The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: shaunm1963 on October 08, 2015, 02:47:15 PM

Title: EVIDENCE
Post by: shaunm1963 on October 08, 2015, 02:47:15 PM
Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Disgraced_Shield on October 08, 2015, 02:58:58 PM
Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?

NASA, as well as other space/meteorological agencies throughout the world. There are a multitude of nationalities with hundreds of satellites in orbit around the earth. If there were a deep conspiracy to keep the shape of the earth hidden, you'd have to consider a geopolitical alliance at the 'tops' of these agencies, possibly at the governmental level, that simply isn't possible.

Not only that, but there are various other experiments and documentations done by grounded scientists that can account for the curvature of the earth, experiments reaching back centuries.

The argument of "I can't see its round so it ain't round" is watery at best.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: geckothegeek on October 08, 2015, 06:03:25 PM
There is also the old "ship disappearing over the horizon" from long ago to prove the curvature of the earth.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: junker on October 08, 2015, 06:11:03 PM
There is also the old "ship disappearing over the horizon" from long ago to prove the curvature of the earth.

Except it doesn't prove the curvature of the Earth.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: shaunm1963 on October 08, 2015, 08:52:44 PM
Hi and thanks for the replies. However, what I'm asking for is: does anyone know of any person or body that has conducted such exhaustive and extensive inquiry to conclusively prove that the earth is a ball or indeed, and more importantly, that the earth is flat? I don't believe it is wise to simply accept what NASA and other official bodies have to say, as lying about one thing (moon-landings) means that nothing else can be considered true. Universities are also out of the question as their bias and funding source go hand-in-hand. Surely, I think, with all the numbers of people that have an interest in the FE concept surely someone or group with a scientific bent has decided to do the science properly? If the FE is to be made 'official' in the world then it's no use speculating and surmising and arguing on this forum and YouTube, real science has to take place. Has it, is it?
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2015, 01:54:33 AM
They really don't have much if space research is discounted.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: shaunm1963 on October 09, 2015, 07:16:33 AM
They really don't have much if space research is discounted.

Thanks, Tom. This is what I suspected. However, surely those in the FE camp must number a few people that are grounded with an 'official' scientific background, but have questioned the validity of their given 'knowledge'....and then, with skills aplenty endeavored to show FE through a scientific process, and if this has not been done, yet those individuals are out there, then take this as a shout to you to get together and do so.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Rayzor on October 09, 2015, 11:52:18 AM
They really don't have much if space research is discounted.

Satellites have  never been discounted by flat earth theorists,  and it's easy to prove they are where they say they are.  GPS systems are a good example,  The American, European and Russian GPS systems all rely on the earth being a globe. 

Satellite TV  transmitter locations can be easily triangulated,  and guess what they are all in geostationary orbits over the equator.

Weather satellites transmit real time weather data that can be received and decoded by anybody.   

Game over.  The evidence cannot be refuted.

Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: shaunm1963 on October 12, 2015, 07:47:29 AM
Satellites have  never been discounted by flat earth theorists,  and it's easy to prove they are where they say they are.  GPS systems are a good example,  The American, European and Russian GPS systems all rely on the earth being a globe. 

Satellite TV  transmitter locations can be easily triangulated,  and guess what they are all in geostationary orbits over the equator.

Weather satellites transmit real time weather data that can be received and decoded by anybody.   

Game over.  The evidence cannot be refuted.

Hi, Rayzor, I've just posted a question on the thread about Himawari-8. In brief: ......can anyone link to photographs and/or videos of actual satellites in space, doing their thing? Answer in the thread if possible, many thanks.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Sup3rbuck on October 19, 2015, 07:21:42 AM
No evidence for a ball earth have been shown by anyone.
There are a few amateur rocket and balloon launches and they
Have not shown a ball earth yet.
Cellphones are transmitted to towers on land and never goes to
A satellite.
There should be thousands of satellites circle earth. But I can't find
Any good image of anything that looks real.
That's just to weird for me.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Disgraced_Shield on October 19, 2015, 06:06:31 PM

There should be thousands of satellites circle earth. But I can't find
Any good image of anything that looks real.
That's just to weird for me.

It could be said that your not seeing a cumulative picture of many dozens of satellites 'doing their thing' is more indicative of a round earth than a flat one, since some of the around 3,000 man made ACTIVE satellites are 'hidden' around the 'back side' of the globe in any pictures taken. If there were no 'back side' and everything was flat, the concentration of satellites would be a lot higher, and you're more apt to find the picture that you're looking for.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: shaunm1963 on October 22, 2015, 10:04:51 AM

There should be thousands of satellites circle earth. But I can't find
Any good image of anything that looks real.
That's just to weird for me.

It could be said that your not seeing a cumulative picture of many dozens of satellites 'doing their thing' is more indicative of a round earth than a flat one, since some of the around 3,000 man made ACTIVE satellites are 'hidden' around the 'back side' of the globe in any pictures taken. If there were no 'back side' and everything was flat, the concentration of satellites would be a lot higher, and you're more apt to find the picture that you're looking for.

I don't wish to see a cumulative picture of many dozens of satellites, just one. Surely there must be just ONE photograph/video of ONE satellite in actual space? Also, you make an assumption that there is a 'back side', that the Earth is round. OK, let's assume that it is. The back side is when it's night. I don't see 3000 or so 'not-stars' in the night sky. If you know where I should look, please tell me. Are all these satellites moving WITH the Earth or are some following a non-geostationary path? Surely, from around 3000 of these objects there must be lots of night sky activity?

And, with 3000 or so objects spinning through the space around the ball Earth, what agency/agencies co-ordinate the flight paths of all these objects and stop them colliding? Or, if their paths are fixed, then where can I look (online or otherwise) to see the evidence for this feat of co-ordination? Is the ISS figured into this so that it completely avoids hitting anything? Do Space Shuttle flights figure-in the real-time positions of these 300+ satellites so as to avoid a collision? Where is all the data and evidence for all these issues? Or are these satellites so far away from the ISS?Shuttle flight-paths that collision is impossible? If so, how are gps signals sent with no delay and IF they are always on the 'back-side' how do i get my signal in the day?

Also, you say ACTIVE satellites. Does this imply that there are more satellites up there that are NON-ACTIVE?

Thanks in anticipation of your reply.

Finally, the 'round-earthers' are often, in this forum and elsewhere, critical of the 'flat-earthers' in that they cannot provide REAL evidence. Yet, apart from assumptions in this thread, I have yet to be shown REAL evidence of the existence of satellites. Real photos, real videos, real night sky viewing of 100's or 1000's of objects. I've used a telescope for years and while I'm viewing Vega or Deneb or any other of the night wonders (of supposedly millions of miles away...another thread for this), I have yet to see anything that presents as man-made objects of the number you describe. Yes, I do see a star-like object pass over in the same direction on a clear night (certainly NOT a geostationary object) and it's moving rapidly South to North!!. But that's it!

Any help and reflection in this matter would be enlightening. Because so far all I'm receiving is a lot of 'round-earther' assumptions that it all must be true because this is what we all believe because the official bodies tell it so.

The title of this thread is EVIDENCE........let's have some!
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Disgraced_Shield on October 22, 2015, 01:21:27 PM


I don't wish to see a cumulative picture of many dozens of satellites, just one. Surely there must be just ONE photograph/video of ONE satellite in actual space? Also, you make an assumption that there is a 'back side', that the Earth is round. OK, let's assume that it is. The back side is when it's night. I don't see 3000 or so 'not-stars' in the night sky. If you know where I should look, please tell me. Are all these satellites moving WITH the Earth or are some following a non-geostationary path? Surely, from around 3000 of these objects there must be lots of night sky activity?


I missed this part in my original reply.  :P
In short, your inability to see lots of night sky activity work against the FE model. Mostly because the FE theory reports that satellites are much lower than claimed by conventional science, and held up artificially. If this was true, you'd be able to see many more of them. Also, some of the man-made satellites out there are incredibly small, as little as a foot square. Odds are you're not going to pick that up visibly. Larger, communications satellites can be as big as a school bus. So you're talking about a range in size from 'as big as a bread box' to 'that's a huge bitch!' ...and everything in between. Visibly picking them up is going to be tough, nearly impossible if they're actually as high as we're told they are by a RE model.

Now, with modern optics, you ought to be able to see at least some of them, although I am not privy to their projected orbit patterns. You could probably do a little more research on that and come up with something.

Two points that would need to be addressed for a FE model:

1. If the proposed altitude of all satellites (which are reportedly held aloft by cosmic ray devices) is lower than conventional science reports, It should be easier to see them at night, possibly even with the naked eye when it comes to the larger ones as well as the more significant pieces of 'space junk.'

2. Back to the concentration of satellites. At low(er) altitudes not only should we be able to see more of these smaller satellites, but they'd all be held up on one side of a flat disc, so your traffic would be a lot higher.

Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: markjo on October 22, 2015, 02:20:37 PM
Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.
You are wrong on that point.  The earth has been known to be round since the time of the ancient Greeks and geodetic surveys have been carried out as early as the 18th century to measure the oblateness of the earth's shape.
http://www.globalcogo.com/ge002.pdf
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/geodesy/geo02_histr.html
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: shaunm1963 on October 22, 2015, 09:57:17 PM


I don't wish to see a cumulative picture of many dozens of satellites, just one. Surely there must be just ONE photograph/video of ONE satellite in actual space? Also, you make an assumption that there is a 'back side', that the Earth is round. OK, let's assume that it is. The back side is when it's night. I don't see 3000 or so 'not-stars' in the night sky. If you know where I should look, please tell me. Are all these satellites moving WITH the Earth or are some following a non-geostationary path? Surely, from around 3000 of these objects there must be lots of night sky activity?


I missed this part in my original reply.  :P
In short, your inability to see lots of night sky activity work against the FE model. Mostly because the FE theory reports that satellites are much lower than claimed by conventional science, and held up artificially. If this was true, you'd be able to see many more of them. Also, some of the man-made satellites out there are incredibly small, as little as a foot square. Odds are you're not going to pick that up visibly. Larger, communications satellites can be as big as a school bus. So you're talking about a range in size from 'as big as a bread box' to 'that's a huge bitch!' ...and everything in between. Visibly picking them up is going to be tough, nearly impossible if they're actually as high as we're told they are by a RE model.

Now, with modern optics, you ought to be able to see at least some of them, although I am not privy to their projected orbit patterns. You could probably do a little more research on that and come up with something.

Two points that would need to be addressed for a FE model:

1. If the proposed altitude of all satellites (which are reportedly held aloft by cosmic ray devices) is lower than conventional science reports, It should be easier to see them at night, possibly even with the naked eye when it comes to the larger ones as well as the more significant pieces of 'space junk.'

2. Back to the concentration of satellites. At low(er) altitudes not only should we be able to see more of these smaller satellites, but they'd all be held up on one side of a flat disc, so your traffic would be a lot higher.

I'm certainly not going to enter into any conversation about cosmic ray devices. However, just looking at what's written:

with modern optics, you ought to be able to see at least some of them......................can you? show me!
although I am not privy to their projected orbit patterns....................is anyone? and where's the info? after all there's no cover up or conspiracy, is there?
probably do a little more research on that and come up with something.............come up with what? all I want is the truth, not fiction
visibly picking them up is going to be tough, nearly impossible if they're actually as high as we're told they are by a RE model...........the key phrase is "as we're told they are"

and still, I don't have the evidence....real photos, real videos of real actual satellites. All I have are opinions that they must be there because the flat earth theory being untrue proves that the satellites, all 3000+ of them are so high up, so far away and generally so small, and on the dark side of the earth (night time) that given the right optics we may be able to see them.

So, I ask again, to anyone, FE or RE, show me evidence.


Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Disgraced_Shield on October 22, 2015, 10:53:13 PM
You can discern your evidence through logic and reason.

Or, start here: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/take-a-sat-seeing-tour/ (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/take-a-sat-seeing-tour/)

Or here: http://www.space.com/6870-spot-satellites.html (http://www.space.com/6870-spot-satellites.html)

I don't personally know what you can see or where to see it, I've never bothered to look. But literally 20 seconds of google-fu came up with those two links.

The short answer is yes. You can see satellites. Even with the naked eye with the right conditions.



Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: geckothegeek on October 23, 2015, 12:35:02 AM
Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.
You are wrong on that point.  The earth has been known to be round since the time of the ancient Greeks and geodetic surveys have been carried out as early as the 18th century to measure the oblateness of the earth's shape.
http://www.globalcogo.com/ge002.pdf
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/geodesy/geo02_histr.html

The geodetic surveys have covered practically all of the earth. If the so-called "ice wall" which is supposed to be around the perimeter of the flat earth had been surveyed and the length or circumference of the flat earth would have proved the earth was a flat disc. But it has not been discovered.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on October 23, 2015, 11:08:16 AM
As I have mentioned in other threads I am a bit of a night sky nut, and satellites are very much there and visible, two main considerations are 1 a dark(ish) sky, few will be apparent from the city, but also the moons phase will affect it, tonight (23rd Oct) it is 3/4 full and waxing so conditions won't be ideal until about the 6th of Nov.

2 Time. Look an hour or two after sundown as they are lit by the sun, (this bit is problematic to the FE model) as they are very high they still catch the light from the sun over the horizon, and as the night wears on those travelling from west to east will go out before they reach the horizon because they move into the earth's shadow.

Look at the stars, the satellites usually are the same size, magnitude and colour but obviously moving (they do not flash), once you get your eye in  you should be able to see 15 an hour.

There are quite a few good sites out there that will tell you what is up there and when, http://www.n2yo.com/whats-up/?c=w ,is a good one as is Heavens Above, both have the times for the ISS which is always worth a look.

Using binoculars or telescopes is very difficult as the buggers move to fast to pick them up, having said that a full transition is about 5-10 minutes tops.

Have fun.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Disgraced_Shield on October 23, 2015, 01:43:42 PM
As I have mentioned in other threads I am a bit of a night sky nut, and satellites are very much there and visible, two main considerations are 1 a dark(ish) sky, few will be apparent from the city, but also the moons phase will affect it, tonight (23rd Oct) it is 3/4 full and waxing so conditions won't be ideal until about the 6th of Nov.

2 Time. Look an hour or two after sundown as they are lit by the sun, (this bit is problematic to the FE model) as they are very high they still catch the light from the sun over the horizon, and as the night wears on those travelling from west to east will go out before they reach the horizon because they move into the earth's shadow.

Look at the stars, the satellites usually are the same size, magnitude and colour but obviously moving (they do not flash), once you get your eye in  you should be able to see 15 an hour.

There are quite a few good sites out there that will tell you what is up there and when, http://www.n2yo.com/whats-up/?c=w ,is a good one as is Heavens Above, both have the times for the ISS which is always worth a look.

Using binoculars or telescopes is very difficult as the buggers move to fast to pick them up, having said that a full transition is about 5 minutes tops.

Have fun.

This is new information to me too. Thank you. I'll actually see how many I can find. I'm fortunate enough to live rural, and our night sky is clear enough that this shouldn't be too hard.

As far as an earlier question about "Why don't satellites crash into each other?" the best answer I could come up with is- "Space is freakin huge."
An analogy was if you took 35,000 cars and pretended that the entirety of the US was 'space' and had those 35,000 cars drive around the country, see how long it would take for two of them to smash into each other. (35,000 is an estimate of how many satellites there are in orbit, from functional, to defunct, to space junk)

Now expand that playing field to something larger than the entire earth, and see how long it takes for two of them to crash into each other. Satellites not smashing into each other is simply a math game.

Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: andruszkow on October 26, 2015, 11:55:57 AM
As I have mentioned in other threads I am a bit of a night sky nut, and satellites are very much there and visible, two main considerations are 1 a dark(ish) sky, few will be apparent from the city, but also the moons phase will affect it, tonight (23rd Oct) it is 3/4 full and waxing so conditions won't be ideal until about the 6th of Nov.

2 Time. Look an hour or two after sundown as they are lit by the sun, (this bit is problematic to the FE model) as they are very high they still catch the light from the sun over the horizon, and as the night wears on those travelling from west to east will go out before they reach the horizon because they move into the earth's shadow.

Look at the stars, the satellites usually are the same size, magnitude and colour but obviously moving (they do not flash), once you get your eye in  you should be able to see 15 an hour.

There are quite a few good sites out there that will tell you what is up there and when, http://www.n2yo.com/whats-up/?c=w ,is a good one as is Heavens Above, both have the times for the ISS which is always worth a look.

Using binoculars or telescopes is very difficult as the buggers move to fast to pick them up, having said that a full transition is about 5 minutes tops.

Have fun.

This is new information to me too. Thank you. I'll actually see how many I can find. I'm fortunate enough to live rural, and our night sky is clear enough that this shouldn't be too hard.

As far as an earlier question about "Why don't satellites crash into each other?" the best answer I could come up with is- "Space is freakin huge."
An analogy was if you took 35,000 cars and pretended that the entirety of the US was 'space' and had those 35,000 cars drive around the country, see how long it would take for two of them to smash into each other. (35,000 is an estimate of how many satellites there are in orbit, from functional, to defunct, to space junk)

Now expand that playing field to something larger than the entire earth, and see how long it takes for two of them to crash into each other. Satellites not smashing into each other is simply a math game.

And to further elaborate, there's the whole "Most of them are travelling in the same direction" thing, since most satellites are launched eastwards (to make use of the free boost from Earth's rotation) near the equator.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: huh? on October 28, 2015, 05:02:30 PM
Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?


I think that you must have not really spent much time looking.

Almost all well educated people have known that the Earth is round for at least 2000 years probably more.
The only people who thought otherwise where more influenced by religion than science.

So you think that Russia and China (who do not have particularly close relations with us -particularly 40 years ago) as well as the other 40 or more nations which have some space activity are all in cahoots in this plot?




Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Tintagel on October 28, 2015, 07:28:52 PM
Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?


I think that you must have not really spent much time looking.

Almost all well educated people have known that the Earth is round for at least 2000 years probably more.
The only people who thought otherwise where more influenced by religion than science.

So you think that Russia and China (who do not have particularly close relations with us -particularly 40 years ago) as well as the other 40 or more nations which have some space activity are all in cahoots in this plot?

The idea of a spherical earth came from Ancient Greece.  They believed the earth must be a perfect sphere, because they were keen on the idea of perfect geometries.  They believed that all of the celestial bodies must be perfect spheres, and therefore Earth must be as well.  They were wrong, but the idea caught on.  The reason almost all "well educated people" believe anything of the sort is because it's the most popular idea at the time.

How do you know the earth is round?  I'm not asking what you've been taught, or what you've read.  How do you, yourself know?

You don't.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on October 28, 2015, 08:02:29 PM
It's likely that being astonomers/astrologist that the idea came from looking at the moon, it strikes me as strange, looking across these discussions how few of the FEers have taken a good look at the night sky and this particular body.

It is clearly round, look at this picture.
http://space-facts.com/the-moon/

Go and have a look, take a pair of binoculars if you don't have a telescope, when it is in partial shadow that shadow alone gives its shape away, the "rays" of debris from the craters curve, really have a look.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Tintagel on October 28, 2015, 10:07:57 PM
It's likely that being astonomers/astrologist that the idea came from looking at the moon, it strikes me as strange, looking across these discussions how few of the FEers have taken a good look at the night sky and this particular body.

It is clearly round, look at this picture.
http://space-facts.com/the-moon/

Go and have a look, take a pair of binoculars if you don't have a telescope, when it is in partial shadow that shadow alone gives its shape away, the "rays" of debris from the craters curve, really have a look.

I own a telescope, I've observed the moon many times.  However; the apparent shape of the moon doesn't imply anything about the shape of the earth.  The earth has significant observable differences, even if you don't consider its shape, not the least of which is life.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on October 28, 2015, 10:50:32 PM


Soo,,,then they were a travelled people,  travellers not only saw far away things coming over the horizon at sea but saw constellations rising or falling in respect to the horizon as they travelled north or south.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: geckothegeek on October 29, 2015, 01:55:46 AM
Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?


I think that you must have not really spent much time looking.

Almost all well educated people have known that the Earth is round for at least 2000 years probably more.
The only people who thought otherwise where more influenced by religion than science.

So you think that Russia and China (who do not have particularly close relations with us -particularly 40 years ago) as well as the other 40 or more nations which have some space activity are all in cahoots in this plot?

The idea of a spherical earth came from Ancient Greece.  They believed the earth must be a perfect sphere, because they were keen on the idea of perfect geometries.  They believed that all of the celestial bodies must be perfect spheres, and therefore Earth must be as well.  They were wrong, but the idea caught on.  The reason almost all "well educated people" believe anything of the sort is because it's the most popular idea at the time.

How do you know the earth is round?  I'm not asking what you've been taught, or what you've read.  How do you, yourself know?

You don't.

I know from personal experience that what I have been taught works in the real world- the round world. And it wouldn't work if the earth was flat. I am sure that workers in the real world could give you lots of reasons why they know the earth is round. To get into reality, most people regard flat earth as something silly. Check some other threads if you don't believe this.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Tintagel on October 29, 2015, 01:56:16 AM


Soo,,,then they were a travelled people,  travellers not only saw far away things coming over the horizon at sea but saw constellations rising or falling in respect to the horizon as they travelled north or south.

Hardly surprising, objects farther away converge to the vanishing point at the horizon.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Tintagel on October 29, 2015, 01:57:28 AM
Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?


I think that you must have not really spent much time looking.

Almost all well educated people have known that the Earth is round for at least 2000 years probably more.
The only people who thought otherwise where more influenced by religion than science.

So you think that Russia and China (who do not have particularly close relations with us -particularly 40 years ago) as well as the other 40 or more nations which have some space activity are all in cahoots in this plot?

The idea of a spherical earth came from Ancient Greece.  They believed the earth must be a perfect sphere, because they were keen on the idea of perfect geometries.  They believed that all of the celestial bodies must be perfect spheres, and therefore Earth must be as well.  They were wrong, but the idea caught on.  The reason almost all "well educated people" believe anything of the sort is because it's the most popular idea at the time.

How do you know the earth is round?  I'm not asking what you've been taught, or what you've read.  How do you, yourself know?

You don't.

I know from personal experience that what I have been taught works in the real world- the round world. And it wouldn't work if the earth was flat. I am sure that workers in the real world could give you lots of reasons why they know the earth is round. To get into reality, most people regard flat earth as something silly. Check some other threads if you don't believe this.

Oh, I'm aware people believe I'm silly.  I've been here a while.  Doesn't bother me much. :)
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Disgraced_Shield on October 29, 2015, 12:41:05 PM

I own a telescope, I've observed the moon many times.  However; the apparent shape of the moon doesn't imply anything about the shape of the earth.  The earth has significant observable differences, even if you don't consider its shape, not the least of which is life.

See this bugs me, and I've been looking for an opportunity to bring it up.
The apparent shape of the moon is a sphere- you admit that yes? Other cosmic bodies also appear to be spherical.
What, in the name of all that anyone holds sacred, separates the physical properties of the earth from the rest of the cosmic bodies in space?

How come, if you can look at planets and moons and suns and discern that they're spherical, can you stand back and say "but we ain't?" Are there other discs floating around in space? Are we the only ones?

Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: huh? on October 29, 2015, 01:11:56 PM

How do you know the earth is round?  I'm not asking what you've been taught, or what you've read.  How do you, yourself know?

You don't.


I suppose if your definition of "knowing" can only be gained through direct observation by an individual than what do any of us really "know"?

Modern humans and our civilization relies on us being able to use more than just direct observation -we can also use logic and reason.

There is no need for me to go to space to see for myself as many, many other people have already been and seen it directly. The current model also accurately predicts what we see at any time from any spot on Earth.


Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: huh? on October 29, 2015, 01:17:28 PM

Hardly surprising, objects farther away converge to the vanishing point at the horizon.


Yes far away objects do appear to merge, but as I demonstrated with a sketchup model -a person would need to be more that 250,000 miles away to make the sun look like it was merged with the Earth and at no time would only half of it disappear.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Tintagel on October 29, 2015, 02:34:54 PM
I suppose if your definition of "knowing" can only be gained through direct observation by an individual than what do any of us really "know"?

Modern humans and our civilization relies on us being able to use more than just direct observation -we can also use logic and reason.

You're almost there.  So close.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: junker on October 29, 2015, 05:54:50 PM
EDIT - gecko's whining/ranting can be found here: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3645.0 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3645.0)

You are already on a warning for low-content posting in the upper fora, and have two more reported posts currently. I am going to move your most recent whining/ranting posts to the thread in AR that is all for you.

Please refrain from not adding anything to the discussion and please refrain from insults. If you have nothing to add, then don't post. This is your last warning.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 12, 2015, 05:43:42 AM


Soo,,,then they were a travelled people,  travellers not only saw far away things coming over the horizon at sea but saw constellations rising or falling in respect to the horizon as they travelled north or south.

Hardly surprising, objects farther away converge to the vanishing point at the horizon.

But if you get a telescope then the ship that sank bottom first over the horizon for example should reappear. But it doesn't, the reason the ship sinks bottom first and then the masts is because the earth is round.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: CableDawg on January 04, 2016, 05:26:52 AM
They really don't have much if space research is discounted.

Just as the FES has everything because science is discounted?
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: CableDawg on January 04, 2016, 05:30:11 AM
Hi and thanks for the replies. However, what I'm asking for is: does anyone know of any person or body that has conducted such exhaustive and extensive inquiry to conclusively prove that the earth is a ball or indeed, and more importantly, that the earth is flat? I don't believe it is wise to simply accept what NASA and other official bodies have to say, as lying about one thing (moon-landings) means that nothing else can be considered true. Universities are also out of the question as their bias and funding source go hand-in-hand. Surely, I think, with all the numbers of people that have an interest in the FE concept surely someone or group with a scientific bent has decided to do the science properly? If the FE is to be made 'official' in the world then it's no use speculating and surmising and arguing on this forum and YouTube, real science has to take place. Has it, is it?

Why has the FES not funded studies to provide the answer to the question you are asking?

Seems to me that would be an endeavor that the Society would readily undertake since it would undoubtedly support their facts.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: CableDawg on January 04, 2016, 06:04:55 AM
Satellites have  never been discounted by flat earth theorists,  and it's easy to prove they are where they say they are.  GPS systems are a good example,  The American, European and Russian GPS systems all rely on the earth being a globe. 

Satellite TV  transmitter locations can be easily triangulated,  and guess what they are all in geostationary orbits over the equator.

Weather satellites transmit real time weather data that can be received and decoded by anybody.   

Game over.  The evidence cannot be refuted.

Hi, Rayzor, I've just posted a question on the thread about Himawari-8. In brief: ......can anyone link to photographs and/or videos of actual satellites in space, doing their thing? Answer in the thread if possible, many thanks.

Considering that the FES disregards all photographic evidence, except that which fosters their own beliefs, why are you demanding evidence that you will only disregard?

You believe that you have won something here but you haven't.  There is equipment available that can take a photo, from Earth, of satellites doing their thing in space.  The problem resides in the reason you would use to discount such a picture, perspective.  To allow for a photo with enough resolution to clearly and definitively identify a satellite as opposed to being a little blinking light requires the loss of perspective.

In the same vein as your demand, provide physical proof (i.e. the location) of the cosmic ray devices that purportedly hold the satellites and clouds up.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: CableDawg on January 04, 2016, 06:19:55 AM
Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?


I think that you must have not really spent much time looking.

Almost all well educated people have known that the Earth is round for at least 2000 years probably more.
The only people who thought otherwise where more influenced by religion than science.

So you think that Russia and China (who do not have particularly close relations with us -particularly 40 years ago) as well as the other 40 or more nations which have some space activity are all in cahoots in this plot?

The idea of a spherical earth came from Ancient Greece.  They believed the earth must be a perfect sphere, because they were keen on the idea of perfect geometries.  They believed that all of the celestial bodies must be perfect spheres, and therefore Earth must be as well.  They were wrong, but the idea caught on.  The reason almost all "well educated people" believe anything of the sort is because it's the most popular idea at the time.

How do you know the earth is round?  I'm not asking what you've been taught, or what you've read.  How do you, yourself know?

You don't.

How do you know the Earth is flat?  I'm not asking what you've been taught, or what you've read.  How do you, yourself know?

You don't.

Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: TheEarthIsSphere on January 13, 2016, 04:32:16 PM
How does gravity work? I've heard a lot that we are just going up very fast and it keeps us stuck to the surface and that hurt it was so stupid. So can you tell me how the gravity would work on a flat earth.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: rubberbands on January 13, 2016, 05:18:00 PM
I'm shocked by 1) the fact that some of you think the only evidence we have for a round earth comes from NASA (they were created in 1958, people! We had plenty of evidence before then, too!) and 2) the fact that relatively few RE'ers have challenged this.

I'm also surprised that nobody has mentioned seismic waves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_wave). When there's an earthquake in New Zealand, the waves can be detected in Spain in exactly the way you would expect if the Earth were round. There are tons of other phenomena in geology that only make sense with a round earth.

Also, there's the fact that boats and planes do a perfectly fine job navigating the Southern hemisphere, even though all the RE maps of that area should be essentially useless if the earth actually looks like the azimuthal equidistant projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection) that people on here seem so fond of.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Charming Anarchist on January 13, 2016, 05:49:38 PM
Why has the FES not funded studies to provide the answer to the question you are asking?
---- because folks who fly high enough in the sky risk being shot down.   

Why is it illegal to fly too high in the sky????
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on January 13, 2016, 06:10:08 PM
Why has the FES not funded studies to provide the answer to the question you are asking?
---- because folks who fly high enough in the sky risk being shot down.   

Why is it illegal to fly too high in the sky????

Airliners fly up there and you can run into them. Airplanes don't work too well beyond the height they can go. You don't want a passed out pilot and a now missle crashing to earth.
Title: Re: EVIDENCE
Post by: andruszkow on January 14, 2016, 04:30:42 PM
Why has the FES not funded studies to provide the answer to the question you are asking?
---- because folks who fly high enough in the sky risk being shot down.   

Why is it illegal to fly too high in the sky????
It's not. My balloons have gone 38km plus a handfull of times now, two of those even without asking for permission which they gladly grant.