[Tom Bishop]

If your arguments can be refuted in any manner, then they are not good enough arguments here. When you guys have something that cannot be refuted, start a thread, let us know, and we can have a look and close the website.

Telling us to "go research this" is not good enough. You need to do the research for your claim. You need to show, not tell.

[Tumeni]

They developed the satellite finding software and gave it away for free? Doesn't sound like good business to me.

"Services we offer

Apart from offering our DishPointer service on this website and our award-winning apps for IOS / Apple devices and Android smartphones and tablets to align your satellite dish, we are providing business solutions to satellite professionals all around the world for over a decade now. If you'd like to discuss customized solutions, please contact us."


Why don't you contact them, Tom, and tell them their business model isn't likely to be working, in your view?

BTW, their Android app comes in at £11.99. That's the UK price. It's been downloaded over 10,000 times, according to Google Play.

[Tom Bishop]

"Why don't you...."

Not good enough. Your claim. You brought it up, claiming it as something legitimate. Your burden to demonstrate so.

[Tumeni]

A small prick of light does not lead to the direct conclusion that it is in orbit around a globe earth.

When tracking software, clearly based on a global star chart, can predict its path to the extent that it can control a telescope to track it, what else would you suggest it could be? Please don't suggest balloons again .....

When the SGF tracks these satellites by reflecting lasers off them, and knows where to point their lasers by predicting the motion of the craft around a globe, then what else could they be? Please don't suggest balloons again ....

[Tumeni]

Telling us to "go research this" is not good enough. You need to do the research for your claim. You need to show, not tell.

Nobody has said that to you, at least not in this thread. Don't misquote people.

I HAVE researched this. I show you examples, and you're back in 2 mins with a glib one-liner, having clearly made no effort at all to look at them in any depth whatsoever. 

[Tom Bishop]

If you are claiming something about lasers bounced off of satellites, you need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data showing that it lines up with what you believe a satellite to be. You need to show your work. A lot of it.

Show. Not tell. Not assume.

Your claim. Your burden.

[Tumeni]

"Why don't you...."

Not good enough. Your claim. You brought it up, claiming it as something legitimate. Your burden to demonstrate so.

You're the one who said it wasn't a good business model. I'm rebutting that. They are clearly doing good business, as the Companies House records in the UK show them in business since 2009.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06921189/filing-history

[Tom Bishop]

You came here claiming that "here is a technology/something that proves you wrong. Look into it." These are your claim. You are making assumptions about what the data shows, what it suggests, and if it was done in the manner you assume it was done. Show that. Your claim. Your burden. Stop wasting this website's precious bandwidth.

[Bobby Shafto]

If you are claiming something about lasers bounced off of satellites, you need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data showing that it lines up with what you believe a satellite to be. You need to show your work. A lot of it.

Show. Not tell. Not assume.

Your claim. Your burden.

Yeah, Tumeni. Just say "maybe," "could be" or "it's possible..."

That insulates you from having to prove it.

[Tumeni]

If you are claiming something about lasers bounced off of satellites, you need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data showing that it lines up with what you believe a satellite to be. You need to show your work. A lot of it.

If you are claiming that experiments were carried out as claimed in ENaG, you need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data showing that lines up with it. You need to show your work. etc etc

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you say I have to show my work, you have to do the same for ENaG.

I say the SGF have bounced lasers off satellites. There are papers linked to from their home page, forums where they and other laser ranging experts discuss techniques and methods. I've already looked at these at great length, and I could spend days linking you to this, but it's on their website and linked sites. I shouldn't have to type it all out again longhand. The people who are doing this are alive. You can talk to them about their work if you want.

You say that ENaG contains experiments, but all we have is line drawings and commentary from Rowbotham. No data, beyond his commentary. And you expect everyone to accept this as your proof? 

[Bobby Shafto]

You are claiming that "here is a technology/something that proves you wrong. Look into it." These are your claim.

Like claiming radar product can be turned into photographs?

You claimed it. Told me to look into it. Now, on a different topic, you insist on a full report from a claimant and balk at having to look into it yourself?

The "zetetic" mindset is confusing.

[Tumeni]

You came here claiming that "here is a technology/something that proves you wrong. Look into it." These are your claim. You are making assumptions about what the data shows, what it suggests, and if it was done in the manner you assume it was done. Show that. Your claim. Your burden. Stop wasting this website's precious bandwidth.

No, I posted the pointers to Astronomy Live, Plane Wave Media, and SGF as a specific rebuttal to your assertion/claim that everybody in the whole wide world is getting their feed from NASA, or is affiliated to NASA.

You made your claim first, you should prove yours first.

Your assertion was in reply #24;

What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?

Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?

[AATW]

The "zetetic" mindset is confusing.

It's times like this where I think Tom is just trolling and doesn't really believe any of this stuff.
He seems to just have fun defending the indefensible.
The fact he has never done any experiments and shown any result is telling - even the Bishop experiment is just his claim, there's no documentation.
And yet when he's shown pictures and video of actual experiments which prove him wrong he just dismisses it while refusing to do his own experiment.
Makes me think he doesn't really believe any of this...

[Westprog]

"Why don't you...."

Not good enough. Your claim. You brought it up, claiming it as something legitimate. Your burden to demonstrate so.

That's the hilarious thing. "You claim that there's such a thing as satellite TV. You seem to expect us to believe that you can just point a dish up in the sky and pick up Big Bang Theory on your flatscreen. Well, us independent minded people expect a bit more than an assertion."

There can never be and will never be any proof that will be accepted. Look at the "Horizon at eye level" thread. Actual pictures disproving the assertion. Are the picture accepted? Of course not. Will any flat Earth proponent do the experiments themselves? Of course not. There is no conceivable proof that will ever be accepted.

I actually admire the people who go out and demonstrate these things. It's important to inoculate young people against this kind of warped thinking. Let's not pretend it's going to convince the believers though. We're dealing with people with entirely closed minds - and the fact that they think they're open-minded makes it worse.

[Bobby Shafto]

It's times like this where I think Tom is just trolling and doesn't really believe any of this stuff.
He seems to just have fun defending the indefensible.
The fact he has never done any experiments and shown any result is telling - even the Bishop experiment is just his claim, there's no documentation.
And yet when he's shown pictures and video of actual experiments which prove him wrong he just dismisses it while refusing to do his own experiment.
Makes me think he doesn't really believe any of this...

My mood and attitude has done a 180 over the past several days. It wasn't hard to be polite and eager to engage in challenging discussions about these topics, and I thought the contrary inputs here were just a little too combative.

But I can completely understand why now.

I think I have a pretty good read on the flat earth advocate's method of reasoning now. I maybe only stick to the topics I've started so far, and play them out. Otherwise, I'm done with the other nonsense. The solar year/solar day/equinox discussion was a real challenge, but it was exhaustingly aggravating. That was probably the intent.

[AATW]

If your arguments can be refuted in any manner, then they are not good enough arguments here. When you guys have something that cannot be refuted, start a thread, let us know, and we can have a look and close the website.

(this is leading somewhere...)

A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."
The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."
To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."
To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed,
"I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"
To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?!"

You are that man

"show me irrefutable proof!"

"OK...well here's a bunch of photos from space"

"They're fake!"

"Umm. OK. You have no evidence for that but fine, here's some video of people in space on the ISS"

"That is staged using green screen/that're on wires"

"Right...OK, here's an interview of someone who has been to space. She's one of the few people rich enough to be a space tourist"

"She's lying"

"But..."

and so on.

ANY evidence can be refuted even if the objections are spurious or far fetched.
There is no such thing as irrefutable proof unless we are talking about mathemetical theorums which, in the limited language of mathemetics can be proven absolutely.
You are demanding a level of proof which does not exisst and it's a level you absolutely don't have for what I'm going to have to call your dogma, because that's what it is.

As I said, your mindset is summed up by the deleted Wiki page:

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth

So it's impossible to refute. You declare it an obvious truth (without basis) and so conclude everything showing it to be wrong is fabricated.

Telling us to "go research this" is not good enough. You need to do the research for your claim. You need to show, not tell

By the way, this is rich coming from someone who is repeatedly shown experiments which prove him wrong and dismiss them (see above) while refusing to do any research or experiments himself...

[Westprog]

ANY evidence can be refuted even if the objections are spurious or far fetched.
There is no such thing as irrefutable proof unless we are talking about mathemetical theorums which, in the limited language of mathemetics can be proven absolutely.

I'm pretty sure that there's a strong element of FE theory which involves disputing mathematical truths. It's not that difficult.

"Prove that Pythagoras' theorem is true."

"OK, here are several alternative proofs, all of which show that his theorem is objectively, irrevocably true."

"That's not a proof. You only believe it because you've been told by the government. I think for myself."

I'm sure that if you can believe FE theory, you can dispute mathematical theorems.