[GoldCashew]

Other considerations and critical thought questions to Pongo's above ISS dirigible attached to a tether theory would be (but not be limited to):

- are there NOTAM's (Notice to Airmen) issued to pilots around the world to keep clear of the tether(s) or when said tether(s) are in the general airspace that would be traveling thousands of miles per hour?
- are pilots in on the ISS tether conspiracy or are all flights secretly coordinated by the Elite's so that flights miss the tether(s)? If yes, are Elite's also trained in the field of air traffic control?
- are there any pictures of the ISS tether(s) that exist?
- are the tether(s) constructed of some sort of stealth material so that when they are travelling in the atmosphere, they are hidden from pilots as well as the billions of people on the ground?
- is there any evidence that such tether technology was tested before being used to secure the ISS dirigible?
- did the Elite(s) and only specific NASA employees make secret trips to the North Pole to test the technology or was the testing done elsewhere to simulate a North Pole like climate?
- what do you think the tether(s) are made of?
- when the thousands of mile long tether(s) are moving in the atmosphere at thousands of miles per hour, are there any design considerations that the developers would have had to consider with respect to the tether(s) making any unforeseen noise, howling, or whistling?
- how thick are the tether(s) and what would the specific properties of the tether(s) need to be to hold the ISS, to move at over 17,000 miles per hour, and withstand the rigors of environment for the many years the ISS has been in service?
- how did the ISS dirigible reach the atmosphere when it was originally launched to then be able to move at over 17,000 miles per hour with tether(s) attached? How and where was it launched and what propelled it to the velocity at over 17,000 miles per hour?       

[JSS]

Could you imagine what the weight of a rope would be that would be heavy enough and long enough to restrain the space station in orbit?

This is an interesting question.  We could take a look at a lot of the space elevator tether research to get an idea of what could be theoretically possible. Carbon nanotubes come pretty close to the maximum strength of a material we might be able to produce in long segments someday.  That could probably be strong enough to fling a balloon around at 17,000 MPH. But it doesn't exist, yet.

It's hard to guess how long the tether needs to be as Pongo hasn't stated in his theory any distances and altitudes.

I'd say it's unlikely any current material is light and strong enough to perform such a feat. I don't think even spider silk could do it, but without any numbers to crunch it's all guesswork.

[RonJ]

I suppose you could have a bunch of that ‘dark energy’ bend back around the edge of the earth and then make a turn in the opposite direction again to provide the shove upwards to keep the space station aloft and keep the tension on the rope attached to the North Pole.  That would mean that the ‘dark energy’ has mass.  You can’t have a massless object A impart any kind of momentum to object B that does have mass.  The implication then is what other kind of force would be available to cause a change of direction of the ‘dark energy’? All that ‘dark energy’ would also have to be ‘smart’.  Forces would have to be constantly adjusted because the winds (and the swirling dark energy) would be constantly blowing on the space station’s restraining rope and would distort the orbit if not compensated for.  Can you imagine what the effects would be in the summertime with all the typhoons in the Pacific?  I can personally attest to their presence and effects that can happen in the atmosphere.  There have never been any reports of turbulence caused by the ’dark energy’ to aircraft traveling to and from the research stations in the Antarctic. Surely there would be some swirling of that energy as it passes by the edge of the ‘flat earth’.  Try dragging a flat plate thru some water to see what happens at the edge of the plate.  I think that there’s just too many problems with the ‘theory of dark energy’ for it to have any credence at all and it needs to be revised.  Perhaps someone with plenty of education could be put to work.   

[Pongo]

There’s a small problem with the contention that the space station is anchored to the North Pole under the flat earth theory.  That’s the fallacy of the earth’s upward acceleration to ‘simulate’ gravity.  In order for the space station to maintain a tension on a rope attached to the North Pole there would have to be a rocket engine on the space station to also maintain an upwards acceleration.  I’ve never seen any evidence of a rocket exhaust in any of the pictures.  Clearly there’s humans aboard the space station because I’ve personally heard them on the HAM radio frequencies.

By this logic birthday balloons would not stay afloat. The dirigible-station sails the upper bounds of the atmoplain like a ship anchored in a bay.

The difference being that in the ISS dirigible theory, the dirigible is traveling at over 17,000 miles per hour, is tied to tether(s) that would have to withstand 17,000 mph movement in upper atmosphere and the forces of the dirigible pulling in it, is being moved and steared by a force that would need to be defined, is attached to tethers that would have to be thousands and thousands of miles in length, and that would somehow need a plan for servicing said tether(s) if said tether(s) were to break or become damaged. Additionally, what would be the method of servicing such tethers without the billions of people on the ground knowing. Lastly, how would employees at NASA be mistaken that the ISS is orbiting the Earth vs. the ISS as a dirigible attached to tether(s)? They would be monitoring the ISS and not realize it's actually a dirigible with tether(s) attached?

Round-earthers say it’s moving at 17K mph. I’m not exactly sure how fast it’s moving but if it were closer then it wouldn’t have to move nearly as fast. 

[DuncanDoenitz]

Wrong ; it would have to "move nearly as fast".  It should be fairly obvious that, regardless of altitude, it completes an orbit every 90 minutes or so, that's equivalent to the length of the equator. 

Currently (22.00 UTC 21 April) over the southern ocean due south of Africa, in the next 90 minutes it will cross east of Madagascar, Myanmar, China, Kamchatka, the Aleutians, off the entire west coast of the Americas, cross Chile, Argentina and the South Atlantic to pass, again, off the southern tip of Africa. 

So tell us how much slower it is travelling. 

[DuncanDoenitz]

And can we have a little more clarity on the dirigible?  Further to the questions from other posters;

If its an ISS-shaped dirigible, it must have buoyancy.  How? 
Does it have sufficient volume to displace its own mass in atmosphere? 
Is it in the atmosphere?
Is it self propelled? 

[stack]

Regardless of the shape of the earth, at ground level to chase the sun one full revolution you’d have to be traveling at approximately 1000 MPH for 24 hours. Doable for let’s say some hi-tech blimp I suppose. But now you have to do the same thing in just an hour and a half. On land, to make one full revolution in 90 minutes, you’d have to be going something like 16x faster, or around 16,000 MPH. Rise in altitude, farther to travel, more speed required. Let me know if my math is wrong.

[RonJ]

If you want something else to contemplate, then give the following some thought.  The path over the ground of the space station is well known and can be verified by those on the ground.  At any particular time, there is a zenith point where if someone was on the ground at that zenith point the space station would pass directly overhead at a 90-degree angle.  Now you could assume that you could stay in that same location and see the space station pass directly overhead about 90 minutes later.  However, you would be wrong.  On a flat earth map the known path of the zenith points wouldn’t be in a circle.  That would mean that there would have to be a winch on the north pole to constantly adjust the rope length in or out to maintain the known orbit.  Maybe NASA has control of that?  Perhaps Santa is providing the facilities for that equipment?   Perhaps the most well educated flat earther has some additional knowledge that could be passed on to provide us some more interesting insights. 

[Pongo]

Regardless of the shape of the earth, at ground level to chase the sun one full revolution you’d have to be traveling at approximately 1000 MPH for 24 hours. Doable for let’s say some hi-tech blimp I suppose. But now you have to do the same thing in just an hour and a half. On land, to make one full revolution in 90 minutes, you’d have to be going something like 16x faster, or around 16,000 MPH. Rise in altitude, farther to travel, more speed required. Let me know if my math is wrong.

Well, I am still researching this so I didn't want to prematurely mention it, but I suspect that there are multiple dirigibles. As they move around some can "go dark" and not be visible. The "space station" is not always visible. Even round-earthers agree that you can't see it in day time. Plus there is no need to fly the dirigibles on cloudy nights. So with only a few windows of opportunity (night time, clear skies, outside of a high-light metropolitan area) mixed with having the right equipment to even see the dirigible there are only a handful of people at any given time who can confirm its existence. This severely limits the times and places where the dirigible needs to appear and with multiple dirigibles the illusion can be easily achieved.

On top of all that, if anyone here were to get the proper equipment, go out into a desolate field on a clear night and look for the "space station" and fail to find it? You would 100% chalk it up to user error. Tell me you wouldn't.

[DuncanDoenitz]

No, I wouldn't. 

What ""user error"? Not having the right equipment?  Eyes not working? 

Every time I've looked for it; its been there.  Like the Sun.  Every time.  Anywhere in the world. 

You really need to give this more effort. Cloudy nights?  Like its cloudy everywhere at the same time?  I've even seen it from an airliner. 

[Tumeni]

Round-earthers say it’s moving at 17K mph.

... which is entirely consistent with both the stated orbital height, and duration of orbit.

I've seen it twice in an evening, on more than one occasion; each appearance separated by 90 mins or so. Calculate the length of orbit, based on stated speed, height and textbook radius of Earth, and you arrive at an orbital time of around 90 mins.

It's also consistent with the first orbital satellite, Sputnik 1, which was not only seen, but heard, as folks on the ground both watched it and listened to its beep-beep radio transmission. Accounts of what people saw and heard also mention an orbital time of around 90 mins, implying similar speed.

[Pongo]

Round-earthers say it’s moving at 17K mph.

... which is entirely consistent with both the stated orbital height, and duration of orbit.

I've seen it twice in an evening, on more than one occasion; each appearance separated by 90 mins or so. Calculate the length of orbit, based on stated speed, height and textbook radius of Earth, and you arrive at an orbital time of around 90 mins.

It's also consistent with the first orbital satellite, Sputnik 1, which was not only seen, but heard, as folks on the ground both watched it and listened to its beep-beep radio transmission. Accounts of what people saw and heard also mention an orbital time of around 90 mins, implying similar speed.

How do you know it was the same object? What if they are like busses timed to pass by every 90 min?

[Tumeni]

How do you know it was the same object? What if ...

The overwhelming preponderence of evidence supporting it, and the total lack of any firm evidence to show that it could be anything else.

Do you have anything in support of your "What if ..."

[Pongo]

How do you know it was the same object? What if ...

The overwhelming preponderence of evidence supporting it, and the total lack of any firm evidence to show that it could be anything else.

Do you have anything in support of your "What if ..."

It would just explain everything in a way that fits neatly with already established flat-earth facts.

[JSS]

Well, I am still researching this so I didn't want to prematurely mention it, but I suspect that there are multiple dirigibles. As they move around some can "go dark" and not be visible. The "space station" is not always visible. Even round-earthers agree that you can't see it in day time.

No we do not agree. What is your source on this?

I can see the ISS during a bright and sunny day, I've even taken pictures of it as have many others. This is easily proven.

You can't even make the ISS go dark because it will pass in front of both the Sun and the Moon and be visible no matter how dark you make it. Even painting it with Vanta Black isn't going to help hide it's silhouette.

[SteelyBob]

It would just explain everything in a way that fits neatly with already established flat-earth facts.

It doesn't really fit with anything at all, and there aren't any agreed 'facts' in the FE community, other than that the earth is flat. There is no agreement on even basic stuff like the layout of the north and south poles, or the approximate size of the various continents, or the distance between us and the moon or sun.

Your theory is an extension of the 'space travel conspiracy', and fails for numerous reasons, not least of which is the enormous number of people, working in complete secrecy, that would be required to perpetuate the illusion. You can see the ISS with your bare eyes, and you can see its form with very basic equipment - it is clearly not a 'tethered dirigible'. Where is the tether? How is it staying aloft? How does it travel so quickly?

You appear to be just waving around 'it might be x' type sentences, whilst dismissing the most obvious, which is that it might just be a large space station orbiting the earth, precisely as advertised. Is that not less absurd than multiple large tethered dirigibles operated by a team of secret engineers, who never spill the beans, despite the absurdity of their job?

[stack]

Regardless of the shape of the earth, at ground level to chase the sun one full revolution you’d have to be traveling at approximately 1000 MPH for 24 hours. Doable for let’s say some hi-tech blimp I suppose. But now you have to do the same thing in just an hour and a half. On land, to make one full revolution in 90 minutes, you’d have to be going something like 16x faster, or around 16,000 MPH. Rise in altitude, farther to travel, more speed required. Let me know if my math is wrong.

Well, I am still researching this so I didn't want to prematurely mention it, but I suspect that there are multiple dirigibles. As they move around some can "go dark" and not be visible. The "space station" is not always visible. Even round-earthers agree that you can't see it in day time. Plus there is no need to fly the dirigibles on cloudy nights. So with only a few windows of opportunity (night time, clear skies, outside of a high-light metropolitan area) mixed with having the right equipment to even see the dirigible there are only a handful of people at any given time who can confirm its existence. This severely limits the times and places where the dirigible needs to appear and with multiple dirigibles the illusion can be easily achieved.

On top of all that, if anyone here were to get the proper equipment, go out into a desolate field on a clear night and look for the "space station" and fail to find it? You would 100% chalk it up to user error. Tell me you wouldn't.

I took part in a thought experiment over on the other site on how to fake the ISS. We came up with the same thing, multiple identical objects (we came up with "planes", not dirigibles). But we got stumped at how you transition from one to another without being noticed. Along with refueling concerns.

And you can see the ISS, or whatever it is, during the daytime.


Using only an eight-inch telescope and a video camera, astronomer Scott Ferguson was able to capture images of the ISS with the docked Atlantis orbiter over an hour after sunrise. His only trick, besides experience in astrophotograpy, was specialized software to predict the position of the space station

[Pete Svarrior]

I can use specialised software to see much more than a magical space station. Be bold, name what you'd like to see. Specialised software will sort it out.

[GoldCashew]

I can use specialised software to see much more than a magical space station. Be bold, name what you'd like to see. Specialised software will sort it out.

With Scott Ferguson's observation, specialized software wasn't used to "see" the ISS. It was used to predict the position of the ISS.

His observation and images of the ISS were taken using an eight-inch telescope and a video camera. There isn't anything of a magical space station (as you put it) or being bold and naming what you'd like to see.   

The magical part I think we are trying to figure out and question is Pongo's theory that the ISS is a dirigible attached with tether(s).

[Pete Svarrior]

With Scott Ferguson's observation, specialized software wasn't used to "see" the ISS. It was used to predict the position of the ISS.

Prove it.