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

• 185 Replies
• 37377 Views

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17726
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #150 on: September 01, 2012, 09:42:10 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.

What's wrong with the calculations in the above link?

?

#### EmperorZhark

• 2229
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #151 on: September 01, 2012, 10:22:34 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.

Pretty much everything: the Sun is much bigger, much further away than FET predicts.

In FET, the apparent size of the Sun would be very different from wher you are. If you take the funny drawing of FE, if you are at 45° under the Sun, it would look about 70% smaller than if you were standing at 0° under it.

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

Yes the guy who is consistenly wrong.

What's wrong with the calculations in the above link?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 41408
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #152 on: September 01, 2012, 10:38:13 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.

What's wrong with the calculations in the above link?

How about the fact that it provides inconsistent results when performed from different locations?  Parallax (triangulation) distance calculations should provide consistent results regardless of where the observations are made.
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.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17726
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #153 on: September 01, 2012, 10:41:25 AM »
How about the fact that it provides inconsistent results when performed from different locations?  Parallax (triangulation) distance calculations should provide consistent results regardless of where the observations are made.

What other locations was the experiment performed from and who performed it?

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 41408
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #154 on: September 01, 2012, 11:11:08 AM »
How about the fact that it provides inconsistent results when performed from different locations?  Parallax (triangulation) distance calculations should provide consistent results regardless of where the observations are made.

What other locations was the experiment performed from and who performed it?

Read ENaG.  Rowbotham performed it in England and got a result of less than 700 miles. Also, a link within your link show a result of about 2000 miles.

BTW Tom, when did you ever perform that particular experiment and where is your documentation?
« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 11:13:32 AM by markjo »
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.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17726
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #155 on: September 01, 2012, 12:45:19 PM »
How about the fact that it provides inconsistent results when performed from different locations?  Parallax (triangulation) distance calculations should provide consistent results regardless of where the observations are made.

What other locations was the experiment performed from and who performed it?

Read ENaG.  Rowbotham performed it in England and got a result of less than 700 miles. Also, a link within your link show a result of about 2000 miles.

In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham tells us is that the sun was at an altitude of 700 on the day and time his measurements were taken.

I've always said that the sun changes altitude over the course of the year, which is seen in its analemma:

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17726
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #156 on: September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM »
BTW Tom, when did you ever perform that particular experiment and where is your documentation?

I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

#### 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 #157 on: September 01, 2012, 02:10:47 PM »

I've always said that the sun changes altitude over the course of the year, which is seen in its analemma:

Unfortunately, the size of its disc does not change correspondingly. Another crackpot TB idea joins its fellows in the trash bin of reason.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

#### garygreen

• 603
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #158 on: September 01, 2012, 02:14:37 PM »
Contacting the International Space Station with a few watts and a shoestring budget antenna: http://www.work-sat.com/Work-Sat/Misc_files/QRP-ISS.pdf

FET can't explain why these objects are undetectable after they pass below the horizon.  The propagation of high frequency radio waves through the atmosphere is well understood.  If the Earth were flat, then we could listen to ISS signals (or whatever is used to fake them) at any time and from any point on Earth.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 02:25:02 PM by garygreen »
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 #159 on: September 01, 2012, 03:56:34 PM »
The propagation of high frequency radio waves through the atmosphere is well understood.

Yes, it is. The physics of orbits are well understood. The shape of the earth is well understood. The reason for the existence of a horizon is well understood. The mechanism governing solar and lunar eclipses are well understood. The paths of the moon around the earth and the earth around the sun are well understood. The reason for stellar rotation around two celestial poles is well understood. The reason for continuous daylight at the poles in summer is well understood.

Yet FET requires us to pretend that our explanations for all of these - explanations that all mesh together into a whole that backs up each component part - are false.
Pitiful. And people wonder why I accuse them of trolling.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

#### Battery72

• 140
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #160 on: September 01, 2012, 04:50:52 PM »
I assume Tom and Rushy have iphones or smartphones? I have a challenge for you. Download the ISS or Sattracker apps. When you have a clear night, use the apps. Then argue with us over the existance of Satellites OK?

I play golf . I also have a GPS that shows be the distance to the front, middle and back of the green. How could this be possible without anything directly above me?

#### Rushy

• 8971
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #161 on: September 01, 2012, 05:23:31 PM »
GPS does not require satellites to work.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 41408
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #162 on: September 01, 2012, 07:34:30 PM »
BTW Tom, when did you ever perform that particular experiment and where is your documentation?

I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

Was Winship in two places at the same time when he calculated the distance to the sun?
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.

?

#### Battery72

• 140
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #163 on: September 02, 2012, 02:04:39 AM »
GPS does not require satellites to work.

Crap answer. Did you download the apps? Prove it to me GPS does not need satellites. You are shit scared to be proven 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 #164 on: September 02, 2012, 02:11:00 AM »
GPS does not require satellites to work.

Crap answer. Did you download the apps? Prove it to me GPS does not need satellites. You are shit scared to be proven wrong.

Ignore the troll, it just pukes out the sentence that most disagrees with whatever the last RE'er posted, whether there's evidence for it or not. If you're careful, you can get it to disagree with itself without it noticing.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

#### Battery72

• 140
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #165 on: September 02, 2012, 03:38:52 AM »
GPS does not require satellites to work.

Crap answer. Did you download the apps? Prove it to me GPS does not need satellites. You are shit scared to be proven wrong.

Ignore the troll, it just pukes out the sentence that most disagrees with whatever the last RE'er posted, whether there's evidence for it or not. If you're careful, you can get it to disagree with itself without it noticing.

LOL. I've noticed on more than one occasion.

#### Rushy

• 8971
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #166 on: September 02, 2012, 12:20:39 PM »
GPS does not require satellites to work.

Crap answer. Did you download the apps? Prove it to me GPS does not need satellites. You are shit scared to be proven wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN

Simply because you do not understand what GPS is, does not give you the right to make insincere comments. You are like a child angry at a physics teacher because "hurr durr physics is dum."

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 41408
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #167 on: September 02, 2012, 12:44:03 PM »
LORAN is not GPS.
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 #168 on: September 02, 2012, 01:20:30 PM »
LORAN is not GPS.

Not by definition. It does, however, perform the same function.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 41408
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #169 on: September 02, 2012, 02:28:05 PM »
LORAN is not GPS.

Not by definition. It does, however, perform the same function.

For some (primarily aircraft and ships) and for now (your link says that LORAN is losing popularity due to GPS).  However, the ubiquitous GPS enabled consumer devices that we all know and love do not use LORAN.
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.

?

#### Battery72

• 140
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #170 on: September 02, 2012, 03:11:18 PM »
GPS does not require satellites to work.

Crap answer. Did you download the apps? Prove it to me GPS does not need satellites. You are shit scared to be proven wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN

Simply because you do not understand what GPS is, does not give you the right to make insincere comments. You are like a child angry at a physics teacher because "hurr durr physics is dum."

#### Rushy

• 8971
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #171 on: September 02, 2012, 04:20:49 PM »
LORAN is not GPS.

Not by definition. It does, however, perform the same function.

For some (primarily aircraft and ships) and for now (your link says that LORAN is losing popularity due to GPS).  However, the ubiquitous GPS enabled consumer devices that we all know and love do not use LORAN.

Well of course they do not use what we label LORAN. Consumer electronics take advantage of the vast, nameless system of radio towers dotted all over the landscape. It is no coincidence that consumer electronics contain the most inaccurate location systems, because they must use point triangulation provided by these towers. The concept that consumer electronics must use a device orbiting thousands of kilometers above the Earth to discern your location is brought upon by an misunderstanding of what we know as "GPS" really is. It is also no coincidence that all of the GPS satellites are supposedly under U.S. Air Force control.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17726
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #172 on: September 02, 2012, 04:37:43 PM »

I've always said that the sun changes altitude over the course of the year, which is seen in its analemma:

Unfortunately, the size of its disc does not change correspondingly. Another crackpot TB idea joins its fellows in the trash bin of reason.

The atmosphere has a magnification effect which balances out the size of the sun when it is closer or more distant: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17726
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #173 on: September 02, 2012, 04:40:50 PM »
I assume Tom and Rushy have iphones or smartphones? I have a challenge for you. Download the ISS or Sattracker apps. When you have a clear night, use the apps. Then argue with us over the existance of Satellites OK?

I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

Most satellites are the size of a car or smaller. You can't see a car in space for the same reason you can't see a car on the ground from the height of an international flight. As they cannot be seen, those satellites may not exist at all. Downloading an app to see them is a waste of time.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2012, 04:42:48 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### 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 #174 on: September 02, 2012, 04:58:04 PM »
I assume Tom and Rushy have iphones or smartphones? I have a challenge for you. Download the ISS or Sattracker apps. When you have a clear night, use the apps. Then argue with us over the existance of Satellites OK?

I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.
And of course all the others, including the Progress supply capsule that docks with the ISS and which was easily visible a few weeks ago following almost the same path as it approached. Many satellites have their path predictions available, and in my experience these match reality. Although you appear to be conceding that the ISS has indeed been proven to be a satellite (which it has), I request you supply proof of the words in red independent of the claim that they can't exist as a consequence of earth flatness. I'd bet good money that you are unable to do so.
Quote
Most satellites are the size of a car or smaller. You can't see a car in space for the same reason you can't see a car on the ground from the height of an international flight. As they cannot be seen, those satellites may not exist at all. Downloading an app to see them is a waste of time.
You had this argument crushed years ago when people patiently explained to you that it's not just about size, it's about brightness and contrast. Since you don't listen, perhaps we should print out these old threads and nail them to your forehead.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 41408
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #175 on: September 02, 2012, 05:11:47 PM »
Well of course they do not use what we label LORAN.

Then why did you bring it up?

Quote
Consumer electronics take advantage of the vast, nameless system of radio towers dotted all over the landscape.  It is no coincidence that consumer electronics contain the most inaccurate location systems, because they must use point triangulation provided by these towers. The concept that consumer electronics must use a device orbiting thousands of kilometers above the Earth to discern your location is brought upon by an misunderstanding of what we know as "GPS" really is. It is also no coincidence that all of the GPS satellites are supposedly under U.S. Air Force control.

Come now, you expect us to believe that the US Air Force is using countless stationary towers in order to simulate 3 dozen or so uniquely identifiable moving signal sources?  Then please tell us, what is the true nature of this "GPS" that we think we know?
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.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17726
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #176 on: September 02, 2012, 05:28:07 PM »
Quote from: The Knowledge
And of course all the others, including the Progress supply capsule that docks with the ISS and which was easily visible a few weeks ago following almost the same path as it approached. Many satellites have their path predictions available, and in my experience these match reality. Although you appear to be conceding that the ISS has indeed been proven to be a satellite (which it has), I request you supply proof of the words in red independent of the claim that they can't exist as a consequence of earth flatness. I'd bet good money that you are unable to do so.

I said that the ISS was visible. I didn't say it was a satellite.

Quote from: The Knowledge
You had this argument crushed years ago when people patiently explained to you that it's not just about size, it's about brightness and contrast. Since you don't listen, perhaps we should print out these old threads and nail them to your forehead.

Sunlight bounces off of cars on the ground, creating intensely lit objects, but you still cannot see those cars from an international flight.

?

#### 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 #177 on: September 02, 2012, 05:31:48 PM »

I've always said that the sun changes altitude over the course of the year, which is seen in its analemma:

Unfortunately, the size of its disc does not change correspondingly. Another crackpot TB idea joins its fellows in the trash bin of reason.

The atmosphere has a magnification effect which balances out the size of the sun when it is closer or more distant: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Sorry, that's nonsense. You don't have any proof of any of that, it contradicts all known physics governing light, and your wiki page does not constitute proof.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

#### 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 #178 on: September 02, 2012, 05:32:49 PM »
Quote from: The Knowledge
And of course all the others, including the Progress supply capsule that docks with the ISS and which was easily visible a few weeks ago following almost the same path as it approached. Many satellites have their path predictions available, and in my experience these match reality. Although you appear to be conceding that the ISS has indeed been proven to be a satellite (which it has), I request you supply proof of the words in red independent of the claim that they can't exist as a consequence of earth flatness. I'd bet good money that you are unable to do so.

I said that the ISS was visible. I didn't say it was a satellite.

Quote from: The Knowledge
You had this argument crushed years ago when people patiently explained to you that it's not just about size, it's about brightness and contrast. Since you don't listen, perhaps we should print out these old threads and nail them to your forehead.

Sunlight bounces off of cars on the ground, creating intensely lit objects, but you still cannot see those cars from an international flight.

I have put the word you are selectively ignoring in red. Address it now or leave the thread.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

#### garygreen

• 603
##### Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.
« Reply #179 on: September 02, 2012, 06:24:48 PM »
I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

While many of these objects cannot be seen in visible light, they all emit radio waves that are easily 'seen' by thousands of amateurs on a regular basis.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm

Here is another repository of observations and tracking information: http://www.n2yo.com/
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 --