The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: TheronEpic on September 09, 2018, 01:27:03 AM
-
I am a round earther, and have always believed in a spherical (not totally smooth, obviously) earth, due to the overwhelming solid evidence given that can be replicated time and time again. After looking at each of the topics, I felt this would be the best place for my question. In the over 70 years since the first picture of earth taken from space in 1946, how is it possible that multiple space programs and agencies (including the U.S. and Russian programs that would love to prove each other wrong) have all maintained the truth for this long, not to mention the dozens of non-government space programs, including the (in total) hundreds of thousands of people involved in the calculation, construction, launching, and even the people inside those spacecraft? I am open to questions.
-
I am a round earther, and have always believed in a spherical (not totally smooth, obviously) earth, due to the overwhelming solid evidence given that can be replicated time and time again. After looking at each of the topics, I felt this would be the best place for my question. In the over 70 years since the first picture of earth taken from space in 1946, how is it possible that multiple space programs and agencies (including the U.S. and Russian programs that would love to prove each other wrong) have all maintained the truth for this long, not to mention the dozens of non-government space programs, including the (in total) hundreds of thousands of people involved in the calculation, construction, launching, and even the people inside those spacecraft? I am open to questions.
I have often wondered that myself, especially since the ISS is visible through a telescope. And, because of its shape I doubt it can maintain altitude if it had to fly within our atmosphere. I can't see the logic or feasibility in a global spaceflight conspiracy. One of my friends worked at NASA during the Apollo program. If there's a conspiracy NASA somehow managed to buy his silence.
-
I am a round earther, and have always believed in a spherical (not totally smooth, obviously) earth, due to the overwhelming solid evidence given that can be replicated time and time again. After looking at each of the topics, I felt this would be the best place for my question. In the over 70 years since the first picture of earth taken from space in 1946, how is it possible that multiple space programs and agencies (including the U.S. and Russian programs that would love to prove each other wrong) have all maintained the truth for this long, not to mention the dozens of non-government space programs, including the (in total) hundreds of thousands of people involved in the calculation, construction, launching, and even the people inside those spacecraft? I am open to questions.
Don’t all FET roads lead directly back to the moon landing, i.e., human observed direct evidence that earth is a globe? I mean, one could firmly believe all of the tenants of 'Earth Not a Globe' all the way up until 1969 where it all collapses. You have one of two options to consider at that crossroad:
1) Damnit! The earth is a globe
2) I’m not buying it, I know the earth is flat, this all must be fake
You choose #2. Everything is downstream from that one selection. Even if your belief system works backward from today, you suddenly find yourself slamming into the existential crisis that is created for FET by the Apollo missions.
In essence a moon landing denier can be an REr or an FEr.
But an FEr can never be a moon landing believer
So, one is an FE, the moon landing absolutely has to be fake, all supposed space endeavors prior to and henceforth from the moon landings has to be fake otherwise credence would be lent to the 1969 spherical earth “proof” relayed by NASA.
So once you’re there with that belief system, no amount of evidence of space travel, no matter how convincing or credible, can be allowed into your psyche, it’s just plain too damaging to all you hold dear.
TL;DR - “The (NASA) Conspiracy” is not for NASA/Space Agencies to make make money, oppress humans, masonic order/lumanati or whatever one's standard conspiracy motivation may be, "The Conspiracy” is that an FE’r can never accept space travel of any kind b/c it immediately and devastatingly blows up FET in it’s entirety.
-
Don’t all FET roads lead directly back to the moon landing, i.e., human observed direct evidence that earth is a globe?
Absolutely not. There are plenty of FE'ers who fully accept the mainstream view on space travel. Others, like myself, remain cautiously undecided on the subject.
You have one of two options to consider at that crossroad
I can think of a third, very popular option: What this handful of individuals has seen was the illuminated, roughly circular, portion of the Earth. They were simply mistaken in their interpretation. A fourth option also exists - as a consequence of EAT, you'd *expect* to see a significantly curved Earth from sufficiently high up. I'm sure there are more possibilities that didn't immediately jump to mind.
Forcing people to accept a dichotomy that you've made up yourself does not advance the discussion. Indeed, it boxes you in, forcing you to think about what must be the case in your head, rather than what actually occurs.
-
Don’t all FET roads lead directly back to the moon landing, i.e., human observed direct evidence that earth is a globe?
Absolutely not. There are plenty of FE'ers who fully accept the mainstream view on space travel. Others, like myself, remain cautiously undecided on the subject.
Cool, I have not come across any yet, I guess until now. How do they reconcile observational/visual evidence of a globe earth if they accept the moon landing as true? Or are these FE moon landing believers more of the number 3 types you describe below; the "All involved were mistaken" types?
You have one of two options to consider at that crossroad
I can think of a third, very popular option: What this handful of individuals has seen was the illuminated, roughly circular, portion of the Earth. They were simply mistaken in their interpretation. A fourth option also exists - as a consequence of EAT, you'd *expect* to see a significantly curved Earth from sufficiently high up. I'm sure there are more possibilities that didn't immediately jump to mind.
3) Hadn't heard this one either. Especially considering that the contents within the illuminated, roughly circular, portion of the earth would seemingly have been observed as different by different mission observers given a rotating globe.
4) Hadn't heard this one either. Interesting.
Forcing people to accept a dichotomy that you've made up yourself does not advance the discussion. Indeed, it boxes you in, forcing you to think about what must be the case in your head, rather than what actually occurs.
No one is forcing anything. And actually you are wrong, as evidenced by your response - My made up dichotomy utterly advanced the discussion in that you provided 3 more options not widely known to some becuase if it. I would consider that an advancement.
-
I can think of a third, very popular option: What this handful of individuals has seen was the illuminated, roughly circular, portion of the Earth. They were simply mistaken in their interpretation. A fourth option also exists - as a consequence of EAT, you'd *expect* to see a significantly curved Earth from sufficiently high up. I'm sure there are more possibilities that didn't immediately jump to mind.
Forcing people to accept a dichotomy that you've made up yourself does not advance the discussion. Indeed, it boxes you in, forcing you to think about what must be the case in your head, rather than what actually occurs.
Fair enough, it's possible that the astronauts were simply mistaken when looking at the Earth, but surely they would have noticed that the trip to the Moon was significantly shorter than they had anticipated or that they were practically level with the Sun?
-
There are plenty of FE'ers who fully accept the mainstream view on space travel.
Off the top of your head, can you remember any who are active here? I would love to read their reconciliation of things.
as a consequence of EAT, you'd *expect* to see a significantly curved Earth from sufficiently high up.
I wonder what altitude is “sufficiently high up” for a flat earth to look like this
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg/600px-NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg)
-
There are plenty of FE'ers who fully accept the mainstream view on space travel.
The mainstream view holds that craft can, and do, orbit around a spherical globe, in all directions. It holds that, amongst others, the Mercury, Gemini programmes both involved the refinement of space travel whilst in Earth orbit. Also that the various Apollo missions went through Earth orbit, left that to head to Lunar orbit, then returned to some more Earth orbit. Not to mention the thousands of other craft that have either been in, or are still in, Earth orbit.
I don't see how this can be reconciled with a Flat Earth belief. The two seem to be mutually exclusive.
-
What this handful of individuals has seen was the illuminated, roughly circular, portion of the Earth. They were simply mistaken in their interpretation.
...except it's not simply their interpretation; there's photos, imagery and video of the Earth from various Russian craft, from the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions, from Japanese and Chinese lunar orbiters, from European, Russian, American and Japanese weather satellites, and from various SpaceX missions, at least.
-
...except it's not simply their interpretation; there's photos
How do you confirm that what your witnesses saw is consistent with these composite photographs? Also, how does the presence of photographs eliminate the need for interpretation?
-
...except it's not simply their interpretation; there's photos
How do you confirm that what your witnesses saw is consistent with these composite photographs? Also, how does the presence of photographs eliminate the need for interpretation?
Photographs would reduce the interpretations to those that make sense, would they not? I certainly won't look at the earth from the moon and interpret that as looking like a dinosaur.
But it's not just one photo. It's many. Can any be interpreted as representative of a flat earth?
-
...except it's not simply their interpretation; there's photos
How do you confirm that what your witnesses saw is consistent with these composite photographs?
1. They're not all composites
2. The witnesses state that they saw what they photographed. If they'd got back from the mission, and the published photographs didn't show what they saw, they would say so. In line with standard court room practice, if you wish to disprove what they say they saw, you need to produce valid rebuttal evidence, not just shed vague doubt on theirs.
3. Many of the photos are taken by automatic means, and the results from those are consistent with those taken by real people.
4. Since the number of analogue and digital photographs of the Earth now numbers many thousands, with more being added every day, it's difficult to see how interpretation can factor into it any more. Perhaps if we were still back in the 1960s, and there were only one or two, but those days are long past ....
Is the witness's testimony invalidated by the fact that you didn't see the same event(s) as he/she did, and as such you can't "confirm" it?
-
Forcing people to accept a dichotomy that you've made up yourself does not advance the discussion. Indeed, it boxes you in, forcing you to think about what must be the case in your head, rather than what actually occurs.
If you accept that they got there, you have to accept the science that got them there, in particularly the science of gravitational attraction, momentum etc.
-
Absolutely not. There are plenty of FE'ers who fully accept the mainstream view on space travel. Others, like myself, remain cautiously undecided on the subject.
That's fascinating. I have not seen any posts on this one and a google search comes up empty. I am very curious how this would work. Orbital mechanics is well documented but how would the same work in FE?
Discuss?
-
That's fascinating. I have not seen any posts on this one and a google search comes up empty. I am very curious how this would work. Orbital mechanics is well documented but how would the same work in FE?
Discuss?
I'm sorry, but I won't discuss something I don't personally subscribe to (at least not yet), and I won't be revealing personal details of my friends - it is their prerogative to make themselves public or not. As you may have noticed, not many of us welcome public attention.
it's difficult to see how interpretation can factor into it any more
Really? You don't think humans need to interpret images in order to understand them? This is revolutionary stuff - do elaborate!
-
That's fascinating. I have not seen any posts on this one and a google search comes up empty. I am very curious how this would work. Orbital mechanics is well documented but how would the same work in FE?
Discuss?
I'm sorry, but I won't discuss something I don't personally subscribe to (at least not yet), and I won't be revealing personal details of my friends - it is their prerogative to make themselves public or not. As you may have noticed, not many of us welcome public attention.
Understood.
-
it's difficult to see how interpretation can factor into it any more
Really? You don't think humans need to interpret images in order to understand them? This is revolutionary stuff - do elaborate!
Back in 2015, NASA posted 1000’s of Apollo mission photos on Flickr.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/
And yes, humans certainly need to interpret images. Here are a few I picked out from the Apollo Flickr archive that are open to human interpretation and for those who believe that Apollo was real yet feel that all involved were mistaken in what they saw:
(https://i.imgur.com/mtF6VwP.jpg)
-
Don’t all FET roads lead directly back to the moon landing, i.e., human observed direct evidence that earth is a globe?
Absolutely not. There are plenty of FE'ers who fully accept the mainstream view on space travel. Others, like myself, remain cautiously undecided on the subject.
I am extremely interested in this. I've been reading FE media for quite a while(seen dozens of videos too) and have never encountered an FE believer that believes in space travel. The only FE ideologies I've seen that don't center on a space travel conspiracy are the full-matrix people who say that nothing we see is actually real. The astronauts, NASA and everybody is being deceived.
Generally, FE theory posits a conspiracy to cover the fact that space travel is a hoax. It is a foundational principle that the people perpetuating the hoax are evil (evil shills) and people believing the hoax are stupid (lamestream media sheeple.) In FE generally, RE people are either evil or stupid and the only smart, righteous people on the planet is the FE community.
I understand that I will be told that not all FE people believe the same thing and my generalizations come from the evil indoctrination I've been subjected to. But if you have an FE theory that doesn't involve a giant conspiracy of the evil over the stupid, I want to hear about it.
I can't ask Pete to discuss it because it is not his belief, but is there anyone who can tell me more about a flat earth model that allows for space travel. I might sign up for an idea where I'm not stupid or evil.
-
How do you confirm that what your witnesses saw is consistent with these composite photographs?
This is presented often by proponents of the flat earth. There were indeed a few composite images published, however the vast majority of earth images from space are not composite. The composite images were created from single images from a narrow angle of view to give greater detail. Further, just because they are composite does not necessarily mean there are 'fake' - so I'm a little confused as to why that is always the immediate understanding of a composite image.
Here is an image taken in 1969 from above the surface of the moon using a Hasselblad camera. It is a single image taken on film.
(https://projekarka.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/100752481.jpg)
I have a couple of questions.
1) How could this image be interpreted as being of a flat earth?
2) If the actual film was made available to you for your investigation, would that be sufficient to convince anyone that a) people had gone to the moon, and b) that the earth is close to spherical.
-
I have on my bookshelf a copy of Full Moon;
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Full-Moon-Michael-Light/dp/0224063049
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51V70J1QNDL._SX463_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Of note is this extract from the introduction;
"Full Moon is a photographic journey to the Moon and back, drawn from NASA's 32,000 pictures from the Apollo missions. For the first time NASA has allowed 900 of the 'master' negatives and transparencies to be taken offsite for electronic scanning so as to produce the sharpest images of space that we have ever seen. "
Supplementary to the above, if you were able to talk to either the author, or his staff who handled the negatives and/or transparencies .... would that be enough to convince you, either that mankind had been to the Moon, and/or that the Earth is a globe?
-
...but is there anyone who can tell me more about a flat earth model that allows for space travel.
I stand by my dichotomous statement that an FEr must believe that the moon landing was a hoax. Perhaps not must, but an overwhelmingly high percentage. Out of everything I’ve watched and read, I have yet to find an FE Apollo believer.
As for space travel in general, the vast majority of FE stuff I’ve seen is that no, it is not plausible; ISS is all CGI, underwater or in some sort of electromagnetic tube that simulates weightlessness on earth - Satellites are balloons or planes or just don’t exist - Rockets seen launched don’t go anywhere, they just plop down into the ocean, etc., All is faked in one manner or another.
So yes, DrVN, I too would very much like to hear from an FEr who:
Believes that the Apollo moon landings occurred
And/or
Believes space travel is real
And then explanations as to how they reconcile said beliefs with FE Theory.
I’m betting there will be no takers.
-
... and, further to the above;
https://www.space.com/30841-tracking-down-thousands-of-lost-nasa-images.html
"What is the status of these photos? The negatives should still exist — most now reside at Archives II, a "Raiders of the Lost Ark"-like warehouse in College Park, Maryland. (The negatives of the most valuable manned-space images — the in-flight shots — are in cold storage in a special vault at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston; we have been inside!)
But significant collections of "on-the ground" photos are also maintained at JSC and the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida, both in negative and print formats. "
-
...but is there anyone who can tell me more about a flat earth model that allows for space travel.
I stand by my dichotomous statement that an FEr must believe that the moon landing was a hoax. Perhaps not must, but an overwhelmingly high percentage. Out of everything I’ve watched and read, I have yet to find an FE Apollo believer.
As for space travel in general, the vast majority of FE stuff I’ve seen is that no, it is not plausible; ISS is all CGI, underwater or in some sort of electromagnetic tube that simulates weightlessness on earth - Satellites are balloons or planes or just don’t exist - Rockets seen launched don’t go anywhere, they just plop down into the ocean, etc., All is faked in one manner or another.
So yes, DrVN, I too would very much like to hear from an FEr who:
Believes that the Apollo moon landings occurred
And/or
Believes space travel is real
And then explanations as to how they reconcile said beliefs with FE Theory.
I’m betting there will be no takers.
I literally have no idea how you would reconcile a mainstream view of space travel with belief in a flat earth. The whole premise of spaceflight is you need to get into an orbital path round a globe earth. If the earth is flat then sure, you could go up but you couldn't have a stable orbit.
While we're here, I never understand the "those are just composite images" FE argument because:
1) No they aren't, or certainly not all of them and
2) So what? A panorama photo you take on your phone or camera is a composite, the camera takes a load of images and stitches them together. That doesn't mean the end result doesn't represent what you see. You still need to be in space to take the images which are then composited.
I've mentioned "A Man On The Moon" bu Andrew Chaikin before. A brilliant book about the Apollo missions and Mercury and Gemini which preceded them. I defy anyone to read the level of detail in there and tell me it was all faked.
-
I just found the missing postings in the lower fora along with a childish, unwarranted insult from the moderator.
We did not ask for anyone to be doxxed. We asked to be show something from people who believe in flat earth and space travel.
How do we Pete didn't just make that up the same way you accuse NASA of making things up?
Not speaking for Pete, just my interpretation. He was responding to my anecdotal logic with his. Totally fair.
I would still like to hear from any FE/Moon Landing/Space Travel believers though. As I too can't find any anywhere else. I don't want to debate their belief, just curious what their logic may be.