think.”