Why haven't we EVER seen a picture of Eclipses FROM SPACE?

I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?

The ISS doesn't just exist for bragging rights or anything, a LOT of science happens there.  Also, the International Space Station is not just made by NASA, it's made by many space agencies around the world working together to build and launch parts.  If you assume that the ISS is fake then you would have to assume that most every space agency in the world is lying.  That's one big assumption.

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 01:47:11 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 01:32:33 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 09:30:25 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 08:01:49 AM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 07:40:28 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 07:31:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 10, 2015, 07:27:47 AM

Quote from: texasusaguy on March 09, 2015, 07:09:22 AM

Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....

Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive.  It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing.  Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.

You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?

Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.

I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?

ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.

There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish.  We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?

Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.

As for the rest of your response - that was exactly my point. You either assume that you're not being constantly lied to by evil conspirators and thus there is a manned space station orbiting earth, or you assume that there indeed is an evil conspiracy that lies to you about everything and that iss is actually a supersonic blimp or whatever fet is currently proposing. An epistemic dilemma.

I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?

No, I do not know anyone employed by nasa. Except my self of course, being a shill on these forums. Closest thing to that is a relative of mine who works for an institute that has designed and manufactured instruments for robotic spacecrafts, some of them nasa spacecrafts. But that is irrelevant.

You make 'just faking it' seem very easy and simple, but there's more to it than just saying 'we did it' and making a few pr videos, the various fet theories thrown around here demand virtually all of modern science to be 'fake' - assumptions required by fet are not fewer. These 'alternative theories' largely coming from people who are amazingly oblivious to even simple things that we can observe directly (celestial mechanics just for an example), I'm going to go with the actual scientists instead of people who think that air does not exist, or that our Sun is a reflection of a volcano at the Earth's north pole, gravity is not real, or, that the Earth is flat - even if I can not personally disprove those claims, or prove that there are people aboard the iss or that mass attracts mass. Anyway I'm sure this discussion has been had countless times here already.

Viewing it as an epistemic problem, there's no way for us to prove these things, so it comes down to what beliefs we can justify as knowledge.

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 02:12:06 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 01:47:11 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 01:32:33 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 09:30:25 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 08:01:49 AM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 07:40:28 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 07:31:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 10, 2015, 07:27:47 AM

Quote from: texasusaguy on March 09, 2015, 07:09:22 AM

Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....

Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive.  It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing.  Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.

You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?

Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.

I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?

ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.

There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish.  We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?

Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.

As for the rest of your response - that was exactly my point. You either assume that you're not being constantly lied to by evil conspirators and thus there is a manned space station orbiting earth, or you assume that there indeed is an evil conspiracy that lies to you about everything and that iss is actually a supersonic blimp or whatever fet is currently proposing. An epistemic dilemma.

I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?

No, I do not know anyone employed by nasa. Except my self of course, being a shill on these forums. Closest thing to that is a relative of mine who works for an institute that has designed and manufactured instruments for robotic spacecrafts, some of them nasa spacecrafts. But that is irrelevant.

You make 'just faking it' seem very easy and simple, but there's more to it than just saying 'we did it' and making a few pr videos, the various fet theories thrown around here demand virtually all of modern science to be 'fake' - assumptions required by fet are not fewer. These 'alternative theories' largely coming from people who are amazingly oblivious to even simple things that we can observe directly (celestial mechanics just for an example), I'm going to go with the actual scientists instead of people who think that air does not exist, or that our Sun is a reflection of a volcano at the Earth's north pole, gravity is not real, or, that the Earth is flat - even if I can not personally disprove those claims, or prove that there are people aboard the iss or that mass attracts mass. Anyway I'm sure this discussion has been had countless times here already.

Viewing it as an epistemic problem, there's no way for us to prove these things, so it comes down to what beliefs we can justify as knowledge.

None of the space stuff counts as knowledge as it is literally a joke. Knowledge is a good thing when it has some application in real life. Space travel doesn't. There is just a small group of clowns who are paid to act like they are in space, but it is just a show. Space travel is a great science fiction idea, but doesn't constitute a fact for all practical purposes for pretty much everyone. I would change my mind only if I have a chance to experience anything close to being in space. There is no point being naive and trusting someone for something like that. The alternative theories are equally unreliable, so I am actually surprised why anyone would seriously claim they are right about stuff we cannot possibly verify ourselves. The honest thing to do would be to simply admit it is our imagination speaking or that we just trust the authorities, and not that we have some access to secret knowledge or whatnot.

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 02:46:25 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 02:12:06 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 01:47:11 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 01:32:33 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 09:30:25 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 08:01:49 AM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 07:40:28 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 07:31:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 10, 2015, 07:27:47 AM

Quote from: texasusaguy on March 09, 2015, 07:09:22 AM

Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....

Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive.  It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing.  Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.

You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?

Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.

I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?

ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.

There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish.  We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?

Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.

As for the rest of your response - that was exactly my point. You either assume that you're not being constantly lied to by evil conspirators and thus there is a manned space station orbiting earth, or you assume that there indeed is an evil conspiracy that lies to you about everything and that iss is actually a supersonic blimp or whatever fet is currently proposing. An epistemic dilemma.

I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?

No, I do not know anyone employed by nasa. Except my self of course, being a shill on these forums. Closest thing to that is a relative of mine who works for an institute that has designed and manufactured instruments for robotic spacecrafts, some of them nasa spacecrafts. But that is irrelevant.

You make 'just faking it' seem very easy and simple, but there's more to it than just saying 'we did it' and making a few pr videos, the various fet theories thrown around here demand virtually all of modern science to be 'fake' - assumptions required by fet are not fewer. These 'alternative theories' largely coming from people who are amazingly oblivious to even simple things that we can observe directly (celestial mechanics just for an example), I'm going to go with the actual scientists instead of people who think that air does not exist, or that our Sun is a reflection of a volcano at the Earth's north pole, gravity is not real, or, that the Earth is flat - even if I can not personally disprove those claims, or prove that there are people aboard the iss or that mass attracts mass. Anyway I'm sure this discussion has been had countless times here already.

Viewing it as an epistemic problem, there's no way for us to prove these things, so it comes down to what beliefs we can justify as knowledge.

None of the space stuff counts as knowledge as it is literally a joke. Knowledge is a good thing when it has some application in real life. Space travel doesn't. There is just a small group of clowns who are paid to act like they are in space, but it is just a show. Space travel is a great science fiction idea, but doesn't constitute a fact for all practical purposes for pretty much everyone. I would change my mind only if I have a chance to experience anything close to being in space. There is no point being naive and trusting someone for something like that. The alternative theories are equally unreliable, so I am actually surprised why anyone would seriously claim they are right about stuff we cannot possibly verify ourselves. The honest thing to do would be to simply admit it is our imagination speaking or that we just trust the authorities, and not that we have some access to secret knowledge or whatnot.

So we agree that we can not prove either way, not in practice at least. Then it comes down to what beliefs we choose to justify as knowledge. To you it is the argument of incredulity presented above, to me it is a similar argument against a global conspiracy.

While it is not possible (at this time, for you and me) to prove or disprove space flight, we can gather evidence and use that to refine what we justify as knowledge. Since ISS was mentioned I'll use it as an example - space geeks around the world use reported ISS trajectory to aim their lenses, and they do find the reported position is correct. With triangulation we can then see that reported altitude and velocity are also correct, ruling out aircraft or such. From there it is not a long leap of faith for me to assume the ISS is an orbiting spacecraft - the alternative, a balloon travelling 10kp/s or a hologram or something else with all the lies and fake videos and paid actors and hobby astronomers lying etc seems to me to be the less believable possibility and I can not justify it as knowledge.

In my view fe belief is a conspiracy theory in the most negative sense of the term. Unless it's just a big trolling effort. Evidence I've seen presented for fe tends to float on assumptions based on previous assumptions and all of it demand a nefarious conspiracy to exist; same could be said of re in this context but fet definitely does not get away with fewer assumptions than ret.

Quote from: Saros on March 11, 2015, 03:03:20 AM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 02:46:25 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 02:12:06 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 01:47:11 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 01:32:33 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 09:30:25 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 08:01:49 AM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 07:40:28 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 07:31:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 10, 2015, 07:27:47 AM

Quote from: texasusaguy on March 09, 2015, 07:09:22 AM

Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....

Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive.  It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing.  Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.

You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?

Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.

I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?

ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.

There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish.  We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?

Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.

As for the rest of your response - that was exactly my point. You either assume that you're not being constantly lied to by evil conspirators and thus there is a manned space station orbiting earth, or you assume that there indeed is an evil conspiracy that lies to you about everything and that iss is actually a supersonic blimp or whatever fet is currently proposing. An epistemic dilemma.

I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?

No, I do not know anyone employed by nasa. Except my self of course, being a shill on these forums. Closest thing to that is a relative of mine who works for an institute that has designed and manufactured instruments for robotic spacecrafts, some of them nasa spacecrafts. But that is irrelevant.

You make 'just faking it' seem very easy and simple, but there's more to it than just saying 'we did it' and making a few pr videos, the various fet theories thrown around here demand virtually all of modern science to be 'fake' - assumptions required by fet are not fewer. These 'alternative theories' largely coming from people who are amazingly oblivious to even simple things that we can observe directly (celestial mechanics just for an example), I'm going to go with the actual scientists instead of people who think that air does not exist, or that our Sun is a reflection of a volcano at the Earth's north pole, gravity is not real, or, that the Earth is flat - even if I can not personally disprove those claims, or prove that there are people aboard the iss or that mass attracts mass. Anyway I'm sure this discussion has been had countless times here already.

Viewing it as an epistemic problem, there's no way for us to prove these things, so it comes down to what beliefs we can justify as knowledge.

None of the space stuff counts as knowledge as it is literally a joke. Knowledge is a good thing when it has some application in real life. Space travel doesn't. There is just a small group of clowns who are paid to act like they are in space, but it is just a show. Space travel is a great science fiction idea, but doesn't constitute a fact for all practical purposes for pretty much everyone. I would change my mind only if I have a chance to experience anything close to being in space. There is no point being naive and trusting someone for something like that. The alternative theories are equally unreliable, so I am actually surprised why anyone would seriously claim they are right about stuff we cannot possibly verify ourselves. The honest thing to do would be to simply admit it is our imagination speaking or that we just trust the authorities, and not that we have some access to secret knowledge or whatnot.

So we agree that we can not prove either way, not in practice at least. Then it comes down to what beliefs we choose to justify as knowledge. To you it is the argument of incredulity presented above, to me it is a similar argument against a global conspiracy.

While it is not possible (at this time, for you and me) to prove or disprove space flight, we can gather evidence and use that to refine what we justify as knowledge. Since ISS was mentioned I'll use it as an example - space geeks around the world use reported ISS trajectory to aim their lenses, and they do find the reported position is correct. With triangulation we can then see that reported altitude and velocity are also correct, ruling out aircraft or such. From there it is not a long leap of faith for me to assume the ISS is an orbiting spacecraft - the alternative, a balloon travelling 10kp/s or a hologram or something else with all the lies and fake videos and paid actors and hobby astronomers lying etc seems to me to be the less believable possibility and I can not justify it as knowledge.

In my view fe belief is a conspiracy theory in the most negative sense of the term. Unless it's just a big trolling effort. Evidence I've seen presented for fe tends to float on assumptions based on previous assumptions and all of it demand a nefarious conspiracy to exist; same could be said of re in this context but fet definitely does not get away with fewer assumptions than ret.

Yes, it is based on a conspiracy. Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that. On the other hand, it is naive to believe that there is no conspiracy and people don't lie. You cannot prove anything, but you should know at least that people commonly lie. That should be enough to get suspicious. Assuming it is all true is very irrational. Do you think the most powerful people simply tell the truth to the masses? Why would they do that? 

Common sense dictates that when someone states something.. you look at THEIR TRACK RECORD. Is this an honest person? Has he EVER lied before?
What do other people say about him?
Is he known as a truthful person in the community?
Has he ever hurt his fellow man?
Has he ever stolen money?

These kinds of questions are needed to be asked for ANYONE .. whether an individual or an organization of people such as NASA and the US Government and the Banks etc etc...

If we are to believe that NASA and the USA are telling the truth about the Earth being round.. well what is their credibility as in regards to the their conduct in the past?

The truth is.. the US and NASA which is part of the government... has killied MILLIONS... has LIED.. by launching false wars.. releasing fake images from alleged satellites of Weapons of mass destruction
The US has produced chemical weapons and give them to Iraq in the 80's...
The US and the Jewish Zionist Bankers have invented interest which has ENSLAVED BILLIONS of people today. Interest is clearly forbidden in the Bible and Quran yet they pay no attention to that.
What does this whole banking system and international order show you? That these people could care less of their brothers and sisters. They are out to kill, maim, profit off of others.
How do they do that? Well through LYING and DECEIVING.

The same people who lied about Iraq... who demolished the twin towers and blamed innocent Muslims .. in the process killed hundreds of Americans...

Well how can I trust people with such a track record? Its fair to say that I have EVERY RIGHT TO QUESTION anything that comes out of their mouth.

Common sense dictates that when someone states something.. you look at THEIR TRACK RECORD. Is this an honest person? Has he EVER lied before?
What do other people say about him?
Is he known as a truthful person in the community?
Has he ever hurt his fellow man?
Has he ever stolen money?

These kinds of questions are needed to be asked for ANYONE .. whether an individual or an organization of people such as NASA and the US Government and the Banks etc etc...

If we are to believe that NASA and the USA are telling the truth about the Earth being round.. well what is their credibility as in regards to the their conduct in the past?

The truth is.. the US and NASA which is part of the government... has killied MILLIONS... has LIED.. by launching false wars.. releasing fake images from alleged satellites of Weapons of mass destruction
The US has produced chemical weapons and give them to Iraq in the 80's...
The US and the Jewish Zionist Bankers have invented interest which has ENSLAVED BILLIONS of people today. Interest is clearly forbidden in the Bible and Quran yet they pay no attention to that.
What does this whole banking system and international order show you? That these people could care less of their brothers and sisters. They are out to kill, maim, profit off of others.
How do they do that? Well through LYING and DECEIVING.

The same people who lied about Iraq... who demolished the twin towers and blamed innocent Muslims .. in the process killed hundreds of Americans...

Well how can I trust people with such a track record? Its fair to say that I have EVERY RIGHT TO QUESTION anything that comes out of their mouth.

Except we knew the earth was round before the USA was even a country....

Well how can I trust people with such a track record? Its fair to say that I have EVERY RIGHT TO QUESTION anything that comes out of their mouth.

Even beyond the details of what you've said, motive. If Hitler came up to you and said the sky was blue, would you automatically insist it had to be green?
There is no possible reason to perpetuate the idea that the Earth is round, even if they were as cartoonishly evil as you propose.

Except we knew the earth was round before the USA was even a country....

This.

The truth is... the US and NASA which is part of the government...

Long before the United States existed as a political/military entity, numerous other, independent civilisations (the Greeks, Incas, Egyptians, and Indians) had already satisfied themselves that the earth was spherical.  And not one of those civilisations had even the slightest of vested interests in doing so solely either for financial or military gain.  It was simply for the common advancement of science and human knowledge.  Flat earthers consistently make the mistake of conflating scientific endeavour with nefarious hidden agendas and motivations of evil.

Dwight D. Eisenhower established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 1958 with a distinctly civilian—rather than military—orientation encouraging peaceful applications in space science.

And as a matter of interest, even I was around before NASA came into existence.  Yikes! 

Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.

If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip of determine where to take your next step?

Quote from: Saros on March 12, 2015, 04:21:33 AM

Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.

If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip of determine where to take your next step?

How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 06:29:20 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 12, 2015, 04:21:33 AM

Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.

If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?

How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?

Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 12, 2015, 07:24:50 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 06:29:20 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 12, 2015, 04:21:33 AM

Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.

If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?

How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?

Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?

You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light. Your analogy with the road is totally inappropriate. When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted. That it is a solid sphere somewhere far away from the Earth. Well, you cannot verify this claim just by looking through your telescope. You don't know what you see in space is. You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference. It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space is not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

This is top drawer absurdity. The shear amount of information that comes from the sky makes it nigh on impossible that its some sort of projection. Astronomers study electromagnetic radiation coming from the sky across the spectrum; from radio waves through visible light to x rays. It would require a universe to create the amount of information that comes from the sky. Who could be providing this projection, how are they doing it and what for? The evidence for the moon being a solid object is massive. We have never been to mars and we know that's a solid object. If there's one thing all you conspiracy theorists have in common it's a profound ignorance of science.

Thus spake Texasusaguy

Interest is clearly forbidden in the Bible and Quran

Behold!

Quote from: Saros on March 13, 2015, 03:19:07 AM

It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

This is top drawer absurdity. The shear amount of information that comes from the sky makes it nigh on impossible that its some sort of projection. Astronomers study electromagnetic radiation coming from the sky across the spectrum; from radio waves through visible light to x rays. It would require a universe to create the amount of information that comes from the sky. Who could be providing this projection, how are they doing it and what for? The evidence for the moon being a solid object is massive. We have never been to mars and we know that's a solid object. If there's one thing all you conspiracy theorists have in common it's a profound ignorance of science.

And you have a profound amount of arrogance! I repeat, you can't be sure of anything you see in the skies. It can be a projection. If you believe otherwise you're just fooling yourself and being absolutely naive. Of course, you didn't explain how you can confirm that the stars are real, but it is scientific I bet.

Quote from: herewegoround on March 13, 2015, 04:01:59 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 13, 2015, 03:19:07 AM

It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

This is top drawer absurdity. The shear amount of information that comes from the sky makes it nigh on impossible that its some sort of projection. Astronomers study electromagnetic radiation coming from the sky across the spectrum; from radio waves through visible light to x rays. It would require a universe to create the amount of information that comes from the sky. Who could be providing this projection, how are they doing it and what for? The evidence for the moon being a solid object is massive. We have never been to mars and we know that's a solid object. If there's one thing all you conspiracy theorists have in common it's a profound ignorance of science.

And you have a profound amount of arrogance! I repeat, you can't be sure of anything you see in the skies. It can be a projection. If you believe otherwise you're just fooling yourself and being absolutely naive. Of course, you didn't explain how you can confirm that the stars are real, but it is scientific I bet.

A projection from where and onto what?

Quote from: Saros on March 13, 2015, 04:27:12 AM

Quote from: herewegoround on March 13, 2015, 04:01:59 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 13, 2015, 03:19:07 AM

It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

This is top drawer absurdity. The shear amount of information that comes from the sky makes it nigh on impossible that its some sort of projection. Astronomers study electromagnetic radiation coming from the sky across the spectrum; from radio waves through visible light to x rays. It would require a universe to create the amount of information that comes from the sky. Who could be providing this projection, how are they doing it and what for? The evidence for the moon being a solid object is massive. We have never been to mars and we know that's a solid object. If there's one thing all you conspiracy theorists have in common it's a profound ignorance of science.

And you have a profound amount of arrogance! I repeat, you can't be sure of anything you see in the skies. It can be a projection. If you believe otherwise you're just fooling yourself and being absolutely naive. Of course, you didn't explain how you can confirm that the stars are real, but it is scientific I bet.

A projection from where and onto what?

from God onto your Mind my son.

Quote from: herewegoround on March 13, 2015, 04:01:59 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 13, 2015, 03:19:07 AM

It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

This is top drawer absurdity. The shear amount of information that comes from the sky makes it nigh on impossible that its some sort of projection. Astronomers study electromagnetic radiation coming from the sky across the spectrum; from radio waves through visible light to x rays. It would require a universe to create the amount of information that comes from the sky. Who could be providing this projection, how are they doing it and what for? The evidence for the moon being a solid object is massive. We have never been to mars and we know that's a solid object. If there's one thing all you conspiracy theorists have in common it's a profound ignorance of science.

And you have a profound amount of arrogance! I repeat, you can't be sure of anything you see in the skies. It can be a projection. If you believe otherwise you're just fooling yourself and being absolutely naive. Of course, you didn't explain how you can confirm that the stars are real, but it is scientific I bet.

It is evidently not a projection given the varying amount of time that radar bounces take depending on the object (moon, venus, etc..). Also, there is the little detail that we have been to space. Sorry to rain on your parade.

Quote from: Saros on March 13, 2015, 04:27:12 AM

Quote from: herewegoround on March 13, 2015, 04:01:59 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 13, 2015, 03:19:07 AM

It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

This is top drawer absurdity. The shear amount of information that comes from the sky makes it nigh on impossible that its some sort of projection. Astronomers study electromagnetic radiation coming from the sky across the spectrum; from radio waves through visible light to x rays. It would require a universe to create the amount of information that comes from the sky. Who could be providing this projection, how are they doing it and what for? The evidence for the moon being a solid object is massive. We have never been to mars and we know that's a solid object. If there's one thing all you conspiracy theorists have in common it's a profound ignorance of science.

And you have a profound amount of arrogance! I repeat, you can't be sure of anything you see in the skies. It can be a projection. If you believe otherwise you're just fooling yourself and being absolutely naive. Of course, you didn't explain how you can confirm that the stars are real, but it is scientific I bet.

It is evidently not a projection given the varying amount of time that radar bounces take depending on the object (moon, venus, etc..). Also, there is the little detail that we have been to space. Sorry to rain on your parade.

And you know that how? Radar bouncing off Venus? I thought you were a rational person.

You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light.

Gee, you must have a hell of a job buying groceries.  Using light as a reference, apparently you're unable to discern an apple from an orange?  You have to pick 'em up or read the label?  Seriously?

When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted.

Yep, of course it is.  Do you accept any scientific paradigms, or reject many?  How exactly do you decide?  Do you accept the scientific paradigm that the MMR vaccination prevents thousands of childhood deaths every year?   Would you agree with the scientific paradigm that climate change is primarily due to anthropogenic warming?

You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference.

Of course I believe the actuality of what I'm seeing in my telescope.  Why shouldn't I, considering there's no contradictory evidence?  Do you have any evidence that Venus or Mars don't exist?  I thought not LOL.

In fact, even the Moon might be a projection.

Oh dear... are you channeling sceptimatic by any chance?  This is exactly the sort of whack-job notion he plasters all over these forums.

A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

The last fallback of a flat earther whenever they're backed into a corner without a credible response... grade-school playground insults.   

Quote from: neimoka on March 11, 2015, 04:40:51 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 11, 2015, 03:03:20 AM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 02:46:25 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 02:12:06 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 01:47:11 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 01:32:33 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 09:30:25 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 08:01:49 AM

Quote from: neimoka on March 10, 2015, 07:40:28 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 10, 2015, 07:31:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 10, 2015, 07:27:47 AM

Quote from: texasusaguy on March 09, 2015, 07:09:22 AM

Like I stated human space flight has been going on for 60+ years... Why haven't we ever seen a live video filmed in the 80's from the Russian Mir space station.. Or the satellites in orbit since the 1950s....

Because, at the time, the Soviet Union was a communist state and very secretive.  It wasn't until some years after the fall of communism that the even admitted that the fist few cosmonauts ejected from their capsules shortly before landing.  Technically, this should disqualify Yuri Gagarin as the fist man in space because such records require that the pilot be inside the craft from takeoff to landing.

You can't prove by any means that space flight is possible. This is a totally meaningless debate. It simply cannot be proven. One has to believe in the official propaganda, and only then space flight is real. Other than that it is just fairy tales. Don't agree with? Provide evidence it is real. Do you know at least one person who has been to space?

Well there's the option of viewing/photographing the iss for an example. Ofc when you are dismissing any evidence presented, evidence you would accept can not be presented.

I'm not dismissing any evidence. You should explain how exactly filming the ISS would prove the Earth is not flat or that people fly in space. Do you see the people in the video?

ISS is a manned space station orbiting the earth - or, there's a global conspiracy covering up that it's actually not. The two are mutually exclusive which was my point, either you sign up for the conspiracy or the earth is round.

There is no way to prove the ISS or whatever you see at night crossing the sky is manned. You could see the object but you don't see any people on it, so sorry, you're making a leap of faith. Jumping to conclusions with no way to verify if you're correct or wrong is not logical. It is cultish.  We don't see the people on the airplanes which fly above us too, but we know the planes are manned because we have seen them up close and we have been on planes ourselves, however, no one can go to space to verify the ISS is real. There are some people who supposedly do, but they don't come here to argue about it, and even if they did I would still demand evidence they have been to space. It is the logical thing to do. If I told you I have been to Antarctica would you believe me without evidence?

Anyone here tells me anything I'm likely not to believe it. Elsewhere, if someone says they've visited this or that place, they probably have.

As for the rest of your response - that was exactly my point. You either assume that you're not being constantly lied to by evil conspirators and thus there is a manned space station orbiting earth, or you assume that there indeed is an evil conspiracy that lies to you about everything and that iss is actually a supersonic blimp or whatever fet is currently proposing. An epistemic dilemma.

I see what you're saying, but assuming it is a manned space station requires making more assumptions. Assuming it is fake requires making only one. NASA makes propaganda. It doesn't have to be evil. Anyone knows that propaganda exists. It is just easier to fake the ISS and declare how great we're that we can even fly in space and spend months there doing nothing. The ISS doesn't need to be a blimp, it could be a projection too. Can you prove it is not? I mean, it is a matter of preference whether you believe it is real or not, but in my opinion if someone believes something is real they would really need to have the evidence, while ignoring something as fake is very easy even if you don't have any evidence. Why people require evidence Loch Ness monster is real? No one asks those who don't believe in its existence to provide evidence, right? Why should I provide evidence the ISS is fake? The only thing you have is someone's word and some suspicious pictures. If I actually had a friend who was there I would probably believe him. Do you have friends in NASA whom you can trust?

No, I do not know anyone employed by nasa. Except my self of course, being a shill on these forums. Closest thing to that is a relative of mine who works for an institute that has designed and manufactured instruments for robotic spacecrafts, some of them nasa spacecrafts. But that is irrelevant.

You make 'just faking it' seem very easy and simple, but there's more to it than just saying 'we did it' and making a few pr videos, the various fet theories thrown around here demand virtually all of modern science to be 'fake' - assumptions required by fet are not fewer. These 'alternative theories' largely coming from people who are amazingly oblivious to even simple things that we can observe directly (celestial mechanics just for an example), I'm going to go with the actual scientists instead of people who think that air does not exist, or that our Sun is a reflection of a volcano at the Earth's north pole, gravity is not real, or, that the Earth is flat - even if I can not personally disprove those claims, or prove that there are people aboard the iss or that mass attracts mass. Anyway I'm sure this discussion has been had countless times here already.

Viewing it as an epistemic problem, there's no way for us to prove these things, so it comes down to what beliefs we can justify as knowledge.

None of the space stuff counts as knowledge as it is literally a joke. Knowledge is a good thing when it has some application in real life. Space travel doesn't. There is just a small group of clowns who are paid to act like they are in space, but it is just a show. Space travel is a great science fiction idea, but doesn't constitute a fact for all practical purposes for pretty much everyone. I would change my mind only if I have a chance to experience anything close to being in space. There is no point being naive and trusting someone for something like that. The alternative theories are equally unreliable, so I am actually surprised why anyone would seriously claim they are right about stuff we cannot possibly verify ourselves. The honest thing to do would be to simply admit it is our imagination speaking or that we just trust the authorities, and not that we have some access to secret knowledge or whatnot.

So we agree that we can not prove either way, not in practice at least. Then it comes down to what beliefs we choose to justify as knowledge. To you it is the argument of incredulity presented above, to me it is a similar argument against a global conspiracy.

While it is not possible (at this time, for you and me) to prove or disprove space flight, we can gather evidence and use that to refine what we justify as knowledge. Since ISS was mentioned I'll use it as an example - space geeks around the world use reported ISS trajectory to aim their lenses, and they do find the reported position is correct. With triangulation we can then see that reported altitude and velocity are also correct, ruling out aircraft or such. From there it is not a long leap of faith for me to assume the ISS is an orbiting spacecraft - the alternative, a balloon travelling 10kp/s or a hologram or something else with all the lies and fake videos and paid actors and hobby astronomers lying etc seems to me to be the less believable possibility and I can not justify it as knowledge.

In my view fe belief is a conspiracy theory in the most negative sense of the term. Unless it's just a big trolling effort. Evidence I've seen presented for fe tends to float on assumptions based on previous assumptions and all of it demand a nefarious conspiracy to exist; same could be said of re in this context but fet definitely does not get away with fewer assumptions than ret.

Yes, it is based on a conspiracy. Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that. On the other hand, it is naive to believe that there is no conspiracy and people don't lie. You cannot prove anything, but you should know at least that people commonly lie. That should be enough to get suspicious. Assuming it is all true is very irrational. Do you think the most powerful people simply tell the truth to the masses? Why would they do that?

Likewise, it is equally naive to assume that "it's all lies" just because when we can't prove that's the case. Of course people are capable of lying, in case of some governments and such it appears obvious that at least much is denied or left untold, even lied about. From this it does not however follow that everything must be lies, and let's not forget that astronomy as a field of science is not in hands of any government or organization.

It is true that just by gazing at something like a galaxy it is not possible to tell what it is or how far it is - it was less than a hundred years ago that Edwin Hubble, working for years using the day's state of the art equipment, managed to gather data to show that they are 'cities of stars' very far away. Then again, when we can see something regularly moving across our sky and we can use trig to determine it's altitude and speed, it is the path of least assumptions to believe that it is a thing moving in the sky at that speed and altitude, instead of believing that it is a for an example a holographic projection created by agents of a global conspiracy using unknown technologies.

And you know that how? Radar bouncing off Venus? I thought you were a rational person.

Why do you think radar wouldn't bounce off of Venus?

He thinks we are going to turn away from Venus before we receive the return bounce. 

He thinks we are going to turn away from Venus before we receive the return bounce.

An even more obvious answer is that Saros has absolutely no idea as to how radar ranging works.  If he did, then he wouldn't for a moment accept the notion that the earth is flat.

Quote from: herewegoround on March 13, 2015, 04:01:59 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 13, 2015, 03:19:07 AM

It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space are not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

This is top drawer absurdity. The shear amount of information that comes from the sky makes it nigh on impossible that its some sort of projection. Astronomers study electromagnetic radiation coming from the sky across the spectrum; from radio waves through visible light to x rays. It would require a universe to create the amount of information that comes from the sky. Who could be providing this projection, how are they doing it and what for? The evidence for the moon being a solid object is massive. We have never been to mars and we know that's a solid object. If there's one thing all you conspiracy theorists have in common it's a profound ignorance of science.

And you have a profound amount of arrogance! I repeat, you can't be sure of anything you see in the skies. It can be a projection. If you believe otherwise you're just fooling yourself and being absolutely naive. Of course, you didn't explain how you can confirm that the stars are real, but it is scientific I bet.

Let me see, who am I to take more seriously. Men and women who have dedicated their working careers to understanding the universe and who make meticulous and rigorous observations; or, am I to take seriously the ramblings of a paranoid nutbox on the internet who consistently fails to demonstrate even a rudimentary grasp of even the most elementary scientific ideas? Hmm, that's a toughie.

You have completely failed to give an account of how a projection could contain such a vast amount of information with electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum and also all other forms of radiation. Not to mention the constant stream of sub atomic particles.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 07:53:58 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 12, 2015, 07:24:50 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 06:29:20 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 12, 2015, 04:21:33 AM

Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.

If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?

How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?

Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?

You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light. Your analogy with the road is totally inappropriate. When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted. That it is a solid sphere somewhere far away from the Earth. Well, you cannot verify this claim just by looking through your telescope. You don't know what you see in space is. You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference. It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space is not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

Are you suggesting that you cannot tell about stuff ahead of you on the sidewalk without feeling it? That's the analogy, and it is exactly what you seem to be claiming. If you saw a sandbag or an alligator in front of you, your interpretation, based on your understanding of what sandbags and alligators look like (even if you never touched one in person) would be "that's a sandbag" or "that's an alligator" (or reasonable facsimile thereof, like a crocodile, which is similar in general appearance), and not, say, a bowling ball or cat, without having to trip over it, wouldn't it?

We know what a sphere (solid or otherwise, e.g., gas) looks like under differing lighting geometries, and how recognizable features would change if it's rotating wrt our point of view, and shadows change as its angle of illumination changes; guess what? That's exactly how the planets and our Moon behave. Conclusion: they're rotating spheres. Add to this we've visited the Moon (whether you choose to believe this or not doesn't matter) and sent unmanned emissaries there and to other planets and some of their moons, and in all cases found that they're very much as expected; rocky and spherical when expected, and very non-spherical in the case of small bodies like comets and martian moons. We can see them at a distance and accurately conclude their shape and, in general, composition, verified by visitation. The Moon is rocky (we have rock samples), Mars is rocky from measurements taken at the surface, consistent with photographs of features taken from Martian orbit similar to rocky terrains on earth, etc for other planets and some of the major-planet satellites.

If you want to propose an alternative explanation like "it's a projection", even if you can't explain "on what", "by what", and "from where" you still have to explain how a projection (any projection) could behave in the ways we observe them in our telescopes from earth. Go ahead. If it's a projection, explain how Jupiter can be rising when seen from one location, crossing the meridian at another, and setting from yet another, while presenting the same features to all three, without changing apparent size, all at the same time? Meanwhile, the Moon has slightly different parts visible, and changes apparent size slightly in the same situation (as you'd expect from a somewhat-distant sphere from slightly (compared to the distance) different viewpoints). "They could be projections" without any explanation of how these observations would possibly match simple observations isn't an explanation at all; it's arm-waving.

We're waiting.

Quote from: Saros on March 13, 2015, 03:19:07 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 07:53:58 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 12, 2015, 07:24:50 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 06:29:20 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 12, 2015, 04:21:33 AM

Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.

If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?

How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?

Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?

You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light. Your analogy with the road is totally inappropriate. When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted. That it is a solid sphere somewhere far away from the Earth. Well, you cannot verify this claim just by looking through your telescope. You don't know what you see in space is. You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference. It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space is not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

Are you suggesting that you cannot tell about stuff ahead of you on the sidewalk without feeling it? That's the analogy, and it is exactly what you seem to be claiming. If you saw a sandbag or an alligator in front of you, your interpretation, based on your understanding of what sandbags and alligators look like (even if you never touched one in person) would be "that's a sandbag" or "that's an alligator" (or reasonable facsimile thereof, like a crocodile, which is similar in general appearance), and not, say, a bowling ball or cat, without having to trip over it, wouldn't it?

We know what a sphere (solid or otherwise, e.g., gas) looks like under differing lighting geometries, and how recognizable features would change if it's rotating wrt our point of view, and shadows change as its angle of illumination changes; guess what? That's exactly how the planets and our Moon behave. Conclusion: they're rotating spheres. Add to this we've visited the Moon (whether you choose to believe this or not doesn't matter) and sent unmanned emissaries there and to other planets and some of their moons, and in all cases found that they're very much as expected; rocky and spherical when expected, and very non-spherical in the case of small bodies like comets and martian moons. We can see them at a distance and accurately conclude their shape and, in general, composition, verified by visitation. The Moon is rocky (we have rock samples), Mars is rocky from measurements taken at the surface, consistent with photographs of features taken from Martian orbit similar to rocky terrains on earth, etc for other planets and some of the major-planet satellites.

If you want to propose an alternative explanation like "it's a projection", even if you can't explain "on what", "by what", and "from where" you still have to explain how a projection (any projection) could behave in the ways we observe them in our telescopes from earth. Go ahead. If it's a projection, explain how Jupiter can be rising when seen from one location, crossing the meridian at another, and setting from yet another, while presenting the same features to all three, without changing apparent size, all at the same time? Meanwhile, the Moon has slightly different parts visible, and changes apparent size slightly in the same situation (as you'd expect from a somewhat-distant sphere from slightly (compared to the distance) different viewpoints). "They could be projections" without any explanation of how these observations would possibly match simple observations isn't an explanation at all; it's arm-waving.

We're waiting.

I am not here to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. It is your choice.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 15, 2015, 11:39:55 AM

Quote from: Saros on March 13, 2015, 03:19:07 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 07:53:58 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 12, 2015, 07:24:50 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 12, 2015, 06:29:20 PM

Quote from: Saros on March 12, 2015, 04:21:33 AM

Amateur astronomers don't lie. They don't have a clue what they are observing. It is just light anyway. You can't make any conclusions based on that.

If you really believe this I can only hope to God that you don't drive a car. When you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a white cane with a red tip to [fixed typo] determine where to take your next step?

How should he know if his cane is white with a red tip if light is so unreliable?

Ohhh.... good question! Well, OK... Saros, when you go out in public (assuming you ever do), do you use a cane to determine where to take your next step, or do you look with your eyes?

You cannot tell much about stuff in space as the only thing you see is light. Your analogy with the road is totally inappropriate. When you see a planet or whatever through your telescope your interpretations of what you see are based on the paradigm you have accepted. That it is a solid sphere somewhere far away from the Earth. Well, you cannot verify this claim just by looking through your telescope. You don't know what you see in space is. You have been told what it is and you have silently agreed. Huge difference. It is completely possible that the stuff you see in space is not even real but some sort of projection. There is no way to verify this. Even if you have the biggest telescope you can't be sure if what you see is real or a light phenomenon. The fact that it repeats itself for ages means absolutely nothing. Have you been there? No. In fact, even the Moon might be a projection. I know that you believe it is a solid sphere, but where is your proof? A bunch of asstrollnots who claimed they landed there?

Are you suggesting that you cannot tell about stuff ahead of you on the sidewalk without feeling it? That's the analogy, and it is exactly what you seem to be claiming. If you saw a sandbag or an alligator in front of you, your interpretation, based on your understanding of what sandbags and alligators look like (even if you never touched one in person) would be "that's a sandbag" or "that's an alligator" (or reasonable facsimile thereof, like a crocodile, which is similar in general appearance), and not, say, a bowling ball or cat, without having to trip over it, wouldn't it?

We know what a sphere (solid or otherwise, e.g., gas) looks like under differing lighting geometries, and how recognizable features would change if it's rotating wrt our point of view, and shadows change as its angle of illumination changes; guess what? That's exactly how the planets and our Moon behave. Conclusion: they're rotating spheres. Add to this we've visited the Moon (whether you choose to believe this or not doesn't matter) and sent unmanned emissaries there and to other planets and some of their moons, and in all cases found that they're very much as expected; rocky and spherical when expected, and very non-spherical in the case of small bodies like comets and martian moons. We can see them at a distance and accurately conclude their shape and, in general, composition, verified by visitation. The Moon is rocky (we have rock samples), Mars is rocky from measurements taken at the surface, consistent with photographs of features taken from Martian orbit similar to rocky terrains on earth, etc for other planets and some of the major-planet satellites.

If you want to propose an alternative explanation like "it's a projection", even if you can't explain "on what", "by what", and "from where" you still have to explain how a projection (any projection) could behave in the ways we observe them in our telescopes from earth. Go ahead. If it's a projection, explain how Jupiter can be rising when seen from one location, crossing the meridian at another, and setting from yet another, while presenting the same features to all three, without changing apparent size, all at the same time? Meanwhile, the Moon has slightly different parts visible, and changes apparent size slightly in the same situation (as you'd expect from a somewhat-distant sphere from slightly (compared to the distance) different viewpoints). "They could be projections" without any explanation of how these observations would possibly match simple observations isn't an explanation at all; it's arm-waving.

We're waiting.

I am not here to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. It is your choice.

Then get off the Debate forum and hide in FE Believers.