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

[DFT_Dave]

Dave think of all the times in these threads you have been reduced to having no answers and doing everything in your power to change the subject. This should be a red flag for you. You stated early on that you were just trying to find the truth and you had not made up your mind yet as to if the Flat Earth theory was true. Dave.... times like this when you have absolutely NO IDEA how the ISS could possibly stay afloat should help you understand that maybe you are buying into an unsupportable theory.

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

 

[Right Divider]

That's backwards.

And I've explained that clearly.

--Dave

How is it backwards.....?

You have to have orbiting spacecraft to get pictures from orbiting spacecraft.

How do spacecraft orbit in the flat earth mode?

This is be relatively simple. We're not asking for every detail, just the general idea.

 

[Right Divider]

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

I have specifically avoided ANY argument based on images from space.

You cannot handle any of the actual evidence and therefore you always try to move topics like images from space.

 

[DFT_Dave]

NO, we have to prove ORBIT before we can have PICTURES FROM ORBIT.

Prove flat earth orbit so that YOU can prove that there are PICTURES FROM SPACE in the FLAT EARTH MODEL.

Orbit presumes globe, it cannot prove what it assumes to be true.

An orbit over a flat earth by definition is not possible anyway. Seeing a fast high altitude blimp of a craft streaking across the sky does not prove it's orbiting. And we cannot verify what is powering it or how long it's been up there.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

I don't question the "existence of" satellites, the ISS, space shuttle, or anything else that is in low earth orbit.

Orbit presumes globe, it cannot prove what it assumes to be true.

An orbit over a flat earth by definition is not possible anyway. Seeing a fast high altitude blimp of a craft streaking across the sky does not prove it's orbiting. And we cannot verify what is powering it or how long it's been up there.

--Dave

Make up you mind Dave.... here you go again.

You don't question.... orbits.... and then orbit presumes a globe.

You're a double-minded and unstable man Dave.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I have specifically avoided ANY argument based on images from space.

You cannot handle any of the actual evidence and therefore you always try to move topics like images from space.

The whole flat earth movement is built on images that provide visible empirical evidence for a flat earth. If you want to destroy flat earth you must attack their evidence and their arguments in support of their claim.

The globe earth has also been presented through visuals of one kind or another. The math is secondary and equations are not proofs.

We were not told that men had landed on the moon and here is the math that proves it. We saw it on TV, or did we?

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

The whole flat earth movement is built on images that provide visible empirical evidence for a flat earth. If you want to destroy flat earth you must attack their evidence and their arguments in support of their claim.

The visual "evidence" that you propose is very, very subjective and, once again, I have avoided imagery evidence as proof of anything.

The globe earth has also been presented through visuals of one kind or another. The math is secondary and equations are not proofs.

That not true. But you have rejected all clear and unequivocal evidence that you've been shown.

We were not told that men had landed on the moon and here is the math that proves it. We saw it on TV, or did we?

--Dave

I have also stayed away from the moon landing stuff and stuck SOLELY to the shape of the earth from solid evidence.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Make up you mind Dave.... here you go again.

You don't question.... orbits.... and then orbit presumes a globe.

You're a double-minded and unstable man Dave.

I stand corrected on my terminology. I should have originally said, "or anything else that is circling at low earth altitude".

I see my mistake thanks for pointing it out.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

I stand corrected on my terminology. I should have originally said, "or anything else that is circling at low earth altitude".

I see my mistake thanks for pointing it out.

--Dave

You're welcome.

Now can you please explain how spacecraft circle at low earth altitude?

 

[Clete]

The whole flat earth movement is built on images that provide visible empirical evidence for a flat earth. If you want to destroy flat earth you must attack their evidence and their arguments in support of their claim.

The globe earth has also been presented through visuals of one kind or another. The math is secondary and equations are not proofs.

We were not told that men had landed on the moon and here is the math that proves it. We saw it on TV, or did we?

--Dave

This is just so maddeningly stupid!

First of all, the math that I presented to you was accompanied by images that we took with our own cameras within seconds of each other that showed the angle of the sun above the horizon at our respective locations. In other words, it wasn't just math that we pulled out from between our cheeks. It was utterly indisputable math that was based on data that was collected in real time by people you are in direct contact with on nearly a daily basis and which you can easily confirm yourself at ANY time you decide to do it.

In fact, that, I believe, is the real reason you reject it. It's too good. It's too powerful an argument. It's too close to what you've claimed is lacking in nearly every other piece of evidence against the stupidity that is the FET, namely it is personally verifiable, reproducible, EMPIRACLE evidence! It's precisely what you've constantly complained is missing and yet you poo poo it.

You're a liar, David! Plain and simple. A flat out, idiotic liar. Period.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

This is just so maddeningly stupid!

First of all, the math that I presented to you was accompanied by images that we took with our own cameras within seconds of each other that showed the angle of the sun above the horizon at our respective locations. In other words, it wasn't just math that we pulled out from between our cheeks. It was utterly indisputable math that was based on data that was collected in real time by people you are in direct contact with on nearly a daily basis and which you can easily confirm yourself at ANY time you decide to do it.

In fact, that, I believe, is the real reason you reject it. It's too good. It's too powerful an argument. It's too close to what you've claimed is lacking in nearly every other piece of evidence against the stupidity that is the FET, namely it is personally verifiable, reproducible, EMPIRACLE evidence! It's precisely what you've constantly complained is missing and yet you poo poo it.

You're a liar, David! Plain and simple. A flat out, idiotic liar. Period.

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

 

[DFT_Dave]

You're welcome.

Now can you please explain how spacecraft circle at low earth altitude?

No, as per reasons already given.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

No, as per reasons already given.

--Dave

No, the reason is that you cannot.

The well known physical forces make it impossible for a spacecraft to continually circle the flat earth under essentially no power.

You're really gone over to the dark side of dishonesty in our "discussion" in this thread Dave.

Is it any wonder that some are calling you a liar?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Something said to orbit assumes a globe.

Nope.

https://youtu.be/wagDQ7i85ho

The question is about the images the ISS sends, are they faked or not?

In order to prove [PHOTOS FROM ORBIT ABOVE FLAT EARTH], one must prove [ORBIT ABOVE FLAT 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.

But it will give us a basis for [PHOTOS FROM ORBIT ABOVE FLAT EARTH].

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.

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, the reason is that you cannot.

The well known physical forces make it impossible for a spacecraft to continually circle the flat earth under essentially no power.

You're really gone over to the dark side of dishonesty in our "discussion" in this thread Dave.

Is it any wonder that some are calling you a liar?

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

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

 

[DFT_Dave]

Nope.

https://youtu.be/wagDQ7i85ho

In order to prove [PHOTOS FROM ORBIT ABOVE FLAT EARTH], one must prove [ORBIT ABOVE FLAT EARTH].

But it will give us a basis for [PHOTOS FROM ORBIT ABOVE FLAT EARTH].

AC-130 Spectre Gunship Orbiting

Ok, I watched the video, but how does it show orbiting?

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

AC-130 Spectre Gunship Orbiting

Ok, I watched the video, but how does it show orbiting?

--Dave

You said:

Something said to orbit assumes a globe.

And:

Orbit presumes globe

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.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Someone who says they are seeing the globed earth through a window inside the ISS but not really is a paid actor. We have paid crisis actors who are used in fake news so the possibility that NASA has hired actors should not surprise you.

--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

 

[Silent Hunter]

Supra is neither an explanation nor an argument.

I'm pretty sure my post contained significantly more than four words. Instead of replying to my substantive and detailed response you focused on a single word because you have no idea of its meaning (even though you were told).

You should close this thread because you prove yourself an idiot with every one of your posts.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Let's try again, shall we?

Here is how the FE argument goes:

Seeing anything at distances we are not supposed to see them at, because of the curvature of the earth, is at the heart of the flat earth movement.

When one sees a right side up image that should not be visible it's evidence/proof the earth is flat and not curved.

No, its evidence of refraction caused by the Earth's atmosphere. As I've told you before one can NEVER see the actual object they are "looking" at. What we see, you included, is light reflected off of the object or light emitted from the object even if the object is inches in front of your eye(s). All we EVER see is an image of the object, NEVER the object itself.

Globe Earth Answer: What we are seeing is not the real thing but only an image of it because of refraction. A refraction happens when warm air passes over colder air. The image is projected over the actual thing, as illustrated below.

View attachment 26496

As I've told you before one can NEVER see the actual object they are "looking" at. What we see, you included, is light reflected off of the object or light emitted from the object even if the object is inches in front of your eye(s). All we EVER see is an image of the object, NEVER the object itself.

Flat Earth Objection: But then what are we seeing when we see an upside down image over an upright image of what is actually hidden behind the earth's curvature, as illustrated below?

View attachment 26497

Onions have layers and so does our atmosphere. Your tunnel-vision thinking leads you to believe there is only one condition existent of the atmosphere in which light can be refracted which is demonstratively false.

Globe Earth Answer: That's a mirage, a reflection of the what you cannot actually see. It's also produced when warm air passes over colder air.

As I've told you before one can NEVER see the actual object they are "looking" at. What we see, you included, is light reflected off of the object or light emitted from the object even if the object is inches in front of your eye(s). All we EVER see is an image of the object, NEVER the object itself.

Onions have layers and so does our atmosphere. Your tunnel-vision thinking leads you to believe there is only one condition existent of the atmosphere in which light can be refracted which is demonstratively false.

Flat Earth Question: How come we get two different effects from the same atmospheric condition, warm air over colder air?

Please explain.

As I've told you before one can NEVER see the actual object they are "looking" at. What we see, you included, is light reflected off of the object or light emitted from the object even if the object is inches in front of your eye(s). All we EVER see is an image of the object, NEVER the object itself.

Onions have layers and so does our atmosphere. Your tunnel-vision thinking leads you to believe there is only one condition existent of the atmosphere in which light can be refracted which is demonstratively false.

The answers from globe earth, as I see it, involve the fallacies of circular reasoning and equivocation. When one word, refraction in this case, can be used to mean more than one thing, we will not get a coherent answer when we object to a contradiction in an argument being made that in incoherent.

The term Cognitive Dissonance comes to mind when you write something so patently false. Have you looked up what that is yet?

So, according to your "theory" the nature of light and refraction is/was taught incorrectly in 5th grade?

The real question is, "Why are you?".

ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING you see is "quite clearly" NOT the actual thing. What we "see" is light reflected off of or emitted from/by an object. We never "see" the actual object... ever. The light we see from the object is affected by a variety of mostly uncontrollable conditions (the atmosphere, water, the physical limitation of our eyes, etc.) and a few controllable conditions (man-made lenses, such as telescopes, glasses, etc.)

Clete explains this clearly above, "... no one denies that light is refracted by the atmosphere. When light travels from a medium of lesser density into a medium of higher density (or vise versa), it refracts. The amount it refracts depends on the amount of difference between the densities of the two mediums (and other factors such as the angle of incidence), the bigger the difference in density, the more the light is refracted".

Effectively, the light reflected off of and emitted from the Chicago skyline is "bent around" the curvature of the Earth ("lifted upward"?) by refraction of the light by the atmosphere between Chicago and our (your) eye(s).

Whack-a-Mole time? Instead of looking at just the pictures, did you bother to read the article?

As I said above, we NEVER EVER see the actual object, we see light reflected off of or emitted from the object. The light we see then is our perception of the object and that light is affected (refracted) by a variety of mediums, the atmosphere being the primary medium refracting the light from objects far away and "parallel" to the Earth's surface. My fellow amateur astronomer, Clete, and I have both explained how light is refracted by the atmosphere such that the Chicago skyline is visible from "50 miles" away despite the curvature of the Earth. That you're still questioning this phenomena is confusing to us who aren't allowing cognitive dissonance to cloud our judgement.

Thanks, good questions.

I'm not questioning the basics of refraction. I'm questioning how it's applied in relation to atmospheric conditions, how can the same atmospheric condition be said to produce two different effects, both upside down and right side up images?

Because it doesn't. The atmosphere is quite dynamic and there are atmospheric condition that can (and do) exist capable of producing the optical effect(s) we witness as I explained prior.

If an image of Chicago is "reflected" off the layer of warmer air then we would see it upside down not right side up.

As you now know, it depends on how many layers of atmosphere (warm/cold/warmer/colder) the light is refracted by.

If we see it right side up then we are not seeing a reflection, we are seeing the actual city.

Nope, we NEVER, EVER, see the "actual city" as I've explained above.

Flat earth argues that atmospheric conditions are causing the water to appear to go up and down, when it actually is not. I believe the time lapse video of Chicago from Michigan compared with the time lapse video over Skunk Bay demonstrates this.

Perhaps in your untrained, uneducated opinion, yes; in actuality, no.

"We NEVER EVER see the actual object, we see light reflected off of or emitted from the object."

But that does not mean the actual object does not exist exactly where we see it. Right?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. The object exists, we just might not see the light from the object exactly where the object exists in space, the pencil in water effect comes to mind to explain/demonstrate this. That you're doing everything you possibly can to NOT understand this is frustrating more people than just me.

The speed of light. How it affects what we see and where and WHEN we see it is at the heart of Einstein's special relativity. This also makes us question what we are really seeing. I digress, but Einstein was a pantheist and he mixed his philosophy with science and gives us an irrational universe that does not distinguish time from space, what is and is not moving through space.

Here you exhibit a profound lack of understanding of Special Relativity. Poisoning-the-well (your even more profound bias against Einstein) will forever cloud your judgement and prevent you from ever understanding it even at the most basic level. Please note the two words I added to your quote.

That you're still questioning this phenomena is confusing to us who aren't allowing cognitive dissonance to cloud our judgement.

Rational thought is driving my doubts about Globe earth arguments.

That you ignore EVERYONE'S explanations why your thinking is flawed clearly shows you are unable to rationalize what you think you "see" with what science demonstrates is true.

Your appeal to "cognitive dissonance" is an ad hominem attempt to discredit arguments you can't answer.

Since an ad hominem has nothing to do with "arguments (I) can't answer" you are confused yet again. Cognitive Dissonance clearly explains why you cannot reconcile what you "see" with what science proves is.

Atheist's could argue that belief in God is due to cognitive dissonance, and vise versa.

I disagree but I'll let you have this one your way.

There is no way you can explain the existence of a mirage over a refraction over the actual city hidden by the curved earth of Chicago from across Lake Michigan without circular reasoning, equivocation, and contradiction.

And now you know this is completely untrue. This is simply you doing what you do, and you do it often, asserting as fact that which you have failed to demonstrate. Perhaps you've heard the phrase, "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"?

You alone are the one guilty of circular reasoning, equivocation, and contradiction. In fact, I'm not sure what "Flat Earth" predicts anymore because you've changed those "predictions" so many times.