[mahogany]

I appreciate the content that this membership site provides and find it refreshing as compared to many of the Facebook sites; I've found those to be a bunch of back and forth series of memes and name calling from both sides (both Round Earth and Flat Earth) that really don't offer much civil discourse.

I am still new to this site and have read the Wiki to be sure I understand Flat Earth Theory as best as I can.

- With respect to the Flat Earth Theory of space travel being a hoax I was curious to know from flat earthers on this site if the space travel hoax (performed by NASA and other country space agencies) is something that you are 100% confident exists OR do you have doubts in this hoax being a reality? If any doubts, would be curious to know what those doubts are.

- In addition to the above Theory, would also be curious to get flat earthers' take on how 24 hours of sunlight in Antarctica occurs or is possible on a flat earth model; I've read the section in the Wiki that refers to a YouTube video which uses a solid piece of magnifying glass to depict Earth's atmosphere and a flashlight to depict a local Sun; this model setup is highly inaccurate as the Earth's atmosphere isn't solid glass and the scale of the local Sun (using a flashlight) to the flat earth model being used is almost 1:1; the scale should represent the scale of what flat earthers believe the small local Sun to be as compared to the diameter of the flat earth plane. For example if the diameter of the flat earth plane is say 7,900 miles and the local Sun is say 30 miles, than the spotlight diameter should only be about 0.4% of the flat earth plane diameter.       

Thanks.   

[Roundy]

I'm not terribly confident in the existence of the Conspiracy. The more individual countries seem to be involved; the more pictures they produce that are impossible to falsify as far we can tell; the more people you have to imagine have to be in it to some degree for it to even be possible; not to mention all the sources from independent sources that show the same sorts of images; it starts to stretch credibility to a small degree.

Where does this leave Flat Earth Theory? Just fine, as it turns out, as long as one accepts Electromagnetic Acceleration as a necessary component of FET. The same effect that might cause the illusion of a horizon might also cause large flat objects to appear round from a great distance.

[Tom Bishop]

The only reason most people are enamored with NASA is because of a childhood space fantasy.

I rarely see any defense of the US Government and others over lying to the people to get into wars, poisoning its people in illegal medical experiments (which they have admitted), or showing us phony inflation and unemployment numbers. Because your defense of NASA and Co. is mainly rooted in your fantasy, and it is otherwise generally conceded that the governments are prolific liars and sociopaths who have ulterior motives and countless secrets, is it a weak argument that government space agencies should be inherently trusted.

Based on all we know, government claims should be inherently distrusted.

[mahogany]

The only reason most people are enamored with NASA is because of a childhood space fantasy.

I rarely any defense of the US Government and others over lying to the people to get into wars, poisoning its people in illegal medical experiments (which they have admitted), or showing us phony inflation and unemployment numbers. Because your defense of NASA and Co. is mainly rooted in your fantasy, and it is otherwise generally conceded that the governments are prolific liars and sociopaths who have ulterior motives and countless secrets, is it a weak argument that government space agencies should be inherently trusted.

Based on all we know, government claims should be inherently distrusted.

No doubt governments lie, organizations lie, and corporations lie.

But, I think it a misguided rationale to therefore conclude that space travel must be a hoax.

- Aircraft Manufacturers such as Boeing lie and cover things up (e.g. the 737 Max controversy from a few years ago). Does this mean that jet air travel is a hoax?
- Auto Manufacturers such as Volkswagen lie and cover things up (e.g. falsification of their electric vehicle efficiency ratings from a few years ago). Does this means that petrol / electric vehicle travel is a hoax?
- In the early 1980's Milton Bradley released their Dark Tower Board game which a few years later went into litigation due to trade secret's being stolen from several independent game developers. Does this mean that board games are a hoax?
- Prior to Elon Musk purchasing Twitter, Twitter banned political figures (such as Donald Trump) because they said his speech violated their rules for compliance; it was found out later (as anyone could have predicted) that their internal algorithms and their political views were obviously bent against conservative viewpoints and to a degree Twitter tried to deny this. Does this mean that the Internet is an elaborate hoax and doesn't exist?
- Then, there was the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster of the mid-1980's. It appeared that NASA was so hell-bent on launching and bypassing safety protocols (with Morton Thiokol being an accessory) that their decision and push to space cost lives. But, this doesn't mean that space travel is a hoax. One could make the argument that it is because space travel exists that NASA felt pressure that day to launch in order to avoid another delay.

In the documentary "Behind the Curve", Bob Knodel was captured as saying "well, we weren't going to accept that" in reference to his Ring Laser Gyroscope experiment showing a 15 degree drift. Should one conclude that because he said "well, we weren't going to accept that" that there is a grand conspiracy amongst the flat earth community to cover up results? No, of course not. I think it was just a case of confirmation bias.     

My view and opinion of the space travel conspiracy belief from flat earth members is that it isn't so much a belief that space travel is a hoax, but rather an expression of their distrust in authorities and science.

[Tom Bishop]

All of your examples give reason to distrust.

Ie. "In the early 1980's Milton Bradley released their Dark Tower Board game which a few years later went into litigation due to trade secret's being stolen from several independent game developers. Does this mean that board games are a hoax?"

This is not a reason to implicitly trust Milton Bradley on the IP rights for their games. This is a reason to distrust them. They stole that game, so why should we just assume that they are honest good working people and that all of their games are legitimate?

But this is essentially what you are asking us to do here, despite the government having essentially lied to us thoroughly and often about many of their "games".

You want to believe them in regards to space travel just because you love space, while you perform a 180 to distrust the government on a whole host of other topics which you aren't as passionate about.

[mahogany]

If all of my examples give reasons to distrust, then does this mean that you distrust the flat earth community; this was on the examples list. I mean Bob Knodel of the flat earth community did say "well, we can't accept that" in regards to the 15 degree drift he observed from his own test. And, some of the test setups referenced in this Wiki are very inaccurate and faulty - for example the referenced YouTube video where the test setup uses a solid piece of magnifying glass to simulate earth's atmosphere. Should we conclude that the flat earth community should inherently be distrusted along with the claim that the earth is flat?       

You stated that I want to believe them (NASA?) in regards to space travel just because I love space.

I suppose that I am to infer that you don't want to believe them (NASA) in regards to space travel just because you hate space.

[AATW]

Where does this leave Flat Earth Theory? Just fine, as it turns out, as long as one accepts Electromagnetic Acceleration as a necessary component of FET. The same effect that might cause the illusion of a horizon might also cause large flat objects to appear round from a great distance.

In which case what's the differentiator between FE and RE? What observation can you make to distinguish between the two models if FE + EA = RE, in terms of what we observe? Presumably there's some difference which makes you lean towards one model over the other.

[AATW]

The only reason most people are enamored with NASA is because of a childhood space fantasy.

There is something in that.

Based on all we know, government claims should be inherently distrusted.

There's something in that too.
But.

NASA et al aren't just going "trust me, bro". They release endless pictures and video of their missions. There are an increasing number of people doing broadcasts from space who presumably all have to be "in on it". You can watch their launches - I've seen one my self during a fortuitously timed trip to Florida when a Shuttle was going up.

There are multiple technologies which rely on satellites. I've posted before how my satellite TV stopped working when my neighbour had some construction done, the scaffolding of which blocked my dish's line of sight to the satellite. And on a work trip to Sri Lanka I observed how the dishes were angled upwards noticeably more steeply, which fits with the claim that TV satellites are above the equator.
Are Sky TV in on this deception or are they being fooled too? And to what end? No-one cares how this stuff works, so long as it does. Atmospheric conditions can affect satellite TV so it's clearly receiving a signal from up there somewhere.

Then there's GPS, which can be observed to work in the middle of large oceans.

And, of course, there's the ISS which can be seen from the ground. With decent optics you can see the shape of it. I've even see YouTube FE people concede that. What is it, if not a satellite orbiting the earth? 7 "space tourists" have made trips to the ISS. Are they all "in on it" too? Why? What's their angle?

And, of course, it's not just NASA. Lots of countries have now got space programs. And if you distrust governments then there's private enterprise now launching things. Even amateurs have sent up balloons which go high enough to see the earth's curve.

All the arguments I've seen for fakery are based on ignorance or incredulity. Where's the solid evidence that none of this is real?

[Roundy]

Where does this leave Flat Earth Theory? Just fine, as it turns out, as long as one accepts Electromagnetic Acceleration as a necessary component of FET. The same effect that might cause the illusion of a horizon might also cause large flat objects to appear round from a great distance.

In which case what's the differentiator between FE and RE? What observation can you make to distinguish between the two models if FE + EA = RE, in terms of what we observe? Presumably there's some difference which makes you lean towards one model over the other.

Indeed, I think the immediate evidence with my own eyes is more likely to be reliable than pictures from many thousands or more of miles away. I guess it's more of a philosophical position than anything else. If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?

[markjo]

If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?

Have you heard of the story of the blind men and the elephant?  It's generally not a good idea to draw definitive conclusions from limited data.

[AATW]

Where does this leave Flat Earth Theory? Just fine, as it turns out, as long as one accepts Electromagnetic Acceleration as a necessary component of FET. The same effect that might cause the illusion of a horizon might also cause large flat objects to appear round from a great distance.

In which case what's the differentiator between FE and RE? What observation can you make to distinguish between the two models if FE + EA = RE, in terms of what we observe? Presumably there's some difference which makes you lean towards one model over the other.

Indeed, I think the immediate evidence with my own eyes is more likely to be reliable than pictures from many thousands or more of miles away. I guess it's more of a philosophical position than anything else. If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?

Firstly, I'd be interested to know what you think the "immediate evidence" of your own eyes tells you.
There's two things about that. If you're talking about a flat horizon then you surely understand that on a sphere of sufficient size the observation would be indistinguishable from a flat plane? So that observation is not sufficient to determine the reality. Secondly, whatever observations you're talking about, you know that our senses are limited and fallible? There are things we can't see with the naked eye that are real - germs, UV light, etc. And there are things we see which aren't real. Optical illusions are a good example, these horizontal lines appear curved but they are in fact straight:



So drawing conclusions just from looking at stuff is a bit dangerous.
Secondly, you shouldn't "blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better". You shouldn't blindly assume anything. For anything we can't directly observe we can only base conclusions on the evidence presented to us. I've never been to space but I've seen a shuttle launch. I've seen the videos and photos from space missions and seen expert analysis of them (as opposed to some dude who doesn't know what he's talking about saying "BuT wHeRe ArE tHe StArS?!!!"). I've read books about the Apollo missions and I've been to talks by astronauts. I've covered above the evidence that the ISS is real and satellite dishes really are pointing at something in the sky. If it is all fake then a lot of effort is being put into making it all look real, and for what? So, on balance, I'm inclined to believe it isn't all being faked.

TL;DR - be careful about basing beliefs just on your observations. They're not necessarily going to lead you to the correct conclusions. And with many things we can't observe them directly, so the best we can do is base conclusions on the weight of evidence.

[DuncanDoenitz]

Indeed, I think the immediate evidence with my own eyes is more likely to be reliable than pictures from many thousands or more of miles away. I guess it's more of a philosophical position than anything else. If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?

This is a curious approach to science (or, indeed, philosophy).  Being close to an object certainly permits a better focus on detail, texture, and might facilitate touch, taste, smell, etc, but actually reduces the ability to perceive its shape.  To visually determine the form of an object, one actually needs to stand back from it, so that it can be seen in its entirety. 

If you were placed at a corresponding proximity to the United Nations building, the Pentagon and the Great Pyramid of Giza, you would peceive all of them to be planar in nature, but have no idea whatever of their shape. 

[Action80]

If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?

TL;DR - be careful about basing beliefs just on your observations. They're not necessarily going to lead you to the correct conclusions. And with many things we can't observe them directly, so the best we can do is base conclusions on the weight of evidence.

Do you have a worthwhile reply that answers the question posed by Roundy?

[Tom Bishop]

If all of my examples give reasons to distrust, then does this mean that you distrust the flat earth community; this was on the examples list. I mean Bob Knodel of the flat earth community did say "well, we can't accept that" in regards to the 15 degree drift he observed from his own test. And, some of the test setups referenced in this Wiki are very inaccurate and faulty - for example the referenced YouTube video where the test setup uses a solid piece of magnifying glass to simulate earth's atmosphere. Should we conclude that the flat earth community should inherently be distrusted along with the claim that the earth is flat?       

You stated that I want to believe them (NASA?) in regards to space travel just because I love space.

I suppose that I am to infer that you don't want to believe them (NASA) in regards to space travel just because you hate space.

I've never spoken to Bob, and his theories or assumptions are not relevant to this website. One guy saying something somewhere is also not "the flat earth community", or even a representation of the FE community he was part of. The Wiki on this site is more representative to some kind of community consensus than the word of a single person. The information on the Wiki is collected from the TFES discussions, which at least generally involves more than one person. You will find that there is different information there on the operation of the Ring Laser Gyro than from what Bob thinks.

What you are referring about daylight pattern in the Wiki is accurate in the sense that the seasonal daylight patterns can be explained in that manner. There is a way to explain it in that particular model, and that is all it presents itself as in the Wiki - an explanation of what may be happening - "If the light is shining through imperfect affecting phenomena it may widen into a non-circular shape." It does not claim to take any further steps to prove that it is occurring in that way. Your demands on that next step is irrelevant to the statement that an explanation exists for those shapes.

Since you don't deny that your main foundation for defending NASA is based on your love of space, and want to divert the discussion to other topics now, I will assume that you concede on the conspiracy discussion. I therefore don't really see any point in continuing the discussion with you.

[AATW]

Do you have a worthwhile reply that answers the question posed by Roundy?

The more fulsome reply to his question was in the part of my post you haven't quoted.
The TL;DR bit was merely a summary.

[Action80]

Do you have a worthwhile reply that answers the question posed by Roundy?

The more fulsome reply to his question was in the part of my post you haven't quoted.
The TL;DR bit was merely a summary.

There was nothing in your more "fulsome reply," that answers the question, which I will repeat here:

"If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?"

[Action80]

Indeed, I think the immediate evidence with my own eyes is more likely to be reliable than pictures from many thousands or more of miles away. I guess it's more of a philosophical position than anything else. If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?

This is a curious approach to science (or, indeed, philosophy).  Being close to an object certainly permits a better focus on detail, texture, and might facilitate touch, taste, smell, etc, but actually reduces the ability to perceive its shape.  To visually determine the form of an object, one actually needs to stand back from it, so that it can be seen in its entirety. 

If you were placed at a corresponding proximity to the United Nations building, the Pentagon and the Great Pyramid of Giza, you would peceive all of them to be planar in nature, but have no idea whatever of their shape.

You attempted to answer the question posed by Roundy, but it still stands.

Why should one blindly assume the images purported to originate from thousands of miles away are a legitimate alternative to that which can be perceived in situ?

[mahogany]

If all of my examples give reasons to distrust, then does this mean that you distrust the flat earth community; this was on the examples list. I mean Bob Knodel of the flat earth community did say "well, we can't accept that" in regards to the 15 degree drift he observed from his own test. And, some of the test setups referenced in this Wiki are very inaccurate and faulty - for example the referenced YouTube video where the test setup uses a solid piece of magnifying glass to simulate earth's atmosphere. Should we conclude that the flat earth community should inherently be distrusted along with the claim that the earth is flat?       

You stated that I want to believe them (NASA?) in regards to space travel just because I love space.

I suppose that I am to infer that you don't want to believe them (NASA) in regards to space travel just because you hate space.

I've never spoken to Bob, and his theories or assumptions are not relevant to this website. One guy saying something somewhere is also not "the flat earth community", or even a representation of the FE community he was part of. The Wiki on this site is more representative to some kind of community consensus than the word of a single person. The information on the Wiki is collected from the TFES discussions, which at least generally involves more than one person. You will find that there is different information there on the operation of the Ring Laser Gyro than from what Bob thinks.

What you are referring about daylight pattern in the Wiki is accurate in the sense that the seasonal daylight patterns can be explained in that manner. There is a way to explain it in that particular model, and that is all it presents itself as in the Wiki - an explanation of what may be happening - "If the light is shining through imperfect affecting phenomena it may widen into a non-circular shape." It does not claim to take any further steps to prove that it is occurring in that way. Your demands on that next step is irrelevant to the statement that an explanation exists for those shapes.

Since you don't deny that your main foundation for defending NASA is based on your love of space, and want to divert the discussion to other topics now, I will assume that you concede on the conspiracy discussion. I therefore don't really see any point in continuing the discussion with you.

Tom,

You are making my point:

Yes, you've never spoken to Bob and his theories or assumptions are not relevant; one guy saying something somewhere is also not "the flat earth community" or even a representation of the FE community.

And yet, the authors of this Wiki refer to one guy saying something to help build a case for an elaborate space travel hoax.

The authors of the Wiki further refer to NASA's early rocket failures and sudden rocket success as further evidence of a conspiracy without having spoken to anyone at NASA as to why this was. Could it be that trying to achieving significant advancements such as space travel and a Moon landing are very difficult and perhaps need to go through many failures before achieving success. Perhaps this was also the case with the early days of powered flight?

So, one the one hand your saying that one shouldn't build a case for a flat earth conspiracy just because of what one guy said and someone you never spoke to. On the other hand, TFES authors then try to build a case for a space travel conspiracy based on what one guy said and someone they never spoke to.

In terms of defending the use of using a solid piece of magnifying glass and a large flashlight as an accurate model to simulate 24 hours sunlight in Antarctica via light shining through imperfect phenomena... it is the opposite of applying rigorous modeling and the scientific method. It seems that the standards you are expecting for FE evidence are very low compared to the standards you expect for RE evidence. Why not perform an experiment and adjust the model to remove the solid magnifying glass and adjust the scale of the small spotlight Sun to be 0.4% of the diameter of the flat earth plane? What would be your predictions in terms of the results?

You then further try to build an argument by making incorrect claims and assumptions about someone you don't even know, kind of like how you don't know Bob or NASA. You claimed that I love space and claimed that I am not as passionate about a host of other topics which is incorrect.

What's the purpose of being a Zetetic Council Member if you tend to make incorrect claims (without evidence), refer to and defend the use of highly inaccurate simulation models, and subscribe to conspiracy theories like space travel being an elaborate hoax.

One of the original questions I asked at the beginning of this thread was that I was curious to know from flat earthers on this site if the space travel hoax is something that you are 100% confident exists OR do you have doubts in this hoax being a reality. 
 

[AATW]

"If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?"

So I asked him what evidence he's talking about. What observation has he made which leads him to "perceive the Earth to be flat".
I then guessed he might be talking about a flat horizon and explained why that is not evidence for a flat earth, given the earth's size. That observation is not sufficient to determine the shape of the earth. But maybe he's not talking about that in which case I await his response.

I went on to explain how our perceptions are not necessarily sufficient to determine reality. Our senses are limited and fallible.
I was also clear that he shouldn't blindly accept alternative evidence as better. As with anything we can't observe directly, we have to use weight of evidence to arrive at a belief.

But to answer his question properly I need to understand what he means when he says he "perceives the Earth to be flat".

[Action80]

So I asked him what evidence he's talking about. What observation has he made which leads him to "perceive the Earth to be flat".
I then guessed he might be talking about a flat horizon and explained why that is not evidence for a flat earth, given the earth's size.

The size of the earth is a statement you make solely based on the "alternative evidence."

That observation is not sufficient to determine the shape of the earth. But maybe he's not talking about that in which case I await his response.

I went on to explain how our perceptions are not necessarily sufficient to determine reality. Our senses are limited and fallible.
I was also clear that he shouldn't blindly accept alternative evidence as better. As with anything we can't observe directly, we have to use weight of evidence to arrive at a belief.

But to answer his question properly I need to understand what he means when he says he "perceives the Earth to be flat".

Everywhere I have been on this earth, it is personally perceived to be flat. That never changes.