[AATW]

Once again, there seems to be no answer as to why one would feel inclined to accept the "alternative evidence," of supposed "space travel" in lieu of personally gleaned observation. Plenty of swings, but too many whiffs.

Because the personally gleaned observations are not sufficient to determine the reality of the shape of the earth.
Those observations could indicate the earth is flat, but they are also consistent with us living on a very large globe. And there are other possibilities. The only way to determine the truth is "alternative evidence".

This is true of lots of things, our personal observations alone aren't sufficient alone to determine reality, we have to augment those observations with "alternative evidence" - obviously that evidence should be assessed and checked to make sure it is reliable, as best you can.

[Action80]

Once again, there seems to be no answer as to why one would feel inclined to accept the "alternative evidence," of supposed "space travel" in lieu of personally gleaned observation. Plenty of swings, but too many whiffs.

Because the personally gleaned observations are not sufficient to determine the reality of the shape of the earth.
Those observations could indicate the earth is flat, but they are also consistent with us living on a very large globe. And there are other possibilities. The only way to determine the truth is "alternative evidence".

This is true of lots of things, our personal observations alone aren't sufficient alone to determine reality, we have to augment those observations with "alternative evidence" - obviously that evidence should be assessed and checked to make sure it is reliable, as best you can.

I agree. The "alternative evidence," should be assessed and checked for reliability.

It seems it is fairly lacking, given the multitude of alterations and outright fabrications offered by the presenters.

It should be instantly rejected.

[Action80]

Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.

Yet...

If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?   

To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"

Understand your issue. But, am still trying to understand your logic of how you equate seeing that your desk is flat to being able to see and confidently conclude that the surface of our Earth (that is tens of millions of feet across) is flat.   

Once you can understand your obvious predilection to write posts directly contradicting your own posts, perhaps then you may be able to understand the logic of others, let alone mine.

I am not concerned at all about your logic.

[mahogany]

Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.

Yet...

If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?   

To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"

Understand your issue. But, am still trying to understand your logic of how you equate seeing that your desk is flat to being able to see and confidently conclude that the surface of our Earth (that is tens of millions of feet across) is flat.   

Once you can understand your obvious predilection to write posts directly contradicting your own posts, perhaps then you may be able to understand the logic of others, let alone mine.

I am not concerned at all about your logic.

If your logic is that what you observe around you with your senses (your eyesight) and all that you observe around you is what must be reality, than by this logic should I conclude that when you observe a Full Moon, half Moon, or a crescent Moon at night that you therefore believe that the Moon is emitting it's own light?
   

[Action80]

Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.

Yet...

If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?   

To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"

Understand your issue. But, am still trying to understand your logic of how you equate seeing that your desk is flat to being able to see and confidently conclude that the surface of our Earth (that is tens of millions of feet across) is flat.   

Once you can understand your obvious predilection to write posts directly contradicting your own posts, perhaps then you may be able to understand the logic of others, let alone mine.

I am not concerned at all about your logic.

If your logic is that what you observe around you with your senses (your eyesight) and all that you observe around you is what must be reality, than by this logic should I conclude that when you observe a Full Moon, half Moon, or a crescent Moon at night that you therefore believe that the Moon is emitting it's own light?
 

I am not on the moon. I am here on Earth. Do you have something, I mean anything, related even remotely, to the OP?

I mean, you started the OP.

I will remind you of the title: Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax .

Care to stick with that, or do you wish to continue to derail your own thread?

[BillO]

Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.

Yet...

If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?   

To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"

He's obviously using the sinking/floating ship observation as an example that you can't trust observation alone to determine reality.  Although it should be pointed out that deducing reality from observation alone is not  the zetetic method.

[mahogany]

Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.

Yet...

If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?   

To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"

Understand your issue. But, am still trying to understand your logic of how you equate seeing that your desk is flat to being able to see and confidently conclude that the surface of our Earth (that is tens of millions of feet across) is flat.   

Once you can understand your obvious predilection to write posts directly contradicting your own posts, perhaps then you may be able to understand the logic of others, let alone mine.

I am not concerned at all about your logic.

If your logic is that what you observe around you with your senses (your eyesight) and all that you observe around you is what must be reality, than by this logic should I conclude that when you observe a Full Moon, half Moon, or a crescent Moon at night that you therefore believe that the Moon is emitting it's own light?
 

I am not on the moon. I am here on Earth. Do you have something, I mean anything, related even remotely, to the OP?

I mean, you started the OP.

I will remind you of the title: Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax .

Care to stick with that, or do you wish to continue to derail your own thread?

Yes, you are correct...I started the OP.

But, "somebody" (and I'm not going to mention names) contributed to going off tangent when they communicated their observations of their desktop being flat and similarly perceiving and concluding in the same manner the Earth to be flat. 

Feel free to answer either of the two original OP questions.
- I would especially be curious to get your take one of the questions regarding: the accuracy of a referenced YouTube video in the Wiki that uses a solid piece of glass dome to model the Earth's atmosphere and a flashlight to simulate the FE local Sun, where the flashlight's diameter representing a local Sun is about the same size as the solid piece of glass dome representing a flat earth.
   

[AATW]

I agree. The "alternative evidence," should be assessed and checked for reliability.

It seems it is fairly lacking, given the multitude of alterations and outright fabrications offered by the presenters.

It should be instantly rejected.

Well fair enough. I’m interested to know what you mean by alterations. I “alter” photos all the time - I crop them, use tools to change the colour balance. Sometimes I create composite images (that’s what a panorama is, your camera or phone stitches multiple photos together). None of these “alterations” indicate the photo is in any way fake.
I’m also interested what you mean by fabrications. You can allege things are fabricated, that doesn’t make you correct.

But photos/video from space are only part of the evidence for space travel. There’s also witness testimony, from astronauts and now some private citizens. There’s the fact rocket launches can be witnessed. There’s the technologies we use daily which rely on satellites. There’s the ISS which can be directly observed from the ground.

It’s worth noting that space exploration is not the only evidence for a globe earth. The earth being a globe was the accepted model for thousands of years before we had the ability to launch things in to orbit and beyond. Space travel is the final nail in the FE coffin, which is why a common FE tactic is to simply call it all fake. But space travel is only a small part of the evidence for a globe earth. Just looking around and saying “looks flat to me” is simplistic, you need to look at alternative evidence to determine the true shape. Space travel is simply part of that alternative evidence.

[Action80]

Yes, you are correct...I started the OP.

But, "somebody" (and I'm not going to mention names) contributed to going off tangent when they communicated their observations of their desktop being flat and similarly perceiving and concluding in the same manner the Earth to be flat. 

Feel free to answer either of the two original OP questions.
- I would especially be curious to get your take one of the questions regarding: the accuracy of a referenced YouTube video in the Wiki that uses a solid piece of glass dome to model the Earth's atmosphere and a flashlight to simulate the FE local Sun, where the flashlight's diameter representing a local Sun is about the same size as the solid piece of glass dome representing a flat earth.

I did not contribute to going "off-tangent", as I was addressing the issue of the reasons for rejecting "alternative evidence" (i.e., space travel evidence) when you are right up against the evidence in plain view.

I have not watched the referenced YouTube video.

I do not know what material comprises the dome.

There is a rotating celestial sphere above our heads and the sun is part of that sphere.

That is my opinion.

[Action80]

I agree. The "alternative evidence," should be assessed and checked for reliability.

It seems it is fairly lacking, given the multitude of alterations and outright fabrications offered by the presenters.

It should be instantly rejected.

Well fair enough. I’m interested to know what you mean by alterations. I “alter” photos all the time - I crop them, use tools to change the colour balance. Sometimes I create composite images (that’s what a panorama is, your camera or phone stitches multiple photos together). None of these “alterations” indicate the photo is in any way fake.
I’m also interested what you mean by fabrications. You can allege things are fabricated, that doesn’t make you correct.

But photos/video from space are only part of the evidence for space travel. There’s also witness testimony, from astronauts and now some private citizens. There’s the fact rocket launches can be witnessed. There’s the technologies we use daily which rely on satellites. There’s the ISS which can be directly observed from the ground.

It’s worth noting that space exploration is not the only evidence for a globe earth. The earth being a globe was the accepted model for thousands of years before we had the ability to launch things in to orbit and beyond. Space travel is the final nail in the FE coffin, which is why a common FE tactic is to simply call it all fake. But space travel is only a small part of the evidence for a globe earth. Just looking around and saying “looks flat to me” is simplistic, you need to look at alternative evidence to determine the true shape. Space travel is simply part of that alternative evidence.

Space agencies have already admitted to fabricating images and altering the images released to the public.

The flat earth was the accepted model before the globe earth model.

Building a tower to heaven has always been the dream of man and this supposed space travel is simply another step in that practice.

Satan and his minions want to reoccupy their former seats near the throne.

[mahogany]

Yes, you are correct...I started the OP.

But, "somebody" (and I'm not going to mention names) contributed to going off tangent when they communicated their observations of their desktop being flat and similarly perceiving and concluding in the same manner the Earth to be flat. 

Feel free to answer either of the two original OP questions.
- I would especially be curious to get your take one of the questions regarding: the accuracy of a referenced YouTube video in the Wiki that uses a solid piece of glass dome to model the Earth's atmosphere and a flashlight to simulate the FE local Sun, where the flashlight's diameter representing a local Sun is about the same size as the solid piece of glass dome representing a flat earth.

I did not contribute to going "off-tangent", as I was addressing the issue of the reasons for rejecting "alternative evidence" (i.e., space travel evidence) when you are right up against the evidence in plain view.

I have not watched the referenced YouTube video.

I do not know what material comprises the dome.

There is a rotating celestial sphere above our heads and the sun is part of that sphere.

That is my opinion.

From one of my original OP questions: curious to know if you are 100% confident that space travel doesn't exist and is a conspiracy OR do you have some doubts about space travel being a conspiracy and not existing?

In your rotating celestial sphere that you mentioned, is the local Sun the same diameter as the flat Earth plane? Or, do you believe the local Sun to be much smaller than the FE plane?     

[Action80]

From one of my original OP questions: curious to know if you are 100% confident that space travel doesn't exist and is a conspiracy OR do you have some doubts about space travel being a conspiracy and not existing?

In your rotating celestial sphere setup that you mention, is the local Sun the same diameter as the flat Earth plane?     

I am relatively confident that outer space travel does not exist.

While I believe the earth to be flat, I am unsure if it is in the form of a circle. I do not observe the sun to be equivalent to the diameter or breadth of the flat earth plane.

[mahogany]

From one of my original OP questions: curious to know if you are 100% confident that space travel doesn't exist and is a conspiracy OR do you have some doubts about space travel being a conspiracy and not existing?

In your rotating celestial sphere setup that you mention, is the local Sun the same diameter as the flat Earth plane?     

I am relatively confident that outer space travel does not exist.

While I believe the earth to be flat, I am unsure if it is in the form of a circle. I do not observe the sun to be equivalent to the diameter or breadth of the flat earth plane.

Thanks and I do appreciate your answer.

You had mentioned "Building a tower to heaven has always been the dream of man and this supposed space travel is simply another step in that practice" and that "Satan and his minions want to reoccupy their former seats near the throne."

My follow up question (out of curiosity) would be: does religion or do your religious beliefs play a factor in terms of supporting your relative confidence that space travel does not exist and your belief that the earth is a flat plane?

[Action80]

From one of my original OP questions: curious to know if you are 100% confident that space travel doesn't exist and is a conspiracy OR do you have some doubts about space travel being a conspiracy and not existing?

In your rotating celestial sphere setup that you mention, is the local Sun the same diameter as the flat Earth plane?     

I am relatively confident that outer space travel does not exist.

While I believe the earth to be flat, I am unsure if it is in the form of a circle. I do not observe the sun to be equivalent to the diameter or breadth of the flat earth plane.

Thanks and I do appreciate your answer.

You had mentioned "Building a tower to heaven has always been the dream of man and this supposed space travel is simply another step in that practice" and that "Satan and his minions want to reoccupy their former seats near the throne."

My follow up question (out of curiosity) would be: does religion or do your religious beliefs play a factor in terms of supporting your relative confidence that space travel does not exist and your belief that the earth is a flat plane?

No.

[AATW]

Space agencies have already admitted to fabricating images and altering the images released to the public.

Well, firstly, let's be careful about the word "fabricating". Space agencies do produce images which are intended to show what future missions may look like, or they're imaginings of what, say, exoplanets may look like. But, as you say, they're always clearly labelled as such so they're not evidence of anything underhand going on. They're not claiming they're real pictures of something.
As for altering yes, they admit they're producing composite images, they admit they're enhancing images. As I said, every time you take a panorama or use your phone's photo editing tools you are altering an image. That doesn't mean the image is fake.

The flat earth was the accepted model before the globe earth model.

Right. Like there being 4 elements - earth, water, fire, air - was an accepted model before we understood about real elements. Like Newton's model of gravity was the accepted model before Einstein. As we, as a species, have understood more about nature newer models have always replaced older ones. The globe earth model replaced the flat earth one - that happened thousands of years ago. The heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one. That happened centuries ago. But the point is when that happens the newer model replaces the older one because it's better - it makes predications, it fits better with what we observe.
 

[Action80]

Space agencies have already admitted to fabricating images and altering the images released to the public.

Well, firstly, let's be careful about the word "fabricating". Space agencies do produce images which are intended to show what future missions may look like, or they're imaginings of what, say, exoplanets may look like. But, as you say, they're always clearly labelled as such so they're not evidence of anything underhand going on. They're not claiming they're real pictures of something.
As for altering yes, they admit they're producing composite images, they admit they're enhancing images. As I said, every time you take a panorama or use your phone's photo editing tools you are altering an image. That doesn't mean the image is fake.

Why be careful when the word fabricate is exactly what they do. You wrote it yourself, naturally accompanied by the "they have my blessing," reasons.

The composites are stiched together to match whatever image the editors wish to produce.

The flat earth was the accepted model before the globe earth model.

Right. Like there being 4 elements - earth, water, fire, air - was an accepted model before we understood about real elements. Like Newton's model of gravity was the accepted model before Einstein. As we, as a species, have understood more about nature newer models have always replaced older ones. The globe earth model replaced the flat earth one - that happened thousands of years ago. The heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one. That happened centuries ago. But the point is when that happens the newer model replaces the older one because it's better - it makes predications, it fits better with what we observe.

Four elements?

I think you mean 4 states of matter.

No. It doesn't.

The flat earth works.

There is a sphere, but it is celestial. It is rotating above our heads.

[AATW]

Why be careful when the word fabricate is exactly what they do. You wrote it yourself, naturally accompanied by the "they have my blessing," reasons.

The implication in the way you're using the word is that they are creating fake images intended to fool you.
Creating visualisations of what they imagine exoplanets might look like, or of future missions, isn't deceptive so long as they clearly indicate that's what the image is. Which, as you said at the start, they do. You used the word "admitting" - even that word implies they're up to something. When they clearly mark visualisations as such that isn't an admission, it's just clarity and transparancy.

The composites are stitched together to match whatever image the editors wish to produce.

True up to a point, but in order to make a composite you have to have a series of photos of the object you're making a composite of. I visited the Grand Canyon some years back and I have some panoramas of where I was. Those are composite images, but in order to create that composite I had to be at the Grand Canyon. The images aren't faked.

Four elements?

I think you mean 4 states of matter.

I'm not sure I do.

https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/4270_The_Four_Elements.html

But in any case those aren't the 4 states of matter either, that model was replaced by a better one when a better one came along.

The flat earth works.

Does it, though?
It's not even possible to make a flat map with the known distances between cities being represented to a consistent scale.
There always has to be some distortion. Why? If the earth is flat then it should just be a matter of scaling down.

[Action80]

Why be careful when the word fabricate is exactly what they do. You wrote it yourself, naturally accompanied by the "they have my blessing," reasons.

The implication in the way you're using the word is that they are creating fake images intended to fool you.
Creating visualisations of what they imagine exoplanets might look like, or of future missions, isn't deceptive so long as they clearly indicate that's what the image is. Which, as you said at the start, they do. You used the word "admitting" - even that word implies they're up to something. When they clearly mark visualisations as such that isn't an admission, it's just clarity and transparancy.

These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.

The composites are stitched together to match whatever image the editors wish to produce.

True up to a point, but in order to make a composite you have to have a series of photos of the object you're making a composite of. I visited the Grand Canyon some years back and I have some panoramas of where I was. Those are composite images, but in order to create that composite I had to be at the Grand Canyon. The images aren't faked.

True up to all points. No half-assing it. The scans (not actual photos in the sense of point-and-shoot camera like here on earth) taken from high up are stiched together.

Four elements?

I think you mean 4 states of matter.

I'm not sure I do.

https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/4270_The_Four_Elements.html

But in any case those aren't the 4 states of matter either, that model was replaced by a better one when a better one came along.

Yeah, not important. They are the four states of matter, though.

The flat earth works.

Does it, though?
It's not even possible to make a flat map with the known distances between cities being represented to a consistent scale.
There always has to be some distortion. Why? If the earth is flat then it should just be a matter of scaling down.

The flat map exists. The supposed distances between various points on the earth are extrapolated only from the given travel times. The actual straight-line distances are not known as they are not able to be taken due to the methods used for long-distance travel where waypoints are not visible at ground level. The routes taken are the routes based on the celestial sphere routes that have transcribed down to the flat earth plane, routed by the star patterns overhead.

There is no distortion on any useful travel map.

A full world map is useless in this regard.

Your point is moot.

[BillO]

The routes taken are the routes based on the celestial sphere routes that have transcribed down to the flat earth plane, routed by the star patterns overhead.

This is interesting and quite a new concept to me.  I'm not a pilot nor an aircraft navigator.  Do you have an independent source you could share so that we can learn a bit more about it?

[mahogany]

Action80,

You mentioned that the flat earth works. Going back to my original OP question: if Antarctica is an outer ring around a flat earth plane, how does 24 hours of sunlight in Antarctica work all the way around the ring during the summer solstice months?