I need a hard evidence.

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.

K then don't. But anyone with a nicer camera than me and the same telescope should be able to take this picture right? I guess when you buy the 2, NASA officials knocks on your door or something.

BTW I just have a crappy time-lapse video of it blinking.

Considering photographic evidence, where's FES photo's?

Both of them could easily be models or CGI.  Also, why would the ISS need all of those fog lights?  Are they worried about it running into another satellite?

Both of them could easily be models or CGI.  Also, why would the ISS need all of those fog lights?  Are they worried about it running into another satellite?

Yeah backyard astronomer's models and CG. No correlation with NASA or any space agency...

Fog lights? lol. That's thick!

Considering photographic evidence, where's FES photo's?

Every single photo taken of the Earth shows that it's flat, unless it is fake or taken with a wide angle or fish eye lens.

Quote from: jroa on January 04, 2014, 04:22:40 PM

Both of them could easily be models or CGI.  Also, why would the ISS need all of those fog lights?  Are they worried about it running into another satellite?

Yeah backyard astronomer's models and CG. No correlation with NASA or any space agency...

Fog lights? lol. That's thick!

There is no proof that those pictures were taken by "backyard astronomers."  However, even if there was proof of this, it still would not be proof of what the pictures actually represent.  For all you know, the ISS could be dangling from the bottom of a high altitude balloon. 

Also, still no explanation about the fog lights? 

I see no explanation in that diagram.  Also, maybe I should have referred to the lights as stadium lights.  Or, maybe movie set lights.

I see no explanation in that diagram.  Also, maybe I should have referred to the lights as stadium lights.  Or, maybe movie set lights.

Do you need someone to draw circles? You don't buy anything from IKEA do you?

Yes, please draw pictures, because nothing in that diagram looks like a 12 light array. 

Yes, please draw pictures, because nothing in that diagram looks like a 12 light array.

There is something in the pic that looks like lights but is in fact something else. It has 12 squarish looking objects in an array too. Search iss on Google images and compare it to the dull image we saw earlier and this diagram. It should all come together. I'm not going to hold your hand.

Quote from: jroa on January 04, 2014, 05:18:38 PM

Yes, please draw pictures, because nothing in that diagram looks like a 12 light array.

There is something in the pic that looks like lights but is in fact something else. It has 12 squarish looking objects in an array too. Search iss on Google images and compare it to the dull image we saw earlier and this diagram. It should all come together. I'm not going to hold your hand.

Looks like the Heat Rejection Subsystem Radiators giving off the heat (and therefore light).

Quote from: rottingroom on January 04, 2014, 05:21:55 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 04, 2014, 05:18:38 PM

Yes, please draw pictures, because nothing in that diagram looks like a 12 light array.

There is something in the pic that looks like lights but is in fact something else. It has 12 squarish looking objects in an array too. Search iss on Google images and compare it to the dull image we saw earlier and this diagram. It should all come together. I'm not going to hold your hand.

Looks like the Heat Rejection Subsystem Radiators giving off the heat (and therefore light).

I have no idea what they do or whether they emit light or reflect it but its painfully clear from the diagram that that is what they are.

...you must explain in detail

Nah you can believe what you want.
I'm not a believer of FE theory, but Inverted Earth or Koreshanity might be worth a look if you're really interested.

Quote from: Scintific Method on January 04, 2014, 03:31:09 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 04, 2014, 03:02:21 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. 

Quote from: Scintific Method on January 04, 2014, 03:31:09 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 04, 2014, 03:02:21 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?

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

Plane engine sounds are often beyond human perception at high altitude. But the sonic boom produced by every supersonic object, even at high altitude, is a known annoyance. Remember Concorde. No supersonic flights were allowed over populated land for noise issues.
A high altitude supersonic object would be noticed very often.

Plane engine sounds are often beyond human perception at high altitude. But the sonic boom produced by every supersonic object, even at high altitude, is a known annoyance. Remember Concorde. No supersonic flights were allowed over populated land for noise issues.
A high altitude supersonic object would be noticed very often.

Yes, I hear them regularly as I live near an air force base.   Sci Method brought up that airliners can be heard at 35k ft which is irrelevant since high altitude airplanes fly much higher.  Concorde only flew to 55k ft.  The U2 flew 70k ft and the military now has planes flying at 90k ft. plus.  The higher up they are, the thinner/less air, and therefore the sonic boom (if any) is inaudible.
And on another note: These planes have high tech cameras on them, capable of zooming in on a golf ball from MILES high.  So, there's your satellite photo....and Google Earth image.
OCCUM'S RAZOR

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. 
No wonder I don't take people like this, seriously.

What a predictable—and laughably childish—response.  You obviously have no idea of the dollar costs involved with exploratory space technology.

And yes:  I saw it with my naked eyes.  If you knew anything at all about the relative magnitudes of light, you'd understand that my assertion is perfectly reasonable.  But then you don't want to let scientific facts get in the way of your juvenile little rant do you LOL.

Quote from: ausGeoff 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?

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?

Yes; it did appear as a "little white light"—as any magnitude +6 light source would from a distance of 230 miles.  It moved on a true arc course from one visible horizon to the other, at a slow and steady velocity.  I'm guessing you've never personally observed any of the contemporary and physically larger satellites currently orbiting the earth?

And if you'd bother to research Sputnik 1, you'd know exactly when I saw it.  I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna do your homework for you.

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.

I thank you for that offensive conclusion.  Is that really the best defence you can come up with to rebut me and the others here who've actually seen man-made satellites?  Seriously?  What a pathetic (non) argument.

You really owe us an apology my friend.

Both of them could easily be models or CGI.

I'm truly surprised by your paucity of intelligent rebuttals on this site in defence of your own opinions.  Most of them resort to childish insults and accusations of lying, or dismissing every image as CGI or otherwise bogus.

Do you not have any legitimate arguments, other than juvenile name-calling?

Quote from: jroa on January 04, 2014, 04:22:40 PM

Both of them could easily be models or CGI.

I'm truly surprised by your paucity of intelligent rebuttals on this site in defence of your own opinions.  Most of them resort to childish insults and accusations of lying, or dismissing every image as CGI or otherwise bogus.

Do you not have any legitimate arguments, other than juvenile name-calling?

jroa is a troll. I tried to make friends with him on IRC and he revealed to me that he knows the earth is round. I told him I wouldn't tell anyone but I've changed my mind because who cares?

jroa is a troll. I tried to make friends with him on IRC and he revealed to me that he knows the earth is round. I told him I wouldn't tell anyone but I've changed my mind because who cares?

Thanks.  I was starting to wonder the same thing myself.

In fact, there seem to be far too many trolls on this site, which is a pity as the flat earth versus round earth debate is actually quite interesting.

Is there any reason the site moderators don't weed out these guys?

Quote from: rottingroom on January 05, 2014, 07:51:05 AM

jroa is a troll. I tried to make friends with him on IRC and he revealed to me that he knows the earth is round. I told him I wouldn't tell anyone but I've changed my mind because who cares?

Thanks.  I was starting to wonder the same thing myself.

In fact, there seem to be far too many trolls on this site, which is a pity as the flat earth versus round earth debate is actually quite interesting.

Is there any reason the site moderators don't weed out these guys?

Because most of those people are also trolls. I'm not denying that there aren't some people who actually believe the earth is flat but you can find out who is who if you really want to. Each user has a post history and you can look through all their past posts. For many, you can see that they start off understanding science just as much as anyone else. They then either realize that everyone here is trolling, or give up on the debate and decide to do it themselves. Many times, you can find the exact post where they will proclaim that they will do so from that point on.

It appears that some people are getting extremely frustrated and are now consoling themselves by the makings of a tag team.
Just the usual stuff, then.

jroa is a troll. I tried to make friends with him on IRC and he revealed to me that he knows the earth is round. I told him I wouldn't tell anyone but I've changed my mind because who cares?

The Earth IS round, but FLAT.

jroa is a troll. I tried to make friends with him on IRC and he revealed to me that he knows the earth is round. I told him I wouldn't tell anyone but I've changed my mind because who cares?

I trolled you so bad on IRC.  I could have told you that I was the tooth fairy and you would have believed it.  Don't get mad at me about your gullibility. 

Hey, rottingroom, the chupacabra lives under my bed.

Quote from: rottingroom on January 05, 2014, 07:51:05 AM

jroa is a troll. I tried to make friends with him on IRC and he revealed to me that he knows the earth is round. I told him I wouldn't tell anyone but I've changed my mind because who cares?

I trolled you so bad on IRC.  I could have told you that I was the tooth fairy and you would have believed it.  Don't get mad at me about your gullibility. 

Hey, rottingroom, the chupacabra lives under my bed.

Sure you did. Better go erase your post history.

Ah crud, I'm actually a FE'er that trolled as a rounder. Guess we can pack up and all head home now...

I'd grease your mama, but it is not worth it any more.

edit: oh, you said erase.  Well, I won't do that. 

Quote from: Antonio on January 04, 2014, 11:18:38 PM

Plane engine sounds are often beyond human perception at high altitude. But the sonic boom produced by every supersonic object, even at high altitude, is a known annoyance. Remember Concorde. No supersonic flights were allowed over populated land for noise issues.
A high altitude supersonic object would be noticed very often.

Yes, I hear them regularly as I live near an air force base.   Sci Method brought up that airliners can be heard at 35k ft which is irrelevant since high altitude airplanes fly much higher.  Concorde only flew to 55k ft.  The U2 flew 70k ft and the military now has planes flying at 90k ft. plus.  The higher up they are, the thinner/less air, and therefore the sonic boom (if any) is inaudible.
And on another note: These planes have high tech cameras on them, capable of zooming in on a golf ball from MILES high.  So, there's your satellite photo....and Google Earth image.
OCCUM'S RAZOR

Satellite visible paths extend over 30 000 km (solid line)


Please give evidence of planes that can fly a sustained 90k ft altitude at the required speed, without refuelling (remember,  the SR71 London-New York world record flight required an inflight refuelling).
 
Air density is not a sensible parameter for sonic booms. Distance and therefore altitude obviously are.
Here are typical overpressures:

Concorde,  Mach 2@52k ft  : 1.94 pounds
SR-71,  Mach 3@80k ft  0.9 pounds
F-104,  Mach 1.9@48k ft  0.8 pounds

At 85k ft, a  SR71 was still audible.

Can you also explain how a plane is able to fly unnoticed over every country, even hostile ones ?

Finally, according to this,
http://www.heavens-above.com/AllSats.aspx?lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCT
over your head, for a given day, you may see 50+ alleged spatial objects. This can be roughly estimated to a 200+ world total. This is a lot of classified planes flying simultaneously,  a lot more for the estimated fleet (refuelling, reparing and so on), and a gigantic amount of supply chains spreading over the world (airfields, mechanics, atc...).
Again, please give some evidence of this extraordinary activity.
 
For you side note. Can you give some rough estimates for  the number of planes needed to cover the entire earth ?