Flat Earth - It's NOT Ridiculous

[Subduction Zone]

The ISS is too low to take in more than 3% of Earth's surface. Your satellite may be far enough away. If it is, that doesn't change my position. Furthermore, are there photos of that satellite in space? Are there any photos of satellites in space? Do any satellites orbit below the ISS?

You ask rather pointless questions. What would be the point of a picture of a satellite in space? They are so far away from any other satellites that there would be nothing to compare it to.

You should try to think out your demands a bit better. Meanwhile if you go to a very rural area on a very clear Moonless night you can see satellites yourself. I have done so in the Rocky Mountains. An hour or so after sunset it is dark enough to see them and they are still in sunlight at that time. They move faster than any airplane and yet there is no sound from them at all..

Also the Flat Earth fails for all it cannot explain. It cannot explain the paths of stars in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern hemisphere where they aappear to rotate in different directions around a center. It cannot explain the straight line on a globe of daylight and nighttime. The line of observed sunset and sunrise that works so well on a globe makes no sense at all on a flat Earth. There is problem after problem with your beliefs and no scientific evidence for it.

 

[Zetetica]

It is.

It is.

Oh, I didn’t think it would, but I’m curious as to your reasoning.

Without even bothering to look, let’s say there are. Would that actually mean anything to you? Be honest.

A few, but yes. The ISS is in low earth orbit - it’s about as low as you can get.

1) My reasoning is I'm unwilling to trust a deceitful organization.

2) Perhaps, though I'd likely be skeptical because I simply don't trust these agencies.

3) If satellites orbit lower than the ISS, why doesn't the ISS take a photo of one? Why can't I see them on the ISS livestream? Are they simply too small? Hoe far below the ISS do they orbit?

 

[Subduction Zone]

They did and they say such themselves. If our world is round, likely they put that thing up there many years after the fake lunar missions.

There are videos of the astronauts on the Moon doing things that could not have been faked with the technology at the time. Worse yet you are not proposing a conspiracy that involved hundreds of thousands of people and none of them talked. Do you know how hard it is to keep such a secret?

 

[Zetetica]

You ask rather pointless questions. What would be the point of a picture of a satellite in space? They are so far away from any other satellites that there would be nothing to compare it to.

You should try to think out your demands a bit better. Meanwhile if you go to a very rural area on a very clear Moonless night you can see satellites yourself. I have done so in the Rocky Mountains. An hour or so after sunset it is dark enough to see them and they are still in sunlight at that time. They move faster than any airplane and yet there is no sound from them at all..

Also the Flat Earth fails for all it cannot explain. It cannot explain the paths of stars in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern hemisphere where they aappear to rotate in different directions around a center. It cannot explain the straight line on a globe of daylight and nighttime. The line of observed sunset and sunrise that works so well on a globe makes no sense at all on a flat Earth. There is problem after problem with your beliefs and no scientific evidence for it.

Good point about photographing satellites... and I've seen those lights in the sky as well. Are they satellites? I believed so once.

As for startrails, FE does have an explanation for them. As for the sun-line, I've not heard of this term. Explain?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1) My reasoning is I'm unwilling to trust a deceitful organization.

You would have to prove NASA to be deceitful for this to be a valid reason. But we know that you can't.

2) Perhaps, though I'd likely be skeptical because I simply don't trust these agencies.

The problem is that you are not a skeptic, you are a denier. One thing that a skeptic does is to propose reasonable tests that would convince them. You have already failed as a skeptic by rejecting reasonable tests.

3) If satellites orbit lower than the ISS, why doesn't the ISS take a photo of one? Why can't I see them on the ISS livestream? Are they simply too small? Hoe far below the ISS do they orbit?

A photograph of most satellites from the surface of the Earth would only look like a dot of light. That would not convince you either. This is a pointless demand on your part.

 

[Yekcidmij]

They did and they say such themselves. If our world is round, likely they put that thing up there many years after the fake lunar missions.

So you agree NASA does have lunar data....

 

[Zetetica]

There are videos of the astronauts on the Moon doing things that could not have been faked with the technology at the time. Worse yet you are not proposing a conspiracy that involved hundreds of thousands of people and none of them talked. Do you know how hard it is to keep such a secret?

Bad reasoning...

 

[Zetetica]

So you agree NASA does have lunar data....

Unlikely, since I don't accept the existence of satellites. Furthermore, even if they exist and the world is round, Apollo 11 was fake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good point about photographing satellites... and I've seen those lights in the sky as well. Are they satellites? I believed so once.

As for startrails, FE does have an explanation for them. As for the sun-line, I've not heard of this term. Explain?

No, they really do not have a consistent explanation for the paths of stars. And if you take a globe and shine a light on it you will see the line of sunset and sunrise. It is a perfectly straight line. Flat Earthers have no explanation for it. Nor do they even have an explanation of the distance of the Sun to the Earth. The angular size of the Sun does not change during the day, but all Flat Earth models that I have seen predict a huge angular change. Most Flat Earth believers cannot do math. Anyone that can do math or geometry quickly understands how those claims fail.

 

[lasthero]

1) My reasoning is I'm unwilling to trust a deceitful organization.

These photos weren’t made by NASA.

2) Perhaps, though I'd likely be skeptical because I simply don't trust these agencies.

So you’re just going to dismiss any photo of space?

3) If satellites orbit lower than the ISS, why doesn't the ISS take a photo of one? Why can't I see them on the ISS livestream? Are they simply too small? Hoe far below the ISS do they orbit?

A bunch of reasons.

1) Most satelittes are small. About the size of a car, if that big.

2)There are only about 5,000 or so in orbit. Which might seem like a lot, but...

3)Space is big. Really big. Most of these satellites are far apart, by hundreds, thousands of miles. We don’t want them to hit each other.

4) Satelittes are moving fast. Faster than a speeding bullet.

So imagine you’re in space, and there are thousands of relatively small objects moving faster than the speed of sound around you, and they rarely get within a mile of you. Oh, and you’re look towards the Earth, so most of them are actually BEHIND YOU.

How many do you expect to see? Ever?

 

[Zetetica]

You would have to prove NASA to be deceitful for this to be a valid reason. But we know that you can't.

The problem is that you are not a skeptic, you are a denier. One thing that a skeptic does is to propose reasonable tests that would convince them. You have already failed as a skeptic by rejecting reasonable tests.

A photograph of most satellites from the surface of the Earth would only look like a dot of light. That would not convince you either. This is a pointless demand on your part.

There is enough evidence in my opinion to conclude that NASA is deceitful. I listed some, though it's by no means a comprehensive list.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bad reasoning...

Not at all. That is reality. Large conspiracies simply do not survive the test of time. Small conspiracies fail. Large ones fail almost immediately.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Unlikely, since I don't accept the existence of satellites.

I have to say that's a strange position to take.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is enough evidence in my opinion to conclude that NASA is deceitful. I listed some, though it's by no means a comprehensive list.

I have not seen any but I am betting that in reality you have none.

Do you understand that we could make the special effects in the early 1970's that we can now with CGI?

 

[Zetetica]

No, they really do not have a consistent explanation for the paths of stars. And if you take a globe and shine a light on it you will see the line of sunset and sunrise. It is a perfectly straight line. Flat Earthers have no explanation for it. Nor do they even have an explanation of the distance of the Sun to the Earth. The angular size of the Sun does not change during the day, but all Flat Earth models that I have seen predict a huge angular change. Most Flat Earth believers cannot do math. Anyone that can do math or geometry quickly understands how those claims fail.

The Sun DOES change size but I won't conclude it does this because It's moving further away. From my observations (around five days a week), it's an atmospheric effect (like a lens which makes the sun appear larger the further away it is). As I said, I don't conclude this, it's just what I've come to ponder over.

 

[Zetetica]

These photos weren’t made by NASA.



So you’re just going to dismiss any photo of space?



A bunch of reasons.

1) Most satelittes are small. About the size of a car, if that big.

2)There are only about 5,000 or so in orbit. Which might seem like a lot, but...

3)Space is big. Really big. Most of these satellites are far apart, by hundreds, thousands of miles. We don’t want them to hit each other.

4) Satelittes are moving fast. Faster than a speeding bullet.

So imagine you’re in space, and there are thousands of relatively small objects moving faster than the speed of sound around you, and they rarely get within a mile of you. Oh, and you’re look towards the Earth, so most of them are actually BEHIND YOU.

How many do you expect to see? Ever?

Thank you.

 

[lasthero]

The Sun DOES change size but I won't conclude it does this because It's moving further away. From my observations (around five days a week), it's an atmospheric effect (like a lens which makes the sun appear larger the further away it is). As I said, I don't conclude this, it's just what I've come to ponder over.

Why doesn’t the Moon do the same thing?

 

[A Realist]

That sucking sound is extremely loud in here.

 

[Zetetica]

I have to say that's a strange position to take.

Communications can be explained to my satisfaction by other means. While satellites may exist, I don't accept they exist as they are explained.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Sun DOES change size but I won't conclude it does this because It's moving further away. From my observations (around five days a week), it's an atmospheric effect (like a lens which makes the sun appear larger the further away it is). As I said, I don't conclude this, it's just what I've come to ponder over.

No, it does not. That is an optical illusion. What you need is an object of set diameter held a constant distance from your eyes. You will find that it forms the same angle and has the same size whether at the horizon or at its azimuth. It is easier to do with the Moon since it is not so bright, but the same observation will be made.

Worse yet according to Flat Earth models the Sun is furthest away at sunset and closest at noon. Even the optical illusion of a large Sun at sunset goes against your model.