Wait.. Do you guys believe the ISS doesn't exist, or?

Quote

My justification is NASA is not some conspiracy, and no one has been able to successfully prove otherwise.

So assertion.

So how does the ISS keep flying? Where is its propulsion system? Where does it get its fuel?

No, those would be facts. They have physical evidence that for all your posturing you can not show is fake.

Quote

No, those would be facts. They have physical evidence that for all your posturing you can not show is fake.

And you, for all your posturing, refuse to show are real. Try harder.

Quote from: Cake Tastes Nice on December 22, 2015, 10:10:00 AM

So how does the ISS keep flying? Where is its propulsion system? Where does it get its fuel?

I don't have the blueprints, how am I meant to know? All that's remotely feasible for me to prove is possibility.
Are you claiming it's impossible? I see plenty of ways, from in-flight refuelling, to landing stop while it's over the ocean.
There are multiple causes for a propulsion system. Why do you believe none are possible? I have no desire to list every possibility.

Quote

No, those would be facts. They have physical evidence that for all your posturing you can not show is fake.

And you, for all your posturing, refuse to show are real. Try harder.

Why is it so difficult to believe that the ISS is in low earth orbit?

Ok, so how often does this refuelling take place?

I'm assuming the ISS must have the most efficient system EVER, after all it is traveling at 17000 mph making 15 passes a day.

I wonder how difficult it must be to refuel the ISS at 7.5 km/s

• There are actual pictures of the ISS against the Sun and Moon that its size and height can be calculated. From the "Is ISS a projection" thread - (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65080.msg1736930#msg1736930)
• There are LOTS of pictures of the Earth from the ISS. From those pictures, you can determine the height of the ISS. Some examples (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64879.msg1741000#msg1741000)

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on December 22, 2015, 10:31:14 AM

Why is it so difficult to believe that the ISS is in low earth orbit?

Ok, so how often does this refuelling take place?

I'm assuming the ISS must have the most efficient system EVER, after all it is traveling at 17000 mph making 15 passes a day.

I wonder how difficult it must be to refuel the ISS at 7.5 km/s

Maybe it's nuclear?

• There are actual pictures of the ISS against the Sun and Moon that its size and height can be calculated. From the "Is ISS a projection" thread - (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65080.msg1736930#msg1736930)
• There are LOTS of pictures of the Earth from the ISS. From those pictures, you can determine the height of the ISS. Some examples (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64879.msg1741000#msg1741000)

Quote from: Cake Tastes Nice on December 22, 2015, 10:10:00 AM

So how does the ISS keep flying? Where is its propulsion system? Where does it get its fuel?

I don't have the blueprints, how am I meant to know? All that's remotely feasible for me to prove is possibility.
Are you claiming it's impossible? I see plenty of ways, from in-flight refuelling, to landing stop while it's over the ocean.
There are multiple causes for a propulsion system. Why do you believe none are possible? I have no desire to list every possibility.

Quote

No, those would be facts. They have physical evidence that for all your posturing you can not show is fake.

And you, for all your posturing, refuse to show are real. Try harder.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 10:12:37 AM

Quote from: Cake Tastes Nice on December 22, 2015, 10:10:00 AM

So how does the ISS keep flying? Where is its propulsion system? Where does it get its fuel?

I don't have the blueprints, how am I meant to know? All that's remotely feasible for me to prove is possibility.
Are you claiming it's impossible? I see plenty of ways, from in-flight refuelling, to landing stop while it's over the ocean.
There are multiple causes for a propulsion system. Why do you believe none are possible? I have no desire to list every possibility.

Quote

No, those would be facts. They have physical evidence that for all your posturing you can not show is fake.

And you, for all your posturing, refuse to show are real. Try harder.

Cmon Jrowe, don't be an idiot. I'm sure you understand how things fly and something the shape of the ISS would not fly in any atmosphere. The speed it goes at across the sky is also IMPOSSIBLE for aircraft of that shape in an atmosphere. You know this and you willfully ignore it.

Maybe Occam's razor comes into play and in fact, the ISS is in space being propelled by the earth's gravity. That is a simple solution.

Why is it so difficult to believe that the ISS is in low earth orbit?

Ok, so how often does this refuelling take place?
"A landing stop"

Cmon Jrowe, don't be an idiot. I'm sure you understand how things fly and something the shape of the ISS would not fly in any atmosphere. The speed it goes at across the sky is also IMPOSSIBLE for aircraft of that shape in an atmosphere. You know this and you willfully ignore it.

Also, according to him, since you used logical deduction and observation that counts as evidence.

Quote

Cmon Jrowe, don't be an idiot. I'm sure you understand how things fly and something the shape of the ISS would not fly in any atmosphere. The speed it goes at across the sky is also IMPOSSIBLE for aircraft of that shape in an atmosphere. You know this and you willfully ignore it.

Assertion.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 12:39:25 PM

Quote

Cmon Jrowe, don't be an idiot. I'm sure you understand how things fly and something the shape of the ISS would not fly in any atmosphere. The speed it goes at across the sky is also IMPOSSIBLE for aircraft of that shape in an atmosphere. You know this and you willfully ignore it.

Assertion.

Diversion. It may be an assertion to say that something the shape of the ISS can't go that fast through a thick atmosphere, but i don't see you explaining how it does.

To say it is not in space is just as much an assertion. One with less scientific validity and one that is based on conspiracy.

Quote from: eggyk on December 22, 2015, 01:08:26 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 12:39:25 PM

Quote

Cmon Jrowe, don't be an idiot. I'm sure you understand how things fly and something the shape of the ISS would not fly in any atmosphere. The speed it goes at across the sky is also IMPOSSIBLE for aircraft of that shape in an atmosphere. You know this and you willfully ignore it.

Assertion.

Diversion. It may be an assertion to say that something the shape of the ISS can't go that fast through a thick atmosphere, but i don't see you explaining how it does.

To say it is not in space is just as much an assertion. One with less scientific validity and one that is based on conspiracy.

Because I'm not trying to explain how it does: I am simply saying there are possibilities. That's all DET requires. There are many ways to fly, and I haven't seen any actual attempts to explain why they wouldn't apply to the ISS.
Certainly, to say it is in space as a standalone statement is an assertion: that's not what I'm doing. The impossibility of space travel follows from DET, i simply hold to that.

Quote from: eggyk on December 22, 2015, 01:08:26 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 12:39:25 PM

Quote

Cmon Jrowe, don't be an idiot. I'm sure you understand how things fly and something the shape of the ISS would not fly in any atmosphere. The speed it goes at across the sky is also IMPOSSIBLE for aircraft of that shape in an atmosphere. You know this and you willfully ignore it.

Assertion.

Diversion. It may be an assertion to say that something the shape of the ISS can't go that fast through a thick atmosphere, but i don't see you explaining how it does.

To say it is not in space is just as much an assertion. One with less scientific validity and one that is based on conspiracy.

Because I'm not trying to explain how it does: I am simply saying there are possibilities. That's all DET requires. There are many ways to fly, and I haven't seen any actual attempts to explain why they wouldn't apply to the ISS.
Certainly, to say it is in space as a standalone statement is an assertion: that's not what I'm doing. The impossibility of space travel follows from DET, i simply hold to that.

Well, good to know that space travel isn't possible in a possible fantasy world that may or may not exist. Don't see how that applies here.

Quote from: eggyk on December 22, 2015, 01:08:26 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 12:39:25 PM

Quote

Cmon Jrowe, don't be an idiot. I'm sure you understand how things fly and something the shape of the ISS would not fly in any atmosphere. The speed it goes at across the sky is also IMPOSSIBLE for aircraft of that shape in an atmosphere. You know this and you willfully ignore it.

Assertion.

Diversion. It may be an assertion to say that something the shape of the ISS can't go that fast through a thick atmosphere, but i don't see you explaining how it does.

To say it is not in space is just as much an assertion. One with less scientific validity and one that is based on conspiracy.

Because I'm not trying to explain how it does: I am simply saying there are possibilities. That's all DET requires. There are many ways to fly, and I haven't seen any actual attempts to explain why they wouldn't apply to the ISS.
Certainly, to say it is in space as a standalone statement is an assertion: that's not what I'm doing. The impossibility of space travel follows from DET, i simply hold to that.

Quote from: eggyk on December 22, 2015, 01:08:26 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 12:39:25 PM

Quote

Cmon Jrowe, don't be an idiot. I'm sure you understand how things fly and something the shape of the ISS would not fly in any atmosphere. The speed it goes at across the sky is also IMPOSSIBLE for aircraft of that shape in an atmosphere. You know this and you willfully ignore it.

Assertion.

Diversion. It may be an assertion to say that something the shape of the ISS can't go that fast through a thick atmosphere, but i don't see you explaining how it does.

To say it is not in space is just as much an assertion. One with less scientific validity and one that is based on conspiracy.

Because I'm not trying to explain how it does: I am simply saying there are possibilities. That's all DET requires. There are many ways to fly, and I haven't seen any actual attempts to explain why they wouldn't apply to the ISS.
Certainly, to say it is in space as a standalone statement is an assertion: that's not what I'm doing. The impossibility of space travel follows from DET, i simply hold to that.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 05:42:35 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on December 22, 2015, 05:37:28 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 04:04:15 AM

Are you people honestly arguing that flight hasn't been invented?

Wait...what?

You think this is an aircraft??

Only the first was taken by anything approaching a reliable source (the latter explicitly says it was taken from space even in the URL) and detail is distinctly lacking.
But I forgot, all aircraft must look one specific way.

Of course all aircraft don't have to look the same. But they do need some sort of way to fly? The first two utilize engines and wings to generate lift while moving forward in flight. The helicopter pushes air beneath it with propellers and the balloon uses hot air to become less dense than the air around it and float, not fly. The ISS could do none of those things.
A point that you really cannot deny is how fast it moves. You yourself have admitted to its speed. What aircraft moves at the speed of the ISS? No plane, helicopter, and especially no blimp (the best argument you could make) that I am aware of moves at that speed. Plus any of those things would require quite a propulsion system to move at the speed, which would produce some GIGANTIC flames and smoke we don't see behind the ISS. Even if you can find one, how much fuel does it require , and how often does it need to land? It was assembled in space. The ISS has literally never been on the ground. We can prove this because at any moment someone somewhere in the world can see/track it.
So, are you going to tell me that the ISS is some amazing aircraft that defies all aerodynamic physics and I need to study up on the DET or somehow manage to rebut all of my points, or are you going to admit that it can't be an aircraft because nothing about it allows it to fly?

Now, rebut all of those points to prove that the ISS can fly.

Quote from: TheGreatGray on December 22, 2015, 01:44:04 PM

Now, rebut all of those points to prove that the ISS can fly.

I did address them. They aren't points. There's nothing to refute. they're assumptions based on the presupposition that the ISS possesses none of them. What is your evidence given all you can honestly and certainly state you know is a blurry photo of the ISS at one instant in time?

Quote from: TheGreatGray on December 22, 2015, 01:44:04 PM

Now, rebut all of those points to prove that the ISS can fly.

I did address them. They aren't points. There's nothing to refute. they're assumptions based on the presupposition that the ISS possesses none of them. What is your evidence given all you can honestly and certainly state you know is a blurry photo of the ISS at one instant in time?

No you didn't. It is not presupposition to say that is ISS has none of these things. He makes a point that if it was in atmosphere and was being contantly projected forward using fuel, it would leave trails in the sky.

Do you believe that it is more likely that a sort of sci-fi propulsion system propagates the ISS, or that it is actually in space?

Do you see propellers? Do you see wings? Do you see flames? Do you see a damn balloon? How can it fly?

Quote from: eggyk on December 22, 2015, 02:06:31 PM

No you didn't. It is not presupposition to say that is ISS has none of these things. He makes a point that if it was in atmosphere and was being contantly projected forward using fuel, it would leave trails in the sky.

Do you believe that it is more likely that a sort of sci-fi propulsion system propagates the ISS, or that it is actually in space?

There are many ways to propel without leaving an emissions trail. And NASA is already well known as a source of advanced technology: the notion of sci-fi propulsion system is a dishonest one. Most of today's technology is sci-fi by an old definition. Hell, we're more advanced than Star Trek, communicator wise. besides, there wouldn't be much of a trail at sufficient altitude, if the air was dry.

Quote

Do you see propellers? Do you see wings? Do you see flames? Do you see a damn balloon? How can it fly?

Maybe, maybe, no, maybe. We're looking at a still blurry image, it's not exactly an ideal photo to gauge, for example, what's a propeller. And balloons can be multiple shapes: theoretically nothing would stop the entire thing being a blimp. Plenty of hot air balloons have specific shapes.

Ok, a lot of maybes, but we are getting somewhere. (By the way there are a lot of clear pictures of the ISS that will turn the maybes into nos if you don't dismiss them).

How does the ISS go so fast if it is flying? What aircraft, that you can name, can move at that speed? What is its fuel probably? And this gets back to propulsion... The fastest thing would have some sort of jet, and the one thing you said you certainly don't see is fire. The thing you seem to be putting your bets in with is that the ISS is some sort of blimp/balloon. Neither of those things could even conceivably go fast enough, don't kid yourself.

Quote from: TheGreatGray on December 22, 2015, 02:21:26 PM

Ok, a lot of maybes, but we are getting somewhere. (By the way there are a lot of clear pictures of the ISS that will turn the maybes into nos if you don't dismiss them).

It's hard to provide more than a 'maybe' when our only firm reference is a blurred still image. Every photo I know of that's taken from Earth is pretty blurry. The only clear ones are from the organization that would be responsible for faking it, if indeed the conspiracy holds.

Quote

How does the ISS go so fast if it is flying? What aircraft, that you can name, can move at that speed? What is its fuel probably? And this gets back to propulsion... The fastest thing would have some sort of jet, and the one thing you said you certainly don't see is fire. The thing you seem to be putting your bets in with is that the ISS is some sort of blimp/balloon. Neither of those things could even conceivably go fast enough, don't kid yourself.

Planes typically only leave a notable trail in wet air: it's how you notice plane trails can behave differently. I'm not making any firm claim as to what it is, because I could not possibly know. I'm content with possibility: and there are a lot of ways to conceal a flame, if indeed it relies on thats ort of engine. There are a lot of panels that could be used to conceal such engines.
I don't know what its speed is: I don't know its exact altitude, hard to calculate, and I don't want to dedicate ages to a comparatively minor aspect of DET. I figure that if it's a firm falsification, REers should be able to justify it. I don't have the blueprints for the ISS: I don't understand how that's meant to be an argument.

I don't know what its speed is: I don't know its exact altitude, hard to calculate, and I don't want to dedicate ages to a comparatively minor aspect of DET.

And NASA is already well known as a source of advanced technology: the notion of sci-fi propulsion system is a dishonest one. Most of today's technology is sci-fi by an old definition.

Quote

I don't know what its speed is: I don't know its exact altitude, hard to calculate, and I don't want to dedicate ages to a comparatively minor aspect of DET.

It's not difficult to calculate at all! You get two people at two different points in its path. You measure the time between it being directly overhead for each person. Divide the distance by the time, and woohoo you got yourself a speed.

Quote

And NASA is already well known as a source of advanced technology: the notion of sci-fi propulsion system is a dishonest one. Most of today's technology is sci-fi by an old definition.

I thought NASA only made CGI technology! No known propulsion system could possibly propagate a craft of that size and shape at the speed that it travels. You think that it is more likely that an unknown propagation system flies it through atmosphere than it being in space?

Details of the ISS are easily found online, as you know.

It's not difficult to calculate at all! You get two people at two different points in its path. You measure the time between it being directly overhead for each person. Divide the distance by the time, and woohoo you got yourself a speed.

I thought NASA only made CGI technology! No known propulsion system could possibly propagate a craft of that size and shape at the speed that it travels. You think that it is more likely that an unknown propagation system flies it through atmosphere than it being in space?