Space Station Photos Disprove the "Flat Earth" Theory

DJC

Member
Perhaps you could pick one such "lie" (preferably one you can back up with evidence) and start a new thread on it.

But regardless of if you think footage from the Space Station is real, you can't deny that something is flying over people at times consistent with an orbiting space station, and that it's at 249 miles up, and that it's reflecting about as much light as something the size of the ISS would.

Those are verifiable facts. You can check them yourself.
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
 

Astro

Senior Member
Nasa has given us plenty of reasons to assume its something else....from water bubbles and hair sprayed hair in shifting gravity space station videos to photo shopped pics of earth to the press conferences that they cannot ansser simple questions on where the mars rover is or what type of file they used to send the pics ...i could go on for an hour ....why you blindly believe a government agency that has been caught in so many lies...why you blindly believe anything without questioning it ? period
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.
 

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:

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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff 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.
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.
 

xxxx78

New 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.

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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
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.
 

xxxx78

New 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.

Agreed :)
 

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.
 

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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
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.
 

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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But I respect all positions on the issue.
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/
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
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.
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...
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
I think there's dozens of ways to make a good movie. CGI or no CGI. :D
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:

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:

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
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.
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
 

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:

Auldy

Senior Member.
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.
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.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
But I respect all positions on the issue
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.
 

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:

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:
View attachment 19299

The above sequence of images is the international space station. I took them on Saturday, May 28th 2016, at 9:28PM in the Northern California town of Shingle Springs (near Sacamento). They are not very good, but you can still make out the general shape of the ISS, with the central body, and the solar panels off to the side.

You can see a collection of much better photos taken from the ground by Mike Tyrell, here:
http://www.astrospider.com/



For a discussion on how to take these photos, see:
https://www.metabunk.org/how-to-tak...nternational-space-station-with-a-p900.t7986/

Here's a slightly better resolution one
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nsc80evqJ88
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West How to take Photos of the ISS (International Space Station) with a P900 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Getoffthisplanet International Space Station (ISS) Live Stream from 2/21/2020 - Unidentified Object Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Mick West Debunked: "Fake" live chat from the International Space Station (ISS) with Boise State Flat Earth 10
Mick West Spiral Contrails viewed from the International Space Station Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 12
Sam Hill Debunking "That's not a Space Station, it's an airplane" Flat Earth 1
Mick West Triangulating the Position and Height of the International Space Station (ISS) Flat Earth 48
Mick West Square Cloud seen from the Space Station by Reid Wiseman [Marine Layer + Coastline] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Rroval Man Claims Mars Space Station Discovered On Google Mars (VIDEO, POLL) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
derrick06 Clarifying: Indian Schoolgirls discover Asteroid General Discussion 0
Jesse3959 Being seen from space - methods to demonstrate that sats are real and provide live video? Flat Earth 6
Mick West "Mouse" in Space (Frozen Oxygen) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 11
Mick West Explained: RARE Video Footage of "Alien Space Craft" WATCHING ISS Astronaut! UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Mick West Explained: "It's photoshopped because it has to be" Flat Earth 3
Rory Unidentified "space vehicle" Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
creatonez Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 0
Mick West Why Does the Atmosphere Not Fly off into the Vacuum of Space? Flat Earth 21
Astro Identifying Sun and Moon Transits Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective? Flat Earth 19
Rory Explained: Space Shuttle Footage Reflection of Face [Shot Through Window] Conspiracy Theories 5
M How to Evaluate Specious Evidence (Like "Bubbles" in Space) Practical Debunking 6
StarGazer Claim: First Image of Space Taken from V-2 Rocket Proves the Earth is Flat Flat Earth 17
StarGazer SpaceX Falcon 9 Captures Video of its own Contrail from Space UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
L How did Tim Peake get full Earth in his helmet picture? [convex mirror illusion] Flat Earth 11
nickrulercreator [Debunked] Apollo 14 Flag Waving Before Ascent? Science and Pseudoscience 21
Harish Explanation needed for the decrease in size of USA in NASA's picture from space taken in 2012-13 Conspiracy Theories 2
jim oberg Strange cloud UFO over Russia November 2011 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Mick West Explained: Chinese UFO Crashes in Fiery Crater - Space Junk, Part of Rocket Motor UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 28
SR1419 Edgar Mitchell's Email to John Podesta about Aliens and Weapons in Space UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Trailblazer Identifying: faked image of Earth from space (artwork, not "official") Flat Earth 4
Greylandra claim: space exploration tech is regressive. Science and Pseudoscience 7
C Interesting observation of moon light phenomena i can't find the answer to ???? General Discussion 4
Whitebeard Bright 'St. Patrick's Day' meteor over UK Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Spongebob Judy Wood & Space beam/energy weapon etc.. Conspiracy Theories 1
Santa's sidekick Debunked: Apollo 10 "Space Music" UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 16
Chew Deep Space Network Science and Pseudoscience 0
cloudspotter Richmond City Council, Chemtrails and the Space Preservation Act Contrails and Chemtrails 14
Astro Debunked: Earth is moving too slowly as seen from STEREO Ahead Science and Pseudoscience 16
Leifer 1959 "Eyes in Outer Space" Disney's futuristic glimpse of geoengeneering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
derrick06 Fireball Over Mexico City - Space Junk? [Sunset plane and contrail] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 22
Zane O'Neill Debunking the Space Preservation Act 2001 which mentions "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 10
T Debunk: Chemtrails leave no space between aircraft and the beginning of the trail. Contrails and Chemtrails 7
FreiZeitGeist Debunked: Chemtrails in Space by Leuren Moret and exopolitic Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Mick West The Secret Space Program Conspiracy Theories 0
Radapox Peru gas station object (blue "walking" blob) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
WeedWhacker Build your own ADS-B Ground Station! For free premium FlightAware or FlightRadar service General Discussion 12
Mackdog Ghost at police station UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
W Shell Gas Station & Hi-Jacking Boston Marathon Bombings 25
FreiZeitGeist Radio Station New Jersey 101, talks and reports about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Debunked: Alien Base on Mars: "Bio-Station Alpha" UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top