511

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites and the ISS

« on: June 29, 2008, 10:49:10 PM »

Well, it's the only way we can easily verify it, yes. And the beauty of it is that anyone can do it with a bit of team work. All we need to do is find two people willing to work together to find a common time when the ISS is visible for them, check that the given coordinates for that time are correct, and then we can do the math. This could even be done multiple times if necessary to satisfy the skeptics.

Let us know when you guys decide to get your act together and organize this event.

Since such an event would be relevant to this discussion, I believe it could be organized right here in this thread. People just need to state their location and possible ISS sighting times, so we can find "sighting buddies". 

I'm located in Germany near Braunschweig (no, I'm not german), and my sighting data is:

512

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites and the ISS

« on: June 29, 2008, 10:27:53 PM »

From my vantage point I obviously can't tell how high up the ISS is. The official figure is ~335km, which one person can not easily verify alone. But I am sure if two people got together and measured the exact position of the ISS at the same point in time, its height could be calculated easily.

So the only way to know if the ISS is in space is through a hypothetical parallax experiment no one has ever conducted on the ISS?

Well, it's the only way we can easily verify it, yes. And the beauty of it is that anyone can do it with a bit of team work. All we need to do is find two people willing to work together to find a common time when the ISS is visible for them, check that the given coordinates for that time are correct, and then we can do the math. This could even be done multiple times if necessary to satisfy the skeptics.

513

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites and the ISS

« on: June 29, 2008, 03:15:25 PM »

How do you know that the light in the sky is in space?

From my vantage point I obviously can't tell how high up the ISS is. The official figure is ~335km, which one person can not easily verify alone. But I am sure if two people got together and measured the exact position of the ISS at the same point in time, its height could be calculated easily. Considering that accurate positional data is provided, even that could be used to get fairly good data on the actual height of the ISS, assuming you either trust the source, or verify that the data is correct.

Given that, I think it's safe to assume that the ISS is in fact in space.

514

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites and the ISS

« on: June 29, 2008, 03:00:11 PM »

Yeah. It's easy to take a picture of them through a telescope. Here's one I took in my backyard. Or NASA took somewhere. I don't remember which.


*photo compliments of FESSA

Unfortunately I sold my telescope a few years back, due to a waning interest in astronomy - otherwise I would be happily snapping pics of it myself. Thanks for providing an example.

My point still stands though: since FE theory does not allow for sustained space travel, how can the perpetual presence of the ISS in the sky be explained in a working FE model?

515

Flat Earth Debate / Satellites and the ISS

« on: June 29, 2008, 02:42:17 PM »

I really wanted to stay away from this forum, but this topic has really piqued my interest.

Here is an issue that hit me during the course of the day:

Satellites & the ISS:

Since, under FE theory, sustained space travel is impossible, how do FE'ers explain the fact that satellites can be seen in the sky in regular orbital patterns that fit perfectly into the RE model? Furthermore it is easily possible to get orbital data of the International Space Station and thus predictably spot it in the night sky. Anyone can use this site to check when the ISS will be visible for them at any given time, anywhere on Earth. Yes, yes, that's a NASA site - but the fact remains that the data given there is accurate and that the ISS can actually be seen floating across the night sky at the given dates.

Here is a summary of the hard facts:

- The ISS definitely exists, as anyone with eyes can verify.
- Anyone with access to a telescope can see that the ISS is not a plane and, due to its shape, could never "fly" as a normal plane does.
- The ISS is constantly in the air and never "lands".
- The flight path of the ISS fits perfectly into an orbital model according to RE theory.

I would be interested in hearing an explanation for the existence of the ISS according to FE theory. Of course, you guys consider NASA to be the core of some huge conspiracy, but then that would mean that they are somehow faking the existence of the international space station. Considering the facts that we have on the ISS, this does not seem likely - and even if it were so, the effort to do this would be phenomenal. So why even "pretend" do build it in the first place? The only logical explanation at this point seems to be that the ISS is indeed orbiting a spherical Earth.

516

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space Travel

« on: June 27, 2008, 08:42:00 AM »

I proved means, motive and opportunity. Sustained space flight violates physics. Good luck with that.

Then you have still proved nothing, other than the fact that your attempts discussion are nothing but polemic. Not to mention that most of your argumentation and logic is based on fallacies.

I guess I should have read this forum more thouroughly before I registered to begin discussing. Judging by the arguments made by FE'ers, the flat Earth theory seems to be absolutely baseless - possibly even a weak attempt at baiting others into heated discussions. I see no more reason to participate here.

517

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space Travel

« on: June 27, 2008, 08:31:22 AM »

No it isn't. There are vast quantities of hard evidence that space travel is possible. When I say space travel is possible, I base my statement on that evidence. When you say it's not possible, it's up to you to prove that the existing evidence is not valid. Otherwise you're doing nothing more than bleating feeble phrases.

I already said space travel was possible.

Semantics. What I mean is, there is an abundant amount of evidence proving that sustained space travel and even manned and unmanned flights to other celestial bodies in the solar system have taken place. If you claim that this is not the case, it's up to you to prove that all the evidence has been faked. Good luck with that.

518

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space Travel

« on: June 27, 2008, 08:26:19 AM »

It's physically impossible for sustained space travel. If you're going to claim otherwise, I'd think the burden of proof is on you.

No it isn't. There are vast quantities of hard evidence that space travel is possible. When I say space travel is possible, I base my statement on that evidence. When you say it's not possible, it's up to you to prove that the existing evidence is not valid. Otherwise you're doing nothing more than bleating feeble phrases.

519

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space Travel

« on: June 27, 2008, 08:20:23 AM »

Actually, evidence of space travel already exists in abundance - only the FE'ers claim this evidence to be fake. So it is not the job of the RE'ers to prove that space travel has occurred, it is up to the FE'ers to prove that all the evidence for it is fake. I'd really love to see a FE'er "debunk" every single NASA picture and video in existance.

Actually, I think ski did a reasonable job of making the case for reasonable doubt in another thread with a picture he, himself, faked, which was then taken as convincing fact by a self-proclaimed astronomer.  Considering he did the job in 5 minutes, his point that NASA with a much larger budget, and an axe to grind, could be far more convincing.  Whether or not I agree with FET, his point was well made. 

The fact that imagery can be faked is not proof that it is indeed fake. Almost every kind of picture can be photoshopped. That does not mean that there are conspiracies all around us. It is still down to the FE'ers to prove that all this evidence for space travel has been faked.

520

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space Travel

« on: June 27, 2008, 08:10:33 AM »

Space travel is impossible in FET. So, if we can show that space travel is possible (and has happenned) then we disprove FET.

Thanks for enlightening me, it makes sense.  Considering that this would apparently be damning evidence against the FET, and would seem like a relatively simple thing to prove or disprove, I wonder why this isn't the single focus of the RET crowd.  Why spend time arguing about the location of the poles or the ice wall when this would seem to shatter the whole theory relatively quickly and conclusively?  Is it really that hard to prove?

Actually, evidence of space travel already exists in abundance - only the FE'ers claim this evidence to be fake. So it is not the job of the RE'ers to prove that space travel has occurred, it is up to the FE'ers to prove that all the evidence for it is fake. I'd really love to see a FE'er "debunk" every single NASA picture and video in existance.

521

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunrise and sunset

« on: June 27, 2008, 03:08:36 AM »

This is the same question that I myself asked myself, and the reason why I registered here.

According to the FAQ, the sun and moon are spotlights, and their apparrent rising and setting on the horizon is merely an optical illusion. Could someone please explain how that is supposed to work? Right now that explanation seems completely arbitrary to me, just like most of the other "explanations" provided by FE'ers. After all, every single piece of observable evidence shows that the earth is round. The distance to individual stars can be measured trigonometrically, which has proven that they are definitely not 3000km away. The curvature of the Earth's surface is easily visible from a height or when the horizon is not obstucted. There is an overwhelming amount of images and video material showing that the Earth is in fact spherical, and not only from those evil government agencies who are allegedly trying to hide the true shape of our planet from us. The spherical nature of the Earth and all other planets in the solar system, not forgetting the sun, explains logically and comprehensibly why we see what we see when we look up at the sky.

So, again, how can the rising and setting of the sun and moon possibly be explained away as an optical illusion when the most logical explanation is also the most obvious: the Earth is round. The Flat Earth theory provides no proof at all, instead resorting to the wonderful explanations of "it's an illusion" and "it's a conspiracy". Though we see no comprehensive motives for the conspiracy, no scientific proof for the so-called illusions and absolutely no logical arguments whatsoever against the widely accepted fact that the Earth is round.