The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: BrownRobin on July 11, 2019, 10:22:42 PM

Title: When rockets launch....
Post by: BrownRobin on July 11, 2019, 10:22:42 PM
Hi,

QUESTION 1
When the Space Shuttle program used to be active, it would launch and then the Orbiter would return a few days or a few weeks later.

If Flat Earthers believe that space travel is not possible / is a hoax, where does a Flat Earther believe that the Orbiter goes for the few days or weeks after it launches before it then re-appears and glides in for a landing? Does the shuttle launch/ glide to a secret undisclosed location without radar detection/ and then NASA somehow launches it again in secret or a clone of it so that it can re-appear and land?

I would be curious to get feedback from a Flat Earth believer on how they believe this hoax to work.

QUESTION 2
The moon has been scientifically measured to be about 240,000 miles away from Earth. This obviously conflicts with Flat Earth theory that moon is only a few thousand miles away.

Does a Flat Earther believe that the scientific measurements have been faked?

What method does a Flat Earther use to measure distance of Earth to Moon?

Thanks.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: spherical on July 12, 2019, 10:16:56 PM
I am not a FET, but answering your question #2:

According to Flat Earth theory, the Moon distance is not actually "measured", but calculated by geometry.
On a Flat Earth world, a "pizza" disc with 20,000 km in radius, 10,000 km from Poles to Equator, anytime the Moon is right at the top of Equator, a person located at 5,000 km from the Equator (right in middle of Equator and pole, or 45° of latitude), same longitude as the Moon, will see the Moon at 45° of elevation towards Equator.  By rectangle triangulation, 5000 km on ground, 45° of hypotenuse, makes 5000 km up to the Moon, that makes around 3125 miles up. 

Of course, if you start to bend the ground with gravity underneath, same person will continue to see the Moon at 45° IF the Moon starts to go away further proportionally.  If the ground bends 45° where the person is, relative to the Equator, plus the 45° of elevation the person sees the Moon, our beloved natural satellite will be pretty close to 90° of elevation to another person over the Equator seeing the "same" Moon, what puts the Moon very far away, around 380,000 km of distance in the same triangulation calculation.  The same calculation can be used for the Sun.  The problem is that a regular poor mortal person doesn't have a super precise instrumentation necessary to measure exactly the thousandth of a second of degree of difference when measuring at Equator or at 5000km from it, in order to get the exact distances for objects in the sky, so, on FE rounding degrees result in that 3000 miles up for the Sun and the Moon.

The same triangulation can be used to calculate the size of the Moon and Sun.  As we can actually see and measure Sun and Moon diameter to be very close to half a degree, and considering FE living creatures could see them at 45° of elevation, when standing at 5000km from another person seeing it at 90° elevation, it means 111km (5000km/45°) per degree, half degree would be 55km, or roughly 34.7 miles in diameter.

So, distances and sizes based on triangulation only relies on angles of observations, if you zero all the terrain to a flat Earth, and all its inhabitants will be straight up no matter where, all the distant objects on the sky MUST be pulled close in order to keep the same elevation angle results.

If you make flat Earth concave by only 5°, all the measurements change again, the sky objects would need to be yet closer.

Two persons over the Moon in RE world, can calculate the distance to Earth, they only need to know the Moon radius, the distance among them, and the elevation angle each see Earth, a triangulation calculation will easily gives them the "h" of the isosceles triangle (if both see the Earth with exact same elevation angle number), that means distance.  They can also measure the angular size of Earth, and based the distance to Earth, easily calculate Earth diameter.   Knowing diameter and guessing Earth is composed of rocky material, they can also calculate volume (4.1888*r³), mass and gravity. Knowing radius of the Moon and also a rocky object, volume, mass and gravity. Earth and Moon gravity and distance gives you orbital period.   Astrophysics is a fascinating field of study, not existent on flat Earth world, unfortunately.
 
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 13, 2019, 12:52:13 PM
I think your idea of the flat earth is erroneous and you have simply converted globe ( or rabbit poo shaped ) earth into a pizza of assumed similar to globe proportions .The equator is the imaginary middle of the theoretic globe defined with relation to the pole star i.e. the pole star is at zero degrees elevation when viewed from any point on this globe equator.
        This globe equator does not exist in flat earth theory but may be equated to the circle described by the suns mid point of travel between the two tropics , each equinox . Now globe theory would have us believe that at each equinox day and night are closest in length - 12 hours each . Of course anyone can check timeanddate website and see that this is not so .
       At my latitude 55 degrees north equinox occurs 5 days prior to the corresponding southern latitude equinox.

I would also like to point out that the magnetic south pole is at 64 degrees south according to globe co-ordinates and since impartial observers are not allowed south of 60 degrees I would not attach any belief to the assumed distances to so called geographic south pole - how do they navigate down there ?

This might be off topic so I'll leave it there.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 13, 2019, 09:31:10 PM
Quote
Quote
The moon has been scientifically measured to be about 240,000 miles away from Earth. This obviously conflicts with Flat Earth theory that moon is only a few thousand miles away.

Does a Flat Earther believe that the scientific measurements have been faked?


The FE approach is this. First make an assertion based on nothing more than belief that the Earth is flat.  Now set that assertion in stone so it cannot be changed no matter what evidence against it is presented.  Any such evidence must clearly be wrong (or faked). Now from the asserted size or diameter of the 'flat' Earth make an estimate of how far away the Moon must be based on some basic observations such as shadow lengths in various places. The conclusion that is reached, as you say is a few thousand miles away.

RE as you also say has made various measurements in various ways  using various methods over a period of years. Those measurements are as you say, scientifically based and therefore repeatable and verifiable independently. All those measurements have reached the same average figure of 240,000 miles.

That figure is of course significantly different to the FE claim.  FE conclusion: RE measurements are wrong or faked.  RE conclusion: FE theory is wrong because their figure is based on their wrong assertion that the Earth is flat. RE also occasionally reach conclusions that are wrong because they are based on data which contains systematic or human error. Humans and machines after all do make mistakes. Humans probably more so than machines. But at least when this happens we realise it, accept it and then make efforts to correct it.

Further conclusion: FE claim and RE claim cannot both be right or wrong.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 14, 2019, 10:52:19 AM
I would point out that the diameter of flat earth does not need to known to ascertain the distance to the moon . Simple triangulation from two points a known distance apart allows the calculation .

In the globe model , diameter of earth and hence the curvature needs to known to calculate the distance to moon . The assumptions of sphericity and a distant sun/stars ( all rays coming in parallel at the surface) were required to enable an estimate of globe earth .

All the mainstream astronomic scientific measurements are based on these two unverified assumptions .

The size of the lunar shadow cast onto our earth during solar eclipse varies from 70 - 100 miles we observe . This destroys the distant sun assumption since it is known by scientific experiment that electromagnetic rays propagate according to the inverse square law . The moon cannot be 240,000 miles distant , unless sunlight is focused by some means to shine on earth .

FE or RE measurements can be made without any assumptions , since it is relatively easy to geometrically survey a distance of around a hundred miles or so and any curvature would naturally be picked up . But for some reason surveyors are supposed to apply globe calculations to any survey over a certain length . Is the survey unable to find to find any curvature ?

 If RE theory could provide proof of those assumptions then this forum , and FE wouldn't exist , but RE is unable to do so therefore cannot be considered to be correct . All my opinion of course but based on real scientific study.






Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 14, 2019, 09:33:46 PM
The Moons true distance has been measured very accurately both by radar and by laser ranging. Two completely different and independent methods and sources.  Both reached the same figure.  You don't need triangulation.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: AATW on July 15, 2019, 07:23:43 AM
The Moons true distance has been measured very accurately both by radar and by laser ranging. Two completely different and independent methods and sources.  Both reached the same figure.  You don't need triangulation.

The problem with triangulation for FE is that although with 2 points and assuming a FE you’d get a different distance, a close moon or sun, if you add more points you get inconsistent distances. This was done with sun observations taken by people in various latitudes. These are the results:

https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 15, 2019, 10:10:21 AM
The metabunk observations were done at equinox . It is without doubt that southern "hemisphere " equinox occurs later than the northern one . Anyone can check this out - time and date website will verify this. Now that shows that the heliocentric model is wrong . It also shows the propagation of sunlight spreads southwards. It shows that the model of the sun as a distant nuclear furnace is wrong . We do not truly know the nature of the sun or its light . We do know that electromagnetic rays are affected by magnetic fields .
                My thoughts are that the the sun is local and that its rays manifest according to the magnetic field they travel through .
They spread southward since the earths magnetic field is toroidal . The north pole at the centre and the southern "pole is spread around the circumference of the Antarctic .
                This explains all the differences in sun position according to observer . Explains why equinox differs from globe model prediction .
                Why does metabunk show no earth tilt ?
               
Neither model has a problem with survey triangulation . If we live on a globe then simple survey along a line will pick up any curve. No need to bring sun position or stars into it . A curve of 7.98 " per mile squared is easy to prove along the shore of any inland land body of water of sufficient size .
           
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: robinofloxley on July 15, 2019, 03:20:34 PM
The metabunk observations were done at equinox . It is without doubt that southern "hemisphere " equinox occurs later than the northern one . Anyone can check this out - time and date website will verify this.
Well I for one was surprised to hear this, so I checked https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/autumnal-equinox.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/autumnal-equinox.html) and according to them the autumnal equinox this year will be Monday, 23 September 2019, 07:50 UTC. The only adjustment you'd need to make for location would be if you wanted this in local time. So for instance if you were interested in New Zealand (Southern "hemisphere" last time I checked), you'd need to add 12 hours to adjust from UTC to New Zealand local time.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 15, 2019, 04:24:39 PM
This also matches the timing given by Heavens Above,

https://heavens-above.com/sun.aspx?lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCT


Quote
It shows that the model of the sun as a distant nuclear furnace is wrong


The primary energy source of the Suns energy is the nuclear conversion of hydrogen in helium. A process which releases photons (the sunlight we see - eventually) and neutrinos.  That has been proved but if you think you know differently then please enlighten us.

Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 15, 2019, 05:10:37 PM
The equinox means equal day/night length . Check on time and date sunrise/set times and you will see that equinox occurs at different times in the north and south at corresponding latitudes . These are based on actual timings of sunrise and sunset . The theory that these equinoxes occur when earth is at two opposing point in its solar orbit does not correspond to reality .

If the day/night lengths are not the same then it is not an equinox . Pretending that the equinox is in between somewhere does not solve this problem for globe theory.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: robinofloxley on July 15, 2019, 05:37:17 PM
The equinox means equal day/night length . Check on time and date sunrise/set times and you will see that equinox occurs at different times in the north and south at corresponding latitudes . These are based on actual timings of sunrise and sunset . The theory that these equinoxes occur when earth is at two opposing point in its solar orbit does not correspond to reality .

If the day/night lengths are not the same then it is not an equinox . Pretending that the equinox is in between somewhere does not solve this problem for globe theory.
Well I'm afraid that all you've demonstrated is that you don't know how an equinox is defined. Sunrise and sunset times aren't used to define an equinox. An equinox is timed from when the geometric centre of the sun's disk appears above the horizon to when it disappears. Sunrise however occurs when the sun first appears on the horizon and sunset when the last part of the sun disappears. It takes a while from sunrise until the geometric centre of the sun appears and sunset occurs some time after the geometric centre disappears from view, so on an equinox, you will get more than 12 hours of daylight (sunrise to sunset). How much more depends on where you are. If the sun rises vertically, this will take far less time than if it is rising at a shallow angle.

You've claimed "without doubt...", however you didn't bother to check the true meaning of the word equinox and how it is determined.

You also claimed "anyone can check.." using time and date, without bothering to read what they actually say there about equinoxes.

I'd recommend you go back to time & date (which you obviously trust) and read what they have to say about the matter. https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/equinox-not-equal.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/equinox-not-equal.html)
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 15, 2019, 06:50:51 PM
It is glaringly  obvious what the word equinox means - read the blurb on the website which states "the equinoxes mark the exact moment twice a year when the earths axis is not tilted away from or towards the sun. "  But that fact is hidden by a load of waffle . Night/day should be equal - hence the "equinox".

 Have a look at the solstices day/night lengths - by the same waffle these should fall on different days . But they coincide at northern and southern latitudes - the longest day on northern solstice equates to the shortest southern day . Where is the waffle effect ?

Globe theory is smoke and mirrors .
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: stack on July 15, 2019, 06:56:28 PM
It is glaringly  obvious what the word equinox means - read the blurb on the website which states "the equinoxes mark the exact moment twice a year when the earths axis is not tilted away from or towards the sun. "  But that fact is hidden by a load of waffle . Night/day should be equal - hence the "equinox".

 Have a look at the solstices day/night lengths - by the same waffle these should fall on different days . But they coincide at northern and southern latitudes - the longest day on northern solstice equates to the shortest southern day . Where is the waffle effect ?

Globe theory is smoke and mirrors .

FWIW, you might want to start using a new source for your data. From timeanddate.com:

(https://i.imgur.com/GXIfigq.png?1)

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth-help.html
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: markjo on July 15, 2019, 08:30:26 PM
It is glaringly  obvious what the word equinox means - read the blurb on the website which states "the equinoxes mark the exact moment twice a year when the earths axis is not tilted away from or towards the sun. "  But that fact is hidden by a load of waffle . Night/day should be equal - hence the "equinox".

 Have a look at the solstices day/night lengths - by the same waffle these should fall on different days . But they coincide at northern and southern latitudes - the longest day on northern solstice equates to the shortest southern day . Where is the waffle effect ?

Globe theory is smoke and mirrors .

I think that you're thinking about the equilux, which is not quite the same thing as the equinox:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMLncZgLuuc
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: robinofloxley on July 15, 2019, 09:12:52 PM
It is glaringly  obvious what the word equinox means - read the blurb on the website which states "the equinoxes mark the exact moment twice a year when the earths axis is not tilted away from or towards the sun. "  But that fact is hidden by a load of waffle . Night/day should be equal - hence the "equinox".

 Have a look at the solstices day/night lengths - by the same waffle these should fall on different days . But they coincide at northern and southern latitudes - the longest day on northern solstice equates to the shortest southern day . Where is the waffle effect ?

Globe theory is smoke and mirrors .
You want to make use of the time & date web site to find sunrise and sunset times to prove your point. You then want to ignore time & date's own explanation for why you should expect more than 12 hours of daylight on an equinox and instead claim their explanation is wrong and it's "glaringly obvious" that an equinox should have exactly 12 hours of daylight. You are cherry picking. Do you trust time & date or don't you?

You can't just invent your own rules for an equinox, claim everything is "glaringly obvious" when what you say contradicts the very sources you've used to justify your position and then claim globe theory is smoke and mirrors.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: robinofloxley on July 15, 2019, 09:23:53 PM
It is glaringly  obvious what the word equinox means - read the blurb on the website which states "the equinoxes mark the exact moment twice a year when the earths axis is not tilted away from or towards the sun. "  But that fact is hidden by a load of waffle . Night/day should be equal - hence the "equinox".

 Have a look at the solstices day/night lengths - by the same waffle these should fall on different days . But they coincide at northern and southern latitudes - the longest day on northern solstice equates to the shortest southern day . Where is the waffle effect ?

Globe theory is smoke and mirrors .

I think that you're thinking about the equilux, which is not quite the same thing as the equinox:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMLncZgLuuc
Nah, it's simpler than that. He (I'm assuming he - apologies if not) thinks you should get exactly 12 hours of daylight on the day of an equinox and he's looking at sunrise and sunset times to determine for himself when equinoxes occur - and getting the wrong answers. I already pointed him to an explanation of why this is incorrect and why you cannot simply use sunrise and sunset times https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/equinox-not-equal.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/equinox-not-equal.html)
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: stack on July 15, 2019, 09:45:33 PM
It is glaringly  obvious what the word equinox means - read the blurb on the website which states "the equinoxes mark the exact moment twice a year when the earths axis is not tilted away from or towards the sun. "  But that fact is hidden by a load of waffle . Night/day should be equal - hence the "equinox".

 Have a look at the solstices day/night lengths - by the same waffle these should fall on different days . But they coincide at northern and southern latitudes - the longest day on northern solstice equates to the shortest southern day . Where is the waffle effect ?

Globe theory is smoke and mirrors .

Equinox definition from Merriam-Webster:

equinox noun
equi·​nox | ˈē-kwə-ˌnäks

1 : either of the two points on the celestial sphere where the celestial equator intersects the ecliptic
2 : either of the two times each year (as about March 21 and September 23) when the sun crosses the equator and day and night are everywhere on earth of approximately equal length

Operative word, 'approximately', not 'exactly'.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 15, 2019, 09:50:07 PM
Approximately is the key word here.  As quoted on the main Wikipedia page about the equinox (which I am sure somerled has checked out already)…

Quote
The word is derived from the Latin aequinoctium, from aequus (equal) and nox (genitive noctis) (night). On the day of an equinox, daytime and nighttime are of approximately equal duration all over the planet. They are not exactly equal, however, due to the angular size of the Sun, atmospheric refraction, and the rapidly changing duration of the length of day that occurs at most latitudes around the equinoxes. Long before conceiving this equality, primitive cultures noted the day when the Sun rises due East and sets due West, and indeed this happens on the day closest to the astronomically defined event.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: model 29 on July 15, 2019, 10:29:53 PM
At my latitude 55 degrees north equinox occurs 5 days prior to the corresponding southern latitude equinox.
The equinox happens at the same time for the planet.  Do you have a source stating there are 2 equinoxes 5 days apart?

The size of the lunar shadow cast onto our earth during solar eclipse varies from 70 - 100 miles we observe . This destroys the distant sun assumption since it is known by scientific experiment that electromagnetic rays propagate according to the inverse square law . The moon cannot be 240,000 miles distant , unless sunlight is focused by some means to shine on earth .
The eclipse shadow umbra (approx 70 miles) is just what we should expect with a sun 864k miles in diameter, 93 million miles away, shining on an object 2,100 miles in diameter and 240k miles away between the globe and sun.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: markjo on July 16, 2019, 12:21:56 AM
Nah, it's simpler than that. He (I'm assuming he - apologies if not) thinks you should get exactly 12 hours of daylight on the day of an equinox and he's looking at sunrise and sunset times to determine for himself when equinoxes occur - and getting the wrong answers.
Oh, I understand completely what he's trying to do.  It's not an uncommon argument among FE'ers.  I'm simply pointing out that the exactly equal day/night phenomenon that he (and other FE'ers) thinks should happen at the equinox is actually a real, but less well known phenomenon called the equilux which generally happens a few days before or after the equinox.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: robinofloxley on July 16, 2019, 08:54:35 AM
Nah, it's simpler than that. He (I'm assuming he - apologies if not) thinks you should get exactly 12 hours of daylight on the day of an equinox and he's looking at sunrise and sunset times to determine for himself when equinoxes occur - and getting the wrong answers.
Oh, I understand completely what he's trying to do.  It's not an uncommon argument among FE'ers.  I'm simply pointing out that the exactly equal day/night phenomenon that he (and other FE'ers) thinks should happen at the equinox is actually a real, but less well known phenomenon called the equilux which generally happens a few days before or after the equinox.
I'm still trying to decide whether this is deliberate on his part or not. I just googled "when is the autumnal equinox" which seems a much more straightforward thing to do than looking at sunrise and sunset times in time & date. He's still basically insisting everyone else's definition of equinox is wrong, so I doubt this is simply an honest mistake.

Thanks by the way for introducing a new word - equilux - into my lexicon. It's about the only reason I keep coming on this site TBH, every now and again I pick up something new and interesting. Sadly always from the RE contributors.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 16, 2019, 11:59:50 AM
You seem confused - the scientific definition of the equinox , which I quoted , is taken from the timeanddate website . The two instances when the earth tilt is not angled toward or away from the sun , six months apart .
And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night . All in any scientific dictionary and a consequence of earth orbiting the sun with a tilt of 66.6 degrees .

The fact is these days of equal day/night are increasingly farther apart for corresponding N-S latitudes  . Now refraction , scientific term form for abracadabra, is given as an attempt to explain this . But where is this magic effect at solstice . No refraction at solstice  !!  No waffle required .
       So solstice days fit the heliocentric model nicely , however you can't fit equinoxes within the heliocentric model without waffle .
The reason I use time and date is that those sunrise/set times are not theory , they are direct observation , or reality .

Wikipedia is another site with a well known aversion to reality so I tend to ignore that .
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: robinofloxley on July 16, 2019, 12:18:12 PM
You seem confused - the scientific definition of the equinox , which I quoted , is taken from the timeanddate website . The two instances when the earth tilt is not angled toward or away from the sun , six months apart .
And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night . All in any scientific dictionary and a consequence of earth orbiting the sun with a tilt of 66.6 degrees .

The fact is these days of equal day/night are increasingly farther apart for corresponding N-S latitudes  . Now refraction , scientific term form for abracadabra, is given as an attempt to explain this . But where is this magic effect at solstice . No refraction at solstice  !!  No waffle required .
       So solstice days fit the heliocentric model nicely , however you can't fit equinoxes within the heliocentric model without waffle .
The reason I use time and date is that those sunrise/set times are not theory , they are direct observation , or reality .

Wikipedia is another site with a well known aversion to reality so I tend to ignore that .
No confusion on my part. Your definition of an equinox in terms of earth tilt I entirely agree with. But you then follow up with "And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night". No, no, no. You are just making this assertion, this hasn't come from any scientific description of equinox. You seem quite fond of time & date as a source for accurate and reliable information, so let me quote from them:
Quote
Even if the name suggests it and it is widely accepted, it is not entirely true that day and night are exactly equal on the equinox.
And I've already given you a link to a full explanation as to why this is the case and as markjo has pointed out you are confusing equliux with equinox.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 16, 2019, 01:13:48 PM
Quote
Wikipedia is another site with a well known aversion to reality so I tend to ignore that .

I'm sure you treat the flat Earth page of Wikipedia with the same sentiment then. Or do you just cherry pick the evidence from various websites to suit your point of view?

The line of attack for most if not all FE believers tends to be much the same and refraction (or abracadabra as you call it) is normally mentioned in there somewhere. Nothing magical about refraction though. Just straight forward physics. How you chhose to interpret the laws of physics of course is up to you.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: rpt on July 16, 2019, 03:28:23 PM
You seem confused - the scientific definition of the equinox , which I quoted , is taken from the timeanddate website . The two instances when the earth tilt is not angled toward or away from the sun , six months apart .
And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night . All in any scientific dictionary and a consequence of earth orbiting the sun with a tilt of 66.6 degrees .

So you agree with the heliocentric model.

you can't fit equinoxes within the heliocentric model without waffle .

Hmmm...
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 16, 2019, 10:52:54 PM
You seem confused - the scientific definition of the equinox , which I quoted , is taken from the timeanddate website . The two instances when the earth tilt is not angled toward or away from the sun , six months apart .
And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night . All in any scientific dictionary and a consequence of earth orbiting the sun with a tilt of 66.6 degrees .

The fact is these days of equal day/night are increasingly farther apart for corresponding N-S latitudes  . Now refraction , scientific term form for abracadabra, is given as an attempt to explain this . But where is this magic effect at solstice . No refraction at solstice  !!  No waffle required .
       So solstice days fit the heliocentric model nicely , however you can't fit equinoxes within the heliocentric model without waffle .
The reason I use time and date is that those sunrise/set times are not theory , they are direct observation , or reality .

Wikipedia is another site with a well known aversion to reality so I tend to ignore that .
No confusion on my part. Your definition of an equinox in terms of earth tilt I entirely agree with. But you then follow up with "And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night". No, no, no. You are just making this assertion, this hasn't come from any scientific description of equinox. You seem quite fond of time & date as a source for accurate and reliable information, so let me quote from them:
Quote
Even if the name suggests it and it is widely accepted, it is not entirely true that day and night are exactly equal on the equinox.
And I've already given you a link to a full explanation as to why this is the case and as markjo has pointed out you are confusing equliux with equinox.

I make no assertion. What you refer to as my assertion is in the scientific dictionary description of equinox .
https://www.britannica.com/science/equinox-astronomy
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equinox

You can find more if you wish . 

This is equinox according to heliocentrism - do you not know the model you defend ?

Equinox is a prediction of the heliocentric model which fails in reality hence the waffle required
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: stack on July 16, 2019, 11:31:26 PM
You seem confused - the scientific definition of the equinox , which I quoted , is taken from the timeanddate website . The two instances when the earth tilt is not angled toward or away from the sun , six months apart .
And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night . All in any scientific dictionary and a consequence of earth orbiting the sun with a tilt of 66.6 degrees .

The fact is these days of equal day/night are increasingly farther apart for corresponding N-S latitudes  . Now refraction , scientific term form for abracadabra, is given as an attempt to explain this . But where is this magic effect at solstice . No refraction at solstice  !!  No waffle required .
       So solstice days fit the heliocentric model nicely , however you can't fit equinoxes within the heliocentric model without waffle .
The reason I use time and date is that those sunrise/set times are not theory , they are direct observation , or reality .

Wikipedia is another site with a well known aversion to reality so I tend to ignore that .
No confusion on my part. Your definition of an equinox in terms of earth tilt I entirely agree with. But you then follow up with "And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night". No, no, no. You are just making this assertion, this hasn't come from any scientific description of equinox. You seem quite fond of time & date as a source for accurate and reliable information, so let me quote from them:
Quote
Even if the name suggests it and it is widely accepted, it is not entirely true that day and night are exactly equal on the equinox.
And I've already given you a link to a full explanation as to why this is the case and as markjo has pointed out you are confusing equliux with equinox.

I make no assertion. What you refer to as my assertion is in the scientific dictionary description of equinox .
https://www.britannica.com/science/equinox-astronomy
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equinox

You can find more if you wish . 

This is equinox according to heliocentrism - do you not know the model you defend ?

Equinox is a prediction of the heliocentric model which fails in reality hence the waffle required

Can you perhaps be more clear exactly what you are arguing here? Because it seems like we are all saying the same thing. From your equinox definition link:

the time when the sun crosses the plane of the earth's equator, making night and day of approximately equal length all over the earth and occurring about March 21 (vernal equinox or spring equinox) and September 22 (autumnal equinox).

Seems like a reasonable definition.

Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: markjo on July 17, 2019, 01:05:26 AM
I make no assertion. What you refer to as my assertion is in the scientific dictionary description of equinox .
https://www.britannica.com/science/equinox-astronomy
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equinox

You can find more if you wish . 

This is equinox according to heliocentrism - do you not know the model you defend ?

Equinox is a prediction of the heliocentric model which fails in reality hence the waffle required
Please cite where any of those scientific definitions of equinox predict exactly equal day and night. 
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 17, 2019, 05:55:13 AM
If I'm not mistaken part of the original posting in this thread was about the distance to the Moon. There is no mention of equinox or equilux or indeed any word beginning equ… so once again we have been led off in another random direction here.  We have as Stack has said all agreed what the equinoxes are and what they mean.  So no more discussion needed on that point. We have provided Somerled with enough evidence/information for him to make his own judgement on that topic.

Back to the matter of the distance to the Moon perhaps?  And the other point made in the OP perhaps.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: robinofloxley on July 17, 2019, 09:26:45 AM
If I'm not mistaken part of the original posting in this thread was about the distance to the Moon. There is no mention of equinox or equilux or indeed any word beginning equ… so once again we have been led off in another random direction here.  We have as Stack has said all agreed what the equinoxes are and what they mean.  So no more discussion needed on that point. We have provided Somerled with enough evidence/information for him to make his own judgement on that topic.

Back to the matter of the distance to the Moon perhaps?  And the other point made in the OP perhaps.
I don't think this is an entirely random direction. AllAroundTheWorld pointed out that attempting to determine the distance to the moon or sun by triangulation falls apart once you use more than two points and gives inconsistent results on a flat earth. AllAroundTheWorld then provided a link to a metabunk article about an experiment measuring solar noon sun angles on the September equinox. The experiment clearly shows that on a flat earth, attempting to triangulate the sun's position simply doesn't work, debunking the idea of a flat earth. Somerled apparently won't accept this result because it was done on an equinox. This has shifted the goalposts somewhat, but the implication is that if we can convince Somerled that an equinox happens at the same time everywhere, then he'll have to concede that triangulation of the moon using multiple locations will prove the earth isn't flat. Either that or find another excuse explanation.

The other problem with this thread is that Somerled seems to be the only FE'r willing to engage with it and the meaning of equinox seems to be his main sticking point.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: AATW on July 17, 2019, 12:22:17 PM
AllAroundTheWorld pointed out that attempting to determine the distance to the moon or sun by triangulation falls apart once you use more than two points and gives inconsistent results on a flat earth. AllAroundTheWorld then provided a link to a metabunk article about an experiment measuring solar noon sun angles on the September equinox. The experiment clearly shows that on a flat earth, attempting to triangulate the sun's position simply doesn't work, debunking the idea of a flat earth. Somerled apparently won't accept this result because it was done on an equinox. This has shifted the goalposts somewhat.
Yes, the definition of what an equinox is a diversion. I should really have reported the post as off topic but the moment has gone now.
This is why triangulation doesn't work on a FE, and why by extension the earth cannot be flat:

(https://i.ibb.co/pXCk3PT/triangulation.jpg)

The angle of Polaris is the roughly the same as your latitude. Take an observation at 80 degrees north latitude and it'll be at 80 degrees. Take an observation at 60 degrees north and it'll be at 60 degrees and so on. So you can take two observations and triangulate, assuming a flat earth, to find the height of Polaris. The issue is when you add a 3rd point.
The diagram shows why this is an issue. The 3 lines don't meet at a single point.

This is effectively what the metabunk experiment did, taking observations of the sun by people all round the world. With a globe model these observations all point in a common direction which is what you'd expect with a distant sun. Try and plot those observation on a flat earth and they point all over the place. Now, you could say that the flat earth map isn't known. And in the above you could move the 3 points to different distances and make them converge at a common point but the more points you add the more challenging that becomes to the point you are surely forced to conclude that the model of a flat earth is incorrect.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: AATW on July 17, 2019, 05:47:21 PM
I’d be interested to see a diagram of how the light travels from Polaris to earth at different latitudes but if EA is going to be used as an explanation for my diagram above then it renders triangulation useless. You would have to take that into account some way if the apparent position of an object is not it’s true position
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 17, 2019, 07:08:20 PM
Just re-tracing over the posts in this discussion and came across this from somerled…

Quote
All in any scientific dictionary and a consequence of earth orbiting the sun with a tilt of 66.6 degrees

Where are you getting the 66.6 degrees from?
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: robinofloxley on July 18, 2019, 03:25:35 PM
The reason I use time and date is that those sunrise/set times are not theory , they are direct observation , or reality .
I thought I'd have one last go at persuading you, so here goes.

How are time and date's sunrise/set times direct observations? In other words how is it possible for me to look up a direct observation for a sunrise time on 23rd Sept 2019 when it hasn't happened yet?

The reality is that they use an agreed technical definition of sunrise/set - when the centre of the sun is 50 arcminutes below the horizon - to make mathematical predictions. This figure is derived from the 16 arcminute angular radius of the sun plus 34 arcminutes - an accepted average figure to account for refraction. If atmospheric conditions differ at your location on the day or you are not at sea level, sunrise/set will differ by a small amount.

On an equinox day, wherever you are, if you time from when the centre of the sun hits the horizon on the rise to the same point when it sets, you will get close to 12h. Sunrise to sunset will take a longer time however because the sun must travel the extra 50 arcminutes (twice).

Go on over to your favourite site https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/autumnal-equinox.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/autumnal-equinox.html) and look up the autumnal equinox for Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway (way, way north) and it'll tell you it's on 23rd Sept 2019. Now check sunrise and sunset times for that date and you'll find they're 12:30 apart. The extra 30 minutes is the time it takes for the sun to travel those extra 100 arcminutes.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 18, 2019, 04:13:20 PM
Somerled, as a (I assume) flat Earther, do you then accept or not accept the distances for the Moon that timeanddate.com quotes?

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/distance.html

These distances are somewhat different to that which FET claims, by method of triangulation or whatever.  The same applies to the Sun. The distances quoted are rather different to those that FET claims.  To quote from FE Wiki...


Quote
“ Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h (distance to Sun) is approximately 2000 miles. This relatively close sun would have been quite plausible to the ancients.


Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 19, 2019, 10:22:41 AM
Somerled, as a (I assume) flat Earther, do you then accept or not accept the distances for the Moon that timeanddate.com quotes?

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/distance.html

These distances are somewhat different to that which FET claims, by method of triangulation or whatever.  The same applies to the Sun. The distances quoted are rather different to those that FET claims.  To quote from FE Wiki...


Quote
“ Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h (distance to Sun) is approximately 2000 miles. This relatively close sun would have been quite plausible to the ancients.

I accept timeanddate values for sunrise/sunset times where these are verifiable by anyone through direct observation . The moon distances are dependent on the unverified assumption that earth is a sphere , and the supposed radar measure can only be hearsay -since I am unable to verify this personally .

I would like to point out the experiment shown on metabunk contains no error limits - can we really measure a short shadow to such accuracy along with the timing to the split second . The conclusion in that video is that the light rays are parallel onto a perfect sphere . Could point out several mistakes but then we are farther off topic .
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 19, 2019, 12:20:38 PM
Quote
I am unable to verify this personally .

If you are going to limit your acceptance of facts and figures to only those you can verify personally then you are going to run into all sorts of problems.

I can't personally verify for certain the distance to the Moon or the Sun but I know that many can and so I respect those quoted values.

If FE says the Sun is only 3000 miles away I bet you can't verify that personally either but you accept it because it happens to fall in line with a belief system that you subscribe to.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Quote
I am unable to verify this personally .

If you are going to limit your acceptance of facts and figures to only those you can verify personally then you are going to run into all sorts of problems.

I can't personally verify for certain the distance to the Moon or the Sun but I know that many can and so I respect those quoted values.

If FE says the Sun is only 3000 miles away I bet you can't verify that personally either but you accept it because it happens to fall in line with a belief system that you subscribe to.

If you don't know all of the details on how those numbers were derived, why would you believe it?
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: robinofloxley on July 19, 2019, 01:47:46 PM
I accept timeanddate values for sunrise/sunset times where these are verifiable by anyone through direct observation .
This is subtly different from what you said before where you said timeanddate values were direct observation (not theory as you put it).

I doubt any of us have the time or money to invest travelling the world to verify these values personally for anything other than a tiny sample, so you are presumably trusting timeanddate based on very little personal evidence and extending that trust to be happy to accept any of their values for any date past or present at any location. But you're not willing to trust anything else from timeanddate (or anywhere else) and you are specifically disagreeing with them when they clearly tell you that the 2019 autumnal equinox is on 23rd Sept at every location. It sounds to me like you actively distrust what timeanddate tell you, except where it suits you.

Personally, if I find a source of information that appears trustworthy, reliable and verifiable in one area, I'll give them the benefit of doubt and extend that trust to other areas until someone demonstrates otherwise. If I discovered something I disagreed with, I'd question my own understanding of the topic first and if I were that interested, I'd research it more to try and get to the bottom of the discrepancy.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 19, 2019, 03:34:52 PM
Quote
If you don't know all of the details on how those numbers were derived, why would you believe it?

Because my mind works different to yours Tom. Hence our reasons for believing something or not believing something are also different. You state that you will only accept something as true if it can be 'demonstrated' to the finest level of detail.  Whatever that means.

I haven't got a tape measure to hand that happens to be 1/4 million miles long so I cannot directly measure the distance to the Moon and demonstrate it. However the distance to the Moon has been more than adequately measured by many and different ways and all agree with the same figure. You can argue about that as long as you wish and point out yet more links to FE Wiki that dispute that but that will not change reality.

If you assume the Earth is flat then all sorts of experiments will yield different figures and distances etc compared to RE. If you introduce an error into a process at an early stage then that error will be carried through and out pops a wrong result at the end.  Garbage in Garbage out as they say.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: AATW on July 19, 2019, 05:30:16 PM
Quote
If you don't know all of the details on how those numbers were derived, why would you believe it?

Because my mind works different to yours Tom. I don't need absolute proof or demonstration from first principles of everything I believe or accept.
Nor does Tom. Rowbotham’s “experiments” are always accepted without question.
This is where I will never understand his mentality. The level of proof he requires or will accept depends entirely on whether the result backs up his world view.

Tom, what is your take to the OP questions?
I saw a shuttle launch back in the day. Where do you think it went if not space and what is your evidence for that?

How high do you believe the moon to be and what have you don’t to verify that?
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2019, 08:19:42 PM
Quote
If you don't know all of the details on how those numbers were derived, why would you believe it?

Because my mind works different to yours Tom. Hence our reasons for believing something or not believing something are also different. You state that you will only accept something as true if it can be 'demonstrated' to the finest level of detail.  Whatever that means.

I haven't got a tape measure to hand that happens to be 1/4 million miles long so I cannot directly measure the distance to the Moon and demonstrate it. However the distance to the Moon has been more than adequately measured by many and different ways and all agree with the same figure. You can argue about that as long as you wish and point out yet more links to FE Wiki that dispute that but that will not change reality.

If you assume the Earth is flat then all sorts of experiments will yield different figures and distances etc compared to RE. If you introduce an error into a process at an early stage then that error will be carried through and out pops a wrong result at the end.  Garbage in Garbage out as they say.

I simply asked how you can believe something blindly, when you don't even know how it was derived. And you answered "because my mind works differently".

Apparently so. I like to know about what I believe and why I believe it.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 19, 2019, 08:35:14 PM
Quote
Apparently so. I like to know about what I believe and why I believe it.
Surely belief is based on individual choice. I cannot influence what you believe any more than you can influence what I believe. You have your reasons, I have mine.  We all share the same home in the Universe and the same evidence is available to all of us  How we interpret that evidence is the 'mechanism' behind what we believe.  The same principle applies to Rowbotham. As it has been implied elsewhere recently, you accept his claims and his beliefs far more easily than any RE 'claims' because they happen to coincide more with your interpretations.

For example (you like examples). I see a lunar eclipse (a couple days ago for example) and I believe that the curved shadow that crosses the Moons disk is that of the Earths disk.  You believe it is something called the 'shadow object' because in your world the Earth cannot cast a shadow on the Moon. In my opinion there is enough evidence around us that demonstrates the Earth is spherical when I take in the bigger picture.  You will disagree with that because you are a self-confessed flat Earth believer.  Your belief, your choice.

Quote
I simply asked how you can believe something blindly, when you don't even know how it was derived

I actually spend a lot of time reading about how lots of things are derived as you put it.  I then decide for myself whether to accept it or not. Again I usually take into account the available evidence for and against when it comes to making that decision.

Quote
I simply asked how you can believe something blindly

What do you mean by 'blindly' Tom? There are many people in the world who believe in God but they cannot prove that God exists. Does that mean their belief in God is 'blind' and therefore they should stop believing in God according to you? Their belief is based on faith and there is nothing wrong with that if it satisfies their needs about the existence of God. We cannot prove everything in life to ourselves can we.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 20, 2019, 11:17:49 PM
AllAroundTheWorld pointed out that attempting to determine the distance to the moon or sun by triangulation falls apart once you use more than two points and gives inconsistent results on a flat earth. AllAroundTheWorld then provided a link to a metabunk article about an experiment measuring solar noon sun angles on the September equinox. The experiment clearly shows that on a flat earth, attempting to triangulate the sun's position simply doesn't work, debunking the idea of a flat earth. Somerled apparently won't accept this result because it was done on an equinox. This has shifted the goalposts somewhat.
Yes, the definition of what an equinox is a diversion. I should really have reported the post as off topic but the moment has gone now.
This is why triangulation doesn't work on a FE, and why by extension the earth cannot be flat:

(https://i.ibb.co/pXCk3PT/triangulation.jpg)

The angle of Polaris is the roughly the same as your latitude. Take an observation at 80 degrees north latitude and it'll be at 80 degrees. Take an observation at 60 degrees north and it'll be at 60 degrees and so on. So you can take two observations and triangulate, assuming a flat earth, to find the height of Polaris. The issue is when you add a 3rd point.
The diagram shows why this is an issue. The 3 lines don't meet at a single point.

This is effectively what the metabunk experiment did, taking observations of the sun by people all round the world. With a globe model these observations all point in a common direction which is what you'd expect with a distant sun. Try and plot those observation on a flat earth and they point all over the place. Now, you could say that the flat earth map isn't known. And in the above you could move the 3 points to different distances and make them converge at a common point but the more points you add the more challenging that becomes to the point you are surely forced to conclude that the model of a flat earth is incorrect.
I would like to point out that the metabunk experiment of triangulation of the sun is not equivalent to triangulation to Polaris  .Globe theory has the earth rotating whilst orbiting around the sun  - triangulation from moving points as observed ( according to metabunk ) is problematic to say the least - a fact which is ignored by metabunk and the experimenters . Also globe defenders  seem to assume that the sun revolves on a flat trajectory over the flat earth

The statement that equinox definition is a diversion is amusing . The heliocentric model is quite specific in it's prediction of when equinox occurs , the two instances when the sun crosses the celestial equator on the ecliptic plane - resulting in equal day/night lengths ( allowance is made for assumed refraction )  and also resulting in sun rising due east 90 degrees and setting 270 west all over the globe  . No refraction mentioned but this occurs on different days therefore the heliocentric model cannot be correct .
 
Observation of these phenomena do not agree with prediction of the heliocentric model (see timeanddate ).

Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: markjo on July 21, 2019, 12:26:11 AM
Again, equal day and night is the definition of the equilux, not the equinox.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 21, 2019, 02:27:45 PM
This is what the UK Met Office has to say on the distinction between the equinox and the Equilux.  Interpret it as you will and decide for yourself whether it agrees with what you say.  Needless to say the UK Met Office bases what it says on the conventional and mainstream heliocentric model with the Earth tilted at 23.5 degrees.

The sections about equinox and equilux are quite clearly sub-headed.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/seasons/equinox-and-solstice
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: robinofloxley on July 22, 2019, 09:21:10 AM
The heliocentric model is quite specific in it's prediction of when equinox occurs , the two instances when the sun crosses the celestial equator on the ecliptic plane

Quite correct

- resulting in equal day/night lengths

No - incorrect. This is the part you make up and keep tacking on to everything you say. The minute you start talking about equal lengths of day and night you are no longer talking about equinox, this is equilux.

Here's a concise definition of equilux https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/equilux (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/equilux)

Quote
equilux: a date when day and night are of exactly equal length

Please point out where this definition of equilux differs in any way from your personal definition of equinox. If the two are identical, then please say so and maybe reflect on why we need two separate words at all.


 ( allowance is made for assumed refraction )


Even if there were no atmosphere and no refraction, equinox and equilux would still be different simply because one measures from the two occasions where a single point on the sun (it's centre) crosses the horizon and the other doesn't (it uses two different points).
 

Observation of these phenomena do not agree with prediction of the heliocentric model (see timeanddate ).


I agree completely with timeanddate's prediction of when the equinox happens (and according to them it's the same time everywhere). Problem is you are not using their predictions, you are making your own equinox predictions, inappropriately using sunrise and sunset times, which without any corrections are completely useless for equinox predictions.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: Bikini Polaris on July 23, 2019, 08:23:56 AM
QUESTION 1
When the Space Shuttle program used to be active, it would launch and then the Orbiter would return a few days or a few weeks later.

If Flat Earthers believe that space travel is not possible / is a hoax, where does a Flat Earther believe that the Orbiter goes for the few days or weeks after it launches before it then re-appears and glides in for a landing? Does the shuttle launch/ glide to a secret undisclosed location without radar detection/ and then NASA somehow launches it again in secret or a clone of it so that it can re-appear and land?

I would be curious to get feedback from a Flat Earth believer on how they believe this hoax to work.

Has someone replied to this?
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 23, 2019, 12:14:55 PM
Hoax is possible . Typical rocket launch.

 https://floridarussian.com/featured/shuttle-discovery-launch-4-5-10-2/

Shuttle glides down to unknown destination - Tristan de Cuna or some such other base - after all we can't track worldwide .

Refuel shuttle . Send it back up on it's transporter plane . Release at altitude and let it glide down to the waiting photographers .Not difficult really .
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: robinofloxley on July 23, 2019, 01:22:43 PM
Hoax is possible . Typical rocket launch.

 https://floridarussian.com/featured/shuttle-discovery-launch-4-5-10-2/

Shuttle glides down to unknown destination - Tristan de Cuna or some such other base - after all we can't track worldwide .

Refuel shuttle . Send it back up on it's transporter plane . Release at altitude and let it glide down to the waiting photographers .Not difficult really .
So without going into orbit, the shuttle is going to have to use powered flight, burning fuel the whole way. This is a heavy vehicle with tiny wings, the aerodynamics of a large truck, powered by rockets. How much fuel is this going to need to power its way from Florida to Tristan de Cuna (about 10,000km)? And when it gets there? Does it have retractable floats, because there sure isn't an airport there. Do the several hundred people who live there get hypnotized or something, so they don't remember a space shuttle dropping in?

Finally, craft such as the X15 and SpaceShipOne do use motherships and air-launch, but guess what, the launch vehicle is carried underneath so it can simply drop clear. The modified 747 carrying the shuttle carries it on top, so how does that work? Maybe the 747 does a barrel roll and drops the shuttle when upside down?

To be honest you might as well have just said use tractor beams and teleporters, it's no less credible than your explanation. "Not difficult really". Wow.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 23, 2019, 04:29:18 PM
There is a well known (to astronomers anyway) astrophotographer who has imaged the ISS with the Space Shuttle docked to it.  Just wish I could manage to take images like this!

http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-134.html
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 23, 2019, 05:12:01 PM
The shuttle was a glider with rockets .The scenario is possible and far easier/cheaper and more profitable to those who steal public money.

And space photography is routinely subjected to CG imagery
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 23, 2019, 06:10:00 PM
Ascension island airport - military airfield built by USA world war two -later airstrip lengthened to two miles to accommodate spaceships !!

Still in use 2011 as an emergency landing site for the space shuttle up till mid year .
 
Googled "did the space shuttle land at Ascension island military airbase " and there it was - top o the page. Makes interesting reading since there is also a radar station there linked with one in Florida. Tracks rocket launches from Cape Canaveral too . The facility is home to a detachment of part of USAF 45th Space Wing .Who'd a thunk it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Ascension_Island

It's a possibility . Mix that with hologram and there you go.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: stack on July 23, 2019, 06:57:17 PM
Ascension island airport - military airfield built by USA world war two -later airstrip lengthened to two miles to accommodate spaceships !!

Still in use 2011 as an emergency landing site for the space shuttle up till mid year .
 
Googled "did the space shuttle land at Ascension island military airbase " and there it was - top o the page. Makes interesting reading since there is also a radar station there linked with one in Florida. Tracks rocket launches from Cape Canaveral too . The facility is home to a detachment of part of USAF 45th Space Wing .Who'd a thunk it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Ascension_Island

It's a possibility . Mix that with hologram and there you go.

And maybe the guys playing the back nine at the golf club a couple of miles away got a free round and a drink ticket at the 19th hole as long as they didn't mention seeing a lumbering space shuttle come in for a landing at the base.

Aren't you just sorta grasping at straws here?
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 23, 2019, 09:22:53 PM
Merely pointing out that if they want to do so then everything is in place to carry out a deception. No straw clutching at all .
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 23, 2019, 09:32:28 PM
So do you have any proof or evidence that a deception is actually being carried out?   Or are you merely speculating. 

There is plenty of evidence out there to show you that shuttle has gone into orbit. The link provided earlier is any example. I can assure you that the photographer in this case has no interest whatsoever in FE theory or trying to deceive anyone.  Flat Earthers seem to be obsessed with the idea that the rest of the world is trying to deceive them. Fair enough if that's what you think. He is just using his equipment to image what he knows is up there. No ulterior motive whatsoever.

 
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: markjo on July 23, 2019, 09:43:40 PM
And space photography is routinely subjected to CG imagery
Space photography is also subject to peer review.  Decent telescopes that can resolve the ISS in orbit aren't all that expensive, so just about anyone can personally see for themselves if the ISS is there or not with only a modest investment.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 23, 2019, 10:00:26 PM
Absolutely. As I write this I am imaging a target in the constellation Cygnus called NGC 7000 (North America Nebula) and the ISS has just swept through the FOV of one of my subs. Looking up the ISS pass timings on Heavens Above for my location I see there is a listed pass exactly at the time and point on the sky where my telescope is pointed.  Confirmation of prediction by observation.  That is science at work!  I will post the image if anyone is interested.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 23, 2019, 10:39:59 PM
So do you have any proof or evidence that a deception is actually being carried out?   Or are you merely speculating. 

There is plenty of evidence out there to show you that shuttle has gone into orbit. The link provided earlier is any example. I can assure you that the photographer in this case has no interest whatsoever in FE theory or trying to deceive anyone.  Flat Earthers seem to be obsessed with the idea that the rest of the world is trying to deceive them. Fair enough if that's what you think. He is just using his equipment to image what he knows is up there. No ulterior motive whatsoever.

Of course I'm speculating but those facts show the possibilities - don't you understand plain English? You wanted a reply (not personally ) about the the original post so I gave one with evidence how the deception could be carried out . Now you demand proof - we are in a court of law now apparently .   Well evidence is not proof , not even in a court of law . If you don't want a FEr's opinion ,don't ask . If you don't want a debate then don't post .

Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: stack on July 23, 2019, 11:02:22 PM
So do you have any proof or evidence that a deception is actually being carried out?   Or are you merely speculating. 

There is plenty of evidence out there to show you that shuttle has gone into orbit. The link provided earlier is any example. I can assure you that the photographer in this case has no interest whatsoever in FE theory or trying to deceive anyone.  Flat Earthers seem to be obsessed with the idea that the rest of the world is trying to deceive them. Fair enough if that's what you think. He is just using his equipment to image what he knows is up there. No ulterior motive whatsoever.

Of course I'm speculating but those facts show the possibilities - don't you understand plain English? You wanted a reply (not personally ) about the the original post so I gave one with evidence how the deception could be carried out . Now you demand proof - we are in a court of law now apparently .   Well evidence is not proof , not even in a court of law . If you don't want a FEr's opinion ,don't ask . If you don't want a debate then don't post .

Fair point. A bunch of us over on the other site tried to figure out how to fake the ISS. We had lots of speculative ideas, but they all had massive holes in them.

For the shuttle, you could land it there but you would have to make sure no one sees it or make them keep their mouths shut. Plus, you have to figure out a way to get it back in the air for a fake reentry over Houston a week later. Meaning some how mount it on the 747, fly it up, some how launch it and maybe have it rocket up super high to make it look like it was coming back from space. Seems almost easier to have the damn thing just orbit the earth as advertised.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 24, 2019, 08:39:37 AM
More info . Ascension island doesn't have an indigenous population .

https://www.ascension-island.gov.ac/working-here/living-on-ascension/

Only up to a 1,000 population . All contractors and military personnel  I suppose , official secrets act for UK personnel and whatever US people are required to sign . The thing about getting the shuttle back up there is a technical problem only . I mean we sent a dustbin to the moon and back several times without a hitch apparently . Thanks  for your reasonable post . After all it is all conjecture , debate , but the possibility is there .
           May I ask where the " other site " is which you mention ?
 
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: stack on July 24, 2019, 09:58:21 AM
More info . Ascension island doesn't have an indigenous population .

https://www.ascension-island.gov.ac/working-here/living-on-ascension/

Only up to a 1,000 population . All contractors and military personnel  I suppose , official secrets act for UK personnel and whatever US people are required to sign . The thing about getting the shuttle back up there is a technical problem only . I mean we sent a dustbin to the moon and back several times without a hitch apparently . Thanks  for your reasonable post . After all it is all conjecture , debate , but the possibility is there .
           May I ask where the " other site " is which you mention ?

I agree, good call. If I were to fake a shuttle mission, I'd land it on a little island off of the coast of Africa, a colonized British territory, mostly military personnel, landing strip and gear. Perfect. Good to go. Getting it back off the ground I haven't quite worked out.

And yes, we 'landed' a 'dustbin' on the moon. But we didn't fly one there. Big difference. What's required to get out to the moon is markedly different than what is required to land on the moon. Look into it. It's really interesting stuff whether you actually believe or not.

The original Flat Earth Society site is here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php

Active forum, more so than here. Both forums are different and the same.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 24, 2019, 04:04:28 PM
Quote
Of course I'm speculating but those facts show the possibilities - don't you understand plain English? You wanted a reply (not personally ) about the the original post so I gave one with evidence how the deception could be carried out . Now you demand proof - we are in a court of law now apparently .   Well evidence is not proof , not even in a court of law . If you don't want a FEr's opinion ,don't ask . If you don't want a debate then don't post

As someone who was born and has lived my entire life in the UK I have strong confidence that I do understand plain English. It is a common way among flat Earthers though to dismiss evidence against FET by those on the round Earth side so I am simply reversing that process. After all it is a claim made by FE Wiki on its front page that
Quote
If you don't know something, and cannot demonstrate it by first principles, then you shouldn't believe it

So unless you can demonstrate that the shuttle missions are somehow faked in the ways that you are proposing then why should anyone believe you? We can all say what if this or what is that... but where will that get us? I enjoy these discussions like many people do but I also like to feel they are maintaining some clear, defined direction that preferably relates to the original question.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: AATW on July 25, 2019, 02:26:38 PM
So do you have any proof or evidence that a deception is actually being carried out?   Or are you merely speculating. 

There is plenty of evidence out there to show you that shuttle has gone into orbit. The link provided earlier is any example. I can assure you that the photographer in this case has no interest whatsoever in FE theory or trying to deceive anyone.  Flat Earthers seem to be obsessed with the idea that the rest of the world is trying to deceive them. Fair enough if that's what you think. He is just using his equipment to image what he knows is up there. No ulterior motive whatsoever.

Of course I'm speculating but those facts show the possibilities - don't you understand plain English? You wanted a reply (not personally ) about the the original post so I gave one with evidence how the deception could be carried out . Now you demand proof - we are in a court of law now apparently .   Well evidence is not proof , not even in a court of law . If you don't want a FEr's opinion ,don't ask . If you don't want a debate then don't post .
OK. Firstly, proof of anything is impossible in the strictest sense, outside of the limited language of mathematics.
So what is being asked for is evidence. You saying "well, they might be doing this" is, as you say, speculation. Do you have any evidence that they are doing that?
Evidence of that would be witness testimony, photographic evidence, etc.
You just saying "it's possible they're doing this" isn't evidence of anything.

I've seen a shuttle launch. I didn't see it land anywhere. Now, it's possible it did land somewhere when it went out of my sight but do you have evidence of a shuttle ever landing somewhere, refuelling and then taking off again so it could land when its supposed mission is over?
Bear in mind, shuttles were designed to glide back to base but they had no ability to take off without the bloody great fuel tank. They weren't air planes, they couldn't take off on a runway like a plane.

You have been shown evidence that the shuttles did indeed go into orbit as NASA claim, what is your evidence to the contrary?
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 25, 2019, 04:58:47 PM
I have never seen proof that any shuttle went into space , nor pany roof of earth rotation or curvature - plenty of ambiguous evidence but no proof. You have seen a shuttle launch , so you can say that knowing it to be true . You have not seen with your own eyes anything enter into orbit and you have not seen a shuttle land .The scenario I provided is possible - however improbable it seems to you.

Debate involves discussion of some proposal /statement or idea by persons offering different viewpoints. Plain english .

You cannot be interested in debate since you already know the truth as told to you by someone in authority .

Why ask for an opinion and then demand proof ? You won't accept anything I say because I have a belief system different to yours . Your belief system was forced upon you .
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 25, 2019, 07:03:00 PM
Quote
I have never seen proof that any shuttle went into space , nor pany roof of earth rotation or curvature - plenty of ambiguous evidence but no proof
That depends on what you accept as proof doesn't it. I could equally say that I have never seen any proof that the Earth is flat but I have seen proof that the Shuttle has gone into space.  I attached a link to an image of the shuttle docked to the space station for example. I suspect you won't accept that as proof because of what you believe but that is up to you. FE say that photos can be 'doctored' but knowing the photographer as I do in this case - an ordinary amateur astronomer - I know he would not 'doctor' any of his photos.  He is not interested in trying to deceive anyone for any reason.

I'm sure that you cannot prove the Earth is flat either. If you can then please explain how.
Quote
Why ask for an opinion and then demand proof ? You won't accept anything I say because I have a belief system different to yours . Your belief system was forced upon you .

What makes you think that anyone who has a belief system that happens to different from yours has had it forced upon them? I can't  and wouldn't  speak for anyone else but I for one am completely capable of deciding what I believe or don't believe in without any force feeding from anyone else thank you very much.

You say you have a problem with people in "authority". Possibly because they are not telling you what you want to hear. A common problem among those who like to get brainwashed by conspiracy theories.

You accuse RE of always demanding proof yet when asked for proof that the Earth is flat you cannot come up with any. If you are so sure the Earth is flat you must have evidence to support that claim. Where is this evidence? Photos have been taken of the Earths curvature but no one has ever taken a photo of the Earths 'flatness'.

I can provide you with plenty of evidence of the Earth being spherical. Its right there in front of you and all around you. But your belief system prevents you from accepting it. Or at least interpreting it correctly.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: AATW on July 26, 2019, 02:00:27 PM
I have never seen proof that any shuttle went into space , nor any proof of earth rotation or curvature - plenty of ambiguous evidence but no proof.
Again, you are mixing up evidence with proof. There is no such thing as proof outside mathematics.
How can we prove that a shuttle went into space? We can't. I was never on board one, nor were you. So, if there are things like this we've not seen with our own eyes, we have to look at evidence. As I said, I saw a shuttle launch. So I know shuttles exist and launch as I'd been led to believe. Can I say for sure it didn't land somewhere when it went out of range of my sight? No, obviously not. But there are videos like this which show it from launch more or less all the way to orbit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D-YrYhrVvg

(quite a long video, watch from about 10 minutes in)
Or this video, not a shuttle but shows a rocket from launch to orbit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyq5eN9C4Cc

Could that be faked? Well, I guess it could. Could all the people who have been on space shuttles and have written and spoken about it be lying? I guess they could. But you could say that about anything.

Quote
The scenario I provided is possible - however improbable it seems to you.

Of course. But you have presented only speculation, no evidence. No photos of the shuttle secretly landed somewhere at a time it was supposed to be in orbit, no "whistle blowers" giving testimony that they saw the shuttle elsewhere. Given my lack of my first hand experience I'm going to have to weigh the evidence on both sides. Given all the evidence for the Shuttle programme being as NASA claim it to be, some of which I have prevented above, and the complete lack of evidence you have presented I will continue to believe that the launch I saw did indeed take a shuttle into space.

Quote
Debate involves discussion of some proposal /statement or idea by persons offering different viewpoints.

It also involves both sides presenting evidence to back up their viewpoints.

Quote
You cannot be interested in debate since you already know the truth as told to you by someone in authority.

They have presented evidence for their claim. You have presented none.

Quote
Why ask for an opinion and then demand proof?

I don't. I demand evidence. You have presented none. If you want to change people's beliefs you have to present compelling evidence that your alternative to what they believe has merit.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 26, 2019, 03:41:22 PM
It all comes down to that word 'belief'. If someone is intent on believing something it doesn't matter what evidence to the contrary you present them with it rarely changes their point of view. They will simply dismiss it as fabricated, hoaxed or deliberately presented in such a way as to deceive or they will ignore it.

Those who believe the Earth is flat then will continue to do so regardless of what evidence is presented to them which shows that it isn't. To them mainstream science and all that it states is simply a cover story that has been deliberately conceived to hide what to flat Earthers is the truth. They regard themselves as the 'fortunate' minority who 'know the truth'. The problem is for those of us who exist outside of that bubble we can see that there is no evidence or substance to back up their claims. Apart from the unfounded examples that the Earth is flat because it 'looks flat' and such like.

Of course it is a metaphorical game of tennis to which I see no end. The difference to me is that RE know the truth while FE will eventually realise the truth even if they don't admit to it.  To the flat Earth side of course the reverse is true!
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: AATW on July 26, 2019, 09:57:37 PM
It all comes down to that word 'belief'. If someone is intent on believing something it doesn't matter what evidence to the contrary you present them with it rarely changes their point of view. They will simply dismiss it as fabricated, hoaxed or deliberately presented in such a way as to deceive or they will ignore it.

But beliefs have to surely be based on something. A rational person weighs evidence.
We're not at the stage where we can all go into space so our beliefs about that and about other things we can't all experience (Antarctica, The Mariana Trench) have to be based on what people tell us. They have to be. The more rockets that are launched from more countries, the more satellites which go into orbit - launched by both space agencies and private enterprises - the more technologies which we use which rely on those satellites, the more photos and film we have from space and the more astronauts who have been to space - especially now we've had 7 "space tourists". All this evidence adds up and surely adds more and more weight to the belief that we as a species now have the technology to get into space and orbit the earth and therefore the earth must be spherical.

I understand a bit about confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, things which make it hard for people to change their beliefs. But in order to dismiss all of the above you surely have to do a bit better than vague speculation about how some of the above could be faked. Surely you need to have some evidence that it is being faked, some testimony from a whistle-blower, some photo or video of the shuttle landed somewhere while it's supposedly in space or whatever. No evidence has been presented, only speculation.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2019, 12:12:34 AM
It all comes down to that word 'belief'. If someone is intent on believing something it doesn't matter what evidence to the contrary you present them with it rarely changes their point of view. They will simply dismiss it as fabricated, hoaxed or deliberately presented in such a way as to deceive or they will ignore it.

But beliefs have to surely be based on something. A rational person weighs evidence.
We're not at the stage where we can all go into space so our beliefs about that and about other things we can't all experience (Antarctica, The Mariana Trench) have to be based on what people tell us. They have to be. The more rockets that are launched from more countries, the more satellites which go into orbit - launched by both space agencies and private enterprises - the more technologies which we use which rely on those satellites, the more photos and film we have from space and the more astronauts who have been to space - especially now we've had 7 "space tourists". All this evidence adds up and surely adds more and more weight to the belief that we as a species now have the technology to get into space and orbit the earth and therefore the earth must be spherical.

I understand a bit about confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, things which make it hard for people to change their beliefs. But in order to dismiss all of the above you surely have to do a bit better than vague speculation about how some of the above could be faked. Surely you need to have some evidence that it is being faked, some testimony from a whistle-blower, some photo or video of the shuttle landed somewhere while it's supposedly in space or whatever. No evidence has been presented, only speculation.

It may be that you are on the wrong website. If you are looking for a continual stream of evidence for space conspiracies, you should probably go to YouTube, Google, Faking Space with Paul, wherever. You aren't going to find much content here or on the other site other than what's already there. We rarely even discuss it. There are already large internet communities around that. FE is generally further along on the spectrum than 'is NASA lying?'

FES has always mostly been about the physical Flat Earth Theory than anything, at least from what I've seen. Not that it's unimportant, it's just not the focus, unlike other communities.

However, it would be nice if we had all of that content on some kind of publicly submittable Tube website.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: dirtysnowball on July 27, 2019, 08:27:34 AM
If one wishes to try and learn more about why some people believe the Earth is flat, then surely the website of The Flat Earth Society is a good place to come? Logical reasoning told me that.

I am not in the least interested in 'space conspiracies'. What I am interested in is why some people choose to prefer alternative theories such as the shape of the Earth when there is overwhelming evidence that those alternative theories are possibly not accurate. I think I stated my case quite clearly in my previous post so there is no reason for me to repeat myself.

It has been fun both investigating and researching the reasoning behind FET and I guess I have learned quite a bit as a result of that. Different communities exist among the population as a whole and the FE community is one of those. As a community you have a unique perspective and view of the world and while I will never agree with you on that view, I wish you well with it.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 27, 2019, 10:21:54 PM
I have never seen proof that any shuttle went into space , nor any proof of earth rotation or curvature - plenty of ambiguous evidence but no proof.
Again, you are mixing up evidence with proof. There is no such thing as proof outside mathematics.
How can we prove that a shuttle went into space? We can't. I was never on board one, nor were you. So, if there are things like this we've not seen with our own eyes, we have to look at evidence. As I said, I saw a shuttle launch. So I know shuttles exist and launch as I'd been led to believe. Can I say for sure it didn't land somewhere when it went out of range of my sight? No, obviously not. But there are videos like this which show it from launch more or less all the way to orbit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D-YrYhrVvg

(quite a long video, watch from about 10 minutes in)
Or this video, not a shuttle but shows a rocket from launch to orbit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyq5eN9C4Cc

Could that be faked? Well, I guess it could. Could all the people who have been on space shuttles and have written and spoken about it be lying? I guess they could. But you could say that about anything.

Quote
The scenario I provided is possible - however improbable it seems to you.

Of course. But you have presented only speculation, no evidence. No photos of the shuttle secretly landed somewhere at a time it was supposed to be in orbit, no "whistle blowers" giving testimony that they saw the shuttle elsewhere. Given my lack of my first hand experience I'm going to have to weigh the evidence on both sides. Given all the evidence for the Shuttle programme being as NASA claim it to be, some of which I have prevented above, and the complete lack of evidence you have presented I will continue to believe that the launch I saw did indeed take a shuttle into space.

Quote
Debate involves discussion of some proposal /statement or idea by persons offering different viewpoints.

It also involves both sides presenting evidence to back up their viewpoints.

Quote
You cannot be interested in debate since you already know the truth as told to you by someone in authority.

They have presented evidence for their claim. You have presented none.

Quote
Why ask for an opinion and then demand proof?

I don't. I demand evidence. You have presented none. If you want to change people's beliefs you have to present compelling evidence that your alternative to what they believe has merit.

About 12 mins 43 seconds in 1st video - see the backscreen of earth reverse momentarily.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: stack on July 27, 2019, 11:33:25 PM
I have never seen proof that any shuttle went into space , nor any proof of earth rotation or curvature - plenty of ambiguous evidence but no proof.
Again, you are mixing up evidence with proof. There is no such thing as proof outside mathematics.
How can we prove that a shuttle went into space? We can't. I was never on board one, nor were you. So, if there are things like this we've not seen with our own eyes, we have to look at evidence. As I said, I saw a shuttle launch. So I know shuttles exist and launch as I'd been led to believe. Can I say for sure it didn't land somewhere when it went out of range of my sight? No, obviously not. But there are videos like this which show it from launch more or less all the way to orbit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D-YrYhrVvg

(quite a long video, watch from about 10 minutes in)
Or this video, not a shuttle but shows a rocket from launch to orbit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyq5eN9C4Cc

Could that be faked? Well, I guess it could. Could all the people who have been on space shuttles and have written and spoken about it be lying? I guess they could. But you could say that about anything.

Quote
The scenario I provided is possible - however improbable it seems to you.

Of course. But you have presented only speculation, no evidence. No photos of the shuttle secretly landed somewhere at a time it was supposed to be in orbit, no "whistle blowers" giving testimony that they saw the shuttle elsewhere. Given my lack of my first hand experience I'm going to have to weigh the evidence on both sides. Given all the evidence for the Shuttle programme being as NASA claim it to be, some of which I have prevented above, and the complete lack of evidence you have presented I will continue to believe that the launch I saw did indeed take a shuttle into space.

Quote
Debate involves discussion of some proposal /statement or idea by persons offering different viewpoints.

It also involves both sides presenting evidence to back up their viewpoints.

Quote
You cannot be interested in debate since you already know the truth as told to you by someone in authority.

They have presented evidence for their claim. You have presented none.

Quote
Why ask for an opinion and then demand proof?

I don't. I demand evidence. You have presented none. If you want to change people's beliefs you have to present compelling evidence that your alternative to what they believe has merit.

About 12 mins 43 seconds in 1st video - see the backscreen of earth reverse momentarily.

In this version, at the same part of the launch, but at the 3:15 mark in this video, the stutter you reference doesn't happen. Lots of factors when reprocessing video and uploading. Seems inconsequential when factoring reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3deA3BXAnHs
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 28, 2019, 11:09:41 AM
So which video is the real one  - this video is touted as evidence that the shuttle went into orbit but from the time of launch several camera cuts occur so it could be a montage , and to me that glitch could have occurred because the background is CGI , or the whole of it is CGI.
         Videos are problematic when used like this and are definitely not what I would term realistic .
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: stack on July 28, 2019, 07:05:20 PM
So which video is the real one  - this video is touted as evidence that the shuttle went into orbit but from the time of launch several camera cuts occur so it could be a montage , and to me that glitch could have occurred because the background is CGI , or the whole of it is CGI.
         Videos are problematic when used like this and are definitely not what I would term realistic .

What would make it more realistic for you?
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 30, 2019, 07:59:35 AM
So which video is the real one  - this video is touted as evidence that the shuttle went into orbit but from the time of launch several camera cuts occur so it could be a montage , and to me that glitch could have occurred because the background is CGI , or the whole of it is CGI.
         Videos are problematic when used like this and are definitely not what I would term realistic .

What would make it more realistic for you?
I've seen realistic videos of dinosaurs - so , have I seen a dinosaur in reality ? Don't think so .
These videos of shuttle journeys are sometimes realistic but are not reality -  in the same way . The original video in question was shown as proof or reality - even though earth clearly jumped backwards with respect to the camera .

Proof is not a video .
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: stack on July 30, 2019, 10:13:54 AM
So which video is the real one  - this video is touted as evidence that the shuttle went into orbit but from the time of launch several camera cuts occur so it could be a montage , and to me that glitch could have occurred because the background is CGI , or the whole of it is CGI.
         Videos are problematic when used like this and are definitely not what I would term realistic .

What would make it more realistic for you?
I've seen realistic videos of dinosaurs - so , have I seen a dinosaur in reality ? Don't think so .
These videos of shuttle journeys are sometimes realistic but are not reality -  in the same way . The original video in question was shown as proof or reality - even though earth clearly jumped backwards with respect to the camera .

Proof is not a video .
Proof is not video. Kinda agree. But it's too easy of an out, for me, to blindly accept or blindly deny. In this case, a re-processed, re-rendered, re-uploaded video showing a frame drop or two is not surprising to me. Not something where I would call out the NASA illuminati nazis. Seems a reach where another video doesn't show such an 'egregious' anomaly. All a stretch, desperately looking for anything to show the 'hoax'.

Better proof of hoax required. And if video is not proof, I'm afraid the deniers have none.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: AATW on July 30, 2019, 11:23:33 AM
Proof is not a video .
Why do you keep on saying proof?
A video is evidence. You found a glitch in the video, someone posted a different version of the video without that glitch. Neither of these videos are "the original", I don't know how to find the original source. But these videos are evidence. Astronaut testimony is evidence.
You have provided no evidence at all for your ideas. Plenty of speculation, but no evidence.
All you need to do is post an interview with a whistle-blower exposing these lies, or some photos of the shuttle landed somewhere when it was supposed to be in orbit. Something. You speculating that "maybe this is going on" adds nothing to this discussion.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: TomInAustin on July 30, 2019, 04:03:52 PM
Quote
If you don't know all of the details on how those numbers were derived, why would you believe it?

Because my mind works different to yours Tom. I don't need absolute proof or demonstration from first principles of everything I believe or accept.
Nor does Tom. Rowbotham’s “experiments” are always accepted without question.
This is where I will never understand his mentality. The level of proof he requires or will accept depends entirely on whether the result backs up his world view.

Tom, what is your take to the OP questions?
I saw a shuttle launch back in the day. Where do you think it went if not space and what is your evidence for that?

How high do you believe the moon to be and what have you don’t to verify that?

If I recall correctly Tom has stated that the shuttle was just a prop and when Challenger blew up they had to fake 7 deaths.

Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: newhorizons on July 30, 2019, 06:45:28 PM
So what has become of the 7 astronauts then who would have had to have been in on the 'fake'. How come none of them has ever been seen or heard of since?  Have they been hiding away cut off from the rest of the world and their family and friends in some secret room that NASA has located somewhere for the last 33 years just so that NASA can keep something secret?

One of the Challenger astronauts was a school teacher so presumably all the staff of the school and the pupils who went to the school and were taught by Christa McAuliffe and those pupils families and friends would also have had to be in on it as well. I could go on but you get the picture.  To ask the kids from the school (who I'm sure were extremely excited and proud to know that one of their teachers was going to be a real life astronaut) to keep such a 'faked' death secret would be next to impossible. I can only imagine what their reaction would have been when they asked why they had to 'pretend' their teacher had been killed in a tragic shuttle accident. Children are excellent lie detectors but often hopeless at lying themselves.

I guess to some people, keeping a conspiracy theory alive for reasons of their own selfish belief is more important than considering the human effect that such stories can create.
Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: somerled on July 31, 2019, 03:22:16 PM
So which video is the real one  - this video is touted as evidence that the shuttle went into orbit but from the time of launch several camera cuts occur so it could be a montage , and to me that glitch could have occurred because the background is CGI , or the whole of it is CGI.
         Videos are problematic when used like this and are definitely not what I would term realistic .

What would make it more realistic for you?
I've seen realistic videos of dinosaurs - so , have I seen a dinosaur in reality ? Don't think so .
These videos of shuttle journeys are sometimes realistic but are not reality -  in the same way . The original video in question was shown as proof or reality - even though earth clearly jumped backwards with respect to the camera .

Proof is not a video .
Proof is not video. Kinda agree. But it's too easy of an out, for me, to blindly accept or blindly deny. In this case, a re-processed, re-rendered, re-uploaded video showing a frame drop or two is not surprising to me. Not something where I would call out the NASA illuminati nazis. Seems a reach where another video doesn't show such an 'egregious' anomaly. All a stretch, desperately looking for anything to show the 'hoax'.

Better proof of hoax required. And if video is not proof, I'm afraid the deniers have none.

The OP wanted an FE opinion - I gave a reasonable scenario which turned out to show all the infrastructure was there for this to be carried out via ascension island . It's perfectly feasible . At no stage have I posted that this actually happened , I suspect it may have . Why do I have to show proof ?

I enjoy debating from a different viewpoint but this is getting silly . The fact that videos are proof of nothing holds bothways.


Title: Re: When rockets launch....
Post by: newhorizons on July 31, 2019, 03:40:54 PM
Quote
I suspect it may have . Why do I have to show proof ?

We can all suspect or believe anything we want to and for as long as we want to. Proof is a difficult thing to define because something that qualifies as proof to one person might not to another.  I guess a debate that is based on nothing apart from what we suspect can potentially go on and on. What is the aim of such a debate? What can we conclude from it? You get two sides that suspect different things for their own reasons.  Its a bit like a never ending tug of war!