I need a hard evidence.

  • 118 Replies
  • 19692 Views
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #60 on: January 03, 2014, 03:29:52 AM »
I am not.  Caballero asked for something he could see, so I made a simple suggestion. 

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #61 on: January 03, 2014, 04:00:53 AM »
parralax' Bedford Level Experiment is the cu de gras of the flat earth argument. that is the main experiment for flat earth. If you go to a long canal and use telescope, please post results here :D

oh dear...

 

From the Wallace account of Bedford Level.

The image on the left shows the two possible outcomes for a properly designed experiment conducted on the Bedford Level, the image on the right shows what was seen through the telescope at point 'A', and was signed off as correct by both a FE and a RE representative. It doesn't get much more clear-cut than that.

What is that supposed to prove?  I can draw a similar cube that would also look flat.  I think you are just grasping at straws at this point.
So why are you backing up your claim with how you perceive the horizon then?
I am not.  Caballero asked for something he could see, so I made a simple suggestion. 

Why bother effectively telling someone "it looks flat", when we all know that's a completely useless observation? You might as well say "look out your window", although, looking out your window can be quite informative if your window faces east, west, toward distant mountains, or has a view of the sky where those little points of light that travel at great speed without making a sound can be seen of a night time...
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #62 on: January 03, 2014, 06:06:40 AM »
From the human eye, the Earth looks flat...from ground level, from an airplane, day or night.  THE EARTH IS FLAT.
This is our reality.  This is the truth.
The big secret is that we also live inside a bubble.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #63 on: January 03, 2014, 09:58:22 AM »
From the human eye, the Earth looks flat...from ground level, from an airplane, day or night.  THE EARTH IS FLAT.
This is our reality.  This is the truth.
The big secret is that we also live inside a bubble.

How do orbiting satellites work?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #64 on: January 03, 2014, 10:02:43 AM »
From the human eye, the Earth looks flat...from ground level, from an airplane, day or night.  THE EARTH IS FLAT.
This is our reality.  This is the truth.
The big secret is that we also live inside a bubble.

How do orbiting satellites work?
The simple answer is, they don't.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #65 on: January 03, 2014, 12:12:14 PM »
From the human eye, the Earth looks flat...from ground level, from an airplane, day or night.  THE EARTH IS FLAT.

So, the earth is flat because it looks flat, but the sun doesn't really set, it's just an illusion? Right...

How do orbiting satellites work?
The simple answer is, they don't.

So what are those little dots of light zipping across the night sky, making no noise, that look like satellites through a telescope (specific example being the ISS)?
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #66 on: January 03, 2014, 12:41:26 PM »
From the human eye, the Earth looks flat...from ground level, from an airplane, day or night.  THE EARTH IS FLAT.

So, the earth is flat because it looks flat, but the sun doesn't really set, it's just an illusion? Right...

How do orbiting satellites work?
The simple answer is, they don't.

So what are those little dots of light zipping across the night sky, making no noise, that look like satellites through a telescope (specific example being the ISS)?
Why would they be zipping across the sky? what actual purpose would they serve by zipping across the sky?

?

Sculelos

  • 976
  • +0/-0
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #67 on: January 03, 2014, 12:46:28 PM »
From the human eye, the Earth looks flat...from ground level, from an airplane, day or night.  THE EARTH IS FLAT.

So, the earth is flat because it looks flat, but the sun doesn't really set, it's just an illusion? Right...

How do orbiting satellites work?
The simple answer is, they don't.

So what are those little dots of light zipping across the night sky, making no noise, that look like satellites through a telescope (specific example being the ISS)?
Why would they be zipping across the sky? what actual purpose would they serve by zipping across the sky?

Basically Virtual Satellites can boost transfer rates between other satellites and ground signals and yes they can orbit up to 4 times per day but their orbit is Elliptical and not around any fixed object like the Earth. 

*

Moosedrool

  • 342
  • +0/-0
  • Ice Wall Guardian
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #68 on: January 03, 2014, 12:53:35 PM »
From the human eye, the Earth looks flat...from ground level, from an airplane, day or night.  THE EARTH IS FLAT.

So, the earth is flat because it looks flat, but the sun doesn't really set, it's just an illusion? Right...

How do orbiting satellites work?
The simple answer is, they don't.

So what are those little dots of light zipping across the night sky, making no noise, that look like satellites through a telescope (specific example being the ISS)?
Why would they be zipping across the sky? what actual purpose would they serve by zipping across the sky?

The ISS is a research centre designed and built practically for experimentation in constant 0G conditions. They grow plant's, crystals, test physics, electromagnetism along with collecting information on the earths magnetic field, solar radiation, weather patterns etc... Corporations such as honeywell and stuff is subcontracted by NASA for instrumentation, control mechanism and so forth.

Practically everyone has a finger in the pie up there. And you pay for it...
I'm not trying to disprove gravity. I've succeeded in disproving it. It's called denpressure.

*

Moosedrool

  • 342
  • +0/-0
  • Ice Wall Guardian
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #69 on: January 03, 2014, 12:55:33 PM »
From the human eye, the Earth looks flat...from ground level, from an airplane, day or night.  THE EARTH IS FLAT.

So, the earth is flat because it looks flat, but the sun doesn't really set, it's just an illusion? Right...

How do orbiting satellites work?
The simple answer is, they don't.

So what are those little dots of light zipping across the night sky, making no noise, that look like satellites through a telescope (specific example being the ISS)?
Why would they be zipping across the sky? what actual purpose would they serve by zipping across the sky?

Basically Virtual Satellites can boost transfer rates between other satellites and ground signals and yes they can orbit up to 4 times per day but their orbit is Elliptical and not around any fixed object like the Earth.

You do get geostationary and geosynchronous satellites.
I'm not trying to disprove gravity. I've succeeded in disproving it. It's called denpressure.

?

Sculelos

  • 976
  • +0/-0
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #70 on: January 03, 2014, 12:59:46 PM »
From the human eye, the Earth looks flat...from ground level, from an airplane, day or night.  THE EARTH IS FLAT.

So, the earth is flat because it looks flat, but the sun doesn't really set, it's just an illusion? Right...

How do orbiting satellites work?
The simple answer is, they don't.

So what are those little dots of light zipping across the night sky, making no noise, that look like satellites through a telescope (specific example being the ISS)?
Why would they be zipping across the sky? what actual purpose would they serve by zipping across the sky?

Basically Virtual Satellites can boost transfer rates between other satellites and ground signals and yes they can orbit up to 4 times per day but their orbit is Elliptical and not around any fixed object like the Earth.

You do get geostationary and geosynchronous satellites.

Yeah Geostationary ones appear to hang in the air while geosynchronous ones can make their own elliptical circles without orbiting around the Earth. It actually doesn't really matter as if they go into motion they will stay in motion until something knocks them off their path and it really doesn't matter if they are or are not orbiting the Earth. In space you can set something on it's own orbit and it will stay on it's own orbit until something else knocks it off it's orbit.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #71 on: January 04, 2014, 05:46:34 AM »
Could any FEs explain what I was looking at as I watched the Russian Sputnik 1 cross the sky in southern Australia?

It was following the projected orbital path—which is why I could locate it in the sky.  It appeared as a tiny speck of very bright light, and moving relatively slowly in an apparent straight line (although it may have been curved in actuality; it was difficult to perceive in the vastness of the sky).

Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #72 on: January 04, 2014, 07:14:33 AM »
Could any FEs explain what I was looking at as I watched the Russian Sputnik 1 cross the sky in southern Australia?

It was following the projected orbital path—which is why I could locate it in the sky.  It appeared as a tiny speck of very bright light, and moving relatively slowly in an apparent straight line (although it may have been curved in actuality; it was difficult to perceive in the vastness of the sky).
Sputnik was 23 inches in diameter and you saw it outside our atmosphere?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #73 on: January 04, 2014, 07:32:03 AM »

Sputnik was 23 inches in diameter and you saw it outside our atmosphere?


Yep.  Sputnik was made to be seen.  Its surface was made of highly-polished aluminium-magnesium-titanium AMG6T alloy which reflected sunlight perfectly.  It reflected light at a magnitude of +6 which is within the limit of naked-eye visibility. And bear in mind I was observing it in an area of very low atmospheric light pollution—the southern coast of Australia.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #74 on: January 04, 2014, 10:45:07 AM »
Sputnik is an anagram of spunk it, which is what the Russians did with the money for building a little tin ball with discarded radio aerials on it that was probably knocked together for about a few hundred English pounds and the rest of the millions on good living.

And little Geoffrey managed to see it in space.  ;D
No wonder I don't take people like this, seriously.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #75 on: January 04, 2014, 10:54:06 AM »
What's the Goonhilly earth station for then?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #76 on: January 04, 2014, 11:31:15 AM »
Could any FEs explain what I was looking at as I watched the Russian Sputnik 1 cross the sky in southern Australia?

Let me guess.  Did it look like a little white light?  This is only proof that you saw a little white light in the sky.

By the way, when did you see this?

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #77 on: January 04, 2014, 01:54:36 PM »
Could any FEs explain what I was looking at as I watched the Russian Sputnik 1 cross the sky in southern Australia?

Let me guess.  Did it look like a little white light?  This is only proof that you saw a little white light in the sky.

By the way, when did you see this?

If that little white light, and all the other little white lights that can be seen today (or the ISS, which actually looks like the ISS through a telescope), are not satellites, then what are they? Such things cannot simply be dismissed out of hand because you don't believe they are possible; a plausible alternative explanation is required.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #78 on: January 04, 2014, 02:37:28 PM »
Sci,
Plausible explanations HAVE been given....HIGH ALTITUDE TOP SECRET MILITARY AIRCRAFT.  "Just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it isn't true!"

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #79 on: January 04, 2014, 02:44:59 PM »
Sci,
Plausible explanations HAVE been given....HIGH ALTITUDE TOP SECRET MILITARY AIRCRAFT.  "Just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it isn't true!"

Sure, I mean, they told us that it was a satellite but they can do anything with TV these days and it is therefore more likely that they are lying.

To that end, last year, "they" showed us the Baltimore Ravens winning the Superbowl, but that is so easy to fake. I know for a fact that the 49ers actually won the big game, but they lied to us because there was so much money involved.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #80 on: January 04, 2014, 02:58:11 PM »
Sci,
Plausible explanations HAVE been given....HIGH ALTITUDE TOP SECRET MILITARY AIRCRAFT.  "Just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it isn't true!"

Sorry, I don't consider that plausible, and I explained why before: noise. To be traveling fast enough to replicate a satellite, at an altitude where it would be difficult to differentiate between a satellite and an aircraft, such an aircraft would have to be in the hypersonic speed range (Mach 5+). Do you have any idea how much noise that would make?! If I can clearly hear a commercial jet at 35,000ft+, then I'm going to hear any aircraft pretending to be a satellite.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #81 on: January 04, 2014, 03:02:21 PM »
I have seen many light emitting objects in the sky the make no sound.  By the way, there is only a couple of hour window to actually see 'satellites', so all of you who claim that you can see them all night long are simply lying. 

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #82 on: January 04, 2014, 03:05:27 PM »
I have seen many light emitting objects in the sky the make no sound.  By the way, there is only a couple of hour window to actually see 'satellites', so all of you who claim that you can see them all night long are simply lying.

Why? Do you suppose that there is only 1 satellite? Are they lying or do you just not know what you are talking about?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #83 on: January 04, 2014, 03:11:41 PM »
Private Manning was the only whistle blower.  Everyone else kept quiet because they were told to.  Civilians, Military personnel, it did not matter.  Everyone kept quiet except for one person because the authority told them to.

By the way, even though Manning will likely die in prison, the conspiracy went even farther by turning him into a girl.  Damn bastards have no end to their cruelty for talkers.  It seems to make it that much easier to control the others who have knowledge that they do not want to be leaked. 

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #84 on: January 04, 2014, 03:31:09 PM »
I have seen many light emitting objects in the sky the make no sound.

Such as..? I just want to know if there's anything that you know of that could actually be mistaken for a satellite.

By the way, there is only a couple of hour window to actually see 'satellites', so all of you who claim that you can see them all night long are simply lying.

Who said they were visible all night?
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #85 on: January 04, 2014, 03:35:16 PM »
I have seen many light emitting objects in the sky the make no sound.

Such as..? I just want to know if there's anything that you know of that could actually be mistaken for a satellite.

  Airplanes and UFOs.  They are often too high to be heard on the ground.  Prove me wrong. 

By the way, there is only a couple of hour window to actually see 'satellites', so all of you who claim that you can see them all night long are simply lying.

Who said they were visible all night?

You Roundys that say, "go outside and look at all the satellites flying by at night."

*

Moosedrool

  • 342
  • +0/-0
  • Ice Wall Guardian
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #86 on: January 04, 2014, 03:43:44 PM »
By the way, there is only a couple of hour window to actually see 'satellites', so all of you who claim that you can see them all night long are simply lying.

Who said they were visible all night?

Actually:




Anywho. I would love to see a plane looking like this capable of atmospheric flight:


« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 04:10:20 PM by Moosedrool »
I'm not trying to disprove gravity. I've succeeded in disproving it. It's called denpressure.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #87 on: January 04, 2014, 03:56:41 PM »
I have seen many light emitting objects in the sky the make no sound.

Such as..? I just want to know if there's anything that you know of that could actually be mistaken for a satellite.

  Airplanes and UFOs.  They are often too high to be heard on the ground.  Prove me wrong. 

Too easy, just come and visit! I hear the commercial jets every time they go over, and they are definitely at cruising height. The sound is actually even clearer at night. I have never seen a UFO, and I do not consider such a thing as a plausible alternative explanation.

By the way, there is only a couple of hour window to actually see 'satellites', so all of you who claim that you can see them all night long are simply lying.

Who said they were visible all night?

You Roundys that say, "go outside and look at all the satellites flying by at night."

Did anyone specify "any time of night", or was it just "at night", which could simply be a concise way of saying "within a couple of hours of sunset or sunrise"?
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #88 on: January 04, 2014, 03:59:21 PM »
Sci,
Plausible explanations HAVE been given....HIGH ALTITUDE TOP SECRET MILITARY AIRCRAFT.  "Just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it isn't true!"

Sorry, I don't consider that plausible, and I explained why before: noise. To be traveling fast enough to replicate a satellite, at an altitude where it would be difficult to differentiate between a satellite and an aircraft, such an aircraft would have to be in the hypersonic speed range (Mach 5+). Do you have any idea how much noise that would make?! If I can clearly hear a commercial jet at 35,000ft+, then I'm going to hear any aircraft pretending to be a satellite.
Oh really?  At 70k ft or more?  I need proof of that.

Re: I need a hard evidence.
« Reply #89 on: January 04, 2014, 04:11:10 PM »
Moose,
Where did you get that top photo?  If you did not PERSONALLY take it, I will not consider it evidence.  The second one could easily have been faked like all the rest that look just like it.