r/conspiracy: Do you believe in Nasa?

16 snapper1971 2015-09-25

It's not a monopoly - Russian cosmonauts, Chinese astronauts, Indian space probes, European Space Agency, all go there regularly. Buy a telescope, or even a decent pair of binoculars and look up. Use the Internet to look for space related endeavours outside of the USA - there's oodles. My uni, I am English in England, sent a probe to Mars. School children in many countries have sent cameras on balloons to the edge of space. NASA only has a monopoly if you are incredibly insular and willfully ignorant of the entire space industry.

5 [deleted] 2015-09-25

The OPs not really wrong, but neither are you. Reading between the lines and if I may put words in op's mouth: I think op is speaking in terms of access, and their point is well-taken that we must rely on a single source to a degree. Although there are other space agencies, they both overlap and don't overlap in their areas of study. I have read that they cooperate in that they will all pick a part of the sky to focus on, that way they get more done. So with that in mind, there's some truth to being a kind of stellar gatekeeper, not just NASA but each of these agencies. We just have to trust them.

The real issue though, is that they aren't gatekeepers, they are representatives. They are funded by our taxes and they go and do good work and bring it back for us. The real problem of independent verification is that we don't get to go out there and see for ourselves, nor do we necessarily have unfettered access to the data nor the ability to understand it even if we had it.

And part of the reason we can't go and independently verify is two fold: 1. it's too damn expensive to go to space. We have astronauts begging us to refund NASA so they don't have to carpool with those apparently stinky Russians, and 2. politics: space is under the domain of the military at present. They are still trying to figure out how to commercialize it. They dont' want just anyone up there; and you know this because if you announced public plans to launch your own satellite, the men in black would show up at your door and shut your whole thing down faster than a republican womans raped vagine.

1 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

ha. (the last part) (sidestepping it :)

thanks for the support/ understanding/ your thoughts.

yes -- it's the gatekeeping I'm so upset about. tho -- the power it gives them - I can't imagine they are not taking advantage of it. I do think they are being deceptive, but --- the first and more easily arguable problem is that space is not publicly accessable even though the public funds the government and military access to it. this is not right. and the information they give us about it "must" be accepted. this isn't healthy. good science is always debated and tested - and then verified.

yes. thanks.

imagine if only one explorer team was ever allowed to "come to america" - we'd still think this was the other side of India because what good would it do columbus and those who were funded by same sources to admit he was wrong? ) people always make mistakes discovering new things. yet with Nasa -- what they think is out there is for the most part always confirmed. so weird. we can't even really chart the indian ocean yet, why comparatively is space so freaking easy. and yet not open to independent exploration.

1 snapper1971 2015-09-25

To take your example of oceans further, we only have a few "gatekeeper" organisations who can control information about and access to the bottom of the oceans. It's too expensive, dangerous and difficult to send even small equipment to. We have to take the information from a few oceanographic institutes for what's down there.

With a notebook, a good telescope, clear nights and determination, you can go and make observations of the night sky, you can catalogue all the things visible and deseminate this information freely with your independently recorded observations adding to the canon of knowledge.

You can even go film it yourself with a GoPro and a helium balloon.

So, let's get to what your motives are. What is your reasoning for claiming that there is a great big conspiracy in relation to space? What is your agenda? Flat-earther? Glass sky? Alien zoo? Interstellar quarantine?

Next question, what would it benefit a government to invent, create or manipulate information about the universe outside of the atmosphere? Are you claiming that we as a species are incapable of making vast paradigm shifts in our knowledge and understanding of the world, and that somehow the governments of the world are conspiring to protect us from the truth? To what end?

If it's a matter of not being able to independently verify the information presented, and to return to your oceans analogy, I had to take it on trust that America was where it was the first time I went because up until then the only sources of information were beyond my control, but, I had accessed enough different outputs to be able to critically and rationally examine the evidence presented to determine the fact that on the balance of probability such a place as America existed. Fortunately I was able to verify by actually visiting.

Although you are correct in stating that it is too expensive and dangerous to visit space independently, there are a multitude of sources for obtaining information about what is out there, including your own efforts and determination to verify the data as presented by the "gatekeeper" of NASA.

Do it. Make the observations. Challenge the orthodoxy by rigorous independent research that anyone can verify by making the same efforts that you have...

1 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

fI don't for a second discount that there is endless knowledge to gain, keep and build upon - just from observation of the sky from our on-earth vantage point. throughout all of history - now, and continually. Both with the naked eye, and with all sorts of tools and machines.

In fact I think specifically - that we know from history's records of what the sky looks like -- it's very bizarre that the sky looks almost exactly the same now as it did thousands of years ago - considering we are supposed to be moving through space all this time - it's quite bizarre that the constellations have remained all but fixed.

anyway -- ok - so some parts of the ocean are much harder to access than others - but let's agree there is a great deal more freedom for the public to verify the general nature of the ocean than of outer space. and there is a really big difference between observation from a distance and entering said area for verification of your theories based on your observations.

What are my motives? hm, that sounds like a loaded question - as if the natural desire the understand the world around me is not motive enough to ask questions. and yet -- it is exactly what my motive is. I wonder why you do not share that same motive?

I never thought to question globe earth ,at all. if you had asked me the moment before I discovered the new flat earth theory if in my life time I would ever question globe earth -- I wouldn't even think your question was interesting enough to answer - of course not - would be my unspoken answer. but I clicked on a link out of base boredom/curiosity - and I saw a point made I couldn't readily disagree with. I was so tickled that it hadn't actually been as stupid as I thought it would be I kept researching. and after a few weeks of research -- I had to laugh and acknowledge - I am no longer sure of the shape of my world. and it's super interesting to me to feel this change in thought. and I want to keep exploring what interests me .

what would it benefit the gov -- you got me - but I think they make terrible decisions all the time. just because I can't see a clear advantage doesn't mean it's not something they see an advantage to. however - I have a maybe maybe theory that a lot of people share- and that is that they faked the moon landing to win the cold war an inspire national pride, and they gotta keep going with the lie or else the people will lose all faith in their gov if they find out man's greatest achievement, achieved by america, was a lie. there's also the theory that Nasa is "something to believe in" that a nation really does need a religion to have unified focus - and while we have such variance in religious faith - the false stories of outer space became our new collective faith. and that faith and continual new lessons coming from that trusted source keeps the populous prideful and calm. -- or there is the theory if you get the people to swallow lies you weaken their ability to not swallow more lies when it serves you. ---- which is the basis of psyop agenda - to confuse and weaken the peoples decision making ability. but -- again - I don't know what the real reason may be - these are all only guesses. of course there's also always $$$$.Nasa's budget has always been cray cray.

thanks for believing America exists - I can barely prove it myself and I live here, for this example I'd say -- there's a lot more independent sources verifying the existence of pretty much every country/ land mass. and the more independent sources - the more trustworthy the story.

I have been doing this research you describe, I've asked Nasa in writing - to their education office and to their book store for the best technical info on how the moon landing was done - they have never offered one source to read . I've also called the Los Angeles Observatory and asked if it was possible to view a satellite with their telescope, they told me it is not possible to view a satellite from any telescope or camera. "because they move too fast" - I said but I have heard they move in exact accordance wit the rotation of the earth so they should appear to be still from our vantage point. they said no - they are still moving too fast and they can not be photographed. however you can see them flickering at dusk on the horizon just like the stars, I said how do I know which are stars and which are satellites -- they said you can't tell but you must know some are satellites.

call them yourself you will see their answers are awful.

1 snapper1971 2015-09-25

In fact I think specifically - that we know from history's records of what the sky looks like -- it's very bizarre that the sky looks almost exactly the same now as it did thousands of years ago - considering we are supposed to be moving through space all this time - it's quite bizarre that the constellations have remained all but fixed.

Everything is moving. The constellations of a few thousand years ago are similar to the ones we see today because the relative distances travelled has altered that much. The shear scale of the universe is vast and beyond the scope of most people's imagination. The light we see from starts has taken millions of years to reach us - the stars aren't in those positions anymore but the light from their new position hasn't reached us yet.

anyway -- ok - so some parts of the ocean are much harder to access than others - but let's agree there is a great deal more freedom for the public to verify the general nature of the ocean than of outer space.

Really? We know more about the solar system than the bottom of the oceans.

What are my motives? hm, that sounds like a loaded question - as if the natural desire the understand the world around me is not motive enough to ask questions. and yet -- it is exactly what my motive is. I wonder why you do not share that same motive?

It's not a loaded question. It's simply a question to ask in the process of enquiry.

I do have the same motive to question the world around me, and to verify the information presented.

I never thought to question globe earth ,at all. if you had asked me the moment before I discovered the new flat earth theory if in my life time I would ever question globe earth -- I wouldn't even think your question was interesting enough to answer - of course not - would be mu spoken answer. but I clicked on a link out of base boredom/curiosity - and I saw a point made I couldn't readily disagree with. I was so tickled that it hadn't actually been as stupid as I thought it would be I kept researching. and after a few weeks or research -- I had to laugh and acknowledge - I am no longer sure of the shape of my world. and it's super interesting to me to feel this change in thought. and I want to keep exploring what interests me .

From reading many articles it seems that the planet is a pear shaped affair. That's down to the nature of the gravity signature of the planet, allegedly.

what would it benefit the gov -- you got me - but I think they make terrible decisions all the time. just because I can't see a clear advantage doesn't mean it's not something they see an advantage to. however - I have a maybe maybe theory that a lot of people share- and that is that they faked the moon landing to win the cold war an inspire national pride, and they gotta keep going with the lie or else the people will lose all faith in their gov if they find out man's greatest achievement, achieved by america, was a lie.

thanks for believing America exists - I can barely privet myself and I live here, for this example I'd say -- there's a lot more independent sources verifying the existence of pretty much every country/ land mass. and the more independent sources - the more trustworthy the story.

I have been doing this research you describe, I've asked Nasa in writing - to their education office and to their book store for the best technical info on how the moon landing was done - they have never offered one source to read . I've also called the Los Angeles Observatory and asked if it was possible to view a satellite with their telescope, they told me it is not possible to view a satellite from any telescope of camera. "because they move too fast" - I said but I have heard they move in exact accordance wit the rotation of the earth so they should appear to be still from our vantage point. they said no - they are still moving too fast and they can not be photographed. however you can see them flickering at dusk on the horizon just like the stars, I said how do I know which are stars and which are satellites -- they said you can't tell but you must know some are satellites. call them yourself you will see their answers are awful.

A less than two minute Google-fu brought up this: http://www.satsig.net/geopics.htm and there are hundreds of other sites out there of images of satellites, both geostationary and moving satellites taken from the surface of earth by amateur sky watchers.

One possible answer, although it is merely conjecture, as to why NASA might not be willing to take pictures of these things is that the investment in the equipment may not allow for such a request - I am a photojournalist and have a bag with roughly £15k of kit in it that I carry with me, however, I am probably not going to use that to take pictures of shoes that I want to sell on eBay - I have other lower resolution equipment that is used for that. I suspect that it's pretty much the same for NASA. It's covered by the curious whilst they're trying to work out the workings of the solar system and universe.

1 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

first of all - hi photojournalist in a foreign country :) I'm guessing England? but maybe somewhere else.., - it's nice to talk to somebody so far away.

I looked at that link you posted, they are just dots of light in the photos. how can you verify they are satellites?

just for fun if you want to know what the theory is from those who I got it from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_C1QVIpKVQ

(I hope this is a good video there are a lot on the topic and I can't remember which ones are best to start with or if this specific one is one I watched - but it's some interesting info - even just to consider no matter if it changes your mind or not)

1 snapper1971 2015-09-25

By "dots of light" do you mean the pixelated and atmospherically distorted images of tiny objects about the size of a small car from miles below and through the imperfections of the glass in the camera/telescope? I think they're pretty good, considering the objects size and the limitations of the technology available.

Scintillation is a great problem to overcome.

-1 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

did your probe come back with samples?

1 snapper1971 2015-09-25

No.

0 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

that's too bad, if somebody ever proved there were real samples from outer space I'd become a believer. we had a mars rover at my school too, no samples. not even trace elements to be collected on the rovers' surface. kids graffitied their names scratching into the surface - never a spec of mars dust under their finger nails, my teacher assured me, hmhmmmm.

2 snapper1971 2015-09-25

There are samples of Martian geology on Earth. I own a tiny fragment, but I have held much larger pieces (about the size of a quarter)

Returning from another planet with heavy samples is expensive and because we send analytical instruments which are essentially automated and radio controlled robot laboratories. Sending data is cheaper than sending rocks.

Samples from comet trails have been collected and returned.

3 SlumberMachine 2015-09-25

As someone that has multiple family members and coworkers that have worked at Nasa Ames research center and other California installations like radio telescope tracking stations I can tell you most of the conspiracies regarding Nasa are false. Also, the Earth is not flat, satellites do exist and can be seen with the naked eye at night along with the ISS (if you aren't in a bright city). Plus if you have a ham radio you can contact the ISS and hear the traffic real time. Now has a human ever left low earth orbit and traveled to the moon? That's the question.

1 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

interesting with all that connection you see the moon landing/leaving low earth orbit as a question. thanks.

0 Shillyourself 2015-09-25

If we haven't been past LEO, how can you rightly say what the "earth" is?

2 USNukedMyPooHole 2015-09-25

Not a monopoly. There is the European Space Agency, and the Russian Federal Space Agency and the Indian Space Research Organisation and the Australian Civil Space and Chinese National Space Agency. There is about 50 space agencies throughout the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies

3 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

Thanks. Point taken. I amend my question - Nasa and other gov funded space agencies around the world. Who I contend are all in cahoots.

specifically - only governments can choose who goes into space. (or seems to go into space) any person on this earth can pull some cash and hop on a ship or plane and explore land and sea. nobody who is not government approved can explore space by actually going there, this is strange. And suspect.

1 USNukedMyPooHole 2015-09-25

What do you think is out there that they are not telling us about?

0 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

I do not know*. I just don't think they know either. I don't think they are hiding aliens or something specific like that. What I suspect is that they tried going up - got a certain distance - higher than airplanes - to about where you can SEE rockets reach and begin to arc downward - but not all that much higher and realized they did not have capability to go further. and they have been faking going further ever since. I think what's out there is uncharted. And remains a mystery. And I'm super interested in what it really is - and isn't, etc.

I think what they report back on is all their best guess, or at least building on verifying their best guess from decades ago when they started with the lies. and it's just a big illustrated "story".

kind of like a gulliver's travels but just very very dry, mostly filled with dust and light, to keep the public from getting suspicious. how would anybody know better? it sounds convincing. so it must be true. but the problem is - there is no way to verify it. and if you examine the stories / photos and evidence they produce they are filled with suspicious stuff. and then there is this campaign to call anybody who questions their achievements crazy/science doubting/ paranoid. etc, .. but it's not any of those things to question scientific findings that you can't verify for yourself. and it's all the more suspect they would attack "non-believers" rather than seek to provide more evidence and more accessibility to their process and data, which they do not. you can't find an account of mechanical steps necessary to carry out a moon landing. it's not available to the public. yet the public paid for the research.

you also can't find photographic evidence of satellites in space, tho they are supposedly capable of photographing a license plate here on earth - no camera on earth is capable of aiming back up at space and capturing an image of a satellite. this defies logic.

*but to guess - totally unproven guess - I suspect both the moon and the sun are images cast on a dome like surface above us, and we perceive them to be spherical but they are more like circle-spot reflections on a lens. I think heat generated from the earth is reflected back to us - via the focal point of the dome-lens which we see as the sun. I don't have as specific a theory about the moon but I do not think it is a sphere because it never has a hot spot - as all spherical objects have when you shine a light on them. I think it could in some way be a kind of x-ray reflected image of the earth. or something else. I think the earth is probably circular and flat-ish maybe slightly convex or concave. and I think Antartica is the outer rim. and I think there is a concave dome of some kind above us that is like dark glass that images/light/phenemon are reflected on - and we perceive what we see to be objects moving through vast space but that may not be entirely accurate. or accurate at all. just like when an animal in a forest looks down at his reflection in a pond and thinks there are trees and another him down there - we may not understand how to interpret what we see when we look up. and I think Nasa is giving us a whole lot of false verification that is keeping us from asking better questions.

-3 Noobsessed 2015-09-25

As an aerospace engineering ex-student and physics student:

Your first statement about rockets inclining because they are falling is ignorant. Rockets incline to aquire a trajectory tangential to the or, in some cases, far from perpendicular to the earth's curvature. It's pretty complicated but lets just say that it is WAY more easy to send something with this trajectory, specially if you want whatever you are sending to have a somewhat circular orbit (see: any satellite of the thousands that there are out there).

Second, you seem to be extremely infamiliar with the scientific community. Most of us scientists are moved for a genuine desire to know more and understand more of the universe, specially phsyicists. Any claim that was not possible to confirm or seemed to have any kind of flaw will be destroyed, and I really mean it. Like a bunch of doctors ruthlessly laughing at a scientist exposing whatever it was. Due to the nature of the scientific community (full of arrogant shits) it is virtually impossible for any astrophysics or aerospacial claim to be falsified.

Third, you can verify their claims. You are just not knowledgeable enough on the topic to do so. I'll give you an example: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12035-015-9393-x If you try to read this study without some advanced knowledge in neurochemistry how would you be able to evaluate the study, how to replicate it? Can you even understand what they are talking about?

Get a degree in physics or in aerospace/mechanical/industrial engineering and get access to /build a telescope or other device needed to reproduce their experiments.

Actually cameras can see satelites... if you know where to look at. The chances of randomly placing a cheap telescope with a camera in a position to see a satellite are more or less equal to the chance of spotting a white snake in the desert from a plane with cheap binoculars, if not less.

Your last paragraph actually worries me. Don't you see that the idea you made up not only defies all the scientific theory of our time, it also negates all the history of humanity until this point.

Newton's laws, easily replicated in a school lab, won't work with such an earth, the plants chlorophil would be just a senseless move by evolution, the ancient calendars will be impossible to explain and the references to the nightsky in millenia of observation in europe, asia, africa and south america would be simply unexplainable.

I'm not trying to be condescending but I think that is possible that you are developing/have a psychotic mental illness. As someone who is battling mental illness, I recommend you to see a proffessional ASAP or the illness could get worse. If this words make you paranoid and you believe that I'm someone trying to get you or put you or meds because you know too much it could be a sign that you have schizophrenia. Hope things turn out fine for you.

2 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

don't be worried. as a scientist you should understand that innovation and greater understanding only comes when people are willing to question accepted knowledge and wonder - aloud - if unraveling what we think we know and reexamining each part might get us to an even greater depth of knowledge.

expressing your "worry" is the only thing you should be worried about. fear of questioning and postulating never did the history of knowledge any good.

and stating that fear - that you fear I may not believe what I am told - rather than exploring the facts and questions - is psychologically abusive, it's not good for any person - not me or you and it's not good for science.

1 Noobsessed 2015-09-25

I'm honestly not trying to attack you in any way. Sincerely, I'm just pretty familiar with people with psychotic illness and those kind of paranoid delusions of "everyone is lying to me" are a pretty common thing.

Questioning the authority is always good, but question with intelligence.

In any case, if you think satellites don't exist and the earth is flat I recommend you to get into a physics course in a highschool or university.

For example, it's pretty easy using newtonian laws and a little bit of calculus to calculate that the speed needed to get out of the earth's influence is 11.2 km/s. In real life you don't even need this speed since that is only a measure of the cinetic energy you'd need to drift into space forever. In my university we (a students club) build a 3 meter rocket which was able to reach the speed of sound. If a bunch of kids with no more budget the some hundreds of euros could build this in 6 months just imagine what humans can do with hundreds of millions of dollars, the best educated minds that there are and years and years of dedicated work.

You must question many things but don't confuse questioning with basically negating an undeniable mountain of information. It's not the same to question something told on the TV to millions of ignorant people and to question the information gathered through millenia of development and very strict control by experts in the field who happened to be some of the most brilliant minds that humanity has produced.

1 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

the most brilliant minds of their time were usually locked up and ostracized for their thoughts. you can't celebrate copernicus and darwin in the safety of retrospect and want to diagnose me. check yourself. questioning what "everybody" believes is not madness. it may not make sense to you, but that's your problem. I may be far from "right" but I have every healthy right to wonder and think for myself. if you want to go diagnosing others for what they question I suggest you go get a degree in psychiatry from an accredited university because by your own standards you have no business making medical assessments without an accredited degree.

1 Noobsessed 2015-09-25

Honestly I'm just trying to help you. I don't think that my tone is hostile in the least, I gave you my reasons to think how I do and to not think like you do.

As I stated previously, it is healthy to question authority always and authority can use it's hegemony over the narrative of whatever situation to gain or keep itself in power. I'm sorry that you acted so aggressive to my concerns.

In any case, following my previous points, I found you a video from the ESA or European Space Agency which is both a prove of our ability to send people to space, that the earth is not flat (as the previous fact implicates) and to educate you a little about the math behind it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwBg4d7Wx1s

1 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

You are gonna have to face that telling somebody you are worried about them for questioning "what everybody knows" makes you an enemy to the progress of knowledge, and it is hostile/ what you are saying is very passive aggressive & abusive. just imagine if you wondered aloud about maybe cigarettes cause cancer -- and it was 40 decades ago - and somebody wanted to pump you full of lithium for saying it. you gotta recognize calling somebody crazy --- for questioning ideas about science -- is always damaging. you think they/ I am wrong - sure - you can say that all you want - but psychological diagnosis - for ideas about science - is stupid, weak minded & abuse.

2 Noobsessed 2015-09-25

Brother, I sincerelly, and I mean it, don't want you to feel bad or discredit you at all. If you are fine, then there is no problem. And I don't question your intelligence either. However how smart you are, the knowledge you are using to base your ideas is not right.

However, look at our conversation and see how you are ignoring every piece of meaning discussion in my comments to center our chatting in whether I'm trying to lock you down for questioning authority or not.

I sometimes don't explain myself very clearly and I apologize if the message that came across was that I think that you are crazy. I stand however in that you are very wrong here. There are many ways for yourself to prove that the earth is round without more equipment than a stick, a ruler and a clock (literally), and if you decide to inform yourself on the topic you'll see that it all actually makes a lot of sense (going back to the creation of the earth, measuring the tide's change and so on).

Try to calm down and analyze my comments with healthy skepticism but with an open mind too.

1 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

honestly I didn't read your science points, I read the "worried" "I'm trying to help you" - by calling you paranoid - and I was like f this dude - he's got no sense of how to treat people he disagrees with.

in all fairness I was a whiz in science,placing high in the nation when I was school aged and I studied other fields in advanced degrees. you may have points that counter what I was saying. almost certainly in some cases.

"I sometimes don't explain myself very clearly and I apologize if the message that came across was that I think that you are crazy. I stand however in that you are very wrong here. "

thanks - good job. accepted.

1 Noobsessed 2015-09-25

No, you got something wrong there: I don't disagree with you, I'm trying to educate you.

Although it is always nice to have some wierdo rage at you now and then. Enjoy your internet comment victory... if you'd call this that.

1 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

I'm not sure I know which part you are referring to. but peace. peace peace.

2 Rockran 2015-09-25

NASA can't even send humans up to the INTERNATIONAL Space Station anymore, they have to catch a ride with the Russians.

2 shemitahcometh 2015-09-25

they are an arm of the m i c

1 MaxwellStaxwell 2015-09-25

Absolutly not.

-1 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

agreed.

0 Bobb1118 2015-09-25

how the fuck do they know the weight and gas types of other planets

they can't even decide on global warming

5 crampedstyl 2015-09-25

Spectrometers.

2 Noobsessed 2015-09-25

They actually can decide, and it's pretty clear all over the world. The pathetic circus that you have going on in america is just the result of the capital making use of the ignorance and rampant fanatism of a sadly big demographic group.

America is the land of the stupid.

-3 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

great point.

0 Shillyourself 2015-09-25

Yes, I also believe in Santa Claus.

-1 high-priest-of-slack 2015-09-25

NASA is the religion of the NWO, and hoaxes everything from phallic rockets to space balls to guardian angel satellites and their omniscient government positioning system, all to cover up the Flat Earth.

3 Rockran 2015-09-25

Rockets look like big dongs because willies are aerodynamic.

1 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

I gotta say I more agree with you than not.

1 [deleted] 2015-09-25

[deleted]

1 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

Personally I think Nasa is legitimately going about 10% and faking 90%. I'm not sure - but there may be an object up there they call ISS but I think they film what goes on in there on sound stages, underwater and perhaps on an airplane set sometimes. I do not see any evidence people are up there in that object.

the arguments disproving globe earth and proving flat earth are astoundingly strong. the debate is valid. though the ultimate truth is probably something nobody has perfectly guessed yet.

-2 [deleted] 2015-09-25

[deleted]

5 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

which proof is that? I learned the earth was a globe. I learned they "proved" it by sailing around the world and realizing (eventually) they could end up back where they started. However - you can end up back where you started by circumnavigating a flat circle too. and you can think this means it's a ball - but not realize that's not the only possible explanation. -- then there is the photo taken of earth during the moon landing, but this trip in itself has been disproven so well - we must assume that photo was faked, also consider the proportions of Africa are way too small in comparison to other continents in that photo - another reason it can't be validated.

then consider curvature. if you do the simple math there must be 8 inches of drop/rise every mile. so if you look at a city skyline 50 miles away it should be seen as partially blocked from view from the arcing mound of land between you and the skyline - by ~ 33 feet. but you never get this curvature obstruction of view - no matter how far into the distance you are looking. and how much curvature should be between you and what you are looking at.

just saying - this is a valid debate.

2 VinsaneInTheBrain 2015-09-25

How can you explain that the Sun casts different shadows at different locations if the Earth is flat?

4 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

if the sun is actually quite close to the earth - and much smaller than we think - it will cast different shadows.

for example imagine a light bulb hanging from the ceiling in the middle of a large room. objects directly below will cast almost no shadow, but objects further out - near the side of the room will cast a shadow - the further the distance an object from the middle of the room the longer the shadow that object will cast.

the theory is that the sun is circling above us - you can google diagrams

I'm not saying it's fact, - but it is the theory/explanation.

http://s1110.photobucket.com/user/RyanHessy/media/UnequalHeating.jpg.html

http://wiki.tfes.org/Sun

just something to consider about the popular/ accepted theory - the sun should be casting rays at a spectrum of angles anyway, thus creating varying shadows irregardless of the presence of a curvature of earth. for the direction of the sun's rays to all be parallel - and varying shadow to be purely a demonstration of the shape of the earth - the sun should be huge in the sky - it should expand to blanket the whole sky above us - to create constant directly downward/vertical rays. but this is not the case. the presumption that all of the sun's rays are parallel with each other was flawed in the first place, I say. the sun is ball (or what appears to be a ball) emitting light in all directions. geometry tells is each of those rays is going to be at a different angle than all the the others. you've got a 360 times 3d spectrum of varying angles emitting from that ball of light. but this was not considered in the original "shadow proof" - proving globe earth. what was assumed was that all of the suns rays were in constant alignment in order to prove that globe shaped earth was the only possible cause of the varying shadows.

1 VinsaneInTheBrain 2015-09-25

But it IS a fact the Sun much farther away and its rays are hitting the Earth in a parallel fashion.

2 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

I won't try to debate you on it - I don't have enough info at my disposal. I'm just sharing the theory. in the simplest terms can you say why it is irrefutable fact that the sun's distance is known and that rays hit the earth in parallel fashion?

1 VinsaneInTheBrain 2015-09-25

Similar to the Pythagorean Theorem we can use parallax to determine the distance to the Sun. Because the Sun is so far away, the rays that reach Earth are parallel.

Sources: Astronomy Student

2 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

to my non-atrstronomy student ears that sounds like using one assumption to confirm another assumption. and vice versa. two assumption that confirm each other are still not irrefutable as a pair. I still don't see how that proves distance, beyond all doubt.

-1 [deleted] 2015-09-25

[deleted]

4 sayswhat 2015-09-25

Watch a video. The ships don't "sink" below the horizon. They disappear from the bottom up due to vanishing point perspective. Once the ship disappears, it can be seen to reappear with a strong zoom lens showing it didn't really sink, it is just a trick of the horizon.

Realizing this blew my mind.

6 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

thanks super agree with you sayswhat

-1 [deleted] 2015-09-25

[deleted]

3 sayswhat 2015-09-25

I've seen this demonstrated several times and have personally seen this at sea using binoculars.

http://youtu.be/N2LV8gLWYqU

2 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

blue marble

-2 inbetweentime 2015-09-25

Interesting read right along your line of thinking:

Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA

-2 tigereyeearth 2015-09-25

thanks

-1 inbetweentime 2015-09-25

No prob, it covers tons of stuff, and some theories are more far-fetched than others, so draw your own conclusions... Also it's quite long but there are PDFs of the book online if you search it