What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100,000 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
No, you're absolutely right, the simplest explanation is as follows: the Earth formed as a magical flying pizza, complete with the oh-so-convenient crust (which keeps all of its pizza contents in place), it constantly accelerates upwards (what upwards is we have no idea) at 1g (where it gets this energy we cannot explain) and it's got a natural spotlight that keeps it lit up as it wobbles through space.
You're the one making the claim here. You're the one claiming that these technologies exist and that NASA can explore space. All of your claims are beyond human experience.
Oh, we're terribly sorry that NASA cannot send
you to outer space. After all, that's not such an enormous favor to ask, is it?
The burden is on YOU and YOU alone to prove that these technologies exist and that NASA can reach orbit, blast past escape velocity, and explore the moons and planets. It's not our responsibility to disprove any of that stuff. It's impossible to prove a negative.
Really? It's on us? How about the erroneous claims that the FE community makes? Are they immune to having to answer questions using some
logic? No one side of this debate has more of a responsibility than the other. But one side of this debate sure as heck has a better case than the other.
You're the one making all of these claims. You're the one claiming that satellites exist, government contractors can send 100,000 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second, that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.
"Never before done" does not equate to "it must not be true". The burden of proof may be on NASA, but most people seem to agree that they have
met their expectations. Again, I'm sorry that we can't send you to the moon.
The burden of you is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. We're not. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.
The simplest explanation is as follows: you're an oddball that wants to question something without having to
think or answer any questions yourself.
If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?
Let's see, what's simple and easily observable about the following:
The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s^2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe; the sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light; etc. Please, don't be such a buffoon. Your outrageous claims about the Earth really being flat
do require proof, whether you'd like to believe so or not.
For someone that cites "human experience" as much as you do, it's ironic that the theory that you've chosen to follow relies heavily on the "optical illusion" argument to explain many of its shortcomings. In other words, you're completely confident in your ability to see that the world is flat, but you won't trust your vision when it comes to sunrises/sunsets. Your logic is severely flawed.