Important Message in other forum

Rayzor you can be proud this is suppose to be my last message, i have no more interest to deal with liars, and i think the moderation is probably corrupted that they can deal with the massive spam of round earthers.

People who claim to see ISS, see this message:

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8084

Good bye and i Tell you leave this forum immediately until the moderator will clean it from spammers.

Rayzor you can be proud this is suppose to be my last message, i have no more interest to deal with liars, and i think the moderation is probably corrupted that they can deal with the massive spam of round earthers.

People who claim to see ISS, see this message:

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8084

Good bye and i Tell you leave this forum immediately until the moderator will clean it from spammers.

Well.....If you really want to believe that there are about 7 Billion round earth liars and conspirators in the world  and you are not one of them, that is your problem.

I wish you good luck and wish  to you and to your happiness in your little flat earth.
I hope you will take that as good will as I have no ill feelings toward you personally.

Just console yourself in the fact that the 7 Billion round earth liars and conspirators will be keeping things going.....Such as this Website and this Internet.

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8084

Man, that's some shitty web design.

This sounds legit though:

For example the Earth’s upper atmosphere is comprised largely of ionized atomic oxygen at temperatures at times approaching 1,400°C. This gas apparently produces a noticeable drag factor for spacecraft such as the ISS which has to be re-boosted every three months or so. But this gas in reality would be more corrosive than any acid found in an Earth laboratory such as hydrofluoric acid which easily corrodes glass.

Further the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output (assuming it to be a blackbody of a temperature of 5,770 Kelvin) contains ultraviolet light possessing the required quantum energy to break open not only every organic bond known to man but every inorganic bond known to man as well. Obviously at the higher frequencies and at the Earth’s distance from the Sun, the flux density of this radiation is comparatively weaker than the radiation in the visible spectrum. However the effects of this high frequency radiation are nevertheless cumulative. Space suits would blacken and glass would become ‘smoked’ in appearance as the hours or even minutes passed by.

Rayzor you can be proud this is suppose to be my last message, i have no more interest to deal with liars, and i think the moderation is probably corrupted that they can deal with the massive spam of round earthers.

People who claim to see ISS, see this message:

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8084

Good bye and i Tell you leave this forum immediately until the moderator will clean it from spammers.

Modestman, please don't go you are one of a few FEers that will speak up when you see something wrong. It seems like most FEers wont speak up like you do.

All he does is post barely coherent one liners.

Hmmm... the post following the one modestman linked says the opposite - that the ISS through a moderate-aperture amateur telescope is distinctly not perfectly round, as claimed in the first post. Since the first post goes on to say "what we have officially been told regarding the exact configuration of the ISS which could loosely be described as shaped somewhat like an ‘aeroplane’", it's safe to presume the OP doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Well, that, and I've seen it myself through a similarly-sized telescope and it's anything but "a perfectly round object".

Goodbye, modestman. I wish you the best.

Hmmm... the post following the one modestman linked says the opposite - that the ISS through a moderate-aperture amateur telescope is distinctly not perfectly round, as claimed in the first post. Since the first post goes on to say "what we have officially been told regarding the exact configuration of the ISS which could loosely be described as shaped somewhat like an ‘aeroplane’", it's safe to presume the OP doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Well, that, and I've seen it myself through a similarly-sized telescope and it's anything but "a perfectly round object".

Goodbye, modestman. I wish you the best.

That same picture was posted on another forum 2 years earlier: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?68031-Unknown-LEO-space-machines

It appears to originate from someone named  "astroferg". Here is his Flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/photos/astropics/2110105639/

Browsing through his photos, he apparently has access to enter various NASA facilities and to several NASA astronauts.

@Tom, rather than insinuating the same tired old conspiracy claptrap, why don't you get yourself a telescope and camera and take few pictures of the object that purports to be the ISS?  That way you can prove it's actually a weather balloon or teapot or whatever crap it is you're claiming this week.

You guys never do that do you?  You just like flapping your gums.

Browsing through his photos, he apparently has access to enter various NASA facilities and to several NASA astronauts.

Yes, as you could too.  It's called "going on a tour", there are several available:

https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/tours.aspx

The next launch is on July 15th - why don't you go down and reveal the Satanist conspiracy for what it is?!?

Rayzor you can be proud this is suppose to be my last message, i have no more interest to deal with liars, and i think the moderation is probably corrupted that they can deal with the massive spam of round earthers.

People who claim to see ISS, see this message:

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8084

Good bye and i Tell you leave this forum immediately until the moderator will clean it from spammers.

Goodbye  modestman,   I hope you find a forum where everyone agrees with you.

Here's a goodbye present
 modestman's present

@Tom, rather than insinuating the same tired old conspiracy claptrap, why don't you get yourself a telescope and camera and take few pictures of the object that purports to be the ISS?  That way you can prove it's actually a weather balloon or teapot or whatever crap it is you're claiming this week.

You guys never do that do you?  You just like flapping your gums.

Quote

Browsing through his photos, he apparently has access to enter various NASA facilities and to several NASA astronauts.

Yes, as you could too.  It's called "going on a tour", there are several available:

Quote

https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/tours.aspx

The next launch is on July 15th - why don't you go down and reveal the Satanist conspiracy for what it is?!?

On the Flickr account the photographer admits a family connection to the building of space weapons: "My late grandfather was involved in the Titan IIIC launch (inset) that put this satellite in orbit 45 years ago."

That information by itself is discrediting. Imagine if the grandson of the cult leader L. Ron Hubbard presented a study to the world showing evidence for the cult's belief that humanity was a seed planted by aliens. His study would be thrown out the window as untrustworthy because of the family connection alone.

On the Flickr account the photographer admits a family connection to the building of space weapons: "My late grandfather was involved in the Titan IIIC launch (inset) that put this satellite in orbit 45 years ago."

That information by itself is discrediting.

No it isn't. Now if you presented evidence that what he said is false, then it would be a different story. But it seems all you can do is research about this internet identity, instead of proving him false. Par for the course for Tom Bishop I guess.

The point still stands: the ISS has been observed to be real and accurate by hundreds (thousands?) of individuals, and this lone conspiracy nut is asserting something impossible (balloon in space) without any evidence to support it.

Now let's try this again Tom: prove us wrong.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2015, 05:01:57 PM

On the Flickr account the photographer admits a family connection to the building of space weapons: "My late grandfather was involved in the Titan IIIC launch (inset) that put this satellite in orbit 45 years ago."

That information by itself is discrediting.

No it isn't. Now if you presented evidence that what he said is false, then it would be a different story. But it seems all you can do is research about this internet identity, instead of proving him false. Par for the course for Tom Bishop I guess.

The point still stands: the ISS has been observed to be real and accurate by hundreds (thousands?) of individuals, and this lone conspiracy nut is asserting something impossible (balloon in space) without any evidence to support it.

Now let's try this again Tom: prove us wrong.

Actually, my example is exactly apt:

Imagine if the grandson of the cult leader L. Ron Hubbard presented a study to the world showing evidence for the cult's belief that humanity was a seed planted by aliens. His study would be thrown out the window as untrustworthy because of the family connection alone.

The grandson of L. Ron Hubbard would be discredited on that basis.

Since we similarly believe that NASA is a sinister cult-like organization, the grandson of one of its members is similarly discredited.

Quote from: Dog on July 05, 2015, 05:26:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2015, 05:01:57 PM

On the Flickr account the photographer admits a family connection to the building of space weapons: "My late grandfather was involved in the Titan IIIC launch (inset) that put this satellite in orbit 45 years ago."

That information by itself is discrediting.

No it isn't. Now if you presented evidence that what he said is false, then it would be a different story. But it seems all you can do is research about this internet identity, instead of proving him false. Par for the course for Tom Bishop I guess.

The point still stands: the ISS has been observed to be real and accurate by hundreds (thousands?) of individuals, and this lone conspiracy nut is asserting something impossible (balloon in space) without any evidence to support it.

Now let's try this again Tom: prove us wrong.

Actually, my example is exactly apt:

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Imagine if the grandson of the cult leader L. Ron Hubbard presented a study to the world showing evidence for the cult's belief that humanity was a seed planted by aliens. His study would be thrown out the window as untrustworthy because of the family connection alone.

The grandson of L. Ron Hubbard would be discredited on that basis.

Since we similarly believe that NASA is a sinister cult-like organization, the grandson of one of its members is similarly discredited.

Actually, that wouldn't discredit the grandson of L. Ron Hubbard.  He disclosed it up front, so the evidence presented should be looked at carefully.  However, if he either held back the information, or denied it, or portrayed himself as an unbiased participant in the study, then yes he would be discredited.

Same goes for the guy who took the ISS picture.  So no, it does not discredit him.

Actually, that wouldn't discredit the grandson of L. Ron Hubbard.  He disclosed it up front, so the evidence presented should be looked at carefully.  However, if he either held back the information, or denied it, or portrayed himself as an unbiased participant in the study, then yes he would be discredited.

Same goes for the guy who took the ISS picture.  So no, it does not discredit him.

Academics are not going to look at a cult leader's grandson's alien genesis study too seriously, sorry.

There is something called association bias, which are grounds for discreditment. It is why the White House doesn't audit its own finances and why drugs are not approved for human use based solely on the in-house studies of the drug manufacturer. Doing so would render the results invalid to any critical party.

Quote from: BJ1234 on July 05, 2015, 05:39:11 PM

Actually, that wouldn't discredit the grandson of L. Ron Hubbard.  He disclosed it up front, so the evidence presented should be looked at carefully.  However, if he either held back the information, or denied it, or portrayed himself as an unbiased participant in the study, then yes he would be discredited.

Same goes for the guy who took the ISS picture.  So no, it does not discredit him.

Academics are not going to look at a cult leader's grandson's alien genesis study too seriously, sorry.

  Mostly because of the subject mattter, unless of course there is compelling evidence inside the study, then they would probably look into it.

There is something called association bias, which is considered in many fields. It is why the White House doesn't audit its own finances

Sorry, but doing financial audits is not relevant to this discussion.

and why drugs are not approved for human use based solely on the in-house studies of the drug manufacturer.

No, but if the in-house studies show that the drug might be useful, independent studies will be done. 
So, since this one person, who's grand father worked on rockets isn't the only person to photograph the ISS, and his results have been independently verified by other amateur photographers, his credibility is not in question.  Sorry.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2015, 05:48:06 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on July 05, 2015, 05:39:11 PM

Actually, that wouldn't discredit the grandson of L. Ron Hubbard.  He disclosed it up front, so the evidence presented should be looked at carefully.  However, if he either held back the information, or denied it, or portrayed himself as an unbiased participant in the study, then yes he would be discredited.

Same goes for the guy who took the ISS picture.  So no, it does not discredit him.

Academics are not going to look at a cult leader's grandson's alien genesis study too seriously, sorry.

  Mostly because of the subject mattter, unless of course there is compelling evidence inside the study, then they would probably look into it.

Quote

There is something called association bias, which is considered in many fields. It is why the White House doesn't audit its own finances

Sorry, but doing financial audits is not relevant to this discussion.

Quote

and why drugs are not approved for human use based solely on the in-house studies of the drug manufacturer.

No, but if the in-house studies show that the drug might be useful, independent studies will be done. 
So, since this one person, who's grand father worked on rockets isn't the only person to photograph the ISS, and his results have been independently verified by other amateur photographers, his credibility is not in question.  Sorry.

Well, that was the only picture posted, and the only one to talk about.

But other photographers have been shown to have some sort of NASA connection on this forum. Consider the amateur photographer Ralf Vandebergh. NASA features his images all over their nasa.gov website, which is weird, because they promote his "amateur" status despite NASA having access to scores of "professional" astronomers to gather pictures of the ISS for us.

Quote from: BJ1234 on July 05, 2015, 05:59:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2015, 05:48:06 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on July 05, 2015, 05:39:11 PM

Actually, that wouldn't discredit the grandson of L. Ron Hubbard.  He disclosed it up front, so the evidence presented should be looked at carefully.  However, if he either held back the information, or denied it, or portrayed himself as an unbiased participant in the study, then yes he would be discredited.

Same goes for the guy who took the ISS picture.  So no, it does not discredit him.

Academics are not going to look at a cult leader's grandson's alien genesis study too seriously, sorry.

  Mostly because of the subject mattter, unless of course there is compelling evidence inside the study, then they would probably look into it.

Quote

There is something called association bias, which is considered in many fields. It is why the White House doesn't audit its own finances

Sorry, but doing financial audits is not relevant to this discussion.

Quote

and why drugs are not approved for human use based solely on the in-house studies of the drug manufacturer.

No, but if the in-house studies show that the drug might be useful, independent studies will be done. 
So, since this one person, who's grand father worked on rockets isn't the only person to photograph the ISS, and his results have been independently verified by other amateur photographers, his credibility is not in question.  Sorry.

Well, that was the only picture posted, and the only one to talk about.

Very narrow minded to only consider on source instead of all that you know about.  I know that you have been presented with other photos previously.

But other photographers have been shown to have some sort of NASA connection on this forum. Consider the amateur photographer Ralf Vandebergh. NASA features his images all over their nasa.gov website, which is weird, because they promote his "amateur" status despite NASA having access to scores of "professional" astronomers to gather pictures of the ISS for us.

So showing one other photographer, which happens to be a professional photographer, not an amateur one, and has pictures on NASA's website means all amateur photographers are in cahoots with NASA?  Nice generalization and misrepresentation there Tom.

On further review I was mistaken,  Vandebergh is promoted as an "amateur astronomer", not an "amateur photographer".

Vandebergh has a LOT of ISS and space pictures in the media, and on websites such as space.com and nasa.gov. So many, in so many places, that it is seems likely that he is being paid for it and it is not a hobby at all. I believe he is the most prolific source of photography of this nature.

At best Vandebergh is truly an honest photographer and NASA merely contacted Vandebergh  for permission to put it on their website site, and at worst, NASA faked his existence outright. Either way, he is connected to NASA in some way, and therefore the entirety of his photography work goes out the window and into the bin.

If you have someone else you would like to discuss instead, I would be happy to continue this discussion on tfes.org, the main Flat Earth site I frequent. I just stopped in to say hello.

On further review I was mistaken,  Vandebergh is promoted as an "amateur astronomer", not an "amateur photographer".

Vandebergh has a LOT of ISS and space pictures in the media, and on websites such as space.com and nasa.gov. So many, in so many places, that it is seems likely that he is being paid for it and it is not a hobby at all. I believe he is the most prolific source of photography of this nature.

Do you have actual evidence of his getting paid by NASA to use his photos?  Or just incredulity and assertions like always?

At best Vandebergh is truly an honest photographer and NASA merely contacted Vandebergh  for permission to put it on their website site, and at worst, NASA faked his existence outright. Either way, he is connected to NASA in some way, and therefore the entirety of his photography work goes out the window and into the bin.

So you set up a false dichotomy and from both results you assert his photos are invalid.  You are just a large logical fallacy aren't you?  Neither of these necessarily are the case and the outcome is not necessarily what you are saying.

If you have someone else you would like to discuss instead, I would be happy to continue this discussion on tfes.org, the main Flat Earth site I frequent. I just stopped in to say hello.

Why not continue the discussion here?

Quote from: Dog on July 05, 2015, 05:26:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2015, 05:01:57 PM

On the Flickr account the photographer admits a family connection to the building of space weapons: "My late grandfather was involved in the Titan IIIC launch (inset) that put this satellite in orbit 45 years ago."

That information by itself is discrediting.

No it isn't. Now if you presented evidence that what he said is false, then it would be a different story. But it seems all you can do is research about this internet identity, instead of proving him false. Par for the course for Tom Bishop I guess.

The point still stands: the ISS has been observed to be real and accurate by hundreds (thousands?) of individuals, and this lone conspiracy nut is asserting something impossible (balloon in space) without any evidence to support it.

Now let's try this again Tom: prove us wrong.

Actually, my example is exactly apt:

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Imagine if the grandson of the cult leader L. Ron Hubbard presented a study to the world showing evidence for the cult's belief that humanity was a seed planted by aliens. His study would be thrown out the window as untrustworthy because of the family connection alone.

The grandson of L. Ron Hubbard would be discredited on that basis.

Since we similarly believe that NASA is a sinister cult-like organization, the grandson of one of its members is similarly discredited.

No, no it wouldn't. No stay on topic instead of blabbering about L.R.H.

Now let's try this again Tom: prove us wrong.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 04, 2015, 03:02:25 AM

@Tom, rather than insinuating the same tired old conspiracy claptrap, why don't you get yourself a telescope and camera and take few pictures of the object that purports to be the ISS?  That way you can prove it's actually a weather balloon or teapot or whatever crap it is you're claiming this week.

You guys never do that do you?  You just like flapping your gums.

Quote

Browsing through his photos, he apparently has access to enter various NASA facilities and to several NASA astronauts.

Yes, as you could too.  It's called "going on a tour", there are several available:

Quote

https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/tours.aspx

The next launch is on July 15th - why don't you go down and reveal the Satanist conspiracy for what it is?!?

On the Flickr account the photographer admits a family connection to the building of space weapons: "My late grandfather was involved in the Titan IIIC launch (inset) that put this satellite in orbit 45 years ago."

That information by itself is discrediting. Imagine if the grandson of the cult leader L. Ron Hubbard presented a study to the world showing evidence for the cult's belief that humanity was a seed planted by aliens. His study would be thrown out the window as untrustworthy because of the family connection alone.

It seems you can't read my posts properly, I'll try again:

@Tom, rather than insinuating the same tired old conspiracy claptrap, why don't you get yourself a telescope and camera and take few pictures of the object that purports to be the ISS?

Per the arguments of "prove us wrong" and "do it yourself," you are the ones with the positive claim of the ISS being visible in full detail. I have made no such claim. I have not claimed anything at all about the ISS, visible or invisible, detailed or undetailed, nor does it really even matter to me.

If you are claiming that the ISS will appear as claimed, the role is not on me, the skeptic, to disprove anything. The role of the skeptic is to examine both the claims and the evidence, to expose any internal or external inconsistencies, and to prefer those conclusions that are more consistent with real-world facts than competing claims, rejecting any that are manifestly inconsistent with themselves and with the truth.

It is the role of the claimant to demonstrate his claims. It is certainly not the role of his skeptics to "prove him wrong". Demanding that your opponents disprove your beliefs is an incredibly poor and shameful debating tactic which will get you nowhere.  You will need to, get this, prove your own beliefs.

This is my last post in this thread. Goodbye.

Per the arguments of "prove us wrong" and "do it yourself," you are the ones with the positive claim of the ISS being visible in full detail. I have made no such claim. I have not claimed anything at all about the ISS, visible or invisible, detailed or undetailed, nor does it really even matter to me.

If you are claiming that the ISS will appear as claimed, the role is not on me, the skeptic, to disprove anything. The role of the skeptic is to examine both the claims and the evidence, to expose any internal or external inconsistencies, and to prefer those conclusions that are more consistent with real-world facts than competing claims, rejecting any that are manifestly inconsistent with themselves and with the truth.

It is the role of the claimant to demonstrate his claims. It is certainly not the role of his skeptics to "prove him wrong". Demanding that your opponents disprove your beliefs is an incredibly poor and shameful debating tactic which will get you nowhere.  You will need to, get this, prove your own beliefs.

This is my last post in this thread. Goodbye.

Well that was easier than I hoped.  As he demonstrated, he has no interest in actually investigating whether a FE is true or not.  Rather a FE viewpoint is a way for him to abdicate responsibility for his role in the world; he can on the one hand say that the world is not as he hoped and on the other say that he has no part in ameliorating it.  Glad he is gone, but I suspect it won't be for good.

I have not claimed anything at all about the ISS, visible or invisible, detailed or undetailed, nor does it really even matter to me.

The role of the skeptic is to examine both the claims and the evidence

there is obviously no argument here he just gets angry and we think he actually believes he's making a strong case.

when actually Tom is afraid to go out at night because of the dangers of moonlight

Per the arguments of "prove us wrong" and "do it yourself," you are the ones with the positive claim of the ISS being visible in full detail. I have made no such claim. I have not claimed anything at all about the ISS, visible or invisible, detailed or undetailed, nor does it really even matter to me.

Ah yes, the whole, "you can't prove a negative shtick. Here is the thing, the evidence was presented, you refuted the evidence by trying to discredit the source, we refuted your refutation by showing you how your rebuttal of the evidence was flawed, you then threw out some logical fallacies and ran away.

If you are claiming that the ISS will appear as claimed, the role is not on me, the skeptic, to disprove anything. The role of the skeptic is to examine both the claims and the evidence, to expose any internal or external inconsistencies, and to prefer those conclusions that are more consistent with real-world facts than competing claims, rejecting any that are manifestly inconsistent with themselves and with the truth.

  OK so what is more consistent, a bunch of ameture astronomers provide pictures of the ISS and claim that anyone can do this, or the ones that refuse to go look for themselves yet claim to be zetetic?

It is the role of the claimant to demonstrate his claims.

  Which evidence has been presented so the claims of the ISS existing have been met. 

It is certainly not the role of his skeptics to "prove him wrong". Demanding that your opponents disprove your beliefs is an incredibly poor and shameful debating tactic which will get you nowhere.  You will need to, get this, prove your own beliefs.

  Well since you refute the claims, and the evidence has been presented, it is your burden to support your counterclaim.

This is my last post in this thread. Goodbye.

I take it you will not try to support your counterclaim then?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 06, 2015, 02:47:32 PM

If you are claiming that the ISS will appear as claimed, the role is not on me, the skeptic, to disprove anything. The role of the skeptic is to examine both the claims and the evidence, to expose any internal or external inconsistencies, and to prefer those conclusions that are more consistent with real-world facts than competing claims, rejecting any that are manifestly inconsistent with themselves and with the truth.

 
OK so what is more consistent, a bunch of [amateur] astronomers provide pictures of the ISS and claim that anyone can do this, or the ones that refuse to go look for themselves yet claim to be zetetic?

Yeah, I picked up on this too. Doesn't Tom market himself as a zetetic? Does zetetic now mean "you shouldn't believe it unless you verify it for yourself, so if you refuse to look it can't be true"? That seems to be the modus operandi among the "zetetics" that post here, but just somehow seems wrong.

Quote

This is my last post in this thread. Goodbye.

I take it you will not try to support your counterclaim then?

Apparently. That's the way zeteticism seems to work now, at least around here. I'm sure Mr. Rowbotham would be proud (sadly, he probably would.)

There is something called association bias, which are grounds for discreditment.

Actually, guilt by association is a logical fallacy.

Per the arguments of "prove us wrong" and "do it yourself,"

These are two entirely different arguments you are conflating.  However, as you won't accept any evidence of any nature from anyone else, all we are left with is encouraging you to be the zetetic you claim to be.  Yes, find out for yourself and stop flapping your gums.

you are the ones with the positive claim of the ISS being visible in full detail.

Yes, and we have provided copious evidence from multiple sources.  You just reject it all out of hand.  So, again, we are left with you doing some actual investigation and observation.

I have made no such claim. I have not claimed anything at all about the ISS, visible or invisible, detailed or undetailed,

What you have claimed is a vast, nebulous conspiracy spanning decades and encompassing thousands of individuals, 100s of agencies (both public and private) and multiple countries.  Of which you do not provide one iota of evidence.  Not a scrap.  Nowt.  Nada.