I have seen the International Space Station with my own eyes.

I know right!  Next thing you know we'll be saying "There is no sun!  There is a super glowing carbon at the center of the disc whose reflection causes all the stars in the sky, the sun, the moon and brings us all out warmth  It is unseen and no one can detect it."

We have to slow down before our imaginations get out of hand!

jroa's statement is a frantic attempt at "de-bunking" at best. I won't even say "nice try, jroa" because it really wasn't much of a "nice try." LOL

If you think you can do better, then please, let us hear an FE argument from you that is better than mine.  Come on, you can do it, instead of just criticizing my arguments.  Let's see you come up with a better one. 

Quote from: Googleotomy on December 10, 2014, 11:58:39 AM

jroa's statement is a frantic attempt at "de-bunking" at best. I won't even say "nice try, jroa" because it really wasn't much of a "nice try." LOL

If you think you can do better, then please, let us hear an FE argument from you that is better than mine.  Come on, you can do it, instead of just criticizing my arguments.  Let's see you come up with a better one.

Do you really want to hear an FE argument from an REer? But if you want to hear a real RE argument, read the title again.

I think by now that any of us with even a basic knowledge of astrophysics understands that the ISS exists (of course) and that the thousands of photographic images from hundreds of private individuals with no vested financial interests are genuine.

As always on these types of forums, there's invariably a hard-core splinter group of conspiracy theorists such as Saros and legion.

This sweet and simple site from world-renowned astrophotographer Thierry Legault should clear up any doubts for the more rational flat earthers here, and also totally refute the absurd claims made by the usual conspiracy group.

SOLAR TRANSIT OF ISS AND ATLANTIS

There's absolutely NO way that any flat earther can prove without a doubt that these images are bogus.  Or, if they believe they are, then let them post their refutations here.  I'm betting we won't see any—other than unfounded personal guesses of course LOL.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 10, 2014, 05:18:49 PM

Quote from: Saros on December 10, 2014, 12:35:17 PM

There are numerous possibilities regarding ISS.

1.  a holographic projection
2.  a near earth asteroid
3.  an unmanned drone

I would say the most plausible is a projection. Waiting to prove me wrong.

1. Projected from what, on what, and from where?
2. It's been imaged and looks man-made. It's possible to see other craft docking with it.
3. How high? Powered by what? How fast is it going? What does it look like?

You've tossed out three pretty implausible alternatives. Can you explain them any further?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Honestly, how far down in the depths of fantasy do you people have to go before you will wake up to stark reality. This isn't star wars. It's not star trek. It's not flash Gordon.

Stop being so silly for crying out loud.
Craft docking with it. 

Laugh all you want. Your response isn't convincing that imaging the ISS can't be done. Simply declaring so means nothing. Any thoughts about the other two?

Saros brought up these alternatives. Still waiting for his response.

I think by now that any of us with even a basic knowledge of astrophysics understands that the ISS exists (of course) and that the thousands of photographic images from hundreds of private individuals with no vested financial interests are genuine.

As always on these types of forums, there's invariably a hard-core splinter group of conspiracy theorists such as Saros and legion.

This sweet and simple site from world-renowned astrophotographer Thierry Legault should clear up any doubts for the more rational flat earthers here, and also totally refute the absurd claims made by the usual conspiracy group.

SOLAR TRANSIT OF ISS AND ATLANTIS

There's absolutely NO way that any flat earther can prove without a doubt that these images are bogus.  Or, if they believe they are, then let them post their refutations here.  I'm betting we won't see any—other than unfounded personal guesses of course LOL.

First three images from Thierry Legault's site (http://legault.perso.sfr.fr)







From here: (http://www.harrisonruess.com/tag/international-space-station/)





The obvious question is: how many solar panels does this thing have?

The obvious question is: how many solar panels does this thing have?

You do understand that as the station was being built, they kept adding more solar panels, don't you?  Or do you think that the ISS went up all at once?

All the stations in "space station" pics look different.  How do you even know it's the same one?  Looks to me like a prop that keeps coming out but looks slightly different each time.

This one looks like a very good docking. Bravo to the actor, oops, I mean astronaut that managed this.
I also like the nice spacing they managed between the solar panels. There's a good gap between the first 4 and the second 4 which is good thinking just in case one bent a little, maybe, eh?
Anyway braavo to this team for their parking without damaging the paintwork.





Ooop's, what the hell's happened here?
What the bloody hell has happened here?
I spent my time praising these buggers and what do they go and do? They've only crashed their frigging shuttle nose first into the space station.
Talk about me giving them a reference for a good job. I feel silly now. It's not as if they had to back the thing in, is it? I mean, look, they parked it right into the station, nose first.

Don't tell me. I know what's going to happen here. The actor...oops, I mean, the astronaut commander flight pilot steerer shuttle docker thingy was tyiing his shoelaces on his suit. Ok, I'll let him off.

The damage is extensive mind you; and it's going to take some fixing.
In his haste to tie his laces, he's rammed the station and look....just look. He's rammed it that badly, he's forced the frigging solar panels together so they are too close now, although they do look a little bit smarter.
Hopefully the lights stayed on and all of the 5,678 lap tops were all fully charged.
I'm sure Chris Hadfield would have been onboard that one and he can do anything that bloke, so he would have floated out with his tool box, drill and ladders...oops, not thinking here. No ladders needed.

Anyway, he would have widened those solar panels out in no time, then went back in for a burrito before cleaning up any toxic spills with his trusty toxic kit bag of lone ranger type goggles and mask, plus toughened safety thin polythene gloves.

Fantastic. 

Quote from: legion on December 11, 2014, 11:12:40 AM

The obvious question is: how many solar panels does this thing have?

You do understand that as the station was being built, they kept adding more solar panels, don't you?  Or do you think that the ISS went up all at once?

I don't think it went up at all.

When you sit and think about it. What clowns would build a space station in that stupid shape and as flimsy as that.
I mean, we keep getting told that it keeps hitting drag, plus those ham fisted idiots that float out to repair silly things could easily make a right mess out there.

The dozy gits can't even hold a frigging spanner without losing it and we're expected to believe they constructed this large piece of junk. 
I will admit though. That thing probably is in space now I think about it. It's most probably hanging from someones loft space with the lights out. I think the jaffa orange was added in later. 

I bet the model enthusiast that put this together is proud. Space rider in kit form, from all good model shops.

When you sit and think about it. What clowns would build a space station in that stupid shape and as flimsy as that.
I mean, we keep getting told that it keeps hitting drag, plus those ham fisted idiots that float out to repair silly things could easily make a right mess out there.

The dozy gits can't even hold a frigging spanner without losing it and we're expected to believe they constructed this large piece of junk. 
I will admit though. That thing probably is in space now I think about it. It's most probably hanging from someones loft space with the lights out. I think the jaffa orange was added in later. 

I bet the model enthusiast that put this together is proud. Space rider in kit form, from all good model shops.

What shape should it be?

When you sit and think about it. What clowns would build a space station in that stupid shape and as flimsy as that.
I mean, we keep getting told that it keeps hitting drag, plus those ham fisted idiots that float out to repair silly things could easily make a right mess out there.

The dozy gits can't even hold a frigging spanner without losing it and we're expected to believe they constructed this large piece of junk. 
I will admit though. That thing probably is in space now I think about it. It's most probably hanging from someones loft space with the lights out. I think the jaffa orange was added in later. 

I bet the model enthusiast that put this together is proud. Space rider in kit form, from all good model shops.

There are certain people who believe an individual's personality is set by the conditions on the day they were born.

It's utter hogwash of course but it makes one wonder that if it were true, what the hell must have been going on the day you squirted out of your mother's ass.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 11:58:27 AM

When you sit and think about it. What clowns would build a space station in that stupid shape and as flimsy as that.
I mean, we keep getting told that it keeps hitting drag, plus those ham fisted idiots that float out to repair silly things could easily make a right mess out there.

The dozy gits can't even hold a frigging spanner without losing it and we're expected to believe they constructed this large piece of junk. 
I will admit though. That thing probably is in space now I think about it. It's most probably hanging from someones loft space with the lights out. I think the jaffa orange was added in later. 

I bet the model enthusiast that put this together is proud. Space rider in kit form, from all good model shops.

What shape should it be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_Space_Station

2007:


2008:


If you are happy believing things are constructed this way, then carry on.

I see no issue with the amazing photos you posted ( thanx by the way ) you offer no plausible reason for why it can't be constructed the way it is. By the way I have seen the space station with my own eyes.

If you are happy believing things are constructed this way, then carry on.

How should something like that be constructed?

I see no issue with the amazing photos you posted ( thanx by the way ) you offer no plausible reason for why it can't be constructed the way it is. By the way I have seen the space station with my own eyes.

You are welcome for the amazing photos. Can you share details about what you saw, please?

Iv seen it on a few occasions with the unaided eye and telescope. And it looked as it does in Many of the photos already posted on countless occasions. Does this help you?

Iv seen it on a few occasions with the unaided eye and telescope. And it looked as it does in Many of the photos already posted on countless occasions. Does this help you?

Not really. They all look different to me. Shall we say you saw a bright light and leave it at that?

No I saw what you see in the photos. I could easily make out the panels and the structure of the habitation modules and on one occasion a shuttle as well. Can you show me a picture where they look different and also why it could not be constructed in the way it was?

Quote from: Pythagoras on December 11, 2014, 12:33:19 PM

Iv seen it on a few occasions with the unaided eye and telescope. And it looked as it does in Many of the photos already posted on countless occasions. Does this help you?

Not really. They all look different to me. Shall we say you saw a bright light and leave it at that?

They look different to you?  Except for the last one, they look like the same ISS but with the solar panels in different orientations.  The last one looks the same except it is missing the four outermost banks of panels because, like Markjo said, it was not all built at once.

What makes you think that they are not what I described?  When you have looked at the ISS with your own eyes, what have you seen?

When you sit and think about it. What clowns would build a space station in that stupid shape and as flimsy as that.

If you are happy believing things are constructed this way, then carry on.

Incredulity is no substitute for a logical and well constructed thought.  Perhaps if you two have an acutal criticism to make you should make it.  How much do you know about engineering anyway?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 11:58:27 AM

When you sit and think about it. What clowns would build a space station in that stupid shape and as flimsy as that.

Quote from: legion on December 11, 2014, 12:14:50 PM

If you are happy believing things are constructed this way, then carry on.

Incredulity is no substitute for a logical and well constructed thought.  Perhaps if you two have an acutal criticism to make you should make it.  How much do you know about engineering anyway?

Can you name another project that has been constructed in a similar arse-about-tit manner? That may settle my incredulity somewhat.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 03:28:16 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 10, 2014, 05:18:49 PM

Quote from: Saros on December 10, 2014, 12:35:17 PM

There are numerous possibilities regarding ISS.

1.  a holographic projection
2.  a near earth asteroid
3.  an unmanned drone

I would say the most plausible is a projection. Waiting to prove me wrong.

1. Projected from what, on what, and from where?
2. It's been imaged and looks man-made. It's possible to see other craft docking with it.
3. How high? Powered by what? How fast is it going? What does it look like?

You've tossed out three pretty implausible alternatives. Can you explain them any further?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Honestly, how far down in the depths of fantasy do you people have to go before you will wake up to stark reality. This isn't star wars. It's not star trek. It's not flash Gordon.

Stop being so silly for crying out loud.
Craft docking with it. 

Laugh all you want. Your response isn't convincing that imaging the ISS can't be done. Simply declaring so means nothing. Any thoughts about the other two?

Saros brought up these alternatives. Still waiting for his response.

The burden of proof something is real lies on the person who makes the claim not on the one who denies it till he is granted the evidence. There is no reason for the ISS to be a real manned space station. Please name at least one good reason which strongly suggests it is manned and it is not just a drone-like thingy or a projection. I just gave you alternatives never said they are definitely true or I have evidence to back them up, but once again you're the one believing it is real, so where is the proof?
The funny thing is that many of you believe in stuff you cannot prove. I would believe anything you say if you can actually prove it without actually forcing me to believe something is a fact without any evidence.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 11, 2014, 08:45:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 03:28:16 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 10, 2014, 05:18:49 PM

Quote from: Saros on December 10, 2014, 12:35:17 PM

There are numerous possibilities regarding ISS.

1.  a holographic projection
2.  a near earth asteroid
3.  an unmanned drone

I would say the most plausible is a projection. Waiting to prove me wrong.

1. Projected from what, on what, and from where?
2. It's been imaged and looks man-made. It's possible to see other craft docking with it.
3. How high? Powered by what? How fast is it going? What does it look like?

You've tossed out three pretty implausible alternatives. Can you explain them any further?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Honestly, how far down in the depths of fantasy do you people have to go before you will wake up to stark reality. This isn't star wars. It's not star trek. It's not flash Gordon.

Stop being so silly for crying out loud.
Craft docking with it. 

Laugh all you want. Your response isn't convincing that imaging the ISS can't be done. Simply declaring so means nothing. Any thoughts about the other two?

Saros brought up these alternatives. Still waiting for his response.

The burden of proof something is real lies on the person who makes the claim not on the one who denies it till he is granted the evidence. There is no reason for the ISS to be a real manned space station. Please name at least one good reason which strongly suggests it is manned and it is not just a drone-like thingy or a projection. I just gave you alternatives never said they are definitely true or I have evidence to back them up, but once again you're the one believing it is real, so where is the proof?
The funny thing is that many of you believe in stuff you cannot prove. I would believe anything you say if you can actually prove it without actually forcing me to believe something is a fact without any evidence.

You need to contact the original source http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/

Quote from: Rama Set on December 11, 2014, 12:44:33 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 11:58:27 AM

When you sit and think about it. What clowns would build a space station in that stupid shape and as flimsy as that.

Quote from: legion on December 11, 2014, 12:14:50 PM

If you are happy believing things are constructed this way, then carry on.

Incredulity is no substitute for a logical and well constructed thought.  Perhaps if you two have an acutal criticism to make you should make it.  How much do you know about engineering anyway?

Can you name another project that has been constructed in a similar arse-about-tit manner? That may settle my incredulity somewhat.

Do you mean something constructed by way of modular construction?

Quote from: Rama Set on December 11, 2014, 12:44:33 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 11:58:27 AM

When you sit and think about it. What clowns would build a space station in that stupid shape and as flimsy as that.

Quote from: legion on December 11, 2014, 12:14:50 PM

If you are happy believing things are constructed this way, then carry on.

Incredulity is no substitute for a logical and well constructed thought.  Perhaps if you two have an acutal criticism to make you should make it.  How much do you know about engineering anyway?

Can you name another project that has been constructed in a similar arse-about-tit manner? That may settle my incredulity somewhat.

Again, I have to question your expertise to even call the construction ISS "arse-about-tit".  Other than it not looking like Babylon 5, what exactly is wrong with it?  C'mon now, use your words.

Quote from: legion on December 11, 2014, 12:52:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 11, 2014, 12:44:33 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 11:58:27 AM

When you sit and think about it. What clowns would build a space station in that stupid shape and as flimsy as that.

Quote from: legion on December 11, 2014, 12:14:50 PM

If you are happy believing things are constructed this way, then carry on.

Incredulity is no substitute for a logical and well constructed thought.  Perhaps if you two have an acutal criticism to make you should make it.  How much do you know about engineering anyway?

Can you name another project that has been constructed in a similar arse-about-tit manner? That may settle my incredulity somewhat.

Do you mean something constructed by way of modular construction?

Yes, examples such as those will be fine. As long as the modules change position throughout construction, as the ISS has.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 11, 2014, 08:45:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 03:28:16 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 10, 2014, 05:18:49 PM

Quote from: Saros on December 10, 2014, 12:35:17 PM

There are numerous possibilities regarding ISS.

1.  a holographic projection
2.  a near earth asteroid
3.  an unmanned drone

I would say the most plausible is a projection. Waiting to prove me wrong.

1. Projected from what, on what, and from where?
2. It's been imaged and looks man-made. It's possible to see other craft docking with it.
3. How high? Powered by what? How fast is it going? What does it look like?

You've tossed out three pretty implausible alternatives. Can you explain them any further?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Honestly, how far down in the depths of fantasy do you people have to go before you will wake up to stark reality. This isn't star wars. It's not star trek. It's not flash Gordon.

Stop being so silly for crying out loud.
Craft docking with it. 

Laugh all you want. Your response isn't convincing that imaging the ISS can't be done. Simply declaring so means nothing. Any thoughts about the other two?

Saros brought up these alternatives. Still waiting for his response.

The burden of proof something is real lies on the person who makes the claim not on the one who denies it till he is granted the evidence. There is no reason for the ISS to be a real manned space station. Please name at least one good reason which strongly suggests it is manned and it is not just a drone-like thingy or a projection. I just gave you alternatives never said they are definitely true or I have evidence to back them up, but once again you're the one believing it is real, so where is the proof?
The funny thing is that many of you believe in stuff you cannot prove. I would believe anything you say if you can actually prove it without actually forcing me to believe something is a fact without any evidence.

What the hell are you talking about? There are pictures of it and you can look at it yourself. That is the evidence. It is now your turn to rebut. Your denial isn't a rebuttal.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 11, 2014, 08:45:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 03:28:16 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 10, 2014, 05:18:49 PM

Quote from: Saros on December 10, 2014, 12:35:17 PM

There are numerous possibilities regarding ISS.

1.  a holographic projection
2.  a near earth asteroid
3.  an unmanned drone

I would say the most plausible is a projection. Waiting to prove me wrong.

1. Projected from what, on what, and from where?
2. It's been imaged and looks man-made. It's possible to see other craft docking with it.
3. How high? Powered by what? How fast is it going? What does it look like?

You've tossed out three pretty implausible alternatives. Can you explain them any further?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Honestly, how far down in the depths of fantasy do you people have to go before you will wake up to stark reality. This isn't star wars. It's not star trek. It's not flash Gordon.

Stop being so silly for crying out loud.
Craft docking with it. 

Laugh all you want. Your response isn't convincing that imaging the ISS can't be done. Simply declaring so means nothing. Any thoughts about the other two?

Saros brought up these alternatives. Still waiting for his response.

The burden of proof something is real lies on the person who makes the claim not on the one who denies it till he is granted the evidence. There is no reason for the ISS to be a real manned space station. Please name at least one good reason which strongly suggests it is manned and it is not just a drone-like thingy or a projection. I just gave you alternatives never said they are definitely true or I have evidence to back them up, but once again you're the one believing it is real, so where is the proof?
The funny thing is that many of you believe in stuff you cannot prove. I would believe anything you say if you can actually prove it without actually forcing me to believe something is a fact without any evidence.

The is a plethora of video footage, first hand accounts, photography, orbital path predictions etc.. that is available.  Based on a preponderance of evidence it appears that the ISS being a manned space station is the most likely answer.  Our claim is firmly established and none of the evidence has been debunked, only doubted and so the burden of proof has not been adequately shifted.  If you remain unconvinced, that is fine, but you cannot rightly assert that we have no evidence.