[Integrity82]

Hello again.

I had an idea which may work. We should start a Kickstarter plan to build a huge tall tower on flat plains in Australia or America where it is flat for many hundred kilometres/miles. Not obscured by trees or mountains with good light and weather.

We could measure a distance out from the tower and test with photographic evidence whether it disappears over the horizon or whether it could be seen with binoculars or a telescope.
We could put a huge light source on it so it could be seen in the distance.
 
I think a lot of people on both sides would put in for it.

Would that prove anything on either  side of the argument?

Thank you

[BlueMoon]

Hello again.

I had an idea which may work. We should start a Kickstarter plan to build a huge tall tower on flat plains in Australia or America where it is flat for many hundred kilometres/miles. Not obscured by trees or mountains with good light and weather.

We could measure a distance out from the tower and test with photographic evidence whether it disappears over the horizon or whether it could be seen with binoculars or a telescope.
We could put a huge light source on it so it could be seen in the distance.
 
I think a lot of people on both sides would put in for it.

Would that prove anything on either  side of the argument?

Thank you

Why would we do that when we have cell towers, just to prove something we've known for centuries?  The fact that satellite paths can only be explained by orbits is more than enough for me. 

[geckothegeek]

Hello again.

I had an idea which may work. We should start a Kickstarter plan to build a huge tall tower on flat plains in Australia or America where it is flat for many hundred kilometres/miles. Not obscured by trees or mountains with good light and weather.

We could measure a distance out from the tower and test with photographic evidence whether it disappears over the horizon or whether it could be seen with binoculars or a telescope.
We could put a huge light source on it so it could be seen in the distance.
 
I think a lot of people on both sides would put in for it.

Would that prove anything on either  side of the argument?

Thank you

Why would we do that when we have cell towers, just to prove something we've known for centuries?  The fact that satellite paths can only be explained by orbits is more than enough for me.

Limitations on the distances of the ranges for  cell towers aren't the only things that are known and proof of the curvature ov the earth.
Designs of some radar and microwave repeater stations are well known, too.
Why do you think we have so many ?  If the earth was flat they would not be needed.
The flat earther answer to just about anything of even the slightest technical nature seems to be "If I don't know something about something I don't want to hear it. And if someone tries to explain it to me they are just a pack of liars. "

[Rounder]

Don't waste your time with photos.  To quote the Wiki:

In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered.

[Integrity82]

Don't waste your time with photos.  To quote the Wiki:

In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered.

Ahh right. Yes every photo or video is a fake!

Makes it difficult to prove anything then without getting everyone in the same place at once and making a whole bunch of sandwiches cut into 4's on big plates, and showing them in person...

I've seen satellites in the early hours of the morning and to me it's "orbit" or movement looks much like a huge elliptical motion around a globe. I have no scientific knowledge so I can't base that on any mathematical theory though. Except my own common sense which I seem to be pretty accurate on most occasions.

There is also a lookout in a place in Queensland Australia called Maleny. It looks out over the Sunshine Coast which is about 1.5 hours north of Brisbane.
It is an immaculate lookout from hinterland to coast and out to sea unobscured by anything and with clear air 99% of the year (as Queensland weather doesn't change basically all year except our 3 weeks of winter)
Anyway.
That lookout being such a vast view does give you a good vantage point to see curvature out on the horizon.
It is hard to get a good photo on an iPhone or the small camera I have. I don't have a wide angle lense. But even if I got a good photo someone could probably say I used a fisheye lense or manipulates it in Photoshop.

To be honest I think it would be easier and WAY more fun to fuck with people by claiming and manipulating photos to prove a flat earth. Not globe earth which 99.9% of humans believe. 

Ps.
Aren't there videos of space walks? And I've also tracked the iss? And gone outside and watched it fly over and taught my young niece about it and the people inside it, and how we know where it is?
If the earth is flat give a reason why and how I could track a man made object up in our atmosphere?

Or is it fake too?

Thanks for all the replys too. It's all helpful. I'm losing my mind and sleep over this "conspiracy" stuff. Even arguing with my mother who believes it all now. Just need good info to re teach her what's real and what's not.

[Rounder]

And I've also tracked the iss? And gone outside and watched it fly over and taught my young niece about it and the people inside it, and how we know where it is?
If the earth is flat give a reason why and how I could track a man made object up in our atmosphere?

Or is it fake too?

I asked about the ISS myself once.  I only got two theories in reply: maybe a holographic projection (Onto what?  By whom?  No answer) or a high flying airplane.  I did some math to eliminate airplanes as a possibility, not sure I convinced anyone.

[geckothegeek]

And I've also tracked the iss? And gone outside and watched it fly over and taught my young niece about it and the people inside it, and how we know where it is?
If the earth is flat give a reason why and how I could track a man made object up in our atmosphere?

Or is it fake too?

I asked about the ISS myself once.  I only got two theories in reply: maybe a holographic projection (Onto what?  By whom?  No answer) or a high flying airplane.  I did some math to eliminate airplanes as a possibility, not sure I convinced anyone.

Another usual fe reply is "space exploration is impossible" and everything about it is fake. And then there is the problem of "the ice dome".

BTW & FWIW .....Acccording to the flat earthers the holograms are projected on the dome by NASA.(That should answer your questions of "On to what ?" and "By whom ?".)

And correction : There is no "atmosphere" on a flat earth. It's the "atmoplane".

[Integrity82]

asked about the ISS myself once.  I only got two theories in reply: maybe a holographic projection (Onto what?  By whom?  No answer) or a high flying airplane.  I did some math to eliminate airplanes as a possibility, not sure I convinced anyone.
[/quote]

Another usual fe reply is "space exploration is impossible" and
everything about it is fake. And then there is the problem of "the ice dome".

BTW & FWIW .....Acccording to the flat earthers the holograms are projected on the dome by NASA.(That should answer your questions of "On to what ?" and "By whom ?".)

And correction : There is no "atmosphere" on a flat earth. It's the "atmoplane".
[/quote]

Thanks for that.

So I'm gathering from everything in seeing is that a flat earth theorist has an answer for everything we know already? But when it comes to building on the theory then they fail to?

As in, say what's under the flat earth? and what the dome is made of?

Unless I haven't read enough which I probably haven't. What are some of the theories that aren't based on changes to the already known ideas we have regarding the globe earth.

I suppose if you just say you can't dig far enough and you can't leave the dome then it's up to the opposing party to come up with proof we can't possibly do without an agency like NASA which they claim is fake..

This is getting really complicated and confusing. I don't even know if anyone will understand my questions in this part. Sorry.

[Rounder]

What are some of the theories that aren't based on changes to the already known ideas we have regarding the globe earth.

No such thing, it's ALL based on changes to already known ideas.  Or more accurately, it's based on changing or outright rejecting already known ideas, plus resurrecting already disproven ideas (aether being a prime example)