Satellite Imagery - The Reprise Edition

Ok, here's what I feel to be the "be all, end all" to this ridiculous FE theory.

Here are a few stock space video's taken from some space craft's.

Video showing the sun coming up from behind an obvious horizon.

Video showing the curvature of the earth, the horizon

16 minute documentary about antarctica, the north pole, etc Notice that in this one, you'll not see penguins "getting eaten by any ice wall gaurds", also look at time frame 2:40 - 2:49, you can see the curvature of the earth, and the sun coming up over an apparent horizon, which part of it is being lit up even without the sun being there, and this also shows that the earth is not flat because of that, also you will see that the shadow moves as the sun comes up, where the land mass doesn't change at all. Explain your ice wall now if that's the edge of the earth. Also look at time frame  12:20 -  12:46. This looks like the flat earth model's explanation for night and day... but where's the night time when the sun reaches it's lowest point in the video... it looks like daytime to me. Remember, this part of the video is taken above the arctic circle during the summer time. In your FE model, you say that this effect, shown in the video, is how the sun works, and why it's night time. Couldn't be more wrong, and I just smashed that part of your theory with that time frame of the video. Time for a new theory, boys. Now reference time frame 13:41 - 13:54. You will see a clip of Russia, from a high altitude. In the corner, you can see the curvature of the earth, and you can also see that the norther shore of Russia warps around a certain point in a spheroidal manner, and that the western part of it sort of slips into the horizon, further demonstrating the spheroidal model of the earth. Shaking in your boots yet?

=============

Google, Inc. is a multinational corperation, with many established advances in both the internet, and the way we reach out to the world.

It is protected by laissez-faire. This basically means that a government cannot interfere with it's business practice, unless to break a trust (monopoly). Google Inc. is not (yet) a monopoly, and is thusly protected.

Recently, Google Inc. has released an intuitive program, called Google Earth. Google Earth is a satellite imagery program that compiles and displays highly accurate and detailed satellite images of the surface of the entire earth.

That is why I mentioned the laissez-faire. These images, because of laissaiz-faire, cannot be be touched by the government of the United States of America, one of the key players in the conspiracy.

I am going to provide you with a few video's that I took using Frapps on my Windows box to demonstrate visually some of the things that the round earthers have been describing, such as the horizon, the non existance of the ice wall, the rotation of the earth as it would be seen from the ISS (International Space Station) from a farther distance away, etc. Google Inc., because of laissez-faire, would also have no intention of lying to the people it markets it's products to, FE'ers and RE'ers alike, as it would not gain from hiding the truth and also wants to maintain its reputation for it's superior business trades.

This is a Google Earth video I recorded showing the rotation of the round earth, which also shows all the locations on earth in a proportional  view, and all points are equidistant from the center of the earth.

This video shows a satellite image zoom into NYC, to prove that the images are not faked and are indeed taken from a satellite, which disproves you're theory as to them being made up by the government.

This video starts off in NYC, zooms out to show the whole earth, and then zooms in on another supposed imaginary location: Area 51. This just illustrates the fact that it does exist. The video then zooms away from Area 51, and moves over Antarctica, and shows the area that the Ice Wall is supposed to be. If there was a wall 150 feet high, it would certainly be viewable in the video. I can safely say this because I can zoom in on the Great Pyramids of Giza, and they are at least 150 feet and higher. You will s see some possible areas that could be mistaken for an Ice Wall, but then.. why would there be an Ice Wall, but then, seeing these are actual satellite images, where is the Edge? I can't seem to find it. As I said before, Google Inc. has no reason to, nor profit from, lie to it's customers if it wants to maintain a good business practice and is protect from the government via laissaez-faire.

=========

Go ahead Tom, use your FAQ now. And to everyone else, just try and defeat the laissez-faire with your conspiracy theory, Ice Wall, Guards, Penguin Food, and the other what-have-yous, and try and prove to me how these could possible be fake. Any and all simple answers with no backing will be ignored as a whole.

I repeat:

Any and all simple answers with no backing will be ignored as a whole.

Any and all simple answers with no backing will be ignored as a whole.

Any and all simple answers with no backing will be ignored as a whole.

Any and all simple answers with no backing will be ignored as a whole.

Any and all simple answers with no backing will be ignored as a whole.

Any and all simple answers with no backing will be ignored as a whole.

 So be prepared to give this argument a very deep, well thought our, well explained rebuttle against this. I'll leave the math to Toothy. Just because I <3 him so. And to all the Experienced Round Earther's, be prepared to defend this as best to your ability in mine, Toothy's, or MeatMonkey's absence.

and please FE, explain out in full detail what is wrong with it. and why.

Since when did anybody deny Area 51's existence? It's a real military base, but the question whether or not it has aliens or tech like that there.

It was denied for YEARS. They only recently declassified it's existence.
Declassification

I know. I was only talking about the modern day.

While the intelligent ones are all off doing other stuff - i'l lgive you something to have a go at in the meantime. Keep in mind I did not include myself in the intelligent ones.

This is my understanding.

First of all, the videos you have posted could be easily faked. Sorry.

Secondly, the US government has never been claimed to be a "major player in the conspiracy". In fact, it's often stated that the US government would not need to know.

The article on laissez-faire was lovely, but only protects google under normal govermental situations. Do you really think if the world power had control of the world's space programs, GPS systems and other such things (which they do in FE) they wouldnt have some sort of control over googleEarth?

How can you prove (since you like demanding proof) that google is an independent source? Do you trust the because they are "a multi-national corporation"? That would seem an ignorant choice.

No one (on thi site, in relation to FE) has ever claimed area 51 does not exist. Where did you get this from?

I hope this at least gives you something to do for a little while until better answers show up, keeping in mind I do not claim to be a walking encyclopedia of FE knowledge, just a guy answering your post.

Hopefully it was long enough, no equations, sorry, but I at least included as much "backing" as you had

While the intelligent ones are all off doing other stuff - i'l lgive you something to have a go at in the meantime. Keep in mind I did not include myself in the intelligent ones.

This is my understanding.

First of all, the videos you have posted could be easily faked. Sorry.

Secondly, the US government has never been claimed to be a "major player in the conspiracy". In fact, it's often stated that the US government would not need to know.

The article on laissez-faire was lovely, but only protects google under normal govermental situations. Do you really think if the world power had control of the world's space programs, GPS systems and other such things (which they do in FE) they wouldnt have some sort of control over googleEarth?

How can you prove (since you like demanding proof) that google is an independent source? Do you trust the because they are "a multi-national corporation"? That would seem an ignorant choice.

No one (on thi site, in relation to FE) has ever claimed area 51 does not exist. Where did you get this from?

I hope this at least gives you something to do for a little while until better answers show up, keeping in mind I do not claim to be a walking encyclopedia of FE knowledge, just a guy answering your post.

Hopefully it was long enough, no equations, sorry, but I at least included as much "backing" as you had

I can see points to both sides of this here, but every single point for FE requires the conspiracy theory which is unprovable at best, debatable after that, and utter garbage right behind. But their main point is that either google itself is controlled, or somehow has been corrupted when launched into space.

However, the 'liveness' of it is a major kick in the side for FE, and now RE can demonstrate what they mean with greater accuracy. They can use it to help illustrate things that are known to be true by showing satellite imagery, while simultaneously show it's true by demonstrating it's obviously possible in RE fact.

So, while this is the biggest score for RE yet, and keeping FE again on the defense from all sides, it's still the linchpin that is the fictitious Conspiracy that FE uses as a last bastion of 'obvious truth' that stands. When that falls. it's over.

 I can see points to both sides of this here, but every single point for FE requires the conspiracy theory which is unprovable at best, debatable after that, and utter garbage right behind. But their main point is that either google itself is controlled, or somehow has been corrupted when launched into space.

However, the 'liveness' of it is a major kick in the side for FE, and now RE can demonstrate what they mean with greater accuracy. They can use it to help illustrate things that are known to be true by showing satellite imagery, while simultaneously show it's true by demonstrating it's obviously possible in RE fact.

So, while this is the biggest score for RE yet, and keeping FE again on the defense from all sides, it's still the linchpin that is the fictitious Conspiracy that FE uses as a last bastion of 'obvious truth' that stands. When that falls. it's over.

I'm still not sure why you consider google an automatically reputable, and damaging to FE, source.

Quote from: "RESOCR"

 I can see points to both sides of this here, but every single point for FE requires the conspiracy theory which is unprovable at best, debatable after that, and utter garbage right behind. But their main point is that either google itself is controlled, or somehow has been corrupted when launched into space.

However, the 'liveness' of it is a major kick in the side for FE, and now RE can demonstrate what they mean with greater accuracy. They can use it to help illustrate things that are known to be true by showing satellite imagery, while simultaneously show it's true by demonstrating it's obviously possible in RE fact.

So, while this is the biggest score for RE yet, and keeping FE again on the defense from all sides, it's still the linchpin that is the fictitious Conspiracy that FE uses as a last bastion of 'obvious truth' that stands. When that falls. it's over.

I'm still not sure why you consider google an automatically reputable, and damaging to FE, source.

i did not say I did, I just put forward facts I see on both sides, and I see the logic in both.

i did not say I did, I just put forward facts I see on both sides, and I see the logic in both.

Good to hear! You've come a lot further in a single day than many do in months.

while I gladly accept the compliment, many people here should see that both sides have logic behind every piece of reasoning they put forward, its just that both sides base said reasoning on the very principles in contention. Begging the question, I believe it's called.

Read: Laissez-faire.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/la/laissezf.html

Now why would a government allow laissez-faire if they were going to control it anyway? That's a red flag right there, because the point of laissez-faire is to stop the gov't from gaining control. And the conspiracy would need to have some big players to make their cover up work, and  well, a lot of people seem to include the gov't heavily as part of it, so.. yeah. Laissez-fair prevents them from touching Google.

It doesn't matter, as Google doesn't own any satellites.

But they contract the images anyway, and in order to maintain a good business practice, they have to provide them undoctored, and they wouldn't be doctored anyway because the gov't doesn't have control over them due to laissez-faire.

How would they know the pictures were doctored?

Because Google isn't Industrial Light and Magic, now is it?

Google uses pictures taken from aircraft, dumbshoe.

Google's pictures come from government sources and also from aircraft, as is stated on their site.

Laissez-faire.

Defeat it.

The "conspiracy theory" is clearly a key element of FE theory.

Asking a FEer to explain evidence contrary to FE theory without invoking the conspiracy theory would be like asking a Christian to explain why the ten commandments are what they are without refering to the Bible or anything it contains.

Look at it like this.

1. FACT: The vast majority of people on Earth Believe that it is Round.
2. FACT: Mainstream science clearly states that the Earth is Round.
3. If you entertain the possibility of the world being flat then you have to explain points 1. and 2.
4. The best explanation for this is a conspiracy (the other explanation is that everyone sucks at science).

So anyone who believes the world is flat is going to a) reject popular opinion and b) reject mainstream science.

So if you want to provide an argument against the FE theory; Posting videos and photos taken by mainstream scientists isn't going to be a convincing argument to a FEer. And nor should it.

Laissez-faire.

Defeat it.

Clicky. Although I have a feeling it isn't quite what you're looking for.

The "conspiracy theory" is clearly a key element of FE theory.

Asking a FEer to explain evidence contrary to FE theory without invoking the conspiracy theory would be like asking a Christian to explain why the ten commandments are what they are without refering to the Bible or anything it contains.

Look at it like this.

1. FACT: The vast majority of people on Earth Believe that it is Round.
2. FACT: Mainstream science clearly states that the Earth is Round.
3. If you entertain the possibility of the world being flat then you have to explain points 1. and 2.
4. The best explanation for this is a conspiracy (the other explanation is that everyone sucks at science).

So anyone who believes the world is flat is going to a) reject popular opinion and b) reject mainstream science.

So if you want to provide an argument against the FE theory; Posting videos and photos taken by mainstream scientists isn't going to be a convincing argument to a FEer. And nor should it.

You summed it up 100%. FE's refuse to accept modern science in nearly every debate on this forum. RE's do not believe the conspiracy theory. Therefore, the arguments for both sides are null and void as far as the opposition is concerned and the issue will never be resolved. Hence the reason for my other post.

The "conspiracy theory" is clearly a key element of FE theory.

No it's not. The conspiracy only exists because it is necessary for it to be.

Asking a FEer to explain evidence contrary to FE theory without invoking the conspiracy theory would be like asking a Christian to explain why the ten commandments are what they are without refering to the Bible or anything it contains.

I don't know why you insist on making religious references.

1. FACT: The vast majority of people on Earth Believe that it is Round.
2. FACT: Mainstream science clearly states that the Earth is Round.
3. If you entertain the possibility of the world being flat then you have to explain points 1. and 2.

I don't think you understand the issue of the conpsiracy in the first place. Your points could easily be explained by mentioning this quote: "A foolish idea that is believed by the masses is still a stupid idea," which is entirely true, as well as somewhat entertaining.

4. The best explanation for this is a conspiracy (the other explanation is that everyone sucks at science).

No. You see there MUST be a conspiracy. Who else is providing us with videos and pictures and telling everyone that they're from "outer space." OBVIOUSLY somoene is lying. It's impossible to explain otherwise.



~D-Draw

Read: Laissez-faire.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/la/laissezf.html

Now why would a government allow laissez-faire if they were going to control it anyway? That's a red flag right there, because the point of laissez-faire is to stop the gov't from gaining control. And the conspiracy would need to have some big players to make their cover up work, and  well, a lot of people seem to include the gov't heavily as part of it, so.. yeah. Laissez-fair prevents them from touching Google.

Please, PLEASE would you go and do some research on the conspiracy. It's linked all over the place. The controlling body of the conspiracy is (in most cases) not theorised to be the "Government" as you know it. PLEASE UNDERSTAND that George W Bush is not at the head of this conspiracy. Normal laws such as laissez-faire would not apply to a body that aren't even known to exist.

Quote from: "texta"

The "conspiracy theory" is clearly a key element of FE theory.

No it's not. The conspiracy only exists because it is necessary for it to be.

Necessary IF FE is to be true. Which is the point here. The only way to prove the conspiracy; prove FE. The only way to prove FE; prove the conspiracy.

Who else is providing us with videos and pictures and telling everyone that they're from "outer space." OBVIOUSLY somoene is lying. It's impossible to explain otherwise.

another explanation is that they actually went to space and came back.... We have the technology, hell even I know how the rockets work, We have the know-how. The only thing the FE model prevents is establishing orbit, but by their model we don't need it.

The difference between RE science and FE conspiracy is how robust it is.

RE theory can survive without one of the elements of science. For example, take away photos, can exist with use of video. Take away video, can exist with photos. Take away both, can exist with mathematics, or personal accounts of astraunaughts etc etc etc.

With the FE theory though, without every single part of the theory intact, it is busted and therefore so is the FE model. Eg. no icewall means no water.BUSTED No guards means people can find the ice wall.BUSTED No single, above all government means free speach, which means science must be honoured.BUSTED.

The only way FE theory can survive is if every part is kept intact. If however one part is taken from RE's, the theory can still survive. The only way FE's can continue their story is to deny ALL tangible evidence such as photos, deny ALL modern science pointing to a RE and maintain ALL of the conspiracy theory.

The difference between RE science and FE conspiracy is how robust it is.

RE theory can survive without one of the elements of science.

Take away gravity and what happens?

So, if there were a competition to solve the problem, all you would have to do is deny the use of just one form, and RE would be proven.

Eg.
FE'er might choose photos and RE'er might choose penguins.

Without this one thing, the RE would still be able to proove the existance of RE (remembering that FE could not longer deny ALL science, only photos), but the FE would no longer be able to sustain the FE theory.

Quote from: "jiffy"

The difference between RE science and FE conspiracy is how robust it is.

RE theory can survive without one of the elements of science.

Take away gravity and what happens?

The GUT is reached?

Quote from: "jiffy"

The difference between RE science and FE conspiracy is how robust it is.

RE theory can survive without one of the elements of science.

Take away gravity and what happens?

Okay, I cannot use gravity to proove my argument.

Which photo of the earth would you like?

I win.