[chicken soup]

Hi. I'm new here. When I first came across this website I laughed, but this was quickly replaced with intrigue.
You guys have quite a compelling argument, and a model of physics that- well- actually kinda makes some sense. I still don't quite buy into it, but I have found myself increasingly questioning all my pre-conceived notions on reality.
I'm now quite familiar with how you guys explain earthy phenomena, and how you believe the government is concealing the 'truth'
I still have a few questions though- like, how do you explain this: http://earthsky.org/space/how-to-spot-the-international-space-station ?
I know that flat-earthers don't believe in the space program, nor in prolonged un-powered orbits because- well- you don't believe there is anything TO orbit. But you can actually directly observe the ISS from your own backyard. Get the timing right, and you can even observe shuttles docking with it. Using a powerful camera lens, you can clearly observe it's structure and confirm it really is man-made. Type "ISS from binoculars" into google images to see what I mean.
Can a flat-earther offer their perspective on this? I'm not mocking, I am genuinely intrigued with the ideas presented by this site.

[Ghost of V]

While you can see something in the sky that looks similar to what you know as the "International Space Station", it's simply Earth debris that was caught up in the wake of the aetheric whirlpool, propelled into the sky, and got stuck there by the same force that holds the Sun and Moon discs in place. It's purely an accidental "satellite", but it is not in space; it is simply very high in the Earth disc's atmosphere.

What you think are "shuttles docking" are actually other pieces of debris being attracted to the rubble. There are two schools of thinking regarding the attractive force: a) the wreckage is mostly magnetic, drawing in other metallic objects or b) it's an optical illusion caused by the Sun disc's rays bouncing off small shards of ice in the upper atmosphere.


Also, welcome to Flat Earth! I hope you stick around for a while because we have a lot to teach you!

[chicken soup]

Thanks for the feedback and the welcome.
You say that it is kind of left-over metallic stuff from when the earth formed- but if it is just rubble, it is incredibly structured rubble- just look at this picture:
I know that it is possible the image is fake, but amerture astronomers the world over have taken these photographs. I'm going to buy some high powered binoculars to check for myself, but, assuming these images aren't faked, then they very clearly show the  structure of the ISS, and not some random space-junk.
Is it possible for the ISS to in fact be real, but instead of orbiting earth, it is circling the disk while staying afloat using some kind of nuclear powered boosters? Maybe that's what the shuttle missions are for, as re-fueling trips to keep it from 'falling'...

Also, some more questions-  Aetheric disk? Does that mean you think the earth formed on it's own via natural, yet undiscovered/disclosed forces, or do you think it was created by a god? Are the majority of flat-earthers religious, and taking the bible literally, or simply using the Zelgetic method to come to the conclusion the earth is flat?

Again, thanks for the input- and yes, I'll be sticking around here for quite some time to come

[Ghost of V]

The image you posted could be anything, including debris. The debris is not necessarily from when the Earth formed. My theory is that it is probably a remnant from failed Russian space missions, which could explain its typical satelitte-like appearance.

I can't speak for everyone on the forum, but I am an atheist. Most of us have come to these conclusions due to the zetetic process, not religious text. Although there are some nutjobs out there that would try to convince you otherwise and the bible does certainly support the Flat Earth model in some instances.

I am not entirely certain about how the Earth formed, there are many fields of thought on that subject. It is important to note, however, that the Earth is not the same celestial body as other planets. Most of us accept that the other planets are indeed round, just not the Earth.

[chicken soup]

Oh. Yeah, I guess that could explain it.
Sorry to be annoying, but I have some more questions-
Is the general consensus here that ALL the world's governments are independently concealing the truth, or do you believe in a global, Illuminati-esque body governing all nations? If all nations know of the truth, then why didn't any of America's rivals (e.g. Russia, China, Japan) reveal the truth about earth when America supposedly faked the moon landing, in order to shame and discredit them for staging the biggest lie in history? I know that this reveal would also somewhat discredit earlier attempts by Russia to initiate a space program (e.g. sputnik), but a simple satellite is nothing compared to a manned moon landing.
Does North-Korea know about the true nature of the Earth?

Also, what do flat-earthers think about other alternatives to the round earth, e.g. concave half-sphere, convex half-sphere, and hollow earth? The supporters of those theories have 'evidence' to support their views, just like you guys, and claim the government is concealing the truth.

I hope I'm not coming off as rude or closed-minded, I just have a lot of questions.

[chicken soup]

Standing in my back yard, it would seem that the earth is flat- it looks flat, it feels flat- so according to the zetetic method, it must be flat. However, when I see a ship sink down over the horizon at the beach, it would seem the earth is round, or at the least curved- it looks curved, it feels curved, so according to the zetitic method, it must be curved. I know that flat earthers have explanations for how the sinking-ship is merely an illusion due to light-bending and/or fog/chem-trails obscuring the ships, but isn't proposing theories without direct evidence rather un-zetetic? Why do we accept the zetetic method when it suggests the earth is flat, but not when it suggests the earth is round? The same goes with the moon: flat-earth theorists propose the existence of an 'anti-moon', a transparent object that, when in front of the moon, absorbs it's light- but isn't proposing the existence of something without and direct evidence also un-zetetic?

Thanks for answering my deluge of questions, you are the only one that seems to be responding and I need to know MORE!!!!

[acacius]

Standing in my back yard, it would seem that the earth is flat- it looks flat, it feels flat- so according to the zetetic method, it must be flat. However, when I see a ship sink down over the horizon at the beach, it would seem the earth is round, or at the least curved- it looks curved, it feels curved, so according to the zetitic method, it must be curved. I know that flat earthers have explanations for how the sinking-ship is merely an illusion due to light-bending and/or fog/chem-trails obscuring the ships, but isn't proposing theories without direct evidence rather un-zetetic? Why do we accept the zetetic method when it suggests the earth is flat, but not when it suggests the earth is round? The same goes with the moon: flat-earth theorists propose the existence of an 'anti-moon', a transparent object that, when in front of the moon, absorbs it's light- but isn't proposing the existence of something without and direct evidence also un-zetetic?

Welcome! not all of us are Zetetics; I am religious and I believe the Bible teaches flat earth and this is supported by empirical observations. That is why I am interested in showing it with empiricism. Regarding the ISS, some time ago I was told of the ISS passing over my area on a certain night, and on that night a star-shaped object quickly moved eastward across the sky. It could be anything, really; I don't think it's proof of the ISS up there. I think it's a hoax.

Try reading the book Terra Firma by David W Scott. I really liked it. (you can skip the biblical references)

LINK: https://archive.org/details/cu31924031764594

I had a good laugh at "100 Proofs the Earth Is Not a Globe" by William Carpenter = http://lclane2.net/hundreda.html

[markjo]

Welcome! not all of us are Zetetics; I am religious and I believe the Bible teaches flat earth and this is supported by empirical observations. That is why I am interested in showing it with empiricism

It seems to me that the Bible passages that refer to the shape of the earth do so more metaphorically than literally.  Also, trusting an ancient religious text in matters of science hardly seems empirical to me.

Regarding the ISS, some time ago I was told of the ISS passing over my area on a certain night, and on that night a star-shaped object quickly moved eastward across the sky. It could be anything, really; I don't think it's proof of the ISS up there. I think it's a hoax.

Why would you think that something that can be predicted days in advance for observers in most of the world could be a hoax?  Have you tried to observe the ISS through binoculars or a telescope?