[stack]

So do you have any proof or evidence that a deception is actually being carried out?   Or are you merely speculating. 

There is plenty of evidence out there to show you that shuttle has gone into orbit. The link provided earlier is any example. I can assure you that the photographer in this case has no interest whatsoever in FE theory or trying to deceive anyone.  Flat Earthers seem to be obsessed with the idea that the rest of the world is trying to deceive them. Fair enough if that's what you think. He is just using his equipment to image what he knows is up there. No ulterior motive whatsoever.

Of course I'm speculating but those facts show the possibilities - don't you understand plain English? You wanted a reply (not personally ) about the the original post so I gave one with evidence how the deception could be carried out . Now you demand proof - we are in a court of law now apparently .   Well evidence is not proof , not even in a court of law . If you don't want a FEr's opinion ,don't ask . If you don't want a debate then don't post .

Fair point. A bunch of us over on the other site tried to figure out how to fake the ISS. We had lots of speculative ideas, but they all had massive holes in them.

For the shuttle, you could land it there but you would have to make sure no one sees it or make them keep their mouths shut. Plus, you have to figure out a way to get it back in the air for a fake reentry over Houston a week later. Meaning some how mount it on the 747, fly it up, some how launch it and maybe have it rocket up super high to make it look like it was coming back from space. Seems almost easier to have the damn thing just orbit the earth as advertised.

[somerled]

More info . Ascension island doesn't have an indigenous population .

https://www.ascension-island.gov.ac/working-here/living-on-ascension/

Only up to a 1,000 population . All contractors and military personnel  I suppose , official secrets act for UK personnel and whatever US people are required to sign . The thing about getting the shuttle back up there is a technical problem only . I mean we sent a dustbin to the moon and back several times without a hitch apparently . Thanks  for your reasonable post . After all it is all conjecture , debate , but the possibility is there .
           May I ask where the " other site " is which you mention ?
 

[stack]

More info . Ascension island doesn't have an indigenous population .

https://www.ascension-island.gov.ac/working-here/living-on-ascension/

Only up to a 1,000 population . All contractors and military personnel  I suppose , official secrets act for UK personnel and whatever US people are required to sign . The thing about getting the shuttle back up there is a technical problem only . I mean we sent a dustbin to the moon and back several times without a hitch apparently . Thanks  for your reasonable post . After all it is all conjecture , debate , but the possibility is there .
           May I ask where the " other site " is which you mention ?

I agree, good call. If I were to fake a shuttle mission, I'd land it on a little island off of the coast of Africa, a colonized British territory, mostly military personnel, landing strip and gear. Perfect. Good to go. Getting it back off the ground I haven't quite worked out.

And yes, we 'landed' a 'dustbin' on the moon. But we didn't fly one there. Big difference. What's required to get out to the moon is markedly different than what is required to land on the moon. Look into it. It's really interesting stuff whether you actually believe or not.

The original Flat Earth Society site is here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php

Active forum, more so than here. Both forums are different and the same.

[dirtysnowball]

Of course I'm speculating but those facts show the possibilities - don't you understand plain English? You wanted a reply (not personally ) about the the original post so I gave one with evidence how the deception could be carried out . Now you demand proof - we are in a court of law now apparently .   Well evidence is not proof , not even in a court of law . If you don't want a FEr's opinion ,don't ask . If you don't want a debate then don't post

As someone who was born and has lived my entire life in the UK I have strong confidence that I do understand plain English. It is a common way among flat Earthers though to dismiss evidence against FET by those on the round Earth side so I am simply reversing that process. After all it is a claim made by FE Wiki on its front page that

If you don't know something, and cannot demonstrate it by first principles, then you shouldn't believe it

So unless you can demonstrate that the shuttle missions are somehow faked in the ways that you are proposing then why should anyone believe you? We can all say what if this or what is that... but where will that get us? I enjoy these discussions like many people do but I also like to feel they are maintaining some clear, defined direction that preferably relates to the original question.

[AATW]

So do you have any proof or evidence that a deception is actually being carried out?   Or are you merely speculating. 

There is plenty of evidence out there to show you that shuttle has gone into orbit. The link provided earlier is any example. I can assure you that the photographer in this case has no interest whatsoever in FE theory or trying to deceive anyone.  Flat Earthers seem to be obsessed with the idea that the rest of the world is trying to deceive them. Fair enough if that's what you think. He is just using his equipment to image what he knows is up there. No ulterior motive whatsoever.

Of course I'm speculating but those facts show the possibilities - don't you understand plain English? You wanted a reply (not personally ) about the the original post so I gave one with evidence how the deception could be carried out . Now you demand proof - we are in a court of law now apparently .   Well evidence is not proof , not even in a court of law . If you don't want a FEr's opinion ,don't ask . If you don't want a debate then don't post .

OK. Firstly, proof of anything is impossible in the strictest sense, outside of the limited language of mathematics.
So what is being asked for is evidence. You saying "well, they might be doing this" is, as you say, speculation. Do you have any evidence that they are doing that?
Evidence of that would be witness testimony, photographic evidence, etc.
You just saying "it's possible they're doing this" isn't evidence of anything.

I've seen a shuttle launch. I didn't see it land anywhere. Now, it's possible it did land somewhere when it went out of my sight but do you have evidence of a shuttle ever landing somewhere, refuelling and then taking off again so it could land when its supposed mission is over?
Bear in mind, shuttles were designed to glide back to base but they had no ability to take off without the bloody great fuel tank. They weren't air planes, they couldn't take off on a runway like a plane.

You have been shown evidence that the shuttles did indeed go into orbit as NASA claim, what is your evidence to the contrary?

[somerled]

I have never seen proof that any shuttle went into space , nor pany roof of earth rotation or curvature - plenty of ambiguous evidence but no proof. You have seen a shuttle launch , so you can say that knowing it to be true . You have not seen with your own eyes anything enter into orbit and you have not seen a shuttle land .The scenario I provided is possible - however improbable it seems to you.

Debate involves discussion of some proposal /statement or idea by persons offering different viewpoints. Plain english .

You cannot be interested in debate since you already know the truth as told to you by someone in authority .

Why ask for an opinion and then demand proof ? You won't accept anything I say because I have a belief system different to yours . Your belief system was forced upon you .

[dirtysnowball]

I have never seen proof that any shuttle went into space , nor pany roof of earth rotation or curvature - plenty of ambiguous evidence but no proof

That depends on what you accept as proof doesn't it. I could equally say that I have never seen any proof that the Earth is flat but I have seen proof that the Shuttle has gone into space.  I attached a link to an image of the shuttle docked to the space station for example. I suspect you won't accept that as proof because of what you believe but that is up to you. FE say that photos can be 'doctored' but knowing the photographer as I do in this case - an ordinary amateur astronomer - I know he would not 'doctor' any of his photos.  He is not interested in trying to deceive anyone for any reason.

I'm sure that you cannot prove the Earth is flat either. If you can then please explain how.

Why ask for an opinion and then demand proof ? You won't accept anything I say because I have a belief system different to yours . Your belief system was forced upon you .

What makes you think that anyone who has a belief system that happens to different from yours has had it forced upon them? I can't  and wouldn't  speak for anyone else but I for one am completely capable of deciding what I believe or don't believe in without any force feeding from anyone else thank you very much.

You say you have a problem with people in "authority". Possibly because they are not telling you what you want to hear. A common problem among those who like to get brainwashed by conspiracy theories.

You accuse RE of always demanding proof yet when asked for proof that the Earth is flat you cannot come up with any. If you are so sure the Earth is flat you must have evidence to support that claim. Where is this evidence? Photos have been taken of the Earths curvature but no one has ever taken a photo of the Earths 'flatness'.

I can provide you with plenty of evidence of the Earth being spherical. Its right there in front of you and all around you. But your belief system prevents you from accepting it. Or at least interpreting it correctly.

[AATW]

I have never seen proof that any shuttle went into space , nor any proof of earth rotation or curvature - plenty of ambiguous evidence but no proof.

Again, you are mixing up evidence with proof. There is no such thing as proof outside mathematics.
How can we prove that a shuttle went into space? We can't. I was never on board one, nor were you. So, if there are things like this we've not seen with our own eyes, we have to look at evidence. As I said, I saw a shuttle launch. So I know shuttles exist and launch as I'd been led to believe. Can I say for sure it didn't land somewhere when it went out of range of my sight? No, obviously not. But there are videos like this which show it from launch more or less all the way to orbit



(quite a long video, watch from about 10 minutes in)
Or this video, not a shuttle but shows a rocket from launch to orbit:



Could that be faked? Well, I guess it could. Could all the people who have been on space shuttles and have written and spoken about it be lying? I guess they could. But you could say that about anything.

The scenario I provided is possible - however improbable it seems to you.

Of course. But you have presented only speculation, no evidence. No photos of the shuttle secretly landed somewhere at a time it was supposed to be in orbit, no "whistle blowers" giving testimony that they saw the shuttle elsewhere. Given my lack of my first hand experience I'm going to have to weigh the evidence on both sides. Given all the evidence for the Shuttle programme being as NASA claim it to be, some of which I have prevented above, and the complete lack of evidence you have presented I will continue to believe that the launch I saw did indeed take a shuttle into space.

Debate involves discussion of some proposal /statement or idea by persons offering different viewpoints.

It also involves both sides presenting evidence to back up their viewpoints.

You cannot be interested in debate since you already know the truth as told to you by someone in authority.

They have presented evidence for their claim. You have presented none.

Why ask for an opinion and then demand proof?

I don't. I demand evidence. You have presented none. If you want to change people's beliefs you have to present compelling evidence that your alternative to what they believe has merit.

[dirtysnowball]

It all comes down to that word 'belief'. If someone is intent on believing something it doesn't matter what evidence to the contrary you present them with it rarely changes their point of view. They will simply dismiss it as fabricated, hoaxed or deliberately presented in such a way as to deceive or they will ignore it.

Those who believe the Earth is flat then will continue to do so regardless of what evidence is presented to them which shows that it isn't. To them mainstream science and all that it states is simply a cover story that has been deliberately conceived to hide what to flat Earthers is the truth. They regard themselves as the 'fortunate' minority who 'know the truth'. The problem is for those of us who exist outside of that bubble we can see that there is no evidence or substance to back up their claims. Apart from the unfounded examples that the Earth is flat because it 'looks flat' and such like.

Of course it is a metaphorical game of tennis to which I see no end. The difference to me is that RE know the truth while FE will eventually realise the truth even if they don't admit to it.  To the flat Earth side of course the reverse is true!

[AATW]

It all comes down to that word 'belief'. If someone is intent on believing something it doesn't matter what evidence to the contrary you present them with it rarely changes their point of view. They will simply dismiss it as fabricated, hoaxed or deliberately presented in such a way as to deceive or they will ignore it.

But beliefs have to surely be based on something. A rational person weighs evidence.
We're not at the stage where we can all go into space so our beliefs about that and about other things we can't all experience (Antarctica, The Mariana Trench) have to be based on what people tell us. They have to be. The more rockets that are launched from more countries, the more satellites which go into orbit - launched by both space agencies and private enterprises - the more technologies which we use which rely on those satellites, the more photos and film we have from space and the more astronauts who have been to space - especially now we've had 7 "space tourists". All this evidence adds up and surely adds more and more weight to the belief that we as a species now have the technology to get into space and orbit the earth and therefore the earth must be spherical.

I understand a bit about confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, things which make it hard for people to change their beliefs. But in order to dismiss all of the above you surely have to do a bit better than vague speculation about how some of the above could be faked. Surely you need to have some evidence that it is being faked, some testimony from a whistle-blower, some photo or video of the shuttle landed somewhere while it's supposedly in space or whatever. No evidence has been presented, only speculation.

[Tom Bishop]

It all comes down to that word 'belief'. If someone is intent on believing something it doesn't matter what evidence to the contrary you present them with it rarely changes their point of view. They will simply dismiss it as fabricated, hoaxed or deliberately presented in such a way as to deceive or they will ignore it.

But beliefs have to surely be based on something. A rational person weighs evidence.
We're not at the stage where we can all go into space so our beliefs about that and about other things we can't all experience (Antarctica, The Mariana Trench) have to be based on what people tell us. They have to be. The more rockets that are launched from more countries, the more satellites which go into orbit - launched by both space agencies and private enterprises - the more technologies which we use which rely on those satellites, the more photos and film we have from space and the more astronauts who have been to space - especially now we've had 7 "space tourists". All this evidence adds up and surely adds more and more weight to the belief that we as a species now have the technology to get into space and orbit the earth and therefore the earth must be spherical.

I understand a bit about confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, things which make it hard for people to change their beliefs. But in order to dismiss all of the above you surely have to do a bit better than vague speculation about how some of the above could be faked. Surely you need to have some evidence that it is being faked, some testimony from a whistle-blower, some photo or video of the shuttle landed somewhere while it's supposedly in space or whatever. No evidence has been presented, only speculation.

It may be that you are on the wrong website. If you are looking for a continual stream of evidence for space conspiracies, you should probably go to YouTube, Google, Faking Space with Paul, wherever. You aren't going to find much content here or on the other site other than what's already there. We rarely even discuss it. There are already large internet communities around that. FE is generally further along on the spectrum than 'is NASA lying?'

FES has always mostly been about the physical Flat Earth Theory than anything, at least from what I've seen. Not that it's unimportant, it's just not the focus, unlike other communities.

However, it would be nice if we had all of that content on some kind of publicly submittable Tube website.

[dirtysnowball]

If one wishes to try and learn more about why some people believe the Earth is flat, then surely the website of The Flat Earth Society is a good place to come? Logical reasoning told me that.

I am not in the least interested in 'space conspiracies'. What I am interested in is why some people choose to prefer alternative theories such as the shape of the Earth when there is overwhelming evidence that those alternative theories are possibly not accurate. I think I stated my case quite clearly in my previous post so there is no reason for me to repeat myself.

It has been fun both investigating and researching the reasoning behind FET and I guess I have learned quite a bit as a result of that. Different communities exist among the population as a whole and the FE community is one of those. As a community you have a unique perspective and view of the world and while I will never agree with you on that view, I wish you well with it.

[somerled]

I have never seen proof that any shuttle went into space , nor any proof of earth rotation or curvature - plenty of ambiguous evidence but no proof.

Again, you are mixing up evidence with proof. There is no such thing as proof outside mathematics.
How can we prove that a shuttle went into space? We can't. I was never on board one, nor were you. So, if there are things like this we've not seen with our own eyes, we have to look at evidence. As I said, I saw a shuttle launch. So I know shuttles exist and launch as I'd been led to believe. Can I say for sure it didn't land somewhere when it went out of range of my sight? No, obviously not. But there are videos like this which show it from launch more or less all the way to orbit



(quite a long video, watch from about 10 minutes in)
Or this video, not a shuttle but shows a rocket from launch to orbit:



Could that be faked? Well, I guess it could. Could all the people who have been on space shuttles and have written and spoken about it be lying? I guess they could. But you could say that about anything.

The scenario I provided is possible - however improbable it seems to you.

Of course. But you have presented only speculation, no evidence. No photos of the shuttle secretly landed somewhere at a time it was supposed to be in orbit, no "whistle blowers" giving testimony that they saw the shuttle elsewhere. Given my lack of my first hand experience I'm going to have to weigh the evidence on both sides. Given all the evidence for the Shuttle programme being as NASA claim it to be, some of which I have prevented above, and the complete lack of evidence you have presented I will continue to believe that the launch I saw did indeed take a shuttle into space.

Debate involves discussion of some proposal /statement or idea by persons offering different viewpoints.

It also involves both sides presenting evidence to back up their viewpoints.

You cannot be interested in debate since you already know the truth as told to you by someone in authority.

They have presented evidence for their claim. You have presented none.

Why ask for an opinion and then demand proof?

I don't. I demand evidence. You have presented none. If you want to change people's beliefs you have to present compelling evidence that your alternative to what they believe has merit.

About 12 mins 43 seconds in 1st video - see the backscreen of earth reverse momentarily.

[stack]

I have never seen proof that any shuttle went into space , nor any proof of earth rotation or curvature - plenty of ambiguous evidence but no proof.

Again, you are mixing up evidence with proof. There is no such thing as proof outside mathematics.
How can we prove that a shuttle went into space? We can't. I was never on board one, nor were you. So, if there are things like this we've not seen with our own eyes, we have to look at evidence. As I said, I saw a shuttle launch. So I know shuttles exist and launch as I'd been led to believe. Can I say for sure it didn't land somewhere when it went out of range of my sight? No, obviously not. But there are videos like this which show it from launch more or less all the way to orbit



(quite a long video, watch from about 10 minutes in)
Or this video, not a shuttle but shows a rocket from launch to orbit:



Could that be faked? Well, I guess it could. Could all the people who have been on space shuttles and have written and spoken about it be lying? I guess they could. But you could say that about anything.

The scenario I provided is possible - however improbable it seems to you.

Of course. But you have presented only speculation, no evidence. No photos of the shuttle secretly landed somewhere at a time it was supposed to be in orbit, no "whistle blowers" giving testimony that they saw the shuttle elsewhere. Given my lack of my first hand experience I'm going to have to weigh the evidence on both sides. Given all the evidence for the Shuttle programme being as NASA claim it to be, some of which I have prevented above, and the complete lack of evidence you have presented I will continue to believe that the launch I saw did indeed take a shuttle into space.

Debate involves discussion of some proposal /statement or idea by persons offering different viewpoints.

It also involves both sides presenting evidence to back up their viewpoints.

You cannot be interested in debate since you already know the truth as told to you by someone in authority.

They have presented evidence for their claim. You have presented none.

Why ask for an opinion and then demand proof?

I don't. I demand evidence. You have presented none. If you want to change people's beliefs you have to present compelling evidence that your alternative to what they believe has merit.

About 12 mins 43 seconds in 1st video - see the backscreen of earth reverse momentarily.

In this version, at the same part of the launch, but at the 3:15 mark in this video, the stutter you reference doesn't happen. Lots of factors when reprocessing video and uploading. Seems inconsequential when factoring reality.

[somerled]

So which video is the real one  - this video is touted as evidence that the shuttle went into orbit but from the time of launch several camera cuts occur so it could be a montage , and to me that glitch could have occurred because the background is CGI , or the whole of it is CGI.
         Videos are problematic when used like this and are definitely not what I would term realistic .

[stack]

So which video is the real one  - this video is touted as evidence that the shuttle went into orbit but from the time of launch several camera cuts occur so it could be a montage , and to me that glitch could have occurred because the background is CGI , or the whole of it is CGI.
         Videos are problematic when used like this and are definitely not what I would term realistic .

What would make it more realistic for you?

[somerled]

So which video is the real one  - this video is touted as evidence that the shuttle went into orbit but from the time of launch several camera cuts occur so it could be a montage , and to me that glitch could have occurred because the background is CGI , or the whole of it is CGI.
         Videos are problematic when used like this and are definitely not what I would term realistic .

What would make it more realistic for you?

I've seen realistic videos of dinosaurs - so , have I seen a dinosaur in reality ? Don't think so .
These videos of shuttle journeys are sometimes realistic but are not reality -  in the same way . The original video in question was shown as proof or reality - even though earth clearly jumped backwards with respect to the camera .

Proof is not a video .

[stack]

So which video is the real one  - this video is touted as evidence that the shuttle went into orbit but from the time of launch several camera cuts occur so it could be a montage , and to me that glitch could have occurred because the background is CGI , or the whole of it is CGI.
         Videos are problematic when used like this and are definitely not what I would term realistic .

What would make it more realistic for you?

I've seen realistic videos of dinosaurs - so , have I seen a dinosaur in reality ? Don't think so .
These videos of shuttle journeys are sometimes realistic but are not reality -  in the same way . The original video in question was shown as proof or reality - even though earth clearly jumped backwards with respect to the camera .

Proof is not a video .

Proof is not video. Kinda agree. But it's too easy of an out, for me, to blindly accept or blindly deny. In this case, a re-processed, re-rendered, re-uploaded video showing a frame drop or two is not surprising to me. Not something where I would call out the NASA illuminati nazis. Seems a reach where another video doesn't show such an 'egregious' anomaly. All a stretch, desperately looking for anything to show the 'hoax'.

Better proof of hoax required. And if video is not proof, I'm afraid the deniers have none.

[AATW]

Proof is not a video .

Why do you keep on saying proof?
A video is evidence. You found a glitch in the video, someone posted a different version of the video without that glitch. Neither of these videos are "the original", I don't know how to find the original source. But these videos are evidence. Astronaut testimony is evidence.
You have provided no evidence at all for your ideas. Plenty of speculation, but no evidence.
All you need to do is post an interview with a whistle-blower exposing these lies, or some photos of the shuttle landed somewhere when it was supposed to be in orbit. Something. You speculating that "maybe this is going on" adds nothing to this discussion.

[TomInAustin]

If you don't know all of the details on how those numbers were derived, why would you believe it?

Because my mind works different to yours Tom. I don't need absolute proof or demonstration from first principles of everything I believe or accept.

Nor does Tom. Rowbotham’s “experiments” are always accepted without question.
This is where I will never understand his mentality. The level of proof he requires or will accept depends entirely on whether the result backs up his world view.

Tom, what is your take to the OP questions?
I saw a shuttle launch back in the day. Where do you think it went if not space and what is your evidence for that?

How high do you believe the moon to be and what have you don’t to verify that?

If I recall correctly Tom has stated that the shuttle was just a prop and when Challenger blew up they had to fake 7 deaths.