[Rounder]

There is a tiny, fast moving dot in the sky that NASA et al call the International Space Station.  There is at least one web site where you can get projected dates and times when you can see it from anywhere you are in the world.   Those who believe space flight to be a hoax: what do you think that dot is?  It has a ground track which is explained in RE as being the result of travelling around a sphere at an inclination to that sphere's axis.  What would the FE explanation be?

http://iss.astroviewer.net

[Thork]

I have often pondered this.

There is increasing evidence that NASA are projecting a hologram onto the surface of the moon.

You get these moon waves.

Anecdotally, my mother always comments on how shiny and silver the moon looks. She says it used to be much more yellow. She says "I can't believe how clean the air is these days" but of course a new projection would give similar results to change its actual colour. It would of course be in their interest to add a projection onto the moon, so as ground telescopes get better, you'll be able to see a little moon buggy exactly where they said it was. Also a super shiny moon makes you gaze at it in wonder and marvel at walking on it.
Projection on the moon is a technology that exists, in fact international law forbids it because Pepsi wanted to put their bloody logo on it!
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-moonvertising.htm
So that technology exists.

Could you also project a little bright spaceship off the firmament and tell people when and where to look? Sure, why not? I'm not alone in thinking it could be a hologram.

[Rounder]

There is increasing evidence that NASA are projecting a hologram onto the surface of the moon.  You get these moon waves.

The TFES Wiki addresses this:
"In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered."

But if you like video, here's a rebuttal video.  It shows the same phenomenon, but includes an explanation of the cause.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jvgfVjuEec&list=PLX6iy03kvnk5aNGpEVbe7ho4q_rG0pKJK

Anecdotally, my mother...says it used to be much more yellow...but of course a new projection would give similar results to change its actual colour.

I find it highly unlikely that if somebody was projecting a hologram moon, they wouldn't take great care to make it the same color.

Among all the other parts of your premise that I find unlikely.  Which is to say: I'm not accepting your premise but raising one minor quibble; instead I reject the entire premise and choose at this time to only mention the one quibble which can be sufficiently stated in a single sentence.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

There is a tiny, fast moving dot in the sky that NASA et al call the International Space Station.  There is at least one web site where you can get projected dates and times when you can see it from anywhere you are in the world.   Those who believe space flight to be a hoax: what do you think that dot is?  It has a ground track which is explained in RE as being the result of travelling around a sphere at an inclination to that sphere's axis.  What would the FE explanation be?

http://iss.astroviewer.net

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/162406-iss-flyover-advise-please/

Here's some amateurs trying to figure out how to capture it, apparently you need a pretty complicated setup, a lot more than a pair of binoculars it seems.

[Rounder]

Here's some amateurs trying to figure out how to capture it, apparently you need a pretty complicated setup, a lot more than a pair of binoculars it seems.

Key point there is "capture".  Trying to photograph it would be tricky, it moves pretty fast.  Observing it by eyeball can be done naked-eye.  It's passing over my part of the world on Monday March 7 at magnitude -2.7 which is easily visible to the unaided eye.  Two days later is passes almost directly overhead at my location at magnitude -3.3  At that brightness it will actually be hard to miss, and will be visible for six minutes.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Here's some amateurs trying to figure out how to capture it, apparently you need a pretty complicated setup, a lot more than a pair of binoculars it seems.

Key point there is "capture".  Trying to photograph it would be tricky, it moves pretty fast.  Observing it by eyeball can be done naked-eye.  It's passing over my part of the world on Monday March 7 at magnitude -2.7 which is easily visible to the unaided eye.  Two days later is passes almost directly overhead at my location at magnitude -3.3  At that brightness it will actually be hard to miss, and will be visible for six minutes.

But seeing something and actually knowing what it is are two very different things, most observers, if lucky enough to know where to look, will see an object in high altitude resembling a white blur, moving quickly, and too distant to distinguish any particular features. I live in an area with too much light pollution to have a decent chance of seeing it, as do most of Americans, considering most of our population is consolidated in metro areas. I can hardly see stars where I'm at, I will be on the lookout to see if I see anything though.

[Rounder]

But seeing something and actually knowing what it is are two very different things

Sure, that's a fair point.  We can go for a lower bar: without demanding that people KNOW what that fast moving bright light is, I'm curious what the FE community THINKS it is, and how it fits into their FE system.  So far we have a suggestion that it is a hologram / projection.  Are there other ideas?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

But seeing something and actually knowing what it is are two very different things

Sure, that's a fair point.  We can go for a lower bar: without demanding that people KNOW what that fast moving bright light is, I'm curious what the FE community THINKS it is, and how it fits into their FE system.  So far we have a suggestion that it is a hologram / projection.  Are there other ideas?

I personally don't believe in space flight simply because I don't see the force of gravity as a suitable model in being that mass should attract mass because, um, mass.

And if this is what we're told on how orbit, satellites, revolution of planets work, then I can't accept it because I don't accept Newtonian gravity.

Now as far as what it is, it could be a very high altitude plane for all I know.

[rabinoz]

I personally don't believe in space flight simply because I don't see the force of gravity as a suitable model in being that mass should attract mass because, um, mass.
And if this is what we're told on how orbit, satellites, revolution of planets work, then I can't accept it because I don't accept Newtonian gravity.
Now as far as what it is, it could be a very high altitude plane for all I know.

Right you "don't accept Newtonian gravity."
You can't believe "that mass should attract mass because, um, mass." But you can believe "that charges should attract charges because, um, charges." Seems some slight inconsistency here?

But, why do you reject all the evidence that it has been measured hundreds of times since 1797 (or whenever) without even a comment?
Do you think everyone is lying to you, and that these  experiments have never been performed.
Just you cannot easily demonstrate this in you garage does not mean that the experiments were not done. There are thousands of measurements that were done in the electromagnetic field (by Coulomb, et al) at around that time. Many of those involved measuring very small forces. In fact the equipment Cavendish used was based on Coulomb's apparatus.

Actually a demonstration (no attempt at measurement) in a basement is shown on this site: http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/. I didn't do it, and don't know any more than is shown but it is worth a look.
If you do manage to look at the videos remember each frame represents 30 secs.
To be quite honest, my first impressions are that that the attraction is more than I would have expected, but the very thin nylon support would be not offer much resistance. Also note that it must be monitored remotely - any slight air currents would disturb it.
For the real sceptic it is something that is not (quite) impossible to do.

I cannot make you believe in anything, only point out evidence as I see it.

From what you say, I find it hard to believe that you are "looking for the truth". It really looks as though you believe you have found it and have closed you eyes to any contrary evidence.

I suppose they say "To each his own".

[Rounder]

Now as far as what it is, it could be a very high altitude plane for all I know.

I took a look at some projected ISS transits over the United States, looking for one for which I could pick two observers with simultaneous and directly opposite observing locations.  I found one on March 6, 2016 that fits the bill: it has (or HAD if you are reading this in the future...) a maximum apparent elevation at 5:00:40am Spokane WA time, and 5:59:39am El Paso TX time.  Maximum elevation only 61 seconds apart, that's the best I could do for a simultaneous observation, and those observers in those two locations will be looking pretty much directly at each other.  This is important, because it means the angles of elevation from each location can be used to calculate the elevation above ground of the object being observed.  Spokane and El Paso are 1237 miles apart, according to Google Maps "Distance Measure" tool.  (I understand that an FE supporter might challenge that distance as being tainted by RE math, and I'll come back to that.)  According to the ISS Astroviewer page (links at the bottom) an observer in Spokane will see the ISS rise to a maximum elevation of 14° above the horizon to the South East, while the El Paso observer will see it at 21° to the North West.  Taking for the moment a flat-earth model, we thus have an obtuse triangle with a side and two angles known, we can calculate the rest.  The angle formed at the vertex occupied by the object in the sky is 145°.  The Law Of Sines allows us to calculate the line-of-sight distances to the object to each observer.  The Spokane leg of the triangle is 772.9 miles, and the El Paso leg is 521.7 miles.  From there, we can calculate the height above ground of the object using Leg time Sine of each observer's angle.  The result is 186.97 miles high.  This is far, far higher than any known aircraft has ever flown, or ever could fly.

Possible objections:
1) Maybe the elevations are wrong?  I think we can take the projected elevation angles as accurate (instead of going out and observing it ourselves) because if they were not it would be very easy to expose the error, and should have been done by now.  Amateur astronomers use these online resources without reporting massive errors, after all.  And if anybody reading this happens to live in Spokane or El Paso and wants to go out and look for the dot in the sky, so much the better.
2) Maybe the distance from Spokane to El Paso is wrong?  Perhaps it is, I'll grant you that.  Let's say we call it 1 'ground unit' of unknown distance and do the math that way.  We end up with the object being at an elevation of 0.15 ground units.  Or put another way, Spokane and El Paso are 6.5 times as far apart as the object's elevation.  Commercial aircraft typically operate with a ceiling of 42,000 feet, or 8 miles.  The aircraft with the highest known operating ceiling ever, the SR-71, could fly as high as 85,000 feet, or 16 miles.  Even if my ground unit measurement is less than 1237 miles, it is not off by enough to bring those cities close enough (104 miles) for an SR-71 to appear at 14° from one and 21° from the other.
3) One minute difference in observation time is huge when the object is visible for only four minutes.  Seems like it is, yes.  However, the object sweeps across the sky in a fairly flat curve, especially as viewed from Spokane.  It rises from 10° to 14° and falls back to 10° during the transit.  Doing the math again with Spokane's lowest elevation still yields an elevation of 149.46 miles, far too high to be any airplane we know about.

Spokane: http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php?lon=-117.4260466&lat=47.6587802&name=Spokane
El Paso: http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php?lon=-106.4850217&lat=31.7618778&name=El%20Paso

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Good stuff rounder, only thing to do is actually see for ourselves and repeat the experiment you put forward with actual verified photos from two different locations.

As far as distances go, I'm not that great at math, but couldnt we reverse the calculation for curvature to determine what a distance would be on a flat plane.

Either way I don't really dispute distances, Google Maps is a 2d software anyway, and I've driven up and down eastern seaboard and it's usually spot on.

[Rounder]

I did the math using flat earth.  The altitude is higher when those angles are observed from a curved surface.  I'll do the RE math tomorrow, hopefully (for me) the result will be close to the published orbital altitude for the ISS.

[CableDawg]

I have often pondered this.

There is increasing evidence that NASA are projecting a hologram onto the surface of the moon.

You get these moon waves.

Anecdotally, my mother always comments on how shiny and silver the moon looks. She says it used to be much more yellow. She says "I can't believe how clean the air is these days" but of course a new projection would give similar results to change its actual colour. It would of course be in their interest to add a projection onto the moon, so as ground telescopes get better, you'll be able to see a little moon buggy exactly where they said it was. Also a super shiny moon makes you gaze at it in wonder and marvel at walking on it.
Projection on the moon is a technology that exists, in fact international law forbids it because Pepsi wanted to put their bloody logo on it!
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-moonvertising.htm
So that technology exists.

Could you also project a little bright spaceship off the firmament and tell people when and where to look? Sure, why not? I'm not alone in thinking it could be a hologram.

The site you reference begins their piece with this sentence, "Moonvertising is a purported method of utilizing the surface of the moon in order to advertise goods and services.", with the operative word being purported.  This is much the same as the FAQ and Wiki of this site purporting to give facts and truth.

Regarding projecting a little bright spaceship, what are they projecting onto? 

[rabinoz]

I have often pondered this.

There is increasing evidence that NASA are projecting a hologram onto the surface of the moon.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You get these moon waves.

Anecdotally, my mother always comments on how shiny and silver the moon looks. She says it used to be much more yellow. She says "I can't believe how clean the air is these days" but of course a new projection would give similar results to change its actual colour. It would of course be in their interest to add a projection onto the moon, so as ground telescopes get better, you'll be able to see a little moon buggy exactly where they said it was. Also a super shiny moon makes you gaze at it in wonder and marvel at walking on it.
Projection on the moon is a technology that exists, in fact international law forbids it because Pepsi wanted to put their bloody logo on it!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So that technology exists.

Could you also project a little bright spaceship off the firmament and tell people when and where to look? Sure, why not? I'm not alone in thinking it could be a hologram.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The site you reference begins their piece with this sentence, "Moonvertising is a purported method of utilizing the surface of the moon in order to advertise goods and services.", with the operative word being purported.  This is much the same as the FAQ and Wiki of this site purporting to give facts and truth.

Regarding projecting a little bright spaceship, what are they projecting onto?

Just how far into fantasy land is all this going? I really have to hope David Thork is taking the Mickey out of us!
What with seeming to take "Moonvertising" and "Projection on the moon is a technology that exists" seriously and we joke about a member taking fairies seriously.
Mind you they have "projected" lasers onto the moon! Only one trouble, there were hardly enough photons coming back to find in the noise - not good for advertising!

Now you didn't read David Thork thoroughly!
He asked us: "Could you also project a that little bright spaceship off the firmament and tell people when and where to look."?

Now that along with "purported" is real Flat Earth class evidence! Along with:

Wind Currents
The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears at the equator line.

Yes, I know it's a very low profile post, but what else is expected from fairy tales stuff like this!

[andruszkow]

Here's a picture I took. From my phone. A Nokia lumia 820. It's not THAT complicated.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Here's a picture I took. From my phone. A Nokia lumia 820. It's not THAT complicated.

Well you might want to hop over to all the amateur astronomer forums and let them know their $5,000 set ups are overkill, I'm sure theyll be relieved.

[Rounder]

Well, you get what you pay for.  THIS is the quality photo that a $5000 setup allows.
Image credit: http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/feature/astrophotography-guide/chasing-iss

[Rounder]

Resurrecting an old thread, but I think the information belongs with this topic rather than in a new thread.  If one wants to observe the ISS in conjunction with either the sun or the moon, I have discovered a website that will calculate when such transits will be visible from your location.  The results may be displayed on a map, showing where you need to be in order to put yourself in a position to observe the ISS transiting across the face of the moon or sun, and tells you when exactly that will happen, which direction the ISS will be moving, etc.  This will allow you to capture imagery like this photo, which is a screen capture of a video showing a lunar transit filmed by a user of the website.

[Rounder]

There is an observatory I visit a few times a year in eastern Washington state, for which a solar ISS transit is predicted on Saturday.  They have a Lunt Solar Systems LS152THa 6 inch f/6 "double-stacked" Hydrogen-alpha Solar Telescope; the largest production dedicated H-alpha solar telescope in the world.  They plan to use it to capture photos and/or video of the transit.  Here's the projected track of the visibility band for the transit; the observatory is off-center in the track and therefore the ISS will appear off center in the solar disc.

[Sb]

Ok, so I read for a while. It appears that FE is the only solution! The earth is flat! So flat! You cannot ignore it! No legit evidence will ever metter, religion says it's flat!! So it is! Don't you get it? 2000 year old nonsense says so!