The part where I can watch it myself, twice in one evening, going in the same direction each time, and find that the time between each sighting matches the published orbit time. The part where nobody, but nobody, sees it going in the opposite direction. So, in order for it to get back to its starting point in my sky, it either has to turn around and go back (if the Earth is flat) or go around a globe, if the Earth is a globe. The fact that I don't see it vary in speed, trajectory, nor see any form of vapour or exhaust trail.
Do you seriously need circumnavigation on a flat Earth explained to you?
Added to that, the parts that scream space travel are, in short summary, the video of most every visiting craft approaching and leaving the ISS - shuttle, Soyuz, Dragon; the videos of Soyuz craft being relocated from one docking port to another; the amateurs on the ground who point ham radio gear at the sky and talk to the astronauts as they pass over; the fact that it always turns up, as predicted, on time, every time, for those who are photographing it in solar or lunar transit.
None of that fits with anything other than an orbital craft.
A bit of faked footage and a plane with a radio on would, but sure.
The real world is the facts, what it is you can directly observe or access.
... and that which others directly observe or access. Or are you saying the tree only falls in the forest if you see it fall?
Millions live in Tokyo. Millions have been to Tokyo. I have never observed or accessed Tokyo, other than via TV or similar. Does that mean Tokyo is not part of the 'real world'? No, it does not.
You are conflating facts with what you choose to draw from them. You think that because you are told those claims and videos are explained by space travel, that space travel is the only possible explanation. It's a bizarre tendency among REers I've seen on multiple topics: the same observation may have multiple explanations, yet so many REers struggle to grasp that.
OK, there's the video of the ISS above. Give us a plausible, realistic alternative explanation, preferably one with some tangible evidence to back it up.
Those people may be telling the truth or they may be liars, you need to justify your claim that they are truthful with more than empty insistence. I did so: I pointed out irregularities, odd coincidences, contradictions...
"irregularities, odd coincidences, contradictions" ... which nobody agrees with; and which exist only as your own thought experiments, without evidence to support them
As ever, you just blindly insist. You give things that you say are because of space travel, and refuse to ever justify it.
Justified above from my own observations and other supporting evidence.
Do you have any evidence of a superheated cylinder?
My issues are far more valid than your blind insistence; you repeat a bunch of stuff about the ISS, but as soon as I dare point out features of the space mission which don't line up suddenly it's meaningless. Funny how that works huh?
As I've said, I am not going to go through the how and why the moon formed and all the subsequent evidence on a whim. The fact I won't do so is literally in my sig, you're as capable as anyone of clicking and finding out for yourself, yet you accuse FEers of being lazy.
At this stage I don't think you even know what evidence is. You ask for a plausible, alternative explanation with evidence backing it up: given already, but let's hear your evidence for the ISS actually being in space. Wait, it's the same as what I'm menat to be giving an alternate explanation for. You are defaulting to RET, you are treating space travel as inherently true and putting every alternative at a disadvantage for no reason beyond insistence.
Test what? It's an object in the sky that a) has an odd shape and b) can be tracked. What part of that screams space travel to you?
Hang on, previously you said it was just a light in the sky. Now you're moving the goalposts.
The thing I'm asking you to test for yourself is that there is an object in the sky which can be tracked, is in the shape what NASA claim is the ISS and is where NASA says the ISS is when they say.
If you concede all that then fine, you don't need to test that.
But if you're going to say that space travel is not possible and it's fake then you have to have some coherent idea about what it actually is, otherwise it's just baseless denial.
I said 'a light in the sky does not a space station make.' What part of that sounded like I was giving a rigorous description of the object? Instead of jumping on every little semantic quirk to accuse me of moving the goalposts (which... not what that means), how about some actual discussion?
I can't give you the blueprints of it, but I shouldn't have to. If you see a bird in front of the moon and someone tells you it's in space, the default response is
not to just immediately believe them. Probably some kind of military plane, 'missions' to it serve as
aerial refuelling. Speculation? Sure, just as your claim that it's in space is. Being told something does not give it special weight.
So far, I have seen REs say something to the effect of, "I'd need to see some convincing evidence."
So far, I have seen FEs say something to the effect of, "I need to go to space and see it for myself."
Have I missed any responses?
Thork's the only one that said he'd have to go to space. I said i was happy just with evidence, and used public space travel as an indidvidual example to tie it into the discussion I was having.