Somethings that have been bothering me.

Over The Horizon Radar should also be impossible in a Round Earth model, yet the excuse is that radiowaves are bouncing off the atmosphere without significant scatter -- as if we're expected to believe that radar waves can bounce off of the atmosphere, hit a body, and bounce off the atmosphere again to return to their destination.

RE'ers are clearly making elaborate explanations for what we can explain plain and simply: That the rays took a direct path to their destination.

If you'd like to debate over-the-horizon RADAR, please open a topic on it; otherwise, please stick to the five points of the OP. BTW, I'd be happy to demonstrate your error in logic on this off-topic point.

Quote from: markjo on December 14, 2011, 05:47:19 PM

When you have a pathological distrust of space agencies, there really isn't much of anything that they could do to assure you of their honesty, is there?

It's not pathological. There is clear and distinct evidence that space agencies are faking things. See the Conspiracy page in the Wiki when it comes back up.

It's pathological when you feel that not only is every single facet of every space agency is fake and any entity with even a slight association with NASA can not be trusted.

People on the equator simply aren't interested in whether on the day of equinox the sun rises slightly to the left and sets slightly to the right.

Bullshit. People watch the skies 24/7. It's called astronomy. Contrary to your disgusting racist beliefs, civilization does exist all over the equator, and it includes astronomy.

You RE'ers keep bringing up things like "oh some one would have noticed," when the subject matter is rather obscure. Not many people study the path or position of the sun, let alone on specific days of the year in specific locations. The topic is day, time, and location specific. Using the "someone would have noticed" excuse is absurd.

Let's compare your FE position to the RE position:

RE: "This doesn't happen because if it did, SOMEONE would have noticed it."
FE: "Despite the fact that NO ONE notices this happening, it does."

Which is more rational?

You're basically arguing that the fact that people don't notice it happening... supports the claim that it happens. THAT is what is absurd. Why do you believe in something that -- according to your own belief -- has never been seen?

Even if someone somewhere did see an astronomical discrepancy, "refraction," is quickly used as an expiation to fit bad observations into a Round Earth model. You guys even have the sun and moon being moved from below the horizon into the sky on some occasions (selenehelion).

Your obviously weak understanding of refraction aside, your belief that evidence will be dismissed by RE'ers is no excuse to not bother gathering the evidence in the first place. As it stands, you have zero observational data that supports the bizarre activity that you claim happens at the equator. The logical, zetetic thing to do would be to take a trip to the equator yourself to witness it.

Obviously the stars aren't the size they are in RET. Nor have 300 sextillion stars actually been observed.

This has already been addressed in that thread. Please read it over thoroughly and try to counter all the facts that destroy your claim. It's been established that a vast number of stars has indeed been observed and that said observations cannot be solely attributed to NASA, nor do they rely on NASA-designed equipment. Fact: There are too many stars for your theory to be possible. This has become so obvious that not even a single fellow FE'er has been foolish enough to come to your defense.

Here's a suggestion, Tom. How about you go join this amateur astronomy group on the equator, open their eyes to your enlightened theories, and organize some events to demonstrate it.

Here's a suggestion, Tom. How about you go join this amateur astronomy group on the equator, open their eyes to your enlightened theories, and organize some events to demonstrate it.

You realize that Tom won't even have someone else verify that he can see beach balls across the bay within a few miles of his office. There's no way he'd travel 8500 miles and then let check someone check his work.

If Tom looked through a telescope during the night and saw the ISS in orbit he would throw the telescope away because its obviously been modified by NASA.

Quote from: Moon squirter on December 14, 2011, 11:11:59 AM

No the author is not.  Involved in what, exactly?   The article says that:

"At Jodrell Bank the whole sequence [transmitting then receiving] was then repeated over and over again for 5 minute periods. After averaging the results from a number of 5 minute periods the returned echo could be seen and hence the distance calculated. "

Sounds like our chaps at Jodrell Bank didn't need or get any help from JPL.

If JPL wasn't involved in any part of the article, why would JPL be referenced at the bottom?

The link is irrelevant. There is no evidence in this article that JPL were involved in Jodrell's experiment to bounce radar signals off of Venus.  A link is a link, unless you are paranoid. I don't argue with paranoids or religious zealots, life's too short.

Please note that a similar article from Ohio State University was also "referenced" (these aren't even really references in the first place, they're just relevant links the reader may be interested in) at the bottom of the article.


Now read all of Tom's posts about the article, substituting "JPL" with "Ohio State University", and laugh even more at the absurdity:


"If Ohio State University wasn't involved in any part of the article, why would Ohio State University be referenced at the bottom?"

"Why not reference and link to other schools? It's clearly because OSU, specifically, was involved."

"The article is rather general and doesn't really spell out who was working on what. But since Ohio State University is credited at the bottom of the article, we know that its students were involved."


 

Please note that a similar article from Ohio State University was also "referenced" (these aren't even really references in the first place, they're just relevant links the reader may be interested in) at the bottom of the article.


Now read all of Tom's posts about the article, substituting "JPL" with "Ohio State University", and laugh even more at the absurdity:


"If Ohio State University wasn't involved in any part of the article, why would Ohio State University be referenced at the bottom?"

"Why not reference and link to other schools? It's clearly because OSU, specifically, was involved."

"The article is rather general and doesn't really spell out who was working on what. But since Ohio State University is credited at the bottom of the article, we know that its students were involved."


 

LOL - Yes, it's "guilty by (link) association" with TB.

Tom, your link to your excellent example of bigotry fails to address my question of how you explain rotation of the stars round two seperate poles. It is a link to a totally different topic, at which you also fail.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 13, 2011, 10:28:53 AM

As I told you in that post, I did myself many times. And so can any honest inquiring mind reach the same conclusion. You cannot measure the distance to the Sun as Robotham and you claim.

RE'rs regularly claim that they've observed communication satellites with the naked eye, that they are NASA astronauts, or otherwise a pilot or a surveyor for the purpose of the discussion. We have multiple Neil Armstrongs, several administrator's of NASA, rocket scientists, dozens of professional astronomers, and a large number of pilots/navigators.

RE'ers who reply and claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources. Referencing a third party study would be far more credible.

Please submit your study for peer review.

But how is it not trustworthy when YOU yourself can do the same thing?
He's not telling some magical or supernatural tale that can't possibly be replicated. Anyone with enough motivation can do the same experiments and get the same measurements. If FE'ers cared about facts and data, they could do the same thing.

Besides, even if a third party study was referenced, FE'ers would claim that they must be in on the conspiracy.