[Pete Svarrior]

OK, so you've seen it. Great, so you acknowledge it's there. Why are you still a flat earther then?

I have convinced you of my ability to cook. Great, you acknowledge I can cook. Why are you still a round earther then? This is a profound deliberation, worthy of only the most sophisticated RE minds.

[Action80]

He also lies again when he claims I haven't bothered to see the ISS, when I am on written record in this forum as having done so.

Do you know what the word "if" means? 
I don't know what you have or haven't done, I can't remember every post you make.
OK, so you've seen it. Great, so you acknowledge it's there. Why are you still a flat earther then?

Ooh...What happened to the demands for "researching and verifying!?!?!" You know, something so simple as searching the very forum threads in which you are posting!?!?!

Pro tip:
I have learned

enough basic physics to understand why that's bollocks

to believe an object I can see in the sky over my head tells me absolutely anything about the shape of the flat earth plane under my feet, unlike others I will not name.

[AATW]

Ooh...What happened to the demands for "researching and verifying!?!?!" You know, something so simple as searching the very forum threads in which you are posting!?!?!

I had a look back through this thread. I can't see anywhere you have said you have seen the ISS yourself. You did say:

Yeah, you see rockets go up. Everybody either sees it live or a picture or two later of it.

Once it lifts off, there is no independently verified evidence you have indicating it ever travels more than 100km or so above your head.

That's a fact.

The ISS is at altitude of 408km. And it isn't a rocket.
By the way saying "That's a fact" doesn't make it one.

to believe an object I can see in the sky over my head tells me absolutely anything about the shape of the flat earth plane under my feet,

Well, it kinda does actually.  Or it could help you investigate it. You can find websites which tell you the path of the ISS. That path can be verified by sightings from the ground. This shows the orbit of the ISS and an attempt to visualise it on a FE map (would advise muting it, no idea why they put that annoying sound on it):



The issue for you to consider is whether the FE path is possible. HINT: How would it keep changing direction like that? Once something is in orbit it will keep in orbit without any further propulsion. (Sort of, the ISS does have to make occasional burns as it does lose some altitude over time, it's not a perfect vaccuum so there is some atmosphere even at that height which means there is some drag). The FE path as shown in that video would require a lot of fuel constantly. The existence and path of the ISS, and the observations from it, do provide evidence for the shape of the earth.

[AATW]

OK, so you've seen it. Great, so you acknowledge it's there. Why are you still a flat earther then?

I have convinced you of my ability to cook. Great, you acknowledge I can cook. Why are you still a round earther then? This is a profound deliberation, worthy of only the most sophisticated RE minds.

Holy false equivalence, Batman!
Your ability to cook has no bearing on the shape of the earth.
The space race and space exploration clearly does. You seem to have some thoughts on how some parts of space travel could work on a FE - thoughts I'd be interested to understand more. But most FE people I've encountered just call it all fake - I assume because the idea of things orbiting a globe and men landing on the moon doesn't really sit well with their FE model.

[Action80]

You being too lazy to search for threads containing "ISS" sheds light on your ability to process information.

It isn't good.

And it is a fact you have no independently verified evidence. The evidence you provide is made up by someone else.

[Tom Bishop]

The FE path as shown in that video would require a lot of fuel constantly. The existence and path of the ISS, and the observations from it, do provide evidence for the shape of the earth.

What have you done to verify it is coming from the horizon at those specific angles? You have zero real world data and several assumptions here, including which FE map is correct.

[DuncanDoenitz]

The FE path as shown in that video would require a lot of fuel constantly. The existence and path of the ISS, and the observations from it, do provide evidence for the shape of the earth.

What have you done to verify it is coming from the horizon at those specific angles? You have zero real world data and several assumptions here, including which FE map is correct.

Some riposte Tom; "It can't be incompatible with the FE map, because we haven't decided which version is correct.  Hah!".  Yes, some assumption by AATW. 

And what's with the "specific angles" question?  What specific angles?  The NASA Sighting Opportunities site gets as "azimuth specific" as WSW, or ENE; those are bands 22.5 degrees wide.  They are just advising amateurs what bit of the sky to look at. 

The elevations are specific, yes.  Have you noticed that all sightings start or finish 10 deg above the horizon?  That's not a prediction, it's just a fact that many observers will not have a visible zero-degree horizon due to terrain, urban structures and light pollution.  By using a common parameter of 10 deg-above they can specify an observable time and duration.  The non-horizon start/finish however is quite specific, as the point at which the ISS enters or leaves Earth's shadow is absolutely predictable, regardless of terrain.  The 10 degrees is also quite specific; an American standard fist at arm's length (metric equivalent also available). 

I can't speak for AATW, but I have witnessed it many times.  How about you, do you have a compass?  I'm sure we all await your contradictory observations with interest. 

[Tom Bishop]

Some riposte Tom; "It can't be incompatible with the FE map, because we haven't decided which version is correct.  Hah!".  Yes, some assumption by AATW.

I didn't map the Flat Earth and you have done nothing to map the Round Earth, so I am not sure how you can claim that every continent, island, and ocean is exactly as you imagine it to be. I say that various possibilities exist. You, however, are making a specific claim. Your imagination is not evidence, and the evidence you claim exists is imagined and not posted.

If you post a flight experience, the next question will be were they in a jet stream, how fast was the wind, how does the plane know how fast it is moving in a moving wind stream, etc. Unless you come to the discussion prepared with demonstrative answers, you haven't shown anything and don't know where you live at all.

This combined with the fact that you make excuses for the evidence against you, such at the 92-102 day sailing circumnavigations of Antarctica, shows that you have very little in the way of actual demonstrative evidence for your beliefs.

And what's with the "specific angles" question?  What specific angles?  The NASA Sighting Opportunities site gets as "azimuth specific" as WSW, or ENE; those are bands 22.5 degrees wide.  They are just advising amateurs what bit of the sky to look at. 

It is possible that the NASA calculators are correct (which you have yet to demonstrate), but you would also need to demonstrate that they represent a globe, or that video AATW posted, and are not pattern generators. It is possible to predict future celestial events with patterns of previous occurrences and no model at all.

There is a lot to demonstrate here. At present, I will not believe a single word you say until your claims are demonstrated.

[AATW]

I didn't map the Flat Earth and you have done nothing to map the Round Earth, so I am not sure how you can claim that every continent, island, and ocean is exactly as you imagine it to be.

There are thousands and thousands of pictures and film of the earth from space. You can see where the continents are.
We have GPS - something you acknowledge you use regularly. How does it work without extensive and accurate mapping data of the whole earth?
We have a global transport system which ships goods and people around the world. Planes follow roughly great circle routes.
This is all predicated on knowing where places are, how far apart they are and the quickest routes between them.
Your only counter argument is to shout "FAKE!" and run away, or cite occasional examples of emergency plane landings, your usual cherry picking

I say that various possibilities exist.

Which is a bit of a cop out, and a stupid thing to say about the world map in the 21st century. There aren't various possibilities. This isn't a theory, we are talking about the earth. It's a physical object. We know its shape and size and we know where landmasses are on it. It has been endlessly mapped and surveyed. Its shape has been known for millennia.

It is possible that the NASA calculators are correct

You can test it yourself.

you would also need to demonstrate that they represent a globe

The video above shows the path mapped out on to a globe. It shows the ISS orbiting exactly as claimed. The FE path is all over the shop. Now, you can say "that isn't an accurate FE map". Which is part of the problem, isn't it? You don't have one. There's a reason you don't have one - it isn't possible to make one. No matter how you shuffle places and landmasses around it's not possible to match the reality. You may wish to consider why that is...

[DuncanDoenitz]

If you post a flight experience, the next question will be were they in a jet stream, how fast was the wind, how does the plane know how fast it is moving in a moving wind stream, etc. Unless you come to the discussion prepared with demonstrative answers, you haven't shown anything and don't know where you live at all.

There is a lot to demonstrate here. At present, I will not believe a single word you say until your claims are demonstrated.

Let's do this one claim at a time.  Conveniently this morning (around 10.00 UTC March 25) there are 5 Boeing 787s over the South Pacific:

LAN800, Aukland - Santiago.
QFA27, Sydney - Santiago.
LAN804, Melbourne - Santiago. 
LAN809, Santiago - Sydney.
LAN805, Santiago - Melbourne.

That's 5 Dreamliners; 3 eastbound, 2 westbound.  Operated respectively by Latam and Qantas, the national flagcarriers of Chile and Australia.  Both regulated by their respective national airworthiness regulators which, like the FAA, are operating in accordance with ICAO regulations governing the safe passage of international aircraft as required by the Chicago Convention.  All 5 crews know when they took off, think they know what route they are flying, and are making predictions of their ETA.  Here's the questions;

Are they all in jetstreams; easterly and westerly, when west-flowing jetstreams are almost unknown? 
How did they know where the contraflowing jetstreams would be? Can you demonstrate?
How did they calculate how much fuel to carry, when the ground-distances were unknown and the winds anomalous? 
Are their crews unaware of their positions, true airspeeds, groundspeeds?  If so, shouldn't we tell the authorities? 

Or are they not actually flying at all?  Flights get cancelled all the time, apparently. 

[AATW]

And now Katy Perry is "in on it"

[WTF_Seriously]

And now Katy Perry is "in on it"

Along with those folks from FRAM2.  But then Elon is obviously in on the grift.

[DuncanDoenitz]

And now Katy Perry is "in on it"

Along with those folks from FRAM2.  But then Elon is obviously in on the grift.

Oh no; in an embarrassing faux pas, WTF has now mentioned the unmentionable Elon-phant in the room. 

Yes, whilst Musk, Donald's DOGE poster-boy, spends half of his time sacking civil servants for taking money in return for precious-little National-benefit, he spends the rest of his waking hours accepting government cash to spend on ficticious ISS-commuting, launching supersonic helium-filled Starlink blimps and pretending to develop Mars-shots.