The Flat Earth Society is Controlled Opposition

Quote

Yes! Leave, look into Eric Dubay, have a great laugh 😂 at his sheer stupidity, then come back here for some more laughs. LEGITIMATE flat earth research. 😂😂😂. There's a few words that should never appear in the same sentence.

Show me your research for why the earth is a spinning ball, and i'll present proof for why it's not, I can't wait to see what you come up with.

Explain moving stars. On longer exposed photos it looks like that. See below.

In northern hemisphere:


On equator it looks like this:


In southern hemisphere it looks like this:


Here is it's all together:


Why is the direction of stars rotation is opposite in southern hemisphere to that of northern hemisphere?

Have fun.

Quote from: ggenius1 on July 19, 2017, 02:54:13 AM

The sun does not rise, nor set, it  travels out of view, as it is much smaller and closer to the Earth, than what's forwarded in mainstream science. All one needs to do is see the sun, it's clearly not 93,000,000 miles away.

Hi, did someone here saw this Sunrise/Sunset model on Flat Earth?
I found it very interesting.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Thanks for posting that,  it was an Interesting insight into the way flat earthers think.   they got refraction completely backwards,   which is pretty funny in itself,  but then failed to realise it's the curved surface of the earth that makes the atmospheric lens.   At least they actually realised that the flat earth can't explain sunsets,  that's a step forwards ( sortof )

FWIW,  the classic flat earth theory,  always has to fall back on "bendy light" to explain sunsets.  These guys just found a new twist on the old bendy light models,   no electromagnetic accelerator required.

Rayzor I'd better not watch this.
Oh too late

Fuck I watched it. OMG. Dumb, stupid bullshit out of mouth of a person who doesn't understand how light passes through more dense substance.

All this makes me sad.

How many retarded people are there?

Quote

Foucault's Pendulum

Foucault's Pendulum is a failed experiment, proving nothing more than how easy it is for the unwashed masses to be duped by pseudoscience.

I don't know why I expect more.
Yeah your opinion is not evidence for your argument.

In southern hemisphere it looks like this:

Nice pictures.

Anyone can see this. You too.

Do you have any idea how incredibly difficult it is to track a distant moving object like the ISS with a telescope? I am going to assume you don't own, and have never used, a telescope. 

Will someone please provide a "NASA Shill" signup link for me?

I need to know how to get paid for calling flat earthers stupid...

I've been doing it for free!

Quote from: neutrino on July 19, 2017, 05:45:52 AM

Anyone can see this. You too.

Do you have any idea how incredibly difficult it is to track a distant moving object like the ISS with a telescope? I am going to assume you don't own, and have never used, a telescope. 

You are forget one thing, orbits are predictable. You just aim at the right spot and start shooting.

Quote from: neutrino on July 19, 2017, 05:45:52 AM

Anyone can see this. You too.

Do you have any idea how incredibly difficult it is to track a distant moving object like the ISS with a telescope? I am going to assume you don't own, and have never used, a telescope. 

Did you know that there's a huge difference between "incredibly difficult" and "completely impossible"? 

That difference is the generally result of experience, planning, preparation and sometimes more than just a bit of luck.

...orbits are predictable.

Right, but predicted locations are approximate. Further, the only information one has to go by is its elevation and direction when first visible, its peak elevation and direction, and its direction when disappearing:


Again, these figures are approximate. Being even a fraction of a degree off would lead to failure to capture it. But even if you magically manage to orient your telescope correctly, since the ISS travels at high speeds, it would only be visible for a split second. Using a telescope that inverts image orientation (e.g., refractor telescopes) would complicate the effort further.

You just aim at the right spot and start shooting.

Shooting? We're talking about viewing the ISS with a telescope, not about taking a picture of it through the telescope, which, BTW, would add much more difficulty to the effort.

Did you know that there's a huge difference between "incredibly difficult" and "completely impossible"? 

That difference is the generally result of experience, planning, preparation and sometimes more than just a bit of luck.

Also, telescope quality matters. Some telescopes can be electronically aimed at a particular location with a high degree of accuracy, but these tend to be very expensive. So since it's virtually impossible to view the ISS without these and since some cannot afford them, some are unable to view the ISS via telescope; neutrino's claim that "Anyone can see this." is thus false.

You are forget one thing, orbits are predictable. You just aim at the right spot and start shooting.

It would go through the FOV so quick you would never catch it. You need to track it.

Quote from: sokarul on July 19, 2017, 02:15:57 PM

...orbits are predictable.

Right, but predicted locations are approximate.

How much error there is depends on the age of the orbital elements and the height of the satellite, presuming no active steering is being done (for the ISS, this happens every few weeks to months). Elements for many satellites are updated daily.



When its orbit isn't being actively changed, elements for the ISS that are less than a couple of days old are accurate to a small fraction of a degree. The ISS needs to be actively boosted more often than typical satellites because its orbit is fairly low, and it has a lot of surface area.

Further, the only information one has to go by is its elevation and direction when first visible, its peak elevation and direction, and its direction when disappearing:

That depends on where you get your predictions from, and what you ask for. Heavens Above can provide predictions for satellite passes which include star charts like this example of the ISS from Kansas City, KS on 2017 July 23:



You can zoom in for better than 1 second time resolution and shows fainter stars, like this:



If I were trying to see the ISS through a telescope on this pass, I'd probably sight in next to the star it will pass at 22:33:34, and wait for it, with an accurate time source. With a little experience, even with a fully manual telescope, it's possible to follow the ISS once you pick it up.

Again, these figures are approximate. Being even a fraction of a degree off would lead to failure to capture it.

Quote

If you're using the most recent orbital elements (HA includes the epoch of the elements in its displays), this will be quite accurate. I've used this technique to pick a location to watch the ISS pass in front of the moon close to its center; a friend saw the same pass just barely graze the moon - as predicted - from her home just a few miles away. The accuracy is quite good.

But even if you magically manage to orient your telescope correctly, since the ISS travels at high speeds, it would only be visible for a split second. Using a telescope that inverts image orientation (e.g., refractor telescopes) would complicate the effort further.

Newtonian reflectors, with the eyepiece on the side, can be even more disorienting. Once you get used to the image orientation, tracking isn't hard to do and the movements become second nature.

Quote from: sokarul on July 19, 2017, 02:15:57 PM

You just aim at the right spot and start shooting.

Shooting? We're talking about viewing the ISS with a telescope, not about taking a picture of it through the telescope, which, BTW, would add much more difficulty to the effort.

Yes and no. If you pre-focus on a relatively bright star, then move to the spot you want to 'ambush' the satellite, you can start recording video a second or so before the pass and you'll probably get it. If you want stills, setting the camera for multiple rapid exposures will also most likely work. With a bit of practice and a good time source, there's a realistic possibility of getting it in a single shot.

Quote from: markjo on July 19, 2017, 03:03:41 PM

Did you know that there's a huge difference between "incredibly difficult" and "completely impossible"? 

That difference is the generally result of experience, planning, preparation and sometimes more than just a bit of luck.

Also, telescope quality matters. Some telescopes can be electronically aimed at a particular location with a high degree of accuracy, but these tend to be very expensive. So since it's virtually impossible to view the ISS without these and since some cannot afford them, some are unable to view the ISS via telescope; neutrino's claim that "Anyone can see this." is thus false.

Yes and no. If they tried, most people could probably find a local amateur astronomer that already has a suitable telescope and can either already do this, or is willing to try something new. The problem is that it does take some knowledge, preparation, and effort to see satellites like the ISS through a telescope. Based on the attitude of most flat-earth proponents here, knowledge, preparation, and effort are the last things most of them seem to be interested in; they're more into uncritically watching youtube videos (as long as whatever they purport to show is "against the mainstream"), thinking up "reasons the earth can't possibly be round" without actually testing them, simply pontificating about something they they heard somewhere, or reading actual explanations and completely misinterpreting them.

In principle, almost anyone can, with some effort, see the ISS through a telescope. It's just that too many people won't because they simply can't be bothered to put effort into anything that might not confirm what they already want to believe. Or they know full well what they'll see if they succeed, and don't want to deal with the fact that they have seen it.

For me, I'm satisfied by simply using the ISS Tracker app on my phone, and going outside to watch.
Predictions have been dead on accurate every single time, provided I have clear skies to view.

A photo like that would be incredibly difficult to capture, but obviously not impossible.

Quote from: sokarul on July 19, 2017, 02:15:57 PM

You are forget one thing, orbits are predictable. You just aim at the right spot and start shooting.

It would go through the FOV so quick you would never catch it. You need to track it.

I was going to make a real response later but tracking isn't required. Never seen the pictures or video of it crossing to sun or moon?



But there seems to be many tracking videos on YouTube.

Quote from: markjo on July 19, 2017, 03:03:41 PM

Did you know that there's a huge difference between "incredibly difficult" and "completely impossible"? 

That difference is the generally result of experience, planning, preparation and sometimes more than just a bit of luck.

Also, telescope quality matters. Some telescopes can be electronically aimed at a particular location with a high degree of accuracy, but these tend to be very expensive. So since it's virtually impossible to view the ISS without these and since some cannot afford them, some are unable to view the ISS via telescope; neutrino's claim that "Anyone can see this." is thus false.

Here is someone who would disagree with you.

You can zoom in for better than 1 second time resolution and shows fainter stars...

The problem with this is that, for those living in areas with much light pollution (i.e., most humans), these fainter stars will not be visible.

If you're using the most recent orbital elements (HA includes the epoch of the elements in its displays), this will be quite accurate. I've used this technique to pick a location to watch the ISS pass in front of the moon close to its center; a friend saw the same pass just barely graze the moon - as predicted - from her home just a few miles away. The accuracy is quite good.

Have you taken photos of the ISS through your telescope? What kind of telescope do you have? I've been using an $80-ish manual Vixen telescope to try to capture the ISS:


...and let me tell you, it's been a major pain in the ass.

If you pre-focus on a relatively bright star, then move to the spot you want to 'ambush' the satellite, you can start recording video a second or so before the pass and you'll probably get it. If you want stills, setting the camera for multiple rapid exposures will also most likely work. With a bit of practice and a good time source, there's a realistic possibility of getting it in a single shot.

This is the best-resolution image I've managed to take using my cell phone's camera (which is the only camera I own):



It's not easy to center the camera's lens precisely over the telescope's, especially at night; it takes patience and a really steady hand. With my equipment, I would be unable to take a clear picture of the ISS.

If they tried, most people could probably find a local amateur astronomer that already has a suitable telescope and can either already do this, or is willing to try something new.

I don't think this is true. It's not like amateur astronomers generally have a bunch of free time and are willing to let strangers borrow their telescopes for free. Heck, it's a pain in the ass for me to convince my older brother to let me use his electronic telescope, lmao.

Based on the attitude of most flat-earth proponents here, knowledge, preparation, and effort are the last things most of them seem to be interested in; they're more into uncritically watching youtube videos (as long as whatever they purport to show is "against the mainstream"), thinking up "reasons the earth can't possibly be round" without actually testing them, simply pontificating about something they they heard somewhere, or reading actual explanations and completely misinterpreting them.

Are we on the same website? Sure, some FEers are that way, but not anywhere close to the majority. Further, many roundies are that way... just look at markjo, lol.

In principle, almost anyone can, with some effort, see the ISS through a telescope. It's just that too many people won't because they simply can't be bothered to put effort into anything that might not confirm what they already want to believe. Or they know full well what they'll see if they succeed, and don't want to deal with the fact that they have seen it.

I've put some effort into attempting to view the ISS through a telescope, and it has not been easy.

As I expressed in my initial post, neutrino's claim that "Anyone can see this." is false. Doing so requires a particular skill with certain equipment not all possess or have access to.

As I expressed in my initial post, neutrino's claim that "Anyone can see this." is false. Doing so requires a particular skill with certain equipment not all possess or have access to.

I agree with you the statement,  "Anyone can see this."  is in fact false,   there are blind people for a start.   Not sure who else,   you perhaps?   

How many people do you think have to see it to make it real?

Never seen the pictures or video of it crossing to sun or moon?

Of course I have. Not by someone with an amateur cassegrain hand guided scope.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on July 19, 2017, 06:31:24 PM

You can zoom in for better than 1 second time resolution and shows fainter stars...

The problem with this is that, for those living in areas with much light pollution (i.e., most humans), these fainter stars will not be visible.

Except in the very worst cases, even the dimmer stars on that star chart would be visible through a telescope for most humans. It does take practice to find the right star, but it shouldn't be impossible for anyone. The ISS itself is so bright that it can be seen through all but the very worst light pollution, like, say, a professional sports stadium lit for a night event, or, maybe, the Strip in Las Vegas.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on July 19, 2017, 06:31:24 PM

If you're using the most recent orbital elements (HA includes the epoch of the elements in its displays), this will be quite accurate. I've used this technique to pick a location to watch the ISS pass in front of the moon close to its center; a friend saw the same pass just barely graze the moon - as predicted - from her home just a few miles away. The accuracy is quite good.

Have you taken photos of the ISS through your telescope? What kind of telescope do you have?

I have a couple. The one I use most often is a 6" f/9 R-C reflector on a Celestron ASGT equatorial mount. I also have a '50s-vintage 3" f/15 refractor that can be used with the same mount. So far, I've spotted the ISS visually a few times with the 6, including passing in front of the moon, but haven't attempted to photograph it because that means a lot more crap to haul around and I never really felt the need.

I've been using an $80-ish manual Vixen telescope to try to capture the ISS:


...and let me tell you, it's been a major pain in the ass.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on July 19, 2017, 06:31:24 PM

If you pre-focus on a relatively bright star, then move to the spot you want to 'ambush' the satellite, you can start recording video a second or so before the pass and you'll probably get it. If you want stills, setting the camera for multiple rapid exposures will also most likely work. With a bit of practice and a good time source, there's a realistic possibility of getting it in a single shot.

This is the best-resolution image I've managed to take using my cell phone's camera (which is the only camera I own):

That one's massively overexposed, but the detail at the terminator suggests that it could have been reasonably sharp. Once you've saturated the sensor that much, resolution doesn't matter. The moon is the brightest celestial object you'll see at night, which makes it relatively easy to photograph, and it's fairly common for people to photograph the moon with decent results even with cell phone cameras. Keep trying. Find the "pro" mode, or whatever they call it on your phone camera, and set it to underexpose by a few f/stops.

It's not easy to center the camera's lens precisely over the telescope's, especially at night; it takes patience and a really steady hand. With my equipment, I would be unable to take a clear picture of the ISS.

You will need a more suitable camera to take pictures of the ISS; in the meantime, just try to spot it visually.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on July 19, 2017, 06:31:24 PM

If they tried, most people could probably find a local amateur astronomer that already has a suitable telescope and can either already do this, or is willing to try something new.

I don't think this is true. It's not like amateur astronomers generally have a bunch of free time and are willing to let strangers borrow their telescopes for free. Heck, it's a pain in the ass for me to convince my older brother to let me use his electronic telescope, lmao.

You might be surprised. Our club goes to great lengths promoting public outreach and to publicize its existence. I, and many of our members would be happy to work with newcomers who show genuine interest. Asking a stranger to let you borrow their telescope would be out of line, but many people I know would be happy to let you use one of theirs, under their supervision, once you showed very basic competence, which could be pretty quickly acquired. Have you asked anyone but your brother? There's a different dynamic between brothers than between unrelated people.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on July 19, 2017, 06:31:24 PM

Based on the attitude of most flat-earth proponents here, knowledge, preparation, and effort are the last things most of them seem to be interested in; they're more into uncritically watching youtube videos (as long as whatever they purport to show is "against the mainstream"), thinking up "reasons the earth can't possibly be round" without actually testing them, simply pontificating about something they they heard somewhere, or reading actual explanations and completely misinterpreting them.

Are we on the same website? Sure, some FEers are that way, but not anywhere close to the majority.

I can think of a very few that actually go out and test ideas - there may be a handful - and a large number who mostly tout youtube videos, spout idle speculation, or both. Several propose tests that would be ambiguous if actually carried out in the real world, but never conduct them. Others claim to have done all kinds of experiments, but always prevaricate when asked about results, or even a shred of evidence that the tests were done at all.

Further, many roundies are that way... just look at markjo, lol.

It's almost a certainty that every one of them has seen the sun setting below the horizon. Until there's a flat-earth explanation for that that works as well as the one offered by the spherical earth, the notion that the earth is flat is already dead, so there's little reason to test more esoteric claims.

Will someone please provide a "NASA Shill" signup link for me?

I need to know how to get paid for calling flat earthers stupid...

I've been doing it for free!

As if you aren't in the know ! Nice try though !
Since NdGT , a famous NASA spokesman and scientist, ate a fat juicy burger in front of an audience , just before prooving gravity at last..... there are two options:

1 Despite the fact that every intelligent person knows the tremendous dangers of obesity, Neil decided as rolemodel to ignore all healthcare info. This was a clear signal to the public that as long as you believe in microphone gravity, you can consume whatever you want !!

2 McDonalds is a main sponsor of NASA and wants something in return. Neil eating a fat burger before proving gravity is a great subliminal message !
True science and fat burgers go together hand in hand.

And remember every minute in a latenight show is scripted, so the 'burger act' was scripted in detail !!!
I am afraid  globers do not know this though,...... since they are removed from reality , but nevertheless...

If i was you , i would ask at your local McDonalds (. 'behind' the counter) for further info about sponsored payment.
Couldn't be that hard since you are there on a regular basis   

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 19, 2017, 02:06:57 PM

Will someone please provide a "NASA Shill" signup link for me?

I need to know how to get paid for calling flat earthers stupid...

I've been doing it for free!

As if you aren't in the know ! Nice try though !
Since NdGT , a famous NASA spokesman and scientist, ate a fat juicy burger in front of an audience , just before prooving gravity at last..... there are two options:

1 Despite the fact that every intelligent person knows the tremendous dangers of obesity, Neil decided as rolemodel to ignore all healthcare info. This was a clear signal to the public that as long as you believe in microphone gravity, you can consume whatever you want !!

2 McDonalds is a main sponsor of NASA and wants something in return. Neil eating a fat burger before proving gravity is a great subliminal message !
True science and fat burgers go together hand in hand.

And remember every minute in a latenight show is scripted, so the 'burger act' was scripted in detail !!!
I am afraid  globers do not know this though,...... since they are removed from reality , but nevertheless...

If i was you , i would ask at your local McDonalds (. 'behind' the counter) for further info about sponsored payment.
Couldn't be that hard since you are there on a regular basis   

You really are a sad sad man constantly grovelling around looking for pathetic lame brained stories that you hope will somehow support your case......

Man eating burger proves earth is flat ? That's just a joke. Your claim that McDonald's are a main sponsor of NASA however is just an out right lie, one of your many.

McDonald's annual report can be found here.....
http://corporate.mcdonalds.com/mcd/investors/financial-information/annual-report.html

McDonald's annual report can be found here.....

Can we all agree that the McRib is delicious poison?   

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 20, 2017, 01:28:46 AM

McDonald's annual report can be found here.....

Can we all agree that the McRib is delicious poison?

Only if you lack both style and tastebuds......and have a winkle fixation.

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 20, 2017, 01:28:46 AM

McDonald's annual report can be found here.....

Can we all agree that the McRib is delicious poison?

Yuck!


dutchy was so completely traumatized when McDonalds fired him, that he turned full vegetarian, and decided that the earth is flat!

dutchy was so completely traumatized when McDonalds fired him, that he turned full vegetarian, and decided that the earth is flat!

I became a vegetarian after an undercover reportage in an ordinary slaughterhouse for pigs.
Mankind doesn't really deserve to live on earth, so much was clear.
Difficult, because i loved a good steak or fried chicken.
But a man has to do what he has to do when confronted with it's own evil reflection in the mirror of live !! Either do or die by the standards i made up that night !

I went 'flat' because the level of fakery from NASA reached absurd levels and their payed sissies from the damage control team (Phill Plait & co) gave me all sorts of unwanted physicall side effects.
I READ the first article about flatearth 7 years ago and after 'NASA' it became more plausible each year......althaugh i am a slow learner.

They do use some unusual, unsavory methods to feed the masses, I'll give you that.

But basing your flat Earth belief solely on some perceived fakery by one organization, one very young organization, is illogical.

The earth was globular way before NASA.

But basing your flat Earth belief solely on some perceived fakery by one organization, one very young organization, is illogical.

Conspiracy theories rarely are.  I think this is the same for most flatties - they've chosen to believe the earth is flat for political / conspiracy reasons.  So they belong to an exclusive club, with exclusive knowledge - one step ahead of the blind sheeple.  Whether the earth is actually flat is almost irrelevant.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 20, 2017, 05:30:58 AM

But basing your flat Earth belief solely on some perceived fakery by one organization, one very young organization, is illogical.

Conspiracy theories rarely are.  I think this is the same for most flatties - they've chosen to believe the earth is flat for political / conspiracy reasons.  So they belong to an exclusive club, with exclusive knowledge - one step ahead of the blind sheeple.  Whether the earth is actually flat is almost irrelevant.

Hey, we're not in the David Icke camp you now.......

I am sure you are right about the human habit to feel blessed, special, exclusive, in the know, among the few insiders etc....
Name me ONE field where it doesn't happen.As a performing musician i had the priviledge to play at lots of private dinners for various ensembles.
Every field has this ''we are really special'' surrounding them.
If i recall correctly the top of the banking world (Goldman Sachs )called their ignorant clients ''muppets''.

Bottom line, you would have a very hard time to find any noble or humble group of specialists in science or whatever field that isn't convinced that they are special and part of a field/skill that really, really matters.

For me it still baffles me that there are people who deny that the government had anything to do with 9/11.
That is so stupid, i don't have words to describe my feelings towards such denial.
The other major gripe i havee with the supposed reality of our era, is the manned moonlandings. Another highlight of supreme indoctrination.....God what year do we have to live in before people accept it was indeed a scam of the late sixties.

Flatearth all of a sudden didn't seem that stupid anymore.......in fact it made more sense with every year passing by....and as a bible believer it was much more in line with scripture !!

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 20, 2017, 03:28:28 AM

dutchy was so completely traumatized when McDonalds fired him, that he turned full vegetarian, and decided that the earth is flat!

I became a vegetarian after an undercover reportage in an ordinary slaughterhouse for pigs.
Mankind doesn't really deserve to live on earth, so much was clear.
Difficult, because i loved a good steak or fried chicken.
But a man has to do what he has to do when confronted with it's own evil reflection in the mirror of live !! Either do or die by the standards i made up that night !

I went 'flat' because the level of fakery from NASA reached absurd levels and their payed sissies from the damage control team (Phill Plait & co) gave me all sorts of unwanted physicall side effects.
I READ the first article about flatearth 7 years ago and after 'NASA' it became more plausible each year......althaugh i am a slow learner.

You are indeed a slow learner.

Why do you have a NASA fixation?
If you stopped to think for one moment to concider the true magnitude of the conspiracythat results from your 'beliefs' and their knock on implications .....they are really mind blowing.

It's all very well focusing, as you do, on the one image......but when you look at the wider implications, something you don't do, it transports your beliefs to the edges of improbability and into the realms of  insanity.

I

If you stopped to think for one moment to concider...

I'm pro-cider, personally.