the ISS seen from Earth

seen through amateur telescopes:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">link
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">link 2
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">link 3
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">link 4

be sure to tell me how people using amateur telescopes are part of the conspiracy. since you know, they already know it's real so they have no reason to fake it.

Johannes constantly links to pictures and videos of the ISS in front of the sun.

I don't understand if he just doesn't understand perspective or what, but he's posted these videos multiple times and I've pointed out sustained space flight isn't possible and he's showing us video evidence. Never gotten anything back on that, though.

Please keep your 'pretty picture' threads out of Flat Earth Debate, thanks.

Please keep your 'pretty picture' threads out of Flat Earth Debate, thanks.

But those aren't just pictures. They are videos that prove without a doubt that sustained space flight is possible, which in turn, disproves a FE completely.

Please keep your 'pretty picture' threads out of Flat Earth Debate, thanks.

those pretty pictures are what we call evidence.

Well, label this thread as dead. None of the FE'rs can dispute this evidence, so they will steer clear of this thread.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 01, 2009, 11:24:11 AM

Please keep your 'pretty picture' threads out of Flat Earth Debate, thanks.

But those aren't just pictures. They are videos that prove without a doubt that sustained space flight is possible, which in turn, disproves a FE completely.

Looks like it's FAQ time again:

Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"

A: NASA did not send rockets into space; instead, they spent a fraction of their funding on developing increasingly advanced computers and imaging software to cover their lies.

PLEASE NOTE: This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF.

Quote from: The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! on December 01, 2009, 01:46:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 01, 2009, 11:24:11 AM

Please keep your 'pretty picture' threads out of Flat Earth Debate, thanks.

But those aren't just pictures. They are videos that prove without a doubt that sustained space flight is possible, which in turn, disproves a FE completely.

Looks like it's FAQ time again:

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 14, 2009, 06:46:22 PM

Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"

A: NASA did not send rockets into space; instead, they spent a fraction of their funding on developing increasingly advanced computers and imaging software to cover their lies.

PLEASE NOTE: This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF.

But this was not NASA who took these1 videos!!! It was an amateur astronomer who took them. Read the description of the videos.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 01, 2009, 02:50:47 PM

Quote from: The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! on December 01, 2009, 01:46:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 01, 2009, 11:24:11 AM

Please keep your 'pretty picture' threads out of Flat Earth Debate, thanks.

But those aren't just pictures. They are videos that prove without a doubt that sustained space flight is possible, which in turn, disproves a FE completely.

Looks like it's FAQ time again:

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 14, 2009, 06:46:22 PM

Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"

A: NASA did not send rockets into space; instead, they spent a fraction of their funding on developing increasingly advanced computers and imaging software to cover their lies.

PLEASE NOTE: This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF.

But this was not NASA who took these1 videos!!! It was an amateur astronomer who took them. Read the description of the videos.

Furthermore, they were not posted with the intent of confirming the roundness of the Earth, but rather, the fact that the ISS orbits the Earth.

which has nothing to do with the shape of the planet, but the flat-earthers think it's a huge part of the conspiracy, so it's relevant.

I was hoping for some debate, but I guess posting some evidence isn't grounds for discussion.

The ISS existing in some form is not proof of the shape of the earth, but proof of the ISS existing in some form.

The ISS existing in some form is not proof of the shape of the earth, but proof of the ISS existing in some form.

Which I'm not even debating.

Flat-earthers maintain that sustained space flight is impossible. They are pretty adamant about that. Everything we have seen from NASA, including the ISS, has to be a hoax. So clearly, the existence of the ISS orbiting Earth would certainly poke some gigantic holes in their entire worldview. So what do we have here?

Since nobody is bothering to volunteer their ideas, I'll spell out the possibilities. It must either be:

- faked / CGI
-A hologram being reflected by NASA into the sky from below.
-the ISS is not in space, but has some mysterious ability to fly through the air.
-real

Now, I could ask you to buy a nice telescope that is able to see at similar ranges and test it out for yourself, but I have the feeling that a flat-earther would only use such a telescope to look at the horizon. *shrugs*

Quote from: John Davis on December 01, 2009, 03:19:42 PM

The ISS existing in some form is not proof of the shape of the earth, but proof of the ISS existing in some form.

Which I'm not even debating.

Flat-earthers maintain that sustained space flight is impossible. They are pretty adamant about that. Everything we have seen from NASA, including the ISS, has to be a hoax. So clearly, the existence of the ISS orbiting Earth would certainly poke some gigantic holes in their entire worldview. So what do we have here?

Since nobody is bothering to volunteer their ideas, I'll spell out the possibilities. It must either be:

- faked / CGI
-A hologram being reflected by NASA into the sky from below.
-the ISS is not in space, but has some mysterious ability to fly through the air.
-real

Now, I could ask you to buy a nice telescope that is able to see at similar ranges and test it out for yourself, but I have the feeling that a flat-earther would only use such a telescope to look at the horizon. *shrugs*

It'll be A, B, &C, I guarantee it.

Quote from: Globularist on December 01, 2009, 03:33:07 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 01, 2009, 03:19:42 PM

The ISS existing in some form is not proof of the shape of the earth, but proof of the ISS existing in some form.

Which I'm not even debating.

Flat-earthers maintain that sustained space flight is impossible. They are pretty adamant about that. Everything we have seen from NASA, including the ISS, has to be a hoax. So clearly, the existence of the ISS orbiting Earth would certainly poke some gigantic holes in their entire worldview. So what do we have here?

Since nobody is bothering to volunteer their ideas, I'll spell out the possibilities. It must either be:

- faked / CGI
-A hologram being reflected by NASA into the sky from below.
-the ISS is not in space, but has some mysterious ability to fly through the air.
-real

Now, I could ask you to buy a nice telescope that is able to see at similar ranges and test it out for yourself, but I have the feeling that a flat-earther would only use such a telescope to look at the horizon. *shrugs*

It'll be A, B, &C, I guarantee it.

Well it cannot be a projector. If it was the iss would not disappear behind clouds. It would also have to be projected onto something in the sky.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 14, 2009, 06:46:22 PM

PLEASE NOTE: This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF.

Straight denial?! LOL.

The ISS existing in some form is not proof of the shape of the earth, but proof of the ISS existing in some form.

The ISS existing in some form is proof of a man made object orbiting the earth. This is something your site denies possible.

this seems pretty irefutable, how sad that the FET guys want no part of it.  Up until this point I had been enjoying some great fallacy and I was hoping for more.  I guess the FET guys are slipping.  Maybe I'll just move on to the hollow earth forums.

this seems pretty irefutable, how sad that the FET guys want no part of it.

Refutable?

We never refuted that the ISS exists.

What it exists as and the altitude of its existence is another story.

We never refuted that the ISS exists.

What it exists as and the altitude of its existence is another story.

But it does orbit the earth. And travel extremely fast. It's altitude is easy to calculate. If in doubt you could try applying the Rowbotham technique.

But it does orbit the earth.

How do we know?

And travel extremely fast.

It actually appears to cross the sky slowly. Calculating its speed would require us to know its altitude.

It actually appears to cross the sky slowly. Calculating its speed would require us to know its altitude.

Nope.  Multiple simultaneous observations can be used to triangulate its position.

Nope.  Multiple simultaneous observations can be used to triangulate its position.

Can be. But hasn't.

Quote from: markjo on December 03, 2009, 08:27:39 AM

Nope.  Multiple simultaneous observations can be used to triangulate its position.

Can be. But haven't.

Yes, they have been published in articles to show its position as seen from various places on earth at exact times. Thats all you need to triangulate.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2009, 09:44:51 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 03, 2009, 08:27:39 AM

Nope.  Multiple simultaneous observations can be used to triangulate its position.

Can be. But haven't.

Yes, they have been published in articles to show its position as seen from various places on earth at exact times. Thats all you need to triangulate.

Two observers need to observe it at the same moment in time in order to triangulate it.

Hasn't been done.

Because there are hundreds of people (amateur astronomers / science enthusiasts / schools) who track it 24 hours a day.

Watching it pass overhead across the sky doesn't tell us whether it is in "orbit".

It takes a few minutes to cross the horizon. Even if it were a mear firefly above your head it would still be travelling at hundreds of miles and hour. Most people call that "fast".

Bodies moving at identical speeds appear to move faster the closer they are to you, and slower the farther they are from you.

It's sort of like watching the mountains in the distance snail slowly by while you're speeding down the highway at 80 miles an hour.

The only way to know how fast the ISS is truly moving is to know its altitude.

If you want to calculate it's altitude then apply the Rowbotham technique. He managed to calculate the altitude of the sun, moon and stars. You can do the same for the ISS.

Even if two observers dd observe the ISS at the same moment in time for altitude triangulation, which they haven't, then there's the issue on whether the math assumes that the observers are standing parallel in a straight line to each other on earth or not.

It does if there are hundreds of people watching it continuously.

Planes also pass by overhead. They must be in orbit as well, huh?

Ummm. You need to get a grasp of basic mathematics.

An object far away travels faster than an object close by when both are following the same observable trajectory. It's simple trig.

Even if it were at head height it would still be travelling at many hundreds of miles an hour. This is what we call "fast"

It's got nothing to do with math. It's simple perspective.

We are standing in a wide open desert. There are two cars racing past you at 100 miles an hour from your far left to your right. One car passes you by at 500 feet away and the other car passes you at 10 miles away. Which car appears to move faster, the one closest to you or the one farthest from you?

Aside from the fact that you're denying the fact that hundreds of people observe the ISS continually, I still don't see any reason why you can't apply Rowbothams method of calculating the height. Why do you need two observers? Why do you need two people "standing parallel in a straight line"?

The way to triangulate the position of an object is to look at it from two different far off positions.

If the object is moving through the sky, like say the sun, the observations need to be taken at the same moment in time so that it doesn't change position and screw up your math.

And when constructing the math in the first place we need to know whether the earth is a globe or a plane.

For example, we can calculate the height of the sun by assuming that the earth is flat: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Distance+to+the+Sun

I think ISS's exact speed and altitude is irrelevant. The fact that it can disappear behind clouds means that it is at least 5-10km high (the usual altitude of Cirrocumulus clouds). The only other object, other than an orbiting body, that could remain at that altitude is some type of high-altitude plane. No exhaust trail or rocket flare has been observed, so it couldn't be a rocket plane. Balloons are out, as no balloon or any similar structure has been observed on the ISS.

That leaves some sort of high-altitude jet. This is unreasonable for several reasons:

• Aerodynamics-wise, the ISS's design is horrible.
  
• If it were a jet-powered aircraft, it would have to refuel at least once per day. Not only is this conspicous and difficult to keep quiet (even more people, an air force base's worth, have to brought into the "Conspiracy"), but it would likely be very expensive. A craft the size of the ISS would require a large amount of fuel to ascend back up to altitude and remain there, and even more people would have to be paid to keep quiet. The supposed motive of the Conspiracy is monetary gain, so why would they spend so much on a deception. Surely cheaper methods of trickery are available.

An orbiting body is really the only explanation for the ISS.

It could be free floating in a Lagrange Point where the earth's acceleration and the upward gravitation of the stars balance out.

It could be made of lightweight material filed with helium.

It could be all sorts of things besides a satellite of the earth.

It could be free floating in a Lagrange Point where the earth's acceleration and the upward gravitation of the stars balance out.

I was under the impression that gravity didn't exist.

It could be made of lightweight material filed with helium.

That would not provide adequate protection against meteor impact or atmospheric phenomena (such as lightning or pressure differentials).

It could be all sorts of things besides a satellite of the earth.

List them, then. I see no other explanation.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2009, 01:02:39 PM

It could be made of lightweight material filed with helium.

That would not provide adequate protection against meteor impact or atmospheric phenomena (such as lightning or pressure differentials).

Not to mention that a lightweight material, coupled with the ISS's aerodynamically horrendous design, would cause the ISS to break up even at low speeds. It's been observed that the ISS crosses the horizon in 4 minutes or less, and therefore must be traveling at a quite respectable speed.

Quote from: Skeleton on December 03, 2009, 09:57:00 AM

Yes, they have been published in articles to show its position as seen from various places on earth at exact times. Thats all you need to triangulate.

Two observers need to observe it at the same moment in time in order to triangulate it.

Hasn't been done.

Bishop is wrong (as usual). It's possible to get data that predicts the exact position in the sky of the ISS as seen from a particular location at a particular time. If that data is plotted for a given time of x o'clock for two locations y and z, then effectively you have a triangulation. As long as the tables published that enable you to work out exactly where it is from what viewpoint at what time are correct (which they are because they match observation - I've tried it) then you don't need to physically stand two observers out there - you can do the triangulation hypothetically and it willl be correct because you can predict where in the sky the observers would see the ISS.

I also take issue with Bishops ASSUMPTION (gasp, how un-zetetic!) that nobody has ever tried to triangulate with two observers. He's just making a guess, he has no evidence it's never been done.
(Inb4Bishop's uhavenoevidencethatithasbeendone splurt splurt)

Quote from: markjo on December 03, 2009, 08:27:39 AM

Nope.  Multiple simultaneous observations can be used to triangulate its position.

Can be. But hasn't.

Have at it.

That is the messiest quote block I've ever seen.