The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: AvalonMoreau on April 28, 2018, 11:43:03 AM
-
So this is what I don't get. When Flat-earthers state that the shape of the earth is a disc, and that its not and never was a sphere, not only the 18,000 people working at Nasa are bold-faced lying to everyone, but the 100,000 people working in Chinas space program, The Indian space program, the Japanese space program, and Russian space program, along with every single astrophysicist, (around 430,000 people in total) are just lying to literally everyone in the world for no reason? I mean, It's honestly absurd.
-
Don't forget the airline industry, the shipping industry, the satellite TV industry etc, etc.
-
What's absurd is the notion that every single person in every one of these industries must be a liar for FET to hold up, but if y'all feel the need to resort to such hyperbole in defense of your ridiculing of our beliefs go ahead, it just underscores the invalidity of your argument.
-
I actually agree that not everyone would. In fact maybe quite a few people wouldn't have to be.
But there would still have to be a LOT of people involved.
-
What's absurd is the notion that every single person in every one of these industries must be a liar for FET to hold up...
Most of us in such industries, if not being in league with some conspiracy, would have be duped somehow by those that were in on the conspiracy in order for FET to hold up.
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/5djfxh.jpg)
Things I work on in my career wouldn't actually work if the earth was flat and there were no satellites where I think there are. All this would have been designed and built, integrated and put into operation for no reason other than to perpetuate an illusion; not for the general public but for people like me who believe these systems to be actually functional, just so that "they" could show me simulations of ascending and descending payloads and fake the data transmissions.
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/20ptw69.jpg)
Worse, the actual end users of these "faked" satellite comm, who actually experience the communications difficulties this satellite system is intended to solve, are fooled into thinking it solved by a satellite link when actually some other, clandestine terrestrial system must be doing the actual solving. Because however it's working, it works.
All that effort, to hide a flat earth reality?
All of our globe/celestial/gravity tools and calculators and tables and predictions -- they all work. I've witnessed the launch of payloads. Were they staged?
For 27 years, I've worked with systems above the earth, from line-of-site radar and data link systems operating in aircraft at 25,000-30,000 feet where earth curvature is a necessary factor to consider, and in geostationary and Molniya orbiting communications, and at no point was a globe earth ever in doubt. It's more likely we're all living in the Matrix than on a flat earth.
I don't say this to "ridicule your beliefs," because it's never been nor never will be my agenda to make someone believe the earth isn't flat. But there is a common sense aspect to this subject that must be considered. The "why lie" question? It can't be ignored if you're a believer in FET. A prominent aspect of FET, I see, is that it's not just a personal belief; leave me alone. It's driven by wanted to convince more people that they're being lied to. But so many people would have to be fooled that it would have to be Matrix-like. Especially those who do have experienced perspectives beyond looking for curved horizons or trying to measure if the earth is curved with lasers.
I've been to Antartica (for a day; military flight).
I've seen the Aurora Borealis from Hobart.
I've watched many rockets (NASA and SpaceX) launch from Vandenberg.
I watched a shuttle launch from Canaveral.
I point my DirecTv dish on an azimuth and elevation, else I don't get reception.
I had to learn celestial navigation as a midshipman, and demonstrate its use. It works.
I tested airborne early warning techniques for extending the radar horizon by exploiting elevated inversion layers.
These are just a smattering of life experiences that tell me I live on a globe, none of which would make sense if the earth was actually a flat plane.
You don't have to accept them. They're personal and aren't offered as testimony to evangelize for the globe view. But if you'd like me to take FET seriously (which sure seems to me what FET proponents would like), I'd have to be convinced that all of these (and more) experiences and observations were illusions, or deceptions, or misunderstandings on my part.
-
I'd have to be convinced that all of these (and more) experiences and observations were illusions, or deceptions, or misunderstandings on my part.
That is the norm in adult life.
Home 'Ownership' - If you have a mortgage you don't actually own your home. The bank does. And even if you did pay it off, the government still has the power to take the land at any time and re-purpose it for other uses.
The Money System - A highly orchestrated ponzi scheme in which the bank is giving you pretend money.
Diamond Wedding Rings and Diamonds - Diamonds are plentiful and worthless, only valued highly by an international monopoly which controls the mines and constricts the supply.
-
The difference is with those “deceptions” is we know that we are being “deceived”.
I don’t quite agree about the ownership, I do own my home BUT the mortgage provider have a claim on it if I can’t keep up the payments.
Money is made up but you have to have some system now we have moved on from bartering.
Diamonds, like all commodities, are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
None of this is quite the same as a huge worldwide deception which must be going on to hide the truth of the flat earth from us, and why? Why is this such a terrible truth which must be hidden from us poor saps?
-
I'd have to be convinced that all of these (and more) experiences and observations were illusions, or deceptions, or misunderstandings on my part.
That is the norm in adult life.
Home 'Ownership' - If you have a mortgage you don't actually own your home. The bank does. And even if you did pay it, off the government still has the power to take the land at any time and repurpose it for other uses.
The Money System - A highly orchestrated ponzi scheme in which the bank is giving you pretend money.
Diamond Wedding Rings and Diamonds - Diamonds are plentiful and worthless, only valued highly by an international monopoly which controls the mines and constricts the supply.
Yet you cannot perform one experiment to prove the earth is anything but round.
-
I'd have to be convinced that all of these (and more) experiences and observations were illusions, or deceptions, or misunderstandings on my part.
That is the norm in adult life.
Home 'Ownership' - If you have a mortgage you don't actually own your home. The bank does. And even if you did pay it, off the government still has the power to take the land at any time and repurpose it for other uses.
The Money System - A highly orchestrated ponzi scheme in which the bank is giving you pretend money.
Diamond Wedding Rings and Diamonds - Diamonds are plentiful and worthless, only valued highly by an international monopoly which controls the mines and constricts the supply.
Can you identify your logical fallacy there?
My draw to the topic of Flat Earth wasn't because I had my doubts about a Globe Earth. It wasn't because I was antagonist towards Flat Earth and wanted to persuade anyone from believing it in. I don't care if you or anyone else insists the earth is flat.
I've only been curious to understand why. What are the arguments and evidences that are proving to be so convincing to some people, or at least causing them wonder?
From what I understand of the Flat Earth movement, it's not just to gain respect so that you can have your own beliefs and be left alone with them. You want to dispel the lie of a globe earth. That's fine too, but it isn't passive. It's an activist mindset, which means you want to persuade people and convince them to at least give it some thought.
I'm more than willing to give it thought, but I also want to verify and double-check claims being made, including St. Rowbotham's. Which means you (as the one persuading) must overcome in me (the one needing to be persuaded) all of my globe-earth validating experiences, and convince me of why and how this deception could be pulled off.
The past week or so has been a really fun exercise in exploring what I think I know about globe earth and why? Seeing videos and reading blogs from both flat earth advocates and flat earth antagonists, watching what experiments they're trying, investigating their reasoning and thinking, looking up references and reading flat earth literature...I've learned a lot. I can't say I've been budged at all, but it's a good exercise. A lot of "globeheads" out there are not making good rebuttals. I may even be one of them.
But I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy (mostly), and I just don't see Flat Earth, in its current form, surviving that cutting. Too many ad hoc theories, some which are contradictory, combined with too many conspiracies or out-of-hand rejections of counter evidence. The mass of conspiracy that must be assumed in order for flat earth to be hidden and a globe earth to be a deception is, for me anyway, just too incredible and doesn't make sense.
I've asked myself, hypothetically, how would I react if I started to concede that there really WAS a cover up and that even we, in my industry, were largely duped, all this time thinking were were working with satellites but finding out none were ever really there. It would rock me to the core. Would I be afraid of admitting it if I started believing it? Yeah, probably. To be fooled on such a grand scale would be harder than a Truman Show sort of deception. I'm not resistant because I'm afraid of finding out such an unbelievable "truth". It could be a good movie script, but I just don't see how it adds up in real life. I'm sure I'm not in the Matrix. ("Whoa! Deja Vu.")
-
The difference is with those “deceptions” is we know that we are being “deceived”.
I don’t quite agree about the ownership, I do own my home BUT the mortgage provider have a claim on it if I can’t keep up the payments.
If you have to make home mortgage payments then you don't own your home.
Do you own an apple if you have to make payments to someone?
Money is made up but you have to have some system now we have moved on from bartering.
Diamonds, like all commodities, are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
Money used to be backed by a gold system. And even in that old system it was still a scam -- the bank could lend out 10 times more money than the gold was valued at. These days there isn't a gold reserve at all in most countries.
None of this is quite the same as a huge worldwide deception which must be going on to hide the truth of the flat earth from us, and why? Why is this such a terrible truth which must be hidden from us poor saps?
They aren't "hiding a Flat Earth". They are perpetuating the idea that Space Travel is possible, which they had to do to win the Cold War. They are simply mistaken on the earth's shape.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
-
The difference is with those “deceptions” is we know that we are being “deceived”.
I don’t quite agree about the ownership, I do own my home BUT the mortgage provider have a claim on it if I can’t keep up the payments.
If you have to make home mortgage payments then you don't own your home.
Do you own an apple if you have to make payments to someone?
Money is made up but you have to have some system now we have moved on from bartering.
Diamonds, like all commodities, are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
Money used to be backed by a gold system. And even in that old system it was still a scam -- the bank could lend out 10 times more money than the gold was valued at. These days there isn't a gold reserve at all in most countries.
None of this is quite the same as a huge worldwide deception which must be going on to hide the truth of the flat earth from us, and why? Why is this such a terrible truth which must be hidden from us poor saps?
They aren't "hiding a Flat Earth". They are perpetuating the idea that Space Travel is possible, which they had to do to win the Cold War. They are simply mistaken on the earth's shape.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
Measured distances and the path of the sun and satellites prove a round earth. Where are your experiments?
-
What's absurd is the notion that every single person in every one of these industries must be a liar for FET to hold up, but if y'all feel the need to resort to such hyperbole in defense of your ridiculing of our beliefs go ahead, it just underscores the invalidity of your argument.
So who is on it? Perhaps not everyone on a flight needs to be aware of the truth, but presumably the pilot and co-pilot? They must have access to the Real Charts in order to safely bring people to their destinations. The people in Air Traffic Control, the people planning air routes, the owners of airlines, the corresponding people in the shipping business, the ministries of transport, the people who design roads and railway systems across continents - just who does need to be in on it?
-
The difference is with those “deceptions” is we know that we are being “deceived”.
I don’t quite agree about the ownership, I do own my home BUT the mortgage provider have a claim on it if I can’t keep up the payments.
If you have to make home mortgage payments then you don't own your home.
Do you own an apple if you have to make payments to someone?
Money is made up but you have to have some system now we have moved on from bartering.
Diamonds, like all commodities, are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
Money used to be backed by a gold system. And even in that old system it was still a scam -- the bank could lend out 10 times more money than the gold was valued at. These days there isn't a gold reserve at all in most countries.
None of this is quite the same as a huge worldwide deception which must be going on to hide the truth of the flat earth from us, and why? Why is this such a terrible truth which must be hidden from us poor saps?
They aren't "hiding a Flat Earth". They are perpetuating the idea that Space Travel is possible, which they had to do to win the Cold War. They are simply mistaken on the earth's shape.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
I see a pretty typical tactic here, we have gone from asking why nearly half a million people are lying to the rest of the world about a space programme that cannot exist if the earth were flat (plus millions of navigators and pilots) yet what does Tom do? Asks off topic ridiculouss questions about mortgages and the banking system! Well done for another attempt to derail, deflect the discussion away from a subject you are clearly uncomfortable to discuss.
I for one am not uncomfortable about discussing it.
I would be one of the people in the “conspiracy” as i need to take my ship to different places on the earth, and arrive when i say we are going to, and use the fuel we say we are going to. All based on RE, and it works. So if the round Earth were a conspiracy, then i would be part of the bunch of people who are conspiring to do so. I can assure there is not any such conspiracy.
-
The difference is with those “deceptions” is we know that we are being “deceived”.
I don’t quite agree about the ownership, I do own my home BUT the mortgage provider have a claim on it if I can’t keep up the payments.
If you have to make home mortgage payments then you don't own your home.
Do you own an apple if you have to make payments to someone?
Money is made up but you have to have some system now we have moved on from bartering.
Diamonds, like all commodities, are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
Money used to be backed by a gold system. And even in that old system it was still a scam -- the bank could lend out 10 times more money than the gold was valued at. These days there isn't a gold reserve at all in most countries.
None of this is quite the same as a huge worldwide deception which must be going on to hide the truth of the flat earth from us, and why? Why is this such a terrible truth which must be hidden from us poor saps?
They aren't "hiding a Flat Earth". They are perpetuating the idea that Space Travel is possible, which they had to do to win the Cold War. They are simply mistaken on the earth's shape.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
I see a pretty typical tactic here, we have gone from asking why nearly half a million people are lying to the rest of the world about a space programme that cannot exist if the earth were flat (plus millions of navigators and pilots) yet what does Tom do? Asks off topic ridiculouss questions about mortgages and the banking system! Well done for another attempt to derail, deflect the discussion away from a subject you are clearly uncomfortable to discuss.
I for one am not uncomfortable about discussing it.
I would be one of the people in the “conspiracy” as i need to take my ship to different places on the earth, and arrive when i say we are going to, and use the fuel we say we are going to. All based on RE, and it works. So if the round Earth were a conspiracy, then i would be part of the bunch of people who are conspiring to do so. I can assure there is not any such conspiracy.
No. Not part of the conspiracy. According to Tom's last post, you are simply mistaken as to the shape of the earth.
So how does that mistake translate to things based on that mistake actually working? Tontogary apparently uses a mistaken system to drive his boat across the flat earth? And gets to his destination? All the time? That, to me, is even more incredulous than "they" trying to hide the flat earth for religious purposes.
-
Rowbotham spends a lot of time talking about great circle sailing and navigation and such in Earth Not a Globe.
-
Rowbotham spends a lot of time talking about great circle sailing and navigation and such in Earth Not a Globe.
No comment:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za47.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za47.htm)
-
I would encourage Tom to actually do some aerospace engineering. It's mind-boggling complex, and it takes the curvature of the Earth as the truth. There's so many things that need to be tuned for a curved Earth. Of course, you won't get that if you don't even have an introductory physics education.
I mean, why do we even have a GPS almanac? Is it because of moving terrestrial stations designed to fake the presence of satellites? Or is it simply because satellite orbits change ever so slightly?
Why would the U.S. government even introduce GPS if satellites were fake?
What about the inertial navigation systems found in cruise missiles and ballistic missiles?
Are they fake too?
-
If you have to make home mortgage payments then you don't own your home.
Do you own an apple if you have to make payments to someone?
Does the existence of property tax mean nobody owns their home?
-
So this is what I don't get. When Flat-earthers state that the shape of the earth is a disc, and that its not and never was a sphere, not only the 18,000 people working at Nasa are bold-faced lying to everyone, but the 100,000 people working in Chinas space program, The Indian space program, the Japanese space program, and Russian space program, along with every single astrophysicist, (around 430,000 people in total) are just lying to literally everyone in the world for no reason? I mean, It's honestly absurd.
They're not lying for "no reason". They're lying to embezzle money from taxpayers via fake space agencies. And most of the workers at NASA and other space agencies wouldn't be in on the hoax. Most of the workers probably think they're actually sending things into space.
-
Rowbotham spends a lot of time talking about great circle sailing and navigation and such in Earth Not a Globe.
You must be joking Tom.
The chapter on how the earth is circumnavigated is page 224 to page 228, and only deals with circumnavigating on page 224 (half of which is taken up by a diagram) and 225,226 the remainder of the chapter deals with compasses and the earths magnetic field, which we have already proved is based on no understanding of the basic properties of a magnetic field, and from which thread you ran away from claiming that magnetism had been changed to fit in with round earth theory!
2 pages of text (which amounts to very little actual text) does not describe circumnavigation. The entire text is described below. Hardly at length i might add!
“Another "proof" of the earth's rotundity is supposed to be found in the fact that mariners by sailing continually due east or west, return home in the opposite direction. This is called "The Circum-navigation of the Globe." Here, again, a supposition is involved, viz., that on a globe only can a ship continue to sail due east and come home from the west, and vice versâ. But when the process or method adopted is understood, it will be seen that a plane can as readily be circum-navigated as a sphere.
In the following diagram, fig. 86, let N, represent the. northern centre, near to which lies the "magnetic pole." Then the several arrows marked A, S, are all pointing northwards; and those marked E, W, are all due east and west. It is evident from the diagram, that A, S, are absolute directions--north and south; but that E, W, east and west, are only relative, that is they are directions at right angles to north and south. If it were not so then, taking the line N, A, S, as representing the meridian of Greenwich, and W, E, on that meridian as due east and west, on moving due west to the meridian 3, 4, N, it is evident that a vessel represented by the arrow 1, 2, would be at angle with the meridian 3, 4, N, much greater than 90 degrees, and if it continued to sail in the same straight line 2, 1, 5, it would get farther and farther away from the centre N, and therefore could never complete a path concentric with N. East and west, however, are directions relative to north and south. Hence, on a mariner arriving at the meridian 3, 4, N, he must of necessity turn the head of his vessel in the direction indicated by the arrow 6, 7, and thus continuing to keep the vessel's head square to the compass, or at right angles to north and south, he will at length arrive at 90 degrees of meridian from N, A, S, when the head of the vessel will be in the direction of E, W, 8. Continuing his course for 90 degrees more his path will be E, W, 9. The same course continued will in the next 90 degrees become E, W, 10, and on passing over another 90 degrees the ship will have arrived again at the meridian of Greenwich N, A, S, having then completed a circle.
Hence it is evident that sailing westerly, or in a direction square to the compass, on passing from one meridian to another, the path must of necessity be an arc of a circle. The series of arcs on completing a passage of 360 degrees form a circular path concentric with the magnetic pole, and necessarily, on a plane surface, brings the ship home from the east; and on the contrary, sailing out east, the vessel cannot do otherwise than return from the west.
A very good illustration of the circum-navigation of a plane will be seen by taking a round table, and fixing a pin in the centre to represent the magnetic pole. To this central pin attach a string drawn out to any distance towards the edge of the table. This string may represent the meridian of Greenwich, extending due north and south. If now a pencil or other object is placed across, or at right angles to the string, at any distance between the centre and the circumference of the table, it will represent a vessel standing due east and west. Now move the pencil and the string together in either direction, and it will be seen that by keeping the vessel (or pencil), square to the string it must of necessity describe a circle round the magnetic centre and return to the starting point in the opposite direction to that in which it first sailed.
If it is borne in mind what is really meant by sailing due east or due west, which practically is neither more nor less than keeping the head of a ship at right angles to the various meridians over which it sails, there can be no difficulty in understanding how it is that the path of a circumnavigator is the circumference of a circle, the radius of which is the latitude or distance of the ship from the centre of a plane. But if, in addition to this, the leading facts connected with the subject are considered, it will be seen that the circumnavigation of a globe by the mariners' compass is an impossibility. “
-
Rowbotham spends a lot of time talking about great circle sailing and navigation and such in Earth Not a Globe.
As for great circle sailing, he spends a lot of the chapter waxing lyrical about people seeking answers wherever they may be and clutching at theories, but all that is by the by.
His prof, or explanation is below
“If the reader will draw a series of Rhumb-lines on a map of "the globe," he will at once see that the course is circuitous. But if he draws lines at a slight angle north in the northern, and south in the southern region, to the above-named Rhumb-lines, he will readily notice that the ship's course is more direct, and therefore the mariner adopting the so-called "great circle'' method, must of necessity save both time and distance, but only in comparison with the Rhumb-line path. It is not absolutely the shortest route; as the earth is a plane, the degrees of longitude in the south must diverge or expand, and spread out as the latitude increases; and the parallels or lines of latitude must be circles concentric with the northern centre. Hence there is in reality a still shorter path than either the Rhumb-line or the great circle course.”
As you can see bye the above his proof requires the world to be flat, and uses the argument that the earth is flat to prove his point, thereby having a circular argument.
Ie the earth is flat, so great circle sailing is not the shortest route, and the fact that i have proved on “a flat earth” that the great circle route is not the shortest, proves the world is flat!
Anyone who understands navigation and sailing would also understand he has made basic errors in describing Rhumb line sailing, Parrallel sailing and plain sailing, so he clearly does not understand the concept, therefore his conclusions are hogwash.
Better try again Tom. AnaG DOES NOT deal with GC sailing, or circumnavigation.
I suggest you try understanding the basics of your subject before discussing it with someone who knows, or rely upon an out of date text written by someone without knowledge of the subject for your proofs.
-
They aren't "hiding a Flat Earth". They are perpetuating the idea that Space Travel is possible, which they had to do to win the Cold War. They are simply mistaken on the earth's shape.
It goes a bit beyond that though, "they" are somehow faking things like GPS and Satellite TV and the ISS.
The airline industry are using great circles as part of their flight path planning.
"They" are pretending a lot more than just that space travel is possible.
And wouldn't it have been easier of the US to call Russia out on Gagarin and Sputnik if they were faking it too? And why are all the other space agencies now faking it?
It's just all too ridiculous to be plausible. Do you think the conversation went:
Sky TV: "Hi, is that the European space agency?"
ESA: "Yep, how can I help?"
Sky: "I hear you can put things into space?"
ESA: "Certainly can. Piece of cake, mate".
Sky: "Cool! 'Cos we've got this idea to have a satellite in orbit to beam TV into people's homes. You can do that, right?"
ESA: "Er..."
Sky: "We'll pay you!"
ESA: "Er...sure, we can do that."
And then what, a panicked conversation took place in the ESA about how they're going to fake it so millions of people can think they're getting TV signals from a satellite. As I've said before, the dishes in Sri Lanka when I went there with work were pointing up noticeably more than they do here which tallies with a geostationary satellite above the equator. What are they pointing at?!
-
And then what, a panicked conversation took place in the ESA about how they're going to fake it so millions of people can think they're getting TV signals from a satellite. As I've said before, the dishes in Sri Lanka when I went there with work were pointing up noticeably more than they do here which tallies with a geostationary satellite above the equator. What are they pointing at?!
And TV dishes near Fairbanks, AK are pointed at the horizon.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/dnddhv.jpg)
-
There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.
http://www.dishpointer.com/
Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.
-
There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.
http://www.dishpointer.com/
Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.
What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?
Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?
-
What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?
Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?
Occam's razor.
-
There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.
http://www.dishpointer.com/
Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.
What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?
Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?
What are they telling them to point to, if not satellites? I think that's the bigger question here.
-
There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.
http://www.dishpointer.com/
Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.
What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?
Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?
Because it asserts that there is a satellite there that could be seen with a telescope.
-
There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.
http://www.dishpointer.com/
Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.
What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?
Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?
What has NASA got to do with eg. european satellites? And it works, check it.
-
There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.
http://www.dishpointer.com/
Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.
What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?
Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?
Because it asserts that there is a satellite there that could be seen with a telescope.
You will have to show that all of the communication satellites can be seen with a telescope. Most images of such online are only of the ISS, maybe a few other large bodies, and when iridium flares occur. As far as I'm aware, the smaller ones are not seen. And if they were seen, it does not follow that a small prick of light is a "satellite" in an orbit around a globe earth.
-
You will have to show that all of the communication satellites can be seen with a telescope.
There's a good few hundred of them. Would you settle for a subset, for the sake of brevity?
As far as I'm aware,
Your unawareness is no proof of anything
the smaller ones are not seen.
Wrong. See below
And if they were seen, it does not follow that a small prick of light is a "satellite" in an orbit around a globe earth.
Yet everyone who tracks them does so on the basis that they are in orbit.
Here, these guys make telescopes with automatic tracking software.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ
They're different from these guys, who use laser ranging to track satellite trajectories
http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/ (http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/)
And they're different from this guy, who tracked the SpaceX Falcon Heavy/Tesla mission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVQdSGQajj0
And dishpointer is a UK company who make their money from software development
http://www.dishpointer.com/#contact
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06921189
-
There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.
http://www.dishpointer.com/
Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.
What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?
Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?
Because it asserts that there is a satellite there that could be seen with a telescope.
You will have to show that all of the communication satellites can be seen with a telescope. Most images of such online are only of the ISS, maybe a few other large bodies, and when iridium flares occur. As far as I'm aware, the smaller ones are not seen. And if they were seen, it does not follow that a small prick of light is a "satellite" in an orbit around a globe earth.
Tom - please answer 'What has NASA got to do with eg. european satellites? And it works, check it.'
-
Yet everyone who tracks them does so on the basis that they are in orbit.
Here, these guys make telescopes with automatic tracking software.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ)
That is not a demonstration that all of the satellites can be seen. Clearly some of them like the ISS and the MIR can be seen. We have no idea how big those satellites are or what time of the day it is in that video.
The ISS can only be seen a small amount of time around dawn or dusk, because the earth's shadow gets in the way (according to RET). The reasoning is the same for other LEO satellite bodies. It is not true that you can just point your telescope up into the sky and see the ISS or any satellite when they are overhead.
This video is insufficient as evidence that they can all be seen at all times of the night when they are in the sky. It's a promotional video from the company, in attempt to sell a very expensive telescope. Clearly they are selecting carefully selected targets. Look at NASA's website for how long the ISS appears in the sky: a very short amount of time near the edges of night.
And again: A small prick of light does not lead to the direct conclusion that it is in orbit around a globe earth.
They're different from these guys, who use laser ranging to track satellite trajectories
http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/ (http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/)
And what are the results of such experiments?
And they're different from this guy, who tracked the SpaceX Falcon Heavy/Tesla mission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVQdSGQajj0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVQdSGQajj0)
He tracked the rocket stages as they ejected? Super. No one said the rockets were fake.
And dishpointer is a UK company who make their money from software development
http://www.dishpointer.com/#contact
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06921189
They developed the satellite finding software and gave it away for free? Doesn't sound like good business to me.
-
Yet everyone who tracks them does so on the basis that they are in orbit.
Here, these guys make telescopes with automatic tracking software.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ)
That is not a demonstration that all of the satellites can be seen. Clearly some of them like the ISS and the MIR can be seen. We have no idea how big those satellites are or what time of the day it is in that video.
The ISS can only be seen a small amount of time around dawn or dusk, because the earth's shadow gets in the way (according to RET). The reasoning is the same for other LEO satellite bodies. It is not true that you can just point your telescope up into the sky and see the ISS or any satellite when they are overhead.
This video is insufficient as evidence that they can all be seen at all times of the night when they are in the sky. It's a promotional video from the company, in order to sell a very expensive telescope. Clearly they are selecting carefully selected targets. Look at NASA's website for how long the ISS appears in the sky: a very short amount of time near the edges of night.
And again: A small prick of light does not lead to the direct conclusion that it is in orbit around a globe earth.
They're different from these guys, who use laser ranging to track satellite trajectories
http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/ (http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/)
And what are the results of such experiments?
And they're different from this guy, who tracked the SpaceX Falcon Heavy/Tesla mission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVQdSGQajj0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVQdSGQajj0)
He tracked the rocket stages as they ejected? Super. No one said the rockets were fake.
And dishpointer is a UK company who make their money from software development
http://www.dishpointer.com/#contact
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06921189
They developed the satellite finding software and gave it away for free? Doesn't sound like good business to me.
See what else the company does. The pro version costs.
Meanwhile you agree that satellites are used for broadcasting and navigation.
-
I fee like a lot of my time is being wasted. Why don't you guys come up with something that truly cannot be refuted and post a thread about it, instead of trying to engage me with a hundred different subjects and fallacious appeals.
-
I fee like a lot of my time is being wasted. Why don't you guys come up with something that truly cannot be refuted and post a thread about it, instead of trying to engage me with a hundred different subjects and fallacious appeals.
How convenient for someone with no proof of his beliefs.
-
That is not a demonstration that all of the satellites can be seen.
Nobody claimed it was. It's a demonstration of their telescope tracking (some) orbital satellites, and of the telescope switching between satellites.
We have no idea how big those satellites are or what time of the day it is in that video.
So what?
It is not true that you can just point your telescope up into the sky and see the ISS or any satellite when they are overhead.
It is true. Plane Wave Media are demonstrating it in their video. That's not their only video, look at the rest on their channel
This video is insufficient as evidence that they can all be seen at all times of the night when they are in the sky.
Nobody claimed that, anyway
Clearly they are selecting carefully selected targets.
So what?
Look at NASA's website for how long the ISS appears in the sky: a very short amount of time near the edges of night.
So what? They're not tracking the ISS
A small prick of light does not lead to the direct conclusion that it is in orbit around a globe earth.
The video shows the output from the telescope - the orbital satellite being tracked, with stars rapidly flashing across the background, whilst the tracked satellite remains in centre frame. It shows the telescope in motion as it tracks and switches targets. There's a star field, which shows which constellation it is pointed at, and there's a data window pertaining to the satellite being tracked, along with other data.
What possible motive would there be to fake this? What could the tracked object be, other than a satellite?
They're different from these guys, who use laser ranging to track satellite trajectories
http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/ (http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/)
And what are the results of such experiments?
Look deeper at their website. Take more than the few minutes since I posted here. There's a LOT of data to find there. Take your time. Read. Think.
And they're different from this guy, who tracked the SpaceX Falcon Heavy/Tesla mission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVQdSGQajj0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVQdSGQajj0)
He tracked the rocket stages as they ejected? Super. No one said the rockets were fake.
So you accept that he tracked the stage 2 rocket as claimed, out beyond the Moon?
And dishpointer is a UK company who make their money from software development
http://www.dishpointer.com/#contact
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06921189
They developed the satellite finding software and gave it away for free? Doesn't sound like good business to me.
Yes, they're a software house based in the UK. Not affiliated to NASA. That was my point, not the range of their products.
Your assertion was that they're all connected to NASA, so I'm showing you a range of folks who are not.
-
I fee like a lot of my time is being wasted.
Boo Hoo ....
Why don't you guys come up with something that truly cannot be refuted and post a thread about it, instead of trying to engage me with a hundred different subjects and fallacious appeals.
All anyone has done is respond to your baseless assertions after you wandered into the thread.
-
What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?
Do you have any evidence that they are NOT 'different people'?
Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?
Furthermore, do you have any evidence of such an interface actually being used?
Given that most of the satellites already in orbit, and those upcoming this year, are NOT NASA craft, why's it still all about NASA?
-
The ISS can only be seen a small amount of time around dawn or dusk, because the earth's shadow gets in the way (according to RET). The reasoning is the same for other LEO satellite bodies. It is not true that you can just point your telescope up into the sky and see the ISS or any satellite when they are overhead.
A satellite in a geostationary orbit would not be in shadow except on an equinox.
And again: A small prick of light does not lead to the direct conclusion that it is in orbit around a globe earth
No, but a small prick of light that consistently shows up at the exact place and time that Kepler's equations predict makes the alternative unlikely.
They developed the satellite finding software and gave it away for free? Doesn't sound like good business to me.
Lots of software is free.
-
If your arguments can be refuted in any manner, then they are not good enough arguments here. When you guys have something that cannot be refuted, start a thread, let us know, and we can have a look and close the website.
Telling us to "go research this" is not good enough. You need to do the research for your claim. You need to show, not tell.
-
They developed the satellite finding software and gave it away for free? Doesn't sound like good business to me.
"Services we offer
Apart from offering our DishPointer service on this website and our award-winning apps for IOS / Apple devices and Android smartphones and tablets to align your satellite dish, we are providing business solutions to satellite professionals all around the world for over a decade now. If you'd like to discuss customized solutions, please contact us."
Why don't you contact them, Tom, and tell them their business model isn't likely to be working, in your view?
BTW, their Android app comes in at £11.99. That's the UK price. It's been downloaded over 10,000 times, according to Google Play.
-
"Why don't you...."
Not good enough. Your claim. You brought it up, claiming it as something legitimate. Your burden to demonstrate so.
-
A small prick of light does not lead to the direct conclusion that it is in orbit around a globe earth.
When tracking software, clearly based on a global star chart, can predict its path to the extent that it can control a telescope to track it, what else would you suggest it could be? Please don't suggest balloons again .....
When the SGF tracks these satellites by reflecting lasers off them, and knows where to point their lasers by predicting the motion of the craft around a globe, then what else could they be? Please don't suggest balloons again ....
-
Telling us to "go research this" is not good enough. You need to do the research for your claim. You need to show, not tell.
Nobody has said that to you, at least not in this thread. Don't misquote people.
I HAVE researched this. I show you examples, and you're back in 2 mins with a glib one-liner, having clearly made no effort at all to look at them in any depth whatsoever.
-
If you are claiming something about lasers bounced off of satellites, you need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data showing that it lines up with what you believe a satellite to be. You need to show your work. A lot of it.
Show. Not tell. Not assume.
Your claim. Your burden.
-
"Why don't you...."
Not good enough. Your claim. You brought it up, claiming it as something legitimate. Your burden to demonstrate so.
You're the one who said it wasn't a good business model. I'm rebutting that. They are clearly doing good business, as the Companies House records in the UK show them in business since 2009.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06921189/filing-history
-
You came here claiming that "here is a technology/something that proves you wrong. Look into it." These are your claim. You are making assumptions about what the data shows, what it suggests, and if it was done in the manner you assume it was done. Show that. Your claim. Your burden. Stop wasting this website's precious bandwidth.
-
If you are claiming something about lasers bounced off of satellites, you need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data showing that it lines up with what you believe a satellite to be. You need to show your work. A lot of it.
Show. Not tell. Not assume.
Your claim. Your burden.
Yeah, Tumeni. Just say "maybe," "could be" or "it's possible..."
That insulates you from having to prove it.
-
If you are claiming something about lasers bounced off of satellites, you need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data showing that it lines up with what you believe a satellite to be. You need to show your work. A lot of it.
If you are claiming that experiments were carried out as claimed in ENaG, you need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data showing that lines up with it. You need to show your work. etc etc
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you say I have to show my work, you have to do the same for ENaG.
I say the SGF have bounced lasers off satellites. There are papers linked to from their home page, forums where they and other laser ranging experts discuss techniques and methods. I've already looked at these at great length, and I could spend days linking you to this, but it's on their website and linked sites. I shouldn't have to type it all out again longhand. The people who are doing this are alive. You can talk to them about their work if you want.
You say that ENaG contains experiments, but all we have is line drawings and commentary from Rowbotham. No data, beyond his commentary. And you expect everyone to accept this as your proof?
-
You are claiming that "here is a technology/something that proves you wrong. Look into it." These are your claim.
Like claiming radar product can be turned into photographs?
You claimed it. Told me to look into it. Now, on a different topic, you insist on a full report from a claimant and balk at having to look into it yourself?
The "zetetic" mindset is confusing.
-
You came here claiming that "here is a technology/something that proves you wrong. Look into it." These are your claim. You are making assumptions about what the data shows, what it suggests, and if it was done in the manner you assume it was done. Show that. Your claim. Your burden. Stop wasting this website's precious bandwidth.
No, I posted the pointers to Astronomy Live, Plane Wave Media, and SGF as a specific rebuttal to your assertion/claim that everybody in the whole wide world is getting their feed from NASA, or is affiliated to NASA.
You made your claim first, you should prove yours first.
Your assertion was in reply #24;
What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?
Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?
-
The "zetetic" mindset is confusing.
It's times like this where I think Tom is just trolling and doesn't really believe any of this stuff.
He seems to just have fun defending the indefensible.
The fact he has never done any experiments and shown any result is telling - even the Bishop experiment is just his claim, there's no documentation.
And yet when he's shown pictures and video of actual experiments which prove him wrong he just dismisses it while refusing to do his own experiment.
Makes me think he doesn't really believe any of this...
-
"Why don't you...."
Not good enough. Your claim. You brought it up, claiming it as something legitimate. Your burden to demonstrate so.
That's the hilarious thing. "You claim that there's such a thing as satellite TV. You seem to expect us to believe that you can just point a dish up in the sky and pick up Big Bang Theory on your flatscreen. Well, us independent minded people expect a bit more than an assertion."
There can never be and will never be any proof that will be accepted. Look at the "Horizon at eye level" thread. Actual pictures disproving the assertion. Are the picture accepted? Of course not. Will any flat Earth proponent do the experiments themselves? Of course not. There is no conceivable proof that will ever be accepted.
I actually admire the people who go out and demonstrate these things. It's important to inoculate young people against this kind of warped thinking. Let's not pretend it's going to convince the believers though. We're dealing with people with entirely closed minds - and the fact that they think they're open-minded makes it worse.
-
It's times like this where I think Tom is just trolling and doesn't really believe any of this stuff.
He seems to just have fun defending the indefensible.
The fact he has never done any experiments and shown any result is telling - even the Bishop experiment is just his claim, there's no documentation.
And yet when he's shown pictures and video of actual experiments which prove him wrong he just dismisses it while refusing to do his own experiment.
Makes me think he doesn't really believe any of this...
My mood and attitude has done a 180 over the past several days. It wasn't hard to be polite and eager to engage in challenging discussions about these topics, and I thought the contrary inputs here were just a little too combative.
But I can completely understand why now.
I think I have a pretty good read on the flat earth advocate's method of reasoning now. I maybe only stick to the topics I've started so far, and play them out. Otherwise, I'm done with the other nonsense. The solar year/solar day/equinox discussion was a real challenge, but it was exhaustingly aggravating. That was probably the intent.
-
If your arguments can be refuted in any manner, then they are not good enough arguments here. When you guys have something that cannot be refuted, start a thread, let us know, and we can have a look and close the website.
(this is leading somewhere...)
A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."
The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."
To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."
To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed,
"I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"
To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?!"
You are that man
"show me irrefutable proof!"
"OK...well here's a bunch of photos from space"
"They're fake!"
"Umm. OK. You have no evidence for that but fine, here's some video of people in space on the ISS"
"That is staged using green screen/that're on wires"
"Right...OK, here's an interview of someone who has been to space. She's one of the few people rich enough to be a space tourist"
"She's lying"
"But..."
and so on.
ANY evidence can be refuted even if the objections are spurious or far fetched.
There is no such thing as irrefutable proof unless we are talking about mathemetical theorums which, in the limited language of mathemetics can be proven absolutely.
You are demanding a level of proof which does not exisst and it's a level you absolutely don't have for what I'm going to have to call your dogma, because that's what it is.
As I said, your mindset is summed up by the deleted Wiki page:
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
So it's impossible to refute. You declare it an obvious truth (without basis) and so conclude everything showing it to be wrong is fabricated.
Telling us to "go research this" is not good enough. You need to do the research for your claim. You need to show, not tell
By the way, this is rich coming from someone who is repeatedly shown experiments which prove him wrong and dismiss them (see above) while refusing to do any research or experiments himself...
-
ANY evidence can be refuted even if the objections are spurious or far fetched.
There is no such thing as irrefutable proof unless we are talking about mathemetical theorums which, in the limited language of mathemetics can be proven absolutely.
I'm pretty sure that there's a strong element of FE theory which involves disputing mathematical truths. It's not that difficult.
"Prove that Pythagoras' theorem is true."
"OK, here are several alternative proofs, all of which show that his theorem is objectively, irrevocably true."
"That's not a proof. You only believe it because you've been told by the government. I think for myself."
I'm sure that if you can believe FE theory, you can dispute mathematical theorems.