The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: pj1 on July 12, 2018, 10:13:44 AM

Title: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: pj1 on July 12, 2018, 10:13:44 AM
Clearly many, many people believe the FE theory. And many don't.  I'm interested to know what it would take to change your mind.  Unfortunately, purported 'Facts' can be subjective based on our interpretation of the evidence, so what would it take to completely convince you that the Earth is a globe / flat, depending on your POV?

1. Personally going to space?  A prominent FEer going and reporting back?
2. A trip to find the ice wall? look beyond it?
3. ???

Thanks!
PJ
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Baby Thork on July 12, 2018, 10:23:32 AM
This question is asked again and again and again.


Dear Flat Earthers, tell us what would change your mind, so I can make endless threads about that one topic.


Its OK, that people don't think what you think. Its very normal. Without it we couldn't have democracy. Everyone would want to marry the exact same woman. We'd all drive the exact same car, wear the same clothes and decide to use the exact same coffee shop at the exact same time in the exact same city that we all decided was the best place to live. I don't care that you think the earth is round. And I'm not going to insist you change your mind about it.

Why don't you instead start from "What would it take for me to change my mind and think the earth is flat?". A far more fruitful exercise where you come out of it knowing more about yourself ... rather than more about what motivates a bunch of lunatics on the internet.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: pj1 on July 12, 2018, 10:25:59 AM
I was actually asking the question in both directions, because I'm genuinely interested.

What's the point in a forum where a person is berated for asking a question (in their very first post)?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: pj1 on July 12, 2018, 10:28:09 AM
This question is asked again and again and again.


Dear Flat Earthers, tell us what would change your mind, so I can make endless threads about that one topic.


Its OK, that people don't think what you think. Its very normal. Without it we couldn't have democracy. Everyone would want to marry the exact same woman. We'd all drive the exact same car, wear the same clothes and decide to use the exact same coffee shop at the exact same time in the exact same city that we all decided was the best place to live. I don't care that you think the earth is round. And I'm not going to insist you change your mind about it.

Why don't you instead start from "What would it take for me to change my mind and think the earth is flat?". A far more fruitful exercise where you come out of it knowing more about yourself ... rather than more about what motivates a bunch of lunatics on the internet.

also... surely the fact that I've joined a forum means that I'm looking for evidence ?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Baby Thork on July 12, 2018, 11:01:17 AM
I was actually asking the question in both directions,

You didn't ask the question in both directions.

because I'm genuinely interested.
How interested? Interested enough to use the search function?
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5019.msg97240#msg97240
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6996.0


What's the point in a forum where a person is berated for asking a question (in their very first post)?
Depends on the question. If the question is "help me understand how I can badger you with endless posts because you don't think what I think", probably not going to rack up much of a discussion. If it is "this is how I feel about topic x which I've been thinking about and here's some things I discovered about it"  ... now we can look at the topic together. I didn't like your question because it just looks like a clumsy trap, rather than an honest exploration of ideas.

Also if that is your definition of berated, you've led a sheltered life.

But fine. I'd like to go on a rocket and get into orbit to see for myself. That would change my mind. ... Where are you going to go with that? Are you Elon Musk? Are you going to give me a ride in a shapceship, Elon? When can I go, Elon? Also, what should I pack for the trip?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 11:15:42 AM
I was actually asking the question in both directions,

You didn't ask the question in both directions.

Yes, he did.

what would it take to completely convince you that the Earth is a globe / flat, depending on your POV?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 12, 2018, 11:17:36 AM
Its OK, that people don't think what you think. Its very normal. Without it we couldn't have democracy. Everyone would want to marry the exact same woman. We'd all drive the exact same car, wear the same clothes and decide to use the exact same coffee shop at the exact same time in the exact same city that we all decided was the best place to live. I don't care that you think the earth is round. And I'm not going to insist you change your mind about it.
Those are all terrible examples. Or rather, they're very good examples of things which are subjective. So yes, there will be different opinions about these things.
But the shape of the earth is not subjective. It is what it is. There should not be different opinions about these things. Not all opinions are equally valid.

To answer the original question, I guess for me I'd have to see some really compelling evidence for a flat earth, that the whole space industry is bogus. And some explanation as to how the airline industry has been getting us all round the "disc" while thinking it's a globe. A flat earth map that actually works in terms of distances between places and the relationship between them would be nice too.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: pj1 on July 12, 2018, 11:19:56 AM
"what would it take to completely convince you that the Earth is a globe / flat, depending on your POV?"

That's literally asking in both directions, right?  You see it as a "clumsy trap" because you're biased from past convo's. Don't presume my motivations are nefarious.

The reason I ask, is that I've been reading for hours and I've not seen anything that's convinced me, other than base instincts. So what my question alludes to is whether the theory can ever be unanimously proven/disproved.

For example, if I run with your [Baby Thork] childish ramblings for a second... you get taken into space by Elon Musk. You take pics, vids, live stream the disk/globe, and there will *still* be people here who won't believe you. So I'm far more interested in the psychology than the science.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 11:46:13 AM
I'd like to go on a rocket and get into orbit to see for myself. That would change my mind. ...

OK, let's extend that line of reasoning.

Going into space would maybe convince you.

So ... there's a history of manned spaceflight going back to 1961, and unmanned space flight back to 1957. One source suggests that as of June 2018, a total of 561 people have gone to space. There's all manner of proof that they have done this, in the form of photos, video, documentation, data, even conversations between some of them and radio amateurs on the ground.

If you suggest that you would be convinced by going yourself, why do you routinely disbelieve all 561 of those who say they've gone, andeverything involved in proving that?

If one of your friends comes back from a holiday in (say) Tibet, do you routinely insist that nobody has gone to Tibet until you've made the trip?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 12, 2018, 12:13:06 PM
Clearly many, many people believe the FE theory. And many don't.  I'm interested to know what it would take to change your mind.  Unfortunately, purported 'Facts' can be subjective based on our interpretation of the evidence, so what would it take to completely convince you that the Earth is a globe / flat, depending on your POV?

1. Personally going to space?  A prominent FEer going and reporting back?
2. A trip to find the ice wall? look beyond it?
3. ???

Thanks!
PJ
To change my mind, I would need a lot of things or a solid proof.
Lets start with the solid proofs:
1: proof of the filament/dome, someone travelling to the Antarctica, traversing it and snapping some pictures of this supposed dome.
2: a god should tell us, if he is that powerful, then it should easily be doable.

Then onto the logic that would need to be clarified properly:
1: be able to define a workable FE perspective which can be verified.
2: explain all observations in the sky with a workable model.
3: a working map.
4-?: be able to predict reality, as currently the heliocentric model can predict nearly everything, while the FE model can predict absolutely nothing.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Baby Thork on July 12, 2018, 12:57:43 PM
If one of your friends comes back from a holiday in (say) Tibet, do you routinely insist that nobody has gone to Tibet until you've made the trip?
I went with my mate on a stag trip to Amsterdam. He told his future wife we went to Cornwall. All the lads kept this conspiracy going to this day. We all kept the secret. She has every reason to suspect he didn't go to Cornwall, but she never questioned it to find out the truth. I don't want to wake up one morning to find NASA has been eating someone else's fanny in a dirty bar in Holland, when they told me they went to the moon.  >:(

Just because they told you they went into space isn't evidence that they did it.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 12, 2018, 01:05:38 PM
Just because they told you they went into space isn't evidence that they did it.
Well, it is evidence. Most court cases are largely based on witness testimony.
And the difference is your mate had a pretty obvious reason to lie. What reason do hundreds of astronauts over a span of around 60 years and a handful of space tourists have for lying? The space tourists in particular, even if you think that astronauts are recruited to part of some conspiracy, what stake to space tourists have in this?
Which brings us back to witness testimony, if in a court case it's one person's word against another it might be hard to convict someone. If there are dozens or even hundreds of witnesses though, it makes a stronger case.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 01:26:22 PM
And the difference is your mate had a pretty obvious reason to lie. What reason do hundreds of astronauts over a span of around 60 years and a handful of space tourists have for lying? The space tourists in particular, even if you think that astronauts are recruited to part of some conspiracy, what stake to space tourists have in this?
Prestige and politics.

Look at the history of space travel. It literally began as one-upmanship, US vs Russia propaganda. Let's suppose that this field they'd pinned so much hope of proving their superiority turned out to be something that was actually impossible, that each and every attempt they had failed. Would they give up, would they keep throwing money away, especially given they'd see rumours their rivals were going to succeed?
No, they'd lie. Create a huge patriotic fervour, get the reputation boost, play politics. Russia pulled off a magic trick and said they went into space, the US found a way to one-up that with "Oh yeah? Well we went to the moon!"
By this point it's become borderline nationalistic. Space travel began as a way to establish a country's superiority, and even now it gets wrapped up in that same passion. No honest discussion for people that try to debate it, just blind dislike and mocking. No one dared question it at the time of the cold war, and so it sunk into the public consciousness, got treated as real so much that people just refuse to question. Too late to back out and admit to the lie now, especially with the money that gets funneled into space agencies that they can funnel away into private accounts and slush funds.

Plus space tourists get prestige, bragging rights, you name it.
Honestly it's really not that bigger deal. Any administrator with half a brain could spin things so that tourists or, hell, I could make an argument for bloody Armstrong not knowing space travel is fake. Just comes down to the story you tell. Make it so they don't think they're keeping that much of a secret and who cares?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 01:27:24 PM
Just because they told you they went into space isn't evidence that they did it.

It is when they tell you in tandem with shedloads of evidence that they did. Lunar samples, photos, videos, results from experiments deployed on the Moon, photos of the far side of the Moon.

Much of the orbital travel can be confirmed by you, the amateur observer, right here on Earth.

You can download data directly from weather satellites. You can buy radio amateur gear with which you can converse with the astronauts on the ISS as they go over you. You can buy tracking telescopes which will track orbital satellites for you. You can watch the satellites with a simple astronomical telescope.

561 people will tell you they went to space. If they all stood up in court to say so, and presented absolutely all the data, photos, videos, etc associated with their missions, what could you muster to categorically disprove them?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 01:33:54 PM
Let's suppose that this field they'd pinned so much hope of proving their superiority turned out to be something that was actually impossible ... .... went to the moon!"

All supposition, which pales in comparison to the evidence.

"By this point it's become borderline nationalistic.

Yet much of the current space activity is carried out by private corporations, not national space agencies....

Space travel began as a way to establish a country's superiority ... money that gets funneled into space agencies that they can funnel away into private accounts and slush funds.

Have you proof of any of these slush funds, or is this more supposition?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 01:36:48 PM
Let's suppose that this field they'd pinned so much hope of proving their superiority turned out to be something that was actually impossible ... .... went to the moon!"

All supposition, which pales in comparison to the evidence.

"By this point it's become borderline nationalistic.

Yet much of the current space activity is carried out by private corporations, not national space agencies....

Space travel began as a way to establish a country's superiority ... money that gets funneled into space agencies that they can funnel away into private accounts and slush funds.

Have you proof of any of these slush funds, or is this more supposition?

Yes, slush funds are always public knowledge. Supposition is the only tool scientists have, create a hypothesis, see if it matches with the available data and whatever data you can gather. This certainly seems to, way more than the alternative.
Private corporations still need to save face, if they fail at what's meant to be doable over and over what else would you epxect them to do?
Your 'evidence' is 'they say so.' I tried to have a discussion with you about it and you refused to actually contribute anything worth debate.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 01:51:33 PM
Your 'evidence' is 'they say so.' I tried to have a discussion with you about it and you refused to actually contribute anything worth debate.

Your evidence is "Let's suppose ...", "They could ...", "They might ..."

You have nothing but hypotheses.

I state "They say so" then provide citations of evidence to support the say-so.

But we're off-topic now.

What would convince me the world was flat? 

Nothing at all at the moment. Nobody has presented any worthwhile evidence of such. I would take any new evidence on its merits at the time. Whatcha got, flatties?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 02:00:12 PM
Your evidence is "Let's suppose ...", "They could ...", "They might ..."

You have nothing but hypotheses.

I state "They say so" then provide citations of evidence to support the say-so.

But we're off-topic now.
So you change the topic to this, again, then once more balk at defending it. If you don't want to discuss something stop bringing it up already.
My evidence is to look at an alternative chain of events, then compare that with the party line; so yes, I have to look at possibilities because that's what happens when you don't blindly follow. See which works, see which makes more sense. pretty trivial to see that claims of space travel simply don't work.

But, sure, what would it take to convince me?
Good old fashioned science. Observations which could not coexist with each other on a flat Earth, maybe that public space travel we've been promised for a good few years now, or refinements to RET that stop it relying on as many assumptions as it does.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: pj1 on July 12, 2018, 02:22:32 PM
Thanks, all, for your responses.

I suspect it's only a matter of time before technology allows us to prove it one way or another (even school kids are sending iphones up into the atmostphere attached to weather baloons!).  I wonder whether there are any millionaire FE or RE who'd book a ticket with Virgin Intergalactic...  :-B


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEVCG3brjq4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEVCG3brjq4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66A5pzEiDDM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66A5pzEiDDM)
https://news.sky.com/story/science-students-launch-iphone-into-space-10397969 (https://news.sky.com/story/science-students-launch-iphone-into-space-10397969)
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Baby Thork on July 12, 2018, 02:30:21 PM
Well that's just it ... Branson promised in 2004 that he would be flying passengers for a first flight in 2007. We are now a staggering 14 years later and still no one has had a ride in a spaceship, despite handing over huge deposits many years ago.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 12, 2018, 02:34:05 PM
Just because they told you they went into space isn't evidence that they did it.

It is when they tell you in tandem with shedloads of evidence that they did. Lunar samples, photos, videos, results from experiments deployed on the Moon, photos of the far side of the Moon.

Much of the orbital travel can be confirmed by you, the amateur observer, right here on Earth.

You can download data directly from weather satellites. You can buy radio amateur gear with which you can converse with the astronauts on the ISS as they go over you. You can buy tracking telescopes which will track orbital satellites for you. You can watch the satellites with a simple astronomical telescope.

561 people will tell you they went to space. If they all stood up in court to say so, and presented absolutely all the data, photos, videos, etc associated with their missions, what could you muster to categorically disprove them?
Ah, you see this is the problem. They don't feel the need to categorically disprove them, they ask you to categorically prove what they're saying.
And how do you do that? It's like my great kangaroo hoax theory:

Me: "I don't believe in kangaroos"
You: "What do you mean? Kangaroos live in Australia"
Me: "Have you ever been to Australia?"
You: "Well, no. But I know people who have and they've seen them."
Me: "Well, they're clearly in on it".
You: "But I've seen their pictures of one. Look here"
Me: "Looks fake to me"
You: "OK, here's a documentary with some video of them"
Me: "That's nice, have you seen Jurassic Park? Are T-Rex's real too?"
You: "Right. Let's go to a zoo where they have some. Look. There's a kangaroo!"
Me: "...looks like animatronic to me".

Now clearly this is ridiculous, but if I dig my heels in, call your witnesses liars and your evidence fake then although my position is increasingly silly, I can still walk away claiming that I don't believe in kangaroos and that you haven't been able to prove their existence to me. You can refuse to believe anything which doesn't fit in with your world view if you demand a high enough level of proof for anything to the contrary.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: pj1 on July 12, 2018, 02:36:50 PM
Well that's just it ... Branson promised in 2004 that he would be flying passengers for a first flight in 2007. We are now a staggering 14 years later and still no one has had a ride in a spaceship, despite handing over huge deposits many years ago.

That's just what?  You reckon he's going to stall forever? Either Branson, SpaceX, Eren Ozmen (https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdigitalcovers/2018/07/11/meet-the-unknown-immigrant-billionaire-betting-her-fortune-to-take-on-musk-in-space/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdigitalcovers/2018/07/11/meet-the-unknown-immigrant-billionaire-betting-her-fortune-to-take-on-musk-in-space/)) etc will get there eventually :-)
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 02:44:27 PM
Now clearly this is ridiculous, but if I dig my heels in, call your witnesses liars and your evidence fake then although my position is increasingly silly, I can still walk away claiming that I don't believe in kangaroos and that you haven't been able to prove their existence to me. You can refuse to believe anything which doesn't fit in with your world view if you demand a high enough level of proof for anything to the contrary.
The difference is Australia is accessible to the general public. There ain't gonna be a conspiracy on anything like that.
But an area where all we could ever have is second hand data, from sources that would be highly motivated to lie were it not true? Reason dictates we should question more, instead you want us to just sit down and shut up.

Expecting people to prove their claims is the most basic ask in literally any area except space travel. Then you're just expect to go along, believe empty words and never put any thought into it.

Well that's just it ... Branson promised in 2004 that he would be flying passengers for a first flight in 2007. We are now a staggering 14 years later and still no one has had a ride in a spaceship, despite handing over huge deposits many years ago.

That's just what?  You reckon he's going to stall forever? Either Branson, SpaceX, Eren Ozmen (https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdigitalcovers/2018/07/11/meet-the-unknown-immigrant-billionaire-betting-her-fortune-to-take-on-musk-in-space/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdigitalcovers/2018/07/11/meet-the-unknown-immigrant-billionaire-betting-her-fortune-to-take-on-musk-in-space/)) etc will get there eventually :-)
You know the future now?
My bet is they'll wait for the hype to die down and quietly shut down the project, or say they've decided they can't keep up with (insert competitor) and shut it down, and so putting the onus on them, and possibly damaging a rival's profits/reputation in the process. Win-win.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 12, 2018, 02:48:44 PM
Now clearly this is ridiculous, but if I dig my heels in, call your witnesses liars and your evidence fake then although my position is increasingly silly, I can still walk away claiming that I don't believe in kangaroos and that you haven't been able to prove their existence to me. You can refuse to believe anything which doesn't fit in with your world view if you demand a high enough level of proof for anything to the contrary.
The difference is Australia is accessible to the general public. There ain't gonna be a conspiracy on anything like that.
But an area where all we could ever have is second hand data, from sources that would be highly motivated to lie were it not true? Reason dictates we should question more, instead you want us to just sit down and shut up.

No, don't sit down and shut up. But don't just sit there calling it all fake without any basis either.
You can see the ISS for yourself. You can track other satellites. You can listen in to the ISS
https://amsat-uk.org/beginners/how-to-hear-the-iss/

No, you can't go into space, yet. But there are things you can do. You don't have to just sit there calling it all fake either.
What have you done to investigate yourself? I mean other than watching conspiracy theory YouTube channels.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: pj1 on July 12, 2018, 02:49:16 PM
Quote
My bet is they'll wait for the hype to die down and quietly shut down the project, or say they've decided they can't keep up with (insert competitor) and shut it down, and so putting the onus on them, and possibly damaging a rival's profits/reputation in the process. Win-win.

What is their motivation?  'They' being Branson, Musk etc funding this research with their own resources.  I don't understand why they would generate the hype, to just quietly shut down having wasted billions of dollars.  The remote possibility of damaging a competitors' rep is nothing close to compelling motivation.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 03:01:03 PM
No, don't sit down and shut up. But don't just sit there calling it all fake without any basis either.
You can see the ISS for yourself. You can track other satellites. You can listen in to the ISS
https://amsat-uk.org/beginners/how-to-hear-the-iss/

No, you can't go into space, yet. But there are things you can do. You don't have to just sit there calling it all fake either.
What have you done to investigate yourself? I mean other than watching conspiracy theory YouTube channels.
A light in the sky does not a station in space make.
I typically don't engage with the conspiracy side at all, let alone watch conspiracy youtube channels. I much prefer to educate myself on the facts rather than being told what I should make of them, and those facts make a whole lot more sense as part of a propaganda campaign.

Quote
My bet is they'll wait for the hype to die down and quietly shut down the project, or say they've decided they can't keep up with (insert competitor) and shut it down, and so putting the onus on them, and possibly damaging a rival's profits/reputation in the process. Win-win.

What is their motivation?  'They' being Branson, Musk etc funding this research with their own resources.  I don't understand why they would generate the hype, to just quietly shut down having wasted billions of dollars.  The remote possibility of damaging a competitors' rep is nothing close to compelling motivation.
They thought it was cool. NASA doesn't hand around leaflets about how they faked space travel to every random billionaire, I've little doubt they were sincere when they started out. Branson, Musk et al try and fail, and don't want to admit to the constant failure given the impact that would have on their reputation. I'm just giving an example of what would likely be the least damaging way to back out once it gets too much.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: pj1 on July 12, 2018, 03:08:35 PM
I find it unlikely that a string of billionaires are discovering we can't go into space but are keeping it to themselves due to pride. But that's subjective.

What's your opinion on this? http://www.spacex.com/webcast (http://www.spacex.com/webcast)

That's a genuine question, by the way, not meant to be antagonistic - my belief is that they sent a re-supply mission into space. 
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 03:14:43 PM
I find it unlikely that a string of billionaires are discovering we can't go into space but are keeping it to themselves due to pride. But that's subjective.

What's your opinion on this? http://www.spacex.com/webcast (http://www.spacex.com/webcast)

That's a genuine question, by the way, not meant to be antagonistic - my belief is that they sent a re-supply mission into space.
More than pride. Imagine Branson came forwards today and said Virgin Galactic has been an utter failure; what effect do you think that'll have on his shareholders? His public face?
To say nothing of the early little lies, the "We're taking steps in the right direction," stuff that was meant to buy him more time. You can almost feel sorry for them.

As far as that goes, it's stage dressing. Not much else to say. You see how much hype SpaceX draws in when they announce all their barge landings, they've got to do little things in the time between the big events.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 12, 2018, 03:17:18 PM
A light in the sky does not a station in space make.

Agreed. But with regards to the ISS, with some binoculars you'll see a light in the sky. With a decent telescope you can see the shape of it.
Even a Nikon P900 will show you that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNaeY3ZLa7w

There are websites which tell you when you can see it where you are. Test it for yourself.
Someone on here said they'd seen it twice in one night 90 minutes apart which is the claimed orbit time of it.
You can listen in to it and test that correlates to when you'd expect it to be in range.
What are you doing to test this?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: pj1 on July 12, 2018, 03:18:41 PM
What I'm asking is, in literal, physical terms, what do you think is happening in that video?  Hundreds of people watch a shuttle launch, record it on their smartphones.  They see it go up and not come back down again.

I don't understand how that can be faked.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 03:29:02 PM
A light in the sky does not a station in space make.

Agreed. But with regards to the ISS, with some binoculars you'll see a light in the sky. With a decent telescope you can see the shape of it.
Even a Nikon P900 will show you that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNaeY3ZLa7w

There are websites which tell you when you can see it where you are. Test it for yourself.
Someone on here said they'd seen it twice in one night 90 minutes apart which is the claimed orbit time of it.
You can listen in to it and test that correlates to when you'd expect it to be in range.
What are you doing to test this?
Test what? It's an object in the sky that a) has an odd shape and b) can be tracked. What part of that screams space travel to you?

What I'm asking is, in literal, physical terms, what do you think is happening in that video?  Hundreds of people watch a shuttle launch, record it on their smartphones.  They see it go up and not come back down again.

I don't understand how that can be faked.

It goes up and comes down somewhere different.
I've never understood why arguments against the conspiracy rely on incompetence. If you were trying to keep a secret you would have to be an idiot to have it land in the same spot it went up. Literally everyone if put in the position to mastermind such a thing would come up with the idea "Ok, shift orientation, use the massive freaking rocket to cross a bit of a horizontal distance rather than a vertical one."
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 03:32:57 PM
So you change the topic to this, again, then once more balk at defending it.

I disagree.

If you don't want to discuss something stop bringing it up already.

I've discussed it plenty. I've brought more to the table in terms of real-world evidence than you have.

My evidence is to look at an alternative chain of events, then compare that with the party line; so yes, I have to look at possibilities because that's what happens when you don't blindly follow.

So it's not actual evidence, merely hypothesis and thought experiment?

See which works, see which makes more sense. pretty trivial to see that claims of space travel simply don't work.

Maybe, if all you have is thought experiments. But real evidence trumps those.   

But, sure, what would it take to convince me?
Good old fashioned science. Observations which could not coexist with each other on a flat Earth, maybe that public space travel we've been promised for a good few years now, or refinements to RET that stop it relying on as many assumptions as it does.

What assumptions would those be?

You do realise that our other discussion, on the shape of the Moon, started with one big whopper of an assumption on your part.... when you 'modelled' the Moon as a superheated cylinder?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 03:34:37 PM
Well that's just it ... Branson promised in 2004 that he would be flying passengers for a first flight in 2007. We are now a staggering 14 years later and still no one has had a ride in a spaceship, despite handing over huge deposits many years ago.

Disagree, at least with respect to craft other than Virgin/Branson;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism#List_of_flown_space_tourists
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 03:39:59 PM
So you change the topic to this, again, then once more balk at defending it.

I disagree.

If you don't want to discuss something stop bringing it up already.

I've discussed it plenty. I've brought more to the table in terms of real-world evidence than you have.

My evidence is to look at an alternative chain of events, then compare that with the party line; so yes, I have to look at possibilities because that's what happens when you don't blindly follow.

So it's not actual evidence, merely hypothesis and thought experiment?

See which works, see which makes more sense. pretty trivial to see that claims of space travel simply don't work.

Maybe, if all you have is thought experiments. But real evidence trumps those.   

But, sure, what would it take to convince me?
Good old fashioned science. Observations which could not coexist with each other on a flat Earth, maybe that public space travel we've been promised for a good few years now, or refinements to RET that stop it relying on as many assumptions as it does.

What assumptions would those be?

You do realise that our other discussion, on the shape of the Moon, started with one big whopper of an assumption on your part.... when you 'modelled' the Moon as a superheated cylinder?
The real world is the facts, what it is you can directly observe or access. You are conflating facts with what you choose to draw from them. You think that because you are told those claims and videos are explained by space travel,  that space travel is the only possible explanation. It's a bizarre tendency among REers I've seen on multiple topics: the same observation may have multiple explanations, yet so many REers struggle to grasp that. Those people may be telling the truth or they may be liars, you need to justify your claim that they are truthful with more than empty insistence. I did so: I pointed out irregularities, odd coincidences, contradictions...
As ever, you just blindly insist. You give things that you say are because of space travel, and refuse to ever justify it.

No, that was no an assumption, that was a conclusion, I just didn't feel like going through the whole theory on how and why it formed and the subsequent evidence for that when we were just talking about how a full moon could be visible.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 03:46:55 PM
Test what? It's an object in the sky that a) has an odd shape and b) can be tracked. What part of that screams space travel to you?

The part where I can watch it myself, twice in one evening, going in the same direction each time, and find that the time between each sighting matches the published orbit time. The part where nobody, but nobody, sees it going in the opposite direction. So, in order for it to get back to its starting point in my sky, it either has to turn around and go back (if the Earth is flat) or go around a globe, if the Earth is a globe. The fact that I don't see it vary in speed, trajectory, nor see any form of vapour or exhaust trail.

Added to that, the parts that scream space travel are, in short summary, the video of most every visiting craft approaching and leaving the ISS - shuttle, Soyuz, Dragon; the videos of Soyuz craft being relocated from one docking port to another; the amateurs on the ground who point ham radio gear at the sky and talk to the astronauts as they pass over; the fact that it always turns up, as predicted, on time, every time, for those who are photographing it in solar or lunar transit.

None of that fits with anything other than an orbital craft.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 12, 2018, 03:54:44 PM
Test what? It's an object in the sky that a) has an odd shape and b) can be tracked. What part of that screams space travel to you?
Hang on, previously you said it was just a light in the sky. Now you're moving the goalposts.
The thing I'm asking you to test for yourself is that there is an object in the sky which can be tracked, is in the shape what NASA claim is the ISS and is where NASA says the ISS is when they say.
If you concede all that then fine, you don't need to test that.
But if you're going to say that space travel is not possible and it's fake then you have to have some coherent idea about what it actually is, otherwise it's just baseless denial.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 03:59:40 PM
The real world is the facts, what it is you can directly observe or access.

... and that which others directly observe or access. Or are you saying the tree only falls in the forest if you see it fall?

Millions live in Tokyo. Millions have been to Tokyo. I have never observed or accessed Tokyo, other than via TV or similar. Does that mean Tokyo is not part of the 'real world'? No, it does not.

You are conflating facts with what you choose to draw from them. You think that because you are told those claims and videos are explained by space travel, that space travel is the only possible explanation. It's a bizarre tendency among REers I've seen on multiple topics: the same observation may have multiple explanations, yet so many REers struggle to grasp that.

OK, there's the video of the ISS above. Give us a plausible, realistic alternative explanation, preferably one with some tangible evidence to back it up.

Those people may be telling the truth or they may be liars, you need to justify your claim that they are truthful with more than empty insistence. I did so: I pointed out irregularities, odd coincidences, contradictions...

"irregularities, odd coincidences, contradictions" ... which nobody agrees with; and which exist only as your own thought experiments, without evidence to support them

As ever, you just blindly insist. You give things that you say are because of space travel, and refuse to ever justify it.

Justified above from my own observations and other supporting evidence.

Do you have any evidence of a superheated cylinder?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 12, 2018, 04:06:32 PM
I notice that this thread has gotten off topic.

So far, I have seen REs say something to the effect of, "I'd need to see some convincing evidence."
So far, I have seen FEs say something to the effect of, "I need to go to space and see it for myself."

Have I missed any responses?

Lump me in with the generic RE response. Any evidence will do. I've seen a little now that I've been on here a while... (much better than what you find on youtube so credit where credit is due). As yet the evidence for RE far outweighs any evidence for FE if you consider it all.

I also find this question very interesting. The FE mantra is to have an open mind and see things for yourself. And yet, the only FE answer I have for this question is , "I need to see it from space." Is that what open mind means?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Baby Thork on July 12, 2018, 04:16:25 PM
Just because they told you they went into space isn't evidence that they did it.

It is when they tell you in tandem with shedloads of evidence that they did. Lunar samples, photos, videos, results from experiments deployed on the Moon, photos of the far side of the Moon.

Much of the orbital travel can be confirmed by you, the amateur observer, right here on Earth.

You can download data directly from weather satellites. You can buy radio amateur gear with which you can converse with the astronauts on the ISS as they go over you. You can buy tracking telescopes which will track orbital satellites for you. You can watch the satellites with a simple astronomical telescope.

561 people will tell you they went to space. If they all stood up in court to say so, and presented absolutely all the data, photos, videos, etc associated with their missions, what could you muster to categorically disprove them?
Ah, you see this is the problem. They don't feel the need to categorically disprove them, they ask you to categorically prove what they're saying.
And how do you do that? It's like my great kangaroo hoax theory:

Me: "I don't believe in kangaroos"
You: "What do you mean? Kangaroos live in Australia"
Me: "Have you ever been to Australia?"
You: "Well, no. But I know people who have and they've seen them."
Me: "Well, they're clearly in on it".
You: "But I've seen their pictures of one. Look here"
Me: "Looks fake to me"
You: "OK, here's a documentary with some video of them"
Me: "That's nice, have you seen Jurassic Park? Are T-Rex's real too?"
You: "Right. Let's go to a zoo where they have some. Look. There's a kangaroo!"
Me: "...looks like animatronic to me".

Now clearly this is ridiculous, but if I dig my heels in, call your witnesses liars and your evidence fake then although my position is increasingly silly, I can still walk away claiming that I don't believe in kangaroos and that you haven't been able to prove their existence to me. You can refuse to believe anything which doesn't fit in with your world view if you demand a high enough level of proof for anything to the contrary.


I think you are missing the entire point. It doesn't matter if people in general believe in Kangaroos ... it matters what YOU believe. And when you go to the zoo and are happy you've seen them and you've checked them for plug sockets or batteries ... then YOU can know Kangaroos are a thing. When the platypus was first discovered, no one believed it. And when they sent stuffed ones to museums, people thought they were a hoax animal that had been made from the parts of other animals stuck together. And that's scientists taking that view. They didn't just accept what they were told because what they were being told sounded ridiculous ... like the idea of living on a ball whirling around the sun for example. Sometimes you are presented with a platypus, sometimes with a sasquatch. The only way to know is to investigate it for yourself.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 04:26:30 PM
The part where I can watch it myself, twice in one evening, going in the same direction each time, and find that the time between each sighting matches the published orbit time. The part where nobody, but nobody, sees it going in the opposite direction. So, in order for it to get back to its starting point in my sky, it either has to turn around and go back (if the Earth is flat) or go around a globe, if the Earth is a globe. The fact that I don't see it vary in speed, trajectory, nor see any form of vapour or exhaust trail.
Do you seriously need circumnavigation on a flat Earth explained to you?

Quote
Added to that, the parts that scream space travel are, in short summary, the video of most every visiting craft approaching and leaving the ISS - shuttle, Soyuz, Dragon; the videos of Soyuz craft being relocated from one docking port to another; the amateurs on the ground who point ham radio gear at the sky and talk to the astronauts as they pass over; the fact that it always turns up, as predicted, on time, every time, for those who are photographing it in solar or lunar transit.

None of that fits with anything other than an orbital craft.
A bit of faked footage and a plane with a radio on would, but sure.

The real world is the facts, what it is you can directly observe or access.

... and that which others directly observe or access. Or are you saying the tree only falls in the forest if you see it fall?

Millions live in Tokyo. Millions have been to Tokyo. I have never observed or accessed Tokyo, other than via TV or similar. Does that mean Tokyo is not part of the 'real world'? No, it does not.

You are conflating facts with what you choose to draw from them. You think that because you are told those claims and videos are explained by space travel, that space travel is the only possible explanation. It's a bizarre tendency among REers I've seen on multiple topics: the same observation may have multiple explanations, yet so many REers struggle to grasp that.

OK, there's the video of the ISS above. Give us a plausible, realistic alternative explanation, preferably one with some tangible evidence to back it up.

Those people may be telling the truth or they may be liars, you need to justify your claim that they are truthful with more than empty insistence. I did so: I pointed out irregularities, odd coincidences, contradictions...

"irregularities, odd coincidences, contradictions" ... which nobody agrees with; and which exist only as your own thought experiments, without evidence to support them

As ever, you just blindly insist. You give things that you say are because of space travel, and refuse to ever justify it.

Justified above from my own observations and other supporting evidence.

Do you have any evidence of a superheated cylinder?
My issues are far more valid than your blind insistence; you repeat a bunch of stuff about the ISS, but as soon as I dare point out features of the space mission which don't line up suddenly it's meaningless. Funny how that works huh?
As I've said, I am not going to go through the how and why the moon formed and all the subsequent evidence on a whim. The fact I won't do so is literally in my sig, you're as capable as anyone of clicking and finding out for yourself, yet you accuse FEers of being lazy.

At this stage I don't think you even know what evidence is. You ask for a plausible, alternative explanation with evidence backing it up: given already, but let's hear your evidence for the ISS actually being in space. Wait, it's the same as what I'm menat to be giving an alternate explanation for. You are defaulting to RET, you are treating space travel as inherently true and putting every alternative at a disadvantage for no reason beyond insistence.

Test what? It's an object in the sky that a) has an odd shape and b) can be tracked. What part of that screams space travel to you?
Hang on, previously you said it was just a light in the sky. Now you're moving the goalposts.
The thing I'm asking you to test for yourself is that there is an object in the sky which can be tracked, is in the shape what NASA claim is the ISS and is where NASA says the ISS is when they say.
If you concede all that then fine, you don't need to test that.
But if you're going to say that space travel is not possible and it's fake then you have to have some coherent idea about what it actually is, otherwise it's just baseless denial.
I said 'a light in the sky does not a space station make.' What part of that sounded like I was giving a rigorous description of the object? Instead of jumping on every little semantic quirk to accuse me of moving the goalposts (which... not what that means), how about some actual discussion?
I can't give you the blueprints of it, but I shouldn't have to. If you see a bird in front of the moon and someone tells you it's in space, the default response is not to just immediately believe them. Probably some kind of military plane, 'missions' to it serve as aerial refuelling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling). Speculation? Sure, just as your claim that it's in space is. Being told something does not give it special weight.

So far, I have seen REs say something to the effect of, "I'd need to see some convincing evidence."
So far, I have seen FEs say something to the effect of, "I need to go to space and see it for myself."

Have I missed any responses?
Thork's the only one that said he'd have to go to space. I said i was happy just with evidence, and used public space travel as an indidvidual example to tie it into the discussion I was having.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 04:39:15 PM
The only way to know is to investigate it for yourself.

So, in a simplified form, you're saying that you won't believe that any tree falls in the forest unless you see and hear it for yourself? A herd of lumberjacks could return after their day's work, and tell you how many they cut down, but you're not going to believe them?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 04:56:36 PM
Do you seriously need circumnavigation on a flat Earth explained to you?

Go on, then, explain it. Show me the route it would have taken, what speed it would have done. I observed it from North UK.

A bit of faked footage and a plane with a radio on would, but sure.

Doesn't fit with observations and evidence. Planes don't run 24/7. Planes aren't the same shape as the ISS. Nobody sees the ISS alongside a refuelling tanker. All you have is an allegation of faked footage. Where's your proof of it?

You are conflating facts with what you choose to draw from them. You think that because you are told those claims and videos are explained by space travel, that space travel is the only possible explanation. It's a bizarre tendency among REers I've seen on multiple topics: the same observation may have multiple explanations, yet so many REers struggle to grasp that.

Yet you provide no plausible alternative.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 05:16:06 PM
Do you seriously need circumnavigation on a flat Earth explained to you?

Go on, then, explain it. Show me the route it would have taken, what speed it would have done. I observed it from North UK.

A bit of faked footage and a plane with a radio on would, but sure.

Doesn't fit with observations and evidence. Planes don't run 24/7. Planes aren't the same shape as the ISS. Nobody sees the ISS alongside a refuelling tanker. All you have is an allegation of faked footage. Where's your proof of it?

You are conflating facts with what you choose to draw from them. You think that because you are told those claims and videos are explained by space travel, that space travel is the only possible explanation. It's a bizarre tendency among REers I've seen on multiple topics: the same observation may have multiple explanations, yet so many REers struggle to grasp that.

Yet you provide no plausible alternative.
If you want to know the route the ISS takes over the Earth, use google, what's the point in asking that?
The only reason planes don't run 24/7 is because they don't need to, aerial refuelling and a few basic bits of maintainence and they're perfectly capable of it. And I notice you ignored what I said about where the fuel comes from. All you have is the allegation of space travel, where's your proof of it?
Lose the damn double standard already. Space travel does not get special treatment just because they say it or because you believe it.

Nothing would ever be plausible to you if it dares disagree with your preconceptions. I'm tryign to talk logic, you're trying to talk insistence.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 05:30:55 PM
Do you seriously need circumnavigation on a flat Earth explained to you?
Go on, then, explain it. Show me the route it would have taken, what speed it would have done. I observed it from North UK.
If you want to know the route the ISS takes over the Earth, use google, what's the point in asking that?

The point in asking is that YOU asked me if I wanted something explained, and I said yes, please explain it. You're not explaining it. I'm confident I know its route around the globe, how about you explain what you implied you could?

And I notice you ignored what I said about where the fuel comes from.

Do you mean the bit about "Missions take the place of refuelling"?


I'm trying to talk logic, you're trying to talk insistence.

Where's the logic in asking if I want something explained to me, then when I say "Yes, please explain", then asking what the point of me asking is?

However, if I DO ask google, the answer will be that the ISS is in orbit, some 250 miles up, with an orbit duration of 90 mins.

You say the same observation can have multiple explanations, but you're not providing any satisfactory explanations. Theorising about the ISS being a refuellable plane, allegations of fake footage, radio transmissions from a plane, etc. are just wild-assed guesswork. Where's any evidence to back up your guesswork? 

Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 05:43:28 PM
Do you seriously need circumnavigation on a flat Earth explained to you?
Go on, then, explain it. Show me the route it would have taken, what speed it would have done. I observed it from North UK.
If you want to know the route the ISS takes over the Earth, use google, what's the point in asking that?

The point in asking is that YOU asked me if I wanted something explained, and I said yes, please explain it. You're not explaining it. I'm confident I know its route around the globe, how about you explain what you implied you could?

And I notice you ignored what I said about where the fuel comes from.

Do you mean the bit about "Missions take the place of refuelling"?


I'm trying to talk logic, you're trying to talk insistence.

Where's the logic in asking if I want something explained to me, then when I say "Yes, please explain", then asking what the point of me asking is?

However, if I DO ask google, the answer will be that the ISS is in orbit, some 250 miles up, with an orbit duration of 90 mins.

You say the same observation can have multiple explanations, but you're not providing any satisfactory explanations. Theorising about the ISS being a refuellable plane, allegations of fake footage, radio transmissions from a plane, etc. are just wild-assed guesswork. Where's any evidence to back up your guesswork?
I am not going to put up with blatant timewasting. You know the path, pick your favorite FE map, draw that path on it. Ta-da! What more do you want?
Ok, why are my explanations unsatisfactory, beyond the fact you disagree with them? For all your constant repitition of that I don't think I've ever seen you bother to justify it.
Where's any evidence to back up your claim that it's in space? Oh, right, you don't need it. Or, wait, is the fact that it explains the sight of it etc enough for that, but not for anything else? Drop. The. Damn. Douible. Standard.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Baby Thork on July 12, 2018, 06:15:03 PM
The only way to know is to investigate it for yourself.

So, in a simplified form, you're saying that you won't believe that any tree falls in the forest unless you see and hear it for yourself? A herd of lumberjacks could return after their day's work, and tell you how many they cut down, but you're not going to believe them?
If I am not the one paying them, I don't care either way. But if I paid them to cut down that tree, you're damn right I'll check for myself. No, I would not just take their word for it. No more than I trust a barber to cut the back of my hair properly. No, get the mirror out and let me see for myself.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on July 12, 2018, 06:23:42 PM
Do you seriously need circumnavigation on a flat Earth explained to you?
Go on, then, explain it. Show me the route it would have taken, what speed it would have done. I observed it from North UK.
If you want to know the route the ISS takes over the Earth, use google, what's the point in asking that?

The point in asking is that YOU asked me if I wanted something explained, and I said yes, please explain it. You're not explaining it. I'm confident I know its route around the globe, how about you explain what you implied you could?

And I notice you ignored what I said about where the fuel comes from.

Do you mean the bit about "Missions take the place of refuelling"?


I'm trying to talk logic, you're trying to talk insistence.

Where's the logic in asking if I want something explained to me, then when I say "Yes, please explain", then asking what the point of me asking is?

However, if I DO ask google, the answer will be that the ISS is in orbit, some 250 miles up, with an orbit duration of 90 mins.

You say the same observation can have multiple explanations, but you're not providing any satisfactory explanations. Theorising about the ISS being a refuellable plane, allegations of fake footage, radio transmissions from a plane, etc. are just wild-assed guesswork. Where's any evidence to back up your guesswork?
I am not going to put up with blatant timewasting. You know the path, pick your favorite FE map, draw that path on it. Ta-da! What more do you want?
Ok, why are my explanations unsatisfactory, beyond the fact you disagree with them? For all your constant repitition of that I don't think I've ever seen you bother to justify it.
Where's any evidence to back up your claim that it's in space? Oh, right, you don't need it. Or, wait, is the fact that it explains the sight of it etc enough for that, but not for anything else? Drop. The. Damn. Douible. Standard.
Evidence it's in space includes, but is not limited to: Photo and video from the craft showing Earth at a distance that recognizable landmarks match the size they would appear based on the given height. Photo and video of craft seen to launch from Earth, docking with it a relatively short while later in some cases. Cry 'fake' until you lose your voice, I've yet to see anyone 'debunk' a photo or video to a sufficient degree as to place the fact it's fake beyond all reasonable doubt. In court, that would be evidence. Do you have any physical or verifiable evidence that your own claims are true?

As for the thread topic, at present I'm not honestly sure. I like to think I've explored the topic as thoroughly as I can over the past year. The ins and outs of as many ideas as I can. But I've yet to find one that comes close to explaining simple everyday experiences without being in contradiction with basic experiments I've done myself. The largest head scratcher in my experience has been lasers (and similar) over water. But one curiosity does not a hypothesis prove. I guess I would need tangible/verifiable evidence that a claim unique to FE is correct. But so far the closest has been the laser experiments, and those vary so widely I'd as soon throw ALL of them out as a poorly designed experiment/test.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 07:10:13 PM
Evidence it's in space includes, but is not limited to: Photo and video from the craft showing Earth at a distance that recognizable landmarks match the size they would appear based on the given height. Photo and video of craft seen to launch from Earth, docking with it a relatively short while later in some cases. Cry 'fake' until you lose your voice, I've yet to see anyone 'debunk' a photo or video to a sufficient degree as to place the fact it's fake beyond all reasonable doubt. In court, that would be evidence. Do you have any physical or verifiable evidence that your own claims are true?
Why is the onus on me to prove a random bit of footage is false? Why should it be debunked beyond 'all reasonable doubt' when there is no reason to accept it as genuine in the first place?
The default state is not 'space travel is real,' the default state is neutrality. I claim space travel is not real as a conclusion of what I have learned about the Earth's shape and space travel being impossible. You claim it is real on the basis of these videos, but I have not seen any video that could not be faked. The fact that the RE default seems to just be to insist it's accurate but never prove it really speaks volumes.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on July 12, 2018, 07:51:16 PM
Evidence it's in space includes, but is not limited to: Photo and video from the craft showing Earth at a distance that recognizable landmarks match the size they would appear based on the given height. Photo and video of craft seen to launch from Earth, docking with it a relatively short while later in some cases. Cry 'fake' until you lose your voice, I've yet to see anyone 'debunk' a photo or video to a sufficient degree as to place the fact it's fake beyond all reasonable doubt. In court, that would be evidence. Do you have any physical or verifiable evidence that your own claims are true?
Why is the onus on me to prove a random bit of footage is false? Why should it be debunked beyond 'all reasonable doubt' when there is no reason to accept it as genuine in the first place?
The default state is not 'space travel is real,' the default state is neutrality. I claim space travel is not real as a conclusion of what I have learned about the Earth's shape and space travel being impossible. You claim it is real on the basis of these videos, but I have not seen any video that could not be faked. The fact that the RE default seems to just be to insist it's accurate but never prove it really speaks volumes.
Actually I base it's real based more so on Sputnik than any of these videos. They're just further evidence. Sputnik is the originator of all of this, along with a few other things during that era. As for 'what you have learned etc' that's perfectly fine. I happen to disagree with many of your conclusions (based on your DE model information) but that's alright. Nothing says I have to, and vice versa. You claim, repeatedly, that there is no evidence these things are in space. The biggest evidence imo is the photo and video sent from up there, combined with Sputnik. I'm not here to attempt to prove those photo/videos are real, just as you aren't here to delve into the workings of your DE model. I could care less if you don't believe them. I've seen nothing that has been able to convince me every single image and video is faked. You believe you've seen/discovered things that mean they are required to be fake as a consequence. That's great. I look forward to seeing your evidence sweep the world.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 08:05:16 PM
The biggest evidence imo is the photo and video sent from up there, combined with Sputnik. I'm not here to attempt to prove those photo/videos are real, just as you aren't here to delve into the workings of your DE model.
I'm happy to discuss my model, I'm just not going through it from scratch every time I'm asked about a detail. I do however make sure to link to where all my evidence is located.
If you're not here to justify yourself in a discussion, don't post in it. The simple fact is photo sand videos are not real by default, that's something that needs to be proven. Sure, on casual levels that proof could be something as simple as "What's the point in lying?" but on this topic where there's every possible motive to want to have footage of space travel, the question is even more important.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 12, 2018, 08:06:12 PM

I am not going to put up with blatant timewasting. You know the path, pick your favorite FE map, draw that path on it. Ta-da! What more do you want?
Ok, why are my explanations unsatisfactory, beyond the fact you disagree with them? For all your constant repitition of that I don't think I've ever seen you bother to justify it.
Where's any evidence to back up your claim that it's in space? Oh, right, you don't need it. Or, wait, is the fact that it explains the sight of it etc enough for that, but not for anything else? Drop. The. Damn. Douible. Standard.
Facts:
The ISS follows a specific path, travelling the world around in 91 minutes.
Thats 40,075 km in 91 minutes if above a flat earth.
We can perfectly capture images of the station with cameras anyone can buy.
With a bit of trigonometry and good measurements of its observation, we can easily calculate its altitude which matches the 408 km stated even calculating on a flat earth.
Measuring its angular size, using simple trigonometry again, we also reach the size of it to be the stated 100m across.
Traveling at more than 6 km/s using flat earth calculations, it would most likely burn up if there was atmosphere.

It exists. Fact.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 08:19:59 PM
Facts:
The ISS follows a specific path, travelling the world around in 91 minutes.
Thats 40,075 km in 91 minutes if above a flat earth.
No, but I'l give you that'd be vaguely the right ballpark.

Quote
With a bit of trigonometry and good measurements of its observation, we can easily calculate its altitude which matches the 408 km stated even calculating on a flat earth.
How? I've seen attempts to do that before, but they run into major issues trying to reliably calculate the distance between two locations on the ground, and getting a good value for the angle of elevation (especially given local geographical quirks), not even mentioning issues with light.

Quote
Traveling at more than 6 km/s using flat earth calculations, it would most likely burn up if there was atmosphere.

It exists. Fact.
Air's still thinner higher up, ask a mountain climber.
Sure, something exists, never said otherwise. It just ain't in space.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: garygreen on July 12, 2018, 08:21:40 PM
you'd have to take me to space and show me the disk.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on July 12, 2018, 08:30:57 PM
The biggest evidence imo is the photo and video sent from up there, combined with Sputnik. I'm not here to attempt to prove those photo/videos are real, just as you aren't here to delve into the workings of your DE model.
I'm happy to discuss my model, I'm just not going through it from scratch every time I'm asked about a detail. I do however make sure to link to where all my evidence is located.
If you're not here to justify yourself in a discussion, don't post in it. The simple fact is photo sand videos are not real by default, that's something that needs to be proven. Sure, on casual levels that proof could be something as simple as "What's the point in lying?" but on this topic where there's every possible motive to want to have footage of space travel, the question is even more important.
I was simply attempting to answer your question on 'where is the evidence it's in space' and offering my own personal opinion on those evidences/objects before commenting on the subject. As far as I'm concerned, the content that I've observed within those videos passes scrutiny of examination for being real. Everything jives with what has been told to be expected, and attempts to falsify it fail. But that's my opinion on the matter. I don't expect to sway you with the same info when you've clearly dug your heels in on the matter. But that's fine. I'm not here to attempt to sway you, but rather try and learn why you and others believe so fervently. But this is digressing significantly beyond the scope of this thread imo, so I'll likely leave it at that.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 09:54:26 PM
I am not going to put up with blatant timewasting.

Good for you. How's that superiority complex working out for you?

You know the path, pick your favorite FE map, draw that path on it. Ta-da! What more do you want?"

My "favourite" flat-earth map.... Oh, my. Ha Ha. Hee Hee. Ho Ho.
 
Ok, why are my explanations unsatisfactory, beyond the fact you disagree with them?

You're not actually explaining anything. "The ISS could be a plane" is not an explanation.

Where's any evidence to back up your claim that it's in space?

Stated already, but ...

First you ask; "Where's any evidence to back up your claim that it's in space?", and someone replies with;
"Evidence it's in space includes, but is not limited to: Photo and video from the craft showing Earth ...."
and your response is;
"Why is the onus on me to prove a random bit of footage is false? "

Why? Because you asked for the evidence in the first place. If you want to decry it as false, you have to prove it so. Why else?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 09:56:44 PM
The only way to know is to investigate it for yourself.

So, in a simplified form, you're saying that you won't believe that any tree falls in the forest unless you see and hear it for yourself? A herd of lumberjacks could return after their day's work, and tell you how many they cut down, but you're not going to believe them?
If I am not the one paying them, I don't care either way.

You're not paying most all of those regard the world as a globe, so why are you insistent about this subject you don't care about?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 12, 2018, 09:58:27 PM
Sure, something exists, never said otherwise. It just ain't in space.

Prove it. Where's your evidence?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 12, 2018, 10:17:10 PM
Why? Because you asked for the evidence in the first place. If you want to decry it as false, you have to prove it so. Why else?
And if you want to claim it's true, you have to prove it so.

Stop being such a goddamn hypocrite. My reason for rejecting it is that I believe space travel is impossible. In the absence of any footage that is not faked, I'm perfectly happy with that. You are the one who constantly brings this up, you are the one that brought it into this thread, you are the one that insists it's true.
Put up or shut up.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: TMS_Glove on July 13, 2018, 12:51:26 AM
Hi, first post here just joined to find our common ground - globetard and proud of it (as im sure you are of your theory), becsuse we do have a common cause of questioning authourity

Im not here for the theory, and as you said OP these are as subjective as our personalities - we are our own authourities surrounded by others - and life/society is a complex, really confusing thing.

An encounter with a fellow flatter on the killing floor of youtube, (yes i have called you "mad" flatters arguing theory/evidence) led to a point by him "we cant convince each other" - on theory at least.

But on your questions PJ, space is going to be touchable, if/when Virgin Galactic gets operational - just going to be $10,000. Just look at them in the news and you'll find one of the shuttles exploded midair (atmospheric testing, they havent gone up yet)

Id put your Antarctica as much more reachable. Its also a pricey pain in the arse and a hassle to get there, and getting onto the continent needs a valid reason because its a world heritage site, and theyre trying to keep it pristine.

Or just do a polar/icewall expedition, to see for yourselves. Its hectic, you need a lot of survival training, you need crevasse training, a lot of snowclothes and camp on the way - and its sub zero. But in the interests of scientific questioning and pursuit, right or wrong (science loves mistakes because it focuses the endeavours in the "most probably" correct) that sort of thing can be crowd funded, a research grant.

After all science was seen by Stephen Hawking as "touching the face of god" and the Vatican is a massive patron of science, because science/faith are seen as the same thing - religion is who/where god is, science is what/how god did it.

This is your opening, guys. Discuss - and hit me up for Q's. No theory, out of respect for each other - lets accept our theories are both valid.

I'm interested to know what it would take to change your mind.  Unfortunately, purported 'Facts' can be subjective based on our interpretation of the evidence, so what would it take to completely convince you that the Earth is a globe / flat...
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 13, 2018, 08:39:52 AM
Why? Because you asked for the evidence in the first place. If you want to decry it as false, you have to prove it so. Why else?
And if you want to claim it's true, you have to prove it so.

See all the external references I've cited already.

My reason for rejecting it is that I believe space travel is impossible.

So what? There's a history of space travel going back to 1957, with photographic, documentary, and anecdotal proof in abundance. There's the proof, right there. Making up wild-ass theories about the moon being a superheated cylinder are just your imagination working overtime

In the absence of any footage that is not faked, I'm perfectly happy with that.

Ah, yes, the standard Team Hoax argument "All the photos are faked, so space travel doesn't exist" argument.....

But it's not just photos and film. Right back to the first orbital craft, Sputnik - the Americans and others tracked it by its radio signal. It beeped when overhead, and faded away as it orbited. Not a plane. I could cite numerous other examples where the presence of the craft above is proved by non-photographic means, some I mentioned previously.

With the right equipment, you can download data from weather and other satellites yourself. There's instructional video on YouTube on how to do this.  Recovery of lunar samples, data from orbital, lunar and deep space craft, laser ranging, space geodesy, all add up into a sizeable tranche of verifiable evidence. And all you can muster is "all the photos are faked" ....

Put up or shut up.

I've put up way more than you have. Every time you come up with a one-line dismissal, I cite multiple sources. You're the one who's not putting up anything apart from wild-ass theory...
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 13, 2018, 08:45:41 AM
My reason for rejecting it is that I believe space travel is impossible.

This is where I have a problem with the FE mentality.
You believe in a flat earth and your FE model means space travel is impossible.
So when you're presented with evidence of space travel you declare it fake not because you have any evidence that it is fake but because it contradicts your world view. That is not rational. Statements like "In the absence of any footage that is not faked...". Where is your evidence that the footage is faked? You don't have any, you've done no analysis of the footage (correct me if I'm wrong). You declare it fake because it shows you to be wrong.

If you're presented with evidence which contradicts your world view then you need to assess that evidence as objectively as possible and consider whether that evidence shows your world view to be wrong. That is the bit you guys don't do. And to be fair that's quite a common thing, it's why people dig their heels in about all kinds of things. Cognitive dissonance, basically.

In my silly example about kangaroos, even if I've never seen one if I'm told by people that they've seen one, shown photos of them, shown video of one etc. If I keep on calling these people liars with no basis and declaring all the photos and video fake (having done no analysis of them myself) then fine, I can stick to my world view but it's not a particularly rational or analytical way of thinking. It's just denial of anything that doesn't fit my world view. This is what you're doing in this thread.

It's interesting that the summary of the responses so far is:
RE "Show me evidence of a flat earth"
FE "Take me up in a space ship and show me the globe earth" [Note here that you've never seen the flat disc earth either...]

RE are interested in data and evidence, FE is more "I'll believe it when I see it for myself".
And there's nothing wrong with investigating things for yourself per se but no-one actually lives their lives like this, testing every thing for themselves before believing anything. I don't believe you apply that level of rigour to any other area of your lives. And I see very little effort from FE people in terms of actually investigating things for themselves. What experiments have you done in developing your world view?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 13, 2018, 11:58:46 AM
My reason for rejecting it is that I believe space travel is impossible.

This is where I have a problem with the FE mentality.
You believe in a flat earth and your FE model means space travel is impossible.
So when you're presented with evidence of space travel you declare it fake not because you have any evidence that it is fake but because it contradicts your world view. That is not rational. Statements like "In the absence of any footage that is not faked...". Where is your evidence that the footage is faked? You don't have any, you've done no analysis of the footage (correct me if I'm wrong). You declare it fake because it shows you to be wrong.

If you're presented with evidence which contradicts your world view then you need to assess that evidence as objectively as possible and consider whether that evidence shows your world view to be wrong. That is the bit you guys don't do. And to be fair that's quite a common thing, it's why people dig their heels in about all kinds of things. Cognitive dissonance, basically.

In my silly example about kangaroos, even if I've never seen one if I'm told by people that they've seen one, shown photos of them, shown video of one etc. If I keep on calling these people liars with no basis and declaring all the photos and video fake (having done no analysis of them myself) then fine, I can stick to my world view but it's not a particularly rational or analytical way of thinking. It's just denial of anything that doesn't fit my world view. This is what you're doing in this thread.

It's interesting that the summary of the responses so far is:
RE "Show me evidence of a flat earth"
FE "Take me up in a space ship and show me the globe earth" [Note here that you've never seen the flat disc earth either...]

RE are interested in data and evidence, FE is more "I'll believe it when I see it for myself".
And there's nothing wrong with investigating things for yourself per se but no-one actually lives their lives like this, testing every thing for themselves before believing anything. I don't believe you apply that level of rigour to any other area of your lives. And I see very little effort from FE people in terms of actually investigating things for themselves. What experiments have you done in developing your world view?

From what I've seen, every flat earther started out believing that NASA faked the moon landing. This becomes ingrained in their thought process and suddenly everything NASA does is a lie. This then becomes the root of all flat earthers logic, they believe in the conspiracy, so there must be a lie, and it can't be anything else than the earth is flat.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 13, 2018, 12:21:58 PM
From what I've seen, every flat earther started out believing that NASA faked the moon landing. This becomes ingrained in their thought process and suddenly everything NASA does is a lie. This then becomes the root of all flat earthers logic, they believe in the conspiracy, so there must be a lie, and it can't be anything else than the earth is flat.

It seems to me that it's a pretty big leap from thinking the moon landing was fake - a worryingly common belief - to thinking that ALL space travel is fake, all astronauts are liars, the ISS and all weather satellites are faked, GPS is faked somehow, satellite TV, etc, etc. And all because the world is really flat and all this is part of the cover up of that.

The "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude is inconsistently applied. "If you took me up into space and I saw the globe, then I'd believe it". Right...so you've been up and seen the seen the disc, have you?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: totallackey on July 13, 2018, 01:05:20 PM
My reason for rejecting it is that I believe space travel is impossible.
This is where I have a problem with the FE mentality. You believe in a flat earth and your FE model means space travel is impossible.
It is apparent to all your problem lies not with "FE mentality": rather, it concerns a lack of simple reading comprehension and unbelievable leaps toward unfounded conclusions.

There is nothing about "FE mentality" demanding schpayzze travel to be an impossibility.

There ARE MANY RE-tards who claim schpayzze travel is an impossibility; indeed, I would venture there are MORE RE-tards who claim schpayzze travel is bogus.

JRowe never made a connection between imaginary schpayzze travel and FE or DET.

As far as the OP is concerned, I will be performing a very simple experiment in the next few days to see for myself.

I will post the results here.

Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 13, 2018, 01:18:29 PM
There ARE MANY RE-tards who claim schpayzze travel is an impossibility; indeed, I would venture there are MORE RE-tards who claim schpayzze travel is bogus.
I have literally never heard anyone ever claim that space travel is not possible outside of the context of a FE. Not saying they haven't, but I've not heard it.
That the moon landings were faked, yes. That is a depresingly common belief. But that the whole idea of space travel is faked by multiple countries? Never heard that before.

I look forward to the results of your experiment and applaud your efforts in doing one.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 13, 2018, 02:10:50 PM
I've put up way more than you have. Every time you come up with a one-line dismissal, I cite multiple sources. You're the one who's not putting up anything apart from wild-ass theory...
Your sources are 'radio in the sky' and 'they say so.' And you call me closed-minded.
Jesus christ, you seriously quote 'recovery of lunar samples' as evidence of space travel? They're bloody rocks. Being told they're from the moon isn't proof of anything more than your woefully lax standards.

This is where I have a problem with the FE mentality.
You believe in a flat earth and your FE model means space travel is impossible.
So when you're presented with evidence of space travel you declare it fake not because you have any evidence that it is fake but because it contradicts your world view. That is not rational. Statements like "In the absence of any footage that is not faked...". Where is your evidence that the footage is faked? You don't have any, you've done no analysis of the footage (correct me if I'm wrong). You declare it fake because it shows you to be wrong.
And that is a blatant double standard. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that's common sense. I don't believe that space travel is faked independently, it is part of an overall scientific model. If I were to tell you I could fly, you would disbelieve me because of your experience of the world; however if you remove that experience, what grounds would you have to disbelieve me?
You believe the footage is real because it goes along with what it is you already believe. Fallacies of popularity and tradition and nationalism aside, what is it that makes your claim that they're genuine more reasonable than my claim that they're not? REer loves to spam links to the footage but never put in the legwork to prove anything more. It's basic science. All I require is possibility, the possibility that it is fake, for mine to be a credible scientific model. Ditto for any science based on past events; take evolution, no one can physically go back in time and watch a whole bunch of animals procreating and map their genomes one at a time, but what they can do is establish that the mechanism for it to happen exists, establish that the means for that mechanism to function exist, establish that what we see matches what would have resulted from that mechanism, and it is a credible scientific theory.
The mechanism to fake footage? Yep. The motive to do so? If space travel is impossible, yup, they'd banked their hopes on it. And what we see now? Persistent failure for it to be accessible despite promises, nonsensical elements designed for style over substance, constantly drawing publicity... Yep, it all lines up.
Lose the double standard and start using the scientific method.

I don't believe space travel is impossible because it 'shows me to be wrong,' I declare it to be impossible because the physics that I have observed and determined about the world would not allow it to happen.
The fact the evidence does not contradict this, and indeed favors it in many instances, suffices.


Quote
RE "Show me evidence of a flat earth"
FE "Take me up in a space ship and show me the globe earth" [Note here that you've never seen the flat disc earth either...]

RE are interested in data and evidence, FE is more "I'll believe it when I see it for myself".
Look at what I actually say rather than what you want me to have said. Like I already pointed out, my answer to this question was more data and evidence. Space travel would be one example of that, it's not the only one, I only brought it up because it was relevant to the discussion I was having.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 13, 2018, 03:00:21 PM
Your sources are 'radio in the sky' and 'they say so.'

No, SOME of my sources are as named. I named a number of others.

"And you call me closed-minded."

I didn't say that.

"you seriously quote 'recovery of lunar samples' as evidence of space travel? They're bloody rocks. Being told they're from the moon isn't proof of anything more than your woefully lax standards."

They're different enough from those on Earth for experience and qualified geologists to state that they are from the Moon. What qualifies you to say otherwise? Do you have any qualifications in geology? See the references section of the Lunar Sourcebook. It lists, among others, (many of) the geologists who have examined the lunar samples; it shows who they are, where they were working at the time, where their research was published and when. Are you better qualified than they?
 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that's common sense.

I find your claim/theory that the Moon is a superheated cylinder to be an extraordinary one. Where's your extraordinary evidence to prove it?

You believe the footage is real because it goes along with what it is you already believe.

No, I believe it because it fits consistently with ALL the other evidence.

Fallacies of popularity and tradition and nationalism aside, what is it that makes your claim that they're genuine more reasonable than my claim that they're not?

Nationalism doesn't come into it. My country had no involvement in the Apollo programme, as a for instance. I claim the Apollo photography and film records to be genuine because what they show fits EXACTLY with all the associated evidence.

REer loves to spam links to the footage but never put in the legwork to prove anything more.

What do you expect to be done in addition to this? If I present two photos comparing features of the Moon in sunshine and earthshine, in order to show the features match, and label the features for you, since to you they seem so dissimilar, what else do you expect to be done? If I present some lunar photography, what other legwork do you expect me to do? Travel to the Moon and take some more?

All I require is possibility, the possibility that it is fake, for mine to be a credible scientific model.

No, you require evidence for your model.

The mechanism to fake footage? Yep.

The mechanism may well be there, but you've yet to prove it was actually used.

I don't believe space travel is impossible because it 'shows me to be wrong,' I declare it to be impossible because the physics that I have observed and determined about the world would not allow it to happen.

We await your proof, based on these "physics that (you) have observed". What observations? 

Look at what I actually say rather than what you want me to have said. Like I already pointed out, my answer to this question was more data and evidence.

I haven't seen you post any data, nor any evidence, merely theory and supposition. Saying that something 'could have happened this way', or that someone "could have had the motive to do so" is not evidence.....
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 13, 2018, 03:20:06 PM
There ARE MANY RE-tards who claim schpayzze travel is an impossibility; indeed, I would venture there are MORE RE-tards who claim schpayzze travel is bogus.
TL, we talked about this. You're not allowed to personally attack your opponents in the upper fora. If you cannot argue your case respectfully, take it to Angry Ranting.

This is your second warning on this issue. As per the rules (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0), short bans may follow from now on.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 13, 2018, 03:50:47 PM
They're different enough from those on Earth for experience and qualified geologists to state that they are from the Moon. What qualifies you to say otherwise? Do you have any qualifications in geology? See the references section of the Lunar Sourcebook. It lists, among others, (many of) the geologists who have examined the lunar samples; it shows who they are, where they were working at the time, where their research was published and when. Are you better qualified than they?
They are rocks, composed of substances all of which have been found on Earth naturally. Tell me how the moon was the only possible source rather than doing your usual blind insistence and buying into hype.
 
Quote
I find your claim/theory that the Moon is a superheated cylinder to be an extraordinary one. Where's your extraordinary evidence to prove it?
Are you incapable of discussing a topic without desperately trying to change the subject? I am not going through the how and why of my model at a whim, I link it in my sig, and I'm pretty sure I've told you that before so why do you ask a question if you're just going to ignore the answer?

Quote
I haven't seen you post any data, nor any evidence, merely theory and supposition. Saying that something 'could have happened this way', or that someone "could have had the motive to do so" is not evidence.....
So you yet again fail to provide any more than "They say so!" as your evidence, all the while demanding I do something utterly unnecessary. Once again, as you ignored:

All I require is possibility, the possibility that it is fake, for mine to be a credible scientific model. Ditto for any science based on past events; take evolution, no one can physically go back in time and watch a whole bunch of animals procreating and map their genomes one at a time, but what they can do is establish that the mechanism for it to happen exists, establish that the means for that mechanism to function exist, establish that what we see matches what would have resulted from that mechanism, and it is a credible scientific theory.
The mechanism to fake footage? Yep. The motive to do so? If space travel is impossible, yup, they'd banked their hopes on it. And what we see now? Persistent failure for it to be accessible despite promises, nonsensical elements designed for style over substance, constantly drawing publicity... Yep, it all lines up.
Lose the double standard and start using the scientific method.

It is fundamentally impossible to go back in time and see precisely what they did. Rather, all we can do is look at the consequences and see what the possibilities are. You think it's possible it's genuine? Good for you, I think it's possible it's not and you need to do a whole lot more than just angrily assert that you're right if you intend to make an argument.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JHelzer on July 13, 2018, 04:39:54 PM
what would it take to completely convince you that the Earth is a globe / flat, depending on your POV?
An accurate flat-earth map on a flat piece of paper would convince me it's flat.
An accurate curved-earth map on a curved piece of paper would convince me it's curved.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 13, 2018, 04:42:48 PM
They are rocks, composed of substances all of which have been found on Earth naturally. Tell me how the moon was the only possible source rather than doing your usual blind insistence and buying into hype.

I'm not a qualified geologist, so I defer to the writings and works of those who are. In brief overview;

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/samples/


In more detail, see sections 6, 7 and 9 of;

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/

The chapters summarise the results of the work done on the samples, and the references section tells you who did the work, where and when, and where it was published.

If the rocks were of basic Earth origin, dontcha think one or more of these folk would have noticed?

Oh, and I almost forgot - one of the Apollo 17 astronauts was a geologist, you can read his account of the big 'field trip' here;

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/LEC1/trip.htm

Quoting and paraphrasing from various sources;

The rocks are similar to Earth rocks, but not identical. One obvious difference is that they all had micro-meteorite
impacts which Earth rocks don't have. Also they were very very dry, lacking in volatiles and not hydrated like their
Earth counterparts. And many are as old as 4.5 billion years old, older than any Earth rocks.

Some of the conspiracy theorists say that they are lunar meteorites - but the lunar meteorites are rare, and
not known at the time. The first lunar meteorite was discovered in the 1980s.

Others think unmanned rovers on the Moon brought the rocks back - but if so, how do they exactly match the rocks the
astronauts pick up in the videos? Also, the Russian Luna program returned a total of 0.326 kg of samples in three missions.
Apollo returned over 380kg in 2000 separate samples, 

Lastly, look over this 2009 paper examining isotope ratios in this rock, and giving new results about the moon (you'll need
to register and login to do so)

As someone said;  Could you imagine that back in 1969 some scientist involved in the fake anticipated that some time in 2009 someone would examine this rock and want to find out the isotope ratios of Argon, and manipulated them to make them appropriate for a an instrument not yet invented to answer a question not yet asked?

- -

Honestly, I could go on like this all day, finding more and more interesting articles about the lunar samples, but it's not
my prime area of interest, and I'm only putting this together because you asked, so ...

No doubt you'll insist that I should do some more "legwork", but as I say, I'm not a qualified geologist. Those who are, are
in no doubt about where the lunar samples came from.

Is that enough of me "angrily asserting" for you ... ??
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 13, 2018, 05:03:41 PM
The rocks are similar to Earth rocks, but not identical. One obvious difference is that they all had micro-meteorite
impacts which Earth rocks don't have. Also they were very very dry, lacking in volatiles and not hydrated like their
Earth counterparts. And many are as old as 4.5 billion years old, older than any Earth rocks.
Seriously, are you trolling? They're dry and had holes in. Obviously no possible way to fake that. And that's the cast-iron proof you thought was worth quoting?
Dating's not even worth mentioning, they measure radioactive decay of elements apparently, except so long as those chemicals are present they're going to decay. if anything the moon is younger than the Earth, so... Ain't gonna be hard to find older rocks, worst case you've got to dig a hole.

Quote
As someone said;  Could you imagine that back in 1969 some scientist involved in the fake anticipated that some time in 2009 someone would examine this rock and want to find out the isotope ratios of Argon, and manipulated them to make them appropriate for a an instrument not yet invented to answer a question not yet asked?
Yes. Easily. They have access to labs, they're not just going to walk outside, pick up a couple of pebbles and say job done, they're going to expose it to unnatural environments as 'proof' of it's alienness. They might've had future equipment in mind, they might not have, but it'd be short-sighted to they wouldn't have done something.

See, this is my issue with you. For all your accusations that i'm just speculating, this is what would happen, or something like it. if someone wants to tell a lie, and has time to plan, they're actually going to put a bit of effort into it. You are assuming they're just going to be as lazy and transparent as possible, but that's not going to happen.  Means and motive exist trivially, and none of this is a stretch. Put yourself in their shoes, imagine you wanted to create a cover-up, you don't need to know the future in order to cover your tracks decently. Go find a more esoteric quarry, dehydrate a bunch of rocks, chip holes, take to the lab and tell them to create simulations of what 'real' moon rocks would be exposed to for the basis of comparison when Apollo gets back... Not hard.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 13, 2018, 05:09:23 PM
Put yourself in their shoes, imagine you wanted to create a cover-up

WHY? Why don't you PROVE it was a cover-up first?

You expect me to do some "legwork", why don't you do some and actually prove if any fakery was involved here?

you don't need to know the future in order to cover your tracks decently. Go find a more esoteric quarry, dehydrate a bunch of rocks, chip holes, take to the lab and tell them to create simulations of what 'real' moon rocks would be exposed to for the basis of comparison when Apollo gets back... Not hard.

Again, just speculation on how something MAY have been done, according to your own imagination. Speculation, supposition, fantasy.

Even IF we accept that this could have been pulled off as described by you, where's your evidence that it was?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 13, 2018, 06:34:04 PM
All I require is possibility, the possibility that it is fake, for mine to be a credible scientific model. Ditto for any science based on past events; take evolution, no one can physically go back in time and watch a whole bunch of animals procreating and map their genomes one at a time, but what they can do is establish that the mechanism for it to happen exists, establish that the means for that mechanism to function exist, establish that what we see matches what would have resulted from that mechanism, and it is a credible scientific theory.
The mechanism to fake footage? Yep. The motive to do so? If space travel is impossible, yup, they'd banked their hopes on it. And what we see now? Persistent failure for it to be accessible despite promises, nonsensical elements designed for style over substance, constantly drawing publicity... Yep, it all lines up.
Lose the double standard and start using the scientific method.
I'm really pretty sick of repeating myself.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 13, 2018, 07:19:37 PM
I'm really pretty sick of repeating myself.

Does this count as low-content posting in the upper fora?

Or petulant whining?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: inquisitive on July 13, 2018, 08:06:29 PM
All I require is possibility, the possibility that it is fake, for mine to be a credible scientific model. Ditto for any science based on past events; take evolution, no one can physically go back in time and watch a whole bunch of animals procreating and map their genomes one at a time, but what they can do is establish that the mechanism for it to happen exists, establish that the means for that mechanism to function exist, establish that what we see matches what would have resulted from that mechanism, and it is a credible scientific theory.
The mechanism to fake footage? Yep. The motive to do so? If space travel is impossible, yup, they'd banked their hopes on it. And what we see now? Persistent failure for it to be accessible despite promises, nonsensical elements designed for style over substance, constantly drawing publicity... Yep, it all lines up.
Lose the double standard and start using the scientific method.
I'm really pretty sick of repeating myself.
So don't.  It does not matter what you think, there is plenty of evidence that the moon landing happened.  And we know how satellites work.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Catnip on July 14, 2018, 11:53:13 AM
It wouldn't take a lot, I'd believe the earth was flat if I saw a video of it from space. I'm not going to space, I'm really lazy.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: pj1 on July 16, 2018, 12:49:15 PM
Quote
It goes up and comes down somewhere different.
I've never understood why arguments against the conspiracy rely on incompetence. If you were trying to keep a secret you would have to be an idiot to have it land in the same spot it went up. Literally everyone if put in the position to mastermind such a thing would come up with the idea "Ok, shift orientation, use the massive freaking rocket to cross a bit of a horizontal distance rather than a vertical one."

I don't understand whether you're being deliberately obtuse...

Yes, clearly then can land in a different place. But this relies on 1) initially reaching an altitude which means no line of sight for spectators 2) lands in a place where no one sees the "massive freaking rocket" come down again 3) no one except SpaceX was tracking it on radar 4) it didn't cross any no-fly zones where presumably radar operators would have become aware 5) technologically being advanced enough to build a rocket which can take off at high velocity and land, but not so advanced as it can't reach "space".

You're inferring that my comments relate to incompetence but, far from it, what I'm saying is that to fake it seems immensely complex based on the comments above.

I'm trying to have a discussion and you're just flippantly dismissing my comments without consideration.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 16, 2018, 01:06:53 PM
I don't understand whether you're being deliberately obtuse...

Yes, clearly then can land in a different place. But this relies on 1) initially reaching an altitude which means no line of sight for spectators 2) lands in a place where no one sees the "massive freaking rocket" come down again 3) no one except SpaceX was tracking it on radar 4) it didn't cross any no-fly zones where presumably radar operators would have become aware 5) technologically being advanced enough to build a rocket which can take off at high velocity and land, but not so advanced as it can't reach "space".

You're inferring that my comments relate to incompetence but, far from it, what I'm saying is that to fake it seems immensely complex based on the comments above.

I'm trying to have a discussion and you're just flippantly dismissing my comments without consideration.
Don't assume it's me being obtuse. When you believe something you tend not to examine arguments against an alternative too closely.
1's trivial, rockets are pretty well known for expelling a massive obscuring among of smoke, far more than any typical plane, so going out of view isn't hard. Ditto for 2, especially if they choose sea. For 3/4, radar's known to not be perfect, outside of wartime unexpected blips are just as likely to be flocks of birds, for starters. Add into that the fact Kennedy Space Center, for one example, is adjacent to a nature preserve and it's hard not to ask a question. Rocket goes off, nearby birds react.
For 5, reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible. I've no doubt they tried, they just found that it literally cannot be done. The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart. Really it's not much more than careful timing and routing.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: inquisitive on July 16, 2018, 01:27:17 PM
I don't understand whether you're being deliberately obtuse...

Yes, clearly then can land in a different place. But this relies on 1) initially reaching an altitude which means no line of sight for spectators 2) lands in a place where no one sees the "massive freaking rocket" come down again 3) no one except SpaceX was tracking it on radar 4) it didn't cross any no-fly zones where presumably radar operators would have become aware 5) technologically being advanced enough to build a rocket which can take off at high velocity and land, but not so advanced as it can't reach "space".

You're inferring that my comments relate to incompetence but, far from it, what I'm saying is that to fake it seems immensely complex based on the comments above.

I'm trying to have a discussion and you're just flippantly dismissing my comments without consideration.
Don't assume it's me being obtuse. When you believe something you tend not to examine arguments against an alternative too closely.
1's trivial, rockets are pretty well known for expelling a massive obscuring among of smoke, far more than any typical plane, so going out of view isn't hard. Ditto for 2, especially if they choose sea. For 3/4, radar's known to not be perfect, outside of wartime unexpected blips are just as likely to be flocks of birds, for starters. Add into that the fact Kennedy Space Center, for one example, is adjacent to a nature preserve and it's hard not to ask a question. Rocket goes off, nearby birds react.
For 5, reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible. I've no doubt they tried, they just found that it literally cannot be done. The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart. Really it's not much more than careful timing and routing.
Hubble telescope opinion please.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 16, 2018, 01:33:08 PM
Hubble telescope opinion please.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/b94d4054b77ef27f3646af64fac7ffeb/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on July 16, 2018, 01:33:22 PM
I don't understand whether you're being deliberately obtuse...

Yes, clearly then can land in a different place. But this relies on 1) initially reaching an altitude which means no line of sight for spectators 2) lands in a place where no one sees the "massive freaking rocket" come down again 3) no one except SpaceX was tracking it on radar 4) it didn't cross any no-fly zones where presumably radar operators would have become aware 5) technologically being advanced enough to build a rocket which can take off at high velocity and land, but not so advanced as it can't reach "space".

You're inferring that my comments relate to incompetence but, far from it, what I'm saying is that to fake it seems immensely complex based on the comments above.

I'm trying to have a discussion and you're just flippantly dismissing my comments without consideration.
Don't assume it's me being obtuse. When you believe something you tend not to examine arguments against an alternative too closely.
1's trivial, rockets are pretty well known for expelling a massive obscuring among of smoke, far more than any typical plane, so going out of view isn't hard. Ditto for 2, especially if they choose sea. For 3/4, radar's known to not be perfect, outside of wartime unexpected blips are just as likely to be flocks of birds, for starters. Add into that the fact Kennedy Space Center, for one example, is adjacent to a nature preserve and it's hard not to ask a question. Rocket goes off, nearby birds react.
For 5, reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible. I've no doubt they tried, they just found that it literally cannot be done. The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart. Really it's not much more than careful timing and routing.
Apologies for small aside, but could you direct me to the best place (with specifics if possible) to learn why you believe space flight is physically impossible, and what forces you are referring to? I understand you are likely referring to your DE stuff, but a more direct location (subforum or similar) would be appreciated.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 16, 2018, 01:40:50 PM
Apologies for small aside, but could you direct me to the best place (with specifics if possible) to learn why you believe space flight is physically impossible, and what forces you are referring to? I understand you are likely referring to your DE stuff, but a more direct location (subforum or similar) would be appreciated.
As with any scientific model it's hard to give a good explanation without giivng all the underpinning theory first. That's linked below (Dual Earth Overview, stickied in every section, with an FAQ in Dual Earth Model).
The basic gist's that the rate at which what you call gravity decreases is discontinuous, and the discontinuities get increasingly intense with altitude, as observed with the rate of decrease. At high altitude, it's physically equivalent to one half of the rocket being grabbed and yanked one way, when half is being yanked the other. It's the same force that, say, tears apart a meteot ot cause a meteor shower.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 16, 2018, 02:23:26 PM
Don't assume it's me being obtuse. When you believe something you tend not to examine arguments against an alternative too closely.
Have a think about that for a minute...

Quote
rockets are pretty well known for expelling a massive obscuring among of smoke, far more than any typical plane, so going out of view isn't hard

You're seriously claiming that the fact that rockets leave behind a very obvious vapour trail which persists and shows you the path they too makes it EASIER for them to go out of view?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE_USPTmYXM

Quote
reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible...The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart

You can't just claim this sort of stuff. Where is your evidence for that? What is your expertise in all this to claim this so definitively. Elsewhere in the thread your response to expert geologists comments on the difference between moon rock and earth rock is
"They're dry and had holes in. Obviously no possible way to fake that"
Do you have the first understanding of geology? I mean, I don't. But it would be bizarre of me to think I knew better than geologists who have presumably spent decades studying this sort of thing.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 16, 2018, 02:57:53 PM
Don't assume it's me being obtuse. When you believe something you tend not to examine arguments against an alternative too closely.
1's trivial, rockets are pretty well known for expelling a massive obscuring among of smoke, far more than any typical plane, so going out of view isn't hard.

They only smoke at ground level. Watch any recent rocket launch, and there's very little in terms of exhaust smoke once it's away from the spray/water pit at the launchpad. Most of the smoke is actually steam.

The video of the shuttle is different due to the solid fuel boosters. They leave more of a trail

Ditto for 2, especially if they choose sea.

Again, you're falling back on the technique of implying they COULD have done something, rather than actually showing that they have.

For 5, reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible.

What, PHYSICALLY, prevents it?

I've no doubt they tried, they just found that it literally cannot be done. The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart.

Yet you have no actual footage of any such rocket being "torn apart" ....

Why do you think the forces AT ALTITUDE are worse than those at ground level?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 16, 2018, 03:20:50 PM
You're seriously claiming that the fact that rockets leave behind a very obvious vapour trail which persists and shows you the path they too makes it EASIER for them to go out of view?
Well, yes. Look at what Tumeni said.

Quote
Quote
reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible...The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart

You can't just claim this sort of stuff. Where is your evidence for that? What is your expertise in all this to claim this so definitively. Elsewhere in the thread your response to expert geologists comments on the difference between moon rock and earth rock is
"They're dry and had holes in. Obviously no possible way to fake that"
Do you have the first understanding of geology? I mean, I don't. But it would be bizarre of me to think I knew better than geologists who have presumably spent decades studying this sort of thing.
My model, I'm not going into it on a whim, see sig.
Except geologists don't seek to prove that rocks came from the moon, they seek to analyse it under the assumption that it was. That's a huge flaw in thinking a lot of REers display, misapplying science.

Don't assume it's me being obtuse. When you believe something you tend not to examine arguments against an alternative too closely.
1's trivial, rockets are pretty well known for expelling a massive obscuring among of smoke, far more than any typical plane, so going out of view isn't hard.

They only smoke at ground level. Watch any recent rocket launch, and there's very little in terms of exhaust smoke once it's away from the spray/water pit at the launchpad. Most of the smoke is actually steam.

The video of the shuttle is different due to the solid fuel boosters. They leave more of a trail

Ditto for 2, especially if they choose sea.

Again, you're falling back on the technique of implying they COULD have done something, rather than actually showing that they have.

For 5, reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible.

What, PHYSICALLY, prevents it?

I've no doubt they tried, they just found that it literally cannot be done. The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart.

Yet you have no actual footage of any such rocket being "torn apart" ....

Why do you think the forces AT ALTITUDE are worse than those at ground level?
Jesus christ are you ever going to read my response to your constant harping on about ;'You're only showing it could have happened!' I've pointed it out to you three bloody times by this point and you always vanish right after and never respond.
I have answered you, both in the post you are quoting and before, and I am sick to death of wasting time when all you ever do is ignore me.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 16, 2018, 03:58:23 PM
As with any scientific model it's hard to give a good explanation without giivng all the underpinning theory first. That's linked below (Dual Earth Overview, stickied in every section, with an FAQ in Dual Earth Model).
The basic gist's that the rate at which what you call gravity decreases is discontinuous, and the discontinuities get increasingly intense with altitude, as observed with the rate of decrease. At high altitude, it's physically equivalent to one half of the rocket being grabbed and yanked one way, when half is being yanked the other. It's the same force that, say, tears apart a meteot ot cause a meteor shower.

Have you actually measured any of these forces to which you refer?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 16, 2018, 04:07:15 PM
As with any scientific model it's hard to give a good explanation without giivng all the underpinning theory first. That's linked below (Dual Earth Overview, stickied in every section, with an FAQ in Dual Earth Model).
The basic gist's that the rate at which what you call gravity decreases is discontinuous, and the discontinuities get increasingly intense with altitude, as observed with the rate of decrease. At high altitude, it's physically equivalent to one half of the rocket being grabbed and yanked one way, when half is being yanked the other. It's the same force that, say, tears apart a meteot ot cause a meteor shower.

Have you actually measured any of these forces to which you refer?
Yes.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: TomInAustin on July 19, 2018, 04:09:41 PM
Its OK, that people don't think what you think. Its very normal. Without it we couldn't have democracy. Everyone would want to marry the exact same woman. We'd all drive the exact same car, wear the same clothes and decide to use the exact same coffee shop at the exact same time in the exact same city that we all decided was the best place to live. I don't care that you think the earth is round. And I'm not going to insist you change your mind about it.
Those are all terrible examples. Or rather, they're very good examples of things which are subjective. So yes, there will be different opinions about these things.
But the shape of the earth is not subjective. It is what it is. There should not be different opinions about these things. Not all opinions are equally valid.

To answer the original question, I guess for me I'd have to see some really compelling evidence for a flat earth, that the whole space industry is bogus. And some explanation as to how the airline industry has been getting us all round the "disc" while thinking it's a globe. A flat earth map that actually works in terms of distances between places and the relationship between them would be nice too.

A map that works.  Bingo.  That is the only proof I would need to consider the possibility of a flat earth.   It seems pretty simple given the amount of data available.  I have tried and failed.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 19, 2018, 05:05:08 PM
Have you actually measured any of these forces to which you refer?
Yes.

Which ones? When? Where? Were your results published? If so, where?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 20, 2018, 05:19:12 PM
Have you actually measured any of these forces to which you refer?
Yes.

Which ones? When? Where? Were your results published? If so, where?
You want me to provide citations for the fact that there are forces which push down, that they diminish with respect to altitude, and that they impart a slight rotational force (in different directions depending on what side of the equator you're on)? Seriously?
They're all I'm talking about.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 20, 2018, 10:27:59 PM
Have you actually measured any of these forces to which you refer?
Yes.

Which ones? When? Where? Were your results published? If so, where?
You want me to provide citations for the fact that there are forces which push down, that they diminish with respect to altitude, and that they impart a slight rotational force (in different directions depending on what side of the equator you're on)? Seriously?
They're all I'm talking about.

So you're not going to tell us which forces you measured, then? Nor when you measured them, where you measured them, nor where your results were documented or published?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Niki4To on July 23, 2018, 08:08:55 PM
Just because they told you they went into space isn't evidence that they did it.

Correct!

We have billions of public funds spent in something. It is the most normal to suspect that something. If you look at the construction companies, they fight in any way possible to get the funds...... Because only 20% of that money will go for bricks, concrete, telescopes, rocket fuel, copper for the Hadron collider..... Lying about space and subatomic world, things that can not be seen by the public, is the simplest way to steal billions.

Not to mention demonic/alien invasion conspiracy.....
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 25, 2018, 12:29:46 AM
Have you actually measured any of these forces to which you refer?
Yes.

Which ones? When? Where? Were your results published? If so, where?
You want me to provide citations for the fact that there are forces which push down, that they diminish with respect to altitude, and that they impart a slight rotational force (in different directions depending on what side of the equator you're on)? Seriously?
They're all I'm talking about.

So you're not going to tell us which forces you measured, then? Nor when you measured them, where you measured them, nor where your results were documented or published?
You're just going to completely ignore every word I said then? Got it. Don't know why I ever expect anything different from you.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 25, 2018, 06:05:48 AM
Have you actually measured any of these forces to which you refer?
Yes.

Which ones? When? Where? Were your results published? If so, where?
You want me to provide citations for the fact that there are forces which push down, that they diminish with respect to altitude, and that they impart a slight rotational force (in different directions depending on what side of the equator you're on)? Seriously?
They're all I'm talking about.

So you're not going to tell us which forces you measured, then? Nor when you measured them, where you measured them, nor where your results were documented or published?
You're just going to completely ignore every word I said then? Got it. Don't know why I ever expect anything different from you.

You said "Yes" when I asked if you had measured them (see quote above). I'm specifically asking what tests you did, and what your results were, OF THESE TESTS. How is that ignoring what you said? I don't want citations of the existence of such forces, I want to know what YOU did to test them, since you said you had actually done this.

Besides which, isn't posting simply to complain about someone else's style of posting, or lack of response, deemed to be "Low-content posting in the upper fora" or somesuch?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 25, 2018, 11:37:18 AM
You said "Yes" when I asked if you had measured them (see quote above). I'm specifically asking what tests you did, and what your results were, OF THESE TESTS. How is that ignoring what you said? I don't want citations of the existence of such forces, I want to know what YOU did to test them, since you said you had actually done this.

Besides which, isn't posting simply to complain about someone else's style of posting, or lack of response, deemed to be "Low-content posting in the upper fora" or somesuch?
The fact you totally ignored my response is not a problem with your 'style,' it is an problem with your utter lack of logic. What is the point in you asking questions when you don't give a damn about the answers, you just want to waste time and score cheap victories over semantics and non-entities?

I don't particularly feel like digging up my old tests when you already agree that the forces I verified exist. You are blatantly just wasting my time.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 25, 2018, 12:32:17 PM
You said "Yes" when I asked if you had measured them (see quote above). I'm specifically asking what tests you did, and what your results were, OF THESE TESTS. How is that ignoring what you said? I don't want citations of the existence of such forces, I want to know what YOU did to test them, since you said you had actually done this.

Besides which, isn't posting simply to complain about someone else's style of posting, or lack of response, deemed to be "Low-content posting in the upper fora" or somesuch?
The fact you totally ignored my response is not a problem with your 'style,' it is an problem with your utter lack of logic. What is the point in you asking questions when you don't give a damn about the answers, you just want to waste time and score cheap victories over semantics and non-entities?

I don't particularly feel like digging up my old tests when you already agree that the forces I verified exist. You are blatantly just wasting my time.
If you're talking about a downward force which varies with altitude then yes, we all agree that exists. We being "round earthers". It's called gravity.
But your assertion is that the difference in force increases with altitude to the point that it would break up a rocket to which the response is...no it wouldn't.
That is what you're being asked to show your tests of.
It wouldn't cause rockets to break up because the formula for the force of gravity between two objects is F = G M1 M2 / r2

Where G is the gravitational constant. M1 and M2 are the masses of the two objects and r is the distance between their centres of gravity.
Now, the centre of gravity of the earth is, more or less, in the middle of the earth and the radius of the earth is 6371km.
So while yes, the force is less as you ascend because 'r' increases, it only increases a bit relative to the size of the earth.
Even at 100km above the surface the force would be about 97% of that at the surface - it's a myth that there is no gravity in space, the astronauts in the ISS are weightless because the forces (weight is a force) balance out, they are effectively in perpetual freefall.

So, while yes, there is a downward force and yes that force does vary with altitude the difference in forces between the top and bottom of a rocket at any altitude are not going to noticeable, much less pull the thing apart. If you have tests and measurements which show different then let's see them.
And no, this is not the same force which causes meteors to break up, that's caused by them slamming into the atmosphere. That is also why spacecraft like the space shuttle have to have heat shields to stop them breaking up on re-entry, when the heat shield was damaged it did break up on re-entry
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 25, 2018, 01:22:37 PM
You said "Yes" when I asked if you had measured them (see quote above). I'm specifically asking what tests you did, and what your results were, OF THESE TESTS. How is that ignoring what you said? I don't want citations of the existence of such forces, I want to know what YOU did to test them, since you said you had actually done this.

Besides which, isn't posting simply to complain about someone else's style of posting, or lack of response, deemed to be "Low-content posting in the upper fora" or somesuch?
The fact you totally ignored my response is not a problem with your 'style,' it is an problem with your utter lack of logic. What is the point in you asking questions when you don't give a damn about the answers, you just want to waste time and score cheap victories over semantics and non-entities?

I don't particularly feel like digging up my old tests when you already agree that the forces I verified exist. You are blatantly just wasting my time.

Just answer the question. You can't spare a couple of lines to point us at your work? Really?

If you spent the same time answering my questions as you did complaining about how I question you, we might actually get some information out of you.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 25, 2018, 05:26:53 PM
If you're talking about a downward force which varies with altitude then yes, we all agree that exists. We being "round earthers". It's called gravity.
But your assertion is that the difference in force increases with altitude to the point that it would break up a rocket to which the response is...no it wouldn't.
That is what you're being asked to show your tests of.
Except not, it wasn't. If he'd asked me for evidence of that I'd have been happy to do so, but he didn't, he asked if I'd tested to see if the forces I referred to exist. They do. Now he's just whinging that I'm not going to waste my time justifying the existence of observations he already accepts.
The difference is you explain them as an attraction of mass, while I do not. As such I do not need to follow the calculations derived from that, I need to follow common sense and logic independently. The rotational force intensifies with altitude, meteors that come down break up at that same location... Observation matters more than theory, theory is how we try to explain them but any observation oculd be explained by other theories.
I've no doubt that in the centuries it's had RET's come up with excuses, but I don't care, I am not a round earther and my model should not be measured by how close or far it is from RET, but rather how close or far it is from reality.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 25, 2018, 05:43:37 PM
.... he didn't, he asked if I'd tested to see if the forces I referred to exist. They do. Now he's just whinging that I'm not going to waste my time justifying the existence of observations he already accepts.

Assuming you're referring to me, then stop twisting my words.

You referred to "The basic gist is that the rate at which what you call gravity decreases is discontinuous, and the discontinuities get increasingly intense with altitude, as observed with the rate of decrease. At high altitude, it's physically equivalent to one half of the rocket being grabbed and yanked one way, when half is being yanked the other. It's the same force that, say, tears apart a meteor or causes a meteor shower"

I asked if you had "actually measured any of these forces to which you refer?"  I did not "ask if you'd tested to see if the forces your referred to exist". There's a difference.

You said "Yes" (i.e. that you HAD measured them)

So I asked what tests you had actually performed to measure them, since you said you had. 

It's simple. You said you had done some measurements on these forces. What did you do?

I'm not arguing the toss over whether or not these forces exist or not. You said you had measured them. Tell us what you measured, how you measured it, when you did so, and where your results are. 
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: JRowe on July 25, 2018, 06:02:22 PM
.... he didn't, he asked if I'd tested to see if the forces I referred to exist. They do. Now he's just whinging that I'm not going to waste my time justifying the existence of observations he already accepts.
Stop throwing a tantrum that I'm not going to be your little dancing monkey. If you ever want to have an actual discussion one of these days, I'll be waiting, but I'm not holding out much hope.
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: Tumeni on July 25, 2018, 07:41:25 PM
If you ever want to have an actual discussion one of these days, I'll be waiting, but I'm not holding out much hope.

I'm trying to, but you're refusing to.

You said "I've done X"

I asked you to tell everyone what X was, when you did X, and where what you did on X was documented.

You haven't done so. You're ducking out of discussing what you did. Surely if you say "I've done X", then further discussion of what you did can form part of the discussion?
Title: Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 25, 2018, 10:13:16 PM
I am not a round earther and my model should not be measured by how close or far it is from RET, but rather how close or far it is from reality.
That is absolutely correct, your model - any model - should be judged at how well it works, how well if reflects reality.
This part of your model claims that the forces vary with altitude so extremely that they would rip a rocket apart.
That does not reflect reality, rockets get into orbit just fine. I've personally witnessed a shuttle launch. No, I can't "prove" it got into orbit. I didn't see it land, far as I know no-one has ever seen a shuttle or rocket secretly land again - I guess the key word there is "secretly", but you'd think at some point someone would have seen that. These things are tracked. Here is a video of a rocket from launch to orbit, it only cuts away briefly once

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyq5eN9C4Cc

I agree that observation is important - it's how we make and test hypothesis. It's not unreasonable to ask what your observations are which lead you to believe that your model of the forces varying with altitude so extremely is correct.