[Tom Bishop]

The world is merely mistaken that the earth is a globe. This mistake took root in Ancient Greece when it was decided that the earth was a globe based on three casual observations -- the sinking ship effect, the observation that the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and the observation that Polaris descends as you travel southward (Later to be addressed as fallacy in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham). These beliefs took hold and were passed down from generation to generation, brainwashed into children from the cradle. Scientific interpretations about the world are skewed under the dogma of a round earth, and elaborate phenomena and explanations are invented whenever an observation contradicts the status quo.

Astronomy

Astronomers observe the heavens and interpret, just as the Astrologer does. There is no real proof for their theories. The universe is not put under controlled conditions to come the the truth of a matter. The necessity of controlled experimentation is denied entirely. A Chemist is expected to create controlled tests to determine a truth. But Stephen Hawking gets away with building theory upon theory, a house of cards model of the universe which "stands on the shoulders of giants". Hawking performs zero experimentation on the universe before coming up with a theory like the metric expansion of space.

Historic parallax observations which compute the sun to be millions of miles distant on a Round Earth also say that it is thousands of miles distant under the interpretation of a flat one. The theory of gravity doesn't seem to work at large distances in space, causing the necessity for elaborate Dark Matter and Dark Energy theories which comprise 98% of the universe. The lunar eclipse and other celestial events are predicted by the analyzing patterns of past observations -- the same way the Ancient Babylonians, a Flat Earth society, predicted them.

Geodesy

Geodesists are said to study the shape of the earth, but if one looks at their journals they will find that they do nothing but look at certain phenomena and interpret how it works on a Round Earth. The levels of g are slightly different at different locations, so the Geodesist declares that the earth is not perfectly round. Not really the level of inquiry we are looking for here.

Piloting

Pilots fly on preplanned routes to their location and do not require the earth to be any shape. There is not enough data from airline flights to fully map the earth by analyzing aircraft logs, as no one really goes the "long way" around the earth, for obvious reasons, and a Flat Earth map can take many configurations to explain the limited results.

Satellite Communication Companies

Satellite communication companies aren't in the business of putting satellites into orbit. Do you think Direct TV has launch capabilities and access to restricted orbital rocket technologies which are 98% similar to an ICBM? They rely on the government putting up communication satellites for them and giving them a way to feed in their signal.

NASA

NASA is mistaken as to the earth's shape as well. There is a conspiracy, but it is not to hide the shape of the earth. NASA is not running a real space agency, so they wouldn't know what shape the earth truly takes. Since sustained space travel is not possible, there was a necessity to fake it. The earth is depicted as a globe in their media because that's what everyone expected to see at the time of NASA's creation.

The motivation is simple. NASA must exist for reasons of national security. Having the ability to launch rockets into orbit also means the ability to put weapons into orbit and obliterate any country at the push of a button. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to sustain America's military domination of space.

Following WWII the race to space lasted for 12 years, with one infamous failure and rocket disaster after another. Don't you think it's a coincidence that within three months of the USSR claiming to have launched Sputnik into orbit, the US claimed to put a satellite into orbit as well?

[garygreen]

Astronomers observe the heavens and interpret, just as the Astrologer does. There is no real proof for their theories. The universe is not put under controlled conditions to come the the truth of a matter. The necessity of controlled experimentation is denied entirely.

this is not correct.  virtually all of modern astronomy is founded on spectral analysis, and blackbody spectra most certainly can be studied under laboratory conditions.  this is a good example of what i was saying recently about demonstrating at least some command of the subject you're criticizing. 

if you don't understand the actual evidence and reasoning that astronomers use to justify their claims, then how can you ever be sure that your criticism is valid?

[Tom Bishop]

this is not correct.  virtually all of modern astronomy is founded on spectral analysis, and blackbody spectra most certainly can be studied under laboratory conditions.  this is a good example of what i was saying recently about demonstrating at least some command of the subject you're criticizing. 

Spectral analysis of celestial bodies is also merely observing and interpreting. There is no controlled experimentation. Unless, you are claiming that astronomers have recreated a star of a known composition and have studied its light from a distance to compare readings with. They obviously have not done that.

Laboratories cannot recreate stellar conditions. Stellar Fusion in itself is a complete hypothesis. There is no control in those experiments.

if you don't understand the actual evidence and reasoning that astronomers use to justify their claims, then how can you ever be sure that your criticism is valid?

I actually understand the evidence and reasoning very well.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Pilots fly on preplanned routes to their location and do not require the earth to be any shape. There is not enough data from airline flights to fully map the earth by analyzing aircraft logs, as no one really goes the "long way" around the earth, for obvious reasons, and a Flat Earth map can take many configurations to explain the limited results.

Let me get this straight... you think pilots fly all over the world on preplanned routes (who planned the routes??), that they just blindly follow? You think they don't notice that their routes make zero sense according to all maps? You think they don't notice that their flight times make zero sense according to all maps?

How inconceivably blind and stupid do you think pilots are? As completely implausible as it is that every single airline company is a part of some global conspiracy, it is waaaay more implausible that they are successfully operating an international airline company without accurate maps.

[Tom Bishop]

Pilots fly on preplanned routes to their location and do not require the earth to be any shape. There is not enough data from airline flights to fully map the earth by analyzing aircraft logs, as no one really goes the "long way" around the earth, for obvious reasons, and a Flat Earth map can take many configurations to explain the limited results.

Let me get this straight... you think pilots fly all over the world on preplanned routes (who planned the routes??), that they just blindly follow? You think they don't notice that their routes make zero sense according to all maps? You think they don't notice that their flight times make zero sense according to all maps?

How inconceivably blind and stupid do you think pilots are? As completely implausible as it is that every single airline company is a part of some global conspiracy, it is waaaay more implausible that they are successfully operating an international airline company without accurate maps.

International flights all follow pre-planned routes, yes. These routes are limited, and can often require several hops to reach a destination. They travel the same routes over and over again. They do not simply decide "hey passengers, lets travel over Antarctica this time!" That is ridiculous and needs no further explanation for why that is not the case.

[rabinoz]

The world is merely mistaken that the earth is a globe. This mistake took root in Ancient Greece when it was decided that the earth was a globe based on three casual observations -- the sinking ship effect, the observation that the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and the observation that Polaris descends as you travel southward (All addressed as fallacy in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham). These beliefs took hold and were passed down from generation to generation, brainwashed into children from the cradle. Scientific interpretations about the world are skewed unter the dogma of a round earth, and elaborate phenomena and explanations are invented whenever an observation contradicts the status quo.

This post is no more than "Tom Bishop" in his infinite wisdom says.

I can't tackle all of on just a tablet, so I'll just look at one aspect.

Geodesy

Geodesists are said to study the shape of the earth, but if one looks at their journals they will find that they do nothing but look at certain subjects and declare how it works on a Round Earth. The levels of g are slightly different at different locations, so the Geodesist declares that the earth is not perfectly round. Not really the level of inquiry we are looking for here.

How Geodetic Surveyors Prove that the Earth is not Flat

One of the main tasks of geodetic surveyors is to map out large areas of land, whole countries.
This is where I claim geodetic surveyors prove that the earth is not flat. Nothing fancy or esoteric, just measuring the dimensions of countries along with the latitude and longitude of the accurately positioned survey points. Results of these measurements are summarised in various survey maps.

I have good copies of an Australian map published in 1855, and a USA Topographical Survey of 1887. These gave quite a lot of information regarding the width of one degree of longitude at various latitudes, but to fill in gaps in the Southern Hemisphere I used a scan of a Times Atlas. I would not expect the same accuracy of a derived map, covering such a large North-South range, such as this, but the agreement is still quite good.

Details of this are found in this post Re: Latitudinal lines south of equator « Reply #4 on: August 04, 2016, 04:58:07 AM »

These were the maps used:

Map of Australia 1855

USA Topographcial Survey-1887

South America Times Atlas

And the results can be summarised as:

The following table gives the width of one degree (under the heading "km/deg") at various latitudes in both the northern and southern hemispheres, the circumference of the earth (the distance for 360°) from the map reading at each latitude, the circumference at that latitude based on a spherical earth (yes, I know it's not a perfect sphere!) and the circumference at that latitude based on a Flat Earth Ice Wall Map.

The "Flat Earth Circumference @ Latitude" is based on the 24,900 mile overall diameter of the "known earth" as in the Wiki, The Ice Wall. The circumferences are then simple "pro-rated" as the meridians on the "FE Ice Wall map" are simply radial lines.

Latitude		km/deg @ Lat		Map Circum@Lat		Ideal Globe Circum@lat		Flat Earth Map Circum@lat		Source of "map data"
51.0°		70.3 km/deg		25,300 km		25,200 km		27,400 km		US 1887 map
43.0°		81.7 km/deg		29,400 km		29,300 km		33,000 km		US 1887 map
35.0°		91.4 km/deg		32,900 km		32,800 km		38,600 km		US 1887 map
0.0°		109.7 km/deg		39,500 km		40,100 km		63,200 km		Times Atlas map
-20.0°		102.1 km/deg		36,700 km		37,700 km		77,200 km		Times Atlas map
-34.0°		92.0 km/deg		33,200 km		33,200 km		87,100 km		1855 Australian map
-45.0°		79.2 km/deg		28,300 km		28,300 km		94,800 km		Times Atlas map
-55.0°		65.5 km/deg		23,600 km		23,000 km		101,800 km		Times Atlas map

The 1887 US survey map and the 1855 Australian map are very high resolution accurate maps, but the Times Atlas is not such a large scale and not as accurate. Also the figures are scaled (quite accurately) from scanned paper maps, so very high accuracy is not expected. Nevertheless most of the circumferences are within 1% of the expected value for the globe (The "Times Atlas" is a bit out at high southern latitudes - not unexpected for a flat map).

I would claim that the measurements shown on these maps are quite consistent with a Globe, but bear no relation the expected measurements for a flat earth.

I have enough personal experience driving around Australia to be quite confident of the accuracy there. Possibly US or other readers might like to give some comments about their own country.  No great accuracy is needed, as the differences are quite large even in the Northern Hemisphere, becoming quite massive from the equator south.

This is where geodetic surveyors prove that the earth is a globe,
not so much in any curvature measurement's - though they do that too, but that's another story.

[rabinoz]

Pilots fly on preplanned routes to their location and do not require the earth to be any shape. There is not enough data from airline flights to fully map the earth by analyzing aircraft logs, as no one really goes the "long way" around the earth, for obvious reasons, and a Flat Earth map can take many configurations to explain the limited results.

Let me get this straight... you think pilots fly all over the world on preplanned routes (who planned the routes??), that they just blindly follow? You think they don't notice that their routes make zero sense according to all maps? You think they don't notice that their flight times make zero sense according to all maps?

How inconceivably blind and stupid do you think pilots are? As completely implausible as it is that every single airline company is a part of some global conspiracy, it is waaaay more implausible that they are successfully operating an international airline company without accurate maps.

International flights all follow pre-planned routes, yes. They travel the same routes over and over again. They do not simply decide "hey passengers, lets travel over Antarctica this time!" That is ridiculous and needs no further explanation for why that is not the case.

Of course they are preplanned, but the routes are usually close to Great Circle routes on the Globe, and these are completely different from the shortest flat earth distances, and usually nothing like a straight line on a Mercator Projection, as many flat earthers seem to think.

In the Southern Hemisphere the direct (non-stop) flights between Sydney (Australia) to/from Santiago (Chile) and Johannesburg (South Africa) would not be possible with the shortest Flat Earth routes, but those routes are flown regularly by QANTAS.

I'll have plenty to add on your "pre-planned routes" later!

[Tom Bishop]

Of course they are preplanned, but the routes are usually close to Great Circle routes on the Globe, and these are completely different from the shortest flat earth distances, and usually nothing like a straight line on a Mercator Projection, as many flat earthers seem to think.

In the Southern Hemisphere the direct (non-stop) flights between Sydney (Australia) to/from Santiago (Chile) and Johannesburg (South Africa) would not be possible with the shortest Flat Earth routes, but those routes are flown regularly by QANTAS.

I'll have plenty to add on your "pre-planned routes" later!

The chapter on Great Circles here in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za47.htm

[rabinoz]

Of course they are preplanned, but the routes are usually close to Great Circle routes on the Globe, and these are completely different from the shortest flat earth distances, and usually nothing like a straight line on a Mercator Projection, as many flat earthers seem to think.

In the Southern Hemisphere the direct (non-stop) flights between Sydney (Australia) to/from Santiago (Chile) and Johannesburg (South Africa) would not be possible with the shortest Flat Earth routes, but those routes are flown regularly by QANTAS.

I'll have plenty to add on your "pre-planned routes" later!

The chapter on Great Circles here in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za47.htm

Really! I think QANTAS and the other international airlines know a lot more about Great Circle routes than Rowbotham!

For example:

• QANTAS flight QF28 flew from Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia in 13 hrs 45 min (on May 6) and the Great Circle distance is 11,353 km
  
  
  Flight QF28 Santiago to Sydney
  
  

  This what that route would look like on a North Polar Equidistant Azimuthal Map
  
  Santiago to Sydney on Gleason's map - weird, it flies over San Francisco!
  
  
• QANTAS flight QF63 flew Sydney, Australia to Johannesburg, South Africa in 13 hrs 29 min (on May 6) and the Great Circle distance is 11,036 km
  
  
  Flight QF63 Sydney to Johannesburg
  
  
• South African Airways flight SA223 flew Sao Paulo (GRU), Brazil to Johannesburg (JNB), South Africa in 7 hrs 58 min (on May 9) and the Great Circle distance is 7,447 km
  
  
  Flight SA223 Sao Paulo to Johannesburg

I know that the shortest Sydney-Santiago distance on the Gleason''s map (which is the same projection as the "Ice Wall" map is about 25,400 km.
This is far outside the range of a 747-400 and the average speed needed to cover 25,400 km in 13 hrs 45 min is almost 1,850 km/hr - need I say more?
Note that the West to East flight take a little different route, and take about an hour less.

Thousands of people take these flights, so there is no way that anyone can claim that they don't exist.

These distances and times do not fit the Flat Earth map. Anyone living in the Southern Hemisphere can easily see that the distances on the Flat Earth Map are completely wrong!

[inquisitive]

Finally Tom agrees that satellites exist.

[Tom Bishop]

Rabinoz, I support the Bi-Polar model, so I don't know what you are trying to prove to me there.

[rabinoz]

Rabinoz, I support the Bi-Polar model, so I don't know what you are trying to prove to me there. So the various Flat Earth Societies still can't agree on the shape of the flat earth, how interesting? And, Rowbotham was completely wrong on this! But if Rowbotham was so much in error on the very layout of the continents on the flat earth, how are we to know when his other explanations are valid and when they are not? But really, the bipolar map has more ridiculous shapes of continents than the "Ice-Wall" map. Another alternative model descripting Antarctica as a distinct continent. There is still an "ice wall" in this model, but it not Antarctica. Beyond the rays of the sun the waters will naturally freeze. Australia, USA and Canada are certainly not that shape.

That map raises many more questions than it answers, such as why would QANTAS fly across the Pacific from Sydney to Santiago, when it would be far closer to fly across Antarctica to South Africa?
How did Magellan sail across the Pacific to the Philipines?

I think it best if you refer to some written material on this quite different Flat Earth model, otherwise you will be wasting your time answering numerous questions.
Obvious questions that need answering include:

What is the path and height of the sun in this model? Especially before, at and after an equinox.

How is the latitude and longitude determined from the sun path? We know that they can be determined once we have an accurate time.

What is the diameter of this Flat Earth?

How does one determine directions (North, South, East and West) in a way that fits with the known locations of the Magnetic Poles?

Undoubtedly many more questions will arise,
so if you point me to a good write-up, I'll keep out of your way (on this topic) for a while.

[George]

So the various Flat Earth Societies still can't agree on the shape of the flat earth, how interesting?

We support the free expression of ideas.  Suppressing this in favor of simply putting forward a unified front is contrary to the principles of zeteticism.

But really, the bipolar map has more ridiculous shapes of continents than the "Ice-Wall" map.

...

Australia, USA and Canada are certainly not that shape.

Yes, that's because the map is based on a projection of a supposed RE, and obviously that's going to be distorted when you turn that into a flat map.  Nobody is claiming that it's perfect.  It's just a rough representation of what the earth looks like.

[inquisitive]

So the various Flat Earth Societies still can't agree on the shape of the flat earth, how interesting?

We support the free expression of ideas.  Suppressing this in favor of simply putting forward a unified front is contrary to the principles of zeteticism.

But really, the bipolar map has more ridiculous shapes of continents than the "Ice-Wall" map.

...

Australia, USA and Canada are certainly not that shape.

Yes, that's because the map is based on a projection of a supposed RE, and obviously that's going to be distorted when you turn that into a flat map.  Nobody is claiming that it's perfect.  It's just a rough representation of what the earth looks like.

So if this FE map is based on a projection of a supposed RE, which measurements are correct and which are not? What is the scale of the map?

[geckothegeek]

If this website was not a "spoof" the shape of the earth would not be a topic of discussion. For the truth of the matter is, the earth is a globe, and all the  supposed "flat earth models" (bipolar included) are merely projections of the GLOBE. But,dear reader, after all , this IS THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY website......LOL....

[geckothegeek]

The world is merely mistaken that the earth is a globe. This mistake took root in Ancient Greece when it was decided that the earth was a globe based on three casual observations -- the sinking ship effect, the observation that the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and the observation that Polaris descends as you travel southward (All addressed as fallacy in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham). These beliefs took hold and were passed down from generation to generation, brainwashed into children from the cradle. Scientific interpretations about the world are skewed unter the dogma of a round earth, and elaborate phenomena and explanations are invented whenever an observation contradicts the status quo.

This post is no more than "Tom Bishop" in his infinite wisdom says.

I can't tackle all of on just a tablet, so I'll just look at one aspect.

Geodesy

Geodesists are said to study the shape of the earth, but if one looks at their journals they will find that they do nothing but look at certain subjects and declare how it works on a Round Earth. The levels of g are slightly different at different locations, so the Geodesist declares that the earth is not perfectly round. Not really the level of inquiry we are looking for here.

How Geodetic Surveyors Prove that the Earth is not Flat

One of the main tasks of geodetic surveyors is to map out large areas of land, whole countries.
This is where I claim geodetic surveyors prove that the earth is not flat. Nothing fancy or esoteric, just measuring the dimensions of countries along with the latitude and longitude of the accurately positioned survey points. Results of these measurements are summarised in various survey maps.

I have good copies of an Australian map published in 1855, and a USA Topographcial Survey of 1887. These gave quite a lot of information regarding the width of one degree of longitude at various latitudes, but to fill in gaps in the Southern Hemisphere I used a scan of a Times Atlas. I would not expect the same accuracy of a derived map, covering such a large North-South range, such as this, but the agreement is still quite good.

Details of this are found in this post Re: Latitudinal lines south of equator « Reply #4 on: August 04, 2016, 04:58:07 AM »

These were the maps used:

Map of Australia 1855

USA Topographcial Survey-1887

South America Times Atlas

And the results can be summarised as:

The following table gives the width of one degree (under the heading "km/deg") at various latitudes in both the northern and southern hemispheres, the circumference of the earth (the distance for 360°) from the map reading at each latitude, the circumference at that latitude based on a spherical earth (yes, I know it's not a perfect sphere!) and the circumference at that latitude based on a Flat Earth Ice Wall Map.

The "Flat Earth Circumference @ Latitude" is based on the 24,900 mile overall diameter of the "known earth" as in the Wiki, The Ice Wall. The circumferences are then simple "pro-rated" as the meridians on the "FE Ice Wall map" are simply radial lines.

Latitude		km/deg @ Lat		Map Circum@Lat		Ideal Globe Circum@lat		Flat Earth Map Circum@lat		Source of "map data"
51.0°		70.3 km/deg		25,300 km		25,200 km		27,400 km		US 1887 map
43.0°		81.7 km/deg		29,400 km		29,300 km		33,000 km		US 1887 map
35.0°		91.4 km/deg		32,900 km		32,800 km		38,600 km		US 1887 map
0.0°		109.7 km/deg		39,500 km		40,100 km		63,200 km		Times Atlas map
-20.0°		102.1 km/deg		36,700 km		37,700 km		77,200 km		Times Atlas map
-34.0°		92.0 km/deg		33,200 km		33,200 km		87,100 km		1855 Australian map
-45.0°		79.2 km/deg		28,300 km		28,300 km		94,800 km		Times Atlas map
-55.0°		65.5 km/deg		23,600 km		23,000 km		101,800 km		Times Atlas map

The 1887 US survey map and the 1855 Australian map are very high resolution accurate maps, but the Times Atlas is not such a large scale and not as accurate. Also the figures are scaled (quite accurately) from scanned paper maps, so very high accuracy is not expected. Nevertheless most of the circumferences are within 1% of the expected value for the globe (The "Times Atlas" is a bit out at high southern latitudes - not unexpected for a flat map).

I would claim that the measurements shown on these maps are quite consistent with a Globe, but bear no relation the expected measurements for a flat earth.

I have enough personal experience driving around Australia to be quite confident of the accuracy there. Possibly US or other readers might like to give some comments about their own country.  No great accuracy is needed, as the differences are quite large even in the Northern Hemsphere, becoming quite massive from the equator south.

This is where geodetic surveyors prove that the earth is a globe, not so much in any curvature measurement's - though they do that too, but that's another story.

Complete nonsense ?

[Rounder]

Rabinoz, I support the Bi-Polar model, so I don't know what you are trying to prove to me there.

Please draw the sun's path over a schizophrenic earth.

[Rounder]

So the various Flat Earth Societies still can't agree on the shape of the flat earth, how interesting?

We support the free expression of ideas.  Suppressing this in favor of simply putting forward a unified front is contrary to the principles of zeteticism.

Supporting free expression is great, but here's the thing: the earth has ONLY ONE true shape.  You don't see a bunch of personal RE models, but everybody on the FE side seems to be developing a new model, slightly or vastly different from each other.  Why do you suppose that is?  Each new FE model attempts to accomodate one observed flaw in the Gleason flat earth, but the problem is that each attempt introduces more problems than it solves.  The bipolar map has so many points of disagreement with observation that I can't remember what it was trying to solve. 

But really, the bipolar map has more ridiculous shapes of continents than the "Ice-Wall" map.
...
Australia, USA and Canada are certainly not that shape.

Yes, that's because the map is based on a projection of a supposed RE, and obviously that's going to be distorted when you turn that into a flat map.  Nobody is claiming that it's perfect.  It's just a rough representation of what the earth looks like.

Wrong, wrong!  If the earth is actually flat, and paper is actually flat, you should be able to PERFECTLY represent the actual shapes of the flat continents on a flat paper!  The fact that it cannot be done should be enough, all by itself, to make people question the flat earth model(s)

[George]

Supporting free expression is great, but here's the thing: the earth has ONLY ONE true shape.  You don't see a bunch of personal RE models, but everybody on the FE side seems to be developing a new model, slightly or vastly different from each other.  Why do you suppose that is?  Each new FE model attempts to accomodate one observed flaw in the Gleason flat earth, but the problem is that each attempt introduces more problems than it solves.  The bipolar map has so many points of disagreement with observation that I can't remember what it was trying to solve.

FET is still in its infancy.  Perhaps in time, most of us will agree that the science supports one model.

Wrong, wrong!  If the earth is actually flat, and paper is actually flat, you should be able to PERFECTLY represent the actual shapes of the flat continents on a flat paper!  The fact that it cannot be done should be enough, all by itself, to make people question the flat earth model(s)

I didn't say we couldn't.  We just haven't at this point in time.

[garygreen]

Spectral analysis of celestial bodies is also merely observing and interpreting. There is no controlled experimentation. Unless, you are claiming that astronomers have recreated a star of a known composition and have studied its light from a distance to compare readings with. They obviously have not done that.

the components of stars (atoms and light) and the effects of their interactions (blackbody spectra) can be, have been, and continue to be, studied in laboratory conditions.  the interaction between light and matter can be studied in a laboratory.  blackbody spectra can be studied in a laboratory.  the relationship between those two things can be studied in a laboratory.  for example: the relationship between color and temperature; or, the relationship between absorption lines and chemical composition.  the latter was used to discover helium.  how odd that such a worthless science with no truth to it was able to accurately predict the existence of an element.

Laboratories cannot recreate stellar conditions. Stellar Fusion in itself is a complete hypothesis. There is no control in those experiments.

spectroscopy doesn't really have anything to do with fusion, nor does it rely on nuclear fusion to explain how or why it works.  astronomers were using spectra to understand things like the composition and temperature of stars long before they had any explanations for for the causes of those properties.

I actually understand the evidence and reasoning very well.

if you say so.