[StinkyOne]

Irrelevant, DirecTV would not function of Russia blew up their satellite! Can you answer the question with a statement and not another meaningless question??

Obviously they have a plan in place. Have you seen all of the high altitude balloon experiment NASA and Co. have been doing to simulate the functionality of a satellite?

https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/balloon/

Tom, you lost. Take a guess how long satellite TV was been around. It started in the 1970s. 40 years ago, Tom. I'm old enough to remember riding around the Nevada desert and seeing many of the homes with a large satellite dish in their yards. They were too far from Las Vegas to receive a signal, so they had to receive their TV via satellite.

You yourself said there is no conspiracy and when you finally get backed into a corner, the conspiracy doesn't only involve NASA, now it involves private companies. You know, if DirecTV could be delivered via balloon, they would just do that. Much cheaper. No need to make up things called satellites, which don't even exist, right?

Without resorting to conspiracy, you can not prove me wrong. And as a follower of the Zetetic Method, you cannot in good faith say there is a conspiracy to trick you on your TV viewing options.

ISS Tracker so you can find out when it will be over your home. Go look at it. Come back and thank me for making your universe unfathomably larger and more beautiful.
http://www.isstracker.com/

History of satellite TV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_television#Television_receive-only

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, you lost. Take a guess how long satellite TV was been around. It started in the 1970s.

Take a guess at how long high altitude dirigibles have been around.

[StinkyOne]

Tom, you lost. Take a guess how long satellite TV was been around. It started in the 1970s.

Take a guess at how long high altitude dirigibles have been around.

So are you actually asserting that for the last 40 years, all around the globe, in various countries, and unrelated companies, they ALL decided to lie about using blimps instead of satellites to...to....to...what would be the point of lying, Tom? To trick all the rubes out there that the Earth is round? That is seriously the LOGICAL argument you are going to try to make here? And not just lie about it, but create a false history of supposed sats that they used. THAT is your argument???

PROVE IT!

[Tom Bishop]

So are you actually asserting that for the last 40 years, all around the globe, in various countries, and unrelated companies, they ALL decided to lie about using blimps instead of satellites to...to....to...what would be the point of lying, Tom? To trick all the rubes out there that the Earth is round? That is seriously the LOGICAL argument you are going to try to make here? And not just lie about it, but create a false history of supposed sats that they used. THAT is your argument???

PROVE IT!

The private companies worked with NASA to get their technology correct and in place. What makes you think that the companies need to be "in" on anything? In many cases, such as with SpaceX, those private companies are working for NASA and doing its bidding.

There is a motive on the Wiki. Feel free to check it out.

[StinkyOne]

So are you actually asserting that for the last 40 years, all around the globe, in various countries, and unrelated companies, they ALL decided to lie about using blimps instead of satellites to...to....to...what would be the point of lying, Tom? To trick all the rubes out there that the Earth is round? That is seriously the LOGICAL argument you are going to try to make here? And not just lie about it, but create a false history of supposed sats that they used. THAT is your argument???

PROVE IT!

The private companies worked with NASA to get their technology correct and in place. What makes you think that the companies need to be "in" on anything? In many cases, such as with SpaceX, those private companies are working for NASA and doing its bidding.

There is a motive on the Wiki. Feel free to check it out.

I have given you plenty of valid sources, shown the history on this, and all you have left is the bogus NASA conspiracy that you said doesn't exist. Also, NASA didn't invent satellite TV. DirecTV doesn't work for or with NASA. Need to adjust who all is in on the conspiracy? You are clearly grasping at straws. For all the difficulty you give to people about the sources of data and pre-supposing a round world, you immediately fall back to baseless claims when backed into a corner. I know you'll never admit the Earth is round on here, but you and I both know it is. There are so many technologies that rely on satellites. The world simply would not be able to function as it does without them. I ask you, what would be so bad about admitting the world is round? What reason do you have to hold onto a world view that literally cannot exist?

As far as your wiki goes, it is useless and has been shown repeatedly to not be reliable by your own members.

[3DGeek]

So are you actually asserting that for the last 40 years, all around the globe, in various countries, and unrelated companies, they ALL decided to lie about using blimps instead of satellites to...to....to...what would be the point of lying, Tom? To trick all the rubes out there that the Earth is round? That is seriously the LOGICAL argument you are going to try to make here? And not just lie about it, but create a false history of supposed sats that they used. THAT is your argument???

PROVE IT!

The private companies worked with NASA to get their technology correct and in place. What makes you think that the companies need to be "in" on anything? In many cases, such as with SpaceX, those private companies are working for NASA and doing its bidding.

There is a motive on the Wiki. Feel free to check it out.

Well, how about we do just that.

It starts off with this fascinating statement:

"There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort."

Well, that's certainly an interesting assertion.  But then it says:

"There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to)."

OK...then it says...

"NASA's early rocket research is well documented to have been a complete failure, plagued by one disaster after another. At some point, perhaps after the Apollo 1 disaster, it was decided to fake the space program outright and use rockets which only needed to fly into the air until they disappeared from sight."

Aha!  But isn't there a problem here?  Apollo 1 caught fire in January 1967.  If that was when NASA decided to start faking things - then BEFORE 1967, it must all have been "real".

So the entire set of seven Mercury and ten Gemini manned missions - all of which were prior to '67 and were successful must have happened as advertised.

Then the Wiki says:

"NASA went from nearly every launch being a failure to a near flawless track record"

...but every one of the manned Mercury and Gemini missions went well.  Sure not absolutely flawlessly - but "within mission parameters".   The Apollo 1 disaster was a consequence of using pure oxygen in the crew compartment and lots of nylon in spacesuits, etc.  Those things were fixed by using only 60% oxygen during launch and ruthlessly replacing anything flammable from within the capsule - nylon was replaced with fiberglass and teflon.

With those (relatively simple) fixes - why wouldn't they continue?  Abandoning all of everything after such a minor setback - and especially abandoning satellite launches - seems like a crazy overreaction.

But from the Wiki - we can assume that those Mercury and Gemini missions were "real"?   They get the Tom Bishop/TFES stamp of approval?

That's rather interesting!

So where is the "evidence" that this abandonment of space flight happened?

I know you zetetics will only accept new facts with evidence - so there must be some kind of proof here.   Do enlighten us!

[TomInAustin]

So are you actually asserting that for the last 40 years, all around the globe, in various countries, and unrelated companies, they ALL decided to lie about using blimps instead of satellites to...to....to...what would be the point of lying, Tom? To trick all the rubes out there that the Earth is round? That is seriously the LOGICAL argument you are going to try to make here? And not just lie about it, but create a false history of supposed sats that they used. THAT is your argument???

PROVE IT!

There is a motive on the Wiki. Feel free to check it out.

There are maps on the Wiki yet you refuse to use them.  Your own Mod Junker laughed when I quoted the Davis Theory from the Wiki.  So please tell us which parts of the Wiki are valid and which ones we should ignore?

[Tom Bishop]

So are you actually asserting that for the last 40 years, all around the globe, in various countries, and unrelated companies, they ALL decided to lie about using blimps instead of satellites to...to....to...what would be the point of lying, Tom? To trick all the rubes out there that the Earth is round? That is seriously the LOGICAL argument you are going to try to make here? And not just lie about it, but create a false history of supposed sats that they used. THAT is your argument???

PROVE IT!

The private companies worked with NASA to get their technology correct and in place. What makes you think that the companies need to be "in" on anything? In many cases, such as with SpaceX, those private companies are working for NASA and doing its bidding.

There is a motive on the Wiki. Feel free to check it out.

Well, how about we do just that.

It starts off with this fascinating statement:

"There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort."

Well, that's certainly an interesting assertion.  But then it says:

"There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to)."

OK...then it says...

"NASA's early rocket research is well documented to have been a complete failure, plagued by one disaster after another. At some point, perhaps after the Apollo 1 disaster, it was decided to fake the space program outright and use rockets which only needed to fly into the air until they disappeared from sight."

Aha!  But isn't there a problem here?  Apollo 1 caught fire in January 1967.  If that was when NASA decided to start faking things - then BEFORE 1967, it must all have been "real".

So the entire set of seven Mercury and ten Gemini manned missions - all of which were prior to '67 and were successful must have happened as advertised.

Then the Wiki says:

"NASA went from nearly every launch being a failure to a near flawless track record"

...but every one of the manned Mercury and Gemini missions went well.  Sure not absolutely flawlessly - but "within mission parameters".   The Apollo 1 disaster was a consequence of using pure oxygen in the crew compartment and lots of nylon in spacesuits, etc.  Those things were fixed by using only 60% oxygen during launch and ruthlessly replacing anything flammable from within the capsule - nylon was replaced with fiberglass and teflon.

With those (relatively simple) fixes - why wouldn't they continue?  Abandoning all of everything after such a minor setback - and especially abandoning satellite launches - seems like a crazy overreaction.

But from the Wiki - we can assume that those Mercury and Gemini missions were "real"?   They get the Tom Bishop/TFES stamp of approval?

That's rather interesting!

So where is the "evidence" that this abandonment of space flight happened?

I know you zetetics will only accept new facts with evidence - so there must be some kind of proof here.   Do enlighten us!

The Wiki suggests that after Apollo 1 is when they may have started faking it "outright," as in they may have been faking some stuff before, forced into the matter to compete with Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin; but after the Apollo 1 disaster there was no longer a genuine effort to go into space. Also, look up the definition of the word "perhaps".

[StinkyOne]

I'll give Tom credit, I'm surprised he came back to this thread after losing the argument so badly. Honestly, I think he knows the Earth is round, but can't express that here so he argues little points hoping to frustrate us into letting it go.

[juner]

I'll give Tom credit, I'm surprised he came back to this thread after losing the argument so badly. Honestly, I think he knows the Earth is round, but can't express that here so he argues little points hoping to frustrate us into letting it go.

Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. If you have nothing to actually add beyond your obsession with Tom Bishop, then there is no need to post. Warned.

[3DGeek]

I'll give Tom credit, I'm surprised he came back to this thread after losing the argument so badly. Honestly, I think he knows the Earth is round, but can't express that here so he argues little points hoping to frustrate us into letting it go.

Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. If you have nothing to actually add beyond your obsession with Tom Bishop, then there is no need to post. Warned.

To be fair - the "obsession with Tom Bishop" comes about because he is (a) the only person here who is still actually debating the matter and (b) he's been held up at least a couple of times as being the smartest FE'er around.   So naturally, he has a debate-target painted on his forehead.

It would be really nice if some of the other "thousands" of claimed FE'ers would come along and support him - but not a single one seems both able and willing to step up and do that...which really speaks volumes about the strength of the tfes.organization and the power of the arguments presented in favor of the FE position.