[JohnAdams1145]

You know, we can see satellites orbiting from the ground... They clearly aren't faked. You don't even have to be on the ISS to see them. We can also see the ISS from the ground.

[ShowmetheProof]

Since no FE'ers have replied, does this mean they concede? 

[isaacN]

...ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?

Have you any idea of how many satellites are in space, the distances between them and the speeds they are traveling at? The very fact you are asking the question demonstrates your severe lack of knowledge of that area.

[juner]

Since no FE'ers have replied, does this mean they concede?

There is literally no reason to make this post. It adds nothing to the thread. If that is what you think it means, then great. If you want to shitpost, do it in AR/CN. Warned.

[ElTrancy]

Since no FE'ers have replied, does this mean they concede?

This actually annoys me. Please stop things like these.

[limprichard]

Since no FE'ers have replied, does this mean they concede?

There is literally no reason to make this post. It adds nothing to the thread. If that is what you think it means, then great. If you want to shitpost, do it in AR/CN. Warned.

I beg to differ, in a discussion with two opposing parties it is essential to know if the proof laid out by one party fully satisfies the other. Do they feel that they are wrong (and said information proves them wrong) or do they feel the argument presented isnt relevent to the discussion and hence do not reply. The question is concede or back off. If it is concede then no further proof is necessary, if unanswered because (A) they feel it irrelevant or (B) They didnt understand it or thought it was a pile of brown stuff, then more discussion is required. I hope that explains the point. If I recieve no answer, then let me know if it is for reason (A) or (B) or that you concede.

[ShowmetheProof]

I did not mean to annoy anyone.  I just wanted some FE'ers to post.  It is boring to see a on side discussion.

[ElTrancy]

I did not mean to annoy anyone.  I just wanted some FE'ers to post.  It is boring to see a on side discussion.

I see your point.

[Rushy]

You know, we can see satellites orbiting from the ground... They clearly aren't faked. You don't even have to be on the ISS to see them. We can also see the ISS from the ground.

I can also see airplanes from the ground, are you about to tell me airplanes prove the world is round because they're in orbit?

[ElTrancy]

You know, we can see satellites orbiting from the ground... They clearly aren't faked. You don't even have to be on the ISS to see them. We can also see the ISS from the ground.

I can also see airplanes from the ground, are you about to tell me airplanes prove the world is round because they're in orbit?

I thought you had to be further up to be "in orbit"

[Rushy]

The idea that you can see something from the ground, regardless of its distance, does not prove in any way that it is in some kind of orbit around a globe.

[ElTrancy]

The idea that you can see something from the ground, regardless of its distance, does not prove in any way that it is in some kind of orbit around a globe.

Well what about how when a satellite dips below the horizon, then rises from the opposite. On a globe that would work, but not on a flat plane.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

You know, we can see satellites orbiting from the ground... They clearly aren't faked. You don't even have to be on the ISS to see them. We can also see the ISS from the ground.

I can also see airplanes from the ground, are you about to tell me airplanes prove the world is round because they're in orbit?

No, because airplanes don't travel at orbital speeds, they don't follow Kepler's laws, and they don't stay in the air indefinitely. That said, airplanes CAN prove the world is round using flight times.

[Rushy]

The idea that you can see something from the ground, regardless of its distance, does not prove in any way that it is in some kind of orbit around a globe.

Well what about how when a satellite dips below the horizon, then rises from the opposite. On a globe that would work, but not on a flat plane.

Planes can dip below the horizon and end up on the opposite side. They're not in orbit, so why is a satellite?

You know, we can see satellites orbiting from the ground... They clearly aren't faked. You don't even have to be on the ISS to see them. We can also see the ISS from the ground.

I can also see airplanes from the ground, are you about to tell me airplanes prove the world is round because they're in orbit?

No, because airplanes don't travel at orbital speeds, they don't follow Kepler's laws, and they don't stay in the air indefinitely. That said, airplanes CAN prove the world is round using flight times.

Flight times provided by "trustworthy internet sources" I'm sure.

Also, plans would follow Kepler's laws, if they existed, since Kepler's laws would govern the orbit of the Earth, which would govern airplanes. If they magically don't follow Kepler's laws, then perhaps you should explain why.

[Tumeni]

The idea that you can see something from the ground, regardless of its distance, does not prove in any way that it is in some kind of orbit around a globe.

... but the behaviour of the ISS, when observed from the ground, does. Just seeing it doesn't. What you see when you do see it does.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

Flight times provided by "trustworthy internet sources" I'm sure.

You mean the airlines themselves, and the hundreds of passengers on each flight who rely on their being on time? I would think that they'd be reliable.

Also, planes would follow Kepler's laws, if they existed, since Kepler's laws would govern the orbit of the Earth, which would govern airplanes. If they magically don't follow Kepler's laws, then perhaps you should explain why.

Planes don't follow Kepler's laws because they aren't in orbit. As I said, they don't move at orbital speeds. If they did, they'd go around the world in 6 minutes.

[Tontogary]

Flight times provided by "trustworthy internet sources" I'm sure.

Also, plans would follow Kepler's laws, if they existed, since Kepler's laws would govern the orbit of the Earth, which would govern airplanes. If they magically don't follow Kepler's laws, then perhaps you should explain why.

How about flight distances corroborated by ships? And people on ships who actually measure the distances from one place to another? Our distances verify the flight distances.

[bendshot]

have a look at these 2 images and make the connection

[douglips]

We do see satellites cross in front of the moon, for example:


I don't know what the "star" is in the first picture, but I'd be interested in an original source for that image if you have it.

[Obviously]

Hmm, the OP is a Holocaust denier... As I’ve pointed out before, it seems to be a trend among flat-heads (not all, I know, but a bit too many for it not to be a sign). Just sayin’...