The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: secretagent10 on March 22, 2022, 12:10:44 AM
-
https://youtu.be/H-REzr7HB9E
I remember watching this years ago when I had DISH. Unedited feed from 22,000 miles up. When you watched the original broadcast it obviously wasn’t timelapsed. I mean, there it is. The image is right there. Scrub through the video and see the clouds moving, moon transit etc. Stationary over the US being in geostationary orbit for television.
Seems like as good of evidence as any.
Beautiful to look at.
I’m aware you can simply say “fake”, and of course I’m posting this to a flat earth forum so I know what to expect. Just wanted to bring this up as a rebuttal to those certain FE’ers that like to say “show one that’s not edited or CGI!”
Whether or not you can technically claim it is “fake”, the reasoning in the comments is infuriating. These include:
“Why can’t you see any satellites”? That’s like me asking you to see an ant from an airplane.
“Where is the moon?” It makes transit in the video and is clearly visible.
“Why aren’t the clouds moving?” They are moving, exactly as fast as you would expect them to. Scrub through the video.
“Why can’t I see any stars?” Exposure.
“Why isn’t it pear shaped?” Obviously misunderstanding why that was ever said in the first place.
“Why isn’t the earth rotating?” Geostationary orbit, the only way a television satellite could work.
There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water. Yes, I can just say it is fake because reasons, but the timelapse is exactly what you would expect to see. For this reason, I don’t know why this footage is insufficient.
I won’t argue against your ability to simply not believe in the timelapse, but the reasons for it being fake are either deliberate or ignorant misunderstandings.
-
Unfortunately I’ve found a lot of the people who simply shout “fake” have no experience in analysing images or video. Some of the things you mention above are common objections. Things like “why can’t you see satellites” or “why can’t you see the stars” show such ignorance that it’s basically just an argument from incredulitye.
I posted 2 threads on here some time ago, one from the people at NVIDIA who analysed a photo from the moon and showed why the lighting is exactly what you’d expect, given the reflections off other objects. And another thread where 3 VFX artists analyse some of the Apollo footage and basically say it would be impossible to fake in the days before CGI. Those threads got almost no FE response.
-
The "they fake it" claim is even more ridiculous for space telescope data. While Hubble (and now JWST) are the well known ones, there have been around 100 special purpose telescopes launched (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_telescopes#/media/File:Space_observatories.png), with more planned. This started in the mid 60s and has covered the spectrum from radio to game rays. Among the amazing achievements is a 3D map (including movement) of the 2 billion stars we can see plus nearby galaxies produced by Gaia (https://allthatsinteresting.com/3d-map-of-milky-way). The idea that this vast amount of data could be faked starting in the 60s and not only remain self-consistent throughout the decades and consistent with ever improving ground based observation but contain new things to be discovered by the thousands of researchers working in cosmology, astrophysics, theoretical physics etc, is simply not possible.
-
I do wonder what some FE people believe is going on with all this.
I lady I used to work with early in my career went on to academia and I heard a while back that she was working either for or with NASA, studying data from one of the probes on Mars and looking in to "Marsquakes". So what do they think is going on there? Is she a "shill", is she "in on it"? Or is she being fooled too and being fed fake data. If the last of those then is there a team in NASA whose job it is to produce all this fake data for this ex-colleague of mine to analyse? And they then employ someone to analyse it? I can't get my head around what their narrative is in this area.
-
I do wonder what some FE people believe is going on with all this.
Why must pointing out that someone wrong about something come with a detailed psychoanalysis? I know RE'ers love to do that (c.f. "people who disagree with me do so because they need to feel special, or like they belong somewhere!!!1!!1!"), but there is no rhyme or reason to this approach.
-
I do wonder what some FE people believe is going on with all this.
Why must pointing out that someone wrong about something come with a detailed psychoanalysis? I know RE'ers love to do that (c.f. "people who disagree with me do so because they need to feel special, or like they belong somewhere!!!1!!1!"), but there is no rhyme or reason to this approach.
If someone is attempting in good faith to access verifiable data and objectively analyze it with out bias yet comes to a clearly wrong conclusion, then showing them their error can be effective. But if someone has a huge confirmation bias and will come to such a wrong conclusion no matter what, then that same approach will be fruitless. Isn't that a worthwhile distinction to determine?
-
I do wonder what some FE people believe is going on with all this.
Why must pointing out that someone wrong about something come with a detailed psychoanalysis?
While I am interested in the psychology of people who believe in conspiracy theories, there was none of that there.
I'm just interested what you or other FE people imagine is going on here.
This ex-colleague of mine is apparently studying seismic data which comes from an instrument sitting on Mars. For most FE models that wouldn't be possible. So either she is lying about her job or being lied to. Is there another option?
-
Same question for the 1000s (10s of 1000s?) of folks that have worked on analyzing the huge amount of data from the 100 or so space telescopes claimed to have been launched. Where do FEers think that all that data came from and how was it kept consistent yet contained new (still consistent) things to be discovered. Are all those working in the various fields "in on it"? or what? I really do not see an answer other than its real. How do FEers resolve this?
-
Considering that you have provided zero verifiable information showing that the data is legitimate, your assertions are as easily dismissed as they are stated.
-
Considering that you have provided zero verifiable information showing that the data is legitimate, your assertions are as easily dismissed as they are stated.
Tom, my original post was a little bit more than saying “here’s some footage, accept it”. It was a bit of a meta argument.
I’m completely admitting that you can just say it’s fake and I can’t do much about it. I’m asserting that the REASONING used by FE’ers in the comments are based on false interpretations/misunderstandings.
If these are the things that made them FE’ers, they got to their position for the wrong reasons. All that FET really has is desperate skepticism that you “technically” can’t disprove as long as you push the bar for evidence back enough.
-
Considering that you have provided zero verifiable information showing that the data is legitimate, your assertions are as easily dismissed as they are stated.
What do you mean by "legitimate" here? Do you contend that the space telescopes I provided a link to (via the wikipedia) do not exist? or that the scientists publishing papers on them over the last 50 years or so made up their data? or what?
-
Considering that you have provided zero verifiable information showing that the data is legitimate, your assertions are as easily dismissed as they are stated.
What do you mean by "legitimate" here? Do you contend that the space telescopes I provided a link to (via the wikipedia) do not exist? or that the scientists publishing papers on them over the last 50 years or so made up their data? or what?
I don’t believe there’s much in this world that would cause the editors of the literal FE wiki to edit it to say “we have been disproven” (as hilarious as that would be)
-
Tom, my original post was a little bit more than saying “here’s some footage, accept it”. It was a bit of a meta argument.
I’m completely admitting that you can just say it’s fake and I can’t do much about it. I’m asserting that the REASONING used by FE’ers in the comments are based on false interpretations/misunderstandings.
If these are the things that made them FE’ers, they got to their position for the wrong reasons. All that FET really has is desperate skepticism that you “technically” can’t disprove as long as you push the bar for evidence back enough.
NASA faking the data is sort of the underlying premise of this concept and website.
Most of the discussions resolve around the next step of whether FE/RE is possible. NASA's possible fakery is already part of the premise of the discussion and is typically conceded as possible even by RE'ers here to allow for further discussion.
The reality of the Round Earth should be irrefutable through mountains of functional evidence and not just at the whims of whether space agencies are possibly faking data or not. If you leave things as "possible" and argue through incredulity, then it remains "possible" that you are wrong.
As an empirical matter you should be also concerned that you believe in something which you have not seen verification for and that your belief is based on trust in authority. That sounds more like a faith issue to me.
-
NASA faking the data is sort of the underlying premise of this concept and website.
NASA? Tom, this is about EchoStar and Dish Network. Why would I, as a private company, waste money on a fake satellite launch as well as perfectly craft a fake daily nonstop feed from the satellite’s fake perspective for no reason? I would much rather just put a camera on a useful piece of equipment launched into orbit.
It is the neutral, unbiased, independent research of this stuff that only solidified my knowledge (not belief) that the earth is a globe.
-
NASA? Tom, this is about EchoStar and Dish Network. Why would I, as a private company, waste money on a fake satellite launch as well as perfectly craft a fake daily nonstop feed from the satellite’s fake perspective for no reason? I would much rather just put a camera on a useful piece of equipment launched into orbit.
It is the neutral, unbiased, independent research of this stuff that only solidified my knowledge (not belief) that the earth is a globe.
They certainly did not design the rockets, which are controlled and classified as weapons under ITAR, meaning that they are partnered with the federal government or government contractors.
The government also created the underlying operating procedures for the commercial satellite industry:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SupportingCommercialSpaceDevelopmentPart1.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/2WQkB2z.png)
So you are appealing to a system the government created and which government made procedures for, and are asking us to ignore that the government is involved.
-
likewise for the position of the broadcast point of satellite TV. Why does the signal strength max out when the antenna is pointed to the specified orbit point no matter where you are located?
Likewise for GPS, which is direct from the satellites to your phone/receiver and the system will not work if it is anything else. Can you explain that?
A solar eclipse is when the moon gets between the earth and the sun (which in the FE case makes the sun very small so one might ask what makes it shine). But a lunar eclipse is when the earth gets between the sun and the moon. How does that happen for the FE? (and you can observe both of these with no technology).
We see the sun, moon, and stars rise and set exactly as a rotating earth would show so you invent bendy light and claim it explains it despite not offering any direct evidence nor explanation in physics for it.. Not only is bendy light falsified by large solid state lasers, but even if it were true it would not make the day/night line be straight, but we observe it to be so. Doesn't that make it clear that you have decided on the FE model first and are inventing things that you think will make that model consistent with observation?
Of course there is the fact that after extensive travel we find that the layout of the land matches the globe earth perfectly but not the flat earth and the little issue of the containment mechanism (a wall or dome or ice wall or infinite plane or whatever) never being found.
There is plenty of directly attainable data but you just ignore it Tom.
As for NASA and all the other county's space agencies and private companies and universities faking all this data for decades yet making its all consistent and putting in things to be discovered, we are just not that smart. It is NOT possible.
Of course your response will be some flip answer of "its not legitimate" or "read the far" or something having nothing to do with actual observation and analysis. Something makes you want to (at least claim to) believe in the FE. What is it?
Do you think you (as a layman, like me and everyone else here) know better than the worlds scientists on quantum mechanics, or chemistry, or materials science, or aerodynamics, or fluid mechanics or micro electronics any number of other areas? I'm guessing not. So why do you think so on the shape of the earth?
-
Tom, my original post was a little bit more than saying “here’s some footage, accept it”. It was a bit of a meta argument.
I’m completely admitting that you can just say it’s fake and I can’t do much about it. I’m asserting that the REASONING used by FE’ers in the comments are based on false interpretations/misunderstandings.
If these are the things that made them FE’ers, they got to their position for the wrong reasons. All that FET really has is desperate skepticism that you “technically” can’t disprove as long as you push the bar for evidence back enough.
NASA faking the data is sort of the underlying premise of this concept and website.
Most of the discussions resolve around the next step of whether FE/RE is possible. NASA's possible fakery is already part of the premise of the discussion and is typically conceded as possible even by RE'ers here to allow for further discussion.
The reality of the Round Earth should be irrefutable through mountains of functional evidence and not just at the whims of whether space agencies are possibly faking data or not. If you leave things as "possible" and argue through incredulity, then it remains "possible" that you are wrong.
As an empirical matter you should be also concerned that you believe in something which you have not seen verification for and that your belief is based on trust in authority. That sounds more like a faith issue to me.
If not NASA, do you trust the Japan Meteorological Agency, and JAXA? Because they launched and operate Himawari 8, a weather satellite which you can tune into to see a new full-disc photo of the Earth every 10 minutes.
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
You can prove the photo is real because it's corroborated by ground-based weather radar.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/au/darwin/13718/weather-radar/13718
(https://i.imgur.com/QwESEw6.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Wfmgekt.png)
If this were all a fakery, it would have to be an international conspiracy (no NASA in sight) between Japan, Australia, and everyone in between. It would need to be maintained forever, with no margin for error, updated every 10 minutes, accurately reflecting real cloud formation patterns, and smoke from forest fires. With all that would be required to fake this, it would be so much easier to just... put a geostationary earth-cam up in space to take real pictures.
-
So either she is lying about her job or being lied to. Is there another option?
Yes. She could just be wrong. We do not need to have, and we never will have, magical insight into what exactly is going on in her head. It baffles me that this needs explaining.
-
Most of the discussions resolve around the next step of whether FE/RE is possible. NASA's possible fakery is already part of the premise of the discussion and is typically conceded as possible even by RE'ers here to allow for further discussion.
Well of course it's possible, in the same way that it's possible that kangaroos don't exist (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19185.msg261502#msg261502)
Pretty much anything is possible, the relevant question is whether it's plausible. To determine that you need to think through the consequences if that were so. Because NASA are not just making vague claims, the building of the ISS involved multiple nations, you can literally see it from the ground and you don't need particularly expensive optics to make out its shape. And as has been posted elsewhere you can even try and contact it yourself as some radio hams have done.
There's lots to investigate here. The Shuttle was demonstrably a thing - I saw a launch myself one time I happened to be in holiday in Florida at the right time. Where did it go? There'd surely be some evidence if they were just landing somewhere. And how would they take off again to land at the time and place where the mission was supposed to end? Shuttles didn't have the ability to take off like a plane would.
I've seen pictures of the shuttle docked with the ISS taken from the ground.
And of course it's not just NASA who have launch capability. Multiple other nations do as do some private enterprises now.
Then you have stuff like GPS and Satelllite TV. These things demonstrably work and I have noticed on work trips in countries nearer the equator that the dishes are at a far steeper angle than they are here. This makes sense in the context of a geostationary satellite above the equator. The only way GPS can works - you have conceded it can accurately tell you your coordinates - is if it knows where those coordinates are in relation to other coordinates. So it must know how far apart those places are, which implies our maps are accurate. And that's a real problem for FE because it's simply not possible to plot those known distances accurately on a flat plane - this is why there is no working FE map.
Then you've got weather satellites and has been pointed out you can cross reference that data with other data - or just by taking your own observations locally. You don't have to take their word for the accuracy of the data, simply look out of your window.
The reality of the Round Earth should be irrefutable through mountains of functional evidence and not just at the whims of whether space agencies are possibly faking data or not. If you leave things as "possible" and argue through incredulity, then it remains "possible" that you are wrong.
But, again, you can do this with anything, like the existence of kangaroos. Space exploration is pretty much the killer blow for FE, which is why you have to dismiss it all as fake, but there is plenty of other evidence. But you operate in the sceptical context selectively depending on whether the evidence you're looking at fits your worldview. Evidence which does not is scrutinised to within an inch of it's life, you hold it up to a level of proof which nothing can ever satisfy. Evidence which you think backs up FE is readily and unquestioningly accepted. A good example is the emergency landings book. It was trivial to look at one of the examples in that book and show that the route he supposed from San Francisco to Dubai was completely wrong:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19222.msg261564#msg261564
Look at the actual flight path and a diversion to Moscow makes perfect sense. You didn't even reply to that post.
If you're doing this as a thought experiment or in the spirit of a debating society then I guess it's an interesting exercise, but beyond that I question the mindset of someone who does some tests of their own, gets results which doesn't fit with their understanding of a globe earth and concludes that they have discovered something that would overturn millennia of science rather than conclude that they either made a mistake or they don't understand the globe model as well as they thought they did.
When it comes to this thread there is lots you could check, there's lots of data you could cross reference against other data. Just saying "it could all be fake" is a lazy cop out.
-
So either she is lying about her job or being lied to. Is there another option?
Yes. She could just be wrong.
Can you expand on that? Wrong about what? She believes her job is to analyse seismic data coming from instruments sitting on Mars.
She was employed on that basis. If she is wrong about that then surely that's in the latter category, she is being lied to, no?
-
... you have provided zero verifiable information ...
Please clarify what you, personally, would regard as "verifiable information".
The premise is that shortly before this satellite was launched, someone on the project thought "Let's put a camera on this thing, and feed the camera to one of the satellite channels that our subscribers get in their package. Might be fun." If I'm reading him correctly, secretagent says that he actually watched this, on his own TV, when it was broadcast.
I don't get the impression that this was intended as "science"
Would you accept verbal accounts from those who worked on the project?
Data from the project itself?
Your own personal stream of data from the satellite?
Why don't you take secretagent at his word that he actually watched it? How much more verifiable does it need to be?
Come on, there must come a point where even you say - "Yes, I accept that (verifiable information) as fact"
What type of information are you seeking that would satisfy you?
As an empirical matter you should be also concerned that you believe in something which you have not seen verification for and that your belief is based on trust in authority. That sounds more like a faith issue to me.
I refer you to the account of the Bedford Canal Experiment, in the Wiki. You are taking Rowbottom as an authority.
I would suggest that nobody here, even you, has actually verified that Rowbottom even carried out the experiment, never mind got the result he claimed. All you have is his description and line drawing.
Other experiments carried out in different places with different criteria are not verification that Rowbottom actually did this.
Calling parts of the Wiki "sacred texts" sounds like a faith issue to me...
NASA faking the data is sort of the underlying premise of this concept and website.
What has this got to do with NASA?
Dish Network run/ran the satellite.
The launch rocket was assembled and launched by Sea Launch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch
The rocket was a Zenit, don't see any indication NASA was involved... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenit-3SL
So you are appealing to a system the government created and which government made procedures for, and are asking us to ignore that the government is involved.
Can you show that your Government had anything more than a passive, hands-off role in this launch, and in operation of this satellite?
-
She was employed on that basis. If she is wrong about that then surely that's in the latter category, she is being lied to, no?
You're very quick to assume malice. I thought you wanted us not to accuse people of lying with no evidence?
-
She was employed on that basis. If she is wrong about that then surely that's in the latter category, she is being lied to, no?
You're very quick to assume malice. I thought you wanted us not to accuse people of lying with no evidence?
I see what you've done there.
I'm just interested in what you think is going on here. If you don't know then that's an acceptable answer.
Surely someone has to be lying here. Either my ex-colleague, or her bosses - or someone up the chain.
It's not about assuming malice, it's about not seeing how there is any other option. You said her being "wrong" is another option, but have not elaborated what you mean.
Unless you see a FE model where a craft could have landed on Mars and be sending back seismic data, that wouldn't work with most FE models I see presented though.
-
Pretty much anything is possible, the relevant question is whether it's plausible
Yeah, I agree.
Why would a private satellite, whose sole purpose is to broadcast signals of television to homes, be outfitted with a camera?
Failed to sell...but as Barnum said, "There is a sucker born every minute!"
-
Why would a private satellite, whose sole purpose is to broadcast signals of television to homes, be outfitted with a camera?
Does that mean you accept that the satellite did, and still does, broadcast signals to people's homes from an orbital location?
Like I said above, I get the impression it was tacked on for a bit of fun as an afterthought. Not a science experiment, not designed to last or future proofed....
However, do you realise that your argument is virtually the EXACT opposite of what flat-earthers in other arenas usually argue about satellites? It usually goes - "If there's all these satellites, we should have pictures of the Earth, 24 hours a day! Why aren't there any?" To which the RE response usually is - the satellites are sent there for a purpose, and that purpose is not photography.
-
Why would a private satellite, whose sole purpose is to broadcast signals of television to homes, be outfitted with a camera?
Well. If I was launching a satellite for whatever purpose then I'd sure as hell put a camera on it.
Do you have any idea how much money it costs to build and launch a satellite? We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars, adding a camera isn't going to cost anything relative to that.
What's your hot take, that they employ someone to fake pictures from it. Why would they do that?
-
What's your hot take, that they employ someone to fake pictures from it. Why would they do that?
Exactly. I don’t see how putting a camera on a satellite to add a satellite channel, as a television provider, is less plausible than having a constant feed be faked (while making sure it’s consistent with the world at all times!)
One is a one-time relatively cheap addition to a launch, one is a constant human labor cost.
(Also sort of bummed out by the lack of FE engagement lately except for Tom and Pete. Maybe everyone found out it’s not flat.)
-
The government also created the underlying operating procedures for the commercial satellite industry:
So what if they did?
The Govt in the UK created the framework which regulates car manufacturers in the country, and it also created the Road Traffic Regulations, which dictate how cars shall be used once on the road, with regards to signage, speed limits, types of pedestrian crossing, etc.
However, they have no actual involvement beyond that when I either buy a car, or get in it to drive somewhere.
Likewise, NASA may well have created a framework and laid down the groundwork for commercial space satellite launches, but they're not directly involved in every one.
-
(Also sort of bummed out by the lack of FE engagement lately except for Tom and Pete. Maybe everyone found out it’s not flat.)
There has never been that much really.
And on this particular topic I always find it disappointing that there seems to be a real lack of effort going in to investigate claims about space exploration.
Every launch and mission is an opportunity for scrutiny. Given that the ISS can be seen from the ground and ham radio operatives are able to communicate with it, that's another avenue for investigation.
And, specific to this thread, there are a load of satellite technologies and images which can be cross referenced with other data.
Instead it all seems to be put into a big box marked "FAKE" and not really thought about too much.
-
Comparing a screenshot from the Echostar IX video to In-The-Sky.org's satellite tracking map, they seem to be identical:
(https://i.imgur.com/8qTbT6d.jpg)
-
Why would a private satellite, whose sole purpose is to broadcast signals of television to homes, be outfitted with a camera?
Does that mean you accept that the satellite did, and still does, broadcast signals to people's homes from an orbital location?
No, it means the exact opposite.
Like I said above, I get the impression it was tacked on for a bit of fun as an afterthought. Not a science experiment, not designed to last or future proofed....
For-profit companies aren't interested in fun.
However, do you realise that your argument is virtually the EXACT opposite of what flat-earthers in other arenas usually argue about satellites? It usually goes - "If there's all these satellites, we should have pictures of the Earth, 24 hours a day! Why aren't there any?" To which the RE response usually is - the satellites are sent there for a purpose, and that purpose is not photography.
I don't care about any FE statements or RE statements.
I am making my statement.
In regard to plausibility.
It is highly implausible for this to have occurred.
-
Why would a private satellite, whose sole purpose is to broadcast signals of television to homes, be outfitted with a camera?
Well. If I was launching a satellite for whatever purpose then I'd sure as hell put a camera on it.
Do you have any idea how much money it costs to build and launch a satellite? We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars, adding a camera isn't going to cost anything relative to that.
What's your hot take, that they employ someone to fake pictures from it. Why would they do that?
My hot-take is there is no camera.
Period.
There is no such place as 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth.
Another hot-take is that only a fool would believe this is plausible.
-
For-profit companies aren't interested in fun.
On the contrary. Satellite TV is a direct to consumer business. Anything they can do to make their customers smile when they are thinking about the company or its service is good for business especially if its incremental cost is near zero, which this is. While this likely was fun for the company engineers (which is also good for the company), its fun for their customers that the company was thinking about.
-
There is no such place as 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth.
How is it then that you get the strongest signal when your directional antenna is pointed at that spot?
-
There is no such place as 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth.
How is it then that you get the strongest signal when your directional antenna is pointed at that spot?
It’s always something something “triangulation” with them.
-
There is no such place as 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth.
Really? Tell us more. How have you verified this?
-
I'm just interested in what you think is going on here. If you don't know then that's an acceptable answer.
I don't know, and I don't think I can know. I also don't know (but I hope I could know) how many times you want me to repeat this.
Surely someone has to be lying here. Either my ex-colleague, or her bosses - or someone up the chain.
Not necessarily. They could all be wrong.
You said her being "wrong" is another option, but have not elaborated what you mean.
I don't know what it is that needs elaborating. There is no need for anyone to lie. They could simply all believe something that's ultimately false.
Unless you see a FE model where a craft could have landed on Mars and be sending back seismic data, that wouldn't work with most FE models I see presented though.
You're extremely prescriptive all of a sudden. If only you treated RE'ers the same way...
-
Surely someone has to be lying here. Either my ex-colleague, or her bosses - or someone up the chain.
Not necessarily. They could all be wrong.
If the person analyzing data is told it comes from a probe on Mars, but it is in fact being generated on earth and fed into the data stream somewhere, doesn't someone (actually many someones) have to be involved in making that happen? That isn't just being wrong.
-
Surely someone has to be lying here. Either my ex-colleague, or her bosses - or someone up the chain.
Not necessarily. They could all be wrong.
Isn’t it more plausible that you are wrong rather than the dozens or 100’s (and the 1000’s that came before them) that design, engineer, launch, & receive data from such space tech, all as expected with visible results, all the way down to the consumer level?
-
but it is in fact being generated on earth and fed into the data stream somewhere
Seems like a strange assumption to make out of nowhere. I thought you were all about choosing reality?
Isn’t it more plausible that you are wrong
Pay attention, just this once, I beg of you. The question was whether or not someone lying is the only option. It's a "yes/no" question.
-
Isn’t it more plausible that you are wrong
Pay attention, just this once, I beg of you. The question was whether or not someone lying is the only option. It's a "yes/no" question.
I'll rephrase then. Let's say no one is lying. Then they are either right or they are wrong/mistaken. Is it more plausible they are right or is it more plausible they are wrong/mistaken?
-
but it is in fact being generated on earth and fed into the data stream somewhere
Seems like a strange assumption to make out of nowhere. I thought you were all about choosing reality?
If someone is analyzing data claimed to be coming from Mars, and it is coming from somewhere else (as the FE view insists), then where would that be if not somewhere on earth? How can that be explained by (as you say) "they could all be wrong"?
-
Is it more plausible they are right or is it more plausible they are wrong/mistaken?
Indeterminate based on the data presented.
and it is coming from somewhere else
What a strange assumption to make out of nowhere.
(as the FE view insists)
You don't know the first thing about "the FE view" or what it "insists" on. It would be a good idea to develop some understanding before making loud assertions. Again, I'd have hoped you'd choose reality.
-
and it is coming from somewhere else
What a strange assumption to make out of nowhere.
The claim was that the signals are coming from a probe sitting on Mars. You claim they could be "mistaken". So if the data stream is not coming from Mars, then it must be "coming from somewhere else". How is that an assumption?
(as the FE view insists)
You don't know the first thing about "the FE view" or what it "insists" on. It would be a good idea to develop some understanding before making loud assertions. Again, I'd have hoped you'd choose reality.
We send space craft to Mars (a trip of about 300 million miles) based on the standard solar system view (i.e. RE). If FE is true, then none of that works. So do we have space craft on Mars or not?
-
The claim was that the signals are coming from a probe sitting on Mars.
That is one of the claims, yes. Of course, it's not the one currently under discussion. Are you really so far removed from reality as to ignore all discussion between AATW and me and just make up your own argument for me?
If FE is true, then none of that works.
A baseless conjecture, which also happens to be false. How very anti-reality of you.
Once more, on the off chance that it will stick this time: you know nothing about FET. If you really want to sit in your bubble, pass on all learning opportunities, and scream about how FET totally proposes things it doesn't, that's your prerogative; but please do so on a personal blog, metabunk, or reddit. When posting here, you're expected to understand the subject matter.
-
The claim was that the signals are coming from a probe sitting on Mars.
That is one of the claims, yes. Of course, it's not the one currently under discussion. Are you really so far removed from reality as to ignore all discussion between AATW and me and just make up your own argument for me?
Let me refresh your memory
Surely someone has to be lying here. Either my ex-colleague, or her bosses - or someone up the chain.
Not necessarily. They could all be wrong.
As usually you do not actually have a response but just play games. If AATW's ex-colleague is not lying then the data is coming from somewhere and someone has to know where. If that place isn't Mars then it is clearly NOT the case that they are "all wrong" but some are lying about it. Its not that complicated.
If FE is true, then none of that works.
A baseless conjecture, which also happens to be false. How very anti-reality of you.
Rocket trajectories and orbits (even partial orbits) are calculated for a round earth and trips to Mars are calculated for the std model where Mars is 300 Million miles or so away (when at the optimum time for a visit at least) clearly that does not match the FE view of planets circulating above the flat earth. So again just answer the simple question, has NASA sent space craft to mars, some of which have deposited landers/rovers there that continue to transmit back to earth, or not? Its a simple question, but I doubt you will answer it.
You have clearly painted yourself into a corner. If we have craft on Mars than FE is wrong, if we do not have craft on Mars then someone must be lying about the data stream AATW's friend is analyzing.
-
Let me refresh your memory
Your abysmal reading comprehension is not my problem. If you didn't understand something I said, you're welcome to ask (in other words: you have the option of choosing reality rather than your imagination). Trying to mansplain to me what I meant by my own words doesn't make you look anywhere near as smart as you think it does.
clearly that does not match the FE view
Once again - you do not know what the "FE view" is. You invented one for yourself. It won't stand here. You can learn about FE and start to address the reality of the situation, or you can stop posting here and go to metabunk where you belong.
You have clearly painted yourself into a corner.
If you do not have anything to contribute to this thread, do not post again. I've given you plenty of opportunities to choose reality, but this time it's the last one for realsies.
-
We send space craft to Mars (a trip of about 300 million miles) based on the standard solar system view (i.e. RE).
What?
It is more plausible you cannot even get your own set of "facts," straight, but have no problem dictating the "FE" view.
Go learn RE some more.
-
We send space craft to Mars (a trip of about 300 million miles) based on the standard solar system view (i.e. RE).
What?
What exactly do you not understand? The TRIP takes nearly 300Million miles (something like 292.5 if you want more accuracy). https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8785/nasas-perseverance-rover-is-midway-to-mars/
-
We send space craft to Mars (a trip of about 300 million miles) based on the standard solar system view (i.e. RE).
What?
What exactly do you not understand? The TRIP takes nearly 300Million miles (something like 292.5 if you want more accuracy). https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8785/nasas-perseverance-rover-is-midway-to-mars/
That you profess to believe that doubling the average distance is somehow resulting in high efficiency is only a statement of the depth of delusion you are in.
Sad.
-
We send space craft to Mars (a trip of about 300 million miles) based on the standard solar system view (i.e. RE).
What?
What exactly do you not understand? The TRIP takes nearly 300Million miles (something like 292.5 if you want more accuracy). https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8785/nasas-perseverance-rover-is-midway-to-mars/
That you profess to believe that doubling the average distance is somehow resulting in high efficiency is only a statement of the depth of delusion you are in.
Sad.
Sigh.
Look, ichoosereality has made a mistake here. He's confused the distance to Mars to the distance the Perseverance Rover took.
BuT SuReLy ThAt ShOuLd Be ThE SaMe If It'S GoInG To MaRs?!!!11!
Well, no. Because Mars is orbiting the sun, Perseverance took 7 months to get there so it's not like just planning a route from A to B on earth where A and B are a fixed distance apart from one another.
It's a lot more complex than that.
BUT, the point he's making is pretty clear. The NASA claim is that they sent a craft on a journey of nearly 300 million miles to land on another planet. I've not seen a FE model where that would be possible.
-
We send space craft to Mars (a trip of about 300 million miles) based on the standard solar system view (i.e. RE).
What?
What exactly do you not understand? The TRIP takes nearly 300Million miles (something like 292.5 if you want more accuracy). https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8785/nasas-perseverance-rover-is-midway-to-mars/
That you profess to believe that doubling the average distance is somehow resulting in high efficiency is only a statement of the depth of delusion you are in.
Sad.
Sigh.
Look, ichoosereality has made a mistake here. He's confused the distance to Mars to the distance the Perseverance Rover took.
BuT SuReLy ThAt ShOuLd Be ThE SaMe If It'S GoInG To MaRs?!!!11!
Well, no. Because Mars is orbiting the sun, Perseverance took 7 months to get there so it's not like just planning a route from A to B on earth where A and B are a fixed distance apart from one another.
It's a lot more complex than that.
BUT, the point he's making is pretty clear. The NASA claim is that they sent a craft on a journey of nearly 300 million miles to land on another planet. I've not seen a FE model where that would be possible.
No, he didn't make a mistake in writing.
He wrote "trip."
His mistake is believing that nonsense to begin with.
The NASA claim comes from human beings who have the same difficulty in making sense of how to wash dishes in their homes or how to brush their goddamn teeth properly, let alone making sense of what the universe is like beyond what they can see with their own two eyes.
Experts?
Hardly.
-
His mistake is believing that nonsense to begin with.
Why not actually debate? I could just say “your mistake is believing in FE nonsense” but I’m not going to because we were having a discussion.
Are you supposing that the entire science of orbital mechanics and transfers is fabricated?
All the evidence (here on earth) for space travel that could POSSIBLY exist DOES exist. Photos, jobs, entire sciences, launches, tracking. But because you can’t go to Mars and look at the rover itself, the whole thing must not be real?
-
His mistake is believing that nonsense to begin with.
Why not actually debate? I could just say “your mistake is believing in FE nonsense” but I’m not going to because we were having a discussion.
Are you supposing that the entire science of orbital mechanics and transfers is fabricated?
All the evidence (here on earth) for space travel that could POSSIBLY exist DOES exist. Photos, jobs, entire sciences, launches, tracking. But because you can’t go to Mars and look at the rover itself, the whole thing must not be real?
I don't care if you think I am making a mistake in what I believe.
Calling a belief foolish is debate.
I believe in what I can sense and mentally fathom.
I can point to the things present around me, occupying the areas I have been or am in, and state, "I understand ..."
And that is just for a very small portion of things.
To claim I can look at things I do not have access to and lay any sort of claim consisting of, "THIS IS REALITY," is just nutso thinking.
There is no such thing as "space travel," except the space defined as within the limits of the atmoplane, and some guy named Jules Verne back in the 1800's, with his huge fan base carrying on the tradition.
-
There is no such thing as "space travel," except the space defined as within the limits of the atmoplane, and some guy named Jules Verne back in the 1800's, with his huge fan base carrying on the tradition.
What, exactly, is the “problem” with the idea of space travel? Nothing about it defies any observable, understandable physics. It strikes a nerve with some people as this impossible “sci-fi” thing but it’s become a fairly mundane part of life.
-
It really does feel like that sort of logic, making it your literal belief, is jumping the gun and being too eager to believe something.
I could write a very convincing book on how space travel is fake and how the earth is flat. Do I LITERALLY believe that space travel is fake and the earth is flat? No. I can talk about HOW things can be faked without just saying “well it’s fake because it’s the truth!”
-
There is no such thing as "space travel," except the space defined as within the limits of the atmoplane, and some guy named Jules Verne back in the 1800's, with his huge fan base carrying on the tradition.
What, exactly, is the “problem” with the idea of space travel? Nothing about it defies any observable, understandable physics. It strikes a nerve with some people as this impossible “sci-fi” thing but it’s become a fairly mundane part of life.
The only problem, it seems, is that most common FE models are incompatible with space travel. So the only logical thing to do, if you're going to cling to FE, is to dismiss it all as fake.
This is what I was getting at in this post earlier in the thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19229.msg261634#msg261634
If you're going to believe in FE then you need to think through the consequences of that. One of those is having to believe that space travel and exploration as fake. There are issues with that - GPS works, satellite TV works, the ISS is visible from the ground, rocket launches can be observed. It just feels like it's all put in a box marked "FAKE!" and not investigated in any depth.
-
Let me refresh your memory
Your abysmal reading comprehension is not my problem.
As usual you offer no actual evidence to support your accusations. You obviously just like making them. Having to actually offer reasoning and backup is totally inconsistent with the FE view in the first place so I suppose it should come as no surprise that you take a similar approach in all your interactions.
-
Look, ichoosereality has made a mistake here. He's confused the distance to Mars to the distance the Perseverance Rover took.
BuT SuReLy ThAt ShOuLd Be ThE SaMe If It'S GoInG To MaRs?!!!11!
Well, no. Because Mars is orbiting the sun, Perseverance took 7 months to get there so it's not like just planning a route from A to B on earth where A and B are a fixed distance apart from one another.
It's a lot more complex than that.
BUT, the point he's making is pretty clear. The NASA claim is that they sent a craft on a journey of nearly 300 million miles to land on another planet. I've not seen a FE model where that would be possible.
I think I always made it clear I was referring to the total distance traveled, if not I apologize for the confusion.
-
We send space craft to Mars (a trip of about 300 million miles) based on the standard solar system view (i.e. RE).
....
What exactly do you not understand? The TRIP takes nearly 300Million miles (something like 292.5 if you want more accuracy). https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8785/nasas-perseverance-rover-is-midway-to-mars/
That you profess to believe that doubling the average distance is somehow resulting in high efficiency is only a statement of the depth of delusion you are in.
Sad.
Covering distance in the vacuum of space once at speed is essential free, you can coast forever. It's accelerating (to gain or reduce speed) that takes fuel and hence is expensive. Reaching the destination in a reasonable time by coasting as much as possible and accelerating as little as possible is the goal.
No, he didn't make a mistake in writing.
He wrote "trip."
Correct, thank you.
His mistake is believing that nonsense to begin with.
The NASA claim comes from human beings who have the same difficulty in making sense of how to wash dishes in their homes or how to brush their goddamn teeth properly, let alone making sense of what the universe is like beyond what they can see with their own two eyes.
If you do not believe in the existence of anything you have not seen with your own eyes, how many places on teh earth have you visited? Do the others not exist? You must not think anything at the atomic/molecular scale exists either. How do you explain the vast ways that we manipulate that world for the chemistry of pretty much everything around you to atomic power, or electromagnetic radiation? When you are listening to the radio or watching television is that some sort of magic? Likewise for the electrons wizzing around the device you are looking at right now. None of them are visible, so how is your computer working?
-
We send space craft to Mars (a trip of about 300 million miles) based on the standard solar system view (i.e. RE).
....
What exactly do you not understand? The TRIP takes nearly 300Million miles (something like 292.5 if you want more accuracy). https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8785/nasas-perseverance-rover-is-midway-to-mars/
That you profess to believe that doubling the average distance is somehow resulting in high efficiency is only a statement of the depth of delusion you are in.
Sad.
Covering distance in the vacuum of space once at speed is essential free, you can coast forever. It's accelerating (to gain or reduce speed) that takes fuel and hence is expensive. Reaching the destination in a reasonable time by coasting as much as possible and accelerating as little as possible is the goal.
No, he didn't make a mistake in writing.
He wrote "trip."
Correct, thank you.
His mistake is believing that nonsense to begin with.
The NASA claim comes from human beings who have the same difficulty in making sense of how to wash dishes in their homes or how to brush their goddamn teeth properly, let alone making sense of what the universe is like beyond what they can see with their own two eyes.
If you do not believe in the existence of anything you have not seen with your own eyes, how many places on teh earth have you visited? Do the others not exist? You must not think anything at the atomic/molecular scale exists either. How do you explain the vast ways that we manipulate that world for the chemistry of pretty much everything around you to atomic power, or electromagnetic radiation? When you are listening to the radio or watching television is that some sort of magic? Likewise for the electrons wizzing around the device you are looking at right now. None of them are visible, so how is your computer working?
None of what I wrote is dismissive of the existence of things outside my literal or figurative field of view. It is a statement of the distinct failure of humanity admitting their shortcomings and lack of understanding for those easily attainable things surrounding us; and their predilection to claim to "know," things that could not possibly be known.
https://archive.org/details/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich/page/n5/mode/2up
-
None of what I wrote is dismissive of the existence of things outside my literal or figurative field of view. It is a statement of the distinct failure of humanity admitting their shortcomings and lack of understanding for those easily attainable things surrounding us; and their predilection to claim to "know," things that could not possibly be known.
https://archive.org/details/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich/page/n5/mode/2up
OK, this:
I believe in what I can sense and mentally fathom.
I can point to the things present around me, occupying the areas I have been or am in, and state, "I understand ..."
And that is just for a very small portion of things.
To claim I can look at things I do not have access to and lay any sort of claim consisting of, "THIS IS REALITY," is just nutso thinking.
Seemed to be to being saying exactly that, but ok. There are very likely things we can not know or maybe even ask reasonable questions about (like what came before the universe, since that question makes no sense if time started with the universe). But having only read the preface to KindsDethroned its author is clearly making the classic claim of those whose work can not be replicated by others. It is not governments nor institutions that pass judgement on scientific claims but the work of other scientists, i.e. peer-review. Further now, as opposed to in 1920's we have all the evidence of space travel. To claim a work published only in the popular press 100 years ago somehow proves all of space travel (including the things we all can observe working, like GPS, sat TV, etc) must be false, seems quite ridiculous to me.
-
It is not governments nor institutions that pass judgement on scientific claims but the work of other scientists, i.e. peer-review. Further now, as opposed to in 1920's we have all the evidence of space travel. To claim a work published only in the popular press 100 years ago somehow proves all of space travel (including the things we all can observe working, like GPS, sat TV, etc) must be false, seems quite ridiculous to me.
In the 1920's government connected information was looked upon with skepticism. There were a lot of questionable medical experiments conducted by the federal government, forced sterilization of the disabled, questionable narratives about races, etc. If the government claimed something it might or might not be credible, and was generally untrusted. The government has had a tough time with honesty and integrity.
It has always been far more credible if multiple independent universities and independent scientific groups could verify it. Unfortunately all the the space travel claims are connected with government in some manner. Therefore it has not been peer reviewed. To believe this requires faith in government integrity.
-
It is not governments nor institutions that pass judgement on scientific claims but the work of other scientists, i.e. peer-review. Further now, as opposed to in 1920's we have all the evidence of space travel. To claim a work published only in the popular press 100 years ago somehow proves all of space travel (including the things we all can observe working, like GPS, sat TV, etc) must be false, seems quite ridiculous to me.
In the 1920's government connected information was looked upon with skepticism. There were a lot of questionable medical experiments conducted by the federal government, forced sterilization of the disabled, questionable narratives about races, etc. If the government claimed something it might or might not be credible, and was generally untrusted. The government has had a tough time with honesty and integrity.
It has always been far more credible if multiple independent universities and independent scientific groups could verify it. Unfortunately all the the space travel claims are connected with government in some manner. Therefore it has not been peer reviewed. To believe this requires faith in government integrity.
Which government?
Please explain how satellite broadcasting works with geosynchronous satellites. The angles of dishes are 100% consistent with a round earth.
-
It is not governments nor institutions that pass judgement on scientific claims but the work of other scientists, i.e. peer-review. Further now, as opposed to in 1920's we have all the evidence of space travel. To claim a work published only in the popular press 100 years ago somehow proves all of space travel (including the things we all can observe working, like GPS, sat TV, etc) must be false, seems quite ridiculous to me.
In the 1920's government connected information was looked upon with skepticism. There were a lot of questionable medical experiments conducted by the federal government, forced sterilization of the disabled, questionable narratives about races, etc. If the government claimed something it might or might not be credible, and was generally untrusted. The government has had a tough time with honesty and integrity.
It has always been far more credible if multiple independent universities and independent scientific groups could verify it. Unfortunately all the the space travel claims are connected with government in some manner. Therefore it has not been peer reviewed. To believe this requires faith in government integrity.
So anything "connected with government in some manner" can't be peer reviewed? Does this apply to all governments? How do you define "connected with government", specifically?
-
So anything "connected with government in some manner" can't be peer reviewed? Does this apply to all governments? How do you define "connected with government", specifically?
Airbags have government involvement, immediately remove them from your car!
-
None of what I wrote is dismissive of the existence of things outside my literal or figurative field of view. It is a statement of the distinct failure of humanity admitting their shortcomings and lack of understanding for those easily attainable things surrounding us; and their predilection to claim to "know," things that could not possibly be known.
https://archive.org/details/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich/page/n5/mode/2up
OK, this:
I believe in what I can sense and mentally fathom.
I can point to the things present around me, occupying the areas I have been or am in, and state, "I understand ..."
And that is just for a very small portion of things.
To claim I can look at things I do not have access to and lay any sort of claim consisting of, "THIS IS REALITY," is just nutso thinking.
Seemed to be to being saying exactly that, but ok. There are very likely things we can not know or maybe even ask reasonable questions about (like what came before the universe, since that question makes no sense if time started with the universe). But having only read the preface to KindsDethroned its author is clearly making the classic claim of those whose work can not be replicated by others. It is not governments nor institutions that pass judgement on scientific claims but the work of other scientists, i.e. peer-review. Further now, as opposed to in 1920's we have all the evidence of space travel. To claim a work published only in the popular press 100 years ago somehow proves all of space travel (including the things we all can observe working, like GPS, sat TV, etc) must be false, seems quite ridiculous to me.
I am wondering how the concept of "believing in things that are understood," excludes either faith or belief in things not understood.
You were given a text to review, offering an explanation and further insight into the foundation of my view as to why flat earth exists and space (as pitched by world-wide con men), does not exist.
You're not interested and fine.
See ya.
-
So anything "connected with government in some manner" can't be peer reviewed? Does this apply to all governments? How do you define "connected with government", specifically?
Airbags have government involvement, immediately remove them from your car!
Not sure why you are choosing to point out airbags as a reason for why we should blindly trust the government. One of the largest automotive safety recalls in history was an airbag. It occurred due to poor government oversight and regulations. It's a good example for why the government should not be implicitly trusted.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201126234937/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/business/takata-airbag-recall-crisis.html
(https://i.imgur.com/8wqP4Hs.png)
-
So anything "connected with government in some manner" can't be peer reviewed? Does this apply to all governments? How do you define "connected with government", specifically?
Airbags have government involvement, immediately remove them from your car!
Not sure why you are choosing to point out airbags as a reason for why we should blindly trust the government. One of the largest automotive safety recalls in history was an airbag. It occurred due to poor government oversight and regulations. It's a good example for why the government should not be implicitly trusted.
No one is saying a government should be defacto "trusted". But it cuts both ways. Governments should be questioned with skepticism, but not just blindly untrusted in all circumstances. And not trusting a government to provide blanket infallible oversight, in this case, airbags, doesn't mean that airbags don't exist and they are lying about the existence of airbags.
Your argument is akin to government not providing the proper safety regulations oversight for a private enterprise launching a satellite into space, because of which, the satellite ultimately failed spectacularly and plummeted to the ground and destroyed structures and killed people. Doesn't mean the satellite didn't exist, wasn't up in space, and not capturing images of earth from 22,000 miles away.
-
Not sure why you are choosing to point out airbags as a reason for why we should blindly trust the government. One of the largest automotive safety recalls in history was an airbag. It occurred due to poor government oversight and regulations. It's a good example for why the government should not be implicitly trusted.
... but how is this relevant to Echostar? You quoted one line from a text written by "members or employees of Near Earth LLC, a small FINRA licensed broker-dealer focused on providing investment banking and consulting services to the commercial space and satellite sectors." which (paraphrased) said that NASA had laid the groundwork for commercial space activities. You didn't show any direct government involvement in Echostar beyond this. (Section "Definition of Commercial Space" on p 14 of 228)
The satellite mentioned in the video is Echostar 11 (eleven). From Wikipedia;
"EchoStar XI, also known as EchoStar 11, is an American geostationary communications satellite which is operated by EchoStar on behalf of Dish Network. It is positioned in Geostationary orbit at a longitude of 110° West, from where it is used to provide direct broadcasting services to the United States. EchoStar XI was built by SSL, and is based on the LS-1300 satellite bus. It is equipped with .... The satellite was launched using a Sea Launch Zenit-3SL carrier rocket flying from the Ocean Odyssey launch platform."
---
"The Zenit-3SL is an expendable carrier rocket operated by Sea Launch. ... It is a member of the Zenit family of rockets, and is built by the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau. RKK Energia produces the Block DM-SL upper stage, whilst the payload fairing is produced by Boeing. Launches are conducted from the Ocean Odyssey platform anchored on the equator in the Pacific Ocean, at a point with 154°W longitude, about 370 kilometres east of Kiritimati."
- - -
"Sea Launch was a multinational spacecraft launch company founded in 1995 that provided orbital launch services from 1999–2014. The company used a mobile maritime launch platform for equatorial launches of commercial payloads on specialized Zenit-3SL rockets from the former mobile/floating oil drilling rig renamed Odyssey.
By 2014, it had assembled and launched thirty-two rockets, with an additional three failures and one partial failure. All commercial payloads were communications satellites intended for geostationary transfer orbit with such customers as EchoStar, DirecTV, XM Satellite Radio, PanAmSat, and Thuraya.
The approach Sea Launch LLC used was to assemble the launcher on a purpose-built ship Sea Launch Commander in California. The assembled spacecraft was then positioned on top of the self-propelled Odyssey floating launch platform and moved to the equatorial Pacific Ocean for launch, with the Sea Launch Commander serving as command center ... The sea-based launch system means the rockets can be fired from the optimal position on Earth's surface, considerably increasing payload capacity and reducing launch costs compared to land-based systems.
The Zenit-3SL design began in the late 1980s as the Zenit-3, a proposed replacement for the Proton-K, which would have used a Zenit-2 rocket with a Block D upper stage. This proposal was shelved after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as Russia inherited the space programme, however the Zenit was manufactured in Ukrainian SSR. Boeing became involved in the programme in 1994.
Sea Launch integrates the rockets in California, and transfers them to Odyssey via the Sea Launch Commander for transportation to the launch site. Once at the launch site, the rocket is erected on the platform, and a three-day countdown is initiated."
Which part of this should we regard as untrustworthy (American) government? The rocket was made in Ukraine, and launched from international waters, far from the US. The integration (final assembly) of the craft was done in California, but what evidence is there to show that either NASA or the US Govt had any direct involvement in that, to the extent that it renders belief in the overall mission invalid?
-
…. You were given a text to review, offering an explanation and further insight into the foundation of my view as to why flat earth exists and space (as pitched by world-wide con men), does not exist.
An interesting read in some ways, but it would have been more impressive if you’d read Kings Dethroned with a little of the questioning approach found on these forums. The author is less than rigorous with his “facts”, free with his unsubstantiated opinions and just plain wrong with his figures. He kicks off in chapter 2 with Ole Roemer, but gets Roemer’s measurements wrong and his calculated results wrong too. This lack of care is to be found throughout the book. I’ll mention one more for now: the measurements made during the 19th century transits of Venus. The author states that only those made in Bermuda and Sabrina Land were used in the end, but if you look hard enough you’ll find the British made observations from Bermuda, but you won’t find observations made from, or an expedition to, Sabrina Land. Many expeditions were made to observe the transit, some successfully and others stymied by cloudy weather, but there were many more observations made than KD’s author concedes.
I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do expect you to check others’ opinions.
-
…. You were given a text to review, offering an explanation and further insight into the foundation of my view as to why flat earth exists and space (as pitched by world-wide con men), does not exist.
An interesting read in some ways, but it would have been more impressive if you’d read Kings Dethroned with a little of the questioning approach found on these forums. The author is less than rigorous with his “facts”, free with his unsubstantiated opinions and just plain wrong with his figures. He kicks off in chapter 2 with Ole Roemer, but gets Roemer’s measurements wrong and his calculated results wrong too. This lack of care is to be found throughout the book. I’ll mention one more for now: the measurements made during the 19th century transits of Venus. The author states that only those made in Bermuda and Sabrina Land were used in the end, but if you look hard enough you’ll find the British made observations from Bermuda, but you won’t find observations made from, or an expedition to, Sabrina Land. Many expeditions were made to observe the transit, some successfully and others stymied by cloudy weather, but there were many more observations made than KD’s author concedes.
I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do expect you to check others’ opinions.
^ Am I to take this little ditty you post here as opinion?
You write a critique and get your very first error in stating Chapter 2 gives information regarding Ole Roemer.
Tell us all where Ole Roemer is found in Chapter 2.
You post absolutely zero substance, with just baseless claims that someone else "got it wrong."
Your whole post has got to be a farce!
That someone else was published and you are not.
C ya.
-
I'm not sure the fact someone has written and published a book is a particularly high bar for quality content.
-
I'm not sure the fact someone has written and published a book is a particularly high bar for quality content.
Hey, at least you identified a fact today.
Progress in action, step by step.
-
An FAA document on the origins of the commercial space industry:
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/history/milestones/Commercial_Space_Industry.pdf
Origins of the Commercial Space Industry
' Between 1963 and 1982, U.S. expendable launch vehicle (ELV) manufacturers produced
vehicles only under contract to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) or
the Department of Defense (DOD).
...
On May 16, 1983, the President issued NSDD 94, “Commercialization of Expendable Launch
Vehicles.” This stated the “U.S. Government fully endorses and will facilitate the
commercialization of U.S. Expendable Launch Vehicles. The U.S. Government will license,
supervise, and/or regulate U.S. commercial ELV operations only to the extent required to meet
its national and international obligations and to ensure public safety.” '
---------
A 1988 document of interest, about NASA commercialization:
https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2121&context=space-congress-proceedings
NASA SUPPORT TO COMMERCIAL ELV'S
' NASA endorses the development of U.S. private sector launching capabilities and has proceeded to transfer authority to the private sector to use NASA- controlled facilities and capabilities for commercial launchings. NASA facilitates the private sector operations of ELV's by identifying the necessary support and determining the transition means. Agreements are negotiated to provide assistance, services f and facilities as may be available. A number of these agreements either have been executed or are in various stages of negotiation.
NASA employs two basic types of agreements in the commercial ELY area. Under the first type, called an "umbrella" agreement, the parties agree to the general scope of their commitments. This agreement includes a general description of NASA resources which would be made available on a noninterference basis, means of handling disputes and other necessary understandings. Under the authority of the umbrella agreement, NASA field installations can enter into secondary "subagreements" which specify the NASA facilities and equipment which will be made available and the specific charges for use of such equipment. These subagreements are negotiated by the NASA field installations having
responsibility for the facilities and equipment to be used.
NASA provides support in both the privatization and the commercialization of ELV's. Since there is at times some confusion concerning the terms "privatization" and "commercialization," it is important to define them at this point. "Privatization" is defined as shifting to the private sector for the acquisition of goods or services required to conduct NASA programs. In the context of ELV's, privatization is turning over to the private sector ELV's which were developed under past NASA contracts. ELV's in this category include Atlas/Centaur, Delta, and Scout. "Commercialization" is defined as encouraging and facilitating domestic private sector applications of the products, knowledge, or services resulting or derived from space activities. In the context of ELV's, commercialization is the development of ELV's by the private sector. An ELY in this category is the Conestoga launch vehicle. As of the date of this paper (January 1988), NASA has executed one privatization and one commercialization ELY agreement, and a number of others are in various stages of negotiation and coordination.
ELV PRIVATIZATION
General Dynamics - Atlas/Centaur
NASA published a Request for Expressions of Interest (REI) for privatization of the Atlas/Centaur which appeared in the June 21, 1983, edition of Commerce
Business Daily (CBD). This led to publication of a Request for Proposals (RFP) which appeared on September 9, 1983. General Dynamics (GD) was the only responder to the RFP, submitting their original proposal in November 1983. When the agreement was signed on March 26, 1987, it became the first U.S. Government agreement transferring operation of a Government-developed ELV to the private sector. A subagreement is being developed to incorporate the use of specific services and property including: security and communications; payload calibration; institutional support; and technical assistance for payload processing and pre-launch mission management.
Since signing the agreement, GD has announced that they will start construction of 18 commercial Atlas G/Centaurs. The vehicle, which will be commercially
available in 1989, can deliver a 5,200-pound payload to geostationary orbit. The company also announced future plans to develop an advanced version which can send 6,650 pounds to geostationary orbit.
...
CONCLUSION
The fledgling U.S. commercial ELV industry represents a major milestone for business investment in space, much like the first communications satellite companies whose goal was to develop a market for satellite-based breakthroughs in communication technology. Competition from foreign launch vehicles will be a clear and growing challenge to these emerging commercial endeavors, firms, for years under contract to the U.S. Government, have mastered technology required to send payloads into orbit. The challenge to these in the last decade of the 20th century will be to demonstrate the viability of private sector space launches. NASA must, and will help. '
-
Looks like NASA didn't play a role in Echostar IX. The rocket was a Zenit-3SL. Russian. With some fins from Boeing. NASA has logs of pretty much every rocket ever launched from all nations. From the NASA site regarding all rocket launches, here, specifically, Echostar IX:
(https://i.imgur.com/dUsG1Pp.png)(https://i.imgur.com/ETfqjuj.png)
For example, here's NASA info on a Russian satellite rocket launch in 2001:
(https://i.imgur.com/67XJIYg.png)
NASA data on a Chinese satellite rocket launch:
(https://i.imgur.com/Iut3jfI.png)
I'm pretty sure NASA doesn't play a role in any Chinese space missions.
Echostar IX was under the purview of the International Telecommunications Satellite Corporation (ITSO):
ITSO is an intergovernmental organization with 149-member states, that incorporates the principle set forth in Resolution 1721 (XVI) of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which established that communication by means of satellite should be available to the nations of the world as soon as practicable on a global and non-discriminatory basis.
Looks like more of a UN connection, if anything, and not NASA.
-
I'm not sure the fact someone has written and published a book is a particularly high bar for quality content.
Hey, at least you identified a fact today.
Progress in action, step by step.
Lovely to hear from you again, I’d really appreciate it if you could point out where I’ve not been using facts.
-
An FAA document on the origins of the commercial space industry:
Origins of the Commercial Space Industry
' Between 1963 and 1982, U.S. expendable launch vehicle (ELV) manufacturers produced
vehicles only under contract to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) or
the Department of Defense (DOD).
etc
The Echostar launch took place 21 years later. (EDIT - I see the report was dated 1988 - so approx 15 years later, not 21)
Cherry-picking from a document discussing a "fledgling" industry in 1983 or thereabouts carries no weight in showing American Government involvement in Echostar.
"The U.S. Government will license, supervise, and/or regulate U.S. commercial ELV operations only to the extent required to meet its national and international obligations and to ensure public safety.” "
(I draw an analogy with motoring again. The UK Government "licences, supervises and regulates" motor vehicles on our roads. I pay an annual road tax, without which I cannot take the car on the road, and I'm required to take any car over 3 years old to a regulated testing station once per year for safety checks. All drivers must have a driving licence, which is obtained by passing a standard driving test, and all drivers must be insured. There's a set of road traffic regulations governing speed limits, obeying signage, etc.)
In general terms, that's the licencing, supervision and regulation.
But that's it. The Govt are totally hands off after that. Nobody from the Govt helps me start the car in the morning. Nobody watches what route I take. I can please myself in all respects in usage of my car, once I comply with a broad framework of regulation.)
All you've shown is some broad safety-related regulatory framework in the early 1980s. Nothing to show any direct Govt involvement in Echostar in 2003.
-
Echostar IX was under the purview of the International Telecommunications Satellite Corporation (ITSO):
ITSO is an intergovernmental organization with 149-member states, that incorporates the principle set forth in Resolution 1721 (XVI) of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which established that communication by means of satellite should be available to the nations of the world as soon as practicable on a global and non-discriminatory basis.
Looks like more of a UN connection, if anything, and not NASA.
Your argument appears to be here that the US Government is not involved because the US Government is involved. ::)
-
Your argument appears to be here that the US Government is not involved because the US Government is involved. ::)
From the OP;
There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water.
Do you have any substantive argument that the US Govt played any direct role in this?
-
Echostar IX was under the purview of the International Telecommunications Satellite Corporation (ITSO):
ITSO is an intergovernmental organization with 149-member states, that incorporates the principle set forth in Resolution 1721 (XVI) of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which established that communication by means of satellite should be available to the nations of the world as soon as practicable on a global and non-discriminatory basis.
Looks like more of a UN connection, if anything, and not NASA.
Your argument appears to be here that the US Government is not involved because the US Government is involved. ::)
Nope, my argument is that NASA was not involved with Echostar IX. Or about as much involvement as they had with the Chinese satellite launch I referenced.
If you have an issue with satellite launches and tech and governments in general, maybe take that up with the 149-member states of the International Telecommunications Satellite Corporation & the UN. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to entertain your opinions on the matter.
-
Echostar IX was under the purview of the International Telecommunications Satellite Corporation (ITSO):
ITSO is an intergovernmental organization with 149-member states, that incorporates the principle set forth in Resolution 1721 (XVI) of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which established that communication by means of satellite should be available to the nations of the world as soon as practicable on a global and non-discriminatory basis.
Looks like more of a UN connection, if anything, and not NASA.
Your argument appears to be here that the US Government is not involved because the US Government is involved. ::)
Nope, my argument is that NASA was not involved with Echostar IX. Or about as much involvement as they had with the Chinese satellite launch I referenced.
If you have an issue with satellite launches and tech and governments in general, maybe take that up with the 149-member states of the International Telecommunications Satellite Corporation & the UN. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to entertain your opinions on the matter.
Yeah, like when the UN got together and decided to do this they asked the country of Chad to organize it with their expertise of space travel. I'm sure something like that happened. ::)
-
Echostar IX was under the purview of the International Telecommunications Satellite Corporation (ITSO):
ITSO is an intergovernmental organization with 149-member states, that incorporates the principle set forth in Resolution 1721 (XVI) of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which established that communication by means of satellite should be available to the nations of the world as soon as practicable on a global and non-discriminatory basis.
Looks like more of a UN connection, if anything, and not NASA.
Your argument appears to be here that the US Government is not involved because the US Government is involved. ::)
Nope, my argument is that NASA was not involved with Echostar IX. Or about as much involvement as they had with the Chinese satellite launch I referenced.
If you have an issue with satellite launches and tech and governments in general, maybe take that up with the 149-member states of the International Telecommunications Satellite Corporation & the UN. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to entertain your opinions on the matter.
Yeah, like when the UN got together and decided to do this they asked the country of Chad to organize it with their expertise of space travel. I'm sure something like that happened. ::)
Who said Chad was involved regarding Echostar IX? Just like who said NASA was involved regarding Echostar IX?
All I'm suggesting is that you take your concerns to ITSO & the UN and let the 149 member states know that you think satellites and space-travel are faked by NASA.
-
UAll I'm suggesting is that you take your concerns to ITSO & the UN and let the 149 member states know that you think satellites and space-travel are faked by NASA.
Exactly. This would be the greatest discovery of the century, why not publish a paper about why it’s all faked and inform the UN?
I’m still calling into question the FE reasoning for why the footage “looks fake”, when all the concerns are based off a misinterpretation, and therefore not a good case against space travel.
-
Echostar IX was under the purview of the International Telecommunications Satellite Corporation (ITSO):
ITSO is an intergovernmental organization with 149-member states, that incorporates the principle set forth in Resolution 1721 (XVI) of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which established that communication by means of satellite should be available to the nations of the world as soon as practicable on a global and non-discriminatory basis.
Looks like more of a UN connection, if anything, and not NASA.
Your argument appears to be here that the US Government is not involved because the US Government is involved. ::)
Nope, my argument is that NASA was not involved with Echostar IX. Or about as much involvement as they had with the Chinese satellite launch I referenced.
If you have an issue with satellite launches and tech and governments in general, maybe take that up with the 149-member states of the International Telecommunications Satellite Corporation & the UN. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to entertain your opinions on the matter.
Yeah, like when the UN got together and decided to do this they asked the country of Chad to organize it with their expertise of space travel. I'm sure something like that happened. ::)
Who said Chad was involved regarding Echostar IX? Just like who said NASA was involved regarding Echostar IX?
All I'm suggesting is that you take your concerns to ITSO & the UN and let the 149 member states know that you think satellites and space-travel are faked by NASA.
Posting UN nonsense and claiming that it somehow disconnects US Government involvement is just absurd.
We don't need to take our concerns anywhere else, most certainly anywhere you suggest.
-
Posting UN nonsense and claiming it that somehow disconnects US Government involvement is just absurd.
We don't need to take our concerns anywhere else, most certainly anywhere you suggest.
How about a more direct question: are there any problems with the EchoStar video provided in the original post? Any errors that would suggest it’s not real? This is what I wanted to know.
-
We don't need to take our concerns anywhere else, most certainly anywhere you suggest.
What ARE your "concerns", though?
Tom is trying to link Echostar to NASA, but has not shown any direct involvement. What's your concern about the footage?
-
What's your concern about the footage?
They keep avoiding this and bringing up external factors about how the government is involved etc.
I want to know if the footage itself has flaws that would help FET?
I would like to add that I find it noteworthy that lots of people start “investigating” FET based on some misinterpretation, such as “well why don’t they burn up in the thermosphere! Huh, must be fake!”
-
That footage in the OP is a joke.
From 00:53, what do you see?
-
That footage in the OP is a joke.
Why?
-
That footage in the OP is a joke.
Why?
Look at the footage for about 20 seconds from 00:50 to 01:10.
What do you see?
-
Look at the footage for about 20 seconds from 00:50 to 01:10. What do you see?
A crescent Earth, in a similar fashion to the way I see a Crescent Moon in its cycle. I see the crescent growing from the RHS as more of the viewed portion of the Earth is illuminated by the Sun. I see some internal lens flare, and I see specks of debris or dirt on the lens or lens filter.
Do you have a point to make?
-
Yeah, the point is there is nothing consistent about the amount of what you like to call reflected dirt.
All special effects and much worse than anything presented in 1969.
Just some hack who thinks he is Ray Harryhausen.
-
Yeah, the point is there is nothing consistent about the amount of what you like to call reflected dirt.
1. I didn't say anything about "reflected"
2. What do you find inconsistent about it?
-
Yeah, the point is there is nothing consistent about the amount of what you like to call reflected dirt.
1. I didn't say anything about "reflected"
2. What do you find inconsistent about it?
I think you need to consider how anything not emitting its own light, let alone dirt, can be visible to you at all without reflectivity occurring, prior to believing you are capable of declaring any video is valid.
-
I think you need to consider how anything not emitting its own light, let alone dirt, can be visible to you at all without reflectivity occurring, prior to believing you are capable of declaring any video is valid.
Are we still talking about the specks on the lens, or are you referring to the reflected light from the crescent?
-
I think you need to consider how anything not emitting its own light, let alone dirt, can be visible to you at all without reflectivity occurring, prior to believing you are capable of declaring any video is valid.
Are we still talking about the specks on the lens, or are you referring to the reflected light from the crescent?
OMG...
Never mind Tumeni.
-
Can't you just outline, in more than a hastily-written sentence, what your objection is? If your best answer to a direct question is to shrug your shoulders, why bother?
-
Is that a Yes or No?
That is a "I am no longer going to engage you in this thread."
Have a good day.
-
Is that a Yes or No?
That is a "I am no longer going to engage you in this thread."
Have a good day.
I’m not sure what your point is. The specks are from radiation. You can literally see the same “specks” effect on a phone camera.
-
Is that a Yes or No?
That is a "I am no longer going to engage you in this thread."
Have a good day.
I’m not sure what your point is. The specks are from radiation. You can literally see the same “specks” effect on a phone camera.
I wish you "two," would make up your mind.
-
I wish you "two," would make up your mind.
That could not have been your point when you were only asking me what I thought was on the screen.
I assumed the specks to be dust and dirt, he reckons specks from radiation exposure (dead pixels?). So what?
What was your original point about the video? You've asked me what I saw, I told you. What's your point...?
-
I wish you "two," would make up your mind.
What? You just asked him what he saw, and that’s what it looked like, and he gave you his answer.
Yes, it is radiation bombarding the lens. Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth. This isn’t us “making up our mind”. You’re running out of straws to grasp at here.
-
I wish you "two," would make up your mind.
What? You just asked him what he saw, and that’s what it looked like, and he gave you his answer.
Yes, it is radiation bombarding the lens. Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth. This isn’t us “making up our mind”. You’re running out of straws to grasp at here.
The entire video can be recreated here on earth, glad to see you can admit that.
When you RE have a firm grasp on all the stuff, let us here at FE know.
We'll be happy to listen then.
I guess there is nothing else to chat about then.
RE comes here to FE and asks the typical question, "How does FE explain this?" or "How does FE explain that?"
Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.
I am not grasping at any straws, just pointing out the typically weak stuff posted here by RE adherents.
-
I wish you "two," would make up your mind.
What? You just asked him what he saw, and that’s what it looked like, and he gave you his answer.
Yes, it is radiation bombarding the lens. Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth. This isn’t us “making up our mind”. You’re running out of straws to grasp at here.
The entire video can be recreated here on earth, glad to see you can admit that.
When you RE have a firm grasp on all the stuff, let us here at FE know.
We'll be happy to listen then.
I guess there is nothing else to chat about then.
RE comes here to FE and asks the typical question, "How does FE explain this?" or "How does FE explain that?"
Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.
I am not grasping at any straws, just pointing out the typically weak stuff posted here by RE adherents.
Please refer me to an explanation on how broadcast satellites work.
-
I wish you "two," would make up your mind.
What? You just asked him what he saw, and that’s what it looked like, and he gave you his answer.
Yes, it is radiation bombarding the lens. Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth. This isn’t us “making up our mind”. You’re running out of straws to grasp at here.
The entire video can be recreated here on earth, glad to see you can admit that.
When you RE have a firm grasp on all the stuff, let us here at FE know.
We'll be happy to listen then.
I guess there is nothing else to chat about then.
RE comes here to FE and asks the typical question, "How does FE explain this?" or "How does FE explain that?"
Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.
I am not grasping at any straws, just pointing out the typically weak stuff posted here by RE adherents.
Please refer me to an explanation on how broadcast satellites work.
Why?
-
I wish you "two," would make up your mind.
Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.
Let me get this straight. If you ask a question and get multiple answers, then you can assume there is no explanation at all?
Remind me how many flat earth maps are there? And which one is the right one?
As for the specks in the start of that video, I'm going to go with noise in the sensor array when the gain is going to extremes due light shining into the lens. You can see classic lens flare effects as bright light is being sent into the lens at an angle, as well as spot it actually shining on parts of the lens mechanism itself. Probably radiation damage over time slowly degrading the sensor.
It certainly looks like some de-bayer effects on those bright pixels but it's hard to be sure since the images were turned into jpegs, then compresed, then recompressed by YouTube. Lots of artifacting going on there.
-
I wish you "two," would make up your mind.
What? You just asked him what he saw, and that’s what it looked like, and he gave you his answer.
Yes, it is radiation bombarding the lens. Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth. This isn’t us “making up our mind”. You’re running out of straws to grasp at here.
The entire video can be recreated here on earth, glad to see you can admit that.
When you RE have a firm grasp on all the stuff, let us here at FE know.
We'll be happy to listen then.
I guess there is nothing else to chat about then.
RE comes here to FE and asks the typical question, "How does FE explain this?" or "How does FE explain that?"
Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.
I am not grasping at any straws, just pointing out the typically weak stuff posted here by RE adherents.
Please refer me to an explanation on how broadcast satellites work.
Why?
I can't see how they would work as they do if the earth was flat.
-
I wish you "two," would make up your mind.
Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.
Let me get this straight. If you ask a question and get multiple answers, then you can assume there is no explanation at all?
RE takes that exact same stance with FE.
Remind me how many flat earth maps are there? And which one is the right one?
Since there is no definitive explanation here, change the subject, I guess, uh?
Why don't you go to a map thread?
-
I can't see how they would work as they do if the earth was flat.
Maybe you need to go learn some things then.
-
I wish you "two," would make up your mind.
Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.
Let me get this straight. If you ask a question and get multiple answers, then you can assume there is no explanation at all?
RE takes that exact same stance with FE.
That was the entire gist of my analogy, pointing out the hypocrisy of your comment. Why don't you apply that standard to flat earth?
Remind me how many flat earth maps are there? And which one is the right one?
Since there is no definitive explanation here, change the subject, I guess, uh?
Why don't you go to a map thread?
Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.
You conveniently 'forgot' to include the part of my comment that was entirely on topic. If you have an issue with my analysis on the video noise, feel free to explain your reasoning.
So far I haven't seen any explanation from you on what is wrong with that video other than you claiming it's fake. Please elaborate on your evidence?
-
The entire video can be recreated here on earth...
Maybe so, but merely asserting this forms no disproof of what was presented already.
-
I can't see how they would work as they do if the earth was flat.
Maybe you need to go learn some things then.
Please provide some links.
-
I wish you "two," would make up your mind.
Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all.
Let me get this straight. If you ask a question and get multiple answers, then you can assume there is no explanation at all?
RE takes that exact same stance with FE.
That was the entire gist of my analogy, pointing out the hypocrisy of your comment. Why don't you apply that standard to flat earth?{/quote]
What hypocrisy?
Remind me how many flat earth maps are there? And which one is the right one?
Since there is no definitive explanation here, change the subject, I guess, uh?
Why don't you go to a map thread?
Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.
If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.
You conveniently 'forgot' to include the part of my comment that was entirely on topic. If you have an issue with my analysis on the video noise, feel free to explain your reasoning.
So far I haven't seen any explanation from you on what is wrong with that video other than you claiming it's fake. Please elaborate on your evidence?
All I saw was you offering a possible explanation.
In other words, you don't know either.
In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an studio here on earth.
-
I can't see how they would work as they do if the earth was flat.
Maybe you need to go learn some things then.
Please provide some links.
Ask the op for help.
Or don't.
-
In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an sudio here on earth.
The OP said "There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water.", and you seem to be lacking a substantive argument.
Claiming that it "could have" been done in a studio is not a substantive argument. So ...
Do you have a substantive argument to make?
-
I can't see how they would work as they do if the earth was flat.
Maybe you need to go learn some things then.
Please provide some links.
Ask the op for help.
Or don't.
Please make it a LITTLE less obvious when you’re willfully making ridiculous leaps.
Saying that you can see the effect of radiation on camera lenses is NOT saying “RE admits that this could be faked in a studio!”
If those specks are your best argument against the legitimacy of the video provided, then there’s not much to lean on for you.
I would be honestly more surprised if I WASN’T seeing radiation artifacts. It is known that there is more radiation bombardment in space.
-
In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an sudio here on earth.
The OP said "There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water.", and you seem to be lacking a substantive argument.
Claiming that it "could have" been done in a studio is not a substantive argument. So ...
Do you have a substantive argument to make?
Yes, the timelapse, as admitted by the OP, could have just as well been recreated in a studio here on earth.
Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth.
I guess we are done here.
-
In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an sudio here on earth.
The OP said "There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water.", and you seem to be lacking a substantive argument.
Claiming that it "could have" been done in a studio is not a substantive argument. So ...
Do you have a substantive argument to make?
Yes, the timelapse, as admitted by the OP, could have just as well been recreated in a studio here on earth.
Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth.
I guess we are done here.
I said that… clearly in reference to the specks specifically. I know you’re doing this on purpose though. Even Pete or Tom would be amazed at this level of deflection.
If I’m understanding correctly, what you’re NOW claiming is that footage, as presented, looks completely legitimate and has no flaws EXCEPT that it “could be faked”.
Which is not what I was originally talking about.
-
That was the entire gist of my analogy, pointing out the hypocrisy of your comment. Why don't you apply that standard to flat earth?
What hypocrisy?
The hypocrisy is you dismissing RE evidence because two people came up with different ideas for some noise, yet you consistently reject that argument when confronted with the fact that there are a dozen FE maps and conflicting theories none of which are compatible at all.
That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses. Is that more clear?
Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.
If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.
Denial isn't a counterargument.
So far I haven't seen any explanation from you on what is wrong with that video other than you claiming it's fake. Please elaborate on your evidence?
All I saw was you offering a possible explanation.
In other words, you don't know either.
In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an studio here on earth.
You have claimed this video is faked and have been asked to provide evidence as to why you think it's fake.
So far all you have come up with is that there is some noise or dust in the camera feed. Why does that make it fake? Does noise not exist in cameras? Dust isn't real? Is every video with noise or dust in the lens fake? If not, why is this one special?
Your best argument is that you think it could have been faked, therefore it is fake. That's a circular argument.
Again, what is your reasoning for this video being fake? I asked you in the quote above, and you failed to provide your evidence or reasoning.
-
In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an sudio here on earth.
The OP said "There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water.", and you seem to be lacking a substantive argument.
Claiming that it "could have" been done in a studio is not a substantive argument. So ...
Do you have a substantive argument to make?
Yes, the timelapse, as admitted by the OP, could have just as well been recreated in a studio here on earth.
Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth.
I guess we are done here.
I said that… clearly in reference to the specks specifically.
Oh, just the specks could be faked or could be recreated here on earth...hmmm... Interesting.
I guess I'll notify the producers of Star Trek, TNG, or even Universal Pictures that they indeed can not do the exact same level of recreation involving a spinning globe depicting various landmasses, reflected light off the surface, etc...oh wait...shoot...THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE IT!!!
Damn...too late...
I know you’re doing this on purpose though.
Yes, I am purposefully pointing out your claim regarding the ability of this footage to have been recreated here on earth. Even Pete or Tom would be amazed at this level of deflection.
If by deflection, you mean pointing out all the bs claims you are making regarding how legitimate this looks, then yes, I am deflecting.
But Pete and/or Tom are certainly free to chime in regarding their amazement.
I am certain there are others for whom you consider yourself just as qualified to write on their behalf, as well.
A little arrogant, but hey, wth.
If I’m understanding correctly, what you’re NOW claiming is that footage, as presented, looks completely legitimate and has no flaws EXCEPT that it “could be faked”.
Which is not what I was originally talking about.
Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth.
Um, yeah...you were...
-
That was the entire gist of my analogy, pointing out the hypocrisy of your comment. Why don't you apply that standard to flat earth?
What hypocrisy?
The hypocrisy is you dismissing RE evidence because two people came up with different ideas for some noise, yet you consistently reject that argument when confronted with the fact that there are a dozen FE maps and conflicting theories none of which are compatible at all.
That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses. Is that more clear?
If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.
Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.
If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.
Denial isn't a counterargument.
It is when what is claimed happened didn't actually happen.
So far I haven't seen any explanation from you on what is wrong with that video other than you claiming it's fake. Please elaborate on your evidence?
All I saw was you offering a possible explanation.
In other words, you don't know either.
In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an studio here on earth.
You have claimed this video is faked and have been asked to provide evidence as to why you think it's fake.
So far all you have come up with is that there is some noise or dust in the camera feed. Why does that make it fake? Does noise not exist in cameras? Dust isn't real? Is every video with noise or dust in the lens fake? If not, why is this one special?
Your best argument is that you think it could have been faked, therefore it is fake. That's a circular argument.
Again, what is your reasoning for this video being fake? I asked you in the quote above, and you failed to provide your evidence or reasoning.
My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.
Don't you have some internet etiquette guidelines to write or something?
-
That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses. Is that more clear?
If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.
So you do agree that multiple flat earth maps are a reason to dismiss them? Just like you did for the explanations for the camera noise? I've never seen you take such a position.
Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.
If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.
Denial isn't a counterargument.
It is when what is claimed happened didn't actually happen.
It's still denial if presented without argument or evidence. A simple denial in the end is just denial.
Your best argument is that you think it could have been faked, therefore it is fake. That's a circular argument.
Again, what is your reasoning for this video being fake? I asked you in the quote above, and you failed to provide your evidence or reasoning.
My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.
You simply repeated yourself here, saying it is faked because it could be faked. That was, and still is a circular argument. Do you not understand what a circular argument is?
Anything could be faked, that's not a valid reason. Football players COULD all be Disney-built animatronics, but that doesn't mean they are.
Again, other than you simply saying it CAN be faked, do you have any supporting evidence the video is faked?
-
My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.
Don't you have some internet etiquette guidelines to write or something?
Any video or picture could be faked, with enough resources. The issue for the ‘it’s fake’ argument is the volume and quality of imagery out there - it would take a lot of people, all working in silence, to make this stuff.
But the key point here is that you claimed there was a particular problem with the footage that indicated it was fake. The burden is therefore on you to say how the image differs from what you would expect to see if the earth was a globe and you had a camera on a geo-stationary satellite. That’s very different from saying ‘it could be faked’. We all get that it’s fakeable, that’s not the point.
-
That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses. Is that more clear?
If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.
So you do agree that multiple flat earth maps are a reason to dismiss them?
Why would I do that?
I happily agree that all RE maps are invalid. Unless you have just one you want to settle on.
Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.
If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.
Denial isn't a counterargument.
It is when what is claimed happened didn't actually happen.
It's still denial if presented without argument or evidence. A simple denial in the end is just denial.
Yeah, whatever.
As usual, what you claim happened, did not happen. Just another entry like "internet etiquette writer," you have presented in this forum.
Your best argument is that you think it could have been faked, therefore it is fake. That's a circular argument.
Again, what is your reasoning for this video being fake? I asked you in the quote above, and you failed to provide your evidence or reasoning.
My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.
You simply repeated yourself here, saying it is faked because it could be faked. That was, and still is a circular argument. Do you not understand what a circular argument is?
Yes, I do.
You don't.
Anything could be faked, that's not a valid reason. Football players COULD all be Disney-built animatronics, but that doesn't mean they are.
Again, other than you simply saying it CAN be faked, do you have any supporting evidence the video is faked?
Yes, prior admitted fakery.
The best evidence for future performance is prior performance.
NASA and entertainment industries fake shit all the time for sake of performance.
-
My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.
Don't you have some internet etiquette guidelines to write or something?
Any video or picture could be faked, with enough resources. The issue for the ‘it’s fake’ argument is the volume and quality of imagery out there - it would take a lot of people, all working in silence, to make this stuff.
But the key point here is that you claimed there was a particular problem with the footage that indicated it was fake. The burden is therefore on you to say how the image differs from what you would expect to see if the earth was a globe and you had a camera on a geo-stationary satellite. That’s very different from saying ‘it could be faked’. We all get that it’s fakeable, that’s not the point.
The burden is not on me.
Get out of here with that ridiculous nonsense.
I don't expect to ever see a real image of the earth as a globe because I know the earth is not a globe.
Any image of the earth as a globe is an illusion.
-
That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses. Is that more clear?
If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.
So you do agree that multiple flat earth maps are a reason to dismiss them?
Why would I do that?
I happily agree that all RE maps are invalid. Unless you have just one you want to settle on.
Because you had an issue with two people giving you different ideas as to the source of noise, and claimed that meant it was invalid.
So why won't you do the same with all the conflicting flat earth maps? That's being a hypocrite.
I've never presented you with two conflicting maps of the world, the single map I use is a globe. The distance between Sydney and New York is the same on every map I use. But feel free to start a new discussion if you want to talk about that.
Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.
If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.
Denial isn't a counterargument.
It is when what is claimed happened didn't actually happen.
It's still denial if presented without argument or evidence. A simple denial in the end is just denial.
Yeah, whatever.
As usual, what you claim happened, did not happen. Just another entry into the list of lies you have presented in this forum.
Again, that is a simple denial now with the addition of calling me a liar. Please present your evidence of my latest 'lie' or stop accusing me of being a liar.
Your best argument is that you think it could have been faked, therefore it is fake. That's a circular argument.
Again, what is your reasoning for this video being fake? I asked you in the quote above, and you failed to provide your evidence or reasoning.
My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.
You simply repeated yourself here, saying it is faked because it could be faked. That was, and still is a circular argument. Do you not understand what a circular argument is?
Yes, I do.
You don't.
Based on you failing to understand the several attempts to explain it to you, no you do not.
You claiming an image is fake because images can be faked and you said so is a circular argument.
Anything could be faked, that's not a valid reason. Football players COULD all be Disney-built animatronics, but that doesn't mean they are.
Again, other than you simply saying it CAN be faked, do you have any supporting evidence the video is faked?
Yes, prior admitted fakery.
The best evidence for future performance is prior performance.
NASA and entertainment industries fake shit all the time for sake of performance.
So now your argument that this video is fake is that because you say other NASA videos are fake. All without providing a link to any of these other fake videos or any proof or evidence whatsoever.
This again, boils down to you saying it's fake because you said it's fake. It's still a circular argument.
-
The burden is not on me
Yes, it is.
The OP stated outright "There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water."
If you have no substantive argument ...
-
I don't expect to ever see a real image of the earth as a globe because I know the earth is not a globe.
Any image of the earth as a globe is an illusion.
Interesting. I would kill for an image of flat earth. That would be amazing. So far, never seen one. Not even a fake one.
So let me get this straight, anything that could be faked is fake? That's your argument? Doesn't that include basically everything?
-
That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses. Is that more clear?
If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.
So you do agree that multiple flat earth maps are a reason to dismiss them?
Why would I do that?
I happily agree that all RE maps are invalid. Unless you have just one you want to settle on.
Because you had an issue with two people giving you different ideas as to the source of noise, and claimed that meant it was invalid.
I never claimed one or the other was invalid.
Quit making stuff up.
So why won't you do the same with all the conflicting flat earth maps? That's being a hypocrite.
Because I understand that all maps have inaccuracies.
Nothing hypocritical about it.
I've never presented you with two conflicting maps of the world, the single map I use is a globe. The distance between Sydney and New York is the same on every map I use. But feel free to start a new discussion if you want to talk about that.
Yeah, stop introducing nonsense. You don't carry around a globe, checking on your destination as you go along.
Just another instance of the ole "internet etiquette," crap I see.
Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.
If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.
Denial isn't a counterargument.
It is when what is claimed happened didn't actually happen.
It's still denial if presented without argument or evidence. A simple denial in the end is just denial.
Yeah, whatever.
As usual, what you claim happened, did not happen. Just another entry into the list of lies you have presented in this forum.
Again, that is a simple denial now with the addition of calling me a liar. Please present your evidence of my latest 'lie' or stop accusing me of being a liar.
Internet etiquette and this.
Two instances.
-
Yeah, stop introducing nonsense. You don't carry around a globe, checking on your destination as you go along.
I carry around a globe, every day, on my phone. It looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/CpTAHHa.png)
You should really upgrade from your Nokia 3310. You too could have a globe in your pocket.
-
That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses. Is that more clear?
If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.
So you do agree that multiple flat earth maps are a reason to dismiss them?
Why would I do that?
I happily agree that all RE maps are invalid. Unless you have just one you want to settle on.
Because you had an issue with two people giving you different ideas as to the source of noise, and claimed that meant it was invalid.
I never claimed one or the other was invalid.
Quit making stuff up.
You said "Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all." as a response to those comments where you told them to make up their mind.
I suppose that means you agree that "Turns out you FE have no solid, definitive explanation at all." as well?
So why won't you do the same with all the conflicting flat earth maps? That's being a hypocrite.
Because I understand that all maps have inaccuracies.
Nothing hypocritical about it.
Maps based on a globe Earth don't have the continents in wildly differing places. Or missing continents.
I've never presented you with two conflicting maps of the world, the single map I use is a globe. The distance between Sydney and New York is the same on every map I use. But feel free to start a new discussion if you want to talk about that.
Yeah, stop introducing nonsense. You don't carry around a globe, checking on your destination as you go along.
First, you don't actually know I don't carry around a physical globe everywhere I go. It's possible.
Second, I carry the dataset of a globe based map in my pocket. Just like you don't carry around a folded map of a flat earth to navigate, you use the same map I do which is based on spherical coordinates. Lat and Lon. Even any flat map you might have in your pocket will be based on those coordinates.
So yes, I have all the data of a globe map in my pocket, and use it to navigate. Just like billions of other people do every day.
Just another instance of the ole "internet etiquette," crap I see.
You are getting your millage out of this one aren't you. :D
Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.
If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.
Denial isn't a counterargument.
It is when what is claimed happened didn't actually happen.
It's still denial if presented without argument or evidence. A simple denial in the end is just denial.
Yeah, whatever.
As usual, what you claim happened, did not happen. Just another entry into the list of lies you have presented in this forum.
Again, that is a simple denial now with the addition of calling me a liar. Please present your evidence of my latest 'lie' or stop accusing me of being a liar.
Internet etiquette and this.
Two instances.
That's another circular argument. I lied because you said I lied.
-
That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses. Is that more clear?
If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.
So you do agree that multiple flat earth maps are a reason to dismiss them?
Why would I do that?
I happily agree that all RE maps are invalid. Unless you have just one you want to settle on.
Because you had an issue with two people giving you different ideas as to the source of noise, and claimed that meant it was invalid.
I never claimed one or the other was invalid.
Quit making stuff up.
You said "Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all." as a response to those comments where you told them to make up their mind.
I suppose that means you agree that "Turns out you FE have no solid, definitive explanation at all." as well?
Of course, that is what it means.
Even if we had one, we wouldn't share with RE-adherents.
That's the thing about you globulists. You think people owe you something.
We don't.
And from there, you just went on posting a bunch of other repetitious stuff, thinking "WOW, I really got em here! Look at me guys!!!"
Nah, you don't.
-
Even if we had one, we wouldn't share with RE-adherents.
If you had the knowledge, you wouldn’t share it? Is that not completely antithetical to the point of science and knowledge?
Let’s be absolutely clear:
All the POSSIBLE evidence that could exist for space travel and a globe… DOES exist. It doesn’t get much better than what we have: literal photographs, videos, jobs, engineering etc.
There’s photographs in the OP. Your beliefs won’t stop the rest of humanity from living in reality.
In fact, your disbelief is exactly my point. You can’t lean on any inaccuracies in the footage, because there aren’t any. All you can do is disbelieve.
There is nothing they can do to make literal photographs more real. Nothing will make you happy here.
-
Even if we had one, we wouldn't share with RE-adherents.
If you had the knowledge, you wouldn’t share it? Is that not completely antithetical to the point of science and knowledge?
Let’s be absolutely clear:
All the POSSIBLE evidence that could exist for space travel and a globe… DOES exist. It doesn’t get much better than what we have: literal photographs, videos, jobs, engineering etc.
There’s photographs in the OP. Your beliefs won’t stop the rest of humanity from living in reality.
In fact, your disbelief is exactly my point. You can’t lean on any inaccuracies in the footage, because there aren’t any. All you can do is disbelieve.
There is nothing they can do to make literal photographs more real. Nothing will make you happy here.
This thread is about photographs?
Oh, that's different.
You got bupkus there too.
-
This thread is about photographs?
The video is a timelapse of individual frames, yes. So it could be regarded as such.
The original broadcast was a live stream, as far as I can gather.
-
This thread is about photographs?
The video is a timelapse of individual frames, yes. So it could be regarded as such.
The original broadcast was a live stream, as far as I can gather.
Correct. Action80 would rather argue semantics than actually read what I said. It was a broadcast but they may as well be called “photographs” because it was every 5 minutes. Or call it footage. I don’t care.
Again:
All the POSSIBLE evidence that could exist for space travel and a globe… DOES exist. It doesn’t get much better than what we have: literal photographs, videos, jobs, engineering etc.
You have already decided that no evidence will make you happy, because all the possible evidence does in fact exist.
-
This thread is about photographs?
The video is a timelapse of individual frames, yes. So it could be regarded as such.
The original broadcast was a live stream, as far as I can gather.
Correct. Action80 would rather argue semantics than actually read what I said. It was a broadcast but they may as well be called “photographs” because it was every 5 minutes. Or call it footage. I don’t care.
Again:
All the POSSIBLE evidence that could exist for space travel and a globe… DOES exist. It doesn’t get much better than what we have: literal photographs, videos, jobs, engineering etc.
You have already decided that no evidence will make you happy, because all the possible evidence does in fact exist.
You accept the evidence, I do not, for the reasons I presented.
You seem awfully unhappy over rejection.
Hopefully, you can move on in your life.
-
You seem awfully unhappy over rejection.
Nobody is "unhappy", we merely disagree with you, and are more persistent than you are comfortable with.
-
This thread is about photographs?
The video is a timelapse of individual frames, yes. So it could be regarded as such.
The original broadcast was a live stream, as far as I can gather.
Correct. Action80 would rather argue semantics than actually read what I said. It was a broadcast but they may as well be called “photographs” because it was every 5 minutes. Or call it footage. I don’t care.
Again:
All the POSSIBLE evidence that could exist for space travel and a globe… DOES exist. It doesn’t get much better than what we have: literal photographs, videos, jobs, engineering etc.
You have already decided that no evidence will make you happy, because all the possible evidence does in fact exist.
You accept the evidence, I do not, for the reasons I presented.
You seem awfully unhappy over rejection.
Hopefully, you can move on in your life.
What are the errors with WGS83?
-
You seem awfully unhappy over rejection.
Nobody is "unhappy", we merely disagree with you, and are more persistent than you are comfortable with.
Persistent in answering for others is what you mean, right?
Or was this a prepared statement that you are following?
-
You accept the evidence, I do not, for the reasons I presented.
What reasons were those? I don't remember seeing any. At least I don't remember seeing any evidence to support your reasons if you had any to begin with. Apparently, you just dismiss evidence for "reasons"? I hope you never get selected for a jury trial.
-
You accept the evidence, I do not, for the reasons I presented.
What reasons were those? I don't remember seeing any.
This is obviously a statement regarding your memory, rather than my reasons.
At least I don't remember seeing any evidence to support your reasons if you had any to begin with.
The evidence is right outside my window.
Apparently, you just dismiss evidence for "reasons"? I hope you never get selected for a jury trial.
And apparently you just accept press releases as evidence.
-
You accept the evidence, I do not, for the reasons I presented.
What reasons were those? I don't remember seeing any.
This is obviously a statement regarding your memory, rather than my reasons.
Got it. so you don't have any reasons or evidence. To be expected.
At least I don't remember seeing any evidence to support your reasons if you had any to begin with.
The evidence is right outside my window.
What's right outside your window?
Apparently, you just dismiss evidence for "reasons"? I hope you never get selected for a jury trial.
And apparently you just accept press releases as evidence.
Nah, I like videos of echostar proton rocket launches and satellite deployments in space. No press releases needed, just eyeballs.
https://youtu.be/JV2F8QCdS50
https://youtu.be/6WKfxJ8q7_c
-
If pictures, videos, launch documentation, press releases, names of project contributors, project timelines, budgets, etc etc are not high enough quality evidence to be accepted, what is?
-
If pictures, videos, launch documentation, press releases, names of project contributors, project timelines, budgets, etc etc are not high enough quality evidence to be accepted, what is?
Exactly.
All the evidence that could exist, DOES. It cannot physically get any better. (Except, perhaps, for cheaper space tourism. This is likely happening soon, but that’s besides the point)