[Spycrab]

I would point you to the fact that Nixon, on camera; "rang" the astronauts on the moon. And yet I can't get a signal in my shed? Yeah definetly makes sense... On a serious note though; what does makes sense is that is Government lied to us in one respect - then they would happily do it again in that same field. Shall I continue; oh sheeped one?

Well yeah, but that's a poor example. The towers that give you your cell phone connection is an entirely different technology to what they used to talk to the astronauts. It was hardly even a phone call. More like a 2-way radio.

On July 20, 1969, President Nixon spoke with crew members Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin via telephone-radio transmission.

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/events/centennials/nixon/exhibit/nixon-online-exhibit-calls.html

[Mr.CommonSense]

Hello Concerned Citizen, apparently we share the same views, the only difference is that I am the one concerned about you. Yes, it does make sense that the astronauts would get a better signal then you in your shed. First of all, the astronauts are closer to the satellites and satellites can pick up signals, so of course they will get a better signal than someone on earth who has obstructions slightly preventing that signal to reach them (Example: you in your shed). Another piece of evidence: Mt. Everest has 4G Wifi on top because of all the satellites that are closer to them then us closer to earth.
Also, tell me one thing: what does the government benefit from lying to us that the earth is actually on a little Frisbee floating through space?
My evidence from your quotes at the end of you statement, I can tell that you are a Christian. Try this verse and see if you still believe in a flat earth: Isaiah 40:22: “(God) sits above the circle of the earth.”
Time to make your choice Mr. Concerned Citizen, one religion of the other, flat earth or the bible.
And to answer your last line, I would like you to continue. It would humor me to continue tearing down your petty arguments of fantasy. And what's a sheeped one? Was that an attempt at a diss? If so, keep trying and maybe you'll make me laugh a little less than usual.
I'll waiting for a response...

[douglips]

Hello Concerned Citizen, apparently we share the same views, the only difference is that I am the one concerned about you. Yes, it does make sense that the astronauts would get a better signal then you in your shed. First of all, the astronauts are closer to the satellites and satellites can pick up signals, so of course they will get a better signal than someone on earth who has obstructions slightly preventing that signal to reach them (Example: you in your shed). Another piece of evidence: Mt. Everest has 4G Wifi on top because of all the satellites that are closer to them then us closer to earth.
Also, tell me one thing: what does the government benefit from lying to us that the earth is actually on a little Frisbee floating through space?
My evidence from your quotes at the end of you statement, I can tell that you are a Christian. Try this verse and see if you still believe in a flat earth: Isaiah 40:22: “(God) sits above the circle of the earth.”
Time to make your choice Mr. Concerned Citizen, one religion of the other, flat earth or the bible.
And to answer your last line, I would like you to continue. It would humor me to continue tearing down your petty arguments of fantasy. And what's a sheeped one? Was that an attempt at a diss? If so, keep trying and maybe you'll make me laugh a little less than usual.
I'll waiting for a response...

Now hold on just a minute. You need to make sure you understand things before you go throwing around statements that are completely wrong like this.

• First, a person on the moon is further away from any earth satellite than any person anywhere on earth, so the notion of astronauts being "closer" to satellites would be misplaced.
  
• Second, during the Apollo program, satellites were not used for communications between the earth and the astronauts. Ground stations around the world were used. Space-based communications (satellites) were not launched for NASA's use to communicate/track manned missions until 1983, a decade after the last moon landing.
  
• Finally, Wireless coverage at Mt. Everest comes from base stations on the ground, not satellites: http://www.businessinsider.com/4g-coverage-on-mount-everest-2013-7
  

Before ranting like this in the future, please do some quick googling and wikipedia perusing to make sure you have a basic understanding of the systems under discussion. Easy mistakes like this lead to flat earthers pointing out your shortcomings and then ignoring anything you might have to say that's correct, or ignoring other people in the thread who have the facts straight.

[Tumeni]

I would point you to the fact that Nixon, on camera; "rang" the astronauts on the moon. And yet I can't get a signal in my shed?

Invalid comparison. I presume you're talking about getting a mobile phone signal from your chosen network provider, in which case you're comparing a custom-designed, one-to-one communications link (Apollo), with a generic, multi-user, cell-based system.

The Apollo system used, by comparison, massive sending and receiving antennae on Earth. Big dishes, many metres across. You don't. Even the aerials used on the lunar module were far, far bigger than that in your phone.

[Mr.CommonSense]

Hello douglips,
Apparently my argument wasn't completely foolproof, but some of my more watchful friends, like the faithful Tumeni, can easily disprove your disagreement against my argument. Also, Wikipedia is an EXTREMELY unreliable source, so (much like you said about my argument) I can use your own quote against you: "Easy mistakes like this (for you, citing Wikipedia) lead to flat earthers (or Real Earthers, as I will now call it) pointing out your shortcomings and then ignoring anything you might have to say that's correct,"
So now that you have cited a COMPLETELY unreliable source, why should I trust the things you said earlier? How do I know that you didn't go to Wikipedia, type down the information you want to use, and then cite that.
This little discussion was a perfect example of the problem with this whole debate. It goes like this:
     1. Someone asks a legitimate question to flat earthers.
     2. A flat earther tries to answer this question, but has no evidence and a very weak answer
     3. Someone disproves the flat earther completely and makes their own accurate argument
     4. The flat eather disses the second person and then tries to disprove their argument, without providing any evidence
     5. And the cycle goes on with evidence spewing out of the Real Earth side, and a drop or two coming out of the Flat Earth side
Why can't we have a judge and a jury to finally say once and for all who's right and who is horribly wrong? Can someone please organize this debate?

[ElTrancy]

Hello douglips,
Apparently my argument wasn't completely foolproof, but some of my more watchful friends, like the faithful Tumeni, can easily disprove your disagreement against my argument. Also, Wikipedia is an EXTREMELY unreliable source, so (much like you said about my argument) I can use your own quote against you: "Easy mistakes like this (for you, citing Wikipedia) lead to flat earthers (or Real Earthers, as I will now call it) pointing out your shortcomings and then ignoring anything you might have to say that's correct,"
So now that you have cited a COMPLETELY unreliable source, why should I trust the things you said earlier? How do I know that you didn't go to Wikipedia, type down the information you want to use, and then cite that.
This little discussion was a perfect example of the problem with this whole debate. It goes like this:
     1. Someone asks a legitimate question to flat earthers.
     2. A flat earther tries to answer this question, but has no evidence and a very weak answer
     3. Someone disproves the flat earther completely and makes their own accurate argument
     4. The flat eather disses the second person and then tries to disprove their argument, without providing any evidence
     5. And the cycle goes on with evidence spewing out of the Real Earth side, and a drop or two coming out of the Flat Earth side
Why can't we have a judge and a jury to finally say once and for all who's right and who is horribly wrong? Can someone please organize this debate?

If I had the power, I would do so. This forum is full of screaming children though, so it's a little hard to find anyone who actually makes sense. Really, it would have to be one of the admins for it to be a fair debate. But then the judge would have to be unbiased, and the jury, and everyone else other than the two people debating, because becoming biased leads to an unfair trail (Trust me, I know, my Grandpa went to jail for something he didn't do). The debate, inevitably would be impossible. It's hard to divide something so black and white without the proper knowledge.

[douglips]

Hello douglips,
Apparently my argument wasn't completely foolproof, but some of my more watchful friends, like the faithful Tumeni, can easily disprove your disagreement against my argument. Also, Wikipedia is an EXTREMELY unreliable source, so (much like you said about my argument) I can use your own quote against you: "Easy mistakes like this (for you, citing Wikipedia) lead to flat earthers (or Real Earthers, as I will now call it) pointing out your shortcomings and then ignoring anything you might have to say that's correct,"

I didn't cite wikipedia, nor did I say you should cite wikipedia. I said you should PERUSE it. The most useful feature of wikipedia is that it links you to more reputable sources.
Certainly, for someone claiming satellite communications for lunar astronauts, wikipedia will do you more good than harm.

So now that you have cited a COMPLETELY unreliable source, why should I trust the things you said earlier? How do I know that you didn't go to Wikipedia, type down the information you want to use, and then cite that.
This little discussion was a perfect example of the problem with this whole debate. It goes like this:
     1. Someone asks a legitimate question to flat earthers.
     2. A flat earther tries to answer this question, but has no evidence and a very weak answer
     3. Someone disproves the flat earther completely and makes their own accurate argument
     4. The flat eather disses the second person and then tries to disprove their argument, without providing any evidence
     5. And the cycle goes on with evidence spewing out of the Real Earth side, and a drop or two coming out of the Flat Earth side
Why can't we have a judge and a jury to finally say once and for all who's right and who is horribly wrong? Can someone please organize this debate?

I hear you. I hope you'll realize that I was trying to be a small part of that jury by telling you to shape up your arguments.

Some of the discussions on here are quite enlightening, I have discovered many things I didn't know about from conversations on this board. I hope you will stick around and enjoy the discussions as well.

[Mr.CommonSense]

Thank you dounglips,
I hear your argument and, for one of the first times, agree with you. I will try to whip my arguments back into shape. While you may regret this in the future (because I might grow as a debater and shred some of your arguments), it is very nice of you to help me now.
It was nice debating with you and I hope to see your comments in later discussions.