1. DJC

    DJC Member

    Its something .....yes i agree .if it has people flying in it or not we don't know for sure .what it is we don't know for sure ...so i say that that video doesn't debunk flat earth ...other things might but on this thread it does not ..not for me
     
  2. Astro

    Astro Active Member

    We're not "blindly believing," we've seen ISS for ourselves, and as Mick has proven it doesn't even take super-expensive equipment to resolve the general shape of the object flying above us exactly where it should be given the orbit of ISS around the earth. This is directly in contradiction to what a flat earth and a fake drone would predict.

    Back in the day, I used to watch the space shuttle come and go from ISS, and I saw it change as it was built piece by piece in orbit. Even though the shuttle isn't flying anymore, spacecraft still come and go from the station (though none are nearly as large as the shuttle was and therefore they're much harder to resolve independently from ISS).

    There's nothing unexpected about being able to track and resolve ISS. It's about 72.8 meters long and 108.5 meters wide. At 400 km altitude, those dimensions translate to 37.54 arcseconds and 55.949 arcseconds respectively (http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm ). Is that too small to resolve by eye? Basically, yes. But with a telescope or high powered lens, that's easily resolved. It's comparable in apparent angular size to the planet Jupiter as seen from earth:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter#Use_in_astronomy
    If you can make out the great red spot on Jupiter, you can see details in the shape of the space station. Is it moving fast across the sky? Yes, but how fast? Let's assume again that the altitude is about 400 km and an orbital velocity of about 27600 km/hr or about 7.67 km/s (http://iss.astroviewer.net/ ). If you plug that in you get a maximum angular velocity of about 1 degree per second for ISS, about twice the apparent diameter of the moon in the sky. Yes, that's fast, but it's slower than the maximum slew speed of amateur telescopes like mine:
    "the telescope automatically slews, or moves, to the object at up to 8° per sec., centering it in the main telescope field."
    Page 5:
    http://www.manualslib.com/manual/295083/Meade-Lx200.html
    So yes, a telescope like mine can automatically track ISS with its motors just fine, exactly as should be expected.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    That's a great video find. Thanks.

    (except for the soundtrack.....BUT!! I get the point. Hope every viewer gets it as well).

    .
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2016
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  5. xxxx78

    xxxx78 New Member

    Just to clarify, from what I have read I would say that most Flat Earth-people (Nope, I am not one of them but I find reading up on CT´s interesting) do not claim that the ISS does not exist at all, although a few of them might.
    Rather, the most common claim is that it holds no people inside.
     
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think that the more general claim is that whatever the ISS is, it does not orbit the Earth. There being no people on board is a secondary claim that's kind of required by the first claim.

    The point of this thread though is that there is something that looks just like the ISS that appears exactly where the ISS would appear if it were actually orbiting the Earth exactly as astronomers say it does.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. xxxx78

    xxxx78 New Member


    Yes. I understand your point, and it is valid imho, just thought I´d clarify.

    However, my understanding is that most FE´s agree that something is up there, flying around, but rather in a circle or irregular path as opposed to "orbit" which of course they claim is impossible and does not exist.
     
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well yes, but it's not like they think it's an ISS with no people on it. They think it's not the ISS. Like it's a hologram or a drone.

    And regarding "most FE's", I think really there's a very small number of FE's who have given it much thought. There's no real coherent theory of what the ISS is. It's an area of the theory where the sheer ridiculousness really shows.
     
  9. xxxx78

    xxxx78 New Member


    Agreed :)
     
  10. Psyringe

    Psyringe Banned Banned

    I'm not a Flat Earther; but can't be positive we've been to the moon or frequently docked with anything. Although, experiments in "Zero-G" are interesting; like Saturday Morning Science.

    They could be in a plane; the effect can be generated on the cheap.
    | I see more evidence proving against humans being in space.
    | I see more evidence the world is round.

    I can sympathize with a Flat Earther though. Look at YouTube; follow Trump on Twitter.
    ...woah...

    I have highspeed satellite internet. It's fluctuations in bandwidth are enough to guess distances and who else in the world is on. Something as simple as another timezone being in high bandwidth. Over time; various types of cut outs; and assuming the satellite was running the same orbit as the ISS or similar; the cutouts times sync up.
     
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No they can't. A plane is not big enough, nor does it make zero-g for long enough.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  12. Psyringe

    Psyringe Banned Banned

    Size and time come into question. But NASA has A LOT of money. How the video was edited (originally) and nature of the publish. Saturday Morning Science; it was in segments. I'm on the fence until more space travel occurs.
     
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There are hundreds of videos from the Space Station, and even from Skylab in the 1970s pre-CGI. It all looks genuine to me, most people, and all the world's scientists.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. Psyringe

    Psyringe Banned Banned

    I think there's dozens of ways to make a good movie. CGI or no CGI. :D
    But I respect all positions on the issue.
     
  15. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    so the Russians found out that the U.S didnt actually beat them into space, and they were ok with that? hhmmm..
     
    • Like Like x 4
  16. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Really? How?
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2017
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Why would you? The Flat Earth position is entirely without evidence, and has a very large amount of contradictory evidence. Why do you give it equal weight to a position that has vastly more evidence? Hours of video that you nobody knows how to duplicate? The ISS flying overhead all point of the globe on cue, and visible in photographs anyone can take? How is no evidence somehow worth the same respect as a vast overwhelming undeniable preponderance of evidence?

    Have you even watched the ISS fly overhead? Maybe you should try that for a start. Instructions here:
    https://www.metabunk.org/space-station-photos-disprove-the-flat-earth-theory.t7621/
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Your average 'vomit comet' zero g-training aircraft can manage about 60 seconds of free fall conditions before returning to normal flight and then takes about 7-10 minutes to climb back to its starting altitude to do another dive. One was rigged as a film studio to film the zero-g sequences of the film Apollo 13, that's why, if you watch the film there are no single zero-g shots longer than 40 seconds.

    A while back, UK astronaut Tim Peak did a series of TV specials involving a tour of the ISS, prolonged Q & A specials with TV audiences and interactive live science experiments with UK schools, most of that footage was caught on a single uninterrupted live feed. Not possible in a vomit comet.

    Also consider this. If zero-g planes were used, to achieve this effect you would need a whole fleet of them, at-least 7 if not more. All identically rigged out, each one with identical looking actors and look-a-likes, identical lighting. And thats not to mention a wizard of a director to seamlessly fly edit the footage together into a single show - and you would need people like floor mangers and continuity people on each flight to assist the task... Then you need one hell of an effective communications system between the aircraft to make sure the multiple astronaut / actors were doing EXACTLY the same thing at the same time.

    Now planes can't fly forever, so every few hours they are going to need to break off the zero-g flights, fly to an airfield big enough to handle them, land re-fuel, go through maintenance checks and the take off, climb back to operation altitude and continue. Therefore your going to need multiple fleets, at least 2, if not 3 or 4. So you now looking at needing 30+ planes, all rigged up the same with clone actors etc etc etc to maintain the illusion. And thats not including the required ground crew and engineers to keep them in the air. That will involve and few hundred people minimum...

    And you will need to keep this set up running 24/7/52 just keep people believing in the ISS? The expense alone would be mind boggling, and like every conspiracy, the more people involved the more chance of a whistle blower. Yet no whistle has been blown...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    There are, but even the best movies don't hold up on close scrutiny.

    Apollo 13 is probably the best space travel movie made in terms of accurate depiction of the science of the matter. It falls apart on inspection because despite not being a particularly fast paced movie, it employs the kind of rapid cut editing of a fight scene to disguise the limitations of the set (they often couldn't fit all three actors and the camera at the same time, and had a very short time limit with each free fall dive, some shots requiring most of it to be eaten up by getting into position for a shot and then in a safe position for gravity to resume). Dozens of little continuity holes start opening up as you realize that actors just off screen are actually absent during other lines of the same scene, that actors aren't looking in the right directions during conversations, or that actors are sitting in the same spot while having a conversation with each other.

    Gravity went for a larger scope, and cut out the space issues, and it came up with ways to get around the time limit of free fall airplanes, but the giveaway in a great many scenes is Sandra Bullock's hair, which is subject to gravity in most of the movie (not always gravity pointing "down" on the screen, either), even while she or other objects lazily float about or the station spins around her.


    And CGI sticks out prominently in all but a very few movies, and almost exclusively does not when it's only a supplement - Indominus Rex is instantly recognizable as CGI in every appearance, but the T-rex in the first Jurassic Park is not, because it's usually a robotic head or arms or tail with CGI filling in gaps - it's only full CGI in the glory shot right at the end after it trashes the visitor's center, and that shot has really, really not aged well.

    And in even the best stitched scenes, the CGI can be identified as such even by a layperson. CGI, just like so many other kinds of effects, ultimately only works as long as the audience *wants* it to work.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Psyringe

    Psyringe Banned Banned

    Russians were in Space first; Americans made it to the Moon first.
    (chronologically historically)

    My argument isn't that we haven't been to Space; it's that we don't have a sustained living there. Once in Space; faking Space is easy I'd imagine. And those are Hollywood movies for millions; we're discussing NASA for Billions Yearly on Government Salaries. NASA; pioneering the lens industry... right? Or was that Cannon? I shoot Cannon & Sony XD...

    I will indeed shoot the ISS, it was part of my visit today. :) Thank you for the detailed instructions I have the necessary experience to make it happen.

    **edit** Fine; I call for the best example of proven sustained* life in space. Let's dodge anything that can be a water tank or a plane; something constant and has human life in zero gravity for a long period of time. ESPECIALLY on ISS. Maybe off topic? All I need is a link. Thank you.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2017
  21. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member


    Far to big to be on a plane.
    Shots too long to be on a vomit comet
    Water tank? Note the lack of breathing equipment
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  22. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    how are you defining sustained? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? 6 months? 6 years?
     
  23. Psyringe

    Psyringe Banned Banned

    Best video.

    **edit** Alright. Great video. People in space; check. The world lately... pretty sure I've been through this. The video turns any fe argument around. Thanks. :D
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Auldy

    Auldy Senior Member

    I know this back tracks a bit, but I'd just like to point out No, no they do not.

    I feel its worth pointing out how remarkably well NASA actually does on what little they have to work with, and should be commended for their accomplishments.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  25. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    I think this is a big part of the problem with modern society. People are told they should respect other people's opinions (which is fair enough but only when it comes to matters of opinion), but that has progressed to "All viewpoints are equally valid", when they're really not.

    Hence the rise of fake news, "alternative facts", and "false balance", where the media feel obliged to give equal weighting to alternative viewpoints, even if one is clearly wrong.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Psyringe

    Psyringe Banned Banned

    In the big picture; NASA is poor. Compared to all of Hollywood; NASA has the biggest studio. Having a great studio doesn't mean it's all fake.

    One must respect views on this point specifically due to the nature of the Moon and a large pool of anomalous video publishes by not only NASA but other Government Space Agencies. Never a "Flat Earther" - rather, I literally drifted into a brainwash of forgetting people were in space. I've had this convo before; on this website; that's Whitebeard's second crushing of the issue.

    Alternative media is profiting very well on garbage; I'm not in alternative media, but the revenue is visible even from a non-involved standpoint. Also I'd like to state stuff like "Trumps Twitter" & "NASA Lenses" are jokes purely from a AlternativeMedia/Kubrick view.

    Alternative media sometimes holds the truth.

    [spellcheck & grammar]
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    A general point aimed at the whole ISS = NASA conspiracy crowd in general

    Why the focus on NASA? the ISS is a joint venture between...
    NASA
    ESA - European Space Agency
    JAXA - Japan
    Rosksomos - Russia
    and
    CSA - Canadian Space Agency
    with deals currently under negotiation for the Chinese and Indian space agencies to join the program over the next two years

    As far as funding goes NASA is the biggest single funder at the moment, but still gives less than 50% of the total costs. Russia and the ESA being the next two biggest funders.

    The ESA currently has 22 member nations and three associate member nations and bodies

    Hence the INTERNATIONAL aspect of the ISS.

    Whats more this means any conspiracy to dupe the world will need to be truly global in scale, involve partners that don't always get on in terms of international outlook and policy (ESA members such as Estonia / Latvia & Russia or the UK and the European Union to give two examples) and involve a cast of maybe millions. And remember the rule of thumb that states the more parties involved in the plot the more likely it is to fail, or be whistle blown?
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2017
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  28. Skepticalofskeptics

    Skepticalofskeptics New Member


    Here's a slightly better resolution one

    Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nsc80evqJ88
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2017
    • Like Like x 4
  29. bluenzo

    bluenzo New Member

    • Like Like x 3
  30. DemolitionParty

    DemolitionParty New Member

  31. Astro

    Astro Active Member

    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2