Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #80 on: May 11, 2018, 07:51:52 PM »
Is it your position that all the online images and data that have been produced by Hubble are fake, or do you belive them to be genuine?
I do not hold a strong position either way.
What about the use of satellites for broadcasting, communication and navigation?

Offline isaacN

  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #81 on: May 11, 2018, 08:22:02 PM »
Is it your position that all the online images and data that have been produced by Hubble are fake, or do you belive them to be genuine?
I do not hold a strong position either way.

If I understand your weak position, as you stated your position is not strong, you neither belive them, the images and the data, to be real, nor fake. Sitting on a fence can sometimes be a dangerous place. I wonder why you are a flat earth spokesperson, as you said you wrote the homepage, so what do you believe? Flat or round?
It obviously follows that your position on space flight, must also be of the weak position, given Hubble is currently in orbit. What new knowledge , one way or the other, would force your hand and make you leap of your wobbly fence?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #82 on: May 12, 2018, 11:04:28 AM »
I wonder why you are a flat earth spokesperson, as you said you wrote the homepage, so what do you believe? Flat or round?
Must one be an extremist or a zealot to be able to represent or aid a cause? I firmly believe that this is not the case. Sorry if that doesn't match up with your preconceived notions, but I care extremely little about those.

It obviously follows
No, it does not. You'll understand the world that surrounds you much better if you stop making assumptions and calling them obvious.

given Hubble is currently in orbit.
This is not a given. Your argument is "I'm right, therefore I'm not wrong." How boring.

What new knowledge , one way or the other, would force your hand and make you leap of your wobbly fence?
This has already been discussed to death. If I knew the answer, I would have already pursued it without your unsolicited comments.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline jcks

  • *
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #83 on: May 12, 2018, 12:42:16 PM »
Must one be an extremist or a zealot to be able to represent or aid a cause? I firmly believe that this is not the case.

No you don't have to be a radical but there is no such thing as neutral position when you make a statement like this:

given Hubble is currently in orbit.
This is not a given. Your argument is "I'm right, therefore I'm not wrong." How boring.

Either it is an orbit or it is not in orbit. You are suggesting, contrary to the fact that it could be seen in orbit, that it is not in orbit. As Tom would say "your claim, back it up. "

Offline isaacN

  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #84 on: May 12, 2018, 02:52:13 PM »
I wonder why you are a flat earth spokesperson, as you said you wrote the homepage, so what do you believe? Flat or round?
Must one be an extremist or a zealot to be able to represent or aid a cause? I firmly believe that this is not the case. Sorry if that doesn't match up with your preconceived notions, but I care extremely little about those.

It obviously follows
No, it does not. You'll understand the world that surrounds you much better if you stop making assumptions and calling them obvious.

given Hubble is currently in orbit.
This is not a given. Your argument is "I'm right, therefore I'm not wrong." How boring.

What new knowledge , one way or the other, would force your hand and make you leap of your wobbly fence?
This has already been discussed to death. If I knew the answer, I would have already pursued it without your unsolicited comments.

Hows that?  predictable or not. I press lightly the, im not quite sure what to think, or too embarrassed to say it, Mr. Svarrior, and rather than answer my question, he defensivly brands me a zealot! Not sure how he arrives at that conclusion. Nothing like a good old Ad hominem smokescreen to muddy the waters. Its quite clear flat earth people like Mr. Svarrior object strongly, or in his case, weakly, to being asked straight forward questions. Why is this? are they afraid of being honest of what they believe. I suppose its easier branding me rather than honestly answering the question. As for my questions being labelled unsolicited, I think it escaped his notice that this is a debating forum. To put the record straight asking questions is a required part of the debating process, as is giving answers. It strikes me you are not one bit interested in either, so why are you here?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #85 on: May 13, 2018, 12:32:11 AM »
he defensivly brands me a zealot!
I did no such thing. You asked me why I'm a FE spokesperson if I don't religiously believe a space conspiracy. I responded with a question: must I be a zealot to represent FET? Is it a prerequisite that I have no doubt whatsoever? The question had nothing to do with you, and everything to do with me. How you arrived at your conclusions is behind me.

I will ignore the rest of your post for now, as it appears you did not understand what was being said.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 12:34:43 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

TID

Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #86 on: May 13, 2018, 12:59:04 AM »
what if satellites are ground-based and just made like they were space-based with positional tracking and propaganda.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #87 on: May 13, 2018, 01:43:01 AM »
what if satellites are ground-based and just made like they were space-based with positional tracking and propaganda.

That's totally inconsistent with user experience and observation, so as a "what if", it fails.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

TID

Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #88 on: May 13, 2018, 02:02:44 AM »
inconsistent with what exactly? you can most definitely make positional tracking without shooting stuff into space, and by placing tracking points via wireless transmissions. why spend all that money when they will come crashing down after said number of years and then be deemed useless after the crash when you can build and maintain the ground units instead. we don't need to shoot stuff into space because we don't really do that anyway.

read my sig

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #89 on: May 13, 2018, 02:34:09 AM »
inconsistent with what exactly? you can most definitely make positional tracking without shooting stuff into space, and by placing tracking points via wireless transmissions. why spend all that money when they will come crashing down after said number of years and then be deemed useless after the crash when you can build and maintain the ground units instead. we don't need to shoot stuff into space because we don't really do that anyway.

read my sig

How exactly does that work?

The position based stuff i mean?

I am about 500 miles from the nearest land, and dont have any signal from shore such as mobile phones etc, but i do I use GPS to find where i am, i can even scroll through the almanac and find the elevation and azimuth of the 10 or more satellites we are tracking.

So you tell me how the little box tells me where i am?

While you are at it, tell me how I am able to post this to the internet at the same time?

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

TID

Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #90 on: May 13, 2018, 02:36:38 AM »
It's graphics, play a video game, you're not really controlling an Italian plumber you know.

I'm not definitively saying I'm right or anything, I said what if. remember that.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 02:40:12 AM by TID »

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #91 on: May 13, 2018, 03:15:49 AM »
It's graphics, play a video game, you're not really controlling an Italian plumber you know.

I'm not definitively saying I'm right or anything, I said what if. remember that.


What if magic fairies make it happen?

It’s as logical a question as you posed, yet just as much fact based.

Most people who make statements can normaly back them up, rather than just say “What if?”

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline isaacN

  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #92 on: May 13, 2018, 07:21:34 AM »
he defensivly brands me a zealot!
I did no such thing. You asked me why I'm a FE spokesperson if I don't religiously believe a space conspiracy. I responded with a question: must I be a zealot to represent FET? Is it a prerequisite that I have no doubt whatsoever? The question had nothing to do with you, and everything to do with me. How you arrived at your conclusions is behind me.

I will ignore the rest of your post for now, as it appears you did not understand what was being said.
I never used the word religiously, or any other extreme adjictive, i just asked you the simple question;
Do you think the stream of data and the published derived images produced by Hubble have been faked?
Pretty simple question for you to address, so what do you think? Fake or not?

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #93 on: May 13, 2018, 07:36:13 AM »
what if satellites are ground-based and just made like they were space-based with positional tracking and propaganda.
Then I'd ask you what these dishes are pointing at.

http://sawyertravel.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/our-satellite-dish.html

And if you're going to say "how do you know they're pointing at anything?" I have 2 points:

1) Why would satellite providers send you a disk for free as Sky do if those dishes don't actually point at anything. What a ridiculous waste of money, why would they do that?
2) I have personal experience of my signal being blocked by a neighbour putting up scaffolding, I know how precisely these dishes must be pointed to receive a signal and how they stop working if they don't have clear line of sight to the satellite. Someone else in another thread suggested the signals could be something else in the sky but offered no explanation or suggestion as to what technology could make an object hover in a stationary position for years on end. What would power it? What would stop it moving?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: NASA Live Stream
« Reply #94 on: May 13, 2018, 08:19:02 PM »
inconsistent with what exactly?

I said that already. The assertion that satellites are actually ground-based is inconsistent with user experience and observation.

See the video below.


you can most definitely make positional tracking without shooting stuff into space, and by placing tracking points via wireless transmissions.

What do you mean by this? What "positional tracking" are you referring to? What "tracking points"?


why spend all that money when they will come crashing down after said number of years and then be deemed useless after the crash when you can build and maintain the ground units instead. we don't need to shoot stuff into space because we don't really do that anyway.

Why? Because the satellites do what the ground-based transmitters cannot. I'm old enough to remember the days of analogue TV broadcasting in the UK, and in order for TV to reach all parts of the country, a network of transmitters, hundreds of them, was required up and down the country. Users in remote areas, hilly areas, mountainous areas had no TV, because the landscape got in the way. Adjacent transmitters were forced to broadcast the same channel on different frequencies to avoid multipath reception difficulties for end users.

As a result of this, TV aerials in different parts of the country faced in different directions according to the best transmitter for their reception. This was easily seen as one travelled around the country.

This has all changed now. All satellite dishes point South, even those on the south coast of the UK. All satellite TV subscribers in the country are served by one satellite, which has the footprint to cover the whole country. There's no conflict between adjacent transmitters because the whole country is served by one. The terrestrial network still exists, side-by-side with the satellite system.

The existing transmitter network is not being used for satellite TV. If it were, the dishes would not all point South. There's not an additional transmitter network for this. If there were, it would have been noticed.

The assertion that satellites are ground-based is also inconsistent with the experience of those amateurs who observe and track satellites.

Example;



Look also at the work of, for instance, the Space Geodesy Facility; http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?