Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #20 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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

pj1

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #21 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/) etc will get there eventually :-)

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 390
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #22 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/) 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.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #23 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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

pj1

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #24 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.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 390
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #25 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.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

pj1

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #26 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

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. 

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 390
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #27 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

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.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #28 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:



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?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

pj1

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #29 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.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 390
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #30 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:



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."
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1088
    • View Profile
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #31 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?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1088
    • View Profile
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #32 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
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 390
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #33 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.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1088
    • View Profile
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #34 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.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 03:51:35 PM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #35 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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1088
    • View Profile
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #36 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?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #37 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?

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #38 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.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 390
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #39 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. 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.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.