[shaunm1963]

Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?

[Disgraced_Shield]

Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?

NASA, as well as other space/meteorological agencies throughout the world. There are a multitude of nationalities with hundreds of satellites in orbit around the earth. If there were a deep conspiracy to keep the shape of the earth hidden, you'd have to consider a geopolitical alliance at the 'tops' of these agencies, possibly at the governmental level, that simply isn't possible.

Not only that, but there are various other experiments and documentations done by grounded scientists that can account for the curvature of the earth, experiments reaching back centuries.

The argument of "I can't see its round so it ain't round" is watery at best.

[geckothegeek]

There is also the old "ship disappearing over the horizon" from long ago to prove the curvature of the earth.

[juner]

There is also the old "ship disappearing over the horizon" from long ago to prove the curvature of the earth.

Except it doesn't prove the curvature of the Earth.

[shaunm1963]

Hi and thanks for the replies. However, what I'm asking for is: does anyone know of any person or body that has conducted such exhaustive and extensive inquiry to conclusively prove that the earth is a ball or indeed, and more importantly, that the earth is flat? I don't believe it is wise to simply accept what NASA and other official bodies have to say, as lying about one thing (moon-landings) means that nothing else can be considered true. Universities are also out of the question as their bias and funding source go hand-in-hand. Surely, I think, with all the numbers of people that have an interest in the FE concept surely someone or group with a scientific bent has decided to do the science properly? If the FE is to be made 'official' in the world then it's no use speculating and surmising and arguing on this forum and YouTube, real science has to take place. Has it, is it?

[Tom Bishop]

They really don't have much if space research is discounted.

[shaunm1963]

They really don't have much if space research is discounted.

Thanks, Tom. This is what I suspected. However, surely those in the FE camp must number a few people that are grounded with an 'official' scientific background, but have questioned the validity of their given 'knowledge'....and then, with skills aplenty endeavored to show FE through a scientific process, and if this has not been done, yet those individuals are out there, then take this as a shout to you to get together and do so.

[Rayzor]

They really don't have much if space research is discounted.

Satellites have  never been discounted by flat earth theorists,  and it's easy to prove they are where they say they are.  GPS systems are a good example,  The American, European and Russian GPS systems all rely on the earth being a globe. 

Satellite TV  transmitter locations can be easily triangulated,  and guess what they are all in geostationary orbits over the equator.

Weather satellites transmit real time weather data that can be received and decoded by anybody.   

Game over.  The evidence cannot be refuted.

[shaunm1963]

Satellites have  never been discounted by flat earth theorists,  and it's easy to prove they are where they say they are.  GPS systems are a good example,  The American, European and Russian GPS systems all rely on the earth being a globe. 

Satellite TV  transmitter locations can be easily triangulated,  and guess what they are all in geostationary orbits over the equator.

Weather satellites transmit real time weather data that can be received and decoded by anybody.   

Game over.  The evidence cannot be refuted.

Hi, Rayzor, I've just posted a question on the thread about Himawari-8. In brief: ......can anyone link to photographs and/or videos of actual satellites in space, doing their thing? Answer in the thread if possible, many thanks.

[Sup3rbuck]

No evidence for a ball earth have been shown by anyone.
There are a few amateur rocket and balloon launches and they
Have not shown a ball earth yet.
Cellphones are transmitted to towers on land and never goes to
A satellite.
There should be thousands of satellites circle earth. But I can't find
Any good image of anything that looks real.
That's just to weird for me.

[Disgraced_Shield]

There should be thousands of satellites circle earth. But I can't find
Any good image of anything that looks real.
That's just to weird for me.

It could be said that your not seeing a cumulative picture of many dozens of satellites 'doing their thing' is more indicative of a round earth than a flat one, since some of the around 3,000 man made ACTIVE satellites are 'hidden' around the 'back side' of the globe in any pictures taken. If there were no 'back side' and everything was flat, the concentration of satellites would be a lot higher, and you're more apt to find the picture that you're looking for.

[shaunm1963]

There should be thousands of satellites circle earth. But I can't find
Any good image of anything that looks real.
That's just to weird for me.

It could be said that your not seeing a cumulative picture of many dozens of satellites 'doing their thing' is more indicative of a round earth than a flat one, since some of the around 3,000 man made ACTIVE satellites are 'hidden' around the 'back side' of the globe in any pictures taken. If there were no 'back side' and everything was flat, the concentration of satellites would be a lot higher, and you're more apt to find the picture that you're looking for.

I don't wish to see a cumulative picture of many dozens of satellites, just one. Surely there must be just ONE photograph/video of ONE satellite in actual space? Also, you make an assumption that there is a 'back side', that the Earth is round. OK, let's assume that it is. The back side is when it's night. I don't see 3000 or so 'not-stars' in the night sky. If you know where I should look, please tell me. Are all these satellites moving WITH the Earth or are some following a non-geostationary path? Surely, from around 3000 of these objects there must be lots of night sky activity?

And, with 3000 or so objects spinning through the space around the ball Earth, what agency/agencies co-ordinate the flight paths of all these objects and stop them colliding? Or, if their paths are fixed, then where can I look (online or otherwise) to see the evidence for this feat of co-ordination? Is the ISS figured into this so that it completely avoids hitting anything? Do Space Shuttle flights figure-in the real-time positions of these 300+ satellites so as to avoid a collision? Where is all the data and evidence for all these issues? Or are these satellites so far away from the ISS?Shuttle flight-paths that collision is impossible? If so, how are gps signals sent with no delay and IF they are always on the 'back-side' how do i get my signal in the day?

Also, you say ACTIVE satellites. Does this imply that there are more satellites up there that are NON-ACTIVE?

Thanks in anticipation of your reply.

Finally, the 'round-earthers' are often, in this forum and elsewhere, critical of the 'flat-earthers' in that they cannot provide REAL evidence. Yet, apart from assumptions in this thread, I have yet to be shown REAL evidence of the existence of satellites. Real photos, real videos, real night sky viewing of 100's or 1000's of objects. I've used a telescope for years and while I'm viewing Vega or Deneb or any other of the night wonders (of supposedly millions of miles away...another thread for this), I have yet to see anything that presents as man-made objects of the number you describe. Yes, I do see a star-like object pass over in the same direction on a clear night (certainly NOT a geostationary object) and it's moving rapidly South to North!!. But that's it!

Any help and reflection in this matter would be enlightening. Because so far all I'm receiving is a lot of 'round-earther' assumptions that it all must be true because this is what we all believe because the official bodies tell it so.

The title of this thread is EVIDENCE........let's have some!

[Disgraced_Shield]

I don't wish to see a cumulative picture of many dozens of satellites, just one. Surely there must be just ONE photograph/video of ONE satellite in actual space? Also, you make an assumption that there is a 'back side', that the Earth is round. OK, let's assume that it is. The back side is when it's night. I don't see 3000 or so 'not-stars' in the night sky. If you know where I should look, please tell me. Are all these satellites moving WITH the Earth or are some following a non-geostationary path? Surely, from around 3000 of these objects there must be lots of night sky activity?

I missed this part in my original reply. 
In short, your inability to see lots of night sky activity work against the FE model. Mostly because the FE theory reports that satellites are much lower than claimed by conventional science, and held up artificially. If this was true, you'd be able to see many more of them. Also, some of the man-made satellites out there are incredibly small, as little as a foot square. Odds are you're not going to pick that up visibly. Larger, communications satellites can be as big as a school bus. So you're talking about a range in size from 'as big as a bread box' to 'that's a huge bitch!' ...and everything in between. Visibly picking them up is going to be tough, nearly impossible if they're actually as high as we're told they are by a RE model.

Now, with modern optics, you ought to be able to see at least some of them, although I am not privy to their projected orbit patterns. You could probably do a little more research on that and come up with something.

Two points that would need to be addressed for a FE model:

1. If the proposed altitude of all satellites (which are reportedly held aloft by cosmic ray devices) is lower than conventional science reports, It should be easier to see them at night, possibly even with the naked eye when it comes to the larger ones as well as the more significant pieces of 'space junk.'

2. Back to the concentration of satellites. At low(er) altitudes not only should we be able to see more of these smaller satellites, but they'd all be held up on one side of a flat disc, so your traffic would be a lot higher.

[markjo]

Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

You are wrong on that point.  The earth has been known to be round since the time of the ancient Greeks and geodetic surveys have been carried out as early as the 18th century to measure the oblateness of the earth's shape.
http://www.globalcogo.com/ge002.pdf
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/geodesy/geo02_histr.html

[shaunm1963]

I don't wish to see a cumulative picture of many dozens of satellites, just one. Surely there must be just ONE photograph/video of ONE satellite in actual space? Also, you make an assumption that there is a 'back side', that the Earth is round. OK, let's assume that it is. The back side is when it's night. I don't see 3000 or so 'not-stars' in the night sky. If you know where I should look, please tell me. Are all these satellites moving WITH the Earth or are some following a non-geostationary path? Surely, from around 3000 of these objects there must be lots of night sky activity?

I missed this part in my original reply. 
In short, your inability to see lots of night sky activity work against the FE model. Mostly because the FE theory reports that satellites are much lower than claimed by conventional science, and held up artificially. If this was true, you'd be able to see many more of them. Also, some of the man-made satellites out there are incredibly small, as little as a foot square. Odds are you're not going to pick that up visibly. Larger, communications satellites can be as big as a school bus. So you're talking about a range in size from 'as big as a bread box' to 'that's a huge bitch!' ...and everything in between. Visibly picking them up is going to be tough, nearly impossible if they're actually as high as we're told they are by a RE model.

Now, with modern optics, you ought to be able to see at least some of them, although I am not privy to their projected orbit patterns. You could probably do a little more research on that and come up with something.

Two points that would need to be addressed for a FE model:

1. If the proposed altitude of all satellites (which are reportedly held aloft by cosmic ray devices) is lower than conventional science reports, It should be easier to see them at night, possibly even with the naked eye when it comes to the larger ones as well as the more significant pieces of 'space junk.'

2. Back to the concentration of satellites. At low(er) altitudes not only should we be able to see more of these smaller satellites, but they'd all be held up on one side of a flat disc, so your traffic would be a lot higher.

I'm certainly not going to enter into any conversation about cosmic ray devices. However, just looking at what's written:

with modern optics, you ought to be able to see at least some of them......................can you? show me!
although I am not privy to their projected orbit patterns....................is anyone? and where's the info? after all there's no cover up or conspiracy, is there?
probably do a little more research on that and come up with something.............come up with what? all I want is the truth, not fiction
visibly picking them up is going to be tough, nearly impossible if they're actually as high as we're told they are by a RE model...........the key phrase is "as we're told they are"

and still, I don't have the evidence....real photos, real videos of real actual satellites. All I have are opinions that they must be there because the flat earth theory being untrue proves that the satellites, all 3000+ of them are so high up, so far away and generally so small, and on the dark side of the earth (night time) that given the right optics we may be able to see them.

So, I ask again, to anyone, FE or RE, show me evidence.

[Disgraced_Shield]

You can discern your evidence through logic and reason.

Or, start here: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/take-a-sat-seeing-tour/

Or here: http://www.space.com/6870-spot-satellites.html

I don't personally know what you can see or where to see it, I've never bothered to look. But literally 20 seconds of google-fu came up with those two links.

The short answer is yes. You can see satellites. Even with the naked eye with the right conditions.

[geckothegeek]

Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

You are wrong on that point.  The earth has been known to be round since the time of the ancient Greeks and geodetic surveys have been carried out as early as the 18th century to measure the oblateness of the earth's shape.
http://www.globalcogo.com/ge002.pdf
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/geodesy/geo02_histr.html

The geodetic surveys have covered practically all of the earth. If the so-called "ice wall" which is supposed to be around the perimeter of the flat earth had been surveyed and the length or circumference of the flat earth would have proved the earth was a flat disc. But it has not been discovered.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

As I have mentioned in other threads I am a bit of a night sky nut, and satellites are very much there and visible, two main considerations are 1 a dark(ish) sky, few will be apparent from the city, but also the moons phase will affect it, tonight (23rd Oct) it is 3/4 full and waxing so conditions won't be ideal until about the 6th of Nov.

2 Time. Look an hour or two after sundown as they are lit by the sun, (this bit is problematic to the FE model) as they are very high they still catch the light from the sun over the horizon, and as the night wears on those travelling from west to east will go out before they reach the horizon because they move into the earth's shadow.

Look at the stars, the satellites usually are the same size, magnitude and colour but obviously moving (they do not flash), once you get your eye in  you should be able to see 15 an hour.

There are quite a few good sites out there that will tell you what is up there and when, http://www.n2yo.com/whats-up/?c=w ,is a good one as is Heavens Above, both have the times for the ISS which is always worth a look.

Using binoculars or telescopes is very difficult as the buggers move to fast to pick them up, having said that a full transition is about 5-10 minutes tops.

Have fun.

[Disgraced_Shield]

As I have mentioned in other threads I am a bit of a night sky nut, and satellites are very much there and visible, two main considerations are 1 a dark(ish) sky, few will be apparent from the city, but also the moons phase will affect it, tonight (23rd Oct) it is 3/4 full and waxing so conditions won't be ideal until about the 6th of Nov.

2 Time. Look an hour or two after sundown as they are lit by the sun, (this bit is problematic to the FE model) as they are very high they still catch the light from the sun over the horizon, and as the night wears on those travelling from west to east will go out before they reach the horizon because they move into the earth's shadow.

Look at the stars, the satellites usually are the same size, magnitude and colour but obviously moving (they do not flash), once you get your eye in  you should be able to see 15 an hour.

There are quite a few good sites out there that will tell you what is up there and when, http://www.n2yo.com/whats-up/?c=w ,is a good one as is Heavens Above, both have the times for the ISS which is always worth a look.

Using binoculars or telescopes is very difficult as the buggers move to fast to pick them up, having said that a full transition is about 5 minutes tops.

Have fun.

This is new information to me too. Thank you. I'll actually see how many I can find. I'm fortunate enough to live rural, and our night sky is clear enough that this shouldn't be too hard.

As far as an earlier question about "Why don't satellites crash into each other?" the best answer I could come up with is- "Space is freakin huge."
An analogy was if you took 35,000 cars and pretended that the entirety of the US was 'space' and had those 35,000 cars drive around the country, see how long it would take for two of them to smash into each other. (35,000 is an estimate of how many satellites there are in orbit, from functional, to defunct, to space junk)

Now expand that playing field to something larger than the entire earth, and see how long it takes for two of them to crash into each other. Satellites not smashing into each other is simply a math game.

[andruszkow]

As I have mentioned in other threads I am a bit of a night sky nut, and satellites are very much there and visible, two main considerations are 1 a dark(ish) sky, few will be apparent from the city, but also the moons phase will affect it, tonight (23rd Oct) it is 3/4 full and waxing so conditions won't be ideal until about the 6th of Nov.

2 Time. Look an hour or two after sundown as they are lit by the sun, (this bit is problematic to the FE model) as they are very high they still catch the light from the sun over the horizon, and as the night wears on those travelling from west to east will go out before they reach the horizon because they move into the earth's shadow.

Look at the stars, the satellites usually are the same size, magnitude and colour but obviously moving (they do not flash), once you get your eye in  you should be able to see 15 an hour.

There are quite a few good sites out there that will tell you what is up there and when, http://www.n2yo.com/whats-up/?c=w ,is a good one as is Heavens Above, both have the times for the ISS which is always worth a look.

Using binoculars or telescopes is very difficult as the buggers move to fast to pick them up, having said that a full transition is about 5 minutes tops.

Have fun.

This is new information to me too. Thank you. I'll actually see how many I can find. I'm fortunate enough to live rural, and our night sky is clear enough that this shouldn't be too hard.

As far as an earlier question about "Why don't satellites crash into each other?" the best answer I could come up with is- "Space is freakin huge."
An analogy was if you took 35,000 cars and pretended that the entirety of the US was 'space' and had those 35,000 cars drive around the country, see how long it would take for two of them to smash into each other. (35,000 is an estimate of how many satellites there are in orbit, from functional, to defunct, to space junk)

Now expand that playing field to something larger than the entire earth, and see how long it takes for two of them to crash into each other. Satellites not smashing into each other is simply a math game.

And to further elaborate, there's the whole "Most of them are travelling in the same direction" thing, since most satellites are launched eastwards (to make use of the free boost from Earth's rotation) near the equator.