The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[Right Divider]

You're assuming there are spacecraft that are "continually orbiting" a globe. You and nobody else can prove that.

Dave, you're really being DENSE about this. Are you really this dumb?

What I believe about orbiting satellites is NOT the issue. The ISSUE is that in YOUR model, there is no way for their to be satellites from which ANY PICTURES can come. Why can you not see this?

YOUR MODEL denies the possibility of having ANYTHING to compare to your balloon pictures.

We have been bouncing radio signals off the "Ionosphere" for years so perhaps we have been bouncing phone and GPS signals as well.

Perhaps the Ionosphere is the top of the Dome over the flat earth.

I'm concerned about the images that are created by NASA not the spacecraft that are supposedly sending them.

It's the images that inform us the earth is a globe. You refuse to go there because perhaps you already know that NASA's ISS videos can be shown to be altered.

I've been watching hours of video from high altitude balloons this week, one was up there about 80 miles. A pattern begins to emerge as the common elements are seen over and over again.

I have before and will again view the video from the ISS and compare the differences and similarities I see in them with the balloon videos. I'm doing the homework required for an informed analysis and logical conclusion. To bad you with others from the globe side will have to sit this one out since you all don't do video analysis and comparisons.

But I'm sure all my commentary and evidence will be met with your usual name calling. But should you change your mind spend some time doing what I'm doing and share your conclusions.

--Dave

Please prove FROM YOUR FLAT EARTH MODEL that is it even possible to have an ISS from which to have picture to compare.

THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM TO SOLVE BASED ON YOUR FLAT EARTH MODEL.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You said:



And:



And I was correcting your false assumption.

Orbiting does not assume or presume a globe OR a flat earth. In fact, it has nothing to do with the shape of the object being orbited.

or·bit
ˈôrbət/Submit
noun
1. the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution.

The title of the video misuses the word orbit. Th plane in the video is circling not orbiting.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Mind boggling wiffenpoofle, Dave.

If this is the sort of response from someone claiming to be genuinely interested in the discussion, is it any wonder that the flat earth proponent is considered to be suffering from some form of cognitive disorder?

You keep pointing to NASA as if they are the single target behind all the flat earth rigging of the data claims. I have clearly shown that there are many other organizations outside of NASA receiving data from space vehicles. Please review my questions and try to be serious.

AMR

The question is not how or who receives data, it's can we rely on the images NASA supplies us with about the globe and space.

I explained to you why I won't go along with your train of thought.

You'll just have to understand that apparently God has not predetermined that I should do so.

--Dave

 

[CabinetMaker]

Actually, the globe model actually has a physical horizon that the sun can go behind. A rotating globe orbiting a sun means that the sun is hidden from view for about half the day. This is what we actually observe. A flat Earth with the sun following a circular path above the disk never has a horizon that the sun can go behind. How can the sun go down behind an horizon when it is said to be forever above the disk?

#DFT_Dave, you missed this one and I'd like to see your answer.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You use the "scale defense" like a get out of jail card.

If it is argued, and it is, that we are looking down already when we look out at the horizon of a curved earth, then that horizon would certainly be visibly dropping as we ascend and we would notice it. If we can see ships sink behind the curved horizon we could see the horizon drop farther below us as we rise to higher altitudes.

--Dave

Dave, you say that you have to look down to see the horizon. Can you tell us how much we have to tilt ours heads down to see the horizon?

 

[CabinetMaker]

The globe earth is proven true through the images supposedly from space from NASA.

You're arguing from a conclusion drawn from it's premise--circular reasoning.

Seeing a tiny blimp of a craft flying fast and high across the sky tells me anything about it. Everything we say about it would be presumed.

Nothing presumed helps anyone know anything.

I need you to defeat good arguments not bad ones.

--Dave

Dave, images don't prove anything. Math does.

 

[Silent Hunter]

or·bit
ˈôrbət/Submit
noun
1. the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution.

The title of the video misuses the word orbit. The plane in the video is circling not orbiting.

Once again, Dave, you exhibit one-dimensional and non-critical thinking.

At the basic level "orbit" means to travel around (usually some thing) in a circular or elliptical path. A satellite can orbit the Earth or a warplane can orbit a potential target.

 

[Right Divider]

@DFT_Dave

If you cannot explain how a spacecraft can hover above the flat earth, then you have NO BUSINESS discussing the comparisons of images taken from these spacecraft with ANYTHING.

You claim to want to use logic and reason in this discussion. That is logical and reasonable.... so give us an answer. Your failure to do so will expose you for what you are... illogical and irrational.

 

[Silent Hunter]

@DFT_Dave

If you cannot explain how a spacecraft can hover above the flat earth, then you have NO BUSINESS discussing the comparisons of images taken from these spacecraft with ANYTHING.

You claim to want to use logic and reason in this discussion. That is logical and reasonable.... so give us an answer.

:drumroll:

Your failure to do so will expose you for what you are... illogical and irrational.

Too late, that happened a long time ago.

 

[Right Divider]

Too late, that happened a long time ago.

I agree, but wanted to give him one more chance to redeem himself on this particular issue.

 

[Clete]

My comment was not in response to your post.

My criticism is of NASA/ISS not your experiment.

When asked how to answer your experiment I have answered with how Flat Earth deals with how the sun works on the flat earth in respect to perspective, atmospheric refraction, and atmospheric density.

I know that does not directly address your test, but you did it while I was gone and so I'm not sure how to answer it. I wish I was here at the time, as you were doing it.

But again my goal is to present all flat earth arguments that I can figure out let you all try to destroy or discredit them. Your three way triangulation is unique and I have not seen it presented anywhere else as yet. I will get back to it and it still is there as a good argument for globe earth. But there are still more arguments to consider, this subject is not resolved by one argument in my opinion. I don't think my quest makes me "A flat out, idiotic liar".

There is no one "kill shot" argument that will deal with the many sides to this cosmological challenge.

--Dave

Okay.

I thought you were referring to the math that we've done on the thread, which, whether you acknowledge it or not, is absolutely a kill shot in regards to a flat Earth. Either the Earth is not flat or math doesn't work.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Okay.

I thought you were referring to the math that we've done on the thread, which, whether you acknowledge it or not, is absolutely a kill shot in regards to a flat Earth. Either the Earth is not flat or math doesn't work.

Clete

I think that Dave does not realize there there are no "kill shots" in the sense that a single argument proves one or the other. But there are most certainly kill shots that disprove one or the other. And Dave has been shown several kill shots that completely and emphatically disprove the flat earth.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Something said to orbit assumes a globe. The question is about the images the ISS sends, are they faked or not?

I didn't use the word "orbit". I asked... what force keeps the ISS circling above the earth??

A craft in the sky proves nothing. Seeing it does not inform us as to how it's powered or how long that particular craft has been up there, or that the earth is a globe.

In this case it would prove everything. Spacecraft can orbit the globe due to earth's gravitational pull counterbalancing the ships inertia wanting to fly off into space. These two forces working against each other keep the ISS in orbit. A craft can be in orbit for years and years without any power source pushing it along.

But on the flat earth the ship is circling overhead without any power source (i.e., hovering) so the obvious question is... how is that possible? If it's not possible then the earth must not be flat and you should toss this theory out as folly.

It's the images from the spacecraft that are telling us the earth is a globe, not the craft itself, so it's the images we must debate.

--Dave

The images are just the icing on the cake Dave. Please tell me more about the cake.

 

[Ktoyou]

Is Dave providing the only thread old TOL members find worthy of response? If so, then we have a problem.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Is Dave providing the only thread old TOL members find worthy of response? If so, then we have a problem.

TOL is over 20 years old. This happens to be an engaging topic. If you don't like it create an engaging topic of your own that you find interesting.

 

[Ktoyou]

TOL is over 20 years old. This happens to be an engaging topic. If you don't like it create an engaging topic of your own that you find interesting.

seems the topic is a bit far fetched, yet if you find it engaging then, I guess that is only my sense of it.

We have had so many interesting topics, it is hard to think up a new one. Maybe raising an old topic from TOL past would be interesting, if that is alright?

Something like "Nicer than God"; that was a great thread and seems even more relevant today.

 

[Yorzhik]

The problem is that we already know what the phenomenon, atmospheric condition, is for an upside down mirage to occur and it's the same condition that an upright refraction occurs from--warm air passing over cold air.

The question is not reflection vs looming it's warm air passing over cold air produces upside down mirage vs warm air passing over cold air produces right side up refraction.

The same atmospheric condition cannot produce two completely opposite results.

I'm not making this up, it's textbook and illustrated.

--Dave

I'm glad to be done with this topic. Knight is asking what I would ask now... what forces are holding up the ISS as it circles the earth?

 

[Right Divider]

I'm glad to be done with this topic. Knight is asking what I would ask now... what forces are holding up the ISS as it circles the earth?

Indeed, and I had asked him that several times already. Dave thinks that he can argument about comparing images from a source that cannot exist in HIS model.

He needs to some clean, but that would force him to give us this whole charade of a "flat earth".

 

[DFT_Dave]

#DFT_Dave, you missed this one and I'd like to see your answer.

I told you already:

1. Perspective

2. Atmospheric density

3. Horizon refraction

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, you say that you have to look down to see the horizon. Can you tell us how much we have to tilt ours heads down to see the horizon?

In the globe model it is said we actually look down at the horizon and it is always illustrated that way.

View attachment 26509 View attachment 26510

I don't know what the calculation is but you can see the prediction from the second pic that the higher up you go the farther down you will be looking at the horizon.

--Dave