It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guide to the FLAT EARTH

page: 14
29
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TheDon


The problem is with your link, if we are looking at the flat earth theory is can that information be trusted to be true?

Orbital data provided by NASA

From your link.

As I stated above, NASA would be behind the hoax.

Then don't trust it, verify or debunk it.

I took the info they give here iss.astroviewer.net... and went out to see for myself. Am I special? Does that only work for me, in my location?

You say you look at both sides of the coin. What do you have to say about this side?

Again the original point is to take the orbital path displayed to the public world wide www.isstracker.com... and try to fit it as a circle onto a FE map. That's what they claim is really going on right? ISS is "flying in a circle" above a flat Earth?

Try it for yourself and see how ridiculous that claim is, or maybe you'd rather just believe what they tell you.

edit on 19-4-2015 by DenyObfuscation because: correct a link




posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: TheDon

Then don't trust it, verify or debunk it.

I took the info they give here iss.astroviewer.net... and went out to see for myself. Am I special? Does that only work for me, in my location?


I looked at your link, as you know, and I even put my location here, in the south off Sweden into it:
iss.astroviewer.net...
and as you will see I am not going to see it with the naked eye.

Also even if I did, and it was passing overhead, how would I know excactly what I am looking at? do I take there word for it what i would be seeing?

So are you saying that would prove by itself that the world is a globe? withough having to look at anything else?


You say you look at both sides of the coin. What do you have to say about this side?

I do and have.


Again the original point is to take the orbital path displayed to the public world wide www.isstracker.com... and try to fit it as a circle onto a FE map. That's what they claim is really going on right? ISS is "flying in a circle" above a flat Earth?

That I can not do and would not know how to. Also since we are just talking about flat earth theories, and not what we are told is fact, how could anyone really say in the first place, as it would all be guess work.

I saw you did not quote me comments regarding the ISS and the footage, do you have a valid opinion on that? have you looked at any off the footage which I suggested?

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TheDon

As I pointed out to you about half a dozen times, you can make several observations and gather the data required to make your own keplerian elements for the ISS or any other satellite. The formulas and techniques are well published in literature and online and are based on an elliptical orbit around a sphere. Yet you admit you cannot make the ISS' path fit on a flat Earth map even though people can witness it for themselves around the world.

How telling...

EDIT:

What you and a lot of FE people seem to not fathom, is that when learning you do so through both theory and experiment every step of the way. It is not blind obedience as you so falsely would like some people to believe.
A lack of understanding does not make one wise, nor does understanding make one gullible or a sheep.
edit on 19-4-2015 by AgentSmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TheDon

You do have a visible pass coming Monday night at 8:59:42 with a duration of 1:11. You would need an unobstructed view of about 10 degrees above the horizon.

Hmmm, horizon. The horizon in itself should be enough for folks to realize the FE 'theory' is implausible, yet they persist.

As for what it really is that is being seen? For the purpose of this thread, it doesn't really matter WHAT it is. The point is it's there and can be viewed from the majority of the planet, when and where they say it will be. I've seen no evidence otherwise.



So are you saying that would prove by itself that the world is a globe? withough having to look at anything else?

I'm saying the people who say the ISS "flies in a circle" above a flat Earth are wrong. I'm trying to give you ways to think about these things for yourself, yet you seem to be more inclined to take their word for this with no evidence for the claim whatsoever.



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation



You do have a visible pass coming Monday night at 8:59:42 with a duration of 1:11. You would need an unobstructed view of about 10 degrees above the horizon.

Brightness would be the question as you can see from the link, guessing your eye sight is better than my old eyes



Hmmm, horizon. The horizon in itself should be enough for folks to realize the FE 'theory' is implausible, yet they persist.

Glad you brought that up, not sure how you can claim that would prove the earth is a globe?
I am sure you are aware, off the maths which I have quoted in this thread regarding the horizon, and the curviture, but yet the horizon, is always at eye height.
That is also true, when when is in a plane at crusing altitude.
How can that be possible on a globe model, based on the size that we are told the globe is?
When up that high, the horizon should not be at eye level, one should be looking down on it.


As for what it really is that is being seen? For the purpose of this thread, it doesn't really matter WHAT it is. The point is it's there and can be viewed from the majority of the planet, when and where they say it will be. I've seen no evidence otherwise.

Of course it matters, even more so in this thread, as I have mentioned a number of times in this thread, many of the flat earth theories claim that there is no satilites, ISS.
How can you say it is not important? are we to believe a light in the night sky is the ISS?


I'm saying the people who say the ISS "flies in a circle" above a flat Earth are wrong. I'm trying to give you ways to think about these things for yourself, yet you seem to be more inclined to take their word for this with no evidence for the claim whatsoever.

I answered that question for you in my last post regarding what I know or think, here is the answer again for you in case you missed it



That I can not do and would not know how to. Also since we are just talking about flat earth theories, and not what we are told is fact, how could anyone really say in the first place, as it would all be guess work.


As I have pointed out so many times, the ISS is just a small part off the theory, the is plenty more to get your teeth into if you want to.

So we that said, regarding how the ISS might fly around a circle, I don't have an answer for you, so lets not let you and me go around and around now on that


Still would like to know your opinion, on the ISS footage you you have one, and if you have watched some off the video searches i suggested.

I think it is important to ask, this question, because anything to do with space and low earth orbit, seem to play an important part when looking at the flat earth theories.



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation


Hmmm, horizon. The horizon in itself should be enough for folks to realize the FE 'theory' is implausible, yet they persist.




Ah, yes, the horizon, and that reminds me of something I read about years ago. Back in pre-WW II Germany, there was this crazy guy, Hans Hoerbiger, aka, the Fire and Ice Man. His theory was that civilization had been destroyed by successions of fire and ice, also that we live on the inside surface of a hollow whatever. How he got around the problem of the obvious horizon, I don't know, but under his influence, during the war an expedition was sent to Svalbard to train a radar unit so many degrees above the pesky horizon, to observe the British fleet at Scapa Flow. It failed, but the point is, people have the ability to ignore the obvious if they have a THEORY.
edit on 19-4-2015 by Lazarus Short because: spellinx



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 04:32 AM
link   
And here is today's reminder of what I'm sure we'd all love the FE supporters to address. So strange they keep trying to ignore and bury it. At first I thought that maybe some people lack a (great deal of) understanding (of anything). But I think it's becoming clearer they are simply frauds and liars. Why else would you ignore these points and try and bury them below posts rather than try and tackle them?



originally posted by: AgentSmith

Here you can find GNSS-SDR www.gnss-sdr.org...

It is open source software (source code available from their site) which relies on GPS satellites orbiting a spherical planet and takes into consideration general relativity. Unsurprisingly it works and due to the open source nature no one can claim it is a trick or presenting false information.

You can even get the software running with a cheap $20 dongle used for SDR

gnss-sdr.org...

Nothing is being concealed, it's open source and open for scrutinisation. How do FE believers explain this?




originally posted by: AgentSmith

originally posted by: TheDon
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Hello DenyObfuscation again,

You have been with this thread pretty much since the beginning, so based on that I will guess that you might have actually read all my posts?

From my understanding, regarding the flat earth theories and what I have researched, the claim is that all satellites and the ISS are fake,

But you should know this already as I stated this HERE in a reply to one off your earlier posts in this thread.


3 off the biggest questions I have and also find interesting is that:
1. then all space travel over the last 50+ years would have to have been faked, and by any means that is one seriously big cover up, and I am fully aware how unlikely that is, but if one does research one can find official NASA videos regarding the shuttles and ISS which IMO are clearly faked, but just because some are faked, it is still a massive claim to say all are fake and the whole NASA and other space programs are fake as well.


The problem is with your link, if we are looking at the flat earth theory is can that information be trusted to be true?

Orbital data provided by NASA

From your link.

As I stated above, NASA would be behind the hoax.

Just to keep in on topic a bit regarding the ISS, what I have found more interesting regarding the ISS, why, IMO, are we seeing some obvious fakes off official videos off the ISS including space walks and alleged astronauts inside the ISS.
A quick google search for example of, ISS HOAX, ISS permed hair, will produce some off the more famous, and there are many more out there,
Why would they need to fake this? and if NASA are lying about the ISS why would I trust anything they have to say. (See my sig)
Now is this related to the flat earth theory? maybe, IMO they are hiding something.

Thanks.




You don't have to trust NASA. You can calculate the keplerian elements for the orbit of the ISS or any other observable satellite yourself from a minimum of three observations.
This is why we can track satellites like the secret X37B - amateur enthusiasts calculate the elements themselves.
It's not some magic that's spoonfed to the unclean masses, just maths and physics.


Once the OTV-2 launched, satellite watchers started scanning the skies for a glimpse of it. Skywatcher Ted Molczan of Toronto developed a set of orbital elements based chiefly on last year's OTV-1 flight to help prospective observers in the search.

And days after the launch, on March 9, Molczan announced that OTV-2 had been sighted by satellite tracker Greg Roberts of Cape Town, South Africa. Roberts spotted the spacecraft "in difficult observing conditions," Molczan reported.

Within days, other observers made sightings as well.

The orbital inclination of the space plane has been determined by Molczan to be 42.8 degrees with respect to Earth's equator, which means it can appear over regions as far north as Boston; as far south as New Zealand's South Island.

It is traveling in an elliptical orbit that measures 214 miles at its high point, or apogee, and 203 miles at its low point, or perigee, and takes 91.1 minutes to circle the globe.

www.nbcnews.com...

Once the orbital elements were calculated it was then possible for amateur telescopes to track and photograph the craft.

www.universetoday.com...

You can learn how to do it yourself, all the information is online. Unsurprisingly it relies on elliptical orbits around a sphere...

I encourage anyone interested to search for keplerian elements, orbital elements and calculating them to see just how much information is out there. Give it a go yourself! You'll learn a lot.

No comment on my post about the open source GPS signal processing software BTW? Bit of a sticky one for FE believers as there can be no argument anything is a trick or false and it proves the use of satellites orbiting a sphere...


Anyone unsure of anything don't let them try and fool you with stupid concepts like math is designed to support a theory. It just doesn't work like that. When you learn math and science you do so through learning theory and verifiable experimentation. You keep building on this starting at the very basics until you can start dealing with more advanced concepts.
I can understand how people wonder why science can come to sometimes incredible conclusions - I did too like anyone unless they take the time to learn. But once you've spent a few years, maybe even a few months, learning in a structured way including through experiments you carry out yourself in your own controlled environment it starts to become clear it's not magic or assumption at all but practically obvious.

It's something that you need to experience though, once you do you'll understand why these snake oil salesman are nothing but a sham.



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   
And regarding this:


originally posted by: TheDon
Just to keep in on topic a bit regarding the ISS, what I have found more interesting regarding the ISS, why, IMO, are we seeing some obvious fakes off official videos off the ISS including space walks and alleged astronauts inside the ISS.
A quick google search for example of, ISS HOAX, ISS permed hair, will produce some off the more famous, and there are many more out there,
Why would they need to fake this? and if NASA are lying about the ISS why would I trust anything they have to say. (See my sig)


These videos are the result of people failing to understand that the ISS Is a microgravity environment in a permanent state of free fall as it orbits the Earth among other things. Ironically I feel that a lot of people put more faith in Hollywood depictions of space travel than reality, they couldn't even get much right in Gravity even though it was an entertaining movie.

There is a big difference between being lied to and not understanding something, the explanation is unsurprisingly that people don't understand what they are looking at. The irritating thing is when you try and explain it to them they would rather ignore it or rather patronisingly try and tell you that they are enlightened and you just have the wool over your eyes. Then they wonder why people get upset with them..



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: AgentSmith

For one who dogmatically insists on believing the unprovable hypothesis
that light propagates in straight lines over distances of billions of lightyears,
the universe must be the universally accepted Copernican system. If
one is open-minded enough to get rid of one’s attatcment to this dogma,
then the only alternative universe is Geocosmos. The former, with its
incredibly gigantic stellar galaxies and other celestial objects distant
billions of light-years, and its stupendous energy sources, scattered
aimlessly throughout space, reduces the earth and the solar system to
nothing in comparison; whereas in the latter, the earth’s surface is the
finite boundary of the whole universe contained within it. Since both
universes are equally possible, there is no valid reason for astronomers,
astrophysicists, and other scientists to confine their attention exclusively to
the study of [the Copernican system], totally dropping the competitive
[Geocosmos] out of their consideration. Probably the majority of these
scientists have never even heard of Geocosmos.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: clarktron

Sounds clever, apart from the fact anyone can do independantly verifiable experiments to prove what is correct which is how we've evolved intellectually as a species. You know, like how us stupid scientists allow you to have a device and infrastructure to propagate your deity brown nosing.

You seem scared or threatened that the solar system and earth are actually nothing significant in the universe, thank you for at least helping me to understand why some people are so terrified by this they can't think.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: clarktron

Here's another thing, scientists and engineers have literally lead humanity out of the dark ages and expanded our abilities and level of understanding to that approaching what people would have once attributed to their fictional gods. Those gods that people once and still try to credit for that they do not understand.
So if your a devout believer I guess I can understand why you feel threatened. But no matter how philosophical you try and get it doesn't change the facts. You can learn the techniques and check yourself. Humanity knew the world was round millenia ago and now the only difference is we have the technology to go out far enough to see it.
Humans and the earth are not the center of anything other than their own privative needs to be special and have meaning to their lives. Get over it.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Wrong thread somehow.





edit on 21-4-2015 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: AgentSmith

Being a scientist as you claim, does Edmund Halley ring a bell? The Edmund Halley who helped pioneer the body of knowledge and practice that led to modern science. The same guy who discovered the periodicity of "Halley's" Comet. A quote from Halley -

"But to return to our Hypothesis, In order to explain the
change of the Variations, we have adventured to make the
Earth hollow and to place another Globe within it: and I
doubt not but this will find Opposers enough. I know ‘twill
be objected, That there is no Instance in Nature of the like
thing; That if there was such a middle Globe it would not
keep its place in the Centre, but be apt to deviate therefrom,
and might possibly chock against the concave Shell,
to the ruine or at least endammaging thereof; that the Water
of the Sea would perpetually leak through, unless we
suppose the Cavity full of Water, That were it possible yet
it does not appear of what use such an inward Sphere can
be of, being shut up in eternal Darkness, and therefore unfit
for the Production of Animals or Plants; with many more
Objections, according to the Fate of all such new
Propositions"

Mostafa Abdelkader, an Alexandrian mathematician, proposed that a geometric
transformation could be applied to lend theoretical support to the religious conception of
a geocosmos (i.e., an inverted cosmos contained within a hollow planet). Abdelkader’s
proposition is interesting because, it is empirically irrefutable.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: clarktron

He was also born in 1656. Luckily we've come a bit of a way since then...

My apologies....

Some of us have come along since then.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentSmith

Gotta love the 'globe within a globe' argument from a FE proponent.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Hello all again,

As many off you know that have looked into the flat earth, the question always comes up, that you can see the curve off the earth from a plane.

What I would like to bring to the discussion here is the following video.

Which in my opinion, throws doubt on what we are told and what we see.

The following video, gives a very good prospective in my mind and also illustrates what we should be seeing on a globe earth whilst flying, but actually what we do see is totally different.

On a personal note, I have always wondered, why if the earth is a globe whilst flying why is the horizon at eye level?

One should be looking down at it if we are to believe that the circumference off the earth on the globe model is true.

Thanks



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: TheDon

Good point. Assuming your aircraft is flying 2 miles above a small Earth itself only a few miles across.

But the Earth has a diameter of about 7,800 miles. If you are 2 miles above an object that size, why would it appear to be curved? Do the maths ....



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Most commercial jetliners cruise somewhere between 30,000 and 45,000 feet above mean sea level. Which is alot more than 2 miles, and when you do the maths taking the diameter off the earth, then one should not have the horizon at eye level one should be looking down at it.


edit on 7/5/2015 by TheDon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TheDon

Parallax would account for why you see the horizon still despite your height. It's why things in the distance don't seem to move at the same speed as things closer to you when you're traveling in a vehicle or train. The distance to the horizon is still much larger than the few miles you're up in the sky. Even at that height though, I can say with certainty that the horizon seems LOWER that if I were on the ground. You're being intentionally dishonest.

It's fine to have an open mind, but don't have it so open that your brains start spilling out.
edit on 7-5-2015 by ScientificRailgun because: I can't english



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: TheDon
You're being intentionally dishonest.

That is not true, and if you have read this thread and my posts, you would not make such a statement as you would know were i stand, but then maybe you would?

Regarding yourother comments, you have provided an opinion, not any hard facts.

Have you watch any of the videos I have posted?




top topics



 
29
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join