Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites

  • 64 Replies
  • 24179 Views
Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« on: August 02, 2011, 06:24:11 PM »
Ok, I'm new. Clearly, given the topic of this forum, this is a place for debate. I'm going to add some. I'm surprised at the well-argued points of FE believers, and the not-so-well argued points of the rest of the forum.

I'm going to offer some evidence for a spherical Earth. I'm aware that some of the believers think that satellites can 'orbit' the Earth, held up by the gravitational attraction (or some other force) of elements of the heavens. I'm also aware that some don't believe man-made satellites can sustain an orbit above the Earth. I will address both groups.

There are many satellite programs that have run (or claim to have been run) for many years. One of these is NASA and the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Landsat program. I'm aware that FE believers think NASA contains fraudulent elements. I hope to prove that whatever you might think of them, the Landsat program exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsat_program
It has been running since 1972 as a series of satellites which orbit the Earth taking images of its land surface in an effort to attain constant global coverage, with a satellite revisiting the same area every 16 days, providing information on the change in surface characteristics. Currently Landsat 5 and Landsat 7 are operational in low Earth orbit. Each satellite takes images and transmits them back to Earth roughly every 25 seconds. This has been happening for the last 39 years.

Here is an example individual Landsat image (false-colour):

Ok, for those that don’t believe satellites can have sustained orbits at all:

So what, you might think. “Sustained space flight is not possible! NASA fakes the images ‘produced’ and isn’t transparent. Show me the raw data!”. Well they might fake it, but it would be A LOT of work. Most of the archive (and this is 39 years of images every 25 seconds, or less when there is more than one satellite claimed to be orbiting) is available for public viewing.

Here is one source: http://glovis.usgs.gov/  - it is fairly easy to use, you can drag the map or input coordinates and right click on individual ‘scenes’ (that is what the images are generally known as) and click ‘show browse’ to see a high quality version of it. On the left panel you can choose which year or satellite you’d like to see imagery from. You can also register for free to download the raw data, which are generally quite large file sizes.

Ok, so say this archive of millions of images accurate to the surface conditions of the Earth at the time they were taken WERE faked. I mean, after all, the quality is quite low. The earlier satellites (Landsat 1-3) had a low spatial resolution, each pixel was 80m by 80m on the ground. Maybe they were digitally or analogue generated? This would require accurate knowledge of the material make-up of the whole Earth’s land surface, down to objects which are 80m by 80m in size. It would also require accurate knowledge of cloud cover at every location on the Earth’s land surface, down to the same size, as these show up on any images where cloud-cover is present.

But how does anyone know the images are accurate? Who’s going to check? The raw data in those images have been used in countless academic, governmental, NGO and business applications for the last 39 years. This includes agriculture, cartography, geology, forestry, regional planning, surveillance, education and national security. There have been no reports of inaccurate information. Please tell me if you find any. Also, you can check yourselves due to the archive and report back if anything looks amiss.

Another counter-argument I’ve seen here: It was planes that took the images. The archive consists of images taken EVERY 25 SECONDS FOR THE LAST 39 YEARS. Each image has the approximate dimensions of 185 by 170 km. One plane cannot image an area that large, even at high altitudes. If it did, anything other than an area of a few square kilometres directly under the plane would be extremely warped if it were laid out on a flat image. Even if algorithms were applied so the stretching is ‘unstretched’, the spatial resolution would be extremely low compared to the imagery from directly under the plane. So what if it was a few planes flying all at once capturing the images? That would be an ASTRONOMICAL amount of planes – to cover 185 by 170 km every 25 SECONDS, for 39 years, in every single country.

So maybe they weren’t all flying at once, but rather the imagery is gathered at a slower rate, not 25 seconds as NASA claim. Maybe lots of images are stitched together from repeated aerial passes to make one Landsat scene? There are no joins in any of the images. Any cloud cover would change by the time a second pass is made to capture more of the Landsat scene, as well as lighting conditions and shadowing, leaving each scene an obvious stitch-up composed of lots of images. As well as scientifically worthless.

If there are still any doubters (I suspect this is about three of you), I shall direct you here: http://earthnow.usgs.gov/earthnow.html

This page shows a near real-time feed from one of the Landsat satellites currently in orbit. If not it will show a replay of an imaging sweep from the past day or two. It WILL pass over your current area at some point in the next 16 days, I’d like you to go outside and check, for instance, that the cloud cover is the same as is displayed on the real-time feed, or that it is otherwise accurate from any other features.

Right, the next part. I think it is now clear that satellites can and do orbit the Earth over long periods of time, that the Landsat program does exist and has imaged the Earth routinely from low Earth orbit for 39 years. I’d like to show you how their orbital paths show that they are orbiting a sphere, and not going round in a circular pattern (or any other pattern) above a disk.

The following image is an example to show the approximate orbital path of the Landsat series of satellites:


The red line shows the path of one particular orbit from an arbitrary starting point. You will notice how it proceeds North at a slight angle, passes near the North pole, and then continues South down the opposite side of the globe until it nears the South pole and carries on to repeat this orbit, only slightly moved to the West. The yellow lines show the future and past orbits. Unfortunately the satellite does not pass directly over the Antarctic 'South Pole' so any FE believers will not see imagery of the great wall or mountain range, or the edge of the world! Coincidence or what?!

Obviously this is projected onto a flat representation of the globe, a representation of these orbits on a globe would also be helpful to visualise it. I trust that people can use their imagination. Alternatively you can download a layer for Google Earth which shows many satellite orbits in full 3D.

Anyway, let’s suggest that the satellites follow these same orbits on a flat disk Earth, as proposed by some on this forum, but held up by attraction from the heavens, dark energy, or some other force. These orbits would look (and you’ll have to excuse my amateurish drawing skills) something like this:



This is the orbit from the previous image roughly approximated and laid over the flat-Earth model. As you can see this is not so much an orbit, but rather COMPLETE MADNESS. If satellites do indeed follow this path, for some unknown reason, I would like an explanation as to how they change their direction so easily and so often. These are spacecraft travelling at approximately 7 or 8 km/s to change direction in such an abrupt fashion would involve expending a huge amount of energy, in any known or theoretical propulsion system. Obviously my diagram is simplified, and the sharp turns when the spacecraft approaches and leaves the South Pole would be slightly softer, but still end up turning their direction to the same effect. The spacecraft would have to do the above manoeuvre every single orbit, which is once every 100 minutes. There is no way a spacecraft could pull this off under its own energy.

So, again, I’m going to grant FE believers some leeway and let’s assume that dark energy or some other force (handy how little-understood scientific phenomenon can be postulated to have ANY EFFECT YOU LIKE, isn’t it?) is stopping the spacecraft’s journey to the edge of the Earth, and sending it around the circumference of the Earth to reappear precisely where it needs to for the next orbit. This still leaves an abrupt change in direction near the North pole, where there should be no dark energy interference, right?

I’m aware that the above ‘map’ of a flat world is a guess at best. However if you believe in reality it is so different to the above that it negates my proposed orbital paths, please offer me an example of FE map where these orbital paths are not erratic.

Ok, so the above orbit of a flat Earth is clearly fraught with problems. Let us say, and I’m granting so much leeway here it must be a world record, that the satellites (Landsat and others) do orbit the Earth, do take images constantly and for the last 39 years, but the Earth’s surface IS a flat disk, and their orbits are different from those released to the public and those which the data show. This would require the previously discussed archive to be composed of scenes which are of a different chronological sequence and imaging angle, I guess in circular patterns around the lines of latitude? As this is a circular orbit around the North Pole. Scenes which are presented in a chronological order would then have mismatching cloud cover and lighting conditions due to difference between the claimed time and the actual time these images were acquired.

However, whatever route satellites take around a flat disk Earth, they would have to expend energy to change their course ALL THE TIME. This would necessitate impossibly powerful satellites, expending energy all the time to change their position in space, as they are not travelling in a straight line, like one would in orbiting a globe.

Maybe Dark Energy is pushing them? No scientist can agree what dark energy is. The only known fact about it is that it only affects extremely large scale structures like the position of galaxies, pushing them apart from each other by expanding the very fabric of space. There has been no observation of dark energy affecting anything to any measureable degree at the scales of the Earth, or anything like that.

Thus I conclude that the Earth is a sphere.

I’ll be happy to answer any questions.

Thanks for reading.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 08:18:16 PM by DoucheForTheSoul »

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2011, 06:27:35 PM »
My god this is beautiful. +1 for the smart noob.
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2011, 08:40:24 PM »
Holy comprehensive argument, batman!

If you are indeed new, then I would direct you to the lower fora. You can skip the angry-noob phase.

Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2011, 07:24:24 AM »
Soon the conspiracy will spread to the USGS too, it seems...
Great post!

Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2011, 09:42:02 AM »
Yeah I was unsure where to post this. Both Q&A and Flat Earth Debate seem very similar boards, in terms of what is discussed. This board seems to get more hits so I chose it. I could cross-post but I might get warned for spammin' or whatever.

Anyway, I would appreciate some feedback from flat Earth believers. Come on, I know you're there...

Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2011, 09:55:02 AM »
excellent post!

Sustained spaceflight IS possible. 

great work, keep it up

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2011, 01:35:19 PM »
Hey FE'rs! We know you're out there!
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2011, 01:39:50 PM »
Well that was impressive. I would suggest that the psuedolites take advantage of trade winds. Also, you'd be great in the lower fora.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2011, 06:23:35 PM »
Well that was impressive. I would suggest that the psuedolites take advantage of trade winds. Also, you'd be great in the lower fora.

Because trade winds blow at 15,000 mph, this totally makes sense.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2011, 06:35:09 PM »
Excellent thread!
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2011, 07:34:30 PM »
Those images were taken with high altitude airplanes/stratellites.

There is no evidence on how fast the crafts are flying around the world, the path they take, or that that footage is in real time. You are making a number of assumptions.

?

Theodolite

  • 878
  • NASA's Chief Surveyor
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2011, 07:37:24 PM »
Those images were taken with high altitude airplanes/stratellites.

There is no evidence on how fast the crafts are flying around the world, the path they take, or that that footage is in real time. You are making a number of assumptions.

Speaking of assumptions....
Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2011, 07:55:25 PM »
Quote
If there are still any doubters (I suspect this is about three of you), I shall direct you here: http://earthnow.usgs.gov/earthnow.html

First of all, the stream ends as soon as the craft finishes passing over America. For all I know the craft is zipping back across the US again, rather than around the world, and they play the next footage backwards.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42253
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2011, 08:45:28 PM »
Quote
If there are still any doubters (I suspect this is about three of you), I shall direct you here: http://earthnow.usgs.gov/earthnow.html

First of all, the stream ends as soon as the craft finishes passing over America. For all I know the craft is zipping back across the US again, rather than around the world, and they play the next footage backwards.

You do realize that isn't a live feed, don't you?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2011, 12:57:25 AM »
Quote
If there are still any doubters (I suspect this is about three of you), I shall direct you here: http://earthnow.usgs.gov/earthnow.html

First of all, the stream ends as soon as the craft finishes passing over America. For all I know the craft is zipping back across the US again, rather than around the world, and they play the next footage backwards.

Great Post, nothing to say about. Anyway, let's assume that this is an hoax, and this stuffs is taken by planes or "stratellites" (so dumb, but let's assume this).

One question rise to my mind: why? Why do the hoax perpetually continues to run such experiments? The world is commonly believed as a sphere, why do organizations continue to produce data that cannot make their theory stornger but only weaker? Why producing billions of images of the earth and give it to other people, it's only augmenting the risk that the hoax is discovered faster!

Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2011, 04:07:39 AM »
Those images were taken with high altitude airplanes/stratellites.

There is no evidence on how fast the crafts are flying around the world, the path they take, or that that footage is in real time. You are making a number of assumptions.

No, I'm not making assumptions, I addressed your suggestions as I thought they might come up as FE explanations. Did you read my post? The images must have been taken by a craft at an altitude of hundreds of kilometres, and one which is moving at several kilometres per second, in the orbit I've described. The archive shows this.

Why it can't be planes or low altitude craft:
Another counter-argument I’ve seen here: It was planes that took the images. The archive consists of images taken EVERY 25 SECONDS FOR THE LAST 39 YEARS. Each image has the approximate dimensions of 185 by 170 km. One plane cannot image an area that large, even at high altitudes. If it did, anything other than an area of a few square kilometres directly under the plane would be extremely warped if it were laid out on a flat image. Even if algorithms were applied so the stretching is ‘unstretched’, the spatial resolution would be extremely low compared to the imagery from directly under the plane. So what if it was a few planes flying all at once capturing the images? That would be an ASTRONOMICAL amount of planes – to cover 185 by 170 km every 25 SECONDS, for 39 years, in every single country.

So maybe they weren’t all flying at once, but rather the imagery is gathered at a slower rate, not 25 seconds as NASA claim. Maybe lots of images are stitched together from repeated aerial passes to make one Landsat scene? There are no joins in any of the images. Any cloud cover would change by the time a second pass is made to capture more of the Landsat scene, as well as lighting conditions and shadowing, leaving each scene an obvious stitch-up composed of lots of images. As well as scientifically worthless.


Why the orbits must be those claimed:
Let us say, and I’m granting so much leeway here it must be a world record, that the satellites (Landsat and others) do orbit the Earth, do take images constantly and for the last 39 years, but the Earth’s surface IS a flat disk, and their orbits are different from those released to the public and those which the data show. This would require the previously discussed archive to be composed of scenes which are of a different chronological sequence and imaging angle, I guess in circular patterns around the lines of latitude? As this is a circular orbit around the North Pole. Scenes which are presented in a chronological order would then have mismatching cloud cover and lighting conditions due to difference between the claimed time and the actual time these images were acquired.

However, whatever route satellites take around a flat disk Earth, they would have to expend energy to change their course ALL THE TIME. This would necessitate impossibly powerful satellites, expending energy all the time to change their position in space, as they are not travelling in a straight line, like one would in orbiting a globe.

You can check the archive yourself for evidence of the sequence the images were taken in, and therefore the orbit.

My conclusion that satellites orbit a globe is not based on an assumption but on reasoning and evidence (the archive). As far as I know the conclusion you offer is without any evidence. Nor have you offered any counter-evidence against the evidence I've laid out.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2011, 04:58:17 AM »
Perhaps there's more than one pseudolite in one orbit.

Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2011, 07:39:50 AM »
If you are in fact a FE believer:

There are two Landsat satellites currently in orbit, whose imagery goes into the archive.

Without supplying any characteristics of these 'pseudolites', I'm afraid I can't answer that speculation. If you have an idea as to what their paths or orbits around the globe may be, their speed relative to the Earth's surface, their altitude, their propulsion methods, or any other physical characteristics, then maybe we can continue that discussion.

If you're not a believer then, err, never mind.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2011, 07:47:19 AM by DoucheForTheSoul »

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2011, 10:42:16 AM »
Tommy B, if you have any sense you'll stay far away from this thread.

Excellent argument, OP. It should be stickied, added to the FAQ, Wiki, etc.
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2011, 11:00:56 AM »
Those images were taken with high altitude airplanes/stratellites.


The OP explains why this cannot be so. Read eNAG.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2011, 12:49:28 PM »
Those images were taken with high altitude airplanes/stratellites.

There is no evidence on how fast the crafts are flying around the world, the path they take, or that that footage is in real time. You are making a number of assumptions.

What exactly is a "stratelite" tom?

Also: Good job completley ingnoring evidence given and then making a statment without evidence. Which you are so critical of others when they do it. Same old Tom.

Also: on a flat disk, to cover the same distance as described by the OP ( aprox 180km in 25 seconds), the ground speed of the "Stratelite/airplanes" is roughly 16,000 mph. So whats that like mach 21 or something? any I deas how this is possible or even sustainable inside our atmosphere, even up very high where air is thin? What type of propulsion do you suggest is used for this?


OP: great Post. Though I doubt you'll get much back from the FE camp. They like to let the good threads die un noticed.


Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?

*

Roundy

  • 131
  • Sit and Spin
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2011, 12:51:55 PM »

What exactly is a "stratelite" tom?


kinda like a blimp.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2011, 02:53:09 PM »

What exactly is a "stratelite" tom?


A Stratellite is a brand name for a high-altitude stratospheric airship that provides a stationary communications platform for various types of wireless signals.

I am not sure why but this is what the most common name they give pseudolites.  That is something that acts like a satellite but is not.  In this case like the Stratellite, a high-altitude blimp providing communications / wireless signals. 

Now in the case of a Stratellite the company has made very little process and the ex-CEO is in prison for  misleading share-holders.  So I am thinking that TB made a good choice in names because like the ex-CEO he commonly misleads people using false information.

Berny
A number of other companies are developing this technology - which TB thinks should have been around in the 60's.
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2011, 03:43:54 PM »
Yeah, stratellites. I'm having to learn a lot of new (i.e. obscure, theoretical, speculative or made-up-for-the-purposes-of-argument) terminology here. So stratellites are permanent or semi-permanent high altitude blimps? It seems reasonable that some exist. In the future.

Blimps by their nature move very slow. Even assisted by high-altitude winds, they would have nowhere near the speed required to capture such an amount of imagery. I could do some maths as to how many would be needed over the past 40 years to provide the imagery in the archive, but I'll save that for any attempt be FE'ers to pursue this line of speculation.

OP: great Post. Though I doubt you'll get much back from the FE camp. They like to let the good threads die un noticed.

Thanks, yeah I'm really hoping for some attention from FE believers, I don't want my hour of typing to be in vain. Let's not let this thread die!
« Last Edit: August 04, 2011, 03:46:50 PM by DoucheForTheSoul »

*

Roundy

  • 131
  • Sit and Spin
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2011, 03:49:53 PM »
Yeah, stratellites. I'm having to learn a lot of new (i.e. obscure, theoretical, speculative or made-up-for-the-purposes-of-argument) terminology here. So stratellites are permanent or semi-permanent high altitude blimps? It seems reasonable that some exist. In the future.

Blimps by their nature move very slow. Even assisted by high-altitude winds, they would have nowhere near the speed required to capture such an amount of imagery. I could do some maths as to how many would be needed over the past 40 years to provide the imagery in the archive, but I'll save that for any attempt be FE'ers to pursue this line of speculation.

OP: great Post. Though I doubt you'll get much back from the FE camp. They like to let the good threads die un noticed.

Thanks, yeah I'm really hoping for some attention from FE believers, I don't want my hour of typing to be in vain. Let's not let this thread die!

let me save you the trouble. I asked Tom to explain why we could not see them, and i got an answer of either "telescopes can see them due to the coloring, or to bright in the day, too dark at night" or "your just seeing stars"

edit: they are semi permanent, they would need to come down every so many months for repairs (so why cant i see them when they are landing?)

Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2011, 12:38:02 AM »
Thanks, yeah I'm really hoping for some attention from FE believers, I don't want my hour of typing to be in vain. Let's not let this thread die!

I have really bad news for you... maybe you do not understand well the nature if this place.

Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2011, 04:59:20 AM »
This is slipping down the topics list :(

I shouldn't have bothered should I? Where are the other FE believers apart from Tom? From what I gather this is Daniel, Lord Willmore, James and others. It is quite hard to tell believers apart from those imitating them.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2011, 08:06:52 AM »
This is slipping down the topics list :(

I shouldn't have bothered should I? Where are the other FE believers apart from Tom? From what I gather this is Daniel, Lord Willmore, James and others. It is quite hard to tell believers apart from those imitating them.

None of them really believe. Their claims that they do are lies. This is easily proven by the way certain topics are ignored rather than addressed, and by the style of posting indicating a certain level of intelligence and comprehension in these people. There are so many scientific chunks of evidence that have to be ignored in order to believe in a flat earth that it is almost inconceivable that an educated person would do so. Let me give you some examples and the posters they relate to...

Thork: flatly denies that gravity measurements vary across the surface of the earth, in order to support UA theory.
Pizza Plant: flatly denies that the angular distance between stars remains constant, in order to support bent light.
Tom Bishop: flatly denies that sunrise/sunset times predicted mathematically are correct, in order to support a stupid map model.
James: flatly denies that this looks like part of a spheroid illuminated from the side
in order to support his theory that the moon is a flat metal disc covered with shrimps which glow to make light.

There's a lot more examples, but basically this sort of thing makes it very easy to differentiate between genuine belief and trolling.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

Sense

  • 46
Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #28 on: August 09, 2011, 10:04:50 AM »
Welcome to TROLL TRAINING CAMP  ;D

Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« Reply #29 on: August 10, 2011, 04:23:04 AM »
None of them really believe. Their claims that they do are lies. This is easily proven by the way certain topics are ignored rather than addressed, and by the style of posting indicating a certain level of intelligence and comprehension in these people. There are so many scientific chunks of evidence that have to be ignored in order to believe in a flat earth that it is almost inconceivable that an educated person would do so.

Do they each know that the other is trolling? What a weird set-up. Some of them must waste so much time. In fact, what is the purpose of this forum? It seems an awful lot of bother just to wind up your average person who stumbles on this.