ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.

  • 185 Replies
  • 31237 Views
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #120 on: August 28, 2012, 11:33:37 AM »
Fitting a radio antenna onto a UAV with actors playing roles on the other end isn't a difficult task.

Using such a method to trick radio hams would actually be totally impossible.  But, you already knew that.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #121 on: August 28, 2012, 11:36:28 AM »
It depends on what you define as the "ISS." The ISS as NASA defines it does not exist. The bright object flying through the sky, however, does in fact exist. One does not need to accept both.

Strawman argument. The existence of any object at all behaving like a satellite, that is visible across most of the world to millions of people, many of whom cross check its transits in real life with those predicted and find they match, with a calculable altitude (see page 1 for maths) utterly destroys FET.
Run along, back under your bridge now.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

burt

  • 849
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #122 on: August 28, 2012, 11:43:07 AM »
It depends on what you define as the "ISS." The ISS as NASA defines it does not exist. The bright object flying through the sky, however, does in fact exist. One does not need to accept both.

Which bright object?

?

burt

  • 849
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #123 on: August 28, 2012, 11:49:38 AM »
It depends on what you define as the "ISS." The ISS as NASA defines it does not exist. The bright object flying through the sky, however, does in fact exist. One does not need to accept both.

Nice loont idea. Funny but stupid (unless you have some grounds for this idea).

I was under the impression this was a empirical argument not a definitional one.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39118
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #124 on: August 28, 2012, 01:07:32 PM »
Fitting a radio antenna onto a UAV with actors playing roles on the other end isn't a difficult task.

Perhaps not, but it would be difficult to get that UAV to move fast enough across the sky to match the predicted movements of the ISS.
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.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #125 on: August 28, 2012, 01:14:46 PM »
Fitting a radio antenna onto a UAV with actors playing roles on the other end isn't a difficult task.

Perhaps not, but it would be difficult to get that UAV to move fast enough across the sky to match the predicted movements of the ISS.

Difficult? Maybe. Probable? Yes.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #126 on: August 28, 2012, 01:43:36 PM »
Fitting a radio antenna onto a UAV with actors playing roles on the other end isn't a difficult task.

Perhaps not, but it would be difficult to get that UAV to move fast enough across the sky to match the predicted movements of the ISS.

Difficult? Maybe. Probable? Yes.

What is a UAV? Presumably something that has no trouble travelling at thousands of miles per hour at altitudes of over 200km?
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #127 on: August 30, 2012, 12:25:11 AM »
Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #128 on: August 30, 2012, 12:47:26 AM »
Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???

Have you heard of something called a radar?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #129 on: August 30, 2012, 01:13:55 AM »
You and TK are using RADAR to observe the ISS now? I'm impressed.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #130 on: August 30, 2012, 01:46:21 AM »
You and TK are using RADAR to observe the ISS now? I'm impressed.

As you said:

Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???

A radar would tell the distance to an object (and the altitude).
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #131 on: August 30, 2012, 01:49:54 AM »
You and TK are using RADAR to observe the ISS now? I'm impressed.

As you said:

Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???

A radar would tell the distance to an object (and the altitude).


It would, if it were possible to train a radar on such a supposedly fast traveling object. 

Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #132 on: August 30, 2012, 01:52:44 AM »
You and TK are using RADAR to observe the ISS now? I'm impressed.

As you said:

Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???

A radar would tell the distance to an object (and the altitude).

It would, if it were possible to train a radar on such a supposedly fast traveling object.

It can. Search for yourself.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #133 on: August 30, 2012, 01:54:39 AM »
I did.  Thank you very much.

Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #134 on: August 30, 2012, 01:58:52 AM »
Then you know the ISS is real.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #135 on: August 30, 2012, 02:02:16 AM »
The ISS is a puppet in the hands of the NASA conspiracy.

Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #136 on: August 30, 2012, 03:05:44 AM »
If only you could prove it!
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39118
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #137 on: August 30, 2012, 05:32:18 AM »
Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???

Why not?  Levee has.

You and TK are using RADAR to observe the ISS now? I'm impressed.

Check me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, that's supposed to be Irush's day job.
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.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #138 on: August 30, 2012, 09:21:37 AM »
Suddenly, you've determined a method to tell the altitude of a distant object based solely by looking at it?  ???

This is incredible. Don't you guys bother to read the threads?  ::)
See the first page of this one, then get lost and stop wasting everyone's time.
Because it's not like the FE'ers have a method for finding out the altitude of the sun, is it?  :P
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #139 on: August 30, 2012, 12:22:55 PM »
Because it's not like the FE'ers have a method for finding out the altitude of the sun, is it?  :P

Have you searched?

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #140 on: August 30, 2012, 02:40:59 PM »
Because it's not like the FE'ers have a method for finding out the altitude of the sun, is it?  :P

Have you searched?

Tom, that is irony you numbskull. Good grief.
I was drawing a parallel between the "FE'er accepted" method of calculating the height of the sun by triangulation and my own method of calculating the height of the ISS by triangulation. Whoever started suggesting radar as a method actually had a good point, but as those who have bothered to read the thread will know, it isn't required to get a rough altitude for the ISS as we have multiple proven observation points and angle data for each.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #141 on: August 30, 2012, 07:01:29 PM »
Because it's not like the FE'ers have a method for finding out the altitude of the sun, is it?  :P

Have you searched?

Tom, that is irony you numbskull. Good grief.
I was drawing a parallel between the "FE'er accepted" method of calculating the height of the sun by triangulation and my own method of calculating the height of the ISS by triangulation. Whoever started suggesting radar as a method actually had a good point, but as those who have bothered to read the thread will know, it isn't required to get a rough altitude for the ISS as we have multiple proven observation points and angle data for each.

Is it assumed that the surface of the earth is flat or curved between those two observers in the calculation?

Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #142 on: August 31, 2012, 01:19:29 AM »
Because it's not like the FE'ers have a method for finding out the altitude of the sun, is it?  :P

Have you searched?

Tom, that is irony you numbskull. Good grief.
I was drawing a parallel between the "FE'er accepted" method of calculating the height of the sun by triangulation and my own method of calculating the height of the ISS by triangulation. Whoever started suggesting radar as a method actually had a good point, but as those who have bothered to read the thread will know, it isn't required to get a rough altitude for the ISS as we have multiple proven observation points and angle data for each.

Is it assumed that the surface of the earth is flat or curved between those two observers in the calculation?

Curved, of course.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #143 on: August 31, 2012, 10:01:48 AM »
Assuming a flat surface gives a different result in using parallax to determine the distance to bodies in the sky:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun

Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #144 on: August 31, 2012, 10:40:32 AM »
Assuming a flat surface gives a different result in using parallax to determine the distance to bodies in the sky:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun

This method assumes that the Sun is small and close to the Earth, which is incompatible with observations.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #145 on: August 31, 2012, 03:02:35 PM »
Because it's not like the FE'ers have a method for finding out the altitude of the sun, is it?  :P

Have you searched?

Tom, that is irony you numbskull. Good grief.
I was drawing a parallel between the "FE'er accepted" method of calculating the height of the sun by triangulation and my own method of calculating the height of the ISS by triangulation. Whoever started suggesting radar as a method actually had a good point, but as those who have bothered to read the thread will know, it isn't required to get a rough altitude for the ISS as we have multiple proven observation points and angle data for each.

Is it assumed that the surface of the earth is flat or curved between those two observers in the calculation?

Actually, when I did the maths, I assumed a flat surface for the sake of simplicity of calculation. The small amount of error thus generated has very little effect on the result. In fact, a flat surface gives a higher result for altitude than a curved one does.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #146 on: August 31, 2012, 03:58:55 PM »
Assuming a flat surface gives a different result in using parallax to determine the distance to bodies in the sky:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun

This method assumes that the Sun is small and close to the Earth, which is incompatible with observations.

Parallax shows that the sun is small and close to the earth in the flat earth model.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #147 on: August 31, 2012, 04:00:00 PM »
Actually, when I did the maths, I assumed a flat surface for the sake of simplicity of calculation. The small amount of error thus generated has very little effect on the result. In fact, a flat surface gives a higher result for altitude than a curved one does.

Under a round earth the second observer is standing at a different angle to the body than the first observer, which affects the calculations.

If a flat earth gave a higher altitude then you're doing it wrong.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #148 on: August 31, 2012, 05:00:42 PM »
Actually, when I did the maths, I assumed a flat surface for the sake of simplicity of calculation. The small amount of error thus generated has very little effect on the result. In fact, a flat surface gives a higher result for altitude than a curved one does.

Under a round earth the second observer is standing at a different angle to the body than the first observer, which affects the calculations.

If a flat earth gave a higher altitude then you're doing it wrong.

Good point, I failed to take that into account. Let me quickly work out the amount of error this introduces...

OK, done that. With the distances used in my example, it makes a difference of about 3%. Sorry, not enough to make any difference. Still too high to be an aircraft.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 05:06:09 PM by The Knowledge »
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #149 on: September 01, 2012, 04:02:05 AM »
Assuming a flat surface gives a different result in using parallax to determine the distance to bodies in the sky:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun

This method assumes that the Sun is small and close to the Earth, which is incompatible with observations.

Parallax shows that the sun is small and close to the earth in the flat earth model.

Yes the guy who is consistenly wrong.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.