Proof of a round earth?

Then why are photographs used on court cases all the time?

Photographs are only accepted in courts if they come from a third party unconnected to the suspect, and if they're handled properly.

The picture you provided seems to come from the government and therefore invalid as evidence.

In other extreme-altitude images of the earth's horizon taken by actual unconnected third parties, the lands just fade out into a blue-white fog: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/

I would image that the contractors are free to do the job however they want. I doubt that any of these contracts involve the workers wandering around inside secret bases, however, so I don't see the need for some kind of total control on the company.

All government bases dealing with aerospace research and development are secret bases.

in fact they hire between 10 and 20 interns every summer for work on their other contracts through the university.

Universities typically aren't doing top secret aerospace work for the government. In top secret environments the employees must all work on government bases and adhere to stricter regulations and control.

i have a question, nothing scientific it just has to do with the whole RE theory being a conspiracy.  who stands to gain from everyone believing the world is round?  i know in the FAQ is mentions the reason behind the conspiracy is money, but how does anyone make money from this?  also they say all the world's governments are in on this conspiracy but judging by world events i dont think all the world's government would agree to be in on this together.  and i don't think NASA stands to gain anything from people thinking the world is round because if the earth was flat and everyone knew it then we would still want to explore space so there would still be a NASA.  so why can't we know the world is flat if it indeed were flat?

All government bases dealing with aerospace research and development are secret bases.

And the contractors have to go into these bases to work on what they're doing? Can't they just build it at their place and cart it over once it's finished?

And the contractors have to go into these bases to work on what they're doing? Can't they just build it at their place and cart it over once it's finished?

Nope. All top secret material needs to be located on government property at all times.

Most of these contractors don't even have workshops or buildings other than the offices necessary to run their HR department. The contracting companies really just act as temp agencies and head hunters and send their employees into government bases to work for government managers. When Raytheon builds a stealth plane, they're not doing it on Raytheon property. There is no Raytheon property beyond whatever HR/Admin buildings they have. All work is done on government property under the direct supervision and direction of government managers.

Quote

Then why are photographs used on court cases all the time?

Photographs are only accepted in courts if they come from a third party unconnected to the suspect, and if they're handled properly.

The picture you provided seems to come from the government and therefore invalid as evidence.

In other extreme-altitude images of the earth's horizon taken by actual unconnected third parties, the lands just fade out into a blue-white fog: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/

Nope.  Nice distinct horizon with no earth seen fading to black.  Just atmospheric glow fading to black.

In other extreme-altitude images of the earth's horizon taken by actual unconnected third parties, the lands just fade out into a blue-white fog: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/

Tom, in all those photographs where the horizon is visible, there is a distinct line where the horizon is. So it does not disappear into a blue/white fog at all. Open your eyes, or get them checked. this is not the first time you have missed obvious aspects of an image (that you post as evidence) that completely disproves what you are claiming the photo shows.

Nope. All top secret material needs to be located on government property at all times.

Most of these contractors don't even have workshops or buildings other than the offices necessary to run their HR department. The contracting companies really just act as temp agencies and head hunters and send their employees into government bases to work for government managers. When Raytheon builds a stealth plane, they're not doing it on Raytheon property. There is no Raytheon property beyond whatever HR/Admin buildings they have. All work is done on government property under the direct supervision and direction of government managers.

Are you certain? I know that at least the external tank for the Space Shuttle is built off site. NASA doesn't have any manufacturing plants on it's grounds, as far as I'm aware.

The external tanks, albeit really cool, probably do not constitute top secret classification. It sounds like the scenario in the quote would be most likely in research and development of said things. Which no NASA seems to be more cooperative in space projects (i.e. ISS).

Perhaps this should clear up a few things.

OrbitalCam was established with the goal of launching a small privately funded satellite into low earth orbit.

More info here: http://www.theroundearthsociety.net/index.php?topic=49.0

The external tanks, albeit really cool, probably do not constitute top secret classification. It sounds like the scenario in the quote would be most likely in research and development of said things. Which no NASA seems to be more cooperative in space projects (i.e. ISS).

I imagine that the research projects done by NASA are worked on in their own buildings, but I was referring to government contractors. As far as I'm aware, they build what they're asked to build in their own place, and haul it over once it's done.

Nope.  Nice distinct horizon with no earth seen fading to black.  Just atmospheric glow fading to black.

The horizon looks like it just fades out into nothingness to me.

Are you certain? I know that at least the external tank for the Space Shuttle is built off site. NASA doesn't have any manufacturing plants on it's grounds, as far as I'm aware.

If anything is built off-site it's built on another government owned property. All Top Secret material stays on secured government property at all times, no exceptions.

I imagine that the research projects done by NASA are worked on in their own buildings, but I was referring to government contractors. As far as I'm aware, they build what they're asked to build in their own place, and haul it over once it's done.

"I imagine" and "As far as I'm aware" doesn't sound too concrete to me. The next time you meet a government contractor feel free to ask if Top Secret material needs to stay on government property at all times.

Quote

Nope.  Nice distinct horizon with no earth seen fading to black.  Just atmospheric glow fading to black.

The horizon looks like it just fades out into nothingness to me.

Quote

Are you certain? I know that at least the external tank for the Space Shuttle is built off site. NASA doesn't have any manufacturing plants on it's grounds, as far as I'm aware.

If anything is built off-site it's built on another government owned property. All Top Secret material stays on secured government property at all times, no exceptions.

Quote

I imagine that the research projects done by NASA are worked on in their own buildings, but I was referring to government contractors. As far as I'm aware, they build what they're asked to build in their own place, and haul it over once it's done.

"I imagine" and "As far as I'm aware" doesn't sound too concrete to me. The next time you meet a government contractor feel free to ask if Top Secret material needs to stay on government property at all times.

Tom, I'm gonna have to ask you to post your source for you information on government contracting.  The aspect that I deal with, everyday, is nothing like what you describe it to be; and my wife contracts for one of the most paranoid branches of the government in existence.  At any rate, source Tom?

Tom, I'm gonna have to ask you to post your source for you information on government contracting.  The aspect that I deal with, everyday, is nothing like what you describe it to be; and my wife contracts for one of the most paranoid branches of the government in existence.  At any rate, source Tom?

Is your wife dealing with Top Secret material?

Quote

Tom, I'm gonna have to ask you to post your source for you information on government contracting.  The aspect that I deal with, everyday, is nothing like what you describe it to be; and my wife contracts for one of the most paranoid branches of the government in existence.  At any rate, source Tom?

Is your wife dealing with Top Secret material?

Umm, you think?  She is contracting with the DoD.

Quote

Nope.  Nice distinct horizon with no earth seen fading to black.  Just atmospheric glow fading to black.

The horizon looks like it just fades out into nothingness to me.

Then we must have different definitions of the word "horizon".  I see a distinct boundary where the earth stops in that picture.  Above that boundary I see atmospheric glow fading to black.

Quote

Nope.  Nice distinct horizon with no earth seen fading to black.  Just atmospheric glow fading to black.

The horizon looks like it just fades out into nothingness to me.

Quote

Are you certain? I know that at least the external tank for the Space Shuttle is built off site. NASA doesn't have any manufacturing plants on it's grounds, as far as I'm aware.

If anything is built off-site it's built on another government owned property. All Top Secret material stays on secured government property at all times, no exceptions.

Quote

I imagine that the research projects done by NASA are worked on in their own buildings, but I was referring to government contractors. As far as I'm aware, they build what they're asked to build in their own place, and haul it over once it's done.

"I imagine" and "As far as I'm aware" doesn't sound too concrete to me. The next time you meet a government contractor feel free to ask if Top Secret material needs to stay on government property at all times.

Have a look at picture number 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 (these are the clearest). There is a distinct contrast difference between the "Sky" and the "Ground". If it was fading due to atmospheric scattering, there would be no distinct contrast boundary. Therefore the Horizon as seen can not be due to atmospheric scattering. If it is not due to atmospheric scattering, then what is it due to?

Pictures 3 and 19 also show the horizon, but it is a little less clear. In fact, picture 3 is a good example of what it would look like (except if you look closely you can actually see a contrast difference in it) if atmospheric scattering did create the horizon. RET does not say atmospheric scattering does not occur, and that it can not create a limit to vision, as clearly shown in picture 3. However, your claim that atmospheric scattering is causing the horizon requires all images of the "horizon" to be like picture 3 all the time. So any image of the horizon that does not look like picture 3 (ie: has a distinct difference in contrast between the sky and the ground) completely disproves the claim that atmospheric scattering is causing the horizon.

Umm, you think?  She is contracting with the DoD.

Pencil manufacturers also have contracts with the DoD.

Quote from: C-Ray on December 31, 2008, 08:17:34 AM

Umm, you think?  She is contracting with the DoD.

Pencil manufacturers also have contracts with the DoD.

So now pencil manufacturers are part of the conspiracy too? 

Or are you finally admitting that being a government contractor does not automatically enroll a company into the conspiracy?

I think he is attacking an RE'ers credibility, as if RE could have less....

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about FE'ers...

after reading through this entire thread, i haven't read one legitimate argument from a FEer.  whenever you accuse somebody of something, like accusing the gov't and NASA of having this conspiracy, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.  if i say my neighbor robbed me i have to prove that he did, he doesn't have to prove he didn't. 

after reading through this entire thread, i haven't read one legitimate argument from a FEer.  whenever you accuse somebody of something, like accusing the gov't and NASA of having this conspiracy, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.  if i say my neighbor robbed me i have to prove that he did, he doesn't have to prove he didn't. 

Actually, you tell the government, in the person of the police and they prove it...  If they can, if he left any evidence, and the investigating officer feels like taking the time to actually do the work.

If not, you're just out of luck and whatever was stolen.

I have some few answers, but I'm still working on the theory... I'll be back when I have answered as many of the questions as I can.

Overall there is more proof of a round earth than a flat one.

Flat earth believers base their theory around their own, self made "evidence" or by ancient uncivilized studies and go by that.

Why would the earth being flat be a lie in the first place? I don't see why, and would like to know why.

Why is it that the moon, the sun and every other planet is round on not our own planet? If they were just flat circles then why, every time we see the moon or sun, that it's conveniently facing us head on reveling its round shape? (if that's what you believe)

I'm open minded to pretty much anything, someone hungry for new information and thinking but in my opinion, this is ridiculous.

All your arguments against a earth being a sphere have been extremely weak and unconvincing.

Quote

Nope.  Nice distinct horizon with no earth seen fading to black.  Just atmospheric glow fading to black.

The horizon looks like it just fades out into nothingness to me.

Quote

Are you certain? I know that at least the external tank for the Space Shuttle is built off site. NASA doesn't have any manufacturing plants on it's grounds, as far as I'm aware.

If anything is built off-site it's built on another government owned property. All Top Secret material stays on secured government property at all times, no exceptions.

Quote

I imagine that the research projects done by NASA are worked on in their own buildings, but I was referring to government contractors. As far as I'm aware, they build what they're asked to build in their own place, and haul it over once it's done.

"I imagine" and "As far as I'm aware" doesn't sound too concrete to me. The next time you meet a government contractor feel free to ask if Top Secret material needs to stay on government property at all times.

Top secret material does not need to stay on government property at all. You just cannot take it and show all of your friends. There is a whole bunch of information kept at your own house as long as you have the clearance to have it, the only thing you have to go through is every so often you have to listen to a speech from some FBI (not NASA) agent who tells you how horrible your life will be and how you will rot in some jail til you die if you ever reveal or sell the information to people who should not see it.

Overall there is more proof of a round earth than a flat one.

I don't agree.

Flat earth believers base their theory around their own, self made "evidence" or by ancient uncivilized studies and go by that.

Not quite.  We have reason to believe the earth is flat.

Why would the earth being flat be a lie in the first place? I don't see why, and would like to know why.

That's what I'd like to know. 

Why is it that the moon, the sun and every other planet is round on not our own planet? If they were just flat circles then why, every time we see the moon or sun, that it's conveniently facing us head on reveling its round shape? (if that's what you believe)

The moon, sun, and planets are not the earth.

I'm open minded to pretty much anything, someone hungry for new information and thinking but in my opinion, this is ridiculous.

I don't think it's so ridiculous as you make it out to be.  There's nothing wrong with questioning the most basic things we are taught; after all, even in RE the sun used to be said to go around the earth... but that's not what you say now.

All your arguments against a earth being a sphere have been extremely weak and unconvincing.

Can you be more specific?

Quote from: Mammon on January 04, 2009, 02:16:21 PM

Overall there is more proof of a round earth than a flat one.

I don't agree.

Quote

Flat earth believers base their theory around their own, self made "evidence" or by ancient uncivilized studies and go by that.

Not quite.  We have reason to believe the earth is flat.

Quote

Why would the earth being flat be a lie in the first place? I don't see why, and would like to know why.

That's what I'd like to know. 

Quote

Why is it that the moon, the sun and every other planet is round on not our own planet? If they were just flat circles then why, every time we see the moon or sun, that it's conveniently facing us head on reveling its round shape? (if that's what you believe)

The moon, sun, and planets are not the earth.

Quote

I'm open minded to pretty much anything, someone hungry for new information and thinking but in my opinion, this is ridiculous.

I don't think it's so ridiculous as you make it out to be.  There's nothing wrong with questioning the most basic things we are taught; after all, even in RE the sun used to be said to go around the earth... but that's not what you say now.

Quote

All your arguments against a earth being a sphere have been extremely weak and unconvincing.

Can you be more specific?

The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.

The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.

I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space.  I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 04, 2009, 02:34:58 PM

The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.

I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space.  I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.

So how does the meteor get past the UA and into the Earth's atmosphere?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 04, 2009, 02:48:37 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 04, 2009, 02:34:58 PM

The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.

I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space.  I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.

So how does the meteor get past the UA and into the Earth's atmosphere?

My theory is that as it's composed of exactly the same type of material as the earth, it's not subject to the force keeping the heavenly bodies aloft, and it therefore just falls to earth (or something else that might get in its way, of course).

There are a multitude of methods in which any one can prove that the earth is a sphere. These are the most common.

You can launch a rocket to a high altitude and take pictures of the earth (which various government agencies and private groups have already done thousands of times in the past), but that isn't the most practical way. Pictures and videos taken by orbiting satellites and space stations are certainly the most definitive proof that the earth is a sphere.

But if you're not convinced, read on...

You can also observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth! You can also sail or fly around the world.

The Greeks discovered that the earth is round by observing lunar eclipses (i.e. when the earth blocks the sun from the moon, casting its round shadow on the moon's surface).

Another method is simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface. (This was one of the earliest methods to determine the radius of the earth)

Also, keep in mind the 24 hour time zones. When it is noon in Hawaii, it is approximately midnight in the Middle East and vice versa. How can it be noon and midnight simultaneously? It is certainly impossible with a flat earth and a sun millions of times more massive.