[Pongo]

Though we live in a world fraught with Fake News, occasionally a really good story comes across our desks here at The Flat Earth Society. We believe in a tactile approach to learning and understanding, one that forces individuals to break out of the constraints placed upon them by society and achieve new heights. Terms like, “that’s as hard as rocket science” was questioned by fellow Flat-earther Mike Hughes who is challenging such notions by building his own steam-powered rocket to launch himself into the atmoplane.
 

Hughes is a limo driver from the American West Coast and while he was unable to be reached for comment, his understanding of concepts like trajectory, magnetopause, and terracentric orbital dynamics was clearly not stifled by the liberal round-earth agendas of our “top” universities. Once Hughes launches himself high into the air, it will be yet another piece of evidence for our flat-earth.

What’s perhaps most impressive is that in true Rowbothiam fashion, Hughes has made his rocket steam powered! Not even the laws against building ballistic missiles can keep Hughes grounded. Godspeed, Hughes. We here at The Flat Earth Society salute you.

[mtnman]

Once Hughes launches himself high into the air, it will be yet another piece of evidence for our flat-earth.

Keep in mind that the flight he plans for this weekend will not exceed 2000 feet, so don't get your hopes up that he is going to prove anything. This is just a test flight.

[3DGeek]

Once Hughes launches himself high into the air, it will be yet another piece of evidence for our flat-earth.

Keep in mind that the flight he plans for this weekend will not exceed 2000 feet, so don't get your hopes up that he is going to prove anything. This is just a test flight.

...And in order to show the (lack of) curvature of the Earth, he knows that he'll have to exceed 100,000 feet - which (as he, himself says) - means that he'll have to launch his rocket from a balloon.   Of course, he COULD just do away with the rocket and just go up in a balloon...which has been done many times in the past, and never once shown the Earth to be anything but round...but that wouldn't produce all of this hooplah and publicity, would it?

[Pete Svarrior]

in order to show the (lack of) curvature of the Earth, he knows that he'll have to exceed 100,000 feet

You know, I wish you would say that to all the Round Earthers who keep sending us abusive messages about how they totally saw curvature from a commercial plane at 30,000ft. Perhaps the Round Earth is much smaller than advertised?

[mtnman]

You know, I wish you would say that to all the Round Earthers who keep sending us abusive messages about how they totally saw curvature from a commercial plane at 30,000ft. Perhaps the Round Earth is much smaller than advertised?

He has...

Yep - sorry - I'm with the FE'ers on that score.  You can't visibly see a curved horizon at 40,000 feet - which is the altitude that airliners fly.

You need to be up at around 100,000 feet to see it clearly.

But there are amateur balloonists and amateur rocket enthusiasts who put cameras up that high...many MANY YouTube videos of them doing it are out there.

[Pete Svarrior]

Sorry - I don't normally pull this excuse, but put this one down to me speaking English as a second language. What I meant to emphasise is not what 3DG has or hasn't personally said (I don't follow him closely enough to know either way), but rather my frustration with RE'ers who keep asking if we've ever been on a plane. I wish that someone could tell RE'ers to quit bringing this subject up, because it doesn't earn them any points.

[3DGeek]

Sorry - I don't normally pull this excuse, but put this one down to me speaking English as a second language. What I meant to emphasise is not what 3DG has or hasn't personally said (I don't follow him closely enough to know either way), but rather my frustration with RE'ers who keep asking if we've ever been on a plane. I wish that someone could tell RE'ers to quit bringing this subject up, because it doesn't earn them any points.

You cannot see the curvature of the horizon at 40,000 feet - but if you have a good forward view, it's very clear that objects in front of you are curving away with perspective.  Sadly, this is rarely the case for passengers on commercial airlines.

[Spicy Meataball]

I really hope he doesn't claim that he "didn't see curvature" or something so "the earth is therefor flat," because as someone else previously mentioned, you have to reach around 100,000 feet or so for "Curvature" to appear.
If he tries to make such a claim, we will get lot's of bad publicity.

[Dr David Thork]

I really hope he doesn't claim that he "didn't see curvature" or something so "the earth is therefor flat," because as someone else previously mentioned, you have to reach around 100,000 feet or so for "Curvature" to appear.
If he tries to make such a claim, we will get lot's of bad publicity.

No such thing as bad publicity, mate. Its more Twitter followers, more forum activity, more Facebook likes, more power. I couldn't give a monkeys if this guy is boiled alive in that thing. He painted 'flat earth' on the side of it, and that's headlines.

[IHaveSeveralQuestions]

In the Flat Earth FAQ, I read this.

 "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered."

So I'm just wondering what exactly this man trying to accomplish. Verbal confirmation? Regrettably, RE's wouldn't accept this if FE's didn't accept NASA's statements.

[JAZZEYENANO]

In the Flat Earth FAQ, I read this.

 "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered."

So I'm just wondering what exactly this man trying to accomplish. Verbal confirmation? Regrettably, RE's wouldn't accept this if FE's didn't accept NASA's statements.

Yeah I was kind of also wondering what kind of "proof" would FE's except? I mean photo evidence as said above isn't reliable, so what would be? 

[juner]

This isn’t the place for debate. Locking thread.