Conspiracy my.... The Earth is round.

Dismissing any and all ridiculous thoughts that the Earth is flat, I will address the "govt conspiracy" angle.

Perhaps every govt in the world who has approved space travel has somehow gotten on board with each other to completely pull the wool over all of the Earth's citizens' eyes.  I'll let that slide.  Although, considering the space race between USA and USSR back in the day, and their lack of communications during the wall era, I find this impossible.

So, if the govt is conspiring to hide that the world is flat, why allow private citizens to venture into space on their own, where they will see first-hand that the world is round?

Discuss.

To further the illusion, obviously.

Didn't you read the FAQ's?

Unless you've been in space, and seen the earth from space first hand as I have,  you'll just believe what your taught...Like the "fact" there even was a space program in the first place 

To further the illusion, obviously.

Right.

That's a dumbass answer.  The equivalent of "uh-huh" or "nuh-uh."

Didn't you read the FAQ's?

Unless you've been in space, and seen the earth from space first hand as I have,  you'll just believe what your taught...like the "fact" there even was a space program in the first place 

Who's to say I haven't?  You are using your own pre-conceived notions that few have been to space to argue your "haven't seen it, can't comment" angle.

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 09, 2007, 08:53:17 AM

To further the illusion, obviously.

Right.

That's a dumbass answer.  The equivalent of "uh-huh" or "nuh-uh."

No, it's equivalent to "To further the illusion, obviously."


And please be the second person in 24 hours to claim to have been along for a ride in the space shuttle.

Quote from: McGRIDdle on May 09, 2007, 08:55:15 AM

Didn't you read the FAQ's?

Unless you've been in space, and seen the earth from space first hand as I have,  you'll just believe what your taught...like the "fact" there even was a space program in the first place 

Who's to say I haven't?  You are using your own pre-conceived notions that few have been to space to argue your "haven't seen it, can't comment" angle.

I'll give you a bit of advice. Don't debate conspiracies with conspiracy theorists... they are too paranoid and delusional to see anything from behind clouded eyes.

Quote from: On The Level on May 09, 2007, 08:56:05 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 09, 2007, 08:53:17 AM

To further the illusion, obviously.

Right.

That's a dumbass answer.  The equivalent of "uh-huh" or "nuh-uh."

No, it's equivalent to "To further the illusion, obviously."


And please be the second person in 24 hours to claim to have been along for a ride in the space shuttle.

It furthers nothing, other than you cyclic argument.

Who said I was in a space shuttle, besides you?  If you have opened your mind to the possibility that the world is flat, why would space travel by someone you do not know be something so hard to fathom?

Quote from: McGRIDdle on May 09, 2007, 08:55:15 AM

Didn't you read the FAQ's?

Unless you've been in space, and seen the earth from space first hand as I have,  you'll just believe what your taught...like the "fact" there even was a space program in the first place 

Who's to say I haven't?  You are using your own pre-conceived notions that few have been to space to argue your "haven't seen it, can't comment" angle.

Well have you seen the earth from space? If you have then I'm shocked you still believe the nursery rhyme 3rd grade explanation about it being a globe.

Quote from: On The Level on May 09, 2007, 08:57:59 AM

Quote from: McGRIDdle on May 09, 2007, 08:55:15 AM

Didn't you read the FAQ's?

Unless you've been in space, and seen the earth from space first hand as I have,  you'll just believe what your taught...like the "fact" there even was a space program in the first place 

Who's to say I haven't?  You are using your own pre-conceived notions that few have been to space to argue your "haven't seen it, can't comment" angle.

Well have you seen the earth from space? If you have then I'm shocked you still believe the nursery rhyme 3rd grade explanation about it being a globe.

If you have, please tell me where I should have looked for the earth's edge?  Atlantic?  Pacific?    Other?

Who said I was in a space shuttle, besides you?  If you have opened your mind to the possibility that the world is flat, why would space travel by someone you do not know be something so hard to fathom?

I never said you were on the space shuttle. 

Anyway, prolonged space flight is not technologically possible on the FE.

Anyway, prolonged space flight is not technologically possible on the FE.

I guess that dismisses your FE theory then.

Quote from: McGRIDdle on May 09, 2007, 09:14:42 AM

Quote from: On The Level on May 09, 2007, 08:57:59 AM

Quote from: McGRIDdle on May 09, 2007, 08:55:15 AM

Didn't you read the FAQ's?

Unless you've been in space, and seen the earth from space first hand as I have,  you'll just believe what your taught...like the "fact" there even was a space program in the first place 

Who's to say I haven't?  You are using your own pre-conceived notions that few have been to space to argue your "haven't seen it, can't comment" angle.

Well have you seen the earth from space? If you have then I'm shocked you still believe the nursery rhyme 3rd grade explanation about it being a globe.

If you have, please tell me where I should have looked for the earth's edge?  Atlantic?  Pacific?    Other?

You do realize you are quoting a person with the username McGRIDdle. How can you take what he/she posts, seriously? Just laugh and move on to another thread. Don't create them... I warn you, now. Just go into a created one and disprove them left and right... because it's really not hard. Letting them get to you is what they want (not saying they are, but it seems they might be), since most of the people here are RE'ers hiding as FE'ers who get kicks out of coming onto online forums and trying to get a rise out of people. They have nothing better to do with their lives. Personally, I think it's the funniest thing in the world. I laugh at unfortunate people like these, who have nothing else to do with their time.

I guess that dismisses your FE theory then.

How so?

You do realize you are quoting a person with the username McGRIDdle.

I do Jesus.  I do.

How can you take what he/she posts, seriously? Just laugh and move on to another thread. Don't create them... I warn you, now. Just go into a created one and disprove them left and right... because it's really not hard. Letting them get to you is what they want (not saying they are, but it seems they might be), since most of the people here are RE'ers hiding as FE'ers who get kicks out of coming onto online forums and trying to get a rise out of people. They have nothing better to do with their lives. Personally, I think it's the funniest thing in the world. I laugh at unfortunate people like these, who have nothing else to do with their time.

Well today I am bored, and facing a level of stupidity such as what I have encountered so far is comical. 

Quote

I guess that dismisses your FE theory then.

How so?

Because I am on a satellite internet connection.  Without the ability to remain in space, this would not work.  Therefore you are wrong.

Quote from: McGRIDdle on May 09, 2007, 09:14:42 AM

Quote from: On The Level on May 09, 2007, 08:57:59 AM

Quote from: McGRIDdle on May 09, 2007, 08:55:15 AM

Didn't you read the FAQ's?

Unless you've been in space, and seen the earth from space first hand as I have,  you'll just believe what your taught...like the "fact" there even was a space program in the first place 

Who's to say I haven't?  You are using your own pre-conceived notions that few have been to space to argue your "haven't seen it, can't comment" angle.

Well have you seen the earth from space? If you have then I'm shocked you still believe the nursery rhyme 3rd grade explanation about it being a globe.

If you have, please tell me where I should have looked for the earth's edge?  Atlantic?  Pacific?    Other?

You won't see edges  from space without a special lense that unbends the optical curvature illusion that makes the earth appear spherical (you will plainly see that there is a "mirage" effect however), but with the lense you will see this:

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 09, 2007, 09:21:40 AM

Quote

I guess that dismisses your FE theory then.

How so?

Because I am on a satellite internet connection.  Without the ability to remain in space, this would not work.  Therefore you are wrong.

Then I guess it's a good thing the 'satellite' doesn't have to be in space.

Quote from: Jesus Reborn

You do realize you are quoting a person with the username McGRIDdle.

I do Jesus.  I do.

Quote from: Jesus Reborn

How can you take what he/she posts, seriously? Just laugh and move on to another thread. Don't create them... I warn you, now. Just go into a created one and disprove them left and right... because it's really not hard. Letting them get to you is what they want (not saying they are, but it seems they might be), since most of the people here are RE'ers hiding as FE'ers who get kicks out of coming onto online forums and trying to get a rise out of people. They have nothing better to do with their lives. Personally, I think it's the funniest thing in the world. I laugh at unfortunate people like these, who have nothing else to do with their time.

Well today I am bored, and facing a level of stupidity such as what I have encountered so far is comical. 

Good to hear.
Like I've said before, this is the funniest site on the entire internet.... and it's not the RE'ers pretending to be FE'ers that make me laugh... well, it might be, considering I don't know if some of the clowns on here are serious or not. For the most part, it's pretty easy to know who's being a complete clown and who's trying to actually prove FET.

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 09, 2007, 09:21:40 AM

Quote

I guess that dismisses your FE theory then.

How so?

Because I am on a satellite internet connection.  Without the ability to remain in space, this would not work.  Therefore you are wrong.

I'm still laughing about this...satellite internet connection?  Hilarious, they must be making a mint off ignorant RE's like you.

Then I guess it's a good thing the 'satellite' doesn't have to be in space.

unless that satellite's the moon?

TheEngineer,

As I have said before, you could save yourself and these forums a lot of aggravation if you would just elaborate on your answers, instead just giving brief one-sentence responses.

Don't just say:

"Then I guess it's a good thing the 'satellite' doesn't have to be in space."

Elaborate!  Elaborate!  Explain where FE'ers do belive the signal is coming from, or at least link to any of the dozens of topics where this has been discussed before.

I know brief answers are part of your style, but it's very aggravating to someone who is here to get a question answered.  Help them out!  Give a detailed answer instead of forcing others to pry the information out of you.

No.

Elaborate!  Elaborate!  Explain where FE'ers do belive the signal is coming from, or at least link to any of the dozens of topics where this has been discussed before.

Broadcasting satellites exist as ridged stratospheric airships like the Geostationary Banana over Texas.

Here's another example of a high altitude broadcasting beacon: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/news/2002/12/56961

They move pretty fast though don't they, on no fuel?

I couldn't say how fast they moved, considering that satellites are invisible to telescopes and the naked eye.

I couldn't say how fast they moved, considering that satellites are invisible to telescopes and the naked eye.

That's not true.  I've seen satellites with the naked eye too many times to count.  Go out and see them yourself if you don't belive me.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/index.html

Ironically, satellites are actually more difficult to observe with a telescope because they are moving so fast, and a telescope has such a limited field of view.

Whether or not these objects are in orbit is a different matter, but they are absolutely visible to the naked eye.

Satellites exist as ridged stratospheric airships

Really?  These must be some very unusually shaped airships.

http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2007/08may07/SIMIAN-Etienne-iss_venus0001_rs1_cl4_1178570475.jpg

http://www.astrosurf.com/legault/iss_atlantis_transit.html

(These images were taken by amateur astronomers who have no reason to be in on the 'conspiracy')

That second image is really awesome.

That's not true.  I've seen satellites with the naked eye too many times to count.  Go out and see them yourself if you don't belive me.

Everyone knows that satellites are invisible to the naked eye. You never saw any satellites in the sky. People say they saw Sputnik, too - but if you look around you'll find that was a myth.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/index.html

Those satellites may pass overhead, but all will be invisible to the naked eye - if they even exist.

http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2007/08may07/SIMIAN-Etienne-iss_venus0001_rs1_cl4_1178570475.jpg

http://www.astrosurf.com/legault/iss_atlantis_transit.html

These images you posted are of the ISS. Due to its size it is the only visible man made satellite. Just look at the names of your images. The ISS is geostationary, and therefore the ISS has no bearing or pretense for speeds.

Those links do not prove your point, Tom.  Did you actually try clicking on any of them?  Just because you can type "satellites are invisible" into google and get a few responses does not prove that satellites are invisible.

Here, I've just proven that people are invisible:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&q=%22people+are+invisible%22&btnG=Search

Silly Tom.