Questions for Flat Earthers

[Bungle_Bear]

Do you question my honesty? Just what kind of search did you do? Perhaps only on the NASA official website, or did you do a wide internet search. I googled "nasa low earth orbit" and found all kinds of video recorded statements by NASA spokespersons/astronauts who state that travel is limited to LEO. If my presumption is correct, why in the world would you limit your search to the NASA website only? If NASA is putting out false or misleading data for public consumption, isn't it foolish to inherently trust what they say without even any sort of independent verification. Frankly, that's just plain lazy research. Since I don't think you made a good effort and I don't like doing research for people but for the sake of argument I'll provide you with just one link among many and hopefully you can do your own unbiased study.
THE BIG LIE - NASA ADMITS WE'VE NEVER BEEN OUT OF LOW EARTH ORBIT -

I didn't hear anyone from NASA saying they hadn't been beyond LEO. I'd also ask why, if this really is the case, did Obama say (3:05 in the video) "...begin the first ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep space"? There's also a whole section dealing with NASA's statement "...farther into space than any human spacecraft has gone in more than thirty years." The claim presented is that no spacecraft has ever gone further than Orion test flight. Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence presented to support the claim.

Looks like somebody isn't hearing what NASA is saying.

 

[Oldmantook]

I already did in this post.

I assume you mean his words in this interview?

I think his statement (1:39-1:52) was probably accurate - "......on the other side of the South Pole from middle America." If you arrive at the South Pole from one side of Antarctica you can keep going (back north) on the other side which may not have been explored at that time. There's no reason to think he was talking about a flat earth.
I'll assume you're referring to your explanation above. On the round earth, if one arrives at one side of the Antarctica continent and exists from the other side would you not hit ocean, and if you travel far enough eventually hit another continent or some other kind of land mass? At the time of Byrd's statement all the large land masses and continents had already been explored so how could Bryd have claimed that there's an area as big as the USA, never been seen on the other side of the S. Pole? He wan't referring to the S. Pole as he plainly stated that the large land mass is on the "other side" of the S. Pole. One must travel over to the other side of Antarctica to see it - which no one had according to Byrd. Yet, all the continents have already been explored. So what could Byrd have been referring to?
Byrd's quote: "But strangely enough, there's left in the world today, an area as big as the United States, that's never been seen by human being, and that's beyond the pole on the other side of the S. Pole from middle America. And it's quite astonishing that should be an area as big as that unexplored."

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I assume you mean his words in this interview?

I think his statement (1:39-1:52) was probably accurate - "......on the other side of the South Pole from middle America." If you arrive at the South Pole from one side of Antarctica you can keep going (back north) on the other side which may not have been explored at that time. There's no reason to think he was talking about a flat earth.
I'll assume you're referring to your explanation above. On the round earth, if one arrives at one side of the Antarctica continent and exists from the other side would you not hit ocean, and if you travel far enough eventually hit another continent or some other kind of land mass? At the time of Byrd's statement all the large land masses and continents had already been explored so how could Bryd have claimed that there's an area as big as the USA, never been seen on the other side of the S. Pole? He wan't referring to the S. Pole as he plainly stated that the large land mass is on the "other side" of the S. Pole. One must travel over to the other side of Antarctica to see it - which no one had according to Byrd. Yet, all the continents have already been explored. So what could Byrd have been referring to?
Byrd's quote: "But strangely enough, there's left in the world today, an area as big as the United States, that's never been seen by human being, and that's beyond the pole on the other side of the S. Pole from middle America. And it's quite astonishing that should be an area as big as that unexplored."

What are you talking about? While I think his estimate of the size of the unexplored area may be incorrect, why are you trying to say that the continent of Antartica cannot be the landmass he is referring to? As I have already pointed out, Antarctica was largely unexplored back then so it makes perfect sense that there is a an area "beyond the pole on the other side of the S. Pole from middle America."

I'll accept your apology in your next post

 

[Oldmantook]

I didn't hear anyone from NASA saying they hadn't been beyond LEO. I'd also ask why, if this really is the case, did Obama say (3:05 in the video) "...begin the first ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep space"? There's also a whole section dealing with NASA's statement "...farther into space than any human spacecraft has gone in more than thirty years." The claim presented is that no spacecraft has ever gone further than Orion test flight. Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence presented to support the claim.

Looks like somebody isn't hearing what NASA is saying.

Indeed, and it appears that that person is you since you did not listen carefully and catch the discrepancy. No human spacecraft in more than 30 years means no spacecraft including such vehicles such as the Mars Rover. If the Mars Rover reached Mars just a few years back then obviously how can the "no more than 30 years" statement be true? We either reached Mars or we haven't gone beyond LEO in more than 30 years. These two statements by NASA are incompatible and deserve an explanation. If you take the view that NASA meant "human" spacecraft as "manned" spacecraft, you are still left with a dilemma regarding the Van Allen belts. Did you not listen carefully? At the 2:45 minute mark the NASA spokesman states: "We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space." I thought when we sent men to the moon decades ago using crude technology by today's standards they passed through the Van Allen belt without a problem. Apparently it wasn't a problem or I guess we were just lucky back then huh?

 

[Oldmantook]

What are you talking about? While I think his estimate of the size of the unexplored area may be incorrect, why are you trying to say that the continent of Antartica cannot be the landmass he is referring to? As I have already pointed out, Antarctica was largely unexplored back then so it makes perfect sense that there is a an area "beyond the pole on the other side of the S. Pole from middle America."

I'll accept your apology in your next post

No need for my apology. I believe Byrd refers to a land mass OTHER THAN the S. Pole. I interpret Byrd's statement as referring to a land mass on the other side of the S. Pole; not the S. Pole itself. You believe he is referencing the S. Pole but his adjectival phrase the "other side" references the S. Pole; not middle America and therein lies our difference.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No need for my apology. I believe Byrd refers to a land mass OTHER THAN the S. Pole. I interpret Byrd's statement as referring to a land mass on the other side of the S. Pole; not the S. Pole itself. You believe he is referencing the S. Pole but his adjectival phrase the "other side" references the S. Pole; not middle America and therein lies our difference.

"on the other side of the South Pole from middle America." What purpose does the word "from" serve in that phrase?

I won't hold my breath on your apology - you'll never admit you've got it wrong no matter what evidence is presented.

 

[trunks2k]

I can't believe I'm getting into this....

At the 2:45 minute mark the NASA spokesman states: "We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space." I thought when we sent men to the moon decades ago using crude technology by today's standards they passed through the Van Allen belt without a problem. Apparently it wasn't a problem or I guess we were just lucky back then huh?

Orion is a new spacecraft, with different capabilities and different technology on it than used on previous trips to the moon. Developing the appropriate shielding and making sure it's functioning properly is a challenge because it's A NEW DESIGN. He's just being a little dramatic about the dangers inherent to going beyond LEO.

As for the "farther than any human spacecraft has gone in more than thirty years" bit, they are talking about spacecraft that can carry humans. Not things like the mars rover, which were unmanned and not capable of carrying humans. The Orion test being discussed is to see if it performs as necessary without actually carrying a crew along with it.

 

[rturner76]

Do you question my honesty? Just what kind of search did you do? Perhaps only on the NASA official website, or did you do a wide internet search. I googled "nasa low earth orbit" and found all kinds of video recorded statements by NASA spokespersons/astronauts who state that travel is limited to LEO. If my presumption is correct, why in the world would you limit your search to the NASA website only? If NASA is putting out false or misleading data for public consumption, isn't it foolish to inherently trust what they say without even any sort of independent verification. Frankly, that's just plain lazy research. Since I don't think you made a good effort and I don't like doing research for people but for the sake of argument I'll provide you with just one link among many and hopefully you can do your own unbiased study.
THE BIG LIE - NASA ADMITS WE'VE NEVER BEEN OUT OF LOW EARTH ORBIT -

I think I found the video you were referring to. I was searching "NASA geosynchronous orbit" but I did the search you suggested and found a Youtube video with clips of NASA people saying things like "this will allow us to go beyond low Earth orbit." There is a couple things I want to say about that.

First, we don't know what they were actually talking about, for example the International Space Station is in low Earth orbit so it could have something to do with having the ability to have a manned spacecraft sit in a higher orbit or prolonged space exploration. I don't know but it's hard to get context when there is only the one or two sentences being quoted.

Second, even if it were true that we could only go to low Earth orbit )which I believe it isn't), how do all these hundreds of things stay up there if they are not perpetually falling around a spherical Earth? Of the Earth were flat, the satellites would simply go up and come back down would they not?

 

[Strathos]

Again, I have to ask:

If superliteralists teach us literalists that the Bible speaks of a flat earth creation, then why do they then ridicule those who listen to them and apply it to their lives?

I too have been bullied to interpret the Bible as teaching a flat earth creation; and I'm about as literal as one can get, but I'm not falling for it.

I have Boolean standards -- (and get ridiculed for those too).

What's up with this superliteral stuff?

Or don't you know?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[Strathos]

Those kind of maps come a dime per dozen on the Internet.
Take your pick!
The Flat Earth Society :: Maps

Here is the official modern one.
The white band encircling the oceans and continents is what is considered Antarctica.

Funny how Antarctica isn't anywhere near big enough to actually cover all of that area. Also, I wonder how they explain why both poles are freezing and the equator is hot? On the flat earth model there's no reason for the temperature difference.

 

[Radrook]

Funny how Antarctica isn't anywhere near big enough to actually cover all of that area. Also, I wonder how they explain why both poles are freezing and the equator is hot? On the flat earth model there's no reason for the temperature difference.

Well, that size objection I imagine is attributed to the purposeful misinformation about Antarctica's actual size. Concerning your objection about temperature differences, I haven't as yet delved into how they go about explaining it. Good area for investigation. Thanks for mentioning it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, that size objection I imagine is attributed to the purposeful misinformation about Antarctica's actual size. Concerning your objection about temperature differences, I haven't as yet delved into how they go about explaining it. Good area for investigation. Thanks for mentioning it.

I doubt you'll get any meaningful response about the temperature differences Rad. Flat Earthers would rather quibble about ambiguous quotes and youtube videos than deal with hard facts.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well, that size objection I imagine is attributed to the purposeful misinformation about Antarctica's actual size. Concerning your objection about temperature differences, I haven't as yet delved into how they go about explaining it. Good area for investigation. Thanks for mentioning it.

I think they explain the temperature difference by saying the warmer countries get more direct sunlight. Remembering that the claim is that the sun acts as a spotlight, the countries around the equator would get more light than those at the centre or outer edge of a flat earth.

 

[Oldmantook]

"on the other side of the South Pole from middle America." What purpose does the word "from" serve in that phrase?

I won't hold my breath on your apology - you'll never admit you've got it wrong no matter what evidence is presented.

Don't hold your breath as apparently you can't comprehend English either. From in plain English means point of origin - not final destination which is on the other side of the S. Pole.

 

[Jimmy D]

Don't hold your breath as apparently you can't comprehend English either. From in plain English means point of origin - not final destination which is on the other side of the S. Pole.

Still going on about that? There's a bit more evidence in favour of a globe than the testimony of one man (which is ambiguous enough for you two to have opposing opinions about what he meant).

Have you got got any idea about how you think the flat earth is laid out? I know Radrook posted a map but I'm not sure if you accept it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Don't hold your breath as apparently you can't comprehend English either. From in plain English means point of origin - not final destination which is on the other side of the S. Pole.

By your own admission my understanding is correct .

Given the meaning of "from" you provided the meaning of "the other side of the South Pole from middle America" is "the area of land on the far side of the South Pole when the observer uses middle America as the point of reference for directional context"

In very simplistic terms for you: if you start in middle America and head towards the South Pole, once you reach Antarctica you could be said to be on the side towards middle America. If you continue past the South Pole you are now on the other side from middle America.

I suggest you now bow out gracefully.

 

[essentialsaltes]

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sorry all I got is cat memes, but really the topic doesn't deserve much more than that.