The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: S.Hunter on February 07, 2018, 09:49:43 PM
-
The Flat Earth Society's general opinion on the International Space Station is that it is a hoax. However during the 2017 eclipse, the YouTube channel Smarter Every Day was able to capture the ISS transition the eclipse.
Link to video https://youtu.be/lepQoU4oek4
Although I think the whole video is worth watching, at around 3:23 into the video you can see the ISS quickly transition the eclipse near the bottom right of the eclipse followed by a slowed down and zoomed in capture where you are able to see the shape of the ISS.
They were able to calculate the position of the ISS and the exact time it would pass, thanks to a mathematical formula which is explained in a different video on his channel.
I am just curious on The Flat Earth Society's opinion on this footage.
Kindest Regards
-
I've already started a thread basically about this same thing. It was stated that it was probably a chunk of debris from the creation of the earth that got caught in the upper atmoplane that just resembles the ISS. I don't think you will get a better explanation than that.
-
Thanks, I thought it was something worth debating whether the Flat Earth Society gave me a solid response or just claimed that the footage was faked. The video is really quite good and has a lot of sturdy science and math behind it, how they were able to get the exact second the ISS would transition the eclipse for example.
-
In the other thread Pickel said
In the traditional flat earth model, an explation for satellites would be that they move in a circular path around the north pole because they possess technology to move, or an unknown natural whirlwind-like force may be propelling the satellites.
And she said it may be a balloon.
And she's a genius so she should know.
-
In the other thread Pickel said
In the traditional flat earth model, an explation for satellites would be that they move in a circular path around the north pole because they possess technology to move, or an unknown natural whirlwind-like force may be propelling the satellites.
And she said it may be a balloon.
And she's a genius so she should know.
That's a really odd shaped balloon that I would like to see. So even after all this scientific research is being shown to show that this is the ISIS, they tried this proving it by saying it's debris, or balloon with no actual backing or proof? Also, how much space debris is there that's that size? I think the last record I read said less than a thousand pieces of debris larger than a softball where in orbit.
-
I've already started a thread basically about this same thing. It was stated that it was probably a chunk of debris from the creation of the earth that got caught in the upper atmoplane that just resembles the ISS. I don't think you will get a better explanation than that.
That argument is invalid. You can almost easily predict the transit of the ISS, and i doubt anyone can predict a transit of a chunk of space debris, that just so happends to resemble the ISS perfectly.
-
I've already started a thread basically about this same thing. It was stated that it was probably a chunk of debris from the creation of the earth that got caught in the upper atmoplane that just resembles the ISS. I don't think you will get a better explanation than that.
That argument is invalid. You can almost easily predict the transit of the ISS, and i doubt anyone can predict a transit of a chunk of space debris, that just so happends to resemble the ISS perfectly.
I don't see why we couldn't predict their transit...
With all of the satellites and space junk, they HAVE to track it all. It is a national security and indeed 'world security' issue. They have to know if a GPS satellite or comm or spy satellite or finance related satellite will go down.
-
Destin is obviously part of the conspiracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpWQHFzrEqc
-
Destin is obviously part of the conspiracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpWQHFzrEqc
If you are going to post a video, include some context as to how it relates to the topic.
-
Does it really matter whether it's a balloon or an orbiting satellite? It's clearly man-made, and the fact that we can get something that high means that we can take pictures from that high, which means NASA can't be mistaken on the shape of the Earth.
-
I'm still curious as to what the Flat Earth Society will respond with.
As far as I can tell there has been only one Flat Earther to post and that was junker doing moderator duties.
To be completely honest I'm a little disappointed that my question appears to have been ignored by the society. Maybe I made it sound too official wherein I asked for the society's opinion. I was just generally asking the community at large.
Based off of what I've been told by Buran I guess my answer will be along the lines of space debris but I thought the Flat Earth Society didn't necessarily believe in space. Even if they do, a chunk of random space debris of that size and shape seems to be highly improbable.
For a reference of the shape of the ISS from NASA.
https://goo.gl/images/gT7rkh
The shape from the footage and that of the above image are similar. You can see the shape of the solar panels clearly in the video.
Again I offer my kindest regards.
S.Hunter
-
I'm still curious as to what the Flat Earth Society will respond with.
As far as I can tell there has been only one Flat Earther to post and that was junker doing moderator duties.
To be completely honest I'm a little disappointed that my question appears to have been ignored by the society. Maybe I made it sound too official wherein I asked for the society's opinion. I was just generally asking the community at large.
Based off of what I've been told by Buran I guess my answer will be along the lines of space debris but I thought the Flat Earth Society didn't necessarily believe in space. Even if they do, a chunk of random space debris of that size and shape seems to be highly improbable.
For a reference of the shape of the ISS from NASA.
https://goo.gl/images/gT7rkh
The shape from the footage and that of the above image are similar. You can see the shape of the solar panels clearly in the video.
Again I offer my kindest regards.
S.Hunter
Not space, the atmoplane. I'm not sure how concrete this is to overall FE theory. If you browse the forum you will see the vast majority of people here are either just trolling or challenging the FE'rs. Why would they want to reply when they are just going to get attacked. Not saying you are, but in general people are pretty viscious on here.
The other answer would be it's a hoax perpetrated by NASA to make you believe it's real by flying some object thru the air to make it appear to be the space station.
There are some topics that are worked out well by the FE'rs, and some that they haven't begun to tackle. This may be one. If I were you I would just read thru the forums to get a feel for what they believe. Have an open mind and you will begin to understand why they believe what they do.
-
I've already started a thread basically about this same thing. It was stated that it was probably a chunk of debris from the creation of the earth that got caught in the upper atmoplane that just resembles the ISS. I don't think you will get a better explanation than that.
Yet its path matches exactly the path that the space agencies intended and mapped out for it? And radio hams make contact with the astronauts on board as it passes by? And it's predictable to the extent that photographers now routinely capture it in transit over the Moon and the Sun?
-
I've already started a thread basically about this same thing. It was stated that it was probably a chunk of debris from the creation of the earth that got caught in the upper atmoplane that just resembles the ISS. I don't think you will get a better explanation than that.
Yet its path matches exactly the path that the space agencies intended and mapped out for it? And radio hams make contact with the astronauts on board as it passes by? And it's predictable to the extent that photographers now routinely capture it in transit over the Moon and the Sun?
That was basically the point I made, but the best answer was debris. Believe me, I know this answer doesnt explain how I knew what exact time to go out and see it cross the entire sky in 3 minutes. It was the fastest thing I have ever seen.
-
The Flat Earth Society's general opinion on the International Space Station is that it is a hoax. However during the 2017 eclipse, the YouTube channel Smarter Every Day was able to capture the ISS transition the eclipse.
How do you know what he "captured" was the ISS? Because he said so? Because there is nice, questionable footage?
Link to video https://youtu.be/lepQoU4oek4
Although I think the whole video is worth watching, at around 3:23 into the video you can see the ISS quickly transition the eclipse near the bottom right of the eclipse followed by a slowed down and zoomed in capture where you are able to see the shape of the ISS.
They were able to calculate the position of the ISS and the exact time it would pass, thanks to a mathematical formula which is explained in a different video on his channel.
I am just curious on The Flat Earth Society's opinion on this footage.
My opinion is that I saw video footage of some guys in a field and they had cameras. Footage changed to a scene of some lights, with a small, dark shape sailing past one of the lights. Actual or fabricated with some spiffy software? Possible? Indeed yes! Who knows? What they say in the video and what they presented (spliced in) to me is anathema to any legitimate truths. I am not buying it, but the whole presentation seemed pleasant and seemingly convincing to the average non-thinker.
Kindest Regards
-
The Flat Earth Society's general opinion on the International Space Station is that it is a hoax. However during the 2017 eclipse, the YouTube channel Smarter Every Day was able to capture the ISS transition the eclipse.
How do you know what he "captured" was the ISS? Because he said so? Because there is nice, questionable footage?
Although I think the whole video is worth watching, at around 3:23 into the video you can see the ISS quickly transition the eclipse near the bottom right of the eclipse followed by a slowed down and zoomed in capture where you are able to see the shape of the ISS.
They were able to calculate the position of the ISS and the exact time it would pass, thanks to a mathematical formula which is explained in a different video on his channel.
I am just curious on The Flat Earth Society's opinion on this footage.
My opinion is that I saw video footage of some guys in a field and they had cameras. Footage changed to a scene of some lights, with a small, dark shape sailing past one of the lights. Actual or fabricated with some spiffy software? Possible? Indeed yes! Who knows? What they say in the video and what they presented (spliced in) to me is anathema to any legitimate truths. I am not buying it, but the whole presentation seemed pleasant and seemingly convincing to the average non-thinker.
Kindest Regards
See, this is a perfect example of the difference between Round Earth and Flat Earth on this forum. Round Earth does research and thinking to back up its claims. Flat Earth does mere speculation and what-ifs to try to poke holes in something they don't understand. Your opinion was formed in less than 5 minutes and you didn't even do the most basic of research. How do I know? Because you're questioning whether the video makers faked the video of them observing the ISS from the ground. Well, why don't you just take out your telescope and look toward it?. It's been well-documented that the details of the ISS are visible from the ground to anyone with a good telescope. There are tons of people who have replicated looking at the ISS. So your rebuttal is just an ad-hoc, poorly thought-out, reactionary, and ignorant machination; you didn't even consider that you might be wrong and look up evidence to support your claims.
-
The Flat Earth Society's general opinion on the International Space Station is that it is a hoax. However during the 2017 eclipse, the YouTube channel Smarter Every Day was able to capture the ISS transition the eclipse.
How do you know what he "captured" was the ISS? Because he said so? Because there is nice, questionable footage?
Although I think the whole video is worth watching, at around 3:23 into the video you can see the ISS quickly transition the eclipse near the bottom right of the eclipse followed by a slowed down and zoomed in capture where you are able to see the shape of the ISS.
They were able to calculate the position of the ISS and the exact time it would pass, thanks to a mathematical formula which is explained in a different video on his channel.
I am just curious on The Flat Earth Society's opinion on this footage.
My opinion is that I saw video footage of some guys in a field and they had cameras. Footage changed to a scene of some lights, with a small, dark shape sailing past one of the lights. Actual or fabricated with some spiffy software? Possible? Indeed yes! Who knows? What they say in the video and what they presented (spliced in) to me is anathema to any legitimate truths. I am not buying it, but the whole presentation seemed pleasant and seemingly convincing to the average non-thinker.
Kindest Regards
See, this is a perfect example of the difference between Round Earth and Flat Earth on this forum. Round Earth does research and thinking to back up its claims. Flat Earth does mere speculation and what-ifs to try to poke holes in something they don't understand. Your opinion was formed in less than 5 minutes and you didn't even do the most basic of research. How do I know? Because you're questioning whether the video makers faked the video of them observing the ISS from the ground. Well, why don't you just take out your telescope and look toward it?. It's been well-documented that the details of the ISS are visible from the ground to anyone with a good telescope. There are tons of people who have replicated looking at the ISS. So your rebuttal is just an ad-hoc, poorly thought-out, reactionary, and ignorant machination; you didn't even consider that you might be wrong and look up evidence to support your claims.
I have to say I completely agree with you on this. I have learned that any argument that simply tries to cast doubt without actual evidence isn't worthy of consideration. The video of the ISS is evidence. To argue it was a fake requires more than just your say so.
If Mad Mike Hughes were to ever launch himself high enough to prove the earth was flat, and had photos and videos to prove it was flat, I wouldn't try to argue they were fakes just because they go against what I believe. I would take them seriously and look into how a round earth could look flat.
-
There's so much CGI fakery out there, can you blame anyone who questions the videos that have been released, im still waiting for stars in any of NASA's live streams.
-
There's so much CGI fakery out there, can you blame anyone who questions the videos that have been released, im still waiting for stars in any of NASA's live streams.
You think stars are hard to fake?!
I'm laughing at the idea that there's a team in NASA desperately working on this "They're on to us, we have to start faking the stars too!"
That would be the easy bit to fake, it's only points of light. Go outside at night and take a photo of the street, see how many stars show in the photo.
If the street is lit then your camera will adjust its exposure to that and dimmer objects like stars will not show up.
-
There's so much CGI fakery out there, can you blame anyone who questions the videos that have been released, im still waiting for stars in any of NASA's live streams.
Yes I can blame them. It's such an easy out to just say anything that is against my belief is fake.
And yes, people do post fake cgi videos on youtube, but they are easily proven false. Not just a claim, but with actual evidence. Until there is evidence for fake cgi video from everyone that has ever filmed anything in space that goes against flat earth, I won't believe it's just cgi. You need actual evidence.
-
The Flat Earth Society's general opinion on the International Space Station is that it is a hoax. However during the 2017 eclipse, the YouTube channel Smarter Every Day was able to capture the ISS transition the eclipse.
How do you know what he "captured" was the ISS? Because he said so? Because there is nice, questionable footage?
Although I think the whole video is worth watching, at around 3:23 into the video you can see the ISS quickly transition the eclipse near the bottom right of the eclipse followed by a slowed down and zoomed in capture where you are able to see the shape of the ISS.
They were able to calculate the position of the ISS and the exact time it would pass, thanks to a mathematical formula which is explained in a different video on his channel.
I am just curious on The Flat Earth Society's opinion on this footage.
My opinion is that I saw video footage of some guys in a field and they had cameras. Footage changed to a scene of some lights, with a small, dark shape sailing past one of the lights. Actual or fabricated with some spiffy software? Possible? Indeed yes! Who knows? What they say in the video and what they presented (spliced in) to me is anathema to any legitimate truths. I am not buying it, but the whole presentation seemed pleasant and seemingly convincing to the average non-thinker.
Kindest Regards
See, this is a perfect example of the difference between Round Earth and Flat Earth on this forum. Round Earth does research and thinking to back up its claims. Flat Earth does mere speculation and what-ifs to try to poke holes in something they don't understand. Your opinion was formed in less than 5 minutes and you didn't even do the most basic of research. How do I know? Because you're questioning whether the video makers faked the video of them observing the ISS from the ground. Well, why don't you just take out your telescope and look toward it?. It's been well-documented that the details of the ISS are visible from the ground to anyone with a good telescope. There are tons of people who have replicated looking at the ISS. So your rebuttal is just an ad-hoc, poorly thought-out, reactionary, and ignorant machination; you didn't even consider that you might be wrong and look up evidence to support your claims.
I have to say I completely agree with you on this. I have learned that any argument that simply tries to cast doubt without actual evidence isn't worthy of consideration. The video of the ISS is evidence. To argue it was a fake requires more than just your say so.
If Mad Mike Hughes were to ever launch himself high enough to prove the earth was flat, and had photos and videos to prove it was flat, I wouldn't try to argue they were fakes just because they go against what I believe. I would take them seriously and look into how a round earth could look flat.
The Man Who Saw The Flat Earth (From a Balloon!): Auguste Piccard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIFYiHGqshc
I am not arguing with you. I am simply curious about it all.
-
The Flat Earth Society's general opinion on the International Space Station is that it is a hoax. However during the 2017 eclipse, the YouTube channel Smarter Every Day was able to capture the ISS transition the eclipse.
How do you know what he "captured" was the ISS? Because he said so? Because there is nice, questionable footage?
Although I think the whole video is worth watching, at around 3:23 into the video you can see the ISS quickly transition the eclipse near the bottom right of the eclipse followed by a slowed down and zoomed in capture where you are able to see the shape of the ISS.
They were able to calculate the position of the ISS and the exact time it would pass, thanks to a mathematical formula which is explained in a different video on his channel.
I am just curious on The Flat Earth Society's opinion on this footage.
My opinion is that I saw video footage of some guys in a field and they had cameras. Footage changed to a scene of some lights, with a small, dark shape sailing past one of the lights. Actual or fabricated with some spiffy software? Possible? Indeed yes! Who knows? What they say in the video and what they presented (spliced in) to me is anathema to any legitimate truths. I am not buying it, but the whole presentation seemed pleasant and seemingly convincing to the average non-thinker.
Kindest Regards
See, this is a perfect example of the difference between Round Earth and Flat Earth on this forum. Round Earth does research and thinking to back up its claims. Flat Earth does mere speculation and what-ifs to try to poke holes in something they don't understand. Your opinion was formed in less than 5 minutes and you didn't even do the most basic of research. How do I know? Because you're questioning whether the video makers faked the video of them observing the ISS from the ground. Well, why don't you just take out your telescope and look toward it?. It's been well-documented that the details of the ISS are visible from the ground to anyone with a good telescope. There are tons of people who have replicated looking at the ISS. So your rebuttal is just an ad-hoc, poorly thought-out, reactionary, and ignorant machination; you didn't even consider that you might be wrong and look up evidence to support your claims.
You seem convinced in your beliefs. I am curious as to why you haunt forums like this simply to ad hominem those who aren't satisfied with the Mainstream Narrative. Why are you here? To save us all?
Your entire comment is a strawman you use to bludgeon those in dissent of your vague and ambiguos defenses... the standards you hold us to and yet which you do not abide by. Where are your citations of a round earth? Oh... let me guess... you will cite the same jabberwocky that I grew up with and believed in until the advent of the Internet.
Google, "NASA admits to losing Moon Landing Tapes". Go figure!
I have no problem with you believing what you wish in this matter. If you wish to troll forums where people wish to believe something else and research for supportive citations then please demonstrate "YOUR" views with civility and citations (counter proof, if you will).
Respect
-
See, the problem with Flat Earth is it's just a more extreme manifestation of the broader problem of backward science denial. It's the same sort of conspiracy theorists that waste the government's time with chemtrail junk, who don't vaccinate themselves or their kids to spread infectious disease, and who deny global warming. The latter two have a large impact on society. Hopefully by debating people on Flat Earth, we can convince people on the fence to second-guess these conspiracy theories and show what they really are: misinformed junk.
You are defending an untenable position. The fact remains that the ISS has been observed by hundreds if not thousands of amateur astronomers with their own telescopes. If you can't do a simple Google search to find all of the pictures, and then assert that I don't have any citations, then you're hopeless and intellectually dishonest. There's no hypocrisy here. You should've looked some stuff up before immediately deciding to assert the obvious opposite to anything that sounds like it was produced by NASA.
http://lmgtfy.com/?t=i&q=international+space+station+telescope
-
I think JohnAdams1145 is just frustrated at the lack of effort displayed.
If you doubt a video just because you think it's fake and don't have any advice for how to make the video better, and you don't bother to try to recreate the video with publicly available methods and information, then it's not a very constructive conversation.
If I doubt one of your videos I'll try to tell you why and how you could make it better, if I have time to watch it and reply. I may even try to make a video myself, if I don't find someone who has already done it better than I could. You'll notice I'm not attacking your Auguste Piccard video, because I haven't had a chance to watch it yet so I don't yet have an opinion.
-
The Flat Earth Society's general opinion on the International Space Station is that it is a hoax. However during the 2017 eclipse, the YouTube channel Smarter Every Day was able to capture the ISS transition the eclipse.
How do you know what he "captured" was the ISS? Because he said so? Because there is nice, questionable footage?
Although I think the whole video is worth watching, at around 3:23 into the video you can see the ISS quickly transition the eclipse near the bottom right of the eclipse followed by a slowed down and zoomed in capture where you are able to see the shape of the ISS.
They were able to calculate the position of the ISS and the exact time it would pass, thanks to a mathematical formula which is explained in a different video on his channel.
I am just curious on The Flat Earth Society's opinion on this footage.
My opinion is that I saw video footage of some guys in a field and they had cameras. Footage changed to a scene of some lights, with a small, dark shape sailing past one of the lights. Actual or fabricated with some spiffy software? Possible? Indeed yes! Who knows? What they say in the video and what they presented (spliced in) to me is anathema to any legitimate truths. I am not buying it, but the whole presentation seemed pleasant and seemingly convincing to the average non-thinker.
Kindest Regards
See, this is a perfect example of the difference between Round Earth and Flat Earth on this forum. Round Earth does research and thinking to back up its claims. Flat Earth does mere speculation and what-ifs to try to poke holes in something they don't understand. Your opinion was formed in less than 5 minutes and you didn't even do the most basic of research. How do I know? Because you're questioning whether the video makers faked the video of them observing the ISS from the ground. Well, why don't you just take out your telescope and look toward it?. It's been well-documented that the details of the ISS are visible from the ground to anyone with a good telescope. There are tons of people who have replicated looking at the ISS. So your rebuttal is just an ad-hoc, poorly thought-out, reactionary, and ignorant machination; you didn't even consider that you might be wrong and look up evidence to support your claims.
I have to say I completely agree with you on this. I have learned that any argument that simply tries to cast doubt without actual evidence isn't worthy of consideration. The video of the ISS is evidence. To argue it was a fake requires more than just your say so.
If Mad Mike Hughes were to ever launch himself high enough to prove the earth was flat, and had photos and videos to prove it was flat, I wouldn't try to argue they were fakes just because they go against what I believe. I would take them seriously and look into how a round earth could look flat.
The Man Who Saw The Flat Earth (From a Balloon!): Auguste Piccard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIFYiHGqshc
I am not arguing with you. I am simply curious about it all.
I skimmed thru the video. I am confused as to what it has to do with the topic.
-
Picard may well have claimed to have seen a Flat Earth, but
He was looking through vintage spectacles
He was peering through thick porthole glass of small diameter, even smaller than today's aircraft windows and
Someone has suggested his craft was leaking, so he have been suffering oxygen deprivation and mild hallucination
So, how reliable?
-
That's a really odd shaped balloon that I would like to see...
It is not like odd-shaped balloons have no basis in reality...
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/c/c6/Buzz-Lightyear-Balloon-Macys-Thanksgiving-Day-Parade.png/revision/latest?cb=20140608170043)
-
Picard may well have claimed to have seen a Flat Earth, but
He was looking through vintage spectacles
He was peering through thick porthole glass of small diameter, even smaller than today's aircraft windows and
Someone has suggested his craft was leaking, so he have been suffering oxygen deprivation and mild hallucination
So, how reliable?
Piccard knew what he was looking through.
He did not make just one flight. His craft was not leaking all the freaking time.
-
Picard may well have claimed to have seen a Flat Earth, but
He was looking through vintage spectacles
He was peering through thick porthole glass of small diameter, even smaller than today's aircraft windows and
Someone has suggested his craft was leaking, so he have been suffering oxygen deprivation and mild hallucination
So, how reliable?
Piccard knew what he was looking through.
He did not make just one flight. His craft was not leaking all the freaking time.
At the altitude they achieved, you'd need a wide field of view to see the curvature of the Earth. Their field of view was limited. Further, their flight occurred over land, which would have influenced what they saw.
Beyond the physical, he is also credited as being the first human to see the curve of the Earth and referred to the Earth as a globe in his writings. This is huge case of confirmation bias. Take one sentence and ignore everything he wrote and studied. (he was a scientist and not a flat Earther)
-
Piccard knew what he was looking through.
He did not make just one flight. His craft was not leaking all the freaking time.
How many flights did he make?
He might have KNOWN what he was looking through, but does that make his observation any more reliable, given the size of the portholes, and his defective vision?
-
Picard may well have claimed to have seen a Flat Earth, but
He was looking through vintage spectacles
He was peering through thick porthole glass of small diameter, even smaller than today's aircraft windows and
Someone has suggested his craft was leaking, so he have been suffering oxygen deprivation and mild hallucination
So, how reliable?
Piccard knew what he was looking through.
He did not make just one flight. His craft was not leaking all the freaking time.
At the altitude they achieved, you'd need a wide field of view to see the curvature of the Earth.
Yet the claim by Piccard is he saw it as flat with concave(curved up) lip...
Their field of view was limited. Further, their flight occurred over land, which would have influenced what they saw.
Funny! Have you ever taken to task any RE-tard claiming to see curvature from a commercial jet?
Beyond the physical, he is also credited as being the first human to see the curve of the Earth and referred to the Earth as a globe in his writings. This is huge case of confirmation bias. Take one sentence and ignore everything he wrote and studied. (he was a scientist and not a flat Earther)
So, you spend your entire first paragraph arguing against his capability to adequately see what he was looking at and then close your post, virtually AFFIRMING BY GOD he was able to see the curve...
WTH is the matter with you?
-
We don't talk much about the ISS here. Globebusters focuses on the ISS hoax. Check out their Youtube channel.
-
Piccard knew what he was looking through.
He did not make just one flight. His craft was not leaking all the freaking time.
How many flights did he make?
Look it up yourself.
He might have KNOWN what he was looking through, but does that make his observation any more reliable, given the size of the portholes, and his defective vision?
You do not want to believe anything he wrote as a result of his observations, fine.
What do I care?
None of the people who had immediate access to his work and reports called out any of his physical shortcomings or possible equipment shortcomings into question.
Only modern day RE-tards think they have the credentials to do so...
-
As far as I can find, Globebusters offers mid-air holograms as the explanation for people seeing the ISS from the ground.
Starting roughly at 10:30:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0iQzxRqW4U
This isn't remotely close to a satisfactory answer to Smarter Every Day's observation of the solar transit. Holograms don't cast shadows
-
Picard may well have claimed to have seen a Flat Earth, but
He was looking through vintage spectacles
He was peering through thick porthole glass of small diameter, even smaller than today's aircraft windows and
Someone has suggested his craft was leaking, so he have been suffering oxygen deprivation and mild hallucination
So, how reliable?
Piccard knew what he was looking through.
He did not make just one flight. His craft was not leaking all the freaking time.
At the altitude they achieved, you'd need a wide field of view to see the curvature of the Earth.
Yet the claim by Piccard is he saw it as flat with concave(curved up) lip...
Their field of view was limited. Further, their flight occurred over land, which would have influenced what they saw.
Funny! Have you ever taken to task any RE-tard claiming to see curvature from a commercial jet?
Beyond the physical, he is also credited as being the first human to see the curve of the Earth and referred to the Earth as a globe in his writings. This is huge case of confirmation bias. Take one sentence and ignore everything he wrote and studied. (he was a scientist and not a flat Earther)
So, you spend your entire first paragraph arguing against his capability to adequately see what he was looking at and then close your post, virtually AFFIRMING BY GOD he was able to see the curve...
WTH is the matter with you?
I was addressing the limitations of the craft in the first couple of sentences and then pointing out that the very guy you're trying to claim thought the Earth was flat, in fact, knew it was a globe. Wipe the spittle from your mouth and go back and re-read what I wrote.
BTW, referring to logical, educated people as RE-tards pretty much shows you're have the mental age of a child. Do you laugh when you type it? "hehehe, I said RE-tard." Grow up.
-
As far as I can find, Globebusters offers mid-air holograms as the explanation for people seeing the ISS from the ground.
Starting roughly at 10:30:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0iQzxRqW4U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0iQzxRqW4U)
This isn't remotely close to a satisfactory answer to Smarter Every Day's observation of the solar transit. Holograms don't cast shadows
Why are you leaving me comments about a Youtube video you found? They have a comment feature.
-
Mid-air holograms :D
That's the dumbest thing I ever heard.
Honestly, for people who claim to value empirical evidence they sure do go out of their way to do everything they can to dismiss empirical evidence which doesn't fit in with their world view.
-
We don't talk much about the ISS here. Globebusters focuses on the ISS hoax. Check out their Youtube channel.
Globebusters aren't flat earthers. They only make controversial videos to generate views.
-
Also asserting that Piccard saw a flat Earth contradicts what the FE wiki has to say on high altitude photographs, namely that they show a roundness explained by something else. Get your arguments together before resorting to just saying everything is wrong.
-
Picard may well have claimed to have seen a Flat Earth, but
He was looking through vintage spectacles
He was peering through thick porthole glass of small diameter, even smaller than today's aircraft windows and
Someone has suggested his craft was leaking, so he have been suffering oxygen deprivation and mild hallucination
So, how reliable?
Piccard knew what he was looking through.
He did not make just one flight. His craft was not leaking all the freaking time.
At the altitude they achieved, you'd need a wide field of view to see the curvature of the Earth.
Yet the claim by Piccard is he saw it as flat with concave(curved up) lip...
Their field of view was limited. Further, their flight occurred over land, which would have influenced what they saw.
Funny! Have you ever taken to task any RE-tard claiming to see curvature from a commercial jet?
Beyond the physical, he is also credited as being the first human to see the curve of the Earth and referred to the Earth as a globe in his writings. This is huge case of confirmation bias. Take one sentence and ignore everything he wrote and studied. (he was a scientist and not a flat Earther)
So, you spend your entire first paragraph arguing against his capability to adequately see what he was looking at and then close your post, virtually AFFIRMING BY GOD he was able to see the curve...
WTH is the matter with you?
I was addressing the limitations of the craft in the first couple of sentences and then pointing out that the very guy you're trying to claim thought the Earth was flat, in fact, knew it was a globe. Wipe the spittle from your mouth and go back and re-read what I wrote.
No, you argued against the validity of all of his observations, and then tried to claim those same observations earned him the title of the first person to ever observe the "curve," of Globe Earth...
So which side you on...You cannot have it both ways.
By the way, please pony up a valid source indicating Piccard ever claimed to see the "curve of the Earth."
BTW, referring to logical, educated people as RE-tards pretty much shows you're have the mental age of a child. Do you laugh when you type it? "hehehe, I said RE-tard." Grow up.
I see no evidence of logic or education in a post or in a source, I am going to call it like I see it.
If that offends you, so be it.
So, the question remains...You ever corrected a Re-tard for claiming to see the curvature of the Earth from a commercial plane?
-
Also asserting that Piccard saw a flat Earth contradicts what the FE wiki has to say on high altitude photographs, namely that they show a roundness explained by something else. Get your arguments together before resorting to just saying everything is wrong.
I never claimed anything to do with the Wiki.
High altitude photos frequently show nothing but a flat horizon extending as far as the eye can see.
Do you find photos from Piccard in the Wiki?
-
Picard may well have claimed to have seen a Flat Earth, but
He was looking through vintage spectacles
He was peering through thick porthole glass of small diameter, even smaller than today's aircraft windows and
Someone has suggested his craft was leaking, so he have been suffering oxygen deprivation and mild hallucination
So, how reliable?
Piccard knew what he was looking through.
He did not make just one flight. His craft was not leaking all the freaking time.
At the altitude they achieved, you'd need a wide field of view to see the curvature of the Earth.
Yet the claim by Piccard is he saw it as flat with concave(curved up) lip...
Their field of view was limited. Further, their flight occurred over land, which would have influenced what they saw.
Funny! Have you ever taken to task any RE-tard claiming to see curvature from a commercial jet?
Beyond the physical, he is also credited as being the first human to see the curve of the Earth and referred to the Earth as a globe in his writings. This is huge case of confirmation bias. Take one sentence and ignore everything he wrote and studied. (he was a scientist and not a flat Earther)
So, you spend your entire first paragraph arguing against his capability to adequately see what he was looking at and then close your post, virtually AFFIRMING BY GOD he was able to see the curve...
WTH is the matter with you?
I was addressing the limitations of the craft in the first couple of sentences and then pointing out that the very guy you're trying to claim thought the Earth was flat, in fact, knew it was a globe. Wipe the spittle from your mouth and go back and re-read what I wrote.
No, you argued against the validity of all of his observations, and then tried to claim those same observations earned him the title of the first person to ever observe the "curve," of Globe Earth...
So which side you on...You cannot have it both ways.
By the way, please pony up a valid source indicating Piccard ever claimed to see the "curve of the Earth."
BTW, referring to logical, educated people as RE-tards pretty much shows you're have the mental age of a child. Do you laugh when you type it? "hehehe, I said RE-tard." Grow up.
I see no evidence of logic or education in a post or in a source, I am going to call it like I see it.
If that offends you, so be it.
So, the question remains...You ever corrected a Re-tard for claiming to see the curvature of the Earth from a commercial plane?
Go back and re-read my post and when you finally figure out what I said instead of reading into it what you want to hear, get back to me.
Offend me?? Not even a little. It just makes you look like an idiot. Kinda like if I posted about all the FE-cal matter between flat Earther's ears. Not clever, not funny, just childish. I will say there is a fair amount of irony in your name calling, but that would likely be over your head.
-
Also asserting that Piccard saw a flat Earth contradicts what the FE wiki has to say on high altitude photographs, namely that they show a roundness explained by something else. Get your arguments together before resorting to just saying everything is wrong.
I never claimed anything to do with the Wiki.
High altitude photos frequently show nothing but a flat horizon extending as far as the eye can see.
Do you find photos from Piccard in the Wiki?
I hope you realize you're in a losing battle. It's been confirmed that planes like the U-2 and the SR-71, as well as ballistic missiles and even amateur rockets can travel much higher than Piccard did. Their camera (as opposed to an oxygen-deprived person's accounting) evidence has shown that there is a curve to the Earth. You're accusing RE of dismissing evidence when you dismiss evidence without basis.
-
So, the question remains...You ever corrected a Re-tard for claiming to see the curvature of the Earth from a commercial plane?
I haven't been able to find it from a quick search, but I thought JohnAdams1145 had done just that. I believe I have as well. You can't easily perceive the curvature of the earth from commercial airline altitude.
-
Go back and re-read my post and when you finally figure out what I said instead of reading into it what you want to hear, get back to me.
Offend me?? Not even a little. It just makes you look like an idiot. Kinda like if I posted about all the FE-cal matter between flat Earther's ears. Not clever, not funny, just childish. I will say there is a fair amount of irony in your name calling, but that would likely be over your head.
I only desire to re-read writing that I find worthwhile or interesting or otherwise enlightening.
Your writing fits none of the criteria.
It is quite clear. You were clearly setting up the entire argument against the observations of Piccard, only to then make a specious claim he was the first person credited to see the curve of the Earth.
Your behavior is disingenuous and dishonest and all of your arguments can be summarily dismissed based on such behavior.
-
Also asserting that Piccard saw a flat Earth contradicts what the FE wiki has to say on high altitude photographs, namely that they show a roundness explained by something else. Get your arguments together before resorting to just saying everything is wrong.
I never claimed anything to do with the Wiki.
High altitude photos frequently show nothing but a flat horizon extending as far as the eye can see.
Do you find photos from Piccard in the Wiki?
I hope you realize you're in a losing battle. It's been confirmed that planes like the U-2 and the SR-71, as well as ballistic missiles and even amateur rockets can travel much higher than Piccard did. Their camera (as opposed to an oxygen-deprived person's accounting) evidence has shown that there is a curve to the Earth. You're accusing RE of dismissing evidence when you dismiss evidence without basis.
Yeah, the X-15 for instance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjiYahdgCxQ
Or the SR-71:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s18dQOb9gM
-
Also asserting that Piccard saw a flat Earth contradicts what the FE wiki has to say on high altitude photographs, namely that they show a roundness explained by something else. Get your arguments together before resorting to just saying everything is wrong.
I never claimed anything to do with the Wiki.
High altitude photos frequently show nothing but a flat horizon extending as far as the eye can see.
Do you find photos from Piccard in the Wiki?
I hope you realize you're in a losing battle. It's been confirmed that planes like the U-2 and the SR-71, as well as ballistic missiles and even amateur rockets can travel much higher than Piccard did. Their camera (as opposed to an oxygen-deprived person's accounting) evidence has shown that there is a curve to the Earth. You're accusing RE of dismissing evidence when you dismiss evidence without basis.
Yeah, the X-15 for instance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjiYahdgCxQ
Or the SR-71:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s18dQOb9gM
In that first video I couldn't tell there was curvature. But when they drew the line across the horizon the curvature became pretty clear. I thought you were a flat earther?
-
Also asserting that Piccard saw a flat Earth contradicts what the FE wiki has to say on high altitude photographs, namely that they show a roundness explained by something else. Get your arguments together before resorting to just saying everything is wrong.
I never claimed anything to do with the Wiki.
High altitude photos frequently show nothing but a flat horizon extending as far as the eye can see.
Do you find photos from Piccard in the Wiki?
I hope you realize you're in a losing battle. It's been confirmed that planes like the U-2 and the SR-71, as well as ballistic missiles and even amateur rockets can travel much higher than Piccard did. Their camera (as opposed to an oxygen-deprived person's accounting) evidence has shown that there is a curve to the Earth. You're accusing RE of dismissing evidence when you dismiss evidence without basis.
Yeah, the X-15 for instance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjiYahdgCxQ
Or the SR-71:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s18dQOb9gM
I would encourage you to go to the Home Page of this forum and read "Its true, I saw it on the Internet" by Pete Svarrior.
Per this article, I would suspect that the article writer (Pete) or a Flat Earther would say that just because you saw what looks to be a flat horizon from a video on the Internet, does't necessarily make it true.
As Pete says "I would like to appeal to everyone, Round Earther and Flat Earther alike, to exercise more caution when approaching online content. Exercise critical thinking. Seeing something on the Internet does not automatically render it true"
-
Go back and re-read my post and when you finally figure out what I said instead of reading into it what you want to hear, get back to me.
Offend me?? Not even a little. It just makes you look like an idiot. Kinda like if I posted about all the FE-cal matter between flat Earther's ears. Not clever, not funny, just childish. I will say there is a fair amount of irony in your name calling, but that would likely be over your head.
I only desire to re-read writing that I find worthwhile or interesting or otherwise enlightening.
Your writing fits none of the criteria.
It is quite clear. You were clearly setting up the entire argument against the observations of Piccard, only to then make a specious claim he was the first person credited to see the curve of the Earth.
Your behavior is disingenuous and dishonest and all of your arguments can be summarily dismissed based on such behavior.
No, you just seem to lack the intelligence to understand what was written. Go do some research on him. Quite an accomplished SCIENTIST. And, despite what all the FEers like to hope, he knew, and stated, that the Earth was a globe.
-
In that first video I couldn't tell there was curvature. But when they drew the line across the horizon the curvature became pretty clear. I thought you were a flat earther?
Anyone claiming to see curvature on that X-15 video is thee type of person likely to claim they see Santa every December 24th!
LOL!!!
-
No, you just seem to lack the intelligence to understand what was written. Go do some research on him. Quite an accomplished SCIENTIST. And, despite what all the FEers like to hope, he knew, and stated, that the Earth was a globe.
Not hardly.
It seems you lack the intelligence to keep track of what you write and claim. Here is your first post:
Picard may well have claimed to have seen a Flat Earth, but
He was looking through vintage spectacles
He was peering through thick porthole glass of small diameter, even smaller than today's aircraft windows and
Someone has suggested his craft was leaking, so he have been suffering oxygen deprivation and mild hallucination
So, how reliable?
Piccard knew what he was looking through.
He did not make just one flight. His craft was not leaking all the freaking time.
At the altitude they achieved, you'd need a wide field of view to see the curvature of the Earth. Their field of view was limited. Further, their flight occurred over land, which would have influenced what they saw.
Beyond the physical, he is also credited as being the first human to see the curve of the Earth and referred to the Earth as a globe in his writings. This is huge case of confirmation bias. Take one sentence and ignore everything he wrote and studied. (he was a scientist and not a flat Earther)
So yeah, you joined in at first trying to discredit everything he observed.
Then you bestowed the title "first person," to ever see the curve of the Earth (for which you have posted zero reference).
-
In that first video I couldn't tell there was curvature. But when they drew the line across the horizon the curvature became pretty clear. I thought you were a flat earther?
Anyone claiming to see curvature on that X-15 video is thee type of person likely to claim they see Santa every December 24th!
LOL!!!
You are definitely a troll. I won't be responding to you going from this point forward. But just let me concede that, obviously, you have bested me with your Santa reference. Pretty air tight argument you have there.
-
No, you just seem to lack the intelligence to understand what was written. Go do some research on him. Quite an accomplished SCIENTIST. And, despite what all the FEers like to hope, he knew, and stated, that the Earth was a globe.
Not hardly.
It seems you lack the intelligence to keep track of what you write and claim. Here is your first post:
Picard may well have claimed to have seen a Flat Earth, but
He was looking through vintage spectacles
He was peering through thick porthole glass of small diameter, even smaller than today's aircraft windows and
Someone has suggested his craft was leaking, so he have been suffering oxygen deprivation and mild hallucination
So, how reliable?
Piccard knew what he was looking through.
He did not make just one flight. His craft was not leaking all the freaking time.
At the altitude they achieved, you'd need a wide field of view to see the curvature of the Earth. Their field of view was limited. Further, their flight occurred over land, which would have influenced what they saw.
Beyond the physical, he is also credited as being the first human to see the curve of the Earth and referred to the Earth as a globe in his writings. This is huge case of confirmation bias. Take one sentence and ignore everything he wrote and studied. (he was a scientist and not a flat Earther)
So yeah, you joined in at first trying to discredit everything he observed.
Then you bestowed the title "first person," to ever see the curve of the Earth (for which you have posted zero reference).
Sigh, you are like dealing with a small child. The first comments were my observations on reasons why he may not have seen any curvature. The second group of comments were what OTHERS said. I never credited him with anything.
First man to see curve link:
http://bertrandpiccard.com/family-tradition-auguste-piccard (http://bertrandpiccard.com/family-tradition-auguste-piccard)
If you took some initiative, you could have easily searched the book he wrote. He calls the Earth a globe...repeatedly.
https://archive.org/stream/earthskysea00picc#page/120/mode/2up/search/globe (https://archive.org/stream/earthskysea00picc#page/120/mode/2up/search/globe)
And yes, his book was published after his flight.
-
There's so much CGI fakery out there, can you blame anyone who questions the videos that have been released, im still waiting for stars in any of NASA's live streams.
You think stars are hard to fake?!
I'm laughing at the idea that there's a team in NASA desperately working on this "They're on to us, we have to start faking the stars too!"
That would be the easy bit to fake, it's only points of light. Go outside at night and take a photo of the street, see how many stars show in the photo.
If the street is lit then your camera will adjust its exposure to that and dimmer objects like stars will not show up.
THATS just my point without any background light pollution in space, then the stars would be evident in NASA'S super spec cameras. The fact that the stars are missing convinces me the images static or live are faked.
-
There's so much CGI fakery out there, can you blame anyone who questions the videos that have been released, im still waiting for stars in any of NASA's live streams.
You think stars are hard to fake?!
I'm laughing at the idea that there's a team in NASA desperately working on this "They're on to us, we have to start faking the stars too!"
That would be the easy bit to fake, it's only points of light. Go outside at night and take a photo of the street, see how many stars show in the photo.
If the street is lit then your camera will adjust its exposure to that and dimmer objects like stars will not show up.
THATS just my point without any background light pollution in space, then the stars would be evident in NASA'S super spec cameras. The fact that the stars are missing convinces me the images static or live are faked.
Because there would be no atmosphere to absorb any of the suns light, it would be extremely bright. A Google search on the subject would provide more information than I can off the top of my head.
-
There's so much CGI fakery out there, can you blame anyone who questions the videos that have been released, im still waiting for stars in any of NASA's live streams.
You think stars are hard to fake?!
I'm laughing at the idea that there's a team in NASA desperately working on this "They're on to us, we have to start faking the stars too!"
That would be the easy bit to fake, it's only points of light. Go outside at night and take a photo of the street, see how many stars show in the photo.
If the street is lit then your camera will adjust its exposure to that and dimmer objects like stars will not show up.
THATS just my point without any background light pollution in space, then the stars would be evident in NASA'S super spec cameras. The fact that the stars are missing convinces me the images static or live are faked.
This has been debunked, ad nauseam. No background light pollution??? The Sun is your background light pollution in space.