[Tom Bishop]

He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.

You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.

Yes, actually you can express a negative claim and leave it at that. "fake," "untrue," "misconception," "error," are all negative claims. It is the positive claim that needs to be demonstrated; not any negative expression.

The negative claim holds a special place that is superior to all else, and does not require demonstration.

I myself have been involved in debates where I have cited evidence for a claim and there has been blanket refusal to accept that evidence. That is a perfectly fine response. It is just a poor one. The burden is not on my opponents to prove my claim or evidence wrong. If I make a claim, it is my burden to show how that claim is demonstrated. Some may be swayed, others may not be, but that is just the way things are.

[Tontogary]

He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.

You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.

Yes, actually you can express a negative claim and leave it at that. "fake," "untrue," "misconception," "error," are all negative claims. It is the positive claim that needs to be demonstrated; not any negative expression.

The negative claim holds a special place that is superior to all else, and does not require demonstration.

I myself have been involved in debates where I have cited evidence for a claim and there has been blanket refusal to accept that evidence, but that is a perfectly fine response. It is just a poor one. The burden is not on my opponents to prove my claim or evidence wrong. If I make a claim, it is my burden to show how that claim is demonstrated. Some may be swayed, others may not be, but that is just the way things are.

So by that rationale, Rowbothams work was all fake, made up and not true. His observations never took place and his experiments were not true.
Then i dont have to show why, how, or pesent any proof. You need to prove it was?

[Max_Almond]

The positive claim (of the existence of space and space travel) has been demonstrated, to all but the most deluded denialists.

I'd like to see where Tom has "cited evidence for a claim" that was "blanket refused" without good reason.

That, I find hard to believe (no pun intended).

[Tom Bishop]

He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.

You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.

Yes, actually you can express a negative claim and leave it at that. "fake," "untrue," "misconception," "error," are all negative claims. It is the positive claim that needs to be demonstrated; not any negative expression.

The negative claim holds a special place that is superior to all else, and does not require demonstration.

I myself have been involved in debates where I have cited evidence for a claim and there has been blanket refusal to accept that evidence, but that is a perfectly fine response. It is just a poor one. The burden is not on my opponents to prove my claim or evidence wrong. If I make a claim, it is my burden to show how that claim is demonstrated. Some may be swayed, others may not be, but that is just the way things are.

So by that rationale, Rowbothams work was all fake, made up and not true. His observations never took place and his experiments were not true.
Then i dont have to show why, how, or pesent any proof. You need to prove it was?

You are free to express that idea. It is a poor one. But sure. People have said that.

Are you really supposed to go through Rowbotham's work and prove that every single statement is true? Are you supposed to go back in time to ensure that the texts he quotes from were real, as it is possible they may be unavailable now? Are you really supposed to verify the news article at the end of his book which claims that he steamrolled academics in debates at institutions and universities?

No. You are not required to do any of that. That would be silly.

We are free to seek to corroborate that evidence, as Lady Blount did with her peer review journal The Earth Not a Globe Review, and the wider Flat Earth movement is doing on Youtube with laser experiments and such, in attempt to conduct a review or to provide additional evidence and sway opinion.

We are also free to point out basic things like "look out your window, the starting evidence is that its already flat" and you are still free to deny.

You can deny however much you want. You are not required to accept or disprove any evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Some may be swayed, others will not be. Your poor response will just be pointed out and you will leave the debate embarrassed on the matter. That is all.

[Bobby Shafto]

Absolutely not.

Consider the following:

Bobby: I ate a ham sandwich for dinner last night. Here is a picture of me eating a ham sandwich. Prove me wrong.

Pete: I don't have to prove you wrong at all.

*Pete walks away.*

This is a completely valid response. Completely. The burden is not then on Pete to prove that Bobby did not eat a ham sandwich for dinner.  Pete does not have to rebut Bobby's evidence.

Bobby had the positive claim. The burden of proof is still on Bobby, even if Pete walks away. Pete is completely clean of the matter.

Not if Pete is trying to tell others that I didn’t eat the sandwich.

If Pete just walked away, I could live with his “completely valid response” to not believe me. Heck, I wouldn’t even feel compelled to provide proof or demand he prove me wrong if he didn’t believe me. I don’t care.

But that’s not the analogy.

I ate a sandwich.
Pete doesn’t believe me. Fine.
But Pete’s not walking away. Pete’s calling me a liar.
So I show Pete the photo of me eating.
He says I faked it.
I’m still okay with that, as long as he keeps it to himself.
But he’s not. He’s telling anyone who will listen that I’m a liar.
And a faker.
Those are positive claims. (Positive in the sense of claims, not qualitative.)
I showed Pete the evidence, and if he intends on claiming the evidence is invalid, he is not inoculated from backing up that charge with but a handwave.

You’re free to be unconvinced for any whimsical reason whatsoever. But you can’t campaign in refutation without defending your refutation and then hide behind “burden of proof”. Calling evidence fake is a claim that demands proof, as much as the claim does for which the evidence is presented.

[Tumeni]

Are you really supposed to go through Rowbotham's work and prove that every single statement is true? Are you supposed to go back in time to ensure that the texts he quotes from were real, as it is possible they may be unavailable now? Are you really supposed to verify the news article at the end of his book which claims that he steamrolled academics in debates at institutions and universities?

No. You are not required to do any of that. That would be silly.

WHY would it be 'silly'?

[inquisitive]

He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.

You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.

Yes, actually you can express a negative claim and leave it at that. "fake," "untrue," "misconception," "error," are all negative claims. It is the positive claim that needs to be demonstrated; not any negative expression.

The negative claim holds a special place that is superior to all else, and does not require demonstration.

I myself have been involved in debates where I have cited evidence for a claim and there has been blanket refusal to accept that evidence, but that is a perfectly fine response. It is just a poor one. The burden is not on my opponents to prove my claim or evidence wrong. If I make a claim, it is my burden to show how that claim is demonstrated. Some may be swayed, others may not be, but that is just the way things are.

So by that rationale, Rowbothams work was all fake, made up and not true. His observations never took place and his experiments were not true.
Then i dont have to show why, how, or pesent any proof. You need to prove it was?

You are free to express that idea. It is a poor one. But sure. People have said that.

Are you really supposed to go through Rowbotham's work and prove that every single statement is true? Are you supposed to go back in time to ensure that the texts he quotes from were real, as it is possible they may be unavailable now? Are you really supposed to verify the news article at the end of his book which claims that he steamrolled academics in debates at institutions and universities?

No. You are not required to do any of that. That would be silly.

We are free to seek to corroborate that evidence, as Lady Blount did with her peer review journal The Earth Not a Globe Review, and the wider Flat Earth movement is doing on Youtube with laser experiments and such, in attempt to conduct a review or to provide additional evidence and sway opinion.

We are also free to point out basic things like "look out your window, the starting evidence is that its already flat" and you are still free to deny.

You can deny however much you want. You are not required to accept or disprove any evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Some may be swayed, others will not be. Your poor response will just be pointed out and you will leave the debate embarrassed on the matter. That is all.

If I look out of my window I can't see either way, but if I go to the coast I see ships go over the horizon and flight times to places show it must be round.  Plus looking at where satellite dishes point to.

[Max_Almond]

That's well put Bobby. Though I guess Tom will have a comeback.

By the way, Tom, the starting point isn't that it looks flat: unless, I suppose, you live in the middle of a salt flat and never go anywhere.

Actually, it looks exactly like a 3959-mile radius sphere. On an enormous cube. Or an infinite plane.

[werytraveler]

Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't  know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim.

Wrong.

Imagine something closer. Imagine a pole in a field. You are in one corner of the field and your friend is in another, 100 metres away. You have a straight line marked on the ground between you. You measure pole at a bearing of 60 degrees from you (relative to the line between you and your friend), and your friend measures 55 degrees. You don't know the size or width of the pole.

And yet, you can calculate the distance to the pole from either of you - or, indeed, from any point on the line - with ease.

Agree or disagree?

I don't see how this would tell you the miles of a orbiting satellite. The location in the sky maybe but all you need is eyes for that. Maybe I'm just not getting it. I won't give to much of an opinion about it because I haven't tried it yet.

[werytraveler]

The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.

70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?

And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.

Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

Where have they been debunked?

Internet is full of NASA pictures shown to be fake. YouTube is littered with it. SEX was written is the clouds in one. Straight off NASA site. NASA took it down afterwards. And another showed same clouds copied and placed throughout the globe picture.

Ok let me be more specific.

Which photos have been debunked and where. Please provide specific sources for your claim.

YouTube it. Google it. There are a whole world of websites dedicated to that purpose. We have several such examples in The Conspiracy section of our Wiki.

That kind of evidence doesn't fly here remember?

We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.

The debunking is there you just can't get your head out of NASA's lap to see it.

[werytraveler]

Please tell me of proof of orbital flight. Please don't repeat hearsay that can't be proven. Thanks

Personal observation. Seeing the ISS twice in one evening, exactly at the times predicted, with the time between the two sightings (wherein it crossed the sky in the same direction each time) exactly as per the published orbit time.

It crossed my sky from SW to SE both times. How would it get from the SE of my sky that it left on the first pass, to get back to the SW, without changing direction, and having me or someone else seeing it going the 'wrong' way, other than by going around a globe?

Folks with better cameras than I have imaged the ISS in transit across the sun and moon.

Even from the first orbital craft, Sputnik, amateur and professional alike were monitoring its path and finding that it could only be an orbital craft. It passes over, disappears out of range, then appears from the opposite horizon after an hour or two.

You are assuming it's the same satellite. I  see two in the sky at the same time every morning. And sometimes I look with binoculars and I truly thinks it's drones. Then there's the one in Brazil that crashed.

[werytraveler]

Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned. Always a step ahead.

This isn't about Photoshop. It's about CGI. CGI wasn't even remotely a thing until the 80's.

The blue sky was behind it too.

Are you sure? I told you otherwise, and posed a question directly related to that conclusion that you didn't answer.

Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim. Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.

First, the idea is to get a friend to take a second reading.
Second, the width of the ISS is well-established.
Third, have you any understanding of units at all? If you have the altitude in feet, then you can get it in miles simply by dividing by 5,280.

Have you even seen the original photos? Photoshopped.
  What blue sky in front of ISS proof did you tell me about? What question are you referring to? Go fine the picture for yourself. I thought you'd seen it.
  The width of the ISS is well established to who? You? Lol. But you believe in anything. I'll wait for real proof if you don't mind.
    I've seen these "satellites" blow off their straight path then straighten back up. I've showed people this and they're like wtf.
  You stick to your indoctrination and I'll just stick to what I see. Doesn't really make a difference anyhow does it.

[werytraveler]

Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned.  Always a step a head.
  The blue sky was behind it too.
  I don't believe it was ever in space or meant to be. (Brazil one or both rather)
   Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't  know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim.  Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.

Are you sure you cannot compute the distance? Rowbotham did exactly this in EnaG to establish the distance of the sun, but he only used 2 observations, and claimed it was good.
Are you suggesting he was wrong and didnt know what he was doing?

Yes I'm suggesting he was wrong. Why would you just believe someone without question? You're a human being. Your brain is your tool. You are the same as he.

[werytraveler]

We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.

That sounds like great idea. Lets do it. Are you going to fund me for the next few months to spend my time collecting all of the evidence on the internet, examine original evidence, and provide assessments and sources and references on all of that for our Wiki?

Nope it was your side's claim. I don't have to pay a dime, you need to provide evidence for your claim.

By God does he need to hold your hand and read things to you as well? It's elementary dear Watson. He found out by searching. You can't do that simple thing? I guess repeating is your thing huh?

[werytraveler]

You thinking the pictures of earth are not CGI doesn't mean they aren't.

And just because you think the pictures of earth are CGI doesn't mean they are either.

Its logical to think that if some have been proven frauds then the others MIGHT be as well.

Please show these "pictures of earth" that "have been proven frauds".
NASA has stated that at least one "Blue Marble" was generated from data collected over months by LEO satellites, that does not make it a fraud.

I've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it. You don't know how many miles it is up there. Only what you've been told.

Here is one video in broad daylight:

STS-135 (Atlantis) and ISS in broad daylight - 7/17/11, Astronomy Live

Why do you claim that, "The blue sky is still behind it"? Do you know why the sky is blue and why it is a darker shade of blue overhead?

One satellite crashed in Brazil I think it was. The local didn't know what it was. Pictures are on line. Satellite drone. There's a number on it to call and NASA has a team that goes and gets them. There's a balloon attach to it.
It might catch and follow the wind channel and it would carry it all over is my guess but not sure.

Yes,  believe it or not the image showing on the opening scene is a satellite, Echo 2, see Project Echo but the video is not about a "balloon satellite", but a "Google Loon", see Project Loon' internet balloon lands in the Amazon forest.

Helium Balloon and Satellite Crash To Earth in Brazil - NASA? Shaking My Head Productions

So, no it was not a "Satellite Crash To Earth in Brazil".

But here are some pieces of the early US Skylab that crashed into the southern part of Western Australia between Esperance and Balladonia.

Part of oxygen tank from Skylab space station that crashed near Esperance, Western Australia in the early hours of July 12, 1979, WA time

A bit more of Skylab in the Power House Museum, Sydney, Australia.

Plenty of proof out there. Debunking NASA pictures right and left. I'm not your baby sitter. You look it up for yourself or don't.
  Your video clearly shows it in the sky. Jeez

[douglips]

I'd like to rewind this thread all the way to the beginning.

The centripetal force of the earth would cause the deepest parts of the ocean to be at the equator. This should happen regardless if the land was slightly bulging in the middle. The water would bulge and collect on top of it.

In an ocean depth map we should see that the oceans at the equator is deeper than at higher latitudes. This is not the case. As far as I can see the equator holds no special significance to the oceans of the world.

You have made two assertions without any evidence. Where is your evidence? Where are your calculations to show how much deeper the ocean should be?

[Tom Bishop]

I'd like to rewind this thread all the way to the beginning.

The centripetal force of the earth would cause the deepest parts of the ocean to be at the equator. This should happen regardless if the land was slightly bulging in the middle. The water would bulge and collect on top of it.

In an ocean depth map we should see that the oceans at the equator is deeper than at higher latitudes. This is not the case. As far as I can see the equator holds no special significance to the oceans of the world.

You have made two assertions without any evidence. Where is your evidence? Where are your calculations to show how much deeper the ocean should be?

You apparently just skimmed the first page. I provided a link with the calculations here: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-earths-equatorial-bulge/

The models show that the earth mass should bulge out and the water should bulge out as well on top of that. It says that there should be a water bulge 11.035 km deep at the equator. Yet the ocean is nowhere near that deep on average. The average depth of the Pacific ocean is about 4.25 km.

If the earth is spinning, why aren't the deepest parts of the ocean at the equator?

[douglips]

You apparently just skimmed the first page. I provided a link with the calculations here: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-earths-equatorial-bulge/

The models show that the earth mass should bulge out and the water should bulge out as well on top of that. It says that there should be a water bulge 11.035 km deep at the equator. Yet the ocean is nowhere near that deep on average. The average depth of the Pacific ocean is about 4.25 km.

If the earth is spinning, why aren't the deepest parts of the ocean at the equator?

The article calculates the earth's equatorial bulge, but even the author admits that the bulge should also apply to the solid parts of the earth, especially if they were once molten, and it doesn't appear the article has an answer to how much of the bulge should be solid vs water.

What is relevant here, is the mass of the bulge relative to the mass of the earth. So if the earth was a solid spherical iron ball which did not distort, and it was covered in water, then the gravitational pull of the ocean bulge would increase the height of the bulge by less than 1 km. However the earth’s core is molten, so in general the rock of which the earth is made, has distorted by an appropriate amount. This means that to do the calculation, we will start by assuming that the density of the bulge is the same as the density of the rest of the earth. Incidentally, if the rock had not distorted to bulge by the appropriate amount, then the whole equator would be flooded; whilst if the rock had somehow frozen in an over-distorted shape then the whole equator would be a mountain range.

(emphasis mine.)
Where are the calculations for how much of the bulge should be rock vs. water?

[Max_Almond]

I've also read the article. And it certainly doesn't say "there should be a water bulge 11.035 km deep at the equator."

[Tumeni]

I don't see how this would tell you the miles of a orbiting satellite. The location in the sky maybe but all you need is eyes for that. Maybe I'm just not getting it. I won't give to much of an opinion about it because I haven't tried it yet.

That's OK. We have people like the Space Geodesy Facility for that.

http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/